Author Topic: Obama's illegal war  (Read 70419 times)

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #875 on: February 17, 2012, 01:56:45 PM »
Obama has done more to create havens for anti-American Muslims in the middle than any of the terrorist groups could have ever dreamed of.
Obama is single handedly helping to unite the middle east into a extremist muslim order. Lol.

Epic fail on his part.

Almost forgot about how Egypt is now demanding that we continue to give them money or theyll attack Israel.

Its official; the United States are now the Muslim Brotherhoods bitch.

Good Job on your foreign policy Barack, bang up job.

I agree that he should have stayed out of Libya... but he certainly didn't cause Iraq and I'm still asking what we did to Egypt? What did Obama have to do with what happened in Egypt in any way?

Obama has certainly fucked up plenty, but I don't think his foreign policy (aside from Libya) had anything to do with the Middle east being fucked up.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41099
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #876 on: February 17, 2012, 01:59:52 PM »
I agree that he should have stayed out of Libya... but he certainly didn't cause Iraq and I'm still asking what we did to Egypt? What did Obama have to do with what happened in Egypt in any way?

Obama has certainly fucked up plenty, but I don't think his foreign policy (aside from Libya) had anything to do with the Middle east being fucked up.


Obama kept calling for Mubarack to step down day after day remember?   He also gave them 200 million dollars for their arab spring. 

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #877 on: February 17, 2012, 02:01:11 PM »
Obama kept calling for Mubarack to step down day after day remember?   He also gave them 200 million dollars for their arab spring. 

He did call for him to step down... but really did that have anything to do with what happened?

I don't recall what impact the money had... I thought he had already fled the country by then.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41099
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #878 on: February 17, 2012, 02:06:40 PM »
He did call for him to step down... but really did that have anything to do with what happened?

I don't recall what impact the money had... I thought he had already fled the country by then.




Obama was the spiritual leader of the movement for them.  remember all the others in the ME screaming that obama had no idea the hornets nest he was stirring? 

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #879 on: February 17, 2012, 02:08:25 PM »

Obama was the spiritual leader of the movement for them.  remember all the others in the ME screaming that obama had no idea the hornets nest he was stirring? 

I don't really think Obama was a spiritual leader for a bunch of Egyptians... That's just my own opinion of course.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41099
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #880 on: February 19, 2012, 10:46:32 AM »
David Cameron gave Nicolas Sarkozy a shell casing to mark the first anniversary of the Libyan uprising. The two men called each other brave before talking about Syria, whose death toll has dwarfed Libyan casualties before Nato began bombing, but where no military intervention is being contemplated. If they kept the subject on Libya, they would have soon run out of positive things to say. The National Transitional Council, the body the west funds and recognises, is neither trusted nor in control. The country is run by hundreds of militias which refuse to give up their arms or submit to the NTC's authority. Misrata is a city state, with its own prisons and justice system. Militias have co-ordinated to form alternative committees to the NTC, but it's everyone for himself. Torture carries on and, according to a recent Amnesty report, widespread human rights abuses are committed with impunity. Neither the British prime minister nor the French president seem bothered by this. For them, it's "job done".

Libya is not Iraq or Syria, and there appears to be a universal belief, shared by militia commanders, that elections will and should be held in June. Militias have weapons but no money. The Qatari funds have dried up and the £150bn of Gaddafi-era assets frozen globally is being returned to the NTC, although some of it is flying straight out of the country, pocketed by corrupt officials; £10bn of the £12bn frozen in Britain has been returned and the remainder is being held back because no audit chain exists. Put to one side a legacy of tyranny which left the country bereft of a civil society or political parties. These alone are not propitious conditions for an election to be held.

It is folly to expect that tensions between militias and tribes will dissipate following the election of a constituent assembly. Disarmament and demobilisation will be the consequences of a central authority with real political legitimacy, not the precursors to it. At the moment the NTC, whose members are not even known, lacks the trust within the country to exert such authority. The NTC is distrusted even on home turf in Benghazi. The elections in neighbouring Tunisia were both peaceful and successful because negotiations were held and alliances were formed well in advance of the results. And promises were kept by Islamists after they were swept to power in greater numbers than they anticipated. Libya is still at the ground zero of this process. Its Islamists are split, unable to overcome personal dislikes, let alone offer deals to others.

