Did Obama get approval from Congress to bomb Libya for Oil?

[TheBrain]

Obama stopped genocide in Libya.

Now this is what is questionable. Republicans invaded Iraq and yet stood around and did nothing as Iraqi's murdered their own Christians who have been living in Iraq since before there were even Muslims. In fact, the Christian populations in Iraq has dropped by about a million. Where did they go? As if American right winger Christians even care. Apparently, Iraqi Christians aren't the right "color".

Thinking American Christians would help Iraqi Christians when the American right wing is willing to throw American elderly under the bus. And now they complain about Obama when most of their leadership feels Obama hasn't killed nearly enough Libyans. Hilarious.

Shut the fuck up. You are ridiculous.

 

[Too Tall]

McCain would have done it two weeks sooner. And he's in Congress. Why didn't he author a bill to authorize what he was telling Obama to do?

Boy, I bet you're glad that he didn't get elected president, huh?

And by the way, the War Powers Act gives the president 60 days to get Congressional approval.

Obama has insisted that the military operation in Libya is NOT a war. We are bombing the shit out of innocent civilians to keep the peace. Try and keep up, kay!

Say what you will about cost or presidential power or what not. But don't go with the innocent civilians line. That's just wrong. From all accounts, civilian casualties are much lower since our involvement began. Contemplate the blood bath that Gaddafi had promised to unleash when he had the rebellion under control.

Why wasn't there a blood bath in the 7 or 8 cities Gaddafi's army took over on the way to Benghazi?

 

[beowolfe]

Or did our Nobel Peace Prize winning hope and change President illegally bomb Libya for European oil interests AKA George Soros, wanted Criminal?



Impeach the Muslim

Nope, he borrowed a page from Reagan's playbook. Tell them after you do it. If you're trying to get Obama out of office, I wouldn't suggest impeaching 'the Muslim', you'd miss your target.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Libya is not a US action: it's a NATO action. NATO is completely in charge.

And the Constitution says we're supposed to honor our treaties.

 

[Spoonman]

Libya is not a US action: it's a NATO action. NATO is completely in charge.

And the Constitution says we're supposed to honor our treaties.

i think i'm going to start trolling your site

 

[kiwiman127]

The right wing nut jobs are at it again. I mean look at their ill-informed whining. I'm not defending Obama as I can say this, I have absolutely no intention for voting for the man. (It's the economy, stupid!)
What amazes me, is the prior to Obama getting involved with the NATO action, the far right was crying for Obama's head because he was doing nothing! So Obama finally gets involved with the NATO action as required by the treaty and the freakzoids go nuts!!!!

 

[RachelMadcow]

Democrat voters are stoned useless europe worshipping college peaceniks however the democrat party is a warmongering fat cat party controlled by wall st.

Undeniable.

 

[Sallow]

Or did our Nobel Peace Prize winning hope and change President illegally bomb Libya for European oil interests AKA George Soros, wanted Criminal?



Impeach the Muslim

No, he gets away with bypassing the Constitution and we hear little of it. As far as his religion, he may be Muslim or he may be agnostic. He did attend Muslim schools as a youth as well as Catholic ones, or so it has been reported.

You follow the Muslim faith?

 

[FA_Q2]

Libya is not a US action: it's a NATO action. NATO is completely in charge.

And the Constitution says we're supposed to honor our treaties.

Do not be purposefully obtuse. Treaties do not negate or supersede the constitution in any way shape or form. If congress needs to act to honor a treaty then they need to act. The president does not have the right to sidestep a process hiding under a treaty. The WPA may give him the 60 days but that time is up so where is the congressional approval?

It is interesting how fast the libs here are abandoning the constitution just because their guy is the one doing it. NO ONE gets to ignore the constitution. One of the major problems that we have today is that the government seems to not care about the constitutionality of its own actions.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Libya is not a US action: it's a NATO action. NATO is completely in charge.

And the Constitution says we're supposed to honor our treaties.

Do not be purposefully obtuse. Treaties do not negate or supersede the constitution in any way shape or form. If congress needs to act to honor a treaty then they need to act. The president does not have the right to sidestep a process hiding under a treaty. The WPA may give him the 60 days but that time is up so where is the congressional approval?

It is interesting how fast the libs here are abandoning the constitution just because their guy is the one doing it. NO ONE gets to ignore the constitution. One of the major problems that we have today is that the government seems to not care about the constitutionality of its own actions.

Then don't be obtusely righteous. Unless you are a justice on the SCOTUS, your assessment of the constitutionality of US involvement in Libya is worth exactly zero.

 

[Zander]

 

[FA_Q2]

Libya is not a US action: it's a NATO action. NATO is completely in charge.

And the Constitution says we're supposed to honor our treaties.

