Moonlight Graham Posted March 24, 2011 Report Posted March 24, 2011 (edited) Some say yes, others say no. Your thoughts? Here's an article about it. I initially thought Obama needed to consult Congress but i'm not an expert on the U.S. Constitution, and here is an article in the Washington Post from two people who served under Reagan and Bush Sr. that argue Obama doesn't need Congress's approval (apparently the U.S. has not officially declared war on Libya, which would need congressional approval...or some such reasoning) However, what is hypocritical of Obama is what he said in 2007: “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.” Hmm ok...this coming from a man who was a constitutional law professor. Also hypocritical are some of these Republicans who are jumping on Obama about it. Where were most of these people under Bush Jr & all the crap he pulled? Edited March 24, 2011 by Moonlight Graham Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Shady Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 Where were most of these people under Bush Jr & all the crap he pulled? They were giving Bush congressional approval. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) They were giving Bush congressional approval. LOL! They sure were...in spades! Afghanistan: House Joint Resolution 64, Senate Joint Resolution 23 Iraq: The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War. Perhaps President Obama forgot that the US Constitution is not subordinate to UNSC resolutions. Edited March 25, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
scouterjim Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 Some say yes, others say no. Your thoughts? Here's an article about it. I initially thought Obama needed to consult Congress but i'm not an expert on the U.S. Constitution, and here is an article in the Washington Post from two people who served under Reagan and Bush Sr. that argue Obama doesn't need Congress's approval (apparently the U.S. has not officially declared war on Libya, which would need congressional approval...or some such reasoning) However, what is hypocritical of Obama is what he said in 2007: Hmm ok...this coming from a man who was a constitutional law professor. Also hypocritical are some of these Republicans who are jumping on Obama about it. Where were most of these people under Bush Jr & all the crap he pulled? The Republicans amaze me. For years it was "We gotta do something to take out Ghaddafi!". Now it is, "Hey! Who said we should do something to take out Ghaddafi?" Quote I have captured the rare duct taped platypus.
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) The Republicans amaze me. For years it was "We gotta do something to take out Ghaddafi!". Now it is, "Hey! Who said we should do something to take out Ghaddafi?" That's because they were afraid of hitting the Canadian Prime Minister in Ghaddafi's tent! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bargains-with-gadhafi-should-the-world-deal-with-the-devil/article1936086/ Edited March 25, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
scouterjim Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 That's because they were afraid of hitting the Canadian Prime Minister in Ghaddafi's tent! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bargains-with-gadhafi-should-the-world-deal-with-the-devil/article1936086/ Martin? Hell, they should have bombed that tent! Quote I have captured the rare duct taped platypus.
DogOnPorch Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 http://www.java-gaming.com/game/11126/Slap_Gaddafi/ Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Shady Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 The Republicans amaze me. For years it was "We gotta do something to take out Ghaddafi!". Now it is, "Hey! Who said we should do something to take out Ghaddafi?" Complete nonsense. Stop making things up. Quote
Shady Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 we do not acknowledge your sham political system... You just did by replying to it. Quote
Jack Weber Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 You just did by replying to it. Professor.... Well played!! Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Oleg Bach Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 The world is upside down at present. Crimminality has over come all that is just and lawful...Obama and others like him hold law in general in contempt - they are now above the law. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 President Obama is going to re-iterate a concept often lost on America's critics: US policy and actions in support of American interests DOES NOT mean consistency for all similar conflicts or circumstances. This oft repeated complaint of a "double standard" has never had merit in American foreign policy. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
ToadBrother Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 (edited) President Obama is going to re-iterate a concept often lost on America's critics: US policy and actions in support of American interests DOES NOT mean consistency for all similar conflicts or circumstances. This oft repeated complaint of a "double standard" has never had merit in American foreign policy. There seem to my mind to be three reasons for American involvement in Libya: 1. To help the Europeans out (Sarkozy and Cameron have been practically begging Obama to help them out). Libyan oil doesn't really affect the US in any direct way, save that speculators will use it to pump up the price of a barrel, but instability in Europe, for whatever reason, is bad for the US and global economy in these very touchy times. 2. To prevent a dangerous destabilization in a region that, well, looks pretty damned unstable already. This points back to point #1 in that there is a real fear by many in Europe that if Gaddafi was allowed to continue his violent military repression of Libyan rebels, that there were would be a mass exodus of Libyans into Europe. This was already seen at the Egyptian border where thousands of Libyans started arriving weeks ago. 3. Because kicking Gaddafi's a$$ is the right thing to do. This guy has terrorized his people for decades and now has decided that legitimate protest at his mismanagement and tyranny should be responded to with jets, mortar and, maybe in a way worst of all, hiring mercenaries with gold plundered from the Libyan people to raise an army against them. Edited March 29, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
GostHacked Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 Martin? Hell, they should have bombed that tent! Yes indeed, no arguments there. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 President Obama is going to re-iterate a concept often lost on America's critics: US policy and actions in support of American interests DOES NOT mean consistency for all similar conflicts or circumstances. This oft repeated complaint of a "double standard" has never had merit in American foreign policy. That concept also seems to be lost on Americans as well. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.