Libya is free of Gaddafi's quixotic tyranny but is still miles from building a democratic alternative. Neither Britain, France, nor the UN will do it for them. The assumption that a central government or a national army can be unloaded in kit form from the nose cone of a C-5 Galaxy, and stay long after the transporter has lumbered home, is an imperial conceit. State-building has been the untold disaster of liberal interventionism. Mr Cameron and Mr Sarkozy have shown that they lack the attention span, the money or the political will to do it. But repeated failure has not lessened their appetites for planning for fresh conflicts, like the one about to be launched against Iran. If not them, who? The Arab League is dominated by the Gulf states. Saudi Arabia is using the civil war in Syria to divert attention from the suppression of its own internal dissent, which is inexorably rising. No help there.

If any country has a long-term interest in events beyond a long border, it is Egypt – for all sorts of reasons: historical, cultural, tribal. Before the war, 2 million Egyptian workers worked in Libya. Of course, it has more than enough on its domestic plate, but it is also time Egypt assumed its regional responsibilities. It could invite the Libyan militias to a conference in Cairo, where they could start hammering out deals that the Libyan elections will need only too soon.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41099
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #881 on: February 22, 2012, 07:17:48 AM »
US troops now in 4 African countries to fight LRA
 
World Video

Buy AP Photo Reprints
 
 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AF_AFRICA_LRA_FIGHT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-02-22-08-55-56

 
 
 
 

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- A top military official says that U.S. troops are now deployed in four central African countries as part of U.S. efforts against a brutal rebel group called the Lord's Resistance Army.

Rear Adm. Brian L. Losey, the top U.S. special operations commander for Africa, said Wednesday that U.S. troops are now stationed in bases in Uganda, Congo, South Sudan and the Central African Republic.

The U.S. announced in October it was sending about 100 U.S. troops - mostly special operations forces - to central Africa to advise in the fight against the LRA and its leader Joseph Kony.

Losey said officials are already seeing a decrease in the lethality of LRA actions, which he thinks is part of the pressure the U.S. and partner countries are applying.

© 2012 The Associated Press. All
 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41099
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #882 on: February 24, 2012, 08:33:00 PM »
Insult to WWII Heroes: Graves of British troops smashed and desecrated by Libyan Islamists...
The U.K. Daily Mail ^ | (Saturday) February 25, 2012 | Daily Mail Reporter
Posted on February 24, 2012 8:41:37 PM EST by kristinn

Insult to WWII heroes: Graves of British troops smashed and desecrated by Libyan Islamists in protest over U.S. soldiers' Koran burning

A furious mob has desecrated dozens of Commonwealth War Graves in a Libyan cemetery amid continuing fury in the Middle East over the burning of the Koran by U.S. soldiers.

Headstones commemorating British and Allied servicemen, killed during World War II campaigns in the Western Desert, lay smashed and strewn across Benghazi Military Cemetery.

Protesters rampaged through site on Friday, despite efforts by America to calm tensions sparked when it emerged U.S. soldiers had burned Muslim holy books in a pile of rubbish at a military base in Afghanistan.

President Obama has apologised to President Karzai for the unintentional burning of the Korans at NATO's main Bagram air base after Afghan labourers found charred copies while collecting rubbish.

White House spokesman Jay Carney sought to counter criticism, telling reporters on board Air Force One: ‘It is wholly appropriate, given the sensitivities to this issue, the understandable sensitivities.’

But it appears to have had little affect on sentiment among many in the Middle East.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41099
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #883 on: March 03, 2012, 03:32:09 PM »
Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Freed of Gadhafi, Libya's instability only deepens
Associated Press ^ | Saturday, March 3, 2012 2:27 PM EST | MAGGIE MICHAEL
Posted on March 3, 2012 6:27:47 PM EST by Hunton Peck

BENGHAZI, Libya (AP) — A large map of Libya hangs on the wall in the home of Idris al-Rahel, with a line down the middle dividing the country in half.

Al-Rahel, a former army officer, leads a movement to declare semiautonomy in eastern Libya, where most of the country's oil fields are located. The region's top tribal leaders meet Tuesday in the east's main city Benghazi to consider unilaterally announcing an eastern state, linked to the west only by a tenuous "federal union."

Opponents fear such a declaration could be the first step toward outright dividing the country. But some easterners say they are determined to end the domination and discrimination by the west that prevailed under dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

Al-Rahel points to the capital Tripoli on the map, in the west. "All troubles came from here," he said, "but we will not permit this to happen again."

