E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Pete Williams and Jonathan Hutcheson
Did President Obama violate the Constitution or federal law when he ordered the U.S. military to take part in coalition attacks on forces loyal to Moammar Khaddafy in Libya?
The Constitution itself doesn't answer the question, because it gives Congress authority "to raise and support Armies," "to provide and maintain a Navy," and "to declare War." But it also provides that, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."
Congress has formally declared war only five times in U.S. history -- for the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, and World Wars I and II. But presidents have approved dozens of military actions with no such declaration, including the Korean conflict and the war in Vietnam.
Well over 100 military operations were ordered without any advance Congressional authorization at all. Recent examples include actions in Grenada, the overthrow of Manuel Noriega in Panama, and intervention in civil wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia.
A federal law, the War Powers Act of 1973, requires the president to consult with Congress "in every possible instance" before deploying U.S. forces. An exception was made for emergencies created by attacks on the U.S. or its armed forces.
Some legal scholars conclude that President Obama violated the law's requirements, when he failed to seek congressional approval.
"Judging just from the pictures of what we are seeing happening on the ground, this is quite substantial, and this is the sort of thing that would have needed Congressional approval," said Professor Oona Hathaway of Yale Law School, an expert on executive power and international law.
While the president has stressed the international component of the operation, she believes that makes no difference. "The fact that the Security Council has authorized an imposition of a no-fly zone does not answer the constitutional questions," she said.
But one former official who advised President George W. Bush said that while the decision to deploy U.S. forces in the Libyan operation was a political and strategic mistake, it's entirely legal.
"Congress raises and supports the military, but the president is the commander. Declaring war and making war are two different functions. There's no question President Obama has the authority to do what he did," the official said, asking that his name not be used.
Mr. Obama's actions are consistent with the way every president since Richard Nixon has treated the War Powers Act, choosing to notify Congress only after a decision has been made to sign orders authorizing military operations.
His actions do, however, appear to contradict the view he expressed as a candidate. In December 2007, he told Charlie Savage, then of the Boston Globe that a 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."
So who's right? Constitutional questions, and legal battles over violations of federal laws, are normally resolved by judges. But this is an area where the courts have been reluctant to tread, unwilling to referee what they see as disputes between the political branches of the government.
Leave a Comment:
Did I miss something? When was our military action elevated to a 'war'?
I couldn't stop laughing with the I was for it before I was against it crowd this evening, namely, Romney & Boehner!
Bottom line is: Both sides are p!ssed off, which means President Obama must be doing something right! ;o)
One things for sure, there won't any 'photo ops' of President Obama posing in a flight suit declaring Mission Accomplished, regardless of the outcome!
Feisty...
You little warmonger, you...
You've really changed.
Well good golly Feisty old gal, they ain't playing twiddly sticks.
But do tell - what do you call it when one nation bombs another nation? Not a terrorist group, but rather it's the recognized leader of the country, right?
How does this end Feisty? How many Africans will be killed by US bombs and missiles?
And when will we leave Iraq? When will we pull out of Afghanistan?
When will the nation building end and the money spent here? When Feisty, when?
Keep on rocking the spin, you sweet Little war hawk. I bet you loves you your AR-15, with a nice custom rail and a bunch of accessories. Fiesty you got a grenade launcher on that bad boy?
Did I miss something? When was our military action elevated to a 'war'?
If there's a possibility that even one of our guys will die over there while conducting bombing runs, then I think that fits the requirement of 'war.'
Your Glorious leader has acted in the same manner as Adolph Hitler did in the Spanish Civil War except he is continuing his role as Community Organizer and leading the Rabble with statements like "Kadhafi must Go". I think OBAMA MUST GO! Maybe we can get the Russians or Chinese to take out his air defences as a humanitarian gesture. I'm in favor of IMPEACHMENT.
What's this? Bush and Cheney LIED to us and the whole international community to go after Hussein('s oil)...but Obama is out of line now?
Well lets see, if we had gone to Afghanistan in the first place, instead of Iraq, thanks to Haliburton Cheney and his greed, we might have already been out, gotten Bin Laden and been gone, who knows. And After we were lead to Iraq by the myth of WMD by who?? we can't just bail with a new administration when they are in deep hurt, thanks to our actions.
And can we stand by a watch the slaughter of civilians taking place in front of the whole world when our allies are calling for action. We are members of NATO and the UN and the Brits and the French are our allies, ...
So there were lots of teagaggers, Palin amongst them who objected to the slowness of the decision. Now its the quickness that the spin is being put on, a little twist and it is possible to find fault.
The concern for other people in the world, is not the GOP agenda at all in this debate, its the Obama fault find opp that intrigues them. When slow: twist that into weak and dithering, when fast: twist that into unconstitutional when in fact it is not. Either way, its GOP spin and twist we are seeing and hearing in this legality discussion. Whether we agree with the actions in Libya seems to depend on party affliliation, not on concern for people, did I hear a lot of Republicans talk about the Kurds in Iraq, once upon a time? LOL
Personally though I disagreed with the Iraqi Action, I supported our troops and was glad when that evil demon So Damn Insane was ousted. I kinda wish Iamanutjob in Iran would act like Goofdaffi, oh wait... basically the Ilatollakakamaniacs and he have already. Just not on the same appalling scale.
Goof had a 41 year old run, corrupt and terror supporting and enriching himself and his tribal members and anyone useful to him, he only made kissy with the world in order to sell his oil. Now after 41 years he can't bear to step down for the sake of peace and safety for the people it was his duty to cherish?? Instead he throws bombs and snipes at them??
We are so blessed to have our system of government, even if for some 8 year stretches we have to be in disagreement sometimes. When we dissent, we don't risk our lives. Patriots appreciate this, and support our government and our administration always, its the USA all the way. and when we disagree we vote. As in 2008 .. when we, the majority, became sick and tired of hatred such as bigotry and the greed of Chevron and Shell. amongst some of the issues we took our butts to the poll to change. And if the Teagaggers can get enough whackos to vote with them we can go back to greed and bigotry for a little while, but that will not happen. The teagaggers will fade like the Know Nothing party did...
In the meanwhile, we can be praying for our troops and their support civilians, and our President, who is doing his best and for Clinton and all the worlds leaders, that they will be guided by their hearts and conscience, and although we may disagree may we always know they have put thought and effort into all of it. God bless and protect them and our world.
Vernon, you don't think you need to go back to look at George's War on Iraq??? Falsefying WMD intellegence documents to persuade the coalition to sign on??? Yes, he did go to Congress, but...I rest my case. You re-elected him for two terms.
In the article it was stated: "His actions do, however, appear to contradict the view he expressed as a candidate. In December 2007, he told Charlie Savage, then of the Boston Globe that a 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." I would certainly call the steep incline in gas prices, which effect food and material goods prices as our fragile economy is trying to raise itself out of the pit we have been in, an imminent threat to the nation, if not an actual threat. And as far as I have heard there has been no formal Declaration of War. The US has long been the Police Force of the World, and was clearly stated in the article: "presidents have approved dozens of military actions with no such declaration, including the Korean conflict and the war in Vietnam." And I find it rather disappointing that the UN and the US did not step in earlier in order to save more civilian lives. We must also remember that in our war of independence from Britain, we received help from a coalition of nations too, including, France, Spain, Russia and the Netherlands and without whose help we may not have gained our independence.
Why do people, namely the leftwingers, dismiss the Democrat's and Clinton's administration's role in this? Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 citing the need to remove Saddam from power. If you go back and read quotes from Pelosi to Byrd to Kennedy to Kerry, you will see the WMD referrals everywhere. It was well-known he used them on his own people, most notably the Kurds in the north. How is this, then, solely Bush's war? Seems many Democrats furnished these "lies" about those WMDs long before Bush stepped foot in the White House.
