I guess Leon Panetta’s admonition against reducing the US military presence had some foreknowledge. The President, in a letter to Congress, just acknowledged that he deployed approximately 100 combat forces to central Africa to assist in the fight against the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) there. Here is an excerpt from the letter to Congress, sent to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate (it’s Daniel Inouye):
For more than two decades, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) has murdered, raped, and kidnapped tens of thousands of men, women, and children in central Africa. The LRA continues to commit atrocities across the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and South Sudan that have a disproportionate impact on regional security. Since 2008, the United States has supported regional military efforts to pursue the LRA and protect local communities. Even with some limited U.S. assistance, however, regional military efforts have thus far been unsuccessful in removing LRA leader Joseph Kony or his top commanders from the battlefield. In the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009, Public Law 111-172, enacted May 24, 2010, the Congress also expressed support for increased, comprehensive U.S. efforts to help mitigate and eliminate the threat posed by the LRA to civilians and regional stability.
The President notes in the letter that the combat team deployed on October 12, two days ago. And he promises that a “second combat-equipped team” will deploy sometime in the next month.
This relatively small force will be able to go into Uganda, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, subject to approval from each of those countries. So you have a small roving band of US military personnel trying to take out Joseph Kony in Africa.
The Administration’s claimed legal justification comes from a law called the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009, originally sponsored by Russ Feingold. Human Rights Watch were among the endorsers of the bill. I’m not sure this is what they had in mind. The bill authorizes the President to “provide additional assistance” to the region affected by the LRA, but there is absolutely nothing explicit about the deployment of combat forces in that law. The Constitution reserves the power to declare war to Congress alone, and they did not do that in the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009. There’s a clause about “political, economic, military, and intelligence support” that I suppose is the thin reed upon which this all hangs. The signing statement by the President after passage of the law says absolutely nothing about the deployment of forces.
More from ABC. The forces are combat-equipped but supposedly only giving logistical advice. However, the order is a capture or kill order on Joseph Kony. But I guess it doesn’t constitute “hostilities.”
A couple other things. I’m sure Joseph Kony is a horrible person, among all the horrible people in the world. The question is whether it’s worthwhile or wise for the United States to be constantly policing the world, sending out US troops and spending US money to do it. Second, this is really what was at stake with the Congressional debate over Libya. Some Constitutionalists argued that the President didn’t have the unilateral right to commit the US military to action in Libya, and in fact the House never passed any resolution authorizing force even after the fact. But nobody took the next logical step to try to shut down the US contribution to the NATO mission.
This furthers a long, slow decline whereby the President becomes a unitary executive in matters of foreign policy, even though Congress has explicit rights regarding war powers. If Congress fails to use them, it only emboldens the executive, who then feels free to inform Congressional leaders after the fact that he deployed troops to central Africa.
…to be clear, we have logistical military personnel in probably every country on Earth. The problem here, as I see it, is the degradation of war powers under the Constitution.





313 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Africa: Meet your new policeman Mr. Obama – spreading liberty and freedom to the darkest corners of the world.
Do I detect a wee bit (okay, a huge amount) of disgust in your last two posts, DDay?
Frankly, when you let your frustration fingers do the writing your work takes on a delicious sense of irony and, sharpens your usual deft timing, to a rollicking lever of full-on literary power …
No doubt, the Decider in Chief is acting the pompous, unrestrainable big-ass, however, as you point out, it is Congress that has to get up off THEIR collective ass, especially the donkey-half, and DO something about this President’s love affair with killing and using the military whenever it seems to suit him and his advisers. Obama constantly whines that he can do nothing. What a load. Anytime he wants to kill or facillitate killing, he just does it. New drone bases? He does it! A mini-war? He does it!
Panetta and Geithner are dancing to Obama’s jig and Obama is the step and fetch it man of the oligarchs … all shock and awe … all of the time.
Meanwhile, Congress snoozes, decomposes “stern” letters, and sucks at the lobbyist tit. Guess that explains why Congress is too effin’ busy to do its job … and likely explains the apparent antipathy (sociopathy, perhaps?) when it comes to creating actual, real JOBS for the millions in dire need of them.
Amazing how the Bipartisan Parties always agree that there is always money for military “adventures”, innit?
Great posts, today, DDay!!!
On wid ya! (Please … and thank you … for the fire in your belly!)
Much appreciated!
DW
Code Pink? Helllooooooo?
Medea Benjamin must still be stalking Rumsfeldt everywhere he goes.
Seems like the President is just like a king now- sending his troops out across the earth. Will there be an heir to the throne?
right. how horrible of Obama.
and
the person Dave mentioned has been charged with war crimes by the international criminal court.
etc etc etc
http://allafrica.com/stories/201110140065.html
come on people.
One of the twenty-five (25) ongoing US national emergencies is a two-year-old one — National Emergency With Respect to the Situation in or in Relation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is an imprecise national emergency, which isn’t unusual.
I thought these “national emergencies” were important but apparently they aren’t because it wasn’t mentioned in the president’s letter; only some obsolete long-forgotten law was mentioned, as if it matters. So I guess that I won’t worry about 25 national emergencies any longer, if they mean nothing to the president who announces and continues them.
The president is thoughtfully “making this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution” which is more BS like he used on Libya.
The War Powers Act is intended to protect the US in case of an imminent attack against the country. It is not intended to justify elective war, which is always illegal by any measure.
The War Powers Act is found as 50 USC S.1541-1548, passed in 1973 over the veto of President Nixon.
The particularly relevant portion is S.1541(c), which reads: (c) Presidential Executive Power as Commander-in-Chief; Limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Why is it that only Africans are indicted by the ICC when westerners have killed, raped, displaced, imprisoned and tortured so many thousands more? Is it the business of the US Defense Department to chase every rapist in the world?
There are plenty of sob stories in the world. There is no shortage of them and we can cherry-pick any one of them and justify almost anything. But we shouldn’t.
Right, and as I said, I’m sure Joseph Kony is an execrable human being. I have a problem with a President saying to Congress, “Two days ago I sent troops into Africa based on a year-old piece of legislation that didn’t mention combat troops but which I think I can bluff my way into saying authorized a military operation. Thought you should know.”
But ‘we’re broke’ and have to cut SS and Medicare, right? And subsidize the Oil companies, right?
Okay, I just wanna know:
What natural resources are there for the plundering by multi-national conglomerates in those areas?
Natural resources include a lot of oil in South Sudan, which recently seceded from the north. There are disputes over oil and precious minerals. Making the situation even worse, South Sudan and other neighboring countries such as Uganda have been terrorized by a shadowy group called the Lord’s Resistance Army, perhaps most easily described as an African version of the Khmer Rouge, the murderous Cambodian regime in the 70s.
There’s even a current movie out about the situation. Machine Gun Preacher is the true story of Pennsylvanian biker Sam Childers, who overcame a life of drugs and violence to embrace Christianity and wage a 13 year war to free enslaved child in Northern Uganda and Southern Sudan, Africa.
Yes, and we do get blamed when we don’t fix or try to fix these problems, too. There seems to be more suffering in Africa than anywhere else on earth. It’s always easy to say, just don’t get involved, or to toss the whole thing off as an attempt to achieve something nefarious, or better yet blame the actions of these war lords on the West, meaning white people. What’s harder to face for those on the “left” is the reality that black African leaders, many of them, are truly horrible, sometimes beyond belief.
I understand what you’re saying Dave. Not what he’s doing, it’s how he goes about it.
Thank you for the background on this latest move by Obama.
The U.S. is “trying to fix” problems in a number of countries right now. How’s that working out for those countries and ours?
I guess laws and the Constitution can be interpreted all kinds of ways, including assuming a pre-existing Congressional authorization of U.S. troops, if your aim is to ensure a steady supply of minerals like coltan and if you’re considered to be an expert in Constitutional law because you once taught a class in it. Or maybe I’m too cynical, but I don’t think so.
It’s gotten to the point where I’m staying away from blogs because my blood pressure can’t take it anymore.
and by extension, how future Presidents go about doing it.
“Pundits” at MSNBC are already speculating about how best to get the UN to go along with a US invasion of Iran. Guess we know who owns them…
The NYT is covering this quite differently and is saying that this was advocated by, among others, Human Rights Watch, even quoting Tom Malinowski. They say the soldiers have orders not to fight except in self-defense.
There’s copper, cobalt, iron ore, tungsten, zinc, chromium ore, gold and silver. And, (of course), oil and natural gas. Musta been a huge find recently to warrant troops though. Let’s also not overlook the largely superstitious population of central and south central Africa, ripe for the Xians to move in and convert. There are already “missions” over there solely designed to stoke homophobia and reap the rewards from a grateful people, delivered by them from the evil clutches of teh gay agenda. After that, the place will be ripe for outsourcing more US jobs, powered by abundant hydropower resources. Trust me, if Obama sent troops, there’s money for the corporations to make there.
Wish someone would explain to me why we are so anxious to go to war with Iran. They apparently don’t actually have nukes but even if they did, so do lots of other countries. Is this just a favor to Israel, which seem to be hysterical over Iran? Are our “leaders” stupid enough to think that they can drop a few bombs on Iran and that will fix whatever problem exists?
What is Iran’s most valuable resource?
That is your answer, Twain.
It is oil … and the fact that Iran is threatening to change to the Euro … as the oil “currency” …
DW
I agree completely on the complaint of “decline into the unitary executive”. It’s true that Obama is faced by a Republican party that will vote to stop anything he attempts to do no matter what as well. Likewise, “military and intelligence support” certainly seems like it could comprise 100 “advisers”. I think the purpose of granting war authority to the Congress was to stop Vietnam and Iraq from happening, not 100-soldier operations to stamp out operations like this LRA.
Obama, further, has the permission of the countries in Africa involved, if not their eager wish for assistance.
And 100 troops cannot be an occupation force.
It’s very true that Obama should be able to go to the Congress right now, and get support for this action, and he can’t, and its not for any reason but the political games of elections and partisan bullshit.
So I can’t object to what Obama is doing with the LRA. The operation is cost-free by military standards, is justifiable morally, commits the US almost not at all to anything, is being done with the eager permission of the nation’s involved, has some legal authorization already from the hands of Saint Russ himself, and, given the demonstrated capabilities of American special operations and JSOC, probably won’t last very long.
Why, the US might even have a slightly stronger reputation as a good player in some parts of Africa as a result.
Dayen: do you also object to the way bin Laden was killed? The incursion into Pakistan goes into the “act of war” category much more ably than this move to get this African guy. Pakistan was hardly consulted before the US soldiers flew in, killed people, blew stuff up, and flew out. For my part, I’d much rather that bin Laden had been captured and put on trial – and the US soldiers who shot him could have done that no problem once they had the unarmed man in front of them.
However, I don’t object to that operation.
Dayen: do you have any evidence that the leaders of Congress in both parties were not consulted prior to the actual execution of orders to put the military personnel into Africa? I wouldn’t be surprised if there wasn’t a consultation done very quietly beforehand.
100 boots on the ground is nothing. They can only act to defend themselves and you know that someone is going to shoot at them. Then we have to send in more troops to protect them and on it goes. Africa is in a pitiful state but how many wars can we fight? How can we continue to pour OUR money into these situations?
The politicians and corporations suffer from blood lust. They have to murder in order to feel powerful and important and so very adult. “It was a hard choice to make but we knew if we didn’t kill innocent people thousands of miles away, we wouldn’t be able to justify indirectly killing innocent people at home.” There is no yin to their yang.
Il Duce commands, and we follow where he leads.
“Despite the brutality of the LRC, the AP has naturally declined to tell us the whole story. Uganda is a strategic asset for the United States. Back in 2005, investigative journalist Wayne Madsen reported that the U.S. had major communications and listening stations in Uganda’s Ruwenzori Mountains. Since then, Africom has set-up a sprawling operation there. Libya was its first ‘engagement.’” Kurt Nimmo
http://www.infowars.com/globalist-warlord-obama-moves-to-expand-africom-reach/
I posted this about a week ago no longer have link how thousands of ugandians were being evicted off their land by govt troops and police, many killed, so some brit corp could plant trees or something as part of some UN funded carbon thingy and brit corp was making millions. maybe govt not working fact enough so O sends in troops to speed it up
Well of course the U.S. must not stand idly by when murder (collateral damage), kidnapping (rendition) and rape (well our boys do get a bit horny sometimes) are being committed in some foreign country ! Not to mention, or even bring up the thorny subject of Obama & Co. refusing to sign the U N declaration against Child Soldiers.
The ancient Romans were horrified at the wanton bloodthirstiness of the barbaric Celts. And here we are a few thousand years later, the rejects of the remains of Celtic culture..wreaking havoc and destruction on the remains of not only the cradle of Western Civilization, but the Cradle of Humanity.
Maybe Obama just has this urge to return to his father’s ancestral homeland and become the Holy Roman Emperor that he imagines he already is in his mother’s. Oh, we have ourselves a real master of Globalization. How very NOW.
If I were to voice concern about the American military presence in Africa, I’d focus my concern on Somalia, where the US has a long-term covert intelligence and military presence to judge by public news reports, and where the people who live in the country don’t like or support the US.
As for the “100 boots on the ground” automatically being shot at, I don’t agree. You could easily imagine the 100 personnel present to include:
1) combat trainers who work with African soldiers from various countries in compounds and controlled rural areas.
2) Aircraft operators.
3) Vehicle drivers and technicians of different sorts. People who operate and maintain computers and communications support, mechanics, etc.
It could be that a fraction of the 100 figures involved (assuming that is the real number) are special operations types with a combat role, but when they actually get anywhere near combat (and the US military is willing to risk how many of its expensive elite combat soldiers in actual fighting to get a 2-bit warlord on the run?) this is not exactly going to become Dien Bien Phu.
There is probably a much bigger concern having American personnel where they are currently located covertly (of course I don’t know for sure and can’t) all across North Africa and in the Middle East (such as in Yemen).
First question I have is, Which oil companies or transnational corporations is he protecting with our military and tax dollars? This certainly is not about humanity, if Obama had a human cell in him, he would care about the thousands of people dying in this country because of lack of basis needs.
US Dodges Obligation to Help Iraqi Women Trafficked into Sexual Slavery
I just did a quick google search. You can too. Do we need to stop it there because we ignore it in our occupied territories?
