Obama's Libya hypocrisy

[djAdvocate]

Jun 29, 2011 13:07:41 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

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..

i will take it one step further. the SECOND that Obama claimed that he was enforcing a no fly zone, that is act of war- because in order to make that happen (as we did in Iraq in the 90's) you will HAVE TO BOMB GROUND TARGETS.

i am really sick of the word games. Clinton did it, too, and it pissed me off back then. Bush did it before him. it goes on and on and on.

WHEN IS IT EVER GOING TO STOP?

[djAdvocate]

Jun 29, 2011 13:21:13 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

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

you are with DK and RON PAUL. talk about an "odd couple"!

[privateinvestor]

djlungrot here you go this is better than my comments re: Libyan Conflict

Updated at 1:20 p.m. ET

President Obama today defended U.S. engagement in Libya, dismissing congressional debate -- which has split both Democrats and Republicans -- over whether involvement in the war violates the War Powers Act.


"A lot of this fuss is politics," Mr. Obama said at a press conference at the White House.


U.S. engagement in Libya has gone on for three months, even though Mr. Obama never sought congressional authorization for the operations. The 1973 War Powers Resolution mandates that military forces must be withdrawn from battle within 90 days without congressional approval.


Mr. Obama said today his decisions have not violated the resolution because "we have engaged in a limited operation."


"I said there would be no troops on the ground. I said we would not be carrying the lion's share of the operation, but as members of NATO we would be supportive of it because it's in our national security interest and it's the right thing to do," Mr. Obama said. "We have done exactly what I said we would do."



President Barack Obama gestures during a news conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, June 29, 2011.
(Credit: AP Photo/Charles Dharapak) The operation is "limited in time and scope," Mr. Obama said, and has been carried out in "exemplary fashion."


"There's no risk of additional escalation," he added.


Congress has held a series of votes over whether to authorize action in Libya, or to show opposition to the mission by cutting off funding. Mr. Obama said today that Washington should be unified in its mission against Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi.


"We have engaged in a limited operation to help a lot of people against one of the worst tryants in the world... and this suddenly becomes the cause celebre for some members of Congress? C'mon," Mr. Obama said.

While the U.N. mission is specifically focused on protecting the Libyan people, Mr. Obama has said repeatedly that Qaddafi must step down from power.


As a consequence of the mission's success so far, Mr. Obama said, "a guy who was a state sponsor of terrorist operations against the United States of America is pinned down, and the noose is tightening around him."

While Mr. Obama said Qaddafi must step down, he added that it will be up to the Libyan people to arrive at a political settlement.


As to whether the U.S. and its allies in the mission would accept a resolution involving Qaddafi, Mr. Obama said, "I would accept him stepping down so that he is not directing armed forces against Libyan people. He needs to step down. He needs to go."


As the operations in Libya continue, a CBS News poll earlier this month showed that public opinion has turned against the mission: six in 10 Americans do not think the United States should be involved in the Libyan conflict. Mr. Obama said today that the high-profile support Sens. John McCain and John Kerry are putting behind the mission should reassure people.


"When you have the former nominee for president, John McCain, and the former nominee for president on the Democratic side, John Kerry, coming together, that should tell the American people this is important," he said.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 29, 2011 13:23:19 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

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.

dez- my point was that every time the US does this, there is a minority out there that says it is illegal. it is generally the party that is out of power, and members of that party that are not afraid to appear unpatriotic. but, of course, there are also people like me that will say it applies serially to use of force outside the US. we are real nutjobs. ;]

[floridayankee]

Jun 29, 2011 12:56:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

and which Iraq was not.....right?

Right. Iraq required another congressional resolution....H.J. Res. 114 - Joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

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.

I guess you missed the opposition by both sides to Bush era legislation such as RealID, the Patriot Act, the bush bailout, TARP, energy independence act (phasing out incandescent light bulbs), etc....

having settled that, can we talk about the economy?

We sure can. Feel free to start a thread.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 29, 2011 13:36:07 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Jun 29, 2011 12:56:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

and which Iraq was not.....right?

Right. Iraq required another congressional resolution....H.J. Res. 114 - Joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

were the terms of that resolution met?

[deziloooooo]

I posted a article regarding how one looks at all our involvements in wars from the late 19th century to this day..it seems we do get involved , even for supposedly good causes.. but then those causes turn into what ever..

I really don't know how to answer that one, do we get involved in some of these events or do we not..when Genocide is being perpetrated some where do we turn a blind eye to it, and go on our way..do we get involved..

