Obama doesn't ask for approval on the Libya war

Obama is a warmonger, like Bush, attacking a country completely unprovoked.


Qadaffi is an awful man, but has a history of being open to diplomacy, and despite all the campaign rhetoric Obama has proven himself to be a cruise missile launcher first-diplomacy 2nd (if ever) type.
Iraq violated every friggen UN cease fire agreement under the sun which would allow an immedeate RESUMPTION of hostilities following the 1991 'war'. They violated further international agreements as well as violating the Geneva Convention by using chemical weapons on the Kurdish uprising. Not to mention providing material and informational aid, if not direct funds to Al Quaeda in the form of Salmaan Pak training grounds near Baghdad and other traced payments.

Libya, which had no cease fire agreements had only begun to put down, aggressively a terrorist inspired revolution before Brackets got involved.

I fail to see the comparison you're attempting to hallucinate. Bush had damn fine reasons (all be it convenient ones for revenge). Brackets has nothing except a need to look tough militarily and only making a bad situation much much worse.
 
Obama is a warmonger, like Bush, attacking a country completely unprovoked.


Qadaffi is an awful man, but has a history of being open to diplomacy, and despite all the campaign rhetoric Obama has proven himself to be a cruise missile launcher first-diplomacy 2nd (if ever) type.
Iraq violated every friggen UN cease fire agreement under the sun which would allow an immedeate RESUMPTION of hostilities following the 1991 'war'. They violated further international agreements as well as violating the Geneva Convention by using chemical weapons on the Kurdish uprising. Not to mention providing material and informational aid, if not direct funds to Al Quaeda in the form of Salmaan Pak training grounds near Baghdad and other traced payments.

Libya, which had no cease fire agreements had only begun to put down, aggressively a terrorist inspired revolution before Brackets got involved.

I fail to see the comparison you're attempting to hallucinate. Bush had damn fine reasons (all be it convenient ones for revenge). Brackets has nothing except a need to look tough militarily and only making a bad situation much much worse.

I don't give a damn about the UN, no one who takes the sovereignty of the US seriously should. If Saddam broke a billion UN regulations I wouldn't care if they weren't a threat to the US, and the most certainly weren't.


Of course every situation is different, but the similarities are there too. Neither Libya or Iraq attacked the US, neither was/is a threat, neither we could fiscally afford as a nation, etc etc.
 
Under the War Powers Act, President Barack Obama had until Friday to get congressional authorization to continue U.S. military operations in Libya. But the day passed without his even asking for it, which means he has to disengage within 30 days. Obama may not heed that requirement either....

Obama is on the horns of a dilemma. As a candidate, he said the president does not have the power to go to war on his own except in cases of actual or likely attack. But if he were to ask Congress to authorize the Libyan intervention, he would probably be rebuffed. So he's chosen to simply ignore the law.

President Barack Obama's war in Libya, and Congress' inaction, show War Powers Act is not effective - chicagotribune.com

This, folks, is an impeachable offense, in what should be anyone's book.
And who in the Senate has the ability and balls to start the proceedings? I can't think of a one.

Therefore, why should he worry about violating the law? Nobody's going to hold him accountable.

The Senate cannot Impeach President Obama. It would be unconsitutional.
 
But the original premise, that Obama was not asking Congress at all, was in fact a fallacy. Correct?
Incorrect.

White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization - Political Punch

In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.
 
Obama is a warmonger, like Bush, attacking a country completely unprovoked.


Qadaffi is an awful man, but has a history of being open to diplomacy, and despite all the campaign rhetoric Obama has proven himself to be a cruise missile launcher first-diplomacy 2nd (if ever) type.
Iraq violated every friggen UN cease fire agreement under the sun which would allow an immedeate RESUMPTION of hostilities following the 1991 'war'. They violated further international agreements as well as violating the Geneva Convention by using chemical weapons on the Kurdish uprising. Not to mention providing material and informational aid, if not direct funds to Al Quaeda in the form of Salmaan Pak training grounds near Baghdad and other traced payments.

Libya, which had no cease fire agreements had only begun to put down, aggressively a terrorist inspired revolution before Brackets got involved.

I fail to see the comparison you're attempting to hallucinate. Bush had damn fine reasons (all be it convenient ones for revenge). Brackets has nothing except a need to look tough militarily and only making a bad situation much much worse.

