President Obama, indecision, Libya, mistakes, random thoughts

[Trajan]

Actually there is the Libyan opposition we are "supporting" and they are not AQ. I created a thread about it last week but since it didn't say AQ in it nobody cared.

Sean Hannity Discussion - View Single Post - On Presidential Authority and Lawlessness: Re; Libya

I recently saw that some rebel commander, there, acknowledged that the rebels were using outside help, including al qaeda.

Camel's nose under the tent flap.

And, al qaeda aside, the rebels we are helping still have connections to the so-called Muslim Brotherhood. No bargain there, either.

I included the wrong link, this is it

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-middle-east-general/160086-meet-the-libyan-opposition.html

I've read those stories too, but the telegraph story is misleading at best as the "commander" of the rebels it identifies is not in fact a "commander of the rebels. The rebel Commander is Omar Harriri not the hasiddi terrorist they identified.

have you read for instance the wikileaks cables on Libya?

 

[BenNatuf]

I recently saw that some rebel commander, there, acknowledged that the rebels were using outside help, including al qaeda.

Camel's nose under the tent flap.

And, al qaeda aside, the rebels we are helping still have connections to the so-called Muslim Brotherhood. No bargain there, either.

I included the wrong link, this is it

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-middle-east-general/160086-meet-the-libyan-opposition.html

I've read those stories too, but the telegraph story is misleading at best as the "commander" of the rebels it identifies is not in fact a "commander of the rebels. The rebel Commander is Omar Harriri not the hasiddi terrorist they identified.

have you read for instance the wikileaks cables on Libya?

No, and to be honest I don't have any interest in reading the selective leaks of those who adhere to our enemies and supply them with intelligence.

 

[Trajan]

BTW,

LIABILITY,

I don't know if you noticed but I corrected my link of who the rebels are that we are supposed to be acting in support of.

Not only did I see the correction, but I read with real interest your detailed analysis of the President's Constitutional authority as CiC.

As you may recall, I am very real fan of Mark Levin. He takes the position that the President HAS powers, as CiC, that are not dependent on prior Congressional approval. I think that's true as far as it goes. To repel an attack, for instance, it might be necessary for him to act first and then go to Congress. The War Powers Act is a legislative statement along much those very lines.

However, as your analysis suggests, it might be better to think of his Constitutional authority as being QUITE limited outside of Congressional authority.

The current President didn't even engage in serious consultation with Congress before committing our military might to the Libya problem. He unilaterally waged war in deference to what? To JUST the UN decision to act?

Again, that's pretty clearly NOT sufficient. This might be one of the VERY rare times I disagree with Mark Levin. The President DOES have a right to act without Congressional authorization but ONLY under very narrow circumstances -- and none of those circumstances are present here. Kaddaffy-fuck might be in need of urgent "attention," but the right to take such action does not reside solely in the hands of President Obama.

I agree that what we are doing is the "right" thing to do. I reccognize however that there are constitutional limitations on what the President can do alone. It's interesting that in the case of the Barbary wars Jefferson had an AUMF in hand. He however did not think it was enough to do what he planned so he went back to congress and got FURTHER authorization.

Here, even if someone were to argue the President has the authority to act outside of the WPR (which this action is), he clearly is limitted by the UN authorization act of 1945. I simply do not see any authority on the part of the President to act without Congressional authorization unless it be to repel invasion, put down an insurection or rebelion, respond to an attack, or prevent an imminent attack. Taken together the Constitution, Bas v Tingy, the WPR, and the UN Authorizing act clearly limit his authority. And, while parts of the WPR are I believe unconstitutional, sec 2 is not.

I agree that what we are doing is the "right" thing to do.

so, whats the half life on the right thing to do?

 

[BenNatuf]

Not only did I see the correction, but I read with real interest your detailed analysis of the President's Constitutional authority as CiC.

As you may recall, I am very real fan of Mark Levin. He takes the position that the President HAS powers, as CiC, that are not dependent on prior Congressional approval. I think that's true as far as it goes. To repel an attack, for instance, it might be necessary for him to act first and then go to Congress. The War Powers Act is a legislative statement along much those very lines.

However, as your analysis suggests, it might be better to think of his Constitutional authority as being QUITE limited outside of Congressional authority.

The current President didn't even engage in serious consultation with Congress before committing our military might to the Libya problem. He unilaterally waged war in deference to what? To JUST the UN decision to act?

Again, that's pretty clearly NOT sufficient. This might be one of the VERY rare times I disagree with Mark Levin. The President DOES have a right to act without Congressional authorization but ONLY under very narrow circumstances -- and none of those circumstances are present here. Kaddaffy-fuck might be in need of urgent "attention," but the right to take such action does not reside solely in the hands of President Obama.

I agree that what we are doing is the "right" thing to do. I reccognize however that there are constitutional limitations on what the President can do alone. It's interesting that in the case of the Barbary wars Jefferson had an AUMF in hand. He however did not think it was enough to do what he planned so he went back to congress and got FURTHER authorization.

Here, even if someone were to argue the President has the authority to act outside of the WPR (which this action is), he clearly is limitted by the UN authorization act of 1945. I simply do not see any authority on the part of the President to act without Congressional authorization unless it be to repel invasion, put down an insurection or rebelion, respond to an attack, or prevent an imminent attack. Taken together the Constitution, Bas v Tingy, the WPR, and the UN Authorizing act clearly limit his authority. And, while parts of the WPR are I believe unconstitutional, sec 2 is not.

I agree that what we are doing is the "right" thing to do.

so, whats the half life on the right thing to do?

ZERO minutes until its also lawful.

 

[BenNatuf]

Obama just said brushing aside our responsibilities as a leader would be a betrayal of who we are.

WTF?

Then how do you explain letting a coalition of foriegn nations control our forces?

I guess it's taking national responsibility while avoiding personal responsibility.

 

[midcan5]

Anything Obama did would be wrong, debating with blind partisans makes no sense. The right flip flops so often today one wonders how their heads stay put. In republican politics since their loss in 08, it is all posturing sans substantive thought. In power they were complete failures, take your pick.

Weigel : Newt Gingrich Completely Changes Position on Libya in 16 Days

"But, that said: I cannot easily imagine what context might reconcile these statements into something that looks like policy rather than political posturing." Speaking of Partisan Games on Matters of War: Gingrich Flip-Flops on Libya

 

[BenNatuf]

Anything Obama did would be wrong, debating with blind partisans makes no sense. The right flip flops so often today one wonders how their heads stay put. In republican politics since their loss in 08, it is all posturing sans substantive thought. In power they were complete failures, take your pick.

Weigel : Newt Gingrich Completely Changes Position on Libya in 16 Days

"But, that said: I cannot easily imagine what context might reconcile these statements into something that looks like policy rather than political posturing." Speaking of Partisan Games on Matters of War: Gingrich Flip-Flops on Libya

You evidently don't know the difference between wrong and lawful.

BTW, why would I give a shit about a leftist blog taking words out of context? Might as well gert your "news" from Jon Stewart.