Possible the future will be dictated by the fact that we just can't afford it any more..this thing in Libya,, is it going on to long because hard action is not being taken..the arming of the rebels..it is being said the mercenaries who are fighting for Gaddafi are not being paid, even eating well..so if that is true i expect they will not hang with them to long, and if not able to disengage and leave , then with the arms they have, possible turn on the civilians for $ and food..or possible they are being paid and fed, so the battle will still go on...

To try and fight a war with certain restraints on one self is not a very smart thing to do IMHO..possible the above article on French arming of rebels is the start of the taking off the restraints of the coalition to get this job done already.

[safeharbor37]

Congress isn't going to push the War Powers Act because the courts would probably rule some or all of it unconstitutional and it's better to pretend that you have power and use that as leverage than to have the Supreme Court rule that the President is free to act and there isn't anything you can do about it. The problem is not the law, it's the people we choose to enforce the law.
As far as the charge of hypocrisy against Obama; Is it necessarily hypocrisy when one changes ones mind? Obama will be judged by the results he gets, not the methods he uses.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 29, 2011 13:36:07 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Jun 29, 2011 12:56:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

and which Iraq was not.....right?

Right. Iraq required another congressional resolution....H.J. Res. 114 - Joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

I guess you missed the opposition by both sides to Bush era legislation such as RealID, the Patriot Act,

wait. opposition to the PATRIOT Act? when? or am i misunderstanding you?

[Deleted]

I would point out that most Presidents look stronger at the helm of the military in a time of war. Also they look stronger being decisive. Possibly President Obama's strategy for getting elected involves bombing someone that is not actively trying to hurt the U.S. (any repercussions would come after the election).

Didn't they make a movie about that? I seem to remember a movie about a President with low ratings trumping up a war with Canada.

Good move on President Obama's part. Sure it hurts the nation by showing that we will attack without provocation & for just about any trumped up reason & of course it's going to cost a hell of a lot of money but the main objective is the important thing (Get President Obama re elected). Still glad that there are a lot more countries out there that we haven't attacked. This one may not change his ratings & the thought of us bombing GA, ARK, LA just doesn't sit well with me. (or other states with low electoral votes).

[djAdvocate]

this summarizes my position fairly well:

weatherdem.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/obama-follows-bush-in-abusing-war-powers-act/

"Take note, Obama administration: your actions are likely as illegal as the Bush Regime’s were. Nothing is different just because you have a different letter after your name or just because there’s a black man in charge now. The Constitutional Scholar is proving himself to be anything but. I have lost nearly all of the respect I had for Obama. This isn’t the change we voted for. This isn’t leadership. This is continued capitalistic cronyism and it’s as disgusting now as it was 3 years ago."

[ed1066]

We all know Obama is violating the constitution just as Bush did. My point in this thread is to highlight the fact that Obama the candidate said in 2007 that what Obama the president is doing in 2011 is patently illegal. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy, not the illegality of the wars themselves. That's a good topic, but not what I was trying to say...

[djAdvocate]

Jun 29, 2011 14:15:32 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

We all know Obama is violating the constitution just as Bush did. My point in this thread is to highlight the fact that Obama the candidate said in 2007 that what Obama the president is doing in 2011 is patently illegal. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy, not the illegality of the wars themselves. That's a good topic, but not what I was trying to say...

yeah. i pretty clearly should not have posted on this thread. i think all presidents are frauds. and i have already stated why. saying anything more is just repeating myself.

[floridayankee]

Jun 29, 2011 13:50:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

wait. opposition to the PATRIOT Act? when? or am i misunderstanding you?

There was quite a few posters on the old MSN board that identified as repub and opposed the patriot act. I know I did but then again, not a repub.

Of course, we also plenty of party loyal people as well, just like here, that would blindly follow "their leader" off a cliff if that's the direction they were heading.

[Deleted]

Obama is lying, people are dying...
I know I heard that before somewhere.

Current wars-- Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya (no approval from Congress), and Yemen (shh-- we don't talk about that..)

The war with Mexico--- what war?? No problem, move on, nothing to see here...

[ed1066]

Jun 29, 2011 15:02:24 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

Obama is lying, people are dying...
I know I heard that before somewhere.

Current wars-- Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya (no approval from Congress), and Yemen (shh-- we don't talk about that..)

The war with Mexico--- what war?? No problem, move on, nothing to see here...

Don't forget Obama aided and abetted the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as well...

[privateinvestor]

]

you are with DK and RON PAUL.



Kucinich did make a strong case on CNN last week for why he thought that Obama should be sued for violating the war powers act...I read the act a few times and I like to think I know something about war ...Ron Paul and Rand Paul have some good ideas but the problem is that nobody listens to them or writes them off as "Flakes" for some reason

[Deleted]

Thx for reminding me, Ed. So hard to keep up these days..

