Skip to comments.
President Reticent
National Review ^
| March 22, 2011
| Stanley Kurtz
Posted on 03/22/2011 11:13:07 AM PDT by Plutarch
Obama doesnt tell you what hes thinking. He keeps his motives to himself. Cherished long-term ideological goals are advanced as pragmatic fixes to concrete problems in the present. Now were seeing the familiar domestic pattern in foreign policy as well.
Few Americans realize that Obama has had a longstanding interest in multilateral efforts to combat war crimes and genocide. Obama would like to see a more constraining international legal regime on war crimes, even at the cost of national sovereignty, not to mention the blood and treasure of the countries doing the enforcing. In general, Obama has said little about his larger foreign policy goals. To the extent that he has done so, Obama seems more the realist than an advocate of humanitarian intervention.
Yet for years, Samantha Power, a prominent advocate of humanitarian intervention and a key backer of our action in Libya, has been a powerful member of Obamas foreign policy team. In 2005, Obama contacted Power after reading her book on genocide. There followed a long conversation, after which Power left Harvard to work for Obama, quickly emerging as his senior foreign policy advisor.
{excerpt}
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: rushlimbaugh
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-33 last
To: Old Teufel Hunden
Which of those three pre-conditions was met? The language of the WPA is absolute in regard to them.
21
posted on
03/22/2011 12:20:14 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
To: nolongerademocrat
We've been on Samantha Power at FR, and now National Review and Rush Limbaugh are catching up.
22
posted on
03/22/2011 12:23:41 PM PDT
by
Plutarch
To: Old Teufel Hunden
Face it, we have a full-fledged banana republic military junta for a government now.
23
posted on
03/22/2011 12:30:10 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
To: TigersEye
"Which of those three pre-conditions was met? The language of the WPA is absolute in regard to them."
The way I understand "pursuant to", it means that you can do something with one of the following three conditions met later. In other words, Obama can do this (per the War Powers Act) with one of those three conditions being met at a later date. In other words, Obama has to go to Congress to get a declaration of War or a Joint resolution. He hasn't done that part of the requirement yet, but he still has time to do them. So he can deliver this official notification to Congress with the idea that in the near future (I believe the War Powers Act gives him 30 days) he has to go to Congress to get a declaration of war or a joint resolution.
To: TigersEye
"Face it, we have a full-fledged banana republic military junta for a government now."
We're in agreement on that one...
To: Plutarch
Out of all of those clowns in the pictures who advocate us going into Darfur militarily, I’ll bet not one of them has put on the uniform to risk his own rear end. Yet, they want to send our troops in to risk their lives in a conflict that has no U.S. national interests.
To: Old Teufel Hunden
The way I understand "pursuant to", it means that you can do something with one of the following three conditions met later.
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances,...
What does the word 'before' mean?
27
posted on
03/22/2011 12:41:14 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
To: Old Teufel Hunden
I would also point out that the word ‘pursuant’ means ‘to follow’ or ‘following’ or ‘requisite upon’ and the three conditions of that paragraph are the things set forth to be followed by “...to introduce United States Armed Forces into...”
28
posted on
03/22/2011 12:53:23 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
To: TigersEye
It’s not worth arguing over. The fact is that he’s not in compliance with the Constitution. Thats the most important point.
To: Old Teufel Hunden
The rule of law is not worth arguing about? OK.
I didn't know we were having an argument.
30
posted on
03/22/2011 8:09:28 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
To: Old Teufel Hunden
Das is richtig, Devil Dog!
31
posted on
03/22/2011 10:43:12 PM PDT
by
karnage
To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
He is not an idiot. He is a well-schooled Alinskyite, very focused, extremely driven, and highly skilled at manipulating people. He has handled his handlers.
32
posted on
03/22/2011 10:45:06 PM PDT
by
karnage
To: TigersEye
"I didn't know we were having an argument."
Perhaps debate is a better word then.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-33 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson