Obama's reasoning........

And now for today's episode of "As The Worms Turn":
Nothing is quite as amusing as seeing the Left become completely unhinged over the Real Obama.
When The Obama was elected, I predicted that He would separate the Liberal Ideologues from the Partisans. This is just another instance whe The Obama has proven me right.

Hopefully the Liberal Ideologues will remember these things come next election.
 
Are you a fucking MORAN? I despise Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Palin et al. Obama has started us down a very slippery slope. First it's missile strikes, then if the regime is toppled, someone (US, usually) has to go in a restabilize what we destabilized. Wake up!!

For the benefit of any uninformed adolescents who might be swayed by your erroneous and somewhat paranoid assumptions, if it becomes necessary to introduce troops to stabilize Libya after what clearly is a UN police action it will be a UN peace-keeping force. Not the U.S. military.

There is absolutely no similarity between Bush's war crime in Iraq and Obama's participation in the humanitarian UN intervention in Libya.
 
Are you a fucking MORAN? I despise Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Palin et al. Obama has started us down a very slippery slope. First it's missile strikes, then if the regime is toppled, someone (US, usually) has to go in a restabilize what we destabilized. Wake up!!

For the benefit of any uninformed adolescents who might be swayed by your erroneous and somewhat paranoid assumptions, if it becomes necessary to introduce troops to stabilize Libya after what clearly is a UN police action it will be a UN peace-keeping force. Not the U.S. military.

There is absolutely no similarity between Bush's war crime in Iraq and Obama's participation in the humanitarian UN intervention in Libya.

I can only assume YOU are one of those uninformed adolescents? I truly believe you are the ONLY one buying the bullshit you are trying to sell. Our missiles may have killed innocent civilians. How is that humanitarian, exactly?
 
Are you a fucking MORAN? I despise Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Palin et al. Obama has started us down a very slippery slope. First it's missile strikes, then if the regime is toppled, someone (US, usually) has to go in a restabilize what we destabilized. Wake up!!

For the benefit of any uninformed adolescents who might be swayed by your erroneous and somewhat paranoid assumptions, if it becomes necessary to introduce troops to stabilize Libya after what clearly is a UN police action it will be a UN peace-keeping force. Not the U.S. military.
It will be the US military participating in a UN action, under US command.
None of that changes The Obama going back on His "unilateral action" statement, already referenced.

There is absolutely no similarity between Bush's war crime in Iraq and Obama's participation in the humanitarian UN intervention in Libya.
You're right -- GWB got a Resolution of Force from Congress before he acted.
 
President Obama is just enforcing the decision of the United Nations to support the people in Libya. These people are being slaughtered by a tyrant that said he will show them no mercy. We're doing the right thing.
 
.........sounds awfully similar to Bush's reasoning for invading Iraq.

BRASILIA, Brazil – President Barack Obama authorized limited military action against Libya Saturday, saying Moammar Gadhafi's continued assault on his own people left the U.S. and its international partners with no other choice. The Pentagon said 112 cruise missiles were launched from US and UK ships and subs, hitting 20 targets.

Obama said military action was not his first choice.

"This is not an outcome the U.S. or any of our partners sought," Obama said from Brazil, where he is starting a five-day visit to Latin America. "We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy."

Obama: US launches military action against Libya - Yahoo! News

Can someone tell me where the Constitution allows such an offensive first strike?
There are several of these kinds of conservative sponsored threads floating around in "POLITICS" - all trying to "muddy the waters," in an attempt to group the Lybian Intervention with the Bush Administration Iraq "Fiasco."

Obama Intervention versus Bush Intervention
*******************************************
- Arab League called for/supports Lybian intervention
- broad Lybian intervention support from the UN, including other Arab nations
- Lybian intervention was in support of an ongoing popular revolt, which was not the case in Iraq
- the "coalition" has a much wider popular base than that in Iraq
- the US is not planning to send in ground troops
- if Gadaffi's rants are to be taken at face value, he will massacre many of his own people
- the Lybian mission is humanitarian in nature
- the Lybian intervention is not predicated on questionable "intelligence" as to the existance of WMD
- President Obama is held in much higher esteem by the international community than his predecessor
 
Last edited:
President Obama is just enforcing the decision of the United Nations to support the people in Libya. These people are being slaughtered by a tyrant that said he will show them no mercy. We're doing the right thing.
"The right thing" isn't the issue here.

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.
- The Obama
Obama on presidential war-making powers - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
 
President Obama is just enforcing the decision of the United Nations to support the people in Libya. These people are being slaughtered by a tyrant that said he will show them no mercy. We're doing the right thing.

We can't even afford to take care of OUR people. How is it doing the right thing to spend money we do not have, on people in a foreign country?
 
.........sounds awfully similar to Bush's reasoning for invading Iraq.

BRASILIA, Brazil – President Barack Obama authorized limited military action against Libya Saturday, saying Moammar Gadhafi's continued assault on his own people left the U.S. and its international partners with no other choice. The Pentagon said 112 cruise missiles were launched from US and UK ships and subs, hitting 20 targets.

Obama said military action was not his first choice.

"This is not an outcome the U.S. or any of our partners sought," Obama said from Brazil, where he is starting a five-day visit to Latin America. "We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy."

Obama: US launches military action against Libya - Yahoo! News

Can someone tell me where the Constitution allows such an offensive first strike?
There are several of these kinds of conservative sponsored threads floating around in "POLITICS" - all trying to "muddy the waters," in an attempt to group the Lybian Intervention with the Bush Administration Iraq "Fiasco."

Obama Intervention versus Bush Intervention
*******************************************
- Arab League called for/supports Lybian intervention
- broad Lybian intervention support from the UN, including other Arab nations
- Lybian intervention was in support of an ongoing popular revolt, which was not the case in Iraq
- the "coalition" has a much wider popular base than that in Iraq
- the US is not planning to send in ground troops
- if Gadaffi's rants are to be taken at face value, he will massacre many of his own people
- the Lybian mission is humanitarian in nature
- the Lybian intervention is not predicated on questionable "intelligence" as to the existance of WMD
- President Obama is held in much higher esteem by the international community than his predecessor
None of which address the question, or the issue of The Obama's "The President does not have power" statement during the campaign.
 
I have no issue with hitting Libya - the world is better off w/o Klodhoppy.

However, the predictable selectiveness and the double-standards coming from the WH (and the bigoted, partisan supporters of The Obama) is astounding.
If I didn't respect your capacity for common-sense reasoning I wouldn't even ask if you're aware of the difference between what Obama is engaged in with Libya and what Bush did to Iraq.

Bush managed to obtain congressional approval for his invasion and occupation of Iraq (which was not engaged in any form of aggression) on the basis of a fabricated WMD threat. The onlly reason this has not been proven is it has not been subjected to a formal investigation in which all parties concerned are interrogated under oath.

The fact that he did not have Holder conduct such an investigation is the main reason for my disgust with Obama. So please don't think of me as a Democrat partisan. The only point I am making here is this Libya action bears no comparison to Iraq. It is a very different situation in which I think we both agree that Khadafi should be taken down.
 
I have no issue with hitting Libya - the world is better off w/o Klodhoppy.
However, the predictable selectiveness and the double-standards coming from the WH (and the bigoted, partisan supporters of The Obama) is astounding.
If I didn't respect your capacity for common-sense reasoning I wouldn't even ask if you're aware of the difference between what Obama is engaged in with Libya and what Bush did to Iraq.
I'm speakaing specifically about going to war absent an attack, or imminent threat thereof, on the United States, and The Obama's statements to that effect:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.
Obama on presidential war-making powers - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
 
President Obama is just enforcing the decision of the United Nations to support the people in Libya. These people are being slaughtered by a tyrant that said he will show them no mercy. We're doing the right thing.

We can't even afford to take care of OUR people. How is it doing the right thing to spend money we do not have, on people in a foreign country?

Because it's a human rights issue. And maybe we'd have a lot more money if George Bush hadn't dragged us into Iraq to settle a personal vendetta.
 
President Obama is just enforcing the decision of the United Nations to support the people in Libya. These people are being slaughtered by a tyrant that said he will show them no mercy. We're doing the right thing.

We can't even afford to take care of OUR people. How is it doing the right thing to spend money we do not have, on people in a foreign country?

Because it's a human rights issue. And maybe we'd have a lot more money if George Bush hadn't dragged us into Iraq to settle a personal vendetta.
Ah, I SO love it when irony meets partisan hackery.

Tell us what you think of The Obama's statement:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top