Darla: This is an ARMED REBELLION, not a civil protest. I see these so called civilians in pickups with twin 50's, RPG's, and AK47's (the real kind that fire 600 rounds per minute). They may act like savages but they aren't there to attend Sunday School. I get sick and tired of you referring to them as civilian protesters. Do you remember what Bill Clinton did to David Karesh and his followers at Waco or a family at Ruby Ridge. When you take up arms against your government you better have your Sh*T together or be prepared to get your A*S kicked.
ya...what red said...and when did the Vietnam "police action" that was brought to you by libbie Jethros become a "war"...JFK and LBJ only murdered 63,000 American soildiers and 5 million civilians including women and children in their "police action" , that didn't make it a war...
Amen, Darla-----great post.
Feisty, you are right, no photo ops because he is too busy with his spring break vacation. What a loser.
LOL, i gotta laugh at all the haters of the current NFZ over Libya. You still cry impeachment? 'Alex? I'll take All those Hopeless retard haters for $300.'
Just happy the Kersarge's Osprey Plane Guard picked em both up, eventually. Think it would have been safer if they tried the same thing with a Marine Seaknight?
I am glad no one came to the South's rescue during the Civil War.
AZChzhd,
Number one: I am not a "lefty". I was a Rebublican up until George W. and the "moral" minority took over. Those losers threw the party into a tail spin that it will never see the end of. And, until they start acting like responsible members of the United States of America and stop trying to resind the "Separation of Church and State", I will never consider rejoining.
Second: You need a new new line. You sound a lot like every other jacked up "right-wing" extremist blogging out here.
For Obama or not. Save it for the elections.
Is sending the military to take action legal? Yes. Is it a smart thing to do? No. The Pesident will find some way to mildly justify his actions as he simultaneously finds a way to withdraw forces. The media will find something to distract us by covering another story somewhere and this will slowly be forgotten about.
Our military is not a world police force. It is here to be the best fighting force on the planet. It should only be brought out to inflict damage when our hand is forced. At that time we should stop trying to win conflicts and concentrate on winning a war. Our military is not a politically correct machine to turn on and off. There is nothing PC about killing people. Leave the Hearts and Minds job to the Peace Corps.
Let the U.N. be the world police if they want to. Everyone can contribute equally or not at all. United is even in the name, yet there is still nations not supporting this action or that etc.
Simply put, Our troops either need to be set free to bring the pain or brought home. Sustaining a war only lines the pockets of contractors and get our boys and girls hurt.
I just love the no-fly zone, Pensive.
I'm waiting for Phase Two:
"It's time for Gaddafi to go."
A rose by any other name...
A stink bomb is still a stink bomb...
Call it by whatever name you want. People will still die.
Vern-
Lefties, especially those with no military service, are unaware of the truth you're speaking.
You're right...
If you're going to take on the MAN, in the ultimate sense of the word...
The "MAN" being the government...
You better be ready.
I don't think folks like Darla understand that at all.
Good post Military, I am a fiscal conservative but will never vote for a Republican party that tells me how to live my personal life. I will return to the GOP when they leave all of their patronizing and transparent rhetoric behind... They'll get my vote when they really want to limit the reach of government instead of just its spending.
That means separation of church and state, gay marriage, abortion rights, ending the Patriot Act and the war on drugs.
I don't need anyone telling me what to do. We agree on the fiscal issues. Stay out of my life!
Vietnam Conflict ESCALATED by FALSE information supplied by the US Navy to LBJ. POTUS - LBJ a Democrat.
Kosova/Bosena/Macedonia civil wars supported by the same people the Carter's/CIA financed and armed. POTUS - Clinton a Democrat.
The Granada invasion lasted less than a week and basically rescued College students and US Nationals. Again using FALSE information to justify the invasion. POTSU - Reagan a Republican...
The overthrow of Manuel Noriega in Panama lasted less than a week and resulted in the arrest of a CIA employee that Carter had supported and funded. POTSU - Bush I a Republican...
Does anyone else see a CONNECTION??? FALSE intel/Lying POTUS and Carters support of Muslim Terrorist and/or drug dealers...
Even in Libya there are sources that are saying the 'Freedom Fighters' are supported by Muslim radicals/terrorist... And it would not surprise me, to find that the CIA is involved and supporting them...
Obama violate the Constitution? Yes. Shooting down planes and bombing anti-aircraft artillary are acts of war and without the expressed consent of congress is a violation of the Constitution.
Darla... great post??? you've got to be kidding Steeler Fan. It is an example of the stupidity of people blindly following a fraud and liar like Obama. Great?? Great nonsense
Military man....First of all, thank you for your service, if thats what you indeed are.
Second, I said "why do people, namely leftwingers", I didnt say "why do you Military Man." Get a grip bro. Because its true, the liberals have had a serious hard on for George Bush and the Iraq War without involving the Democrats at all. They make the Democrats out to be total saints on the issue. I just merely pointed out the so-called "lies" have been drummed up years before Bush stepped into office.
Third, the Republican ideology has been this way for decades. They are the primary home for Christians and religious individuals. You were Republican then, what changed?? Doesnt separation of chuch and state simply mean the government cannot adopt an official religion? It doesnt mean that someone who infuses their Christian beliefs in to the way they govern cant be elected? They are still elected by the people and included their religious beliefs to get elected didnt they?
Besides, most athiests on the left are trying to push God out of government and society in favor of a secular society. They have their own agenda that is equally as offensive to the Christian right. It goes both ways. You're way is not the right or wrong way. It is just an opinion.
Fourth, what exactly is "my line?"
Alas .. is there anything more entertaining in politics than watching a 180 degree flip in roles and media coverage? Today we have a peace President exapnding the wars in the middle east with liberals supporting the position. I honestly thought I would never see a series of events such as this. The television media on this one is priceless.
The issue here is that the military took action against Libya as an individual nation, not under operations orders from NATO or the UN. However, I believe under the war powers act, the President has 90 days before he must obtain a declaration of war from Congress or withdraw the troops.
If people could stay on point, we might start to realize just how important this question is. Hell no, we're going to get the same partisan crap we always get here. It's Obama, former peacenik, community organizer, brown guy. No, it's that cretin Bush. No, it's the hypocritical lefties. No it's the warmongering right wing.
Horse S***!
Like it or not - and I most assuredly do not like it - the President has this power under the War Powers Act. This cowardly abrogation of duty by Congress has put us in this mess.
Some have cited the fact that a treaty is the law of the land. That is true. However, I do not believe a vote of the U.N. binds us in the same fashion as a treaty.
What is most disturbing is that a President has the power to essentially declare war - sorry Feisty, I'm not into the Ministry of Truth and its definitions of war - completely bypassing the Constitutional mandate enumerated in Section I, Article 8. Dammit, THAT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.
Today,we have a gutless Congress that gives the President its job and then criticizes what he does. WTF?
Congress do your freaking job. Folks, if you don't understand how important this is, imagine if Obama had lost the election. Imagine McCain had won. Imagine McCain died in office. If you've gotten that far, you now have the clearest picture of a terrorist imaginable. SARAH PALIN - hair-trigger temper, narcissistic beyond words, and nuclear holocaust at her fingertips.
Should the President have that kind of power? No, no, a thousand times NO!
Teddier
it's actually kinda equivalent, there was also a no fly zone during the civil war. :)
Great attempt at legitimizing it MSNBC.
"Mr. Obama's actions are consistent with the way every president since Richard Nixon has treated the War Powers Act, choosing to notify Congress only after a decision has been made to sign orders authorizing military operations."
Of course congress is notified of the decision after it is made, how would you notify them of an un-made decision? Even Bush "notified" congress and then got their approval BEFORE ACTUALLY signing orders AND BEFORE missles were in the air. Obama actions were no where near similar much less "consistent" with them.
“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” --Barack Obama (Dec. 20, 2007). By Obama's own standards, he has violated the Constitution.
Really good post David.
I'm always amazed at people's ability to rationalize their own behavior while criticizing others for the same. It's especially true of politicians but also the public. Doesn't matter to me if it's George Bush, Barack Obama or (god forbid) Sarah Palin...
I don't want to fight any more wars in the middle east.
I thought we were finally going to get out of Afghanistan and slow the loss of American blood and treasure... I can't believe that we are going to burn billions of dollars in the desert with so many people out of work, our education system being dismantled and infrastructure crumbling around us. We can't solve all the world's problems. Time to stop trying...