1) Israel
2) Oil
3) Rinse, repeat
Is there not enough suffering here? Is there some certain level we will tolerate in the US or in the occupied countries?
I suspect this was entirely a campaign event. Think about it.
I really don’t think that the LRA is going to say “oh, they’re just driving trucks and working on computers so we won’t attack them.” They sound like pretty bloodthirsty people to me.
OWS, occupy everywhere, is good for the soul, recommend showing up if you can and haven’t yet. There’s a lot of joy to be shared. :)
Iran is a longterm goal. If they don’t attack soon, I think it’s only a matter of when. Nukes are just an excuse, been my feeling for a long time. If Obama really wants re-election without all the hard work, I suspect he gives Israel the go ahead for some kinetic action. Could be decades before they move ground forces into there, but who knows with the pace snrub/bama have set.
I could be wrong, but that’s my impression of where we are at.
Why do we need their oil bad enough to start another war and kill thousands of people? it’s just plain sick and twisted.
Congratulations posters, you’ve allowed your paranoia and Obama hate to put you on the side of kidnapping, patricide and rape.
Do you get some special kind of Progressive Points for this?
“Change you can believe in”………OSW and the 99% is the change I can believe in. And will. Mr Obama…no thanks. Fraud.
I guess there is no hope that we will wind down our military before we collapse. All those people are going to be stranded overseas with no way to get home. Once the fuel and ammo deliveries stop, they’ll be a well-trained 21st century fighting force in hostile zones with no way to wage war beyond the 19th century level.
I don’t think we as average citizens can go too wrong if we stand on principles.
Is policing the world our shared principle?
Is creating hell on earth some places then using the excuse that others have created hell on earth to do military outreach, is that a principle?
Is excusing a President who doesn’t seem to give a sh-t about us because we tell ourselves he wants to help Africa, like that is even believable, is that a principle? Come on people, I heard that earlier, if you want to stop a murdering madman, why not just do it with special forces, am I right? Sending in 100 to train others is about prolonging.
Is it more likely that obama is doing this because he pulled it out of that bag of tricks he planned to go to during the campaign?
In this case, the resources are probably just the corporate bonuses.
TBogg, that is false and you know it. Who here is “on the side of kidnapping, patricide and rape.”? Please tell me.
The truth is you can’t. So what does it mean that you would say something like this?
When you lie about angry lefties, obama skins a pony, and that’s a fact.
I really don’t think this has anything to do with Obama hate. The questions are numerous. Why now? What good will 100 troops be? Why not medical teams and people to distribute food? Will it actually help?
While this is true, and relying on such a thin reed is explicitly forbidden by the War Power Act, it does seem worth (to the extent possible) fighting against any wording that could remotely be used in a similar context, and including as a matter of course some standard language that “nothing in this act shall be construed as authorizing the introduction of troops into conditions where involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.“ If you know that presidents will twist your words and read what is not there into silences (and we do in fact know that), the solution is the take such opportunities away from them.
I think some people are just hurt in that special place one can have for our current empire builder.
I know I sound harsh and I appreciate funny but not so much the interpretation of why the left is angry each and every time obama shows us who he is.
Do you ever just feel exhausted with the whole thing? I’m so tired of it all.
I find OWS a really bright spot in my life and look forward every day to see what’s going on.
Although there is a compelling need for food and medical services, I think the military is better equipped to kill LRA leader Joseph Kony. Unless, of course, you want to capture him and rehabilitate him. Maybe have him give speeches to schoolchildren about how rape and murder are bad things.
Seriously. If we have the ability to track him down and kill him, why wait?
You’re right, any President should have the authority to commit us to hostilities anywhere in the world. It’s especially delicious at times when we must cut the social safety net because we’re “broke” don’t you think??
You’re full shit of TBogg. Had W and The Dick done this you’d have written a snark full of crap about those two starting more wars around the world and you know it. But Obama does it (A D, HE’S GOT A D AFTER HIS NAME, A D FOLKS!!) then it’s all ok.
Commit troops to Africa without Congress’ approval. Okay. Vietnam?? Why not. China?? What the hell.
Bullshit. You’re really showing a sorry and pitiful IOKIYAD streak. Just like the red team. Do you get extra Blue Points for this?
Yes.
I went to OWS Tacoma GA last night. Today is another march in support and the first night of occupy. It centered me, I think that’s the right word, a lil bit of renewal.
I have chickens now, trying to be smart about learning to grow things, since much of our food supply is being tainted. Anyway, I have been spending way more time outdoors and that helps quite a bit with the exhaustion.
And I’m reading The Democrats : a critical history which is confirming a lot of what I had been piecing together slowly on my own.
So, yep, I’m often feeling exhausted but you caught me at a moment I’m actually feeling rather invigorated. :)
Wow how lucky is this? We’re pulling out of Iraq and look what pops up. Another war to start. You couldn’t have planned this if you planned it. Keep on marchin boys, don’t stop. BTW anybody heard the latest from Libya. Don’t hear too much these days, although I know last month the something, was taking over something else, somewhere.
Could an empire spread itself so thin by fighting seven or more wars at the same time that it would not have the resources to prevent a peaceful takeover at home?
My guess is the lower tech industries of the Military Industrial Complex, Inc. want their share of the pie. I wonder what arms deal Obama LLC has garnered in the region? Look forward to future episodes of Blow Back, The Known Unknown, the new reality show sponsored by the DoD and TMOTU
I’m sorry. You were saying….?
OFG, you are so right.
That’s the kick in the pants that’s well deserved for any partisan.
It’s a good exercise. Imagine the person with an R after his or her name. Would you be pissed if that R were doing the same thing?
It works for our average American r friends as well. It’s a rather useful tool.
The difference if it was an R doing it, TBogg would be brilliantly scathing.
We are most certainly NOT “pulling out of Iraq”.
Who convinced you of this?
I’m sure when those troops attempt to capture, or especially kill, that asshole that the troops he’s got fighting for him will, you know, just let them do it. Because they’re Americans and America didn’t declare war on them.
Yeah, there won’t be any hostilities at all. No casualties, nothing. No reason whatsoever for the Constitution’s REQUIREMENT that Congress be the sole decider of who we go into hostilities with be considered.
The President can send who he wants where he wants when he wants to kill who he wants. But only if he has a D after his name and you’re a Democrat or only if he has an R after his name if you’re a Republican.
Fucking disgusting. The people here don’t deserve the Constitution. No wonder it’s being trashed.
I see TB has responded again and when I have said something remotely compassionate has griped about me being a bleeding heart on several, YES SEVERAL, occasions.
I guess the difference is that TB gets to play with his obama doll and gi joes, so it has to be good. It’s a military action for goodness sakes, it must be good. I think TB just puts the words that explains he’s a bad guy to convince all the “bleeding hearts” – those are TB’s words, search yourself. I for one despise that phrase.
Yeah, of course you’re right.
The ends justify the means. No need to follow the law if the ends justify the means.
Just like a partisan R. You should be proud.
That’s American politics for the rabble in a nutshell.
Un-freaking-believable, ain’t it?
OT.
I just got an “Official Firebagger” T-Shirt in the mail.
Someone made a mistake. I didn’t order any t-shirt. There’s a Frederick, MD return address. Is that where it should be returned too???
And someone should probably check their records. There might be someone out there who IS expecting a T-Shirt and won’t be getting it….
So I can put you down for :
Got it. Duly noted.
If following the law is progressive street cred, yeah, put me down for it.
Likewise I can put you down for
Got it. Duly noted.
Actually it says ORIGINAL FIREBAGGER. Not OFFICIAL.
Now that I’ve committed the sin of dissing on one of FDL’s vaunted front pagers I’m especially sure I’m not worthy of such a T-Shirt.
I’ll return it ASAP. (Wouldn’t fit my fat ass anyway)
TBogg, you are engaged in ad hominem assault.
Why?
David Dayen is the author of this post, and he, very clearly, is raising questions about the rule of law and the unitary executive power grab which Obama has engaged in.
OldFatGuy, and a number of others, here, are raising that same issue.
Do you or do you not respect the fundamental right of others, here, to have and express opinions different to your own?
YOU are NOT, despite what you appear to believe, the moral “authority” of FDL nor anywhere else … and, on this thread, you are merely a commenter, you have NO special standing or authority … frankly, your behavoir is simply beneath what the rest of us expect from any commenter.
Perhaps, you need to take a short break and allow your anger to subside?
DW
Much better that we preserve the “rule of law” than keep someone from kidnapping children, forcing them kill their parents and then turning them into village-raiding soldiers and sex slaves.
I’m sure the kids would appreciate your slippery slope argument right after they’re done being brutally raped by multiple men and then go out for a night on the town hacking off body parts of their grandparents.
Good times…
People who think the Africa mission is going to escalate into some large-scale conflict need to stop hyperventilating and think a moment.
The US is broke. The political fight in the US now is about whether or not to spend lots of money at home just trying to salvage the bottom line for people who work for a living.
The US will not be undertaking any large military endeavors anytime soon. The US couldn’t write the check. Even the most ardent proponents of war in the political class couldn’t argue to their constituents for the deficit spending necessary to have such a mission.
The international financiers helping prop up US debt would scream bloody murder at the cost. The “austerity” crowd would scream bloody murder as well. The broad population in the US shows absolutely no majority support for any further “interventionism” abroad.
The question that can be asked about the small operation in Africa is the question of how it is intended to end: and it appears that the capturing or killing of the LRA leader is the goal, along with beefing up the abilities of African security forces to respond to the LRA itself.
Honestly, the moment the LRA leader’s position is known, I wouln’t be surprised to see a headline announcing that a cruise missile strike has blown him a bunch of others clean off the face of the Earth and that is the end of it.
Kony and the Lords Resistance Army have been operating in northern Uganda for more than 20 years, starting around 1987. The US knew about them but did not regard it as a US problem. In some respects Museveni used their presence to his political advantage. Then huge amounts of oil were discovered in Uganda along Lake Albert, and much more is expected to be found there and in the DRC in the great lakes region. The LRA are in the way.
The LRA does the work of nightmares, they are unbelievably brutal and don’t appear to have a political agenda. There is nothing redeeming one can say about them.
In late December 2008, in what was supposed to be an outgoing triumph for Bush, the US trained sponsored, supplied arms and paid for fuel for a raid against the LRA. It failed, but the LRA went through neighboring villages and countryside butchering and kidnapping, causing the deaths of more than 1000 civilians and the displacement of more than a million civilians. In one village they murdered the entire population as they were preparing celebrations on Christmas eve, then sat among the corpses and ate the prepared feast. The LRA had been somewhat quiet and contained before that. They have continued expanding killing and kidnapping. More involvement by US advisors and trainers is likely to bring much more civilian death and suffering.
As to the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009, the Acholi religious leaders published a statement that included:
I have written about this here:
If Uganda Has Oil It Must Need The Pentagon’s Democracy
and the full text and contact information of the Acholi religious leaders is in comment #5.
No country or people can help another country and people unless they involve those other people in ways the employ some form of participatory democracy. Anything else is just imperialism tarted up to call itself humanitarian. The US is not there to help Uganda or Somalia or the DRC but to help itself to oil gold, coltan, agricultural land, and a variety of other resources.
I’ve written about the oil here:
Uganda – Oil Reserves To Rival Saudi Arabia?
with links at the bottom which provide more information about the 2008 raid on the LRA.
Shouldn’t we invade Antarctica or something?
If I were committing the sin of “ad hominem assault” I would be calling some people “moral retards”. But I’m not.
Not let’s get back to wringing our hands about policy points while people are dying because Obama is worse than Bush/Hitler/Pol Pot/Ming the Merciless…
OFG is too kind in my estimation.
I won’t hold back just because you’re a frontpager.
I won’t accept sorry ass excuses from obama and neither will I from any partisan, that includes you TB.
TB, where were you on the whole sex slave issue before your commander in briefs weighed in? My guess is you were as usual accusing people of being “bleeding hearts”.
Is your obama doll poseable? Does it come with a tiny pad of lil constitutions so you can burn them or wipe his ass with?
Got partisanship?
Obama has so many embroidered hats to wear.
WOTUS (Warlord Of The United States)
LOTUS (Liar Of The United States)
SFOTUS (Super Fly Of The United States)
HOTUS (Hitman Of The United States)
MFOTUS ( )
and so on.
THe world’s a big place. It’s got all kinds of evil in it. Either we’re the police of the world or we aren’t. If the US people, through their elected representatives decide we should be the police of the world and send folks to Africa or Iran or anywhere else, then send them we should. But if the US people haven’t authorized it through their elected representatives in Congress, then breaking that law is no fucking different than breaking the torture laws to get “vital information” too because obviously the ends justifies the means. And any other law.
Will I have to search long to find a column by you letting Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Yoo, or anyone else have it for ignoring the laws on torture even though they argued those ends justified the means??? Can I put you down for “rather have a million people die than torturing a few Muslims” or did you support that little breach of law?
Which is it??? I’ll start my search now.
We have sat on our butts for 40 years and watched Africa become a nightmare for its people. If those 100 soldiers were going in to protect people who were doctors, nurses, Red Cross, etc. I wouldn’t be saying a word. We need to help them, not create more carnage. So, I repeat my question – Why Now?
You simply do not get it, do you, TBogg?
Do you you respect the fundamental right of others to hold and express views with which you do not agree?
If you do, then YOU have an obligation to cease and desist.
Your behavior is counter to reasoned discourse and fundamental respect for others.
Your position is very clear.
You gain nothing by going further, and stand to lose far more than you imagine.
Thanks for the insightful info. I’ve known about the LRA for a long time, plus also aware of the discovery of OIL in Uganda. I don’t have proof, but I’ve long felt it’s why Doug Coe has an *agenda* with Uganda via his “Family” or “Fellowship.” They are the same “Christian” businessMEN who are pushing the “Kill the Gays” legislation in Uganda. I no longer choose to watch RM much anymore, but RM has done a good job at exposing these shenanigans.
I figured that there was *more* to Doug Coe’s efforts than merely being the nasty scummy homophobic prick that he is. As new info surfaced about Oil in Uganda, it became clear why the “Family” was scurrying around there spreading their nasty “missionary” b.s. It’s all about the corporations, making money, BigOil, nothing more, nothing less.
It may seem “good” or “well-intentioned” to try to “protect” those being terrorized by the LRA, but a 100 boots on the ground ain’t gonna do it. If anything, it’ll just make it worse for the locals. But hey! Wadda I know??
You are quite correct, Twain.
If Obama believes this is about fundamental humanitarian principle, then why did he not make use of his bully pulpit to aprise the American people of his concerns and intended “response”? Surely doing so would not put any “operation” in “jeopardy”, instead, it would have strengthened Obama’s “hand”.
As Obama did not do this, it leaves wide open the question of political expediency … despite what partisan “believers” would seek to “use” to “quiet” those who raise reasonable and considered questions.
DW
Teh Google is teh magic.
Hmmm, this is interesting…
Say what??? No way, are you actually… no. Wait. Are you actually ridiculing those R’s for using the ends justifies the means argument over torture WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY using the ends justifies the means argument over Obama’s wars????
OMG. So let me get this straight.
When a D is Prez, we should trash any laws that might get in the way of doing some potential good somewhere in the world but when an R is Prez..
We should follow the rule of law regarding questioning terrists. No matter if they have knowledge that would stop an impending attack and kill thousands, maybe millions??? Good times.
What. A. Fucking. Hypocrite.
The timing of this “small” adventure is suspect to me.
How is this being offset?….think some American infrastructure was in line for the money first….can’t have 3-4 wars going at once unless you really do want to ruin Amercia….the thieves will eventually have to face the music–unless we are sidetracked by more war….what, didn’t the Mexican/Iraq thing take hold?
Oil. Lots of it, recently discovered:
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=93966
Add to this the fact that the Chinese have made massive investments in neighboring Kenya, helping build highways, railroads, and other infrastructure, and are growing increasingly influential in East Africa. I’m sure the Chinese are after that oil, too. Obama is just trying to beat them to it with military assistance, which will only grow.
Add to that the fact that the Lord’s Resistance Army is active in the area where that oil is, and that the LRA is particularly despicable(they make the Iranian mullahs look like nice guys), and it’s a perfect confluence for moral posturing AND profit for Big Oil. AND there’s a presidential election coming up.
How can Obama resist? Obviously, he won’t.
…Mexican/Iran thing take hold?
The google has even more riches for the brave of heart. :)
Because torturing suspected terrorist Muslims for information is the same as hunting down genocidal warlords.
Swing… and a miss.
The LRA has been operating in that area for almost 20 years, with the same brutality you accurately describe. The American government did not see fit to send in military aid until now. Why now?
See my link in my reply to Beach Populist if you’re really interested. It’s oil, baby, pretty large reserves discovered just a couple of years ago. And the LRA is sitting right on top of it. Not to mention molybdenum, diamonds, titanium, platinum, silver, and other neat stuff needed by various industries.
You can ask me to believe in Obama’s high-minded sounding humanitarian principles, but it’s just a smokescreen for profits, oh Obamacrat. He’s going after the oil and the other goodies.
Because he is a running dog lackey of the corporatist regime. Game. Set. Match.
Yeah, I’m sure it does. I didn’t even bother looking at all of the other hits I got.
I’m done here. I know my tone is not welcome and especially so when it’s directed at a FDL front pager so I won’t stink the joint up anymore.
But I’m NOT going to say I’m sorry, because I’m not sorry. IMO TBogg’s hypocrisy combined with his pointing finger at US and saying “shame on you” earned the scorn I heaped, even if not in the tone I heaped it. But I’m still not sorry. Probably makes me an asshole but I’m too old to give a shit anymore.
Have a great weekend EVERYONE. Stay safe and be well.
Here’s how it goes when U.S. forces move in to save a population from the bad guys. This was the old days and the Marines doing it were from a very well disciplined rifle company and really did want to win over the hearts and minds of the populace. However, the bad always gets ahead of the good as soon as any resistance is met. And there was initial resistance and some continueing resistance at this ville. Civilians will always suffer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNYZZi25Ttg
Also, back then the independent reporters were free to report. Not so anymore with the embedding of journalists.
I respect the fundamental right of others to hold and express views with which I do not agree? However, that doesn’t preclude me from pointing out how fucking stupid those views might be.
But thank you Captain Hall Monitor. You may now return to your fainting couch. This must have been exhausting for you…
You’re right. Let’s do nothing. Because oil is the enemy of doing good.
Those are good. Can I steal those titles?
….Native Americans right here in the USA need help, Obama. Don’t need to cross an ocean. Don’t need to leave America to find hurting women and children. Is it possible for OWS to suggest people not have to pay IRS if money is used for war before American domestic policy? It is as though Obama bends over backwards NOT to help American 99%–as though he sits awake all night thinking how to divet taxpayer money away more from 99% of citizens of USA. Really seems this guy wants to retire in Jan of 2013. Ken Burns would be a great write in candidate. Knows history.
But the little girls understand…
Seriously, if you guys want to make Kony you’re new Mumia, have at it. I’m sure it will end well.
Help yourself to them and please add to the list.
TBogg, you are rapidly losing my respect.
I suspect that I am not alone …
For a front-pager, you are not behaving well or even rationally.
However, carry on … it is only FDL you now embarrass … beyond yourself.
Typical Obamacrat. You use the same debate strategy of the Bushites, the neocons, Reaganites, and other running dog lackeys of the corporatist regime. You don’t even try to refute my points, because you can’t. You focus on one particular point and attempt to take the moral high ground.
Where were you and others like you during the Rwanda or Darfur genocides? For that matter, where are you on the positively brutal Burmese regime? Should we invade Burma on your high-minded humanitarian principles? Oh, yeah. Burma ain’t got no oil, so you’ll come back with “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” or “We have to be practical,” or some other defensive and hollow argument.
I find you and your ilk hypocritical in the extreme. Stick that in you latte’ and sip it, liberal.
Oh for fucks sake.
Really? Exactly who is raiding our Native-American reservations and building a child rape army? Don’t tell me… The Obama-loving MSM is covering this up.
I had no idea that I had stumbled onto a progressive parody thread.
Somehow I will struggle to carry on without the respect of people who are more concerned about slippery slopes than genocide.
You can’t imagine how bereft I’m feeling right now…
TBogg, don’t you feel a little uneasy about the timing of this? I have been reading a lot about the horror of Africa for years and wondering why we didn’t do something. Now, in campaign season, ta da, up pops assistance in Africa. I fervently hope that nothing but good comes from this but how can I not, in view of everything that Obama has done, look on this with skepticism.
The USA has refused to ratify membership in the International Criminal Court. If it did, rather than sending “advisers” to Central Africa, it’s first step after submitting to the ICC’s jurisdiction would be to arrest every US war criminal including the G.W.Bush Administration and Obama, and send them for trial. It matters not how Obama justifies this action. He said we were not technically at war with Libya because there weren’t “boots on the ground”. Now he has introduced special forces troops, ergo another war, as defined by Obama’s own words. If what is going on in Central Africa is so repugnant to you, go do something about it in person. Just don’t commit our country and its resources to more meddling in the affairs of others.
TBogg– Back off and re-read. The funds or credit spent on the wars need to be used at home for Americans. Native American reservations are horrible. No one can raid Native-American reservations–there is nothing there to take. Funds can be reappropriated for use there or other places needed in our country. Have no idea how you came up with “child rape army”. Think you were pulling words from somewhere else.
Another “humanitarian effort” by Obama. Will it morph into another “kinetic military action” that lasts “days, not weeks” and will pay for itself in access to natural resources? How many times are you willing to fall for this bullshit?
Boo!
TBogg–is your anger really with the UN or other African people or nations closer to the problems? We don’t have the money to be policemen of the world anymore. We can’t afford Iraq, Afghan, Lib, ect, ect, ect, ect,…Enough…it’s our turn to take care of USA for a short time so we can later help others if we have it to give.
Drawing by 12 year old formerly with LRA
OT I have had to log-in 3 times – anyone else having this problem?
Try this… look at the problems on Native-American reservations. Now go look at what Kony is doing in Africa.
Which would you put at the top of your “we should fix this shit” list?
I’m less interested in motivation than I am in “It’s about fucking time.”
Well in fact there is a very high incidence of rape on Indian Reservations, and investigations and convictions are hard to come by. So, yeah: Obama could spend some much-needed dollars on aiding & protecting Native American women from a not-very-well-known, but ongoing, rape crisis on many Indian reservations.
Actually, TBugger, I can’t imagine you thinking anything — at any time — and how you feel about rapists in Africa versus rapists in the United States military (ask the Okinawan schoolgirls) does not interest me in the least. The United States military belongs back at Fort Podunk, Arkansas, where the local bars, loan-sharks, and street-corner hookers can service their needs appropriately. Furthermore, if African countries have as big a problem with rape and Catholic priest pederasty as America does, then those nations might want to work that out for themselves, as we ought to do in our own backyard. Something about that “personal responsibility” thing.
I had to do it twice, Twain, had to close one thread down and open another.
Might be “traffic” density, or something else?
Sometimes the “renew” seems to take ages, but again, I figured it might be weekend traffic.
I too, have watched with mounting horror what has occurred in Africa since the early nineteen sixties … and the question of “why now”, is critical, when, from my perspective we should have been trying to actually help, in the humanitarian sense, not dictating or “nation-bulding” for more than fifty years, and not merely in those areas possessing resources which might be attractive.
Tbogg is very wrong to imagine that the plight of human beings is not important to others, here, but I maintain that there are more effective and honest “means” than using drones, “on the ground” killing, and other aspects of “organized mayhem”. That, of course, is merely my opinion, but my moral compass suggests such things, as food amd medical support, human-scale things, to begin with, as I imagine, does yours.
DW
In point of fact TBugger, America has been fucking things up in Africa — not to mention the Middle East and Southeast Asia — for a considerable length of time already. We’ve gotten way past the point where America needs to fix its own broken self — and beginning with you wouldn’t make a bad place to start. Better late than never.
Actually it would be helpful if Obama put some much needed money into protecting Native American women living on reservations, where rape is at an all time high, but investigations and convictions are very thin on the ground. That might be a good thing to do. Sadly, I think Team USA made darn sure that there wasn’t anything much of value to plunder on Native American Reservations, so I doubt any troops will be sent there to help out. Too bad.
So is that what you said in 2002 when we about fucking time stopped Saddam Hussein’s brutality in Iraq???
What. A. Complete. Fucking. Hypocrite.
Most informative. Thank you for taking the time to research this. Facts are power.
TBogg at #107–easy–no hesitation–I’d fix the problems on the American Native reservations first–because 1. I’d like American taxes taken under penalty of law to be used for Americans, 2.Native Americans alresdy went through the Kony treatment by us white guys and they need to finally be taken care of correctly. They helped us, were our hosts a looooong time ago, then we massacred them here in America loooong bf this African situation on another continent.
Call the UN for problems in another nation only bc funds are limited in America at this time and the 1%ers have drained us dry. When we find a money tree or finally can make gold from sand or coal, then I will be all for helping everyone who needs help. Time to refurbish America and Americans.
The Native Americans should take priority, of course. Because they are AMERICAN CITIZENS. For that matter, what about Afro-Americans? What the hell has Obama done for the Black community here? Not very damned much, that’s what. I know. I live in a predominantly black neighborhood. They are my neighbors, my friends, my fellow long-suffering Browns fans, my beer drinking buddies, in short, my COMMUNITY.
There are streets here that have been closed for MONTHS due to potholes and no money to repair them. Shuttered factories that could be reopened and create thousands of jobs.
But people like you want to ride to the rescue of Uganda? What about Euclid, East Cleveland, and Cleveland?
I know that Buddha just laughs at you. Unfortunately, I’m not a very good Buddhist. You just make me want to throw up.
TBugger doesn’t grasp the fact that butting into another nation’s domestic violence with imperial violence of our own, only exacerbates the level and extent and variety of the violence. When I graduated from high school in 1965, America had some really concerned liberal Democrats running the government, real tough guys anxious to prove their willingness to do good at the point of a gun in Southeast Asia. By the time I got back from Vietnam in 1972, the bad-ass Republicans ran the government and had gotten more Vietnamese and Americans killed in Southeast Asia than even the “do-gooder” Democrats had. Trust me on this one, fellow Crimestoppers, you don’t want the kind of people Americans elect to public office trying to do either good or bad with explosive ordnance anywhere on planet earth. You can’t always make a bad situation better, but Americans with guns can always make it worse.
Guessing those places don’t have oil?
Neither do the Native American Reservations. I believe that Team USA made sure the Indians were re-located where there was nothing that the white European settlers wanted.
Nope. But the surrounding state parks have natural gas. So Governor Kasich has decided to frack them. Pun intended.
I somehow suspect that the problem with the LRA is not the type that can be solved with tater tots and band-aids, although I’m sure the band-aids would have been most appreciated by this guy.
Tell you guys what: how about we tell the people who have been terrorized by this guy or years to just suck it up for awhile longer until we are finished having our debate about the unitary executive power and war powers and such and such. Then we can propose a non-binding resolution that says that genocide and rape are “really really bad” and that “somebody should do something about it”. Then we can form an ad-hoc committee to make recommendations proposing further study on the subject.
We can call it “America In Inaction!”
> I’m sorry. You were saying….?
I was saying that Obama is a war criminal for shielding the previous administration’s war criminals from justice, so I’m not surprised that you are advocating bringing Obama to justice in the same way. That is what you’re all about, right? Bringing bad people to justice?
I hate to quote Reagan, whom I despise, dead or alive, but:
“There you go again.”
Ignore the opponent’s argument, focus on one point, and try to twist it to your advantage. Doesn’t seem to be working too well today, though.
Whenever I hear one of America’s armchair crusaders drooling imperial bloodlust with that “it’s about fucking time” exhortation, I think of what John Dewey wrote back in 1910:
“Direct immediate discharge or expression of an impulsive tendency is fatal to thinking.”
Or, more simply: “Action terminates thought”
And there we have pretty much the national motto and epitaph of America in the age of Dubya-and-Obama.
Shorter This Thread then I’m out of here:
Don’t get involved or ever attempt to do good because something bad might happen.
or…
I hate Obama more than genocide.
I’m sure that you said the same thing about the Iraq war too, right?
Instead of telling those damned Shia’s to suck it up for awhile longer while we debate the merits of war W and the Dick were soooo right for going in there and putting an end to that brutality.
