A True American Hero, Libyan Fighting Against A Dictator

[Lostlover]

What was your friend's ancestry?

You know what pixel was up to and It was not born of a passionate belief in peace.

I had an american friend who tragically thought it would be a "good" idea for him to go off to a war, based on his ancestry.

it didn't turn out well for him.

As for the outrage here?

When an american dies that HE, the president, sent into harms way I will let you know. As of now I am truly undecided.

The warpowers act of 1975 gives the congress and the president 60 days before anyone has to pass a resolution of any sort.

In the meantime, he MUST consult with them, and the press indicates he did in fact, do that. And does even in conference calls, regularly.

Bush sr never went to congress before panama. Reagan never went before congress to ask before the first Libya bombing or Grenada.

Thats just the way its done, and since the house of reps and oversight is in the hands of Rep Issa, I assure you, if Obama had broken any laws that could hold up in a hearing before the senate, we would be having impeachment harings as we speak.

the rest is nothing but GOP political opportunism.

Pixels behavior in this thread is inexcusable and disgusting.

 

[medic1]

As a lot of guys on jub know my lover and soulmate was killed in Afghanistan
10 months ago by an rpg taking out the landrover that Erik and 5 others were
travelling in so you must please excuse me if i come across as bitter, i made a
concious decision to try my damnest not to as i know that is not what my Erik
would have wanted was for me to be eaten alive with hatred.
We had spoken many times about the risks that he was taking everyday and
even though the Army was a carreer that he loved he promised me that he
would not re-enlist after his 12 yrs were up .
He planned on training to be a fireman when he left the army, i was lucky than
most in the fact that he had just been home for 3 weeks leave which was just
so romantic as i had not seen him face to face for almost 5 months.
I just think that it is a great dishonour to everyone who has lost someone tosee people trying to make political points over all those killed .
I remember my guy with pride and always will.

 

[CowboyBob]

You can thank Obama for his death.

Obama's inability to make a decision caused his death.

If Obama intervene at the beginning of the revolt, it would have been over by March 12 and he would still be alive.

Thanks, Mr. President for killing another American.

With this post of yours, you rank down there with the Westboro Baptist Church and Fred Phelps. I never thought you would sink this low, but you did.

Leave this forum.

 

[jackoroe]

Because even Canadians saw through Bush's flimsy pretext for war and recognized it as a war of adventure and driven by the military industrial complex through Rumsfeld and Co.

This time?

It was as much the Europeans driving the adoption of a no-fly zone to prevent the slaughter of Libyans by a dictator they themselves were trying to depose.

I am constantly baffled that perceptive and intelligent people on the right don't get this.

Or choose not to get this.

I could make an entire classroom of first year students write a 5000 word essay on this subject and most of them would get it.

Anyway, NATO is now in control so the Americans no longer have to fuss themselves over the role of the US.

And as for the inflammatory rhetoric?

Pixel's laying the death of a soldier who's role may put him in mortal danger executing his mission at he feet of a president he has an irrational and obsessive hatred for is a classic example of the rhetorically and intellectually bankrupt.

My contempt is visceral. And there's nothing fake about that.

If that's the case, why aren't we going to Syria? Why didn't we go to Darfur? If anybody needed help, it was the Iranians who stood up their government. Obama stood firmly with his thumb planted up his ass and allowed those people to be crushed. Why? So please forgive me if the justification for this adventure rings somewhat hollow. There is a complete lack of consistency on our part that's very troubling.

We have a stated policy on one hand of getting Ghadafi out, but that apparently isn't an objective of whatever the hell it is we are doing. So what exactly is the objective and when do we get to go home? Gates said it isn't about regime change
.Of course we really aren't at war either according to these government tools.

This is a clusterfuck of monumental proportions that we have no business being involved in.

 

[BostonPirate]

Last night the young man was laid to rest in the country he fought so desperately for.
'He ended up going straight to the fire line. That’s when he died. He died brave,' his father Osama Bensadik told the Martinsville Bulletin before he found his son's body.
'He died for what he believed in. He always said live free or die.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-killed-Gaddafi-soldiers.html#ixzz1HuKxcD2Z

This is particularly moving for me as a New Englander who understands what that sacrifice means and how living it affects your family identity for generations and centuries.

