Lawmakers Sue President Obama Over “Illegal Libya War”
ABC News’ John R. Parkinson (@JRPabcDC) reports:
Reps. Dennis Kucinich and Walter Jones continued their bipartisan quest to end the U.S. military’s participation in the conflict in Libya, filing a lawsuit Tuesday in federal court against President Obama to “challenge the commitment of the United States to war in Libya absent the required constitutional legal authority.”
The lawsuit challenges what the lawmakers see as “the executive branch’s circumvention of Congress and its use of international organizations such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to authorize the use of military force abroad, in violation of the Constitution.”
“With regard to the war in Libya, we believe that the law was violated. We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies,” Kucinich said in a statement announcing the suit.
A copy of the complaint is linked here.
The lawsuit is signed by a bipartisan group of members of the House, including Kucinich (D-Ohio), Jones (R-North Carolina), Howard Coble (R-North Carolina), John Duncan (R-Tennessee), Roscoe Bartlett (R-Maryland), John Conyers (D-Michigan) Ron Paul (R-Texas), Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts), Tim Johnson (R-Illinois) and Dan Burton (R-Indiana).
According to a release announcing the suit, the lawmakers are calling for “injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the plaintiffs and the country” from:
(1) the policy that a president may unilaterally go to war in Libya and other countries without a declaration of war from Congress, as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution;
(2) the policy that a president may commit the United States to a war under the authority of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in violation of the express conditions of the North Atlantic Treaty ratified by Congress;
(3) the policy that a president may commit the United States to a war under the authority of the United Nations without authorization from Congress;
(4) from the use of previously appropriated funds by Congress for an unconstitutional and unauthorized war in Libya or other countries; and
(5) from the violation of the War Powers Resolution as a result of the Obama Administration’s established policy that the President does not require congressional authorization for the use of military force in wars like the one in Libya.
The Kucinich lawsuit is just the latest in a series of headaches for the administration related to Libya.
Kucinich had worked to push a resolution through the House that would have ended U.S. involvement in Libya within 15 days of passage. The measure was poised to pass until a vote on the House floor was delayed in order to give Speaker John Boehner an opportunity to write an alternative resolution that would convince his Republican colleagues to abandon support for the Kucinich measure.
A vote on the Kucinich bill eventually failed by a count of 148-265. Eighty-seven Republicans voted in favor of the resolution — still more than the 61 Democrats who supported the measure.
Tuesday House Speaker John Boehner warned President Obama in a letter that the administration will soon be in violation of the War Powers Resolution – three months after the president informed Congress of the start of the mission in Libya – because the White House has failed to answer "fundamental questions regarding the Libya mission."
Over the past 90 days, the maximum days allowed under the War Powers Resolution without Congressional approval, Boehner complains that the president has not asked for or received approval from Congress for the action in Libya. Boehner wrote Tuesday that while the administration has provided tactical operational briefings to the House of Representatives, "the White House has systematically avoided requesting a formal authorization for its action."
The White House responded, noting that "Since March 1st, Administration witnesses have testified at over 10 hearings that included a substantial discussion of Libya and participated in over 30 Member or staff briefings, and we will continue to consult with our Congressional colleagues."
"We are in the final stages of preparing extensive information for the House and Senate that will address a whole host of issues about our ongoing efforts in Libya, including those raised in the House resolution as well as our legal analysis with regard to the War Powers Resolution," Tommy Vietor, National Security Council Spokesman, said in a statement.
ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper contributed to this report
Email
Biden Reflects on Grief, Suicidal Thoughts
Is Congress Sounding Dumber?
The illegal stuff only applies to Bush!
Posted by: s | June 15, 2011, 12:18 pm 12:18 pm
And this lawsuit will accomplish what, exactly?
The Constitution has a clear remedy towards a President – ANY President – who is in violation of the Constitution or it’s adjunct in US law.
It’s called impeachment and removal from office.
The War Powers Act is absolutely crystal clear in what’s required. So is the Constitution when a President breaks the law.
Posted by: Bob | June 15, 2011, 12:23 pm 12:23 pm
I bet you money Obama says it was Bush’s fault.
Posted by: ajax659 | June 15, 2011, 12:24 pm 12:24 pm
Republican desperation and the name Kenneth Starr comes to mind!
Posted by: Matthew Smithfield | June 15, 2011, 12:24 pm 12:24 pm
Can’t believe people are dumb enough to compare this to Bush. Bush, unlike Obama, asked for and received congressional approval. That congress had a democratic majority no less. If you don’t like Bush and for Obama that’s all fine but really making up BS is not acceptable.
Posted by: Laura | June 15, 2011, 12:26 pm 12:26 pm
And weren’t the REPUBS the ones so damn eager to get in there and start dropping bombs….critisizing the Pres. for NOT doing so earlier?
Posted by: Matthew Smithfield | June 15, 2011, 12:26 pm 12:26 pm
And how much will this lawsuit cost taxpayers at a time when we’re suppose to be cutting costs? Will there be anyting to gain (a la Kenneth Starr)
Posted by: Matthew Smithfield | June 15, 2011, 12:28 pm 12:28 pm
Impeach 0bama
Posted by: vod-k-nockers | June 15, 2011, 12:29 pm 12:29 pm
For you libs bashing republicans for this lawsuit, Dennis Kucinich is a democrat.
Posted by: billy bob | June 15, 2011, 12:30 pm 12:30 pm
The Constitution? What does the Constitution say about Reagan ILLEGALLY selling arms to the Iran contras?
Posted by: Matthew Smithfield | June 15, 2011, 12:30 pm 12:30 pm
I’m somewhat surprised any Republican would align himself with Kucinich…what a whack job! And Ajax, the War Powers Act is anything but “crystal clear” as you assert. There is a vast range of opinions amongst Constitutional scholars on the War Powers Act because of some of the nebulous language; in addition, some do not even think the War Powers Act IS constitutional. So if the experts can’t agree, what are we everyday folks supposed to think?
Posted by: Troy Wood | June 15, 2011, 12:32 pm 12:32 pm
Do you libs realize we have spent about 700 million tax dollars on this war so far???
