US Libya legislative hypocrisy....

[CaptainHaplo]

Now many here (among other places) know I am right of center, and that I don't like our current president. With that said, a number of legislators (from both sides) are giving the president a hard time over the recent actions we have led in Libya.

Specifically, the use of military force without a declaration of war and without the consent of Congress. Many are saying that his actions without congressional approval are an abuse of authority.

However, lets be real here. The republicans who were yelling at him to get off his arse and DO something are now complaining that he did. The democrats that are upset are mad because without consulting them, they can't take credit for stopping a massacre.

Should Obama have acted earlier? Yes, but thats water under the bridge.

Should Obama make clear how US forces will transition out of an active combat role and into one of pure (and ever decreasing) support? Absolutely. He doesn't really know yet, so he can't.

How is this going to get paid for? Another question he doesn't have an answer for.

What's the real goal? He can't make up his mind....

Yes, he complained that Bush did this very same thing....

All legitimate knocks on the guy.

Yet ultimately he did act. We can disagree over what we are doing, who we are really helping, the cost and all else.... But to complain because he wasn't doing something when he "could" (as some legislative eggheads said he should be doing) and then complain when he does it - is inexcusable.

To yell about impeachment or defunding the operation because you don't get to have the good pr that comes with telling the nation your acting to save lives - is pathetic.

Just a rant about the hypocrisy of some who put politics higher than anything else.

[MaddogK]

Is this really a U.N. operation that we are supplying most of the muscle for, or are we simply using the U.N. as cover to push regime change. This talk of assassination because of our history with daffy will have a high price with our allies in the region.

We need to abide by the limits of the U.N. resolution and pull a Germany- GTFO ASAP !

[Platapus]

The War Powers Act of 1973 gives the President the authority to commit military forces as long as he

1. Informs, in writing, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate within 48 hours

2. Submits to congress a written report justifying the action. If congress does not take positive action, the military forces must be removed at the end of 60 days. The President can ask for one 30 day extension but he needs to justify that also.

Same rules as for Bush.

Yea I find it funny that a man that made his political career bashing Bush, has done the same exact thing, but the White House's response to this? Iraq and Afghanistan are wars, this thing in Lybia is not a war...

Atleast Bush had the balls to say that they were wars, justified or not. But I agree about the hypocrisy. I do think Qadaffi needs to go, and its clear he will no do so under his own power. Therefore he needs to be forced to see reason. The White House's response? Sunday it appeared we were there to save lives. Starting a war, to save lives. Must I say that "War.....War never changes." War does nothing but kill people innocent and guilty alike, to make a claim otherwise just isn't so.

Don't even get me started on Congress. Yea we won a victory in November, but without the Senate under our control the Dems can shove the top quarters into their hind quarters just as they have been doing since 2004. The house's hands are effectively tied, and of course you can't expect the President to go along with anything the House brings to the table, even if it does by some miracle pass in the Senate.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Platapus

2. Submits to congress a written report justifying the action. If congress does not take positive action, the military forces must be removed at the end of 60 days. The President can ask for one 30 day extension but he needs to justify that also.

Same rules as for Bush.

Let's hope that's as long as this lasts. I have a feeling it won't be.

[Platapus]

Oh I agree, I can't wait for the first "advisers" to be deployed to Libya.

[Sailor Steve]

I'm entertained by everybody jumping on the bandwagon without noticing which bandwagon they've jumped on. Not one person has addressed what Haplo was actually talking about.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Platapus

The War Powers Act of 1973 gives the President the authority to commit military forces as long as he

1. Informs, in writing, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate within 48 hours

2. Submits to congress a written report justifying the action. If congress does not take positive action, the military forces must be removed at the end of 60 days. The President can ask for one 30 day extension but he needs to justify that also.

Same rules as for Bush.

The War Powers Act isn't worth the paper it's printed on. The powers of the Federal government are delineated in the Constitution; Congress can not legislate more power for itself.

[krashkart]

Well, Mr. Haplo it sounds like business as usual in Washington D.C. You can have your scrambled eggs one of two ways:

this way... *SPLAT*
or that way... *SPLORT*

[tater]

It is of course funny that both the President and VP were both against any "unilateral" action on the part of the Executive branch (and unilateral in the clear terms of the question and answer back then meant Congress vs Executive, it had nothing at all to do with other nations).

