Obama's illegal war

[tonymctones]

obama is a moron who is breaking the law here.

methinks the senate (who voted 100 to 1 to start this war) secretly wants it to continue, but doesn't want their fingerprints on it

Republicans Graham and mccain and durbin all back this war... on the record.  How many secretly support it and won't say it?  methinks 42 repub senate members...

half a sentence condemning obama the rest of your paragraph condemning republicans

blah blah blah, reps suck...obama gets a pass

more 140 bs

[Soul Crusher]

He doesn't even hide it. 

[Soul Crusher]

NATO admits to civilian deaths in Tripoli air strike

By Louise Ireland | Reuters – 3 hours ago
tweet67
Email
Print
LONDON (Reuters) - NATO admitted it carried out an air strike that killed civilians in Tripoli on Sunday.
"Although we are still determining the specifics of this event, indications are that a weapons system failure may have caused this incident," said Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard, Commander of Operation Unified Protector in a statement.
NATO said a military missile site was the intended target of the air strikes and acknowledged the civilian casualties.
Early on Sunday Libyan officials took reporters to a residential area in Tripoli's Souq al-Juma district where the reporters saw several bodies being pulled out of the rubble of a destroyed building.
Later, in a hospital, they were shown the bodies of two children and three adults who, officials said, were among those killed in the strike.
Libyan Foreign Minister Abdelati Obeidi said the NATO strike was a "pathetic attempt .... to break the spirit of the people of Tripoli and allow small numbers of terrorists to cause instability and disorder in the peaceful city."
Libyan officials earlier put the death toll at seven but Obeidi said there were nine dead and 18 wounded.







Fubo

[Soul Crusher]

Time for government attorneys to stand up to Obama
Washington Examiner.com ^ | June 19, 2011 | Hugh Hewitt

________________________ ________________________ ___________________-


President Nixon ordered Archibald Cox fired from the job of "special prosecutor" on Oct. 20, 1973. Rather than follow the order, first Attorney General Elliot Richardson and then Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus quit. Richardson and Ruckelshaus had both told members of Congress that they wouldn't interfere with Cox's investigation, so they turned in their keys and in a stroke established a very high bar for government lawyers confronting their superiors on matters of principle.

It isn't clear yet what Caroline Krauss, the acting assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice, and Jeh Johnson, the general counsel of the Department of Defense, told President Obama about the War Powers Act and the president's Libyan adventure, but if the New York Times is correct, they both advised the president that "they believed that the United States military's activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to 'hostilities' " as defined by the War Powers Act.

If this account is correct, the lawyers must believe the president is breaking the law. (Some of us think the act is unconstitutional, but that opinion hasn't been voiced by anyone on Team Obama.)

Ought lawyers in the position of Krauss and Johnson follow the examples of Richardson and Ruckelshaus? After all, not only is the president said to have refused their advice, he then went and found Harold Koh, legal adviser in the State Department, who was ready and willing to support the idea that our activities in Libya don't add up to "hostilities."

This is worse than simply rejecting the advice of the DOJ and DOD lawyers charged with giving it. It is forum shopping and sets a precedent that encourages a president to go out and find the opinion he wants rather than the one the DOJ and his senior military lawyer is giving him.

If Koh hadn't proved to be so compliant, where would the president have turned next? The solicitor at the Department of the Interior? The general counsel at the CIA?

The Left must be caught somewhere between astonished and repulsed. Their guy has gone full Nixon, and is doing a thing in a war that W wouldn't have dreamed of doing, which is to simply ignore the legal opinions of the Department of Justice.

And on the cherished War Powers Act no less! Imagine the reaction if George W. Bush were told "no" by the Department of Justice on an issue of the law of war but went ahead anyway on the advice of a friendly lawyer he found elsewhere in the government.

This latest burst of Obama unilateralism is not surprising even though the anti-war Left may be shocked.

This president told his DOJ to refuse to defend a federal statute that has never been questioned by any federal appellate court, much less by the Supreme Court, the Defense of Marriage Act.

This president has had drawn up an executive order that will simply assert a new federal law with regards to contracting and political donations.

This president has also directed his Environmental Protection Agency to impose a cap-and-trade regulatory regime that Congress would not pass as statute.

In short, the Imperial Presidency has never had such a proponent as Obama.

