Boehner gives Obama Friday deadline on Libya

[jimnyc]

I'm SO surprised that our resident liberals, and their ilk nationwide, aren't demanding inquiries into Obama's use of the military without congressional approval. I thought we needed that, libs? I thought we should never enter a war on foreign shores unless our country was in danger? How come my resident bitches aren't whining now? :laugh2: :poke:


Stepping up a simmering constitutional conflict, House Speaker John A. Boehner warned President Obama on Tuesday that unless he gets authorization from Congress for his military deployment in Libya, he will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution.

In a letter sent Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Boehner, the top Republican in the constitutional chain of succession, said Mr. Obama must provide a clear justification for committing troops to Libya by Friday. Sunday marks the 90th day since the president notified Congress that U.S. troops had been committed to help enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, which is designed to protect the rebels fighting Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s government.

In a letter sent Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Boehner, the top Republican in the constitutional chain of succession, said Mr. Obama must provide a clear justification for committing troops to Libya by Friday, which marks the 90th day since the president committed U.S. troops, and the clock started ticking under the War Powers Resolution.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/14/boehner-gives-obama-friday-deadline-libya/

[Gaffer]

Read this earlier and was going to post it, you beat me to it. I hope Boehner has enough spine to follow through with his demand. This is the perfect opportunity to really nail the SOB.

[red states rule]

Read this earlier and was going to post it, you beat me to it. I hope Boehner has enough spine to follow through with his demand. This is the perfect opportunity to really nail the SOB.

I want Boehner to produce a BALANCED budget and sit back as Dems and Obama cry like babies

Put them on the spot and make them defend higher debt and bigger deficits

[Gaffer]

I want Boehner to produce a BALANCED budget and sit back as Dems and Obama cry like babies

Put them on the spot and make them defend higher debt and bigger deficits

I want the dark lord out of there as soon as possible, that alone will help the economy and the country start back to recovery.

[avatar4321]

Im glad he puts a deadline, but really Congress can act without Obama doing anything and he can't say a thing about it.

[gabosaurus]

Even John McCain admits that Boehner would not make this demand to a GOP President.

At least Obama is not lying about why the U.S. is involved in Libya.

[red states rule]

Even John McCain admits that Boehner would not make this demand to a GOP President.

At least Obama is not lying about why the U.S. is involved in Libya.

Now I have heard eveyrthing. Gabby using McCain as a source of supporting Obama

This from the deranged lib who called McCain a traitor to the US

[Gaffer]

He's not lying about Libya, he hasn't said anything. He's given no reason for the attacks on libya. And he has not consulted either congressional house about his actions. He's also remained silent on yemen as well.

[jimnyc]

Even John McCain admits that Boehner would not make this demand to a GOP President.

At least Obama is not lying about why the U.S. is involved in Libya.

So you approve of Obama, and his war on foreign soil, with no danger to the USA, and no congressional approval - because he didn't lie?

[avatar4321]

Even John McCain admits that Boehner would not make this demand to a GOP President.

At least Obama is not lying about why the U.S. is involved in Libya.

Yes. not providing a reason is much better.

[avatar4321]

So you approve of Obama, and his war on foreign soil, with no danger to the USA, and no congressional approval - because he didn't lie?

In that case, the best President we can have will be one who doesnt say anything.

[gabosaurus]

Obama has regularly briefed Congress and the American people about Libya. Perhaps it didn't make Rush, Fox News or the right wing blogs, so you haven't heard about it.

[red states rule]

Obama has regularly briefed Congress and the American people about Libya. Perhaps it didn't make Rush, Fox News or the right wing blogs, so you haven't heard about it.

Wow, now Gabby is a warmonger and supports the US military

Amazing how Gabby flip flops on her core beliefs when a Dem is President

[Kathianne]

Obama has regularly briefed Congress and the American people about Libya. Perhaps it didn't make Rush, Fox News or the right wing blogs, so you haven't heard about it.

