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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
73,315
34,771
136
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.
They did just before they didn't. The War Powers Act is a shockingly poorly worded piece of garbage.

(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or
(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.

All it really does is allow Congress to abdicate its Constitutional duties, providing political cover for craven congress critters to see how the action is going before deciding to support it or not. If Congress would uphold its Constitutional responsibilities we'd have far fewer wars.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
what pisses me off is that the country has no money for medicare, no money for social security, no money to rebuild roads, 14 trillion in debt but it seems we have a endless amont of money to wage war all over the middle east. WTF!
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,139
236
106
what pisses me off is that the country has no money for medicare, no money for social security, no money to rebuild roads, 14 trillion in debt but it seems we have a endless amont of money to wage war all over the middle east. WTF!


Lower Gas Prices tho! When it's over that is maybe.

I think that if Israel wants to show us how dedicated they are... They should man up and send in some hardware and troops to fight along side the rebel force.

Tho, they have a weak army compared to what we got there now... so they would just be in the way... Let the top guns bomb them to rubble first take out air support, and basic infrastructure ... basically bomb them back into the stone age.

Tho, I agree with you... Even tho, were not alone in this. If we can find ways to send tomahawks cruise missiles at a few million a pop, tell me why we can't afford medical for all again? Oh that's right maybe because NOT ONE repuke voted for it? Hmmm
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
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.

It wasn't the US that pushed for the military option.

Hint: It was France and the Brits and once the UN and Arab League approved it they egged on Obama to join in their North African escapade.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110320/ap_on_re_us/europe_libya
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
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.

again posting on subjects that you know nothing about.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
I love how all you knew beyond a doubt that iraq was the right move and here we are sure enough you know beyond a doubt that this is the wrong move. lmao. You learn nothing.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I love how all you knew beyond a doubt that iraq was the right move and here we are sure enough you know beyond a doubt that this is the wrong move. lmao. You learn nothing.
:D And yet you see no possible ancillary to that? None at all?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Kucinich calls Obama’s attack on Libya ‘an impeachable offense’

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/...s-obamas-libya-attack-an-impeachable-offense/

WASHINGTON – In an exclusive interview with Raw Story on Monday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) tore into President Barack Obama's decision to order U.S. air strikes against Libya, opening the door for impeachment while emphatically declaring that Obama violated the Constitution.

"President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have Congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said," Kucinich told Raw Story. "It's not even disputable, this isn't even a close question. Such an action -- that involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy -- is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone."
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
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.

What a worthless post, I'd say you're the one living in some dream land, I guess I have to break it down for you since you're riding high on the "America Fuck Yeah!" wave.

American pilots are in danger, they could be shot down and then they'd either be dead or would be a hostage. Did that really need to be explained?

Takes more than a few airstrikes to bring down an autocrat, we dropped a hell of a lot more bombs on Hussein and still had to send in ground troops = and Libya has even more desert to hide in.

So when your prediction doesn't come to pass, will you re-evaluate your cheerleading?
 

IBMer

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,137
0
76
What I love is how Fox News is both attacking Obama and agreeing with him in the same article. They have been all day. Its freaking brilliant.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
73,315
34,771
136

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
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.

US Aircraft are already down inside 48 hours.
 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
I predict Ghaddafi doesn't last a month.

Based on what? Libya is far more developed and has far more resources than Afghanistan and we are just really crushing that mission aren't we?

P.S. I don't think any soldiers signed up to give their lives in the name of corporate profits.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
US Aircraft are already down inside 48 hours.

From mechanical failure...

1) Link?

2) The fact that they were flying there when there was no threat. We lost less in that time period going into Iraq in either Gulf War.

3) We should not be involving ourselves in every civil war around the planet.

One can not win via air only. No fly is different than air offense which is what is going on. We had a no-fly over Iraq for many years to protect the Kurds. What is happening in Libya is not no fly.

The decision has been made to remove Qaddafi and once committed, anything that is needed will eventually be acceptable.

The same concept happened in Vietnam. The only difference is that there is not a overt support by a big nation for the little guy.
It is possible that either China or Russia may offer support to Libya to test the US/NATA.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
I suspect that you will end up with a bloody civil war whether Gaddafi is removed or not. If he's removed there will be a power vacuum that will be filled one way or another. The rebel leader may not have the support they need to rule.
 

IBMer

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,137
0
76
1) Link?

2) The fact that they were flying there when there was no threat. We lost less in that time period going into Iraq in either Gulf War.

3) We should not be involving ourselves in every civil war around the planet.

One can not win via air only. No fly is different than air offense which is what is going on. We had a no-fly over Iraq for many years to protect the Kurds. What is happening in Libya is not no fly.

The decision has been made to remove Qaddafi and once committed, anything that is needed will eventually be acceptable.

The same concept happened in Vietnam. The only difference is that there is not a overt support by a big nation for the little guy.
It is possible that either China or Russia may offer support to Libya to test the US/NATA.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/22/jet-reportedly-crash-lands-libya-crew-believed-safe/

It was the first line in the article...

TRIPOLI, Libya -- A U.S. warplane on patrol in Libya crash-landed in Libya Tuesday after a mechanical failure, but the U.S. military says the crew of the F-15E Eagle are safe.