Hey Fieisty. I guess you missed that part. Apparently Obasma is once again contradicting himself. How convenient! Now that he holds the keys it's okay to wage war w/o the authorization of congress. Just demonstrating his hypocritical side...again.
The Republocrats are starting another war. This time it's against a country that is no threat to us and isn't even pretending to threaten us. Their leader even referred to our community organizer as his "son" just the other day. This is bound to get more interesting. While you people are busy blaming each other's candidate, our government is almost guaranteed to do something even dumber than this before you wake up in the morning.
But back to the subject at hand. Did he break the law? Probably. Even though the redhead thinks otherwise, he's supposed to check with the other 535 guys first (or at least some of them). And sorry, it doesn't matter what George did. But Congress violates the Constitution all the time too, so who cares? We're not going to do anything about it. We wouldn't want to miss Dancing with the stars.
he has 90 days, i want to know why congress is funding this global government child potus? i blame congress for letting this go down, that means you tea party freshmen.
As for the photo op situation Feisty, can't happen when the President of our country takes us to war and doesn't find it necessary to come back to our country and talk about it.
Am I reading correctly that the leftists that are against every war ever fought are defending this President for taking us to war? Seriously?
Regardless, the Negative ad will be Obama kicking a soccer ball in South America while the US joins another conflict.
Humanitarian Mission? That does not jibe with his own 2007 views in the Boston Globe. Just because the UN said it was okay does not give the President authority to commit US troops. He finally found a fray he could not stay above.
He continues to follow rather than lead and yet he will spend $1 billion to be re elected Why? We need a leader who is engaged, sleeves rolled up, providing direction and He is not the man.
In 2012 he will have a Record and Agenda to run on not just a record of present Votes. In 2010 the Republicans ran an Anti-Obama, Reid and Pelosi campaign I see no reason for them to change that strategy.
I find it odd (OK Not really--actually it is typical of them) that the NeoCons who so hate Obama attack him for doing EXACTLY what they would want him to do and if he were not Obama and a Democrat but a Republican President that they would be cheering.
PROOF if Ob . ama does it, they hate it, if a Republican does the EXACT same thing, they will support it. Party before country every time.
Note I have not given my opinion on this war/action/attack etc. I do note that unlike Iraq Quadaffi was actually attacking and killing thousands of libyans actively on a daily basis, no dispute about that. And Quadaffi was not being even accused of having any WMDs as an excuse to attack. (Yes I know that Saddam had in the distant past used gas on the people of Iraq)
But a weel or so ago, Reps were attacking Obama for doing 'nothing' now they attack because he is doing something.
Bohener attacked him for not "taking stronger unilateral action" Now he bitches that he has taken action
HYPOCRITES ALL
Great catch...let's see how he justifies this one.
The koolaid is working. No matter what Odumbo does you lefty lemmings with your heads so far up his rear agree with it. He can take your home tomorrow and its ok because he is your great kenyan lemming leader. He writes his own constitution, you follow right along lemmings. Good luck with that.
oK, so those of us on the left are drinking the Kool-Aid? You righties are all drinking the Tea Bag Juice then.
As for these civilians being armed thugs, wha tthe hell planet are you people living on? You do realize that Kaddafi has oppressed and terrorized these peole for 41 years, corrrect? This is the same Kaddafi that ordered the bombing of Flight 103 over Lockerbie, that had hundreds of Americans on board. So you righties are choosing Kaddafi over our president? What a bunch of pathetic hypocrites you people are. If this was Bush you would all be cheering and saying what a freedom fighter he is.
Did I miss something?? I don't recall a declaration of war on Iraq and Bush never did withdraw the troops. Bush was authorized to use force to force Saddam to honor the UN resolution of disarmament. Not to destroy the country and stay there for years. If anyone violated the constitution it was Bush for staying over 90 days without a new authorization or a declaration of war and the congress for not making Bush abide by the original authorization to use force after the UN finished their inspection.
The kool-aid is working alright. The Republicans cannot see beyond their noses since they cannot make up their minds whether Obama is weak for not taking action immediately or violating the constitution for taking action. As far as lemmings following a president that writes his own constitution, how's the wire tapping and torture thing working out for you?
Left me get this straight:
Gadhafi bombs a Berlin disco, killing 2 US servicemen. Reagan bombs the $hit out of Libya purely in retaliation with no congressional vote.
Recent evidence comes to light from a high ranking Libyan defector that Gadhafi personally ordered the Pan Am Lockerbie bombing, which killed almost 200 Americans, in retaliation for the US previously bombing Libya and killing his daughter. UK officials have also recently confirmed that the Lockerbie bombing suspect was released and sent back to Libya to help the UK win a large oil deal. Rebellion starts in Libya and Gadhafi is about to slaughter up to 150,000 civilians (not rebels) in Benghazi. The US acts within an international coalition and stops the attempted slaughter, although almost 100 civilians had already been killed.
If Lockerbie, saving 150,000 innocent lives, and hopefully removing one of the most ruthless dictators on earth who has a habit of retaliation aren't reasons enough for US involvement in the coalition action against Libya, then exactly what would it take?
President Obama was in South America. If he had cancelled this previously announced trip Gadhafi would have known immediately that something was about to happen and would have prepared accordingly. And even if President Obama was in Washington on Friday when the decision was made he couldn't have met with congressional leaders because they all skipped town earlier in the week to get a head start on next week's spring recess. He could only discuss it with them on a Friday conference call-so congressional leaders were consulted in advance. It takes Congress weeks/months just to reach short term spending agreements to keep the government operating and some people still think Congress should have voted on this? That's why we have a Commander in Chief! Obama moves too slow and the Right complains-Obama moves quickly and decisively and the Right still complains.
Guess that's why they are called obstructionists, the Party of No, and can't move anything through the process and move the country forward, not stagnate it.
PS - Did I mention that GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump recently concluded a real estate deal directly with Gadhafi that earned him $millions? This guy is in bed with anyone who can help him make a buck. What happens when it's one of his "friends" we are going up against? Probably nothing.
Yep, they're just as ridiculous as the "I was against it before I was for it" crowd. You can look in the mirror for that one Fiesty. The mirror and a portrait of Obama along with the rest of the chameleon-principled left. Absolutely no courage to your convictions.
It is more than funny that the dems are the one's in congress going after Obama on this one. The must not have consulted with Bev first. Now she thinks her own kind are idiots.
You don't have it straight....go read some history on Quaddafi and his "line of death" in the Mediterraen.
No...
Please.
Don't be silly.
He's a constitutional lawyer, isn't he?
But...I'll defer to an expert.
Feisty...?
Maybe tomorrow we get a little info on the Drill Brazil Drill thing-y?
First Read?
So Feisty when do you and your code pink left wing zealots start demanding cuts in defense spending or does Mr O get a pass with the military checkbook? And how about that Claire McCaskill, she made a small $300k tax payment oversight for the last 4 yrs - can you imagine how silly she must feel?
The following congressional delegation was briefed on Friday March 18th by the President either at the White House or on secure phone, as to the U.S. role in Libya pursuant to the UN resolution of March 1st. Not one of these gas bags was b####ing then!!!!! You're either with this country or not. STOP whining!
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.
Sen. Dick Lugar, R-Ind.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.
Rep. Mike Rogers, D-Mich.
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md.
Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio
Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.
Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D- Calif.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.
Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif.
Exactlly. To me there is no question the President has the legal authority to initiate military operations. Declaring war to me is a entirely different thing. To me that means killing people. And, we are not in Libya to kill people. We are there to protect people.
MBA-Grad Student...
"initiate military operations"="killing people".
Launching cruise missiles at military targets kills the people in, around, and near those targets.
No one needs a doctorate to understand this.
skeeter - seems that political turnabout is fair play. The libbies screamed at bush2 for iraq, now obama has to take the heat for libya. To me it is all polititics except bush2 took the heat and obama is wilting.
