So, is the left denouncing Obama's "unlawful" war in Libya?

[NYcarbineer]

Liberals Freak Out After Obama Takes Military Action in Libya

[SNIP]
A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) "all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president's actions" during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

[/SNIP]

Serious Doubts Raised About Obama's War In Libya


House Speaker John Boehner released his first satement on the U.S. attacks on Libya expressing his approval for the actions taken, but demands, "the Administration must do a better job of briefing members of Congress and communicating to the American people about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved." Below is Speaker Boehner's statement:

"The United States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression and self-government for their people. It's unacceptable and outrageous for Qadhafi to attack his own people, and the violence must stop.
The President is the commander-in-chief, but the Administration has a responsibility to define for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is, better explain what America's role is in achieving that mission, and make clear how it will be accomplished. Before any further military commitments are made, the Administration must do a better job of briefing members of Congress and communicating to the American people about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved."

Is this another "Wag The Dog" scenario a-la Clinton of the 1990's?

Ah, so you just posted concrete evidence that the liberals/Democrats are anything BUT in lockstep with the President, just because he's a Democrat.

You just made monkeys out of a whole bunch of your rightwing pals here.

 

[Sheldon]

It seems like a legitimate gripe.

 

[WillowTree]

Then state your position clearly. Are you with the president on this or not?

I have answered. Only your idiocy binds you from seeing it.

Answer again, you fat drunk.

kind of a bossy bitch ain't ya?

 

[NYcarbineer]

We are. Only your glaring ignorance prevents you from seeing it.

Then state your position clearly. Are you with the president on this or not?

One more time: I am going to give this president the benefit of the doubt, with regard to his ordering American military action. I am going to assume, that he has intelligence information the rest of us do not have, and I am going to assume he is acting with a sound military plan and a clearly defined objective. That is precisely the presumption I have accorded to every president, and I will do so again.That applies whether I agree with the man's politics (I do not) whether I voted for him (I did not) or what party he belongs to (not the one I favor).

The president is acting on behalf of our country, He has ordered our military forces into action. I will assume that action is in the national interest of my country, therefore I will support it, until there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, or the president violates the constitution. Until and unless that occurs, I intend to support my country, its military forces, and the Commander-in-Chief, whether I personally like him or not. Is that clear?

1. We have no vital interests there.

2. It is an internal Libyan affair.

3. It is at MOST a regional issue, and we are not of that region.

hence, one cannot make a rational case for starting a war, and this is war.

 

[washamericom]

this is fun

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have answered. Only your idiocy binds you from seeing it.

Answer again, you fat drunk.

kind of a bossy bitch ain't ya?

It wouldn't kill Mr. T to take his fluorescent red bulbous schnoz out of his ceramic Elvis beer mug long enough to type yes or no.

Even you were capable of that and you're mentally handicapped.

 

[washamericom]

Answer again, you fat drunk.

kind of a bossy bitch ain't ya?

It wouldn't kill Mr. T to take his fluorescent red bulbous schnoz out of his ceramic Elvis beer mug long enough to type yes or no.

Even you were capable of that and you're mentally handicapped.

you always spread good cheer

 

[WillowTree]

Answer again, you fat drunk.

kind of a bossy bitch ain't ya?

It wouldn't kill Mr. T to take his fluorescent red bulbous schnoz out of his ceramic Elvis beer mug long enough to type yes or no.

Even you were capable of that and you're mentally handicapped.

Well, since you seem to agree with me where does that leave your handicapped ass?

 

[WillowTree]

I am denouncing it.
And the righties on here consider me a leftie.

Obama is just a 3rd Bush term.

Hey look! Our little fart n a mitten is here..

 

[The Gadfly]

Then state your position clearly. Are you with the president on this or not?

One more time: I am going to give this president the benefit of the doubt, with regard to his ordering American military action. I am going to assume, that he has intelligence information the rest of us do not have, and I am going to assume he is acting with a sound military plan and a clearly defined objective. That is precisely the presumption I have accorded to every president, and I will do so again.That applies whether I agree with the man's politics (I do not) whether I voted for him (I did not) or what party he belongs to (not the one I favor).

The president is acting on behalf of our country, He has ordered our military forces into action. I will assume that action is in the national interest of my country, therefore I will support it, until there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, or the president violates the constitution. Until and unless that occurs, I intend to support my country, its military forces, and the Commander-in-Chief, whether I personally like him or not. Is that clear?

