Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission

[boomerang]

Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission

Crossing party lines to deliver a stunning rebuke to the commander in chief, the vast majority of the House voted Friday for resolutions telling President Obama he has broken the constitutional chain of authority by committing U.S. troops to the international military mission in Libya.

“He has a chance to get this right. If he doesn’t, Congress will exercise its constitutional authority and make it right,” said House Speaker John A. Boehner, the Ohio Republican who wrote the resolution that passed, 268-145, and sets a two-week deadline for the president to deliver the information the House is seeking.

It's encouraging to see that our Congress-critters can work together at least occasionally. The article also says that they shot down a more far-reaching resolution that would have resulted in the immediate withdrawal of our troops. Another common sense vote.

There may still be a chance for the restoration of at least some form of sanity in DC.

 

[Jaskalas]

Our troops should have never been involved and SHOULD be immediately withdrawn.

Boehner pisses me off by usurping the proper course of action and then getting ‘credit’ for ‘rebuking’ Obama, when the purpose of his parlor trick is to provide cover for Obama. I stand with Kucinich and the GOP has proven once again why they should be removed from power.

 

[thraashman]

Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission



It's encouraging to see that our Congress-critters can work together at least occasionally. The article also says that they shot down a more far-reaching resolution that would have resulted in the immediate withdrawal of our troops. Another common sense vote.

There may still be a chance for the restoration of at least some form of sanity in DC.

Almost as shocking, an article was posted in P&N with a huge opportunity for extreme partisan hackery, but was posted instead with reasonible neutrality in the OP. I'm not sure where to go with a thread that didn't start with a lean hard left or right.

 

[Red Dawn]

The Libyan Political Action Commitee is paying great dividends for the Colonel. Money well spent.

 

[First]

lmao @ bipartisan.

 

[Fern]

I believe Obama's actions have been illegal. I do not believe the War Powers Act, or several SCOTUS decisions on the President's ability to unilateral commit troops, authorizes his use of US military here. The USA was not in danger, imminent or otherwise.

However, I am a bit surprised to see Congress rise up here. Frankly, I suspected they wanted nothing to do with it so as to avoid any political negetives that may result.

OTOH, this may signal their belief the Libya adventure is not going well and they want to place themselves on the 'right' side of the issue.

Fern

 

[Red Dawn]

I'm a little surprised, Republicans usually salivate at the idea of killing Muslims.

Aside from this not being sold to us on bullshit, being poorly planned, costing us almost a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives and making Iran more powerful and relevent, what's the difference between this and Iraq?

 

[First]

Aside from this not being sold to us on bullshit, being poorly planned, costing us almost a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives and making Iran more powerful and relevent, what's the difference between this and Iraq?

Nice.

 

[werepossum]

Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission



It's encouraging to see that our Congress-critters can work together at least occasionally. The article also says that they shot down a more far-reaching resolution that would have resulted in the immediate withdrawal of our troops. Another common sense vote.

There may still be a chance for the restoration of at least some form of sanity in DC.

Agreed. Obama needs to make his case to Congress and get authorization. I'm still operating under the assumption that he has valid reasons for attacking Libya rather than Syria, Congo, Yemen, etc. but he does need to follow the law. I think though that IF our involvement has been reduced to combat support, things like AWACs and providing security and SAR services for our NATO allies, that he may be within the letter of his authority. But he still needs to make his case to Congress and to the American people.

This bipartisan vote gives me at least a little hope that if Congress does cut off his funding and makes him leave Libya, at least it will be because they see no compelling American interests at stake and not merely out of pique that they weren't properly asked.

 

[werepossum]

I'm a little surprised, Republicans usually salivate at the idea of killing Muslims.

Aside from this not being sold to us on bullshit, being poorly planned, costing us almost a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives and making Iran more powerful and relevent, what's the difference between this and Iraq?

Um, Iraq was legally done by Bush first making his case to Congress and getting authorization?

What'd I win?

 

[Red Dawn]

Um, Iraq was legally done by Bush first making his case to Congress and getting authorization?

What'd I win?

So you would have been OK with it if Obama had lied to congress to get permission?

 

[Fern]

I'm a little surprised, Republicans usually salivate at the idea of killing Muslims.

Aside from this not being sold to us on bullshit, being poorly planned, costing us almost a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives and making Iran more powerful and relevent, what's the difference between this and Iraq?

Congress authorized Iraq.

And the point here is not whether this is more justified than Iraq etc. The point here is whether Obama is following the WPA and other law or precident; or is he usurping Congressional powers.

