All things Libya

[johnnysaint 4]

LB 15, if that jet was shot down, the only thing Americans will really care about is whether the shooter got lucky, or has technology that can easily do that again. I don't see our government covering up something like that, and I have at least a healthy dose of suspicion about our government.

unless it's a matter of who (if anyone) shot it down

[SurfCityCatamarans 9]

[Saorsa 48]

I think we are just about reaching the end of what we can do without boots on the ground. There is no effective libyan airforce and we've hit their heavy armor.

 

From now on in, you have basically urban warfare where a presumably trained army with access to heavy weapons is up against an untrained mob.

 

Unless somebody gets lucky and takes out Mo or there is an uprising in the army the conclusion won't be pretty.

 

But, now we have an example of the kind of support the rest of the mideast can expect from America and Europe.

 

If it goes the way I suspect will, we are losing a lot.

[benwynn 3,590]

It's good to see so much questioning as to specific reasons and expectations when we go to war. Nice to have everyone on board with me. I just wonder where the fuck you all were in '03.

 

Ben

[LB 15 6,510]

LB 15, if that jet was shot down, the only thing Americans will really care about is whether the shooter got lucky, or has technology that can easily do that again. I don't see our government covering up something like that, and I have at least a healthy dose of suspicion about our government.

 

 

I will stop sniffing glue and reading so many Clive Cussler novels.

[LB 15 6,510]

It's good to see so much questioning as to specific reasons and expectations when we go to war. Nice to have everyone on board with me. I just wonder where the fuck you all were in '03.

 

Ben

 

 

Shit sorry Ben. Stupid of so many of us not to have found sailing anarchy earlier.

[Pertinacious Tom 1,923]

It's good to see so much questioning as to specific reasons and expectations when we go to war. Nice to have everyone on board with me. I just wonder where the fuck you all were in '03.

 

Ben

 

On board, just like with Padilla. Shall I prove it again, or do you want to take my word this time?

[Sol Rosenberg 10,152]

It's good to see so much questioning as to specific reasons and expectations when we go to war. Nice to have everyone on board with me. I just wonder where the fuck you all were in '03.

 

Ben

This thread will come in handy in the future.

[d'ranger 4,321]

It's good to see so much questioning as to specific reasons and expectations when we go to war. Nice to have everyone on board with me. I just wonder where the fuck you all were in '03.

 

Ben

The only possible explanation is: electing Democrats makes us smarter.

[Saorsa 48]

It's good to see so much questioning as to specific reasons and expectations when we go to war. Nice to have everyone on board with me. I just wonder where the fuck you all were in '03.

 

Ben

I guess you weren't there either.

 

I seem to recall a lot of debate as the troops were building up and an actual congressional vote. Heck, there was even a call by Clinton for regime change which was voted on by congress. There was further discussion and voting as UN Resolutions were passed and troops were deployed to the mideast. Right up to the day the attack was launched.

[Bull Gator 1,957]

A conservatives quide to speaking about Libya

 

Are you a conservative pundit, elected official or presidential contender? Having trouble figuring out what you're supposed to say about this whole thing in Libya? Obama bad, sure. But Gadhafi also bad, and bombs good! What a conundrum!

 

 

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/23/libya_response_chart/index.html

[mad 3,970]

Can we declare this thread closed thanks to the return of the village idiot?

[Bull Gator 1,957]

Can we declare this thread closed thanks to the return of the village idiot?

 

I didn't think you were that self aware.

 

But yes given you're return I declare this thread closed..

[Regatta Dog 40]

Here's something Obama said back when he was a candidate - Link

 

SUNAPEE, N.H. — Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

 

“Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

 

[Sol Rosenberg 10,152]

No sorry, it doesn't work that way. You of all people here (and I use the term 'people' lightly) aren't declaring squat. Was it over when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor? I didn't think so.

 

What I find interesting is that Obama is starting to catch some major flack from his own party and not just the nutcases like Kucinich. Even Nancy, his main watergirl, is showing tepid support. I do think Obama made the right decision and he was damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. But he's done a REALLY shitty job of communicating his intentions and explaining his reasons to John Q Public. Maybe he should hire Glen Beck to do a skit and explain military intervention using crayons and stuffed animals.....

The whole thing came across as the modern day equivalent of

 

Holy underwear! Sheriff murdered! Innocent women and children blown to bits! We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!

 

He was smart to wait until the talking heads were jabbering about nothing being done, and getting their support for action on record. He got the La-Z-Boy Warrior Division ® hook-line-and-sinker with that bit. Now the only think upon which they can hang their hat is not consulting Congress, which has been done in the past, but is still, I think, unconstitutional. But I think that sending troops into harms way without a declaration of war is unconstitutional by definition, so that doesn't help us much.

 

But as the time for the rebels grew short, something had to be done toot sweet, so they lashed together a response without planning what happened next, assuming they could agree on that later. So much for that idea. Give everyone a bunch of paddle balls, just stop borrowing money to give to Raytheon.

