E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC’s Libby Leist and Greg Martin
A day after the Obama administration issued its report on U.S. activities in Libya, top senators on the Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees are ramping up their criticism of the White House for not sufficiently consulting Congress on the conflict.
The White House issued the report after House Speaker John Boehner challenged the administration to defend the constitutionality of the operation before a 90-day benchmark since the Libya operation began.
Republicans are calling it "puzzling," "laughable," and even "bizarre" that the White House argued the U.S. is not involved in "hostilities" in Libya that would require Congressional authorization under the War Powers Act.
Even Democratic Sen. John Kerry, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a close ally of the White House, believes Congress should be able to weigh in.
"We're always better and we're always stronger when we have the expression of the American people through the Congress in support of something and I'm disposed to try to do that," he told reporters this afternoon just off the Senate floor.
Kerry does not believe the mission requires Congressional authorization but he intends to co-sponsor a resolution with Republican Sen. John McCain that will include language specifically authorizing "limited activities" in Libya. That resolution could be taken up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee next week.
"We're prepared to take something to the floor," Kerry said.
The Massachusetts senator added that he believes there is already a legal basis for the U.S. operation under NATO, and he said emphatically that the U.S. is NOT at war.
"I don't think American forces and troops are in harm’s way. We're not directly engaging our armed forces into those hostilities," he said.
Sen. Dick Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate and a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, disputed the White House's argument that the War Powers Act should not apply to the Libyan operation on Thursday.
"I believe that what we are engaged in with Libya is a matter that should come under the War Powers Resolution," he said on the Senate floor. "I believe that we should, as a Congress, consider it under the War Powers Resolution...it will give the President clear authority and will also establish the clear authority of Congress."
He told reporters after his floor speech that a vote to approve the president's action is "the right thing to do."
"Make it official. I would vote in support of that," he said.
Earlier Thursday on the Senate floor, McCain, a supporter of the mission, strongly challenged the legal argument that the War Powers Resolution does not apply because the U.S. is not engaged in a state of "hostilities" there.
He called it a "confusing breach of common sense."
He added, "I agree that actions like these do not amount to a full-blown state of war, and I would certainly grant that I am no legal scholar, but I find it rather hard to swallow that U.S. Armed Forces dropping bombs and killing enemy personnel in a foreign country does not amount to a state of hostilities."
Armed Services Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham – who also serves as a Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAG) attorney – called the Administration's rationale "lawerly."
Graham said the White House’s “convoluted definition of 'hostilities'” will “basically back us in a corner.”
Another Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, called the administration's argument "one of the more bizarre things I've seen occur since I've been here.”
He said the President has bungled the consultation with Congress from the start.
"It's strange because my sense is had they come to ask for authorization on the front end and just been open about it, these are the kinds of things that typically there's overwhelming bipartisan support,” Corker said.
Leave a Comment:
Of course we are in a war. The people bombing and being bombed would certainly say so.
Who would have thought 2 1/2 years ago that President Obama would be so eager to use the military? Still in Iraq, expanded in Afghanistan and now in Libya. A little soon on that Nobel?
Actually, we are involved in supporting our NATO allies as we pledged to do when NATO was founded; NATO may or may not be in a war, but the US is not. [In Libya]
Are you telling the world that America should go back on our word, violate our promises, and abandon our friends (who we needed during the cold war years) and not fulfill our obligations? The similar mind set is used as the excuse/justification to allow the nation to default by not raising the debt limit.
Further, before you all climb on your high horse, remember that the "90 day benchmark" in this article and which Boehner refers to is NOT in the Constitution, but IS ONLY A CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION. Please research the terms before spouting off.
Look, I have agreed with many things Mr. Obama has done but in this he is so very wrong. I understand the humanitarian aspect of things, but we have enough problems already.
I did not agree with Iraq, or Afghanistan. I don't agree with Libya either. We need to GTFO of all three places.
Not as stupid as yo uthink
Further, before you all climb on your high horse, remember that the "90 day benchmark" in this article and which Boehner refers to is NOT in the Constitution, but IS ONLY A CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION. Please research the terms before spouting off...
You're right. The Constitution states that the President must obtain a Declaration of War from Congress before commencing hostilities.
Silly me..he's got neither. No declaration from Congress and no approval under the legislation.
-No argument on the point, I'mjustsaying... - I, too believe we can better spend the dollars domestically, but we are an international power and world leader; that brings on a whole set of responsibilities and considerations.
My biggest disagreement is the "double standard" Boehner & company are attempting to hold our President to... Who set the precedent(s) for this type action? Who else was "threatened" in this way?
It is obvious - not just to me, but to most of America, indeed, the world , that Boehner & co., the wingnuts, the t-nuts, etc. are simply "nit-picking" Obama 24/7 because they are so upset that he is in the White House (for whatever reason they wish to admit.) Such behavior is harmful to my country and to most American citizens, and THAT is what really upsets me.
Groucho -
Have you considered how our involvement in Libya, supporting NATO, is different that our "advisors" in Viet Nam in the early 1960's, or what we did in Panama, or our actions in Nicaragua or Kuwait, or Haiti?
Did ANY of those actions require a "declaration or approval..." from Congress to be initiated?
Further, I would include for consideration the argument that, since the House has proven to be anti-Obama and admitedly oppose anything he attempts to accomplish, complying with the resolution could realistically be ignored as a work in futility.
Not as stupid as yo uthink..
The House and Senate would both vote for the resolution. Look at McCains remarks. It's silly that he is picking this to fight for. Where was he on single payer mandated health insurance. This he picks a fight on. Stupid and petty.
Kuwait, or the first Gulf War was voted on and funded by Congress.
When did we go to war in Haiti or Nicaragua? I though those were peacekeeping missions as was Somalia. No approval necessary.
Have a good night.
I'm outta here.
The Senate is "irked" at the White House?? I guess that means they are "irked" at the current resident, since how can they be mad at a building?? LOL
I think mildly displeased ......as in......lets talk about anything but the budget and the economy,...we need to distract the voters some more.
If they were really "irked" they would commence impeachment proceedings immediately
+1 for you Edward. I can see the congressional republicans going over there and kicking the building several times while yelling at it.
Obama is wiping out the terrorists all over the world. We are finally seeing some progress being made in this ten year old war. Obama has killed more terrorists in the last 2.5 years than 8 years of the Bush administration. The end of the war is in sight now that we have a strong leader in Washington who is serious about ending terrorism.