The move shows how six months after Gadhafi's fall, the central government in Libya has proved incapable of governing at all. Other countries that shed their leaders in the Arab Spring revolts — Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen — are going through rocky transitions, but none has seen a collapse of central authority like Libya. The collapse has only worsened as cities, towns, regions, militias and tribes all act on their own, setting up their independent power centers.

After liberation from the rule of Gadhafi, Libyans dreamed their country of 6 million could become another Dubai — a state with a small population, flush with petro-dollars, that is a magnet for investment. Now they worry that it is turning more into another Somalia, a nation that has had no effective government for more than 20 years.

Libya may not face literal fragmentation, but it could be doomed to years of instability as it...

(Excerpt) Read more at centurylink.net ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41099
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #884 on: March 05, 2012, 03:20:50 PM »
REPORT: Eastern Libya Is About To Declare Itself An Autonomous State
Michael Kelley | 5 hours ago | 947 | 9






Wikimedia Commons


The new state would extend beyond historical Cyrenaica to include oil fields in the Gulf of Sirte.
 
Civil war could be on the horizon again in Libya.

A report from British intelligence company Exclusive Analysis states:

• Eastern Libya is about to declare itself a self-governing state within a federal Libya. The new state will extend beyond historical Cyrenaica to include part of oil-rich Fazzan in the Gulf of Sirte. Eastern Libya has 66% of Libya’s oil production but only 25% of its population.

• The state is to be called 'Barqa' (Arabic for Cyrenaica) and its territory will stretch from the Egyptian border in the east to the city of Sirte in the west. The declaration will stipulate that Barqa will have its own parliament and separate oil, defence and finance ministries, and its own Army. (A so-called 'Barqa Army' has already been formed out of former eastern-based units of Gaddafi's Army and eastern militias.)

• The Tripoli government is likely to use force to contest the eastern Libya's declaration of autonomy. It does not have the capability to reverse the declaration but is likely to contest control of key towns in the Gulf of Sirte and the Waha and Raquba oil fields.

• Barqa's autonomy would increase contract and non-payment risks in construction and infrastructure, but probably not in the oil sector, particularly for firms with contracts with Arabian Gulf Oil Company (AGOCO).

• Contract risks are especially high for Chinese, Russian and South Korean firms, due to their governments' perceived support for Gaddafi. Firms from these countries are very likely to see their contracts cancelled following corruption investigations.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/report-eastern-libya-is-about-to-declare-itself-an-autonomous-state-2012-3#ixzz1oHt3oPil


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41099
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #885 on: June 19, 2012, 02:12:47 PM »
Libyan weapons falling into Somali al Qaeda's hands, U.S. official warns
CNN ^ | June 18, 2012 | Larry Shaughnessy





The Arab Spring of revolution has given rise to a new summer of concern in North Africa.

While Moammar Gadhafi is gone, the weapons used by the rebels who overthrew him are now a threat to the whole region, according to Amanda Dory, a top Defense Department policy official on Africa.

"The breakdown of security in Libya has generated a significant flow of militants and weapons and has decreased legitimate cross-border traffic at a time of great economic fragility and turbulence," said Dory, the deputy assistant secretary of defense on African affairs.

Many of those weapons, the Pentagon fears, are ending up with al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) the branch of the terrorist network in North Africa, especially in Mali, which in recent months has seen a coup and a separatist effort.


(Excerpt) Read more at security.blogs.cnn.com ...


________________________ ________________________ ____________


never saw that one coming.     ::)  ::)  ::)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41099
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #886 on: September 12, 2012, 06:24:10 AM »
 :(

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41099
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #887 on: September 13, 2012, 02:54:39 PM »
Michael Lewis' Profile Of Obama Reveals Worrisome Details Of His Decision-Making In Libya
 


Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic|Sep. 13, 2012, 4:34 PM|977|7
 

Everyone Is Slamming Obama For Not Committing To Egypt As An Ally
 
The feature story that Michael Lewis just published about President Obama's decision-making prior to the war in Libya includes a lot of details that inspire confidence in his leadership.
 
By all accounts he's intelligent, sober-minded, and inclined to seek out an array of perspectives.
 
And he's frequently forced to make extraordinarily difficult tradeoffs with imperfect information.
 
I don't envy his job.

But the article also raises serious questions about his honesty and regard for the constitution. Let's take them in turn.