[benwynn 3,590]

It's good to see so much questioning as to specific reasons and expectations when we go to war. Nice to have everyone on board with me. I just wonder where the fuck you all were in '03.

 

Ben

I guess you weren't there either.

 

I seem to recall a lot of debate as the troops were building up and an actual congressional vote. Heck, there was even a call by Clinton for regime change which was voted on by congress. There was further discussion and voting as UN Resolutions were passed and troops were deployed to the mideast. Right up to the day the attack was launched.

 

Good point. It appears this adminstration does not have enough bad intel to build a case that is wrong, nor the patience to build one.

 

Ben

[Saorsa 48]

It's good to see so much questioning as to specific reasons and expectations when we go to war. Nice to have everyone on board with me. I just wonder where the fuck you all were in '03.

 

Ben

I guess you weren't there either.

 

I seem to recall a lot of debate as the troops were building up and an actual congressional vote. Heck, there was even a call by Clinton for regime change which was voted on by congress. There was further discussion and voting as UN Resolutions were passed and troops were deployed to the mideast. Right up to the day the attack was launched.

 

Good point. It appears this adminstration does not have enough bad intel to build a case that is wrong, nor the patience to build one.

 

Ben

So, the kurds and shia weren't being killed with WMD? Some of them are non-nuclear you know.

[austin1972 629]

 

Hello boys, have a good night's rest? I missed you.

 

But he's done a REALLY shitty job of communicating his intentions and explaining his reasons to John Q Public. Maybe he should hire Glen Beck to do a skit and explain military intervention using crayons and stuffed animals.....

 

He's done a really shitty job selling a lot of things. Surprising...to me at least.

He's a great orator but not a very good communicator.

[Pertinacious Tom 1,923]

I would say the Libyan thing was most DEFINITELY time-critical because another day or two and Benghazi would have fallen.

 

There was time to consult the UN and the Arab League. That tells me there was time to consult Congress, just no will to do it and no consequences if it was not done (we're in that phase now).

[pfoley 10]

It's good to see so much questioning as to specific reasons and expectations when we go to war. Nice to have everyone on board with me. I just wonder where the fuck you all were in '03.

 

Ben

 

 

I see you joined in '04.

That tells us you weren't here in '03 either.

[benwynn 3,590]

It's good to see so much questioning as to specific reasons and expectations when we go to war. Nice to have everyone on board with me. I just wonder where the fuck you all were in '03.

 

Ben

I guess you weren't there either.

 

I seem to recall a lot of debate as the troops were building up and an actual congressional vote. Heck, there was even a call by Clinton for regime change which was voted on by congress. There was further discussion and voting as UN Resolutions were passed and troops were deployed to the mideast. Right up to the day the attack was launched.

 

Good point. It appears this adminstration does not have enough bad intel to build a case that is wrong, nor the patience to build one.

 

Ben

So, the kurds and shia weren't being killed with WMD? Some of them are non-nuclear you know.

 

 

I didn't say anything about WMD. I said that it appears this adminstration does not have enough bad intel to build a case that is wrong. The inference drawn from G.W. Bush's admissions after Charles Duelfer's report was released. But don't stop milking that cow. There's gotta be at least 2 more buckets of excuses to come up with.

 

Ben

[Saorsa 48]

It's good to see so much questioning as to specific reasons and expectations when we go to war. Nice to have everyone on board with me. I just wonder where the fuck you all were in '03.

 

Ben

I guess you weren't there either.

 

I seem to recall a lot of debate as the troops were building up and an actual congressional vote. Heck, there was even a call by Clinton for regime change which was voted on by congress. There was further discussion and voting as UN Resolutions were passed and troops were deployed to the mideast. Right up to the day the attack was launched.

 

Good point. It appears this adminstration does not have enough bad intel to build a case that is wrong, nor the patience to build one.

 

Ben

So, the kurds and shia weren't being killed with WMD? Some of them are non-nuclear you know.

 

 

I didn't say anything about WMD. I said that it appears this adminstration does not have enough bad intel to build a case that is wrong. The inference drawn from G.W. Bush's admissions after Charles Duelfer's report was released. But don't stop milking that cow. There's gotta be at least 2 more buckets of excuses to come up with.

 

Ben

Oh, OK then, what specific bad intel were you referring to?

[TMSAIL 60]

Does anyone ever recall a president that did not address the nation almost immediately after putting the troops in harms way? I know he interrupted his Latin tour to make a statement, but isn't this Oval Office material? Some one said it best "he acts like this is nothing but an interruption in his domestic agenda road trip".

[Saorsa 48]

Does anyone ever recall a president that did not address the nation almost immediately after putting the troops in harms way? I know he interrupted his Latin tour to make a statement, but isn't this Oval Office material? Some one said it best "he acts like this is nothing but an interruption in his domestic agenda road trip".

His domestic agenda is in South America?

