Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

xchrom

(108,903 posts)
Fri Feb 24, 2012, 12:55 PM Feb 2012

Is the Senate trying to force Obama to go to war?

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/201222385252948572.html


US senators such as Joe Lieberman argue that 'all options must be on the table' with Iran [GALLO/GETTY]

Washington, DC - No one knows if President Obama intends to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, give Israel the go-ahead to do it, continue to rely on sanctions or turn to comprehensive negotiations to resolve the escalating conflict.

The decision to go to war is the most difficult one a president can make because it is impossible to foresee the outcome of a war. Even if it is Israel that attacks rather than the United States, the consequences for us are likely to be the same. That is because the entire world knows that the United States and Israel are linked by means of strategic cooperation agreements which prevent Israel from acting without, at least, tacit US approval. If Israel is "in", so are we.



It is safe to assume that Obama wants to avoid war. Having just come out of the disastrous Iraq experience, which cost 4,500 American lives and severely damaged our interests and credibility in the Middle East (and beyond), the president wants to keep his options open. If he can prevent war (i.e., Americans dying and other vital US interests being attacked), he will.

But while the president needs his options open, the United States Congress, under intense pressure from pro-war lobbyists, is determined to shut down all but one of them.

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Volaris

(10,281 posts)
2. I was under the impression (and PLEASE feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)
Fri Feb 24, 2012, 02:57 PM
Feb 2012

that the ONLY thing that Congress can do to FORCE the hand of the Executive Branch here is to actually DECLARE WAR. Otherwise, The President, as SOLE Commander of all U.S. military operations and procedures can do (or NOT do) as He damn well pleases, and Lieberman and the rest of the warmongers can all go fuck themselves and then sit in the corner and cry about it.

TheWraith

(24,331 posts)
4. You are correct.
Fri Feb 24, 2012, 02:59 PM
Feb 2012

To my knowledge, there is no real precedent for something like a Congressional action requiring the President to engage in a limited military action against his will. For that matter, there's very little precedent for empowering a limited military action other than the War Powers Act.

indepat

(20,899 posts)
8. The warmongers are itching to push BHO into war, inferring failure to commit a war
Fri Feb 24, 2012, 09:30 PM
Feb 2012

of aggression would indicate he doesn't have the cajones to do so, i.e., give the excuse to paint him as soft on terror and weak on national defense. Hopefully BHO has the political cajones not to be blackmailed into the RW option of war as the first and only option.

Uncle Joe

(58,564 posts)
6. And the oil corpse/speculators, will threaten Obama's Presidency by bidding up the price of oil.
Fri Feb 24, 2012, 03:07 PM
Feb 2012

Last edited Fri Feb 24, 2012, 03:40 PM - Edit history (1)

They want the oil pipeline to Canada and war with Iran.

The oil industry and military industrial complex's respective monopolies has given them the power of holding the short hairs over much of the government.

It's long past time for a national conversion to renewable energy sources and a smart grid pushed, promoted and if need be financed aggressively by the federal government.

Thanks for the thread, xchrom.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Is the Senate trying to f...