How great, Ursula, that Boehner is committed to his "important Constitutional responsibilities." Like handing out checks on the floor of the House.

So Ursula, you look at the political view instead of the fact that Obama has shirked his responsibility in complying with the War Powers Act. How interesting. Boehner respects the position Obama has as Commander-in-Chief but can't express that the president has a lack of visibility and leadership? What's disingenuous about that? How would you have said it any different? Where has Obama shown true leadership? I suspect you support going to war with Libya... I mean if Obama is doing it, even if in violation of the War Powers Act, you'd support it!

Liberals!! Can't accept that the president isn't a dictator wannabe. Talk about brainwashing. I suppose if the president said "sneeze!" all liberals in unison would fake a sneeze.

Before anyone justifies anything to Boehner, he needs to justify all his dramatic teary eyed hysterics to the rest of us.

He hasn't shirked any responsibility in complying with the War Powers Act. He's still got 5 days. Maybe come back in 5 days and say he has shirked his responsibility to comply. Because, as of now, he hasn't. As the article clearly states.

Brianb-999431

“… Liberals!! Can't accept that the president isn't a dictator wannabe. Talk about brainwashing. I suppose if the president said "sneeze!" all liberals in unison would fake a sneeze.”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Republicans!! Still can't accept that Bush was a dictator wannabe and crashed the American Economy at the behest of his lifelong terrorist friend Osama Bin Laden which was Bin Laden's 2nd attack on the United States. Talk about brainwashing. I suppose if the GOP said "sneeze!" all Republicans in unison would fake a sneeze.

If the President said "sneeze" I would say "bless you". *shrug*

Dat crazt bok - You don't call, not going to congress a shirking of his responsibility? Just the fact that Boehner wrote the letter is Obama shirking his responsibility. If Obama was up front, and above board, that letter would never been written. A leader leads. Obama hasn't led at all! He feels because he is the president, he can do what he wants. Let's see what happens in 5 days. Until then, Obama IS shirking his responsibility.

They did, he just lied about it. I'd rather Obama give no reason at all than to lie to us. Maybe that's just me.

American Girl - Deflection, pure and simple. Bush did it legally and with congressional approval. In that approval how many democrats voted for the action in Iraq? How many have voted to be in Libya?

Sounds like a fair and simple question. If Obama can't handle it.......then just let Hillary respond.....what's the bid deal?

Brianb-999431

Dat crazt bok - You don't call, not going to congress a shirking of his responsibility? Just the fact that Boehner wrote the letter is Obama shirking his responsibility. If Obama was up front, and above board, that letter would never been written. A leader leads. Obama hasn't led at all! He feels because he is the president, he can do what he wants. Let's see what happens in 5 days. Until then, Obama IS shirking his responsibility.

Are we discussing your feelings or Obama's legal obiligation under the Constitution? What responsiblity is he shirking?

Hey you all remember when Obama said this whole thing would be all over in "weeks, not months?"

Whoopsy!

I wonder where the Code Pink gals are these days? Cindy Sheehan, she still around? huh.

First, we are not fighting a war in Libya. Second, after 10 years of unfunded wars started by republicans, the President who is a democrat needs justification to allow NATO to continue the No Fly zone which the Senate called for and authorized via S.RES.85 on March 1, 2011. Sorry, Boehner, but the GOP has no credibility when it comes to overseas interventions any more than it has credibility on financial responsibility.

Actually, Roberts screwed up and the 'oath of office' went more like this:

ROBERTS: I, Barack Hussein Obama...
OBAMA: I, Barack...
ROBERTS: ... do solemnly swear...
OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear...
ROBERTS: ... that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully...
OBAMA: ... that I will execute...
ROBERTS: ... faithfully the office of president of the United States...
OBAMA: ... the office of president of the United States faithfully...
ROBERTS: ... and will to the best of my ability...
OBAMA: ... and will to the best of my ability...
ROBERTS: ... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
OBAMA: ... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
ROBERTS: So help you God?
OBAMA: So help me God.
ROBERTS: Congratulations, Mr. President.

Why didn't Boehner ask Bush "The Simple" this question before illegally invading Iraq?

WASHINGTON, DC (Mar 20)

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement on the situation in Libya:

“The United States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression and self-government for their people. It’s unacceptable and outrageous for Qadhafi to attack his own people, and the violence must stop.

WHAT? He didn't toss in 'lack of leadership' for good measure? lol

Another day... another distraction from J O B creation legislation!

Hurry on across the street there Speaker Weeper - it's got to be 5:00 some where...

dat crazy bok - You just showed your true colors. You are a political hack with this statement: They did, he just lied about it. I'd rather Obama give no reason at all than to lie to us. Maybe that's just me

Prove that Bush lied. I've been asking this from liberals for YEARS! Not one can prove Bush lied, but liberals keep on saying it with out even thinking about that statement. It's false to say that Bush lied, when the exact same intelligence he used was presented to Congress. If Bush lied, so did every democrat that voted to go into Iraq.

O Noooo Feisty spewing out a personal insult. "Speaker Weeper."

I suspect it might just be mental instability at this point. How else to describe someone who one day says that if you can't discuss the merits and have to resort to personal attacks you have lost the argument, only to then call the speaker of the House "Speaker Weeper."

Feisty, I think it might be time to get help. Or maybe for starters turn your computer OFF.

Poor Feisty, this really is getting ugly.

Perhaps, since we all know you will never turn it off, you'd like to follow your own advise? Would you care to at least try to comment on the merits?

Oh great. We've taken a 180 from this issue and gone back to the "prove Bush lied" question. Can't we just stay on this one? I mean, I have been having this debate for about 10 years with people who "have been asking liberals for years" to prove that Bush lied. And yes, I know, the whole WMD doesn't count. Outing an intelligence agent doesn't count either, right? Linking Saddam and 9/11 doesn't count either, right? I guess torture doesn't count either, right?

Fiesty- I'd rather have a Boehner than a Wiener any day.

Does anyone remember the "letter" Boehner sent to George Bush, when Bush declared war on Iraq? It is so vivid in my mind. The indignation, of all of the Republicans, when everyone of them, signed the letter, regarding their concerns, that there was no weapons of mass destruction. Or with drawing troops in Afghanistan, who were in close pursuit of Osama bin Laden, to go after Hussein? I was so impressed, with the Grand Old Party's hostility when they realized, Halliburton had swindled Billions of dollars, out of the US government, for services not rendered. And of course, the Republican concern regarding a possible "conflict of interest" since Dick Cheney was a Halliburton head honcho! Maybe all you loyal Republicans cannot remember, the Republican letter to Bush because, it was non existent.

Every since President Obama has taken office, he has had to listen to people questioning his heritage and his birth right, as an American citizen. He has tolerated the cloying nit picking for an economy, he inherited. He was called a liar, in front of the entire nation by Joe Blow, a childish disgraceful act, that would have cause the ire of every Republican, if a Democrat had done to Bush. There are so many more injustices, President Obama has had to endure from Republicans, that would have wrought hate and vengeance, if that same vile energy were aimed at Bush.

All of you great American Republicans politicians, have signed an agreement with some guy (Simon Legree?) who will hold your feet to the fire, if you dare think about raising taxes. All of you antisocial socialists, need to get a conscience and some compassion. Not one of you, have the class or the integrity President Obama has brought to the office as President. John Boehner your letter should be stamped with "Postage Due," you will never be able to pay the price President Obama has paid, in his life time.

The Republicans have NO ONE, who can fill the shoes of President Obama. All of your "candidates" are in the Bush league!

. All of your "candidates" are in the Bush league!

That's an insult to 'W'!

This crop makes him look edijucated!

How are we even justified in doing what we are donig in Libya? The UN says that we can protect citizens. How does bombing some tank that is fighting the rebels protect the citizens? I could see it if it was blowing up random city blocks, but when it is fighting the rebels, it is none of our business, and not authorized by the UN.

I suspect you support going to war with Libya... I mean if Obama is doing it, even if in violation of the War Powers Act, you'd support it!

