Lawmakers Angry With Obama Over Libyan Strike, Warn Administration Lacks 'End-Game'

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
He needs to inform Congress, and he needs to get Congressional approval if the mission is going to last more than sixty days, but the last thing in the world he needed to do is to have Congress debate it before committing. The delay was bad enough as it was without trying to walk it through Congress.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Last edited:

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
Obama also did not get any authorization from congress like the constitution says he needs to go to war and like he said he would when he was a candidate:

"OBAMA: 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."

Lies.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,405
8,582
126
so if we bomb and gaddafi doesn't go away, do we end up with another kosovo?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...an-strike-warn-administration-lacks-end-game/

Haha, what are we suppose to do go discuss this with congress and have them muck around for a few weeks? I think congress can go fuck themselves. And you know every republican would be against it. So what's the point? Waste of tax payers money.

You might wanna read the article you link. Says Boehner supports it. If the House leader, a Repub, supports it, it's highly unlikely every Repub would oppose it.

Congress has a Constitutional duty here. It's not up the UN to give our President the "OK" for acts of war, that's essentially Congress's role. But if he's got 60 days, then he has 60 days. But should be no outrage or shock that Congresspersons weigh in with their opinons, that's what they do. Obama did it too when he was a Senator.

Fern
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
so if we bomb and gaddafi doesn't go away, do we end up with another kosovo?

I am curious to see what happens if he survives and the rebels cant do anything either. Wil the rebels accept the brokered peace France, Britain, and the United States make with his regime? If we dont get him in an airstrike the only other way is to land ground forces. I dont think even with the cover of air the rebels can do squat.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,139
236
106
You might wanna read the article you link. Says Boehner supports it. If the House leader, a Repub, supports it, it's highly unlikely every Repub would oppose it.

Congress has a Constitutional duty here. It's not up the UN to give our President the "OK" for acts of war, that's essentially Congress's role. But if he's got 60 days, then he has 60 days. But should be no outrage or shock that Congresspersons weigh in with their opinons, that's what they do. Obama did it too when he was a Senator.

Fern


Boner is gonna go along with anything it's the rest of the retards you gotta worry about. I'm glad you have so much faith in them at least "SOMEONE" does.

Might be a shock to you, that I'm not for either side... *IF* you would have read the article even dems are against it as well. Sorry I don't have faith in the system. All you need is a bunch of lobbyist's to buy out votes ... so you tell me, who's opinions are they really? I'm certain they already are opposing it gain a little unknown cry agenda.

Altho I'm certain it will pass by majority I just thought it was funny.
 
Last edited:

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
The best possible outcome is probably now a partitioned Libya, Ghaddafi stays in power and proceeds to talk shit until he dies. We'll probably be footing the security bill for the free zone or whatever it'll be called and that's that.

He's surrounded himself with civilians and we're not going to wipe them out, nor will the Brits, so here we are. The rebels lost all of their momentum and obviously cannot win on the ground despite all of their recent boasting.

It's shocking that we're intervening on behalf of people we don't even know. I'm not suggesting they're extremists but we really don't have any idea who these people are or what the outcome would be if they were to come to power.

Yet we are putting Americans in danger to protect them.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,139
236
106
The best possible outcome is probably now a partitioned Libya, Ghaddafi stays in power and proceeds to talk shit until he dies. We'll probably be footing the security bill for the free zone or whatever it'll be called and that's that.

He's surrounded himself with civilians and we're not going to wipe them out, nor will the Brits, so here we are. The rebels lost all of their momentum and obviously cannot win on the ground despite all of their recent boasting.

It's shocking that we're intervening on behalf of people we don't even know. I'm not suggesting they're extremists but we really don't have any idea who these people are or what the outcome would be if they were to come to power.

Yet we are putting Americans in danger to protect them.

Good luck in your little dream world... Ghaddafi is gonna fold up like a popcorn fart.

Putting Americans in danger? Thats what the fucking signed up for. And what danger are they really in. Do tell...

I predict Ghaddafi doesn't last a month.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
Obama also did not get any authorization from congress like the constitution says he needs to go to war and like he said he would when he was a candidate:

"OBAMA: 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."

Lies.

Your fucking stuck on stupid boy. This isnt a war.
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
Your fucking stuck on stupid boy. This isnt a war.


OBAMA: 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."

This is not a military attack?
Really?

Attacking another countries military installations and tanks is not war?

Lol yeah ok, sure. What a hack you are.
 
Last edited:

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
OBAMA: 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."
He's technically right. Its in the War Powers Act.

:D
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,365
16
0
“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,"

Barak Hussein Obama, 2007
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Sounds like an issue for the SCOTUS...

:D

No, it is an issue for Congress.

I don't believe the subject could even get to the SCOTUS without Congress filing the suit.

But I don't believe Obama or the Dems want to see Congress involved, and that's why Obama hasn't asked for a resolution from them authorizing this etc.

It would put too many liberal Dems on the spot. Either vote gainst Obama or be the on 'hot seat' for authorizing another war. IMO, politics is driving this questionable process of by-passing Congress and getting involved anyway.

Fern
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,365
16
0
Haha, what are we suppose to do go discuss this with congress and have them muck around for a few weeks?

The uprising started a month ago. Obama goofed off for almost a month, even took time to get in plenty of golf. Congress could easily have acted quicker than Obama did.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
You'd have a point if the Constitution wasn't the supreme law of the united states, but it is.

Even [candidate] Obama agrees with me.

Of course it is, and Congress ceded their power for a period of 60 days with the War Powers Act of 1973, and had, in practice, ceded it may times before. Numerous US military interventions have occurred w/o formal declaration of war or Congressional approval of any kind. Grenada and Panama are 2 recent examples.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
The uprising started a month ago. Obama goofed off for almost a month, even took time to get in plenty of golf. Congress could easily have acted quicker than Obama did.

He was waiting for UN and Arab League approval. If we had gone in without international support, it would have been seen as another Iraq invasion style meddling by a lot of people, especially those in the Arab world. Without support from Arabs, we'd have ended up in another quagmire.