Obama legal on Libya action

[taichiliberal]

Here's a guy that does a pretty good take on the procedure taken by Obama regarding Libya:


BREAKING: Libya Legal According to 1945 Congress (Updated) « Another War of Jenkins' Ear


The neocon GOP has a problem with this because Obama takes a positive leadership role in dealing with an enemy of America who killed her citizens and was never punished for it. Obama notified the leadership of both parties, got Nato and the UN on board and acted accordingly. This does not sit well with the Party of No's "get Obama" agenda....who look like hypocrits trying to criticize something their noted membership advocated for.


The liberal/progressive and Dems have a problem with this because Obama is essentially involving us in another war....suspicious being that it's another oil producing country....in a region rift with historical American support of despots of whom "regime change" seems most tempting.

And the band played on.

 

[Charles_Main]

Here's a guy that does a pretty good take on the procedure taken by Obama regarding Libya:


BREAKING: Libya Legal According to 1945 Congress (Updated) « Another War of Jenkins' Ear


The neocon GOP has a problem with this because Obama takes a positive leadership role in dealing with an enemy of America who killed her citizens and was never punished for it. Obama notified the leadership of both parties, got Nato and the UN on board and acted accordingly. This does not sit well with the Party of No's "get Obama" agenda....who look like hypocrits trying to criticize something their noted membership advocated for.


The liberal/progressive and Dems have a problem with this because Obama is essentially involving us in another war....suspicious being that it's another oil producing country....in a region rift with historical American support of despots of whom "regime change" seems most tempting.

And the band played on.

While I would not go so far as to say what Obama has done in Libya is taking a positive leadership position (I think he dithered and let an opportunity when the opposition held most of the country go to waste, and I fear his coalition is so complicated we may not be able to achieve what should be the ultimate goal the removal of Qaddafi). I for one am a conservative who is not bashing Obama for not going to congress. I feel the President needs the ability to react quickly to events, and can not be expect to go to congress for approval every time. Especially the full congress who would debate and project out plans to the potential enemy.

 

[taichiliberal]

Here's a guy that does a pretty good take on the procedure taken by Obama regarding Libya:


BREAKING: Libya Legal According to 1945 Congress (Updated) « Another War of Jenkins' Ear


The neocon GOP has a problem with this because Obama takes a positive leadership role in dealing with an enemy of America who killed her citizens and was never punished for it. Obama notified the leadership of both parties, got Nato and the UN on board and acted accordingly. This does not sit well with the Party of No's "get Obama" agenda....who look like hypocrits trying to criticize something their noted membership advocated for.


The liberal/progressive and Dems have a problem with this because Obama is essentially involving us in another war....suspicious being that it's another oil producing country....in a region rift with historical American support of despots of whom "regime change" seems most tempting.

And the band played on.

While I would not go so far as to say what Obama has done in Libya is taking a positive leadership position (I think he dithered and let an opportunity when the opposition held most of the country go to waste, and I fear his coalition is so complicated we may not be able to achieve what should be the ultimate goal the removal of Qaddafi). I for one am a conservative who is not bashing Obama for not going to congress. I feel the President needs the ability to react quickly to events, and can not be expect to go to congress for approval every time. Especially the full congress who would debate and project out plans to the potential enemy.

The "dithering" aspect of your comment is essentially echoing the sour grapes of the neocon driven GOP. By their standards, using his brain and getting all his ducks in a row is "dithering" DESPITE the legal and "positive" (subjective) outcome of that process. Pulling a Shrub cowboy act would have resulted in the similar BS we ended up with in Iraq, of which no one wants a repeat of. As it stands now, there's smoke being blown in DC regarding actual arming of the rebels

Bottom line: involvement in a civil war is a nasty, sticky business....regime change is an even worse quagmire we don't need.

And the band played on.

 

[Avatar4321]

The Constitution requires Congress to declare war. I am not seeing any sort of authorization for this war from Congress. While I don't deny the President has a certain amount of leeway in matters of war, why hasnt the President since gone to Congress?

And why exactly are we helping rebels involved with Al Qaeda?

 

[taichiliberal]

The Constitution requires Congress to declare war. I am not seeing any sort of authorization for this war from Congress. While I don't deny the President has a certain amount of leeway in matters of war, why hasnt the President since gone to Congress?

And why exactly are we helping rebels involved with Al Qaeda?

1. War was not declared by Obama, as he acting in accordance and agreement with NATO allies and the UN of which we are a part of, to intervene with force to prevent slaughter. Mind you, neither organizations have sterling records in recent years on this subject (i.e., Rawanda).

2. The President did act in accordance with the War Powers act....confering with party leaders of both houses and issuing the proper announcement within 48 hours of the action.

3. The majority of folk rebelling in Libya are NOT Al Qaeda supporters. If you have proof to the contrary, then please share it.