Please explain and justify Senator John McCain’s criticism of the Obama Administration’s reluctance to utilize U.S. Airpower to decimate Muammar Gaddafi’s forces. Also, please justify and explain why: Despite the apparent non-ambiguity of its language, (The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a veto by President Nixon.) "the War Powers Resolution has been regularly ignored by presidents of both parties, some (Republicans) even declaring their belief that the act is unconstitutional."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

This letter was NOT written by Ol' Crybaby Boner,
in case you were under that misguided impression...
It was written by lawyers...
you can practically smell the slime they trailed throughout each paragraph...

I was under the impression that Libya was a NATO operation....?
Why is everyone acting like it's just US bombs being dropped unilaterally here...?

I agree with Take That Back. Nuff said.

As far as McCain goes, he said if OBL was found in Pakistan way back in the presidential debates he wouldn't go after him as they were a sovereign, McCain seems to vacillate on many things regardless of standing on his war record from years ago.

This is laughable, Boehner would have a hard time justifying the air he breathes! He's a corporate puppet and a spineless one at that.

JoeNY

Fiesty- I'd rather have a Boehner than a Wiener any day.

You'd rather have an orange boehner than a weiner? Eating Cheetos again?

Ok Birdman,

Since all GOP/TP are ignorant racist white males, lets do a little imaginary math. Lets say that the people that vote are a representative sampling of the public. So by that token, half of america has to be ignorant racist white males. That leaves the obviously educated white males, all of the women, blacks, hispanics, jews and everyone of any other race that is a citizen voting democrat. The math just doesn't add up. let's say that 50% of the population is female, 13% is black, and 16% is hispanic with another 10% other. So if you add 50% for the women, 6.5% for the black men (since women are already counted) 8% hispanic, and 5% other, then the democrats should win by.....approximately 70:30 each and every time. Hmm, not quite what happens. You are the one making ignorant claims. True the GOP/TP may have it's share of ignorant racist white males, but Democrats also have their share of them as well as you have proven.

Ahhhh - Carrot Top in drag adding her 2 cents worth... He/she must be sleeping today, or watching "The Price is Right." Thanks for those insightful and well meaning comments Carrot Top. We drew from the well of your deep thinking liberality... or is that progressivality?

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)^[1] is a federal law intended to check the power of the President in committing the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Anyone wanna explain to me when Libya attacked America? And don't give me that 23 year old Lockerbie excuse. We already attacked them for that, plus, that is not the reason stated by Obama or NATO for doing what they are doing. Furthermore, regardless of how many Americans died on that flight, that would have been an act of war committed against Ireland, not the US, since it happened in THEIR airspace. Stop using the War Powers Act to hide behind. We have to have been attacked or under imminent threat of attack for it even to pertain. Seems even Boehner needs to read a civics book.

TakeThatBack-

You're correct about everything you said, you just failed to mention how it's been business as usual in Washington ever since Obama took office. Google "Obama no-bid contracts." Pull your head out of the sands of partisanship, and you'll find that both sides are equally corrupt and inept, and prone to mud-slinging. I won't justify anything anyone has done, now or previously, but I hold both parties to the same standard. Do you?

Even if for political motives, there is nothing wrong for asking for a legal explanation of the war. If only the Democrats had been so bold with the Iraq war. And frankly, I don't see a problem with the President taking the opportunity to outline his reasons. It is his chance to explain what is imporatant about the war and cite the justification for it.

Excuse me Mr. Boehner, Obama clearly stated that this was a matter of weeks, not months. That was back in March, so this isn't even an issue anymore.

1. For all the complaints about Bush's "illegal" war, - he did get permission from Congress so that was legal in terms of the constitution but this is not (or rather, - it won't be in 5 days unless Obama gets permission or pulls out the troops by then)

2. Simply attacking another country because you dislike their political structure when they aren't attacking the US puts this outside of the constitution.... And yes, John McCain is wrong here along with Obama & Co.

Just for the record... Congress voted on the Iraqi War. We may have had bad intel but there was a vote and even Hilary Clinton voted for going to war.

libs are soooo funny! Bet they were waiting for boehner to wait till after 90 days were up. Then they would complain that boehner purposely trapped obama. I imagine the libs even expected boehner to wait for one of obamas numerous campaign speeches to spring this violation in as public as manner as possible.

Sorry libs...

I'm not really in favor of our troops seeing action in Libya, but isn't this a NATO action? Considering all of last night's GOP criticism about Obama abdicating our responsibilities to our allies, and Gates' haranguing the NATO leadership about its imminent irrelevancy, it doesn't seem like a coherent demand, to be unilaterally pulling out NATO enforcement of a UN resolution.

I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, I'm an Independent. This talk of liberal this and conservative that is besides the point. If people allow the President of the United States to rewrite the Constitution anytime it suits his purpose, then they have already given up what few liberties we have left. I hated the Patriot Act when GW signed it into law and hated it even more when BO extended it. I thought the SCOTUS would overturn this law as being unconstitutional, but it hasn't happened in the past 10 years so I've given up hope that anything in the Constitution is enforceable anymore. Like it or not, this is the current state of government we are ruled by. I say ruled because they are no longer for the people. They serve themselves and that means whoever writes the largest checks to them.

Sheep, that is all we are. Bush did it to us and we let him get by with it. Obama is trying to do it to us and instead of saying WE'VE HAD ENOUGH, we point the finger at Bush. Why do you care anymore what Bush did? He's gone. Obama is the president now in case you've been living under a rock for the past 2+ years and didnt know it. Face it, each time we allow one official to violate one law of the constitution we set ourselves up for the next official to take it one step further.

The very second a manned US Military aircraft or warship engaged any part of Libya with live ordinance without having been first attacked without provocation, and/or the approval of congress, the person responsible for ordering said attack was in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

I have no use for Boehner. He speaks with a forked tongue. In this instance he is trying to cover his tail and in all reality the presidents also. If Obama asks for Congressional approval for this heinous action he will get it. Old Boehner is just reminding him that time is almost up before it becomes a legal issue, thus he's doing what the Speaker of the House is obligated to do whether he agrees with it or not. Seems kind of odd that matters of the utmost importance of late always are brought up at the very last moment before action must be taken. Patriot Act, War Powers Act, Debt Limit......All 3 affect every single American but the debate on each is taken up less than 1 week before refusal to act will either negate the law, land someone in jail, or break the US Treasury. The lastest craze on capitol hill is waite to the last minute, push it through and hope the voters will forget what they did before the next election. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of fighting some other country's war. I'm sick of fighting some billionaires war. I'm sick of everytime I answer my phone I have to wonder if someone other than the person I'm talking to is on the line. I'm sick of a bunch of over-privledged, under-educated, out of touch people deciding which article of the constitution they will put a big red mark through next.

Impeach this guy. Tell the government you work for us. You break the rules you go to jail. I guarantee you if you break one of thier rules they won't take any pity on you.

All th prez needs to say is "Libya is hideing weapons of mass destruction" .....I cant prove it just like bush couldnt prove it ...but it is a good excuse to get rid of Ga daffy ... and all the republicans will start calling for regime change in Libya

Lots of constitutional scholars and legal experts here today, on both sides of the political spectrum. I sure wish I was as knowing and wise as most of you seem to be. It seems President Obama has tried to limit our involvement to the minimum necessary to help our allies in Europe. I wonder how it would have changed our relationship with Great Britan, France, Italy, and the other NATO members if we had not helped them do this?

I don't know a lot about politics, but I do understand that sometimes our leaders make aggreements with other leaders that aren't popular at home, but in the long run have a greater purpose. I can only hope that is the case here, and that the benefits of politial solidarity with our allies are worth the cost.

Boehner's only problem was not sending this letter earlier. It is a letter that should be sent for the obvious reasons! The two party system has worked pretty well in our history.... if the 'principles' in this current situation were reversed then I would expect the Democrat to send a similar letter.... why are you libbies in such a hissy fit over protocol?

The liberals on this blog are very much like a puppy, except the puppy quits whinning when he grows up!

Dave

I really don't care how it would have affected our relationship with our allies if one person took it upon themself to start dropping bombs unprovoked without approval of the people. As stated above, had he asked there would have been a bunch of political shinanigans but he would have gotten approval. He overstepped his bounds. He did something he took an oath in front of the nation that he wouldn't do. He did not "protect and uphold the laws of the Constitution of the United States of America".