[TMSAIL 60]

Does anyone ever recall a president that did not address the nation almost immediately after putting the troops in harms way? I know he interrupted his Latin tour to make a statement, but isn't this Oval Office material? Some one said it best "he acts like this is nothing but an interruption in his domestic agenda road trip".

His domestic agenda is in South America?

Road trip as in American Domestic Policy 1/2009 - 1/2013 - I just can not recall a president appearing completely unconcerned about sharing his reasons for going to war with the American people,

[Pertinacious Tom 1,923]

Cruise missile strikes are downright unfriendly. Some would say an act of war. Ron Paul among them. Me too, BTW.

 

In this case, I would like to make sure we actually follow the black letter of the law provided in the Constitution that explicitly grants Congress the sole authority to declare war. This week I will introduce a concurrent resolution in the House to remind my colleagues and the administration that Congress alone, not the president, decides when to go to war. It is alarming how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist. Frankly, it is not up to the President whether or not we intervene in Libya, or set up "no-fly" zones, or send troops. At least, it is not if we follow the Constitution. Even by the loose standards of the War Powers Resolution, which cedes far too much power to the president, he would have no authority to engage in hostilities because we have not been attacked – not by Gaddafi, and not by the rebels. This is not our fight. If the administration wants to make it our fight, let them make their case before Congress and put it to a vote. I would strongly oppose such a measure, but that is the proper way to proceed.

 

Constitutional questions aside, Congress also needs to consider the interests of the American people. Again, we have not been attacked. Whatever we may think about the Gaddafi regime, we must recognize that the current turmoil in Libya represents an attempted coup d'etat in a foreign country. Neither the coup leaders nor the regime pose an imminent threat to the United States and therefore, as much as we abhor violence and loss of life, this is simply none of our business. How can we commit our men and women in uniform to a dangerous military operation in Libya when they swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? We must also understand that our intervention will undermine the legitimacy of whatever government prevails in Libya. Especially if it is a bad government, it will be seen as our puppet and further radicalize people in the region against us. These are terrible reasons to put our soldiers' lives at risk.

 

Finally we need to consider the economic cost. We don't have the money for more military interventions overseas. We don't have the money for our current military interventions overseas. We have to rely on the Fed's printing presses and our ability to borrow from China to fund these wars. That alone should put an end to any discussion about getting involved in Libya's civil war.

 

The search for a politician who has been consistent on interventions over the years is really not all that hard...

[Saorsa 48]

Does anyone ever recall a president that did not address the nation almost immediately after putting the troops in harms way? I know he interrupted his Latin tour to make a statement, but isn't this Oval Office material? Some one said it best "he acts like this is nothing but an interruption in his domestic agenda road trip".

His domestic agenda is in South America?

Road trip as in American Domestic Policy 1/2009 - 1/2013 - I just can not recall a president appearing completely unconcerned about sharing his reasons for going to war with the American people,

You sound like those broads that bitch if you don't call them the next day.

[TMSAIL 60]

Does anyone ever recall a president that did not address the nation almost immediately after putting the troops in harms way? I know he interrupted his Latin tour to make a statement, but isn't this Oval Office material? Some one said it best "he acts like this is nothing but an interruption in his domestic agenda road trip".

His domestic agenda is in South America?

Road trip as in American Domestic Policy 1/2009 - 1/2013 - I just can not recall a president appearing completely unconcerned about sharing his reasons for going to war with the American people,

You sound like those broads that bitch if you don't call them the next day.

[Remodel 837]

Does anyone ever recall a president that did not address the nation almost immediately after putting the troops in harms way?

 

I recall that Nixon bombed Laos and Cambodia secretly for months before it was acknowledged. I don't recall that this was ever approved by Congress.

 

George W. Bush and Barack Obama both bombed targets in Pakistan without Congressional approval.

 

I don't recall Reagan having an authorization to invade Grenada, but I was out of the country then, and could be mistaken. The same goes for George Sr. invading Panama. Can you point me to a reference on those issues?

[Mark K 2,321]

Cruise missile strikes are downright unfriendly. Some would say an act of war. Ron Paul among them. Me too, BTW.

 

In this case, I would like to make sure we actually follow the black letter of the law provided in the Constitution that explicitly grants Congress the sole authority to declare war. This week I will introduce a concurrent resolution in the House to remind my colleagues and the administration that Congress alone, not the president, decides when to go to war. It is alarming how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist. Frankly, it is not up to the President whether or not we intervene in Libya, or set up "no-fly" zones, or send troops. At least, it is not if we follow the Constitution. Even by the loose standards of the War Powers Resolution, which cedes far too much power to the president, he would have no authority to engage in hostilities because we have not been attacked – not by Gaddafi, and not by the rebels. This is not our fight. If the administration wants to make it our fight, let them make their case before Congress and put it to a vote. I would strongly oppose such a measure, but that is the proper way to proceed.