INCONSISTENT EXPLANATIONS

On March 28, 2011, Obama gave a televised address about Libya. It included this passage about his actions:
 
Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition, and the Arab League, appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution that authorized a No-Fly Zone to stop the regime's attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people. 
 
In his telling, (a) America led the effort to establish the No-Fly Zone; and (b) the No-Fly Zone would stop the Libyan regime's attacks from the air.
 
Compare these assertions to the inside account reported by Lewis (which was vetted by the White House prior to publication):
 
If you were president just then and you turned your television to some cable news channel you would have seen many Republican senators screaming at you to invade Libya and many Democratic congressmen hollering at you that you had no business putting American lives at risk in Libya. If you flipped over to the networks on March 7 you might have caught ABC White House correspondent Jake Tapper saying to your press secretary, Jay Carney, "More than a thousand people have died, according to the United Nations. How many more people have to die before the United States decides, O.K., we're going to take this one step of a no-fly zone?"
 
By March 13, Qaddafi appeared to be roughly two weeks from getting to Ben­gha­zi. On that day the French announced they were planning to introduce a resolution in the United Nations to use U.N. forces to secure the skies over Libya in order to prevent Libyan planes from flying. A "no-fly zone" this was called, and it forced Obama's hand. The president had to decide whether to support the no-fly-zone resolution or not. At 4:10 p.m. on March 15 the White House held a meeting to discuss the issue. "Here is what we knew," recalls Obama, by which he means here is what I knew. "We knew that Qaddafi was moving on Benghazi, and that his history was such that he could carry out a threat to kill tens of thousands of people. We knew we didn't have a lot of time—somewhere between two days and two weeks. We knew they were moving faster than we originally anticipated. We knew that Europe was proposing a no-fly zone."
 
That much had been in the news. One crucial piece of information had not.
 
"We knew that a no-fly zone would not save the people of Ben­gha­zi," says Obama. "The no-fly zone was an expression of concern that didn't real­ly do anything." European leaders wanted to create a no-fly zone to stop Qaddafi, but Qaddafi wasn't flying. His army was racing across the North African desert in jeeps and tanks. Obama had to have wondered just how aware of this were these foreign leaders supposedly interested in the fate of these Libyan civilians. He didn't know if they knew that a no-fly zone was pointless, but if they'd talked to any military leader for five minutes they would have.

And that was not all. "The last thing we knew," he adds, "is that if you announced a no-fly zone and if it appeared feckless, there would be additional pressure for us to go further. As enthusiastic as France and Britain were about the no-fly zone, there was a danger that if we participated the U.S. would own the operation. Because we had the capacity."
 
To summarize, (a) America did not lead the effort to establish a no-fly zone—it reluctantly signed on to the idea after its hand was forced by the French; (b) the no-fly zone wouldn't stop the regime's attacks because they weren't coming from the air. It was, rather, a preamble to escalation.

Due to the nature of the Libya conflict, these misrepresentations weren't nearly as consequential as, say, the way George W. Bush spoke out about weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war. It is nevertheless an example of the president deliberately misleading the American people in order to facilitate false impressions about foreign military actions that he finds convenient.

ZERO REGARD FOR CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL

It's long been established that Obama failed to secure a congressional declaration of war, as the constitution and Senator Obama's understanding of it dictated; and that he violated the War Powers Resolution. It is nevertheless worth revisiting the subject given these new details about his thought process:
 
Obama insists that he still had not made up his mind what to do when he returned to the Situation Room—that he was still considering doing nothing at all. A million people in Ben­gha­zi were waiting to find out whether they would live or die, and he honestly did not know. There were things the Pentagon might have said to deter him, for instance. "If somebody had said to me that we could not take out their air defense without putting our fliers at risk in a significant way; if the level of risk for our military personnel had been ratcheted up—that might have changed my decision," says Obama. "Or if I did not feel Sarkozy or Cameron were far enough out there to follow through. Or if I did not think we could get a U.N resolution passed." Once again he polled the people in the room for their views. Of the principals only Susan Rice (enthusiastically) and Hil­lary Clinton (who would have settled for a no-fly zone) had the view that any sort of intervention made sense. "How are we going to explain to the American people why we're in Libya," asked William Daley, according to one of those pres­ent. "And Daley had a point: who gives a shit about Libya?"
 