You give the man the power to start pulling crap like this, the next time or next guy may take it upon himself to start dropping bombs on those said allies and say hey, the last time or the last guy got away with it.

We see that going on all over these posts. Hey, Bush did it........... That doesn't make it right. At least Bush did get congressional approval.

If by some chance proof surfaces that Libya did infact attack us first and I'm not talking about 30 years ago, I'm talking recently, then I will retract the Impeach this guy statement as he was well within his rights to retaliate.

Dave

Also that is the problem with our nation today. Most people don't even know what's in the Constitution. I suggest you educate yourself to what your rights as an American citizen are least you have them taken from you without your knowledge. If you don't take it upon your self to do this then that is also one of those rights in said document, but don't prevent others refusing to have those rights taken from them.

saphiremite

I'm afraid you've overstepped in presuming to know my level of education or knowledge. Because I pointedly stated that I'm not an expert in politics, unlike many who post on this board who seem to think they are scholars and know the totality of every political situation. I am not qualified to judge. A reasonable assessment, but it does not mean that I am uninformed or uneducated. It means I understand the complexity of governing our nation.

I don't believe your experience as a Wal-Mart manager qualifies you to decide matters of state. My experiences do not qualify me either. Your suggestion that I "educate" myself is part of the problem with Americans today. Everyone with an opinion believes that anyone who does not agree with them is somehow wrong or uneducated. So despite my annoyance at your assumption that I am somehow less able than you to form an intelligent opinion, I will remain cordial.

How is your opinion more qualified than mine?

.....This is like Palin and Bachmann....who has the most experience to be President.....This is a UN action as far as I understand....Mr. Boehner has his own problem to night. The letter reminded Obama he took an oath of office. I don't care who wrote the letter, it is who signed his name that takes the responsibility. I just don't see the vanity of a man, who can't execute his job effectively, can insult the integrity of his superior. If Mr. B. ever give Obama any respect let us know.....we will not hold our breath. It is all about politics. You have a right to your own thoughts.....try not to take everything personally.

Obama's answer: I am commander-in-chief of the US armed forces. I tell them where to fight and when. I can put them anywhere on the globe for 90 days unless Congress decides I cannot. Because you, Congress, have not agreed to stop my military actions in Libya, it is therefore my right to do what I am doing in Libya

That being said, Libya is a waste of money and resources. Rather than going for a legal argument that does not exist, try this argument: We spent lots of money and split lots of blood in Iraq and Afghanistan. To open up another conflict in the Middle East under similar arguments does not seem like a good allocation of limited resources.

The War Powers Act:

(c)Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1)a declaration of war,
(2)specific statutory authorization, or
(3)a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Ok....do you see the worth ONLY?? What declaration of war, specific statutory authorization or national emergency did the rebels being bombed by Quaddafi in Libya pose? If this can't be shown, Obama is in violation of his oath.

Next Section:

(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.

The one place Boehner is mistaken is that the president legally does not have 90 days...he has 48 hours to submit that report.

Next:

(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.

Obama is 30 days too late. He doesn't have 90 days Mr. Speaker...he has 60. Boehner's failure to vehemently demand the president live up to his oath and abide by the constitution is reason to not only impeach the president but to remove the Speaker from office as well.

Jack313 "WASHINGTON, DC (Mar 20) House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement on the situation in Libya: “The United States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression and self-government for their people. It’s unacceptable and outrageous for Qadhafi to attack his own people, and the violence must stop."

There is nothing inconsistent with encouraging appropriate action in Libya and also requiring that it be done in conformance with the laws of the United States. Obama will soon be in clear violation of the law. He is not a dictator with full authority to do whatever he wants, with total disregard for the law. If Bush had done that, he would have been threatened with impeachment by the Democrats, and the media would have been all over him - but they are now strangely silent.

Wilberta Berry / dAtcrAzybOk- You and others with the delusion that Bush lied need to stop lying to yourselves. Bush never lied, he was wrong - there is a difference. He was wrong, Congress was wrong, the intel was wrong, the UN was wrong, even the NYT was wrong - we all thought there were WMDs and we were all wrong. Is it really so much easier for you to insist he lied than admit that YOU were wrong as well? Like Brianb said, you and others like you have never been able to provide an example where W lied - easy not to agree with his decisions, but that doesn't mean he lied.

To the point, instead of this impersonal letter which is obviously a political stunt (have to agree w/ original post) - there had to be a more diplomatic and professional way to remind the President that he has 5 days. How hard is it for the Speaker to have a simple meeting/discussion with the President? Congress should be more supportive of our President in terms of keeping him out of trouble - the big guy has enough to deal with.

Why would the Republican Party be trying to prop up and protect the terrorist dictator of Libya? I thought that the Republican Party invented the war on terrorism and has been in the middle east trying to end it for the last 10 years? It looks like the Republican Party has gotten weak on defense and no longer supports it's own cause. At least our Democratic President is protecting us from the terrorists as our GOP is trying to protect them.

It looks like the Republican Party has gotten weak on defense and no longer supports it's own cause.

You're exactly right in this case. And the same is true for our President. Years ago he said he wants to pull troops out of the middle east, yet they're still in that mess and taking action in even more countries.

Both parties say one thing and do another. This is just one of many platforms they all use to constantly point fingers at the other side. It is how they keep the political party machine going. Creating controversy and separation in the American people. Then the people follow what their party tells them instead of making their own decisions based on individual reasoning.

Blah blah blah... democrat... blah blah... republican... teabag... socialist...

Dave

In your previous post you state, "lots of constitutional scholars and legal experts here today on both sides of the spectrum. I sure wish I was as knowing and wise as most of you seem to be"

Those are your words. Maybe I misunderstood them, but to me this means you know less about the Constitution than I do. I'm no "Constitutional Expert" but there are a few things in that document that are pretty clear. No illegal search and seizure. This is pretty plain. No warrant, no search. Government gets around this by passing the Patriot act. Due process, everyone is entitled to it, yet again congress goes around this by passing the Bradley Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms. This one seems to be pretty controversial as some interpret it to mean the militia only, but read at face value and because of the fact that our founding fathers didn't run around and take everyone's guns away from them, it seems we all have this right. Yet state after state passes "gun control laws". In New York City it is almost impossible to even get the permit to keep a gun in your own home. Right to peaceful assembly. Government gets around this by not denying us the right but charging us for it through permits and in cases of large assemblies we have to pay for police protection through more permits or even mandatory sniper towers in some cases for crying out loud. I guess poor people don't have the right to peaceful assembly anymore. Which freedom do you choose to let them regulate next? I don't think there are too many left that are rights at face value when reading the constitution. Separation of church and state. This one baffles me. It has become illegal to put "in god we trust" on a public building because it means something different than "in god we trust" on our money.

A lot of people today, speak like a politician. They say one thing but really mean something different or leave what they say open to interpretation. All I ask of government is "Say what you mean, and mean what you say". I shouldn't have to hire a lawyer everytime a politician speaks to decipher what he is saying. Most of what they say is nothing but B.S. anyways. I'm a straight forward guy. I don't mix words, I come to the point. I want our elected officials to give us straight answers and not rhetoric.

I don't know you from Adam, Dave. If I insulted your intelligence, then I'm sorry. We have enough of that from Washington without we Americans doing it to each other.

Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.- George W Bush- The simple point is that if you aren't with the president of the United States of America then you are with the terrorists..... Dick Cheney said. “President Bush doesn’t have to check with anybody, he doesn’t have to call Congress, he doesn’t have to check with the courts, he has that authority. We are at war and have been for the last ten years. What makes Libya different in the war on terrorism?

Working,

I am with the president, but it is a war that we are involved in and that requires approval from the congress. That's all Boehner is asking for. I would like to believe that if a republican president would have performed this action that Boehner would have written the same letter, but since we live in a democrat/republican controlled government I don't think that would happen. I know that if it would have been a republican president that the media would have been all over it. I think that is what most of the republicans want on this thread. They will support the president if he just asks for the support.

Lovely statement Amy, but unless you provide additional information none of us will have any idea what is ironic, or why "it" is ironic.