[deziloooooo]

Jun 29, 2011 15:05:05 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

Jun 29, 2011 15:02:24 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

Obama is lying, people are dying...
I know I heard that before somewhere.

Current wars-- Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya (no approval from Congress), and Yemen (shh-- we don't talk about that..)

The war with Mexico--- what war?? No problem, move on, nothing to see here...

Don't forget Obama aided and abetted the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as well...

Ahh yes , can't forget the "Muslim Brother Hood "..aided and abetted ed, your sure?

..thought he just mentioned that if they get the votes they should be allowed to participate or something like that, really none of his business I would think..it's what ever the Egyptians decide to do as far as which parties are legal and accepted in their up and coming elections..wouldn't you agree? Their business? Not ours?

[djAdvocate]

Jun 29, 2011 14:40:01 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Jun 29, 2011 13:50:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

wait. opposition to the PATRIOT Act? when? or am i misunderstanding you?

There was quite a few posters on the old MSN board that identified as repub and opposed the patriot act. I know I did but then again, not a repub.

Of course, we also plenty of party loyal people as well, just like here, that would blindly follow "their leader" off a cliff if that's the direction they were heading.

oh, i thought you were talking about CONGRESSPEOPLE. that was unanimous, with the exception of Feingold.

[ugonow]

Wasn't there some kind of time frame involved?I remember Boehner giving Obama a warning about the 90 days [?] window for asking for authorization closing fast. That was a month after this article. I don't profess to be up on this in the least, just trying to figure it out--- <<<House ignores Obama's Libya request
By Russell Berman - 05/26/11 06:18 AM ET

House leaders are ignoring a request from President Obama for a congressional endorsement of the U.S. military mission in Libya.

Five days after Obama sent a letter to congressional leaders seeking a resolution of support, there has been no action in the House, and aides in both parties say there are no plans to bring legislation to the floor.


The response in the lower chamber marks a striking contrast with the Senate, where a bipartisan group of foreign policy heavyweights have signed on to a resolution backing the Libya campaign.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said he expects a vote next month on the measure, which is sponsored by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.).

A companion measure has not been introduced in the House, and in the two months since Obama launched the operation, only one of the chamber’s 435 members, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), has signed onto a resolution supporting the mission. A spokeswoman for Rohrabacher said Wednesday that his measure was in “a holding pattern.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said earlier this week that the Libya mission would be debated through amendments to the defense authorization bill currently on the floor, but the only amendments on Libya that lawmakers offered sought to criticize or to restrict the mission. With minimal debate, the House on a voice vote Wednesday adopted an amendment from conservative Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) that stated explicitly that “nothing in the [Defense] bill... shall be construed to authorize military operations in Libya.”>>>> PS I also don't think Obamas hypocrisy is the only hypocrisy involved in the Libya thingee.

[ed1066]

Jun 29, 2011 15:32:57 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Jun 29, 2011 15:05:05 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

Don't forget Obama aided and abetted the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as well...

Ahh yes , can't forget the "Muslim Brother Hood "..aided and abetted ed, your sure?

..thought he just mentioned that if they get the votes they should be allowed to participate or something like that, really none of his business I would think..it's what ever the Egyptians decide to do as far as which parties are legal and accepted in their up and coming elections..wouldn't you agree? Their business? Not ours?

Yes I do agree, it is their business. Which is why I find it exceedingly suspicious that Obama chose to insert himself in the dialog and come out publicly in support of the "opposition" to Mubarek. That tells me two things; 1) Obama did not even know who "the opposition" was and was just shooting off his mouth without the facts, a la the Henry Gates affair, or 2) Obama DID know who the opposition was (the MB) and willfully threw his support behind them. Which do you think it was?

[deziloooooo]

Jun 29, 2011 16:57:47 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

Jun 29, 2011 15:32:57 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Ahh yes , can't forget the "Muslim Brother Hood "..aided and abetted ed, your sure?

..thought he just mentioned that if they get the votes they should be allowed to participate or something like that, really none of his business I would think..it's what ever the Egyptians decide to do as far as which parties are legal and accepted in their up and coming elections..wouldn't you agree? Their business? Not ours?

Yes I do agree, it is their business. Which is why I find it exceedingly suspicious that Obama chose to insert himself in the dialog and come out publicly in support of the "opposition" to Mubarek. That tells me two things; 1) Obama did not even know who "the opposition" was and was just shooting off his mouth without the facts, a la the Henry Gates affair, or 2) Obama DID know who the opposition was (the MB) and willfully threw his support behind them. Which do you think it was?