Really Gabby? Nothing to the public, but what about Congress before this latest brouhaha? Not FOX, Limbaugh, or blogs:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/with-senate-talks-in-flux-webb-crafts-alternate-libya-resolution/2011/06/07/AGnABNLH_blog.html


Posted at 05:19 PM ET, 06/07/2011
With Senate talks in flux, Webb crafts alternate Libya resolution
By Ben Pershing

The congressional pushback against President Obama’s military operation in Libya entered a new phase Tuesday, as a Senate resolution supporting the White House appeared stalled and discussions on a separate, more critical, measure moved forward.

Lawmakers from both parties have grown increasingly restless since the Libya campaign began in mid-March. With the U.S. currently providing support for a NATO-led mission, members of both the House and Senate are divided over how hard to push the White House

Sens. James Webb (D-Va.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) are working on a resolution that would chastise the administration for failing to consult with Congress. Though the details remain in flux, the measure could resemble one proposed by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) that passed the House by a wide margin last week, with 45 Democrats joining most Republicans in support....

and earlier:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/05/26/congress-wants-more-clarity-on-obamas-libya-policy


Congress Wants More Clarity on Obama's Libya Policy
As NATO strikes continue in Libya, Obama's support back home is questionable

By Jessica Rettig

Posted: May 26, 2011

The 60-day deadline for Obama to engage in military action in Libya without Congress's blessing has come and gone. And whether they support the mission against Libyan leader Col. Muammar Qadhafi or not, members of Congress are finally starting to mobilize to address the issue. While some are stuck on the constitutionality of the president's actions, others, it seems, are just asking the same question as much of the country: What are Obama and NATO actually trying to do in Libya?
Click here to find out more!

Most recently with reported air strikes on government facilities in Tripoli, NATO forces in Libya continue to target the Qadhafi regime under United Nations Resolution 1973, which clears the way for member states "to take all necessary measures ... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack" in Libya. So, as long as NATO and leaders of its member states, like Obama, remain convinced that Qadhafi himself is a threat to civilians, it's likely they will keep at it until the Libyan leader steps down or is killed. "Qadhafi's forces still represent a threat to civilians and we will continue to strike targets that carry out this violence," said the NATO commander overseeing the the Libya operation, Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard...

So it's not just 'right wing' sites, but MSM sites too. Not just Republicans, but Democrats too.

There has been no communications from Obama to the public, your lies will not suffice.

[red states rule]

Really Gabby? Nothing to the public, but what about Congress before this latest brouhaha? Not FOX, Limbaugh, or blogs:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/with-senate-talks-in-flux-webb-crafts-alternate-libya-resolution/2011/06/07/AGnABNLH_blog.html



and earlier:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/05/26/congress-wants-more-clarity-on-obamas-libya-policy



So it's not just 'right wing' sites, but MSM sites too. Not just Republicans, but Democrats too.

There has been no communications from Obama to the public, your lies will not suffice.

Come on KAt Obama has been busy with the IMPORTANT things

Like vacations, fund raisers, photo ops, and trips overseas.

[Kathianne]

Come on KAt Obama has been busy with the IMPORTANT things

Like vacations, fund raisers, photo ops, and trips overseas.

Whatever he's done, it's not what Gabby has claimed. He's not informed the public, nor Congress. It's too clear, even for Democrats.

[red states rule]

Whatever he's done, it's not what Gabby has claimed. He's not informed the public, nor Congress. It's too clear, even for Democrats.

Here is another view on Obama "informing" the public




snip

In the process, this Democratic president has jettisoned some of the basic tenets of his party's foreign policy.

"It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action," candidate Obama said in December 2007. But Congress was not informed or, it seems, consulted in any serious way about this decision to take military action in Libya.

Instead, members of Congress, like the general public, heard the president make the announcement in Rio de Janeiro. That's quite a contrast with George W. Bush, who sought and obtained congressional approval of military action in Afghanistan in September 2001 and Iraq in October 2002.

Since then, many Democrats have denounced Bush's "rush to war" in Iraq. But military action there began a full five months after Congress approved. Obama didn't wait five days after the Security Council resolution.

Bush argued that intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq was in the national interest. Obama, who has made the same argument about Afghanistan, doesn't seem to be making it about Libya. For some supporters of his policy, the absence of any great national interest makes it all the more attractive.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/03/24/the_damning_contradictions_of_obamas_attack_on_lib ya_109331.html

[jimnyc]

So you approve of Obama, and his war on foreign soil, with no danger to the USA, and no congressional approval - because he didn't lie?


