Paul...

The funny thing about your statement is that Speaker Pelosi made a similar accusation about water boarding. She was actually in the CIA briefing meetings, and yet she couldn't provise one single shred of evidence to prove her claim. I'm sorry but any "evidence" you get from www.huffingtonpost.com doesn't count. To be honest...I don't even think you could call what you get form that site factual.

Anyway...

Name one intelligence agency in the world that thought Hussein DIDN'T have weapons of mass destruction. You can't. Why you ask? Because the U.S. gave them to him in the 70's to fight Iran and he used them on the Kurds. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you need to come with more than some pathetic drive-by Pelosi style accusation and substantiate your claims...which of course you can't do.

With 70% approval from Americans on the no fly zone implementation, I don't think he has to worry about it.

When in the past 20 years have we made a declaration of war.

Wait a minute! I thought Bush/Cheney were the biggest war mongers since Hitler?

Eric, Junior had similar positive numbers with Afghanistan and Iraq. Look how lovely those turned out.

Name a politican that doesn't lie!!!

molly's #2.4 post has the same amount of facts as her #1. post.

Remember, folks...

Paul thinks fellow "truther" Charlie Sheen has 9/11 about right...

molly's #2.4 post has the same amount of facts as her #1. post.

Well, maybe, but how do you like my earrings?

Typical GOP whining......

If the GOP were in power, they would have:

- Done the same thing; attack Libya with Air Power and even go farther than that

-Would have done so unilaterally without UN, Arab League or international backing (which would have caused even more ill will about America in the region)

- Would not ahave a well defined mission...the current 2 wars they initiated as example

-Would have questioned our 'PaAtriotism' and tagged us as 'soft on Terrorism' for questioning motive or process

-Woulld have raised holy hell if a DEm questioned the GOP president foreign policy while out of the country. Apparently the unwritten rule doesnt apply to the GOP (ask Sarah the pinhead)

Bottom line is the GOP are pissed they arent the ones that will get credit for the action if successful, so they will do anything and say any armchair contrarian thing to ding the president over it. Examples:

John McCain (We arent doing enough)

Mitch McOnnell (We are doing too much)

Sarah Palin (We should have done it earlier)

The GOP grows more impotent and pathetic every day

@Tony C-2383666

obama promised healthcare reform. boom. we win. gg, thanks for playing.

Bush II based his information and the US Congress referenced the AUMF that Clinton used.

When Clinton attacked Iraq in 1998...For his WMD, KILLING tens of thousands of his own citizens, and support of world terrorism...

4 Feb 1998 - POTUS Clinton, "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction...."

16 Dec 1998 - Rep Nancy Pelosi, " Saddam Hussein has been engaged in development of weapons of mass destruction..."

23 Sep 2002 - Al Gore, "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons..."

The same from Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sen. Robert Byrd, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Jay Rockerfeller, etc, etc, as late as 23 Feb 2003...

Senator Byrd? Evidence, please….

@ Jess. Since I didn't see you on the ground with us during the three trips back into Iraq after the first Gulf War, since I didn't see you at any of the de-briefings, nor at any of the Congressional hearings, and since I don't recall you being at any of the position paper write-ups, maybe you should remove your post, since you are wrong. After Hussein used chemical weapons on the Kurds, UN troops went in on the ground, and destroyed the remaining supplies. Or did you forget that?

Perhaps you weren't paying attention a few weeks ago, when it was finally admitted that the single (as in, only one) informant pushing the WMD position did so out of personal motive only, and that he admitted (and as Gen Kay and others testified before Congress,) there were no WMD facilities, and that the stockpile of chemical weapons had either been exhausted, or destroyed, as reported, several years earlier.

As for this new round of stupidity; keep in mind that last week, it was The GOP leadership, that were criticizing the President, for NOT taking a stronger stance, and demanding that the US become involved. All the blustering is merely a smoke screen, to attract attention away from the fact that the GOP have not done one single thing in relation to securing our economic stability, and in fact, have only done things that are going to cost jobs, and again reduce revenue, at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

Brian-364302,

Sen Robert Byrd 3 Oct 2002, " The last UN weapons inspectors left iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddan Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons......."

reference - http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Bush lied?

Well then, Bush lied, on the intel that was approved by Democratically headed committees at the time, that disected the intel and gave it to Bush with their recomendations to base his decision on, in order to make the move. And the Democratic controlled Congress approved the resolution based on the same Intel given to Bush.

Our Goverment is a system of checks and balances. Bush used that system continully. Obama has yet to do so.

You want to talk about the liar Dubya

Bush was arguably the worst president in American history It was on his watch that 9/11 took place; it was Bush & the GOP who failed to kill or capture Bin Laden: it was Bush & the GOP who failed to destroy Al Qaida and the Taliban after 8 years of war; It was Bush & the GOP who lied to the entire world about WMD in Iraq; It was Bush & the GOP who failed on the war on terror; It was Bush & the GOP who turned a record Federal surplus into a record deficit by failing to raise taxes to pay for the wars. I think Bush let Bin Laden get away on purpose to give him an excuse to invade Iraq and create a boogeyman to manipulate the public just like in the novel 1984 and remember all those phony code red and yellow alerts before the election to scare the public into voting for him.

Oh and lets not forget Dick Chaney who was forever hiding in an undisclosed location. Just like he did during the entire Vietnam War

You people are all hilarious...

Name ONE major policy difference from Obama to Bush.... Consider Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Gitmo, Patriot Act, Healthcare (Bush medicare D was drug company welfare like this bill is) deficits... They are virtually the same president.

Bush was arguably the worst president in American history

Shows your lack of history... Woodrow Wilson conspired with the bankers to give us the Federal Reserve and Income Tax amendments, in the same term. By FAR, he is the worst president in history...

Bush was a disaster, but don't pretend the GOP only lied... there were plenty of democrats who could have STOPPED Iraq invasion among other things, who were eager to give Bush EVERYTHING he asked for.

Then when you consider than Obama is for the EXACT same policies now, that he campaigned against, PAtriot Act, Gitmo, Endless wars, Invasions, ect... you see that the GOP and DEMS are not that different after all.