Maybe it has to do with the War Powers Act? The expiration of the 60 grace period? The fact that he got approval from other nations, including the Arab League before even attempting to get congressional approval.

So Amy, let's try this again: what the heck are you talking about?

And as a personal aside - it really looks like we are making progress with our gal Feisty. It's tough love, but necessary. So by all means let us keep it up.

I find the line 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner particularly ironic. Also, I love the claim that he has improved Americas' reputation in the world.

Both The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post report today that the Obama administration is planning to exploit the disorder from the civil war in Yemen by dramatically escalating a CIA-led drone bombing campaign. In one sense, this is nothing new. Contrary to false denials, the U.S., under the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner, has been bombing Yemen for the last two years, including one attack using cluster bombs that killed dozens of civilians. But what's new is that this will be a CIA drone attack program that is a massive escalation over prior bombing campaigns; as the Post put it: "The new tasking for the agency marks a major escalation of the clandestine American war in Yemen, as well as a substantial expansion of the CIA's drone war."

www.salon.com/news/yemen/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/06/14/yemen_illegal_war

@Spanky-

Ironic in that we still haven't seen "clear explanation of the legal standing" of why we are currently in Iraq - a real war that the Republican party is completely responsible for.

DeathMagnet must have missed the fact that Congress approved the action in Iraq, goals in Iraq were accomplished and the freedom of 25 million people means absolutely nothing.

Death

Maybe you should ask ALL the Democrats that VOTED for the Iraq war.

...and yet the Democrats voted for an extension of the War Powers Act how many times and passed funding for it. The war and the reasons for it are wrong and we never should have been there but BOTH parties allowed it to continue and are still funding it.

Freedom for 25 million at the cost of hundreds of thousands of innocents... Is that really a fair trade?

Ironic in that we still haven't seen "clear explanation of the legal standing" of why we are currently in Iraq - a real war that the Republican party is completely responsible for.

Completely? 44% of Democrats voted for this war. Just the fact that Bush went to Congress to get this war authorized is going above and beyond what Obama has done.

You are also ignoring the Clinton's administrations role in this. Oct 31, 1998, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act citing the need to remove Saddam from power. Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton...they all spoke of how Saddam was using those WMD's against his own people. The Clinton administration even furnished the vast majority of the evidence the liberals like to call "lies" about the WMDs.

Hmmmm, 1998...that was long before Bush stepped foot in the White House. Blame the Republicans? Hardly. They are guilty, yes. But not completely.

Guess those 82 democrats that voted for the Iraq war - get a pass from someone like you. At least there was a vote. This President just starts wars and doesn't bother telling anyone. Voting? We don't need no stinking voting.

3 wrongs don't make a right.

I don't think I would necessarly call Iraqis free, Brianb999, it is an Islamic Republic after all.

Amy B. Portland, I concur.

DeathMagnet - sureo why won't Obama get us the hell out of there?

But really the only thing that is ironic is sad poor little Amy. Amy all I wanted to know is what you were thinking. There is simply no way of knowing what you are talking about based upon a two word statement.

Amy?ut seriously - is appears that the democrats are just incapable of taking responsibility for their own acts. We got DeathMagnet ignoring the vote on the Iraq war, and all the democrats that voted in favor. But sure dude it's all the republican's fault.

Just like all the libbies in here that keep calling the Obama tax cuts for the rich "Bush's tax cuts. Sorry guys, but Bush's cuts expired. Gone, kaput. Obama signed new tax cuts into law. Then he told us how important they were.

Silly libbies.

Hey Amy you have a cheering section... Michelle just added her 2 words to your 2 words. What insight, what deep thinkers you liberal women are. Maybe you don't know how to divulge your real thoughts and are speaking in code terms. How funny!

Did any of you remember that when the kingdom of Jr., Cheney and Rumsfeld, if you vote against "them" you were UN-American and boycotted?, like they did to the Dixie Chicks when they said that they were ashamed that the President (Jr.) was from Texas????

So, after deceiving "everybody" with false reports of WMD, everybody signed based on the "intel" that the Jr. CIA gather???? Where were the WMD in Iraq??? Also where is that after the intervention in Iraq the prices for the "oil" will come down??? Did you asked yourself the simple questions in the Iraq adventure?????

WHO BENEFITS FROM IT???

WHO MADE MONEY OUT OF IT????

How the American Society benefits from that conflict????

You don't have any other answers but shame, because the only companies that "profits" from the war were those associated to BUSH, CHENEY and RUMSFELD.

How convenient????

We had a DOD Secretary (Rumsfeld) that blames on the "servicemen/women" for complaining about the "armor" of the troops. like an American live were nothing and I don't have any responsibility for sending you to a war without protection (And the @!$%#s that complain that a soldiers job is to go to war, lets send your son/daughter to the front without any protection, and lets see how will you respond?)

I don't have any children serving in the military but if I will send somebody else son/daughter in harms way at least I will make every single thing in my power to be sure that they are in no danger other than the "normal" dangers for a war zone. Sending them without proper armor and equipment was, is and will be criminal. If for any of you, that's the value of an American live, then GO TO HELL, you deserve it, and then don't come up on Memorial Day or Veterans Day, complaining about what the government do or don't.

Libya: The Teapublicans complains in the beginning that Obama was weak because it didn't take action, and when it did, complains that is against the Constitution. Hypocrites as usual....

What about Sen. Graham that is asking to "intervene" in Syria also????? Are you going to complain that the POTUS is "weak" also for not bombing Syria??????

Why don't you choose a side and stay there?? OH! I forgot, you choose the "I don't know what it is but if has Obama on it, I oppose!!!" side.

How lame!!!!

Thank you Hernan, it doesn't matter which direction our President takes, the republicants will go the opposite way whether it hurts the American people or not.

I think our war machine is the best thing we've got going. We make the best weapons on the planet and defense contractors are doing well. Why are you crying about a small little skirmish in Libya. It is not always a liberal vs. conservative issue. You have no idea of whats really going on. It wouldn't matter what Obama has done you would be against it.

Even a lot of small and medium size defense contractors are suffering these days. Lot's of budgets have dryed up and lot's of projects are on hold. The big boys are probably doing OK but a lot of smaller companies are not.

Democrats in Congress voted for the Iraq war based on lies and fabricated information. The White House has access to information that Congress does not, so they placed some trust in the White House, especially so soon after 9/11. Even Colin Powell was set up by the White House to present their lies to the UN. So what's your point again about Democrats voting for the Iraq war? They have since found out the war was an invention of Cheney/Bush purely for profit, but that was after the fact.

This is all kinda of funny! I served 8 years of military service and most of it in the Middle East.I saw many friends die there. I saw fellow soldiers hacked into pieces and dragged behind jeeps in celebration all the while people here complained we cant mistreat prisoners for intel. I took an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution and to me the soldiers we were fighting werent covered by it. The war in Iraq was already under way before Bush! The Dems voted on that war also and so did the entire Nation on 9/11. Now all you people that think Obama is God get over it because he is a liar just like every other politician out there he just has major media kissing his behind. All politicians from all partys are liars owned by big business and special interest groups that lone their pockets for favors. Wake up America our rights and freedoms are being sold out from under us to any nation that will build it cheaper for bigger profits. As long as govt keeps us divided and fighting amoung ourselves they do what they want without question!

Ok I'll answer it SPANKY, Ironic because our idiotic house didn't ask about Iraq! For all the partisan mindless sheep I have a simple question, why in the hell is our young men and women dying for a bunch of sand maggots that can't even recognize the rights of its own people? I'm so damn sick of this crap, you all belly ache about Bush/Obama and can't even realize their all the same. There are thousands dead and many thousand wounded for life and for what? Honestly if you can't realize the shameless acts of our leaders then the hell with all of you! Go ahead and fight about mindless drivel and at the end of the day your the sucker because none of these Politicians give one crap about you! If you can't see that you deserve everything you receive! WASH, RINSE, REPEAT!

In the meantime Elect Bachmann or Palin or Obama and watch nothing happen, like it always does. Watch your job end up in India the same way it did under both parties. Good luck, you all need it. They have you right were they want you!

