• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Power outage: Libya war shows limits of War Powers Act

Congress is going to debate this issue next week, you'll have your answer then. 30 days to disengage = 30 days for congress to say continue. Obama indeed did send a request to congress to reach a decision before the 60 day mark btw.
 
Last edited:
Read my post again. I am against Obama's war on Libya, as I was against Bush's war on Iraq. The only difference is that one is a Republican and the other is a Democrat. Both are wrong. There is actually one important difference - Bush did go to Congress with misleading information, which turned out to be a pack of lies. Obama, on the other hand, didn't even have the decency to lie to Congress. He just decided that he is the law, and I believe that, if he does not submit to Congressional review, as prescribed by law, then he should be impeached for violating his oath of office, and engaging in what any reasonable person would describe as a criminal act.

In addition, if Obama continues to flaunt the law, then in 2012, if Sarah Palin (who I believe is a complete idiot) runs, I would vote for her as the best chance to remove a criminal from office.

I wasn't under the impression that you supported this war either. I was actually referring to the imminent threat thing that you now call “a pack of lies”. I consider it bad intel but that’s an argument for another day.

Just curious, do you think the War Powers Act allows or empowers a President to attack a nation, that isn’t a threat, for 60 days without congressional approval?
 
Congress is going to debate this issue next week, you'll have your answer then. 30 days to disengage = 30 days for congress to say continue. Obama indeed did send a request to congress to reach a decision before the 60 day mark btw.

I've heard nothing of this.
 
I've heard nothing of this.

Thats probably because you aren't a news junkie like me. Reid said in an interview with Maddow that the Senate would be poised to debate the issue on the 5th or 6th of June. Not sure what day it was on last week, you can look it up on her website though.
 
Thats probably because you aren't a news junkie like me. Reid said in an interview with Maddow that the Senate would be poised to debate the issue on the 5th or 6th of June. Not sure what day it was on last week, you can look it up on her website though.

Could you post a link, please?
 
Read my post again. I am against Obama's war on Libya, as I was against Bush's war on Iraq. The only difference is that one is a Republican and the other is a Democrat. Both are wrong. There is actually one important difference - Bush did go to Congress with misleading information, which turned out to be a pack of lies. Obama, on the other hand, didn't even have the decency to lie to Congress. He just decided that he is the law, and I believe that, if he does not submit to Congressional review, as prescribed by law, then he should be impeached for violating his oath of office, and engaging in what any reasonable person would describe as a criminal act.

In addition, if Obama continues to flaunt the law, then in 2012, if Sarah Palin (who I believe is a complete idiot) runs, I would vote for her as the best chance to remove a criminal from office.

Do you remember when Obama took his oath he messed up the words and then took the oath behind closed doors later?

Relevant?
 
He didn't have to, because he was within the time frame allowed by the war powers act. Do you even know what the war powers act is?

*crickets*
 
today:

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.

Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission - Washington Times

days not weeks, anyone?

"limited" war?

nation building?

are you following the incipient civil wars breaking out in yemen (on the gulf) and syria (across the jordan)?

national security, anyone?

protection of civilian lives?

are you sure this state dept knows what it's doing?

party on, peaceniks
 
After Iraq...

Fed up with a president “who can’t make his mind up” as Libyan rebels are on the brink of defeat, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is looking to the exits.

At the tail end of her mission to bolster the Libyan opposition, which has suffered days of losses to Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces, Clinton announced that she’s done with Obama after 2012 — even if he wins again.

“Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”

He went on, “If you take a look at what’s on her plate as compared with what’s on the plates of previous Secretary of States — there’s more going on now at this particular moment, and it’s like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding.”

Clinton is said to be especially peeved with the president’s waffling over how to encourage the kinds of Arab uprisings that have recently toppled regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, and in particular his refusal to back a no-fly zone over Libya.

In the past week, former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s former top adviser Anne-Marie Slaughter lashed out at Obama for the same reason.

OH, HILL NO - Obama's Indecision Pushed Hillary Over The Edge
 
If Obama continues this path, he will definitely lose any vote from me.
Yes, but will he lose *all* of your votes? Or just one among many of them? Will he also lose the dead vote? I understand that Democrats typically get about 80% of the dead, year after year. And what about the illegal alien vote? Democrats historically get 95% of the illegal alien vote. And the felon vote?

This would be an abuse of the WPA and should not be tolerated. Just as it was wrong for past presidents to abuse it like Bush Jr. it is also wrong for Obama to abuse it.
If the Congress funds the effort and does not prohibit it then I guess the one term president Obama has himself a splendid little war.
 
There is actually one important difference - Bush did go to Congress with misleading information, which turned out to be a pack of lies. Obama, on the other hand, didn't even have the decency to lie to Congress.
LOL. President Bush didn't lie. You are so funny. Partisan. But funny. And the one term president Obama believes he is our king. Why shouldn't he do as he wishes?
He just decided that he is the law, and I believe that, if he does not submit to Congressional review, as prescribed by law, then he should be impeached for violating his oath of office, and engaging in what any reasonable person would describe as a criminal act.
Well maybe. Unlikely though. Democrats control the Senate. He will get a pass.
In addition, if Obama continues to flaunt the law, then in 2012, if Sarah Palin (who I believe is a complete idiot) runs, I would vote for her as the best chance to remove a criminal from office.
Why should he obey the law? But I do stand with your sentiment that in 2012 it may be good enough to be Anybody But Obama.
 
LOL. President Bush didn't lie. You are so funny. Partisan. But funny. And the one term president Obama believes he is our king. Why shouldn't he do as he wishes?

Well maybe. Unlikely though. Democrats control the Senate. He will get a pass.

Why should he obey the law? But I do stand with your sentiment that in 2012 it may be good enough to be Anybody But Obama.

You do realize you are acting just like some liberals acted when Bush was president right. Some liberals called Bush King Gorge II and such. Do you think it is more justified when you do it?
 
State was the first to bump heads with Bush on Iraq. But, hey, don't let the facts get in your way.
The State Department used to be the most anti-American of the departments. Now, I think it is a tie between EPA and State with Education following close behind. State has always had a problem because it often sided with foreign countries over US interests. Or so it seems to me.
 
You do realize you are acting just like some liberals acted when Bush was president right. Some liberals called Bush King Gorge II and such. Do you think it is more justified when you do it?
Of course. LOL. They were wrong. I, fortunately, am right. :)
 
LOL. President Bush didn't lie. You are so funny. Partisan. But funny. And the one term president Obama believes he is our king. Why shouldn't he do as he wishes?

Do you have any evidence that Bush deliberately and knowingly told a falsehood regarding WMDs in Iraq or are you engaging in expected partisan hackery?
 
I don't get the problem. He hasn't broken any rules. He'll dump it on NATO within ~20 days and request funding from congress to honor the treaty via money (and perhaps in-country trainers, just to stick it to congress but they'll reject that) supporting a new Brit drone program.
 
Last edited:
Do you have any evidence that Bush deliberately and knowingly told a falsehood regarding WMDs in Iraq or are you engaging in expected partisan hackery?
Me? In a former life I was an intelligence officer. I know just how hard it is to take the technical data, make sense of it, avoid being deceived, and provide good information to decision makers. I believe, quite the opposite of your assertion, that S. Hussein himself was deceived by his people. No one wants to have his daughters raped, in the infamous rape rooms with their mountains of panties, or their wives tortured by being slowly fed into a wood chipper...No. None of his people would tell him something he did not want to hear. He believed he had biological and chemical weapons. And we believed him.
 
Back
Top Bottom