Author Topic: Obama's illegal war (Read 67612 times)

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #725 on:** June 15, 2011, 02:23:27 PM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html

Libs in total meltdown.

Fury · « **Reply #726 on:** June 15, 2011, 06:41:55 PM »

So the latest report shows that the "pro-Democracy" crowd is the minority among these jihadist rebels and, to top it off, Obama claims that he's above any law and can do what he wants.

Andrethescumbag, care to defend this?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #727 on:** June 15, 2011, 07:18:17 PM »

I really think this is going to turn in to a constitutional crisis unless bama complies soon w the war powers act.

Fury · « **Reply #728 on:** June 15, 2011, 07:29:14 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on June 15, 2011, 07:18:17 PM

I really think this is going to turn in to a constitutional crisis unless bama complies soon w the war powers act.

I hope he keeps trucking down this path. Talk about ammo for the GOP.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #729 on:** June 15, 2011, 07:32:32 PM »

Quote from: BerzerkFury on June 15, 2011, 07:29:14 PM

I hope he keeps trucking down this path. Talk about ammo for the GOP.
[/quote

DK sued him today.

Fury · « **Reply #730 on:** June 15, 2011, 07:38:04 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on June 15, 2011, 07:32:32 PM

Quote from: BerzerkFury on June 15, 2011, 07:29:14 PM
I hope he keeps trucking down this path. Talk about ammo for the GOP.
[/quote

DK sued him today.

Hahahaha. The Dems are cannibalizing themselves. A bunch of them stormed out of a party meeting about Weiner earlier today, too.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #731 on:** June 15, 2011, 07:39:00 PM »

Skip to comments.

WH to Congress: War Powers Act doesn’t apply to Libya because we’re not engaged in “hostilities”
Hotair ^ | 06/15/2011 | Allahpundit
Posted on June 15, 2011 10:39:20 PM EDT by SeekAndFind

So predictable that even a dummy like me saw it coming.

The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces have not been in “hostilities” at least since April 7, when NATO took over leadership in maintaining a no-flight zone in Libya, and the United States took up what is mainly a supporting role — providing surveillance and refueling for allied warplanes — although unmanned drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles as well.

They argued that United States forces are at little risk in the operation because there are no American troops on the ground and Libyan forces are unable to exchange meaningful fire with American forces. They said that there was little risk of the military mission escalating, because it is constrained by the United Nations Security Counsel resolution that authorized use of air power to defend civilians.

“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” Mr. Koh said. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped, or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”

Unreal. Silence from the libs as usual.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #732 on:** June 15, 2011, 07:55:12 PM »

‘Nothing More Impeachable' Than War Without Authorization, Says Constitutional Scholar (w/Video)
CNSNews ^ | June 15, 2011 | Terence P. Jeffrey
Posted on June 15, 2011 7:03:05 PM EDT by jazusamo

Video at link.

(CNSNews.com) - Louis Fisher, a scholar in residence at the Constitution Project who served for 40 years as a constitutional law expert at the Library of Congress, says Americans and members of Congress should understand that President Barack Obama committed a “very grave offense” against the Constitution in taking military action in Libya without congressional authorization.

“I am not going to recommend that the House Judiciary Committee hold impeachment hearings, but I would like members of Congress and the public to say that nothing would be more impeachable than a President who takes the country to war without coming to Congress, who does it unilaterally,” Fisher told CNSNews.com’s Online With Terry Jeffrey.

“So, I would like people to be educated, including members of Congress, to be educated that that is a very grave offense,” said Fisher.

On March 19, President Barack Obama ordered the U.S. military to take actions against the Libyan regime of Muammar Gadhafi.

The day before that, Obama had given a speech stating that a resolution passed by the U.N. Security Council on the previous day that authorized the use of military force in Libya would justify U.S. action there.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...

240 is Back · « **Reply #733 on:** June 15, 2011, 09:40:04 PM »

rachel maddow is attacking Obama for his "hostilities". She's punching holes and calling it an illegal war.

Accordintg to white house, what we are doing in libia is not that hostile.