Obama has regularly briefed Congress and the American people about Libya. Perhaps it didn't make Rush, Fox News or the right wing blogs, so you haven't heard about it.

Maybe it's because it has ZILCH to do with what I posted? I thought we weren't supposed to have wars on foreign soils unless those countries were a danger to the USA? How come it's OK for Obama to go forward without congressional approval, when libs got all over Bush when HE DID have that approval? Why the hypocrisy from YOUR side?

[revelarts]

And Obama isn't even covered by the war Powers Acts
as noted in another thread
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31463-War-Powers-And-Disobeying-Illegal-Orders&p=473442#post473442


Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces

Libya was Illegal day 1.
And Obama has not given any reasons other than sighting the U.N. resolutions and NATO agreement.


AS far as Lying goes, I'm still not sure why we are there.
Obama says it's for "humanitarian purposes" but that's what all democrats say when they Break out the Bombs and 50 cals.

there are other interest here as well, among them
Oil (for France mainly)
and a bit more squishy but very real possibility. Libya has paid off it's world debt and has it's own banking system. Stepping out of international controls.

And then there's the fact that Libya gave over a billion dollars to Goldmann Sachs and others to Invest and they LOST it. OOpps.
Apparently Libya has put Assassinations contracts on some of the CEO's and Tony Blair who helped set Libya up.
http://blogs.forbes.com/afontevecchia/2011/05/31/goldman-sachs-lost-98-of-libyas-1-3b-sovereign-wealth-fund-investment/

then there was Kadahfi's idea of selling Oil in Gold rather than U.S. dollars.
We can't have that now can we.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/O35_Ai6EsMU?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/O35_Ai6EsMU?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>


But sure Helping the people in Iraq... i mean... Libya is the REAL reason we are there.
What's the old saying ..."Follow the money"


I'll be extremely surprised if Bohnner follows through on anything though. It's just talk at this point. we'll see.

[gabosaurus]

Perhaps Gadaffi threatened Obama's daddy and he isn't telling us? And how do we know that Libya is not hiding Weapons of Mass Destruction?

[Kathianne]

Perhaps Gadaffi threatened Obama's daddy and he isn't telling us? And how do we know that Libya is not hiding Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Are they hiding wmd's?

[red states rule]

Perhaps Gadaffi threatened Obama's daddy and he isn't telling us? And how do we know that Libya is not hiding Weapons of Mass Destruction?

As usual, and very predictable, Gabby ignores all the proof Obama has NOT informed Congress and the voters - and is now trying to blame Bush for Obama's war in Libya

[red states rule]

Are they hiding wmd's?

If they are Gabby (and Virgil) will say Bush's people planted then there to frame Gaddaf

[revelarts]

Gab, Nope, No WMDS or Assassins of Obama's dad.
(although since Obama has attacked Khadaffi, Obama is a valid personal target as well... huh? That would be an ugly turn of events.)

But Gab I will say this,
Al Quida is in Libya and we are supporting them against Khadaffi.
How does that make sense when Obama was/is so gung ho about getting AlQuida in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

That's certainly not change we can believe in.
Sumthin don't add up,

[red states rule]

Gab, Nope, No WMDS or Assassins of Obama's dad.
(although since Obama has attacked Khadaffi, Obama is a valid personal target as well... huh? That would be an ugly turn of events.)

But Gab I will say this,
Al Quida is in Libya and we are supporting them against Khadaffi.
How does that make sense when Obama was/is so gung ho about getting AlQuida in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

That's certainly not change we can believe in.
Sumthin don't add up,

Revs, you might as well give up hope of any change

[revelarts]

Revs, you might as well give up hope of any change

oh It's change all right Red.
sadly it's from bad to worse.

[red states rule]

oh It's change all right Red.
sadly it's from bad to worse.

As I have said before Rev, I will give Obama credit for one thing. He did promise to tranform America and dam he is doing that

I hate to think hopw much more damage this bumbling idiot will inflict on the US in the next 2 years

[Gaffer]

Tell gabs not to worry, dennis kucinich is coming to the rescue. He's suing chairman o for going into libya. That'll teach him.