Going from "no support" for a no fly zone on the 15th of march to launch them tomahawks days latter to Hot! Hot! hot! gotta pass it off quickly! Gotta luv obama and companies statements "qaddafi has to go"
Is this sarcasm? God I hope so! Or I guess I'm the crazy one and no one gets killed when we bomb the hell out of tanks, advancing forces, shoot down planes and lob hundreds of Million dollar missiles at them.
Libyan television reported that 48 people were killed and more than 150 wounded in the first missile barrage alone.
WTF-Is someone lost in a Liberal Fantasyland?
Mixed Bag, you've got it.
Parhaps the moniker bragging "MBA grad" does need a doctorate to understand your very simple point.
american-2051576: I don't see anything in my post that mentions liberals or republicans. My point was that these aholes want to pretend that they knew nothing about this crap. Typical political BS. Just a bunch of hacks looking for some camera time.
american-2051576: You aren't seriously comparing what's going on in Libya (bombing military, no ground troops) to Iraq (bombing, troops on the ground, occupation, regime change, etc.)??? When that happens in Libya, I'll gladly come back on here and apologize to the world, but until then, you're comparing tiny apples (Libya) to huge oranges (Iraq).
To be honest, I am sick and tired of the battering this President takes from both sides and the middle. This is not a unilateral U. S. mission. This is being done under the United Nations Resolution.
Everyone needs to shut up, especially all the journalists associated with First Read. There wasn't a pip of a squeak about Iraq. They lapped up the WMD lies and ran with it. No questioning.
This President gets questioned on everything!
He isn't doing anything about Libya; then it was why not?; then he dithers too much; then he thougtfully does something, and it's too late; not enough.
Barack Obama should walk out of the White House in 2012 and flip the bird to the people in this country. He's way too smart for the majority who listen to only FOX propaganda and Libyan TV? That's really funny.
Let Newt or Tim or Sarah or Michelle or any of the other right wing-nuts have the job. Then once the country is finally and totally in the toilet, maybe then people will begin to think.
I doubt it. We are doomed. We will have generations of uneducated, uninformed people, unhealthy, backward thinking people who will never be able to compete with China, India, Japan and Brazil.
Look at the statistics. We are no longer first in anything!
Whatever President Obama does, he gets blamed for, I don't think it is fair. The President did the right thing with Libya!Stop picking on him!He is the best President this country has had in quite sometome. Have we forgotten all of the crimes the last administration did to us and the rest of the world?
I have serious reservations about the wisdom of the US intervening in Libya.
That said, the news media needs to get the facts right. President Obama *DID* consult congress in advance. Congress was notified in advance of US military operations in Libya. There is a difference, however, between "consulting congress" and "seeking congressional authorization". The president CONSULTED, but he did not SEEK PRIOR AUTHORIZATION.
Why the increasingly conservatively biased news media continues to gloss over that distinction is a mystery. Saying that the president attacked Libya "without consulting congress" makes it sound like he just ordered it without anyone in congress knowing about it. If you think that John Boehner woke up one morning, saw Fox News and fell out of his chair in shock over the fact that we were striking targets in Libya, then please stop voting until you know more about what is going on.
Congress knew about this in advance and they were consulted. They just didn't formally authorize it in advance.
It doesn't metter. Liberals think the Constitution is just a rag a bonch of guys wrote 225 years ago to get us started. They believe it's a changeable document, depending on how they "feel" that day.
What continues to amaze me is...so many people actually believing there is a real difference between political parties...
Maybe Americans would come to the realization of what the real truth is someday if someone had all the back rooms bugged that you never see televised...
All 3 supposed different parties laughing about how gullible everyone is to believe their rhetoric...
Have a great day...
@CE: three parties ? Democratic Party, Republican Party, ???? Party
@Please: it is nice to know, the entire world does not revolve around the petty politics of Washington DC. Mrs. Taylor will be missed.
That's simply untrue. Article 1 Section 8 was the MOST DEBATED and DISCUSSED portion of the Constitution by the founders. This is a matter of record. It is VERY CLEAR that any and ALL war actions are to be decided by CONGRESS and NOT the Executive Branch.
For all you dems who support this, I don't want to EVER hear another word about Bush "lieing" to get approval for Iraq... if he had only known he didn't NEED to get support from Congress, then he would have acted ON HIS OWN.
Geesh... you people are insane.
Bush was bad for America... Obama is probably even worse.
The funny thing about all of this is, if President Obama had not acted, all the hawks would be asking why he has not acted. As to the War Powers Act, good luck with that one. While Mr. Kucinich is effectively attempting to throw the little temper tantrum by asking that the action in Libya be "defunded," it will never happen. There will NEVER be an action in Congress to remove funds from troops who are actively engaged.
So if I got this correct the plan is; late in the game toss billions worth of bombs in to Libya, wash your hands and hand it over to the French and Qaddafi stays in power. What a fantastic plan Mr. POTUS! Constitution who needs a constitution? The progressives have been slowly shredding the US Constitution for decades.
Could this article be more biased? Anyone notice the Repeal ObamaCare poll in this seed? Makes you wonder who sponsored this eh?
Interesting that both Bush administrations were purposely left out of this article. Maybe it's because both of them lied their arses off to have there wars. Oh, that's right. It's only about Barry. And if you blame anything on 2.0 W, his father or especially neocon messiah Reagan your being an offensive attacker of all that ultra-wacko-conservatives believe to be holy. Besides being non-patriotic of their own country's Commander In Chief that is. There's your Republican Party of Nonsense for you.
Gary...I tried to make some sense of that...but it was not possible....It is support Obama, no matter what, right?
Mixed Bag:
Obama did nothing different than Bush. Stop all the griping!!!!! If Bush was right so is Obama!!!!!
Actually no. Bush did go to congress for some consensus and got support from even the majority of dems... albeit on false info.
Obama went to the UN to get approval, and ignored congress all together... this has NEVER been done for offensive attacks on another nation at this scale.
So to say it is the same is to lie or not know the facts.
Now don't get me wrong, Bush was a disaster, but as much as I can't stand blind bBsh supporters, Obama supporters are JUST AS BAD because Obama is basically Bush III. New wars, still in the first two, renewed patriot act, extended Gitmo and wants to make it permanent, corporate bailouts for drug companies, ect...
Can anyone name ONE MAJOR policy difference that affects us all from Bush to Obama? No.. you can't.
Tried to make sense then realized you were a Teapublican eh?!? When did a Teapublican ever make sense or think for themselves for that matter? They just do whatever their satirical tabloidal show hosts tell them to.
{:-)~
@American: Bush2 didn't take any "heat." He let Cheney take care of it.
@Mr. Rogers,
"That's simply untrue. Article 1 Section 8 was the MOST DEBATED and DISCUSSED portion of the Constitution by the founders. This is a matter of record. It is VERY CLEAR that any and ALL war actions are to be decided by CONGRESS and NOT the Executive Branch."
True. The intention of the founder fathers on this matter does indeed seem clear. However, this has not been the practice of presidents for decades. The War Powers act has been used to initiate hostilities for decades. It allows the President to move without Congressional approval for up to 90 days. Ironically it was put in place to preserve congressional power in the declaration of war.
+++++++++++++
"For all you dems who support this, I don't want to EVER hear another word about Bush "lieing" to get approval for Iraq... if he had only known he didn't NEED to get support from Congress, then he would have acted ON HIS OWN."
A difference here is that Bush knew he wanted to invade, and change regimes within Iraq. While the War Powers Act does let the President use military force on his own he does need backing of congress for an extended campaign. After all someone has to pay for the war, and a President that has got buy in from the Congress for his war runs the risk of losing funds for the war. Basically Presidents can start a war without permission but they can't maintain one without "The Hill".
Regardless this action doesn't change what Bush did. Why would you think it would? Presidents are judged by they're actions. This one is no different. Perhaps because Obama bashers on the Right have been so enthusiastic they haven't noticed that Obama has gotten a great deal of (and much better articulated) beef from the Left (or what passes for it in the US). You will find few liberals who are enthusiastic about Obama, he's just better than the competition. But then again his competition sets a pretty low bar.
