Dictator Obama?

[clear eye]

Since when can a U.S. President sign an agreement regarding 1)what does and does not constitute the end of hostilities and 2)the stationing of U.S. troops in a foreign country into the indefinite future, and not call it a treaty and send it for ratification to the Senate?

Before I found out that the "agreement" (really treaty) was not going to the Senate for ratification, I wanted to phone my Senators to pressure them to call for leaving many fewer troops there. Now I find out they have no say in the matter. I feel like I've awakened this morning to a dictatorship, and no one's noticed but me, especially as this administration was supposed to be the alternative to the lawless Bush regime. I voted for Pres. Obama, but I'm horrified by his assumption of dictatorial powers, and frightened by the deafening silence from the press.

I see Pres. Obama spend what could have been our health care on the banks while leaving their crooked management in place and not putting forward any serious plans for reregulating them. Chris Hayes was able to write a whole book about how the President's top economics advisors and officials are the same people that caused the economic crisis. Obama's appointees for the two top positions on environment/energy issues had both been caught previously abusing whistleblowers and ignoring the important issues they raised, one even having lost a class action lawsuit brought against her for that reason. His appointment for Sec'y of Labor was a handpick of the most corrupt head of a large union, Andy Stern, who's had numerous challenges from locals for forcing through bad contracts made worse by agreements not to enforce them (by eliminating the right of grievance challenges for most issues). Meanwhile Stern has been invited to the White House a dozen times for every one time an official of the AFL-CIO was. What happened to "It's about you, not me"?

Then I come here and find DU bathing in the rosy glow of yet more superlative Obama oratory--this time the Congressional address--to the extent of satire about any possible criticisms of him. And the "Iraq war" forum has vanished. Gotta say I'm feeling pretty alienated.

Guess I have to take a break. See ya.

[Captain Hilts]

1. If you don't slurp on him - and JFK - you get run roughshod here. nt

[HughMoran]

3. Really...!

Guess this is one of those "insult DU" threads that will be linked to on the rival sites.

[Captain Hilts]

4. Hey, the truth hurts. One skeptical post...

and folks just jump you.

[clear eye]

6. Very kind of you, but

I don't feel mistreated. Just out of sync w/ the congratulatory mood.

[Captain Hilts]

7. Me too. And I voted for him with enthusiasm! Went to the Inauguration and concert. nt

[firedupdem]

29. What soured you on him?

No snark, just curious.

[dionysus]

46. she*cough*never liked him at all *cough*

:rofl:

[EraOfResponsibility]

30. I've seen you do your share of slurping a few times. I wouldn't talk if I were you. nm

[Parker CA]

2. Do you have some solid-source links to support the two claims you make in your first paragraph?

[clear eye]

10. Yes.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/iraq/2008782988_iraq25.html

"President Obama is nearing a decision that would order U.S. combat forces out of Iraq by August 2010 as he seeks to finally end a war that has consumed and polarized the United States for nearly six years, senior administration officials said Tuesday....Obama, who met with Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Tuesday, has not made a final decision but could complete his review and announce his plan this week,"

No mention of needing treaty ratification from Senate, just the President announcing "his plan".

[Parker CA]

14. Delete.

[crimsonblue]

18. The President does not need Congressional approval to END a war, only to START a war.

I have no idea what you're smoking, but it seems too potent for me.

[DevonRex]

28. Whatever it was sent her on a really bad trip and killed LOTS of brain cells

in the process.

[clear eye]

34. The last time the U.S. fought a declared war unilaterally

was the Spanish-American War. Of course there were peace treaties (ratified by the Senate) ending WW's I & II, {"Treaty of Paris (October 1954), ended the occupation, replacing it with the presence of "security forces." The treaty was approved by the Senate on 1 April 1955."} but since they were written jointly with other nations, they do not show that the Constitution requires treaties to declare peace unilaterally. However, "The most important actions taken in this decade were linked to the war against Spain, declared on 25 April 1898. As in the war with Mexico half a century earlier, the Americans were assured of victory. French mediation paved the way for a provisional protocol, signed on 12 August. The peace conference opened on 1 October in Paris, and the peace treaty was signed on 10 December. The final treaty added the annexation of the Philippines to that of Puerto Rico, provided for in the earlier protocol. The proposed annexation of the Philippines, which had become the symbol of U.S. imperialism, provoked heated debate in the Senate. Democrats, Populists, and anti-imperialist Republicans (numerous in New England) opposed the treaty. The imperialists based their argument on national prestige and the strategic necessity of a base in the area. The Senate did not approve the Treaty of Paris until 6 Febuary 1899." http://www.answers.com/topic/treaty

The Korean War ended w/ an agreement and a treaty was never negotiated, because the U.S. and North Korea have never been fully at peace, North Korea never having recognized South Korea's sovereignty. Since then, the "undeclared" wars have been ended w/o formal peace treaties. It doesn't make either their initiation w/o declaration by the Senate or their cessation the same way, Constitutional. The problem isn't the cessation of war, but the terms. In this case Obama's "plan" commits us to 50K troops indefinitely, theoretically after the cessation of hostilities. I prefer the historical interpretation of the Constitution to yours. When you become a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, you can alter it.

