• 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

Agree. The US does need a regime change. Let's see what happens at the next election.

Ya, let's put in a republican who is bought and paid for by the same special interests that own Obama.... the same special interests that owned Bush, Clinton, all of them since JFK and possibly earlier, that'll make for some REAL "regime change".

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?

Yes, Downing street memo "The intelligence is being fixed around this matter (WMD's in Iraq)".
 
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

today:

A 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.

Bipartisan resolution chastises Obama for failing to consult Congress on Libya - The Hill's Floor Action
 
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?
While the WMD were made into a big to-do, there were a few less celebrated lines in the NIE and the testimony to Congress in re the NIE said that Hussein wasn't likely to attack the US directly or by proxy. Not really as sexy as WMD, but a point that bears at least some notice, imho.

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 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.

That is false. Your memory serves you poorly.

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.

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.
 
Limits of War Powers Act? WTF?!?! The War Powers Act happens to be the law. What seems to have limits here is Obama's willingness to obey the law. And, according to the law, Obama is committing a criminal act.

I was all over Bush for going into Iraq. Yes, I know, I know, he gave Congress misleading information, but even Bush obeyed the law by seeking congressional approval. And, while Obama was a candidate, he made the following statement:



Where the hell is all this hope and change Obama supporters are talking about? Looks like it is all down the toilet, along with Obama's integrity.

Article is here.

Actually, after investigating it, I find it isn't much. It is more political than law. Not because of how it is written, but because congress is not at all willing to follow it. It has been skirted, if not broken, more than a few times.
 
It has been skirted, if not broken, more than a few times.

yup, president slasher's integrity has been skirted AND broken more than a few times

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"

good thinking

days not weeks, anyone?
 
Last edited:
Which "major American city" was being referred to in that article?
It's more of a Google search than an article really.BUT...

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.
 
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

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.”

wait, doesn't the slasher want to CUT defense?

curiouser and curiouser

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.

it's nato's war, not ours?

days, not weeks?

are you sure this guy knows what he's doing?
 
After Iraq, uck no

today:

President Barack Obama's pick to lead the Pentagon said on Thursday he expected Iraq to eventually ask Washington to keep U.S. troops in the country beyond an end-2011 deadline for their withdrawal.

When it does, the United States should say "yes," outgoing CIA chief Leon Panetta told a Senate committee weighing his nomination to become the next secretary of defense.

"It's clear to me that Iraq is considering the possibility of making a request for some kind of (troop) presence to remain there," Panetta said.

He said that he had "every confidence" the request would be "forthcoming at some point."

Iraq expected to request U.S. troops stay: Panetta | Reuters

yet another pretty promise pulverized by pragmatics

party on, progressives
 
You have valid points but previous presidents making the same mistakes does not justify the current president making the same. Just because all previous presidents probably since 1861 have pissed on the constitution doesn't give our government the license to start wars at will. The people meaning us need to hold our government accountable and we need to stop dividing this complaint by parties, this affects all of us considering we are living under the same document. Complaining about previous administrations won't solve the problems with our current one in office. We should be asking ourselves who the F are we as a free people telling another country what it should be doing, especially when it has no effect on our own policies.

It's the War Powers act of 1973 that is being broken here and now the government is starting to turn against the President, as they should.
 
yesterday, defense secretary gates, per the gray lady, nyt

now, SHE's a source (ie, that's how you do it):

“The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country — yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference,” Mr. Gates said.

While the Libya war was unanimously endorsed by NATO nations, less than half are participating, and less than a third are carrying out strike missions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/world/europe/11gates.html?_r=1

nato's war, not ours?

anyone?

in libya, obama is out and out liar---days not weeks, limited war, civilian lives and refugees...

he's also a loser---nation building
 
today:

The US House of Representatives voted to prohibit the use of funds for American military operations in Libya.

Lawmakers adopted the amendment to a military appropriations bill by a vote of 248 to 163.

