They Said If We Voted for McCain We’d Be Sending Our Troops to Fight in Endless Wars

And they were right.

Oh, and what’s a little Congressional approval between friends?

President Obama notified Congress today that he is sending about 100 U.S. troops to central Africa to help battle a rebel group known as the Lord’s Resistance Army.

Gee, so nice of the president to notify Congress that he’s sending American troops to engage in another country’s war.  I guess he gets a gold star for doing it in advance.

18 Responses to They Said If We Voted for McCain We’d Be Sending Our Troops to Fight in Endless Wars

  • Yep, that’s the Nobel Peace Prize President.

  • I think, when considering situations like this, it is always a good idea to review Justice Jackson’s concurrence from Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, where he lays out the constitutional boundaries and analysis of the executive’s power. For what it’s worth, I suspect we are in number 2.

    “1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. In these circumstances, and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government, as an undivided whole, lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.

    2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least, as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables, rather than on abstract theories of law.

    3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.”

  • With every passing day, Ron Paul makes more and more sense to the average American person. The military complex is instituted, and unless somebody brave understands that, every situation will be turned into an opportunity to engage in war.

  • Ron Paul has as much chance of being elected President as he does of being elected Pope. Having said that, the best chance of having a truly huge war would be by electing a deranged isolationist wacko like Ron Paul (R. Outer Limits). His election would be a signal to Israel that they were now truly on their own. After their pre-emptive strike on Iran, only a fool like Paul who lives in an isolationist alternate reality would think that we would not inevitably be drawn into the conflict. Additionally our foes would be emboldened around the globe, knowing that Paul’s solutions would be either to cut and run or issue letters of marque and reprisal, and launch attacks against American interests throughout the world. If you want to see the biggest war since World War II, cast your vote for Ron Paul!

  • launch attacks against American interests throughout the world.

    Which brings up at least two questions: (1) what (or whose) American interests? and (2) why are they all over the world?

    As an Amercian, I do not recall any particular interest I have in Central Africa.

  • You raise fair and important questions, c matt. The single most difficult question a superpower confronts is defining its interests. A narrow definition would include only those things that happen within its borders, acknowledging that other nations are responsible for their own problems and borders. Sure, a country could take measures that adversely affect our standard of living, but it is not obvious why we should properly define our interests to include such measures and consequences. A generous definition would include any measures and consequences that greatly affect worldwide stability. The strongest kid in the playground may have responsibilities that extend beyond self-interest narrowly defined. Determining the precise boundaries of a nation’s interest and its responsibilities is an exercise of prudence at its most difficult, since it must take into account the art of the possible as well as the assessment of consequences. Ron Paul’s definition would likely have resulted in policies that would have kept us out of WWII. Perhaps that would have been for the best, but that is hardly obvious.

  • Mr McClarey,

    You can state your points without sounding like a Zionist neo-con. Only a half educated protestant who does not understand history would position himself with Israel as you have. You and Glenn Beck have a lot in common there. I hope that is not where you get your theology and history education.

    What interests do you have in Israel as a State? The actual religious and observant Jews are still a Diaspora people. They understand that they cannot get their way by the “world” intervening and granting them rights. They understand their rights come from God, and God alone. The same UN taht would give them powers are the UN that adopt anti-humane laws. Does it not occur to you that this could be a deceitful game?

    You defend the neo-Israel state unabashedly sir, and this can lead to worse situations than you outline.

    Ron Paul understands the issues, and that is why he is not afraid to be called names by your likes. He does not part his hair on one side today and then the other tomorrow.

    A war needs to be provoked, and Bush did more than his fair share in provoking middle-eastern countries into more and more hatred of the Jews, by causing uncertain casualties in that area and such. On the other hand, while Obama might seem different, he has done well by encouraging revolutions and such to elicit wars (You must love him now that he is figuring out a way to go to war with Iran…something McCain would have done)

    You defend Neo-Israel, but who is speaking out for the Christians forced to move out of their homes and being killed by our drones?

    There are scapegoats in this back and forth–and polarizing situation. The Muslims and the Jews are being pitted against each other by our Military Complex.

    Thomas Aquinas and Ron Paul have a lot in common when it comes to world philosophy, but you sir, you have the same philosophy as the progressives of the 1920s who guised themselves as Democrats turned Republican so as to divide the party.

    Ron Paul figured out this was a game a long time ago and is earnestly trying to wake America up, but people like you are having a hard time waking up. It’s unfortunate.

    I was once a neo-con, and then I actually stopped watching FoxNews, listening to Rush Limbaugh and Hannity –and then I prayed. It was only then I started to think for myself.

    Open up the catechism and the summa and try to disprove Ron Paul from that standpoint. It is impossible. True conservatism means not taking sides–not out of fear, but rather so that costly mistakes are not made and regretted.

    Phil

  • I wonder though if there isn’t something in the background of this that we are missing.

    I can’t see any political benefit to this move. This article got me thinking and, although I have no independent knowledge on which to base an opinion, I am inclined to stand down from opposing the policy until I better understand the stakes.

    http://www.riskwatchdog.com/2011/10/17/what-is-the-us-up-to-in-uganda-and-can-hollande-beat-sarkozy-in-2012/

  • Mike,

    You are wrong here:

    “Ron Paul’s definition would likely have resulted in policies that would have kept us out of WWII. Perhaps that would have been for the best, but that is hardly obvious.”

    Ron Paul is only willing to go to war when the war is deemed just by the Congress, which is what our Church teaches us. There also have to be other determining factors in teh declaration of war.

    On that note, Congress declared war in 1941. It was clear and there was a mission.

    Phil

  • Yeah, anybody is who takes issue with Ron Paul’s isolationism is not only a Zionist and a neo-con, but also a Glenn Beck groupie. Gheesh. Some people blame Bush; others the Joooooos.

  • Ron Paul is only willing to go to war when the war is deemed just by the Congress,

    Huzzah for circular logic.

    And Phil, lighten up the tone or you will no longer be permitted to comment.

  • Phil,
    FDR undertook policies that incurred the wrath of both Japan and Germany precisely by defining our national interest broadly in ways that were incompatible with the aims of those fascist states. It is highly doubtful that Paul would have undertaken similar policies, meaning that Japan would have been able to achieve its ends without attacking Pearl Harbor, meaning no declaration of war and ensuing reciprocal declarations with Germany. Without US intervention the outcome of WWII would likely have been very different.

  • Mr. Zummo,

    Mr. McClarey’s vicious response was uncalled for. My initial comment did not warrant his response.

    I apologize for the tone in my response.

    Phil

  • Mr. McClarey’s vicious response was uncalled for. My initial comment did not warrant his response.

    What part of his response was vicious? I’m not seeing it.

  • but who is speaking out for the Christians forced to move out of their homes and being killed by our drones?

    There is no indigenous Christian population in Yemen or in Afghanistan.

  • “You can state your points without sounding like a Zionist neo-con.”

    Bye, bye Phil. I have a low tolerance for anti-semites and conspiracy mongers. You are banned from this site.

  • “(1) what (or whose) American interests? and (2) why are they all over the world?”

    (1) Name the area and I’ll tell you cmatt. In the Middle East it is oil and making sure a rogue state doesn’t take out an American city with nuclear terrorism. In Central Africa we have few interests and Obama sending troops, especially such a small number of troops, is boneheaded.

    (2) I would refer you to our history. You may not think we should have interests around the globe, but the fact is we do. If we are not present other powers will be only too happy to exercise power as we retreat to Fortress America.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .