What are they DOING in the House??

[Deleted]

HOUSE VOTES AGAINST OBAMA’S MILITARY ACTION IN LIBYA

The House on Friday overwhelmingly rejected a measure giving President Barack Obama the authority to continue the U.S. military operation against Libya, a major repudiation of the commander in chief.

The vote was 295-123, with Obama losing the support of 70 of his Democrats one day after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made a last-minute plea for the mission.

While the congressional action has no immediate effect on American involvement in the NATO-led mission, it was an embarrassment to a sitting president and certain to have reverberations in Tripoli and NATO capitals.

The vote marked the first time since 1999 that either House has voted against a president’s authority to carry out a military operation. The last time was to limit President Bill Clinton’s authority to use ground forces in Kosovo.

The House planned a second vote on legislation to cut off money for the military hostilities in the operation.

House Republican leaders pushed for the vote, with rank-and-file members saying the president broke the law by failing to seek congressional approval for the 3-month-old war.

Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he supported the president’s authority as commander in chief. “But when the president chooses to challenge the powers of the Congress, I as speaker of the House will defend the constitutional authority of the legislature,” he said.

Some Democrats accused the GOP of playing politics with national security. They said the vote would send the wrong message to Gadhafi.

Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said the vote would essentially “stop the mission in Libya and empower Moammar Gadhafi.”


Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, White House spokesman Jay Carney expressed disappointment.

“We think now is not the time to send the kind of mixed message that it sends when we’re working with our allies to achieve the goals that we believe that are widely shared in Congress: protecting civilians in Libya, enforcing a no-fly zone, enforcing an arms embargo and further putting pressure on Gadhafi,” Carney said. “The writing’s on the wall for Colonel Gadhafi and now is not the time to let up.”

Carney also dismissed the action as just one House vote.

The defeated resolution mirrors a Senate measure sponsored by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz., that Obama has indicated he would welcome. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will consider the resolution on Tuesday.

The second vote to eliminate money for the Libya operation would make an exception for search and rescue efforts, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, aerial refueling and operational planning to continue the NATO effort in Libya. That measure has no chance in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

House Republicans and Democrats are furious with Obama for failing to seek congressional authorization as required under the War Powers Resolution. The 1973 law, often ignored by Republican and Democratic presidents, says the commander in chief must seek congressional consent for military actions within 60 days. That deadline has long passed.

Obama stirred congressional unrest last week when he told lawmakers he didn’t need authorization because the operation was not full-blown hostilities. NATO commands the Libya operation, but the United States still plays a significant support role that includes aerial refueling of warplanes and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance work as well as drone attacks and bombings.

A New York Times report that said Obama overruled some of his legal advisers further incensed members of Congress.

In a last-ditch effort Thursday, Clinton met with rank-and-file Democrats to explain the mission and discuss the implications if the House votes to cut off funds. The administration requested the closed-door meeting.

Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., said Clinton apologized for not coming to Congress earlier. But he said she warned about the implications of a House vote to cut off money.

“The secretary expressed her deep concern that you’re probably not on the right track when Gadhafi supports your efforts,” Walz said.

Rep. Howard Berman of California, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said such a vote “ensures the failure of the whole mission.”

Earlier this week Clinton said lawmakers were free to raise questions, but she asked, “Are you on Gadhafi’s side, or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been bringing them support?”

In the Senate, backers of a resolution to authorize the operation wondered whether the administration had waited too long to address the concerns of House members.

“It’s way late,” said McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee. “This is one of the reasons why they’re having this veritable uprising in the House, because of a lack of communication. And then the icing on the cake was probably for them when he (Obama) said that we’re not engaged in hostilities. That obviously is foolishness.”

He added, however, “That is not a reason to pass a resolution that would encourage Moammar Gadhafi to stay in power.”

Earlier this month, the House voted 268-145 to rebuke Obama for failing to provide a “compelling rationale” for the Libyan mission and for launching U.S. military forces without congressional approval.

www.theblaze.com/stories/house-votes-against-obamas-military-action-in-libya/

[Deleted]

Then this...

GOVERNMENT
HOUSE REFUSES TO DEFUND LIBYAN OPERATION
Posted on June 24, 2011 at 2:09pm

WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — The House has turned back a Republican-led effort to cut off money for military hostilities in the Libyan war.

