#1
The NATO mandate does not mandate participating in local civil wars that do not have an impact on NATO member security. This theator of operations should demonstrate why.
#2
Were on a collision course with the rough terrain of a changing world, and the turbulence buffeting Europe is of a kind not seen for more than 20 years. But back then we had a steady pilot the United States
You mean back when we had a Prisident named Bush? You mean back when the United States was the "hyperpower"?
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
04/16/2011 15:46 Comments ||
Top||
You didn't seriously think he was going to abide by the will of Congress, did you? Such is The One's personal awesomeness that he can order the bombing of Libya without so much as a heads up to the legislature in advance. Surely he wasn't about to be tripped up by a duly enacted bill that dares to cut off the money he uses for his auxiliary cabinet.
I have to say, of all the Bush policies recycled by Obama, this one's my favorite just because it's such a gratuitous offense to his base. You can spin many of the others on expediency grounds -- he had to ramp up the drone strikes in Pakistan to crack down on terrorists, he had to keep Gitmo military tribunals going because the Republicans tied his hands -- but this one's pretty much a pure no-apologies betrayal. The bad news: Legally, it's highly dubious. The good news: It should provoke another classic what-happened-to-the-Barack-I-knew Andrew Sullivan lament.
One rider -- Section 2262 -- de-funds certain White House adviser positions -- or "czars." The president in his signing statement declares that he will not abide by it.
"The President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch, and to obtain advice in furtherance of this supervisory authority," he wrote. "The President also has the prerogative to obtain advice that will assist him in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, and do so not only from executive branch officials and employees outside the White House, but also from advisers within it. Legislative efforts that significantly impede the President's ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities or to obtain the views of the appropriate senior advisers violate the separation of powers by undermining the President's ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed."...
In other words: we know what you wanted that provision to do, but we don't think it's constitutional, so we will interpret it differently than the way you meant it.
#1
The President also has the prerogative to obtain advice that will assist him in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities..
While it is true, it also doesn't imply 'paid' advice. Many Presidents have had advisers that were not on the payrolls, often referred to as the 'kitchen cabinet'. The purse strings, however, are always those of the legislative branch. If they say no pay, then constitutionally, it's no pay. That's the basis for cutting off operations of the military or any other department. It also becomes the basis for removal from office if ignored.
#2
Impeach Obama, 2011. If Congress doesn't, they will become totally impotent, and we will be ruled by a dictator.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
04/16/2011 13:03 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Oddly enough, I do not believe it is presidentially impeachable, for the reason that it has been coming on since Marbury v. Madison (1810), when the SCOTUS ordered the POTUS to comply, and he refused. Even from the founding of the republic, there were concerns about an "imperial presidency". It is a broader issue than can be dealt with by just impeachment.
However, that being said, though it has only been done once (William W. Belknap (Secretary of War)), cabinet officers can be impeached. And while the assumption *was* that this only applied to senate approved cabinet officers; since the president has sought to evade this advice and consent, there is no reason to think that congress cannot impeach Czars.
The House has initiated impeachment proceedings, mostly against federal judges, some 64 times. Easy because it requires just a simple majority vote. The hard part is conviction by the Senate, as it needs a 2/3rds majority vote, or 67 senators in agreement.
Even if the Republican won the Senate vote big time in 2012, the best estimates are that it could only get 60 senators.
The Kagans explain why Obama is throwing away our victory in Iraq and handing the country over to Iran. The only issue is this: incompetence or malfeasance?
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/16/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Have you ever seen that little boy make a correct decision? He never had to work for anything, every. Handed everything he has. He has no interest in the right path and he is incapable of learning. So, is willful ignorance incompetence or malfeasance?
#3
This administration is so hell bent on making Iraq into 'another Vietnam war' that they are willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory no matter what the cost.
Just can't stand to let an American, Republican, or Bush victory stand.
[Asharq al-Aswat] Despite his bandaged and bruised face, a Syria citizen did not hesitate to give an account of the severe beating he received in Doma city [in the suburbs of Damascus ...The City of Jasmin is the oldest continuously-inhabited city in the world. It has not always been inhabited by the same set of fascisti... ] at the hands of a group of security elements from outside the city. According to his account of events, even a high-ranking police officer was not safe from the batons and sticks wielded by this group.
The Syrian citizen's testimony was recorded by the Syrian satellite channel; however it was not broadcast in full, just as the Syrian citizen being recorded said it would not be. His testimony was only broadcast in part by Syrian television, namely the portion of his testimony that dealt with a high-ranking police officer being assaulted. As for the rest of his interview, which dealt with the assault he suffered at the hands of this security group, and in particular the brutal actions of this group, this was not broadcast. However the full uncut version of this interview, recorded simultaneously as the Syrian satellite channel's recording on mobile phones by those present during this interview, has spread across the internet, and has been uploaded onto a number of websites.
Syrian official media has mishandled the manner it dealt with the protests over the past week. This could be seen in a number of different events, including the dismissal of the Editor-in-Chief of the Tishreen newspaper Samira al-Maslameh, after she issued a statement blaming the security forces for the deaths of protestors. In addition to this, there was the Syrian state television's poor story and grainy footage of alleged Orcs and similar vermin who it claimed were firing upon the protestors, as well as the horrific images of security elements mutilating dead bodies in the streets and severely beating protestors. Of course, Syrian state television declined to broadcast or even mention many of these stories. This is where the official Syrian controversy regarding the existence of a "conspiracy" and "[foreign] infiltration" becomes meaningless, especially with the spread of video clips and images that show Syrian youth being brutally beaten and tortured [by the Syrian security]. What is the deal with this regime and its torture of youth?
The aforementioned events were not isolated events, and the Syrian regime continues to have a tight grip of the media regarding its coverage of events in the country. This ongoing news blackout reveals how regimes of this sort tend to disdain facts and fool people not only by concealing the genuine reality on the ground, but by attempting to deceive people, intimidating them into accepting, and indeed publicizing, such deceptions. These practices would definitely affect an individual's ability to judge matters fairly because all facts would be uncertain, thereby making it impossible to raise public awareness [of what is really happening].
Those of us observing the situation in Syria sincerely want to see the differentiation between those who voluntarily adhere to the government, and those who submit to it out of fear and intimidation. However this is something that will not happen as long as the Syrian regime continues to approach events in this manner, frustrating any objective media coverage of what is happening in the street. Thus, the same stiff faces of the regime continue to appear to justify the killing and imprisonment of demonstrators by repeating pretexts that contradict logic, morals and the reality on the ground.
Day after day, the Syrian street continues to possess the courage to confront the regime in spite of its cruelty and oppression of demonstrations. Those protesters are able to make their voices heard despite their limited capabilities. They are fully aware that the Syrian hegemony ensures only one thing for the future, namely that there will be no future, if the situation continues in this manner.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/16/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