 

Constitutional questions aside, Congress also needs to consider the interests of the American people. Again, we have not been attacked. Whatever we may think about the Gaddafi regime, we must recognize that the current turmoil in Libya represents an attempted coup d'etat in a foreign country. Neither the coup leaders nor the regime pose an imminent threat to the United States and therefore, as much as we abhor violence and loss of life, this is simply none of our business. How can we commit our men and women in uniform to a dangerous military operation in Libya when they swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? We must also understand that our intervention will undermine the legitimacy of whatever government prevails in Libya. Especially if it is a bad government, it will be seen as our puppet and further radicalize people in the region against us. These are terrible reasons to put our soldiers' lives at risk.

 

Finally we need to consider the economic cost. We don't have the money for more military interventions overseas. We don't have the money for our current military interventions overseas. We have to rely on the Fed's printing presses and our ability to borrow from China to fund these wars. That alone should put an end to any discussion about getting involved in Libya's civil war.

 

The search for a politician who has been consistent on interventions over the years is really not all that hard...

 

Yes, but are those views reflective of the American public?

 

Skip ahead to 20 minutes in, or (18 minutes in if you want to hear about Kosovo too). George got Ronny to slip a pep-talk for us into a speech he gave at Oxford, 3 days before the invasion. They played this, not HW, the night we loaded up on the Juneau.

 

 

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Ronald-Reagans-1992-Address-at-Oxford-University/10737419324-1/

 

That that we like to believe ourselves to be something somewhat more than what Dr. Paul would have us be just might be true.

[Bull Gator 1,957]

It's official we handed off to NATO.

 

We're out..

[Mark K 2,321]

I can't believe I'm actually defending Obama here, but I think all this talk of not declaring war and being un-connie is a bit of melodrama. I think what's he done is completely consistant with the War Powers Act. It states:

 

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

 

It seems to me that he most certainly DID "notify" congress within 48 hrs of taking action. Now where he might run afoul of the law is if he goes beyond the 60 days without getting congress to "authorize" continuing action.

 

Now whether you believe the WPA itself is constitutional or not is a different arguement. But the fact remains it is the current law of the land and its been used numerous times since its enactment and its a given that the POTUS has the right to operate under that statute. If you think the WPA is un-connie, then I suggest you file a brief with the Supreme Court. But the POTUS is being consistant in his actions with current law because there is nothing in the WPA that requires "authorization" for the 1st 60 days, just notification. However, beyond that 60 days, absolutely....

 

There is the problem of "...only by authorization of Congress OR the United States is already under attack or serious threat."

 

Yet it has been done many times, and in Kosovo, in the face of Congressional opposition.

 

 

So, in practice, this has traditionally been used as grounds for impeachment only against presidents who send millions of brave soldiers to their needless deaths on a blue dress.

[Bull Gator 1,957]

It's official we handed off to NATO.

 

We're out..

 

We're out? Really? Wanna take a bet on that? Last I check we were also part of NATO. I see the break did nothing for your IQ....

 

 

Yup just announced we will only provide support.

 

Brilliant move by the admin and effectively neuters the far right opposition

[Bull Gator 1,957]

UAE is in as well.

 

Great job by the Obama admin in swifting getting in and out.

 

If only the previous admin had been so adroit in Afghanistan...

[Bull Gator 1,957]

It's official we handed off to NATO.

 

We're out..

 

We're out? Really? Wanna take a bet on that? Last I check we were also part of NATO. I see the break did nothing for your IQ....

 

 

Yup just announced we will only provide support.

 

WTF do you think "support" means? You don't think we'll be flying armed missions over Libya in addition to providing tankers, AWACS and other non-shooters for as long as this thing is in effect? Again, PLEASE take me up on that bet.

 

 

no live fire.

 

 

maybe some refueling op's and sat surveilence according to sources..

[Bull Gator 1,957]

This is a really good day for america for the first time we've let Nato take the lead outside of Europe.

 

Brilliant!!!

[Pertinacious Tom 1,923]

I thought that when Jefferson sent warships it was so we could quit providing support?

[Sol Rosenberg 10,152]

I can't believe I'm actually defending Obama here, but I think all this talk of not declaring war and being un-connie is a bit of melodrama. I think what's he done is completely consistant with the War Powers Act. It states:

 

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

 

It seems to me that he most certainly DID "notify" congress within 48 hrs of taking action. Now where he might run afoul of the law is if he goes beyond the 60 days without getting congress to "authorize" continuing action.

 

Now whether you believe the WPA itself is constitutional or not is a different arguement. But the fact remains it is the current law of the land and its been used numerous times since its enactment and its a given that the POTUS has the right to operate under that statute. If you think the WPA is un-connie, then I suggest you file a brief with the Supreme Court. But the POTUS is being consistant in his actions with current law because there is nothing in the WPA that requires "authorization" for the 1st 60 days, just notification. However, beyond that 60 days, absolutely....

So, Comrade, is the Block Captain hosting dinner tonight? Thursday is re-education night, right? Or is it union night?

