John McCain: I Would Block Susan Rice For Secretary Of State

[exopolitician]

Why choose Susan Rice anyways. Just pick John Kerry and get it over with.

[SPC]

Are you seriously suggesting that an arcane provision in a 200+ year old document granting Congress war power that hasn't been invoked in the entire lifespan of the United Nations contradicts a precedent of the United States accepting UN Security Council calls to arms in police actions as occurred in both 1950 in Korea and 1991 in Iraq?

I don't see how performing illegal actions in the past can be used as a legal "precedent" for future violations of the law. If a mugger pulls a gun on the same lady three times before being apprehended, can he cite the fact that he got away with it twice as precedent that his actions were legal? In any case, the "arcane" document you cite is still nominally the law of the land, so it would be preferable if we either obeyed it or dropped the entire false pretense that we live in a constitutional republic rather than the current elective dictatorship that many here seem to prefer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Glad to see that we are in agreement.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Was the US Constitution ratified before or after the United Nations? Does the US Constitution say that international organizations created by entrance into a treaty can override constitutionally delegated powers, much less usurp the legislative power of Congress? If so, then are you suggesting that the only obstacle standing between the rule of the US Constitution and the concentration of all governing power in the United States in the hands of one individual or unelected body is a simple two-thirds majority vote in the Senate?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The rebels also had the goal of exerting a dreadful retribution against the rulers and armed forces of the Qadaffi regime. The only difference was they were less successful prior to Western intervention and more successful subsequent to Western intervention.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By that logic Chalabi's request for intervention justified the Iraq War.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or at least the part of Libya controlled by the faction NATO was backing. What a shocker that one of the combatants would appreciate the intervention of foreign powers to their side.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm glad to hear that only white lives count. I'm sure these people will be appreciative 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Consequences be damned!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The rebels also had the goal of exerting a dreadful retribution against the rulers and armed forces of the Qadaffi regime.

And this is a problem how? Let me see if I can muster shedding a tear for a brutal dictator, his cronies and his bloodthirsty supporters...no I can't.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The rebels also had the goal of exerting a dreadful retribution against the rulers and armed forces of the Qadaffi regime.

And this is a problem how? Let me see if I can muster shedding a tear for a brutal dictator, his cronies and his bloodthirsty supporters...no I can't.

It is a problem independent of other factors but any attempt to use it to argue that the rebels and the Qaddafi regime were morally identical or equivalent is in my view wrongheaded.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well this is from a guy who has in the past argued that the Allies and Axis powers in WWII were basically morally equivalent mind you.

[Landslide Lyndon]

While McCain and Graham were mucking it up for the cameras, they missed a classified briefing on the Benghazi attack.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83879.html?hp=r1


What a pair of buffoons!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And for the record, McCain has really done nothing in service to the US. He fought to defend a fascist regime that in no way benefited US interests and simply bloated and benefited the military-industrial complex, was imprisoned by an enemy of that regime for several years, and then used a political career rife with corruption to benefit individuals like Charles Keating, attention whored the hell out of his limelight for a couple years just because he managed to lose to an even worse human being in the GOP primary, in his own campaign picked someone as his running mate that basically forever destroys his credibility on stating if someone is qualified for ANYTHING, lost, and then pandered to the far right to survive a primary challenge only to end up a standard backbencher tool of the GOP leadership. He is nothing more than a bitter washed up old man. Obama appointing Rice and getting her through would be another fantastic showing of his superiority over McCain and how McCain can't ever beat him. Obama beat him in 2008 and should use every opportunity to beat him as much as possible from here on.

[Donerail]

Are you seriously suggesting that an arcane provision in a 200+ year old document granting Congress war power that hasn't been invoked in the entire lifespan of the United Nations contradicts a precedent of the United States accepting UN Security Council calls to arms in police actions as occurred in both 1950 in Korea and 1991 in Iraq?

There is no precedent from 1991: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_1991

[Vosem]

And for the record, McCain has really done nothing in service to the US. He fought to defend a fascist regime that in no way benefited US interests

Clearly.