Are there any lawyers in the Obama administration who will find it necessary to leave rather than acquiesce in the president's aggressive assertion of his authority?

[Soul Crusher]

Scores of U.S. Strikes in Libya Followed Handoff to NATO
NYTimes ^ | June 21, 2011 | By CHARLIE SAVAGE and THOM SHANKER





Since the United States handed control of the air war in Libya to NATO in early April, American warplanes have struck at Libyan air defenses about 60 times, and remotely operated drones have fired missiles at Libyan forces about 30 times, according to military officials.

The most recent strike from a piloted United States aircraft was on Saturday, and the most recent strike from an American drone was on Wednesday, the officials said.

While the Obama administration has regularly acknowledged that American forces have continued to take part in some of the strike sorties, few details about their scope and frequency have been made public.

The unclassified portion of material about Libya that the White House sent to Congress last week, for example, said “American strikes are limited to the suppression of enemy air defense and occasional strikes by unmanned Predator” drones, but included no numbers for such strikes.

The disclosure of such details could add texture to an unfolding debate about the merits of the Obama administration’s legal argument that it does not need Congressional authorization to continue the mission because United States forces are not engaged in “hostilities” within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.

Under that 1973 law, presidents must end unauthorized deployments 60 days after notifying Congress that they have introduced American forces into actual or imminent hostilities. That deadline for the Libyan mission appeared to pass on May 20, but the administration contended that the deadline did not apply because the United States’ role had not risen to the level of “hostilities,” at least since it handed control of the mission over to NATO.


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

[Freeborn126]

Kerry and McCain Introduce Resolution to Legitimize Invasion of Libya
         

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
June 21, 2011

John Kerry, the Democrat Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, and John McCain, the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, will introduce a resolution today in an attempt to legitimize Obama’s invasion of Libya.  

June 19 marked 90 days since Obama called for U.S. intervention under a humanitarian pretense. According to the War Powers Act, the president must wait on Congress to pass a resolution after 90 days.

McCain took to the Senate floor and said the measure would authorize Obama to advance U.S. “national security interests” as part of an international coalition attempting to unseat and even assassinate Gaddafi. The authority would be limited to a year, according to the Associated Press.

Kerry and McCain introduced the resolution in order to head off an attempt by the House to defund the operation. The effort began after Obama ignored Congress and did not seek a formal declaration of war, as stated under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution.

Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war since the Second World War. The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times, each upon prior request by the president. Four of those five declarations came after hostilities began.


During the Federal Convention of 1787, the phrase “make war” was changed to “declare war” in order to allow the executive branch to respond promptly to sudden attacks without approval of Congress or a formal declaration of war.

Resolutions have been ignored and violated in the past. For instance, in 1971 when Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, then president Nixon ignored the will of the people and continued to wage war in Vietnam. In response, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution over a Nixon veto.

“The Constitution does not permit any president to decide unilaterally to overthrow foreign governments, redraw the world’s map, and put the national survival of the United States in jeopardy by committing us to a potential fight to the death with another sovereign nation,” writes Ken Klukowski. “Only Congress can make that decision, authorizing the president to use our military to wage war. Once authorized, only the president can actually order the military to attack. This is a two-step safeguard; both steps must be met before America goes to war.”


McCain and Kerry are introducing a resolution that will attempt continue Obama’s unilateral effort to overthrow the regime of Gaddafi. Instead of a formal declaration of war, they are attempting to pass a resolution that will eventually be ignored.



“I would be the first to admit that this authorization is not perfect, and it will not make everyone happy. It does not fully make me happy,” McCain said on the Senate floor, adding that he preferred that the resolution called the U.S. to commit more air power to the effort.

“That said, this authorization has been a bipartisan effort,” he added. “My Republican colleagues and I have had to make compromises, just as the Senator from Massachusetts and his Democratic colleagues have had to do. The end result, I believe, is an authorization that deserves the support of my colleagues in the Senate, on both side of the aisle. And I am confident they will support it.”

--------------------


A couple of establishment senators taking care of their own.  You can tell what Senators are for the people and who the dirtbag elites are when you hear stuff like this.  McCain is worthless to side with Kerry and Obama on this.

[Soul Crusher]

They know moves are afoot in the house to get all over obama on this.   

