dwccrew;720681 wrote:I ask this question to those that agree with me that this is more about oil and less about humanitarian relief; do you still or did you ever believe the war in Iraq was anything more than a war for free flow of oil?

Oil was a major factor. Without it we don't care who rules that sandbox. There may have been an underlying motive to bring freedom to the people of Iraq and a hope that freedom and capitalism would take hold through out the middle east. Perhaps that is what we are seeing today. I don't know. We will have to wait and see.

dwccrew;720681 wrote:I ask this question to those that agree with me that this is more about oil and less about humanitarian relief; do you still or did you ever believe the war in Iraq was anything more than a war for free flow of oil?

I always thought the war in Iraq was about two things: Oil and revenge.

majorspark;720546 wrote: The President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

How does this apply to Libya?

The "serious threat" part leaves a lot open. Just like most other laws that have things that allow for discretion with matters of "national security" and such.

I Wear Pants;721033 wrote:The "serious threat" part leaves a lot open. Just like most other laws that have things that allow for discretion with matters of "national security" and such.

The "serious threat" clause in the war powers act is in the context of that threat to the US being so imminent that there is no time to seek congressional authorization. That is not the case with military action in Libya.

Am I the only person here who could give a shit about the War Powers Act or whatever or even what the, ahem, Constitution, says on the issue. The Constitution was written when it took months to cross the ocean, and the War Powers Act is just so broad. Presidents on both sides have used discretion and sought official Congressional approval for a full-blown war. We live in a day and age where it is ridiculous to assume you can do that every time. I don't think Presidents shouldn't need to to get a Congressional vote for every bit of military action; this simply isn't that big of a deal. If this was McCain or Bush every Republican here would be saying "it's taking him out for what he did to the 190 Americans on that Pan Am jet!" and look the other way.

Now I will say Obama politically fucked himself by not including Congressional leaders in the talks. Didn't Bush include Pelosi in briefings about Iraq? I think the Obama administration's arrogance is showing quite clearly right now. Bad, bad move to be in Brazil and not immediately fly back to Washington and let rather irrelevant Secretaries brief people. It's amateurish.

I think, as a member of NATO, it behooves NATO to help remove a horrible dictator (Reagan's "mad dog" of the Middle East) who has huge potential wherewithal and even probably chemical weapons and is so close to NATO countries. If this were an oil-rich country in the middle the Indian ocean, it wouldn't really matter in my opinion. I think the proximity to Europe gets countries like France to want to take this guy out when the moment is right. Unfortunately, I think that moment was ripe a week ago.

Who is to say that in a week Obama hasn't successfully handed off complete leadership to France and Co. or that Gaddafi might decide to take a deal to live out his days elsewhere in a mansion with a billion or so. Just saying, this hasn't really turned sour yet. Calm down.

Of course we could just GTFO of the Middle East and think about ways to get off oil. But that would make too much sense.

Tobias Fünke;721473 wrote:...The Constitution was written when it took months to cross the ocean, and the War Powers Act is just so broad. Presidents on both sides have used discretion and sought official Congressional approval for a full-blown war....

Was the war powers act put into the original Constitution or was it an amendment? My understanding was that it was added in the 70s not when it took months to cross the ocean.

The Constitution was written when it took months to cross the ocean, and the War Powers Act is just so broad. Presidents on both sides have used discretion and sought official Congressional approval for a full-blown war. We live in a day and age where it is ridiculous to assume you can do that every time.

I would argue that it is relatively easy and fast in todays world to seek and get Congressional approval. And it makes it easier to do it every time. Not like when people had to travel for days/week to get to DC.

Con_Alma;721522 wrote:Was the war powers act put into the original Constitution or was it an amendment? My understanding was that it was added in the 70s not when it took months to cross the ocean.

Correct it was passed in 1973, but not as an amendment to the constitution.

“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,”

Barack Obama Dec. 20, 2007.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-president-does-not-have-power-unde

majorspark;721716 wrote:“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,”

Barack Obama Dec. 20, 2007.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-president-does-not-have-power-unde

You mean Barry lied to us...again?

Shocking.

What a shocker, a liberal saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. If I were the Republican candidate for 2012, I'd play that portion of the interview and the news of the Libya attack over and over until the Nov. 2 2012.

Isn't Obama a constitutional lawyer? So, this means that he has knowingly broken the constitution?

