|
Post by ed1066 on Jun 29, 2011 11:37:42 GMT -5
Obama in 2007: In response to being asked whether "the president ha constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress" -- "specifically . . . the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites" -- Obama replied: "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." Note that Obama wasn't being asked whether the President has unilateral authority to order a ground invasion or a full-scale war, but merely the limited, "strategic bombing" of Iran's nuclear sites, and he replied decisively in the negative by invoking a very clear restriction on presidential authority to order military action without Congress. Obama in 2011: Yesterday, State Department adviser Harold Koh testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee regarding the war in Libya. The Committee had also requested the appearance of top lawyers from the Justice and Defense Departments -- who, contrary to Koh, told the President that he was violating the War Powers Resolution by waging war without Congressional approval -- but the Most Transparent Administration Ever refused to produce them, instead sending only the State Department lawyer who told the President what he wanted to hear: that he did indeed have this unilateral power. Koh was confronted with candidate Obama's 2007 statement that directly contradicts the White House's current position, and Koh did the only thing he could do: insist that the Constitutional Scholar's view back then were "not legally correct" and was "too limited a statement," and that he'd be "very surprised if that's [Obama's] position" today. Watch the amazing, cringe-inducing one-minute video: In other words, said the President's designated legal spokesman, what Obama the Candidate said on this crucial issue when trying to persuade Democrats to nominate him was wrong and is now officially repudiated.I suggest reading the whole article and watching the video: www.salon.com/news/libya/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/06/29/kohOnce again, illegal war under Bush = bad, illegal war under Obama = good
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Jun 29, 2011 11:38:39 GMT -5
Could this cost Obama the election? If I were a Republican strategist, I would start running ads with Obama's quotes then and now...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 29, 2011 11:46:49 GMT -5
all presidents do this. i don't like it. but going nuts over it is pointless.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 29, 2011 11:47:50 GMT -5
Could this cost Obama the election? If I were a Republican strategist, I would start running ads with Obama's quotes then and now... i think that would be very unwise. painting him as indecisive and ineffective would be a lot better than painting him as overly aggressive.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Jun 29, 2011 11:50:53 GMT -5
Could this cost Obama the election? If I were a Republican strategist, I would start running ads with Obama's quotes then and now... i think that would be very unwise. painting him as indecisive and ineffective would be a lot better than painting him as overly aggressive. I would say this issue very much paints him as indecisive, dishonest and hypocritical, not aggressive. Aggressiveness was the hallmark of Bush's administration, where they adopted a policy and then stuck with it even after it was obvious it was a mistake. Obama is not reversing a mistake he made, he is quite clearly saying one thing and then intentionally and consciously doing another...
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 29, 2011 11:51:42 GMT -5
all presidents do this. i don't like it. but going nuts over it is pointless. No they don't. I do believe that Bush got Congressional authority.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 29, 2011 11:54:41 GMT -5
i think that would be very unwise. painting him as indecisive and ineffective would be a lot better than painting him as overly aggressive. I would say this issue very much paints him as indecisive, dishonest and hypocritical, not aggressive. then by all means, be my guest. but i might remind you that Bush campaigned as an isolationist.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 29, 2011 11:57:57 GMT -5
all presidents do this. i don't like it. but going nuts over it is pointless. No they don't. I do believe that Bush got Congressional authority. not for Afghanistan, he didn't. look, if you want to jeer Obama for playing fast and loose with the WPA, be my guest. but don't pretend for a second that he is setting some kind of prescident.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 29, 2011 11:59:32 GMT -5
i think that would be very unwise. painting him as indecisive and ineffective would be a lot better than painting him as overly aggressive. Aggressiveness was the hallmark of Bush's administration, where they adopted a policy and then stuck with it even after it was obvious it was a mistake. Obama is not reversing a mistake he made, he is quite clearly saying one thing and then intentionally and consciously doing another... deception and singlemindedness was the hallmark of the Bush presidency, imo. and he will be hated for generations for it, imo what Obama is remembered for depends very much on what happens next year.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 29, 2011 12:01:37 GMT -5
I am not at all happy with Obama's Libyan adventure. I don't believe it will cost him the presidency though. The economy may be another matter, but Libya is too remote, and the costs too little to really rile people up, imo. Unless of course everything goes to hell in a bucket in the region. (more than it already is) i know this sounds crazy to everyone right now, but people are not even going to be looking at Libya next year. for incumbent presidents, it is typically almost ALL about economics.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Jun 29, 2011 12:08:11 GMT -5
I would say this issue very much paints him as indecisive, dishonest and hypocritical, not aggressive. then by all means, be my guest. but i might remind you that Bush campaigned as an isolationist. That's true, but I don't share the liberal obsession with excusing all of Obama's faults and criminal actions as symptoms of the Bush administration, and I also know for a fact that Obama will not win reelection by campaigning against Bush again, it simply won't work. The country will judge him based on his performance, and by no means can that performance be considered effective, competent or beneficial to our country...
