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

Pale Blue Dot

(16,831 posts)
Wed Aug 28, 2013, 05:54 PM Aug 2013

Be prepared to throw this guy under the bus too Re: Syria

Barack Obama, from an interview with Charlie Savage in 2007:

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

Answer: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

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

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
4. Unelectable, like Kucinich and that difficult woman from Massachusetts
Wed Aug 28, 2013, 06:18 PM
Aug 2013

These people just don't have a grip on what the electorate wants.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
9. The only ones I have heard throwing the word "unilateral" around
Wed Aug 28, 2013, 06:43 PM
Aug 2013

are the President Obama haters....

Pale Blue Dot

(16,831 posts)
11. So, if I'm understanding you right, Bush's attack on Iraq was not unilateral either?
Wed Aug 28, 2013, 07:25 PM
Aug 2013

If not, how are the two different?

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
14. No. Bush went to Congress to get permission from the Democrats...
Wed Aug 28, 2013, 07:36 PM
Aug 2013

to attack and occupy Iraq,
and the Democrats gave him that permission.
It is called "The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq",
and if you google that, you can find out ALL about it.

Now Obama's attack on Libya in 2011,
THAT was "unilateral".

Pale Blue Dot

(16,831 posts)
17. If we are discussing only what Obama said himself in the interview above,
Wed Aug 28, 2013, 07:46 PM
Aug 2013

then I think that's fair game.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
19. Semantic quibbiling
Wed Aug 28, 2013, 08:51 PM
Aug 2013

about the word "unilateral" in no way alters the fact that the President has no legal authority to attack Syria, that neither he nor Congress seem to much give a shit about that one way or another, and that their complete disregard for the very rule of law they are sworn to uphold should concern everyone very much.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Be prepared to throw this...