Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 27th, 2011, 02:12 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 409
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011...tary-to-libya/



The 60 days have come and gone, but we are still in Libya !



The bad new is that Obama is in violation of the War Powers Act !

The Good news is that it is an Impeachable offense !



Let's hear what Obama and Biden have to say about this ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9dduPshTu4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvDUB...eature=related



Obama 2011 = Bush 2007

No Hope and No Change !
NoMoreDems-Reps is offline  
Old May 28th, 2011, 01:16 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 456
What Congress cannot do is stand idly by while our war powers authority is subverted, or something like that?



First, probably the majority of the American people would be thrilled if the most mistrusted and corrupt institution in America, the United States Congress, WOULD stand idly by while.................fill in the blank for whatever topic or problem is on your mind. Believe the President's initiative to lend military support in the Libyan uprising comes from a United Nations proposal, the same type Harry Truman used to commit American forces to Korea in the 1950's. We do still maintain commitments, including military, with the United Nations. As for appearing within 60-90 days before Congress, give us a break. He can send a memo up to Capital Hill, these Republican idiots up there act like they don't know what is happening on a daily basis in always political Washington. Just another of their tactics in attempting to come up with a Republican strategy to beat the Democrats in 2012 for the White House. They need a candidate first, their agenda certainly isn't going to be successful.



As for defending Israel if attack is imminent, I don't have a problem with that, but we are seeing these past couple of weeks, the Arab world in disarray, as people's movements in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and now Syria, plus the re-inventing of Iraq, all hated enemies of Israel, move toward eliminating dictatorship's, and possible democratic institutions. With that occurring, the possibility of Arab-Israeli negotiations, based on the 1967 war borders being restored before talks begin there, is a probability, even though Israel flatly rejected it. They have no right to reject it if their major ally, America, demands negotiation. The borders of the Arab-started 1967 Seven Day's War, all are negotiable, if Israel really wants peace. For the first time in 60-years in the Middle East, and the Arab countries, where we have national interests, due to the oil production, change is taking place. We need to support that change, not listen to some of the Fog Horn / Leg Horn idiot Republican Senator's up on Capital Hill, whose only interest is self-interest and re-election.



On this one, I support the President, continue to step up and lead, something he has had trouble doing his first two years in office, but appears, since Tucson, the Osama Bin Laden killing, and support to pan-Arab people's movements, that American support may be crucial to change in the Middle East. It is an area that has frustrated and defeated every President since Truman...........Stan
Stan Fan is offline  
Old May 28th, 2011, 07:57 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 57,616
Ignoring the WPA and doing as one damn well pleases is executive overreach and a perfect example of pure democracy, and to be clear calling it pure democracy isn't a compliment. In a pure democracy, law is changed at whim. If enough people don't protest the violation of law, then violating the law is OK. The legislative process, due process, is being circumvented by the executive branch, and the rule of law is being negated.



We now have had two back-to-back presidents who have shown no respect for due process when war is involved. This is prima facie evidence that the military-industrial complex is in charge, and that the title "dictator" can be used reasonably and interchangeably for "president."



As for "constitutionality," it's a term used mostly during campaigns.



Israel does not seek peace, but capitulation. I see no indication that Israel will now or ever accept a two-state solution, at least not as long as Israel believes it has the US standing by as a big brother. I see no indication that the US role as big brother will be changing soon, or ever. Look at the firestorm which resulted from Obama's mentioning 1967 borders. The speed at which he backstepped was quite a show. And the chorus of voices raised against Obama were not so much Jewish as they were right-wing Christian voices here, and Zionist voices in Israel.



Remember that Netanyahu was the head of the Likud Party when Rabin was assassinated. The Likud Party resolutely opposed the Oslo Peace Process, which was seen by the Likuds and Zionists as forcing Israel to forfeit occupied territories, yet the Oslo process would have resulted in Israel retaining control of 70 percent of the West Bank!! Too little, the Likuds and Zionists said.



Quote:
In a speech to the Knesset, Rabin promised that Israel would continue to have “total freedom of action in order to fulfill the security aims that touch upon the permanent solution.”