Eric

With 70% approval from Americans on the no fly zone implementation, I don't think he has to worry about it.

Bush's approval rating at the start of the Iraq war was 71%. In 2008, it fell to 31%. If this conflict gets ugly, it WILL be his death knell as president same way it did Bush in. Personally, I think he is already done with.

Gosh, I'm almost peeing myself with laughter at the GWB comments here. Please ask yourself why Bush er um Obama just started a 3rd war? Bush, er um Obama must be a war criminal. Bush, er um Obama er um Bush. I don't know, they both are the same. Bad presidents.

One thing is for sure, this conflict in Lybia, it just a continuation of Bush's war. Obama is an innocent bystander to the events. This is not his choice at all. It is all Bush's fault. After all, if we hadn't given Democracy a chance in Iraq and Afghanistan, then none of these other countries would be revolting in an effort to bring about Democracy. So again, this is Bush's fault. Don't blame Obama for the billions that will have to be wasted on this 3rd front of a loosing war.

Witchking...did you not read any of the posts above?? The left, including Clinton, Kerry, Pelosi, Kennedy, were all clamoring for Saddam's removal because of his WMD's. In 1998, Clinton passed the Iraq Liberation Act citing the need to remove Saddam from power. Do some research. Google Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

As for that "surplus," which was based on projections that never materialized thanks to the dot-com bust, Congress was controlled by Republicans for the final 6 years of Clinton's presidency. We all know who holds the purse strings in our government: the House.

Why is it that my father, who's a staunch Republican told his kids, the other day , that the only time I make money in the market is when we have a strong democrat as President. I thought we'd all laugh ourselves silly.

serviceman-1312595,

Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday, was an incident that took place on March 16, 1988. The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people, and injured around 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them Kurdish civilians. Thousands more died of complications, diseases, and birth defectsin the years after the attack. The victims of the tragedy are often included in accounting the deaths attributable to the Anfal campaign, which was characterised by the widespread and indiscriminate use of chemical weapons by Iraq. Saddam's Troops massacred 50,000 to 100,000 non-combatant civilians including women and children.

There are thousands of security council reports available concerning Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction during the war, showing that Saddam Hussein ignored all efforts by the UN. He continued to use WMD throughout the entire eight year Iran-Iraq war on both military and civilian targets.. Many of the 500,000 to 1,000,000 Iranian Troop casualities were due to chemical attacks.

Saddam again used his Nerve agents and CS in the an-Najaf-Karbala area during March 1991, KILLING a unknown number of people... I'm assuming that the UN missed these supplies.

BTY - Do you have a reference concerning the destruction of WMD by the UN after they were used on the Kurds???

The weapons destruction did not begin until 1991 and the factory where Iraq had produced the pathogens was destroyed in 1996.... The VX nerve agent factory was identified in 1997—and destroyed. These facilities were equipped with supplies from; Germany, France, the USA, and others.

Do not give me the BS about not being there...

AC Robertson MSgt USMC ret

Witchking,

9-11 was planned, funded, trained for, and the key Terrorist were placed in the USA - PRIOR to Bush II assuming office... How does this make him accountable???

It was CLINTON that did not authorize the KILLING of Osama ben Laden. This was AFTER - Osama master-minded the numerous bombings of US Citizens around the World... Remember Osama ben Laden was one of those trained, funded, and supplied with weapons, by the CARTER funded CIA...

Bush II was given a US Military that had been decimated by the 1/3 Troop level cuts, the closing of numerous Bases, and drastic cuts in defense programs/funding. The USA did not have the ability to field the numbers of US Troops required to control the Iraq country... He was forced to use large numbers of civilian contractors in support of the US Ground forces...

BTY - I was in the Military and worked in HQMC/T&E during this time... Clinton had GUTTED the US Military...

Witchking

You want to talk about the liar Dubya

Bush was arguably the worst president in American history It was on his watch that 9/11 took place;IT WAS BUSH & THE GOP WHO FAILED TO KILL OR CAPTURE BIN LADEN. it was Bush & the GOP who failed to destroy Al Qaida and the Taliban after 8 years of war; It was Bush & the GOP who lied to the entire world about WMD in Iraq; It was Bush & the GOP who failed on the war on terror; It was Bush & the GOP who turned a record Federal surplus into a record deficit by failing to raise taxes to pay for the wars. I think Bush let Bin Laden get away on purpose to give him an excuse to invade Iraq and create a boogeyman to manipulate the public just like in the novel 1984 and remember all those phony code red and yellow alerts before the election to scare the public into voting for him.

#2.19 - Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:22 PM MST

More regressive e'rrrr I mean Progressive national scholastic system revisionist history. You seem to forget Clinton during one of his blue dress liasons, had a red phone call from an opp team whom at the time had Bin Laden in their scope sights. But were ordered to stand down.

Like I stated, Bush acted on the WMD intel that was sifted thru and belived to be true by Democratic chaired military and national security as well as intel committees. Bush then went to congress upon that intel given to him, as well as those committees and congress to ask congress to approve the resolution to go after Sadam. The resolution was approved unamiously by congress. A Democratic majoritive Congess at that time.

We have not paid for the current two wars that the U.S. is involved and cannot afford. We have no business getting involved with a third war. Let the other countries take care of the problem for a change. Today's' News said that Norway, Italy, and the United Arab, etc. have withdrawn their decision today to participate in the No Fly Zone. Norway turned around half way there. It's about time other countries stop expecting us to do all the work, bear the loss of many young lives, and pay for it, too. The U.S. needs to keep their nose out just like they did with Yugoslavia (probably because they did not have oil wells there). We are not the police patrol for overseas.

Eric-913730

With 70% approval from Americans on the no fly zone implementation, I don't think he has to worry about it.

And where did you get this 70% approval number Eric? Is it yet another product of your imagination and wishful thinking?

Even the most approval your beloved Liberal/Dem biased MSNBC can generate is 52%.

http://world-news.newsvine.com/_question/2011/03/21/6312203-do-you-support-us-involvement-in-an-international-military-force-against-libyas-gadhafi

Bush might have been the worst president ever......if it weren't for Carter, Ford, Obama, Clinton, Hoover, other than them yea maybe.