..Constitution allows president to take emergency military actions. If Obama had waited for Congress to debate and arrive at a decision, there would have been a half million dead Libyans and Gadhafi would have been securely entrenched. Obama waited too long as it was
denfran66-
I thought my views were clear.
Of course...you're absolutely correct.
I was watching the "Ed Show" on MSNBC (just prior to the UN Action on Libya) when Ed began commenting (yelling) about Senator McCain's comment in support of a no fly zone in Libya to which Ed yelled...."and can you believe it Senator McCain wants to get America into yet another war..." and a few days later President Obama did just that!
Yet another exambple that President Obama has left.....the left!
"In December 2007, he (Obama) told Charlie Savage, then of the Boston Globe that a 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." "
And then he does it anyway.
Once again, we see a huge disparity between his 'rhetoric' and his actions.
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
lol
ROY WILSON-336103... do you even understand the meaning of unilateral, in the context of the quote you provided? I think not... because you look like you don't know what you are talking about. This was not a unilateral effort in Libya... and please do not take my post as a defense of the president, but rather to question your understanding of basic grammer.
Tunde Akins-
Since President Obama refers to the power of the President under the U.S. Constitution in the Boston Globe interview and quote referenced, the use of the term "unilaterally" presumably means without the specific consent of Congress...our President isn't accountable to the leaders or laws of other nations, but presumably, he is accountable to the Constitution, no?
In that respect, although the President's actions in Libya were in concert with the leaders of other nations and thus not unilateral, his actions with regard to his own reading of the Constitutional powers of the President evidently were "unilateral".
Although the President acted unilaterally according to his own reading of his Constitutional powers in 2007, perhaps he's changed his mind since actually becoming POTUS.
Actually, if the President is acting under a treaty and the treaty does not conflict with the Constitution, he is acting constitutionally.
Mixed Bag, Sorry... I didn't see this earlier... but what Duh101 said...
MBA -Grad Student
"Declaring war to me is a entirely different thing. To me that means killing people. And, we are not in Libya to kill people. We are there to protect people."
That's why we sent the friendly humanitarian missiles. Apparently there's an expiration date on that peace prize.
It may be legal; it may be constitutional, but it definitely ain't cool. Didn't like this crap when Bush did it; don't like this crap when Obama does it. In my opinion, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are right. And I bet Russ Feingold would agree.
I'll go on record and say - me EITHER!
You are one of the good ones Feisty, that's for sure. If all dems were like you, I'd consider becoming one myself.
Excellent - now say it with me Feisty: Obama made a huge mistake by bombing Libya.
We all know this will not end well.
First tax cuts, now war. What the heck is Obama good for?
Spanky, there's a difference between honest criticism of a policy you don't agree with and pissing on a fire just to see it smoke.
Thanks Indy! ;o)
BTW: Have you noticed the Ditto-Heads are crawling out from under thier rocks around here? Darkness must have fallen!
Or in Feisty's case lighting your piss on fire to illuminate the great O'. But I appreciate the Feingold comment. Kinda puts the matter in perspective, right?
Right Feisty?
0bummer has no clue about doing anything but what fits in his left agenda. He was a "lecturer" at the Univ. of Chicago not a Professor. At the end of an error - otherwise known as 1/20/2013 he can go back to being a community agitator. Worse than Jimmy Carter - times 2!!!!
0bummer has no clue about doing anything but what fits in his left agenda.
Left agenda? Have you been paying attention the last couple of years? You'd have a hard time proving a liberal agenda, yet alone a leftist one.
Indy - start with 0bamacare, Keynesian economic policy, obscene spending levels that our country has never seen before - or will be able to pay back, Kagan and Sotomayor - his buddy Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Saul Alinsky - Union bailouts. I could go on and on but I don't want to raise my blood pressure any more.
They're not referred to as Ditto-heads for nothing... lol
No kidding. After 12 years of Republican presidents there isn't going to be enough of Rome left to burn.
black belt, what ended up as HCR was the republican alternative to Clinton's plan in the 90's. Are you saying Newt's buds were leftists? Spending is definitely a bipartisan addiction, so unless Bush and Co. are also leftists, I think we can cross that off. Gotta admit, I think he chose well with Kagan and Sotomayor, so you have your first point. Hey, under both Bush and Obama, everyone but the working class got a bailout, so since leftists are all about the workers, I think you missed there.
Feisty - I am sure you had something brilliant to say but I have been ignoring you and your other screen names for quite some time!!!!
MJ - last I checked we have had 10 years of Dem Presidents and 8 years of Repub Presidents in the last 18 years. I am pretty sure that starting Jan 20 2013 we will start 16 years at least of Republican administrations. Thanks for playing tho.
Really? If you were telling the truth (in full disclosure, I would NEVER expect you to) then that would mean you had to OPEN my post in order to read it!
But, you already knew that didn't you hon?
I swear, some days you right wing idiots make it as easy as shooting fish in a barrel!
okay for the people in the room not following along-
Indylib said
to which I replied:
the explanation:
8 years of Bush
4 year of Obama who has turned out to be a DINO unless you've got such a hard-on because he's bi-racial that you can't see his policies for the color of his skin.
Thank YOU for playing BlackBelt3
0bummer is no DINO - he is a radical leftist that is trying to take over 1/6 of the economy and whose goal is universal healthcare with a single payer. I have to much time invested to let that happen.
Black belt, did you read my response to you above? HCR is a republican plan from the 90's.
Indy - there are pieces of this piece of crap HCR that are similar to the Repub plan in the 90's but that is not what it ended up - no matter what you believe. The goal of 0bummer and the libs is that this piece of crap legislation is the springboard to single payer and universal healthcare which we can't afford and the majority of the people do not want. 0bummer is a leftist for many reasons but a single payer and UHC is a pretty good indication of where one stands. Thank goodness my patients pay cash and I don't have to worry about getting paid by the govt - the govt rates. I put in 15 years after HS and am not going to let this community agitator tell me how to run my business or life.
fiesty - time for your meds, you lead off post 1 with...
and then in post 3.1 you say
ROTFLMAO! Yep, you are quite the comic relief!
hey america when has he asked if he can do anything? we the people dosent exist any more .the people in the U S wont stand together any more .WAKE UP PEOPLE .were getting run over and seem to like it.
BTW: Have you noticed the Ditto-Heads are crawling out from under thier rocks around here? Darkness must have fallen!
That's the thought that comes to mind whenever the idiot from "roselle, (ugh) IL" posts.
So blackbelt, you're saying you only got into medicine to make money......Wow, you're the kind of doctor I want to go see.
Thank you for being honest Feisty and saying you didn't like it when Bush did it and you don't like it when Obama did it. Its the first post of yours that I can relate to. We're polar opposites politically. But I do appreciate your honesty.
@Black_Belt3,
"Indy - there are pieces of this piece of crap HCR that are similar to the Repub plan in the 90's but that is not what it ended up - no matter what you believe. The goal of 0bummer and the libs is that this piece of crap legislation is the springboard to single payer and universal healthcare which we can't afford and the majority of the people do not want. 0bummer is a leftist for many reasons but a single payer and UHC is a pretty good indication of where one stands. Thank goodness my patients pay cash and I don't have to worry about getting paid by the govt - the govt rates. I put in 15 years after HS and am not going to let this community agitator tell me how to run my business or life."
The only way one can interpret President Obama's policies as "leftist" is if one is living at the extreme edge of the right. The man would be lucky to hit center and would most likely fall to the right of that.
"He was a "lecturer" at the Univ. of Chicago not a Professor."
Not according to the University of Chicago. Their website states:
See here: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media
And how nice for you blackbelt, that YOUR patients are well-off enough to pay cash. Luckily HCR is taking effect so that MY patients can get coverage and afford their visits and their meds.
only republicans can be declared a war criminal when doing what is necessary...Obama violated law when he ran fro office in spite of not being born here..;)
 He violated the constitution when he became president but that's another matter.
They bombed a warehouse, just like Bill did!
Oh looky, another birther. Talk about beating a dead horse.
Try to keep up now, we've moved on as a country. I know it's hard for you guys, but try. It makes you look smarter.