The limited nature of our involvement is not the kind of hostilities listed in the war powers act.

maddow not buying it

andreisdaman · « **Reply #734 on:** June 16, 2011, 06:30:30 AM »

Quote from: BerzerkFury on June 15, 2011, 06:41:55 PM

So the latest report shows that the "pro-Democracy" crowd is the minority among these jihadist rebels and, to top it off, Obama claims that he's above any law and can do what he wants.

Andrethescumbag, care to defend this?

why respond to your questions???..you don't respond to mine

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #735 on:** June 16, 2011, 06:37:24 AM »

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #736 on:** June 16, 2011, 07:05:35 AM »

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #737 on:** June 16, 2011, 07:17:20 AM »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/15/white-house-says-libyan-conflict-too-limited-viola/print

Nice Already over a Billion Dollrs for this "non war"

tu_holmes · « **Reply #738 on:** June 16, 2011, 09:01:01 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on June 16, 2011, 07:17:20 AM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/15/white-house-says-libyan-conflict-too-limited-viola/print

Nice Already over a Billion Dollrs for this "non war"

This entire fiasco may actually be the single dumbest thing that Obama has done.

Fury · « **Reply #739 on:** June 16, 2011, 09:49:55 AM »

Quote from: andreisdaman on June 16, 2011, 06:30:30 AM

why respond to your questions???..you don't respond to mine

Constantly sucking Obama's dick in every post =/= asking questions.

What's it like being a mindless Obama drone at 50 years old? Embarrassing.

Carry on with hiding from all the threads you opened that fuckhole of yours in when you thought things were going your way.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #740 on:** June 16, 2011, 09:51:44 AM »

When DK Ron and Rand Paul, Boehner, and many others from both partires sue your ass, when the comments section of the NYT is in meltdown, when gadaffi is still here months later after you promised Days not weeks:

Andre:

Face it - obama failed miserably.

tu_holmes · « **Reply #741 on:** June 16, 2011, 09:54:41 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on June 16, 2011, 09:51:44 AM

When DK Ron and Rand Paul, Boehner, and many others from both partires sue your ass, when the comments section of the NYT is in meltdown, when gadaffi is still here months later after you promised Days not weeks:

Andre:

Face it - obama failed miserably.

In this instance there is no doubt.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #742 on:** June 16, 2011, 03:15:12 PM »

NATO first to blink in Libya (or how NATO allies will leave General Obama holding the bag)
Yahoo News ^ | 6/6/2011

________________________ ________________________ ____-

Reflecting frustration at NATO's inability to achieve quick results in a campaign some had forecast would be over in days or weeks, the U.S. defense secretary rounded on European allies last week for failing to back the mission the alliance took over in late March.

"The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country," Robert Gates said, "yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference."

Now it's not only bombs, but the planes to deliver them that NATO risks running short of, with no sign of any new commitments to sustain the mission despite dire warnings from Gates about the very future of NATO and direct appeals to defense ministers from alliance Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

While Rasmussen has expressed his hope that the Libya mission can be concluded before the end of a second 90-day operations cycle in late September, many analysts consider this wishful thinking, given Gaddafi's resilience.

A mission that drags on beyond that date could present major problems, with some allies already stretched in their commitment and the United States reluctant to get dragged back into a leading role in the conflict as President Barack Obama faces criticism for the mission in the U.S. Congress.

Only eight of the 28 NATO states have provided planes for strike missions in Libya and pressure by Gates on others with available resources to do so, such as Spain, the Netherlands, Turkey and Germany, appear to have fallen on deaf ears.....

(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...

________________________ ________________________ _____

QUAGMIRE!

Freeborn126 · « **Reply #743 on:** June 16, 2011, 03:37:30 PM »

What the hell are we doing there? Where is the vast outcry from the libs? I hope Boehner takes a serious stand on this and brings up articles of impeachment.

andreisdaman · « **Reply #744 on:** June 16, 2011, 05:13:23 PM »

Quote from: BerzerkFury on June 16, 2011, 09:49:55 AM

Constantly sucking Obama's dick in every post =/= asking questions.

What's it like being a mindless Obama drone at 50 years old? Embarrassing.

Carry on with hiding from all the threads you opened that fuckhole of yours in when you thought things were going your way.