At least when Bush called for military action, he stayed in America to face comments, he didn't take his family on vacation with the pretext of looking for jobs.

Eric-913730

"With 70% approval from Americans on the no fly zone implementation, I don't think he has to worry about it."

As usual, you exaggerate. Latest Zogby says 57% approval. But that will sink when the truth comes out that he is like Bush light.

"When in the past 20 years have we made a declaration of war."

WHen congress voted nearly unanimously to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq. You must have been sleeping, or just ignoring the truth, as usual. I know you won't respond, just like Bev and Feisty. You have blocked anyone who disagrees with your continued ignorance of the facts.

Pastorized

"Bush might have been the worst president ever......if it weren't for Carter, Ford, Obama, Clinton, Hoover, other than them yea maybe.

At least when Bush called for military action, he stayed in America to face comments, he didn't take his family on vacation with the pretext of looking for jobs."

Please don't confuse the haters with facts. They can't handle facts. They can only deny facts, while blocking their view of anyone who presents them.

Just look at how mant times their "opinions" are blocked. That is about as close as NV gets to being partisan. NV knows they are 3 Chicago women who never have anything positive to say about anything, unless Obama had something to do with it.

Obama never asks for anything. He demands and the left just laps it up. If it was Bush, the left would go along because they had the same intel as he did.

Unfortunately, none of them will ever respond to a challenge. They would rather any opposition to their opinions be censored, and the only way they can do that is to block anyone that might possibly disagree with them, and in doing so, never respond when challenged. They would make great communists. Control all input and output.

We was talking last night and all of us agreed that this Lybia mess goes back to Bush and it is really on him, not Obama. If bush hadn't invaded Afganistan and Iroc and made them democraticies than the other nations in the area wouldn't have wanted to be democraticies either and there would be no unrest in the middle east. So its not Obama fault and he's just doing the job started by Bush to invade countries to get out the bad man who runs it. I admit that at first I was puzzled at Obama since he didnt liek the Iroc war and voted against bombing a country to get out bad men. Then I realized that it wasn't his fault. It was Bush and his spreading democraticies throughout the Middle east. If it was up to Obama, we wouldn't have democraticies in the middle east or anywhere else and no war.

Proud Democrat I see you were taught spelling by one of those union teachers. Shows what a good job they did.

Richard, I think it's called parody.

Proud, one of your best posting yet. Beautiful.

Name one intelligence agency in the world that thought Hussein DIDN'T have weapons of mass destruction.

The UN weapons inspectors....remember an American ex Marine named Scott Ritter?

I have to wonder about what our congress considers about anything...So far over the years congress has not voted for a war of any kind unless pushed by the citizens to really act with common sense. We would most likely be speaking another language if all was left to congress....as it is they are selling this country out every year.. I can only hope that the people wake up to what our elected are doing to this country.

It is hardly a matter of arguing that some, or even most, were fooled into believing, or at least publicly parroting the belief that Saddam had WMD. The "intelligence" was "fixed" around that pretext for war (see Downing Street Memo). The dissenting voices were dismissed and silenced. Chemical weapons have a shelf life expiration date. Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction delivery system to reach the USA which we wouldn't find it easy to defeat.

The resolution "urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory."

OK, maybe someone can tell me when we started taking orders from the UN? Congress is urged the UN to impose a no-fly zone. So if we take this to the next logical step Congress urged the UN who in turn ordered the US to fire cruise missiles and send fighters and bombers over Libya. And please don't get the UN mixed up with NATO.

Most of you know this already, but if odumbo was caught robbing a 7-11, Eric would make every effort to defend his actions. Totally rediculous departure from reality.

Bottom line, even when odumbo does something right, he screws it up. One word...

INCOMPETENT

Good morning everybody, just got back from vacation and I'm happy to see that nothing has changed on First Read.

Folks on the right. You would whine and complain regardless of what the President did. You don't like him. You don't like anything he does. He could solve the deficit issue, fully fund Social Security and Medicare, and give you all one hundred grand each and you would find SOMETHING to complain about. You're arguments have no credence because they are simply based on your philosophy, whatever the President says, I'm against it. That's Marxism, Groucho Marxism.

As for GB II. How soon we forget. GB II cooked the books on Saddam and WMD's. That's a well-documented fact. Only Bush and Cheney still cling to the fantasy that they were mislead by the intelligence community. They've already been fully outed on that little lie so give it up.

They cherry-picked the intelligence they wanted to justify their experiment in regime change which cost tens of thousands of people their lives.

WHAT? NOT ONE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY IN THE WORLD DISAGREED? WHAT? WHAT WORLD? The British, among others, told the US that the story about the Nigerians selling materials to make a Nuclear Weapon to Saddam was baloney. That's what Wilson reported when he got back. They and he were ignored because it didn't tell the story GBII wanted to tell to justify military action. Come on people, this isn't Texas and you can't re-write history to suit your own little fantasy world.

Two weeks ago certain Republican Congressmen were whining that Obama wasn't taking action in Libya. Presidential Candidate DONALD TRUMP said he would make a "surgical strike" to take Gaddafhi out. Now the President takes action and you all condemn him for it. SHEEEESH.

Like I said, your comments are without value. You do not have all the information. You are just parroting what your heard Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck say yesterday. You have no validity because you would oppose ANYTHING President Obama did.

Reach out and get yourselves a life and a fact, and give the rest of us a break.

We should have invaded and gotten in the war as we did probablly earlier This brutal dictator had invaded two other countries, Brutal dictator, mass murder, human rights violations, plotting to kill leaders of other coutries. The war was the right thing to do.

The cluessless leader we have now, would probablly still allow that dictator to still be in power.

How very sad for you Frank.

So the right criticizes the lack of action, and now that we have action they criticize that.

Who would have thought !

Well then MB, I guess that makes it alright.

Reading comprehension, Eric...

Where's my criticism of President Obama?

President Obama has my support with regard to his Libya policy.

Hey MB, I hear thousands of innocent women and children are killed every year in the Congo. Do you favor going in to straighten things out? How about Myanmar? How about, oh heck you get my meaning, do I really have to mention every single country?

Indy Lib-

If the available options are "yea" or "nay"...