Nonetheless, hostility continued to mount against Rabin. Ultra-orthodox conservatives and Likud party leaders believed that withdrawing from any Jewish land was heresy. Rallies, organized partially by Likud, became increasingly extreme in tone. Likud Leader (and future Prime Minister) Benjamin Netanyahu accused Rabin’s government of being “removed from Jewish tradition ... and Jewish values.” Netanyahu addressed protesters of the Oslo movement at rallies where posters portrayed Rabin in a Nazi SS uniform or being the target by in the cross-hairs of a sniper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassi..._Yitzhak_Rabin



Netanyahu resigned as Finance Minister because he opposed Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.



Quote:
In a 2001 video, Netanyahu, reportedly unaware he was being recorded, said: "They asked me before the election if I'd honor [the Oslo Accords]," "I said I would, but ... I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders....



I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in our way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjami...#Peace_process



He's also on record as calling US-backed peace negotiations "a waste of time." On Jonathon Pollard, a convicted Israeli spy serving life imprisonment for passing critical US intelligence documents to Israel, Netanyahu characterized Pollard as "a warmhearted Jew, proud and a real Zionist." He's pressed Obama for Pollard's release.



So, a powerful faction opposes a real peace. And Obama will not be taken to task for ignoring the WPA, and he certainly won't face impeachment. The obvious beneficiary of ongoing turmoil in the ME is the MIC, and its power over US foreign policy is not reasonably debatable.
imaginethat is offline  
Old June 1st, 2011, 08:43 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 57,616
Interesting. The Republicans block a bill by Democrat Kucinich that would force the hand of a Democrat president to obey the law.



Quote:
Longer Libyan Commitment Sets Up Showdown With Congress

By Chris Stirewalt

Published June 01, 2011 | FoxNews.com



Congress and Obama on Collision Course Over Libya War



Quote:
"NATO and partners have just decided to extend our mission for Libya for another 90 days. This decision sends a clear message to the Qaddafi regime: We are determined to continue our operation to protect the people of Libya."



-- NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in a statement
.



House Republican aides tell Power Play that a vote scheduled for today on Ohio Democrat Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s bill that would force the U.S. to withdraw from the Libyan civil war was yanked from the schedule only after it became clear that it might succeed.



“[Republican leaders] hadn’t seen much of a threat from [the Kucinich bill]. He’s kind of this marginal figure and having his resolution go down narrowly would be no big deal and might even send a message to the administration,” said one of the Republican aides. “But once they saw that there was substantial support, they were like, ‘Whoa.’”



While it’s hardly a sure thing that Kucinich’s bill would have drawn a majority, the broad-based, bipartisan support for the measure prompted House leaders to set the measure aside while figuring out how to proceed in dealing with President Obama on the ongoing Libya war.



So far, the administration has succeeded in flouting Congressional authority on the war. Past presidents have all been dismissive of the War Powers Resolution and members of Congress have even derided the legislation as an unconstitutional abridgement of their exclusive power to declare war, but both branches have abided by the law just the same since it was passed over Richard Nixon’s veto in 1973. It has been the imperfect agreement by which presidents and lawmakers have navigated the minor conflicts of the Cold War (Grenada, etc.), unipolar transitional periods (Bosnia, Somalia, etc.) and the current conflicts with militant Islamists.



But Obama has said that the resolution does not apply to the war because the U.S. commitment was too small to merit any kind of Congressional authorization. The War Powers Resolution says that Obama, having failed to obtain congressional authorization within the first 60 days of the conflict, is now in a 30-day period in which he must disengage U.S. forces. He’s got just a little more than two weeks before he is in clear violation.



Obama doesn’t want to bow to any congressional limitations on his power to make war. If he did, it could imperil his covert campaign in Pakistan and other smaller-bore operations, like drone strikes in Yemen etc. He may intend to break the back of the resolution, or to simply force Congress to fold on the issue, forever rendering it moot. Like his move to blow up the public financing of elections, Obama may be interested in making some history and expanding his powers.



The announcement of a 90-day extension of the NATO commitment to the stalemated civil war that has left Libya split along deep, centuries old tribal lines suggests that Obama is suiting up for a constitutional showdown in defense of the U.N.-backed mission.



Just because Republicans pulled back the Kucinich measure doesn’t mean that they are not concerned about where the Libya train is heading. Note well that Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, part of the Senate leadership, was among the signatories to the letter notifying Obama that his 60-day grace period to wage unauthorized war had elapsed.