[240 is Back]

and had things gone differently in 2004 and 2008, these 2 would have been the last 2 presidents.

Is there ANY Q in your mind now- that the candidates who win the nomination are wholly owned by the war campanies?  

[Freeborn126]

and had things gone differently in 2004 and 2008, these 2 would have been the last 2 presidents.

Is there ANY Q in your mind now- that the candidates who win the nomination are wholly owned by the war campanies?  

nope, it is all by design so they always have the winner no matter what party is in power

[240 is Back]

nope, it is all by design so they always have the winner no matter what party is in power

bingo.  it's nothing to to with filthy libs.  war is great busienss, and the candidates who reach the top are wholly owned.

[Soul Crusher]

and had things gone differently in 2004 and 2008, these 2 would have been the last 2 presidents.

Is there ANY Q in your mind now- that the candidates who win the nomination are wholly owned by the war campanies?  

McCain is a vile scumbag.   I olny voted for him since as bas as he is, obama is dfrastically worse, and I liked and still like Palin.   

[240 is Back]

McCain is a vile scumbag.   I olny voted for him since as bas as he is, obama is dfrastically worse, and I liked and still like Palin.   

whoever wins the 2012 GOP nomination will continue the wars - no matter waht they say now.

Look back - Bush 1, Kerry, mccain, Obama - They all are owned by the war companies.  no matter obama's promises in 2008... he got the job and fell right into line.

And your 2012 selection will do the same damn thing.  no matter what he/she says now.  They'll pull an obama and do what the hell they're told.  it's the american way - these wars are way more important than every-4-year popularity contests.

So stop concerning yourself with the wars, have a beer, and watch American Idol.

[Freeborn126]

Only way to change it is if enough people get behind Ron Paul and give him a chance. 

I want to trust Cain and Bachmann but they have issues that point to the establishment.

Cain= Pro Federal Reserve

Bachmann= pro patriot act

The rest of the Repub. nominees are obvious insider picks, I'd stay away from them.

[tu_holmes]

Only way to change it is if enough people get behind Ron Paul and give him a chance. 

I want to trust Cain and Bachmann but they have issues that point to the establishment.

Cain= Pro Federal Reserve

Bachmann= pro patriot act

The rest of the Repub. nominees are obvious insider picks, I'd stay away from them.

There is never a candidate that truly says what I think they should be saying.

[Soul Crusher]

There is never a candidate that truly says what I think they should be saying.

Ron Paul comes closest to me, even on the social issues. 

[tu_holmes]

Ron Paul comes closest to me, even on the social issues. 

I agree for the most part... I think he takes it a little far in the realm of no government services... I think there should be some, but they should be reduced a great deal.

[Soul Crusher]

Obama’s foolish legal approach to Libya
By Ruth Marcus, Published: June 21
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-foolish-legal-approach-to-libya/2011/06/21/AGUc61eH_print.html



If George W. Bush had ignored the views of his Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel to avoid complying with the War Powers Resolution, Democrats would be going berserk. Barack Obama, I suspect, would be going berserk.

Understandably so. Indeed, when Bush attempted to ignore the OLC and press ahead with a terrorist surveillance program, the top echelons at Justice threatened to resign en masse.

The two episodes — Bush and terrorist surveillance, Obama and the War Powers Resolution’s application to U.S. military action in Libya — are not precisely parallel. Bush’s actions were, of necessity, hidden from public view and therefore without an alternate remedy. Obama’s decision that U.S. activities in Libya do not amount to “hostilities” and therefore do not require congressional approval under the War Powers Resolution is on display for all to see.

Unlike the surveillance program, Congress knows what’s happening in Libya and can pull the plug on funding if it wants. In addition, the constitutional status of the War Powers Resolution is dicey; presidents have been wriggling their way around it for years to avoid head-on collisions with the legislative branch.

Nonetheless, the comparison underscores the extraordinary — and, in my view, extraordinarily unwise — nature of Obama’s handling of the war powers issue. As The New York Times first reported, the administration jettisoned the ordinary process by which the executive branch determines the legality of its own actions. Normally, that decision would be made by the OLC after considering the views of other departments. The president has the undisputed power to overrule OLC, but that is an extremely rare occurrence.