I'll take "yea".

And...I'm comfortable with whatever you choose, as well.

I'll hand it to you MB, you are no hypocrit.

bag, the case has been made.

Not for the first time...

I'm blushing, Indy Lib.

Actually, Mixed Bag, with people like this in his own party, it is no winder he did not go there first

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51675.html

Just how, exactly, do you overlook more than a quarter million dollars in taxes? Well, probably the same way you accidentally misappropriate close to a hundred thousand taxpayer dollars- then, when you are caught, say "oops", and pay it back.

By the way, I was very glad to read your post this morning in support of this military action. The debate over the merits and disadvantages of the no fly action had me completely at sea as to whether or not this was the best course of action- although I agree that we had to do something to answer the pleas of the rebels, who seemed to be depending on our help. I have such respect for your opinion that I went back and reviewed all of the arguments, pro and con, with your remarks in mind. Very helpful.

I pray we succeed in finally ridding the globe of this one man menace- whether at our hands, or the hands of his own, newly empowered people.

no jo-

If the Libyan military becomes convinced that the world's most powerful leaders are intractably opposed to Gaddafi...

"It's time for Gaddafi to go."

He's done.

I hope and pray you are correct, Mixed Bag.

I also hope Qaddafi is insane enough to be telling the truth when he says he has armed one million of "his people". If, indeed, that is so, I think he is toast in 3,2,1. . . .

I am pretty sure that Qaddafi will be gone -the sooner the better. 0bummer as inept as he is - is not stupid enough to leave Qaddafi in power. He will fire 1,000 tomahawks and let the British & French take care of things on the ground but he will push them to the nth degree or keep firing tomahawks until he finally gets Qaddafi because he knows that if he doesn't get him - 2012 is more of a pipe dream than it already is. I actually salute him for finally doing something about Libya - should have done it 3 weeks ago.

Obama just put the final nail in the coffin for his re-election,good by second Bush,no more support from me.

Eric-913730

So the right criticizes the lack of action, and now that we have action they criticize that.

Who would have thought !

Im pretty sure the majority of the Obama constiuency are more aganist this move than those of the right.

Looks pretty cut and dry to me. The GOP Congress should get back to work on the budget. What are they working on now, a 3 day budget stopgap? Yeah, we should run everything with 3 days of funding at a time. Nice going, Congress. Why don't you do your jobs so the President can sign the budget when he gets back from Latin America.

God bless America.

Eric-913730

"So the right criticizes the lack of action, and now that we have action they criticize that.

Who would have thought !"

This is the first "right" decision Obama has made. I am into agreement, although like you, he still has no clue. And like you, he will make statements and never respond to rebuttle.

Eric

How do you defend Obama against the Left who have come out against the No Fly. Kusinich says it is an impeachable offense. Webb has spoken out against this. So it is not only a vocal right it is a vocal left...The President can not win.

His reasons for this action run contrary to his own stated opinion of a Presidents unilateral powers as stated during an interview with the Boston Globe. Again he and his team are having messaging problems with an issue when will he get fully in front of something and have it look like something other than a blatant Obama 2012 mission.

Seeing him kick a soccer ball around in South America while we send our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines just looks really disrespectful. He has not really stated a full mission, and end game, recognized a new leadership group to take over if our goal is to remove Gadafi, it is like the Pelosi statement on health care "first we must join the conflict to see what the conflict is. His claim of near unanimity is rather shallow and the Arab Leagues anger over civilian casualties almost as soon as the first bomb dropped shows how well a Multilateral Coalition works. If we are going to act as the Policeman there I at least want the Police Chief to be an American. No matter what country takes a leadership position, it will be America who gets blamed for anything that goes wrong.

The handing over of our military capability to another country is just another step in the Europeanization of America, which I think has been the Presidents vision since day 1. I am not a fan of the EU approach and I would think a great many of those people "that hold their Bibles and Guns" are not either. The President ran on a platform of being a unifier and in my lifetime I have never seen the Country so drastically on everything and he must be accountable for that.

At our founding we had Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Patrick Henry and on and on...Now it's Obama, Pelosi, Reid, McConnell...God help us all we have to do better than that.

Your continued defense of the President on everything is blindly loyal but not admirable. You need to broaden your media consumption to include something other than the usual Democratic talking points. You and several others posting here sound just like Steny Hoyer, John Conyers and all of the other Obama apologists. In your opinion or supported with fact has this President done anything wrong? Eric Holders appointment for example? Anything?

Do you really believe that your stupid rant has any validity? Look up validity, I am sure you won't know what the word means. Your double standard is showing along with your stupidity.

So Tony, where is the jobs bill the republicans promised. All I've heard is repeal heath care, bust unions, and make sure abortions are harder to get.

Geez people. Where are the jobs they ALL promised? Really, show me the good guys here.

Hey Skippy, have you looked at a jobless claims graph recently. Obama is doing what he said on jobs, when will republicans do theirs.

http://www.bullandbearwise.com/InitialJoblessChart.asp

Really, show me the good guys here.

In Wisconsin, it's the ones who just had their pay and benefits slashed by 10 percent while Congress diddles and fails to own up to its own failings with regard to the economy.

True dat AM. But our political folks on both sides have been very disappointing since the economic fallout 4 years ago.

pjam09

Kucinich says Obama is committing 'impeachable offense'

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the seven-term liberal Democrat from Ohio who has twice run for the White House, says President Obama committed an "impeachable offense" in deciding to authorize U.S. airstrikes over Libya Saturday without the consent of Congress.

"President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have Congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said," Kucinich told the web site Raw Story on Monday. "It's not even disputable, this isn't even a close question."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Sounds about right.

Eric, as far as I can remember, the repubs never said anything about a jobs bill. That is only gov't jobs. Congress does not create jobs. They can only with the administration create an environment that support job creation. Jobs have been added since last summer when it was clear that the anti-business house under pelosi was going to change. And we can say just as often, Speaker Pelosi, where is (was) the budget

goliph:

Jobs have been added since last summer when it was clear that the anti-business house under pelosi was going to change.

