last week 3/4 of the house, including half the dems, voted for either dennis kucinich's or john boehner's "rebuke" of obama's perplexing little project in libya
Bipartisan resolution chastises Obama for failing to consult Congress on Libya - The Hill's Floor ActionA bipartisan resolution introduced on the Senate floor Wednesday offered a strong rebuke to President Obama for failing to consult Congress on the mission in Libya.
Sponsored by Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), both members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the measure admonishes Obama for failing to offer a good argument for the use of armed forces against the regime of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.
The resolution also demands Obama answer 21 questions about U.S. involvement in Libya, prohibits the use of U.S. forces on the ground and calls on the White House to request permission for the continuation of U.S. involvement
In his remarks from the floor, Webb said this resolution is about defining any president's power to wage war without the approval of the Congress.
“When we examine the conditions under which the President ordered our military into action in Libya, we are faced with the prospect of a very troubling historical precedent that has the potential to haunt us for decades,” Webb said. “The issue for us to consider is whether a President — any President — can unilaterally begin, and continue, a military campaign for reasons that he alone defines."
Webb and Corker brought the resolution to the floor as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) indicated earlier in the day that due to lack of appetite for a vote in the upper chamber, he may scrap a resolution he was working on with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that would have backed President Obama’s use of military force in Libya.
I don't remember anyone in the Bush Admin bringing up the fact that our Intelligence Community's best estimate at the time was that Hussein was not going to attack the US directly or by proxy with conventional weapons nor WMD. Not a one of them. Least not as I recall.
Having a big build up to war against a nation that we didn't think would attack us directly or via proxy is not at all how I remember it being explained. But, I am getting older and I have forgotten a thing or two in my time.
I seem recall some stuff about how we were in so much danger that we couldn't wait lest there be a smoking-gun mushroom-cloud over a major American city.
I remember about how it had been "pretty well confirmed" that one of the 9-11 crew had met with Iraqi intelligence earlier in 2001.
And some other things like that in a similar vein about how the threat from Iraq and al Qaeda must be dealt with posthaste by an invasion of Iraq to save american lives. Stuff like that.
But, as to what you specifically asked about, no I can't provide proof that Bush deliberately and knowingly told a falsehood regarding WMDs in Iraq.
I may be wrong.
That is true, though many Liberals will claim that he lied. But I guess you needn't be reminded of what Anthony Weiner's liberals do.But, as to what you specifically asked about, no I can't provide proof that Bush deliberately and knowingly told a falsehood regarding WMDs in Iraq.
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.
senator slasher to the boston globe, running for president, december, 2007: "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"
days not weeks, anyone?
Last edited by The Prof; 06-09-11 at 03:58 PM.
"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." - Google Search
Ah. The memory hole hasn't gotten it yet.
I may be wrong.
That's your entire rebuttal? That I mis-remembered some of the words from almost a decade ago?
At least you didn't try to rebut the argument that the electorate was misled about the urgency of our situation in re Iraq and about the likelihood Iraq would attack us via proxy or directly.
I may be wrong.
today, financial times of london, probably the most prestigious publication on the planet:
FT.com / Middle East & North Africa - Pentagon sees Libya military costs soar
wait, doesn't the slasher want to CUT defense?US military operations in Libya are on course to cost hundreds of millions of dollars more than the Pentagon estimated, according to figures obtained by the Financial Times.
Robert Gates, the outgoing secretary of defence, said last month that the Pentagon expected to spend “somewhere in the ball park of $750m” in the 2011 fiscal year as part of efforts to protect the Libyan people.
But according to a Pentagon memo which includes a detailed update on the progress and pace of operations, by mid-May US operations in Libya had cost $664m, a figure confirmed by the Department of Defence.
The document, entitled the “United States Contribution to Operation Unified Protector’’, adds that US costs are running at a rate of about $2m a day or $60m a month. The memo has been circulating on Capitol Hill since last week. The DoD declined to comment on the increased costs of the operation.
Despite continuing to press the White House for additional funding for Libya operations, in his May comments Secretary Gates suggested that “in the case of Libya, unfortunately, we’re fundamentally having to eat that one.”
curiouser and curiouser
it's nato's war, not ours?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.
days, not weeks?
are you sure this guy knows what he's doing?