If Obama corrected all of the nonsense emanating from the MSM, then he would have no time for anything else ... whatsoever!

Besides, that's what we're here for, right!? :)

Killing OBL means republicans won't even bring it up.

It's not that they're going to bring up Afghanistan. It's that they're going to smear him as a liar over something completely spurious. They'll say he claimed to have invented Facebook, or some such. It will have legs because everyone "knows" he lied about having all the troops would be out by 2011.07.31.

CW [10]

You say Obama gave an iron-clad promise

Not seriously I don't. In [1] I say that everyone "knows" he gave a read-my-lips promise. In [6] I refer to it but forget to include the (sarcasm)(/sarcasm) tags. He said he was going to do basically what he did: have the number of troops peak on 2011.07.31 and then bring some home but no hint about how many. But the MSM circulated it as a promise to have them basically all out by that date, and he never made any known effort to correct them.

there's no national reserve for math teachers, but there does appear to be a battle underway for the hearts, minds and pocketbooks of parents. the ed-speculators are out in full force, pushing charters, vouchers, corporate control of public education, and of course even more standardized testing.

http://thebroadreport.blogspot.com/2010/02/connections-between-eli-broad-parent.html

It's a pretty good list...

The whole question kinda reminds me of the old-fashioned New York cop when questioned on what the definition of pornography is..

"I may not be able to define pornagraphy, but I sure as hell know it when I see it!!"

:D

My personal take is, if there are hostilities and the US is involved, either by way of command & control or by assets then the US is involved in hostilities..

The idea that it's NATO involved and NOT the US is redonkulus...

"And YOU.... are redonkulus!!"
-Puss 'n Boots, SHREK 4ever After

:D

NATO *IS* the US. Period.

NATO couldn't exist with the US and NATO doesn't take a dump unless the US OKs it...

So this idea that "it's NATO, not the US" is so much felgercarb...

Obama would have done himself a MUCH better service by simply saying the WPA is unconstitutional and he is not going to abide by it..

This idea that the WPA is constitutional but simply doesn't apply in the Libya TOP is simply a pathetic (and vane) attempt to have his cake and eat it too.

A man of Obama's oratory and loquacious skill SHOULD have come up with something better..

The fact that he felt he didn't even need to try is simply insulting...

Michale.....

what are Lefties going to say when a Republican president tries something like this? It's only fair to ask.

And you can bet it's going to happen...

If anything, Obama has given the Right the perfect excuse to completely ignore the WPA. Don't even pay it lip service.

Michale.....

Oh, I don't know, 18 months is a long time. By next year, Obama could conceivably be running on his "wartime record" -- "I got all our troops out of Iraq, we killed OBL and Ghaddafi, and we're safely getting our troops out of Afghanistan..."

That's pretty rosy-colored, I'll admit, but like I said, a year and a half is a long time to predict where things will be...

nypoet22 -

Break into the Strategic Math Teacher Reserve! Heh.

dsws [3]-

You know, I was largely agreeing with you up until the end. But now you've got me thinking technically.

If you define "hostilities" as "US soldiers could get killed" or maybe "US soldiers participating in hostilities" then things get dicey. Putting aside the initial phase (first 2-3 weeks), from what the media has reported, the US is involved in:

1 - refueling aircraft midair
2 - intelligence (satellite, AWACs, etc)
3 - intelligence on the ground (when they admitted the CIA was in-country)
4 - (assumed) out-of-theater support (ships, airbases, whatever)
5 - supplying NATO forces when necessary (laser-guided bombs)
6 - psyops (cracking into the Libyan military communications networks with propaganda saying "give up! abandon your leader!" etc)
7 - communications jamming
8 - drone overflights and missile attacks from drones

A lawyer could argue that 1 + 4 were participating in hostilities (fuelling jets and bombers about to attack), but only indirectly. 2 and 3 maybe not, although nobody precisely knows what those CIA/SpecialOps folks are exactly doing, do we? 5 is a little dicier, but could probably be filed with 1+3. I'm not sure 6 is the US, could be other NATO, the reports didn't say. 7 is somewhat hostile, but could be explained away.

That brings us to 8. Now, if you define "hostilities" as the possibility of US soldiers being injured, then this wouldn't qualify, as the drone operators are reportedly in places far away, like Nevada. BUT on the other hand, if you define "hostilities" as "the US shooting or bombing people" then I would think this definitely qualifies. When the drone operators see valid targets, they launch missiles. Yet another example of the advance of war technologies beyond our normal ability to pigeonhole them (I wrote awhile back about the strange places the robot war strategy is going to lead us all in...).

Food for thought, though.

Michale -

It's actually the Left and us Independents that are more insulted than the Right. The Right is going to be pissed at Obama no matter what.

And, as usual, I have to wonder how the Left would have reacted if Bush had tried something this pathetic...

This is (kind of) my point. (1) that the White House should have gotten a bit more (or maybe less) creative in ignoring the WPA -- use one of the tried-and-true methods other presidents have used, in other words, and (2) what are Lefties going to say when a Republican president tries something like this? It's only fair to ask.

Apart from the Libyan reality, just as a technical exercise, what do you think of my list above? How would you define number 8? Just curious.

dsws [8]-

Touché!