Whatever the GOP is for then you should be totally against it. Nothing good ever comes from the GOP.
Working for America,
So how do they know that they are terrorists after they killed them. Do they ask their corpse. "If your a true terrorist just don't say anything."????
Obama killed all those evil terrorists huh?? I dont think Obama could kill a fly in one swat. It would take him two or three.
I support Obama in his many war efforts. ( I don't agree with him on many things) My problem is the Chastising of Bush for the war efforts. I didn't care for G.W. Bush much but I did support him (as did the congress) for going to war. In fact AMERICA supported him on this at about 90%.
Please don't forget our drones bomb PA key stan, I mean Pakistan almost everyday.
working for America has changed his/her handle, it was working for Obama, but that was too obvious.
Just a note for those who believe we are not very involved in Libya, that NATO is the entity doing the military work. Actually, the USA is doing everything except flying the planes over Libya. We manage, support, fly the communications aircraft, guide the planes, provide the special weapons, fly the drones, and share the very clear satellite photos. We do MOST of the work, just not the visible work the public sees.
Yes, this is a NATO project - but it is out technology and OUR money.
Not so stupid (questionable)....this is about the only thing you are right about. According to the constitution, there is no 90 day benchmark and the president has NO authority to use the military. The only thing that gives him that 90 day authority is the War Powers Act...which only applies in specific circumstances:
Did Libya declare war on the United States? Did Obama have specific statutory authorization from any branch of government? Did Quadaffi attack the United States?
The ONLY time the president can commit troops in the absence of congressional approval is if one of these criteria exist. Obama is in clear violation of his legal limitations.
And...if the president does utilize this authority, IF one of the three circumstances exist, there are requirements:
This administration has neglected it's legal requirement to fulfill this reporting obligation. Obama has consistantly refused to provide this information. Only now that he is being sued for it is the white house saying they'll get the report together. He had 48 hours to comply...It's been 80+ days.
President Obama is clearly in violation of US law. Begin impeachment procedings.
BS! US Navy and Marine Aviators were flying a obscene number of sorties, support, strike, bombing, tracking even rescue ops. Don't tell those brave men and women they aren't going to receive combat pay, they would bite your ever loving head off!
Launching cruise missiles at a foreign nations capitol is an Act of War, it directly places US Lives in the Mediterranean Sea as well as here in America AT RISK.
Stealing the 30+ Billion Libya Sovereign Wealth Fund which had been helping 25+ African Nations thru investments by the evil actions of the CIA and US State Dept. Hillary Clinton could be also seen as an act of War against Libya.
Besides the clear violation of the War Powers Laws, Pres.Obama clearly has violated the Patriot Act Laws by helping,aiding,arming and funding the East Libya Rebel Taliban whose well known and documented organizations LIFG and AQIM are both blacklisted in America as known Terrorist Organizations linked to Al Qaeda. Both the former and current CIA directors have told the elected US Gov. leaders and public that Al Qaeda are among the East Libya Rebel Taliban AND among the East Libyan NTC Council members.
UN Resolution 1973 specifically forbids the UN coalition and NATO from bombing civilian infra-structure in Libya. NATO has gone on to bomb Hospitals, Ambulances, Schools, Bridges, Civilian Gasoline Tankers, Fishing Boats, Harbors and Residential Neighborhoods, all are War Crimes and forbidden.
NATO and Pres.Obama both clearly cite they are pushing for a regime change in Libya. Such is ILLEGAL under US and International Law to cause/force a regime change in a sovereign nation.
NATO clearly cite they want and are trying to assassinate Gadhafi. That is illegal under US Laws to murder or assassinate the leader of a sovereign nation.
Pres.Obama appears to be in violation of the very spirit of the War Powers Law. Libya did not attack America nor did Libya pose any threat to America and yet Pres.Obama has placed US troops in harms way and is risking the lives of Americans in Africa, the Mediterranean Sea and here in America by his foolish War on Libya.
President Obama is clearly in violation of multiple US Laws, War Powers Law and the Patriot Act Laws.
NATO appears to have committed multiple violations of International Laws in targeting civilian intra-structure in Tripoli and in targeting Gadhafi himself, killing his son and 3 of his infant grandchildren when several thousand pound bombs were dropped onto a Libya residential neighborhood. Gadhafi's daughter is now suing NATO over that illegal action.
Joe 755363:
Did you also research our NATO treaty responsiblilities? If not, please allow me to enlighten you and the posters to this site:
Article 3
In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.
Article 4
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security . [emphasis added]
Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
Article 7
This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.
NOW YOUR position is: "
"Did Libya declare war on the United States? Did Obama have specific statutory authorization from any branch of government? Did Quadaffi attack the United States? The ONLY time the president can commit troops in the absence of congressional approval is if one of these criteria exist. Obama is in clear violation of his legal limitations."
However, YOU do not address nor consider our obligations/responsibilities under the above treaty as well as to the United Nations (involvement in both authorized by Congress) in the manner you addressed this issue. We are not certain if you are unaware of these additional considerations, or if you just don't get it.
Again, you and many others blog on here with your criticisims and complaints of our administration, and offer what you consider "common sense" solutions to this nation's problems WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE RAMIFICATIONS of your self-righteous suggestions to the entire situations - the Big Picture if you will. Too often your myopia, even when it seems to make sense prima facie , is just plain WRONG according to the overall plan, and such short-sightedness is harmful to my country and to many if not most American citizens. GET OVER IT! If you all truly had the answers and solutions, you wouldn't be blogging on this vine, but would be in Washington D.C. Just a fact.
What I believe is needed is for Boehner & company to quit installing roadblocks to our Commander-In-Chief's leadership and initiatives and begin the job of legislating as he and the others were elected to do.
ps: A. Smith: Sources for your allegations please.
I really do not understand the administration on this one. Leaders in both parties are asking for him to send a resolution to congress so it can be voted on. They also expect that resolution to pass. This is one of those rare bipartisan issues we always want to have...
Why is the administration making this difficult?
Ron, I am not certain.
One guess might be that since Boehmer & co. has basically declared war upon the President to insure that he has only 1 term, perhaps he simply refuses to facilitate anything Boehmer wants to do either. I hope not, and I seriously doubt it. Obama has shown he is not that thin skinned.
Personally, I agree with you and believe the easy thing to do is comply; maybe the administration attorneys WANT to test the constitutionallity of the Congressional resolution in court -
I personally do not have the information nor knowledge to answer your question nor explain the President's actions.