Ladies and gentlemen, I drafted an outline of what I think the Constitutional limits [garbled] have on the President with the War Clause. I went to five leading scholars, Constitutional scholars, and they drafted a treatise for me that is being distributed to every Senator. And I want to make it clear, and I’ll make it clear to the President: that if he takes this nation to war in Iran, without Congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him.

Joe Biden - 2007

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/23/biden-we-should-impeach-presidents-who-launch-attacks-without-congressional-approval/

I wonder if Biden has any copies of that treatise laying around?

Writerbuckeye;720733 wrote:He's being pragmatic when he has to be on all those issues -- but the man himself, at heart, is the biggest libtard to occupy the White House since FDR. His domestic policies and his past voting record (when he wasn't voting "present") can't be disputed. Also, the fact that he and his Democrat Congress spent like drunken sailors in a bordello is further proof of his libtardness.

So you agree that his political philosophy is pragmatism; that he is not deducting these policies from a contemporary liberal worldview?

tk421;721944 wrote:What a shocker, a liberal saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. If I were the Republican candidate for 2012, I'd play that portion of the interview and the news of the Libya attack over and over until the Nov. 2 2012.

Isn't Obama a constitutional lawyer? So, this means that he has knowingly broken the constitution?

Why would a conservative play that when president obama has apparently repudiated his liberal view toward a unitary executive's power and endorsed a more contemporary conservative/Hamiltonian view with regard to the executive power (as opposed to the more jeffersonian view held by modern libertarians and contemporary liberals) They would be making fun of Obama for seeing the light.

Writerbuckeye;721781 wrote:You mean Barry lied to us...again?

Shocking.

Why not applaud him for seeing the light?

I find this mildly troubling...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/president-obama-redefines-the-term-exit-strategy.html

Yesterday, Defense Secretary Gates, talking about who would take over for the US and when, said, "this command and control business is complicated. We haven’t done something like this, kind of on the fly before. And so it’s not surprising to me that it would take a few days to get it all sorted out."

On the fly? You farkin' kidding me?

Also, I would have liked to known a little bit more about these people we best describe as "rebels" before jumping into bed with them. We're already out about 90 million in missiles and an F-15. Wouldn't it suck if we find out these "rebels" are nothing more than islamic zealots?

BoatShoes;722118 wrote:Why not applaud him for seeing the light?

You can do that for everybody else

BoatShoes;722118 wrote:Why not applaud him for seeing the light?

Why not call him out for being a hypocrite?

believer;722137 wrote:Why not call him out for being a hypocrite?

First, because calling people hypocrites is stupid and avoids the substantive debate.

Second, I started a thread months ago about when it would be justified to not refer to a politician as a flip flopper/hypocrite if they changed on an issue. You among others suggested an earnest evaluation of the options and a reasoned change of heart would not warrant such pedantic insults.

Fourth, a person who is a hypocrite is one who feigns possession of virtues or opinions that he does not in fact possess. As a consequence, once again, he can either be a hypocrite or a person who actually adheres to a liberal political philosophy with regard to executive power. He cannot be both.

Fifth, For me, personally, I don't really care if he is a hypocrite. I don't personally agree with his jeffersonian view on the executive power but it matters not what my opinion is on the matter.

Finally, his actions contrary to his supposed core beliefs do not necessarily imply hypocrisy. To be a hypocrite one must not actually possess the belief they pretend to espouse. Barry may very well believe that, in the purest sense, the President should not or can't authorize military force without there being immediate danger to Americans. Nevertheless, he has acted contrary to a belief he espoused anyway in pursuance of the supposed right thing by America and the world. As opposed to hypocracy this might just as easily suggest that his political philosophy is an over-arching pragmatic worldview above an ideological deontology.

Either way, I'm sure your unbridled and ungrounded hate of the man will carry on unabridged.

This is so much like Bosnia it is not even funny. In 1995 Clinton got a ton of heat for the air campaign from both sides. It also was U.S. led, but then taken over by NATO and coalition forces. The strikes did not initially work, but took time before the tide started to turn and the Serbs were slowed. But, during that initial phase, violence still occurred like it is now. The end was, after a few months, the Dayton Accords.
I'm not saying Qadaffi will negotiate his removal, but after a few weeks or months, the air strikes and such could allow the rebels to turn the tide.
As long as U.S. forces are providing largely logistical operations, I see no problem with No Fly Zone.