I'm willing to cut them some slack on their weak action (clearly the time to "act!" was earlier rather than later), but they should explicitly apologize to the Bush Administration for their smack-talk.

Can be low-key, they can say at a press conf, "Ya know, back in 200X (whatever year it was), I talked some smack from the cheap seats about the President acting without the permission of congress. Now that I really understand what executive decision making is about, it turns out me earlier statements were rash."

I think that the power of Congress to declare war, is a very specific wording and separate from allowing military action. OTOH, back in the day, there was no standing army, so to do military action, the President needed to first raise an army. Even the early USN ships were not ready to sail at all times to save money—though some were usually ready with masts stepped, yards crossed, etc.

Giving the current president exactly what he gave the previous one is sorta funny. You know the dems would do it were the tables turned (since we have the Biden and Obama quotes to prove it). Calling him to the carpet for HIS hypocrisy is totally legit, though I think it's a Commander in Chief decision to make and won't attack him on having the power to make it.

[Bilge_Rat]

I have had a chance to look into this a bit more and I really dont see the issue or any contradiction with President Obama's previous position:

1. the issue in 2003 was the fact that President Bush was committing the USA to unilateral action without UN authority:

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack...;s_Iraq_Speech

In 2011, you have a specific UN resolution and a broad international coalition;



2. President Obama has fulfilled all of the requirements under the War Powers Act of 1973:

http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm

sec. 5 (a) only requires the President to report to the speaker (Bohner), which was done last friday, and the president of the Senate (Biden).

sec. 5 (b) then provides that he has 60 days to either cease military action or obtain authorization from Congress.



You really have to look at this from a skewed partisan viewpoint to see a problem..

[MaddogK]

What a hash up. What a confused and disingenuous stew of hypocrisy and stupidity.

Apparently we are now functioning as close air support for Libyan Rebels comprised of elements of the Muslim Brotherhood and quite possibly Al Qaeda. US Planes flying in support of one of the major contributors to the foreign fighters in Iraq.

Way to go Man Child.

WASHINGTON -- The United States welcomed a partial handover for the Libyan air campaign to NATO, but the allies apparently balked at assuming full control and the U.S. military was left in charge of the brunt of combat.

NATO agreed on Thursday to take over command of the newly established no-fly zone over Libya, protective flights meant to deter Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi from putting warplanes in the air. That leaves the U.S. with responsibility for attacks on Gadhafi's ground forces and other targets, which are the toughest and most controversial portion of the operation.

The U.S had hoped the alliance would reach a consensus Thursday for NATO to take full control of the military operation authorized by the United Nations, including the protection of Libyan civilians and supporting humanitarian aid efforts on the ground. It was not immediately clear when the allies could reach agreement on the matter.

"We are taking the next step: We have agreed along with our NATO allies to transition command and control for the no-fly zone over Libya to NATO," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said.

"All 28 allies have also now authorized military authorities to develop an operations plan for NATO to take on the broader civilian protection mission," Clinton said.

Lines of authority were unclear Thursday night, but it appeared the NATO decision sets up dual command centers and opens the door to confusion and finger-pointing. U.S. commanders would presumably be chiefly responsible for ensuring that the NATO protective flights do not conflict with planned combat operations under U.S. command.

The Pentagon indicated U.S. warplanes will keep flying strike missions over Libya.

In The Meantime China and Russia Warn Of All Out War (Over US Involvement in Libya) FROM EU Times ((WITH VIDEO OF CHINESE WARSHIPS OFF THE COAST OF LIBYA)
http://www.eutimes.net/2011/03/china...omment-page-1/

Is it time to run yet ?

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by MaddogK

In The Meantime China and Russia Warn Of All Out War (Over US Involvement in Libya) FROM EU Times ((WITH VIDEO OF CHINESE WARSHIPS OFF THE COAST OF LIBYA)
http://www.eutimes.net/2011/03/china...omment-page-1/

Is it time to run yet ?

Hooray for mankind!