House rejects bill to defund Libya mission

[MomentsofSanity]

After this morning's vote to reject a bill to support the action the GOP sponsored bill to limit funding was voted down. It wasn't likely to make it past the senate anyway but I found it quite amusing the house refuses to support the action 123-295 yet agree to fund it.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/24/libya.congress/index.html

 

[sunzt]

all talk and no action... like every politician.... or uber nerd.

 

[theeedude]

Who are the Gaddaffi sympathizing traitors who voted for it?
Did I even have to ask?

The second measure was strongly supported by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other top GOP leaders. It was defeated 180-238, with Democrats largely voting no as Republicans voted yes by a slimmer margin.

 

[Genx87]

Who are the Gaddaffi sympathizing traitors who voted for it?
Did I even have to ask?

Still havent come to terms your donkeys are bankster war mongers as well?

 

[theeedude]

Still havent come to terms your donkeys are bankster war mongers as well?

Still haven't come to terms that Republicans are terrorist sympathizers?

 

[Genx87]

Still haven't come to terms that Republicans are terrorist sympathizers?

Not today. I am trying to walk a mile in your shoes.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Still haven't come to terms that Republicans are terrorist sympathizers?

Sooo...it's ok to pull troops out of Iraq/Afghanistan, but we have to keep funding the bombardment of Libya? :\ Don't Democrats keep whining about how the defense budget is too big? Aren't democrats also supposed to be opposed to excessive executive war powers?

Oh wait, maybe you're a "progressive." My bad.

 

[her209]

Wow. Very surprising indeed. I bet Boehner wasn't expecting it to fail even if it were a symbolic vote.

 

[Anarchist420]

Anyone who read the "defunding" bill the Republicans voted yes on, would realize that it was pro-war legislation disguised as anti-war legislation. If you look at the Republicans who voted no on it, they include Amash, Bachmann, and Paul, while the Rs that voted yes on it included neocon Eric Cantor and John Bayner.

 

[Craig234]

Sooo...it's ok to pull troops out of Iraq/Afghanistan, but we have to keep funding the bombardment of Libya? :\ Don't Democrats keep whining about how the defense budget is too big? Aren't democrats also supposed to be opposed to excessive executive war powers?

Oh wait, maybe you're a "progressive." My bad.

Yes, idiot, because the circumstances of withdrawing a 'surge' from Afghanistan and providing support for protecting civilians in Libya are the same circumstances.

The defense budget has PLENTY of room to cut while keeping our support for preventing a slaughter like Libya.

 

[dainthomas]

Yes, idiot, because the circumstances of withdrawing a 'surge' from Afghanistan and providing support for protecting civilians in Libya are the same circumstances.

The defense budget has PLENTY of room to cut while keeping our support for preventing a slaughter like Libya.

Republican policy is to weaken Obama at ANY cost (regardless of humanitarian cost or damage to national interests). Any other justification for their policies is a smokescreen.

 

[Doppel]

Who are the Gaddaffi sympathizing traitors who voted for it?
Did I even have to ask?

Is this a new low for you, taking the Clinton stand of with us or against us, really?

Clinton never had sexual relations
Bush said it wasn't torture
Obama said killing people wasn't hostilities

Same sh*t with each of them.

I don't have a problem with the US being there in a general sense and think they ought to hurry up and off Gadhafi but that doesn't change the illegality of it. Obama has broken the law, the justice department and pentagon thinks that, too.

 

[Anarchist420]

Yes, idiot, because the circumstances of withdrawing a 'surge' from Afghanistan and providing support for protecting civilians in Libya are the same circumstances.

The defense budget has PLENTY of room to cut while keeping our support for preventing a slaughter like Libya.

This is about oil (see wikileaks), not preventing slaughter. If Obama really cared about preventing slaughter, then he wouldn't have killed so many innocent brown people in Afghanistan.

That said, the military budget should be cut to zero.

 

[bfdd]

Who are the Gaddaffi sympathizing traitors who voted for it?
Did I even have to ask?

The way I see it, Gaddaffi is no different than Sadddam. In fact maybe less so considering he has actively been fighting one of our enemies, Al Qaeda, for the last couple years. Looks like those supporting the funding of this Libyan conflict are on the sides of Al Qaeda. I mean we've already had estimates that 1/3rd of the rebels are AQ, we're constantly having to screen through the rebels to make sure we don't accidentally train and arm AQ operatives.