I’m sure teh Google is gonna find me lots and lots of examples where you praised W and The Dick for going in there and putting an end to all of that brutality that the Hussein government was guilty of.
I’m sure you really feel very strongly about people being brutalized and it has nothing to do with the Party label of the leader who takes action.
I’ll go search for those words of praise for W and The Dick now…
Shorter TBogg
Hmmm, this is interesting.
WTF???
Gee TBogg, that doesn’t sound like you’re all gung ho and getting with the program of liberating poor defenseless peeps from a brutal thug. WTF??
Maybe it’s only AFRICAN brutal thugs that you’re AOK with the ends justifying the means to do whatever it takes??
Or maybe it’s the fact that an R President (shudder) had the audacity to circumvent a few laws and take down a brutal thug instead of a D President who, we all know, means well and therefore we should never, ever question because that’s just mean.
Wear that hypocrisy hypocrite. Wear it proudly.
As President (and former General) Eisenhower used to say when someone tried to hustle him into doing something just for the sake of looking all-active-and-stuff: “Don’t just do something. Stand there!”
The corrupt and mendacious government of the United States seems only too eager to do nothing and “just stand there” when it comes to the critical domestic needs of the American people, so the American people have every bit as much a right to say the same thing to their government each and every time it gins up another muslim preacher or Iranian used-car salesman suddenly into a Hitler/Stalin menace to world civilization requiring our very own vaunted Visigoths to expend decades and trillions of dollars finding and “neutralizing” him.
Somehow, though, I can hear nothing but a little boy hysterically crying “wolf!” “wolf!” “wolf!” “wolf!” “WOLF!” …
Good-bye, good riddance, and good luck.
Follow the money, something Marine Corps Maj-Gen. Smedley Butler knew all about, having fought for two decades in the Banana Wars.
The most alarming of many alarming aspects of Obama’s decision to send troops – apart from his utter failure to debate and establish a credible public rationale for this move – is the wide geography he has thrown up. All of these countries have significant problems, but their problems and solutions differ. What they have in common is widespread political corruption onshore, aided and abetted offshore by corporate and financial elites who hide the billions that onshore elites abscond with. For a price, Ugatti, for a price, as Monsieur Rick would say. Foreign Aid, by the way, does not remotely begin to compensate.
Follow the money. The Congo, in particular, is home to rare metals essential for ubiquitous modern electronics. Whatever the public rationale for the widely dispersed missions Mr. Obama describes, he should explain how this has nothing whatever to do with protecting the flow of raw materials that benefits exclusively the elites on and offshore. Then we should watch to see how long his nose grows.
TBogg, you are entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to make an ass of yourself, but you are not entitled to hold up killing as a good thing.
You are rightly appalled at what is occurring in central Africa and the LRA deserves to be dealt with … but America, TBogg has neither the moral standing nor the human understanding to do anything more than add to the killing and mayhem. Were we not the primary terrorist nation in this crumbling world, and were we to have the moral standing and understanding to approach others in joining with us to bring the genocide, a practice we are well versed in, btw, to a swift and responsible end, then the people of this nation would have a clear understanding, facillitated by an honest political class and a President who would have had sufficent respect for the people of this nation to explain what was necessary and why … instead, it took Obama two whole days to even inform Congress … and he has yet to address the issue to the people of THIS nation, not as a fait accompli, but as an important, necessary and vital HUMAN endeavor, and then to explain the REASONS why he believes this to be so.
You do NOT serve as a good or impressive “stand-in” despite your high opinion of yourself and the imagined purity of your motives …
Now, if you cannot or will not be civil and stop using false argument, both ad hominem and ad bacculum (“You are either with us or against us!”), as well as false equivalencies then, perhaps, you’d best refrain from behaving as nastily as you may think that you can get away with … that FDL suffer no further diminishment and embarrassment at the thoughtless lashings of your rather foul tongue …
Shorter TBogg: “I am objectively pro-war crimes.”
Because invading a country, destroying their infrastructure, and killing hundreds of thousands of their citizens is EXACTLY the same as going after a renegade murderous warlord and his army terrorizing multiple countries and killing and maiming innocent villagers.
Got it.
Jesus…
What difference does the manner in which we take out a thug make??
You’re arguing the ends justifies the means and therefore that’s why who cares if Obama should’ve gotten Congress’ approval first???
If the ends justify the means then the manner of how you take out a brutal thug shouldn’t matter.
Which argument are you making??? That the ends justify the means and therefore the manner in which we get to those means is irrelevant OR the ends justify the means when a D is President but not when an R is President and therefore those ends didn’t justify the means of taking out a brutal thug??
Which one is it because right now you’re coming off as a hypocrite and I’ve ALWAYS thought way too much of you to believe that you’re just an IOKIYAD hypocrite.
You forgot the “Now, good day, sir!” followed by a straightening of your cravat and a slight relaxing of your sphincter.
“Genocide” has been going on for quite some time. Our involvement in Iraq has led to consequences similar to though less complete; our own actions have certainly led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, at a minimum, and to the displacement of millions. And that’s just Iraq.
I could conceive of these actions as being humanitarian had Obama established earlier the public rationale for sending in the military, and had sending in the military been preceded by more credible diplomatic initiatives.
Given Obama’s penchant for expanding our undeclared wars abroad – eg, his considerable expansion of the number of lethal drone attacks and the number of countries in which he uses them – Mr. Obama deserves no benefit of the doubt on this issue. Nor does he deserve it on the issue of whether collateral issues – expanding our economic hegemony over access to rare raw materials – were more persuasive than a belated attempt to reduce the number of unwonted deaths owing to political chaos and corruption.
If you’re arguing the ends justifies the means, then it shouldn’t matter what manner we use to get to the means. I.E. Obama can do as Obama please law be damned.
If you’re arguing the means do matter, that bombing and killing thousands if not millions and destroying an infrastructure weren’t the proper means of getting to those ends, then rules and laws do matter. I.E. Obama CAN’T do as Obama pleases and this is wrong.
Which is it??? Or are you just going to stubbornly stick to it’s ok for a D to use any means necessary but not an R President?
The proof of our humanitarian vs. economic motivations is likely to come in how quickly we withdraw, whether we credibly work to replace US troops with an international, usually African-based, peace-keeping force, whether we do not attempt to enlarge our military bases in the region, and whether the political elite that succeeds this no doubt vicious warlord is not just more peaceful, but more beholden to the US and its economic interests.
I sincerely hope your post @88 that stated you were done here didn’t refer to FDL. Your posts are nonpartisan and knowledgeable. TBogg has revealed his hypocrisy and blatant Obama right or wrong agenda. His rationalizations and expressions of Obama worship would be more appropriate at either HP or Daily KOS.
Keep commenting here.
Look, I read David’s post AND the comments to be about whether or not it was a good idea for a President, any President, to be sending US troops into harms way anywhere and anytime he/she chooses without any checks and balances from Congress.
I didn’t comment but agreed with many that NO, that’s NOT a real good idea.
Then TBogg gets on here and immediately turns it into if you’re against Obama on this one you’re FOR the women and children being brutalized.
So I let him have it. With both barrels. Deservedly so IMO.
TBogg if you ask anyone here, hell anyone anywhere, whether or not we’re ok with innocent women and children being brutally raped and murdered no SANE person would answer yeah, we’re ok with that. Yet you tried to turn it into that. At every opportunity.
If you believe ANY President should have the authority to send US troops into harms way anywhere, anytime, without any checks and balances from Congress whatsoever, THEN MAKE THAT ARGUMENT.
Do NOT continue to insist that we’re all for raping and murdering women and children because we’re not. And you KNOW IT. That’s why it’s a CHEAP shot and it’s why you get vitriol as a response.
You’re better than that TBogg.
I thought you were leaving this thread. Silly me. I actually believed you for a second, just slightly less time than I believed Obama. Well, actually I gave Obama almost a year before I turned on the corporatist bastard, so I exaggerate, but I also digress.
So. If Obama decides to invade Iran, destroying their infrastructure and killing hundreds of thousands of their citizens, would you speak out against him then? Speak now, or forever hold your peace. I’m bookmarking this one, baby.
David, I apologize for getting distracted and not replying directly to you. You make a great point about the unitary executive, fka the Imperial Presidency, and the flagrant disregard of the War Powers Act by presidents past and present. Not to mention the Constitution.
This should be pointed out, and you did so masterfully. Thank you.
Damn. Just damn. Do you people know ANYTHING about the LRA? And do you care?
I suppose you all think it was a great thing that we kept out of Rwanda. I mean, imagine the slippery slope there. It’s better to just talk about how horrible these things are but stay above the fray with your small circle of friends……
At this time we’re taking out the middle east, no time or resources for Africa. Well actually there is time and resources. No limit to war monies…none at all. Best I can tell, tbogg truly feels we are the world’s policeman and it is our duty to dispose of every bad and mean faction ruler there is. Amount of time for tbogg to lump Fat Guy and Gringo with Rush Limbaugh on this topic, 3-2-1……..
“You’re better than that TBogg.”
Is he? Is he any better than Bush & Cheney & pals who first insisted that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks, and then said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction so America had to defend itself by conquering Iraq? Is he any better than George W. Bush looking under his ass and saying “Well, I don’t see any weapons of mass destruction around here?” after that argument was proven false and then proclaiming we were in Iraq to bring democracy and prosperity to the Iraqi people?
Is he any better than Bush intoning, “Either you’re with us or against us” ?
Is he any better than the Republicans who tried to rename “french fries” “freedom fries” because the French would not support the invasion of Iraq?
TBogg, JUST LIKE THE REPUBLICANS, consistently tries to turn the argument into black and white, American and anti-American, Good and Evil, Friend and Enemy, Believer and Heretic.
“America does not have two political parties, only one, with two right wings.”
–Gore Vidal
I rest my case. Until challenged again:)
Nice posts, BTW, OFG. Good job.
Ah, another Obamacrat. The Lord’s Liberation Army has been around a long time. Yes, they are despicable. Yes, if they were exterminated then the world would probably be a brighter, happier place.
But the American government did NOT intervene in Rwanda. It did NOT intervene in Darfur. It is NOT intervening in Burma. All of the sudden, just a couple of years after considerable oil reserves have been discovered to exist under the feet of the LRA, NOW Obama sends in military advisers.
The timing is not coincidental. Since the LRA is, and has been, every bit as bad as you claim, why is it that NOW Obama decides to intervene? Just over a year before the election? Is that coincidence, too? Is it coincidence that we don’t have battle groups off the coast of Burma, as well?
For that matter, why are you so righteously indignant about this, but not so much about the declining standards of living of your fellow American citizens? What about OUR poor, OUR homeless, OUR destroyed lives right here in the USA?
Or are you too comfortable to notice that? What’s YOUR net worth, moralist? Right now I have a grand in the bank, no real property, no 401K, and precisely $5.95 in savings and I work full time. Answer the question. It’s relevant. Or not. And prove my point.
I’m confused. Is US intervention in African humanitarian crises not exactly what liberals and progressives have wanted the US President to do for decades now? I noticed creeping isolationism during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. But now it seems the liberal wing of American politics has gone completely isolationist in these past few years.
I just don’t understand it. Sending 100 combat-ready military personnel to advise Ugandan soldiers is not expensive. It’s not starting a war of any form. If anything, the correct analogy here is UN/NATO peacekeeping forces. So why the outrage?
Why do progressives simultaneously (a) demand the US pay greater attention to the atrocities in Africa and (b) heavily criticize the US when it actually does something about the atrocities in Africa? Dayen says he’s just concerned that the President did it without approval. But he clearly had approval for exactly what the’s doing. Read the bill that he linked to:
How is this a “thin reed” for what Obama is doing? Congress explicitly authorized the US President to provide support to “remove Joseph Kony… from the battlefield.” Perhaps Dayen needs the words “combat-ready military personnel” in the law. That assumes, of course, that Congress thought we could kill Kony with some intern from the US diplomatic corps.
Come on, there is no controversy here. Obama is doing exactly what liberals and progressives have demanded from the US president for decades. He is operating fully under the law. But Dayen is purposefully trying to find a way to twist this into another reason to not vote for Obama. I realize that my saying this means nobody here will listen to me. But it’s plain as day for those of us who aren’t isolated within the FDL blogosphere that this sector of the American left wing will go to great lengths to find fault in Obama as some kind of revenge for 2009. Plain as day.
You can continue pointing out my failures as a true liberal here. My family and dogs, as usual, are off limits.
There, fixed that for ya.
Can’t fix the rest of your idiotic comment though….
WTF does 2009 have to do with Africa?
I agree, you must be confused.
And why don’t you answer this question HONESTLY. Would you have been OK with this boondoggle had George W. Bush done it?? Or like TBogg, did you criticize George W Bush for taking out a thug that was brutalizing the Iraqi people but then support Obama taking out thugs that are brutalizing the people?
And that says “provide military support for viable multilateral efforts.” Not just military incursions into the country. Did you even read what you highlighted??
Again, the point here isn’t whether or not we should be doing something to stop evildoers around the world. If you want to have that debate, fine, have it. This is about this President, or ANY President, sending US troops into harms way anywhere in the world at anytime without properly going through Congress. ARe you OK with that??? And if so, were you and will be okay with it when a Republican President sends troops all over the world to do whatever?? Because I suspect you’re defending THIS action, but 5 years from now when President Romney sends troops somewhere else you’ll be all up in arms.
And if so, that’s just blatent IOKIYAD hypocrisy.
I’m guessing that it’s safe to assume that none of you folks ever expressed any remorse over the US standing by while the Rwandan massacres played out, right?
Look, this is exactly the sort of opportunity for the US to do some good in the world that too often get passed up. Kony is the most horrible sort of villain imaginable. You folks are arguing for putting process ahead of human lives.
Tbogg is right. This thread reads like a parody of faux-lefty Obama hatred and progressive self-regard. There’s a reason fake progressive loons are called Firebaggers. Get the hell over yourselves.
I’m guessing it’s safe to assume that you never expressed any remorse over the US invading Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein’s brutality??
Look, that was exactly the sort of opportunity this was. You’re arguing for the ends justifying the means. If that’s your position, then I’m guessing it’s safe to assume you support torture as well, since that might get some info that saves lives. After all, no sense in arguing over laws regarding torture ahead of saving human lives.