But the question is how will they confront Obama over this without A) seeming to undercut American forces in the field and setting a defensible new precedent for limiting presidential war powers. This is a generational question that Republican leaders don’t want to get wrong.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...down-congress/
imaginethat is offline  
Old June 1st, 2011, 08:53 AM   #5
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
Apparently he feels good about a Constitutional showdown over this? I don't know about why he would even consider that. He should have just sought Congressional approval. If he was fought on it after the majority said they would support it, it would have looked better for him anyway. I don't understand this shit.
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 1st, 2011, 12:45 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
I don't understand this shit.


That's the Plan.



Did you happen to notice that Obama first Term in Office is looking an awful lot like what Bush's 3rd Term

would have looked like ?



Did you notice that Obama kept two of Bush's most powerful cabinet members?

(Burnenky and Gates )



Yeah a lot of things are funny but don't worry, just keep doing what your doing and everything will be alright....
NoMoreDems-Reps is offline  
Old June 1st, 2011, 06:11 PM   #7
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
Presidents are far less powerful than the entrenched power structures and hierarchies in the Pentagon and the DoD. I see Obama as an ant and the M.I.C. as a elephant in the areas of foreign policy and national security. The deck is stacked against him and was against Bush as well, just much less so, as his entire background was actually spent in close relations with that very power structure. So not really the same can be said about that and Bush.



But I fail to understand his rationale on this failure to get the go ahead in the set time frame. Really. It just doesn't make sense.
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 1st, 2011, 06:40 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 57,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreDems-Reps View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables' timestamp='1306943580' post='337131

I don't understand this shit.


That's the Plan.



Did you happen to notice that Obama first Term in Office is looking an awful lot like what Bush's 3rd Term

would have looked like ?



Did you notice that Obama kept two of Bush's most powerful cabinet members?

(Burnenky and Gates )



Yeah a lot of things are funny but don't worry, just keep doing what your doing and everything will be alright....


That's Bernanke, and he's not a cabinet member to be clear. Bernanke, the Fed's passionate and loyal lover, and Gates, the high priest of the MIC are kept from one administration to the next. This isn't coincidental. This isn't "what's best for the country." This is the exercise of raw and unchallenged power.



People, wake the hell up. Yes, Obama kept the lover and the priest, the two most powerful people in American politics. Imo, this decision was made for Obama, not by Obama.



The power of the Fed and the MIC sucking on the teat of America's foreign policy are the most critical issues Americans face. No one challenges either. Well, almost no one. Ultra-long shots Kucinich and Paul challenge both, but the "electable" candidates do not. The party leaders do not.
imaginethat is offline  
Old June 1st, 2011, 07:33 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 57,616
The plot continues to thicken. "A group of both liberals and conservatives — defying the leaders of both parties...." I truly love that, can't get any better, the people saying to the party leaders, "Up yours."



"Conservatives expressed support for the bill in a closed meeting, but GOP leaders put off the vote. Instead, they said they would gather all 200-plus House Republicans to discuss Libya again Thursday afternoon." My, my, can you imagine this discussion? Something like, "OK guys, nice grandstanding, looking good for us conservatives." wink wink "The good news is that we've got enough Dems lined up to keep the wars going, keep expanding the power of the president, so y'all can go ahead and vote for Kucinich's ... damned isolationist ... (sniggers and some open, sporadic laughter) ... look, y'all are going to appeal to the teaba... the Tea Party, fighting the good fight, saying NO to Obama.



"So that's why we're having this little meeting, to thank y'all for helping the party's image. Now, let's get back to work."



Something like that.



Quote:
As House GOP leaders fend off vote on Libya resolution, antiwar sentiment simmers



By David A. Fahrenthold, Updated: Wednesday, June 1, 6:45 PM



On Wednesday, 74 days after U.S. forces joined the military operation in Libya, President Obama seemed to run out of goodwill on Capitol Hill.



A group of both liberals and conservatives — defying the leaders of both parties — threw their support behind a bill to pull the U.S. military out of the Libya operation. That prospect led GOP leaders to shelve the bill before it came to a vote.



That episode signaled how abruptly the politics of U.S. warmaking have changed, as the intervention in Libya follows a bloody, weary decade in Afghanistan and Iraq.



Now, a Democratic president has asked the country to support a new military action and missed a legal deadline that required him to get Congress’s authorization.



