Thread: Democrats' worst nightmare: Terrorism on their watch

gunnut,

But...he announced a firm withdraw date as he was announcing his troop build up.

firm? that's not what i'm hearing. check out what the DoD has been saying the past few weeks; that 2011 simply represents a checkpoint where the surge troops would...possibly... be withdrawn. what this means is that in reality, the afghan surge will last longer than the iraq surge.

He also took too long to decide to increase our troop strength in A-stan. His campaign promise was to stand down in Iraq and reinforce our forces in A-stan.

in the month after he became POTUS he increased afghanistan troop levels by 21,000. add support troops close to theater and you're talking the same number of forces involved in the iraq surge.

seeing how attack trendlines continued to go in the wrong direction, i think it was completely necessary to do a re-think of afghan war goals and strategy-- all decisions that need to be made at the presidential level. the one thing i thought the administration did poorly was all the various leaks, either by the DoD or by the white house staff. but that's different from saying he took too long-- he didn't. not when stakes involve almost doubling the number of troops in theater.

What he is doing looks like he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to increase the war in A-stan but appear to be peaceful (Nobel). He called out Al Queda as a terror organization that threatens us but doesn't want to call our actions "war" against them.

first, do recall the Nobel wasn't HIS doing, if you believe either his supporters...or his detractors

and i would also point to his inauguration address, where he explicitly said that we were at war.

certainly obama on domestic policy is left-leaning but when it comes to iraq/afghanistan/terrorism foreign policy, he's anything but. for the most part, his foreign policy/military advisors are holdovers from the bush administration, and he has followed most of their advice to form a (small-c) conservative policy that's actually closer to the republican realist ideology than the previous administration.

Originally Posted by gunnut

But...he announced a firm withdraw date as he was announcing his troop build up. He also took too long to decide to increase our troop strength in A-stan. His campaign promise was to stand down in Iraq and reinforce our forces in A-stan.

He announced a date for when withdrawal would start. Essentially, the date coincided with exactly when the first "surge" forces would finish their rotation and troop levels would decrease from the "surge" level down to the pre-surge (but increased by over 20K from Bush 43) level.

As for the time to decide, the reality is that given the flow of troops, the availability of troops, and the need to catch up/build up the logistics pipeline, a decision made 1-2 months earlier wouldn't have affected the arrival time of troops. In other words, his decision that took too long really didn't take too long. Also consider that IIRC, he took just as much time exploring his options as it took GEN McChrystal's team to write the report. Given that McChrystal's view was on Af-Pak only, while the national command authority had to look at how decisions on Af-Pak ripple through all the geographic combatant commands and affects the whole of government throughout the world, I think it's unreasonable to expect the POTUS to make a swift decision if making it doesn't impact time on target.

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

Yeah I do. Hindsight is 20/20. The Baathists were brutal and were a legitimate long term threat. I do think it was poorly handled post invasion and the timing of the invasion took resources from Afghanistan. We had more immediate threats still when we took a preemptive action. It was misplaced priorities. Hopefully no future attacks will result from the escape of Bin Laden or allowing the Taliban to regroup. because we were bogged down in Iraq.

Good. I just want to know if you support a pre-emptive war against a potential enemy. Or as the leftist in this country like to call it, the Bush Doctrine.

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

So, do you believe Obama is your enemy?

Yes I do. His imperial presidency and massive expansion of the federal government's power not envisioned in the Constitution makes him the enemy of the Constitution. I swear my allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, not the president or the congress.

Shek, astralis, fair enough.

I knew he would increase the troop level in A-stan. I just wish he wouldn't publicly state when the surge rotation would be over. It gives a false impression of turning tail and run. This kind of information should be announced on a Friday afternoon before a 3-day weekend.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Good. I just want to know if you support a pre-emptive war against a potential enemy. Or as the leftist in this country like to call it, the Bush Doctrine.



Yes I do. His imperial presidency and massive expansion of the federal government's power not envisioned in the Constitution makes him the enemy of the Constitution. I swear my allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, not the president or the congress.

You are confused again it was Bush/Cheney who made the argument for the Unitary executive. I bet if I had the time or willingness I could find posts where you argued they were right. Your response Afghanistan shows you just hate the man regardless of his actions. We just experienced the imperial Presidency to the point they had the DOJ drafting memos saying the President was above the Constitution in time of war. It was one of my strongest disagreements with the last Administration. Where were you when repeatedly SCOTUS ruled their actions unconstitutional?