Edit: Was beaten to it by werepossum.

Fern

 

[Doppel]

The US should be there, but should have been there at least two weeks earlier before Gadhafi recovered so much we now have a long drawn out messed up situation.

Anyway as I see the law Obama broke it by not getting congressional approval. Nobody cares, though. Even the House passing stuff there will be no real consequences. Government doesn't really have law.

I'm a little surprised, Republicans usually salivate at the idea of killing Muslims.

Aside from this not being sold to us on bullshit, being poorly planned, costing us almost a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives and making Iran more powerful and relevent, what's the difference between this and Iraq?

Are you always this Partisan? I thought the topic was Libya, not Iraq.

 

[Red Dawn]

The US should be there, but should have been there at least two weeks earlier before Gadhafi recovered so much we now have a long drawn out messed up situation.

Anyway as I see the law Obama broke it by not getting congressional approval. Nobody cares, though. Even the House passing stuff there will be no real consequences. Government doesn't really have law.Are you always this Partisan? I thought the topic was Libya, not Iraq.

What I'm getting at and it should be obvious to all is that if this was some Republican beautiful being who was President no Republican Politician aside from Ron Paul would be complaining. On the other hand there would always be a sizable number of Democrat Politici9ans who'd be against ity no matter who is President.

 

[werepossum]

So you would have been OK with it if Obama had lied to congress to get permission?

No. But I do not believe that Bush lied about Iraq either. I believe that both Bush and Obama conduct their foreign policy according to their heartfelt convictions about what is necessary and what is best for the world and the country, although they may not agree on what weight to give each.

 

[sactoking]

Almost as shocking, an article was posted in P&N with a huge opportunity for extreme partisan hackery, but was posted instead with reasonible neutrality in the OP. I'm not sure where to go with a thread that didn't start with a lean hard left or right.

I approve of this message.

 

[Moonbeam]

No. But I do not believe that Bush lied about Iraq either.

Oh, WOW!

 

[werepossum]

Oh, WOW!

Far too often people insist on envisioning Bush and Obama (or their then-current equivalents) as both dressed entirely in spandex and cell-shaded, the only difference being that one wears a cape and the other continuously dry-washes his hands. Feel free to indulge. I try not to see the world as a struggle of cartoon proportions between one evil party and one good party. I don't always succeed, but I do try.

 

[Moonbeam]

Our troops should have never been involved and SHOULD be immediately withdrawn.

So true, we should never save thousands and thousands of lives just because we can, especially if the folk are Muslim, right? There are pills you can take to sleep at night, and cowardliness equates to being emotionally dead. We'll be just fine.

 

[werepossum]

So true, we should never save thousands and thousands of lives just because we can, especially if the folk are Muslim, right? There are pills you can take to sleep at night, and cowardliness equates to being emotionally dead. We'll be just fine.

If you take that tact, you have an obligation to show why Libya and not the many other nations in exactly the same condition. Some sort of proof that the tens if not hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam were in fact only human-appearing aardvarks would be useful too, just to keep alive the myth that any decision taken by your cartoon character automatically brings forth choruses of angels whilst any decision taken by the opposing cartoon character is automatically the work of the Devil himself (i.e. Dick Cheney and Halliburton.) Might be time to play the race card again too.

 

[Craig234]

Washington Times is a crap source. Doesn't deserve to be read; this time I scanned it just to see how many Dems voted for the 'bi-partisan resolution', it doesn't say.

On the issue: I said before it appears Obama is violating the War Powers Act. Enough Repubs voted against the Kucinich amendment it didn't pass. Sounds like playing politics.

I don't trust Republicans to do anything on this but oppose Obama any chance they get.

They've shown there's basically nothing they won't do to harm the country if it helps them or their agenda politically. Privatize Social Security and Medicare (not 'fixing' them, but making them far less efficient, profiting the private Wall Street and Healthcare insurance cronies), tell the world the US won't pay its bills, shut the government down, fail to fund the laws it's passed like the Affordable Healthcare Act, hold all of the President's appointments hostage, kill the new Consumer Finance agency, kill the US auto industry, kill the economic recovery (which would help them get elected in 2012) opposing stimulus, for some examples.

I've got no problem with Congress voting against Obama strongly on his violation of the War Powers Act, if they could do it as responsible politicians, not as the Republicans' usually petty political, hypocritical action where it has basically nothing to do with the law or principle, only trying to attack their opponent.