[Mark K 2,321]

I can't believe I'm actually defending Obama here, but I think all this talk of not declaring war and being un-connie is a bit of melodrama. I think what's he done is completely consistant with the War Powers Act. It states:

 

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

 

It seems to me that he most certainly DID "notify" congress within 48 hrs of taking action. Now where he might run afoul of the law is if he goes beyond the 60 days without getting congress to "authorize" continuing action.

 

Now whether you believe the WPA itself is constitutional or not is a different arguement. But the fact remains it is the current law of the land and its been used numerous times since its enactment and its a given that the POTUS has the right to operate under that statute. If you think the WPA is un-connie, then I suggest you file a brief with the Supreme Court. But the POTUS is being consistant in his actions with current law because there is nothing in the WPA that requires "authorization" for the 1st 60 days, just notification. However, beyond that 60 days, absolutely....

 

There is the problem of "...only by authorization of Congress OR the United States is already under attack or serious threat."

 

I'm not a lawyer (thank god) but I have stayed at a Holiday inn in the last year. I think that sentence you refer to is the overall intent of the WPA.... the executive summary if you will. But that the specific timeline is that the POTUS merely has to notify with 48 hrs of his intent and then he has carte blanche for 60 days. AFTER THAT, he needs actual "authorization". Think about it.... if he needed full congressional authorization from day one - why would they have the part in there about needing an authorization at the 60 day point? If he already HAD authorization on day 1, he wouldn't need it again 2 months later, would he?

 

It would have had to be written, in effect: "The President can order troops to do any damn thing he wants, where ever he wants, as long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours."

 

Not going to get that through the mill, so they stipulated the one obvious condition that everybody could agree on. Better than nothing, I guess. It makes it possible for Congress to nail to the wall a president for doing something really egregiously stupid, just after the fact.

[Pertinacious Tom 1,923]

JBSF, what was the "serious threat"? Or am I going to have to go back to asking when Libya attacked Pearl Harbor?

[Bull Gator 1,957]

no ban but we won't be putting our forces in harms way so no need

 

smart!

[Bull Gator 1,957]

sources.

 

It's what smart people do

[Bull Gator 1,957]

PS Gators looking good!

[Pertinacious Tom 1,923]

the War Powers Act. It states:

 

the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.

 

 

When did the Libyans bomb Pearl Harbor?

[Sol Rosenberg 10,152]

Did Libya have Yellowcake....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

at MG's last birthday party?

[Mark K 2,321]

I'm not a lawyer (thank god) but I have stayed at a Holiday inn in the last year. I think that sentence you refer to is the overall intent of the WPA.... the executive summary if you will. But that the specific timeline is that the POTUS merely has to notify with 48 hrs of his intent and then he has carte blanche for 60 days. AFTER THAT, he needs actual "authorization". Think about it.... if he needed full congressional authorization from day one - why would they have the part in there about needing an authorization at the 60 day point? If he already HAD authorization on day 1, he wouldn't need it again 2 months later, would he?

 

It would have had to be written, in effect: "The President can order troops to do any damn thing he wants, where ever he wants, as long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours."

 

Not going to get that through the mill, so they stipulated the one obvious condition that everybody could agree on. Better than nothing, I guess. It makes it possible for Congress to nail to the wall a president for doing something really egregiously stupid, just after the fact.

Yes, absolutely they (and the US public) can nail him after the fact if the threat doesn't live up to its billing. But he is completely legal to order troops into battle for 60 days with only the 48 hr notification. Certainly its political jeopardy for the POTUS to take that lightly, but its far from illegal according to the WPA.

 

I agree. It's just not cut and dried. Congress can certainly decide that it isn't legal. This is an important check on Presidential powers, but for us to function in foreign relations, there must be an option of not enforcing this to the letter of the law in all circumstances.

[Mark K 2,321]

Did Libya have Yellowcake....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

at MG's last birthday party?

 

 

Saif tried to save the last barrels of uranium, but his little attempt at extortion for a million bucks failed. That showed his character to the world, he is a shitbag like his fathers is, and I suspect that had a lot to do with why the French wouldn't let this chance slip by.

[benwynn 3,590]

sources.

 

It's classified.

 

Wow, I didn't know your ass was "classified". I'd say it was a pretty "open source" to your cellmates in Key West.

 

[Bull Gator 1,957]

Used to be that the sight of Gator meat would enrage me but now my P90X finely scupted body and mind laughs it off.........

[Death Roll 7]

Used to be that the sight of Gator meat would enrage me but now my P90X finely scupted body and mind laughs it off.........

Excellent. May I add you as a defendant in my suit against P90X and its users for stealing the concept of "muscle confusion" from me? You all act like it's some new idea but I've been doing it for years. Here's a sample:

 

Friday night - Whiskey training

Saturday Morning - Hammering 40 mile ride on the bike

Sunday - Double Cheeseburgers from McD's. Three of them. And fries.

Monday - Free weights

 

The key is to keep the body guessing. That's when the sculpting happens.

[Bull Gator 1,957]

Used to be that the sight of Gator meat would enrage me but now my P90X finely scupted body and mind laughs it off.........