Having the imprimatur of the OLC is the constitutional equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval. For example, before the administration launched military operations in Libya, it obtained an OLC ruling that the president did not need to obtain prior congressional approval. The White House was happy to brandish the opinion to rebut any question about its authority.

In the current episode, the White House appears to have chosen to avoid a formal opinion — one that it knew it wasn’t going to like. The question involves the applicability of a provision of the War Powers Resolution that requires the president to terminate military operations within 90 days of commencing hostilities unless it obtains congressional approval.

The administration’s strained argument is that the current U.S. involvement does not rise to the level of “hostilities” triggering the War Powers Resolution. Pentagon general counsel Jeh Johnson and acting OLC director Caroline Krass reportedly disagreed. But Obama found surprising support from the State Department’s legal adviser, Harold Koh, who had been a leading academic critic of unrestrained presidential war-making power.

Granted that the president gets the final say and even assuming he got it right in this case, this is a terrible approach and a dangerous precedent. Cherry-picking your way to the desired legal result is a sure-fire way to get the law wrong. A senior White House official described the issue to me as a “political question” with “no clear answer,” adding: “Someone might conclude the activity rises to the level of hostilities. Others might conclude it does not. Ultimately it’s the president’s judgment call and he made it.” The answer may be unclear, but this is not a political question — it is a statute we are construing. That’s what the OLC is good at, and what it has a long track record of doing on war powers.

As Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith, who headed the OLC when it questioned the terrorist surveillance program, explained in a blog post, the president’s legal judgment “is inevitably skewed a great deal by wanting to uphold his policy. OLC (and any executive branch lawyer) faces this danger to some degree, but the danger is less pronounced when the initial decision is made in a relatively independent legal office in DOJ as compared to the Oval Office.”

Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen, Obama’s initial pick to head the OLC, made a similar point. “I have no problem with the president sincerely disagreeing [with OLC], but it’s so rare. . . . You need to follow a process that builds confidence that the president has reached a considered judgment that the Justice Department is wrong,” she told me.

The White House is the client. It can choose whether to ask its lawyers for advice — or which lawyers to ask. But sometimes even the smartest clients can behave like fools.

ruthmarcus@washpost.com

[Soul Crusher]

Obama holds the world record for the number of people killed by a Nobel Peace Prize winner. I think he should go into Guinness for that one!

[Soul Crusher]

Italy breaks ranks over NATO's Libya mission


ROME (AFP) – Italy called for a suspension of hostilities in Libya on Wednesday in the latest sign of dissent within NATO as the civilian death toll mounts and Moamer Kadhafi shows no signs of quitting power.

"We have seen the effects of the crisis and therefore also of NATO action not only in eastern and southwestern regions but also in Tripoli," Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini told a parliamentary committee meeting.

"I believe an immediate humanitarian suspension of hostilities is required in order to create effective humanitarian corridors," while negotiations should also continue on a more formal ceasefire and peace talks, he said.

"I think this is the most urgent and dramatic point," Frattini continued.

"I think it is legitimate to request ever more detailed information on the results" of the NATO mission, he added, condemning "the dramatic errors that hit civilians, which is clearly not an objective of the NATO mission."

France, which has taken the lead in military operations against Kadhafi, immediately ruled out any pause in the Libya campaign.

"The coalition and the countries that met as the Abu Dhabi contact group two weeks ago were unanimous on the strategy: we must intensify the pressure on Kadhafi," French foreign ministry spokesman Bernard Valero told reporters.

"Any pause in operations would risk allowing him to play for time and to reorganise. In the end, it would be the civilian population that would suffer from the smallest sign of weakness on our behalf," he said.

Despite repeated calls for unity within NATO on its air strikes, the strain has begun to show in the alliance and Norway's recent decision to withdraw from operations sparked fears others may follow.

"The alliance is coming unstuck," Natalino Ronzitti from the Rome-based International Affairs Institute, told AFP.

"There's an air of dissent from some members, not only because of the huge cost but also because it's not clear the recent air attacks are entirely legitimate under the United Nations resolution," he said.

As NATO admitted to bombing errors in recent days which killed 24 civilians, including five children, Italy -- a cautious partner in the Libyan mission from the beginning -- said the alliance's credibility was at risk.

