Bipartisan Congress Rebukes President on Lybia Policy

[Foxfyre]

Hmmm. Wonder what Russia knows that we aren't being told?

Russia: NATO 'one step' from land war in Libya
AP– Sun Jun 5, 3:00 am ET
SINGAPORE – Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov says NATO is "one step" from sending troops into Libya in a bid to help rebels remove Moammar Gadhafi from power.

Ivanov said Sunday at an Asian security conference in Singapore that Russia didn't know that a United Nations resolution it supported to protect civilians and shut down Libyan air space would lead to a land operation.

British and French attack helicopters struck for the first time inside Libya on Saturday. NATO had previously relied on attack jets generally flying above 15,000 feet (4,500 meters).

Russia: NATO 'one step' from land war in Libya - Yahoo! News

How will the American people react if Obama commits ground troops in Lybia without advice and consent of Congress. Or with advice and consent of Congress for that matter?

 

[The T]

Hmmm. Wonder what Russia knows that we aren't being told?

Russia: NATO 'one step' from land war in Libya
AP– Sun Jun 5, 3:00 am ET
SINGAPORE – Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov says NATO is "one step" from sending troops into Libya in a bid to help rebels remove Moammar Gadhafi from power.

Ivanov said Sunday at an Asian security conference in Singapore that Russia didn't know that a United Nations resolution it supported to protect civilians and shut down Libyan air space would lead to a land operation.

British and French attack helicopters struck for the first time inside Libya on Saturday. NATO had previously relied on attack jets generally flying above 15,000 feet (4,500 meters).

Russia: NATO 'one step' from land war in Libya - Yahoo! News

How will the American people react if Obama commits ground troops in Lybia without advice and consent of Congress. Or with advice and consent of Congress for that matter?

Since we pretty much OWN NATO? Who knows? But I still don't trust Russians or anything they say...never have.

 

[Foxfyre]

And why are Lybians more worthy of protection than Syrians? Because Lybia has oil?

updated 6/4/2011 - Reuters
+-BEIRUT, Lebanon —
Syrian forces killed at least 63 civilians in attacks to crush pro-democracy demonstrations on Friday, the Syrian human rights organization Sawasiah said on Saturday.

Sawasiah said 53 demonstrators were killed in the city of Hama, one in Damascus and two in the northwestern province of Idlib.

Seven people were also killed in the town of Rastan in central Syria, which has been under a military assault and a siege by tanks since Sunday.

Syria unplugs Internet for much of country

It was one of the bloodiest days since the revolt broke out 11 weeks ago
Activists: Syria government forces kill 63 - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

 

[The T]

And why are Lybians more worthy of protection than Syrians? Because Lybia has oil?

updated 6/4/2011 - Reuters
+-BEIRUT, Lebanon —
Syrian forces killed at least 63 civilians in attacks to crush pro-democracy demonstrations on Friday, the Syrian human rights organization Sawasiah said on Saturday.

Sawasiah said 53 demonstrators were killed in the city of Hama, one in Damascus and two in the northwestern province of Idlib.

Seven people were also killed in the town of Rastan in central Syria, which has been under a military assault and a siege by tanks since Sunday.

Syria unplugs Internet for much of country

It was one of the bloodiest days since the revolt broke out 11 weeks ago
Activists: Syria government forces kill 63 - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

And it begs the question regarding the Obama administration...and "Arab Spring"... It's a ruse.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

And why are Lybians more worthy of protection than Syrians? Because Lybia has oil?

updated 6/4/2011 - Reuters
+-BEIRUT, Lebanon —
Syrian forces killed at least 63 civilians in attacks to crush pro-democracy demonstrations on Friday, the Syrian human rights organization Sawasiah said on Saturday.

Sawasiah said 53 demonstrators were killed in the city of Hama, one in Damascus and two in the northwestern province of Idlib.

Seven people were also killed in the town of Rastan in central Syria, which has been under a military assault and a siege by tanks since Sunday.

Syria unplugs Internet for much of country

It was one of the bloodiest days since the revolt broke out 11 weeks ago
Activists: Syria government forces kill 63 - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

Sadly, you answered your own question.

 

[Foxfyre]

And why are Lybians more worthy of protection than Syrians? Because Lybia has oil?

updated 6/4/2011 - Reuters
+-BEIRUT, Lebanon —
Syrian forces killed at least 63 civilians in attacks to crush pro-democracy demonstrations on Friday, the Syrian human rights organization Sawasiah said on Saturday.

Sawasiah said 53 demonstrators were killed in the city of Hama, one in Damascus and two in the northwestern province of Idlib.

Seven people were also killed in the town of Rastan in central Syria, which has been under a military assault and a siege by tanks since Sunday.

Syria unplugs Internet for much of country

It was one of the bloodiest days since the revolt broke out 11 weeks ago
Activists: Syria government forces kill 63 - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

Sadly, you answered your own question.

I know I did. I guess I just didn't want to believe it.

