Obama got it wrong in his second sentence:

[grahamhgreen]

"My fellow Americans — tonight, I want to speak to you about what the United States will do with our friends and allies to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL. As Commander-in-Chief, my highest priority is the security of the American people."

“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.” - Oath of Office.

His highest priority is the security of the Constitution, according to the Constitution. Bush used to pull this obfuscation all the time.

[grasswire]

1. thank you

It rarely gets remembered.

And it's more important than ever.

[MohRokTah]

2. That's his highest priority as president.

Commander in Chief is only one part of being president, not the entire job. He is 100% correct, his highest priority as Commander in Chief is the security of the American people.

He's not JUST Commander in Chief, though. That is only one portion of his job, not the ENTIRE job.

Commander in Chief rates a single sub-sentence in a single paragraph in one section of four sections in Article II of the constitution.

Sheesh, I wish they still taught basic civics in school.

[pkdu]

7. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS , FFS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[sabrina 1]

14. The military takes pretty much the same oath, to protect the US Constitution.

He took one oath, and THAT is his JOB. Even as CIC his job is to protect the Constitution of the US which is also the job of the entire military.

Sheeesh, I wish people would study the history of these things. There is no oath for CIC apart from the Presidential oath, the reason being that ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS AND MILITARY PERSONNEL have ONE JOB.

There is a reason for that. Maybe it's time you found out why all of those we employ to run things in this country are required to do just one thing.

[Old Crow]

30. I'm trying to understand your point...

... and not succeeding. Allow me to explain why I'm confused.

Surely you would agree that being president of the United States entails more than one responsibility, yes? It's not like the POTUS can say, OK, in my presidency, all I'm going to worry about is domestic policy--that and nothing else.

Of course not. Being POTUS, you wear many hats.

If you can agree with the above--and surely you can--I don't see how you can argue, as you do, that the POTUS has "one job." The role comprises many jobs or roles or functions, whatever noun you care to use. Certainly, the execution of all those jobs must be consistent with the presidential oath of office. But so long as the oath of office isn't being violated, I think it's obvious that each of those roles would have a different priority.

If I were to whiteboard this, it would look something like this:

OATH OF OFFICE: To preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States of America, while executing the following roles:
1. Promoter of domestic policy. Top priority: Enhance the well-being of the nation via appropriate legislation.
2. Promoter of international policy. Top priority: Enhance the well-being of the nation via treaties and diplomacy.
3. Champion of the bully pulpit. Top Priority: Champion ideas and policies in the public sphere that will strengthen the nation.
4. Commander-in-Chief. Top priority: The security of the American people.

Obama simply stated "As Commander-in-Chief, my highest priority is the security of the American people."

I have no idea why a dozen or more DUers are wigging out about this. Do you really think that Obama and his speechwriters are unaware of the presidential oath of office? Do you really think they slipped up here and that this is some kind of a "gotcha" moment? Seriously?

Apparently, the opening statement you were looking for the president to deliver was as follows:

"As Commander-in-Chief, my highest priority is the security of the American people--and let me hasten to add, that highest priority applies only to the role of Commander-in-Chief, as I've just stated, and is subservient to the overarching priority of the presidential oath of office; I want to be perfectly clear about that distinction for my friends at Fox News and for about a dozen members of Democratic Underground who are likely to misunderstand my intentions without that caveat."

~sigh~

[brush]

37. Well said, Old Crow

The OP is really reaching at a non-story and splitting hairs in the process. Of course the President is responsible for the security of the American people — along with several other very important things in his many-hatted role, which includes defending the Constitution. Get a grip.

God, these few people need to find something worthy of griping about — slamming Obama on this is something you expect from faux noise.

From that whole speech they focus on THAT?

My God, as if he didn't say anything else.

[Old Crow]

46. Thanks

I appreciate the tip of the hat.

While I'm leery of a bombing campaign and opposed to our embarking on another war of choice, this criticizing of the second sentence of the president's speech, by ignoring its introductory clause, is just daft.

