| Author | Message | ||
     Hootowl |
"We know that he hasn't addressed Congress because the members of Congress are screaming about not being addressed. " They screamed about GW not addressing them too. Turns out he had, its just that the House leadership had not passed on the information to the rest of the body of legislators due to the classified nature of the information. I think BO is the worst president since Carter, and that's saying something, but I don't think he's wrong to take this action. Just my opinion. | ||
| Macbuell |
I think BO is the worst president since Carter, and that's saying something, but I don't think he's wrong to take this action. Just my opinion. Totally agree and the scary part is he could get reelected. | ||
| Sifo |
They screamed about GW not addressing them too. Turns out he had, its just that the House leadership had not passed on the information to the rest of the body of legislators due to the classified nature of the information. There were lying partisan turds that made that claim. It was still public knowledge that we had passed a resolution allowing that action. In this case any partisan angle doesn't pass any test of reality and we don't know of anyone making any claims of Congress giving their blessing. We do know that BO was out of the country and unable to address Congress though. The evidence that it was done illegally is pretty strong. I think BO is the worst president since Carter, and that's saying something, but I don't think he's wrong to take this action. Just my opinion. I'm not yet convinced if it's the right or wrong thing to do. First I need to know what we are trying to do. It sounds like that isn't even clear to the Generals of the coalition forces. Right now we have a case of "ready, shoot, aim". | ||
| Hootowl |
I think the military knows what it is doing. I don't think the press knows what the military is doing. From what I have read though, it seems like our mission is to take out the air defense and then let the other countries that are engaged there enforce the no fly zone. We're good at taking out air defenses, so we did that. Time for others to take over. That seems to be the gist of it anyway. What we tell the press, we tell our enemies. Let them guess. | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
How long will this administration continue its wars on the world? NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!! | ||
| Sifo |
I think the military knows what it is doing. I don't think the press knows what the military is doing. From what I have read though, it seems like our mission is to take out the air defense and then let the other countries that are engaged there enforce the no fly zone. I hope you're right about that. I've seen reports that it's not going to be that simple. BO still needs to address Congress and the nation on what our objectives are. That's not exactly the level of classified info. The way this was done is flat out wrong. | ||
| Hootowl |
Well, I can't say I disagree with that, even though I do agree with what I perceive to the the ultimate objective, the removal/killing of Q-G-K-daffy. Still, BO could very well have placed a phone call to several key congressmen, satisfying the "inform" requirement. No one really believes the President is out of pocket, even while on the golf course do they? | ||
| Hootowl |
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/22/obama-f ace-legal-limits-libyan-intervention-drags/ I hope we're gone long before the 60 days is up. | ||
| Sifo |
Well, I can't say I disagree with that, even though I do agree with what I perceive to the the ultimate objective, the removal/killing of Q-G-K-daffy. Still, BO could very well have placed a phone call to several key congressmen, satisfying the "inform" requirement. No one really believes the President is out of pocket, even while on the golf course do they? Certainly the President is busy with national matters even while on vacation. One of the things that he can't do is fulfill his obligation to address Congress about going to war though. That requires physical presence in Congress. I could overlook that in a case where there just wasn't time and Congress was addressed ASAP. I see no evidence that this was the case. The evidence shows that this was an illegal action. It may be your perception that removing ?addafi is the objective, but the President stated from Rio that it was NOT an objective. That objective is very difficult to do without boots on the ground. Again, I'll reserve my opinion on the correctness of the mission until I have more facts. | ||
| Sifo |
For what it's worth, I would be far more likely to support a low profile black opps mission to take him out. Even doing that tends to have dire unintended consequences though. | ||
| Blake |
Crusty, >>> Now, we're assisting rebels who want to overthrow a Dictator who has killed many innocent Americans, and people are talking Impeachment? That darn constitution. Ask Biden and Kucinich. | ||
| Blake |
Not that I agree. I pretty much am with Hoot. Benefit of doubt is warranted. The media are idiots as are most outspoken Dem congressmen and Biden. Bush didn't lie. He listened to his Clinton appointed CIA chief who advised him that "WMDs in Iraq are a slam dunk." | ||
| Sifo |
Just heard on the news that "the focus is now changing to Gaddafi's ground troops". Seems like scope creep is happening at a very fast pace. We don't even know who it is that we are supporting. Then new administration could be far worse than Gaddafi. | ||
| Sifo |
Al Qaida commander backs Libyan rebels in message
| ||
| Hootowl |
Sifo, the article I linked above states that Congress was officially informed. | ||
| Hootowl |
"even though I do agree with what I perceive to the the ultimate objective" Did I just say I agree with my own perceptions?  | ||
| Hootowl |
Also...remember just last week when members of congress were screaming for us to enforce a no-fly-zone, and lambasting Obama for not acting? It isn't like Obama did this in the dead of night when no one was watching. You're thinking of the health care bill.  | ||
| Sifo |
Is informing after the fact the same as consulting with before hand? Not as I understand english
Even if I give in to that point, he still fails on a second point. There is no threat to the US that requires imediate action.