Excellent. May I add you as a defendant in my suit against P90X and its users for stealing the concept of "muscle confusion" from me? You all act like it's some new idea but I've been doing it for years. Here's a sample:

 

Friday night - Whiskey training

Saturday Morning - Hammering 40 mile ride on the bike

Sunday - Double Cheeseburgers from McD's. Three of them. And fries.

Monday - Free weights

 

The key is to keep the body guessing. That's when the sculpting happens.

 

 

Worked in my late twenties not so much now..........

[Bull Gator 1,957]

Used to be that the sight of Gator meat would enrage me but now my P90X finely scupted body and mind laughs it off.........

Did the sight of "gaytor meat" enrage your roomates at Key west county lockup? Or is the proper word: engorge?

 

 

How's your bracket??

[TMSAIL 60]

Does anyone ever recall a president that did not address the nation almost immediately after putting the troops in harms way?

 

I recall that Nixon bombed Laos and Cambodia secretly for months before it was acknowledged. I don't recall that this was ever approved by Congress.

 

George W. Bush and Barack Obama both bombed targets in Pakistan without Congressional approval.

 

I don't recall Reagan having an authorization to invade Grenada, but I was out of the country then, and could be mistaken. The same goes for George Sr. invading Panama. Can you point me to a reference on those issues?

I'm not saying he has to or is required to, but as the leader of this country I think he is obligated to explain to the nation why he is sending Americans in harms way. There is nothing secret about this action so that eliminates your but others didn't tell us either response. Reagan addressed the nation after we struck Libya, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 all addressed the nation after this kind of operation. Obama remains out of sight.

 

I support his action, but would like some explanation from my President as to the current effort.

[Bull Gator 1,957]

Does anyone ever recall a president that did not address the nation almost immediately after putting the troops in harms way?

 

I recall that Nixon bombed Laos and Cambodia secretly for months before it was acknowledged. I don't recall that this was ever approved by Congress.

 

George W. Bush and Barack Obama both bombed targets in Pakistan without Congressional approval.

 

I don't recall Reagan having an authorization to invade Grenada, but I was out of the country then, and could be mistaken. The same goes for George Sr. invading Panama. Can you point me to a reference on those issues?

I'm not saying he has to or is required to, but as the leader of this country I think he is obligated to explain to the nation why he is sending Americans in harms way. There is nothing secret about this action so that eliminates your but others didn't tell us either response. Reagan addressed the nation after we struck Libya, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 all addressed the nation after this kind of operation. Obama remains out of sight.

 

I support his action, but would like some explanation from my President as to the current effort.

 

 

if you support his action why do you seek an explanation?

[benwynn 3,590]

Does anyone ever recall a president that did not address the nation almost immediately after putting the troops in harms way?

 

I recall that Nixon bombed Laos and Cambodia secretly for months before it was acknowledged. I don't recall that this was ever approved by Congress.

 

George W. Bush and Barack Obama both bombed targets in Pakistan without Congressional approval.

 

I don't recall Reagan having an authorization to invade Grenada, but I was out of the country then, and could be mistaken. The same goes for George Sr. invading Panama. Can you point me to a reference on those issues?

I'm not saying he has to or is required to, but as the leader of this country I think he is obligated to explain to the nation why he is sending Americans in harms way. There is nothing secret about this action so that eliminates your but others didn't tell us either response. Reagan addressed the nation after we struck Libya, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 all addressed the nation after this kind of operation. Obama remains out of sight.

 

I support his action, but would like some explanation from my President as to the current effort.

 

I agree. He could just say "Gaddafi Hates Us For Our Freedom", and be done.

 

This ain't that tough.

 

Ben

[Raz'r 5,181]

I'll make a stab at it:

 

We have a limited goal - protection of the civilians. We'd like to see the crazy dude removed - but that's not our explicit goal.

 

I gave our goal to the military - and they told me how they would need to implement to ensure force protection. Remember when Bill Gates said we'd have to hit them hard to put in place a NFZ? Well - I trust him to do what is necessary, and they have.

 

Who's gotta problem with that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I still don't think we should be there, but since we are, gotta do it right.

[Saorsa 48]

It's official we handed off to NATO.

 

We're out..

So, the french are out now?

[Mark K 2,321]

I'll make a stab at it:

 

We have a limited goal - protection of the civilians. We'd like to see the crazy dude removed - but that's not our explicit goal.

 

I gave our goal to the military - and they told me how they would need to implement to ensure force protection. Remember when Bill Gates said we'd have to hit them hard to put in place a NFZ? Well - I trust him to do what is necessary, and they have.

 

Who's gotta problem with that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I still don't think we should be there, but since we are, gotta do it right.

 

Getting close. That's all about right. The tricky part is that if Obama comes out and says that removing Qadhafi is the goal, (and it most definitely is) then the French and the British can play the US public against him to fund the end-game. He has to see that happen or "fail", right?

[johnnysaint 4]

It's official we handed off to NATO.

 

We're out..