In response, an antiwar movement has appeared in an unlikely place: a House dominated by the Republican right.



“We are in control in the House, and we want something on the floor,” said Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), one of a number of conservatives who called Wednesday for a showdown with Obama. “Put a resolution up, and let us express .?.?. to the president that ‘you no longer have the authority of this Congress to conduct military operations in that country.’ ”



Since the beginning of the Libyan operation, congressional leaders have been quietly supportive of Obama — but mostly just quiet. In the Senate, a resolution in support of the president is still waiting for a vote.



In the House, GOP leaders had said little on the subject, even after Obama missed a deadline set in the 1973 War Powers Resolution. That law required him to obtain congressional permission within 60 days, a deadline that passed last month.



“His intention is not to undermine the commander in chief, at a time when we have troops in harm’s way,” Kevin Smith, a spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), said Wednesday.



But also on Wednesday, discontent with that military operation — and with warmaking in general — seemed to boil over.



An early warning had come the week before, when the House narrowly voted down a proposal to demand a speedy transition of U.S. forces out of Afghanistan. In 2010, a similar bill garnered 162 votes in defeat, including nine Republican votes. This time, it still lost — but with 204 votes, including 26 Republican votes.



On Wednesday, the bill at issue was far more drastic. Introduced by Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), it would demand that Obama withdraw forces from the Libyan operation within 15 days. That would be a crippling loss for the NATO-led campaign, which relies heavily on U.S. air power.



The resolution looked, a week before, like a legislative long shot.



Then, on Wednesday, it wasn’t.



“There’s been disquiet for a long time,” said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of those who supported it. “Republicans have been too eager to support some military ventures abroad. And this, I think, is perhaps a little more consistent with traditional conservatism.”



Conservatives expressed support for the bill in a closed meeting, but GOP leaders put off the vote. Instead, they said they would gather all 200-plus House Republicans to discuss Libya again Thursday afternoon.



Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who co-sponsored Kucinich’s bill, said he would press for GOP leadership to bring it up for a vote.



“I think, in the House, there’s probably enough votes to pass this,” Burton said. Also Wednesday, Rep. Thomas J. Rooney (R-Fla.) introduced a similar bill, which would require Obama to obtain Congress’ approval by June 19 or begin withdrawing troops.



House Democrats would likely be split on the issue. Several liberals have followed Kucinich, blasting Obama for missing the 60-day deadline. But Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), the second-ranking Democrat, said earlier this week that he would not support Kucinich’s bill.



“To the extent that it calls for .?.?. withdrawal, that means not supporting the NATO allies who jointly undertook this enterprise, I think that would mean I’m not going to support that,” Hoyer said in a press briefing.



At the White House on Wednesday, press secretary Jay Carney said only that Obama would wait to see what Congress does.



“We feel strongly that the president has acted in a way that is consistent with the War Powers Resolution,” Carney said.



If the House does seek a showdown with Obama over Libya, it would be bucking a Capitol Hill tradition that goes back generations. Most legislators, no matter what their party, have been reluctant to meddle in military campaigns that presidents have already begun.



On Wednesday, some legislators said they were worried whether Congress had the stomach to see that sort of confrontation through.



“We’ve got to be honest with ourselves: The answer is no, I don’t think so. Why not? Because it’s easier to let somebody else carry that load [of guiding a war effort], and then applaud or blame,” said Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), who said Obama has not clearly articulated the U.S. strategy in Libya.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...lGH_story.html
imaginethat is offline  
Old June 2nd, 2011, 10:57 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
It's not clear to me whether the House could unilaterally pull the plug on the action in Libya, although it sounds like since Kucinich's resolution is privileged he can force a vote after the recess even if the House leadership doesn't want a vote. It also sounds like if the vote were held today Kucinich's resolution would win, but without any action in the Senate it's meaningless.
skrekk is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
acting, law, obama



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Praying and acting kowalskil Philosophy 26 February 4th, 2013 06:14 PM
GOP Furious that Obama Is Acting Like He Won The Election skews13 Current Events 1 November 30th, 2012 03:39 PM
Toddler Beaten To Death For "acting Like A Girl" knowuryder Gay and Lesbian Rights 28 April 14th, 2011 08:54 PM
Mormon church says bishop acting alone in civil union fight chandon12 Mormonism 3 March 5th, 2009 06:00 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.