Every time you say something like that people discount everything you say because they think you're a loon.
hahaha...oh looky another kool-aid drinker. Talk about smelling a horses ass to know it stinks.
Try to keep up now, kool-aid doesn't make you smarter.
Know what's funny?
Birthers and Truthers don't know how much they have in common.
It's Bush's fault isn't it? Going on 10 yrs now right? You're still beating a horse that's been buried for over 2 years while his twin brother pisses on your favorite boots and laughs at you.
good point pjam09, they think that the birth certificate thing is a dead horse, but all they can do is talk about Bush. The irony would be hilarious if it wasn't such a tragic indication of the total inability of the left to think with any logic or reason.
An amazingly ignorant question to be asking as a HEADLINE. You guys in the Mainstream Media should be ashamed of yourselves for playing stupid and dignifying ignorant questions like this with headline status. Anyone who doesn't know the correct answer to this question should answer it with scorn, derision, and the preface to theiri reply being, "If you had paid the slightest bit of attention in school and American civics class...."
AND...
President Obama IS a constitutional lawyer!
Right, Paul...?
Constitutional lecturer.
Just lecturer. Anyone here made Law Review? Just curious.
there isn't really such a thing as a 'constitutional law' attorney...only attorneys who practice constitutional law....
Modern - Plastic Surgeon - no stop as community agitator along the way.
According to an article in the NY Times, Harvard had lowered their standards in the 1970s before Obama made Law Review. It used to be the student with the highest grades; now grades are only a portion of the consideration. Popular vote based on a writing assignment makes up the rest.
Source: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0ce2dc1631f935a35751c0a966958260
Boy I had to to this ignored person to respond whgoever you are I dd not vote for Bush one or Bush two got it - i have a test with my children - who broke the lamp - look at their eyes - look at the Republican eyes - too close together - lying - your children - watch their eyes - look at Bush's eyes look at Gov Walker's eyes same vacancy- frightening
Barbara Barbara Barbara , Your children must be always wanting to go to the neighbors alot.
wow...@Barbara...u ok?
No...she is not Ok, but she will never know....You know that Obama has a nice smile...therefore we can just trust him with anything...right??
 And the nobel peace prize goes to the jackass in the white house!!
Amen
Has a former Nobel Prize winner ever started bombing a sovereign country that posed no threat to the U.S. ????????? Now we know that at least 1 has - atta boy 0bummer - you were right - you didn't deserve that Nobel Prize.
The Nobel Peace Prize was certainly premature. I'm at least glad that he didn't feel that he had to live up to it. Not sure how I feel about another war though...
I thought we had to fight them over there so they wouldn't come over here. What about Lockerbie?? Why is the gop soft on terrorism?? h-y-p-o-c-r ...oh, never mind
pray tell- how did he violate the constitution when he became President?
Oh, please don't get the "birthers" started.
Please don't feed the trolls. You know exactly what they meant by that. Do you really want this discussion to drop to that level of stupidity?
Or...
The "truthers" either.
He VIOLATED the US Constitution by appointing Hillary Clinton to Sec of State...
The 'Saxby Fix' only corrects the fiscal aspects not the VIOLATION...
I should also point out that Obama has done this THREE times.
Prior to Obama this had been VIOLATED only 4 times in history by; Taft, Carter, Nixon, and Bill Clinton...
"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."
Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution
liberals picking a fight, who'd a guessed...
Well, if anyone knows what a strategic or political mistake looks like, it would be an official who advised Bush!
Scott, I don't know who he/she is but they definitely have tons of experience with mistakes, so I will recognize their expertise in this regard.
Hey is that the same guy advising Obama? Let's see: Bush did it = mistake.
Your turn Scott: Obama did it = ?
Aw shucks Spanky, you really know how to hurt a guy's feelings. You asked that question of both Feisty and Scott, but not me. I feel ........{sniffle}........ left out.
How about the missteps, misquotes, misunderstandings, etc, etc, that the Obama Administration was admitting to during the first year+ in-office???
Now the media just IGNORES them or in some cases like Rep. Wilson yelling "liar"...
Obama violated the Constitution the minute he became Chairman of the UN Security Council. Just because every President since Lincoln has violated the Law and the Constitution, does not make it correct. It does however set precedent, which is far more powerful in court. So congrats America, you've allowed so many Constitutional violations to become established precedent, that the Constitution is now utterly invalid.
You can't violate something which is invalid. I think the term your are looking for is obsolete or moot.
So Obama was supposed to wait for congress? What a joke. Congress couldn't decide how to tie a shoelace.
The President was suppose to convene Congress and at the least state his purpose for using military force that has not been approved by Congress. Especially since the threat was not imminent. Congress was to vote on whether military force was necessary and make a formal declaration of war or treaty.
Guess what can happen now, Congress can go to the Surpreme Court and appellate this.
However, since Congress was well aware of an air craft carrier of Libya's coast they should have been in Washington. Those who weren't should have had their vote abstained.
Final analysis, dereliction of duty.
I don't know if it was constitutional or not, but the US has only declared war but five times in the last 200 years. I looked it up. I didn't think we should have gotten involved in this mess but Obama didn't do anything that unusual. The big clamor from congress is the usual "turf" war between the executive and the legislature. I will come down on the side of the executive almost every time whether he is a republican or a democrat. I don't like us being in Libya's mess, but I think there is plenty of precedent for the POTUS making the call. I am a republican.
Do your history!! Our presidents has sent troops into combat over 200 times in our history without a declaration of war or without consulting Congress. Good idea or bad, it is certainly NOT unconstitutional.
 I don't get it. I went to war under the Bush family. Did they ask Congress ? I think not... I specifically saw my orders. Didn't say do do about congress sending me. Said the President of US. Please tell Dennis Kucinich and Paul to quietly shut up and keep searching for aliens. Hey Michelle, nothing to say ?
Every time Bush 41 or 43 sent troops in harms way they got votes from Congress authorizing them to do so. Your orders aren't coming from Congress - they came from a Superior officer. Were you on constant latrine duty?
Brian, Both Bush I and II had authorization from congress before committing military forces in Iraq. President Bush also had congressional authorization to go into Afghanistan. I further believe that President Clinton had authorization to assist NATO in Kosovo. The War Powers Act does not, from what I read, means everything is ok if the President "consults" with congress since it specifically states "The President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the U.S. is already under attack or serious threat. A note to NBCs Williams & Hutcheson there was no "War Powers Act" prior to 1973, therefore it doesn't pertain to Vietnam or Korea. The congress did authorize President Johnson to send military personnel into Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin Resolution). As for Korea we had American Forces stationed in Korea when the North invaded the South. The War Powers Act has never been tested in court, to my knowledge, and every President has disagreed with the Act but they have complied with it except for Obama.
sure they did ask Congress...and you lying about service is dispicable
"Do your history"? "over 200 times"? Do you even know how long the U.S. has been in existence?
You need to stay in the swamp because you don't have a clue about "doing history".
The question is more complex than the one posed. Use of military force pursuant to treaties or international agreement is different than declaring war. In this case, the U.S. is part of the U.N. and we have obligations under the U.N. compact. Thus, I think the actions taken are legal. Are they the right actions to be taken--that is another question. It does appear to be legal on its face, as to whether it is really legal, that is for a court to decide.
Dude I will support the President on his decision, even if he flip flopped again on his position. It would have sent a poor message to Iran if we let Khaddafy kill the protesters, freedom fighters, Rebels whatever or whoever they are. They would have taken our decision not to act as weakness and see no threat from us and the world if they did the same thing.
However your assertion that we in any way should continue to be the Military Arm of the UN is wrong headed and illegal. We are Governed by our Constitution not the UN charter. I do see this as a further Europeanazation of America by this President and I do not like that aspect. But now he must realize this is His Conflict and as such he is accountable. I do not support his agenda or policies but I wish him well on this endeavor and God Bless our US Servicemen and Women as they take on a third Middle East Mission.
