@ulvegaard,Re: "I love my country and I'd like to be able to
fully respect it too"...I'm glad you love your country, and
want to respect it too. I seem to remember lots of democrats saying the same
thing... when Bush was in office. Even the President's wife admitted that
she's never been proud of her country a day in her life... until her
husband became President. So your feeling is pretty common out there...
It doesn't matter who else has done what throughout history -- it is still
wrong. When (not if) these released terrorists combine their efforts and strike
again and lives are lost, do you then approach the mourning families and say
'Reagan gave missiles to Iran'?There are many who feel
that the United States has lost its credibility in the world. I heard once that
you may well always love someone, but if you can no longer respect them . . . .
I love my country and I'd like to be able to fully respect it too.
@Esquire,If you have standing, then file suit to have this portion of the
law heard by the courts....of course you will have to hope that it gets to the
Supreme Court to rule on its Constitutionality and not just your own opinion.
Oh, and by the way, what part of it is unconstitutional on your opinion? Limits
on the President's actions are well within the purview of Congress to
enact... so what's your beef with it?They required him to
notify them of his actions 30 days out, they didn't limit him from the
exchange.....He didn't and they are rightfully outraged.So,
what's your objection to it?
I wonder if Obama is keeping a tally of how many laws he can break while in
office. I wonder if he as a goal in mind.He is racking them up
fast.To liberals, Obama is not God. He is not in Congress. He is not
king. He does not get to make the laws. His job, as executive, is to execute the
laws. In this case execute doesn't mean behead the law, it means to uphold
the law. Perhaps that will dispel some of your confusion.
"What, then, did you mean by, "gonna lpug my ears and say LA LA LA
LA"?"Very simple. Partisans give a pass to their side but
blast the other side for doing similar things.And both sides do it. But
they go to great lengths to somehow make a distinction, where one typically does
not exist.Perfect example is embassy and consulate deaths and
attacks under Bush. The dems blasted them and the GOP defended them. But,
somehow Benghazi is different."you try and view and treat R and
D the same?your comments have shown otherwise."Thats not
what I said. When parties do something similar, I view them and treat them the
same.I believe that Benghazi was a failure. As were the attacks
under Bush. I didn't see one as a giant scandal and give the other a
pass.Feel free to call me out if you find me doing differently.
Most of my posts are pointing out the similarities to highlight the hypocrisy,
not as a defense.
@ 2 bits, I agree that President Obama should not have signed the bill, but the
bill was bigger than just this issue, which is why he objected to that
provision. If the GOP wants to challenge the decision, they can go to court.
But they won't because they know the provision would not stand up in court.
And look at what you say. Reagan was caught in a scandal and some were
indicted, but not Reagan. You want Obama to be in trouble. In the end, you
show logical inconsistency and an obvious bias. You say trading POWs is not
illegal, then you say it is. The problem with the critics is they argue both
sides to support an illogical conclusion, as long as they get in their shots.
Wow, is about all I can say.
JowBlow,you are not defending... What, then, did you mean by, "gonna
lpug my ears and say LA LA LA LA"?you try and view and treat R and D
the same?your comments have shown otherwise.airnaut/open
mindedgoing back and forth from home to work?what is
"impreachable"? I'm not familiar with that word.Sign
of a politically biased comment...Someone who can not see past the
"if Obama did it, then it's obviously wonderful"GaryORomney was 2012, just proves "you can fool all of
the people (or enough, at least) some of the time, but you cannot fool them all
of the timewelcome to 2014.
Hey 2 bits -"My question is... why is Obama not in ANY trouble
when he does it?"It's because only "Conservatives"
think Obama did anything wrong.And most people don't care what
"Conservatives" think.. . . Glad I could help.
Hey Lost -"Recent CNN poll shows BO’s favorable ratings
exceed his unfavorables in only 1 of 12 measures!"And yet voters
STILL favor Obama over Romney.And the Republican-heavy House of
Representatives polls lower than ever.
I agree with the article and applaud all our journalists who are ferreting out
the real truth about the president's blatant disregard for the U.S.