Hell I could be VP I know what the Bush doctrine is. Funny when Katie Couric asked that to "the Alaskan messiah" you probably thought it an unfair question.

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

You are confused again it was Bush/Cheney who made the argument for the Unitary executive. I bet if I had the time or willingness I could find posts where you argued they were right. Your response Afghanistan shows you just hate the man regardless of his actions. We just experienced the imperial Presidency to the point they had the DOJ drafting memos saying the President was above the Constitution in time of war. It was one of my strongest disagreements with the last Administration. Where were you when repeatedly SCOTUS ruled their actions unconstitutional?

Did I ever say I liked Bush? I agree with Bush in certain things, like protecting this country from terrorists. I despised his then massive (until Obama came along) expansion of the Federal government. Obama has all the Bush's drawbacks but none of the advantages.

Again, the Supreme Court, manned by mortal men and women, is fallible. The 2 most recent examples are the "Kelo v. City of New London" case and when it declared CO2 to be a pollutant.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Did I ever say I liked Bush? I agree with Bush in certain things, like protecting this country from terrorists. I despised his then massive (until Obama came along) expansion of the Federal government. Obama has all the Bush's drawbacks but none of the advantages.

Again, the Supreme Court, manned by mortal men and women, is fallible. The 2 most recent examples are the "Kelo v. City of New London" case and when it declared CO2 to be a pollutant.

No but you call Obama your enemy when he hasn't advocated extra constitutional powers for the executive. Your criticisms are like those with Bush derangement. Read what you said about him in this thread. Your criticisms of Bush were absent till he was near done. It's disconnected from any reality but AM radio's. Oppose don't demonize. Go read your old posts your criticism of deficits and Bush was in passing. You didnt use words like despise you said disagreed with

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

No but you call Obama your enemy when he hasn't advocated extra constitutional powers for the executive. Your criticisms are like those with Bush derangement. Read what you said about him in this thread. Your criticisms of Bush were absent till he was near done. It's disconnected from any reality but AM radio's. Oppose don't demonize. Go read your old posts your criticism of deficits and Bush was in passing. You didnt use words like despise you said disagreed with

Hey, if you can switch to pro Iraq War, I can switch to despising Bush's domestic policies.

Do a search on this forum. I've said dozens of times, I think Bush's domestic policies were ATROCIOUS. I'm not sure if "atrocious" is above or below "despise." Or maybe they are on even grounds. Could there be different levels of "atrociousness?"

And Barry hasn't advocated extra constitutional powers for the executive? Who ordered Rick Wagoner to quit? How many so-called "czars" are there? Were they vetted? Were there any hearings in the senate? A confirmation vote?

Originally Posted by gunnut

And Barry hasn't advocated extra constitutional powers for the executive? Who ordered Rick Wagoner to quit? How many so-called "czars" are there? Were they vetted? Were there any hearings in the senate? A confirmation vote?

GN, this has always interested me. Im happy to read any links you have - but isn't the executive the executive, bound by constitutional process? From a board perspective, you can delegate as much as you want to, however final pass must be vetted? Im not opposed to outsourcing per-se. "Jack of all trades, professional at none" springs to mind. Ministers of Government in a West minister system in some (I won't claim many because I have no idea of the true extent) departments, do just this. Infact, more to the point, the PM must be well versed in the intricacies of other departments, even though it's not his portfolio because question time is full of junk). Drawing him away from cabinet decisions & effecting policy direction, but being able to handball it to the relative department head, during question time is a talent, and quite often gets a rip roaring response when the opposition is in 'smear mode'.

Then again I have no idea about U.S constitutional process - hence the question?

One thing is for sure, the Democrats will bring about the end of behind closed door voting etc particularly in the area of bail outs and health care. What is being done right now is being questioned by numerous judges and they just keep coming. There is no rite to Health Insurance in just as much as there is no rite to a federal backed bailout but this hasnt stopped them form passing it anyway. Leave it to the Supreme Court, atleast they arent afraid to tell the Administration and Congress NO!

If they cannot bring a halt to whats being shoved down the peoples throats then nobody can. Make no mistake, their own credibility will be on the line in the eyes of the people who look to them for fair judgement.

Bush derangement? Suppose you explain this "view".