The phrase comes from a toast written by General John Stark on July 31, 1809. Poor health forced Stark, New Hampshire's most famous soldier of the American Revolutionary War, to decline an invitation to an anniversary reunion of the Battle of Bennington. Instead, he sent his toast by letter:
Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.
The motto was enacted at the same time as the state emblem, on which it appears.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Free_or_Die

'But he was a very brave guy who had the opportunity not to engage but turned it down. He was very pragmatic; a remarkable young man.
His mother agrees.
'I'm very proud of him,' she said. 'He did the right thing, he didn't just sit there. He talked to journalists out there; he wanted the world to know what was happening.
'Gadaffi has been killing people for the past 42 years. People are tired of him; they want to live with dignity.
'If I was in Muhannad's place I would have done the same.
'I would like to thank President Obama for taking a stand in Libya and of course England and France,' she added.

He sounds like an american to me. I admire his courage and his understanding that there are some people who sit in chairs and support wars while there are others that go support the wars and talk to the people sitting in the chairs at home.

 

[rareboy]

If that's the case, why aren't we going to Syria? Why didn't we go to Darfur? If anybody needed help, it was the Iranians who stood up their government. Obama stood firmly with his thumb planted up his ass and allowed those people to be crushed. Why? So please forgive me if the justification for this adventure rings somewhat hollow. There is a complete lack of consistency on our part that's very troubling.

We have a stated policy on one hand of getting Ghadafi out, but that apparently isn't an objective of whatever the hell it is we are doing. So what exactly is the objective and when do we get to go home? Gates said it isn't about regime change
.Of course we really aren't at war either according to these government tools.

This is a clusterfuck of monumental proportions that we have no business being involved in.

Sigh.

Again.

Syria is not butchering their own people. If his people turn on him and he lets loose with his military, get ready for the same action to be taken.

Clinton and other countries have apologized for ignoring Darfur until it was too late. But Darfur is not the same situation as Libya either.

At the moment, the West should be ashamed for having not also tackled Bahrain; no question.

But there have been no resolutions brought to the UN by the other countries.

One of the reasons why it is so important that Gaddafi be crushed in Libya is that it will send the signal that the age of these Dictators is coming to a close and will hopefully have the effect of reducing warfare and bloodshed as countries from Syria through to Yemen restructure their governments to avoid being crushed as well. There is no doubt that the west hopes that the fall of Gaddafi will embolden the Iranian people to rise up again and overthrow their own dictator.

And as I said. The Americans don't have to worry now. The other countries in NATO are now in charge. You can all relax again.

 

[jackoroe]

Sigh.

Again.

Syria is not butchering their own people. If his people turn on him and he lets loose with his military, get ready for the same action to be taken.

Clinton and other countries have apologized for ignoring Darfur until it was too late. But Darfur is not the same situation as Libya either.

At the moment, the West should be ashamed for having not also tackled Bahrain; no question.

But there have been no resolutions brought to the UN by the other countries.

One of the reasons why it is so important that Gaddafi be crushed in Libya is that it will send the signal that the age of these Dictators is coming to a close and will hopefully have the effect of reducing warfare and bloodshed as countries from Syria through to Yemen restructure their governments to avoid being crushed as well. There is no doubt that the west hopes that the fall of Gaddafi will embolden the Iranian people to rise up again and overthrow their own dictator.

And as I said. The Americans don't have to worry now. The other countries in NATO are now in charge. You can all relax again.

The facts about Syria are otherwise. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/23/syria-kills-six-mosque-attack-deraa Now, why exactly are we not there again? Let me give you a hint. No oil or european oil facilities in danger, like in Libya.

Let's cut the shit. Libya has got nothing to do with "humanitarian" interests.

 

[jackoroe]

Folks, let me again remind you all that you need to address the topic and not each other.

 

[BostonPirate]

Let's cut the shit. Libya has got nothing to do with "humanitarian" interests.

No?

