White House on War Powers Deadline: ... No Need to Get Congressional Authorization

There you have it. Obama - the anti-war darling of the progressives AND the Nobel Peace Prize "winner" is basically flipping congress the bird in saying the War Powers Act does not apply to the Libya operation. This after citing the exact same War Powers Act as justification for the Libya operation in the first place.

How is that now? Oh right, flip-flops and outright lies are now standard operating procedure for the obama administration.

source

In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.

.
.
.

From the beginning of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. The military intervention started on March 19; Congress was notified on March 21. Those 60 days expire today.

Why should he care about congress? Congress would just approve the war anyways.

It's all smoke and mirrors anyway, to think it is just the administration in on this power grab is silly. Ranking members of congress need this war and the others just as much as Obama does. Different heads of the same snake is all they are, congress just makes such statements to the administration to fool you into thinking there is separation when in fact there is not.

So what's it going to take for everyone to decide enough is enough?

Obama was going to be the "peace president".
Results:
Expanded one war (Afghanistan) and started another (Libya). Routinely attacks, bombs and now sends in commandos for a supposed "ally" in Pakistan. Is there a better description of "cowboy diplomacy"? But wasn't that supposed to describe George Bush instead, with obama as the peaceful alternative?

Obama was going to be the great "international healer" of U.S. relations with the rest of the world.
Results:
Angered traditional allies - the friends we had left in the world.
Coddled muslim countries, which they only interpreted as a sign of weakness and therefore still hate us.
Seemed to be using his own version of racial profiling to decide who to bow down to when meeting foreign leaders.
Now says Israel must give in to all palestinian demands - which will only guarantee future war in the middle east.
Bottom line - we now have less friends in the world than we did under the Bush administration.

And domestically, obama was going to fix the economy.
Results:
Unemployment still almost double digits. It is double digits if they fairly count the people who have given up looking for jobs.
Inflation is rising. Energy/gas/food/clothing/you name it prices going through the roof.
Deficit out of control. And obama only wants to add more to the deficit.
Basically used bribery to get his health care law passed, then offers waivers to any and all that have given and/or promised obama support.


To obama's (remaining) supporters. THIS is what you voted for in 2008?

Originally posted by centurion1211
So what's it going to take for everyone to decide enough is enough?

Enough will only be enough when war comes to the U.S, as long as these wars are in other nations no one here will "really" care, they will "fake" care, but until it's their families being raped, bombed, murdered, etc things will just go on as normal. But by the time war gets here it will be too late to change anything.

My question is where is Code Pink and all those other anti-war groups? They should be screaming about this new and obvious war for oil.

There should be howls for Congress to cut off funding. There should be howls from within Congress that the President is usurping power. I guess the war racket industry really has that much of a hold on politicians. Oh yea, that's right, GE makes a ton of money making military hardware.

reply to post by centurion1211

Obama was going to be the "peace president".
Results:
Expanded one war (Afghanistan) and started another (Libya). Routinely attacks, bombs and now sends in commandos for a supposed "ally" in Pakistan. Is there a better description of "cowboy diplomacy"? But wasn't that supposed to describe George Bush instead, with obama as the peaceful alternative?

I don't think you were paying attention.

Obama always said he was going to shift focus to Afganistan...he said this all the time during the campaign. WIth Libya, again, he did exactly what he said he would do...take action as part of a coalition and not go in solo. And with Pakistan, AGAIN, he always said he would send troops in if Pakistand wasn't in a position to act.

Libya is not a "war"...stop trying to sell it that way.

And domestically, obama was going to fix the economy.

And he has.

I'll use facts...instead of your made up crap.

www.americanthinker.com...

The economy.

•The Great Recession, which began in 2007, ended in June 2009, just five months after Obama was sworn into office.
•Since June 2009, real Gross Domestic Product has grown in every quarter, at an average annual rate of 2.8%. In the preceding eight years, from 2000 to 2008 (4th quarter to 4th quarter), average growth was only 1.7% per year. Real GDP is now at an all-time high.
•Over the last 14 months, over two million private sector jobs were added to the economy. Over that same period, over 300,000 government jobs were cut.
•The stock market is up over 60% since Obama was inaugurated. It is now at levels not seen since June 2008, or before Bush bailed out Fannie and Freddie and gave us TARP.

Please don't complain about the source...it is a conservative website and author.

To obama's (remaining) supporters. THIS is what you voted for in 2008?

No, he should of fought for the public option or single payer. He should of raised taxes on the top 2 brackets. And he should of completely withdrew from Iraq.

No one is perfect...but compared to any Republican...he is golden.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Real life experience trumps "statistics" made up just to try and make the administration look good any and every day. If you weren't trying so hard to defend obama, even you would admit that.

Press secretary Carney can't even get the story on Israel straight - no speech on 1967 borders and then there is one 1 day later.

Shooting missiles and dropping bombs is exactly a war. Just ask the people on the receivng end.

And all that muslim coddling and pitiful bowing to (amused) world leaders has not gained the U.S. even one more friend or ally that wasn't there during the Bush administration.

Yo outkast, looks like you have a chance to end up being obama's last supporter. Don't forget to turn out the lights ...

reply to post by centurion1211

Real life experience trumps "statistics" made up just to try and make the administration look good any and every day. If you weren't trying so hard to defend obama, even you would admit that.

So your opinion trumps facts

I don't have to defend Obama...I let the data speak for itself.