Marcos1120: In no way did I assert we should be the "Military Arm" of the U.N., but that we have certain obligations under our international agreements and the U.N. compact. Things are never black & white, there are always gray areas. There are many things, including our international relations, that go into decisions made by the President. I am not in possession of all the information or access to all treaties (or the time to research such) in which to say whether this is legal or illegal. That is for a court to declare, not me.
We are regulated by our Constitution and that Constitution includes provisions for international relations and treaties. We are part of a world that has many facets and we are a major player in all that is going on. As a country, we will have to address all our responsibilities and do what is required by our treaties and agreements. We can not ignore such.
I am glad to see this President look to others to assure we do not go of half-cocked and solo. This is an international issue and should be addressed by an international organization. That is where the U.N. comes in and is a good place to bring such matters. Our involvement should be through such and not on our own. I am also glad to see that this is being approved by the Arab League--that takes us out of the major, major "bad-guy" spot.
James
I support the President for the fact that he has all the information and for him to be convinced to opening a third conflict did not come easy or without thought.
In the Mid East we will always be the bad guy regardless of weather we are right or wrong. They just plain hate us.
I still am very leery of the UN because a friend today is an enemy tomorrow. And I still Pledge Allegiance to the Flag of The United States of America not the United Nations.
So if Obama voilated the constitiution according to our conservative friends does that mean we drag Bush into court too? After all we did this. TWICE!
We should get out of this endless squabbling between left and right. It just serves to further divide and weaken we the people. Yes, Bush should have be in big trouble too, but nothing will happen. People get outraged but the bureaucracy ignores, makes light of, and continues down the path of the same atocities, over and over. Then we become numb to it, while continuing to argue left vs right.
Dave - President Bush had authorization from Congress for both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bush's authorization was granted by him lying to congress, the same thing the republicans impeached Clinton for.
Fact: Congress has continually ceded its war making authority to the President. First Nixon, then Bush, Sr., and then the stupid, lying Bush.
Reality here is Pubs think the sword has only one sharp side - theirs. Funny how it goes both ways isn't it?
You also forgot Clinton... Or just didn't include him because he's a Democrat?
he didn't include "gotta' cigar?" Clinton because he is a Jethro
Fact: Putting the word "Fact" in front of your words doesn't actually make them facts.
Larry - Tell us when congress volunteered to give up this power to Obama? Surely it is documented somewhere, you know, being a "fact" and all.
Wouldn't it have to have been done since November since we have a new congress? Sure seems like some of them pretty upset for something they just gave up.
I think his statement about 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", pretty much says it all really, because that's exactly what he has done here! Obama is just a lapdog for the UN imo.
Thats the problem I have with 0bummer on this issue - 3 or 4 weeks ago he should have gone to Congress to get approval. Qaddafi might have played his hand a little differently as well had he known that Congress gave 0bummer authority to act. Then 0bummer plays his hand in front of Qaddafi by saying we wouldn't put ground troops on the ground.
I sure would like to play this moron in some high stakes poker!
If a white, Republican president ordered U.S. forces to participate in a UN-sanctioned action, there would have been no question. Â The hypocrisy is as evident as a cruise missile.
The race card doesn't work anymore Posthoc - it has been used over, and over, and over. No one buys it anymore and you marginalize any comment you might make.
Want to hear something that totally refutes your claim?
Today, Cory Booker, the African American mayor of the City of Newark, New Jersey, was on the radio- WFAN.
He was asked about a lot of things- mainly the NCAA being played at the Prudential Center, ( home of three time Stanley Cup Champions the NJ Devils), and, at the end of the interview, was asked about Obama.
His response? "I support the Libyan action. I will not say anything else."
Did I mention Booker is a Democrat?
So true, so true...
It's because Booker is a mindless obot who has no logical reason to support Doughbama but has to defend anything the messiah says or does. pathetic
Whatever President Obama does, he gets blamed for, that is very unfair. He did the right thing in Libya!He is the very best President we have had in quite sometime. Remember the last administration and everything they did? If you are going to pick on presidents, start with Bush. Let President Obama do his job!
You hateful, angry and pathetic people. It doesn't matter what our elected President does you will call him names and come against him at every turn. He says the sky is blue, you say he's wrong. He says the sky is green, you say he's wrong. You don't care about what's right or wrong. All you people want is to be mean.
You really think that the President of the United States should ask you what he should do? He's President because we voted him in office because he can get the job done. Now, let him do his job. Just stop getting in his way in your attempts to make him stumble just so that you can complain about him stumbling.
Truly pathetic.
You're talking about George W. Bush, right?
Tommy, are you in kindergarten? "All you people want to be is mean." Is that the best defense you can give obam?
"Do you really think that the President of the United States should ask you what he should do? .... Just stop getting in his way"
Tommy, are you talking to congress, or just everyone? Obama needs to include no-one right? Like any good dictator.
Typical Obama voter, lapping up his every word. Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome.
You know, I think a lot of the right's comments are coming from a little disgust over the fact that Bush II has been flaggelated over and over and over and over again over the whole Iraq issue. In hindsight, it was not a good move, but to assume it is all Bush's fault is faulty logic in itself. Bush doesn't gather intel himself. He has organizations who do so. He moved on this intel and put it before Congress who voted to invade Iraq. The Sadam Hussein was a military dictator who was also a mass murderer of his own people. (Not so different from this situation at the moment, huh!) And I know this gets the libs fired up, but he did have weapons of mass destruction (chemical weapons) as he used them on his own people. Obama did not get Congresses approval for this action. Informing them is quite different than getting approval. But, here is the hypocrasy, the libs defend Obama's action but call Bush a liar (even though he relied on intel from our FBI, CIA or whomever) and Congress approved the action. We conservations get a little tired of the libs thinking anything their chosen one does is right and above-board and everything a conservative does is wrong, wrong, wrong. The way I see it, the President is an office to be respected regardless of your ideologies. Insulting our President is just wrong. You can disagree with an opinion or an action without turning it into base conduct of insults, slams and insulting everyone of a different party. Do you know how sick conservatives get of being called bigots, stupid, uneducated, etc. I am a conservative and I don't know anyone who hates black people, muslim people or anyone else for that matter because of their skin tone. I know many, many, highly educated people who are conservatives and liberals. Get off your high horses and just make your argument without insults. It is so much more respectful. BTW, I don't agree with the conservatives who act the same way. It is just as wrong.
Tommy - you forgot to throw the race card or blame everything on Bush
Where was the Republican outrage when Dubya invaded Iraq without Congress "declaring war?"  And Afghanistan?  Curious how "war mongering" depends on who is in the White House.  As a matter of fact, last Friday, congressional leaders met with President Obama on the matter, and last Thursday the administration invited all members of Congress to a briefing on Libya led by Under Secretary of State Bill Burns, "who walked through in great detail on March 17th what it was we were pursuing at the United Nations and the nature of the resolution and its enforcement." Moreover, Rhodes said, "after the congressional leadership was consulted by the President, the appropriate oversight committees -- again, State Department, Defense, intelligence community -- were briefed by the officials of those agencies."
John - the Senate vote 77-23 to give Bush authorization to go to Iraq. You can look up the house vote yourself. The vote to go to Afghanistan was an even higher percentage. You aren't really this dense are you?
ha can't look it up...his mom is at work
John - "Dubya invaded Iraq without Congress "declaring war?" And Afghanistan? "
No wonder Obama got elected, the utter lack of knowledge of even recent history is astounding.
The teachers are doing such a fine job.
And that vote was required because GWB did not have the support of the UN or any other world power. He decided that his need for the war was larger than the worlds desire to not go to war in Iraq.
Now, the congress may have voted for it, but if GWB had received the approval of the world powers, then that vote would not have been needed.
And that vote by congress did not result in a declaration of war by the US.
actually if you remember your recent history johninvegas Bush went into Afghanistan because the Democrats in Congress started to whine about Iraq, saying Bin Laden was in Afghanistan not Iraq, so your point about Bush not telling Congress is poinless.