Not as Stupid, I take it that you believe and want the rest of us to believe that any laws, enacted by NATO, take superiority over US law? Is that what you're really trying to tell us? I don't know about you but I am first and foremost an American Taxpaying Citizen and abide by the laws that have been set forth, in this country, everyday. I clearly expect our President to do the same. For someone who campaigned on "hating all things Bush" he sure has followed in his footsteps like a good little boy...
Why is it that NATO didn't take action against Iran when they were killing their own people for uprising against the government? Who is picking the countries in which NATO intervenes and which ones they just wag their finger at?? Anyone have any guesses as to what country will require a good ole fashioned NATO bombing next?
The citizens of this country are war weary and have had enough. It is to the point of disgusting that our elected politicians (including McCain) feel the need to keep our noses in everyone elses business..
I am completely confused by the actions taken by Congress. The War Powers Act calls for consultation only if troops have been deployed and are in combat. The US is only taking a supporting role in Libya and we aren't even running the operation. We are giving technology and money and supplies, but, other than implementing the No-Fly zone over Libya, I don't see any other involvement. There was always been a conflict between Congress and the President and the checks and balances system. To be honest, I don't think the War Powers Act is even constitutional. The President is commander-in-chief and can send troops wherever he wants. The only thing with this is that no troops have been deployed. I really don't think this is a big deal considereing it is looking like th conflict is about to end anyway.
And Finally, there are other problems in this world besides our own. This is a global economy and there are global affairs which will greatly affect the US. Besides it's not like Afghanistan and Irag where we went in and took over the country. In my opinion, Obama has done a really good job. I think it's completely unfair and illogical to compare him to former President Bush who put us in this mess whereas not we are slowing coming out of the recession. Very slowly but we are coming out nonetheless.
I think Congress deserves to know what is happening, but he doesn't really need their approval. Congress has never like being ignored though or feeling like they are being overlooked or overstepped.
ELLIE MAE:
Please read #4.6 below.
You ask: "Why is it that NATO didn't take action against Iran..." and that question is addressed. The facts are that W Bush had a personal agenda for a regime change in Iraq; he didn't like Saddam and he wanted his veep to take our money through no-bid military contracts with his company (Haliburton.) Yet YOU are saying that you support W, but oppose Obama on similar issue, even when Obama is only living up to our promises, obligations, and responsibilities to our allies while W basically sneered in their faces and said, "We don't need you... we will do anything we want to do."
Guess your post just answered what type person you are and indicates how you feel about what is right. As stated in the below post 4.6, this is a defining moment of the United States of America in the eyes of the world. It appears to me that the President is only mending the international fences damaged by the previous administration.
Oh well....
OBAMA2012, when the rest of the "global" world starts paying their fair share of tax liability's, in this country (USA), then they can tell OUR PRESIDENT, who works for the AMERICAN citizens, that their problems take precedence over mine....
By "supplies" do you mean bombs? If we let the Commander in Chief send troops "wherever they want" isn't that more like a dictatorship instead of a republic..
Not as stupid ........ The articles you posted above refers continously to "the parties" i.e. NATO. Libya is not a member of NATO and no member of NATO has been attacked. The NATO articles are basically, "if you attack one of us, you attack all of us".
This is all in-fighting within a country, as is also happening in Syria, Yemen and many others.
I would like to know what our end game is. If it is to get Ghadaffi then go get him. If not get out. What if he goes into hiding for 10 years? Do we keep lobbing bombs in there every once in a while to try to scare him out?
If a no fly zone is the true objective the arab league has enough planes to do that.
And why do you only name Republicans by name for hounding Obama as this is a bipartisan effort to try to get the game plan for what the policy and end game there is.
How does this answer my question with regards to Iran? I believe Irans last elections and the unrest that was atributed to it happened while Obama was on watch, wth does ole Georgy have to do with my question?
Where in the world did you get the impression that I support W? Obama's first obligations and responsibilities are to live up to the promises he made to the American people. When he starts waking up and going to bed without JOBS on his mind and all is well with our economy then he can go play war games with NATO... How about if he stays in DC for a few days and attends a few of those commission meetings (deficit/debt/debt ceiling increases) that President Biden is currently presiding over?
What type person am I and how do I feel? Oh and I'm assuming that you believe what you say is always "right" and no one elses feelings or opinions should be considered??
BIG ATC: Please re-read Article 4;
ELLIE: I mis-read and believed you refered to Iraq, not Iran; my bad. Please accept my appology for that.
I just re-read Article 4. Is Libya a member of NATO? If not, it doesn't apply.
You're opinion that NATO/UN treaties override the US Constitution is preposterous. If that were the case, then the Secretary of State and the US Ambassador to the UN would have as much power as the president or congress. Both these positions are appointed. Do you really think that is the intention of the Constitution?
Do you believe reality and practicality conform to our Constitution?
Yes I do....ever try reading it?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I have.
Ever try living it and abiding by it?
LIFG and AQIM are a known quantity and presence in East Libya and Both are Al Qaeda Branches,Both Banned by the West. Both former and current CIA directors as well as the Pentagon attorneys have stated Al Qaeda is among the East Libya Rebel Taliban bandits and inside their NTC council.
It is a clear violation of the Patriot Act LAWS to aid,arm,fund those Al Qaeda fighters whose sole aim is to impose Sharia Law across Libya which the vast majority of Libyan people do not want and to obtain the near unlimited Libya Oil wealth which the East Libya Rebels do not deserve nor should the West allow to have.