I suspect their 'restraint' here has nothing to do with anything other than recognizing they'd be vulnerable politically if they did more at the moment. I don't even think it's about setting bad precedent they don't want to deal with - they've shown they're happy to change positions depending on who's in office.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I think that it's about time to be completely uninvolved with Libya, but we will need to closely monitor the British and the French here.

 

[werepossum]

Washington Times is a crap source. Doesn't deserve to be read; this time I scanned it just to see how many Dems voted for the 'bi-partisan resolution', it doesn't say.

On the issue: I said before it appears Obama is violating the War Powers Act. Enough Repubs voted against the Kucinich amendment it didn't pass. Sounds like playing politics.

I don't trust Republicans to do anything on this but oppose Obama any chance they get.

They've shown there's basically nothing they won't do to harm the country if it helps them or their agenda politically. Privatize Social Security and Medicare (not 'fixing' them, but making them far less efficient, profiting the private Wall Street and Healthcare insurance cronies), tell the world the US won't pay its bills, shut the government down, fail to fund the laws it's passed like the Affordable Healthcare Act, hold all of the President's appointments hostage, kill the new Consumer Finance agency, kill the US auto industry, kill the economic recovery (which would help them get elected in 2012) opposing stimulus, for some examples.

I've got no problem with Congress voting against Obama strongly on his violation of the War Powers Act, if they could do it as responsible politicians, not as the Republicans' usually petty political, hypocritical action where it has basically nothing to do with the law or principle, only trying to attack their opponent.

I suspect their 'restraint' here has nothing to do with anything other than recognizing they'd be vulnerable politically if they did more at the moment. I don't even think it's about setting bad precedent they don't want to deal with - they've shown they're happy to change positions depending on who's in office.

Obama definitely violated the War Powers Act, as there was certainly no attack (or credible threat of attack) on the United States. I think arguably though he did not violate the spirit of the War Powers Act and may have acted within its spirit if not its letter in general accordance with our treaty obligations. We simply don't know, as he has acted as though he is a dictator in this matter rather than the consent of the people and the authorization of Congress. He needs to follow the law, but as President he also deserves the benefit of the doubt. That he did not go before Congress and make his case to the American people is surely pure arrogance, but that doesn't necessarily make him wrong about the larger issue.

And unless the issue is how to best pick up large and arguably insane British hippy chicks, one will never go far wrong voting the opposite of Kucinich.

 

[Craig234]

Oh, WOW!

You have to understand that Bush 'wasn't lying', making it clear he had decided on war to his staff, and then their deciding how to argue for his war, "for bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue – weapons of mass destruction – because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," to quote his Pentagon war champion Paul Wolfowitz. Once that decision was made, the effort was to find any evidence that helped the argument and dismiss any that did not.

That's how we had the baseless quotes from administration officials, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat"; how we had the Vice President going to the CIA to pressure analysts who were not saying what the administratin wanted, repeatedly, how we had the administration putting the lie in the State of the Union we had strong evidence Iraq was actively trying to buy nukes when we did not, for which they later had to apologize after an actual patriot told the truth, for which they attacked his wife, exposing a CIA undercover operative and ended her career in the CIA, which they lied about to cover up and were had Cheney's chief of staff convicted, and sentence commuted by Bush; how we had the administration claiming aluminum tubes in Iraq could only be used for nuclear weapons, ignoring their own experts they were for artillery which also later was confirmed, how the administration chose to mislead the world and even its own Secretary of State to use him for spreading the message, that they had evidence they did not for WMD, hiding that it was almost entirely based on the lies of one man, who they had never met or talked to or knew the identity of, using the information he had supplied German intelligence because he knew it would help him get asylum he wanted when only one in 25 Iraqis trying for asylum in German were getting it, a source German intelligence had told the US was not reliable.

When the administration continued to claim they'd found 'mobile weapons laboratories' months after our own forces reported they were, after the invasion and inspection, nothing of the sort, he'll have to explain why that wasn't lying; presumably, the President (a couple days later) and Vice President (4 months later) didn't get the memo that Curveball had made the story up.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1836723

But Bush did make this somber speech when he apologized to the nation and the world for his errors on WMD claims to justify the war.

http://www.jokeroo.com/videos/yt/g5dp-bush-jokes-about-wmds-at-white-house-dinner.html

You have to understand to werepossum that's not lying, because they didn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt Saddam *didn't* have WMD, as they lied.

 

[spidey07]

The big question and the one I want answered is will congress start impeachment proceedings for the traitor in chief? Don't tiptoe patriot republicans, get rid of this president.