On June 1 NATO decided to extend its three-month mission until the end of September, despite warnings from US Defence Secretary Robert Gates that the alliance lacked assets and was over-reliant on American help.

The 28-nation alliance responded to doubts about the sustainability of the mission on Tuesday, insisting that all allies and partners had agreed to provide the necessary assets for "as long as it takes."

"There is the commitment, there are the assets in place and time is not on Kadhafi's side," NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu said at a briefing.

Tensions within the Italian government have run high over the topic, with the small but influential anti-immigration Northern League calling on Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to halt Italy's participation in Libyan air raids.

Driven by an isolationist foreign policy, the League -- Berlusconi's coalition partner in government -- has said the campaign is not only a waste of money but risks making thousands of refugees flee Libya for Italian shores.

In Britain, senior army figures have warned Prime Minister David Cameron that Libya was demoralising personnel and that continuing beyond the summer would threaten Britain's ability to carry out future missions.

Cameron on Tuesday rebuffed the caution and said Britain would continue the operation "as long as is necessary."

US President Barack Obama is facing his own difficulties at home where members of Congress are threatening to cut off funding for the fighting, accusing him of failing to secure congressional authorisation for the mission.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110622/wl_africa_afp/libyaconflictnatoitalydiplomacy

[Soul Crusher]

President 'becoming an absolute monarch' on war powers, Dem says
By Pete Kasperowicz - 06/24/11 09:56 AM ET
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/168315-house-dem-says-president-becoming-an-absolute-monarch-on-war-powers


 
A House Democrat warned Friday that the U.S. president is becoming an "absolute monarch" on matters related to the authority to start a war.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Congress must act to limit funding for military operations in Libya in order to correct that trend.


"We have been sliding for 70 years to a situation where Congress has nothing to do with the decision about whether to go to war or not, and the president is becoming an absolute monarch," Nadler said on the floor. "And we must put a stop to that right now, if we don't want to become an empire instead of a republic."


Nadler stressed that he is not talking exclusively about "this president," meaning President Obama. But he said nonetheless that Congress needs to reassert its authority to declare war, and said this should be done even over concerns that it would damage U.S. credibility with its NATO allies.

"I think that the nation's credibility, that is to say its promise to go to war as backed by the president, not by the Congress, ought to be damaged," he said.

"And if foreign countries learn that they cannot depend on American military intervention unless Congress is aboard for the ride, good," he added. "That's a good thing."

Members of the House early Friday morning were debating a rule allowing for consideration of H.J.Res. 68, which would authorize continued operations in Libya, and H.R. 2278, which would limit funding for those operations.

Members of Congress have been clashing with the White House over the Libya mission. Many Republicans and some Democrats argue that President Obama does not have the authority to continue involving the U.S. in the NATO-led mission without congressional authorization.

The White House argues the U.S. role in Libya does not constitute "hostilities" and is therefore not covered under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to seek authorization from Congress 60 days after notifying lawmakers of a military action.

H.R. 2278 is seen as tough and is expected to pass. However, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stressed repeatedly that the exceptions in H.R. 2278 would essentially allow the U.S. military to continue the operations it is already involved in, and recommended a vote against both bills.


Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), the ranking member of the House Rules Committee, said in the debate that it is "shameful" the way House Republicans have rushed through both bills. She said much more debate was allowed decades earlier when Congress considered launching the Persian Gulf War, and even apologized to future generations for the rushed consideration regarding Libya.

"We avoid the robust debates that preceded us here today," she said. "Indeed, the way in which today's measures are being debated shames the dignity, history and tradition of this body.

"I really regret the shameful way this important debate has been rushed through Congress and I apologize to future generations who will look back on the work that we are doing today to try to understand the time," she added.

[Soul Crusher]

House rejects measure to continue US role in Libya
By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press Donna Cassata, Associated Press – 16 mins ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110624/ap_on_go_co/us_us_libya


WASHINGTON – The House has voted down a measure giving President Barack Obama the authority to continue the U.S. military action against Libya.

The vote was 295-123 on Friday. The congressional action has no immediate effect on American involvement but represents a repudiation of the commander in chief.

The vote marks the first time since 1999 that either House has voted against a military operation. The last time was over President Bill Clinton's authority in the Bosnian war.