[DevonRex]

36. You need to read post #32. Because you're spreading misinformation. Not indefinite.

Not at all.

[clear eye]

40. Unless the residual troops are attacked

and the withdrawal has to cease or be reversed for us to "pacify" some places. That's how the war ramped up until now, and that's the problem with leaving more troops than are needed to guard our embassy officials. When U.S. troops are posted to guard the U.S.-based company's oil pipeline, they will be a target. I'm also not sure where the 12/2011 deadline info that AP reported came from. I don't see it referenced to anyone in the administration. There's a lot of room for deniability there. We won't know for sure until the President's official announcement next week. But my main point is that this is an Obama "plan" approved only by himself. From what I can tell in the news reports, the Iraqi gov't finds out the details next week when we do, and the Senate representing the American people is to be cut out.

[DevonRex]

53. Look,you can't weasel out of your original nutty statement no matter how hard

you try.

[crimsonblue]

63. You're absolutely wrong.

The President is not comitting 50 thous troops to Iraq, he is simply leaving them there. Also, the number will be closer to 30 thousand troops. The current plan being considered will have all troops out of Iraq by 2011. I don't know why you are going batshit crazy over 6 months. Finally, you're completely off base on your "interpretation" of Presidential Powers. Because Congress gave Bush a blank check for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he was able to do whatever he wanted. The same holds for Obama. He has sole authority to remove or add troops to Iraq, and he has sole authority to sign an agreement ending military occupation of Iraq. No treaty will be signed, and we will probably have a residual force of 15-20 thous troops for many years to come.

BTW, had you actually taken the time to read Obama's plan on Iraq during the campaign, he has always been in favor of keeping a small residual force in Iraq to protect the Embassy and American interests in the region. He also repeatedly stated that any troop withdrawal would be based on conditions on the ground. He always correlated his 16 month time table in this manner.

[Politicalboi]

64. And Bush never

Went to Congress for the war so really we are not in a war. Just an occupation.

[crimsonblue]

65. Yes. There has been no formal declaration of war in our country

since WW2. All conflicts since are military engagements authorized by Congress. As such, the President is not bound by the same Constitutional requirements as in a true War.

[Chulanowa]

76. Well, that sort of thing may work for a white president...

But we've got THAT ONE, and extra precautions must be taken to make sure he doesn't sell us all out for rims.

[MadMaddie]

41. With a majority in the House and most likely 59 in the Senate

it's kind of a given that he will be going to Congress and following protocol.

I don't get it, people were griping because there was no movement to end the war in Iraq and now that President Obama has given a timeline and said he is going to move it forward people are still griping. I don't get it.

And the President is in charge of the Military right? He can order the military to follow his orders. Chain of command....

[clear eye]

42. Treaties need 2/3 approval of the Senate (no House)

He's backed down from what we elected him on, and leaving that many troops in there that long means the danger of being drawn back in. Shouldn't we at least have a say through the Senate as was always done w/ peace treaties until we began fighting undeclared wars? Why is that behavior wrong when other Presidents did it, but right for Obama?

[DevonRex]

74. You idiot. Unless we suddenly got 67 dems in the Senate we'd be there

for fucking EVER. Not to mention that we have some blue dogs who apparently like war, too.

Edited my typo.

[dionysus]

75. .

:spray:

[DevonRex]

77. .

If you hadn't replied, I wouldn't have edited my typo. Thanks. :)

[Occam Bandage]

5. See ya.

:hi:

[Life Long Dem]

8. "bathing in the rosy glow"

I don't see a problem with that.

[DevonRex]

31. I always thought it was "bask" in the rosy glow.

[Uzybone]

9. Bye. Good luck.

[azmouse]

11. Hasta la vista

[Cha]

12. The fuck you say..

"dictator"..what a fucking asshole thing to say.