I agree the irony is heavy seeing that neither party has had a problem with unconstitutional wars in years. Our last formal declaration of war came on December 11, 1941 and was against Nazi, Germany. All of our wars, military actions, etc. since have been unconstitutional. That includes Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and our secret bombings in Yemen. Perhaps it is time to stop policing the world and turn our attention homeward. Stop flushing our tax dollars down the toilet in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, cut our defense budget back to what it was before Reagan, and turn our attentions toward rebuilding our country. If we invest in infrastructure, revamping our education system, and looking to replace current health care reform with something that actually addresses the problems we have, we might actually see a return on our investment. Blowing up things hasn't worked. We should probably stop.

Lizzie -- good point, but until we can take oil out of the equation with alternative energy sources generated at home, none of that can happen. Drilling for more oil in the US will only continue our dependence and not supply enough in the long run, anyway. And the current powers that be are making too much money from oil to ever allow alternative energy anytime soon.

Lizzie and in agreement would you please say where you are getting the Kool aide from. That stuff must taste f'ing great.

I find it ironic (not) that our poll happy media has taken hardly NO POLLS to determine where the American public stands on this Libyan escapade...

To my Gen X/Y peers: as long as were involved in this NATO created humanitarian crisis in Libya I can no longer support Obama...

U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice along with Hillary are the ones who convinced Obama
to bomb Libya over the objections of Gates and Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff... kind of ironic, (at least initially) two Dems pushing for war and two Repub against

John Boehner is a WEEPY former alcoholic. He FAILED as a leader in the LAST Congress, and he's failing now.

I live in Ohio.........we Ohioans consider him to be an embarrasment to our State.

Where's the JOBS, Boner, I mean Boehner with all due disrespect as intended?? What a bunch of kooks. It took 'em 8 years to run this country into the ground and they still want more?? hahahahaa, you can't have any more of mine, I'm so broke I can't even pay attention!!

The definition of Irony:

Bill Clinton saying Anthony Weiner should resign for sexual impropriety

Kevin Q

Where's the JOBS, Boner, I mean Boehner with all due disrespect as intended?? What a bunch of kooks. It took 'em 8 years to run this country into the ground and they still want more?? hahahahaa, you can't have any more of mine, I'm so broke I can't even pay attention!!

Hello misguided one. Asking Boehner where the jobs are? Shouldn't you be asking your president? I doubt he'll admit to where he sent them...that would look bad. Try asking Obama why he allowed 80% of the stimulus money to be spent with foreign companies. How did China's unemployment numbers fare after we dumped a trillion dollars "to keep the unemployment rate below 8%"

Which kooks ran the economy into the ground again? Would it be kooks like Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, Meeks, Jesse Jackson Jr., etc? You know...the ones that insisted that Fannie and Freddie were just fine and that the oversight commission that found the inconsistancies was just being racist.

Spanky, I think Amy was referring to the irony of the Obama administration getting involved in Libya. So much discussion has taken place regarding American involvement in other middle-east governments. Obama vowed to withdraw troops, yet he put us in the middle of Libya's civil war. Many people that justify this act because Gadhafi is a ruthless dictator questioned our actions against Hussein.

I'm guessing not Drive By. See Obama understand that he's the boss apple-sauce, and that the buck stops with him.

You know, head cheese and all. Obama has his own head in the sand. Or have you forgotten that last Summer was "recovery summer" or that this is recovery summer part 2.

Drive by - Obama knows he is plum out of bullets to fight the depression. There is nothing he can do. So obviously he knows that Boehner ewho is only in control of the House, can't do anything either.

So Drive By, you ready for some nice tax cuts? How about a payroll tax holiday. I sure remember when the republicans were calling for that in '09, pre-stimulus. Ah, you remember '09 back when Obama said he had all those "shovel-ready jobs" just waiting for the stimulus so he could immediately get people back to work. Yeah, me too.

What was it again - if we don't pass the stimulus unemployment will raise above 7%? Yeah, good, innocent, and CHEAP fun. Right Drive By?

Hey buddy I also remember that Green Jobs would also save us. What happened to that? Good thing you picked up that Volt. Not too many being sold. Fact is, if it were a private company they'd pull the plug on that dud of a design.

DBO...

He's asking that the President comply with the law. What does jobs have to do with it? Is there a law that only the Republicans can generate legislation to produce jobs?

Aren't you at all interested if the President wants our forces to stay in a support role in Libya and why?

Gates said the other day that NATO was a fiasco. One of the reasons given for our being there was we were fulfilling our commitment under the NATO agreement.

No curiosity at all?

Groucho - DBO only has deflection as his talking point. He can't dismiss the merits of Boehners letter. He can't defend Obama for not complying with the War Powers Act. The only thing DBO has is talking about the republicans in a negative light. Typical liberal response.

How about it DBO... Tell us all how you support Obama's illegal war in Libya. This time back it up with how congress approved the action... how it's truly meaningful for the US to be involved, what the goals are and how Obama is taking a leadership role. I'm waiting for all these answers from you.

GM: He's asking that the President comply with the law. What does jobs have to do with it?

Buzz is in his Pavlov's dog stage. Speaker Boehner says something, anything, and Buzz always responds "Where's the jobs!!". It's kind of cute actually in that it's a backhanded admission from him that Obama has totally failed. What's odd about it is that Buzz thinks all of Obama's job bills worked, but if that's true, why do we need any additional so called "Job's Bills"? Perplexing question for Buzz, one that keeps him up at night I'm sure.

Spank- do you ever come up with anything new? By the way- when are you going to ask me if I want to buy a Volt again? It's been what- over 24 hours now? "He's the boss applesauce"? Makes me think I'm listening to my 16 yer old and her friends chattering away or giggling in front of U-Tube.

But hey, 4-roger on the tax cuts, considering how many jobs they'v created in the last 10 years.

Libya? Not sure what to think about that mess, but this much I DO know- as soon as Obama stops our involvement there, some idiot will get on Fox and holler 'cut-and-run'.

.

Buzzers: Spank- do you ever come up with anything new? By the way- when are you going to ask me if I want to buy a Volt again? It's been what- over 24 hours now? "He's the boss applesauce"? Makes me think I'm listening to my 16 yer old and her friends chattering away or giggling in front of U-Tube

Ohh, DBO, you are angry.

Quick, cleansing breath . . . . . .

as soon as Obama stops our involvement there, some idiot will get on Fox and holler 'cut-and-run'.

--------------------------------------------------------

So? I would hope Pres. Obama isn't basing a decision like this based on what Fox would say. Political consequences should not matter.

"...and Buzz always responds "Where's the jobs!!"

And where did I learn that lame phrase? Yep- from reading all the posts from the sore-loser righties on January 21st of 2009.

But is it like a cleansing breath, reading Spank and Smiff on the pages of MSNBC each and every day. And, funny to boot.

"... I'm waiting for all these answers from you."

I owe YOU answers? Really?? Who you think you are- some perv lawyer from 'out west'? But when I can locate the declaration that makes it a 'war', I may get back to you.....

Drive By, like my own personal pummel pony.

Thanks Drive By. And please, keep up the , um, good work.

But seriously Drive By, what kind of mileage that green chariot of yours getting? I hear it almost gets 32 mpgs. Awesome.

" Buzz thinks all of Obama's job bills worked, but if that's true, why do we need any additional so called "Job's Bills"?"

what kind of logic is that?? That is like saying 'IF I think Obama has brought world peace, that makes it so, and the need for ANY wars goes away'? Cool. Let's see.......let me try tins logic of yours....

"Buzz thinks there is no more hunger in the world". Quick, Smiff- run out and see if all the bellys are full!!

By the way Drive By, since when are you against the checks and balances system of our government. See, that's the Forest you are missing here.

Oh and Debbie Downer told Gregory Sunday that Obama has saved the economy. It's all good. What, didn't you get the memo?

But is is funny that you can't figure why your last sentence is so wrong. Slow down and re-read it. Then laugh out load like the rest of us did when we read it.

Drive By: shinning sparkle monkey of Obama love.

Buzz - Lobbing missiles, bombs, using Aircraft carriers, jets, military personnel, and spending billions of dollars makes it a training exercise, right? Oh... wait! It's not a war, it's an arrest! Call it a war, a police action, an insurgency or whatever adjective you want to use, Obama still hasn't gotten Congressional approval and shows no sign of stopping it. He's using our military resources and spending billions on it.

