So, is the left denouncing Obama's "unlawful" war in Libya?

[Uncensored2008]

Witch hunt? You are either misinformed as to what that hase means or very misinformed about the the Iran Contra affair.

Yes, it was a witch hunt. Every conviction was related to the investigation - zero for the actual acts.

Pleaded guilty October 7, 1991, to two misdemeanor charges of withholding information from Congress

And on it goes - the convictions were for not cooperating with Torquemada - er Walsh, not the actual allegations of the affair.

Regardless though, Blind Boo was lying through his ******* teeth when he claimed that "democrats cooperated in avoiding an investigation."

No matter what partisan talking points you toss out, Boo was flat out lying.

 

[washamericom]

biill maher is the unfortunate pondscum.

Why is he unfortunate?

Maher is pond scum who gets paid millions to shit in the face of the American people.

How could pond scum be more lucky than he?

i dunno

 

[noose4]

No? Well then what is the problem with Iraq again? (Not that I am defending Iraq, I thought it was dumb, I think military action in Libya is dumb too). So...where are the left's cries for peace like in 2003?

Fox news may not be reporting it but plenty of left wing types have spoken out about the military action in Libya.

 

[washamericom]

no? Well then what is the problem with iraq again? (not that i am defending iraq, i thought it was dumb, i think military action in libya is dumb too). So...where are the left's cries for peace like in 2003?

fox news may not be reporting it but plenty of left wing types have spoken out about the military action in libya.

kuchinich... I ADMIRE HIS PLUCK.


so there's your bill mare, bottomfeeder at large

Bill Maher uttered a female vulgarism when referring to former Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin on his HBO show Friday night.

“Did you hear this – Sarah Palin finally heard what happened in Japan and she’s demanding that we invade ‘Tsunami,’” Maher said. “I mean she said, ‘These ‘Tsunamians’ will not get away with this.’ Oh speaking of dumb twats, did you...”

Maher was offering an imagined Palin response in an apparent attempt at humor, as Palin had made no such statement.

The National Organization for Women (NOW) refused to comment on Maher’s use of the derogatory term. A rep told FOXNews.com it is a “known fact” that NOW does not correspond with FOX News.

Other women's groups and publications did not have such po

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...lin-female-vulgarism-stays-mum/#ixzz1HLHGZNQW


only in america.

 

[LilOlLady]

Obama has not unilaterally declared war on Libya. He has approval from the UN backed by 128 nations and led by France and Britian. War has not been declared. I believe presidents can deploy troops without Congressional approval. This is not a Obama decision but a UN decision.
Impeach Obama for declaring an illegal war? Bah hum bug.
There is a difference between our involvement in Libya and our involvement in Iraq and Afhanistan. Use your brain.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Fox news may not be reporting it but plenty of left wing types have spoken out about the military action in Libya.

Then you should have no problem citing the party news services demonstrating this....

 

[Vanquish]

I'm a centrist (not a liberal per se) but I voted for BO based on his promises to get us out of wars like this. He's failing miserably.

 

[noose4]

Fox news may not be reporting it but plenty of left wing types have spoken out about the military action in Libya.

Then you should have no problem citing the party news services demonstrating this....

The party news service?

well here is a source showing such leftist opposition:

Kucinich Warns Obama on Libya War | The Nation

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Yea even their BOOOOOOOSH Boogeyman went to Congress. This should have been presented to our Congress for debate & authorization. I don't care if it's a UN Mandate or not. That's besides the point in my opinion. Why are we bombing & killing Libyans? Why are we involved with their Civil War? It just doesn't make any sense.

Neither one of Bush's wars (I support the war in Afghanistan 100% for the record), were DECLARED wars-as written in the constitution.

Just because Bush went to congress, doesn't mean congress declared war (they haven't since WW2). Now we've obviously been to war since WW2-but we've never declared it.

If someone's logic is Obama is disregarding the constitution because congress hasn't declared war yet-therefore Libya is constitutional-that's fine. But that means every single military assualt/war since WW2 has been unconstitutional.

I do agree with you we have absolutely no business in Libya.

And to be fair "da booooosh" as you like to throw around-had a VERY different view on foreign policy than Ron Paul does. You can't brush all Democrats, or Republicans with a broad brush when it comes to foreign policy/wars.