Yeah, you are entirely correct, I was just too lazy to look up Obama's quote. I thought I could skate this one by, but my eagle-eyed readers have caught me out once again. Mea culpa maxima!

:-)

As for the rest of it, I think I answered it above. And I did use "hostilities" elsewhere in the article, you've got to give me credit for that...

Here's the gauntlet right back at you, though. You say Obama gave an iron-clad promise... can you dig up a quote? From when he was sitting president, or just on the campaign trail (it would make a difference)?

BashiBazouk -

Excellent point about the terrorism issue. I guess you could add that to my first paragraph here (the possibility Obama will run on his war record).

-CW

Killing OBL did not do nearly enough for Obama. Bush got a buttload better bump for a lot longer when Hussein was cuff'ed and stuff'ed..

And what are the far left going to do about it? Vote republican?

That and that alone is the ONLY reason that many on the Left have to vote for Obama.

Which, as CW indicates above, is pretty pathetic in it's own right...

If the Right gets someone that is even remotely appealing to Joe Q Public, you can bet Americans will desert Obama in droves...

Michale....

Hay now!!

"And the ref takes a point away!!"
-Jim Carrey

:D

Michale.....

Killing OBL means republicans won't even bring it up. All Obama has to say: I wanted to get out early but I received information about OBL and well, we know how that turned out. And what are the far left going to do about it? Vote republican?

Libya is a dangerous game that I generally don't agree with constitutionally but will be brilliant if it works. What is the one thing every American knows about Libya? They are state sponsors of terrorism. OK, technically they officially got out of the terrorism game shortly after 911 but I don't think many remember that. I think Obama is goading the republicans in to making a big deal about it. If they do, added to killing OBL, the republicans loose the "T" word in the upcoming election season as well as no longer being seen as protectors of homeland against all threats real and imagined. Or he could be impeached. Hence the dangerous game.

Was it as pathetic as using quotation marks for an inaccurate paraphrase?

Heh, I guess that puts all Michale's quotes past and future in to question :D

Was it as pathetic as using quotation marks for an inaccurate paraphrase?

The word in both the Resolution and Obama's statement is "hostilities", not war. The question isn't whether the war is going on, but whether the US counts as "involved" in it by providing logistics, surveillance, search-and-rescue, and drone strikes. It's somewhat shaky, but not in the same universe with the statement that there's no war going on in Libya.

The truth of such an accusation doesn't matter. What matters is that it resonates with other accusations and doubts people have about the politician in question. People doubt the honesty of all politicians by default, and Obama's iron-clad promise to have the last US personnel leave Afghanistan on July 31 2011 has really painted him into a corner.

"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!!"
-Hillary Clinton, 2008

"Do you want to side with Col Qadaffi or do you want to side with the freedom-wanting people of Libya. Whose side are you on?"
-Hillary Clinton, 2011

Hillary is much more deserving of the MDDOTW Award, IMNSHO.. :D

Michale.....

Beyond the obvious, what really pisses me off about this latest Lack 'O Leadership indicator is that it simply insults the intelligence of the American People..

It's as if the White House is saying, "The American people are morons. They'll accept anything we say and LIKE it!!"

It's actually the Left and us Independents that are more insulted than the Right. The Right is going to be pissed at Obama no matter what.

And, as usual, I have to wonder how the Left would have reacted if Bush had tried something this pathetic...

Obama better hope and pray that there are no American casualties in his Libya "non" war... If there is, he is going to look like a complete and utter buffoon..

Michale.....

Then there's the other interpretation: The Resolution isn't an attempt by Congress to take away its own powers. It's an explanation of Congress's understanding of what those powers are. "Congress shall have the power to" really means "Congress shall not have the power to", at least according to Congress.

On that interpretation, the Resolution is perfectly constitutional. After all, Congress has the same right to expound hare-brained theories of Constitutional construction as anyone else does. But so what? There's no reason at all why anyone should pay any more attention to that "understanding" of the Constitution than to the chattering of any other pack of poorly-trained baboons.

Then there's the plausibly-separable question of imposing reporting requirements. The Resolution in full can be summed up as "'shall' means 'shall not', and by the way the president has to send Congress some paperwork when US forces are involved in certain hostilities". Even though presidents of both parties have rightly ignored the first part, the second part probably is still valid.

However, it's not clear to me that providing logistical and intelligence support for allies involved in hostilities would by itself be enough to constitute US involvement in the same same hostilities. Nor is it clear to me how far US involvement in the Libyan civil war extends beyond that, since the end of the 60-day reporting period. Media coverage tends to say that US and NATO forces did such-and-such, without saying what role the US played and what role the foreign forces played.

Even though the statements at the time included plenty of wiggle room, everyone "knows" that he made a read-my-lips promise to have absolutely all US forces out of Afghanistan by the end of next month. Republicans won't try to argue Afghanistan policy with him. Instead, they'll make up complete nonsense on which to call him a liar. The specific accusations will be implausible enough to leave the viewers of Fox News scratching their heads, but that won't matter. It will stick because everyone "knows" he said he would get out of Afghanistan by the end of July and then didn't.