You don't owe me a thing DBO. But as long as you don't answer the questions, whatever you type with your keyboard is pure pap! Keep on supporting that idiot in the White House, punkin...

Someday maybe the self-righteous partisans posting here will utilize the same critical analysis they reserve for their opponents on their own parties' hypocrisies and inconsistencies. Until then, any criticism offered to the other side only highlights the glaring similarities between the two and their collective blindness.

What is it with these 21st century American Presidents and their wars? Gotta be something in the water at the White House.

drive by - ain't politics a bltch! Live by the political word, die by the political word.

If I had a dollar for every Republican misstatement in the last 65 years (i am 86) I would be a very rich man, not that there were not some Dems too, It's just that the Republications make such asses of them selves. I'm an independent and have been since I started voting. If the Republications don't get rid of the Tea Baggers they are in for a rough ride. Getting the independent vote is the only way the Republicans can get someone elected since they do not have a majority in most states. I can tell you the Tea Baggers are a poison pill to the overwhelming majority of the independents.

John Boner...Nancy Pelosi in drag......................

Keep watching FOX..check brain at door before tuning in......

Ed if you would have listened to them you could have been a rich man.

'cept his comments make it political... Gahdoofi should been gone long ago, but he' sgot a lot of oil buddies, so his terror is forgiven, apparently. Don't know that "we" should be there in person at least/

Groucho, did you read the full letter, or did you skip over the snarky bits?

Not if you are Amy - then its just "ironic."

I guess Amy's irony is "above the law" - you know like Obama appears to fancy himself. Gosh I remember when Bush was considered the Cowboy.

Crazy, right?

Amy..

Snarky or not, it's the law of the land. The President is required to ask for the extension and state his reasons. Do you even know if he wants us to be there for another 90 days? I don't. He hasn't said a word on the subject of Libya.

...and yes...it was "snarky".

Amy -

Why is it 'snarky' when a republican says it, but not if a democrat says it? Why did you not consider Obama's 'chiding of the Supreme Court during a State of the Union Address 'snarky' or petulant? What about when he 'chides' republicans at every opportunity?

Why is it only republicans who can be 'snarky' in your opinion?

Awww, come on and grow a pair there Amy. Groucho was not being "snarky" he was being ironic.

And we all know how much you appreciate things of an ironic nature. :)

Say, you know who is never, ever snarky? Why that would be our gal Feisty.

Sadly, Feisty appears to be having a very rough go of it today.

Hey Amy, did you hear hat Drive By got himself a Volt. He is one en machine. I bet you'd get one, but I know you don't drive. Lucky.

Spanky:

How many American lives (servicemen/women) were lost in Libya lately???????

4,000 plus were lost in Iraq by the King Jr. I of Texas and the Cheney/Rumsfeld cohort.....

So two wrongs do make a right.

We will note that for the record - Bush bad, started a war in IRaq, so Obama justified by ignoring War Powers Act and starting another war in Libya. Lovin' the "logic." But that's libbie logic. Striking in its inanity.

Oh and hernan, why won't Obama end the senseless wars?

You didn't answer...

How many American lives "lost" in Libya lately?????

herman - you are trying to use a strawman argument. The topic at hand was the war powers act. Lives lost has no bearing. But if you are lame enough to pursue it it wouldn't take much to put you down for stupidity. Think of the UN mandate for protecting libyan civilians on humanitarian grounds.

Trying to explain a concept like relevance to someone like hernan is like trying to explain rain to a blind man.

Besides the question is how many CIA, NSA, and other "special" forces are in Libya, Yemen and Pakistan.

hernan?

Lots........ I was never in Cambodia!

Hernan, the Iraq war was approved by congress. Whether any of you like it or not, obama/the president has to obey the laws. They are not above them.

Please inform me as to what laws our own congress follows when it protects itself..with out our voted permission? I think its interesdting that the republicans are always downing any democratic president...and complain when one of the party is complained about...when neither party is all that great. We do have a constitution which congress follows only when it suits its own purpose. The ethics of our elected are a joke....just looking at the news headlines of the past feww weeks gives us all a good look at what we have elected to office..if someone other than a politican had not turned in the democrate who recently got caught showing off on the net..does anyone believe for a minute that one of our elected would have ratted on this guy?

quieteye

Why can't the Democrats/Liberals/Progressives comprehend the idea of ILLEGAL or IT IS THE LAW???

Unless it serves their purpose. Like "Bush's Illegal Iraq War". Never mind that Congress PASSED a LAW Authorizing that action.

Actually he is asking a pretty simple question, composed of a few parts....What are we doing in Libya, when will it end, what is our goal, etc....you know, pesky little questions that a President is responsible for. I love that Boehner is crucified for questioning our role in Libya...it is Obama, so don't offend him by asking what he is doing. Give me a break

The sad part is that most Americans would probably support his foreign policy (we like the fact that we matter) if we had any idea what his foreign policy was. Bomb Libya? Sure. Protect civilians in Syria? No. Iran? No. Yemen? Maybe. Give me some reason to like you, geesh!!!

slodon, prove it even falls in that category first instead of making stuff up. NATO is a good start for you.

That's right. See, 'Applesauce' should have l i e d aobut Col Gadaffi, and told us he was hosting Al Queida there in Tripoli, and helping them attack the US. Dumb ol' boss applesauce.

I'm pretty sure at the moment he hasn't done anything illegal at all, at lot of the implied things I read in that letter are pretty freaking outrageous I'd say though.

Personally, I was in the Marines at the time Hamas was suspected of bombing the Marine barracks there with Ghadafi's knowledge of them being there of course, and have been wanting to see this guy get blasted ever since myself, so I guess I'm a bit biased.

He has been one of the biggest terrorist supporters in the whole region for quite awhile now.

Don

I was an active duty Marine from 1984-1992. I saw a lot of useless deaths in the likes of the Honduras, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, etc. We in fact blew this guys house up in Libya way back in '87 from the USS Coral Sea. He has since fallen in line with what was "expected" of him. An attack in Beirut in the early 80's really has no bearing on what is going on now. That would be akin to blasting Hirohito back in the early ninety's because he was the Emporer of Japan when they attacked Pearl Harbor.

Yes, this guy is a douchebag. He needs to go, but as one Marine to another we both swore to protect and uphold the laws of the Constitution of the United States of America. Not following what is written in this document to carry out an act of revenge would be just like spitting on it. That piece of paper was what I was willing to give my life for. Anyone who goes against what it says just because they don't feel it's right, spits in the eye of every American who has given life and limb to protect it, this includes our fallen brothers in Beruit.

All Obama had to do was merely ask the people if he could do this. He was supposed to do this by asking our elected officials before putting our pilots in harms way. You and I both know that the chances of Ghadafi taking out one of our fixed wing aircraft are slim to none, but there is still a chance. Now we have hellicopters over there and they are a much easier target.

Do not misunderstand me Don, I'm not questioning your loyalty to our country, just the means by which you are willing to get rid of this guy.

Ask yourselves one question:

Will the world be better off without Ghadaffi?

hey... it worked for W!

How on this God's earth can you justify the congress under pelosi and reid?

Primarily by comparing with the congress under boehner & his teabagger-wingnut company that refuses to do ANYTHING at all, especially anything useful to the American people.

Makes us realize how fortunate we were before.

Fortunate that they pass bills that they don't read!?

If you would look elsewhere you would also know that Democrats are asking questions also:

"A group of lawmakers filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday against the Obama administration, questioning the constitutional and legal justifications for military action in Libya.

The bipartisan group is being led by Reps. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Walter Jones, R-N.C. ..."

Read more: #ixzz1PMrWQWFm

Please check more then one newsgroup and come to a conclusion that is educated not someones opinion.

Agree 100%. I don't think its too much to ask for his reasoning about Libya. If he doesn't have a good reason to "stay the course" then end it now.

Thank you MNCS and Indy Lib. Sounds like we're aligned politically and have the good sense to support Boehner's query.

this Libya invasion illegal and it proves Obama not a democrat... to hell with liar shyster.

You need a job.