You’re so full of shit I smell it through the interwebs. If you think this is about OBAMA then you haven’t read what’s been said here at all. This is about ANY PRESIDENT having the authority to send US troops into harms way anywhere, anytime without Congress’ approval.
I’ll duly not that you support that Presidential power and remember it the next time a Republican President does it.
You guys read like a right wing Republican defending the Iraq war, torture, and indefinite suspensions on the basis that saving lives comes ahead of laws.
Pathetic. Hope you enjoy the beating your Party gets next year. Well deserved it will be. I couldn’t wait to vote FOR Obama last time. This time I can’t wait to vote AGAINST him AND the D asshole running for Senate in my state.
They should expect to get Republican votes. After all, that’s who they’re catering too.
Yes, I would have been fine with George W. Bush sending combat-ready military personnel to provide assistance in Uganda. In fact, I would have cheered it on, because it’s exactly what the US should be doing in Africa, and it’s exactly what I have and the left has been arguing for for quite some time now. I am not so disillusioned as to judge the actions of politicians based on their party. If a Republican President engages in responsible humanitarian missions, that is great. I could only hope that both Democrats and Republicans would think humanitarian missions are a worthwhile form of foreign engagement.
As for whether I believe the President should send military personnel without the authorization of Congress, I would have to know what the context is. I don’t think Congress is the best vehicle for military engagement, especially when it isn’t a full-on war. I happen to like the War Powers Act and believe it’s an important tool in furthering an internationalist foreign policy agenda. I do not trust Congress to respond to anything in a reasonable amount of time, let alone humanitarian crises.
But you are assuming that this mission is unauthorized. I am not sure what is so difficult to comprehend about the law Dayen linked to. It is pretty clear in what is authorized. I have to question what you think the difference is between “provid[ing] military support for viable multilateral efforts” and “military incursions into [Uganda].” I realize that “legalese” is sometimes unintuitive. But I think in this case the language of the law is fairly clear.
I have no objection to helping in Africa. But please tell me what good 100 troops will do – someone is going to shoot at them and then it’s “to the barricades.” Can we believe that the people fighting there will just stop fighting because we have troops there? I don’t believe that at all. So what is the point in doing it this way?
So, like W and the Dick before, the Constitution is just a piece of paper.
Got it.
Unbelievable.
And BTW “military support” is often legally defined to mean supplies, logistical help, intelligence, training, etc. The Congress has always used the term MILITARY FORCE to mean troops.
THere is a difference between providing military support for a multilateral effort to achieve a goal and using military force to achieve a goal.
The errors in your reasoning are empirically obvious to even casual observers. I’m not arguing that the ends justify the means. It’s not safe to assume I support torture.
Are there any circumstances under which you’d support this effort? If Obama carried a resolution to John Boehner’s doorstep and begged him to please, please consider it, and after the Congressional GOP dithered for a few months, passed it along with a demand for more tax cuts? Would you be allright with it then? Because then it would be all fair and square and legal, you know?
Meanwhile Kony and his gang could carry on unopposed for a while longer. You prefer that to a risk that some other president, some day, might do something else?
Again, I ask, why now? After 40 years of bloody warfare in Africa with millions dying. We have done little, IMO, to keep them from starving to death but now we send troops to “help” ???
If that’s not arguing that the ends justifies the means, then I’ll happily kiss your ass and give you a week to draw a crowd to witness it.
I got your “didn’t-consult-Congress” right here. Obama outlined his plans for helping Uganda combat the LRA nearly a year ago. I’m sure all you folks can point me to your statements of outrage back then.
How originalist of you. I don’t particularly believe that an 18th century document accurately reflects 21st century issues and ideals. So, yes, the Constitution is “just a piece of paper” to me; a piece of paper that should be edited and reinterpreted in order to reflect the necessities of an evolved environment. Congress did this with the War Powers Act. I like that and see no conflicts with my constitutional interpretation beliefs.
I don’t think that puts me in cahoots with Bush and Cheney. If you do, that’s unfortunate.
Which, by the way, was required of the law. Just another data point to show that Obama is indeed in full compliance with the law Dayen is essentially saying he’s violating.
If that’s not arguing that the ends justifies the means, then I’ll happily kiss your ass and give you a week to draw a crowd to witness it.
Name the time and place. I’ll caution you though, that I’m probably both older and fatter than you, so it’s not going to be a pleasant spectacle.
Why not now?
“I remember how past military deployments intended to further worthy humanitarian goals, whether it was peace-keeping operations in Lebanon or Somalia, resulted in tragedies that we never intended or expected.”
Any guesses, ‘baggers?
IMO the answer to “why now” was given upthread.
Oil has been discovered there and an election is coming up.
George W Bush used an upcoming election in 2002 to get Congress to approve the Iraqi misadventure. After all, who would dare oppose a President taking out thugs that brutalize people?? Especially in an election year??? And funny, Iraq had oil too.
I’m sure that has nothing to do with it though. And the fact that brutality is going on in other parts of the world and we’re not there has nothing to do with the fact that those places don’t have resources to plunder. I’m sure all of this is really about saving those poor women and children.
It’s a common ploy. The Republicans used it, and now, as unbelievable as it may seem, the Democrats are using it. How DARE you be against this effort. You MUST support those thugs (insert Hussein here if you’re an R and Kony if you’re a D) that are brutalizing their own people.
I think one of the first things Obama should have done after he took office was to do something about Somalia. He didn’t. So all I’m asking is why NOW send in 100 troops to cover 4 different areas – it just seems very strange to me.
You’re so full of shit I smell it through the interwebs.
Is this some of that “civility” I’ve heard so much about? Not exactly how I imagined it.
You’re trying to say that this is all about oil or some other ulterior motive. That is probably part of it. But so what? We get rid of some genocidal maniacs and end up with more vital resources. This is nothing new to people who study international relations. There have always been incentives beyond the warm fuzzy feeling for engaging in humanitarian missions, whether they be simply advisory roles or full-on military intervention.
Just about as civil as implying that we’re all for women and children to continue to be brutalized if we don’t blindly support the President no matter what he does.
Not exactly how I imagined Democrats would act either.
Kony has been wanted by the ICC since 2005. But let’s ask Mitch McConnell’s permission to help go after him, shall we?
And could Dylan H and quakerinabasement please link to their support for the Iraq war???
After all, that really did have Congressional approval and it involved removing a thug that was brutalizing many people.
If you were against that war, I suppose you were against helping those poor people too.
I’m not certain at all about the “get rid of” part. 100 soldiers against heaven knows how many on the other side, people who have been fighting for years and who know the territory. I’m tired of our people dying in foreign lands and this sounds like a disaster in the making to me.
implying that we’re all for women and children to continue to be brutalized
I’m not implying. I’m saying it right out. You have made your opposition to sending these troops very plain. If the US chooses to stand aside, the consequences aren’t in doubt.
I hardly think that’s on the same level with “You’re so full of shit…”
Yeah, constitution be damned.
A majority of Americans want single payer health care. So Obama should just do that with an executive order right??? Fuck the normal channels if the R’s are just going to block it. After all, 45,000 people die every year as a result of no health care.
Yeah, that’s the ticket. If the ends justify the means then any President can ignore a Congress that doesn’t want to cooperate and do anything.
I’m sure that will work out well.
And I’m sure the framers are rolling over in their graves.
Unbelievable.
Considering I was probably perusing Neopets and Nickelodeon.com when the Iraq War started, the links of my support for the Iraq War are going to be pretty difficult to find.
You’re right, it’s NOT on the same level.
Saying someone is a sociopath that supports raping and murdering children is not in the same ballpark as saying someone is full of shit.
We do agree on something.
Hope you enjoy it when an R President does whatever he/she wants to do, constitution be damned.
Hypocrite.
That would be a “no.” Didn’t support the Iraq invasion is why. You’re the one who seems to think Congressional approval makes everything all ducky. If it’s Congressional approval that floats your boat, then the Iraq adventure sounds more like your cup.
OK, so could you link your voicing of support for it recently??? After all, we’re still there. It’s still an issue.
So, for the record, you supported that war right?? After all, it got rid of a thug that was brutalizing a lot of innocent people.
Hope you enjoy it when an R President does whatever he/she wants to do, constitution be damned.
One of us has announced his intention to withhold his support from the Democratic candidate. It wasn’t me.
Of course you didn’t support the Iraq war.
That was a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT. (shudder).
When a DEMOCRATIC President does the EXACT SAME THING it’s all good.
Hypocrite.
I think you’re mistaking the purpose of these 100 military personnel. This is not humanitarian intervention a la Libya. They aren’t going to get in their Humvees with their sniper rifles and go searching for RLA henchmen. This is an assistance mission. They’re providing information, military advice and probably training to Ugandan forces and whatever forces happen to also be in Uganda.
You’re assuming that this is all just a ploy to start a huge war in Africa. It’s hard to argue for the mission when you start with that kind of assumption.
It wasn’t me who said they would support a Republican either hypocrite.
“I just don’t understand it. Sending 100 combat-ready military personnel to advise Ugandan soldiers is not expensive. It’s not starting a war of any form. If anything, the correct analogy here is UN/NATO peacekeeping forces. So why the outrage?”
I will help you out:
1. Barack Obama is a pathological serial liar whom no one should believe, ever. Unless there is evidence that independently confirms what he said.
2. He said he sent 100 armed U.S. soldiers and will send another 100 in less than a month.
3. He said the purpose of the mission is to capture or kill Joseph Kony, the head of the Lord’s Liberation Army.
4. He also said that the soldiers would be only giving logistical advice.
5. There is no dispute that Kony and his merry band of men and boys rape, ravage, pillage, kidnap, and kill innocent civilians.
6. As Margaret pointed out at #18, the region in question is rich in “copper, cobalt, iron ore, tungsten, zinc, chromium ore, gold and silver. And, (of course), oil and natural gas.”
7. China has established a strong presence and influence in central Africa that the U.S. government and military are extremely concerned about and intend to limit.
8. China’s predominant influence in a region rich in diminishing natural resources coveted by U.S. multinational corporations, which are owned by the usual suspects (i.e., Wall Street banks) led to creation of AFRICACOM, or Africa Command, a division of the U.S. military.
9. Joseph Kony and his army have destabilized this area creating an opportunity for Barack Obama and the U.S. to exploit on behalf of the Wall Street banks using the humanitarian necessity excuse.
10. This is the same excuse that Barack Obama used to justify the bombing war in Libya when his actual intent was to “liberate” Libya’s oil, and George Bush used, in part, to justify invading Iraq and remaining in Afghanistan.
11. Given Barack Obama’s lies about humanitarian interventions and his drone war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and God only knows where else, and its unrepentant and unrelenting slaughter of innocent women and children, I find it impossible to believe that he harbors any concern about saving innocent women and children from the ravages wrought by Joseph Kony and his armies
12. Finally, the intervention is prohibited by U.S. law. As much as he believes he is above the law and can order anyone assassinated whenever he wants, he too is subject to the Rule of Law and a war criminal for violating it.
You and TBogg may disagree, which you are entitled to do, but don’t you dare minimize, marginalize, and demean those of us who disagree with you.
We disagree with you because your argument is naive, ill informed, and contrary to law.
David, with the post title “White House Starts Mini-War in Africa” you are right outta the gate being dishonest. You do your readers a disservice in so doing, and further, compound it with phony questions about the legality of Obama’s action, which if you’d read the letter he sent to Congress (and that goes for the rest of you as well), you’d know contains a clear citation and rationale for same. Just plain dishonest; there’s no other word.
Worst of all is the fact that you diminish the monstrosity of Dubya’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq by lumping this minor presence in an effort to respond to a humanitarian crisis together with them, as if carpet bombing residential neighborhoods was the same as having a handful of troops in a non-combat role (it’s in the letter– again, why didn’t any of you read it?).
I’m thoroughly disgusted with the lot of you. I don’t know what your deal is with Obama– whether you’re still smarting over Hillary’s loss in the primary, or erroneously believe that Obama hasn’t behaved deferentially enough toward a small section of his contituency, but this kind of mindless attack on the guy is absolutely without justification.
For God’s sake, stop carrying water for Rush Limbaugh!
Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a good thing. How Bush went about it unilaterally, without UN authorization, and then stayed there much longer than necessary was not a good thing. But I’m not going to try and prove that I’m a true liberal Democrat by saying that all aspects of the Iraq War were evil. You’ve latched onto that meme and now it’s totally poisoned your view of humanitarianism.
My comment is a response to Dylan H @147.
Nope. I don’t think it’s a ploy to start a war in Africa. I
worry about the lives of the troops – I certainly wouldn’t want one of my kids to go – and I’m still trying to figure out what the training of the Ugandan troops will do. We haven’t done so well with that training in Afghanistan – they kill each other and turn on us.
I’m going to bookmark this page and come back in a month. If by then this mission has exploded into Operation Save Africa, I’ll concede that my arguments naive and this was all just a ploy to expand America’s imperial reach.
And if you’d bothered to READ this thread, you’d see that’s ALL we’re arguing. That how Obama is going about it is not a good thing.
Logic isn’t your strong suit is it?
Guess logic is easy when it consists of “If an R does it, it’s evil. If a D does it, it’s not only perfectly justifiable, but anyone that dares to oppose it is stupid.”
What a way to live.
Fair enough. See you in a month.
Training Ugandan troops (as well as the other partner nation troops there — I’m not sure who they are, but they’re mentioned in the letter) will do exactly what training US troops does: better prepare them to engage in and win effective hostilities.
Using Afghanistan as a model for this is simply a poor idea. It’s these kinds of blanket characterizations that have led the left to abandon the moral high ground on humanitarianism. Just because Iraq and Afghanistan were disasters doesn’t mean all humanitarian missions are as well. There are different dynamics going on, here.
Jeebus and more are showing up.
I feel like I fell deep into the rabbit hole. I just can’t believe it.
All those years I heard a righteous outcry against all of those horrible things Bush and Cheney did with solidarity.
Now, it turns out, the Democrats are EXACTLY the same???? WTF??? If MY GUY does it, it’s ok.
Wow this is like a bad dream.
Just unfucking believable.
I’ll let you IOKIYAD hypocrites talk amongst yourselves now. Enjoy the well deserved outcome in next year’s election. See you then!!