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 29, 2011 12:16:38 GMT -5
Obama's Libya hypocrisy
Obama touched on this issue briefly at his press conference just a few minutes ago and said he has not violated the Wars Powers Act and that congress needs to move on and concentrate on the debt reduction issue that are going to cause harm to our economy if not completed soon
Maybe Dennis Kucinich and his lovely wife can visit Libya and report back to congress like they did in their trip to Syria ...??
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jun 29, 2011 12:20:56 GMT -5
I am not at all happy with Obama's Libyan adventure. I don't believe it will cost him the presidency though. The economy may be another matter, but Libya is too remote, and the costs too little to really rile people up, imo. Unless of course everything goes to hell in a bucket in the region. (more than it already is) From another article I read, I will try to find it..it seems that part of the reason to get involved in Libya was payback to our allies, European ones, for going into Afghanistan with us, remember there are 50, 000 of their troops too, and that is a big commitment for European countries..cost, sacrifice, losing people and they really were not affected by the actions of those in Afghanistan. Our allies were into Libya as much as we were in to Afganistan..neede our help and support..since then , the beginning of, it has been a European show for the most part.. There can be objections to our getting involved, remember just before we and the coalition were involved Gaddafi was almost ready to go into the last City under the Rebels control, he was preaching going into the homes and pull out the perps, their family's, streets to run in blood..so who knows how much verbal it was or how much truth..however, there are also concerns of supporting allies that is beyond the populace understanding, are in place and a reality..and that was one of the reasons we got involved..not saying it was correct, just that it was a reason for.. ----------------------------------------- To show who is actually involved in Libya this new article ----------------------------------------- english.aljazeera.net/------------------------------------------- Africa France confirms arming Libyan rebels Military spokesman says June air drops in Nafusa Mountains, south of Tripoli, contained assault rifles and machine guns. Last Modified: 29 Jun 2011 14:33 "Libyan opposition fighters have mostly relied on weapons and equipment scavenged from regime military bases [AFP] The French military has confirmed that it air dropped weapons in June to Libyan rebels fighting in the highlands south of the capital. Colonel Thierry Burkhard, a spokesman for the French general staff, told Al Jazeera on Wednesday that the military had dropped assault rifles, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers to groups of unarmed civilians it deemed to be at risk. Earlier in the day, the Le Figaro newspaper and the AFP news agency reported that France had dropped several tonnes of arms, including Milan anti-tank rockets and light armoured vehicles. The air drops arrived somewhere in rebel-held towns in the Nafusa mountains, which run east-west from the Tunisian border around 100km south of Tripoli. Rebels control most of the Nafusa up to the town of Yafran, while regime forces loyal to leader Muammar Gaddafi still hold Gharyan, a key town that lies astride the north-south road to the capital. On March 19, a coalition of NATO countries launched a military intervention in Libya under the mandate of a United Nations Security Council resolution aimed at protecting civilians from the onslaught launched by Gaddafi after mass protests broke out against his rule in mid-February. The Security Council resolution established a no-fly zone, asset freeze and arms embargo on Libya and various regime entities. Rifles and ammunition Burkhard said France had become aware in early June that rebel-held villages had come under pressure from loyalist forces. "We began by dropping humanitarian aid: food, water and medical supplies," he told the AFP news agency. "During the operation, the situation for the civilians on the ground worsened. We dropped arms and means of self-defence, mainly ammunition." Burkhard described the arms as "light infantry weapons of the rifle type" and said the drops were carried out over several days "so that civilians would not be massacred". Though Burkhard framed the French weapons supplies as a method of protecting civilians in accordance with the UN mandate, it was still unclear whether such air drops violated the arms embargo. NATO countries such as the United States have tried to emphasise that they are not taking sides in the conflict and that their strikes on Gaddafi's armour, anti-aircraft emplacements and command bunkers are only in order to protect civilians. They have denied trying to kill Gaddafi, though US Admiral Samuel Locklear, a NATO commander in Naples, Italy, reportedly told a visiting US congressman in May that they were actively targeting and trying to kill him. 'Light armoured cars' According to Le Figaro, which said it had seen a secret intelligence memo and talked to well-placed officials, the drops were designed to help rebel fighters encircle Tripoli and encourage a popular revolt in the city itself. "If the rebels can get to the outskirts of Tripoli, the capital will take the chance to rise against [Gaddafi]," said an official quoted in the report. "The regime's mercenaries are no longer getting paid and are scarcely getting fed. There's a severe fuel shortage, the population has had enough." A well-placed non-government source told AFP that 40 tonnes of weapons including "light armoured cars" had been delivered to rebels in western Libya. France has taken a leading role in organising international support for the uprising against Gaddafi's four-decade-old rule, and French and British jets are spearheading a NATO-led air campaign targeting his forces. Rebel forces are mainly based in Benghazi in the east of the country, and hold a besieged enclave supplied by sea in the western coastal town of Misrata, but have been unable to mount a convincing advance on the capital"
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 29, 2011 12:47:00 GMT -5
then by all means, be my guest. but i might remind you that Bush campaigned as an isolationist. That's true, but I don't share the liberal obsession with excusing all of Obama's faults and criminal actions as symptoms of the Bush administration, i wasn't excusing. i was comparing. i think that Obama is engaged in criminal acts in at least three countries right now, Ed. is that clear enough? my point is that when the same is brought up about Bush, the hue and cry over it is deafening. the double standard is, therefore, quite clear to me. how do you bridge it?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 29, 2011 12:48:32 GMT -5
Obama's Libya hypocrisyObama touched on this issue briefly at his press conference just a few minutes ago and said he has violated the Wars Powers Act and that congress needs to move on and concentrate on the debt reduction issue that are going to cause harm to our economy if not completed soon Maybe Dennis Kucinich and his lovely wife can visit Libya and report back to congress like they did in their trip to Syria ...?? actually, what he said is that he doesn't believe he HAS violated it, because of the scope of the conflict. i don't agree, but i don't see it as being any different than what every president since WW2 has done.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 29, 2011 12:50:07 GMT -5
then by all means, be my guest. but i might remind you that Bush campaigned as an isolationist. I also know for a fact that Obama will not win reelection by campaigning against Bush again, it simply won't work. actually, Obama doesn't need to campaign against anyone other than himself, imo.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 29, 2011 12:54:47 GMT -5
No they don't. I do believe that Bush got Congressional authority. not for Afghanistan, he didn't. look, if you want to jeer Obama for playing fast and loose with the WPA, be my guest. but don't pretend for a second that he is setting some kind of prescident. Ah, yes he did, Congress authorized the use of force against any and all nations involved in the 9-11 attacks, of which Afghanistan was principle.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 29, 2011 12:56:50 GMT -5
not for Afghanistan, he didn't. look, if you want to jeer Obama for playing fast and loose with the WPA, be my guest. but don't pretend for a second that he is setting some kind of prescident. Ah, yes he did, Congress authorized the use of force against any and all nations involved in the 9-11 attacks, of which Afghanistan was principle. and which Iraq was not.....right? awesome. impeach him then. i am not going to defend any president against illegal actions. ever. i guess i could say that i am really excited to see Republicans so engaged in limiting the power of the president, and hope it applies to THE NEXT OF THEIR OWN KIND that rises to that position. i could say that if i believed it, that is. having settled that, can we talk about the economy?
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Jun 29, 2011 13:00:15 GMT -5
That's true, but I don't share the liberal obsession with excusing all of Obama's faults and criminal actions as symptoms of the Bush administration, my point is that when the same is brought up about Bush, the hue and cry over it is deafening. the double standard is, therefore, quite clear to me. how do you bridge it? I guess I'm not understanding your point. Right now, I couldn't care less about what Bush did or didn't do, he is not president and hasn't been for years. That's why I don't understand the constant comparisons and the obsession with excusing everything Obama does because (allegedly) Bush did "worse". Probably the major point of Obama's campaign, and that of his supporters, was that his administration would be so much better than Bush's, so transparent, so honest, so peaceful and so "progressive". We see now that was all unmitigated bullshit. He's a warmonger, a liar and a tyrant. Obama is conducting one of several illicit and illegal wars in Libya right now, today, at the very moment I write this. That's what I care about...and that's the subject of my thread.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 29, 2011 13:03:02 GMT -5
my point is that when the same is brought up about Bush, the hue and cry over it is deafening. the double standard is, therefore, quite clear to me. how do you bridge it? I guess I'm not understanding your point. Right now, I couldn't care less about what Bush did or didn't do i do. i also care about what Clinton did in Kosovo. and i care about what Bush did in Iraq. and i care about what Reagan did in Nicaragua and the Carribean. and i care about what Carter did in Indonesia. i care about what all presidents dating back to WW2 did in SE Asia. i care about every single one of the 150+ times we have used force against people that have done nothing whatsoever to us, Ed. is my point clearer, now?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 29, 2011 13:04:17 GMT -5
my point is that when the same is brought up about Bush, the hue and cry over it is deafening. the double standard is, therefore, quite clear to me. how do you bridge it? I guess I'm not understanding your point. Right now, I couldn't care less about what Bush did or didn't do, he is not president and hasn't been for years. That's why I don't understand the constant comparisons and the obsession with excusing everything Obama does because (allegedly) Bush did "worse". Probably the major point of Obama's campaign, and that of his supporters, was that his administration would be so much better than Bush's, so transparent, so honest, so peaceful and so "progressive". We see now that was all unmitigated bullshit. He's a warmonger, a liar and a tyrant. Obama is conducting one of several illicit and illegal wars in Libya right now, today, at the very moment I write this. That's what I care about...and that's the subject of my thread. that's fine. but i hope that won't limit me to posting to ONLY what you care about, or it will give me paltry little to talk about.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 29, 2011 13:05:25 GMT -5
Obama's Libya hypocrisyObama touched on this issue briefly at his press conference just a few minutes ago and said he has not violated the Wars Powers Act and that congress needs to move on and concentrate on the debt reduction issue that are going to cause harm to our economy if not completed soon Maybe Dennis Kucinich and his lovely wife can visit Libya and report back to congress like they did in their trip to Syria ...?? actually, what he said is that he doesn't believe he HAS violated it, because of the scope of the conflict. i don't agree, but i don't see it as being any different than what every president since WW2 has done.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 29, 2011 13:07:41 GMT -5
actually, what he said is that he doesn't believe he HAS violated it, because of the scope of the conflict. i don't agree, but i don't see it as being any different than what every president since WW2 has done.
You are right and I let me try again Obama said he doesn't believe Libya is a real war??? I disagree and if our aircraft and drones are dropping heavy ordinance onto Libyan targets that is a war..therefore according to Obama if we are not at war with Libya how could he have violated the War Powers Act and again he said he did notify the leaders in congress who are silent on this issue which I think pissed him off..