1. We have no vital interests there.

2. It is an internal Libyan affair.

3. It is at MOST a regional issue, and we are not of that region.

hence, one cannot make a rational case for starting a war, and this is war.

You DID ask; obviously you didn't like the answer (didn't fit your agenda?). However, there are a couple of other points:

(1) That regime was butchering its own civilians.

(2) It was asked to stop, and did not.

(3) That same regime is a known sponsor of terrorism, including the Lockerbie bombing of an American airliner.

(4) It could be presumed from the above, that there is a legitimate U.S. interest in terminating said regime, on both National SEcurity and humanitarian grounds.

(5) There is a resolution of the U.N. Security Council supporting the measures so far taken.

 

[HUGGY]

No? Well then what is the problem with Iraq again? (Not that I am defending Iraq, I thought it was dumb, I think military action in Libya is dumb too). So...where are the left's cries for peace like in 2003?

The "lefts" cries as yours are irrelevant. You dumb asses just never got it. You squealed with delight like children on Christmas morning as Bush astonishingly over reached his Presidential powers and it just never occurred to you that this would now and forever be the way it would be for all future presidents.

Now you should just shut the fuck up ya halfwits. You were sold a bill of goods behind your cowardice resulting from 9/11 and this is your reward. You may as well just lay back...spread your legs..And Enjoy It.

"over reached his Presidential powers?" Hey,at least Bush went to Congress for some kind of authorization. We're bombing the shit out of Libya with absolutely no input from our Congress or People. So you must really be pissed at your Hopey Changey One no?

You just don't get it...then or now. You are all wrapped up in personalities and blind party allegiance and always end up taking your eye off the ball. Stupid statements like "hopey changy" is all you have now. I'm not a lefty you fuckwit. I couldn't care any less now or then about Obama's campaign slogans. The difference between you and me is that I knew the future consequences of Bush's hubris and lies about WMD's and people like you were willing to overlook everything then as if it was all happening in a vacuum. OMG!!!! 9/11!!!!! ANYTHING goes!!!! You stupid assholes opened up the door and didn't give it a second thought that that same door would be impossible to close. Now your bellyaching doesn't make a wit of difference but it would have THEN and now if you had any fucking principles when it mattered.

Bush would have never swayed congress even in the shadow of 9/11 if he had told the truth. You have a lot of nerve even bringing it up. You are disgusting. You morons act like congress had any other information than the lies they were fed by Bush and Cheney.

Stupid Christian Fundamentalist assholes...You base your life on lies...You make a point of believing your equally misinformed fellow Christians against all truth and common sense and ALWAYS end up squealing like the idiot little stuck pigs you are when your stupidity catches up with you.

That's right...never mind all the precedent you have allowed(nay DEMANDED) over the last thirty to 40 years..This stupidity is all out of the blue and Obama's doing isn't it. You stupid whores dress yourself up as the prostitutes you are to unbridled power and cry like virgins when you finally have to give up the pussy. You are pathetic. AND you are no credit to the Republican Party.. as usual.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

One more time: I am going to give this president the benefit of the doubt, with regard to his ordering American military action. I am going to assume, that he has intelligence information the rest of us do not have, and I am going to assume he is acting with a sound military plan and a clearly defined objective. That is precisely the presumption I have accorded to every president, and I will do so again.That applies whether I agree with the man's politics (I do not) whether I voted for him (I did not) or what party he belongs to (not the one I favor).

The president is acting on behalf of our country, He has ordered our military forces into action. I will assume that action is in the national interest of my country, therefore I will support it, until there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, or the president violates the constitution. Until and unless that occurs, I intend to support my country, its military forces, and the Commander-in-Chief, whether I personally like him or not. Is that clear?

1. We have no vital interests there.

2. It is an internal Libyan affair.

3. It is at MOST a regional issue, and we are not of that region.

hence, one cannot make a rational case for starting a war, and this is war.

You DID ask; obviously you didn't like the answer (didn't fit your agenda?). However, there are a couple of other points:

(1) That regime was butchering its own civilians.

(2) It was asked to stop, and did not.

(3) That same regime is a known sponsor of terrorism, including the Lockerbie bombing of an American airliner.

(4) It could be presumed from the above, that there is a legitimate U.S. interest in terminating said regime, on both National SEcurity and humanitarian grounds.

(5) There is a resolution of the U.N. Security Council supporting the measures so far taken.