Do not be purposefully obtuse. Treaties do not negate or supersede the constitution in any way shape or form. If congress needs to act to honor a treaty then they need to act. The president does not have the right to sidestep a process hiding under a treaty. The WPA may give him the 60 days but that time is up so where is the congressional approval?

It is interesting how fast the libs here are abandoning the constitution just because their guy is the one doing it. NO ONE gets to ignore the constitution. One of the major problems that we have today is that the government seems to not care about the constitutionality of its own actions.

Then don't be obtusely righteous. Unless you are a justice on the SCOTUS, your assessment of the constitutionality of US involvement in Libya is worth exactly zero.

Really? Is that how low you see yourself? The court is NOT infallible and it is downright dangerous to sit there and accept ANYTHING as correct as long as it came from any particular authority. I guess those that fought against separate but equal should not have done so because, after all, the SCOTUS did say it was constitutional. Women should not have fought for the right to vote. Nobody should ever question anything that the government decides because they are the rule makers.

You really do not understand what the funders were attempting to create when they wrote the constitution do you?

 

[FA_Q2]

And by the way, the War Powers Act gives the president 60 days to get Congressional approval.

The War Powers Act is un-Constitutional. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the sole authority to declare war; the CE becomes C-in-C after the declaration. Congress doesn’t have the authority to cede its Constitutional responsibility to declare war to the Executive – that can be accomplished only by amending the Constitution.

Unfortunately per Dellums v. Bush (1990), the courts refuse to consider the constitutionality of the WPA.

The WPA is NOT unconstitutional as ruled in by the very case you cited.

Refused t hear is not the same as hearing the case and there are plenty of times that the court has reversed a ruling that it previously made. They are NOT infallible.

 

[FA_Q2]

We get it now. Nation building, unconstitutional wars and bombing people is OK as long as it is a democrat doing it. Where are all the people that are STILL winning about the supposed ‘unconstitutional’ war in Iraq? Why is that so unconstitutional and this one here is A-O-K???

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Do not be purposefully obtuse. Treaties do not negate or supersede the constitution in any way shape or form. If congress needs to act to honor a treaty then they need to act. The president does not have the right to sidestep a process hiding under a treaty. The WPA may give him the 60 days but that time is up so where is the congressional approval?

It is interesting how fast the libs here are abandoning the constitution just because their guy is the one doing it. NO ONE gets to ignore the constitution. One of the major problems that we have today is that the government seems to not care about the constitutionality of its own actions.

Then don't be obtusely righteous. Unless you are a justice on the SCOTUS, your assessment of the constitutionality of US involvement in Libya is worth exactly zero.

Really? Is that how low you see yourself? The court is NOT infallible and it is downright dangerous to sit there and accept ANYTHING as correct as long as it came from any particular authority. I guess those that fought against separate but equal should not have done so because, after all, the SCOTUS did say it was constitutional. Women should not have fought for the right to vote. Nobody should ever question anything that the government decides because they are the rule makers.

You really do not understand what the funders were attempting to create when they wrote the constitution do you?

As has been said many times before, the Constitution is what the SCOTUS says it is. This fact is a key component to the concept of separation of powers, which I'm sure the founding fathers were well aware of.

The only way for the people to fight the SCOTUS is with a Constitutional amendment. As was done the right of women to vote (the Court overturned the constitutionality of separate but equal later).

 

[Mad Scientist]

Damn! I was hoping "RachellMadcow" would be sticking around. I hope it's not a permaban.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Damn! I was hoping "RachellMadcow" would be sticking around. I hope it's not a permaban.

Don't worry, the world is full of mad cows, big hosses, and lots of other similar livestock. I'm sure another one will be along shortly.

 

[lehr]

Or did our Nobel Peace Prize winning hope and change President illegally bomb Libya for European oil interests AKA George Soros, wanted Criminal?



Impeach the Muslim

i get nervous when demokrats start wars --- 6 months later they say republicans lied and the war is illegal - they did this to viet-nam - the bay of pigs and iraq =

jfk refused to give the brave men at the bay of pigs because he said the (cia) lied to him and demokrats voted in high numbers to go into iraq

20 june 06 madeleine albright (in moscow ) said - " n. korea wants nuked because bush went into iraq " - she forgot that on 2/18/98 shr said - " stand firm against iraq wmd "

demokrats always go overseas during wars to attack republicans

 

[lehr]

Or did our Nobel Peace Prize winning hope and change President illegally bomb Libya for European oil interests AKA George Soros, wanted Criminal?



Impeach the Muslim

jfk refused to give air support to the man at the bay of pigs because he said the (cia) lied to him i guess demokrats are always lied to

 

[Wonky Pundit]

^^^
| | |
| | |

Damn! I was hoping "RachellMadcow" would be sticking around. I hope it's not a permaban.

Don't worry, the world is full of mad cows, big hosses, and lots of other similar livestock. I'm sure another one will be along shortly.

What did I tell you?