From what I can see none of the three above instances apply. Failing this test the action is in fact illegal. Quotes are from The War Powers Act of 1973 Sure some members of Congress are on both sides of this issue. This is why there needs to be consultation with Congress BEFORE committing our forces to a conflict on the unilateral decision of a single man. | ||
| Sifo |
This is a big part of where I have mission issues on this fiasco... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/22/li bya-costs-mission-unclear/
Details like your mission objective should be worked out BEFORE committing troops. I'm not clear how NATO works into this either. NATO was developed as an alliance where member nations would defend other member nations from the attacks of aggressors. Libya IS NOT a NATO member. To claim support for the mission at this point is to support a whole host of "known unknowns" as well as the "unknown unknowns" (thanks DR!  ). | ||
| Aesquire |
If Obama had the legal power to bomb Libya is interesting, but, like the fools that parrot the "Bush lied, people died" leftist/jihadi mantra, SO WHAT? Already happened. Time to deal with now and future, not the blame game. Plenty of time for that. Unless you figure that Obama must be stopped before he does worse. And he will. Then, I'd say, talk to Biden. If Biden want's to Impeach, he can try. ( he won't, unless someone tells him he becomes Prez if Barack goes. I don't think Biden knows that.  ) No.... My bitch is that War should NEVER be fought to not lose. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. If you are going to use force, Victory, preferably swift, is the only purpose that justifies the risk, blood and treasure. | ||
| Aesquire |
Crusty, Ask the Kurds. http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1993/iraqanfal/A NFAL3.htm Want me to post pictures of the gassed? How about a link so that others don't lose their lunch? You have been lied to. Please reconsider your sources. It's funny, I remember lots of impeachment talk about Bush. That Biden guy's comment above, for example. Ignorant & stupid are different. You can get over ignorant. Think which you are. Glad to help if you need some. Now, we're assisting rebels.... I agree. We don't know who these people are. We do know Gaddafi is evil. ( There has been a change in spelling of many things over the years, but in this case, I don't care, nor if it offends Gaddafi.. ) | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1993/iraqanfal/A NFAL6.htm | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
You know you are FUBAR when both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are in agreement and both are calling for the impeachment of Obama. | ||
| Sifo |
If Obama had the legal power to bomb Libya is interesting, but, like the fools that parrot the "Bush lied, people died" leftist/jihadi mantra, SO WHAT? Aesquire, What bothers me about that statement is that it comes dangerously close to "the end justifies the means". I wouldn't advocate for impeachment at this point (thought many Dem. leaders/followers were blood thirsty to impeach Bush for less), I do think it's important to understand that this is yet another example of BO overstepping his authority. | ||
| Aesquire |
Oh, I'm not saying we shouldn't impeach Obama.  | ||
| Sifo |
Current headlines from Drudge Report. I sure am glad they had a plan going into to this. 
| ||
| Reindog |
Overheard on the radio... "Obama is Carter on steroids". I have managed to suppress memories of how much malaise there was in America during Carter's lack of leadership. It is all coming back with Obama's latest stumble. I can't help but think that somehow Hillary is going to pull a Lady Macbeth and doom Obama. | ||
| Sifo |
Very good opinion piece here... The Speech Obama Hasn't Given I wonder if BO anticipated this sort of response? http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//110 325/481/urn_publicid_ap_org4f5e66f76c6043fab3de0d4 77ff216c6/#photoViewer=/110325/481/urn_publicid_ap _org4ec13ea4926b47088d079fc82a8188a2    | ||
| Reepicheep |
That's a great point. I still remember sitting in a Motel room in Mukwanago WI and listening to GWB explaining why we are starting military operations against Saddam. And for the record, I remember Bush saying that it was because of Saddam's failure to abide by the terms of surrender, particularly with regard to access by weapons inspectors to make sure Saddam was not developing weapons of mass destruction (which had, at that point, been confirmed to have been recently and previously deployed in the field of battle against his own citizens... so it was a concern you can't just ignore). Maybe it's selective memory, but I walked away from that speach beliveing we were going to war because we couldn't be sure he didn't have WMD's. At no point did I hear GWB say he *had* WMD's. But right or wrong, we knew what we were doing, and why we were doing it. I have no idea what we are doing now or why we are doing it. All I know is that everything seems to be done in the worst way with the worst timing, and seems designed to be ineffective from the start. | ||
| Sifo |
The latest headlines from Drudge don't paint a picture that is getting any clearer. Muslims beat, stomp effigy of Obama in protest... Are we seriously considering giving weapons to a group that is saying that they are allied with a current active enemy? |