[Hash]

Not to mention that McCain was ranked in the bottom 1% of his graduating class.

And of course he has done nothing since to redeem himself...

That's true actually. What has he done since 2008 besides act like a useless old hack and pander to the reactionary and xenophobic elements in the Arizona GOP?

[anvi]

SPC. once again, the UN Participation Act does not trump the Constitution.  The Constitution recognizes that treaties have the full force of law equal in stature to the Constitution itself (Article 6 Paragraph 2 Clause 2).  And treaties are treaties; membership obligates the member states to abide by their terms.  UN Article 42 actions, combined with the provisions of Article 48, obligate, and do not merely "authorize," the member states that are identified to provide forces according to those provisions that are voted on by that body.  The U.S. not only has a regular vote in the UN General Assembly, but it is a Security Council member and can veto both proposed Article 42 actions and the specifications of Article 48 which define the constitution of armed forces in conflicts. But if the U.S. agrees to approve Article 42 actions, it is legally bound, both by treaty terms and the Constitution itself, to comply with them.  In both ratifying the treaty and specifying the terms of our participation, the U.S. Congress in 1945 agreed to all of this, in complete consistency with Constitutional law and procedures.

[Zioneer]

But the United Nations Security Council requested that NATO establish a no-fly zone over Libya and the United States was fulfilling its NATO requirements as per the Security Council's request...how could this possibly be illegal?  I don't understand what you're talking about.

How can a mutual defense treaty obligate a country to make war against a country that has not attacked any of the member nations?

Didn't Gaddafi bomb a US military base in Germany? That could count.

[J. J.]

Yeah, McCain and Graham are vowing to block Rice for making a public statement based on information provided to her by the CIA.  Kind of a lousy standard, isn't it?   

No, because according to Obama, it came from the White House. 

I think she should have to disclose:

1.  Who told her?

2.  Whose idea it was to say something so inaccurate on five morning shows?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Picking her for SoS would be toxic. Obviously she'd still be approved but it would keep the Libya story in the news.

Exactly, and he has too many other battles ahead.  JFK for SoS it will be.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

And for the record, McCain has really done nothing in service to the US. He fought to defend a fascist regime that in no way benefited US interests and simply bloated and benefited the military-industrial complex, was imprisoned by an enemy of that regime for several years, and then used a political career rife with corruption to benefit individuals like Charles Keating, attention whored the hell out of his limelight for a couple years just because he managed to lose to an even worse human being in the GOP primary, in his own campaign picked someone as his running mate that basically forever destroys his credibility on stating if someone is qualified for ANYTHING, lost, and then pandered to the far right to survive a primary challenge only to end up a standard backbencher tool of the GOP leadership. He is nothing more than a bitter washed up old man. Obama appointing Rice and getting her through would be another fantastic showing of his superiority over McCain and how McCain can't ever beat him. Obama beat him in 2008 and should use every opportunity to beat him as much as possible from here on.

How are you- the 30 year old who spends his days going to shows and typing on an internet board- in any position to judge whether any one has done anything in service of our nation. You more then any one on this board offend me and others here, and I am only glad that this web site is your soap box to spew this filth and that you will never leave the comfort of your shows and video games to seek political office- not that I would be concerned about you potentially succeeding...
I hate to put any one on my ignore list but you are the first and hopefully only to make the cut...you do not enrich my experience on this board whatsoever

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Not to mention that McCain was ranked in the bottom 1% of his graduating class.

And of course he has done nothing since to redeem himself...

That's true actually. What has he done since 2008 besides act like a useless old hack and pander to the reactionary and xenophobic elements in the Arizona GOP?

My comment was in regards to his graduation from Annapolis in 1956- not his 2008 campaign

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Were all the members of the UN required to fight in Libya? Or is the US special in some way?

[anvi]

Were all the members of the UN required to fight in Libya? Or is the US special in some way?