Constitution as well as having incredibly poor judgment, if that is what it is.
Sign of a politically biased article or partisan American...Someone
who can not see past the "if Obama did it, then it's obviously wrong,
illegal, or being controled by Socialists or Communists"...and all
Republicans doing it get a Get Out of Jail Free Pass...
marxist,"I believe that President Reagan gave 1500 missiles to
Iran in exchange for seven American nationals, all in secret. Am I
correct?"______________________________You are. A material
difference between Obama’s blunder here and Iran Contra is deception. The
arms for hostages deal was done under the table. When it got out, Reagan’s
role in it was not clear. He went on national television and denied that arms
had been traded for hostages. It was months later when Reagan finally
acknowledged that arms had indeed been traded for hostages.Obama
showed poor judgment in this deal but at least it was above board. He may have
broken the law in not notifying Congress 30 days in advance. In the case of Iran
Contra, the White House kept the Congress completely in the dark. The Hill found
out only when it came out in the press.Some things to consider on
the issue of a President "going rogue."
The law he broke is not a prohibition on make trades for prisoners of war. We
do that. We always have.The law some say he broke is the
"National Defense Authorization Act". There's one for each year,
so obviously President Obama signed THIS one into law (not Bush or anybody
else).It requires the President to give Congress 30 days advance
notice before releasing prisoners from Guantanamo. (So the President can't
release prisoners from Guantanamo secretly).This quote from a CNN
article..."The law says they are to give us 30 days' notice. If
the President thought that was unconstitutional or an invalid law, than he
shouldn't have signed the bill... He knew very well that he was required by
law to give us 30 days' notice and he didn't do it."Reagan didn't release prisoners from Guantanamo (which is the illegal
part). But we did have a weapons embargo at the time, so what he did was
illegal also.But there were lots of investigations and indictments
when Reagan did it.My question is... why is Obama not in ANY trouble
when he does it?When Reagan did it... Democrats indicted 13 people!
How to know if something is true, or is it partisan --- I'd bet
my very last dollar that if Pres. Obama had actualy done something impreachable
-- Rep. Jason Chaffetz or Senator Mike Lee would be all over the
Sunday Morning TV shows, and 24/7 Fox News personally heading up the
investigation into it...Irony of the day -- Sarah Palin's
entire persona is about "Going Rouge", and yet the entire
Tea-Party is her #1 fan base.
Lost,I am the first to admit that both R and D do lots of wrong
things. And personally, I try to view them and treat them the same.I am not blind to the fact that our leaders make mistakes and or do things
that are downright wrong.You will seldom hear me defending either
side. What I do it point out that there is little difference in the
transgressions of either side.My outrage, unlike many, is not
The law violates the Constitution. If Bush was President, that Administration
would have done the exact same thing. Do you need the legal history and the
memos to substantiate this? If Congress has an issue with the President's
action, they should take it to court and get it settled. They won't,
because they know the President was right under the Constitution.
If the gizmo detainees are prisoners of war, they will all have to be released
when the war ends, which seems to be what will happen at the end of this year.
So the 5 were released about 6 months early, and will supposedly be under
surveillance for an additional 6 months after the war ends. And even
Bergdahl's Army detractors say he should have been brought home even at the
cost of making the exchange. Nothing to see here, really, except the usual
Republican habit of politicizing everything.
JoeBlowGonna plug you ears and say “la la la”BO
apologists have a LOT of practice doing that.So you will ignore the
changes in laws between the 1980s and now. Your hero, BO has done the same,
obviously. And not just laws passed since the 1980s – anything he
doesn’t like he ignores, including Obamacare!airnaut,You
must be at work rather than at home because you are not posting as open minded.
Executive orders are not the only method. BO has used more regulations than any
POTUS in history. The Federal Register has ballooned more under BO than under
anyone else.You BO apologists are in the minority. Recent CNN poll
shows BO’s favorable ratings exceed his unfavorables in only 1 of 12
measures! Most measures show strong opposition to his policies. Too bad it has
taken us so long.