I think he has information that the Muslim Brotherhood, are quite organized, will possible pull in 10 to 20 % in a vote in the upcoming elction, and since they have foresworn violent over throwing to reach their political goals and have stated they are perfectly happy to be part of a new Egypt, he was just mentioning them in that contect, if they get the votes , they should have a say in the new Egyptian Government to be formed after the new elections.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 29, 2011 16:57:47 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

Jun 29, 2011 15:32:57 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Ahh yes , can't forget the "Muslim Brother Hood "..aided and abetted ed, your sure?

..thought he just mentioned that if they get the votes they should be allowed to participate or something like that, really none of his business I would think..it's what ever the Egyptians decide to do as far as which parties are legal and accepted in their up and coming elections..wouldn't you agree? Their business? Not ours?

Yes I do agree, it is their business. Which is why I find it exceedingly suspicious that Obama chose to insert himself in the dialog and come out publicly in support of the "opposition" to Mubarek. That tells me two things; 1) Obama did not even know who "the opposition" was and was just shooting off his mouth without the facts, a la the Henry Gates affair, or 2) Obama DID know who the opposition was (the MB) and willfully threw his support behind them. Which do you think it was?

Ed- i don't want to minimize what you are saying here, because i think it is largely correct. we are supporting a fairly shady organization against an oppressive regime that we have been coddling for a good long time.

and i would also ad that if this were 2005 rather than now, i would likely not have even made the statement i am about to make.

but there have been a lot of internal changes in radical Islam since the Iraq War. one of the most interesting ones is the factionalism in Muslim Brotherhood, which has been making attempts at becoming a legitimate voice of the people (ie renouncing violence) rather than a terrorist organization. i think you are RIGHT to be skeptical. after all, they did a lot of harm in the 20 years prior to 2005, including lending aid to factions like Islamic Jiihad/OBL. but i also think that now, despite their numbers, there are organizations we should be far more concerned with.

the reason i mention this is because i remember the 80's. we called the ANC a terrorist organization (even though they had renounced violence as well, which caused similar splintering into Umkonto We Sizwe and the ANC) even though they were making way to become the next government of SA. when that transition occured, it left us in a very bad position to negotiate for strategic minerals that SA has in abundance and that we need for basic industry.

what i am saying is this. it might pay good dividends to extend hands to former enemies during this time of transition in the hopes that IN THE FUTURE they will become allies, rather than continuing this endless game of making them enemies, hardening their resolve, and radicalizing them at a time when they MIGHT have been susceptible to democratic impulses.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 29, 2011 17:04:32 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Jun 29, 2011 16:57:47 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

Yes I do agree, it is their business. Which is why I find it exceedingly suspicious that Obama chose to insert himself in the dialog and come out publicly in support of the "opposition" to Mubarek. That tells me two things; 1) Obama did not even know who "the opposition" was and was just shooting off his mouth without the facts, a la the Henry Gates affair, or 2) Obama DID know who the opposition was (the MB) and willfully threw his support behind them. Which do you think it was?

I think he has information that the Muslim Brotherhood, are quite organized, will possible pull in 10 to 20 % in a vote in the upcoming elction, and since they have foresworn violent over throwing to reach their political goals and have stated they are perfectly happy to be part of a new Egypt, he was just mentioning them in that contect, if they get the votes , they should have a say in the new Egyptian Government to be formed after the new elections.

dez said basically the same thing, here. and i agree with it, with some concerns.

[deziloooooo]

Jun 29, 2011 17:13:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 29, 2011 17:04:32 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

I think he has information that the Muslim Brotherhood, are quite organized, will possible pull in 10 to 20 % in a vote in the upcoming elction, and since they have foresworn violent over throwing to reach their political goals and have stated they are perfectly happy to be part of a new Egypt, he was just mentioning them in that contect, if they get the votes , they should have a say in the new Egyptian Government to be formed after the new elections.

dez said basically the same thing, here. and i agree with it, with some concerns.

I am not saying we lower our guard, just take what has been said by them at face value, however, with all groups of this size and influence, we need good intelligence and communication with them and analist done by those who are knowlegable, the guard is still there but the possible cooperation with too if warrented.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 29, 2011 17:20:57 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Jun 29, 2011 17:13:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

dez said basically the same thing, here. and i agree with it, with some concerns.

I am not saying we lower our guard, just take what has been said by them at face value, however, with all groups of this size and influence, we need good intelligence and communication with them and analist done by those who are knowlegable, the guard is still there but the possible cooperation with too if warrented.

the way to fight asymmetrical wars is to engage their operations through intelligence gathering and infiltration. unfortunately, we are about 20 years behind in this department which leaves us the option of making up for in muscle what we lack in brains.

that strategy rarely works out well.