Posted by: billy bob | June 15, 2011, 12:34 pm 12:34 pm
If we are to keep the Republic of the United States then we need to go back to checks and balances and remove the extra power that has been given to the executive branch over the past 3 presidential terms! The president MUST get consent of the Congress for any act of war on another country which includes no fly zones and sanctions! Obama recently ordered air strikes on Yemen and the mainstream media, which is controlled by the military industrial complex as well other corporate interests who support the power grabs and war for resources in in the Middle East, don’t seem to cover more of Obama’s egregious violation of the law by doing so…
Posted by: W. Wallace | June 15, 2011, 12:35 pm 12:35 pm
The Feds suing the Feds – it’ll take years to get resolved and nothing will happen other than time and money being wasted. Meanwhile the community organizer does away with a few web sites to cut costs. Pitiful all the way around.
Posted by: Sick of them all | June 15, 2011, 12:39 pm 12:39 pm
Long past time. This administration is utterly lawless. They will do anything they please until stopped by force…either legal or physical.
Posted by: creeper | June 15, 2011, 12:41 pm 12:41 pm
I seem to remember a bunch of republicans screaming about how Obama was taking too long to enter into the conflict.
It’s just another waste of money.
Posted by: Debbie | June 15, 2011, 12:45 pm 12:45 pm
I seem to remember a bunch of republicans screaming about how Obama was taking too long to enter into the conflict.
It’s just another waste of money.
Posted by: Debbie | Jun 15, 2011 12:45:46
HUH??? I dont remember that.
Posted by: billy bob | June 15, 2011, 12:48 pm 12:48 pm
Does anyone on either side know what this war is REALLY about? It’s not mistreatment of the local citizens. It’s not for weapons of mass destruction. Heck, it’s not even for the lousy wardrobe that the local dictator wears. It’s about oil. Nothing more and nothing less. Unfortunately, it’s not about oil headed to the U.S. It’s about European oil and if the French have their way (as opposed to their successes in Algiers and Vietnam), they will end up with full control of the Libyan oil fields. More than 90% of Libyan oil is pumped and shipped by European countries, to ships headed to Europe for refiners in Europe to be used by Europeans. Now don’t get me wrong. Europeans are fine people and their official second language is English, the same as our unofficial second language. But to claim that the first attacks, America’s support and now NATO involvement has anything to do with protecting citizens need look no further than your nearest headlines for a couple of dozen countries (can you say “Syria?”) within bombing distance doing the same thing. Nope. Anytime the French attack first, it’s either for wine, more vacation time or some petrol for a tour of the countryside for more wine on that vacation. And on behalf of the Europeans,Obama engaged in a fully illegal war that has resulted in $700 million or more in ordnance being deposited on the Libyans (yes, civilians included but when a liberal Democrat does it, no harm done) all to secure European oil that has now stopped flowing. If the War Powers Act is unclear (and what piece of legislation since 1800 isn’t?) to some, it’s not unclear to most. But of course, this is the same central government from which came the 14th Amendment that allows (despite what the author said “all” meant) any foreigner who happens to be in the country at childbirth to present us with a new U.S. citizen. Since it’s only about European oil, let them go get it.
Posted by: wantingbalance | June 15, 2011, 12:48 pm 12:48 pm
being from the UK i seem to remember us helping you guys out in an illegal war for oil, its only fair that you return the favour ;)
Posted by: j | June 15, 2011, 12:58 pm 12:58 pm
Actually the ONLY to stop the Failed President, his corruption and lawlessness is to NOT elect him in 2012.
He does not care about America.
Posted by: Mrs_Willie_Snodhopper_III | June 15, 2011, 1:07 pm 1:07 pm
What happened to liberty, help the weak against tyrants, being a role model! Is this where we heading? Ignorance and by-stander?
Was it not the French who helped the American Revolution? How would you feel if France had to obtain approval from the Senate or National Assembly and were forced to pull out because of legality issues?
Remeber what Abraham Lincoln said: Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.
And believe me, no one is free when others are oppressed. As long as it is for the better good.
Posted by: Libyan - Ossama | June 15, 2011, 1:08 pm 1:08 pm
This is a bi-partisen lawsuit. They finally learned to work together.
Posted by: Rafe | June 15, 2011, 1:13 pm 1:13 pm
And weren’t the REPUBS the ones so damn eager to get in there and start dropping bombs….critisizing the Pres. for NOT doing so earlier?
Posted by: Matthew Smithfield | Jun 15, 2011 12:26:20 PM
Proof, please.
Posted by: Traffic Cop Timmy | June 15, 2011, 1:22 pm 1:22 pm
HUH??? I dont remember that.
Posted by: billy bob | Jun 15, 2011 12:48:49 PM
Neither do I.
Posted by: Traffic Cop Timmy | June 15, 2011, 1:23 pm 1:23 pm
Matthew —– And if Bush would have done this without congresional approval?? — Aren’t we being a tad bit partisan?!?! — Obama knows he is wrong and needs to make a motion, but he is stalling to try to get whatever he wants accomplished first! — The BIG QUESTION is… just what are his goals??? — Europe gets their oil in Libya, not the US — Syria is even more of a humanitarian crisis, so why not there?? —- We need Obama to tell us his goal and ask for approval!!!
Posted by: TheLoyalOpposition | June 15, 2011, 1:25 pm 1:25 pm
To the responders: Which war for oil? While the justification might have been based on incorrect assumptions and CIA facts, Congress authorized the action. That makes it legal. Not right, just legal. I’m not against helping the Europeans. Let’s just do it with the truth. If, this war had anything to do with protecting a country’s citizens, I can name 30 countries that deserve similar attention. You either attack all or you attack none. I’m sorry, the American Revolution? Let’s see how many years ago was that? So let’s help the French and the Europeans get their oil, but let’s say that’s what we are doing. Instead, we’ve disguised the action under NATO cover where even civilian deaths are treated as non-events. As for Abraham Lincoln, his party (the Republican) platform was to not extend slavery to any new state but do nothing regarding existing slavery. Ever so much the politician as he was the reason why we are united today, Lincoln also said (to paraphrase) that he would preserve slavery if it would save the union. As for his quote on “freedom,” it can be broadly interpreted as all freedoms for all Americans. We now know that there is a difference between freedom and liberty and neither of these were stated as purposes for the Libya adventure. If we as a country want to bomb every other country that mistreats its citizens under the freedom/liberty that we have, the desire should be debated in Congress and if warranted approved. But in fairness, just how many European countries would join that effort? Supposing the CIA had told Bush, sorry about that WMD thing. They are not there. But he did kill 100,000 kurds with chemicals and he would do it again. Would that latter statement have justified our entry into Iraq? The answer, of course, is no.
Posted by: wantingbalance | June 15, 2011, 1:26 pm 1:26 pm
In support of Debbie’s comment which so many are reacting to: “It’s become the most ignored moment of the Libya story. On March 1, the United States Senate VOTED UNANIMOUSLY for a resolution calling for a no-fly zone from the United Nations. The Senate is on the record in favor of this action, at least before President Obama actually took action.” Look it up. Everywhere/anywhere. It’s on record.
Posted by: puppyfeet217 | June 15, 2011, 1:30 pm 1:30 pm
puppyfeet…. the SENATE alone is not “congressional approval”… it takes both houses!!! —- “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,” then-Senator Obama on Dec. 20, 2007.
Posted by: TheLoyalOpposition | June 15, 2011, 1:48 pm 1:48 pm
The Constitution? What does the Constitution say about Reagan ILLEGALLY selling arms to the Iran contras?
Posted by: Matthew Smithfield | Jun 15, 2011 12:30:51 PM
Care to discuss Obama and Fast and Furious? Giving guns to Mexican drug cartels that has killed OUR border control officers?
Posted by: wheresmymoney | June 15, 2011, 2:26 pm 2:26 pm
Why not impeach Barack Obama? This country does not have the money to fight in Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan. Barack only understands blind obediance to Abu Dhabi and their civil wars.
Posted by: dustin69sc | June 15, 2011, 2:29 pm 2:29 pm
Obama will not get my vote and financial support next time for going to grab oil in Lybia. North Korea was really smart to go for the big Bomb. It is the only way that scumbags like France will leave you alone and get off your back. Obama has joined the European rogues, who have raped and pillaged Africa since day one.
Posted by: Joacham | June 15, 2011, 2:35 pm 2:35 pm
Puppyfeet, passing a NON BINDING resolution CALLING for a no fly zone is not the same as authorizing military action. Not to mention the fact it called on the UN and not NATO to take the action. Hence any approval you think this gives ended when NATO took over the no fly zone.
Also this is a war. Obama never recognized the rebels as the government of Libya, hence our action is a war.
Posted by: Zaggs | June 15, 2011, 2:35 pm 2:35 pm
Just Libya? What about Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? We had no reason to go into Iraq except to save an Arab tyranny. Our punitive mission, in Afghanistan lasted ten years, and the perpetrator not caught till twelve years after his first appearance. Why? Think about all the monopolies that prosper from war and that gives you the answer. This is just more smoke and mirrors signifying nothing.
If they mean it then let the American people decide on all these wars by calling for a Nationwide Plebiscite to decide the issue! Vote on it; let the American people decide where our money is spent, especially on these wars of so-called security!
Posted by: JAM | June 15, 2011, 2:45 pm 2:45 pm
Could you imagine the uproar from the right wing media if ANYBODY sued Bush to stop his illegal invasion of Iraq?
Posted by: dan | June 15, 2011, 2:50 pm 2:50 pm
Could you imagine the uproar from the right wing media if ANYBODY sued Bush to stop his illegal invasion of Iraq?
Posted by: dan | Jun 15, 2011 2:50:34 PM
Why is it that libs always forget the small details, like BUSH RECEIVED CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL?
I did not favor the Iraqi war, but you can’t blame it all on Bush. The vote was bipartisan to enter the war. Hillary was right there voting for it.
The “uproar” is that Obama had time to go to NATO and the UN, but not Congress. He seems to forget what country he works for.
Posted by: wheresmymoney | June 15, 2011, 3:01 pm 3:01 pm
Well darn it this is Bush’s fault…If Obirdhead is elected (hope not) for 4 more years Bush will have to be blamed again……All I can say is if a new President goes in to office in 2012 they have a lot they can blame on Obirdhead.
Posted by: Sadie | June 15, 2011, 3:03 pm 3:03 pm
And Loyal, under the WPA he DOES have the power to provide SUPPORT for NATO. This is not a war…and he has one more day to decide if he’s going to go to Congress. The point is, isn’t it interesting that the Senate gave full approval for no-fly, but Republicans are having hairy conniptions? So, as of today, Obama has done nothing wrong. If you don’t like WPA, call your congressman.
Posted by: puppyfeet217 | June 15, 2011, 3:10 pm 3:10 pm
“The point is, isn’t it interesting that the Senate gave full approval for no-fly, but Republicans are having hairy conniptions?” When exactly did the Senate approve that?
Posted by: Publius | June 15, 2011, 3:13 pm 3:13 pm
“The “uproar” is that Obama had time to go to NATO and the UN, but not Congress. He seems to forget what country he works for.”
And the Euros are running out of ammo and pulling out. Not a joke.
Posted by: Fritz | June 15, 2011, 3:16 pm 3:16 pm
Publius, March 1. Look it up.
Posted by: puppyfeet217 | June 15, 2011, 3:22 pm 3:22 pm
Funny thing is, there was an article yesterday mentioning how interesting it is that this resolution received soooo little media attention.
Is it legal? No. But it does clearly demonstrate the hypocritical nature of what’s happening now.
Not to mention, IMO, they are ALL doing this bit for “show” – Congress will “start” a suit, the administration will respond and in the last moment it will all get settled with both sides patting themselves on the back.
Posted by: puppyfeet217 | June 15, 2011, 3:28 pm 3:28 pm
TheLoyalOpposition…Well, I thought I new what the resolution said but just to make sure, I went back and reread it. The March vote was a resolution calling for the U.N. to implement a no-fly zone. Says nothing at all about the U.S. enforcing it nor does it grant the president the power to react to a U.N. resolution. So again, where’s the authority to wage war? And for others, as it relates to NATO (North American Treaty Organization) our alliance with NATO calls for mutual defense ONLY IF ONE OF THE MEMBER COUNTRIES IS ATTACKED. As with most government entities, however, NATO has grown past the point of its necessity. To say that NATO should have the power to attack Libya is to say that Libya attacked one of the NATO countries. Please let me know when that happened.
Posted by: wantingbalance | June 15, 2011, 3:33 pm 3:33 pm
ZAGGS, i’m fully well aware of the symbolic nature of the resolution. My point was that one of the houses was fully in support (almost badgering) of our involvement in Libya but nowwww, what with the GOP scrambling to find a viable candidate, they’re using Libya to grandstand.
It’s like telling your kid to stand up for himself to the bully and when he knocks the kid down and hurts him, trying to claim that you “never” told your child to “hit” him.
Posted by: puppyfeet217 | June 15, 2011, 3:33 pm 3:33 pm
The War Powers Resolution. — The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to “insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities,” and that the President’s powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541).
The second part requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, and to continue such consultations as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations (50 USC Sec. 1542). The third part sets forth reporting requirements that the President must comply with any time he introduces U.S. armed forces into existing or imminent hostilities (50 USC Sec. 1543); section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b).
Posted by: TheLoyalOpposition | June 15, 2011, 3:36 pm 3:36 pm
Dennis, Dennis, Dennis … We Ohioans have had to put up with Kucinich for over three decades now, and he has always proven to be a mixed blessing: a wonderful independent mind who often evinces incredibly poor timing or impractical judgement as often as not. His lawsuit is surely an action of conscience, and although I admire his courage such a lawsuit now simply seems to be more motivated by the fact that his seat in Congress is about to be voided due to a decease in our State’s population; i.e., an act of political desperation. I myself don’t think highly of the Lybian affair, but the UN sanctioned the no-fly zone, after all, so the operation is not the illegal war which Bush stated against Iraq. Sorry, Dennis. I personally have been behind you on several occasions, but I can’t be behind you on this.
Posted by: baronightwolf | June 15, 2011, 3:43 pm 3:43 pm
puppy — RE: Your post to Zaggs about “political grandstanding”?? —- Here’s some irony — remember when the Democrats in congress supported the action in Iraq when the people were clearly supporting it… then made up stories about “Bush Lied” to then withdrawal all their support!! — grandstanding for political purpose over troop support???
Posted by: TheLoyalOpposition | June 15, 2011, 3:46 pm 3:46 pm
“section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b).” Yes. And on the 60th day, Congress notified Obama they wanted to hear from him. The administration replied. THAT action set the clock ticking for a 30-day “grace period” (MY words) which expires tomorrow (or “very soon”). Therefore, Obama is, today, within his granted rights.
Posted by: puppyfeet217 | June 15, 2011, 3:49 pm 3:49 pm
Hmm, may I please first see the legal Complaint against W from these same lawmakers??
Posted by: MiketheElectrician | June 15, 2011, 3:50 pm 3:50 pm
baronnightwolf — funny… but I never saw that section in the Constitution… or the War Powers Act… that allowed the UNITED NATIONS to authorize American troops into harn’s way!! — Please enlighten me!!
Posted by: TheLoyalOpposition | June 15, 2011, 3:51 pm 3:51 pm
puppy —— First… the 60 days IS HIS GRACE PERIOD!!! —- Within that time he must supply congress with goals, plans, strategy… and get approval!! —- The POTUS is violating the WPA on the 61st day without congressional authority!!
Posted by: TheLoyalOpposition | June 15, 2011, 3:57 pm 3:57 pm
Okay Loyal, let’s accept that grandstanding is true for both parties: did I say it was good or bad for either party? No. My point was, this is being “used” right now by one side when this whole kerfuffle is really no big deal. Each side is taking the appropriate action required – filing the paperwork, if you will – but ONE side is broadcasting their actions to the public for political gain. To show how big and strong they are. Yet some of you here are making it an indictment of Obama, when you really don’t have all the facts, allowing yourselves to be led by the “show”. Look how many people had no idea that the entire Senate was supportive of action against Libya. I’m out. Lunch is over.
Posted by: puppyfeet217 | June 15, 2011, 4:00 pm 4:00 pm
There seems to be a theme here. It is always a bipartisan group against Obama. The only thing bipartisan about Obamacare was the group opposed, and now this.
It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. And I imagine there are idiots out there that will vote for Obama the idiot again.
Posted by: juice | June 15, 2011, 4:00 pm 4:00 pm
As a Democrat I am against all involvements of war in any other country, including libya, Iraq, and Afganistan for oil. Its ridiculous to sacrifice American lives for these people who hates us no matter how much we help them.
Posted by: achillies | June 15, 2011, 4:05 pm 4:05 pm
So Mr. Kucinich and Jones, you would have us abandon NATO after we created it?
Would you leave the citizens of Libya fighting against advanced arms with Sticks and rocks?
Would you tell the Arab League no after asking their help so many times in the past, and will need their help again?
Perhaps Mr. Kucinich is grandstanding for attention since his district is being erased this year in his State Legislature.
Posted by: DewyB | June 15, 2011, 4:07 pm 4:07 pm
“So Mr. Kucinich and Jones, you would have us abandon NATO after we created it?…”
The sooner the better. NATO = US Forces. Let the Russians have Europe. They could be in Paris in a week if the US wasn’t there (8 days if they drink too much vodka).
Posted by: AK | June 15, 2011, 4:32 pm 4:32 pm
Law makers sue Obama over illegal war? What war? We are not fighting a war. Wow! George Bush must be laughing at the stupidity of these law makers
Posted by: what667 | June 15, 2011, 4:34 pm 4:34 pm
Illegal war???? really? So, let me get this straight, Obama simply bombs, JUST bombs, a dictator that was IN THE PROCESS of mass murder of his people, AFTER getting the Arab league to agree, AFTER forming a NATO coalition and AFTER getting NATO to do the bulk of the work and NEVER putting one boot on the ground. THAT is “illegal” – an actual REAL REASON – save people from slaughtered BUT George Bush tells inspectors to get OUT of Iraq AFTER he decides, alone, without proof, without evidence, wihtout any ethnic or any kid of killing going on at all, at the time, NO REASON WHAT SO EVER to go to war, Bush goes in to a soveriegn country full throttle, air force, army, navy, TENS OF THOUSANDS of boots on the ground get five THOUSAND PLUS Americans killed for ZERO reason and nobody says ‘boo’ about that??? THAT was FINE< but Obama saving people from getting slaughtered with massive international help and approval, oh THAT is unforgivable?????? the hypocracy is freakn ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: herewego again | June 15, 2011, 4:40 pm 4:40 pm
______Do you libs realize we have spent about 700 million tax dollars on this war so far???POSTED BY: BILLY BOB | JUN 15, 2011 12:34:57 PM____________Yes, we “libs”, realize that, but we are no way near spending $4 billion of tax dollars a month as was the case with Bush in Iraq. LOL! Next question.
Posted by: what667 | June 15, 2011, 4:41 pm 4:41 pm
I seem to remember a bunch of republicans screaming about how Obama was taking too long to enter into the conflict.
It’s just another waste of money.
Posted by: Debbie | Jun 15, 2011 12:45:46
HUH??? I dont remember that.______________How would you. Too busy watching “Dancing with the stars?” The entire Republican camp was screaming that Obama was “dithering.” about Libya. Anything to make Obama look bad is OK with the GOP. Their hypocrisy is glaring.
Posted by: what667 | June 15, 2011, 4:47 pm 4:47 pm
What does the Constitution say about Reagan ILLEGALLY selling arms to the Iran contras?—
Reagan bombed Lybia. How many presidents have done this???? more like, how many HAVE NOT! This is just pure bullsht. PURE BS! Republicans being obstructionist HUGE HYPOCRITS!!! What about Bush PROMISING to let the inspectors do their job and find proof???? “oh authorize me the ability to send in troops I PROMISE I”LL ONLY SEND THEM IN WHEN WE GET PROOF!” Yeah, right. Not 24 hours after authorization this promise was in the toilet, bush ordered inspectors out of the country, let the bombing begin while he did NOT have ONE SHRED of proof and even outed Plame in an effort to shut up anyone who was bringing to the attention that what paltry ‘evidence’ we had, was forged and not even valid. THAT is all fine, huh???? the broken promise, the five thousand americans dead for nothing, the outing of Plame, a weapons inspector!, going ot war for NOTHING, oh that’s just FINE becuase he’s republicans apparently!! My Lord what a better government we’d have if we got rid of these hypocrits.
Posted by: herewego again | June 15, 2011, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm
________Care to discuss Obama and Fast and Furious? Giving guns to Mexican drug cartels that has killed OUR border control officers? POSTED BY: WHERESMYMONEY | JUN 15, 2011 2:26:40 PM_____________Oh, please, stop. You must be smoking something you have no business smoking.
Posted by: what667 | June 15, 2011, 4:55 pm 4:55 pm
I agree that the war in Libya was a necessary move and think the president did the right thing …. but he should have followed the example Bush set before going into Iraq – he should have addressed Congress, laid out his reasons and his plan, before congress and sought congressional approval.
Posted by: wandering cowboy | June 15, 2011, 4:57 pm 4:57 pm
(CNN)-Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin slammed the Obama administration for “dithering” on Libya
Posted by: herewego again | June 15, 2011, 4:59 pm 4:59 pm
but he should have followed the example Bush —HA HA HA HA HA!!!! LIE to congress in order to get approval PROMISE to form a coalition ,w and then, never do it, go in alone. PROMISE never to attack unless there is proof of necessity ,and then go in even without any, and LIE and say You’ll wait for inspectors to find evidence and then, promptly afer the vote if taken, kick OUT inspectors before they finish their job and then bomb the crap out the country, alone, with no coalition, no other forces to spread the cost and then frack up the entire war so that it still costs us 300 million a WEEK, kills over 5000 Americans and is NO WHERE near any form of completion ten years later! OOoohhhh YEAH< let's do THAT again!
Posted by: herewego again | June 15, 2011, 5:03 pm 5:03 pm
__________”section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b).” Yes. And on the 60th day, Congress notified Obama they wanted to hear from him. The administration replied. THAT action set the clock ticking for a 30-day “grace period” (MY words) which expires tomorrow (or “very soon”). Therefore, Obama is, today, within his granted rights. POSTED BY: PUPPYFEET217 | JUN 15, 2011 3:49:52 PM________This bogus law suit may be a stunt orchestrated by a Republican plant. A lot of the tea party bloggers on this board seem to think that Obama sat through law school, taught constitutional law for ten years, and became president without knowing anything about the law.
Posted by: what667 | June 15, 2011, 5:07 pm 5:07 pm
“Yes, we “libs”, realize that, but we are no way near spending $4 billion of tax dollars a month as was the case with Bush in Iraq. LOL! Next question”
Greate excuse.
Posted by: Easy $ | June 15, 2011, 5:09 pm 5:09 pm
a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces—there are no boots on the ground!!!! we aren’;t using any forces!!!! Duh!!!!! We use drones every now and then to help NATO while NATO uses THEIR forces you freakn idiots! You are DOUCHBAGS On this!! THEre are no words to express HOW LOW you have sunk on this one! You WILL PAY come 2012! He had over 70% approval to do something and he took our planes out of rotation to bombing long ago. I hope he b-slaps you HARD on his rebuttal and drags in bush and all his foregies, broken promises, inaccurate/lies/misinformations on leading us into and making excuses/lies to bring un into war with Iraq nevermind never getting Bin LAden when that was supposed tobe the ONLY reason for going into AFghanistan and FIVE YEARS OBL was in that house and bush never got him. Obama gets him in two. Wow. I mean, wow. I never thought you all could be THIS MUCH of dirt bad pond scum. Sueing Obama for saving people from being slaughtered. wow. HOpe you KNOW you are NOT Christians!!!!!
Posted by: herewego again | June 15, 2011, 5:11 pm 5:11 pm
You know, I am a fiscally conservative moderate who sometimes feel like I could vote for ROmney ,but crap like this just makes me sick to my stomach disgusted with the republicans establishment in its entirety. After the colosal frack up of Afghanistan, never getting bin Laden and then Iraq war, to do this….I just feel absolutely repulsed by the republicans party as a whole. If I dont vote for Romney, it wont be because of Romney, it will be republicans have made themselves so repugnant I just cannot vote for anything with an “R” next to it.
