obama/libya
 

i do not agree with this at all.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110615/...us/us_us_libya

White House defends legality of Libya mission

WASHINGTON – Pushing back against congressional criticism, the White House said Wednesday that President Barack Obama has the authority to continue U.S. military action in Libya even without authorization from lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

In a detailed, 30-page report being sent to Congress, the administration will argue that the U.S. has a limited, support role in the NATO-led bombing campaign in Libya. Because U.S. forces are not engaged in sustained fighting and there are no troops on the ground there, the White House will say the president is within his constitutional rights to direct the mission on his own.
The administration's defense of the Libya mission comes in response to a non-binding House resolution passed earlier this month that chastised Obama for failing to provide a "compelling rationale" for U.S. involvement in Libya.




the hell with not giving compelling rationale to congress, he hasn't given that to anyone! certainly not to those who will be stuck with the bill.

It was a terrible decision. There's no moral reason to be in Libya and not be in Syria. Either we intervene to prevent dictators from killing their own people or we don't. Assad is just as bad as Gadhafi in that regard.

I agree!

If we get involved in Syria, then we must in Yemen and a couple other Arab countries...becomes instantly messy. I want to see these peoples become free but our involvement militarily isn't the answer. We should drop out of Libya and avoid involvement in the others. Time to totally withdraw from Iraq too.

i have yet to see a single compelling reason to be there. no explanation, no talk about it-the president has been completely silent on this issue. i think he has overstepped his bounds on this. even if he had a valid reason, which you'd have to think he doesn't, or he'd have mentioned it by now-there are rules even he is supposed to follow. the reasoning that we aren't involved enough to call it a military action is disingenuous at best.

He sure is living up to his promise to bring our soldiers home:rolleyes:

Don't tap the glass. Obama just jumped the shark. :tro:

To try and justify US troops fighting under the NATO banner instead of the American Flag as though it were somehow superior and thus legal, the day after flag day??? :$::$:

Ditto. I'll have to go back and find it, but I swear he promised that he'd have an explanation to Congress within 30-40 days of when he first announced we'd join NATO in this venture. He's alot like Bush in the regard - he hasn't renounced the Cheney view of the office of the President.

He brought them out of Iraq, done by the end of next month. No fair credit for that from you?

Syria is at more of a crisis point than Yemen, but yeah.

or not

"Around 47,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq are due to leave by the end of 2011 under a security pact, and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Shi'ite-led coalition government is debating the sensitive question of whether to ask Washington to keep some of them in place.
U.S. officials and senior Iraqi military commanders have said they believe some kind of continuing U.S. military presence is necessary to ensure Iraq's security and defense needs, especially in an advisory and training role."


but i guess that's not enough of a role to call keeping people in-country, based on his laughable take on libya.

and promises don't mean squat...you can't believe or trust a pol...more words from obama, from 2007(thanks to politifact):


In the wake of U.S. participation in military operations against targets in Libya, commentators on the left and the right have raised questions about whether President Barack Obama had the required authority to launch operations without specific authorization from Congress.

A reader pointed out to us that Obama himself had made a notable comment during a 2007 interview with Charlie Savage, then a journalist with the Boston Globe.

Savage asked Obama, "In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)"

While the specific context of Savage’s question concerned Iranian nuclear plants, we think Obama’s answer raised some points that are relevant for assessing the justification for the Libyan operation three years later.

Obama said, "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."
He added, "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. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."


he forgot to say unless and until he was president and wanted to bomb libya. after all, qaddafi is such an easy target...hey, we're spending too much on two wars, let's get in a third!!! brilliant!

We still have people "in-country" in Japan, Germany ...

Kucinich had the Libya War Powers Resolution Act on the floor of Congress a couple weeks ago, and the Republicans - Speaker John Boehner - pulled it from a vote due to fear it would pass, and we'd then have to get out of Libya within 15 days.

So it's not just the President that's fine with Libya at this point. The Republican House leadership had the chance to force us to get out of Libya 15 days after the resolution passed, and they did not allow it to pass.

but didn't you just say he was getting them all out? well, if some are staying, i find that odd-but don't make the claim that they're all going to be out next month, when that's clearly not the case.


as for congress, they want answers and they want reasons-i thought they didn't pass the stiffer resolution because the president said he was going to be forthcoming? so much for that. they did what they did to give him time to answer-but that time is running out, which explains the letter-and now the white houses response. the president had his window of opportunity to do this the right way. one would have to think their would be a damned good reason for being there-congress gave him benefit of the doubt and time to give that reason, but their patience is wearing thin, and with good reason. the executive has it's privileges, which congress recognized.
i completely disagree with the president on this matter.

:zz: Yeah, the fighting troops will be all out, and all that will be left is some advisors. Sounds pretty good to me, considering it was a complete waste of lives in the first place.

:zz: No, they didn't want to force us out of Libya in 15 days.

Yeah, Boehner created that letter instead as a panacea to those mad he pulled the War Resolution (allows them to play both sides of the story). But Boehner's letter doesn't have any power to compel the President to even answer it.

I agree with you, I don't like the President's answer on Libya.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...i-war-bill.php

http://www.truthout.org/long-last-ho...ers/1307202537

Meanwhile in Iran and across the muslim mideast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k1gu...layer_embedded

The silence and lack of action by the UN is disgusting and proves how inept and worthless they really are...

I will when they are all out because to me 47K is a signficant number. The number should be 0. Reducing troops does not quailify as getting them out of Iraq. Reducing and taking credit for "Getting our troops out of Iraq" is political semantics.

Not exactly news...the UN will never be an effective voice for freedom as long as totalitarian governments have veto powers. The terrible events in Iran and other countries can only be addressed by the US and we simply can't be everywhere...we have a choice, become the world's police force or accept that these atrocities will continue...no good choices!

Agreed but we certainly don't need to aid them or for that matter have a President giving speeches expounding their great achievements (mostly lies).

and the fact it's "not exactly news" is extemely selfish and sad. But I guess as long as they have oil the fact they are horrible abusers of women will stay in the closet.