I never claimed War was declared. In fact if they had gone that route,we likely wouldn't be in the messes we're currently in. The process of declaring War is the lawful and right way to go. These Foreign Interventions are completely out of control. My point was that DA BOOOOOOSH did go to Congress for authorization on both Afghanistan and Iraq. I would have liked this President to have gone the same route on this Intervention. It's always wise to go to Congress for debate and authorization. But Declaring War is actually the right way to go if you still believe in our Constitution.

I Agree declaring war is the right way to go in the constitution.

But you said "My point was that DA BOOOOOOSH did go to Congress for authorization on both Afghanistan and Iraq. I would have liked this President to have gone the same route on this Intervention.".

This obviously is not the same as declaring war-which you stated was the right thing to do (and I agree). You can't it both ways. You can't say declaring war is the right way to go constitutionally-then say Obama should have done what Bush did-and that's get authorization from Congress.

That constitution mentions nothing about the president needing authorization from Congress to start a war. Nothing. It simply states that congress has the power "to declare war", Article 1 Section 8.

If you want to go strictly by the constitution what Bush did was also unconstitutional. There's no getting around that. Period.

 

[washamericom]

Neither one of Bush's wars (I support the war in Afghanistan 100% for the record), were DECLARED wars-as written in the constitution.

Just because Bush went to congress, doesn't mean congress declared war (they haven't since WW2). Now we've obviously been to war since WW2-but we've never declared it.

If someone's logic is Obama is disregarding the constitution because congress hasn't declared war yet-therefore Libya is constitutional-that's fine. But that means every single military assualt/war since WW2 has been unconstitutional.

I do agree with you we have absolutely no business in Libya.

And to be fair "da booooosh" as you like to throw around-had a VERY different view on foreign policy than Ron Paul does. You can't brush all Democrats, or Republicans with a broad brush when it comes to foreign policy/wars.

I never claimed War was declared. In fact if they had gone that route,we likely wouldn't be in the messes we're currently in. The process of declaring War is the lawful and right way to go. These Foreign Interventions are completely out of control. My point was that DA BOOOOOOSH did go to Congress for authorization on both Afghanistan and Iraq. I would have liked this President to have gone the same route on this Intervention. It's always wise to go to Congress for debate and authorization. But Declaring War is actually the right way to go if you still believe in our Constitution.

I Agree declaring war is the right way to go in the constitution.

But you said "My point was that DA BOOOOOOSH did go to Congress for authorization on both Afghanistan and Iraq. I would have liked this President to have gone the same route on this Intervention.".

This obviously is not the same as declaring war-which you stated was the right thing to do (and I agree). You can't it both ways. You can't say declaring war is the right way to go constitutionally-then say Obama should have done what Bush did-and that's get authorization from Congress.

That constitution mentions nothing about the president needing authorization from Congress to start a war. Nothing. It simply states that congress has the power "to declare war", Article 1 Section 8.

If you want to go strictly by the constitution what Bush did was also unconstitutional. There's no getting around that. Period.

can't be true

 

[Meister]

Letting a dictator kill his people at his insane whim is not going to be good for anyone in the world.
If Gadafi is allowed to bomb his own people until only his cronies are left what do you think that says to the rest of the countries on the brink of revolution for democracy?

You people just hate anything this president does no matter what it is.

This is a UN action and not a declared war.

What was Saddam & Sons Co. doing to the people in Iraq? Oh yeah, gassing Kurds and raping the children, I now see the difference your talking about.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm a centrist (not a liberal per se) but I voted for BO based on his promises to get us out of wars like this. He's failing miserably.

Failing miserably is the ONLY thing Obama is truly competent at.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The party news service?

Yes, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times - you know, the propaganda wing of the DNC.

Kucinich Warns Obama on Libya War | The Nation

Kucinich is a bit of a nut, but the man does have principles.

Anyone else? You said "many," so who else does party news list?

 

[Care4all]

I never claimed War was declared. In fact if they had gone that route,we likely wouldn't be in the messes we're currently in. The process of declaring War is the lawful and right way to go. These Foreign Interventions are completely out of control. My point was that DA BOOOOOOSH did go to Congress for authorization on both Afghanistan and Iraq. I would have liked this President to have gone the same route on this Intervention. It's always wise to go to Congress for debate and authorization. But Declaring War is actually the right way to go if you still believe in our Constitution.