From the president's point of view there was a certain benefit in the indifference of the American public to whatever was happening in Libya. It enabled him to do, at least for a moment, pretty much whatever he wanted to do. Libya was the hole in the White House lawn.
 
Obama made his decision: push for the U.N resolution and effectively invade another Arab country. Of the choice not to intervene he says, "That's not who we are," by which he means that's not who I am. The decision was extraordinarily personal. "No one in the Cabinet was for it," says one witness. "There was no constituency for doing what he did." Then Obama went upstairs to the Oval Office to call European heads of state and, as he puts it, "call their bluff." Cameron first, then Sarkozy. It was three a.m. in Paris when he reached the French president, but Sarkozy insisted he was still awake. ("I'm a young man!") In formal and stilted tones the European leaders committed to taking over after the initial bombing. The next morning Obama called Medvedev to make sure that the Russians would not block his U.N. resolution. There was no obvious reason why Russia should want to see Qad­da­fi murder a city of Libyans, but in the president's foreign dealings the Russians play the role that Republicans currently more or less play in his domestic affairs. The Russians' view of the world tends to be zero-sum: if an American president is for it, they are, by definition, against it. Obama thought that he had made more prog­ress with the Russians than he had with the Republicans; Medvedev had come to trust him, he felt, and believed him when he said the United States had no intention of moving into Libya for the long term. A senior American official at the United Nations thought that perhaps the Russians let Obama have his resolution only because they thought it would end in disaster for the United States.
 
And it could have. All that exists for any president are the odds. On March 17 the U.N. gave Obama his resolution. The next day he flew to Brazil and was there on the 19th, when the bombing began. A group of Democrats in Congress issued a statement demanding Obama withdraw from Libya; Ohio Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich asked if Obama had just committed an impeachable offense. All sorts of people who had been hounding the president for his inaction now flipped and questioned the wisdom of action. A few days earlier Newt Gingrich, busy running for president, had said, "We don't need the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we're intervening." Four days after the bombing began, Gingrich went on the Today show to say he wouldn't have intervened and was quoted on Politico as saying, "It is impossible to make sense of the standard of intervention in Libya except opportunism and news media publicity." The tone of the news coverage shifted dramatically, too. One day it was "Why aren't you doing anything?" The next it was "What have you gotten us into?" As one White House staffer puts it, "All the people who had been demanding intervention went nuts after we intervened and said it was outrageous. That's because the controversy machine is bigger than the reality machine."
 
Put more succinctly, going to war in Libya was a close call; there are things various folks could have said to deter him; he ran the decision through executive branch and international channels; most people told him not to do it; but if Congress came into the picture at all, it wasn't enough to merit mention in the retelling, and certainly not enough to follow the constitution and put the prospective war to a vote. The people's representatives were excluded.
 
That remains a scandal.
 
And it is telling that Michael Lewis, one of America's finest journalists, didn't even ask Obama about failing to put the decision about Libya before Congress. He didn't ask despite the plain language of the Constitution, Obama's prior statements indicating he fully understood his legal obligations, and the fact that various members of Congress complained about his unilateral action. The imperial presidency is so well entrenched that a journalist like Lewis needn't really question those things to feel as though he's including all the crucial parts of the story about going to war.
 
That is quite a precedent Obama has set. And Mitt Romney is ready to exploit it if he wins. As he put it: "I can assure you if I'm president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don't believe at this stage, therefore, if I'm president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now."
 
From TheAtlantic - shaping the national debate on the most critical issues of our times, from politics, business, and the economy, to technology, arts, and culture.


Read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/caught-misleading-on-libya-president-obamas-inconsistent-statements/262299/#ixzz26OCD6oiR

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41099
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #888 on: September 16, 2012, 05:52:14 AM »

Bump



Obama and NATO Turn Libya, and a $30B Check, Over to Jihadists
Human Events ^ | JUly 24, 2011 | Tara Servatius
Posted on July 24, 2011 9:25:38 AM EDT by libstripper

How would Americans feel if they knew the Obama administration just agreed to hand people affiliated with a designated terrorist group a $30 billion dollar check and recognize them as the legitimate rulers of Libya?

Things weren’t looking so good for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group back in 2004 when they were designated a foreign terrorist group by the State Department. In chilling testimony, then-CIA Director George Tenet warned the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 that even if Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda was completely destroyed, “a global network of Islamic extremists bent on killing Americans had emerged.” Tenet listed the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) as one of those groups.