So I’ll say it one more time.
1. It’s authorized by Congress.
2. It’s multilateral.
3. Like I said before — I’ll come back in a month to see if we’ve stayed there for too long.
We can’t have a debate about this if you insist on me accepting your base assumptions that this is just Iraq 2.0. You need to show how this is an unauthorized, unilateral attempt to foment long-term military engagement in Africa.
1) Iraq was authorized by Congress
2) Iraq was multilateral.
3) Iraq removed thugs that were brutilzing and murdering lots of people.
Like I said, logic must not be your strong suit.
Okay, so you don’t want to engage in meaningful debate. You could have said that many posts ago and saved a few of us some precious time.
“We can’t have a debate about this if you insist on me accepting your base assumptions that this is just Iraq 2.0. You need to show how this is an unauthorized, unilateral attempt to foment long-term military engagement in Africa.”
What do you think AFRICACOM is?
Look. No one here is cheering on or defending the Lord’s Revolutionary Army. We ARE questioning the timing,the motives, and the legality of what Obama is doing. The LRA has been committing atrocities for about 20 years. Their worst massacre, as far as I know, was about 13 years ago.
Now, just a couple of years after large oil reserves were discovered to exist under the LRA’s feet, Obama sends in the Green Berets to “advise.” Your point that he told Congress of his plans over a year ago just supports mine. So, just over a year before the election, a President declares an evil group must be destroyed with American military assistance. There just happens to be oil and precious minerals there. And, as usual, screw the Constitution in the process.
Meanwhile, true unemployment in America itself is at Great Depression levels, 400 people control over a third of the national wealth, 10% of the population controls 90% of the wealth, thousands of the majority have taken to the streets to demand economic justice, and Hey Presto! We have a Holy Mission to undertake!
We question that, and people like you accuse us of supporting rapists. What about the financial and economic rape of the American people aided and abetted by Barack Obama? And yes, the American people are more important to me because I’m an American. I live here. My family’s standard of living has declined. My kids face a future bleaker than my present. And I’m supposed to put all of that on the shelf in support of Obama’s New Great Crusade?
That ain’t gonna happen. I, and millions of others like me, will not be distracted by this, this, imperial adventurism excrement.
One of many theater-level commands of the US military … Does the existence of EUCOM mean we’re trying to foment long-term military engagement in Europe? I’m not sure what other point you could be trying to make.
Righteous Rant, Brother Gringo.
Right On!!!!!!!!
First of all, let me point out that I never said anything about anything supporting RLA, rapists, murderers, or any of that. I’m saying that many people in this thread are totally misguided in their foreign policy beliefs. This right here is exactly what the left has been arguing the US should be doing in Africa for decades.
But Iraq and Afghanistan, and presumably a latent distrust of Obama in the first place, have poisoned acceptance of this mission. The arguments given in this thread — indeed, the arguments you are giving right now — do not mesh with arguments that the US needs to pay more attention to African atrocities like Darfur.
Think about what your arguments mean. We should only help Africa when we have nothing better to do. You are arguing for fair-weather humanitarianism, in case you didn’t notice.
So, no, you don’t support the RLA. I doubt many Americans would. But you also aren’t remaining very consistent about humanitarianism in Africa. I made this argument over a Tbogg’s blog:
I’m a really old lady and I remember the beginning and the end of WW2. Except the fighting didn’t end there. We have been at war, cold or otherwise, since then. I think the American people are tired of war – I know that I am. I could use a rest from our kids being in danger somewhere all the time. Besides, we’re running out of money. If the MIC wants to fight, let them send their kids and their money.
I voted for Obama in the primary. I sent money to, and ferried voters to the polls for, Barack Obama in the general.
I was conned. The Corporatist Trojan Horse fooled me. I admit it. Your problem is that either you refuse to admit it or you are a corporatist yourself, for if you still support Obama, you support corporatism. Period.
I swear. Democrats are worse than Republicans to the likes of me. I KNOW Republicans are my enemies. I know where they are coming from. It’s Democrats who smile at me, shake my right hand, and pick my pocket of my life savings to give to the corporations with their left hand.
I truly hope I live to see the day the Democratic Party is relegated to history. I’ll throw an “It’s dead and I’m alive and I like it that way” party just like I did when Reagan died.
the means justify the end…
only for the winners.
peas!
But this isn’t about Obama hate. Oh, no, no, no!
I can see why many people would be fatigued by the number of wars that have been fought in recently history — from WWII, through the Cold War, Iraq and Afghanistan… even the Balkans. It’s a common thought that I was didn’t exist, because I truly believe that humanitarian intervention is necessary in the modern era.
I wish everybody would be of the opinion that a few bad wars doesn’t spoil the truly worthwhile interventions and less-than-interventions. A lot of people, including the left, have worked incredibly hard to legitimize humanitarian intervention in response to crises and human rights abuses. We are just now reaping the benefits of all that hard word — HI, namely under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, is becoming an entrenched idea in international politics. I would hate for “war fatigue” and a bad recession to wipe all of that away, because the left has decided to run as fast as they can back towards isolationism.
Don’t play stupid.
EUCOM is a natural extension of a now unnecessary vast military presence in Europe to potentially defend it from attack by a Soviet Union that imploded in 1989 and ceased to be a threat.
AFRICOM was created to further U.S. imperialist designs on Africa in service to the objectives of U.S. multinational corporations.
OldFatGuy, Mason, Twain, and OhioGringo!!!
So very good to see you all here.
OFG, I happened to read your “frying pan” diary the other day, and enjoyed it immensely.
I suspect such a moment may, or may not, befall those who suggest that we are not concerned with the real plight of other human beings … but stand by the necessity of the Rule of Law.
DW
In other words, yes, the existence of AFRICOM proves that the US wishes to foment long-term military engagement in Africa. The same goes for EUCOM, because it’s a combat command like AFRICOM. Let’s take this to its logical conclusion. The US has combat commands in every region on earth. The goal here is to World War III, so that multinational corporations can benefit from American imperialist wars.
Can we please agree that you are bordering on conspiracy theory, if not already crossing the line?
Let’s see…invading a country, waging a massive bombing campaign, instigating civil unrest, conducting a years-long occupation, and installing a puppet government; sending 100 troops to help capture or kill a murderous fugitive from the ICC.
Yeah, I can see the similarity.
You might want to look that one up.
I do not hate Obama. I do not hate anyone.
I feel sorry for him because he is so screwed up. But he does not have the right or the consent of we the people to screw up our lives for his corporate overlords.
He has a terrible karmic price to pay and if our laws and criminal justice system were working, he would spend the rest of his life behind bars for his crimes.
Thanks DW.
Heh, could you tell that when I wrote that short story (I wrote in 2009 I think) that I was still a fan of Obama’s??
Boy how things have changed.
Or rather, they haven’t. Which of course is the problem.
Always good to see your fonts DW, and my apologies if my tone is unsettling. I don’t react very well to being called a child murderer and rapist.
Hmm, let’s see:
1) Congress approved Iraq
2) It was multilateral
3) It removed thugs that were brutalizing thousands if not millions.
1) You claim Congress approved Africa
2) You claim it is multilateral
3) You claim it’s purpose is to remove thugs that are brutalizing thousands of people.
You’re right. Nothing alike whatsoever. Completely different.
My bad.
Nope.
C’mon. Now you’re just messin’ with us, aren’t you?
The conflation of “isolation” with the conviction that war only begets further war, given our nation’s history of imperialism and genocide which many seem to be unwilling to acknowledge, is not encouraging in a worlsd where whatever moral high-ground this nation may pretend to claim is but the quicksand of hubris and cultural conceit.
To suggest that those of us who resist the too ready call to arms are ignorant of what is happening elsewhere would be laughable were it not so clearly an attempt to shout down dissent and embrace the doctine that might is right.
If this action by Obama is as honorable as we are being told, why then, did he not bring it to the people, as earlofhuntidon suggests @ 136?
I have seen no answer to this comment nor any apparent consideration of its most serious implications.
Nope.
BTW, I’m a former criminal defense lawyer and law professor.
Now see? Right there’s your problem. You’re the one who thinks these two things are indistinguishable from one another. I’m the one who can see differences between them.
Trying to flip our positions so that I’m the absolutist would be a cheap bit of sophistry. Good thing neither of us would ever think of trying that.
The plans were posted on the White House website a year ago. I imagine he didn’t make a huge issue of it because 100 military support personnel is hardly worth a Presidential primetime address.
All right. Let me be perfectly clear. Forget Africa. Fix the East 185th Street underpass so Afro-Americans and whiteys like me who live in this neighborhood can get to and from I-90 without driving a few miles out of our way first. Give my neighbors living wage jobs first. Give my wife, myself, and my kids good health CARE, NOT insurance, first, for friggin’ free after we, you, and the rich bastards have all paid our fair share of taxes first.
Offer good quality education through at least the bachelor’s degree level FREE first to every American.
Bring our troops home from the imperial wars in Iraq and Afghanistan first. Nationalize the Wall Street banks first. Repeal the so-called free trade agreements first. End poverty in the richest country the world has ever seen first. At least make a START at that!
Let’s have some humanitarian intervention in America by the United States Government first. Then we can talk about high-minded interventions in other parts of the world.
If that’s fair weather humanitarianism, so be it. That’s where I stand.
I find your priorities dangerously mixed up.
Well, with that sort of education and experience in argumentation, I’m sure you can detect the discordant note that your “don’t-demean-us, you’re-naive” post strikes.
There ya go.
I don’t prioritize Uganda over the United States. I see no reason why the US government cannot conduct domestic and foreign policy at the same time. Last time I checked, we were. You aren’t angry about domestic vs. foreign policy priorities. You’re angry about the inability or unwillingness of Congress to spend money things like infrastructure, healthcare and education. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can end this domestic-foreign false dichotomy.
Can’t wait to hear some members of Congress’ reaction to this.
If they come out and say no, the bill they voted on did NOT authorize the use of military force, then, well, you know. They were the ones actually making the law.
I’m sure that won’t matter either though. Whatever O does is always so righteous and good that anyone even questioning it should have their speech privileges taken away.
And then when an R President does similar actions those same hypocrites will once again be yelling at the top of thier lungs about how wrong and horrible it is to send US troops into harms way without first consulting Congress.
Good times ahead. Pass the popcorn. Don’t miss the biggest reality show of them all “We’re hypocrites and we’re proud of it.” Coming soon to your local news program. Check times and listings for your area.
I see. You were calling him a liar in a loving way. Got it.
I’ve the same reaction, OFG.
And, truth to tell, I’m amazed that TBogg feels he can behave as he did today, with total and complete impunity.
Ad hominem and ad bacculum attacks are not what I would associate with FDL front-pagers, especially when commenting on the threads of others. It was quite an education. An eye-opener, in fact, and presages, I should imagine, some very contentious and unpleasant times ahead, unfortunately.
DW
What grade are you in?
Because if you can’t see the hypocrisy in claiming there’s no money for helping US citizens in a time of depression but there’s plenty of money to implement any and all military excursions all around the world then you must not yet have graduated high school.
Either we have money or we don’t. You can’t claim there’s all sorts of money to spend on the military and bailing out banks but there’s no money to spend on unemployment extensions. That’s bullshit.
I would say that it is very much worth that bully pulpit address. And I am not alone in my concerns about executive over-reach.
Barack Obama and EVERY president, works for “the people” and his or her primary obligation is, first, to the Constitution, and second, to the people.
You may think differently and you are welcome to your thoughts, however the rule of law supports my postion.
What, precisely, supports yours?
DW
No, he was calling him a liar because he’s lied and lied and lied.
Man I have to wonder how you guys get your clothes on in the morning.
You sound like you have inside information, or at least talking points.
I do not know what you imagine or do not imagine and I do not care to know, but anytime a president of the United States sends armed soldiers into a foreign country with orders to capture or kill someone without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment, I damn well want to know about it so that I can take action to demand that president resign or be impeached.
And I do not give a damn if that president is a Republican, Democrat, Independent, or Other.
No president is above the law, ever.
I’m NOT trying to flip any positions.
I’ll try to explain it slowly. Try and keep up.
Iraq was in a lot of ways exactly like this misadventure. Iraq had Congress’ approval, you claim this has Congress’ approval. Iraq was multilateral, you claim this is multilateral. Iraq removed thugs that were terrorizing large populations of people, this is about removing thugs that are terrorizing large populations of people.
Yet you support one (when a Democratic President does it) and oppose the other (when a Republican President does it).
That’s what a hypocrite does. Here’s a link for you to look it up if you want to.
Why is it worthy of a primetime address? The US sends military personnel as advisers to many places in the world. I feel that the only reason this has caused so much harrumphing is because of the term “combat-ready” being equated with “going into combat.” They’re combat-ready because they’re going into a place where it’s possible that they’ll have to defend themselves. Not because the plan is to engage in military action.
But what’s the alternatives to sending combat-ready personnel? I’ll tell you. The alternatives are (a) sending in nobody, (b) sending in defenseless personnel, or (c) going full-scale intervention. Option A is completely antithetical to what the left supposedly wants. Option C would be politically toxic, as it would indeed be “another war.” Option B would be plain stupid, because what happens if they are fired upon?
FDL-types don’t want A or C. Neither do they want combat-ready personnel in there. I’m assuming you guys don’t want B, either, because that’s a recipe for disaster. So what the hell do you guys want?
Old Fat Guy writes: Iraq was authorized by Congress
No, it wasn’t. Read the authorization, which made military action conditional upon a good faith attempt by the President to exhaust all other remedies. Bush didn’t do that, and further ducked authorization for the action from the UN (he knew how that’d turn out!). You may recall that UN inspectors were in Iraq, and on the brink of certifying complicity with UN dictates on destruction of WMD stocks. Remember? They were that close– but of course were pulled from the country when Dubya invaded.
Re your 2 and 3, I’ll be brief: Bullshit. (2) is incorrect for the reasons cited above, and your (3) ignores the fact that Dubya carpet bombed the country, killing non-combatants by the hundreds of thousands (it wasn’t about taking out a single thug or thugs, obviously).
Again: Deeply, deeply dishonest, and worse is the fact that you are absolutely shameless about it.
Apparently not Mason.
