So NATO's Taking over Barry's Unconsitutional War in Libya...

mal

Diamond Member
Mar 16, 2009
42,723
5,549
1,850
Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde™
...And this 2nd Unconstitutional Act, our Majority Force, who is in Libya without Benefit of Congressional Approvla, Fighting under NATO, is somehow supposed to Cleanse Barry of Responsibility for Burning a $100,000,000 a Day doing what he Campaigned Directly AGAINST doing?...

"...I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."
~ Barry Hussein Obama Circa 2002.

"The president does not have the 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... History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch." ~ Barry Hussein Obama Circa 2007.

Any Liberal who Excuses this or Agrees with what Barry is doing in this 3rd War of HIS Choosing and with which he started WITHOUT Congressional Approval, and who Attacked (43) for FAR Less, must have a hard time looking at themselves in the Mirror in the Mornings...

If they were Honest People... And they are Obviously Not... :thup:

That is all.

:)

peace...
 
Just another big Hoax. "Protecting the Civilians,Gaddafi was going to Destabilize the Region,and this is definitely not about their Oil." All lies. How can people be so gullible? I guess some people will believe anything if they want to believe it badly enough. It's very sad.
 
Just another big Hoax. "Protecting the Civilians,Gaddafi was going to Destabilize the Region,and this is definitely not about their Oil." All lies. How can people be so gullible? I guess some people will believe anything if they want to believe it badly enough. It's very sad.

I am just wondering when we are going to start protecting the civilians in Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe?:confused:
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: mal
Not that I'm opining about Action in Libya, but until the War Powers Act is declared unconstituational, then Libya's not unconstitutional. Unless that's done, these are just words.
 
Just another big Hoax. "Protecting the Civilians,Gaddafi was going to Destabilize the Region,and this is definitely not about their Oil." All lies. How can people be so gullible? I guess some people will believe anything if they want to believe it badly enough. It's very sad.

I am just wondering when we are going to start protecting the civilians in Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe?:confused:

What about Darfur and Bahrain?
 
Just another big Hoax. "Protecting the Civilians,Gaddafi was going to Destabilize the Region,and this is definitely not about their Oil." All lies. How can people be so gullible? I guess some people will believe anything if they want to believe it badly enough. It's very sad.

I am just wondering when we are going to start protecting the civilians in Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe?:confused:

What about Darfur and Bahrain?

Yeah those too, we need to get a move on if wer gonna help all the oppressed people in the world.:cool:
 
I am just wondering when we are going to start protecting the civilians in Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe?:confused:

What about Darfur and Bahrain?

Yeah those too, we need to get a move on if wer gonna help all the oppressed people in the world.:cool:

It's all good as long as we're not helping oppressed Iraqi's and a Republican isn't in office and a black guy is President and we have a Democrat Senate and we're tight with Chavez and we have $4 gasoline and......
 
What about Darfur and Bahrain?

Yeah those too, we need to get a move on if wer gonna help all the oppressed people in the world.:cool:

It's all good as long as we're not helping oppressed Iraqi's and a Republican isn't in office and a black guy is President and we have a Democrat Senate and we're tight with Chavez and we have $4 gasoline and......

Wer behind schedule, the people in Zimbabwe and the Ivory Coast are waiting patiently for their cruise missiles, fighter jets and CIA Agents.:cool:
 
Just another big Hoax. "Protecting the Civilians,Gaddafi was going to Destabilize the Region,and this is definitely not about their Oil." All lies. How can people be so gullible? I guess some people will believe anything if they want to believe it badly enough. It's very sad.

I am just wondering when we are going to start protecting the civilians in Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe?:confused:

A Black Man Ignoring his People in Favor of Arabs...

Well, Truth be Told, he's only Quarterfrican... He is also a Quarter Arab.

:)

peace...
 
Hmmm, NATO taking over? Can't quite be so:

Obama's Secret Support of Libyan Rebels Just Got Very Public - Global - The Atlantic Wire

Obama's Secret Support of Libyan Rebels Just Got Very Public
By Ray Gustini Mar 30, 2011

Reuters is reporting that President Obama has already signed off on a presidential "finding"--i.e. an order--authorizing covert U.S. support for Libyan rebels. The order, which Reuters says was given "within the last two to three weeks" is described by the news service as the "principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency" and is typically "crafted to provide broad authorization for a range of potential U.S. government actions to support a particular covert objective."

Developing.

Update 2: National Journal's Yochi Dreazen reports "more than a dozen" CIA operatives have already been deployed to Libya. Their job will reportedly be to "vet the rebels working to oust Libyan strongman Muammar el-Qaddafi and lay the groundwork for potentially funneling American aid to the insurgents."

...

and NATO:

NATO Rules Out Arming Rebels - WSJ.com

NATO Rules Out Arming Rebels
NATO Assumes Control of All Air Operations Over Libya; Rebels Retreat

By DAN MICHAELS and CHARLES DUXBURY

WSJ Middle East Bureau Chief Bill Spindle explains how Libyan rebels are receiving assistance from CIA operatives. Also, Libya's foreign minister abruptly resigned and flew to England.