A number of members of Congress have recently expressed their dissatisfaction at President Barack Obama's decision to go ahead with operations in Libya in March and to continue without congressional authorization.

The amendment, introduced by Democratic representative Brad Sherman from California, invokes the War Powers Resolution, a 1973 law that limits presidential powers on sending troops abroad into combat zones without the consent of Congress.

Sherman's text states that "none of the funds made available by this act may be used in contravention of the War Powers Act."

US Congress votes against Libya funding - Yahoo! News
 
So let me ask this.. just for clarification. Did Reagan get congressional approval before he attacked Libya, Granada and all his other "wars"?... Iran Contra? How about Bush Sr and Panama? Heck did Bush Jr even get real authorisation for Iraq... some claim he did not.

And as for Obama not carrying about the US constitution.. what about Bush Jr?

Or is this just more right wing American political bantering trying to make Obama look bad in the eyes of the rights loyal followers?

Just asking..

ok Mr just askin

do you have kids? of course not, scratch that question.

what if when you do, your kids asked you if they could do something that you knew to be wrong they retorted, "but Johnny did it, and Billy did it"

please dont have kids, just dont..as grown ups most of us have been there..its rule #1 in life, ask yourself how you would raise a child and you usually come up with the right response to things, otherwise you get whatever drivle you just spewed about right wingers do it so so can we...

and on topic, of course he is breaking the laws of our land by attacking Libya without congressional approval, dont embarrass yourselves by claiming differently
 
Last edited:
ok Mr just askin

do you have kids? of course not, scratch that question.

what if when you do, your kids asked you if they could do something that you knew to be wrong they retorted, "but Johnny did it, and Billy did it"

please dont have kids, just dont..as grown ups most of us have been there..its rule #1 in life, ask yourself how you would raise a child and you usually come up with the right response to things, otherwise you get whatever drivle you just spewed about right wingers do it so so can we...

and on topic, of course he is breaking the laws of our land by attacking Libya without congressional approval, dont embarrass yourselves by claiming differently

Kind of like when Bush tortured, people said we did bad thing in WWII so it's cool. Right? :coffeepap
 
well, half of congress has spoken

a few hours after voting to defund operation whatever-the-heck-it-is-we're-doing-over-there-in-libya:

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, sent President Obama a letter Tuesday afternoon warning him that the operation in Libya will be violating the War Powers Resolution by this Sunday, which marks the 90th day of U.S. military involvement in the country.

Boehner wants "a clear explanation of the legal standing under the War Powers Resolution," that Obama is using to justify continuing the operations behind Sunday.

The letter is below.

June 14, 2011

Dear Mr. President:

Five days from now, our country will reach the 90-day mark from the notification to Congress regarding the commencement of the military operation in Libya, which began on March 18, 2011. On June 3, 2011, the House passed a resolution which, among other provisions, made clear that the Administration has not asked for, nor received, Congressional authorization of the mission in Libya. Therefore, it would appear that in five days, the Administration will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution unless it asks for and receives authorization from Congress or withdraws all U.S. troops and resources from the mission.

Since the mission began, the Administration has provided tactical operational briefings to the House of Representatives, but the White House has systematically avoided requesting a formal authorization for its action. It has simultaneously sought, however, to portray that its actions are consistent with the War Powers Resolution. The combination of these actions has left many Members of Congress, as well as the American people, frustrated by the lack of clarity over the Administration’s strategic policies, by a refusal to acknowledge and respect the role of the Congress, and by a refusal to comply with the basic tenets of the War Powers Resolution.

You took an oath before the American people on January 20, 2009 in which you swore to “faithfully execute the Office of President” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and one of those laws is the War Powers Resolution, which requires an approving action by Congress or withdrawal within 90 days from the notification of a military operation. Given the mission you have ordered to the U.S. Armed Forces with respect to Libya and the text of the War Powers Resolution, the House is left to conclude that you have made one of two determinations: either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya, or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution. The House, and the American people whom we represent, deserve to know the determination you have made.

