Page 2 of 51 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 503

Thread: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization

  1. #11
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization

    ABC NEWS LINK: HERE




    In a 2007 interview with The Boston Globe, then Senator and Presidential candidate Obama said BOSTON GLOBE LINK

    In the above article he goes on to say “As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

    Candidate Obama seemed to think that it was important that the American people knew what his positions were and went so far as to speak about the trust the American people must have in someone whom they might elect President. Here are his words again:



    In lite of the fact that he started a war Libya, what has changed since then, other than the fact that he is now President and there aren’t any real anti-war protests anymore? President Obama NOW seems to think that the United Nations is the legislative body that has the authority to authorize the United States to go to war rather than Congress.

    Obama is not alone in his flip-floppery either. Vice President Biden, then Senator and Presidential candidate Biden, threatened to impeach then President Bush if he bombed Iran’s nuclear sites claiming that the President has no Constitutional authority to take America to war unless we are attacked or there is proof that we are about to be attacked (see videos below).


    What has changed? Why aren’t the American people outraged? I suspect it is because the majority of Americans want to support this President and want to see him succeed so badly that they allow him to lull them into utter ignorance by twisting words and coming up with phrases like “non-kinetic operations” and “reduce spending in the tax code”. If you plan to raise taxes and you call it “to reduce spending in the tax code”, you aren’t being honest and real with the American people.

    However, when you take the country to war and claim that it isn’t a war because we are now only performing “non-kinetic operations”, you are basically saying that Osama Bin Laden was never at war with the US because he only engaged in “non-kinetic operations” aren’t you?
    I support American intervention in the Libyan Civil War. However, the War Powers Act is currently the law of the land.

    However, every President has challenged Congress' limitations on the executive branch. This has been true since the beginning of our country. So many Presidents have questioned the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution since it was passed.

    On one hand, Congress has the ability to declare war and also the ability to fund it. However, the President has the power to command the armed forces which he has so that timely military actions can be decided on. This is why the executive is headed by a single person and not be a co-equal committee - they knew that such military decisions would be better if one person was responsible for it all rather than a group of people who may undermine each other.

    I don't mind at all Congress starting to re-assert its authority over such things; however, I don't expect an adequate or long-term solution to this issue until the Supreme Court steps up and clarifies the guidelines on how such things should work between the President and Congress.
    Last edited by samsmart; 05-21-11 at 11:22 AM.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  2. #12
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    The US President has gone rogue.

    Will the Kool-Aid drinkers ever accept the possibility that this guy is, according to their definitions, seriously right wing?
    But if he is then that means the criticisms conservatives lob against him are unfounded and therefore they should be supportive of him.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  3. #13
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MI and AZ
    Last Seen
    03-15-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,581

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    For reference from wiki:
    The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a non-binding Joint Resolution intended to restrict the power of the President to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."[citation needed]
    The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.
    Despite the apparent non-ambiguity of its language, the War Powers Resolution has been regularly ignored by presidents of both parties,[2][3]some even declaring their belief that the act is unconstitutional.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    But if he is then that means the criticisms conservatives lob against him are unfounded and therefore they should be supportive of him.
    Attacking Libya sans the approval of anyone is hardly 'conservative'. As well, neither BHO or anyone else appears to know who will take Gadaffi's place. That's not a conservative position either.

    The point is that BHO is behaving in a manner usually reserved for Left Wing criticisms of the Right, without ever considering that Dr. Strangelove could be a Leftist,

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    I support American intervention in the Libyan Civil War. However, the War Powers Act is currently the law of the land.

    However, every President has challenged Congress' limitations on the executive branch. This has been true since the beginning of our country. So many Presidents have questioned the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution since it was passed.

    On one hand, Congress has the ability to declare war and also the ability to fund it. However, the President has the power to command the armed forces which he has so that timely military actions can be decided on. This is why the executive is headed by a single person and not be a co-equal committee - they knew that such military decisions would be better if one person was responsible for it all rather than a group of people who may undermine each other.

    I don't mind at all Congress starting to re-assert its authority over such things; however, I don't expect an adequate or long-term solution to this issue until the Supreme Court steps up and clarifies the guidelines on how such things should work between the President and Congress.
    The War Powers Act was passed in 1973 and the only President who broke it previously was Bill Clinton over Kosovao, but at least he presented an argument as to why he was sidestepping the law.

  6. #16
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,971
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    The US President has gone rogue.
    Will the Kool-Aid drinkers ever accept the possibility that this guy is, according to their definitions, seriously right wing?
    Obama's not the first.
    I may be wrong.

  7. #17
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    I support American intervention in the Libyan Civil War.
    Does the US or any other country have the right to determine who is in charge of another nation? ..if, so why?

    Gadaffi accountable to Obama? Why?

    And last....Why the ****'s Obama such an idiot?

    Enough of ME involvement!!!

  8. #18
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,435

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    As well, neither BHO or anyone else appears to know who will take Gadaffi's place.
    What? There's a transitional government in place that has been recognized by England, France, Italy, Qatar and Kuwait last I checked - as the legitimate government of Libya. They have organized local tribunals in rebel-held areas to demonstrate committment to democracy.


    Quote Originally Posted by ric27 View Post
    Does the US or any other country have the right to determine who is in charge of another nation? ..if, so why?
    Who said we're gonna pick someone? Do we have the right to take out dictators who use their Air Force against their own people? Yes.

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    Obama's not the first.
    Obama's not the first what?

    To break the break the law in the case of the War Powers Act?

    Clinton was the first in the case of Kosovo but Clinton at least tried a legal defense. Obama has no such defense, legal, moral, or otherwise.

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    What? There's a transitional government in place that has been recognized by England, France, Italy, Qatar and Kuwait last I checked - as the legitimate government of Libya. They have organized local tribunals in rebel-held areas to demonstrate committment to democracy.
    And who is heading this "transitional government", what are its aims, political philosophies and who are its Libyan supporters?

    Who said we're gonna pick someone? Do we have the right to take out dictators who use their Air Force against their own people? Yes.
    You have no idea who will use violence against whom once the dust has settled. My guess that it will become another Islamic theocracy.

Page 2 of 51 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •