It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DOJ, the AG and the Pentagon told Obama : Libyan war must end, Obama overruled them

page: 2
24
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 




How sensationalistic of you to title it this way and cherry pick your quotes to support it. This was not the Department of Justice, or the Pentagon speaking as whole bodies, they are Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

Well yeah but it didn't fit in the headline. You know... limit of words. So I ``generalized it`` ... and thought that people would read the article and get the details.




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Funny, the three people that posted the same story after you did, managed to minimize it.


A more accurate title would have been along the lines of... Obama favors administration legal advice over The Office of Legal Counsel on Libya. Still has your slant even.
edit on 18-6-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-6-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74

Why does it keep seemingly to be forgotten that this is a NATO mission, that we were asked for help by the UN based on Ghaddafi's actions of slaughtering Libyans because they want him to step down? This was not some random attack on a leader or a nation just because Obama felt like it.


Because such a misconstruing of events serves their clearly partisan interests as they hide behind their pseudo-libertarian pretenses.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
This shows that Eric Holder and some of the other lower level functionaries maybe aren't in the loop with the "big boys" who are really making the decisions. Maybe only the Obama's themselves are in that loop, no way to know unless you were privvy to that small company. Eric, mind your manners and sit down.
edit on 18-6-2011 by Aleister because: misspelling



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74

Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by Kali74
 


Whew. I thought you had taken complete leave.

The whole point here, at least as I read it, is that many people keep telling him that he needs to pull out of Libya. Not just because they feel it's illegal, but because it's wrong.

Hell, let's say it's legal. The problem here is that he has authorized an attack on a country that has not attacked us. And he gets his back up about it every time someone says we need to leave them alone. He can't seem to admit that while he feels he had authorization to do it, he should never have done it in the first place.

/TOA


My take on it is, "people" who have something to gain by taking a stance against the President keep telling him he needs to pull out of Libya.

Why does it keep seemingly to be forgotten that this is a NATO mission, that we were asked for help by the UN based on Ghaddafi's actions of slaughtering Libyans because they want him to step down? This was not some random attack on a leader or a nation just because Obama felt like it.



Got to disagree. obama could have waited the couple days or how ever long it took for congress to come back from break or call a special session. What was the "big" rush? Instead, he took his marching orders from nato, obama seems to of forgotten that the US don't take orders from them or at least we didn't.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
So by Barry's standards America shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban didn't TECHNICALLY have boots on the ground in America



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


OK, so obama hasn't technically done anything illegal On This Issue yet, but he had better figure out a game plan before Sunday, that's when the 30 day extension is up, because it will be. Funny how close Clinton got to impeachment, over a couple women. But no talk of it at all with Obama.

and don't blame the OP for a sensationalist title.
edit on 18-6-2011 by Kingbreaker because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-6-2011 by Kingbreaker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Oh and this did not start as a NATO mission kali. Obama usurped our sovereignty to the U.N in order to get things moving. this was a concerted effort by two powers. then we "stopped" but now it seems that NATO cannot maintain the manpower nor the equipment to see this through, thus we are back in it. Cant claim to have a good military if penny-pinchers run it.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
So let me get this straight. Say we spin this the other way around and someone like China were to roll up off our west coast and just casually started launching missiles at us daily, even one that hit Obama's family but spared him, it wouldn't be seen as hostilities? There isn't a chance in hell that would ever be acceptable, so how can they construe what they're doing as not being hostile?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Zieg7410
 


nice comparison.

Thats because they told so many lies, that now nothing adds up. So they are basically calling us stupid to our faces as we sit here and take it.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kingbreaker
reply to post by Kali74
 


Obama usurped our sovereignty to the U.N in order to get things moving. this was a concerted effort by two powers.


You REALLY might want to research even a little bit the relationship between the UN and the US for the past fifty years before making such asinine statements.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by R3N3G4D3
So by Barry's standards America shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban didn't TECHNICALLY have boots on the ground in America


Good point. We should have invaded SAUDI ARABIA since that is where the alleged pilots came from. But we didnt because Bush and the Saudi's are tight. o we invaded Afghanistan to control the opium trade and get our hands on that massive supply of all kinds of natural resources.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Funny, the three people that posted the same story after you did, managed to minimize it.


A more accurate title would have been along the lines of... Obama favors administration legal advice over The Office of Legal Counsel on Libya. Still has your slant even.
edit on 18-6-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-6-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)


Kinda like how hitler decided all his lackeys legal opinions, that agreed with him killing people, were correct..

Millions of innocent folks are dead, or suffering.. or living under armed occupation of foreigners, and or being DU poisoned.. all because a handful of people say it's "ok".. just like how an other political party (Germany 1930s national socialists) justified unapologetic military death & destruction.. as 1930 Germans brainwashed by nationalism lived in denial.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


yeah, nothing like trying to Compare Obama to Hitler to make any point you might make completely irrelevant.

Familiar with Godwin's law?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by R3N3G4D3
So by Barry's standards America shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban didn't TECHNICALLY have boots on the ground in America


Thats correct!..lol.. obmaos argument means 9/11 wasn't an act of hostility..

If US soil gets bombed and innocent citizens are killed.. who would care if it was declared "legal" by foreigners?.. "China said it was legal non hostile act to bomb the US regimes compound.."..lmao!!



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


yeah, nothing like trying to Compare Obama to Hitler to make any point you might make completely irrelevant.

Familiar with Godwin's law?


bush/obamaos actions are similar.. like it or not.. the justifications and propaganda are even much the same... denounce pacifists as unpatriotic.

Did Germany launch unprovoked war / occupations against numerous other nations?.. yes or no?

Nazi peoples courts are not like military tribunals?.. the Nazi enabling act is not a reflection of the patriot act?..

"Verschärfte Vernehmung", is German for "enhanced interrogation".. straight from the Gestapo methods of examination..

www.theatlantic.com...

Here is a history lesson:
www.snagfilms.com...



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


Why the Nazi's and not any one of the myriad and varied military regimes around the world throughout history? Because you've been programmed to believe that the Nazi's are the only example of this ever.

Hell, compare it to 18th century America. That was FAR more brutal than your examples.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zieg7410
So let me get this straight. Say we spin this the other way around and someone like China were to roll up off our west coast and just casually started launching missiles at us daily, even one that hit Obama's family but spared him, it wouldn't be seen as hostilities? There isn't a chance in hell that would ever be acceptable, so how can they construe what they're doing as not being hostile?


No dude,
that's not hostility,
"THAT'S HUMANITARIAN BOMBING".




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
we got it all wrong king obama says so

when people shoot back at us then its a war its ok to drop bombs on em.

i am glad obama set me straight on that arent you?

end sarcasm.

impeach obama!!! end the murders reign of terror!




top topics



 
24
<< 1   >>

log in

join