It’s not just you and me and our opinions anymore. About the imperial presidency, the dictatorship of Barack Obama, about the over use of executive power, executive orders. And no matter what was discovered, no matter what mad us question Obama’s presidency he was protected by the Obama media, the mainstay being the New York Times. And now the New York Times agrees with us. The New York Times has now joined the fight against Obama. Here was the lead editorial on Friday September 12th in the New York Times headlined “Legal Authority For Fighting Isis.” From that headline you would not get too much into it, but wait they have to slam Congress first, “As the Pentagon gears up to expand its fight against Isis, a fundamentalist Sunni militant group to control large areas of Iraq and Syria, Congress appears perfectly willing to abdicate one of its most consequential powers -the authority to declare war. The cowardice of Congress, never to be underestimated, is outrageous.” Here is the zinger, “By avoiding responsibility they [Congress] will allow president Obama free reign to set a dangerous precedent that will last well past this particular military campaign.”
What is the dangerous precedent? “Mr. Obama who has spent much of his presidency, seeking to wean the United States off its perpetual state of war is now putting forward unjustifiable interpretations of executive branch authority to use military force without explicit approval from Congress.” They quoted him from a speech he made in 2013 at the National Defense University, “Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight or continue to grant presidents unbound powers, more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states.” “Now”, says the New York Times, “the White House is repudiating that thinking and making the perplexing argument that the 2001 law authorizing use of force in Afghanistan and the 2002 law authorizing force in Iraq, somehow gives Mr. Obama the power to battle Isis indefinitely and anywhere in the world. They most certainly don’t.”
The New York Times has joined with the conservatives. It has taken a lot of time, but it reinforces the idea that you don’t win overnight. You don’t win because you think you’re right, you don’t win because you think your arguments are the most correct, you win because you keep at it until a majority of your fellow Americans come to believe that you have been right. Finally, the New York Times in a lead editorial says no Mr. Obama, you can call it not a war, but it really is. And they use the word ‘war’ in the first paragraph. You can call it not a war but it really is and you don’t have the power to start it.
An op-ed piece from one Bruce Ackerman, professor of law and political science at Yale and a fellow at the American Academy in Berlin, had this headline slightly more specific “Obama’s betrayal of the Constitution.” The word ‘Imperial’ is used in the first paragraph of this New York Times op-ed, “President Obama’s declaration of war against the terrorist group known as the Islamic state in Iraq and Syria marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition. Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush remotely compares in Imperial hubris.”
There is no more damning thing to say about Barack Obama than he’s worse than George Bush. This liberal, Bruce Ackerman, a professor following up on the New York Times editorial said it in the first paragraph of this op-ed piece which gets stronger as you go on. The second paragraph, “Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. By contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the president’s assertion of unilateral war making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written.”