I thought thats why the republicans all insisted we act quickly there... Isn't that what McCain and Lieberman said? Isn't that what Gingrich said? and in Iraq, I thought that was what the republicans said the reasoning... after five different other excuses... that was the reasoning for Iraq. It gets repeated here often by conservatives... it was to save the people of Iraq from the evil dictator.

Are you saying Obama is incapable of feeling compassion for the human tragedy that was unfolding?

See you can't have this both ways without your position being completely partizan, and that is where I see the BS from the conservatives in this argument that make me leary of their opinion.

They are willing to suspend jusgement on the whole WMD thing and say that the fact that there were none doesn't matter when the people needed to be rescued, yet you all insist that this cant be the case in Libya.

Now either you guys don't believe your own cover story, you don't believe Democrats can act in the name of human compassion, OR BOTH.

This stops me from making a call on this yet. I agreed with the Aghanistan invasion but it should have ended years ago. I did NOT agree with the Iraq invasion, but that was due to a personal friends influence. And now Libya?

I have yet to see anything different happen that differs from the actions of the last three republican presidents, and yet the republicans cry foul. First for being to slow... then for being too fast. Now its for being too altruistic and not compasionate.

Are we going to have as many conservative excuses to hate Obamas choices as had for their love of Bush's choice to invade and nation build?

I wonder if it matters to the people whose lives we save?

I DO know it has nothing to do with oil. Libya is NOT a big enough player and the other arab league nations that passed their resolution will make sure the oil market is stable.

So what is it then? what are you suggesting? that obama just wanted to kill people? Just a hair up his ass that day?

What is it that you are saying?

No.. until this plays out I am neither condoning nor endorsing this... I am merely trying to figure out what it REALLY is. To me, it seems like humanitarian intervention, but I need more action than words to make me feel settled in that idea.

in ther interim I intend on giving the armed troops the support they deserve fort putting their lives on the line and doing such an incredibly good job. The fight is now on the outskirts of tripoli.

The people are about to take back their nation and it WILL be bloody on both sides, but this will be Libyan blood spilling Libyan blood for Libyan freedom.

 

[jackoroe]

No?

I thought thats why the republicans all insisted we act quickly there... Isn't that what McCain and Lieberman said? Isn't that what Gingrich said? and in Iraq, I thought that was what the republicans said the reasoning... after five different other excuses... that was the reasoning for Iraq. It gets repeated here often by conservatives... it was to save the people of Iraq from the evil dictator.

Are you saying Obama is incapable of feeling compassion for the human tragedy that was unfolding?

See you can't have this both ways without your position being completely partizan, and that is where I see the BS from the conservatives in this argument that make me leary of their opinion.

They are willing to suspend jusgement on the whole WMD thing and say that the fact that there were none doesn't matter when the people needed to be rescued, yet you all insist that this cant be the case in Libya.

Now either you guys don't believe your own cover story, you don't believe Democrats can act in the name of human compassion, OR BOTH.

This stops me from making a call on this yet. I agreed with the Aghanistan invasion but it should have ended years ago. I did NOT agree with the Iraq invasion, but that was due to a personal friends influence. And now Libya?

I have yet to see anything different happen that differs from the actions of the last three republican presidents, and yet the republicans cry foul. First for being to slow... then for being too fast. Now its for being too altruistic and not compasionate.

Are we going to have as many conservative excuses to hate Obamas choices as had for their love of Bush's choice to invade and nation build?

I wonder if it matters to the people whose lives we save?

I DO know it has nothing to do with oil. Libya is NOT a big enough player and the other arab league nations that passed their resolution will make sure the oil market is stable.

So what is it then? what are you suggesting? that obama just wanted to kill people? Just a hair up his ass that day?

What is it that you are saying?

No.. until this plays out I am neither condoning nor endorsing this... I am merely trying to figure out what it REALLY is. To me, it seems like humanitarian intervention, but I need more action than words to make me feel settled in that idea.

in ther interim I intend on giving the armed troops the support they deserve fort putting their lives on the line and doing such an incredibly good job. The fight is now on the outskirts of tripoli.