Thom Ricks on FP had a pretty good argument today saying that in today's world, it is nearly impossible to describe a mission endgame as a situation always changes and what you think is the endgame may not be once operations occur. So, all the politicians calling for an endgame are missing the point.
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/22/libya_you_want_clarity_here_it_is

Finally, on the War Powers Act, if you can get a Congressman to support it and enforce it and then get a court to uphold it, good luck. There is a reason why no member of Congress has pressed it as its Constitutionality is largely unknown.
From the quick snippets of the politicians I have seen responding to it, it is all political BS and no real substance.

Here is the theory of Constitutionality behind the Libya action it seems to me.

Congress is vested with the power to make all laws necessary and proper for any branch of the government to carry out their constitutional duties. As a consequence, Congress created the War Powers Resolution as a necessary and proper means for the President to exercise his executive power as commander and chief. In doing so, under s1541 of the War Powers Resolution Congress authorizes the President of the United States as the commander in chief to send the armed forces into hostilities where the United States or its territories is under attack or imminent threat of attack. Nevertheless, s1547 allows the president to infer authority to enter the armed forces into hostilities from a treaty which constitutes legislation authorizing for the the interjection of US armed forces into hostilities. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 under the U.N. Charter constitutes a sufficient legislation for purposes of s1547 of the War Powers Resolution and specifically calls for its member states to take military action to protect civilians under imminent threat of attack. Consequently, President Obama was justified in authorizing the military action in Libya pursuant to the War Powers Resolution and U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973.

You can read Barry's letter to Speaker Boehner here. http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2011/03/21/obama-war-powers/?cxntfid=blogs_jamie_dupree_washington_insider

Thanks for posting that link, boat. Those here who feel Obama is in violation of the Constitution can take solace in knowing that they have more in common with Dennis Kucinich than they could ever believe.

BoatShoes;722118 wrote:Why not applaud him for seeing the light?

Because I don't see it that way -- and I don't think he really does, either. He's a political animal from Chicago. He's doing things people are telling him its prudent to do. Now, is he listening to the "right" people to get himself re-elcted? Only time will answer that question.

But at his core, I don't think he has changed even one of his beliefs.

This White House, like Clinton, reacts (overreacts) to pressures very strangely. This pressure obviously came from abroad and somehow convinced him to take this action. Maybe they were reacting to the criticism that they weren't strong enough coming out to support the Eygptian protestors, and feel if they can effect a regime change here, it will take the edge off what they might feel now was a policy failure.

BoatShoes;722301 wrote:Congress is vested with the power to make all laws necessary and proper for any branch of the government to carry out their constitutional duties. As a consequence, Congress created the War Powers Resolution as a necessary and proper means for the President to exercise his executive power as commander and chief. In doing so, under s1541 of the War Powers Resolution Congress authorizes the President of the United States as the commander in chief to send the armed forces into hostilities where the United States or its territories is under attack or imminent threat of attack.

We are in agreement.

BoatShoes;722301 wrote: Nevertheless, s1547 allows the president to infer authority to enter the armed forces into hostilities from a treaty which constitutes legislation authorizing for the the interjection of US armed forces into hostilities. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 under the U.N. Charter constitutes a sufficient legislation for purposes of s1547 of the War Powers Resolution and specifically calls for its member states to take military action to protect civilians under imminent threat of attack. Consequently, President Obama was justified in authorizing the military action in Libya pursuant to the War Powers Resolution and U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973.

Correct there is a loophole in the war powers resolution. One that admittedly I was not aware of. Basically Congress gives the executive branch pre-approval to use military force when bound by treaty prior to its enactment and specifically mentions the UN charter.

(b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

The question then would go to interpretation of the UN Charter. Does the UN charter compel its members by treaty to provide armed forces to enforce its resolutions? If this is the case why is not Russia compelled by treaty to provide its armed forces? China? Or any other member state that is not directly participating in this action. If the US is compelled by treaty to provide armed force and other equal members break the treaty it is null and void. A treaty or agreement is only valid only if all parties adhere to it. I posted a link to the UN charter.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml

I don't think there was ever any doubt regrading Bam's authority to take this action. In addition to the link provided by BS, there are several examples over the past 40 years of the POTUS pretty much doing the exact same thing.

The kick is that this is the first time an action like this has been taken after the CINC so strongly denounced such action on the campaign trail, to the point of it being one of the cornerstones of the campaign. That part kinda makes me chuckle a bit.

It's also become pretty apparent that the administration has no fucking clue what they're doing as far as keeping the public informed as to the mission parameters, goals, etc. The use of the term "on the fly," for example should probably never be used in the context of military operations. I don't even necessarily disagree with the premise of the mission...just the way it's been done/handled just further cements the perception that this is the most immature administration in my lifetime.