The vote was 238-180. It came after the House had overwhelmingly rejected a largely symbolic measure to give President Barack Obama the authority to continue U.S. involvement in the military operation against Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.

The funding measure would have barred drone attacks and airstrikes but allowed the United States to continue actions in support of NATO.

In the end, 89 Republicans defected on the largely GOP-sponsored measure. Among the Republicans voting against defunding the military action were Paul Ryan and Michele Bachmann.

www.theblaze.com/stories/house-refuses-to-defund-libyan-operation/

[Deleted]

Does this make any sense to anyone?

[marshabar1]

Ouch. Getting really really hard to play to both sides.

This fooling all the people all the time business is going south faster than his economy.

[Deleted]

How can we vote against a WAR, yet not vote against funding it?? Candidate Bachmann--

[pepper112765]

And to think we actually pay these people....

[marshabar1]

It is symbolic. Nobody wants to own cutting funds for soldiers I guess.

[privateinvestor]

Does this make any sense to anyone?

Let me give it that Old Boston College try Krickitt...


Obama and his advisers misjudged the mood in congress which is not with him on the Libyan War. He lost them them when he said it was NOT a war and we didn't have troops on the ground. But he failed to provide any detalied mission in Libya and an exit strategy, and/ or more about the rebel forces combating Qaddafi...plus spending close to $ 1 Billion in Libyan is seen as a waste of taxpayers money by both Dem and Pub conservatives.....again just one man's opinion but this is what I think may have torpedoed Obama on Libya and makes him look bad again..

[Deleted]

Maybe that is it. Doesn't make sense, though..

[txbo]

Jun 24, 2011 16:06:21 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

Does this make any sense to anyone?

It’s a symbolic vote with no intention of cutting funding. Remember the other party may need the same some day.

[Deleted]

2 votes. 1 against the war, 1 for funding it. I'll wait and see what comes next...

[marshabar1]

Krickitt, when I read your thread title I thought of Bobo and Lil'Debil LOL




They're not allowed in the house. ;D

[deziloooooo]

Jun 24, 2011 16:06:21 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

Does this make any sense to anyone?

Sure, been explained..it is a slap at Obama's handling of the war in Lybia..not going to Congress, the Senate will not pass it..but it shows that many members of Congress , both parties, are not happy with his, Obama's going into Lybia, unilaterly, not asking for Congresses ok.

Also, and i can get the article if you want, what has been suggested in another article, that it , Lybia US actions, was done as pay back for the Europeons contribution in Afganistan where they Europeons countries, had no stake in ..as we really have none in Lybia, but the Europeopns powers said to us, this is important to us..Lybia, so as payback..

It may not make sense to us , you and I, but this is what nations do..

"you help me out here , when you need help on something , call on me/us..' They, Europeon nations, called on us..

That Gaddafi came on TV and said the streets were going to run with blood whern he went into the final hold out city..that didn't hurt either, what if he did go in there, what if the streets had run red with blood..would we , populace here, had just looked the other way and not come down on the POTUS..I wonder? What do you say?

[fairlycrazy23]

Who knows, but the whole Libya thing was a big mistake, there where no vital US interests, heck there weren't even much non-vital US interests.
The President should have gotten Congressional approval before he initiated hostilities, only Congress is allowed to authorize that in our Government. I suspect if he had went to Congress initially he would have gotten all the approval he needed and this would be a mute point as far as Congressional approval went.

[marshabar1]

The living standards of Libyans have improved significantly since the 1970s, ranking the country among the highest in Africa. Urbanization, developmental projects, and high oil revenues have enabled the Libyan government to elevate its people's living standards. The social and economic status of women and children has particularly improved.

Various subsidized or free services (health, education, housing, and basic foodstuffs) have ensured basic necessities. The low percentage of people without access to safe water (3 percent), health services (0 percent) and sanitation (2 percent), and a relatively high life expectancy (70.2 years) in 1998 indicate the improved living standards. Adequate health care and subsidized foodstuffs have sharply reduced infant mortality, from 105 per 1,000 live births in 1970 to 20 per 1,000 live births in 1998. The government also subsidizes education, which is compulsory and free between the ages of 6 and 15. The expansion of educational facilities has elevated the literacy rate (78.1 in 1998). There are universities in Tripoli, Benghazi, Marsa el-Brega, Misurata, Sebha, and Tobruq. Despite its successes, the educational system has failed to train adequate numbers of professionals, resulting in Libya's dependency on foreign teachers, doctors, and scientists.