The people are about to take back their nation and it WILL be bloody on both sides, but this will be Libyan blood spilling Libyan blood for Libyan freedom.

Let's not re-write history, shall we? Iraq was because of WMD's that the whole world believed to have existed. Turns out that everybody was wrong on that point, granted. Bush went to Congress and sought permission to use force which was granted.

Now we're bombing a country where we have no interests and that poses no threat to us. That's from the secretary of defense. I'll take him at his word. Obama consulted everybody except Congress whom he is obliged to. Because there was no immediate threat to the US or our interests, there was plenty of time to get the appropriate permission, but he didn't. We are therefore, bombing a country and killing people for "humanitarian" purposes. And it's not like Ghadafi just went off his rocker. He's been killing his own citizens for 42 years now. But it's suddenly an issue. This simply isn't passing the smell test. As if that weren't bad enough, the administration is lying and saying we aren't at war. We are involved in a Kinetic Military Action (KMA!). Sorry, when you bomb another country, that's an act of war. Call it what it is.

 

[pat grimshaw]

…Please make a case,…

The Libyans killing those innocents in the plane above Lockerbie

 

[pat grimshaw]

This guy's courage just takes my breath away. He's my hero. …

Coraggio di questo ragazzo prende fiato perduto amante lontano. Egli è perduto eroe amante. ...

…
…

 

[jackoroe]

Again, if it had been about oil, we'd be better off supporting Khadaffi. It is not. The economic interest of Europe in Libya is minimal, made even more evident by a one and a half decade economic boycott. Please make a case, quantify the economic damage for Europe had they not intervened.

If you can not, then please refrain from using what seems to me no more then the political equivalent of school ground argumentation. (Your war is about oil. No, your war is about oil....)

Is it really?

Libya produces just under 2 percent of the world's oil, but its [FONT=inherit!important]customershttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41811575/ns/business-world_business/ are overwhelmingly European. Hardest hit by the sudden oil shortage are European refiners that receive 85 percent of Libya's exports, turning the country's highly valued crude into diesel and jet fuel. [/FONT]

The biggest buyers are Italy, France, Germany and Spain — and Spain is so concerned it announced Friday that highway speed limits will be reduced in March in a desperate bid to cut fuel consumption.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41811575/ns/business-world_business/

You're absolutely sure it's not about oil?? Here's a map of all the nations that have a stake in Libya's oil production.

The school ground argument is actually pretty sound, isn't it?

 

[BostonPirate]

Let's not re-write history, shall we? Iraq was because of WMD's that the whole world believed to have existed. Turns out that everybody was wrong on that point, granted. Bush went to Congress and sought permission to use force which was granted.

Now we're bombing a country where we have no interests and that poses no threat to us. That's from the secretary of defense. I'll take him at his word. Obama consulted everybody except Congress whom he is obliged to. Because there was no immediate threat to the US or our interests, there was plenty of time to get the appropriate permission, but he didn't. We are therefore, bombing a country and killing people for "humanitarian" purposes. And it's not like Ghadafi just went off his rocker. He's been killing his own citizens for 42 years now. But it's suddenly an issue. This simply isn't passing the smell test. As if that weren't bad enough, the administration is lying and saying we aren't at war. We are involved in a Kinetic Military Action (KMA!). Sorry, when you bomb another country, that's an act of war. Call it what it is.

No... the UN inspectors from Germany TOLD the UN that there was NOT substantial proof of WMDs.

"I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

"I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to CNN from IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

ElBaradei said he had been "pretty convinced" that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA dismantled in 1997.

Days before the fighting began, Vice President Dick Cheney weighed in with an opposing view.

"We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong," Cheney said. "And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency in this kind of issue, especially where Iraq's concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what Saddam Hussein was doing."

Now, more than a year later, ElBaradei said, "I haven't seen anything on the ground at that time that supported Mr. Cheney's conclusion or statement, so -- and I thought to myself, well, history is going to be the judge."

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-03-21/us/iraq.weapons_1_nuclear-weapons-hans-blix-iaea?_s=PM:US

History has been the judge. They knew the truth and Bush railroaded a unilateral action down america's throats.

next....