Wouldn't it be refreshing if our fearless leaders would just admit it up front? They feel they have to protect such a hugh chunk of the world's oil supply on which we or our allies are dependent?

How much longer will we just keep pretending that protecting innocent lives is our motive?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

And why are Lybians more worthy of protection than Syrians? Because Lybia has oil?

Sadly, you answered your own question.

I know I did. I guess I just didn't want to believe it.

Wouldn't it be refreshing if our fearless leaders would just admit it up front? They feel they have to protect such a hugh chunk of the world's oil supply on which we or our allies are dependent?

How much longer will we just keep pretending that protecting innocent lives is our motive?

I believe that if an interviewer asked them point blank, they wouldn't deny it. However, innocent lives are much better fodder for a public relations campaign.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obama is acting on his authority as the Imperial President, a de facto authority created during the Cold War to fight the spread of communism, used now to fight the spread of ‘terrorism.’

Congress lacks the courage to take back its constitutionally mandated authority it gave to the Executive during the Cold War and the courts refuse to get involved in an intra-branch squabble. And the Executive isn’t going to give back the power it has enjoyed now for over sixty years (zero surprise).

So guess what, it’s up to the American people alone to compel Congress to follow Kucinich’s plan and take back congressional military authority, per Article I, Section 8.

Don’t hold your breath.

 

[BenNatuf]

It's conceivable that the current plan is to continue a war of attrition to the point where Gaddafi decides to negotiate for a cushy asylum somewhere. I do remember hearing that, at the beginning of the bombing, the rebels did not want international ground troops assisting them. Whether that's still true today, I have no idea.

To what end? If we don't purge the LFG (or whatever thier initials are) from the other rebels we have a bigger problem than Khadaffy ever was. On the other hand we can't just leave him there now either.

If by "to what end?" you mean "why would the rebels not want assistance from ground troops?" then I'm afraid I have no idea.

No, what i meant was 'to what end" in relation to chasing Khadaffy out. At this point if he leaves we have a bigger problem with the LFG (or whatever they are). It seems to me it would be better to prolong the engagement while we help more acceptable rebels (which do exist, in fact it's who we were supposedly "not" supporting") gain political muscle. Thats going to take some very covert material support and some time. let him languish while we (quietly) build what we must.

edditted to add: Not to assume we should do anything without congressional approval. First that, then move forward.

 

[BenNatuf]

All of Congress should be rebuking this President over Libya. Checks & Balances need to be restored. This Libyan War is a sad travesty.

Let us hope Boehner finds the spine to take "further action" like Impeachment? Yeah, yeah...I know...

I don't think this rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors any more than I thought Clinton's escapades rose to that level though. And at least Clinton knew he was breaking the law. I'm not giving President Obama credit for being that smart. His Arrogance probably thought a President could support a NATO operation without the consent of Congress. He has assumed a President can do a lot of things over his relatively short tenure in office, and his admiring public has been willing to overlook, forgive, or excuse most of it. I would like to think that won't be the case forever though.

To initiate impeachment proceedings would almost certainly cost the GOP all their political capital which they have been oh so slowly been building over the past months. The GOP deserved to fall out of favor when they did, and I simply don't think they can afford to risk a questionable and most likely highly unpopular impeachment process now that they are trying to clean up their act.

Politically I agree with you about Libya; however, impeachment is a more of a politcal question than a legal one. If engaging the nation in an unlawful war doesn't rise to that level I don't know what ever would.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Ya gotta love how all the liberal chicken-hawks are now staunch advocates of targeted assassination of foreign nationals and unilateral and unauthorized military action against sovereign nations.

I guess all the outrage from 2003 - 2008 was all bullshit.. just as most of us knew.

 

[freedombecki]

Hmmm. Wonder what Russia knows that we aren't being told?

Russia: NATO 'one step' from land war in Libya
AP– Sun Jun 5, 3:00 am ET
SINGAPORE – Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov says NATO is "one step" from sending troops into Libya in a bid to help rebels remove Moammar Gadhafi from power.

Ivanov said Sunday at an Asian security conference in Singapore that Russia didn't know that a United Nations resolution it supported to protect civilians and shut down Libyan air space would lead to a land operation.

British and French attack helicopters struck for the first time inside Libya on Saturday. NATO had previously relied on attack jets generally flying above 15,000 feet (4,500 meters).

Russia: NATO 'one step' from land war in Libya - Yahoo! News

How will the American people react if Obama commits ground troops in Lybia without advice and consent of Congress. Or with advice and consent of Congress for that matter?

Hopefully, President Obama has learned his lesson about consulting Congress on how serious the situation may be or not. The branches of government may be separate, but if the end goal benefits Americans, this truly needs to be a team effort. Unfortunately, there is a growing segment of the American voters who are disenchanted by bickering over issues related to war, and I'm seeing loyal leftists step back and distancing themselves from the executive branch over not only this, but over a number of things they're not liking much. Not to dig too deeply into the birth certificate deal, but a Democrat lawyer started questioning where the birth certificate was long before it was bait for the Romper Room.