If you agree that the President broke laws, has gone "rogue", is
impeachable, then what are you going to do about it? Go gather your
"facts" and talk some Congressman into starting the process too impeach,
arrest and/or jail the man. As for me, I believe there is not enough
evidence to do any of those procedures. And if I am correct, all this whining
and complaining is partisan grumbling, albeit with plenty of zeal and with the
aim to taint the whole Democratic party to help usher in some Republican wins.
When a president goes rouge, he should be impeached, correct? So wheres all the
evidence?There is nothing but more partisan fantasy and poor history
recollection, in nearly everything george says.George is just another faux
hole with nothing to offer but chum for the fanatics.
Are we talking about Reagan or Bush who reigned with more "Executive
Orders" - by passing Congress - than any other Presidents in modern
history?or just more of the same old Sour Grapes about
President Obama to whip up the conservative base to get published in
conservative newspapers and collect a pay check, again?...
I thought going Rogue was a good thing? After all, didn't Palin or Romney
title their book that?
Susan Rice has proven her ability to read talking points given to her.
Leadership? Ethics? Not so much.Perhaps her talent is in broadcasting.
Give her something to read and she'll do it convincingly.Did the
White House really believe they could sell this to the American people?
Well, at least now I know how all the liberals and Democrats felt when Nixon was
believing that if the President does it, it is legal. Only problem is, back
then there was Woodward and Bernstein and the Washington Post to be the watchdog
on government power. Who is watching out for us with this administration? All
I see in the press these days is FOX News, who get blacklisted by the
establishment when they try, and a bunch of journalism school cheerleaders for
Obama and the Democrats.
Seems to me that the swap that the "Rogue President" engaged in (he
really doesn't know the circumstances, but approved it anyway?) is akin to
aiding and abetting the enemy with those 5 high-value terrorist leaders being
released. Perhaps the pretender in chief never watched "Saving Private
Ryan" wherein the released German captive came back to kill many more US
soldiers at the bridge scene. That was fiction, this is real life. Does anyone
really believe that those 5 high-value terrorists will not return to be involved
in an even higher death count for US servicemen/women or civilians?The Taliban was aided and abetted by this swap. And the "Rogue
President" will never be brought to account.
"I believe that President Reagan gave 1500 missiles to Iran in exchange for
seven American nationals, all in secret. Am I correct?"Cmon
Marxist. You know that was completely different. Somehow it had to be. Reagan
would not do anything wrong. Im gonna plug my ears now and say La
La La La La.
Between 2007 and 2009, President George W. Bush released 520 detainees from the
facility at Guantanamo Bay – at least that’s how many are officially
recorded. One of those detainees was Abu Sufian bin Qumu, who is a suspect in
the Benghazi embassy attack.
@ Marxist,It doesn't excuse what Pres. Obama has done. It is also
worth mentioning that the law requiring Pres. Obama to notify congress did not
exist when Reagan was president. I might also mention that the "1500"
number is rather lower than the truth.
Mr. Will hits the nail on the head. When you consider:Fast and
Furious, Benghazi, "this is my last election, I will have more
flexibility...", The VA scandal, and the blatant disregard for the law this
President has demonstrated on countless occasions; one must wonder what it takes
to get removed from office.
Almost every recent POTUS has "gone rogue" in some manner. They believe
that the principle of "divine right of kings" applies to them.Power corrupts. No one gets within a million miles of the White House without
being corrupted already. And absolute power, which POTUSes seem to assume unto
themselves despite the Constitution, corrupts absolutely.
I believe that President Reagan gave 1500 missiles to Iran in exchange for seven
American nationals, all in secret. Am I correct?
Love George Will! What a gifted writer! He is 1000% correct on these writings.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of
President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.It appears
to me that the best of some people's ability is not as great as the ability
This has got to be the worst president ever. Nixon's Watergate begins to
pale to Obama's list of blatant law breaking.
Eventhough many will write comments excusing Obama, he cannot blame this on Bush
(although he might find a way). The fact is plain that George Will is totally
correct on all his points in this article.