Obama is NOT obliged to ask permission from congress, he is expected to inform them and consult with them on the choices he has made. HE HAS DONE THAT.

Then why did reagan and bush NOT need this approval under the war act of 1975? You just refuse to answer that and I find it terribly revealing about your nature as a poster. Why hasn't the house of reps filed papers of contempt if that is true?

Because you are simply mistaken.

In the formal letter, reprinted in USA Today, the president used as justification the War Powers Resolution. But said resolution is very specific in the conditions under which a president can involve the nation's armed forces in a conflict against other nations without Congressional consent. Some wonder if Obama exceeded his authority.
According to the War Powers Resolution, the specific circumstances under which the president can continue an act of war are such that:
"...within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States."
Although many have interpreted the resolution to mean that the president has to simply notify Congress within 60 days after committing armed forces to an action, it actually requires a bit more. A report of the use of force in an undeclared war situation is required, then the president has 60 days within which he has the aforementioned options available.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110326...ds_libya_actions_with_war_powers_resolution_1

You have been misled as to what the law is and your constant repetition of wrong information is becoming a bit.... well it implies complicity in the dishonesty

I have cited the war act and its details in four threads now and given you four different citations for it. You never answer because you cannot. What the president has done is legal, and it is ethical.

I have not decided whether or not its exactly prudent.

you can keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again and it will be WRONG EVERY TIME.

You're slipping there buddy... I left my back open in a much easier place in that post

as always.... thanks for playing. I await your response with finger biting angst

 

[BostonPirate]

Is it really?



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41811575/ns/business-world_business/

You're absolutely sure it's not about oil?? Here's a map of all the nations that have a stake in Libya's oil production.

The school ground argument is actually pretty sound, isn't it?

LIbya ranks 27th on the list of oil producing nations and the global reserves are at an all time high.

you are once again mistaken.

There is no need for Libyan oil in the short term, and the Global oil futures market stability reflects that reality.

 

[jackoroe]

N
Obama is NOT obliged to ask permission from congress, he is expected to inform them and consult with them on the choices he has made. HE HAS DONE THAT.

Then why did reagan and bush NOT need this approval under the war act of 1975? You just refuse to answer that and I find it terribly revealing about your nature as a poster. Why hasn't the house of reps filed papers of contempt if that is true?

Because you are simply mistaken.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110326...ds_libya_actions_with_war_powers_resolution_1

You have been misled as to what the law is and your constant repetition of wrong information is becoming a bit.... well it implies complicity in the dishonesty

I have cited the war act and its details in four threads now and given you four different citations for it. You never answer because you cannot. What the president has done is legal, and it is ethical.

I have not decided whether or not its exactly prudent.

you can keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again and it will be WRONG EVERY TIME.

You're slipping there buddy... I left my back open in a much easier place in that post

as always.... thanks for playing. I await your response with finger biting angst

If you were right, I'd be happy to admit it. But I think you've engaged in a bit of selective editing as it relates to the WPA of 1975. If you're hanging your hat on the WPA, your argument must therefore live and die on it as well.

Here's the salient point you've failed to include in your quote and then I'll ask a few questions. The president gets to use the military without Congressional approval under the following circumstance.

"national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

Now, please cite for me, the attack on the US, its territories or possessions that we are defending against. Easy enough, no? And actually, Bush did get Congressional approval to use force against Iraq. Therefore he did comply with the act and more importantly the Constitution. If you're talking about Reagan attacking Ghadafi that was in response to the bombing of the disco where American soldiers were targeted. That would also be in compliance with the act.

I'm no fan of Ghadafi and he needs to be removed by force if needed. But the reason we should do so, is because he killed American citizens on the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie. I think that Congress would support that kind of objective instead of this nebulous nonsense we are currently engaged in. Let me leave you with something that Senator Obama said in 2007.

"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."

What a difference a couple of years makes!

 

[BostonPirate]

He said in his speech accepting his Nobel prize that there are exceptions to that. He said that a nation in peril and in need of help MUST garner international support.