No response to my comments? You must agree. If you have a job better than what I have now, let me know. I get to work 60-70 hours a week. My expenses are all paid for by the engineering job shop. And I get to be on the internet. If I tell you what my pay rate is per hour, you would sh!t.

No comment worth responding to. I just stated the obvious, you need a job. :)

Most people don't like Ron Paul, but he's been pretty steady also. Iraq.....get out. Afghanistan.....get out. Libya.....get out. It's none of our business.

There are far worse atrocities in African than Libya. Why stop there? Democrat war mongers. Both parties like war. We need Ron Paul to bring the troops. Obama won't do it.

Yes, why stop there. We should get Cheney to tell us which country to invade next instead. :)

We won't. The missles are soaring into Tunisia now.........We must run and defend the Tuni's or whatever they are called.

Don't forget that now we are involved in Yemen, using the drones. Where does this end? Using the same justification that obama is for Libya, why are they not bombing or intervening in Syria?

I was quick to criticize Bush for 2 unnecessary, unfunded wars. Why shouldn't I be allowed to criticize Obama for doubling down in Afghanistan and starting Libya. I don't give a good GD if a guy's a dem or a repub, when they screw the pooch, they should be called on it.

Craig - and yet bush got approval from congress and so far obama hasn't. Why is that so hard to understand? Are you naturally stupid or do you just practice at it?

american, you're wrong. Daddy Bush started Desert Storm without Congressional approval. He was taken to court by a member of Congress who objected. The end result was that Congress approved the war after the skirmish and the SCOTUS ruled that a President does not have to answer to individual demands regarding approval from Congress regardless of the War Powers Act..

That, there has to be a unanimous objection from both Congress and Senate. This obviously will not occur. So... Libya was not a unilateral move as with both senior and junior Bush and their wars. Therefore, any politician worth his salary would know this prior to stunting before the American people as if his request was official. History proves this out.

I highly doubt that President Obama will even respond. This is just theatrics at best and calling our occupation with Libya illegal or demanding that Congress approve a war is simply wrong. It's happened at least three times prior to President Obama. But don't take my word... look it up yourself.

It seems the whole world has divided itself into progressives and conservatives, progressives want to go on making mistakes, and conservatives want to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.

JA, you just put a smile on face.

Kill Boeing, that's a good one :P

NLRB is a government agency by the way, how the hell is it union based, the only reason they got involved in that one was because Boeing management said some things that were illegal that related to Unions and they did their job.

I won't dwell on that one anymore, as it doesn't pertain to the thread to begin with.

Go down the list of names in charge of the NLRB. You'll be surprised who you find there and which Unions they ran or worked for before their appointments. We regulate with the worst professionals from the field being regulated......

I bet you were as denouncing when Bush went into Iraq too. :)

Typical wingnut/teabag/repub double standard... it is okay if WE do it, but YOU can not!

William-1088635...

Kudos William. The GOP, in recent years, truly has been extremely divisive in nature to our country. Problem is...they don't seem to care at all...and at any price!!

William, thank you, you articulated it better than I could. Not snarky, accusatory, and I would say, disrespectful.

I suppose you can give us a reason for why obama hasn't sought out congressional approval for this military action. Perhaps his campaign schedule is to busy for him to comply?

I do so love the respect obama showed paul ryan when ryan was invited by obama to listen to obamas rhetorical plan for addressing the debt. Obama even gave ryan a front row seat! Now that is CLASS!

William, Thank you! You said just what I felt when reading the "Letter". I really don't think Boehner read what his lawyers wrote. Mark my words he will be back-peddling on this in the next few days.

You Know? Between "Brianb-999431" and "american-2051576" and all the rants they have posted on this site. Trust me I checked out the posts. I have never read more un-american, self-centered, selfish devotees to only themself. I bet when someone looks in yours eyes, you have no soul. You are sour to the core. After 8 years of Bush with nothing to be proud of, you just can't stand it!

That's about as judgmental as a person can get. For someone that seems to claim they are "sensitive" "caring" your words do not convey that ideal!

So...Stacks5 and Amy...your comments are NOT divisive?? Really? This is why I am an Independent. We can speak about the issues and do not blindly follow a "party line." Both the Dems and GOP are corrupt.....EQUALLY.

If people such as yourselves would stop making EVERYTHING a political argument, we might find time for unbiased, objective observations, analysis, and solutions. So....why not make this meaningful and debate the following:

1) What are reasonable objectives that should drive us to remain or depart Libya?

2) What consistent criteria should we use for determining when we engage military action in these countries and what should our mid and long term plan be?

BOTH parties should come up with answers to these questions.

There is no question about the need for the President to request and receive approval from Congress to remain beyond the 90 days. It is what it is...it is simply the law.

@seriously people... that's funny... really amusing.

First... everytime I see this tactic it truly amuses me. You know, the part that mitigates damage by spreading it instead of simply dealing with the fact that the GOP is a loose cannon. How can we have a meaningful debate when observations, analysis and solutions are non existent from the right-wing social engineers.

In knowing the established ways of the GOP... how could anyone reasonably reply on them to contribute to the solution without sabotaging the analysis or solution?

Your demand that both parties come up with answers to the solution has one critical flaw. The blame for failure will not be evenly distributed. It will fall entirely upon President Obama and then as a result upon the Democratic party. Even you could see that.

Now... this thing you call "simply the law" is also flawed. The President is NOT required by law to have a formal Congressional Declaration of War. There are no requirements in the Constitution. Four out of five times the US engaged in war with a foreign nations without Congressional approval. The Federal Convention of 1787 under James Madison changed the term "make war" to "declare war". This was done to provide the Executive Branch power to repel sudden attacks.

Congress has made claim to the War Powers Act but Congress has no support from the Judicial Branch in enforcement except a unaniamous vote by both Congress and Senate. In fact, on at least 125 occassions the President has acted without prior military consent from Congress. With the exception of Kosovo War under President Clinton, in all cases, the President has asserted authority to commit troops without Congressional authorization after which Congress had formalized its approval.

Furthermore, in Doe vs. Bush regarding Desert Storm, Bush asserted that according to the October Resolution, "The text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war." (in effect saying a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution).

So, let's not blindly inform and commit the public to explicitly questionable legal assertions.

Bravo William, Great post, and I agree with you 100%. Until the American voters realize they are a huge part of the problem, and stop putting these liars into office? We will never thrive!

@Chuck ..

Your post would have been improved by leaving off the first 3 paragraphs blaming only one side and accusing people that are neutral of employing some type of tactic by requesting reasonable debate. From my Independent standpoint, all your accusations could be levied equally against the Dems as well.

So..now onto a new debate about the legal standing of of the War Powers Resolution.

"Under the Constitution, the war powers are divided between Congress and the President. Among other relevant grants, Congress has the power to declare war and raise and support the armed forces (Article I, section 8), while the President is Commander in Chief (Article II, section 2). It is generally agreed that the Commander in Chief role gives the President power to utilize the armed forces to repel attacks against the United States, but there has long been controversy over whether he is constitutionally authorized to send forces into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or other congressional authorization.

The War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148) was passed over the veto of President Nixon on November 7, 1973, to provide procedures for Congress and the President to participate in decisions to send U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities. Section 4(a)(1) requires the President to report to Congress any introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities. When such a report is submitted, or is required to be submitted, section 5(b) requires that the use of forces must be terminated within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes such use or extends the time period. Section 3 requires that the "President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing" U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities.

The record of the War Powers Resolution since its enactment has been mixed, and after 30 years it remains controversial. Some Members of Congress believe the Resolution has on some occasions served as a restraint on the use of armed forces by Presidents, provided a mode of communication, and given Congress a vehicle for asserting its war powers. Others have sought to amend the Resolution because they believe it has failed to assure a congressional voice in committing U.S. troops to potential conflicts abroad. Others in Congress, along with executive branch officials, contend that the President needs more flexibility in the conduct of foreign policy and that the time limitation in the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional and impractical. Some have argued for its repeal."

So..it is the law since 1973. Now, as stated above, some people continue to debate the law's alignment with the Constitution. Others feel it is fully aligned and helps to further define the original intent to divide the powers so that it takes 2 keys to turn to use our military - the President and Congress.

