Last edited by Objective Voice; 06-16-11 at 11:48 AM.
NATO strikes Tripoli, Libyan rebels make gains - Yahoo! News
protecting civilian lives, anyone?
Syrian refugees flee into Turkey - World - CBC News
financial times, june 17:
"although it is working under nato, the us is by far the largest contributor to operation unified protector, as of mid may it was conducting 70 per cent of reconnaissance missions, over 75 per cent of refuelling flights and 27% of all air sorties"
FT.com / Middle East & North Africa - Pentagon sees Libya military costs soar
barack the slasher's letter to congress yesterday:
"american forces have not been in 'hostilities' at least since april 7"
limited war, anyone?
Funny you should provide such links which support the President's statements that we don't have "boots on the ground" in Libya because according to the H.R. 292, the most recent Congressional Resolution concerning retaining armed forces in Libya sponsored by Speaker Boehner, it says NOTHING about removing armed forces from the Libya theater of operations EXCEPT for the non-use or withdrawal of ground troops:
Says nothing about an "immediate withdrawal of armed forces", just that the President has to provide justification for being there within 14 days of passage of the resolution which was on or about June 3, 2011. (By my calculation, that would mean June 17th is the deadline for the President.)(1) The United States Armed Forces shall be used exclusively to defend and advance the national security interests of the United States.
(2) The President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon United States national security interests for current United States military activities regarding Libya.
(3) The President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose of the presence is to rescue a member of the Armed Forces from imminent danger.
Hmmm...political posturing anyone?
Last edited by Objective Voice; 06-16-11 at 01:49 PM.
days not weeks
nato, not us
civilian lives and refugees
"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"
"the president has no constitutional authority to take this nation to war unless we're attacked or unless there's proof we're about to be attacked, and if he does, i would move to impeach him"
posturing aside, the truth is---
it's obama's war, he's president, he can do what he wants
he's an idiot
nation building, anyone?
You don't even need to refer to the War Powers act. The Constitution says it all. Congress controls whether or not the US will enter a war, period. That power cannot be granted or transferred to any other branch without a constitutional amendment. The War Powers Act was an attempt to restore Congress's authority, but it was unncessary because the authority is clearly there already.
Allowing the President to enter a war without Congressional approval for any period of time is simply unconstitutional. You cannot change the constitution through simple legislation like the War Powers act. Even with all that said, the President cannot ignore acts of Congress. Not only has Obama gone against the Constitution, he wont even follow Congressional law. He has the lack of respect for the rule of law that Nixon had, coupled with Bush's nation building, FDR's terrible spending, and empty rhetoric.
Obama probably has the worst traits of nearly all the past presidents combined. He's no change at all.
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
"When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."
He done went against the constitution and used that there act of congess ta yee-haw all over the place dag-nabbit.Not only has Obama gone against the Constitution, he wont even follow Congressional law.
kucinich this morning on the floor:
Dennis Kucinich Praises Bush, Slams Obama on Libya - Yahoo! News"President Bush came to Congress ... President Obama doesn't feel like he needs to come to Congress," Kucinich said. "That's why we need to go to court... We cannot continue to escalate these wars... the American people by and large want us out of Libya."
party on, peacenicks
powell docrine, anyone?
If Congress truly believed the War Powers Act was unconstitutional THEY and THEY alone have the power to repeal it.
If Congress truly believes President Obama has violated the Constitution concerning Libya, why don't they simply seak to impeach him?
because it's obama's war, he's president and he can do what he wants
but 138 house republicans and 110 democrats are certainly having their problems with the dummy's druthers
good luck with the china shop, barry