[crimsonblue]

13. The president doesn't need an agreement to withdraw troops

As commander-in-chief, he has ultimate military decisions power. Now, I assume you are talking about the SOFA that Bush signed before he left. This agreement falls into a legal gray area, depending on whether one defines it as a treaty or not. A president may sign an agreement with another country, but any treaty must be ratified by 2/3 of the senate.

[clear eye]

15. If it commits 50K troops to be stationed into the indefinite future

as Obama's "plan" does, it's a treaty. That Bush document, since it wasn't ratified, has no legal standing in our democratic republic. Neither does anything similar that Obama commits us to on a handshake. This is what happens when you don't impeach a President for gross violations of the Constitution; the next one does the same and the Constitution becomes so much scrap paper. I find it astonishing that people from the Democratic Party on this board are so comfortable w/ having no say in matters of war and peace, even when the new President breaks his promise of only leaving enough troops to guard our embassy, once the 16 months is up. Training Iraqi forces was supposed to wrap up with the major withdrawal. There were no mentions of leaving forces to continue it from him during the campaign.

[crimsonblue]

17. Keeping troops there would just be a continuation of the War Authorization granted by Congress

Congress gave their war making abilities up for this war to the President. The President has sole power to make troop level decisions. I don't see how removing troops from Iraq is in violation of Constitutional powers. It seems to me like you set your crazy dial on 11 today.

[4lbs]

32. What's this indefinite future you state?

President Obama's withdrawal is thus:

1.) The removal of all COMBAT troops from Iraq by August 2010.

2.) The retention of 30,000 to 50,000 troops (notice how the vehement anti-war use only the higher number) as trainers and advisers to the Iraqi troops.

3.) This residual troop force will be removed at a rate of approximately 3,000 every month until ALL are removed by December 2011.


The original SOFA agreement allowed the U.S. to keep them there until December 2013. President Obama is actually speeding up the overall timetable by 2 years.

[DevonRex]

33. Facts are pesky things, aren't they? Apparently OP isn't familiar with them.

:hi:

[clear eye]

38. And what happens when the "residual force" is attacked?

If the agreement had been to leave only the troops necessary to defend the embassy and allow free movement of our officials as Obama had promised in his campaign, that would not have been much of an issue. But w/ 10's of thousands, largescale skirmishes are likely. When the troops defend themselves and try to pacify areas, even with the inept help of the Iraqis, they will be de facto combat troops. The distinction is artificial. Losses of our soldiers and Iraqi civilians are inevitable, potentially dragging us back in.

Saying that this illegal agreement is better than Bush's, doesn't say much. If we are to commit so many of our military somewhere for that long, it needs to be with the consent of the governed via the Senate. If this is such a great agreement, why isn't it up for Senate ratification?

[4lbs]

39. The Iraqi troops would respond since they would also be attacked.

The American residual and Iraqi forces will be working side-by-side.

So, if the American residual force is attacked, then so would the Iraqi forces be attacked.

[DevonRex]

27. Is this not the dumbest OP you've read in like AGES?

I am torn between laughing and feeling really sorry for her. Okay, laughter won out as I just explained the OP to my son and now we're both laughing.

[elizm]

16. Don't let the screen door hit ya. nt

[BlooInBloo]

19. dammit all to hell. You beat me to it.

[elizm]

22. It just jumped right out of me! :) nt

[BlooInBloo]

20. Did somebody say something? I was busy with my hourly Obama worship service.

[leftstreet]

21. DU had an Iraq War forum?

I didn't know that.

[firedupdem]

23. You don't have more information than the president does. Beat it! n/t

[clear eye]

35. And I guess the Senate is a superfluous waste of money and time.

Sounds like you'd be more comfortable w/ a fascist system.

[firedupdem]

37. No, I'm fine with the system we have and sane enough to know

that this president and the senate are acting within their powers.

[DevonRex]

24. Stupidest post of the day. Door/ass... you know the drill. nt

[firedupdem]

43. LOL! n/t

[JTFrog]

25. Yes, please join the rest of your pack for the hybernation season.

We could use some peace and quiet around here.

[Lilith Velkor]

26. A dictatorship would be almost worth it if he killed all the top Republicans.

(Obligatory idiot prophylactic: :sarcasm: )

[damonm]

44. Read. The. Constitution.

Particularly the part where the President is COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the armed forces.
He can order troops to go somewhere, and he can order them to leave there and go somewhere else.
No Congressional approval needed for redeployment.
No dictatorship, or even close.
This one gets:

[dionysus]

45. don't let the door hitcha punk...

buh-bye :hi:

[Jennicut]

47. Dictator? Um, sorry that was our last President.

If you don't want to feel alienated then don't post stupid crap! If you are mad that Obama is not withdrawing troops fast enough,ect. from Iraq, fine...make your point. But using inflammatory language like "dictator" just makes you seem nutso. We can disagree with the President and I do on a few things but we don't have to resort to acting like Rightwingers to do it.

