10 Congressmen sue Obama over strikes in Libya

heres some cherrypicking of the numbers.

from world war 1 to present day more americans and more foreign nationals have been killed by democratic presidents and the only party to use nuclear weapons not once but twice.

but i disgress that aint the topic at hand.

the topic is congressman suing obama over strikes in libya wihich is unconstitutional since his time is up and never got permission in the first place.

i hope they win but the reality is obama can do no wrong because he is the party of do no wrong which is how the first part of my post ties into the topic at hand.

depends on how you view things.

Originally posted by macman
Is that all you will respond to, just that statement?
How about the other questions I asked? Or are they below your adult conversation level?

Oh, you were serious? It read it like an attempt at being obnoxious. Here you go.

Originally posted by macman
So if Iraq was fought without a single US casualty, you would support it?

No, I wouldn't support spending billions and invading another country that was not an immediate threat to us against the wishes of the international community based on falsified evidence for the agenda of "spreading democracy" by force.

And the analogy falls apart immediately when you discount the near 5,000 us soldiers that have in fact died due to that military conquest.

Originally posted by macman
Iran?

If there was a genuine military revolution with a significant rebel opposition to the Iranian regime that got off the ground and the International Community declared the established government of Iran not legitimate and took action, then yes I would be on board with the USA lending support if restricted to no boots on the ground.

If you are unable to distinguish between military actions in Iraq and Libya, their causes, justifications and costs and find the loss of US troops inconsequential to the discussion then I don't think we have enough common ground to have an intelligent discussion.

I'm willing to bet all of my 'Cod Points' that nothing will come from this. As serious as this looks, I guarantee that it'll just get swept under the rug, ignored, and covered up with petty news stories that we constantly see every day and think "Why is this on the news?".

There was a similar thing that went down recently, an article was published on May 23rd saying that medical marijuana advocates sued the Obama legislation to force legalization in all 50 states, and the court gave Obama and his thugs 60 days to respond. It's been almost 30, and still no word, I'm sure that nothing will come from that as well as this.

if none of those are YOUR congressman, then CALL YOUR CONGRESSMEN and tell them to back this! ( that is, if you feel so )

The plaintiffs are Democratic Reps. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, John Conyers of Michigan and Michael Capuano of Massachusetts and Republican Reps. Walter Jones and Howard Coble of North Carolina, Tim Johnson of Illinois, Dan Burton of Indiana, Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland and Ron Paul of Texas.

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by Shadowalker
What deadline?

He had 60 days from the start to seek approval. He is in felony breach and has been since those 60 days expired.

He falsely swore to congress that US conflict was winding down and we were pulling out as an excuse for not obtaining approval before the 60 days ran out and then in a felony act sent in attack helicopters within 48 hrs of the lie.

What part of the grey bar hotel does Obama not fit into?

No, he actually has 90 days total.

Congress hasn't authorized the action and the 1973 War Powers Act states that if a president doesn't attain that authorization 60 days after the start of military action, the president must halt it within 30 days.

www.npr.org...

he has 60 days to attain authorization. If authorization is not given, then he has an additional 30 days to halt.

Good catch.

Thanks for sorting it out with facts.

reply to post by JacKatMtn


So why doesnt Congress use their authroity and refuse to fund the operations? Why must they reinvent the wheel and waste money in an effort to make it look like they support the troops by shifting the blame to the President?

The PResident gets to be commander in chief.
Congress controls the purse strings.

Congress should NOT fun Libyan operations. Case closed.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Because this is America in 2011. Politicians suck, people suck, and presidents suck. Also it appears that I'm suffering from the newly diagnosed condition "being a cynical ***hole".

reply to post by TupacShakur


Yeah I know. Who cares about the illegal wars that we are in when we can all look at anthony weiners naked body? (/sarc)

I work for a local political campaign and I can tell you, the sheeple are many, and when everything hits that won't have the slightest clue to what is going on

How many politicians sued Bush for doing the same thing?

Bad move by Obama, regardless. But it's not just Obama, though, pretty obvious that other people control part of our government and it's policies.

Part of me wants to say, only 10?

Then the other part of me says, wow 10 congressmen aren't owned by the Military Industrial Complex?

