Why do liberals, who seem otherwise intelligent, always get stuck on stupid when it comes to the obvious and simple questions?
Objective Voice, you refer to my OP a couple of times (incorrectly on one occasion I might add) yet you failed to answer the question I asked.
I would love to delve into this with you further because I have some great points to make on it but your research is garbage until you address whether Obama himself said that his actions are unconstitutional. You read the OP but you missed that part?
This is what I hate about both parties and the zombies who pledge allegiance to their party rather than the USA. If it was unconstitutional then, it is unconstitutional now, no matter what party the President belongs to.
If you can claim the OP as support for your position, you damned well better be ready to answer the question the OP posed.
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
The ABCNews article "suggests" (the author's own words) that President Obama would not go to Congress to seak an extention for keeping armed forces in the Libyan military theater, but as the article clearly indicates President Obama did corresponde w/Congress on the afternoon of May 20 within the prerequisite timeframe per the War Powers Act. How is that going around Congress or not seeking their approval within the law? I could see if the House and Senate Majority Leaders, Bohner and/or Reid, had to go to the President first and all but demand that he comply with the law, but they didn't do that because there was no reason for them to. The President corresponded with them first!
Those are the facts.
Now, if you want to discuss what our military's role may be in Libya - limited or protracted - that's another discussion. But the fact remains, the President adhered to the law. Again, not blind allegience. Just the facts.
As for me quoting you, I suppose I should have said, "the article in the OP" vice "the OP" alone on both occasions where I (mis)quoted you, but I think anyone reading my commentary would know that I was referring to the article itself and not you directly considering your comments never mentioned the President's Press Secretary. Still...
Reading comprehension goes a long way...
Last edited by Objective Voice; 05-26-11 at 02:19 PM.
So, let's talk about it...In a 2007 interview with The Boston Globe, then Senator and Presidential candidate Obama said:
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
We all know Congress and only Congress has the power to declare war again any nation. We also know that Pres. Obama committed armed forces to the Libyan campaign (civil war...whatever you wish to call it). Was what the President said wrong? No.
He's 100% correct. But...
Under the War Powers Act, he can commit our troops to military action for a limited time w/Congressional approval. So, there you go.
wsj link aboveU.S. President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron warned that military operations in Libya will be a long slog that continues until Col. Moammar Gadhafi leaves power, a shift from the president's initial stance that the military intervention in Libya would be limited in nature.
Mr. Obama's remarks—first in a news conference with Mr. Cameron, then in a high-profile speech before both houses of Parliament—made clear that the U.S. and its allies are bracing for a long battle not just to remove Col. Gadhafi from power, but also to guide the burgeoning democracy movement in other Arab nations to a successful conclusion.
In both appearances, Mr. Obama stressed that a long game is under way throughout the Middle East. He said military action in Libya is going to be "a slow, steady process in which we're able to wear down the regime forces and change the political calculations of the Gadhafi regime to the point where they finally realize that they're not going to control this country."
Libya: Gaddafi 'increasingly worried' he will be killed by Nato - TelegraphDiplomatic sources last night disclosed that recent intelligence suggested the Libyan dictator was “paranoid” and “on the run” from Nato’s escalating attacks on his regime.
In the latest move to step up the military pressure on Col Gaddafi, David Cameron gave the final authorisation for Apache attack helicopters to start flying into Libya.
Britain and France have intensified attacks on Tripoli this week and Col Gaddafi, who has not appeared in public for weeks, was said to be moving between different hospitals.
Nato publicly denies targeting Col Gaddafi, but at least one strike has been launched on a building where he was thought to be present.
Diplomats said the real risk of death was having a “psychological impact” on the colonel, whose officials signalled for the first time this week that he could be prepared to step down.
see moves ahead
it appears likely ghadafi will soon be got, one way or the other
the dude is hyper paranoid, as well, and we just bombed the heck outta tripoli early this week
what's gonna happen if/when ghadafi goes?
someone oughta be prepared, might as well be you
tuesday: Libya rebels to open D.C. office - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com
have you met "the rebels," by the way, are you sure they're ready for primetime?
nation building, anyone?