Boehner warns Obama that Libya will violate war powers | Susan Ferrechio | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

boehner's not subtle
 
well, half of congress has spoken

a few hours after voting to defund operation whatever-the-heck-it-is-we're-doing-over-there-in-libya:

boehner's not subtle
I love it when the one term president Obama gets spanked. I loved it when the the leader of a democratic Israel refused
to be bullied by the Chicago thug in the White House. And now I love it when a Republican leader spanks the one term tyrant.
 
For those interested...

"President Obama’s Letter About Efforts in Libya"
May 20, 2011, NYTimes.com

On March 21, I reported to the Congress that the United States, pursuant to a request from the Arab League and authorization by the United Nations Security Council, had acted 2 days earlier to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe by deploying U.S. forces to protect the people of Libya from the Qaddafi regime. As you know, over these last 2 months, the U.S. role in this operation to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 has become more limited, yet remains important. Thus, pursuant to our ongoing consultations, I wish to express my support for the bipartisan resolution drafted by Senators Kerry, McCain, Levin, Feinstein, Graham, and Lieberman, which would confirm that the Congress supports the U.S. mission in Libya and that both branches are united in their commitment to supporting the aspirations of the Libyan people for political reform and self-government.

The initial phase of U.S. military involvement in Libya was conducted under the command of the United States Africa Command. By April 4, however, the United States had transferred responsibility for the military operations in Libya to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the U.S. involvement has assumed a supporting role in the coalition's efforts. Since April 4, U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.

While we are no longer in the lead, U.S. support for the NATO-based coalition remains crucial to assuring the success of international efforts to protect civilians from the actions of the Qaddafi regime. I am grateful for the support you and other Members in Congress have demonstrated for this mission and for our brave service members, as well as your strong condemnation of the Qaddafi regime. Congressional action in support of the mission would underline the U.S. commitment to this remarkable international effort. Such a Resolution is also important in the context of our constitutional framework, as it would demonstrate a unity of purpose among the political branches on this important national security matter. It has always been my view that it is better to take military action, even in limited actions such as this, with Congressional engagement, consultation, and support.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
 
For those who believe the President failed to notify Congress in the prerequisite time in accordance with the War Powers Act:

Per Sect. 4:

(a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced...

...the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing,...


The President notified the Speaker of the House (Boehner) and the President Pro Temp (McConnell) on March 21, 2011 that he had committed armed forces to Libya on March 19, 2011. The dates are important because it is not the date that armed forces were committed, but rather the date the President notifies Congress that starts the countdown to either withdrawal or continue military commitment in theater.

Per sect 5:

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces...

As has already been mentioned, members of Congress are deliberating whether to allow an extension of armed forces or direct a total withdrawal from the area.

Note: I know my fellow veterans know about Julian Dates. So, do the math...

May 20 = Julian Date 140
March 21 = Julian Date 80

140-80 = 60 days

The President has done his part; now it's up to Congress to do theirs.

Personal Note: I find it very disingenuous that the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee (and the House Speaker, BTW) would purposely deceive the public concerning the President's reporting to Congress on this matter. From the Chair, HASC's letter to the President (partial letter provided below):

May 20 2011
Chairman McKeon Letter to President Obama on Libya
President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As the United States military's involvement in Libya approaches 60 days without congressional authorization...

Notice what he says concerning the reporting timeframe...not "exceeded 60 days" but "approaches 60 days"...implying that the prerequisite 60-day timeframe had not expired. But let's not let partisan :spin: dissuade us from the truth. :roll:
 
Last edited:
"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"

sincerely, senator barack obama

meanwhile---nation building, anyone?
 
"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"

sincerely, senator barack obama

meanwhile---nation building, anyone?

Once again, the President has not invoked the Constitution to take military action in Libya. He used the War Powers Act. You know it and I know it. So, let's stop trying to run-up these false flags at every opportunity where they don't apply.
 
Back
Top Bottom