Posted by: herewego again | June 15, 2011, 5:16 pm 5:16 pm
The Senate resolution is S. RES. 85, that was passed on March 1, 2011.
It can be found at thomas.loc.gov as are ALL bills and resolutions in both houses.
It’s not very long, so there is NO reason to not read it. Don’t rely on what other people tell you is in it. Read it for yourself.
Posted by: Tsprague | June 15, 2011, 5:18 pm 5:18 pm
Which means that the GOP are blatantly lying.
Posted by: Tsprague | Jun 15, 2011 5:26:06 PM
Kucinich is a Democrat. You were saying?
Posted by: wheresmymoney | June 15, 2011, 5:32 pm 5:32 pm
what667, agreed! TSprague, I posted a link to the March 1 resolution earlier. You can’t believe how many people spout off without having all the information. And once you present the details, are so firmly entrenched they refuse to re-think, re-consider or simply say “I didn’t know about that.”
Posted by: puppyfeet217 | June 15, 2011, 5:47 pm 5:47 pm
Aside from the fact that the U.N. writes resolutions in such a way as they can mean anything to anyone and be contested by anyone who thinks anyone else misunderstood, the only action taken in the U.S. was for the Senate to pass a resolution in support of U.N. Resolution 1973. Sorry you current crop of war mongers but unless I missed some special award by Obama to the U.N., we still operate under the Constitution and U.S. laws. While U.N. resolution 1973, among other things, allows member “parties” to attack Libya for cause, this is not an authorizing document in itself for the U.S. The War Powers Act limits the president’s ability to wage war (actually attack a country or its assets) only in certain circumstances without prior approval by Congress (Congress, for those of you who graduated from the current federally-sponsored educational system consists of two legislative bodies: the House and the Senate). If this right is invoked, it is only for a specific period of time. Sorry, pardner, that time is up. Now, if we are now under the control of the U.N. all bets are off. We’ll end up fighting when it does not make sense and not fighting when it does.
Posted by: wantingbalance | June 15, 2011, 5:51 pm 5:51 pm
WantingBalance, who was talking about a UN resolution? Several of us are talking about the March 1 SENATE resolution in support of action against Libya…which belies the outrage that the HOUSE is blaring today.
Posted by: puppyfeet217 | June 15, 2011, 6:00 pm 6:00 pm
We need to get the WPA declared unconstitutional and to go back to what our founding fathers wanted. Congress should declare war and the President should execute the war. James Madison was very specific about this and one of his worries was that during war certain rights might be repealed in the name of national security (can you say Patriot Act).
Posted by: Faurtz11 | June 15, 2011, 6:11 pm 6:11 pm
“Kucinich is a Democrat. You were saying?”
Lying is lying. It doesn’t matter who is doing it.
Posted by: Tsprague | June 15, 2011, 6:48 pm 6:48 pm
What in the h@ll are we doing in Libya?
Libya is experiencing a revolution and the U.S. has no business in entering yet another skirmish in the Middle-East.
Why?
There are some not very cerebral pols in Washington starting with Obama.
Remember that Generals and Admirals like “wars”, it is their way up the military stairs to more recognition and promotions.
Enough, will someone in Washington please step up to the base and make some really common-sense decisions.
’nuff said.
Posted by: Ron | June 15, 2011, 6:52 pm 6:52 pm
Obama is not interested in the United States. Don’t listen to his words, look at his actions. He’s more interested in other countries than he is in Americans. He’d rather help feed people in other countries, versus feeding the poor in America. The Federal government has a mind of its’ own and no longer represents the American public.
Posted by: Leave It | June 15, 2011, 6:52 pm 6:52 pm
Perhaps this action will get the US out of the Middle East altogether. This country’s involvement in the Middle East is economically driven, specifically to preserve our foreign oil sources. Not too many people benefit from involvment, especially the taxpayers. If the US and European oil companies had to fund the war, it would be over in days. Let’s leave the Middle East as soon as possible. Let those countries collapse under their own corruption without more US bloodshed.
Posted by: RohnertPark1 | June 15, 2011, 6:57 pm 6:57 pm
Lying is lying. It doesn’t matter who is doing it.
Posted by: Tsprague | Jun 15, 2011 6:48:59 PM
But you stated that the GOP is “blatently lying.” Your Obama goggles are showing.
Posted by: wheresmymoney | June 15, 2011, 6:58 pm 6:58 pm
I voted for Obama because he promised us BIG CHANGE. He’s been a BIGGER DISAPPOINTMENT. He’s just more of the same old government. I thought Bush was bad, I’d take him back anyday. I wish Robert Gates would run for president. At least he’s got the guts to tell NATO they’re on warning for poor performance!
Posted by: Disappointed | June 15, 2011, 7:00 pm 7:00 pm
The US government encourages citizens in other countries to peacefully demonstrate against their governments and call for changes. Example: Egypt calling for the removal of Mubaric (poor spelling). What would happen if millions of Americans marched on DC and demanded for Obama to leave office. Could be Kent State University all over again! OUR government is increasingly becoming anti-American and extremely focused on world events. A bit radical I admit, but keep watching what they do and NOT what they say.
Posted by: Revolution | June 15, 2011, 7:15 pm 7:15 pm
“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.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.” – State Senator Barack Obama, 2007
Posted by: Justin | June 15, 2011, 7:17 pm 7:17 pm
“I agree that the war in Libya was a necessary move and think the president did the right thing ….”
Posted by: wandering cowboy | Jun 15, 2011 4:57:52 PM
A necessary move? How so? We had no national interests in Libya and there was no imminent threat. Congress did not authorize our attacks on Libya, a sovereign country. This is clearly an illegal war.
Posted by: Justin | June 15, 2011, 7:22 pm 7:22 pm
“I voted for Obama because he promised us BIG CHANGE.”
Posted by: Disappointed | Jun 15, 2011 7:00:37 PM
In all fairness, he delivered on his promise. You got CHANGE. It just wasn’t YOUR definition of CHANGE.
Posted by: Justin | June 15, 2011, 7:27 pm 7:27 pm
“I did not favor the Iraqi war, but you can’t blame it all on Bush. The vote was bipartisan to enter the war. Hillary was right there voting for it.”
Posted by: wheresmymoney | Jun 15, 2011 3:01:07 PM
I remember Democratic members of Congress being interviewed and threatening to IMPEACH Bush if he DIDN’T go to war with Iraq.