So, the french are out now?

 

Maybe not. They got one - a training aircraft - just after it landed.

[Mike G 2,237]

I think congress Is overjoyed they weren't consulted. They would have had to make a decision and pick a side. And they could have been wrong. Now...they all get to complain.

[GRUMPY 49]

It's official we handed off to NATO.

 

We're out..

So, the french are out now?

 

Maybe not. They got one - a training aircraft - just after it landed.

 

 

NATO takes command of part of Libya operation

Associated Press, Brussels | Fri, 03/25/2011 8:52 AM | Headlines

 

NATO agreed late Thursday to take over part of the military operations against Libya - enforcement of the no-fly zone - after days of hard bargaining among its members. But the toughest and most controversial portion of the operation - attacks on the ground - will continue to be led by the U.S., which has been anxious to give up the lead role.

 

My link

 

 

 

[GRUMPY 49]

Goes without saying Jeff.

[Mark K 2,321]

It's official we handed off to NATO.

 

We're out..

So, the french are out now?

 

Maybe not. They got one - a training aircraft - just after it landed.

 

If somebody was doing touch and go's in there, it was the stupidest person on the face of the earth.

 

Chlorine for the gene pool, man. Good shootin'

[Saorsa 48]

It's official we handed off to NATO.

 

We're out..

So, the french are out now?

 

Maybe not. They got one - a training aircraft - just after it landed.

Some training aircraft are outfitted for fighter and ground attack. The T38 comes to mind. In the USAF it only saw service as a trainer and adversary aircraft. Other nations bought it as the F5 Skoshi Tiger.

[GRUMPY 49]

A Dutch F-16 aircraft preparing for landing at the Decimomannu airbase, in Sardinia, Italy, on Thursday. French fighter jets struck an air base deep inside Libya and destroyed one of Qaddafi's planes on Thursday, and other coalition bombers struck artillery, arms depots and parked helicopters. (AP Photo)

[Pertinacious Tom 1,923]

I think congress Is overjoyed they weren't consulted. They would have had to make a decision and pick a side. And they could have been wrong. Now...they all get to complain.

 

Mike is right. As far as I can tell, there is only one person in Congress who actually thought their power had been usurped and they should respond forcefully: Kucinich, who suggested impeachment. He was/is right, but being right is not necessarily right if you are the only one.

 

The fact is, Congress does not want their power back. That's why everyone just acted like Kucinich was weird for suggesting it, not because he was wrong.

[joneisberg 5]

I think congress Is overjoyed they weren't consulted. They would have had to make a decision and pick a side. And they could have been wrong. Now...they all get to complain.

 

Mike is right. As far as I can tell, there is only one person in Congress who actually thought their power had been usurped and they should respond forcefully: Kucinich, who suggested impeachment. He was/is right, but being right is not necessarily right if you are the only one.

 

The fact is, Congress does not want their power back. That's why everyone just acted like Kucinich was weird for suggesting it, not because he was wrong.

 

Exactly... And, that's why when all this is said and done, we will see no serious effort by Congress to push for any real clarification of this issue, or the War Powers Act, etc...

 

They've all learned the lesson of Hillary Clinton well... Her single vote in favor of Iraq was the one that came back to haunt her, may very well have cost her the Presidency...

 

So much more convenient for them to be able to take the vote after the fact, when they've had time to assess which way the winds of war are likely to blow...

[Dog 666]

Is it a dereliction of duty and constitutional for the president to delegate the command of US forces to a NATO committee?

[Pertinacious Tom 1,923]

I don't see the problem, Dog.

[nannygovtsucks 18]

Does the US have special forces on the ground in Libya?

[Saorsa 48]

Does the US have special forces on the ground in Libya?

Probably. I would be very surprised if they were not.

[Bull Gator 1,957]

Does the US have special forces on the ground in Libya?

 

 

No Obama explicitly addressed this issue.

 

We are out...

[Bull Gator 1,957]

Is it a dereliction of duty and constitutional for the president to delegate the command of US forces to a NATO committee?

 

Stupid question! An American General is currently the Supreme Commander of NATO.

 

This is a brilliant move that removes our men and women from harms way. It refreshing to see the French boldly take the lead.

[Saorsa 48]

Does the US have special forces on the ground in Libya?

 

 

No Obama explicitly addressed this issue.

 

We are out...

Oh, well, that must absolutely be the truth then.

[nannygovtsucks 18]

Does the US have special forces on the ground in Libya?

 

 

No Obama explicitly addressed this issue.

 

We are out...

Oh, well, that must absolutely be the truth then.

 

So who is painting the targets for the fly boys?

[Regatta Dog 40]

I'll make a stab at it:

 

We have a limited goal - protection of the civilians. We'd like to see the crazy dude removed - but that's not our explicit goal.

 

I gave our goal to the military - and they told me how they would need to implement to ensure force protection. Remember when Bill Gates said we'd have to hit them hard to put in place a NFZ? Well - I trust him to do what is necessary, and they have.

