Now, that's Bipartisan!

[JackLuis]

Libya has cause the parties to agree.

Obama didn't ask, "Congress May I?"

Ron Paul: Libya no-fly zone ‘unconstitutional’

Kucinich: Obama could be impeached for attacking Libya

"Come Together, right now" to quote the Beatles.

Could this be the end of the Obama presidency? Will we see President Biden, recall the troops?

 

[JackLuis]

A more expansive description.

Obama's Libya Policy Makes Strange Bedfellows Of Congressional Critics

UPDATE: Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) had been circulating a resolution "[e]xpressing the sense of Congress that the President is required to obtain in advance specific statutory authorization for the use of United States Armed Forces in response to civil unrest in Libya." The measure was supported by Reps. Michael Honda (D-Calif.) and John Conyers (D-Mich.), among others.

"In launching over 100 missiles on Libya this weekend, not only did the Defense Department undermine a carefully constructed consensus, which included the Arab League, but it leveled a devastating blow to our legislative-executive checks and balances," read a statement by Honda, who is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus’s Peace and Security Taskforce. "For the Pentagon to deliberately circumvent Congressional authority sets a new precedent for war powers authorization and sends the message to the world that American democracy is deeply dysfunctional. Secondly, for the Pentagon to pick its battles based on energy security considerations, which is particularly apparent given Libya’s 7th-ranked oil reserves, sends the message that America cares little about the human rights and freedoms of people in countries, like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Western Sudan, or Ivory Coast, without critical energy resources. Thirdly, for the Pentagon to pursue past precedent in employing a shock-and-awe-type invasion, indicates a deliberate disdain for the myriad of smaller pursuable efforts that are possible before pummeling a country with an air assault. I demand a serious conversation in Congress before new countries are incautiously invaded and before America’s legislative branch is eviscerated further."

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Libya has cause the parties to agree.

Obama didn't ask, "Congress May I?"






"Come Together, right now" to quote the Beatles.

Could this be the end of the Obama presidency? Will we see President Biden, recall the troops?

It is not and you won't. Gaddafi is too unpopular to unseat even this unpopular president, especially when the hue and cry is being sounded by the nut-case wings of each party. However, you would think that Obama would have at least briefed Congressional leaders before following the European lead so enthusiastically.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

"Walk like a European."

"Walk like a You're a peein'"

 

[JackLuis]

Guess what?

Libya was the first Air Strike!

100 Years of Air Strikes

The world’s first aerial bombing mission took place 100 years ago, over Libya. It was an attack on Turkish positions in Tripoli. On 1 November 1911, Lieutenant Cavotti of the Italian Air Fleet dropped four two-kilogramme bombs, by hand, over the side of his aeroplane. In the days that followed, several more attacks took place on nearby Arab bases. Some of them, inaugurating a pattern all too familiar in the century since then, fell on a field hospital, at Ain Zara, provoking heated argument in the international press about the ethics of dropping bombs from the air, and what is now known as ‘collateral damage’. (In those days it was called ‘frightfulness’.) The Italians, however, were much cheered by the ‘wonderful moral effect’ of bombing, its capacity to demoralise and panic those on the receiving end.

Nice to see it's traditional.

 

[Handley_Page]

I get the impression that some of these Congressional folks are blind to the world outside their country. Who is this arrogant Mr Paul (R-Tx)?.
The US supported the actions of other countries following the UN mandate (it does not require the approval of the US Congress to do something).

 

[sr71plt]

I get the impression that some of these Congressional folks are blind to the world outside their country. Who is this arrogant Mr Paul (R-Tx)?.
The US supported the actions of other countries following the UN mandate (it does not require the approval of the US Congress to do something).

Eh what? The U.S. administration took military action. Tripoli was bombarded from U.S. ships (using Tomahock cruise missiles), followed up by airstrikes by both U.S. fighters and bombers.

 

[Handley_Page]

Eh what? The U.S. administration took military action.

Ah, a problem with words, I fear.
The US, I am told, launched a few missiles in support of the aircraft flying about.
That's what I mean by "support".
Not an active role in aggression, ie., not one of the flying airplanes.

Does 'support' also require Congressional approval ?
Especially in the light of the international desire to get on with it.

 

[sr71plt]

Ah, a problem with words, I fear.
The US, I am told, launched a few missiles in support of the aircraft flying about.
That's what I mean by "support".
Not an active role in aggression, ie., not one of the flying airplanes.

Does 'support' also require Congressional approval ?
Especially in the light of the international desire to get on with it.

Sorry, that deserves a second "eh what?"

 

[sr71plt]

You folks do realize, don't you, that international law does not supersede U.S. law for what anyone in the United States does? The United States is a sovereign nation. References to the UN mandate on Libya are meaningless for the United States in any sense that they contravene U.S. law--or that U.S. law isn't fully satisfied in cooperating with the mandate.

 

[JackLuis]

I get the impression that some of these Congressional folks are blind to the world outside their country. Who is this arrogant Mr Paul (R-Tx)?.
The US supported the actions of other countries following the UN mandate (it does not require the approval of the US Congress to do something).

Mr. Paul is a member who thinks that the Constitution needs to at least be observed. Only Congress can declare WAR! Even if it's 'just Tomahawks at dawn.' The President executes the law, and needs the advise and consent of Congress.

What the UN does is... Well not much.

Why can't Obama just let the French lead? Why wasn't it 112 French % English Tomahawks, Why does America care, we get nothing from Libya.

Sure Qadaddfy is a PITA, and needs his butt kicked, but the French were primed and ready, why did we have to ignore our law just so our pilots could get some stick time and promotion points?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

 

[Handley_Page]

Mr. Paul is a member who thinks that the Constitution needs to at least be observed. Only Congress can declare WAR! Even if it's 'just Tomahawks at dawn.' The President executes the law, and needs the advise and consent of Congress.

