WHAT WAR?

[UserRemoved1]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us...wers.html?_r=2

Disgusting piece of shat I hate this #^&#^&#^&#^&. $350 MILLION in munitions alone so far. Will be 1.1 BILLION spent by September.

FOR WHAT!

I sooooo can't wait for 2012

[zimmy]

This is the crux of the story
"The escalating confrontation with Congress reflects the radically altered political landscape in Washington: a Democratic president asserting sweeping executive powers to deploy American forces overseas, while Republicans call for stricter oversight and voice fears about executive-branch power getting the United States bogged down in a foreign war. "

[Raven]

he shot himself in the foot .....and will never recover

[spence]

I'd wager that Pres. Bush is rooting for Obama here.

Looks like the Whitehouse stuffed Boehner on this one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Looks like the Whitehouse stuffed Boehner on this one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

NY TIMES

By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: June 17, 2011

WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.

[spence]

Makes the FU even better

-spence

[striperman36]

Since it's now a "NATO" effort we are stuck until it's conclusion however that works out.

Nice we give such money to foreign powers, even if it is at the receiving end of ordnance

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Makes the FU even better

-spence

makes your continued support disturbing

By DONNA CASSATA
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republicans and Democrats on Thursday derided President Barack Obama's claim that U.S. air attacks against Libya do not constitute hostilities and demanded that the commander in chief seek congressional approval for the 3-month-old military operation.

In an escalating constitutional fight, House Speaker John Boehner threatened to withhold money for the mission, pitting a Congress eager to exercise its power of the purse against a dug-in White House. The Ohio Republican signaled that the House could take action as early as next week.

"The accumulated consequence of all this delay, confusion and obfuscation has been a wholesale revolt in Congress against the administration's policy," said Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee who has backed Obama's actions against Libya.

The administration, in a report it reluctantly gave to Congress on Wednesday, said that because the United States is in a supporting role in the NATO-led mission, American forces are not facing the hostilities that would require the president to seek such congressional consent under the War Powers Resolution.


Instead of calming lawmakers, the White House report and its claims about no hostilities further inflamed the fierce balance-of-power fight.

"We have got drone attacks under way, we're spending $10 million a day," Boehner told reporters. "We're part of an effort to drop bombs on Gadhafi's compound. It doesn't pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we're not in the midst of hostilities."

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., a combat veteran and member of the Armed Services Committee, scoffed at the notion.

"Spending a billion dollars and dropping bombs on people sounds like hostilities to me," Webb said in an interview.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

makes your continued support disturbing

By DONNA CASSATA
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) --
The administration, in a report it reluctantly gave to Congress on Wednesday, said that because the United States is in a supporting role in the NATO-led mission, American forces are not facing the hostilities that would require the president to seek such congressional consent under the War Powers Resolution.

"Spending a billion dollars and dropping bombs on people sounds like hostilities to me," Webb said in an interview.

Nah, it's just a "Police Action" like Truman declared in the Korean War.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

makes your continued support disturbing

I wasn't aware I ever voiced support in the first place.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I wasn't aware I ever voiced support in the first place.

-spence

you aren't aware of many things...
.................................................. .............

Looks like the strategy is moving along well. I think Obama is playing this one perfectly...

-spence

Considering the complexity and variability of the situation, its actually not looking all that terrible. Obama seems to have been pretty careful to not make statements or promises we can't keep, something very different from Bush.

And if the UN does impose a no fly zone in Lybia, who's going to stand behind the Lybian Govt? The Sudan??? I'm not sure the regime can survive...

-spence

While we don't want to get into a real battle, it does seem like Ghaddafi has crossed the line with his actions...they're going to squeeze him until he pops.

-spence

Well, there seems to be pretty strong support from EU and the other Arab nations.

Justification is because the Libyan government has turned to using the military against their own people without much regard. It looks like they've been bombing and shelling killing just about anyone. I've really some really gruesome stories.

Fear is that atrocities will increase and cause a humanitarian crisis which would destabilize the region, especially considering the events in Tunisia and Egypt right next door.

At least that's the reasoning he gave when he spoke today.

-spence

We'll see how close they really are. Clearly the Admin is not going to go it alone, nor should we. I think the bigger piece is that Khadaffi is now seen as damaged goods by even much of the Arab leadership.


I think the calculus in Libya might not be in Khadaffi's favor. The real end game may be to get regime ending concessions.

-spence

As for Obama's statements, I thought they have been pretty clear on this. While the position of the Administration is that Ghaddafi should go, the legal resolution is only to protect the civilians and as such that is the direct mission.

They appear to be very mindful of the slippery slope and also the strategic situation.

Put yourself in Obama's shoes here and I think many would come to the same conclusion.

-spence

Generally speaking war is a legal term. Vietnam, Korea...not wars...yikes.

I wouldn't call this a "war"...yet...although I doubt (i.e. hope) it doesn't go there. Depends on how we don't react to Ghaddafi's provocations.

-spence

Preemptive (or worse preventative) war isn't the same thing as an internationally legal humanitarian mission and you know it...

-spence

I heard that today there were aircraft from Qatar over Libya under the UN resolution. This is pretty remarkable.

-spence

The situation in Libya is real. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians was occurring. The situation was deteriorating and heading towards a likely genocide. The destabilizing impact of this would most certainly harm US interests, especially those of our Arab allies.

What's remarkable is how the Administration united Western and Middle Eastern interests under International Law. I'm not sure this has ever been done before and could set a very positive precedent.

-spence

If anything, Obama is giving a simplified response as this is a question during a campaign interview. I'm sure he's quite intimate with the long running debate on this topic.

-spence

The Constitution certainly does appear to give the President the ability to use military force without Congressional approval as Obama says in his quote...And there's also a lot of subjectivity as to what constitutes a "threat" to the US. This has been used to justify all manners of military action without Congressional approval throughout the years...and often with controversy given the situation.

In the case of Libya the UN resolution has a very limited objective but also legal legitimacy and sponsorship from a number of nations. This is the UN acting as much or more than the US acting. There also is a pretty clear threat to US interests.

While certainly not free, the US involvement in enforcing the UN Resolution isn't likely to change the funding or mission of the armed forces...assuming the action is kept within the expected scope.

-spence

I think he's waiting until tomorrow so he can reference the hand off to NATO. While frustrating, this is probably worth the political cost.

He certainly needs to clarify the mission and US involvement if he hopes to get full Congressional support. That being said, don't forget that the entire Republican caucus in the Senate has already voted in support of a no fly zone earlier this month.

The Administration may have (once again) poorly handled the domestic debate on this issue, but it's not like they're going it alone. There's quite a lot of GOP support out there.

-spence


a) Obama has been taking a lot of heat from the Left on Libya

b) I think Obama has shown some patience that like in Egypt might have paid off. To parlay this into playing dead is a bit o spin.

c-spence

[spence]

Well, obviously I meant that I hadn't voiced support for Obama not seeking authorization from Congress after the window had closed. I just find it amusing he'd come back so hard in response to the Speaker's request...

Sorry to have you go though all that work.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, obviously I meant that I hadn't voiced support for Obama not seeking authorization from Congress after the window had closed. I just find it amusing he'd come back so hard in response to the Speaker's request...

Sorry to have you go though all that work.

-spence

right....obviously

it's not amusing...it's despicable

[striperman36]

https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?c...0-%20FY%202010



Still nothing compared to entitlements