Just sayin'.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let us hope Boehner finds the spine to take "further action" like Impeachment? Yeah, yeah...I know...

I don't think this rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors any more than I thought Clinton's escapades rose to that level though. And at least Clinton knew he was breaking the law. I'm not giving President Obama credit for being that smart. His Arrogance probably thought a President could support a NATO operation without the consent of Congress. He has assumed a President can do a lot of things over his relatively short tenure in office, and his admiring public has been willing to overlook, forgive, or excuse most of it. I would like to think that won't be the case forever though.

To initiate impeachment proceedings would almost certainly cost the GOP all their political capital which they have been oh so slowly been building over the past months. The GOP deserved to fall out of favor when they did, and I simply don't think they can afford to risk a questionable and most likely highly unpopular impeachment process now that they are trying to clean up their act.

Politically I agree with you about Libya; however, impeachment is a more of a politcal question than a legal one. If engaging the nation in an unlawful war doesn't rise to that level I don't know what ever would.

There is enough wiggle room in intepretation of the War Powers stuff to give him plausibility that he was acting legally. And if that goes against him, all he has to do is get one of his legal advisors to say that he had authority to act as he did. And you KNOW he would be able to get a legal advisor to say the moon was made of green cheese if he needed that kind of outcome.

Too much gray area, inconsistencies, and nuances in it to make it a completely cut and dried thing. The GOP would suffer much more political damage in even threatening, much less initiating impeachment proceedings than any damage they could do to Obama. Most particularly since the Senate wouldn't convict Obama any more than it was willing to convict Clinton who WAS guilty.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I just want congress to hear the complete plan and give their approval or disapproval. As it is meant to be.

 

[Foxfyre]

I just want congress to hear the complete plan and give their approval or disapproval. As it is meant to be.

And there ya go. I think it was appropriate for Congress to demand an accounting and express protest at being left out of the process. I think they gave the President adequate time to properly respond.

If he doesn't respond, however, THEN I think they are going to have to take a serious look at that.

 

[BenNatuf]

I don't think this rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors any more than I thought Clinton's escapades rose to that level though. And at least Clinton knew he was breaking the law. I'm not giving President Obama credit for being that smart. His Arrogance probably thought a President could support a NATO operation without the consent of Congress. He has assumed a President can do a lot of things over his relatively short tenure in office, and his admiring public has been willing to overlook, forgive, or excuse most of it. I would like to think that won't be the case forever though.

To initiate impeachment proceedings would almost certainly cost the GOP all their political capital which they have been oh so slowly been building over the past months. The GOP deserved to fall out of favor when they did, and I simply don't think they can afford to risk a questionable and most likely highly unpopular impeachment process now that they are trying to clean up their act.

Politically I agree with you about Libya; however, impeachment is a more of a politcal question than a legal one. If engaging the nation in an unlawful war doesn't rise to that level I don't know what ever would.

There is enough wiggle room in intepretation of the War Powers stuff to give him plausibility that he was acting legally. And if that goes against him, all he has to do is get one of his legal advisors to say that he had authority to act as he did. And you KNOW he would be able to get a legal advisor to say the moon was made of green cheese if he needed that kind of outcome.

Too much gray area, inconsistencies, and nuances in it to make it a completely cut and dried thing. The GOP would suffer much more political damage in even threatening, much less initiating impeachment proceedings than any damage they could do to Obama. Most particularly since the Senate wouldn't convict Obama any more than it was willing to convict Clinton who WAS guilty.

His legal advisors have no say so in the matter. Impeachment is strictly a congressional action, he can argue whatever he wants.

And no, a correct reading of the WPR does not give him one iota of wiggle room, you have to purposefully misread it to get that.

Like I said though, I agree, politically (which is what impeachment is) it's a bad move.

 

[BenNatuf]

I just want congress to hear the complete plan and give their approval or disapproval. As it is meant to be.

The congress can authorize him to act or not authorize him to act, or authorize him to act with limitations. They have absolutely no authority to approve his plans once action is authorized... we have one commander in chief.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I just want congress to hear the complete plan and give their approval or disapproval. As it is meant to be.

The congress can authorize him to act or not authorize him to act, or authorize him to act with limitations. They have absolutely no authority to approve his plans once action is authorized... we have one commander in chief.

I think you know what I mean. Give congress a full briefing on the situation and what the goals of any US military action would be. Get their approval of those goals. Or get the hell out. It is not difficult.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think you know what I mean. Give congress a full briefing on the situation and what the goals of any US military action would be. Get their approval of those goals. Or get the hell out. It is not difficult.

It’s even simpler than that – Congress may do what it wants, when it wants; it simply lacks the courage to pull the purse stings closed.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think you know what I mean. Give congress a full briefing on the situation and what the goals of any US military action would be. Get their approval of those goals. Or get the hell out. It is not difficult.

It’s even simpler than that – Congress may do what it wants, when it wants; it simply lacks the courage to pull the purse stings closed.

And there is even less poltical will to offend the U.K. and France and other N.A.T.O. nations that are part of the bigger picture too.