Again I am just paraphrasing his comments so feel free to add your comments again
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 29, 2011 13:10:05 GMT -5
Ah, yes he did, Congress authorized the use of force against any and all nations involved in the 9-11 attacks, of which Afghanistan was principle. awesome. impeach him then. i am not going to defend any president against illegal actions. ever. i guess i could say that i am really excited to see Republicans so engaged in limiting the power of the president, and hope it applies to THE NEXT OF THEIR OWN KIND that rises to that position. i could say that if i believed it, that is. having settled that, can we talk about the economy? No, we shouldn't in this particular thread, this particular topic was about Obama's Libya hypocrisy which you seemed to deny, but which is very clear from the OP
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Jun 29, 2011 13:10:48 GMT -5
I guess I'm not understanding your point. Right now, I couldn't care less about what Bush did or didn't do, he is not president and hasn't been for years. That's why I don't understand the constant comparisons and the obsession with excusing everything Obama does because (allegedly) Bush did "worse". Probably the major point of Obama's campaign, and that of his supporters, was that his administration would be so much better than Bush's, so transparent, so honest, so peaceful and so "progressive". We see now that was all unmitigated bullshit. He's a warmonger, a liar and a tyrant. Obama is conducting one of several illicit and illegal wars in Libya right now, today, at the very moment I write this. That's what I care about...and that's the subject of my thread. that's fine. but i hope that won't limit me to posting to ONLY what you care about, or it will give me paltry little to talk about. You're free to post whatever you want, mac. But you asked me a question about how I "bridge" the double standard you perceived. I don't see a double standard unless you are referring to the fact that the mainstream media and their sycophants have no problems with Obama's illegal wars, yet they vehemently decried Bush's. Otherwise, I am focused on the present and will leave the dissection of events in the past to the historians...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 29, 2011 13:16:09 GMT -5
that's fine. but i hope that won't limit me to posting to ONLY what you care about, or it will give me paltry little to talk about. You're free to post whatever you want, mac. But you asked me a question about how I "bridge" the double standard you perceived. I don't see a double standard i am sorry to hear that. i do. but no big deal. Democrats do the same thing as Republicans when it comes to this sort of thing. when THEIR GUY does it, they defend it. i remember it all too well. there was NO justification for invading Iraq. it doesn't matter what anyone "thought". it only matters what the facts are and were. just don't expect me to share in your outrage, Ed. this is same old same old to me. i have felt the outrage since Reagan violated the Boland Amendment. at this point, i am so used to it, it feels more like sadness than anger.
|
|
AGB
Familiar Member
Joined: Jun 9, 2011 14:27:49 GMT -5
Posts: 745
|
Post by AGB on Jun 29, 2011 13:17:44 GMT -5
What's limiting the power of the president is not Republicans, but the law. Calling it a conflict, a mission, an operation, doesn't matter... if what the US is doing in Libya was being done to the US, would we consider it an act of war? I think we would. I don't see what Obama's deal is, he should get the congressional thumbs up, and let's move on.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 29, 2011 13:19:22 GMT -5
awesome. impeach him then. i am not going to defend any president against illegal actions. ever. i guess i could say that i am really excited to see Republicans so engaged in limiting the power of the president, and hope it applies to THE NEXT OF THEIR OWN KIND that rises to that position. i could say that if i believed it, that is. having settled that, can we talk about the economy? No, we shouldn't in this particular thread, this particular topic was about Obama's Libya hypocrisy which you seemed to deny, but which is very clear from the OP if you are going to claim someone supports hypocrisy, i would hope that you could offer supporting evidence. please produce it, or i will be forced to offer a somewhat less generous appraisal of you.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 29, 2011 13:21:13 GMT -5
This thing about Libya is simple to me if you engage our forces but don't have troops on the ground that is a war....what am I missing here....you don't have to have troops on the ground to be engaged in a mini war and that give Obama an out on the War Powers Act?? I think Obama is wrong and I am with Dennis Kucinich on this one...can't believe I said that ed
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jun 29, 2011 13:23:19 GMT -5
When you elect a POTUS you then give them authority to lead the country..things come up, decisions are made and every single decision they make , large or small there will be some one who agrees, some one who disagrees..and in disagreements of it seems they are always bringing up the fact that he is doing something illegal, against the constitution, against what ever..yet so few times do the courts, the SCOTUS in many cases uphold those ideas of illegal activity by the POTUS..it seems they do have a lot of power and the right to do many things..IMHO.
|
|