Indeed. Then why are all those companies still sitting on mounds of cash rather than creating those jobs?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/top-corporate-cash-hoarders_n_810927.html#s226287&title=11_Apple_Computer

Don't bother with the facts. When in doubt, say whatever works best.

But actually, the answer isn't that hard. They're sitting on cash because they're anticipating a renewal of merger and acquisition activity, which is patently proven NOT to create jobs.

http://www.marketobservation.com/blogs/index.php/2011/02/08/a-lot-of-us-maamp-a-activity-expected-as-us-company-s-cash-reserves-are-at-a-55-year-high?blog=8

In fact, the head of Oracle SPECIFICALLY blamed mergers and acquisitions for the fact that the last large repatriation of overseas corporate profits did not product any jobs ...

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/03/14/oracles-catz-says-businesses-need-1-trillion-tax-holiday/

You see, goliph, some of us stupid liberals actually CAN connect the dots.

Say there goliph, I guessed you missed that "Pledge To America" ceremony they all did on C-SPAN, where Beohner, and several others promised they'd bring jobs back to America, and increase jobs.

THEY swore it, on camera, now, back out of it, and at the least estimate, their economic "plan" is going to cost upwards of 700,000 jobs, reduced salaries for those that have jobs, and they're threatening to shut down government (again), if they don't get their way, but NOT stop their own salaries, if they do.

How does any of that help the economy?

According to the 0bummer admin - private jobs have been increasing - which is it libs - do you give the Repub House members credit for creating private industry jobs or do you admit that unemployment is going up??? Either way - you lose. I know I am not hiring till 0bummer is gone. We will get away with part timers till 0bummer is gone in 22 months. Jan 20, 2013 is the day the is "The end of an Error."

serviceman-1312595,

If the Democrats had approved a 2011 budget during 2010. The House and Senate would not be fighting now... Maybe the Democrats will just leave town like they did in Wisconsin and Texas...

The ONLY real job the US Congress has is to pass the BUDGET... Meanwhile, the 2012 budget is due in SIX months...

Typically, Presidents submit budgets on the first Monday in February.

By early April the House and Senate committees finalize their drafts and submit it to their respective floors for consideration and adoption.

Funds for Federal Government programs must be authorized by an "authorizing committee" through enactment of legislation. Then, through subsequent acts by Congress, budget authority is then appropriated by the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate. In principle, committees with jurisdiction to authorize programs make policy decisions, while the Appropriations Committees decide on funding levels, limited to a program's authorized funding level, though the amount may be any amount less than the limit.

The federal government's fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30 of the next calendar year.

Anna Molly,

A Company does not spend CASH when they are faced with CHANGING regulations...

1. Energy cost are rising, the EPA is still CHANGING the regulation requirements and World events.

2. Health Care cost are rising and CHANGES are still being made to the Bill.

3. Pending Tax reforms, the 2011 US Budget is still not passed.

4. With the Insurance Industry loses this and last year. The Insurance Companies are passing on HUGE INCREASES in policy cost.

5. With the FED QE policies the cost of EVERYTHING Imported is increasing.

In this enviroment, are you going to commit to large increases in LABOR cost???

Not if you want to still be in business NEXT Year.

Anna Molly

Really, show me the good guys here.

In Wisconsin, it's the ones who just had their pay and benefits slashed by 10 percent while Congress diddles and fails to own up to its own failings with regard to the economy.

**************************************************************************************

Crack me up, 10 cents on the dollar is slashing. OOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMGGGGGGGGG

Eric-913730

"So Tony, where is the jobs bill the republicans promised. All I've heard is repeal heath care, bust unions, and make sure abortions are harder to get."

Which republicans promised that? The first 2 of the 3 items you mentioned will raise jobs, once passed. The abortion issue has nothing to do with jobs, other than protecting those who kill life in the name of convenience. Again, since you are a shill with no skill at responding, and no desire to show stupidity other than a first post, you won't respond.

If you were on the right, NV would have banned you long ago. But since you are on the left, they want to keep you around, even though you have nothing to say.

RANCHO DEL VALKAYRIE

"Crack me up, 10 cents on the dollar is slashing. OOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMGGGGGGGGG"

10% is better than nothing. My bet is that you have way exceeded your ability to pay your debts. When ready to go bankrupt, no one really cares about reducing debt and most of those facing it can'tbalance a check book, which is why they think 10% means nothing. The problem with the left is that they don't want to cut anything that the constitution never allowed, but want to cut everything else.

You are not constitutionally allowed a right to anything except self defense and the bill of rights, including amendments.

“Section 8.

Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have the power

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States”

I seriously doubt that you ever read the constitution, much less learned its meaning in grade school like the generations before you.

I can't be positive without your next response, that I doubt will come. but guess you are either not an American or need to sue your past teachers because of the "indoctrination" they gave you instead of an education.

Of course I have never seen a leftist shun any welfare they were never authorized to get, under the constitution. I have rarely seen a leftist who had a clue about economics or math. 10% of the budget, or just the waste is more than a leftist can comprehend, especially when it is his money. I am not going to do the his or her thing because that is politically incorrect bs that only the left, a minority, cares about.

Domestic Energy production and exploration could provide millions of jobs rather quickly if Ken Salazar, Mr. Reid and Mr. Obama would let it. And if I am not mistaken the Republicans are pushing this pretty hard. And your argument can also be turned as to what did the 111th Congress do for Jobs? Are you and Joe Biden still out touting Recovery Summer 2011?

The only thing the Government can do is provide the Private Sector with some certainty of what the playing field is going to be. The Dems could not quit messing with everything, wait until 25 Dec for a tax policy, new health care regulations, QE1, And QE2, no FY2011 budget ...maybe if they had any idea what was going to happen some of that money in the greedy corporations savings accounts they would invest it.

Let me take a stab at it.

Is a coalition like when a bunch of uninformed voters get together and elect a smooth talking Chicago thug to the presidency?

Be careful. Coalition sounds too "Bush" like. The words now is "Partners". You miss the point. Obama and his supporters were all over Bush for his actions and now Obama is doing exactly the same thing. Lets face it, Hussein was killing thousands of his own citizens. Now that is Obama's reason for getting involved in Lybia. Also the Arab League is now saying we went too far. Either you are against the US becoming involved in other countries business or you are not. All of a sudden, because it is Obama it is now OK. Why don't you think for yourself.