[red states rule]

Tell gabs not to worry, dennis kucinich is coming to the rescue. He's suing chairman o for going into libya. That'll teach him.

I bet Obama is quaking in has sandals at the thought of being sued and a judgement placed against him by the courts

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N_VHEts3fqk?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N_VHEts3fqk?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[red states rule]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N_VHEts3fqk?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N_VHEts3fqk?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Like the homeless they are disappeared from public view on January 20, 2009

When was the last time you saw the death counts of our troops on the nightly news?

[Gaffer]

Like the homeless they are disappeared from public view on January 20, 2009

When was the last time you saw the death counts of our troops on the nightly news?

It's the media bias showing again. Even if there was a large gathering of antiwar protesters the media would not cover it.

[red states rule]

It's the media bias showing again. Even if there was a large gathering of antiwar protesters the media would not cover it.

They would cover it Gaffer. But they would crop out the anti war signs and call it a racist hate filled Tea Party rally

[Gaffer]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-to-congress-i-dont-need-your-approval/


Earlier today, The Blaze reported on the bi-partisan lawsuit that congressional members filed this week against the White House. Now, President Barack Obama’s administration is speaking out, claiming that the War Powers Act does not apply to U.S. action in Libya. The New York Times has more:

In a broader package of materials the Obama administration is sending to Congress on Wednesday defending its Libya policy, the White House, for the first time, offers lawmakers and the public an argument for why Mr. Obama has not been violating the War Powers Resolution since May 20.

On that day, the Vietnam-era law’s 60-day deadline for terminating unauthorized hostilities appeared to pass. But the White House argued that the activities of United States military forces in Libya do not amount to full-blown “hostilities” at the level necessary to involve the section of the War Powers Resolution that imposes the deadline.

Congress has just been put in their place.

[KarlMarx]

Even John McCain admits that Boehner would not make this demand to a GOP President.

At least Obama is not lying about why the U.S. is involved in Libya.

The president is bound by law to get the consent of Congress before committing troops. Even your hated George W Bush did that before committing us to Iraq. My opinion is that Congress could draft articles of impeachment against Mr Obama and would be well within their authority to by doing so....

they may never do it


but one can always hope

[red states rule]

The president is bound by law to get the consent of Congress before committing troops. Even your hated George W Bush did that before committing us to Iraq. My opinion is that Congress could draft articles of impeachment against Mr Obama and would be well within their authority to by doing so....

they may never do it


but one can always hope

Gabby probably is thinking who the hell do these people think they are questioning Obama on this? Bush screwed everything up and all Obama is trying to do is fix things

[red states rule]

Pelosi does a 180 from her policy during the Bush years


<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/47AiVVxIdy4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[revelarts]

Pelosi does a 180 from her policy during the Bush years


<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/47AiVVxIdy4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Pelosi is a sad sad Person.
She's is a Team player, remember she said that "impeachment was never on the table" and couldn't see any illegalitys to impeach Bush on? She was informed on the torture but some how it was OK until people started to get pissed about it.

She's a status quo politician. No she's Worse.
She , in this Clip has just ceded Imperial power to Obama. and handed the president one of the congresses Clearest powers. the power to declare war.
Declaring war, Taxation and law are its' powers. If the Prez has the power to declare war then he needs... money to pay for it...which come from TAXES... and in a time of war, presidents claim all kinds of extra legal privileges... For Security and Victory... So what's left for congress.
A pay check for cheerleading the king.

[NightTrain]

Perhaps Gadaffi threatened Obama's daddy and he isn't telling us?

Seems to me that Ghadaffi can reach Kenya with relative ease, since they're both in Africa.

I recommend a full scale carpet bombing just to be safe. I'm sure you agree.


And how do we know that Libya is not hiding Weapons of Mass Destruction?

We don't.

I think doubling up on the carpet bombing will fix this issue. Daisy Cutters, MOABs and Bunker Busters are ready to fly.

I'm happy to see you finally thinking clearly, chick!