I Agree declaring war is the right way to go in the constitution.

But you said "My point was that DA BOOOOOOSH did go to Congress for authorization on both Afghanistan and Iraq. I would have liked this President to have gone the same route on this Intervention.".

This obviously is not the same as declaring war-which you stated was the right thing to do (and I agree). You can't it both ways. You can't say declaring war is the right way to go constitutionally-then say Obama should have done what Bush did-and that's get authorization from Congress.

That constitution mentions nothing about the president needing authorization from Congress to start a war. Nothing. It simply states that congress has the power "to declare war", Article 1 Section 8.

If you want to go strictly by the constitution what Bush did was also unconstitutional. There's no getting around that. Period.

can't be true

it is true, if we followed the constitution, it would take 2/3's of BOTH houses of congress to vote yes, in order to constitutionally declare war.

President Bush did not do this, Clinton did not do this, Bush 1 did not do this, Obama did not do this etc etc etc....

a resolution vote is no more a declaration of war than any other war since world war 2...IF YOU WANT TO FOLLOW our constitution.

 

[Avatar4321]

I Agree declaring war is the right way to go in the constitution.

But you said "My point was that DA BOOOOOOSH did go to Congress for authorization on both Afghanistan and Iraq. I would have liked this President to have gone the same route on this Intervention.".

This obviously is not the same as declaring war-which you stated was the right thing to do (and I agree). You can't it both ways. You can't say declaring war is the right way to go constitutionally-then say Obama should have done what Bush did-and that's get authorization from Congress.

That constitution mentions nothing about the president needing authorization from Congress to start a war. Nothing. It simply states that congress has the power "to declare war", Article 1 Section 8.

If you want to go strictly by the constitution what Bush did was also unconstitutional. There's no getting around that. Period.

can't be true

it is true, if we followed the constitution, it would take 2/3's of BOTH houses of congress to vote yes, in order to constitutionally declare war.

President Bush did not do this, Clinton did not do this, Bush 1 did not do this, Obama did not do this etc etc etc....

a resolution vote is no more a declaration of war than any other war since world war 2...IF YOU WANT TO FOLLOW our constitution.

There is nothing in the Constitution requiring 2/3s of both houses to vote yes.

In fact, the Constition says that Congress has the right to declare war. It doesn't specify how Congress must do that. I would argue that any authorization by Congress to use for would qualify as Constitutional.

 

[noose4]

The party news service?

Yes, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times - you know, the propaganda wing of the DNC.

Kucinich Warns Obama on Libya War | The Nation

Kucinich is a bit of a nut, but the man does have principles.

Anyone else? You said "many," so who else does party news list?

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_h...-speak-out-against-obama-bombing-libya-video/

http://topics.npr.org/article/0dVMc7Zcdt71q?q=Iraq


Oh I see party news service was right wing nut speak.

 

[Vanquish]

Some people in this thread need to bone up on the War Powers Act.

 

[Uncensored2008]

it is true, if we followed the constitution, it would take 2/3's of BOTH houses of congress to vote yes, in order to constitutionally declare war.

What was the percentage of each house who voted in favor of the authorization to use military force?

Did it exceed two-thirds?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh I see party news service was right wing nut speak.

So anything that is entirely accurate is "right wing nut speak?"

Yeah, I guess that would be the case...

 

[BlindBoo]

"In marked contrast to the continuing Republican investigations of President Clinton, the Democrats eight years ago cooperated with Republicans in shutting down substantive inquiries that implicated President George H.W. Bush in a variety of geopolitical scandals

What a steaming pile of shit. Goddamn but you progressives are some ******* liars.

The leftists spent $65 million on a witch-hunt with the Iran/Contra bullshit.

"Cooperated" my ass.

I guess you're going for the "big lie" technique there.

Walsh Iran / Contra Report

Big lie my ass. The Democrats once again held up the rug for the Republicans to sweep their dirt under. What did they get in return? Stabbed in the back as usual, never trust a psuedo-conservative, they'll stab you in the back as soon as the possibly can.

Witchhunt?

Selling missiles to the terrorist in Iran in hopes that they would help in the release of hostages taken in Lebannon? Turn the profits over to the Contra's. Allowing the Contras to import tonnes of Cocaine into this country to finance their terrorist activities? No criminal activity there. Move along public......

Clinton shut it down before President Bushes role became public.