Then I realize how sad that is again.

100% Propaganda.

The US Senate controls the checkbook and if they didn't agree with Obama taking over Libya and assassinating Kadafi.....they would have pulled the funding for the operation.

The Executive Branch of our Government doesn't control the checkbook.

Ron Paul is a fraud. If you haven't figured that out by now you're very naive.

reply to post by michael1983l


Since when does a U.N. resolution void the constitution?

Originally posted by origamiandurbanism
How many politicians sued Bush for doing the same thing?

Bad move by Obama, regardless. But it's not just Obama, though, pretty obvious that other people control part of our government and it's policies.

None since Congress gave Bush cingressional authorization for the use of force in iraq and afghanistan.

So when did this go from the US honoring our membership in the UN and NATO in a NATO led action to an undeclared unilateral declaration of war lead personally by Obama?

If these members of congress can't make that distinction, then maybe that is the problem.

Originally posted by dethduck
So when did this go from the US honoring our membership in the UN and NATO in a NATO led action to an undeclared unilateral declaration of war lead personally by Obama?

If these members of congress can't make that distinction, then maybe that is the problem.

Actually I think you meant to say led by France and the UK. They are calling the shots, the US is in a support role.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by dethduck
So when did this go from the US honoring our membership in the UN and NATO in a NATO led action to an undeclared unilateral declaration of war lead personally by Obama?

If these members of congress can't make that distinction, then maybe that is the problem.

Actually I think you meant to say led by France and the UK. They are calling the shots, the US is in a support role.

Well, yes, France spearheaded this while thing, but it is still being enacted under the NATO banner.

reply to post by dethduck


Correct, and like the US, France and the UK are part of NATO. The NATO PIO for this operation is Italian, and bases in Italy are being used as part of them being in NATO as well.

In addition to NATO members, there are non NATO countries taking part, and a few of those are Middle East countries.

I do find it intresting that people complain about the manner in which the US leads a coalition, and then complain about US leadership when we arent in charge of the coalition. Sarcasm aside when the Libya confrontation kicked off the US was in charge. Since then I belive we have either turned command over to France or the UK, since they are the bulk of the combat forces in theater.

reply to post by Indigo5


Ok let's look at your post in an alternate way. You seem to support Obama going with NATO over Congress, which is really a Globalist outlook, and a leftist outlook as well, as the Leftists tend to support UN programs and European anything, while Bush favored getting Congressional approval over NATO and the UN. BIG BIG difference. Any body who believes in US Sovereignty will know what I mean.

reply to post by Indigo5

No, I wouldn't support spending billions and invading another country that was not an immediate threat to us against the wishes of the international community based on falsified evidence for the agenda of "spreading democracy" by force.

Yah, see, like I said, you are all about the Intl community and not American sovereignty. Are you American?

If there was a genuine military revolution with a significant rebel opposition to the Iranian regime that got off the ground and the International Community declared the established government of Iran not legitimate and took action, then yes I would be on board with the USA lending support if restricted to no boots on the ground.

Iran has a seat at the global Intl table. I believe that Ahmedinajad is also part of the NWO group and BO has not supported the true Iranian revolution against Ahmedinajad. I thought that the PNAC plan was to invade Iran, but clearly our Prez does not want that. Or at least not yet. It seems that Qaddaffi is more expendable at present, and this strategy seems to fit more into the revolutions in North Africa. I believe these revolutions are based on the intl Socialist movement and we will see an islamic Socialism come out of it. Either way, we are in war in Libya, and Congress whines, but it's more of the "fringe" doing the complaining.
So why would you support a "genuine military revolution" in Iran, but not the genuine student revolution?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Ok let's look at your post in an alternate way. You seem to support Obama going with NATO over Congress,

You can stop right there at the first sentence...

I don't need to look at my post in alternate way. That's inane.

Where did I say I supported the Pres. going with NATO over Congress.

Everything that followed was based on that BS, partisan, idealogical, presumptive junk of a premise.

We are not actors playing our parts. The world is real. Not what Rush Limbaugh or Bill Mahr claim it to be for the sake of ratings. This country is not majority "Leftist" "Socialist" or majority TP or "extreme right".