[grahamhgreen]

49. His highest priority is to protect the Constitution, not the American people. Once you

place military adventurism abouve the Constitution, you get to ignore the Constitution in the name of defending the Constitution.

Example: torture is ok, cuz you were being "patriotic", even though it is forbidden by our Constitution.

[Old Crow]

50. I agree with your point...

... as does the second sentence of Obama's speech last night.

[Old Crow]

29. +1 The OP is founded on a misunderstanding and ought to be retracted, IMHO. (EOM)

[markpkessinger]

34. But yet he cannot identify an imminent threat to the U.S. . . .

. . . Since the Constitution does not contemplate the existence of a standing military, but rather a citizen militia to be called up in the event of an attack, then it CERTAINLY doesn't contemplate military action against a group that might, at some point, decide to launch a direct attack. This notion that we must take military action pre-emptively is nothing more than an extension of the Bush doctrine.

[MohRokTah]

41. I KNEW somebody would really reach.

The ODS is STRONG here.

[morningfog]

42. Except he said there is no threat from IS to the US.

So that is bullshit.

[raven mad]

44. + infinity.

[Zorra]

54. However, more war in Iraq is not for protecting the American people. It is protecting

transnational corporate interests that couldn't care less about the people of the US.

The President should be continuously actively trying to us from the 1%, who are a clear and present danger and a currently active deadly threat to all of us.

[MohRokTah]

56. Actually, yes, it is protecting the security of the American People.

Using military air strikes to keep Islamic State hunkered down in current positions will make it easier to insure foreign members are incapable of leaving the region to threaten terrorist attacks on the American people and our allies.

It is always in the interest of the security of the American people to insure the security of our allies.

Furthermore, this will reduce the volatility in the region, which is in our national security interest.

[grahamhgreen]

60. History of the last 13 years has proven you incorrect:)

[MohRokTah]

61. I disagree. eom

[grahamhgreen]

62. before we bombed: zero al-qaeda in Iraq. Now: 20,000-31,000.

[factsarenotfair]

3. Exactly!!!

I wanted to scream when I heard that because I know what it means. Everything must be sacrificed to the Military Industrial Complex.

[Boreal]

33. That's exactly what it means

and if terrorist threats and wars have to be manufactured to ensure it, they will be. We are are now in a perpetual state of never ending wars. With the USD status as the world's reserve currency being threatened (rightfully), expect things to get worse.

[Lancero]

4. Have no fear, Fox will make sure everyone knows just how bad a president Obama is.

I hear Republicans are already making plans to impeach him over this.

[still_one]

5. Sorry not as simple as you would like to believe

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. +1 ...

but simple is what the American people, left and right, do best.

[arthritisR_US]

8. Indeed, and that is so sad....

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. But ...

Let's all pretend that we have the data that President Obama has, there analytical resources that President Obama has, the intelligence that President Obama has, and the deliberative patience that President Obama has ... that way we can post stuff on the internutz.

[OnyxCollie]

22. Predictable response.

“There Must Be a Reason”: Osama, Saddam, and Inferred Justification
http://sociology.buffalo.edu/documents/hoffmansocinquiryarticle_000.pdf

One of the most curious aspects of the 2004 presidential election was the strength and resilience of the belief among many Americans that Saddam Hussein was linked to the terrorist attacks of September 11. Scholars have suggested that this belief was the result of a campaign of false information and innuendo from the Bush administration. We call this the information environment explanation. Using a technique of “challenge interviews” on a sample of voters who reported believing in a link between Saddam and 9/11, we propose instead a social psychological explanation for the belief in this link. We identify a number of social psychological mechanisms voters use to maintain false beliefs in the face of disconfirming information, and we show that for a subset of voters the main reason to believe in the link was that it made sense of the administration’s decision to go to war against Iraq. We call this inferred justification: for these voters, the fact of the war led to a search for a justification for it, which led them to infer the existence of ties between Iraq and 9/11.