[firedupdem]

51. His speech the other night took people over the edge....he hit it

out of the park! Some people can't stand that since they never liked him anyway...

Notice a reference to people here "basking in the glow" or whatever the comment was. ick

[Jennicut]

52. Its kind of obvious that its sour grapes from the primaries or something

If these people do not like where the Dem party is and who the leader of the executive branch is then why not move on to a third party? Its not just criticism, its downright disdain. There are things about Obama's policies that I may not agree with or like. But I respect the man.

[BeyondGeography]

48. Stunning insight there: Let's fix health care first, worry about financial collapse second

Sure. That'd work. :thumbsup:

[alwysdrunk]

50. Yeah really. Single issue much?

The Banks. Like the banks themselves were the only reason....

[SunsetDreams]

49. Hurry!! Get a screwdriver fast!

[Numba6]

54. Thank you for posting "I feel like I've awakened this morning to a dictatorship"

""I feel like I've awakened this morning to a dictatorship and no one's noticed but me, especially as this administration was supposed to be the alternative to the lawless Bush regime"


Obama's great address,& your foolishmess to the extreme

You have no idea what a dictatorship is, or what your posting about.

You don't even have any idea what you've already lived under for the last 8 years to make the ludicrous claim that Obama is not an alternative to Bush.

You union bashing is better voiced on other sites, IMHO, but your hatred of working americans can get a hearing -- with the Republicans. Actually, your sentiments are exactly what can be welcomed at just about any right wing web site or forum on the internet, so, no, you aren't the only one.

Thank you for posing this so that we can see the other fools who are coming out of the woodwork

[dionysus]

56. good pwnage

:thumbsup:

[Numba6]

70. thank gawd for google & the urban dictionary, I've never heard of "pwnage" before ! eom

[firedupdem]

57. Good Post n/t

[DevonRex]

60. And stupid enough to think a "treaty" is necessary for this.

:rofl:

[Numba6]

71. Going thru all other replies, I was wrong about the only point I'd thought was really good about ur

post

very few obstructionists have come out of the woodwork on this thread

"Thank you for posting (sic) this so that we can see the other fools who are coming out of the woodwork"

I just love to quote myself

[AtomicKitten]

55. If you flame out this early, you don't have the stomach for the struggle. n/t

[anonymous171]

58. Wait, isn't Hilda Solis the Secretary of Labor?

[DevonRex]

59. Okay, who rec'd this garbage?

At least 1 was a serious rec. Hopefully the others were just to expose the bullshit to daylight.

[opihimoimoi]

61. NOT ME.....he/she is a "Driller" in the lifeboat called the USA

[DevonRex]

62. Not me, either. Maybe we can narrow it down this way. :)

[opihimoimoi]

66. The GOP is reduced to Sniping/whining/lying/etc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y165e1YXK0s

This is their quiver....full of BS....thats all they got...and they gonna win with BS???...ain't gonna happen.

The Peeps are ready to back Obama....he has an 80% approval and them GOPers have like 18%...they are fucked.

[OneBlueSky]

67. since when? . . . since the U.S. Congress all but ceded war-making responsibility .. .

to the executive . . . keeps them from having to get their hands dirty -- even though it's their responsibility, according to the Constitution ("just a god-damn piece of paper" . . . G.W. Bush, war criminal) . . .

[nichomachus]

68. You say "dictator" as if it's a bad thing.

[DevonRex]

72. *snort*

[Numba6]

69. btw, you are in good company -- William Kristol , whom you must have read this morning to parrot

Bill thanks you for your support, but he put it a little bit better than you

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/25/AR2009022501756_pf.html

Conservatives and Republicans will disapprove of this effort. They will oppose it. Can they do so effectively?

Perhaps -- if they can find reasons to obstruct and delay. They should do their best not to permit Obama to rush his agenda through this year.

They can't allow Obama to make of 2009 what Franklin Roosevelt made of 1933 or Johnson of 1965.

Slow down the policy train. Insist on a real and lengthy debate. Conservatives can't win politically right now. But they can raise doubts, they can point out other issues that we can't ignore (especially in national security and foreign policy), they can pick other fights -- and they can try in any way possible to break Obama's momentum.

[DevonRex]

73. Hell, if we had to ratify a treaty to get out of Iraq, we'd be there for decades.