Posted by: Justin | June 15, 2011, 7:31 pm 7:31 pm
“The March vote was a resolution calling for the U.N. to implement a no-fly zone.”
There were two resolutions in March, not just one. S. RES. 85, on March 1, 2011. And S. RES. 102, on March 15, 2011.
From my reading of the WPA, and these resolutions, Obama is doing what he should be doing. IOW, he not violating the law. There are no troops on the ground in Libya, and we are basically giving the NATO forces support.
As for those of you who continually repeat the ignorant belief that Obama started the war in Libya, no he didn’t. The rebels in Libya started it, France and Spain went to NATO, as well as the Arab League. NATO asked the US to get involved with setting up the no-fly zone. Obama told them that we would, but it would be handed off to the other country’s. That has happened.
Posted by: Tsprague | June 15, 2011, 7:32 pm 7:32 pm
“Why is it that libs always forget the small details, like BUSH RECEIVED CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL? ”
The approval was based on false information that the Bush Administration gave to Congress.
Your argument holds no water.
Posted by: Tsprague | June 15, 2011, 7:34 pm 7:34 pm
Justin posted “I remember Democratic members of Congress being interviewed and threatening to IMPEACH Bush if he DIDN’T go to war with Iraq.”
Funny, I remember that 60% of Democrats in Congress voted AGAINST the war with Iraq.
Posted by: Faurtz11 | June 15, 2011, 7:34 pm 7:34 pm
wheresmymoney posted “”Why is it that libs always forget the small details, like BUSH RECEIVED CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL?
….The vote was bipartisan to enter the war. Hillary was right there voting for it.”
Actually 60% of the Democrats in Congress voted against the war. Furthermore there are many of us who feel the War Powers Act should be declared unconstitutional. Our founding fathers were very clear who could declare war and under what circumstances they should declare it. They did NOT want the final decision to go to war left up to the President. It is the duty of Congress to ORDER the President to go to war. The Congress hasn’t declared war since WW II and look how many wars we’ve been in since.
Posted by: Faurtz11 | June 15, 2011, 7:41 pm 7:41 pm
Posted by: Faurtz11 | Jun 15, 2011 7:34:23 PM
You didn’t invalidate my point. Some of the most aggressive proponents of going to war with Iraq were very prominent Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Robert Byrd.
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…” — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
Posted by: Justin | June 15, 2011, 7:44 pm 7:44 pm
But you stated that the GOP is “blatantly lying.” Your Obama goggles are showing.”
lol In what way is posting facts wearing Obama goggles? And what ARE Obama goggles?
If you mean that I don’t take every action that Obama does as being wrong, yes, I am wearing Obama goggles. If you mean that I don’t take everything Obama says as being wrong then, yes, I am wearing Obama goggles.
But I, also, freely admit that there are some things that I disagreed with that he didn’t do (like get rid of the Patriot Act). There were, also, things that he did that I agreed with (HCR Law, Stimulus, Auto company loans).
And I’m VERY upset with the Dem’s for not explaining what is happening. Like that the debt ceiling has NOTHING to do with future spending. It will be raised to pay the bills that have already been authorized. It’s either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote. If you, or anyone else want budget cuts put it in the budget. Not in something that has already been approved.
NOBODY is all good, or all bad. Life just doesn’t work that way.
Posted by: Tsprague | June 15, 2011, 7:47 pm 7:47 pm
“Actually 60% of the Democrats in Congress voted against the war.”
Posted by: Faurtz11 | Jun 15, 2011 7:41:04 PM
Many Democrats wanted to go to war with Iraq during Clinton’s second term. You know, that was the Democrat who was in power BEFORE Bush.
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by: — Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
Posted by: Justin | June 15, 2011, 7:48 pm 7:48 pm
Justin posted “You didn’t invalidate my point. Some of the most aggressive proponents of going to war with Iraq were very prominent Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Robert Byrd.”
But your point was that the Democrats were EQUALLY eager to go to war with Iraq and that just isn’t the case.
You have brought up a point that supports my argument that the War Powers Act should be declared unconstitutional. Our founding fathers wanted the Congress to make the final decision to go to war. By using the WPA, people like Hillary can stand up and give speeches TO go to war to make herself look Presidential one second and later on when things started to go poorly it allowed her to stand up and blame Bush for going to war. The WPA makes it too easy for us to get into war after war after war after war………….
Posted by: Faurtz11 | June 15, 2011, 7:50 pm 7:50 pm
Justin posted “Many Democrats wanted to go to war with Iraq during Clinton’s second term. You know, that was the Democrat who was in power BEFORE Bush.”
Oh, you mean the President who DIDN’T invade Iraq.
Do you think I’m making number up? It is a mater of record that 60% of the Democrats in Congress voted AGAINST the war. Yes, that means 40% voted for it, so by all means keep quoting Hillary and Kerry and the others.
BTW, out of 270 Republicans who voted (2 did not), 263 voted FOR the war. That about 97%
Posted by: Faurtz11 | June 15, 2011, 8:00 pm 8:00 pm
“What would happen if millions of Americans marched on DC and demanded for Obama to leave office.”
Since we have regular elections, which means that we are not, in any way, in the same situation as the country’s in the ME, what would be the point? You don’t like Obama? Don’t vote for him next year. That’s pretty simple.
If the majority of voters agree with you, then we get a different President. If the majority of voters disagree with you, we keep Obama as President.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see the problem. Other than you lost elections and are not accepting it. In no way does it mean that we need some kind of revolution in the this country. YOU LOST AN ELECTION! And you people are acting as though our country has been taken over by deep sea monsters. It hasn’t. At all. You simply lost an election.
Neither the right or the left want this country’s laws or Constitution changed. Neither the right or the left want our country to fail (although one of the talking heads has said that he wanted it). Both sides want unemployment lower, both sides want our most vulnerable citizens protected.
The difference, the ONLY difference, is how and when to do it. The left wants to wait until the economy is more stable. The right wants to do it right now. There are plus’s and minus’s to each side.
I happen to lean toward the left. I feel that enacting the drastic cuts that the right want to do will send out country into a depression. It will put millions more people out of work, because the cutbacks are cutting jobs, too.