What the UN does is... Well not much.

Why can't Obama just let the French lead? Why wasn't it 112 French % English Tomahawks, Why does America care, we get nothing from Libya.

Sure Qadaddfy is a PITA, and needs his butt kicked, but the French were primed and ready, why did we have to ignore our law just so out pilots could get some stick time and promotion points?

Thank you for putting me right on the constitutional matter.

Several (-dozen) of the Tomahawks were fired from British vessels.

And, as far as I know, America does get something from Libya, if indirectly: Oil.

 

[JustaSCOUNDREL]

I get the impression that some of these Congressional folks are blind to the world outside their country. Who is this arrogant Mr Paul (R-Tx)?.
The US supported the actions of other countries following the UN mandate (it does not require the approval of the US Congress to do something).

To the best of my knowledge Congress has approved every single military operation by the U.S. right up until Libya.

Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Gulf I & II. Although after Gulf II some libs said they thought Bush was just kidding.

Yes, SR 71 PLT is correct. No matter what the UN says or even how the U.S. votes on the matter U.S. law and Constitution cannot be ignored.

 

[JackLuis]

Maybe he didn't ask because he didn't think they would agree?

Kinda like not asking your wife if you can screw the MILF'y neighbor lady.

If you're going to catch hell, you might as well get laid first.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The question I always ask myself is: WHAT HAS TO BE TRUE FOR THIS TO MAKE SENSE. And the truth is usually the outcome you get. That is, if things explode in your face its good evidence youre a dunce; if the price of oil increases the increase is the meaning of what you did...regardless of your intent.

If Gaddafi eats Obama's lunch this is how it'll be remembered; just like Carter's Iran Fiasco.

Lincoln said it best. When asked about how he coped with war critics, Lincoln said, IF THE END COMES OUT RIGHT WHAT THE CRITICS SAY WONT MATTER, IF THE END COMES OUT WRONG GOD AND ALL HIS ANGELS CANT SAVE ME.

So Obama rolled the dice.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

To the best of my knowledge Congress has approved every single military operation by the U.S. right up until Libya.

Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Gulf I & II. Although after Gulf II some libs said they thought Bush was just kidding.

Yes, SR 71 PLT is correct. No matter what the UN says or even how the U.S. votes on the matter U.S. law and Constitution cannot be ignored.

But, it can be, by treaty.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Maybe he didn't ask because he didn't think they would agree?

Kinda like not asking your wife if you can screw the MILF'y neighbor lady.

If you're going to catch hell, you might as well get laid first.

Ah...Rule #27 - It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission.

 

[oggbashan]

UK Parliament endorses action in Libya

Quote from Yahoo News:

MPs have overwhelmingly supported the country's involvement in the military operation to enforce a UN sanctioned no-fly zone over Libya despite confusion over the mission's scope.

Politicians on Monday night voted 557 to 13 in favour of the action as British Typhoon fighter jets took part in their first ever combat mission, assisting coalition forces in patrolling the no-fly zone.

Prime Minister David Cameron had the support of his Conservative party and their Liberal Democrat coalition partners for military action, as well as the opposition Labour party.

The vote doesn't necessarily mean that we know what we are doing...

Og

 

[sr71plt]

But, it can be, by treaty.

What can be by treaty? Congress has to approve treaties the United States enters into too.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

What can be by treaty? Congress has to approve treaties the United States enters into too.

That is true, but once a treaty is entered into and approved by congress the constitution takes a back seat to that treaty.

 

[sr71plt]

That is true, but once a treaty is entered into and approved by congress the constitution takes a back seat to that treaty.

Only as long as the action stays within the scope of the treaty and as long as the Senate doesn't take it up again and vote it down.

I have no idea what you are getting at here (or think you are).

 

[JackLuis]

The question I always ask myself is: WHAT HAS TO BE TRUE FOR THIS TO MAKE SENSE. And the truth is usually the outcome you get. That is, if things explode in your face its good evidence youre a dunce; if the price of oil increases the increase is the meaning of what you did...regardless of your intent.

If Gaddafi eats Obama's lunch this is how it'll be remembered; just like Carter's Iran Fiasco.

Lincoln said it best. When asked about how he coped with war critics, Lincoln said, IF THE END COMES OUT RIGHT WHAT THE CRITICS SAY WONT MATTER, IF THE END COMES OUT WRONG GOD AND ALL HIS ANGELS CANT SAVE ME.

So Obama rolled the dice.

I think that Obama simply forgot that he needed the consent of Congress before he launches an attack on anyone, except for defensive reaction to an attack on American interests. It is easy to do, in this era of imperial presidents, who have exercised the might of the American Military.

Maybe we can put together a list of "Berry's Bloopers", this would be high on that list.

 

[sr71plt]

I think Jack is right on this. The Obama administration continues to be pretty wet behind the ears on proper procedure--which isn't always as it appears. An old congressional hand like Lyndon Johnson could have tapped the right people and gotten permissions in about twenty minutes. The Obama people probably don't even know who the "right" people are--still after nearly three years.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Only as long as the action stays within the scope of the treaty and as long as the Senate doesn't take it up again and vote it down.

I have no idea what you are getting at here (or think you are).

It's so simple I'm not surprised you don't have a clue. Your complex non-thought process just can't comprehend simple truths.

The Constitution is the law of the land in the USA, except when the USA enters into a treaty. If that treaty conflicts with the Constitution, the treaty wins there by bypassing the law of the land.

Simple enough for you lunkhead?