House Republican leaders pushed for the vote, with rank-and-file members saying the president broke the law by failing to seek congressional approval for the 3-month-old war. Some Democrats accused the GOP of playing politics with national security.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]


Challenging President Barack Obama's authority as commander in chief, the House pushed toward votes Friday on the U.S. military involvement in Libya, weighing competing measures to continue the operation or cut off funds for military attacks.

"We have drifted into an apparently open-ended commitment with goals vaguely defined," said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., the chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, as Democrats and Republicans criticized the mission and Obama's treatment of Congress.

"What? We don't have enough wars going on," Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio., asked mockingly. "We need one more war. We have to wage war against another nation that didn't attack us."

The House was scheduled to vote on dueling legislation: a resolution giving Obama limited authority to continue the American involvement in the NATO-led operation against Moammar Gadhafi's forces and a bill to cut off funds for U.S. military attacks there.

The resolution mirrors a Senate measure sponsored by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz., that Obama has indicated he would welcome. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will consider the resolution on Tuesday.

The bill to cut off funds would make an exception for search and rescue efforts, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, aerial refueling and operational planning to continue the NATO effort in Libya. It has no chance in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

"The president has ignored the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, but he cannot ignore a lack of funding," said Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., sponsor of the bill. "Only Congress has the power to declare war and the power of the purse, and my bill exercises both of those powers by blocking funds for the war in Libya unless the president receives congressional authorization."

House Republicans and Democrats are furious with Obama for failing to seek congressional authorization for the 3-month-old war against Gadhafi, as required under the War Powers Resolution. The 1973 law, often ignored by Republican and Democratic presidents, says the commander in chief must seek congressional consent for military actions within 60 days. That deadline has long passed.

Obama stirred congressional unrest last week when he told lawmakers he didn't need authorization because the operation was not full-blown hostilities. NATO commands the Libya operation, but the United States still plays a significant support role that includes aerial refueling of warplanes and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance work as well as drone attacks and bombings.

A New York Times report that said Obama overruled some of his legal advisers further incensed members of Congress.

In a repudiation of the president, a coalition of anti-war Democrats and tea party-backed Republicans was expected to defeat the resolution that would give Obama authority for the operation. The fate of the legislation to cut off funds was uncertain.

In a last-ditch effort Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with rank-and-file Democrats to explain the mission and discuss the implications if the House votes to cut off funds. The administration requested the closed-door meeting.

Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., said Clinton apologized for not coming to Congress earlier. But he said she warned about the implications of a House vote to cut off money.

"The secretary expressed her deep concern that you're probably not on the right track when Gadhafi supports your efforts," Walz said.

Rep. Howard Berman of California, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said such a vote "ensures the failure of the whole mission."

Earlier this week Clinton said lawmakers were free to raise questions, but she asked, "Are you on Gadhafi's side, or are you on the side on the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been bringing them support?"

In the Senate, backers of a resolution to authorize the operation wondered whether the administration had waited too long to address the concerns of House members.

"It's way late," said McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee. "This is one of the reasons why they're having this veritable uprising in the House, because of a lack of communication. And then the icing on the cake was probably for them when he (Obama) said that we're not engaged in hostilities. That obviously is foolishness."

He added, however, "That is not a reason to pass a resolution that would encourage Moammar Gadhafi to stay in power."

Earlier this month, the House voted 268-145 to rebuke Obama for failing to provide a "compelling rationale" for the Libyan mission and for launching U.S. military forces without congressional approval.

[Soul Crusher]

Gallup: Support falls for Libya war
Politico44 ^ | 06/24/11 | MATT NEGRIN



President Obama already faces opposition to the war in Libya from House Republicans. Now, Gallup says, there are more Americans who say they disapprove of the military action there than those who say they support it.

The numbers from Gallup’s latest poll, conducted June 22, are: 46 percent of people say they disapprove, and 39 percent say they approve. (Three months ago, when Obama announced the attack in Libya, 47 percent approved and 37 percent didn’t.)


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

[Soul Crusher]

NATO Forces 'Trying To Kill' Gaddafi: U.S. Admiral Samuel J. Locklear
First Posted: 06/24/11 03:27 PM ET Updated: 06/24/11 03:32 PM ET

A top U.S. admiral has confirmed to a U.S. congressman that NATO forces are trying to kill Muammar Gaddafi, and that the need for ground troops in Libya after the embattled leader falls is anticipated.