I never hide from anything dickface..I just choose not to respond to your bullcrap nonsense any more....I don't learn anything new from you and you spout the same nonsense bullshit over and over....

Again....you need to spend time studying for your GED instead of posting here

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #745 on:** June 16, 2011, 07:29:39 PM »

Obama, Through His Own Words, Hemmed Himself In On The US-Libyan War
6/16/2011 | Laissez-Faire Capitalist
Posted on June 16, 2011 10:24:12 PM EDT by Laissez-faire capitalist

At UPI.com there is a 3/21/2011 news article entitled "Obama Sends War Powers Notification."

In the article, Obama notified Congress of his decision to deploy U.S. forces against Gadhfi. Obama said that the strikes against Libya's air defense systems and military airfields to establish no-fly zones were authorized under U.N. security Resolution 1973.

Obama said "These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration and scope. Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce U.N. Security Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners."

Based upon this and based upon Obama administration officials recent comments that we are not at war presently there...

A.) We were never at war, and Obama misled us when he cited the WPR. (Which I do not believe to be the case).

B.) Obama considers us to not prsently be at war with Libya, though we once were since he cited the WPR, and since there are no boots on the ground - which raises the following:

1.) Obama cited the WPR as justification for striking Libya. Given that, strikes against them are warfare. How could they be warfare earlier but not warfare now? If air strikes aren't warfare then why cite the WPR. Given that Obama cited the WPR, strikes then and now are apparently warfare - so Obama is presently under the authority of WPR, and Congress as well.

2.) Obama no longer believes himself to be under the WPR, but is now operating under UN Security Resolution 1973. If so, then air strikes/predator drone strikes would be putting him at odds with his own words and he has ezceeded the "limited nature, duration and scope" of these strikes under the WPR and thus his own words "These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by OTHER COALITION PARTNERS." Hence, other coalition partners will now have to engage in air strikes, not the U.S.

If Obama didn't want to be hemmed in, he shouldn't have cited the WPR initially as justification for his actions and asked Congress to nullify the WPR through new legislation that he could have signed into law. He should have done these and not try to wiggle his way out now.

Boom. Time to impeach.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #746 on:** June 17, 2011, 08:33:10 AM »

Lawmakers mock Obama claim on Libya hostilities
http://www.chron.com ^ | June 16, 2011 | DONNA CASSATA Associated Press

________________________ ________________________ ___

WASHINGTON — Republicans and Democrats on Thursday derided President Barack Obama's claim that U.S. air attacks against Libya do not constitute hostilities and demanded that the commander in chief seek congressional approval for the 3-month-old military operation.

In an escalating constitutional fight, House Speaker John Boehner threatened to withhold money for the mission, pitting a Congress eager to exercise its power of the purse against a dug-in White House. The Ohio Republican signaled that the House could take action as early as next week.

"The accumulated consequence of all this delay, confusion and obfuscation has been a wholesale revolt in Congress against the administration's policy," said Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee who has backed Obama's actions against Libya.

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., a combat veteran and member of the Armed Services Committee, scoffed at the notion.

"Spending a billion dollars and dropping bombs on people sounds like hostilities to me," Webb said in an interview.

(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #747 on:** June 17, 2011, 11:01:24 AM »

..Gaddafi on Libyan TV pledges to defeat NATO
By Joseph Nasr | Reuters – 1 hour 10 minutes ago
....tweet16EmailPrint... ...Related Content.

....BERLIN (Reuters) - Libyan TV aired an audio speech from leader Muammar Gaddafi on Friday in which he vowed to defeat the NATO alliance trying to dislodge him from Tripoli.

"This is the first time they are facing an armed nation of a millions," he said. "They will be defeated, the alliance will be defeated."

The TV station said the speech was from "a telephone call from the brother leader on June 17."

(Reporting by Joseph Nasr; Writing by Tim Cocks; Editing by Jon Boyle)
..

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #748 on:** June 17, 2011, 08:05:26 PM »

Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate
NY Times ^ | 17 June 2011 | Charlie Savage
Posted on June 17, 2011 9:54:40 PM EDT by Hoodat

WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #749 on:** June 17, 2011, 08:32:18 PM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

Full article. Unreal. Is Obama trying to get impeached?