[revelarts]

Obama Has really Crossed the line with this war.
It truly is a Hellish step for the country. He has to be called on it.

He does not have the authority to do it by any legal standard.
What makes it even worse is that the ONLY groups he consulted on this were FOREIGNERS. Heads of States and representatives from Communist , Dictatorial regimes and Euro states.



....As I reported on March 21, and at my direction, consistent with a request from the Arab League, and as authorized by the United Nations Security Council under the provisions of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973, U.S. military forces commenced operations on March 19, 2011, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya and to protect the people of Libya from the Qadhafi regime...

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/15/president-obamas-letter-to-house-speaker-boehner-on-war-powers-resolution/#ixzz1PXKadHee


Here he trys to say he has the authority to attack a foreign country because he has foreign relations powers. He's lost his mind.

..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.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/21/letter-president-regarding-commencement-operations-libya
How can he come by that in the face of

Section 8 - Powers of Congress...
..To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;...
Letter of Marque was basically hiring people to fight for us, and Reprisals are other things short of full on war.
so all the "not quite war" items are covered in full.
this limited crappola, foreign relations and war powers act to is all BS.

he's Operating COMPLETELY Outside of the scope of his authority.
AND in the service or in Collusion with foreign powers.
Hes got to go.

[Gunny]

Even John McCain admits that Boehner would not make this demand to a GOP President.

At least Obama is not lying about why the U.S. is involved in Libya.

You DID read what you just posted, right?

"Even John McCain admits that Boehner would not make this demand to a GOP President".

So now John McLame knows what Boehner would and would not do? You mean like he "knew" foisting himself on conservatives as the GOP nominee would be best for the GOP and the US; thereby, splitting the party in half?

THAT John McLame? The one who made his "name" going AGAINST his own party? He may as well out himself as a leftist plant within the GOP. He and his opinion amount to little more.

[Gunny]

He's not lying about Libya, he hasn't said anything. He's given no reason for the attacks on libya. And he has not consulted either congressional house about his actions. He's also remained silent on yemen as well.

Legally, he can do so only with the Navy/Marine Corps, and even then, he's got 90 days to ante up to Congress or get out, if I recall correctly.

[Gunny]

Obama has regularly briefed Congress and the American people about Libya. Perhaps it didn't make Rush, Fox News or the right wing blogs, so you haven't heard about it.

Link, please. Or should I say "links" since you used the term "regularly"?

[revelarts]

Legally, he can do so only with the Navy/Marine Corps, and even then, he's got 90 days to ante up to Congress or get out, if I recall correctly.

no that's not quite correct,


Basically he outlines how
War Powers Acts doesn't apply. It clearly state 3 ways for a prez to use military force.

War Powers resolution
"Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces"

So he Does Not have even the "60 days". Which, BTW, has past. Day 1 was illegal.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31463-War-Powers-And-Disobeying-Illegal-Orders

[Gunny]

no that's not quite correct,



http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31463-War-Powers-And-Disobeying-Illegal-Orders

There's some clause somewhere that gives the President authority to deploy the USMC up to so many days without anyone else's approval. Trust me, it was drummed into my head for 21 years.

I'm trying to find a link, but google is NOT my friend.:laugh2:

[NightTrain]

Link, please. Or should I say "links" since you used the term "regularly"?

Annnnnnnnnnnnd that's the last we'll see of Gabby.

[revelarts]

There's some clause somewhere that gives the President authority to deploy the USMC up to so many days without anyone else's approval. Trust me, it was drummed into my head for 21 years.

I'm trying to find a link, but google is NOT my friend.:laugh2:

Obama hopes you find it too.
But I'll need to read the War Powers Act again but I'm pretty sure it not in that.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp

but even candidate Obama knew better

"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."

http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/obama-war-that-isn-a-war/ByKAaRw_E5-ruDq_XSUvNw

[Gaffer]

A 30 page excuse drafted by a bunch of white house lawyers is what's being presented here. He's testing the waters and keeping the military fully engaged in the middle east. He and his cronies are edging toward that dictatorship he wants so bad.

I'm with Rev on this. And Gunny is right. He can use them to a point but he's over stepped that point already so its now mute.