The Constitution states in so many words that this Constitution and all Treaties entered into by the United States of America and ratified by the Senate shall be the Supreme Law of the land. This means that the Treaty that created the United Nations and gave the United Nations Security Counsel authority to use armed force to maintain peace in the world is an obligation upon the USA. The USA is also obligated to go to war under the Treaty that created NATO. Opponents of these treaties argued at the time that these treaties ceded the power of the Congress to declare war to other foreign authorities and they were right. However, I believe that both treaties benefit the USA. Under the UN Treaty ratified by the Senate some 60 years ago the Security Counsel resolution gave President Obama the legal authority to use armed force. Harry Truman did the same in Korea. Republican isolationists argued against and defeated ratification of the treaty that would have had the USA join the League of Nations after World War I precisely because the treaty would cede power to the League of Nations to cause the USA to have to go to war. As a result of our not ratifying this treaty and joining the League, we got World War II since another related pact between the USA, the UK and France to keep Germany from starting another war never went into effect.
sigh.....treaties are not above the constitution, this has been established. not to mention that war can only be declared by both houses of congress, and treaties are approved only by the senate. also, what one president did or did not do doesn't make this time right or wrong. the supremacy clause simply means that that everything federal trumps the states.
It is interesting that the president was so very careful to get the international community involved--and as a result waited way too long to act--but did not take care to notify or consult with members of the U.S. Congress. I think it may point to the fact that he is in the wrong position. Perhaps Mr. Obama should run for U.N. secretary general in 2012 instead of president of the United States. He certainly seems to show more sensitivity for the needs and applause of that body than the legislative body of his own country. Mr. Moon's term is up in 2012!
0bummer would have to do a better job as secretary general than he has as POTUS. Just think - if we elect Trump as POTUS we can throw the UN & its new Sec. Gen. out of the U.S. and build condo's with a fashionable East side of Manhattan address. Get rid of 2 things we don't need in the US at once.
But he did "consult" with the leadership of Congress, Democrats and Republicans. It is completely false to say he did not "consult" with members of Congress. And if Congress is so worried, why don't they reconvene. Seems they are on vacation more than anyone.
DanO President Obama is smart to connect with the international community and stay connected. If we waited on Congress many more people protesting for their rights would be killed. Even though many of you linger in the past and wish for the good old days, the majority of Americans voted for President Obama which means looking toward the future thinking internationally. I keep hearing 2012 his time is up, but there's no republican running for President, because they can't beat him!
Obama is a MORON.
And people are ashamed that they voted for him.
As for getting involved in Libya, its not our business, its not our problem, so let them kill each other in the streets. We are NOT the worlds personal army, mmkay?
Be a few less lunatics to blow up Americans if we let them duke it out with each other.
With all the problems we have in our own country why do we insist on being the worlds daddy?
Border with Mexico is worse than anything that MIGHT HAPPEN in Libya--until something happens why
do we go there --When has any of these countries we've bailed out turned around to help us--NEVER.
Instead we blast em, then rebuild em, and give them free rides here, to be told never needed you in 1st place!!
WE are foolish people and besides Obama didn't do anything wrong--It was all that darn Geo Bush....he he ha
My hat does go off to Code Pinko's who were brave enough to stand up and say Obama no better..congrats..
Nope, a threat is a threat no matter how the threat materialized. Every dictator knows the only way to ensure security is to neutralize all the potentials, even though 99% never have a real threat that would materialize. So how do you destroy them for not breaking the law without breaking your own laws. You become a North Korean Cartoon Democracy and explore each potential with a global pile of @!$%# and in such a way that guarantees they become a threat that allows for your policy of concealed military rule to kick in and covertly destroy them in an orgainc way that goes not directly leave your fingerprints or intent.
Sorry things got so sloppy America.
But I would be a lot more concerned about the ones that got wrapped up very cleanly, where the engineered threat was "forced" to outflank their innocence right before it could become conclusive. Because it could be someone you know or you may be involuntarily involved in the destruction of someone you don't know as your own innocence is explored.
Now here is where things get tricky. If you have a court system to protect the assumptions in your North Korean Cartoon, your legal theory of absolute power may potentially be compromised so you need to balance your ability to ensure a fanatical level of absolute security to keep up with the Newts against your desire to stay off of death row.
Basically, is your criminal power over someone, because you claimed they had a potential being a threat, being driven to control and reduce the threat you intentionally made them-by ending the most perverted and destructive aspects of your covert operations when you already have absolute awareness over them.
Or are you increasing the threat you made them in a shameful attempt to destroy them because they are the proof should your criminal claim ever be tested in a court of law since your unilateral and concealed war time power lets you put no cause anywhere in front of the slaughter you are intentionally generating knowing the war time power running over this whole country will control any environment without regard to the hell you put your own citizens through and that may last a life time.
If it is the latter, you are better off living in a society without the perceived protection of a court system because if you are trying to avoid the death penalty under the possibility of court review by hiding utter slaughter of life and shattering of the Constitution under cover of gross and shameful incompetence, then along with the usual felonies, you also committed treason at any and every level of your claimed powers.
Linear time is a bitch you perverted animal and your ass is lucky that your perception is so far removed from your reality.
In reference to the above topic, my opinion is that policy should probably be in line with what our expectations are and what is acknowledged (and legal!) and most important the reality of what the @!$%# we are trying to do using all elements of this democracy I pay for. Cause to formulate "policy" to keep up with the Newts by using covert means that don't leave a fingerprint if it fails makes everyone bleed but keeps our mean, lean, political machine popular.
Hey Obama, proud Johny is in the boat before the slaughter starts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOtZqciQUPs
But there is a bigger joke.
See, only when you are classified as a democracy, as you use any means necessary to force assumptions and conceal horrific consequence, is it possible to "ensure" what a dictatorship can not.
Because those assumptions make ensuring what an interior ministry's job used to be the people's problem as Obama formulates policy that is extra constitutional to keep up with the Newts but on the back of his citizens that are manipulated into destroying other citizens, controlling other citizens, and suppressing this magical and unknown power.
Living with a gun to keep you at bay is one bad thing but knowing reality has a way to dissipate anxiety no matter how bad it is.
But how our pervert uses a concealed claim of war time power to manipulate entire environments with individualized streams of control over no cause investigations, held together at the perimeter's edge by the pressure of the strongest-but incorrect assumptions-and you develop something that could be worse.
Basically a collective environment of individuals that tolerate what citizens in a dictatorship probably never would because it is individually inferred to each individual person (exploring some one elses innocence with a no cause pretext and vice versa) that their stream of control can act well outside statutory law while the gun and badge under the entire environment prevents any collective knowledge.
The anxiety of what is unknown and can't be conclusively proved is what hold these supper cooked micro environments together from the inside out while the strongest assumptions at its edge hold them together from the outside in and you have something worse than official marshal law whose predictability individual people can get better used to.
Basically the most perverted equilibrium and unlike the sun balancing gravity and nuclear fusion, there is nothing vital about this pile of @!$%# .But as long as it increases my safety by almost no percent to keep up with the Newts why even acknowledge the consequence.
When it comes to whether people will live or die (and how they will live the rest of their lives) I would gladly give up all my nation(istic) pride and come up with the best solution without regard to keeping up with the Newts. Because letting this piece of @!$%# get away (like he @!$%#in wanted to)to solve this won't take away from my nationalistic pride cause people cling to that as a last resort anyway and that's what causes these policy problems of keeping up with the Newts where everyone bleeds in the first place.
Wow.
All those words, not one meaningful thought.
Weird.
Now you understand how we feel about you NJNB...
I see you peeking....
Actually I really like that part about being wary of things tied-up neatly. I think that's an excellent thought.
I have notes much to do tonight, so, I read it again.
Still no meaning. The Titanic clip, however, takes it from bewildering to bizarre.
Thanks for the entertainment.
Ow, my brain.....................ow.
Can someone call a translator?
ya...someone to translate Illinoisese...when is that state gonna clean it's doorstep?...off topic but interesting just the same...hahhahaha
He appears to be saying that we are living in an era of undeclared Martial Law, outside of Constitutional authority, and because it is covert, we can't rally against it, but only suffer from it.
Looks like Rich is a budding politician.
A whole lot of talking (writing) without really saying anything.....