So those who vote against funding the Libyan conflict are Gaddaffi sympathizers while those vote for funding the Libyan conflict are Al Qaeda sympathizers.

 

[Anarchist420]

Al Qaida has to be part of the CIA.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Yes, idiot, because the circumstances of withdrawing a 'surge' from Afghanistan and providing support for protecting civilians in Libya are the same circumstances.

The defense budget has PLENTY of room to cut while keeping our support for preventing a slaughter like Libya.

If this was about civilian slaughter, we would be in the Ivory Coast and Syria as well. It's about energy security for Europe. I agree, the defense budget has plenty of room to cut. But I don't see how encouraging bombing yet another country enforces that idea. Let's stop invading other countries so much, scale back our forces to protect ourselves and our allies, and worry about problems at home.

 

[Throckmorton]

Sooo...it's ok to pull troops out of Iraq/Afghanistan, but we have to keep funding the bombardment of Libya? :\ Don't Democrats keep whining about how the defense budget is too big? Aren't democrats also supposed to be opposed to excessive executive war powers?

Oh wait, maybe you're a "progressive." My bad.

Uhhhh when did we pull out of Iraq/Afghanistan? We still have the people needed in Iraq after the major pullout, and are in the process of drawing down in Afghanistan. Because the missions are ending. And the mission is not over in Libya. How is that so fucking hard to understand?


I can't believe the moronic anti-war bandwagon jumping, especially over a tiny cheap operation like Libya. This is the kind of stupid shit that allowed the holocaust to happen. "It ain't our business".

 

[Throckmorton]

If this was about civilian slaughter, we would be in the Ivory Coast and Syria as well. It's about energy security for Europe. I agree, the defense budget has plenty of room to cut. But I don't see how encouraging bombing yet another country enforces that idea. Let's stop invading other countries so much, scale back our forces to protect ourselves and our allies, and worry about problems at home.

Then why don't you advocate for intervention in those places?

And why don't you consider a democratic revolution in a fascist Arab dictatorship to be our ally?

 

[Throckmorton]

I wonder if the leftist/rightist/libertarian morons who don't give a shit about brown people because they ain't us think France shouldn't have helped us during our revolution.

 

[Craig234]

If this was about civilian slaughter, we would be in the Ivory Coast and Syria as well. It's about energy security for Europe. I agree, the defense budget has plenty of room to cut. But I don't see how encouraging bombing yet another country enforces that idea. Let's stop invading other countries so much, scale back our forces to protect ourselves and our allies, and worry about problems at home.

Not every situation has the same options. And sometimes we make mistakes. Clinton said one of his biggest mistakes was not taking action to protect civilians in Rwanda.

The way rebels held areas, the types of arms Qadafai had, etc., make Libya and Syria difference as to the effect of our bombing.

There are situations we can't get involved for various reasons unfortunately. When China murdered its own people at Tiananmen Square, it didn't make sense to go to war.

 

[theeedude]

Republicans hate Obama so much, they side with Gaddaffi against the US and his own people. It's disgusting enough that they want to crash the economy domestically to hurt Obama's 2012 prospects, but now they are aiding political aid and comfort to an enemy with American blood on his hands. It's absolutely disgusting and nothing short of treason.

 

[irishScott]

Republicans hate Obama so much, they side with Gaddaffi against the US and his own people. It's disgusting enough that they want to crash the economy domestically to hurt Obama's 2012 prospects, but now they are aiding political aid and comfort to an enemy with American blood on his hands. It's absolutely disgusting and nothing short of treason.

Hello liberal mouth foaming. I bet you were bit by a rabid Tea Party-er weren't you? After all that would mean Republicans carry rabies, a statement which would fit your post quite nicely.

You do know that a Republican dominated house just voted to keep funding Libya right? So much for this Conservative lock-step Machiavellian hardline I keep hearing about.

 

[irishScott]

Al Qaida has to be part of the CIA.

And Hamas has to be part of the Department of Agriculture.

 

[Doppel]

Republicans hate Obama so much, they side with Gaddaffi against the US and his own people. It's disgusting enough that they want to crash the economy domestically to hurt Obama's 2012 prospects, but now they are aiding political aid and comfort to an enemy with American blood on his hands. It's absolutely disgusting and nothing short of treason.

 

[Anarchist420]

And Hamas has to be part of the Department of Agriculture.

From what I heard from Dr. Paul, Israel created Hamas, but it turned against them.