~snip~

In this article we present data that contest this explanation, and we develop a social psychological explanation for the belief in the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. We argue that the primary causal agent for misperception is not the presence or absence of correct information but a respondent’s willingness to believe particular kinds of information. Our explanation draws on a psychological model of information processing that scholars have labeled motivated reasoning. This model envisions respondents as processing and responding to information defensively, accepting and seeking out confirming information, while ignoring, discrediting the source of, or arguing against the substance of contrary information (DiMaggio 1997; Kunda 1990; Lodge and Tabor 2000). Motivated reasoning is a descendant of the social psychological theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger and Carlsmith 1959; Kunda 1990), which posits an unconscious impulse to relieve cognitive tension when a respondent is presented with information that contradicts preexisting beliefs or preferences. Recent literature on motivated reasoning builds on cognitive dissonance theory to explain how citizens relieve cognitive dissonance: they avoid inconsistency, ignore challenging information altogether, discredit the information source, or argue substantively against the challenge (Jobe, Tourangeau, and Smith 1993; Lodge and Taber 2000; Westen et al. 2006). The process of substantive counterarguing is especially consequential, as the cognitive exercise of generating counterarguments often has the ironic effect of solidifying and strengthening the original opinion leading to entrenched, polarized attitudes (Kunda 1990; Lodge and Taber 2000; Sunstein 2000; Lodge and Taber 2000). This confirmation bias means that people value evidence that confirms their previously held beliefs more highly than evidence that contradicts them, regardless of the source (DiMaggio 1997; Nickerson 1998, Wason 1968).

~snip~

We chose to focus on Republican partisans because of the well-documented partisan difference in the perception of the validity of this link. We assumed that Democratic partisans would not have a strong desire to defend the Bush administration on this issue, thus severely reducing the variation we would capture in responses. Our choice of subjects means that we are investigating how partisanship produces and reinforces political (mis)information. Our choice of subjects should not be taken to imply that the processes we are examining here are particular to conservatives: we expect that, had we conducted this study in the late 1990s, we would have found a high degree of motivated reasoning regarding the behavior of President Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal.Previous research on motivated reasoning has found it among respondents of all classes, ages, races, genders, and affiliations (see Lodge and Tabor 2000).

~snip~

Another respondent takes this argument a step further by speculating that the president must know things the rest of us do not:

I think the best thing you can do with this is to hope that the president has enough information to do the right thing. And then you need to trust him to do that and as part of the country you need to support that. . . . I mean, you may make the comment of saying, “Well, boy I wish they wouldn’t have done that because it just doesn’t seem like from our point of view that that was the right thing to do.” But on the other hand you gotta realize that maybe they know more than what we do about what’s really going on. Now granted, they clearly said that they don’t think there was any link between those two, but that’s not to say that maybe it wasn’t the same problem.

INTERVIEWER: Um, so one of the arguments that people make is that because Saddam Hussein was not directly responsible for September 11 then we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq. What is your feeling on that argument?

RESPONDENT: I think, I, that he was directly involved.

INTERVIEWER: Do you?

RESPONDENT: Uh-huh. {affirmative} Yeah.

INTERVIEWER: Yeah. Uh, we have this quote here that’s from Bush saying that there was no direct link.

RESPONDENT: Yeah, see, I—I, I. He may have said that, I’m, but.

INTERVIEWER: You think there might be something more going on?

RESPONDENT: Yeah, absolutely.

INTERVIEWER: Yeah.

RESPONDENT: I don’t think they just close their eyes and spun around and pick a country to invade. . . . Like I said, I don’t think I need to know everything that the Pres—I mean, there’s a president for a reason.

[Enthusiast]

26. "There’s a president for a reason."

Apparently the reason is to tell us stupid lies that we will believe.