Press secretary Carney can't even get the story on Israel straight - no speech on 1967 borders and then there is one 1 day later.

God forbid people change their mind....again...double

Shooting missiles and dropping bombs is exactly a war. Just ask the people on the receivng end.

We are not at open war with Libya...you can say it all you want...be we just aren't.

And all that muslim coddling and pitiful bowing to (amused) world leaders has not gained the U.S. even one more friend or ally that wasn't there during the Bush administration.

Oh no...he is being diplomatic...treasonous.

Yo outkast, looks like you have a chance to end up being obama's last supporter. Don't forget to turn out the lights

Oh yes...I'm all alone.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/68507a6dd534.jpg[/atsimg]


And I think this qualifies for the

Originally posted by centurion1211


Real life experience trumps "statistics" made up just to try and make the administration look good any and every day. If you weren't trying so hard to defend obama, even you would admit that.

What does this even mean? Your opinion trumps facts? (EDIT: Outkast beat me to it)



I'm not going to sit here and defend Obama's actions in Libya, because I believe that our armed forces should only be used for National Security purposes.

However, the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional in that it unbalances the powers granted to the executive and legislative branches, namely by giving congress the sole authority to declare war.

For the record: I agree with the War Powers Resolution and feel that it is a beneficial act. But any strict Constitutionalist would agree that the act violates the separation of powers doctrine.


I would also like to point out that the act has been violated by both Reagan and Clinton in the past, so this is not an unprecedented move.

I still do not agree with it.

Yep, another thread showing people what a scam Obama and company is. Yet, the blind followers come out and rally behind him.

Obama's promises were to end the war(s), not continue and go deeper.
Gas prices were to go lower, not rise.
Unemployment was supposed to go down, not above what was it again, 9%?

Obama or Bush. They are all the same.

So in other words, its like a dictatorship..i always thought the president was supopsed to get congressional okie dokie to go to war? i know the president is the cheif in staff, but isnt war supposed to be deligated and voted on or something? the reason..so a president dosnt become greedy and dosnt try n overthrow for dictatorship.

reply to post by centurion1211


the whole government is rooting for him and definitely in on the plan, congress would be ok with this anyway
they all are on the same boat

the goal is to get all eyes on obama for these controversial things

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


all i have to say to you is that if you were at the receiving end of the american force in the middle east you would feel much differently

reply to post by centurion1211

Shooting missiles and dropping bombs is exactly a war. Just ask the people on the receivng end.

So, going by that definition, congress should demand a Declaration of war on Pakistan, Yemen, Bosnia(retroactively) and wherever else we happen to shoot a missle or drop a bomb.

Not saying I dont agree with ya, but to follow that line of reasoning, Congress should demand the President act on these theaters also.Don't make the Law apply to only those conflicts which make it politically (potentially) advantageous.

The Law is the Law, these should also be declared Wars, following that line of reasoning.

Sorry, if anyone already posted what I said, disregard.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

So your opinion trumps facts

Ha, I deny your reality, and substitute my own. Good post, I am also alone in supporting (generally, he does have his negatives) Obama.

I argue that if we declare war on Libya, why not Pakistan? Why isnt Congress attempting to get him to declare war there? More poliitcal grandstanding. People no to recognize this actions for what they are, smoke and mirrors.

There is a reason that many wars are defined as 'operations' and not wars. Semantics play a HUGE role in constitutional law.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher



All those quotes from the MSM. They wouldn't fudge the numbers now would they? Nah, not THEM.

Originally posted by centurion1211
There you have it. Obama - the anti-war darling of the progressives AND the Nobel Peace Prize "winner" is basically flipping congress the bird in saying the War Powers Act does not apply to the Libya operation

It never ceases to amaze me how so many on the Right and Left think Obama was ever 'anti-war'. He campaigned on increasing the war in Afghanistan. He called it 'the good war'. That is not a anti-war thing to do. As far as his "Nobel peace Prize", he actually PROMOTED the idea of war as a means of keeping the peace.

In part:

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries - including Norway - in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict - filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

....

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified. ....

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions - not just treaties and declarations - that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest - because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace

. And yet this truth must coexist with another - that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So what about hm is /anti-war'? Nothing, when viewed in proper context.


www.msnbc.msn.com...

Originally posted by Vikus
My question is where is Code Pink and all those other anti-war groups? They should be screaming about this new and obvious war for oil.

My question is how are you unaware that Code Pink has been protesting this since the beginning?

www.codepink4peace.org...

www.codepink4peace.org...

www.codepink4peace.org...

www.mediaite.com...

Originally posted by VikusThere should be howls for Congress to cut off funding. There should be howls from within Congress that the President is usurping power. I guess the war racket industry really has that much of a hold on politicians. Oh yea, that's right, GE makes a ton of money making military hardware.

You mean the same Congress/Senate that pressured Obama to act in Libya?

It's become the most ignored moment of the Libya story. On March 1, the United States Senate voted unanimously for a resolution calling for a no-fly zone from the United Nations. The Senate is on the record in favor of this action, at least before President Obama actually took action.

thelastword.msnbc.msn.com...

The Senate unanimously approved (including all 47 Republicans) a nonbinding resolution on Tuesday calling for the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and urged Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi to resign and allow a peaceful transition to democracy.

www.dailypaul.com...

origin-www.congress.org...

www.washingtonpost.com...