I don't give a damn about the UN, no one who takes the sovereignty of the US seriously should. If Saddam broke a billion UN regulations I wouldn't care if they weren't a threat to the US, and the most certainly weren't.


Of course every situation is different, but the similarities are there too. Neither Libya or Iraq attacked the US, neither was/is a threat, neither we could fiscally afford as a nation, etc etc.
Except when it suits your needs I guess.
 
And who in the Senate has the ability and balls to start the proceedings? I can't think of a one.

Therefore, why should he worry about violating the law? Nobody's going to hold him accountable.
The house impeaches the President.
Then my bad. Since I know it was Gore's vote that saved Clinton to break the tie on his impeachment, I was making the logical assumption the Senate did the work.

Regardless, the point still stands. We may have people who have the gumption to try and push forward the proceedings in the House, but nobody with the power. The GOP leadership will protect Brackets about as well as the DNC.

No one in government with the power to do anything about it, will hold him accountable.
 
Iraq violated every friggen UN cease fire agreement under the sun which would allow an immedeate RESUMPTION of hostilities following the 1991 'war'. They violated further international agreements as well as violating the Geneva Convention by using chemical weapons on the Kurdish uprising. Not to mention providing material and informational aid, if not direct funds to Al Quaeda in the form of Salmaan Pak training grounds near Baghdad and other traced payments.

Libya, which had no cease fire agreements had only begun to put down, aggressively a terrorist inspired revolution before Brackets got involved.

I fail to see the comparison you're attempting to hallucinate. Bush had damn fine reasons (all be it convenient ones for revenge). Brackets has nothing except a need to look tough militarily and only making a bad situation much much worse.

I don't give a damn about the UN, no one who takes the sovereignty of the US seriously should. If Saddam broke a billion UN regulations I wouldn't care if they weren't a threat to the US, and the most certainly weren't.


Of course every situation is different, but the similarities are there too. Neither Libya or Iraq attacked the US, neither was/is a threat, neither we could fiscally afford as a nation, etc etc.
Except when it suits your needs I guess.

That's just a dumb false assumption you've jumped to.

I don't give a damn about what the UN says or does ever.
 
I don't give a damn about the UN, no one who takes the sovereignty of the US seriously should. If Saddam broke a billion UN regulations I wouldn't care if they weren't a threat to the US, and the most certainly weren't.


Of course every situation is different, but the similarities are there too. Neither Libya or Iraq attacked the US, neither was/is a threat, neither we could fiscally afford as a nation, etc etc.
Except when it suits your needs I guess.

That's just a dumb false assumption you've jumped to.

I don't give a damn about what the UN says or does ever.
Did you agree with the first Gulf War? You know, the one done under the auspicies of the UN lead by the US that left us open to the need for the Iraq war 12 years later because the UN chickened out and didn't want us to finish the job?
 
Except when it suits your needs I guess.

That's just a dumb false assumption you've jumped to.

I don't give a damn about what the UN says or does ever.
Did you agree with the first Gulf War? You know, the one done under the auspicies of the UN lead by the US that left us open to the need for the Iraq war 12 years later because the UN chickened out and didn't want us to finish the job?

No, no i didn't, and no that didn't cause a "need" to go to war as there was no need.
 
Except when it suits your needs I guess.

That's just a dumb false assumption you've jumped to.

I don't give a damn about what the UN says or does ever.
Did you agree with the first Gulf War? You know, the one done under the auspicies of the UN lead by the US that left us open to the need for the Iraq war 12 years later because the UN chickened out and didn't want us to finish the job?

There was no need for the Iraq invasion and occupation. They were box in and were not a threat to their neighbors or the worlds remaining superpower. As if they ever really were.......

Why We Didn't Remove Saddam

By GEORGE BUSH AND BRENT SCOWCROFT

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish.. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

Why We Didn't Remove Saddam - Millat.com

Oh and his son blew the part in bold that they worked for.
 
Has Obama asked for approval? If the answer is still no, Congress should act on it's own. They don't need Obama's permission to chime in on the war with Libya. They can either support it or deny it without him saying a word. And if they deny it, then he has no choice but to withdrawal our presence in Libya.

Let's get Congress to act.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top