[OnyxCollie]

27. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, by Noam Chomsky

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, by Noam Chomsky (talk delivered at the University of Wisconsin - Madison)

If you go back to the International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences published in 1933 -- days when people were a little more open and honest in what they said -- there's an article on propaganda, and it's well worth reading. There's an entry under propaganda. The entry is written by a leading- one- maybe the leading American political scientist, Harold Lasswell, who was very influential, particularly in this area, communications, and so on. And in this entry in the International Encyclopedia on propaganda he says, we should not succumb to democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests. They're not, he said. Even with the rise of mass education- doesn't mean that people can judge their own interests. They can't. The best judges of their interests are elites -- the specialized class, the cool observers, the people who have rationality -- and therefore they must be granted the means to impose their will. Notice, for the common good. Because, again, because- well, he says, because of the ignorance and superstition of the masses, he said it's necessary to have a whole new technique of control, largely through propaganda. Propaganda, he says, we shouldn't have a negative connotation about, it's neutral. Propaganda, he says, is as neutral as a pump handle. You can use it for good, you can use it for bad; since were good people, obviously, -- that's sort of true by definition -- we'll use it for good purposes, and there should be no negative connotations about that. In fact, it's moral to use it, because that's the only way that you can save the ignorant and stupid masses of the population from their own errors. You don't let a three year old run across the street, and you don't let ordinary people make their own decisions. You have to control them.

And why do you need propaganda? Well, he explains that. He says, in military-run or feudal societies -- what we would these days call totalitarian societies -- you don't really need propaganda that much. And the reason is you've got a- you've got a club in your hand. You can control the way people behave, and therefore it doesn't matter much what they think, because if they get out of line you can control them -- for their own good, of course. But once you lose the club, you know, once the State loses its capacity to coerce by force, then you have some problems. The voice of the people is heard -- you've got all these formal mechanisms around that permit people to express themselves, and even participate, and vote, and that sort of thing -- and you can't control them by force, because you've lost that capacity. But the voice of the people is heard, and therefore you've got to make sure it says the right thing. And in order to make sure it says the right thing, you've got to have effective and sophisticated propaganda, again, for their own good.

[woo me with science]

63. +100000 Propaganda, propaganda, propaganda.

Obama taps "cognitive infiltrator" Cass Sunstein for Committee to create "trust" in NSA:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023512796

Salon: Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proposal: Cass Sunstein wants the government to "cognitively infiltrate" anti-government groups
http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

The US government's online campaigns of disinformation, manipulation, and smear.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024560097

Snowden: ‘Training Guide’ for GCHQ, NSA Agents Infiltrating and Disrupting Alternative Media Online
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/25/snowden-training-guide-for-gchq-nsa-agents-infiltrating-and-disrupting-alternative-media-online/

The influx of corporate propaganda-spouting posters is blatant and unnatural.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3189367

U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News To Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023262111

The goal of the propaganda assaults across the internet is not to convince anyone of anything.*
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801

The government figured out sockpuppet management but not "persona management."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358242

The Gentleman's Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4159454

Seventeen techniques for truth suppression.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4249741

Just do some Googling on astroturfing - big organizations have some sophisticated tools.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1208351

[Boreal]

35. I just scanned all that

because I'm tired and have to go to bed but it reminded me a video I saw, years ago, on the 9/11 official story. In it, a couple of people were shown where some part of the story was a complete lie and then they were asked for their comments. One man acknowledged what he was shown proved what we had been told was a lie but he said he preferred "the story" because the truth was so uncomfortable.

[MohRokTah]

9. The extremes look at life in black and white.

I look at it all in 16 trillion colors and shades.

[sabrina 1]

17. That's for sure, which is why they can think of only one solution to everything,

so long as their party is promoting it, WAR!! Simple, see a problem where our oil interests are threatened, WAR is the answer.

Remember that black and white thinking when Bush was in the WH? That was all his supporters could come up with when it came to resolving Foreign affairs. WAR. Black/White thinking = War or NO War. There was nothing in between for them.

[grahamhgreen]

16. Yeah, it kinda is. Defending the Constitution is his highest priority.

[Orsino]

53. Not as simple ad the president said, you mean.

A president's oath is to the Constitution. That requires the juggling of many priorities, but our security did not bubble up to the top of the list...or if it did, he would owe us an explanation he hasn't offered yet.