Apparently, and I think I’m understanding this correctly, if you’re a Republican and the President is a Republican, then the President is indeed above the law. Likewise it seems, if you’re a Democrat, and the President at least claims to be a Democrat, then the President is indeed above the law.
Otherwise you support the killing and raping of children. Cause those mean ‘ole Republicans won’t approve anything for Obama so he must do it himself laws be damned.
Sad but accurate description of the times we’re living in.
Had you told me that 5 years ago I would’ve called you a liar, but I can’t deny what I’m seeing with my own four eyes. Yes, Virginia, Democrats are just as IOKIYAD as Republicans are IOKIYAR.
Amazing.
Priorities.
The only thing dishonest and shameful is this entire post full of bullshit.
I don’t know how you can post that shit and keep a straight face.
Congress voted to authorize the use of force. It was a coalition of the willing, which really meant US and Britian, but that’s TWO and that makes it multilateral, and Saddam Hussein did in fact brutalize his own people and the Republicans used that as an excuse for that war too.
Just like in this case.
I wish I had inside information. Unfortunately, I’m just an undergrad IR student, working part-time in a fast food restaurant. (P.s. Obama Admin — I’d love to be a clandestine blog commenter, if you’re hiring any!)
But, seriously. You are just assuming that this is all unauthorized. Nobody here has yet to prove it. Here’s the timeline of this whole thing:
5/23/2010: President Obama signs relevant law passed by Congress. The law authorizes military support in Uganda. You can read it by following the link in the OP.
11/24/2010: President Obama delivers a plan on moving forward in providing military support in Uganda, in case negotiations don’t work out. This is pursuant to the law’s requirement that the President deliver such a plan within 180 days of the law’s passing.
10/14/2011: President Obama send military support personnel to Uganda, per the plan submitted to Congress, again as required by the relevant law.
So, please, spare us the constitutional outrage. This is not a war. These are not combat operations. These are not even hostilities. This is an action that anybody could see was in the works for more than year, if they ever bothered to look.
Try and keep your own self up. There are similarities. There are also differences (invasion, bombs, occupation, factional divides…any of this ringing a bell?).
Your position is absolutist: These things are indistinguishable! My position is not.
This.
Do you understand due process?
Do you understand the Rule of Law?
Mason has told you that he is a lawyer. He is an exceptionally knowedgable lawyer.
I am well-versed in Constitutional Law, although I am NOT an attorney.
We want exactly what you should want, what the Constitution demands and sets forth.
I ask you again, Dylan, what, PRECISELY, in legal terms, supports your perspective that allows Barack Obama to do as he has done?
The Constitution is VERY specific as to who, precisely, AND soley, has the power to declare war and to place, in action, warlike behaviors. That power CANNOT be legally abrogated.
What specific legal ground do you stand upon?
If you cannot answer that question, then you are seriously misunderstanding what is going on, and have NOTHING to justify your position except the contention that presidential over-reach is okay … if a president does it, which is the argument Nixon made … and LOST, as will Barack Obama, as should Bush/Cheney have done before him.
It is the Rule of Law which is in contention,here, Dylan, nothing less.
What is your legal justification, is it John Yoo’s? Jay Bybee’s and David Addington’s?
The Rule of Law, Dylan.
DW
Yes, unfortunately. That is an accurate description of most Republicans and Democrats.
The Rule of Law must apply equally to everyone, without exception, and this is no longer the case. There is no hope for our republic, our democracy, and our nation unless we restore faith in equal justice under law.
As I’ve said many times before, Ma’at and the Golden Rule must be restored or we shall increasingly accelerate into chaos.
Ooooh, perfessor takes one to the noggin!
DH scores a technical knockout.
Of course your position is things are different.
Otherwise how could you possibly support one and not the other??
It’s how you justify in your mind the hypocrisy.
I and others aren’t buying the bullshit though.
Readers can make up their own mind whether supporting a Democratic President when he/she sends troops into harms way supposedly for humanitarian reasons but oppose a Republican President when he/she sends troops into harms way supposedly for humanitarian reasons is hypocritical or not.
In my view it is. In your view it isn’t. I suspect there will be many readers who will agree with me and many who agree with you.
But there can only be an absolute reading of laws. Either you’re a country of the rule of law or you’re not. There can be no “the means justifies the ends” to break this law or that law or otherwise you are no longer a country of the rule of law you are a country of the rule of men, who decide what is and isn’t legal.
I opposed the Iraq war because IMO it was against international law. I opposed Libya (even though I would’ve supported that mission and said so here many times and got grief for it) because the Constitution is clear that CONGRESS must declare war. Not the President. And by attacking a soveriegn nation, Obama declared war.
And I oppose this one (though I may be convinced it too is a good mission, I don’t know yet) because no President, a Republican OR a Democratic one, should have the authority to send troops into harms way anywhere he wants, anytime he wants, and against whoever he wants. Congress should be consulted and approve it.
And I’ll say again, there’s a difference between military SUPPORT and military FORCE. The Congress approved SUPPORT, not the use of FORCE. Support is supplies, logistical support, intelligence, and sometimes training. It’s indirect. These troops were sent there to engage an enemy. So, IMO, that warrants Congress’ explicit approval.
I think it will be interestins to see what members of Congress say over the coming weeks in response to questions about this. They are the ones that made the law, and if they that law did NOT include the use of direct military force then I stand vindicated. If they say military force was implied even though not explicitly stated then I will be wrong, again, and will admit it.
Old Fat Guy writes: The only thing dishonest and shameful is this entire post full of bullshit
Brilliant riposte. You gonna read the authorization as I suggested, or just keep being deliberately obtuse?
Right, why’d I ask.
No, not even a semantic “tag”.
Your “handle” describes your “position” quite sufficiently.
You may not like what is being said but it is the truth of the Constitutional crisis this nation is sinking, miserably, within.
Barack Obama has merely extended Bush/Cheney … and that is the truth you embrace, apparently, quite happily.
I do not, cannot, and will not.
And, if your “side” of this contention” should “win”, then, I assure you, we all shall lose.
Be very careful what you happily embrace and endorse, for it will bite you, very hard, in the end … gunsbeforebutter.
Huh?
what, PRECISELY, in legal terms, supports your perspective that allows Barack Obama to do as he has done?
The US hasn’t actually declared war since WWII, in case you haven’t noticed, but has committed troops to various places many, many times since then, with and without the Congress’ approval.
So I’d cite simple precedent: the fact that every President before him has done it. Every single one.
You’re conflating “send troops into harm’s way” with “declare war.” I’ll grant that the line between the two is a contentious issue, but you can’t simply insist they’re the same thing. The Constitution says the President is commander and in charge of foreign affairs and that only Congress can declare war. There’s tons of room inbetween. That’s why we have the War Powers Resolution.
Let me give credit where credit is due.
David Dayen way up top in his article discussed the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) and the limitations on a president’s authority to wage war under the War Powers Act.
Barack Obama’s argument that he did not involve our military in a war in Libya is absurd on its face. It’s so absurd, in fact, that it fails the straight face test.
The same is true regarding his claim that he has the absolute legal authority to order the assassination of anyone anywhere in the world at anytime whom he deems to have been involved in or materially supporting terrorism.
Yes, and the same is true regarding his insertion of 100 armed troops with instructions to capture or kill Joseph Kony that soon will be followed by yet another insertion of 100 troops within a month.
Our president is out of control violating the law flagrantly and lying about his motives.
We must and we shall stop him.
That does not make it right and it is long past time to put an end to this unlawful and unconstitutional practice.
There ya go. That’s it? That’s all you’ve got? Pathetic. So who pays for your basement, Quaker? Mummy? Daddy? A trust fund? How much wealth do you have so that you can be so comfortable as to sit in judgment over the rest of us? I already said what mine was up thread when I asked another Obamacrat the same question, which he didn’t answer.
I suspect you won’t, either. At least I admit what my vested economic interests are. Come on, at least be as honest as the Ayn Rand types and do the same.
But you won’t. Latte’ liberals never do. So predictable. So sickening.
Obama’s actions violate the War Powers Resolution because he cannot credibly claim that he is defending our nation from attack.
That does not make it right and it is long past time to put an end to this unlawful and unconstitutional practice.
Since war isn’t being declared, the action is neither illegal nor unconstitutional. That was my point: Mere presence of troops, even combat doesn’t constitute war, and never has.
As to its “rightness”, well, that’s another argument. Were we not talking about legality?
However, since you feel that it’s not right, then I’d suggest running for Congress and introducing legislation to make it illegal as well as not right, or lobby the hell out of your congressional representives to do so. Simple, huh? Shouldn’t be too tough–
Tell me, Chris, were you in any of those “non wars”, did you oppose any of those “non wars”?
Bad precedent begets worse precedent.
Even worse is “non-precedent precedent” such as Bush v. Gore.
How did THAT “precedent” strike you?
Do you happen to know the rather lengthy history which has led to the unitary presidency? It began with the use of atomic weaponry.
Do you even care, Chris? Did you agree with attacking Iraq, a country which did us no harm, at all?
Your answer is both flippant and uninformed. However, carry on, let us see how far you are willing to push lawless agression. Merely ponder the possibility that there will be consequence, even for a moment.
There will be a consequence, and I am guessing that you are younger than I, so that means that you will experience far more of the consequence, just keep that wee thought in mind.
Nope. Read my subsequent comments.
Bullshit.
Wasn’t someone taking a somewhat dim view of ad hominem arguments a while ago? Guess that’s all over now. Anyway, I thought you weren’t interested in Africa anymore.
So, you imagine that those on the “receiving end ” do not experience war, simply because we refuse to call it such?
Consider consequence.
Consider that America WILL be brought to account. For it will.
One way or another.
Our actions do not occur in a vacuum, there will be reactions and there will be a time of accounting … even for the “good Americans” who simply “went along” … that day will come and those who sit in judgment will be little impressed with semantic evasion.
It is utmost hubris to “believe” or imagine that such a day will not come.
It always does, Chris, always …
DW and OG,
Been a pleasure working together. We make a good team.
Namaste.
And Good Night.
What can I say? Hunting season is coming. Thought I’d get in some easy practice with Obamabots. If I’m feeling really lazy, I go to Political Wire and play with both Obamabots AND Republicans. At least the Republicans are more honest about where they are coming from. If I’m feeling ambitious, I’ll go to some other sites and take on hardcore Communists.
They’re more educated and tend to know their stuff. I have to have all of my little duckies in a row to tangle with them, though it is fun watching them contort in order to defend Stalin and the Soviet Union.
Always a pleasure, Mason.
Namaste
DW
You’d think, by now, they would write off Stalin and the Soviet Union and look to the future …
By the way, I read your Visigoth piece.
Superb stuff, indeed.
Much appreciated.
;~DW
Ah, but you didn’t answer the question, did you? Besides, I never brought up ad hominem arguments myself. I merely pointed out poor debating tactics, which you are still using.
You want to talk personal attacks? Well, when my livelihood is threatened, and my family’s security is threatened, I take that personally. If I have to take a chunk of your wealth from you by supporting a political movement that will do so in order to keep a roof over my family’s head, I’ll do it with a smile on my face.
As I said to another of your ilk up thread, stick that in your latte’ and sip it, liberal.
Doctrinaire types remain doctrinaire types, regardless of ideology. Thanks for your comment on the Visigoth piece; it’s one of my favorites.
This is an honest question, so I’ll try to phrase it as directly and non-adversarily as possible:
If Congress did explicitly authorize the use of military force in this instance, but did so only for the base reasons many of you cite above (oil, rare earths, etc.), would that make it okay?
Under what circumstances could Congress approve taking out JoKo that would meet both the constitutional *and* ethical strictures people are insisting upon? Because I’m having trouble figuring out how anyone ticks all the boxes here.
The Rigid Orthodoxy of Cant … The addictive attraction of jargon … ah yes, OG, such ones I have encountered in my three-score and four …
Well, sharing your deep and abiding interest in history, I look forward with great anticipation to anything you might choose to share, in future.
To you, as well, I bid …
Namaste
DW
Bartoo wonders: Tell me, Chris, were you in any of those “non wars”, did you oppose any of those “non wars”?
No, and yes, respectively. What’s your point? Inasmuch as you’re concerned about my age, I can report that I was teargassed in MacArthur Park protesting the Vietnam war (I was the one carrying a bucket of wet handkerchiefs; we’d had run-ins wth the LAPD before). Nevertheless, I fail to see what this has to do with the instant case.
Even worse is “non-precedent precedent” such as Bush v. Gore.
Not sure what point you’re trying to make, but if you’re citing the Supremes’ lack of precedent for the decision in Bush v Gore, then I agree. It’s not only unprecedented, they further wrote in the opinion that it should not be cited as precedent for any future case (guess they knew they were on shaky ground). It was wrong, way wrong– in my opinion. Again, I fail to see what this case has to do with what we were talking about– perhaps your point is too subtle for me.
Do you even care, Chris? Did you agree with attacking Iraq, a country which did us no harm, at all?
Yes, and no, respectively. Upthread, I described Dubya’s invasion of Iraq as a monstrosity. You read it, and now I have to say it again. God I love saying things twice for the short attention spanners.
Re your nasty innuendo that I don’t care: You’re absurd.
So, you imagine that those on the “receiving end ” do not experience war, simply because we refuse to call it such?
Obviously it depends on whether they are non-combatants. Again, if you fail to see a difference between the current effort in Africa and Dubya’s twin invasions and complete screwover of both countries, which Obama is currently in the slow and painful process of extricating us from, then I very much doubt that I could make you see it.
You’d have to be honest, and I’m afraid I simply don’t see that happening.
Bartoo again: Consider consequence
Were you under the impression that the Lord’s Resistance Army enjoys some sort of popularity in Africa, and that the status of the US will therefore suffer from lending a hand to their eradication? They are after all, by all accounts, primarily bullies in fatigues.
Very interesting thread and thought provoking for me. Looking at just the legal basis for sending in the military, I thought the War Powers Resolution essentially gave the President carte blanche to wage war for up to 60 days. A lot of damage can be done in 60 days but still, 60 days isn’t 10 years. Grenada, Kosovo could be done in 60 days, Iraq couldn’t. Mason, your post here and @252 clarifies much for me. Thank you.
You just made his point. If an R does it, it’s bad, and you quite rightfully pillory it. If a D does it, well, a D now, when YOU are in no danger of being drafted and sent Over There, then it’s Righteousness Incarnate.
