Posted on 06/17/2011 9:37:22 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
Reagan ignored the War Powers Act in Grenada for example. Also, in the bombing of Libya.
Again, my point is that the Constitution gives the President the authority to do what Obama is doing. It is Congress that is not doing its job. You can’t conduct policy via lawyers.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the United States has no vital national interests in Libya.
Then Gates should run for President. The current President says we do, and has the authority under the Constitution to act on that belief. Not saying it is right or wrong but it is a fact that he does.
I’m with Obama on this, to hell with the lawyers.
What Obama relies on is the UN making a resolution. You don't like lawyers but you like the UN?
Obama is not making the case you are. Right there you should be against what Obama is doing. According to Obama, there is no war.
More drama. Just cut the dang funding. Game over.
Der New Fuhrer vill be in court on zis one zoon, hmmm? Ich believes dat der Fuhrer vill NOT be impeached vor zee zame reason az his lack of a valid birth certificate. Congress lacks zee schtomach to faze zee pozzibility of “Inner City Riots” Ja, for impeaching der first Black Prezident. Zo, are ve a NAZIon of Lawz or Notzi? I sink Notzi as der Fuhrer vill not run again because he haz no birth certificates and a few Statez will have ballot lawz for zuch a zing. Loozing a few ztats meanz no Fhurer.
(Too bad as an investigation would prove he is not a valid president and Obamacare is out the door with him; good bye to bad rubbish.)
Of course I don’t like the UN. My point is not that Libya is right or wrong. I’m just saying he has the authority to act regardless of what some lawyer thinks. No President should ever base the conduct of foreign policy on the opinion of laywers.
There are constitutional ways to stop the Obama policy if Congress disagrees with it. They can cut off funding or publicly vote against the actions. Though that can’t stop Obama from continuing. But Congress will do neither of these things because to them there is no political benefit.
The War Powers Act was passed as a result of the Vietnam War. It is designed to get Congress off the hook by assuming that every foreign policy action that involves military action is the same. Laughable, any lawyer could have told them that was nonsense and it also happens to be unconstitutional. Maybe a President Palin or Romney or whomever will challenge it in court.
That is not true. He was in and out of Grenada in less than 60 days.
Again, my point is that the Constitution gives the President the authority to do what Obama is doing.
Blowing up people in Libya and refusing to recognize that what he is engaged in is an act of war?
I'm sorry, but if he refuses to call it war, then he is directing the military to engage in acts of murder.
Reagan ignored the War Powers Act in Grenada for example. Also, in the bombing of Libya.
Both were less than 90 days (60 days combat 30 days withdrawal).
On October 25, 1983, President Reagan reported on the use of 1900 U.S. forces to invade and occupy the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada. All U.S. combat forces were withdrawn by December 15 (i.e., ten days before the time limit the War Powers Resolution might be thought to have imposed).
On August 8, 1983, President Reagan reported that two U.S. AWACS and eight F-15 aircraft had been sent to Chad to assist that nation repel aggression from Libya.
http://www.mbc.edu/faculty/gbowen/warpower2.htm
If you really want to make the case for Obama and his authority then you need to convince that Obama would be at war with Libya without the UN resolution.
That just doesn't pass the giggle test.
Unless Obama at the very least specifically makes your claim, then he is a liar and a criminal. That is who you “are on the side of”.
Ditto.
Regan complied with the Act in Grenada, Libya and Lebanon.
I say blow the hell out of Libya. Nuke it to the ground.
All islamic countries after 9/11 deserve it.
This selective fighting though sucks. The selective support by the left is even worse. They wanted (still want) to kill Bush for doing less than hussein is doing.
There are only two people I am going to put my faith in:
1) American voters in 2012
2) GOD!
Either way, I hope WE THE PEOPLE will be saved from this savage anti-American marxist, socialist, selfish, self centered phony POTUS.
I AM TOTALLY ON BOARD! But, why the hell does he not just say that???? His argument is that the War Powers Act is good, but that his (Obama’s) war is not really a war.
I have my theories with this - We are in great peril as a nation! We have a rogue and lawless individual in the Whitehouse. A massive rejection and defeat by voters will send this Narcissist into a rage and he has the potential to do something very dangerous and crazy on his way out. Elections in Nov. 2012 Obama loses - There are two months before the new congress and President take power. Could he pull the trigger on something serious! How much will the American people have to suffer before they realize what they have done! Puts a whole new spin on the December 21st 2012 end of the world thing no!?
Wife said a NYT piece reported the same thing.
Could this be a minor turning of the shrew, worm,or whatever?
“...do you like being lied to?”
And the media is complicit in the lie. In Iraq our media were in hotels down the street from Saddam’s places and showing us video every night of it. On our ships with video of every plane taking off.
But, no such thing for Libya. So I guess it must be true what Obama says - we are not in a war with Libya.
Some of these strikes associated with the "George H.W. Bush" carrier I presume.
05Jun2011, transited the Strait of Gibraltar and entered the Med
06Jun-08Jun2011, Cartagena, Spain
09Jun-10Jun2011, Med
11Jun-13Jun2011, Naples, Italy
14Jun2011, Med
Yet again, Bush's fault...:^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.