BRUSSELS—Officials at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which early Thursday assumed control of allied operations to enforce the United Nations mandate in Libya, said they aren't considering arming Libyan rebels.

Simmering debate in Washington and Europe about whether to arm rebel groups and intensified amid the opposition's recent retreat from territory they had gained under the umbrella of coalition airstrikes.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters in Stockholm that he has taken note of the "ongoing discussion in a number of countries" about arming the rebels but "as far as NATO is concerned...we will focus on the enforcement of the arms embargo," which he said applies "across the board to all sides in this conflict."

WSJ's Paul Sonne reports from London on allied leaders moving toward the goal of removing Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and democratizing the Northern Africa country. Also, a report on Syrian president al-Assad addressing the public to quell protests.

...

And back on the US ranch:

Arm the rebels? The debate rages – Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs

...

Max Boot adopts a more aggressive stance, saying the U.S. end goal ought to be removing Gadhafi from power, and arming the rebels is a vital step in that direction.

“Given that we already have Western agents on the ground helping them [the rebels], and that Western aircraft are actively bombing Gadhafi’s forces to bring about his defeat, it seems disingenuous to claim we are not involved in regime change. The only question now is whether that regime change will be swift or protracted. I believe it is in our interest to do everything possible to bring about Gadhafi’s downfall as rapidly as possible–and then to help Libya stabilize itself in the aftermath.

The lesson Max draws from Afghanistan in the 1980s is:

“If the U.S. is involved in toppling a regime, whether directly or indirectly, we must not walk away afterwards. Otherwise our aid can backfire.”

Now according to Reuters and the New York Times, President Obama has signed a secret finding authorizing the C.I.A. to provide arms and other support to the Libyan rebels, although reportedly debate continues within the administration on whether to actually follow through on arming the rebels:

“Several weeks ago, President Obama signed a secret finding authorizing the C.I.A. to provide arms and other support to Libyan rebels, American officials said Wednesday. But weapons have not yet been shipped into Libya, as Obama administration officials debate the effects of giving them to the rebel groups. The presidential finding was first reported by Reuters.”

Blogger Andrew Sullivan is outraged that President Obama may get the U.S. involved in regime change in secret:

...
 
Not that I'm opining about Action in Libya, but until the War Powers Act is declared unconstituational, then Libya's not unconstitutional. Unless that's done, these are just words.

Irrelevant... This is Directed at those on the Left who Screamed "UnConstitutional" about what (43) did...

(43) got Congressional Approval... And then waited for 5 Months...

End of Fucking List.

OBAMA called THAT UnConstitutional.

:)

peace...
 
Not that I'm opining about Action in Libya, but until the War Powers Act is declared unconstituational, then Libya's not unconstitutional. Unless that's done, these are just words.

Repealing the War Powers act wouldn't make it unconstitutional - it would simply remove the requirement that the president consult congress within 60 days of military action.

Before the War Powers act, Presidents could start and continue military engagements unilaterally without regard to congress. The War Powers act was an attempt to put some limits on that ability.

And obviously, there is nothing at all unconstitutional about our current actions in Libya. That's just a grossly uneducated rightwing talking point.
 
Not that I'm opining about Action in Libya, but until the War Powers Act is declared unconstituational, then Libya's not unconstitutional. Unless that's done, these are just words.

Repealing the War Powers act wouldn't make it unconstitutional - it would simply remove the requirement that the president consult congress within 60 days of military action.

Before the War Powers act, Presidents could start and continue military engagements unilaterally without regard to congress. The War Powers act was an attempt to put some limits on that ability.

And obviously, there is nothing at all unconstitutional about our current actions in Libya. That's just a grossly uneducated rightwing talking point.

It's EXACTLY what the Left was say about Iraq... And some about Afghanistan...

Stop being Dishonest.

At least (43) got Congressional Approval...

And my Money says that YOU were one of the Loudest Crybabies about Iraq.

:)

peace...
 
One of those "but but but but he did it too!" kind of kids.
 
Not that I'm opining about Action in Libya, but until the War Powers Act is declared unconstituational, then Libya's not unconstitutional. Unless that's done, these are just words.

Irrelevant... This is Directed at those on the Left who Screamed "UnConstitutional" about what (43) did...

(43) got Congressional Approval... And then waited for 5 Months...

End of Fucking List.

OBAMA called THAT UnConstitutional.

:)

peace...

During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"

Mal, you aren't really naive enough to hold a politician responsible for what they said before they get in office and are faced with reality are you?
 
So NATO's Taking over Barry's Unconsitutional War in Libya...
.....Just like he'd promised.

Can this dude do ANYTHING wrong??!!!!

:clap2::clap2::clap2:

:woohoo:

*****

(Sorry, Daddy. Ain't gonna HAPPEN!!)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWJHCRVs4AY]YouTube - Bush Sr. cries while talking about son[/ame]​
 

Forum List

Back
Top