Look

This is simple. The republicans have lawyers as well as the democrats and the republicans currently hold congressional oversight of the president. They want to get him out of office so bad they paint their covers with jizz having wet dreams about it every night.

You may be one of them pictures please

but I digress... dick and jizz sort of distract me sorry... where was I...

oh yeah... Rep Issa is the man that will try to nail Obama for farting on the whitehouse lawn.

IF there are laws broken, then where is the faithful oppositions committee hearing on this?

First lets post the presidents letter in its entirety to the leaders of congress fulfilling his obligation to consult with them....

TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT
TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE
March 21, 2011​

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19,
2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations
to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations
(U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of
European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian
catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace
and security by the crisis in Libya. As part of the multilateral
response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973,
U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa
Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and
military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone.
These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and
scope. Their purpose is to support an international coalition
as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions
will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized
Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take
all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian
populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the
establishment and enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in the airspace
of Libya. United States military efforts are discrete and
focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set
the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to
carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council
Resolution.
Muammar Qadhafi was provided a very clear message that a
cease-fire must be implemented immediately. The international
community made clear that all attacks against civilians had to
stop; Qadhafi had to stop his forces from advancing on Benghazi;
pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; and establish
water, electricity, and gas supplies to all areas. Finally,
humanitarian assistance had to be allowed to reach the people
of Libya.
Although Qadhafi's Foreign Minister announced an immediate
cease-fire, Qadhafi and his forces made no attempt to implement
such a cease-fire, and instead continued attacks on Misrata and
advanced on Benghazi. Qadhafi's continued attacks and threats
against civilians and civilian populated areas are of grave
concern to neighboring Arab nations and, as expressly stated 2
in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, constitute a threat
to the region and to international peace and security. His
illegitimate use of force not only is causing the deaths of
substantial numbers of civilians among his own people, but
also is forcing many others to flee to neighboring countries,
thereby destabilizing the peace and security of the region.
Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could
ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous
consequences to the national security interests of the
United States. Qadhafi's defiance of the Arab League, as well
as the broader international community moreover, represents a
lawless challenge to the authority of the Security Council and
its efforts to preserve stability in the region. Qadhafi has
forfeited his responsibility to protect his own citizens and
created a serious need for immediate humanitarian assistance and
protection, with any delay only putting more civilians at risk.
The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya.
United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined
mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians
and prevent a humanitarian disaster. Accordingly, U.S. forces
have targeted the Qadhafi regime's air defense systems, command
and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi's
armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated
areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition
of operations to coalition, regional, or international
organizations that are postured to continue activities as may
be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council
Resolutions 1970 and 1973.
For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are
in the national security and foreign policy interests of the
United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to
conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and
Chief Executive.
I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep
the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers
Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this
action.
BARACK OBAMA

This letter and the wording of it has stopped the lawyers from all sides and seems to indicate that whatever it holds, it is the legal silver bullet.

The republicans are taking alot of time to flip and flop and look ridiculous right now as they clammer to say that when they said the president was slow ans should attack what they really meant was that he was too fast and should NOT attack.

But no one questions the legal grounds he's laid out in this letter.

Not one oversight committee has even vioced a PEEP on it.

Why is that?

 

[rareboy]

^ This.

At the moment, the repubs look ridiculous on this whole issue.

 

[jackoroe]

I'm sorry, I asked a question as to a point of law which you have failed to respond to. He's in compliance with UN resolutions, that's just swell.

The problem is, and continues to be, his violation of the war powers act. Now please, cite the national emergency created by an attack on us that would allow unilateral use of armed forces by the president.

He made a rather ridiculous argument last evening that we needed to step in to prevent Ghadafi from committing mass murder. Yet we have no intention of removing the mass murderer from power. In addition to be being illegal on its face, this action makes absolutely no sense.

Now stay focused and let us all know what legal basis, Obama has to wage war without Congressional approval.

 

[rareboy]

Well Jack.

I've no doubt that when the Republicans are satisfied that this President has committed an illegal act, we'll have two years of impeachment hearings to live through on this board.

Interesting though....that I don't hear any of the Republicans saying that the President has committed an illegal act yet.

Why would that be?