Many direct and indirect subsidies and free services have helped raise the economic status of low-income families, a policy which has prevented extreme poverty. As part of its socialist model of economic development, the Libyan government has weakened the private sector and confined it to mainly small-scale businesses. While this policy has damaged the Libyan economy significantly, it has also prevented the accumulation of wealth by a small percentage of the population. While the ruling elite (i.e., top civil servants, military officers, and politicians), enjoys much higher living standards compared to average Libyans, and corruption exists within its ranks, Libya is not a highly polarized society divided between extremes of wealth and poverty.

Read more: Libya Poverty and wealth, Information about Poverty and wealth in Libya www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Africa/Libya-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html#ixzz1QEYGsOzt


Dang! Libya under Gaddafi sounds like Barack Obama's dreamland. Libya was prospering, Gaddafi was opening to more trade and shared projects with western nations. What was the problem with Gaddafi?

He was getting too westernized for the mullahs in Iran?

[ugonow]

Please don't tell me Gadaffi is becoming republicans poster boy.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

Jun 24, 2011 16:06:21 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

Does this make any sense to anyone?

Well, sort of .... they are politicians being politicians. (Which means, of course, many of their decisions and actions make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER to the rest of us!)

[marshabar1]

Nope. It just doesn't make a lick of sense to me. Mubarak was a long time ally who kept a lid on terror in his neighborhood and kept the peace with Israel. Abandoned by this administration.

Under Gadaffi anyone with the smarts could get educated to the level he was capable including at foreign universities. Every married couple received money to start with. Home loans were underwritten. The worst problem I read about in Libya lately was that for westerners who worked there it was BORING. France and Libya were building a new resort so maybe Libya was going to work on that too.

Then you have the crazy man and the mullahs in Iran. And a population that is clearly under duress. No problem says Obama.


In my opinion it doesn't make any sense. Why Libya? You know damned well the revolution was fomented. Why?

[deziloooooo]

Jun 24, 2011 17:16:22 GMT -5 ❤ mollymouser ❤ said:

Jun 24, 2011 16:06:21 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

Does this make any sense to anyone?

Well, sort of .... they are politicians being politicians. (Which means, of course, many of their decisions and actions make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER to the rest of us!)

I explained one to you Krickett..I ddin't make it up, on the wants of the europeopns, especially france , UK and Italy...

It was partially a payback for..Gaddafi to be out was important for them, Europeons..plus the possibility of lots of blood shed in the city, Bengazi I believe, 1 million people there, Gaddafi troops were about to enter it before the coalition started their air campaign..

[ugonow]

Lol, when the argument was made Saddam kept the religious fanatic terrorists under control because he was secular,republicans scoffed. but now it is different.Muburak was a theif whose people hated him,and revolted against,Gadaffi ...well Gadaffi was a bad guy to all republicans until this.... IMO, it is partisan politics at it's finest. All the same people crying about it,were all for going in before Obama actually did.

[Deleted]

Funny video, Marsha!!!!

[marshabar1]

You ever seen that movie? My crazy family. We know it by heart and use the lexicon often. It is absolutely hilarious if you find really stupid stuff hilarious. Actually I think it's a work of genius. Seriously. But very stupid.

[Deleted]

Never saw it. Not sure how with all my kids. LOL!!!!

[hello fromWarsaw]

Dems tend toward peace and democracy. So some vote for it. Pubs will obstruct ANYTHING Obama wants, even if they're in favor of it, so far the recovery, health reform, and now Libya, now celebrating "the end of the war" in Tripoli. Moron bought off a-holes.

[marshabar1]

Well you gotta watch it!! ;D Wait'll you see the Brazillionaires.

[hello fromWarsaw]

Leonard Maltin: BOMB-stupifyingly unwatchable Actually I could- Dan Ackroyd's directing debut.