Tony C:

Lets face it, Hussein was killing thousands of his own citizens.

Post hoc rationalization #4,296.

And to fix that little problem, we went in and killed hundreds of thousands more.

What I posted was a fact. Not a rationalization. I guess the 140 or so missiles we fired didn't kill anybody in Libya. Not suprises you have a double standard.

Not suprises you have a double standard.

Yet another false assumption on your part. You're really good at that, Tony C. In fact, I haven't taken a position on Libya yet because I was out of touch most of the weekend, and I don't know enough about it yet. I defy you to find anywhere that I have said I support President Obama on this. However, I do think that having the support of the Arab League and the UN Security Council and our allies weighs in his favor, and I have yet to heard any sort of "lie" attributed to President Obama of a magnitude that is comparable to the Bush administration's lies regarding Iraq.

But I just plain hate killing, regardless of who pulls the trigger. You?

If dictators killing their own people is your standard, then what excuses Bush's failure to intervene in Myanmar? Oh, that's right. There is no oil in Myanmar.

It had nothing to do with oil, AM- or we would own the oil in Iraq.

Hussein was still under an active U.N. Order- which was reiterated several times. Had he come clean about his propaganda campaign to convince the Iranians he still had weapons, and let the inspectors go where they would, turned over the yellow cake willingly, turned over the remnants of his defunct nuclear plant willingly- we might have acted quite differently- even complicitly, in his charade.

Facts are fact, and every world leader believed he still had those weapons of mass destruction, knew he had the yellow cake, and believed he would not hesitate to use them.

Qaddafi seized power in a coup, has committed acts of terror against this nation and his own people, and needs to be removed from the face of the planet. There is no argument with any of that. I'm GLAD we are helping the rebels in his country. I hope the no fly action was the right way to go about it.

The world will be a better place when he is sent off to meet his maker.

You have to acknowledge that almost all geo-political decisions are based on the availability of access to oil. Operation Iraqi Liberation, O.I.L., is a fairly clear example of our willingness to lie to ourselves about why we are willing to put our military personnel in harm's way; to benefit 2% of the population.

I do not own stock in those companies, Sean, so, no I do not get dividend checks.

The U.S. Government, however, collects royalties from those companies-

So, in a manner of speaking, we do get "dividend" checks.

My point was that we did not declare the Iraqi oil fields our own- and demand royalties from the Iraqi government.

Way to pick a nit.

no joe:

It had nothing to do with oil, AM- or we would own the oil in Iraq.

LoL no joe -- we don't own the oil in Iraq because we're totally incompetent. We intended the oil would finance the war and the rebuilding, remember? And that's not all.

How quickly we forget.

Mr. Skippy

Let me take a stab at it.

Is a coalition like when a bunch of uninformed voters get together and elect a smooth talking Chicago thug to the presidency?!

#6.1 - Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:51 PM MST

The Current President isnt a thug, he simply the jive talker you mentioned.

as opposed to the last president...the little draft dodging weasel who couldn't put together a coherrent sentence...i am ritflmao!!!!

Anna Molly

Tony C:

Lets face it, Hussein was killing thousands of his own citizens.

"Post hoc rationalization #4,296.

And to fix that little problem, we went in and killed hundreds of thousands more."

Did we or did they? A $ say you don't have a clue. Let's say hundred of thousands died - so who killed them? Present your case, show who killed who. You can't and your won't.

You are the typical clueless that - doesn't have a clue. You buy into BS you cannot verify, but want to place blame. My guess is you think you are owed something for that which you never paid. You think you deserve that which someone else made. You think military is a waste of money that you don't pay. You think that what everyone else pays is owed to you. Another $ says you have never paid your fair share of anything.

Sean-336944

"no joe, "we" don't even own "our own oil." Do you see any dividend checks when Shell, Exxon-Mobil, BP, etc. drills from our reserves like the citizens of Alaska do each year because they chose to make their state's oil a state-owned (socialist) resource? No, we contract the land out and the energy companies keep what they drill. They can export it back to China if they want, it's theirs. We can't stop it from happening"

Actually Sean, you are wrong. Most American oil stays in America. Look it up and get educated. About the only oil exported is back to Canada because they have few refineries.

Look at what they have then respond.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries#Canada

Of course you won't because you have no clue.

BP has very limited oil drilling in Alaska, 1 in 9 barrels produced. I am a stock holder in several oil companies and BP is one. I doubt you are a stock holder in any energy company and you believe that bs you read at MSNBC and don't have a dime to invest in your future because you are too busy with the present or just spend it on that which you don't need.

The State of Alaska does not own the oil, coal, natural gas, fish or game, the Citizens of Alaska own it and the State is required to manage those assets for the people of Alaska. The citizens owning the Resources is quite different than the State owning them.

Now if we can get the Feds off our backs we can use our Resources to put our citizens back to work in the Drilling and Exploration fields we will have more revenue to put back into our Permanent Fund. Our State is also considering putting $10 Billion of our States Surplus into the fund so that it cannot be spent by our over eager legislators to spend it.

There are millions of jobs and millions of workers eager to take them in Oil Patches across America, The Gulf, The Dakotas, Utah as well as Alaska. Although the spill was devastating that was ONE failure by BP out of how many thousands of wells we have? Domestic Energy Production Provides Jobs and Revenue for Cities,Counties, States and the Federal Government. If Pelosi defends the multiplier effect of Unemployment Insurance she should definitely see the advantages to putting these people back to work sooner rather than later.

Let's see skippy,

Hmmmm, Pawlenty announced today and Obama is +16 in the most recent poll against him.

I'm feeling pretty good.

Jobs are created by the private sector, not government spending. You should understand that after 3 trillions dollars in spending and no jobs. With our debt now equal to our GDP and Obama proposing deficits for ten years to the tune of 9.5 trillion dollars which will add to the 14 trillion debt, the economy will really suffer which means rather slow job growth. The answer is not reelecting him. That is where the jobs will come from. The damage to the private sector is being addressed as you have indicated.

Eric-

Do you ever..even occasionally, actually read the posts you're responding to?