Libya,The Rebels & Al Qaeda Explained 4min. Video http://is.gd/aOLOQp Exposing their Democracy LIES
What's Really Happening in Libya and who's aiding the @Libya Rebel Taliban Al Qaeda fighters? http://is.gd/FyEVSI
Former CIA Director Gen.Hayden praises Gadhafi for his counter-terrorism help against Al Qaeda in Libya,Middle East http://is.gd/uZPGjQ
East Libya Rebel Taliban AQIM Al Qaeda fighters captured in possession of suicide belts in southern Tunisia http://is.gd/9AgG05
East Libya AQIM linked to Al Qaeda call for @Libya Jihad against Gadhafi and to dump the Benghazi council in the ditch. http://is.gd/ffDd52
What's Really Happening in Libya and who's aiding the Libya Rebel Taliban Al Qaeda fighters? http://is.gd/FyEVSI
100's of known Al Qaeda anti-American fighters among the East Libya Rebel Taliban fighters http://is.gd/nsGDlv
East Libya Rebel Taliban Commander admits 100's of known Al Qaeda anti-American fighters are helping him on the front lines http://is.gd/YdxDZS
Al Qaeda leaders confirm they have multiple East Libya Al Qaeda branch offices in Benghazi, Al Bayda, Al Marj and Dernah Shihata http://is.gd/zpRaWy
East Libya long lineage of Al Qaeda fighters in Benghazi,Iraq and Afghanistan http://is.gd/oQIF5T
Al Qaeda offering and supplying aid,arms,fighters to East Libya such a surprise! http://is.gd/HdZ4HE
Anti-Gaddafi Rebels Include Groups Linked To Islamic Anti-American Extremism http://is.gd/k1yYlL No Surprise to US Citizens!
Former jihadist Noman Benotman,renounced his Al Qaeda affiliation 2000, estimates 1,000 Al Qaeda jihadists in East Libya http://is.gd/7aGpH7 that is 10x those known to exist in Afghanistan and Pres.Obama is helping them!
A Very Well Documented and Written Exploration of 'The Lies Behind the West's War on Libya by Jean-Paul Pougala http://is.gd/A9ZHeY
With the ample documentation, references and links exposing the Al Qaeda links and associations with the East Libyan Rebel Taliban making Pres.Obama in clear violation of the Patriot Act LAWS by funding,arming and helping them.
Let's move to the 10th. worlds largest national wealth fund which was invested in well over 25+ African Nations and over 100 Nations around the world helping those nations prosper thru investments. Now stolen by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thru the CIA.
The sick depraved theft of the Libya Wealth Fund came many months in planning and carrying out before the so-called CIA/MI6 planned uprising in East Libya. It appears they turned,bribed,extorted a Libyan finance minister to move all of the Billions in investments into US and UK banks where they planned to steal it.
Financial Heist of the Century: Confiscating Libya's Sovereign Wealth Funds http://is.gd/Z6rmua
The theft by Pres.Obama and Hillary Clinton of the Libya Sovereign Wealth Fund severly impacts 25+ African nations resulting in Starvation, a rise in Diseases, Greater Infant Mortality and Illiteracy in each of those nations.
It is a violation of International and US Laws to force a regime change by UN, NATO actions.
It is a violation of UN Resolution 1973 for the UN coalition and NATO to bomb Libyan civilian infrastructure which NATO has on a daily basis: Harbors, Fishing Boats, Civilian Fuel Tankers, Cargo Ships, Bridges, Residental Neighborhoods, TV Stations, Schools, Hospitals, Hospital Supply Plants making each of those violations separate but substantial War Crimes.
It is a violation of US Laws to attempt to kill much less succeed in assassinating a foreign nations ruler.
It is a violation of the US War Powers Laws to attack a foreign nation who has not attacked America nor poses a significant strategic direct hostile threat to America.
It is a violation of the US Patriot Act Laws to arm,fund,aid the Al Qaeda linked LIFG,AQIM East Libyan Rebel Taliban whose aforementioned terrorist organizations are both banned and blacklisted in America and many nations around the world.
Obama is in bed with Libyan terrorists.
Pres.Obama is waging yet another US Unconstitutional War http://is.gd/xcJWVR
What????...What?..... WHAT????????
Instead of spouting your seditious, unpatriotic opinions about our President on this vine as facts, you should get your information correct, AND cite legitimate sources of allegations.
We have a dishonest crooked lying slimeball president who has not got our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan or closed Guantanamo as he pledged to get elected. Dont you dare call me unpatriotic for calling a lying sack of sh1t, a lying sack of sh1t.
There are only two instances where the US Gov. pays hazard pay which is roughly 2x active duty pay. One is to a federal forest firefighter fighting a forest fire. The Other is a US soldier in a combat zone where it is more commonly referred to as combat pay.
The Navy and Marine aviators flying bombing, strike and targeting missions in Libya are receiving combat pay.
It is a complete and total INSULT for President Obama to tell those brave men and women risking their lives carrying armed 2,000 bombs to various targets inside Libya that they do not recieve combat pay and any honorable actions they do in that combat zone wouldn't be recognized as such.
The illegal theft by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the CIA of the Libya Wealth Fund of well over 30 Billion dollars is a act of War. Dropping hundreds Millions of US taxpayer provided bombs on the capitol of Libya is absolutely an act of War.
The illegal war on Libya endangers the lives of the US aviators in harms way, it endangers US lives in Africa as well as here in America. The illegal war on Libya has hiked up gasoline prices and commodity prices have also skyrocketed some 25% in the process. As a result the US economy is approaching a double dip in extended recession. Once at a feeble 2.8% economic growth before the illegal war on Libya, now at an anemic 1.3% and falling.
President Obama has lost his ethical and moral compass, the illegal war on Libya severely impacts the weak economy's of all African nations, has already displaced 1 million African immigrants and caused the deaths of thousands. Scores of Yemen civilians have been recently killed by Pres.Obamas covert war on Yemen by drone strikes. Instead of pulling US troops out of Afghanistan, Obama still has some 100,000 occupying Afghanistan in a situation where the Afghanistan Occupation Resistant fighters have reached such numbers, any remote chance of sustained success is utterly doomed.
Mitt Romney would certainly start WW3, however Pres.Obama is not leading America to peace and prosperity, he is apparently unable to say no to the US Military Complex. For a former constitutional scholar, Pres.Obama shows a total disdain and violation of the US Constitution and more Reps. than Kucinich, Paul and Issa are going to force Obama to either follow the US Laws and Constitution or be charged with their violations.
OH brother - here we go again...
I say bring up for a vote and get their stance on record!
Thats right Feisty, here we go mentioning what the Prez is doing. How dare we? That is in no small part what the Senates job is.
What's up kirby?
Did you take a hit off the mind reading joint the Teapublicans are passing around here today?
Enough with the bullsh!t psychic act okay?
Kirby, please......the right hammered Obama for not getting involved in Libya fast enough.
At last, some common sense with this resolution that will clarify things.
Calm yourself Feisty. I think the Prez is doing what all Prezes do. And it is no more legal for him than for any other. We can't just go to war whenever a president wants to.
And Eric, I don't care what the right said. It is my opinion (and I am allowed to have one) that we have no business in Libya or Afghanisatn.