Don’t you get it? There is no significant difference between the Democratic and Republican parties anymore. Or, as Gore Vidal said, “America does not have two political parties, only one, with two right wings.”
Wake up, man! It is an economy and a political system based on the profit motive which is the enemy, not DW Bartoo, or me, or even the LRA. If you think that our socioeconomic system SHOULD be governed by the profit motive, even a regulated one, then I am your enemy.
I am a democratic socialist. At least you know where I stand. The problem with liberals is that nobody knows where they stand, not even themselves, because their Cause of the Day changes on a daily basis. The draft: Nixon is evil! The draft is no more: Nixon’s OK! The Equal Rights Amendment. Well, we really don’t need the ERA. Affirmative Action. Anti-Reverse Discrimination. No Nukes. Nuclear energy is greenhouse gas free. Save the Whales. Except for the Eskimos. Pro-Choice. Let’s make abortion safe, legal and rare. Anita Hill. Monica Lewinski. Anti-NAFTA. NAFTA. Save Welfare. Welfare Reform. Tax the rich. Tax cuts for the rich.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. What a steaming pile of excrement that is! Talk about the camel’s nose under the tent!
And then liberals are so HURT when both real conservatives and real leftists despise them.
Like your feelings are important. They’re not. My standard of living is important. My neighbor’s unemployment is important.
Power is important. Your feelings aren’t. Your bourgois sentiments about civility are not. They’re just illusions.
Crap. Obama could have had us out of both countries in a matter of months if he had wanted to do that. He didn’t. No, he didn’t promise he would do that, but he DID promise we’d be out of Iraq by now.
We ain’t. Because Obama lied. Surprise, surprise.
Our actions do not occur in a vacuum, there will be reactions and there will be a time of accounting … even for the “good Americans” who simply “went along”
Godwin’s Law, isn’t it called?
Well, this has been fun. Thank you, David Dayen, for starting all of this with your very thoughtful article. Thank you, OFG, DW, Masoninblue, Forest, and others I am no doubt overlooking for thoughtful commentary. And, last and least, thank YOU, Obamacrats, for displaying your hypocrisy for all the world to see.
Good night. And good luck.
Ohio Gringo writes, in defense of his contention that this is all about the political afiliation of who’s getting their war on: The draft: Nixon is evil
Oh for Christ’s sake. Brief history reminder: LBJ.
Did you forget his role in the escalation? He was a democrat and we thought he was wrong. Any other completely ahistorical statements, or you wanna cut your losses?
Crap. Obama could have had us out of both countries in a matter of months if he had wanted to do that
Saner heads realize that this is like unringing a bell. Dubya put both countries into complete ungovernable chaos, and Obama is thus faced with the decision of whether to cut and run, leaving them in this state, which kinda means a destabilized middle east, or to try to put humpty back together again. Is that so hard to understand?
Obama set forth plans for both countries, and while I agree that it’s taking forever, he’s on schedule for both. Don’t call him a liar again without citing the statement you feel is a lie, please.
Incidentally, noted philosopher Thomas Chong commented on Dubya’s work years ago that tweakers are great at taking things apart, but never can put ‘em back together again. Lotta work!
Don’t you get it? There is no significant difference between the Democratic and Republican parties anymore.
It’s clearheaded thinking like this that imagined no difference between Al Gore and Goerge W Bush, and put the latter into the White House.
Thanks again, Ralph!
It was the Supreme Court that put Bush into the White House. That it was the voters fault is an old canard.
A big difference between 2000 and now is that it IS clear that the Democrats are colluding with Republicans, against the 99%, in the policies they pass. The difference between the two evils in “the lesser of two evils” has gotten miniscule.
For Pete’s sake. Here. Here’s the strategy the White House published nearly a year ago, including diplomatic, humanitarian, and military assistance. Educate yourself.
Well, count me as convinced.
It was the Supreme Court that put Bush into the White House. That it was the voters fault is an old canard.
Don’t be silly. This is like arguing over which senator cast “the deciding vote”. Obviously, it’s bullshit. Each action is contributory.
If you’re a Nader supporter trying to wash away your contribution to the destruction, you can’t. You are to blame for the Bush presidency, and don’t you forget it.
I didn’t think I was being silly and I don’t understand what you mean by the rest of that sentence. The next sentence too – I didn’t vote for Nader, but if I had, I hope I wouldn’t feel guilty for it.
I didn’t think I was being silly and I don’t understand what you mean by the rest of that sentence.
Sorry, let me flesh it out a bit. It is true that the candidacy of Ralph Nader attracted votes that would in all probability have gone to Al Gore. If Nader had not been a candidate, or preferably, had said in advance of the general election that he supported Al Gore, throwing his votes to him,this would not have been so.
Okay so far?
It is also true that that the election tally was so close in Florida that we had to endure the intervention of the Supreme Court. Which delivered a legal opinion that years from now will be regarded as the craziest thing the court ever said. I guarantee it.
Anyway, two actions, each of which contributed to the result of Dubya in the White House (Of course there’s more- the press was extrememly nasty to Gore, for example– that is also contributory).
You may not say that either of them was not contributory. And I think you erred when you did just that– by saying that, no, it was not the voters, it was the Supremes.
Nader supporters, and I apologise for carelessly constructing the sentence to imply that you are one, went to their beds on election night basking in the warm glow of it all, and said to themselves, well, whoever is elected, I didn’t vote for him. I consider this an act of cowardice.
To them I can only ask, next time, stand up and be counted, for the good of the country; not your self-esteem.
No one does a better job exposing the weakness of Obama’s supporters then they do themselves.
When Obama is gone, what will be left of our rule of law?
Cain or Romney?
No one does a better job exposing the weakness of Obama’s supporters then they do themselves
Example?
Bush enabled worse crimes in a future president and so has obama. With obama’s second term we will likely see a stronger outlaw executive and subsequently enabled a far worse criminal in the WH will follow him.
This isn’t about Obama hate as a few shallow fellows would call it. They know who they are and should be ashamed. And don’t mistake these comments as a once off or momentary slip, we’ve been hearing some of them repeat the same nonsense for some time.
Not obama hate, but love of country. That is what this is about.
It seems to be pissing in the wind to try and explain it to them but I know that isn’t the only reason we talk these things out.
It’s for love of country that we would so passionately defend it. What do the o-supporters at all costs defend though? Is it love of country, their fellow American, what America could be? No. They defend obama. Do they love him? I very much doubt that. The best of those shallow souls may consider him in a most pragmatic way, but it is inferior, their support. We are supposed to strive to be a nation of laws but they have put a man first and above the law. It’s far worse than just being hypocritical and it’s far worse than just being un-American. It’s a surrender of our very liberty to put a man above the law. And I realize I may sound a lil silly, but I mean it. They deserve open ridicule and contempt those excuse multipliers.
Is there anything they wouldn’t say for obama?
There are many you could have already observed in this discussion but you aren’t ready to listen.
Yes.
Do you control the privatized and insecure vote counting?
How do you yourself know your vote will be counted for whom you intend?
Have you observed the vote counting and seen all the ways there are to steal an election? If you haven’t officially observed, then I very much would recommend you do so.
I only can hope that r’s pick their very best candidate because obama has a record now.
I live in Oregon.
Oregon is Vote-by-Mail.
Ballets arrive very early.
Check for yourself the record of “voter fraud” in Oregon. Shit, check election fraud in Oregon.
Republicans hate our system.
p.s. Where do you live? Do you have vote-by-mail? If not, what are you doing about that?
Is there anything they wouldn’t say for obama?
Well they wouldn’t say what you said. You sound like an evangelical.
But you haven’t answered my question, have you?
There are many you could have already observed in this discussion but you aren’t ready to listen.
Yeah, that’s why I asked, grasshopper, because I’m not ready to listen. Seriously, how about you knock off the bullshit and simply answer the question.
Run, forest. Run.
“But the American government did NOT intervene in Rwanda.”
I think that was my point.
“For that matter, why are you so righteously indignant about this, but not so much about the declining standards of living of your fellow American citizens? What about OUR poor, OUR homeless, OUR destroyed lives right here in the USA?”
How do you know that I’m not? Seriously, non sequitur much?
We have mail in as well in WA. You are not doing yourself any favors by not educating yourself on the actual vote counting which you can observe, no?
There’s a lot that happens on the way to a vote being “counted” I’m sorry to tell you.
Actually, Chris, I needed sleep. You are clearly not someone I want to have a discussion with. It’s not my life’s work to reach out to all ignorant folk the likes of you who just aren’t ready to hear. I certainly have tried that, beat my head against a wall trying to work within the Dem party but the time for that has past at least for now and any foreseeable by me future.
I think you should stay away from OWS, those folks would burst your lil bubble.
If you want to work within the Dem party to watch the needs of your fellow Americans ignored, then I recommend you not wait, because now is a great time to have your grassroot burned. They’re looking for people like you and I for one hope you actually do show up because you are doing my work for me, a force multiplier you’d be.
So, please, and I am not kidding here, keep up the good work.
Here’s video from the BBC on young American activists working to raise awareness of the child soldiers of Uganda. Interestingly, the video includes an appearance by Russ Feingold.
Moan, moan, moan.
Again, you prove my point. Listen, Chris, I have things to do before I head out to OWS again today. Do you think you can handle me walking away from the conversation again or are you going to continue to prove my point?
It’s hard to know when someone is a true o-supporter versus a righty antagonist so I’ll probably see through you in another discussion.
Missing the point entirely and it’s unsurprising the suggested appeal to authority. I don’t have time to watch right now but did ol’ Russ suggest the evil could be cleaned up with 100?
At your leisure. Until then, you can just keep pretending you know what you’re talking about. And if bringing up Feingold is “appeal to authority,” I suggest you take it up with our host.
I have things to do before I head out to OWS again today
Don’t forget to hydrate, especially if you wanna knock down that hangover.
Seriously? You all pile on on Tbogg and this is considered a reasonable comment?
Superfly?! The racial connotations boggle the mind.
So let’s unbundle our shorts, shall we, and take a good look in the mirror.
Seriously disgusting, this post.
Sorry to be very late to this party, but thanks to DB for directing me here.
First, kudos to David for an excellent piece which has for sure stirred up the mixture. Here’s my two cents.
In the best of all possible worlds the knight would ride in on his pure white charger and save the damsel in distress. That was the thrust of the Crusades. Noble aspirations (with a bit of loot on the side). That goes along with this comment by one of the posters above, Dylan H I think it was:
“You’re trying to say that this is all about oil or some other ulterior motive. That is probably part of it. But so what? We get rid of some genocidal maniacs and end up with more vital resources. This is nothing new to people who study international relations. There have always been incentives beyond the warm fuzzy feeling for engaging in humanitarian missions, whether they be simply advisory roles or full-on military intervention.”
Incentives. Beyond the warm fuzzy feeling. Realpolitique, I think it is called.
Let’s just pause for a moment and ask, as I think is being asked by many who question this linkage, who in the world right now would be happy to have this country with these motives take an interest in ‘helping’ them right now after all we have been doing to ‘help’ people in the first years of this new century?
Take the blinders off and look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Look at what we have been doing there, are still doing there. Helping? If that’s help, please don’t bring it to my home town.
I can’t understand why the advocators for intervention in Africa would not be able to see how very tainted any offer of help from this country, from its present leaders is in the eyes of the world’s people. We have spread a contagious reliance upon the machinery of war in the ‘interest’ of ‘saving’ this or that peoples from this or that tyrant, and we have wreaked havoc upon civilian populations, destroyed their infrastructure, ruined their environments. We have no idea the harm we have done, apparently, even yet.
WE ARE TOXIC.
Wake up, dear people. We are not the world’s salvation. They, instead, are ours. And our young people know it. They saw the brave people in the Middle East, and it gave them hope when they were so discouraged by Obama’s failures. They now are attempting to get us back our stature, our credibility within the international community; that is what we must be engaged in, not ‘saving’ anyone. We can’t do it – our treasure is spent! We are in debt!
It is time for a little humility; it is time to repair. When we are knights again, when we have put on our democratic armor and have something to be proud of, we will work with people through the United Nations and the international court to make a better world and resist injustice and the plagues and horrors invented by unjust violent men. That’s realpolitique we can all believe in.
juliania, I was going to comment in similar vein, but once again I find you have preceded me and done an admirable job. So, I’ll just say: Rule of Law.
Wow, I really have to rethink my hope for reforming the D party back to it’s FDR roots.
The level of stoopid exhibited in this thread by all these D apologists can only be matched by the stoopid of the right and their Republican Party.
Sigh.
Guess third party is our only hope. Too bad too. The Democratic Party really did used to be a decent party. Until the stoopid took over.
OOps! I forgot . . .
OWOTUS (Oil Whore Of The United States)
Oh, and more of the “It’s the Nader voters fault we got Bush” GIANT STUPID being displayed.
Wow.
Fact. Gore WON. Let me repeat. FACT: GORE WON. Gore won FLORIDA. Gore WON the Presidency.
Even WITH all the Nader votes, even with all the Buchanan votes, even with the millions of D voters that voted for Bush, GORE STILL WON.
The non-partisan newspaper assortium that reviewed the votes in Florida found GORE WON FLORIDA.
It wasn’t the Nader voters that decided to quit after the SCOTUS ruling. Mmmm, who’s fault was that???
Yeah, keep on blaming Nader voters idiots.
Oh yeah, and blame all of us not voting next year for Obama for the next Republican if a Republican wins too. Keep on showing off your stoopid.
The only way Bush won in 2000 and a Republican may win 2012 is if voters vote FOR them. If all the people in the country didn’t vote for Obama but also didn’t vote for the Republican than the Republican wouldn’t win. Ergo, the only way possible for the R to win is if someone votes FOR them. And that, Einstein, is who’s fault it will be if a Republican wins.
Math and logic aren’t strong points amont D apologists and Nader haters it seems.
Seriously, you pile on a “superfly” comment while defending someone that called anyone disagreeing with him sociopaths that supports killing and raping children??
Let’s unbundle our shorts, shall we, and take a look in the mirror.
Because between calling someone “superfly” and calling someone a sociopath that supports killing and raping children, well, they really aren’t in the same ballpark.
Go clutch your pearls somewhere else.