I suspect you're almost always "feeling pretty good"...

Put the bong down for a minute, Eric...

Eric- Dukakis was up 16 points or so with one or two months prior to election. Were you feeling "pretty good" then?

You should understand that after 3 trillions dollars in spending and no jobs. With our debt now equal to our GDP and Obama proposing deficits for ten years to the tune of 9.5 trillion dollars which will add to the 14 trillion debt, the economy will really suffer which means rather slow job growth. The answer is not reelecting him.

Don't be too sure. It turns out that there's absolutely no logical reason why companies aren't creating jobs right now, except that they are sitting on mounds of cash at unconscionably low interest rates. What for? Are they hoping they can hold off and ensure that President Obama is not re-elected?

The fact is that not re-electing President Obama is NOT the answer; it's the PLAN.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/top-corporate-cash-hoarders_n_810927.html#s226287&title=11_Apple_Computer

Instead of building plants or hiring workers, corporate America is clinging to its cash.

Companies are sitting on $1.93 trillion in cash and liquid assets, the highest level since 1959, the Wall Street Journal reports.

With high unemployment and families still limiting their spending, corporate America is backing away from expansion. But with interest rates on the heaps of cash so low, that $1.3 trillion might as well be stuffed in a mattress.

And the other part of the plan is to use those cash reserves to re-energize merger and acquisition activities:

http://www.marketobservation.com/blogs/index.php/2011/02/08/a-lot-of-us-maamp-a-activity-expected-as-us-company-s-cash-reserves-are-at-a-55-year-high?blog=8

As I'm sure you know, mergers and acquisitions usually don't create jobs. Just the opposite, in fact. Case in point: the 2004 re-patriation of overseas corporate profit, which actually resulted in a REDUCTION of jobs as the money that wasn't handed over to shareholders was not reinvested, but -- according to Oracle's CEO -- WAS used instead for mergers, essentially killing jobs, at Hewlett Packard, for example.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/03/14/oracles-catz-says-businesses-need-1-trillion-tax-holiday/

Eric-913730

"Let's see skippy,

Hmmmm, Pawlenty announced today and Obama is +16 in the most recent poll against him.

I'm feeling pretty good."

You would feel good if you were on fire.

The truth is tha Obama is toast and has been for the last year. Only a total fool would believe different. Not accusing you, but your previous bias support has been about nothing reality shows.

I do hope you keep your job as doof for the dufuss. Everyone need a job.

Anna , the Huffington Post? Really. You know exactly what your position is on every issue don't you? It is whatever Obama says.

robtzu

"We have not had a declared war since World War 2. The simple fact is most people do not care about the constutition and the politicians act accordingly."

Except for Afghanistan and Iraq. Almost total bipartisan decisions. Idiots forget.

"Indeed, it was Gaddafi’s Libya who put out the first Interpol warrant for Bin Laden’s arrest in 1998. Western intelligence agencies blocked the warrant from being pursued, and allowed Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda to go on and kill more than 200 people in the truck bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania"

Oh, you mean when the last dem was in office. Clinton, like Obama, had no clue.

Never did.

Anytime!

I have had enough of the MSNBC lunacy so I'll be on my way.

Run Forest Run!!!

Every country complains about its politicians. You just don't hear about it in the U.S., since it is reported domestically. It's nice you think the people of Japan are holding hands and singing Kumbayah, but the fact is, every country has its share of problems with government.

At the rate Obama is going, I'm thinking about running! I could sho work me some o dat Whitehouse bling!

Middle Class American....and with your attitude that you will remain.

So you are saying that Congress was informed, and Democrats are just saying they weren't informed because they have an axe to grind with our Democratic President?

You might have a starting point if it was complaints from the GOP, but the biggest voice yelling that Obama broke the rules is from Dennis Kucinich...a Democrat.

.

There are rules and laws over this sory of action. Claiming the actions were obvious, or that Congress should have been able to figure it out don't cut it. You may as well tell the cop you didn't really run a red light, because it was going to turn green in only a few minutes.

Well, if Kucinich didn't have his hair on fire about something, that would be news. That's what he does, and the primary reason he is always on the fringe.

But, then again, I don't recall saying anything about which party in Congress was making a fuss. That was your misinterpretation.

Speaking of axes to grind, and all.

Now, why don't you just give us your considered legal opinion about which laws the POTUS has broken, and tell us by what authority you have decided this for us?

'Cause, I'm guessing the POTUS has an awful lot of good lawyers at his disposal who will disagree with your opinion.

Title 50 United States Code 1541 to 1548

Public Law 93-148

The War Powers Resolution

--Unless you are going to claim the US was already under attack, or there was a serious threat of an attack from the Libyans...Obama needed authorization from Congress to send US forces into action abroad.

(Nixon had a lot of good lawyers...but he was still wrong. Clinton had a lot of good lawyers...but he was still wrong. Being President doesn't mean you don't make mistakes, or overlook things.)

Now do give me your concerted legal opinion as to how Obama did NOT break the law. Since you seem so keen on assuming I don't know what I'm talking about, one must infer you think you know something about the subject....unless you are dismissing my comments simply based on the fact that you dislike their outcome.

Actually, I haven't made any assertions about legality; those have all been yours.

Nixon tried to do a few things that the law didn't authorize him to do. Clinton was in a civil suit, not anything to do with the powers of the Presidency.

And, I still don't see anything beyond mere assertion on your part that your interpretation of the applicable laws are correct, or for that matter any legal cites, precedents, or an actual lawyer who shares your opinion.

I'm sure, though, that Rush will have you some new things to think by tomorrow afternoon. Though, I think you've run through most of what he came up with over the weekend.

Oh, and since you misinterpreted my first post, and no longer want to talk about that apparently, I'm guessing maybe misinterpretation is what you do best.

Until you get called on it, and are compelled to try to divert to something else you have misinterpreted, that is.

Nixon flat out authorized illegal activities.

Clinton was not in a civil matter when he lied under oath before Congress.

You brought up legality in challenging me to name a law. I named it. You disregarded my answer in favor of chastizing other aspects to my posts.

Maybe in the future you will address the answer I gave to your direct question.

