I don't think we can afford any military action in Libya, considering we're having trouble paying our own bills at home.
I think Obama has overstepped the authority granted the executive branch, and I don't care who you think did it before, it doesn't make it right this time.
I think Obama got a lot of mileage out of bashing Bush over various issues, but as time goes on, he keeps proving that he can't (or won't) do better. This issue is no exception.
Certitude: n. The knowledge/confidence that you have not been sending nude/semi-nude pictures of yourself to random women on the internet.
Frankly, I firmly believe that if Congress didn't want our armed forces in Libya all they have to do is vote overwhelmingly on a congressional resolution demanding that the President withdraw all military from the region. But they haven't. Yesterday was the 90-day mark. I'd think that if this truly were an issue Congress had a problem with they'd have had the resolution drafted, brought it before the House floor and voted accordingly for thing this morning. But they haven't. Why?So after nearly a decade of fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, which has cost thousands of American lives and nearly $1.3 trillion, a Libya mission that is comparatively inexpensive — less than $1 billion so far — and does not require ground troops has become the battleground for questions over the extent of the president’s power and Congress’s willingness to let him use it.
It all amounts to a historic test of Congress’s constitutional role as the war-making branch of government, the viability of the Vietnam-era War Powers Act and the ongoing public appetite for American military engagement abroad. Not only is Obama clashing with critics in Congress, but the Republicans competing to take him on in the 2012 presidential election debated the matter at their New Hampshire forum last week.
Ultimately, there are two issues at play: The first is whether the U.S. should be involved in Libya, and the second is whether the president needs congressional approval to continue American operations in that theater. After three months of debate on Libya, they have become intertwined in some minds. Republicans who have historically backed a robust presidency say Obama is violating the War Powers Act. Meanwhile, Democrats who have sought to limit presidential war-making power are comfortable with Obama’s belief that the War Powers law doesn’t apply to the situation in Libya.
Only a handful of politicians on both sides of the aisle are calling for a withdrawal (or for the President's head for that matter). Why not the entire Congress (or a significant majority)? I think people really need to start asking themselves this question.
Again, I don't agree with the President that we are not involved in hostilities in Libya, but I can support his attempts to restrict placing our servicemena and women in harms way by not allowing combat forces in theater. Even Congressional Resolution H. Res. 292 calls for "no boots on the ground in Libya". Furthermore, if Congress really wanted to restrict our military involvement in Libya still further, all they have to do is include in the resolution "no use of drones, military gunships, air-to-ground offensive weapons including fighter planes or air-to-ground missiles will be used" and that puts a complete lid on the matter. But they haven't done that either. Why?
In times of war on the advice of member of the incoming Administration, the incoming President usually carries forward with some policies from his predecessor. It's not uncommon.I think Obama got a lot of mileage out of bashing Bush over various issues, but as time goes on, he keeps proving that he can't (or won't) do better. This issue is no exception.
Are we in a quagmire yet??
Libya says NATO airstrike killed 9 civilians - Action News 5 - Memphis, Tennessee
If it wasn't so serious, and the fact that it lasts four years, it might have been quite a funny joke that's been played on the American electorate.
Ok, so he is not using the WPA. That is officially irrelevent?
That blunder of a strike might have missed Gaddafi.
if he's following his predecessor's policies he'd get that resolution
meanwhile, bigger picture:
what's the mission?
what's the time frame?
what's the exit strategy?
what's the follow up?
are you sure this guy knows what he's doing?
i'll bet ms krass isn't
oh, well, party on, partisans