3 ms·

Whether this is the right course of action or not (which I don't think anyone outside of the government is informed enough to have a valid opinion on), I don't

Whether this is the right course of action or not (which I don't think anyone outside of the government is informed enough to have a valid opinion on), I don't like the idea of an outgoing President making major foreign policy maneuvers in their last month of office, especially with the incoming President not being in agreement. It's like if George W. Bush had started invading Iran in December of 2008.

ekidd 10y ago
I don't like the idea of an outgoing President making major foreign policy maneuvers in their last month of office, especially with the incoming President not being in agreement. I agree that it's a bit sketchy. On the other hand, the incoming president might have benefited from the actions of Russian intelligence agencies, and he doesn't seem inclined to investigate (at least not without public outcry). So on balance, getting this information on the record now might be in the interests of national security.
1024core 10y ago
George H.W. Bush did enter Somalia in December 1992[1]. In this case, Obama's in a tough situation. On paper, he's the President till January 19th. He has to act on the results of the investigation. He can't just sit back and say "well, my days are almost over, so I'll just let the next guy handle it". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Task_Force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Task_Force
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  The US entered Somalia in December 1992 with the express approval of a unanimous UN Security Council resolution, and there is no indication whatsoever that President-Elect Bill Clinton opposed it. Also, the situation in Somalia was rapidly deteriorating. It seems to me that the right course of action would be for Obama to release the findings of an investigation and let the next President decide what the right course of action is.
- MrZongle2 10y ago
  I'm no fan of Obama, but I agree completely. And think your inclusion of Bush 41's actions are on-target. After January 19th, if Trump feels that any of Obama's actions are inappropriate, he can take steps to undo them. But if time is of the essence, then it is better for the sitting President to take action rather than let a bad situation get worse. I don't know if this case in particular fits the bill, but if you start hamstringing the incumbent, then you might as well swear in the new President the day after the election.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    >But if time is of the essence, then it is better for the sitting President to take action rather than let a bad situation get worse. Agreed. But is time of the essence?
    - MrZongle2 10y ago
      Well, that's why I said that I didn't know if this case fits the bill. That's certainly debatable, at least outside of access to any classified material that supports the assertion that Russia was directly involved.
  - mdekkers 10y ago
    > After January 19th, if Trump feels that any of Obama's actions are inappropriate, he can take steps to undo them. That's exactly the point. This is political, not urgent. If Trump (I'm no fan of Trump, or any other politician, really) doesn't roll back these changes, it will hurt his prospects on the way forward he said he wanted to take - better relations with Russia. If he does roll them back, queue howls of outrage from everywhere that Trump is weak and being a pushover to the public enemy number one du-jour. It is a political move, and a petty and small minded one at that.
    - solipsism 10y ago
      Overly principled politicians don't do well in the US system (or perhaps any political system). You might be right but what's the point of being right if you have zero influence? This is what I've learned about US politics anyway.

ekidd 10y ago

I don't like the idea of an outgoing President making major foreign policy maneuvers in their last month of office, especially with the incoming President not being in agreement. I agree that it's a bit sketchy. On the other hand, the incoming president might have benefited from the actions of Russian intelligence agencies, and he doesn't seem inclined to investigate (at least not without public outcry). So on balance, getting this information on the record now might be in the interests of national security.

1024core 10y ago

George H.W. Bush did enter Somalia in December 1992[1]. In this case, Obama's in a tough situation. On paper, he's the President till January 19th. He has to act on the results of the investigation. He can't just sit back and say "well, my days are almost over, so I'll just let the next guy handle it". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Task_Force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Task_Force

marcoperaza 10y ago
The US entered Somalia in December 1992 with the express approval of a unanimous UN Security Council resolution, and there is no indication whatsoever that President-Elect Bill Clinton opposed it. Also, the situation in Somalia was rapidly deteriorating. It seems to me that the right course of action would be for Obama to release the findings of an investigation and let the next President decide what the right course of action is.
MrZongle2 10y ago
I'm no fan of Obama, but I agree completely. And think your inclusion of Bush 41's actions are on-target. After January 19th, if Trump feels that any of Obama's actions are inappropriate, he can take steps to undo them. But if time is of the essence, then it is better for the sitting President to take action rather than let a bad situation get worse. I don't know if this case in particular fits the bill, but if you start hamstringing the incumbent, then you might as well swear in the new President the day after the election.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  >But if time is of the essence, then it is better for the sitting President to take action rather than let a bad situation get worse. Agreed. But is time of the essence?
  - MrZongle2 10y ago
    Well, that's why I said that I didn't know if this case fits the bill. That's certainly debatable, at least outside of access to any classified material that supports the assertion that Russia was directly involved.
- mdekkers 10y ago
  > After January 19th, if Trump feels that any of Obama's actions are inappropriate, he can take steps to undo them. That's exactly the point. This is political, not urgent. If Trump (I'm no fan of Trump, or any other politician, really) doesn't roll back these changes, it will hurt his prospects on the way forward he said he wanted to take - better relations with Russia. If he does roll them back, queue howls of outrage from everywhere that Trump is weak and being a pushover to the public enemy number one du-jour. It is a political move, and a petty and small minded one at that.
  - solipsism 10y ago
    Overly principled politicians don't do well in the US system (or perhaps any political system). You might be right but what's the point of being right if you have zero influence? This is what I've learned about US politics anyway.