 

Who's gotta problem with that?

 

I still don't think we should be there, but since we are, gotta do it right.

 

Getting close. That's all about right. The tricky part is that if Obama comes out and says that removing Qadhafi is the goal, (and it most definitely is) then the French and the British can play the US public against him to fund the end-game. He has to see that happen or "fail", right?

 

 

"Muammar Gaddafi has lost legitimacy to lead, and he must leave."

Obama - March 3.

 

 

 

[Regatta Dog 40]

Does the US have special forces on the ground in Libya?

 

 

No Obama explicitly addressed this issue.

 

We are out...

 

Really? Obama specifically addressed whether we have special forces on the ground? Cite please.

 

This is highly classified stuff, here. If he told you, he'd have to kill you.

[Regatta Dog 40]

Does the US have special forces on the ground in Libya?

 

 

No Obama explicitly addressed this issue.

 

We are out...

 

Really? Obama specifically addressed whether we have special forces on the ground? Cite please.

 

This is highly classified stuff, here. If he told you, he'd have to kill you.

Like I said earlier, he's pulling his information out of his ass. Since his ass is an "open source", especially to St Pete trannies and prison inmates, there is nothing classified about it.

 

Thanks Jeff. Funny stuff, that.

[GRUMPY 49]

The US general in charge of the operation, General Carter Ham, said coalition forces imposing the no-fly zone "cannot be sure" there have been no civilian deaths, but are trying to be "very precise".

 

My link

 

 

[Pertinacious Tom 1,923]

Does the US have special forces on the ground in Libya?

 

 

No Obama explicitly addressed this issue.

 

We are out...

Oh, well, that must absolutely be the truth then.

 

So who is painting the targets for the fly boys?

 

I know almost nothing on this topic, so someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that if I were ordering a plane like the B2 to strike a hostile target, I'd like to make sure that our guys pick up the pieces, if there are pieces to pick up. We hope there are not, of course, but you never know. I don't think I would want anyone else picking up those pieces.

[Bull Gator 1,957]

Does the US have special forces on the ground in Libya?

 

 

No Obama explicitly addressed this issue.

 

We are out...

Oh, well, that must absolutely be the truth then.

 

So who is painting the targets for the fly boys?

 

British special forces and French Foreign Legion..

[Pertinacious Tom 1,923]

I know almost nothing on this topic, so someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that if I were ordering a plane like the B2 to strike a hostile target, I'd like to make sure that our guys pick up the pieces, if there are pieces to pick up. We hope there are not, of course, but you never know. I don't think I would want anyone else picking up those pieces.

 

Pick up what pieces?

 

B2 pieces, should one get shot down. Do we just leave something like that sitting there?

[Bull Gator 1,957]

I know almost nothing on this topic, so someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that if I were ordering a plane like the B2 to strike a hostile target, I'd like to make sure that our guys pick up the pieces, if there are pieces to pick up. We hope there are not, of course, but you never know. I don't think I would want anyone else picking up those pieces.

 

Pick up what pieces?

 

B2 pieces, should one get shot down. Do we just leave something like that sitting there?

 

 

Apparently (if history is any guide) yes. The USAF is pretty careless with it's equpment - they've lost several nules and even left behind a F117 stealth fighter for the Chinese to pick up

[Dog 666]

Is it a dereliction of duty and constitutional for the president to delegate the command of US forces to a NATO committee?

 

Stupid question! An American General is currently the Supreme Commander of NATO.

 

This is a brilliant move that removes our men and women from harms way. It refreshing to see the French boldly take the lead.

Under Article 2 Section 2 Obama is the ultimate commander of US forces. Outsourcing command functions to NATO places US forces in a chain of command that he does not oversee or control. Clearly unconstitutional and I suspect a deliberate to distance himself from his constitutional responsibilities.

[Bull Gator 1,957]

Is it a dereliction of duty and constitutional for the president to delegate the command of US forces to a NATO committee?

 

Stupid question! An American General is currently the Supreme Commander of NATO.

 

This is a brilliant move that removes our men and women from harms way. It refreshing to see the French boldly take the lead.

Under Article 2 Section 2 Obama is the ultimate commander of US forces. Outsourcing command functions to NATO places US forces in a chain of command that he does not oversee or control. Clearly unconstitutional and I suspect a deliberate to distance himself from his constitutional responsibilities.

 

 

No reasonable person agrees with your silly assertion

[Pertinacious Tom 1,923]

Dog, can forces from other NATO countries fall under US command?

 

Pretty worthless allies if not, I'd say, and sauce for the goose, you know...

[TMSAIL 60]

I thought that US Forces have never been under the direct command of any Foreign Government/ Military - That would be a serious change of our long held policy. Not that anything Obama does these days doesn't have me shaking my head.

[nannygovtsucks 18]

Canada Takes over in Libya. Will beat back rebels with hockey sticks. Obama off the hook.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110325/ap_on_re_ca/cn_canada_libya_nato

 

Pour me a Molson.