Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama just 'Vetoed' Indefinite Military Detention in NDAA (224 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Simply because some people took (0+ / 0-)

    the diarist literally when the diarist was clearly using figurative language does not mean the diarist was wrong. There was nothing to get called on. Criticizing the diarist for not being reality based should mean your own statements should mean that your own statements are grounded in reality. Unfortunately, your comments only seem to apply to an ideal world. The simple reality is that the President did force the language to be changed the first time with a veto threat, but that the second bill had too votes for him to be able to vote. If he had vetoed this bill, the Senate had the votes to override his veto. Thus, vetoing this bill, in reality, would have done nothing productive in reality . So, the President did as much as he could and established a precedent regarding how the Executive Branch interprets that legislation.

    So , again, in reality, a veto by the President would have been merely a symbolic expression of disapproval which only helps one feel better about a failed attempt at ideological purity. So, in terms of law, a literal veto would not have helped. However, in political reality, it would have been counterproductive , pitting the President against both houses of Congress, most members of his own party, and almost 90% of the Senate in the minds of independents who would also not appreciate a Presidential refusal to fund our military just as the general election is about to begin.

    For those reasons, I would argue that the shoe is on the other foot, you, not the diarist, are the one not operating in reality.

    •  The firgurative langauge was inappropriate (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and an extremely poor choice.

      I have stated on many occasions on this thread that Obama's actions here arenot only easily defended, they can be argued for effectively.

      This diary does a poor job by injecting false misrepresentation in context.

      VETO means something here that is very important.

      Why in Gawd's name some of you continue to defend its use when it simply cripples the argument you are trying to make is beyond me.

      I'm tempted to write a diary lauding and defending the President's approach here to demonstrate how I feel it could have been done extremely effectively.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site