Originally Posted by Chunder

GN, this has always interested me. Im happy to read any links you have - but isn't the executive the executive, bound by constitutional process? From a board perspective, you can delegate as much as you want to, however final pass must be vetted? Im not opposed to outsourcing per-se. "Jack of all trades, professional at none" springs to mind. Ministers of Government in a West minister system in some (I won't claim many because I have no idea of the true extent) departments, do just this. Infact, more to the point, the PM must be well versed in the intricacies of other departments, even though it's not his portfolio because question time is full of junk). Drawing him away from cabinet decisions & effecting policy direction, but being able to handball it to the relative department head, during question time is a talent, and quite often gets a rip roaring response when the opposition is in 'smear mode'.

Then again I have no idea about U.S constitutional process - hence the question?

I'm not exactly an expert in the finer workings of our government, so I apologize if I get some facts wrong. But here's the jist:

There's this thing called "executive order" the president can sign. It's basically a law that was not brought forth by the legislative branch (Congress) nor voted on by anyone. A law by decree from the office of the president.

The president can sign an order creating a office of some sort (czar) and give it some authority. In Obama's case, these are the car czar and the internet czar and the lunch czar and whatever else he has created. These guys basically advise him on stuff, having a direct connection to him (mostly his cronies from Chicago).

Normally, the cabinet should be a president's adviser. The cabinet members (secretaries of defense, state...etc) are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. This process will give the people a chance to see what kind of character a future secretary is before granting him so much power. It was this process that allowed us to know Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner cheated on his taxes a few years ago. It was this process that found out would-be Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Daschele "forgot" to file a few hundred thousand dollars of goods and services he received as income a few years ago.

The "czars" never go through this process. The president just signs a paper saying so-and-so is the chief of this office. He will have a staff and a budget. The power is never defined anywhere in our laws other than what the president says he can do.

The "car czar" didn't like how the reforms at GM was going, so he suggested that Rick Wagoner should step aside for someone else.

The "pay czar" didn't like how much bank executives were making on their bonuses. So he threatened to cap pays and bonuses on those banks that took (literally forced by the federal government to take the money) a loan from the fed.

There are 30-something "czars" in the Obama administration. There are 15 Departments in the federal government (we started out with 3). There's even a "school safety czar" working for Obama.

gunnut,

The president can sign an order creating a office of some sort (czar) and give it some authority. In Obama's case, these are the car czar and the internet czar and the lunch czar and whatever else he has created. These guys basically advise him on stuff, having a direct connection to him (mostly his cronies from Chicago).

The "czars" never go through this process. The president just signs a paper saying so-and-so is the chief of this office. He will have a staff and a budget. The power is never defined anywhere in our laws other than what the president says he can do.

not quite; some executive-level "czars" go through senate approval, some do not. in any case, their budget comes out of the executive budget, and they fall underneath cabinet/senate-approved officials.

in short, the more czars a president has, the weaker each czar necessarily is, simply because there's a limited budget involved and only so many openings. thus, quite a few czars are for symbolic show. "too many chiefs, not enough indians". the worry here should be that you'll have a bloated, inefficient government, not an unaccountable, too powerful one.

Originally Posted by astralis

not quite; some executive-level "czars" go through senate approval, some do not. in any case, their budget comes out of the executive budget, and they fall underneath cabinet/senate-approved officials.

It's a hodge-podge. Some czars report directly to Obama, some report to cabinet officers. A few are listed on the White House budget, most are not. A handful were created by the Congress- those get confirmed by the Senate. These are all listed on the WH budget. The rest aren't.

I can name you at least dozen czars that you can't find on any White House budget report.

It's a very opaque situation, power of the czars isn't defined in any public way, and no one really knows where the funding all comes from, or how much they are paid.

Originally Posted by astralis

in short, the more czars a president has, the weaker each czar necessarily is, simply because there's a limited budget involved and only so many openings. thus, quite a few czars are for symbolic show. "too many chiefs, not enough indians". the worry here should be that you'll have a bloated, inefficient government, not an unaccountable, too powerful one.

The more czars you have, the more dilute the cabinet officials are, and the less the Congress knows about who's doing what.

Certainly the President needs advisors, which is why the "advice and consent" role was given to the Senate in the Constitution.

We have both- a bloated inefficient and wasteful gov't, with many areas of the executive branch that are unnacountable and controlled by powerful positions that lack oversight.