Page 34 of 51 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 503

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

  1. #331
    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 The Prof View Post
    hey, it's his war and he can do what he wants

    and he is

    today:



    Obama, Cameron See Long Slog in Libya

    days, not weeks?

    no fly zone?

    nato's war, not ours?

    limited?

    and remember, if you break it, mr president...

    nation building

    exactly how far has the commander in chief seen thru all this?
    What's his exit strategy?

  2. #332
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Now that's another question, but as I told you back when Bush was president, that the real mistake was going in. That once we went in, there was no good way to end this. The mistake and damage was done. Obama has less choice than you guys like to think he has. Iraq is winding down, and it is now up to the Iraqis. Afghanistan, while problematic, is at least more understandable, as that is where we should have been in the first place.

    You might also recall I never called on Bush to be impeached or arrested. What he did was illegal in the fact that he broke agreeements we made in good faith and without any of the justifications that would allow him to do that (Obama hasn't btw). I want congress to go back to declaring war, as is there charge, but recognize that they haven't for a long time (a mistake in my view). The argument you have entered into is about what is meant by declaring war. The person I'm speaking to seems to believe in a much broader interpretation that I do, one that ignore the meanings of the words.

    But, what was illegal was going in. Bush did that. Now that the damage has been done, the question is more how to move out and not do even more harm.
    That's an awful lot of tap dancing to give Obama a pass. Look Joe, just admit that you are easier on Obama for what he does because you agree with his idealogy.

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  3. #333
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I know I'm chiming in late on this issue, but I wanted to do alittle more research as to the mechanics of the War Powers Act and then try to find the "60-day letter" the President apparently delivered to Congress concerning continued involvement in Libya.

    For starters as I understand the wording of the War Powers Act, per Section 1543(c), after the President has notified Congress that he has committed armed forces in support of hostilities in a foreign nation and Congress has subsequently granted him permission to do so (either by Congressional resolution or by not objecting to his actions), the President has 30 days to issue either an initial report of action to Congress or he must make a reporting not later than 6 months from the date he notified Congress of his initial force committment. Frankly, I find this reporting criteria confusing, but per my search of correspondence at Whitehouse.gov, the President did make his initial report to Congress on or about March 20 and made a follow-up report in April. (Note: Search criteria used: "letter Libya")

    The President then as 60 days to notify Congress if he believes it is warranted to retain armed forces in theater per Sect. 1544(b).

    According to the President's Press Secretary, Jay Carney, and as supported by the OP, the President notified Congress within the 60-day window according to the law. From a recent press briefing given on May 25, 2011:



    So, for those who believe the President has violated the law, sorry to disappoint...

    This takes me back to the article in the OP. From the article:



    Until I or someone else can post the letter or a link thereto, I think what we have here is speculation by the reporter because nothing in the quoted comments from the article suggests the President was even considering by-passing Congress on this matter. The very fact that the author indicates that the President notified Congress "this afternoon" (the article is dated May 20) should have clued the skeptics in.

    Congress then has 24 days to act on the President's request (per Sect. 1544(b)(2)) to which it can extend armed forces involvement in theater for up to an additional 30 days from the day Congress acts on the President's 60-day notification (Sect. 1545(a)).

    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.

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  4. #334
    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 GPS_Flex View Post
    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.
    That's the problem now. It's political party before country and we can see the consequences on their way.

  5. #335
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    That's an awful lot of tap dancing to give Obama a pass. Look Joe, just admit that you are easier on Obama for what he does because you agree with his idealogy.

    j-mac
    I always laugh how you and some others consider detailed answers as tap dancing. Funny ****. However, the real dancing is the continued effort on your side to make tree frogs look like apples. Different things are . . . well . . . different.


    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.

  6. #336
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,773

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    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.
    What blind allegience? I was merely pointing out facts.

    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 04:19 PM.

  7. #337
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,773

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    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.
    Towhich, I believe you're referring to this:

    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.”
    So, let's talk about it...

    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.

  8. #338
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Under the War Powers Act, he can commit our troops to military action for a limited time w/Congressional approval.
    yesterday in london:

    U.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."
    wsj link above

  9. #339
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

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

    today:

    Diplomatic 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.
    Libya: Gaddafi 'increasingly worried' he will be killed by Nato - Telegraph

    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

    then what?

    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?

  10. #340
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I always laugh how you and some others consider detailed answers as tap dancing. Funny ****. However, the real dancing is the continued effort on your side to make tree frogs look like apples. Different things are . . . well . . . different.

    Nah, I don't think so. But I can understand how you and Catawba might think so. See, I am somewhat of an idealogocal conservative myself, and can fully understand how one would delve into such delusion as to blind themselves to the truth. I once had that problem. I'd like to think that when we aren't sniping at each other, and having a real conversation that we could leave that behind, which is why I am willing to hold the question open, that you may drop the blinders and speak truthfully to the subject.

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

Page 34 of 51 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... 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
  •