Oh, and John Kerry is hardly right wing.
One way to silence the rabid right and DINOs is for the DOJ to start an investigation into.....well, we all know what and who!
Unindicted war criminals living off the tax payers.....walking free without fear!
You do get to have an opinion Kirby, and I get to disagree with you, isn't America a wonderful place !
So Eric, you agree with the President that we should be in Libya and Afghanistan? Based on what?
Nasty redhead and Eric
You would defend President Obama on anything. You are sheep! Keep in mind that the Senate is still controlled by your favorite party. You know, the party that has done nothing good in the last 5 years.
Remember back in 2006 when the dems asked us to elect them to fix everything? Don't you think it's time they get started? We gave them total control and we are getting worse every year.
Guess kirby passed you the mind reading bong huh?
Please point out where I'm defending the President?
Good Grief- you all sure are wound up tight!
Can you go please make your family some dinner or something equally useful like finding a real job. You just can't stop the constant crapola you put out here and it really lessens the board for everybody else who have to continue scrolling past your junk to get in a word edgewise.
It's bad enough you and your buddies monopolize the morning patting each other on the back for cutting and pasting the garbage from the liberal websites as facts but now you are back with round 2.
Enough already!!!!
I am not sharing my bong. After all, I am a libertarian who believes in drug legalization. Starting with me. You share yours Feisty.
JH-479998
I remember when the news had a front page story about a former tea bagger getting life-saving chemotherapy in Obama's high risk medical insurance pool.
Guy had kidney cancer and two young sons to support.
Presto!! Instant Democrat!!
Ask him if the Democrats did any good in the last 5 years.
Just sayin'.......
Sour grape stomping @ REB #'s house starting at 7:00!
Kirby's briinging his stash! lol
I'll bring the brownies...
PS: kirby - you're starting to 'grow' on me! ;o)
Uh oh. You don't want libertarians to grow on you. It might be catching.
I told you, I am not sharing. Bring your brownies, but nada from me.
Greg
The man would have beeen taken care of under our health system without the assinine cost of Obamacare. That reform we break the bank when it is finally put into place. Obama has a reason for not wanting it active while he's still around. The state of Washington has said it will cost 20 million a year in taxes on their union "cadillac plans" in King County alone. They'll probably get a wavor because they are pretty liberal in WA state.
So, what... didn't feel like working on JOBS today? So NOW they want clarification on the support of NATO in their humanitarian action against Lybia? But I remember the same whiners screaming for action and that the president was too willy-nilly! I guess they think we all have short term memory problems... its like they wake up in the morning and ask themselves what to be appalled about today regardless of what they said yesterday. Hypocritical and diversionary.
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
At least something positive goes on at my house whatever it may be. Now you've shown yourself as a dope smoking dope.
Finally a real revelation about yourself is out there.
What a tool.
As I said get a real job if you can.
This feed is right out of the GOP handbook. If you don't believe in facts and science then attack, attack, attack you opponent. LOL. The world is flat and the sun evolves around the earth crowd are alive and well.
Nope JH. I read the story. What did happen is that the guy lost his insurance under the Utopia the Republicans built for him from 2000 - 2006. He could not get preventive care, early diagnosis, or any treatment cause he could not afford it.
Because of his lack of insurance the condition went untreated for years until it became acute. Now under ObamaCare he was finally able to get the radiation and chemo he needed. Unfortunately, his prognosis was not good. They needed to subject him to massive catastrophic levels of these treatments in a desperate, last-ditch effort to try to save his life. I hope he made it, I'm the father of one little son myself.
What would have happened without ObamaCare is that he would one day go into a clinic after having passed out at work while pissing blood. There would have been massive treatment in the ER in an attempt to save his life and circumvent liability for the hospital. The cost for the unpaid-for treatment would be borne by people like me, and you, who have insurance when the insurance company hikes our premiums to pay for his treatment. You already pay for his treatment JH, you just didn't realize it until now. Health insurance costs increase double digits every year because of this. They are the only product where you can pay the premiums,....but can still be denied the service even if you pay for it!! How'd you like to drop $40,000 for a car, then go to pick it up and have the salesman tell you you can't have yer' damn car? You'd go berserk, and so would I!!!
ONE THING THAT CONSERVATIVES HAVE TO LEARN IS THAT THERE ARE NO FREE RIDES IN LIFE!! DOWN THE LINE THE BILL IS EVENTUALLY DUE. FOR HEALTH CARE, THAT TIME IS NOW.
Obama just decided to meet the issue head-on instead of kick the can down the road and whistle past the cemetery like repubs have been doing since Clinton's days. The premiums under ObamaCare will be radically smaller than what you are paying now. The only thing Obama failed to do is make a single-payer, public option available in his ObamaCare, but with this it would put the private insurance carriers out of business.
Republicans embrace "the free market", so a little competition on their monopoly would make the insurance companies treat people better. Right?
Jesus was a Democrat!!!! God bless Obama!!!! The right wing is losing and the more unhappy they are the better off this nation will be.
@working for america; You do realize that Obama is going to start WW 3 don't you? Within the next few weeks, there will be troops on the ground in Libya!! But first there will be a False Flag in the Middle East, possibly involving nukes and many of our sons and daughters, etc are going to die and more flag draped coffins will arrive shortly! If you think Obama is anymore benovolent than Bush, you are sadly mistaken.
Obama is using all the things Bush did and then some; Patriot Act, TSA gropings, Homeland Security, Police State tactics, torture, rendition, indefinite detention without trial etc. But that's not all, he will bankrupt this country with his endless wars and banker bail-outs, and then he will come for you and me!!
Greg, I don't feel compelled to pay for your healthcare while you are trading food stamps for Newports and forties.
Leeching Off America, the right wing is losing. They are losing their freedom, jobs, and way of life while liberals destroy the country.
You lefties better lay of the bongs and joints because I have heard talk of drug tests before you get your food stamps and rent subsidies.
Total lie and fabrication. There is not one provision in Obamacare that has gone into effect yet that would have enabled this man to get treatment. The high risk pools have been in place for years and this man, as well as anyone else denied coverage, has been eligible for it since the time his other coverage ran out. The only provisions of Obamacare that have taken effect have to do with a loss ratio reporting criteria and the waiver of prexisiting conditions on children under 18.
Try as you want to try and credit that disaster called Obamacare...it had nothing to do with this case
So the President can drag us into a conflict without Congressional approval if, as the White House claims, " that the activities of United States military forces do not amount to full-blown “hostilities” at the level necessary to involve the section of the War Powers Resolution that imposes the deadline."
So much for Congress having the power to declare war.
We now need to define what full blown hostilities means. Just how many missiles need to be fired, count the number of bullets or aircraft used, 25 men or less...ridiculous.
The President does not have that power and to say he does disregards the safeguards in the Constitution.
If Pres. Obama really thinks he has good justification for the Libyan War, seems to me he would be eager to have Congress on board, for CYA if nothing else.
Apparently just a small mis-understanding. A minor failure to communicate. PSST Qaddafi - we want you dead.
Qaddafi - Get bent!
Obama - say hello to my little friends. And by friends I mean a butt-load of tomahawks.
Yep, not conflict/war here. Love missles raining down, but all is wine and roses.
Of the last 118 times a President has ordered military action, only one was for imminent threat. Presidents for years have thought that the WPA was unconstitutional. I expect this will be argued more and more.
Boehner clearly stepped in it, as he stated his disagreement to Bush 1 having to follow the WPA.
Eric-913730..
To my point, if it is unconstitutional, then under what authority does he have the right to deploy troops into combat?
That would then require a Declaration of War from Congress.
Seems to be contradicting himself.
Have a good night.
Eric, all that means is that Presidents were wrong 117 times.
I am tired of Boehner. I am tired of his perpetual tan...in January. I am tired of his waffling. I am tired of his wimpiness. I am tired of his lack of backbone. I am tired of him reneging on his word. And most of all I am tired of his crying! First time, it was nice seeing some raw emotion for a change. But when he does it time after time after time, I dont think he is just emotional, I think he is simply colicky! And this coming from a conservative!
Crocodile tears to keep the voters coming to the polls while he destroys their lives.
dennissyllabaugh
I'll buy that Dennis just as soon as he commits an impeachable offense, and just as soon as Bush, Scooter Libby and Cheney go on trial for high treason, and are hanged.
I think this is the new Paul? Hey Greg you believe they too were involved in 9/11?
I'm a conservative too and I can't stand Boehner. He is a career politician that cares more about his reelection and his campaign funds than about doing his damn job. This guy is so weak that he started the budget talks a few months ago demanding 100 billion and walked away getting what? 300 million? He was 99.7% unsuccessful.
And now he doesn't even bother to understand the War Powers Act? Obama doesn't have 90 days to submit a plan and report to congress, by law he has 48 hours. Not only that, the ONLY time a president can commit the US military is if we are attacked or war is declared on the US.
A real leader would be calling for impeachment, not issuing a non-binding resolution.
threewolves,
I do.
Let's see should the President have the authority to send troops to defend the US....um.....YES !
He's the leader of the military, and since when has the US declared "war" on anyone since WWII.
Sheesh.....we are in a supporting role with NATO in Libya, no boots on the ground, very little risk.
Eric, defend the US against what? I'm sorry but did I miss something? Did Daffy threaten war against the US or any of the other NATO member countries?
Eric - if the risk is so slight, we'll be seeing you over there, right?
If not in response to a direct threat against us, or action taken against us, congress should approve all actions of military force. i.e. lobbing bombs at other countries. Not troop gathering or anything like that but bullets actually flying.
Not a partisan issue, i just don't want any President being able to drop bombs on other countries without anyone to immediately answer to.
So, like our president and a lot of other liberals you just want to do away with the Constitution? Sending troops is not within the executive branch's powers (with the exception of the War Powers Act which allows the president to use the military when the US is attacked).
So when did Quadaffi attack the US?
John Boehner agreed with the Libya Action before he realized he was agreeing with the President, then he ran for the hills and did his usual, Cried No!!!The UN is handling this mission as they should just think if Republicans had listened to them on Iraq, don't get involved they said walk away, Republicans said we will go it alone. Oh, maybe I'm wrong did we even consult the UN? I don't think we did correct?
Just think how many lives would have been saved had the Republicans listened to the UN. By not getting involved consulted or not! Now that all countries agree and they follow through Republicans have a problem because they want the U.S. to lead and be the only lead, you know go it alone.
June, you are so full of crap. For one thing this article is about the Senate that is controlled by dems. Then the next thing you are wrong about is the only party that ran for the hills was the dems after giving President bush authorization for war. And the UN actually passed way too many resolutions telling Saddam he had to comply. He never did so at least we had a President with enough sense to end Saddams rule. The United States under George Bush put together a very large coalition of countries to take out a mad man and some of you still lie about the truth behind the mission. Now we have a President who feels he can do anything he wants with our military without asking permission. And clowns defend him.
WOW! Talk about reflection!
How out of touch - with reality AND with American citizens - can one person be?
Amazing!
Over 40 nations joined the coalition against Saddam.
You didn't even try to get it right june.
Yeah JH,...I remember the 8 troops Poland sent.
GREG-- Not exactly your A Game tonight. Facts are not getting in the way this evening. You really aren't helping with your Bullsh**
People -
The ideological difference in this debate is this:
W sent our military into conflict in opposition to the United Nations and world opinion;
Obama is currently complying with the U.S. obligations to both the UN and NATO.
Now the question is, (or should be,) which courses of action is correct? Should we, as a nation, ignore our promises, obligations and agreements, or should we fulfill our responsibilities incurred under treaty? This is a defining decision on who we are as a people and a nation in the eyes of the world.
Really pretty plain and simple isn't it?
OK,...you're right,...I think it was 9 troops.
I have some practical advice for President Obama.
Of all the things he could have chosen not to compromise on, he picks this?
republicans. two-faced. crooks...
where were they complaining when bush violated international law?
Always playing partisan BS..., and looking for political gain (which they dearly need to save that sinking ship called the GOP-titanic)
We don't operate under international law. We have our own sets of laws and Bush did what Obama is not doing. He went to congress to get authorization for Iraq and Afghanistan. And he got it. Obama probably would as well, but he hasn't followed the law.
Yeah, ain't it great that the GOP is partisan, but of course none of the dems are.
I agree with Obama to go into Libya I wish he would have gone to congress so we wouldn't have to defend his actions. It looked a tad bit sneaky when he waited for congress to leave D.C. then gave the word to attack.
Amen. There are issues that reasonable Americans want to support our president on, even if there is major disagreement on many others. Clarify the need, show the support for our NATO partners, etc....I cannot for the life of me understand why Obama would take this route with foreign policy. History shows that our compasionate country wants to help and wants to support the oppressed (in some circumstances)....failing to adequately explain the position, stalling, circumventing Congress, doesn't make sense...