House Armed Services Committee member Mike Turner (R-OH) reveals to The Cable that U.S. Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, commander of the NATO Joint Operations Command in Naples, Italy, told him last month that NATO forces are actively targeting and trying to kill Gaddafi:

"The U.N. authorization had three components: blockade, no fly zone, and civil protection. And Admiral Locklear explained that the scope of civil protection was being interpreted to permit the removal of the chain of command of Qaddafi's military, which includes Qaddafi," Turner said. "He said that currently is the mission as NATO has defined."
"I believed that we were [targeting Qaddafi] but that confirmed it," Turner said. "I believe the scope that NATO is pursuing is beyond what is contemplated in civil protection, so they're exceeding the mission."


Turner's revelation contradicts the Obama administration's previous insistence that regime change is not the ultimate goal of NATO's involvement in Libya, a claim which Locklear apparently still maintained. "Well, certainly if you remove Gaddafi it will affect regime change," Turner quoted Locklear as saying. "[Locklear] did not have an answer to that."

Turner, who has been opposed to the Libya war from the start, voted against authorizing the effort on Friday morning. That authorization resolution failed 123 to 297.

He remained critical of what he describes as the Obama administration's blatant neglect of Congress throughout the duration of the mission. "The president hasn't come to Congress and said any of this, and yet Admiral Locklear is pursuing the targeting of Gaddafi's regime, Gaddafi himself, and contemplating ground troops following Gaddafi's removal," Turner said. "They're not being straightforward with Congress...It's outrageous."




________________________ _____________



Obama lied again.   

[Soul Crusher]

How limited is the U.S. mission in Libya?
Stars and Stripes ^ | July 01, 2011 | By JOHN VANDIVER



STUTTGART, Germany — Following President Barack Obama’s comments during a Wednesday news conference, in which he said the U.S. is no longer carrying the bulk of NATO’s military load in Libya, there has been much back and forth about what exactly the U.S. role is in Operation Unified Protector.

Set against a debate about the constitutionality of the mission, the White House has defended American engagement in the campaign. The Obama administration says the scope of the U.S. engagement is limited in nature with a special focus on providing logistical support to allies, as well has suppressing Libyan air defenses and carrying out precision strikes.

“As a consequence, we have not seen a single U.S. casualty,” Obama told reporters during a nationally broadcast news conference. “There’s no risks of additional escalation.

“This operation is limited in time and in scope,” the president said.

But how does one define “limited?” How large a share of the burden is the U.S. carrying since handing over command of the mission to NATO? Opinions vary, but here are the numbers:

Since March 31, when NATO took over command, through June 30, the U.S. has flown 3,545 sorties and 816 strike sorties, of which 135 resulted in dropping ordnance, according to data provided by AFRICOM. During that period, NATO has flown 13,324 sorties, 5,005 of which were strike sorties, according to NATO data. NATO did not give a breakdown for the number of strike sorties that resulted in munitions drops, but it listed 10 “key hits” for June 30 alone.

Compared to the initial U.S.-led phase of the mission, dubbed Operation Odyssey Dawn, the U.S. day-to-day engagement also has dropped off significantly. At its height, 153 U.S. aircraft deployed in support of Odyssey Dawn, more than double the number currently engaged, according to AFRICOM. The U.S. also had 12 U.S. ships and submarines that supported OOD compared to just two ships today. From March 19 to the morning of March 31, the U.S. flew 1,319 sorties, 473 of which were strike sorties. And 228 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles launched during the two week campaign, AFRICOM reported.

According to NATO Spokesman Tony White, there are roughly 200 planes involved in the mission today. Of that number, about 70 belong to the U.S., according to AFRICOM. While NATO data show that U.S. allies are conducting most of the sorties and strike missions, the U.S. role is indispensible, White said, particularly when it comes to providing support in the form of surveillance and aerial refueling aircraft.


“If they took that away, we wouldn’t have an operation. Or at least we couldn’t maintain the rate we’re going at,” White said. “It’s not fair to say the Americans have pulled out. They’re still flying a lot of hours.”

[tu_holmes]

Days... not weeks.

Jesus Christ what a fucking disaster.