No.  When Article 42 actions are approved, there are Article 48 sessions that determine which members states should contribute forces.  I think ten countries were initially identified to contribute military support, but the list expanded to nineteen by the time the operation took its full form.  They did some bombing, enforced no-fly zones and conducted naval blockades.  The U.K. actually bore the largest share of the costs, but the U.S. came in second on that list, though paid for the operation with funds already appropriated to DOD, so no additional funding was required.

[Paul Kemp]

This issue aside, when was the last time McCain had credibility? 2000?

I also anxiously await Senators McCain and Graham announce their support of an investigation into the deaths of almost 5000 Americans in Iraq from 2003 to 2011.

[memphis]

And the GOP War on Reality continues.

[The Mikado]

Were all the members of the UN required to fight in Libya? Or is the US special in some way?

UK, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Norway, and several others participated in Libya, so, no, not really.

Also, the presumption of people referring to this as "US" action in Libya is very disrespectful to our NATO allies.

[Franzl]

Were all the members of the UN required to fight in Libya? Or is the US special in some way?

UK, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Norway, and several others participated in Libya, so, no, not really.

Also, the presumption of people referring to this as "US" action in Libya is very disrespectful to our NATO allies.

Actually, Germany did not. (Although we should have.)

[Lief 🗽]

McCain continues to be a disgrace: he skipped a closed briefing yesterday by administration officials on Benghazi, to give an attention whore press conference demanding more information from the administration about Benghazi.

And then, when a CNN reporter called him on his hypocrisy, he erupted like the angry, senile old man he is: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/15/1196411/mccain-may-have-skipped-a-briefing-on-benghazi-to-hold-a-press-conference/

The man obviously has no place in the senate.

[Landslide Lyndon]

McCain continues to be a disgrace: he skipped a closed briefing yesterday by administration officials on Benghazi, to give an attention whore press conference demanding more information from the administration about Benghazi.

And then, when a CNN reporter called him on his hypocrisy, he erupted like the angry, senile old man he is: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/15/1196411/mccain-may-have-skipped-a-briefing-on-benghazi-to-hold-a-press-conference/

The man obviously has no place in the senate.

He is a jerk. The thought that this man and the Alaskan bimbo came so close to obtaining the nuclear codes should sent a chill down everyone's spines.

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The rebels also had the goal of exerting a dreadful retribution against the rulers and armed forces of the Qadaffi regime.

And this is a problem how? Let me see if I can muster shedding a tear for a brutal dictator, his cronies and his bloodthirsty supporters...no I can't.

Yet you can shed tears for these people?

SPC. once again, the UN Participation Act does not trump the Constitution.  The Constitution recognizes that treaties have the full force of law equal in stature to the Constitution itself (Article 6 Paragraph 2 Clause 2).  And treaties are treaties; membership obligates the member states to abide by their terms.  UN Article 42 actions, combined with the provisions of Article 48, obligate, and do not merely "authorize," the member states that are identified to provide forces according to those provisions that are voted on by that body.  The U.S. not only has a regular vote in the UN General Assembly, but it is a Security Council member and can veto both proposed Article 42 actions and the specifications of Article 48 which define the constitution of armed forces in conflicts. But if the U.S. agrees to approve Article 42 actions, it is legally bound, both by treaty terms and the Constitution itself, to comply with them.  In both ratifying the treaty and specifying the terms of our participation, the U.S. Congress in 1945 agreed to all of this, in complete consistency with Constitutional law and procedures.

So, by your logic, all Constitutional restrictions on government power are thrown out the window once the Senate ratifies a treaty with a two-thirds vote? Would it then by constitutional for the US government to force blacks to work for slave-labor, provided that the Senate ratified a treaty mandating that all signatory nations conscript their black populations into slave labor?

If the Constitution is to have equal standing with a treaty, and the two have conflicting provisions, then at best it is ambiguous as to which takes precedence over the other, and serves to show why constitutional government is a myth. Considering that the terms of the treaty were in violation of the Constitution at the time of its crafting, then the United States clearly lacked the authority to enter into that treaty, just as Congress would lack the authority to craft an unconstitutional law. Since Article 6 only makes treaties made under the authority of the United States the supreme Law of the land, then any treaty whose terms violate the Constitution would be void.