There is a lot of room for a major legal argument over the War Power Resolution. It is not as clear cut as one would hope and that is why all Presidents have bucked it. It could be interpreted that as long as there is a standing army the Commander in Chief can direct its operation without congress. The supreme court is not anxious to get into this realm so it does not appear that there is a way to resolve it until the congress and the executive branch push it to the court to decide.
It does not make sense to me that President Obama is bucking it unless he wants it resolved by the court.
When are you going to figure out the simple, obvious, glaring truth that my side is always right, even when it was your side before it was mine?
Wars and military interventions of any stripe are INDEFENSIBLE when YOUR guy is in charge, and INDISPENSABLE when MY guy is in charge.
See, simple...
Wow dangerfield, that just takes all the fun out of it, doesn't it?
Hence, my popularity in the "community"....:)
dangerfield excellent point. If this was a republican president, the left would be in an uproar. Although the last republican president did get congressional approval. If President Obama believes that this is the right course then let him present it to congress and get approval. If he does it on his own and bypasses congress completely, could he then be classified a war criminal. Let's ask Anna Molly the resident fr lawyer. Personally, I am for the intervention, but I think he should explain why he believes so.
If you agree with my so-called excellent point and subscribe to either of the P's.O.V generally expressed herein, It's very possible that you didn't understand what I meant.
Who is the chairperson for the Foreign Affair Committee?
This issue is a little bit touchie.
It has involved the coalition force. They may need to talk to the NATO and the Arab nations, including the U.N, before the humiliation of our military force.
How darn the Senate oppose the King. He is far above these mere mortals. They are worthy to lick his shoes.
Watch the Senate fold.............fold, Senate, fold.............good boys.
Willie. Correction, republicans are not worthy to lick his shoes.
So we are bombing the hell out of Pakistan. Do we have congressional approval? if not, why not?
Libya is different because it is a known terrorist country and has been for the last 42 years. Pakistan is also a known terrorist country but the Bush administration gave them 84 billion dollars to pretend that they were our ally in the war on terrorism. Pakistan is a hot potato to the GOP because they wouldn't want the truth getting out about their negligence.
So as long as Barack decides the country is a terrorist country, he gets to by-pass the law. Hmm, what country will he designate a terrorist country next. Israel?
Bring our troops home! Cut the US Military Budget! Protect US Borders. STOP, with being the police of the world.
America and Americans First!
MT. Thanks to Obama, and despite republican resistance, troops are leaving Iraq.
Thanks to Obama we are finally getting some progress in the war on terrorism. We will be at peace soon under the Democrats.
@working for america; Obama is going to start WW 3!! You really must be living in La-La land....LMAO. O-BOMB-A, is the new War president!!
You people that think Obama is not a WAR mongrol are not paying attention! Obama and his lack of being consistent with a foreign policy, has lead to chaos in the world!
Kerry says we're not at war with Libya.
What an asswipe. Of course, the Democrats said the same thing concerning Vietnam.
Someone should tell Kerry (who should know), if you launch missiles at someone; somebody considers it war, regardless of how fleeting.
The Democrats, not all individually of course, have become a running joke. I find myself hoping for their demise on a daily basis. Please, Dem reps, for the good of our world, if you are as disingenuous as Kerry, just quit.
If Obama gets away with this, we might as well hand him a crown, cancel all elections, and declare him an emperor. We're not really at war, we're just shooting at the military of another country, trying to depose or kill their leader, and taking sides in a civil war in their country. But we're not at war, and it's none of Congress business.
If you thought it was a cluster f b/4 wait til CON gress gets involved now
I don't get when Bush Jr. Declared war in Iraq & Afcrapistan not one member of the Senate or the Congress made a peep. And I bet Joseph Goebbles is turning in his grave, I bet if he was alive today he would be proud of the American News Agencys there doing exactly what he did to the Germans on using Propagander to fool the People. Now that Obama is about to do almost the same thing as Bush The House Speaker who supported what Bush did is saying Now that the President has to go through Congress an again where were these WAR Powers Acts then. Now Mr. Boehner wants to use them give it a rest you and all your cronies started all thiis now act like men your prtraying. Are or arn't we part of the UN or is it theres no money to be made for the Republicans in Libya. Wake up America these guys are going to bankrupt us an then fly the coop when it hits the fan.
Bush had congressional approval. Many times.
Bush Jr went to Congress, asked them to vote to authorize the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (on separate occasions) and Congress VOTED TO AUTHORIZE THOSE WARS.
Obama has not asked for Congress to approve our action in Libya. That is the POINT of all of this.
(and we are already bankrupt...)
Holy crap, Dngrmn. Don't you know anything about history. Do you just make this $hit up. Bush sought, and obtained, authorization from Congress. It passed 297 to 133. Now go back to sleep, dumba$$. Every time you lefty's open your mouth trying to justify this talking turd you elected, your ignorance overpowers any position you try to establish.
The more the right complains about our President the better job he is doing. Keep looking for more stuff to complain about in the future.
I guess being a liberal gives you the right to by-pass the Constitution.
Ron,
So you are comparing our backup support to NATO with the full blown invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq? I wonder if the number of military actions taken by our country without congressional approval would be in the thousands. If you were to go back through history and count, that is.
alsophia, I think Ron is comparing the "congressional approvals" not the acts themselves..... IMO, we don't need to be over there PERIOD, no matter who approves it. We have no actual proof that terrorist organizations haven't been behind all of these uprisings and are the rebel puppet masters. Considering that we armed, aided and abetted a terrorist before (bin Laden) you would think we would have learned our lessons on "research and investigation" first...
Missie Clampett,
I think we are mainly helping the Europeans by backing them on this (NATO)..........probably with way too much of our money.
We have armed, aided, and abetted many a terrorist. Biggest mistake there besides Osama was the time Ho Chi Minh came to us for aid and we turned him down. Look what developed with that situation when he went straight over to the Russians. Lots of dead boys. So I guess it would take a wise man to find the right path through these situations.
So by "the adminitration's" theory, if our troops aren't dying, it isn't a war?
Any time we have pilots climbing into armed jets with the intention of blowing up foreign military targets that intend to fight back against our pilots in any way they can, EVERY DAY for months, that is a war.
The suck ups in the Administration have to try and justify the talking turd's latest back flip into a pile of crap.
The know it's a civil war, and they no President Dip$hit jumped right into the middle of it without consulting our Congress, like he's required to.
Now his time has run out and he can't justify his actions.
Well that's just tough. If one more person dies in Libya as a result of actions taken by this man, Impeachment proceedings should start, and he should be turned over to the World Court.
We were not attacked. We were in no danger of being attacked. Both side in that $hit hole of a Country hate us, so we really don't have a dog in that fight. He should have gone to Congress, explained his position, and requested authorization.
The arrogant talking turd believes he's a king. He's put American Military personnel in harm's way without authorization. He needs to justify it.
Kerry and McKane - two loser out of touch Senators that prove the Senate should be abolished.
Gee, I think McCain has a slight bit more military experience than Obama. So I will trust him a little more when it comes to what constitutes military action. If a soldier can be killed doing it, it is military action.
Terry G-2285568 #18,
"...Senate should be abolished"
NO
Term limits, YES!
Terry, Only Cesar shall rule.....Remember the Movie Gladiator??? I don't think it ended so well for Cesar.
Ray,
So you are saying Obama should have gone to congress to get permission to send the seals into Pakistan after Bin Laden?
I used to think Obama was a socialist. Due to recent events, I'm now convinced that he's actually and anarchist. Everything he and his administration addresses become unstable. He appears to have ZERO RESPECT FOR THE US CONSTITUTION – as evidenced by his clear contempt of the War Powers Act.
His policies have left leadership voids in several Middle Eastern nations, uncertainty in our relationships with our historical allies including Israel, uncertainty in the American economy including inflation, job growth and business climate, uncertainty in health care due to Obamacare, uncertainty in the oil, coal, and energy markets, etc. He will loan billions to Brazil for oil exploration, yet he has turned his Interior Department and EPA loose creating havoc with our own energy developing sectors. At this point, I'm sure it's not because of incompetence but by design. How can EVERYTHING an American President touches go to __— in a handbasket unless he wants it that way?
When did the War end? Are we not at war anymore? Keep up the good work Obama!!!!! Kill another hundred terrorists before the GOP stops you!!!! The war hawks are getting queasy because you are wiping out all of their buddies.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19.
Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-four (54%) at least somewhat disapprove.
working for america, He's been campaigning since he was elected and he's done nothing but go downhill. He's one and done, and it can't come soon enough for the welfare of this country.
No go get your hanky and start crying, because he's through.
Now Barack has even pissed off his own party. Stick a fork in him, he is done!!
If they actually turn on him it could get ugly. Fast. Watch for the rats to start leaving baracks ship. Even the ones he made ride in the back. Hillery is the big fish. If she goes every one will start picking sides.
If a US warplane is hit with a surface to air missile, or anti aircraft fire, is it practice? What exactly does 'hostilities' mean?
If Bush Jr had done this, every wacko liberal would have been frothing at the mouth. Why the apathy when Obama does it? Right or wrong on Iraq and or Afghanistan, at least Bush had approval from Congress to start 'hostilities' in those countries.
I gaurantee, that if Canada were to drop bombs on some of our 'fringe' backwoods groups, I would consider it a hostile action, especially when a stray munition landed in my back yard.
If Congress wants to do something about a war, then why not cut off funds or direct an end to the war in Afghanistan? Our involvement is Libyan now is hardly more than a NATO support role. Certainly less than we are expecting of our NATO allies in Afghanistan.
The US is a member country of NATO and UN, Long ago the Senate approved both those treaties, and Congress wrote and passed implementation laws for those treaties. Under the US law implementing the UN Charter (a treaty), there are provisions to allow the president to act on behalf of UN Security Council Resolutions without further action from Congress. The implemtation law for the NATO treaty contains similar language. Congress recognized at the time that it would be impractical in every circumstance to get advance authorization from Congress for actions to support our treaty allies.
The administration has already "consulted" with Congress dozens of time, including for weeks leading up to the crisis and at regular intervals since then, both in open sessions and in classified briefings. The Senate passed a non-binding resolution, in fact, urging the president to seek UN sanction to establish a no-fly zone and to take other necessary actions. Everyone wishes the conflict would have been over by now, but four months is hardly a record compared to the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan. And for once, we were actually asked by the people of the country for our help.
Presidents of both parties have avoided getting caught up in the War Powers Act, so as not to establish a precendent that the president must seek authorization for all military action from congress, even if it is short of a full scale war. This is not Korea or Vietnam, the reasons why the War Powers Act was adopted in the first place.
Congress, in this case, was not caught blind sided. This whole drama has played out in public. The UN Security Council meeting was not secret and the president's decision to enter the mission was also made in a public speech. At any time, over the past several months, Congress could have voted to endorse the Libyan mission or to cut funding for it. Their hands have not been constrained in any way.
No one really believes that the Libyan conflict is a full scale war. This is a political dance over the separation of powers.
Mike, full scale war. Half a$$ war. Little bitty war. I don't care, and neither do most of the people. Obama needs to go to Congress for authorization. That's the way it works. He's the President, not the King. Are you confused by that? Congress authorizes the money for these things and they can stop it tomorrow. That's why you ask them. Nicely helps.
We're broke and we have serious problems on our border with Mexico. Now that would be a military action most of us would get behind.
Mike, try as hard as you want to sound smart. here is the truth. France, England and America are bombing the SH!T out of that country. And have been for 86 days
Hey Mike, Its time to go. Your going to come with me in this "Its not a WAR" Remember when I fire my Weapon I am only trying to scare them NOT KILL THEM. WHAT ARE YOU AN A$$CLOWN?????
This fiasco should be the end of N.A.T.O., An obsolete organization. That would probably save us 30 billion a year.
A question for Obama apoligists. The american pilots who got shot down suffered injuries. At the V A hospital how do you think they will be classified? Injured during Combat, in a combat zone? Do you think they also get combat pay?Injured in a war zone, that is not a war. Huh? On a combat mission brought down by rebel fire. Over a sovergn nation. No hostilities?
Yes, the right wing is losing. Losing their freedom, their jobs, and the American way of life. The left wing leeches are getting fat on the toils of the hard working Americans who go to work every day.
By the way, you lefties better lay off the joints and bongs. There is talk of passing a drug test before you get your food stamps and rent subsidies.
Abortion sound like a bad idea, until the child grows up into a whiney reprobate like Mr. Skippy here.