Point number 1 is a lie, the people started protests and when Ghaddafi didn't step down they rebel, in an armed rebellion, you are only right in the vague sense that a civil war literally is butchering one's own people, but beyond that, no, this is not a case of an aggressor acting against unarmed people. Hillary Clinton even met secretly with leaders of the rebels, thats blows the any credibility out of sky. Libya is *NOT* a national Security risk to the US, thats the same damn BS lie that was said about Saddam before the real truth came out, haven't you learned not to trust any and everything said by the government on matters of foreign policy?

On point number, Libya was asked basically to let the rebels do whatever the hell they wanted and in the beginning when the rebels made huge gains there was no talk of Ghaddafi butchering "innocent" Libyans, once Ghaddafi's forces started pounding the rebels thats when all the talk started of him killing innocent people. Do the knowledge and learn your history, the same "innocent" people we swore we were protecting and liberating from Saddam are and were the same ones IED and suicide bombing the hell out of troops in Iraq.


I reiterate, we should not be interfering in the affairs of foreign countries simply because we don't like their leaders for not being a "democracy" like ours, just as we wouldn't want other nations meddling in our affairs for not being like them.

 

[percysunshine]

"A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part."

Liberal Democrats in uproar over Libya action - John Bresnahan and Jonathan Allen - POLITICO.com


Agreeing with the likes of Dennis Kucinich and Sheila Jackson Lee has this conservative bewildered.

THREAD MERGED in to existing thread on the topic.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Then state your position clearly. Are you with the president on this or not?

One more time: I am going to give this president the benefit of the doubt, with regard to his ordering American military action. I am going to assume, that he has intelligence information the rest of us do not have, and I am going to assume he is acting with a sound military plan and a clearly defined objective. That is precisely the presumption I have accorded to every president, and I will do so again.That applies whether I agree with the man's politics (I do not) whether I voted for him (I did not) or what party he belongs to (not the one I favor).

The president is acting on behalf of our country, He has ordered our military forces into action. I will assume that action is in the national interest of my country, therefore I will support it, until there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, or the president violates the constitution. Until and unless that occurs, I intend to support my country, its military forces, and the Commander-in-Chief, whether I personally like him or not. Is that clear?

1. We have no vital interests there.

2. It is an internal Libyan affair.

3. It is at MOST a regional issue, and we are not of that region.

hence, one cannot make a rational case for starting a war, and this is war.

The only vital "interests" in Libya is its oil wealth and I'm pretty sure that someone met with the rebels privately and cut a deal for that oil in exchange help to topple Ghaddafi. I'm so glad I left the damn military, I hated being a pawn in stupid, power grabbing political games.

 

[Avorysuds]

Letting a dictator kill his people at his insane whim is not going to be good for anyone in the world.

If Gadafi is allowed to bomb his own people until only his cronies are left what do you think that says to the rest of the countries on the brink of revolution for democracy?

You people just hate anything this president does no matter what it is.

This is a UN action and not a declared war.

LOL, still the stupidest person on the internet I see...
I was not kidding when I called people like you Rtard and RW in the same boat as Bush bots, nice to know you support near every single Bush policy once A democrat is in office.

The “war” is still unconstitutional, unless you can show us all where in the constitution gives the UN powers to overwrite our own laws.

 

[KissMy]

I don't think we should be using military action in Libya. Is that what you wanted to hear?

Oh, Please. You know you will vote for Obama 2012.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Oh.... My..... Goodness. He's gone and done it now. Raised the hackles of his party's extremists.

However as usual, they are wrong. The War Powers Act is clear. The President CAN act militarily, and has 90 days to inform Congress and seek their permission.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I don't think we should be using military action in Libya. Is that what you wanted to hear?

Oh, Please. You know you will vote for Obama 2012.

Oh please shut up, even after Bush started that bogus Iraq war you Republitards voted him right back in and even fought to keep troops in Iraq.

 

[percysunshine]

Oh.... My..... Goodness. He's gone and done it now. Raised the hackles of his party's extremists.

However as usual, they are wrong. The War Powers Act is clear. The President CAN act militarily, and has 90 days to inform Congress and seek their permission.

I am sure there is a bigger picture involved...somewhere.

Is the War Powers Act constitutional? Seems that the Supremes have never ruled on it.

 

[KissMy]

The only vital "interests" in Libya is its oil wealth and I'm pretty sure that someone met with the rebels privately and cut a deal for that oil in exchange help to topple Ghaddafi. I'm so glad I left the damn military, I hated being a pawn in stupid, power grabbing political games.

So you live an oil free lifestyle?