Page 44 of 51 FirstFirst ... 344243444546 ... LastLast
Results 431 to 440 of 503

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

  1. #431
    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

    i know, i know

    but libya is a UNITED NATIONS MISSION

    haven't you read?

    just kidding

    you're right, of course: Fact: Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya - President Obama - Fox Nation

  2. #432
    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 Catawba View Post
    House GOP kills vote on Libya
    absolutely, libya is barry's war, he's prez, he can do what he wants

    and he owns it, whether he breaks it or not

    it's his china shop
    Last edited by The Prof; 06-01-11 at 06:55 PM.

  3. #433
    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 The Prof View Post
    i know, i know

    but libya is a UNITED NATIONS MISSION

    haven't you read?

    just kidding

    you're right, of course: Fact: Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya - President Obama - Fox Nation
    Just so you know, coaltion of the willing means outside the UN.

    Coalition of the willing
    "Coalition of the willing" is a phrase which has been used since the 1980s to refer to groups of nations acting collectively and often militarily outside of United Nations auspices.

    Coalition of the willing - Discussion and Encyclopedia Article. Who is Coalition of the willing? What is Coalition of the willing? Where is Coalition of the willing? Definition of Coalition of the willing. Meaning of Coalition of the willing.

    I know you need a link to tell you, so i gave you one.

    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.

  4. #434
    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

    yup

    and the UNITED STATES MILITARY---with barack the slasher hussein as a killer commander in chief---is very, very WILLING

    good thinking

  5. #435
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,864

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

    The Prof,

    It's funny.

    You guys had no problem whatsoever with Bush going into Iraq and buggling the job terribly because in your eyes that war was justified. But have we ever found the WMDs he and others within his administration ever claimed were there?

    And if you think the fighting has stopped there, think again! The fighting continues, just no so much with American and coalition forces. Our national media has simply choose to stop reporting the scermishes that have taken place since our combat troops have withdrawn, but people are dying over there. U.S. forced democracy hasn't solved anything in that country. But after 8-years of U.S. involvement, yourself and others still support Bush's actions despite the enormous cost and loss of life to American, coalition forces and Iraqi civilians.

    Yet you can't bring yourself to support U.S. military involvement in a supporting role in Libya, and such involvement is more justified than our involvement in Iraq?

    Just an FYI for those who are curious, per CNN, the President did notify Congress and Speaker Boehner requesting continued involvement in Libya.

    On deadline day, President Barack Obama on Friday sent a letter to Congress expressing support for a bipartisan resolution favoring military operations in Libya.

    A spokesman for Boehner said his office has yet to see the resolution and therefore could not comment on whether the House leadership would be willing to bring it up for a vote.

    "We received the president's letter but have yet to see the draft resolution it mentions. No decisions will be made until such a review takes place and we discuss the matter with our members," said spokesman Kevin Smith.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 06-04-11 at 08:55 AM.

  6. #436
    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
    You guys had no problem whatsoever with Bush going into Iraq
    who, w-stands-for-what's-his-name?

    you don't know what you're talking about

    meanwhile, yesterday: Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission - Washington Times

    Crossing party lines to deliver a stunning rebuke to the commander in chief, the vast majority of the House voted Friday for resolutions telling President Obama he has broken the constitutional chain of authority by committing U.S. troops to the international military mission in Libya.

    In two votes — on competing resolutions that amounted to legislative lectures of Mr. Obama — Congress escalated the brewing constitutional clash over whether he ignored the founding document’s grant of war powers by sending U.S. troops to aid in enforcing a no-fly zone and naval blockade of Libya.

    The resolutions were non-binding, and only one of them passed, but taken together, roughly three-quarters of the House voted to put Mr. Obama on notice that he must explain himself or else face future consequences, possibly including having funds for the war cut off.

    “He has a chance to get this right. If he doesn’t, Congress will exercise its constitutional authority and make it right,” said House Speaker John A. Boehner, the Ohio Republican who wrote the resolution that passed, 268-145, and sets a two-week deadline for the president to deliver the information the House is seeking.

    Minutes after approving Mr. Boehner’s measure, the House defeated an even more strongly-worded resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, that would have insisted the president begin a withdrawal of troops.

    The Kucinich resolution failed 148-265. In a telling signal, 87 Republicans voted for Mr. Kucinich’s resolution — more than the 61 Democrats that did.

    Still, taken together, 324 members of Congress voted for one resolution or both resolutions, including 91 Democrats, or nearly half the caucus. The size of the votes signals overwhelming discontent with Mr. Obama’s handling of the constitutional issues surrounding the Libya fight.

    Mr. Obama’s only allies were top Democratic leaders, who said neither resolution was helpful as the president tries to aid U.S. allies’ efforts.
    i guess the 91 members of nancy's nervous caucus didn't get the president's...

    what was it again?

    oh yeah, the letter

    i guess they didn't get the president's letter

  7. #437
    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


  8. #438
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,669

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

    First, let me note that I fully support Obama's actions and feel he did not go far enough. I don't care much about UN blahblah or even congressional blahblah. Some of congress knew damn well knew what was happening and could have taken actions, but instead congress enjoys plausible deniability (calculated plausable deniability, mind us). Nonetheless, that Gaddafi remains is an international shame. The goals were clearly stated, including - Gaddafi's removal - so... what's happening here?


    Yet you can't bring yourself to support U.S. military involvement in a supporting role in Libya, and such involvement is more justified than our involvement in Iraq?
    Gaddafi bombed his own people with his air force and employed international mercenaries (because the army, at first, balked) to execute martial law, killing thousands.

    Saddam gassed 200k Kurds, drained land killing 50k Marsh Arabs and sold food-from-oil to the tune of 400k starved children (who would have had food, had he not sold it).

    You so sure Gaddafi had it coming more?
    Last edited by ecofarm; 06-04-11 at 10:18 AM.

  9. #439
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    12-21-17 @ 08:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,541

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

    Why are we in Libya again? Why do we care if Libya explodes from within?

  10. #440
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:16 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,473

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    First, let me note that I fully support Obama's actions and feel he did not go far enough. I don't care much about UN blahblah or even congressional blahblah. Some of congress knew damn well knew what was happening and could have taken actions, but instead congress enjoys plausible deniability (calculated plausable deniability, mind us). Nonetheless, that Gaddafi remains is an international shame. The goals were clearly stated, including - Gaddafi's removal - so... what's happening here?




    Gaddafi bombed his own people with his air force and employed international mercenaries (because the army, at first, balked) to execute martial law, killing thousands.

    Saddam gassed 200k Kurds, drained land killing 50k Marsh Arabs and sold food-from-oil to the tune of 400k starved children (who would have had food, had he not sold it).

    You so sure Gaddafi had it coming more?
    I disagree. Why did Qaddaffi have it coming. The rebels started the revolution and the killing. That is what militants do. Qaddaffi attempts to maintain his country's stability, including free education, healthcare, housing, and food with moneys generated by Libyan oil and gas reserves. The USA helps by killing lots of civilians and stating that killing these civilians stops the killing of civilians. A very deceptive brand of kool-aid, but there are lots of believers to that nonsense. We are helping to get control of the Libyan oil for Europe and the UK and that is the root of this war. If you think there is any other cause, your mind has been neatly manipulated. End of story. Qaddaffi has been good for Libyans and Africans. Who are his responsibilities?

Page 44 of 51 FirstFirst ... 344243444546 ... 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
  •