Obama On Libya: No Reason For Congressional Approval

[Kathianne]

Yep, that's what he wrote:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...nal-autho.html

Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization

May 20, 2011 7:14 PM

In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval...

[red states rule]

Yep, that's what he wrote:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...nal-autho.html

and I doubt if the NY Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, or Code Pink will utter a sound in outrage as they would be doing now if the Bush administration said the same thing

I guess Obama thinks since he is above the rest of us, he is also above the law

[fj1200]

So who approves NATO actions?

[red states rule]

So who approves NATO actions?

Whoever Obama is told approves NATO actions

[Kathianne]

So who approves NATO actions?

NATO is one entity, there are rules regarding US involvement. This was a war France and England wanted.

[revelarts]

SO everyone here is Against the war with Libya, right?
It's Unconstitutional. NON Defensive, and Illegal Correct?

Obama is actually worse than Bush here . At least Bush got congressional approve his illegal wars. Obama is just taking a squat on Congress And telling them to take this used toilet paper as reason why. And By the way where's my funding.

The NATO Treaty is a Defensive one.
All of the NATO members have broken the treaty by this joint aggressive action.

Article 1

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.



Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

But Hey Treaty Schmeady Constitution Schmonstition
War is Peace.
Assassinating country's leaders and family is an ancient tradition , that the U.S. has kept under the table for too long.

[red states rule]

SO everyone here is Against the war with Libya, right?
It's Unconstitutional. NON Defensive, and Illegal Correct?

Obama is actually worse than Bush here . At least Bush got congressional approve his illegal wars. Obama is just taking a squat on Congress And telling them to take this used toilet paper as reason why. And By the way where's my funding.

The NATO Treaty is a Defensive one.
All of the NATO members have broken the treaty by this joint aggressive action.



But Hey Treaty Schmeady Constitution Schmonstition
War is Peace.
Assassinating country's leaders and family is an ancient tradition , that the U.S. has kept under the table for too long.

I only want Moammar Kadafi to assume room temp since he ordered the Lockerbie bombing

A 500 pd Daisy cutter dropped on his head would put a smile on my face

[Gaffer]

SO everyone here is Against the war with Libya, right?
It's Unconstitutional. NON Defensive, and Illegal Correct?

Obama is actually worse than Bush here . At least Bush got congressional approve his illegal wars. Obama is just taking a squat on Congress And telling them to take this used toilet paper as reason why. And By the way where's my funding.

The NATO Treaty is a Defensive one.
All of the NATO members have broken the treaty by this joint aggressive action.



But Hey Treaty Schmeady Constitution Schmonstition
War is Peace.
Assassinating country's leaders and family is an ancient tradition , that the U.S. has kept under the table for too long.

The only bone I pick with you on this is that Bush went to congress and got approval, therefore neither afghan nor iraq are illegal wars. Congress approved them.

And I'm a firm believer that if we go to war against a country the first target should be the leader of that country. Cut off the head of the snake and the body dies. But then, I'm a heartless bastard as some innocents might get killed along with that leader.

[red states rule]

The only bone I pick with you on this is that Bush went to congress and got approval, therefore neither afghan nor iraq are illegal wars. Congress approved them.

And I'm a firm believer that if we go to war against a country the first target should be the leader of that country. Cut off the head of the snake and the body dies. But then, I'm a heartless bastard as some innocents might get killed along with that leader.

I think more along the lines of a kind word and a gun, then just a kind word

[revelarts]

The only bone I pick with you on this is that Bush went to congress and got approval, therefore neither afghan nor iraq are illegal wars. Congress approved them.

And I'm a firm believer that if we go to war against a country the first target should be the leader of that country. Cut off the head of the snake and the body dies. But then, I'm a heartless bastard as some innocents might get killed along with that leader.

I'm with on Afghanistan. That was Congressionally approved and was perfectly justified at the time.

And I'm with you on the idea of killing the leaders if the war is justified. They are more than legit targets. If your hanging with the Leader during the time of war you do so at your own risk.

[Gaffer]

I'm with on Afghanistan. That was Congressionally approved and was perfectly justified at the time.

And iraq wasn't congressionally approved? Even kerry was for it before he was against it. The dems were all for Bush going into iraq, they just used it to bash him with later, they have no problem playing politics with war and peoples lives. So both wars were approved and legal. What the un and other countries say is irrelevant.

[red states rule]

And iraq wasn't congressionally approved? Even kerry was for it before he was against it. The dems were all for Bush going into iraq, they just used it to bash him with later, they have no problem playing politics with war and peoples lives. So both wars were approved and legal. What the un and other countries say is irrelevant.

From the Clinton News Network

Senate approves Iraq war resolution

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."

While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.

The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-10-11/p...PM:ALLPOLITICS

[Gaffer]

From the Clinton News Network

Thanks for finding that.

Whether anyone thinks the war was right or wrong, it was approved by congress which makes it totally legal. And as I recall we were joined by something like 47 other countries that contributed troops, ships or funds to the war.

[red states rule]

Thanks for finding that.

Whether anyone thinks the war was right or wrong, it was approved by congress which makes it totally legal. And as I recall we were joined by something like 47 other countries that contributed troops, ships or funds to the war.

I suspect those who keeps blathering how the war in Iraq was illegal will ignore this fact

They will say how the Dems who voted for it were not "real" Dems - or how Bush fooled them

You know the same Bush they have telling us for 10 years is a idiot and can't string 2 sentences together, yet he was able to fool those intellectually superior liberals

[revelarts]

And iraq wasn't congressionally approved? Even kerry was for it before he was against it. The dems were all for Bush going into iraq, they just used it to bash him with later, they have no problem playing politics with war and peoples lives. So both wars were approved and legal. What the un and other countries say is irrelevant.

From the Clinton News Network

I've never disputed that Congress approved of the war with Iraq.
It's my contention that BOTH the Dem-Repub Congress AND Bush were wrong to go to war.
And Yes many Dems were hypocritical to vote for War with Iraq and condemn it after the fact. Finger in the wind politicians at there worse.

But I myself gave Bush the benefit of the doubt at the time on Iraq but as I looked more closely, I realized I'd been lied to so I changed my position. I don't consider that being hypocritical on my part. I got new facts that put the Invasion in a different light. I don't know what others do when they find facts that put the reason for their positions in question.