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


tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #889 on: September 16, 2012, 05:55:18 AM »
Bump





I too was and am still worried about this, but McCain says its not true... Why should I believe he's wrong?

Is the Senior Senator clueless?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41099
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #890 on: September 16, 2012, 06:00:28 AM »

I too was and am still worried about this, but McCain says its not true... Why should I believe he's wrong?

Is the Senior Senator clueless?

Yes.    McLame got played for a fool and is a stubborn old man. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41099
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #891 on: October 11, 2012, 08:56:53 AM »
Senator Barack Obama 12/20/207: “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.”

http://www­­­.boston.­c­o­m/news­/p­ol­itic­s/2­008­/s­peci­als/­­Candi­date­Q­A/Ob­ama­QA/


BUMP for 240 

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #892 on: October 12, 2012, 08:47:03 AM »
BUMP for 240 
Thats not entirely true.

 President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #893 on: October 12, 2012, 08:48:28 AM »
Obviously Obama knew that he could send troops in various situations without Congress as he has done so many times.

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #894 on: October 12, 2012, 09:13:36 AM »
Thats not entirely true.

 President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.
I believe the Marine Corp takes it's orders directly from the President (whereas the rest of the Armed Forces receive them from Congress) for just this situation.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41099
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #895 on: October 15, 2012, 03:22:58 PM »
NYT: U.S. to Help Create Libyan Commando Force
 NYTimes ^ | October 15, 2012 | ERIC SCHMITT

Posted on Monday, October 15, 2012 6:15:24 PM by maggief

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon and State Department are rushing to help the Libyan government create a new commando force to combat Islamic extremists like the ones who killed the American ambassador in Libya last month and to help counter the country’s fractious militias, according to internal government documents.

The Obama administration quietly won Congress’s approval last month to shift about $8 million from Pentagon operations and counterterrorism aid budgeted for Pakistan to begin building an elite Libyan force over the next year that could ultimately number about 500 troops. American Special Operations forces could conduct much of the training, as they have with counterterrorism forces in Pakistan and Yemen, American officials said.


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

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41099
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #896 on: October 19, 2012, 06:42:22 AM »
How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria
 


Michael Kelley|55 minutes ago|527|4
 



REPORT: It Was A NATO Mortar That Killed 5 Turkish Civilians Last Week


The details of the September 11 attack that killed four Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi are still murky and there's certainly more to be known.
 
Former CIA officer Clare Lopez argues that the key issue is "the relationship of the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya with Al Qaeda."
 
That relationship, Lopez argues, could be connected to the rise of Islamic brigades in Syria, who recently created a "Front to Liberate Syria" to wage jihad against the Syrian regime and turn the country into an Islamic state.
 
That potential connection starts with who Ambassador Stevens worked with during the Libyan revolution and ends with who he hosted on the night of his death.
 
In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition and began coordinating U.S. assistance to the rebels.
 
The top military commander of the rebels, Abdelhakim Belhadj, was the leader of the pro-al-Qaeda Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).
 
After Gaddafi fell the LIFG disbanded and some of the fighters joined the amorphous group Ansar al-Shariah (Soldiers of Shariah), which reportedly participated in the attack that took Stevens' life.
 
In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, "met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey" in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.
 
Last month The Times of London reported the a Libyan ship "carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey." The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs).
 
Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi's stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc.
 
Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.
 
The ship's captain was "a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support," which was presumably established by the new government.
 
That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria. (The official U.S. stance is that it is opposed to providing Syrian rebels with heavy weapons.)
 
Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the Syrian opposition, but where did they come from?
 
Last week The Telegraph reported that a FSA commander called them "Libyans" when he explained that the FSA doesn't "want these extremist people here."
 
So this much is fairly certain: Libya has been sending seasoned Islamic fighters, heavy weapons and presumably money to Syria in support of the opposition.
 
The uncertain part is where Stevens, and the U.S. government, fits into all of this.
 
If the new Libyan government was sending jihadists and 400 tons of lethal cargo to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens' primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it.
 
Reuters reported that satellite photos exposed a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, was used as "a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles" ... and that its security features "were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died."
 
We also know that about a dozen CIA operatives and contractors left the Benghazi base after it was exposed. Could these two CIA groups be connected as start and end points to help funnel heavy weapons to the Syrian opposition?
 
