Libya: Apparently, not a real war...

#28
#28
It will likely get dismissed, but it sends a strong message, and one I support.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#30
#30
The War Powers Act is pretty easy to understand. I don't get the unwillingness to talk to Congress to this point.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#31
#31
Political limbo.

Don't want to be perceived as not willing to help the innocent victims.
Don't want the warmonger tag that was stuck to Bush. (Right or Wrong)

"Leading from the back" makes it sound like your in control, but not involved.
 
#32
#32
BeecherVol said:
Political limbo.

Don't want to be perceived as not willing to help the innocent victims.
Don't want the warmonger tag that was stuck to Bush. (Right or Wrong)

"Leading from the back" makes it sound like your in control, but not involved.
Click to expand...

I vote to stay in.

But...I'm not over there fighting so my opinion means shi...
 
#33
#33
mlnu69.jpg
 
#34
#34
Obama’s negation of ‘hostilities’ in Libya draws criticism - The Washington Post

The White House has officially declared that what’s happening in Libya is not “hostilities.”

But at the Pentagon, officials have decided it’s unsafe enough there to give troops extra pay for serving in “imminent danger.”

The Defense Department decided in April to pay an extra $225 a month in “imminent danger pay” to service members who fly planes over Libya or serve on ships within 110 nautical miles of its shores.

That means the Pentagon has decided that troops in those places are “subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions.” There are no U.S. ground troops in Libya.

President Obama declared last week that the three-month-old Libyan campaign should not be considered “hostilities.” That word is important, because it’s used in the 1973 War Powers Resolution: Presidents must obtain congressional authorization within a certain period after sending U.S. forces “into hostilities.”
Click to expand...
 
#36
#36
There are two types of people on this issue.

The first type are partisan and, whenever a POTUS from their party uses military power they can think of a reason its not covered, whereas if a POTUS from the opposition party drops a bowling ball on some premier's foot they demand an investigation into why they weren't consulted, first.

The second type admit that its super complicated, not always a good thing to enforce, and that even when it should be enforced the timing of it is even more complicated.

The former represent 99 % of the people in Washington, D.C. The latter you can count on one hand.
 
#37
#37
lawgator1 said:
There are two types of people on this issue.

The first type are partisan and, whenever a POTUS from their party uses military power they can think of a reason its not covered, whereas if a POTUS from the opposition party drops a bowling ball on some premier's foot they demand an investigation into why they weren't consulted, first.

The second type admit that its super complicated, not always a good thing to enforce, and that even when it should be enforced the timing of it is even more complicated.

The former represent 99 % of the people in Washington, D.C. The latter you can count on one hand.
Click to expand...


Seriously? Even the NYT editor wrote and editorial demanding the POTUS go before Congress and seek approval for the Libya actions. Guess he's the pinky on that one hand

And - that hand has a lot of fingers:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43474045/ns/politics-white_house

The disclosure over the weekend that President Barack Obama rejected the advice of senior Justice Department legal advisers — including Attorney General Eric Holder — has drawn sharp congressional criticism in recent days, ranging from House Speaker John Boehner to liberal Democrats such as Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York.
It is also provoking debate among legal scholars, some of whom told NBC News that they were unaware of any recent precedent for the way the White House reached its legal conclusions about Libya. One top former legal adviser to Obama, Dawn Johnsen, called the accounts of the White House's handling of the matter "disturbing."
"There may be a precedent for this, but I can't think of one," said Robert Chesney, a University of Texas law professor who specializes in national security law. "This is not the way the process is supposed to work."
Click to expand...

Turns out, he ignored the Pentagon too - so the Justice Dept and Pentagon both conclude WPR applies but Obama ignores it

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?_r=1&hp
 
Last edited:
#38
#38
lawgator1 said:
There are two types of people on this issue.

The first type are partisan and, whenever a POTUS from their party uses military power they can think of a reason its not covered, whereas if a POTUS from the opposition party drops a bowling ball on some premier's foot they demand an investigation into why they weren't consulted, first.

The second type admit that its super complicated, not always a good thing to enforce, and that even when it should be enforced the timing of it is even more complicated.

The former represent 99 % of the people in Washington, D.C. The latter you can count on one hand.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? I'm pretty certain I fall into a 3rd category "we should only engage in acts of war when attacked, or when congress declares war".
 
#39
#39
The administration has a "your with us or against us" moment on Libya - I'm really amazed at how similar this admin is to the Bush one.

Clinton on Libya: 'Whose side are you on?' - CNN.com

Washington (CNN) -- With pressure mounting at home on an American withdrawal from the Libya war, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dismissed fears of a quagmire and said the mission should not be abandoned now.
Clinton, who is set to testify before Congress Thursday, said the Libyan opposition has made "very clear progress" in its political organization as well as in its fight against Moammar Gadhafi's forces.
"But the bottom line is, whose side are you on?" she said, speaking to reporters during a trip to Jamaica Wednesday. "Are you on Gadhafi's side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them?"
Click to expand...
 
#45
#45
From Obama's upcoming Libya speech....

Some would have us leave Libya to its own devices and implicitly encourage Gadhafi to sneak into the Libyan's windows, and rape their wives, kids, and husbands - everybody out there. Other people would have us commit the entire US military to Libya, destroy Gadhafi and his forces, install martial law, and make Libya the 51st state. Instead, I am taking a more careful, thought out, and measured response - exercising tremendous leadership to fly in the face of those that espouse these radical approaches.
Click to expand...
 
#47
#47
antoine_dodson.jpg


"Obviously we have a rapist in Libya, Gaddafi's climbin in your windows, he's snatchin yo people up tryin to rape em so yall need to hide your kids hide yo wife and hide yo husband cause they rapin urrybody out hurr"
 
#48
#48
"Hide your kids, hide your wife, hide your kids, hide your wife, hide your kids, hide your wife, and hide your husbands, cause they raping everybody out here"

The song makes me laugh every time.
 
#49
#49
Auto-tune the news was a f'n brilliant series a few years back.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvV4sSaWYgo[/youtube]
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top