[sheshe2]

10. Well of course he got it wrong....

On DU he always gets it wrong.


Obama Sucks!

[JI7]

11. no, Obama got it right

[pinboy3niner]

13. Now this is just getting silly. nt

[grahamhgreen]

15. Defending the Constitution is the oath our troops take too.

[sabrina 1]

18. Remember when we used to remind Bush supporters of this? And they called us all kinds of names

and airc, Bush himself even called the Constitution 'a quaint piece of paper'.

Too bad to see it here now. The dismissive attitude towards the one thing that makes this a country, and not just a piece of territory, the one thing that is worth fighting for.

[pinboy3niner]

19. Yes, I once swore that. But I don't see how this advances the policy debate. nt

[msanthrope]

38. Getting silly? We've been serving out the All-You-Can Eat Silly Buffet since January 2009. nt

[SidDithers]

48. +1...

The ODS is strong in this thread.

Sid

[C Moon]

20. Gimme a break. What the hell is wrong with saying that?

[MFrohike]

21. Yeah, no

Those are not two inherently incompatible statements. Defending US citizens from attack would go right in line with upholding his constitutional duties, as the entire purpose of the constitution is serve the citizenry.

You're splitting a hair that doesn't exist here. You could argue over how he chooses to do it or the results he gets, but this kind of argument is just silly.

[lonestarnot]

23. But Roberts administered the oath like a bumbling idiot, so maybe Mr. President forgot that line.

[blkmusclmachine]

24. and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United Stat

Well, that will be a refreshing "Change!" (TM) from the usual write-arounds to the Constitution/Bill of Rights passed by Dubya after 9/11 that Obama continues to this very day, including assassinating American citizens, on American soil, without trial or evidence...

[Number23]

25. Oh my GOD

[msanthrope]

40. I have to admire the limberness that allowed that stretch. nt

[SidDithers]

55. Exactly...

Sid

[woo me with science]

28. K&R Important post.

Thank you for stating it clearly. It is a shame that corporate corruption is so deep and pervasive now, that we need reminders of these simple truths to counter the 24/7 deluge of deliberate perversion in the corporate propaganda, both in the MSM and in the interactive propaganda on message boards online.

Well said, grahamhgreen.

[intaglio]

31. Where, in your quote from the Constitution, is the term "highest priority" used?

There is "faithfully execute," and "best of my Ability," but no prioritisation. Essentially you undermine any valid arguments you might have by setting up a straw man.

[randome]

32. 'As' Commander-in-chief. You want to parse words, you didn't do very well.

His highest priority as President is one thing. His highest priority as CIC is another.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[aikoaiko]

36. Talk about obfuscation...you're OP is a great example.

[SidDithers]

39. You should be President...nt

Sid

[Lil Missy]

43. I'll alert the media. n/t

[treestar]

45. The Constitution starts "We The People"

The security of the People means the security of the Constitution.

I don't think it would have made a big difference to the issue of whether ISIS is a threat had Obama worded it, "my highest priority is the security of the Constitution." If ISIS is a threat to the American people, it's a threat to the American Constitution, and vice versa.

Funny how the issues get changed when there's no need. Is ISIS a threat? Why bother debating that? Let's make it about something else.

[grahamhgreen]

52. In my view, you've got it backwards, it's the security of the Constitution, that guarantees the

security of its people.

You can secure the people and still shred the Constitution.

[treestar]

57. this is true

But then had Obama talked about security of the constitution, he'd be accused of out of touch egghead language.

Still, the people have to be secure or the Constitution is meaningless.

[Boom Sound 416]

47. And what does the constitution command the President to do?

Provide for the common defense.

Promote the general welfare.

That's his job. He's doing it.

[grahamhgreen]

59. #1 though, is protect our Constitution.

[Zorra]

51. There it is, the "Goering Model". "You are threatened; we must go to war".

mmmm! Yellowcake!

[woo me with science]

58. kick