We have had these deficit’s for over 30 years, they do not have to brought down all at once. While I agree that we have to bring the total down, I don’t agree that it has to be done right now. The lowering of our credit rating is not because of the amount of debt. It is because our Congress is extremely apart from each other on expenditures.
Posted by: Tsprague | June 15, 2011, 8:03 pm 8:03 pm
Posted by: Faurtz11 | Jun 15, 2011 8:00:08 PM
Bill Clinton supported going to war with Iraq.
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Posted by: Justin | June 15, 2011, 8:03 pm 8:03 pm
All I can say is they are totally lost on priorities. Unemployment, Economy and nothing being done. Go figure. They are all losers in my book.
Posted by: Steve | June 15, 2011, 9:36 pm 9:36 pm
So, the Republicans in congress have found a few pacifist Democrats to assist in Giving Obama grief. It’s a complete shame that they cannot relax their political strategizing for one moment for the chance that an evil depot could be removed from power. Ronald Reagan is rolling in his grave tonight, this is not the Republican party he once led.
Posted by: TEAMSWITCHER | June 15, 2011, 11:43 pm 11:43 pm
The above comments overwhelmingly are reguritations of misinformation from misinformation sources. Big news (misinformation sources) have a terrible record of predicting future events (just go back in time to review their stuff) so why argue based upon what they present on T.V., newspapers, or their internet sites??? Truth is worth the large amount of time and effort required to find it. Those that have the time to post the above comments should take that time instead to research from many VARIOUS sources online (or if possible.. IN PERSON) what they are focused on. If you have superior logic, analysis, etc. to mine here, please post that…
Posted by: John Eagle | June 16, 2011, 9:45 am 9:45 am
Some of us remember that during the 2002 Congressional debates about Iraq, the Republicans argued that the president as Unitary Executive commander-in-chief didn’t need a declaration of war. Henry Hyde even went so far as to call it unnecessary and “anachronistic”. But that was also when they assumed they had a permanent majority, apparently never thinking a Democrat president would use the powers that Bush wanted to gather around the Executive branch.
Posted by: Danny Adams | June 16, 2011, 11:59 am 11:59 am
All you Bush did this and Bush did that Libs and lefties where are you today?? Why is not Shehan parked at Obama’s house? Where is John Kerry and Jane Fonda? If this is an illegal war where are you you fat mouthed criers? Man if it does not suit your agenda to make news then you sit back and get fat waiting for some one to b—- about.
Posted by: Jim Rod | June 16, 2011, 12:43 pm 12:43 pm
I can’t believe my fellow countrymen are such political idiots. Bush Jr. claims an exotic “Unitary Executive” power that amounts to an imperial presidency, but gets an Iraq resolution nonetheless; and Obama makes campaign promises to get us out of Iraq and Afganistan, but instead gets us into new wars in violation of the War Powers act – even though he is a Constitutional scholar. I guess you are so busy saying, it’s the Dems or Repubs, you don’t realize that the voice of the people is scarcely heard in Washington anymore. Idiots.
Posted by: APatriot | June 16, 2011, 6:27 pm 6:27 pm
The man Obama is just trying his best to protect his people in which ever way he can. If we are threatened by other outer forces in such ways would you sit back and watch your country, people, and family sit in fear? I sure as hell wouldn’t. I would defend my people the best I know how. And fight my heart out for you all. And i dont care if i die doing it. Most of us take for granit that we are a country together. We must support our cause not shame it for a load of money.
Posted by: Mary | June 17, 2011, 2:08 am 2:08 am
bwhahahah…bots actually aren’t smart enuff to figure out the money wasted on Obama’s illegal war, or that bombing people is an act of war, or that we most certainly do have people on the ground in Libya (think CIA for a hint), or that this illegal war destabilizes the region and makes it worse for the people there and makes us many more unneeded enemies…but its all good as long as Obama keeps helping the soicalist globalists destabilize and take over one nation after another–right now they are just concentrating on the ME so they can control worlds oil supply but hey don’t think what is going to happen long term.
Posted by: Football | June 17, 2011, 10:30 am 10:30 am
its funny how Republicans like Gingrich were bitching up a storm about how this “incompetent” adminstration wasn’t doing enough to get Kaddaffi out of power…labeling Obama as an appeaser and whatnot…now that we’ve used NATO to launch strikes against Kaddafi’s forces, Republicans are now bitching about this “illegal war”
…truly disgusting how the GOP has been playing politics with EVERY issue that faces the nation…making it almost impossible to get anything done…Republicans are holding the country hostage with their petty political games.
Posted by: John | June 17, 2011, 2:19 pm 2:19 pm
BARACK HUSSEIN O’BAMA HAS TO GO!!!!!
Posted by: R. Ochsner | June 17, 2011, 5:13 pm 5:13 pm
There were actually 2 events that happened in US history that have to do with this: 1) 1862 the passing of the Lieber Code by Lincoln, and 2)FDR declaring a National Emergency in 1934. The Lieber Code declared that the country is under Military Juridiction until released and the national emergency until released. Since there was never a peace treaty to the Civil War or notification of the end of the National Emergency have they ever been lifted. The Gov’t is not obligied to tell us. This was the main reason FOR the War Powers Act and it still never sorted it out. So the main question is, IS THE CONSTITUTION STILL SUSPENDED?
Posted by: Rob | June 17, 2011, 10:03 pm 10:03 pm
I hope this gets a ruling against the Obama administration. Whether you like or hate Bush, at least he worked within the system. Even if he didn’t think he should have to. But Obama has clearly violated the Constitution which he swore to uphold.
Impeachment should be the next step. He’s obviously got no regard for the Constitution (Libya), the will of the people (getting out of Iraq), nor personal liberty (healthcare mandate).
Posted by: Phydeux | June 18, 2011, 12:45 am 12:45 am
A Pentagon memo shows that the cost of America’s involvement in the war in Libya is around $2 million per day, putting the cost well ahead of previous estimates of $40 million a month to more like $60 million a month. Antiwar
WAR CRIMES and Bush and his NWO are running Obama and The Racist crap card.Obama has been set up for the fall of USA.
Posted by: conspiracymedia | June 18, 2011, 10:25 am 10:25 am