It still is what it is for now though...the law since 1973.

Any thoughts on Libya and what criteria we should apply across all these nations to decide when we use military action? (Libya, Yemen, Iran, Tunisia, Egypt, etc)

@seriously... you're killin' me!

Let me spell this out... you can have a law and it can be on the books... but does it make sense to enforce or qualify it?

Alabama
In Jasper, it is illegal for a husband to beat his wife with a stick larger in diameter than his thumb.
It is illegal to wear a fake mustache that causes laughter in church.
It is illegal for a driver to be blindfolded while operating a vehicle.
It is illegal to play Dominos on Sunday.
Putting salt on a railroad track may be punishable by death.

Alaska
In Fairbanks, it is illegal to feed alcoholic beverages to a moose.
While it is legal to shoot bears, waking sleeping bear for the purpose of taking a photograph is prohibited.

Arizona
In Tucson, it is illegal for women to wear pants.
In Globe, it is illegal to play cards in the street with a Native American.
In Glendale, it is illegal to drive a car in reverse.
In Nogales, it is illegal to wear suspenders.

Arkansas
A man can legally beat his wife, but not more than once a month.
In Fayetteville, it is illegal to kill “any living creature”.
Flirtation between men and women on the streets of Little Rock may result in a 30-Day jail term.

California
Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship.
Women may not drive in a house coat.
In Pacific Groove, “molesting” butterflies can result in a $500 fine.
It is illegal to set a mousetrap without a hunting license.
In San Francisco, it is illegal to wipe one’s car with used underwear.
It is a misdemeanor to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale.

Colorado
In Logan County, it is illegal for a man to kiss a woman while she is asleep.

Connecticut
It is illegal to dispose used razor blades.
In New Britain, the speed limit for fire trucks is 25 m.p.h. even when going to a fire.
In Hartford, it is illegal for a man to kiss his wife on Sunday.

Delaware
It is illegal to fly over any body of water, unless one is carrying sufficient supplies of food and drink.

Florida
If an elephant is left tied to a parking meter, the parking fee has to be paid just as it would for a vehicle.
In Miami, it is illegal for a man to wear any kind of strapless gown.
Unmarried women who parachute on Sundays may be jailed.
When having sex, only the missionary position is legal.
In Sarasota, it is illegal to sing while wearing a bathing suit.

Georgia
While Georgia operates its own lottery, it “protects” its citizens by making it illegal to promote a private lottery.
Members of the state assembly cannot be ticketed for speeding while the state assembly is in session.
Donkeys may not be kept in bathtubs.
No one may carry an ice cream cone in their back pocket on Sunday.

Hawaii
It is illegal to appear in public wearing only swimming trunks.
It is illegal to own a mongoose without a permit.

Idaho
You may not fish on a camel’s back.

Illinois
In Chicago, it is illegal to take a French poodle to the opera.
According to state law, it is illegal to speak English. The officially recognized language is “American”.

Indiana
Monkeys are forbidden to smoke cigarettes in South Bend.
It is illegal for a liquor store to sell cold soft drinks.

Iowa
State law forbids any establishment from charging admission to see a one-armed piano player.
In Fort Madison, firemen are required to practice for 15 minutes before attending a fire.

Kansas
Prohibits shooting rabbits from a motorboat.

Kentucky
It is illegal to remarry the same man four times.

Louisiana
In New Orleans, fire trucks are required by law to stop at all red lights.
It is considered “simple assault” to bite someone in New Orleans; it is “aggravated assault” if the biter has false teeth.
It is against the law to gargle in public.
It is illegal to rob a bank and then shoot at the bank teller with a water pistol.

Maine
In Waterville, it is illegal to blow one’s nose in public.

Maryland
In Halethorpe, it is illegal to kiss for more than one second.

Massachusetts
In Salem, even married couples are forbidden from sleeping in the nude in rented rooms.
It is illegal to wear a goatee without a license.
In Boston, it is illegal to take a bath unless one has been ordered by a physician to do so.
In 1659, the state outlawed Christmas.

Michigan
In Clawson, it is legal for a farmer to “sleep with his pigs, cows, horses, goats, and chickens.”
A state law stipulates that a woman’s hair legally belongs to her husband.
In Detroit, it is illegal to make love in a car unless it is parked on your property.
You may not swear in front of women and children in the state of Michigan.
In Port Huron, the speed limit for ambulances in 20 m.p.h.
Under state law, dentists are officially classified as “mechanics.”

Minnesota
Women may face up to 30 days in jail if they impersonate Santa Claus.
In Minneapolis, double-parkers can be put on a chain gang.
Every man in Brainerd is required by law to grow a beard.
It’s illegal to tease skunks.

So... tell me about the War Powers Act? The law made by Congress to enable Congress power? Many things have happened since 1973 to render the law a hinderance to national security. You already know this. The current Congress has made it clear that it would rather see this nation fail than to see this country succeed under this administration.

Seriously, here's some better questions to answer. 1. At what point in time has the GOP enabled themselves to be helpful to this President? 2. When has the GOP elevated their goals as Americans to a principle higher than political biased and party motivation? 3. What ethical right does Congress have to use taxpayer finance as a political tool to emperil this nation? 4. When is the GOP going to stop being negatively reactionary and become effectively proactive concerning the needs of All Americans in this country? When you answer those questions... you will be well on your way to gaining answers regarding military occupation.

Regarding the nations you mentioned... it would be better that I rely the people paid to do their jobs, such as the Dept. of Intelligence, CIA, etc. There are many reasons why our President and military decides to occupy those nations... many of which are not transparent or available to you or me and obviously not to Congress at this time. Your strawman argument is pretty old.

In fact, we occupy those nations in a unique, complicated and covert military capacity well before overt occupation. To proclaim that the War Powers Act is empowered to provide comprehensive military information or is involved in the on-going safety of this nation is mis-leading and potentially deadly.

The WPs Act may have been designed initially as a powerful informational tool... but today it's clear that to this Congress... it is now a tool to usurp the President's authority and engage in a power struggle. It may well deter the President's ability to promote national security and repel military conflict which is clearly not a power ever granted to Congress. Neither the Supreme Court nor our Military will side with Congress concerning National Security over the Commander in Chief.

The SOTH has many respectful options in communicating with the President. He has currently chosen a less than agreeable and demeaning path; otherwise, he may well have had all of the answers in prior without digitally soapboxing the President. He's clearly balancing strings tied to his back in an effort to elevate his prodding constituency beyond their sworn roles. The Speaker of the House owes them a debt ... not the President; especially not at the level of National Security.

btw -- still laughing!

...but he can spot a pecker in a viewfinder at 100 yards.

Wow.....you guys are abusive! This is the stuff that makes my Independent newsletter shine! Pulling Independents center right one post at a time!

You know, asking for an explanation would be OK if there was none given. We all know why we went into Libya after all. What gets me is how the Republicouldn't establishment has the balls to denounce Obama after just weeks prior were complaining he wasn't doing anything about Libya.

IMHO they can all jump off a cliff being the lying bunch of misfits they are.

There are still HUGE questions as to if the War Powers act is even constitutional. Maybe it's time we find out. Passed in 1973 over Nixon's veto it is more likely that it was a power grab by a bunch of congressional people who had enough with Vietnam. Plenty of questions there regarding the separation of powers which congress has never hesitated to vote itself more of at the expense of the executive.

Amused - are you suggesting impeachment if obama fails to meet the 90 day deadline?

Now that's a real complaint. NATO is worthless. Well said.

".....but he has been pretty good on foreign policy and war issues"

We shouldn't be involved with this operation in the first place. What are our national interests in Libya BTW?

Yeah NATO has pretty much become worthless these days obviously, we'd save a lot of money getting out of that one ASAP and one of the first things I'd like to see happen is it just be dissolved and get it over with.

We have a foreign policy???

That is fine but it doesn't give him carte blanche to violate the War Powers Act which was drafted, sponsored, and passed by a Democratic majority in the '70's. If you want to do it, do it legally like Bush did.

He likes to help people out that are getting beaten down

As long as their nation has oil.

Otherwise, he would be intervening in Syria.

Nonetheless, Obama needs to go to Congress to discuss Libya, just like every other POTUS.