(or, as long as you don't have a valid response, maybe you will just quack about other things again)

Does a Civil Lawsuit require you to give up your law license? I think a Perjury charge does.

Actually, Maxwell's, that is a flat-out lie about Clinton. And, I challenged your interpretation of a small snippet of the law; you didn't bother to post the entire thing. Gee, I wonder why?

And, marcos, I believe those sorts of things are negotiated as a part of a legal settlement. But, do you have a point? It was still a civil suit which had nothing to do with the presidency.

Bama, That changed last week. The French are now the leaders of the free world. Sarkosy took charge while Obama dithered. I made a few orders of French Freedom Fries this weekend in honor of Sarkosy's strong leadership. I also want to congratulate Obama on his strong followship regarding Libya. You know the old saying.

Leaders lead and ditherers follow. or is that followers dither?

Oh tragic irony!

And this President did not act unilaterally. Where is the irony exactly?

Ed, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! You are not allowed to use Obama's previous statements against him. Facts are not allowed(because they are not important) when speaking about any democrat. You want to see the heads of libs explode when you confront them with what their fearful leaders say?

An "attack" which would commit ground troops as an occupying force would be illegal after 60 days, without congressional approval.

Clatho

Unilaterally does not refer to a UN resolution, it means by the Executive Branch without consent of the Legislative Branch. Get involved and know you facts.

Wonder how "proud" she is now about her country.

nice work on the song...odds are not many on here will remember the tune (IF they have ever heard it)

Country Joe and the Fish

Been THERE Done THAT.

And I didn't give a damn my last stop was Vietnam.

1965-66.

It's a no fly zone, not a war.

Buy the way do you have one of those blood diamonds on your person?

Title 50 U.S.C. 1541-1548

The War Powers Resolution REQUIRES Congressional approval for the President to use American force abroad.

Congressional means BOTH houses. Even if you can twist the Senate verbage to count, you still don't have the House.

They weren't his powers to envoke.

Title 50 U.S.C. sec 1541-1548

The President needs Congressional authorization to use military force abroad unless the US is already under attack, or the threat of an attack against us is serious.

Obama didn't jump through the right hoops...he broke the rules.

UN sanctioning doesn't mean anything.

Now if we could just get the courts to give the Regulatory Authority back to Congress as was intended in the Constitution but stripped during the Locke Courts of the 30s we would get the balance of our Government back to how Madison envisioned it and that the States ratified and adopted.

FDR continues to haunt us from the Grave. i wonder how we would look at FDR had WWII not gotten us out of the Depression.

Hey, I'm a big fan of Kucinich and all that, but do you really have to post this same thing over and over and over and over and over and over...................................

Once would have been plenty.

You are right. We are not at war.

.

BUT...per Title 50 U.S.C. sec 1541-1548, the President needs Congressional authorization to use the US military for action overseas, unless there is a serious threat of an attack on the US, or the US is already under attack. (I don't think a foreign civil war qualifies as either)

.

Obama didn't need a war declaration, but he needed congressional approval per the War Powers Resolution

(did you just call Kucinich a tea gagger? Because he thinks Obama broke the law too, and is speaking out against Obama)

And for the record...

I think his actions were RIGHT.

He just didn't get permission for the actions...and because of that he broke the law.

Maxwell,

Doesn't he have a ninety day window of action before he needs Congressional approval?

I'm guessing Rush didn't quote that part of the War Powers resolution, navyvet.

@ Darla you are a perfect example of a liberal booble headed hipocrite #1. WMD weapon of mass destruction does not have to be a nuclear weapon, nerve gas and biological weapons are WMD's, proof Sadam had them, He gas thousands of Kurdish, men women, and children, in his own country. Thousands of other Iraqies have been fouind throughout Iraq in mass graves. One of Sadam's sons use to send his bodyguards out to colleges in Iraq, take college girls against their will, Sadam's son would have his way with them, and theywere killed and buried in the desert, or don't you consider rape and murder torture? Christ why is it soi hard for you liberals to let go of this Bush hating crap? Okay we get it, and you used the lies to get your guy into the White House. Hows that "hope and change" working out for you now your guy has Lybian blood on his hands? Kinda hard to eat CROW, huh?

Maxwell,

The president does NOT need congressional approval prior to a military action. He must inform initially then get approval or stop military action per below. What will be interesting is what he will cite for "Constitutional and Legislative Authority" required by 1543.

Title 50 U.S.C. sec 1541-1548

Per section 1543:

(a) Written report; time of
submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported

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

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while
equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply,
replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces
equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;

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, setting forth—

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States
Armed Forces;

(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such
introduction took place; and

(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or
involvement.

Per Section 1544:

(a) Transmittal of report and referral to Congressional
committees; joint request for convening Congress
Each report submitted pursuant to section 1543
(a)(1)
of this title shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same
calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is
transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period
in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives
and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if
petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses)
shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may
consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.

(b) Termination of use of United States Armed Forces; exceptions;
extension period
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is
required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543
(a)(1)
of this title, 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,

(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or

(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon
the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an
additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress
in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United
States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the
course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

GAmike 69 You better read the stipulation under #3 B above. The UN or NATO have no authority other than that authorized by congress. I say he has committed an impeachable offence.

GA Mike69 - It's been too long since I tried to cite the USC so forgive me if the form is not correct. Check out 22USC-chap24A-sec1962 and 22USC-chap7-subsec XVI.

BTW, the House hosts the US Code.

@VERNON HICKMAN

Exactly. I've had a number of people cite these section but not ONE of them can identify the legislative authority Obama used to drop bombs.

I think they figure if they post a long enough quote...people will just assume they are right and not check into it.

Vernon, Nerm, Maxwell.

I was not trying to defend the POTUS' actions, that is why I questioned what he would use as a constitutional/legislatative reason. What I was really trying to point out was that the POTUS does not need explicit approval from congress for short term military action if he can justify it (no matter how remotely). I am sure he will use the March 1 resolution as a "legislative" authority even though it was only passed in one chamber. From what I have been trying to read up on this, a legislative authority does not necessarily mean a law or resolution passed by both the Senate and House. That being said, any long term military action would still require Congressional approval.