We know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey, but CNN reports that FSA members are "cutting their own deals to get weapons" from well-armed extremists so it raises questions about who the CIA is arming.
 
We know that U.S. weapons are ending up in the hands of hard-line Islamists in Syria. It turns out that many of these jihadists are the same ones that Stevens helped arm to topple Gaddafi.
 
On September 11 Stevens held an evening meeting with a Turkish diplomat before retiring to his room at 9 p.m. Gunfire and explosions began 40 minutes later. Is Steven's guest for his last meeting just another eerie coincidence?
 
Either way it seems that the connection between Benghazi and the rise of jihadists in Syria is much stronger than has been officially acknowledged.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-10#ixzz29khGNDrl

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41099
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #897 on: October 19, 2012, 06:44:28 AM »
President Obama's Other Libya Scandal
 Townhall.com ^ | October 19, 2012 | Ken Blackwell

Posted on Friday, October 19, 2012 8:53:45 AM by Kaslin

Editor's Note: This column was coauthored by Bob Morrison.



As presidential debaters clash over the meaning of a Rose Garden general reference to “acts of terror,” and whether that phrase was applied to the murder of our ambassador to Libya and three of his colleagues, and with a debate moderator throwing a “life line” to one of the candidates, it’s interesting to note something else said in the secure environs of the White House complex the bright morning after that night of flame and death in Benghazi.



It’s almost like Poe’s short story, The Purloined Letter. The critical evidence is in plain sight. The day after the murders of the Americans, President Obama promised to cooperate with our presumed friends in the new Libyan regime in Tripoli. Here’s what he said:







The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats… And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.



Rose Garden Statement, September 12, 2012



The “make no mistake” phrase has been poll-tested, no doubt, to suggest the speaker is most resolute, most firm. In this context, however, the phrase is as vacuous as Bill Clinton’s definition of “is” is, or Joe Biden’s definition of “we.”



The candid world has already seen just how cooperative this new Libyan regime is. The New York Times inadvertently showed us the spots of this leopard in its story on the reported death of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi back in May.



Tripoli’s new leaders refused to return him. But, under international pressure, they signaled a willingness to get to the bottom of the Lockerbie case, still unresolved after nearly a quarter of a century of struggle among nations and investigations that spanned the globe, touching on Iranians, Syrians, Palestinians and Libyans.



The Times then reported how Tripoli’s new rulers had declined to help the U.S. bring closure to the investigation into the bombing of PanAm 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. Recall, these are rulers whom President Obama helped to put in power. For them, he ordered NATO airstrikes against the dictatorship of Col. Muammar Khaddafi. For them, he has requested another $250 million in foreign aid.



Suddenly, the man who was imprisoned in Scotland, but who later infamously was released from jail and flown home to a rapturous reception in Tripoli, has turned up dead. How convenient.



It is this same Libyan gang that President Obama says he will work with to get to the bottom of the murders in Benghazi. Don’t hold your breath. We’ve been waiting 24 years for the “international community” to bring to justice the killers of 270 passengers of the doomed jet liner and bystanders on the ground in Lockerbie. With the supposed death of Megrahi, we will probably count PanAm 103 as a cold case and not pursue it further.



Libya is a burning issue. The case of the PanAm jet that fell in flames from the skies cries out for justice. Why should we give a penny in aid to a so-called government in Tripoli that stonewalled our efforts to bring Megrahi to justice?



That same Tripoli government was duty-bound under international law to protect our diplomats and State Department employees. We saw on September 11th—of all days—how indifferent this Libyan bunch was to the safety of our American personnel.



“Working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats” is one of the weakest excuses in history. We already know how much this Libyan regime cares about American lives.



They do care, of course, about another $250 million in American aid. Not a penny of that money should be given unconditionally to people who have already shown their indifference to human lives—ours and others.



The final presidential debate is scheduled for next week. Let us see whether CBS’ Bob Schieffer will raise this burning Libyan issue with the candidates.

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #898 on: October 19, 2012, 07:21:03 AM »
Obviously Obama knew that he could send troops in various situations without Congress as he has done so many times.
Reagan did the same thing....TWICE....with Grenada and Panama

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41099
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #899 on: October 19, 2012, 07:23:14 AM »
Reagan did the same thing....TWICE....with Grenada and Panama

Was he doing it to create a pan islamist global caliphate to collapse Israel and advance global Sharia like Obama is doing? 



No. 


Next.