SIEU and other left wing thugs will be used to cause trouble and the law enforcement agencies TSA, ATF, FBI, and others will be used to quell the trouble while more stringent laws and policies are put in place. Welcome to the birth of the USSA.

[avatar4321]

Today is the deadline. So when are they going to stop this unconstitutional war?

[Kathianne]

While the administration kept it up, WaPo indeed gave them an 'Ouch!':

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-action-in-libya-looks-like-war-to-us/2011/06/16/AGrJmYZH_story.html?wprss=rss_opinions


The action in Libya looks like war to us
By Editorial, Published: June 17

THE OBAMA administration’s depiction of its Libya venture as too halfhearted to be covered by the War Powers Resolution contains an unfortunately large dollop of truth. President Obama’s commitment is sufficiently halfhearted to undermine the NATO alliance. It is sufficiently halfhearted, and confused in its statement of purpose and its connection of ends to means, to give Moammar Gaddafi hope that he can hang on. It is not, however, so halfhearted as to justify the administration’s evasion of its legal duties under the war powers law...

[red states rule]

and the NY Times has this

I wonder if Gabby and Virgil will have anything to say?




2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate

snip

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.

A White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, said there had been “a full airing of views within the administration and a robust process” that led Mr. Obama to his view that the Libya campaign was not covered by a provision of the War Powers Resolution that requires presidents to halt unauthorized hostilities after 60 days.

“It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict,” Mr. Schultz said. “Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy.”

Still, the disclosure that key figures on the administration’s legal team disagreed with Mr. Obama’s legal view could fuel restiveness in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties this week strongly criticized the White House’s contention that the president could continue the Libya campaign without their authorization because the campaign was not “hostilities.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all

[Thunderknuckles]

Our Presidents need to start obeying the law. We've had too many "police actions" and "kinetic military actions" used as excuses to sidestep the congress. Declare war, get congressional authority, or stay home.

[fj1200]

and the NY Times has this

Will those legal dissenters be treated the same as the Bush terror memo dissenters?

[red states rule]

Will those legal dissenters be treated the same as the Bush terror memo dissenters?

Eh, Bush is no longer President and the liberal media did all they could to paint Pres bush as a war criminal

Obama on the other hand, is showing the law is an obstruction to his agenda. When the NY Times sides against ANY liberal you know it is damn bad

[red states rule]

Now some in liberal talk radio are going after Obama. No wonder Gabby is in such a snit these days

She tunes into to hear people like Bill Press preach to the choir and she gets a rare dose of honesty






I can't believe that Obama would take this position. As candidate Obama, we loved it when he accused George W. Bush of ignoring the War Powers Act and said as president he would comply with it. And here he's got a chance to, and he's thumbing his nose at it. This reminds me of when George Bush said that Iraq was a different kind of war -- remember? Alberto Gonzales said, because this is a new kind of war, the idea that the Geneva accords applied and we could not torture people was -- remember his word? -- quaint. Quaint. Old-fashioned. This is Bush-isms that Obama is using today saying Libya is a different kind of war and it's not really a war therefore it doesn't really matter and we don't have to comply with the law of the land.

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/06/18/bill-press-obamas-acting-bush-and-we-are-all-engaged-one-more-illegal-wa#ixzz1PifADAL0

[revelarts]

and the NY Times has this

I wonder if Gabby and Virgil will have anything to say?

Like Fj and the radio commentator RSR mentioned. this is the same crap different day. New boss same as the old boss.

I'm having DejaWOO' here.

John Woo that is.

[red states rule]

Like Fj and the radio commentator RSR mentioned. this is the same crap different day. New boss same as the old boss.

I'm having DejaWOO' here.

John Woo that is.

There is very LITTLE from the liberla media on Obama VS the nonstop coverage

The liberal media has a hard time going after the black liberal they worship up close

[revelarts]

There is very LITTLE from the liberla media on Obama VS the nonstop coverage

The liberal media has a hard time going after the black liberal they worship up close


Yes that's true. I'm a bit surprised at what has trickled out from the left Faithful.
But at least there a little, I give them credit for that.
Even Kieth Oblermann popped outta some were to ask Obama what the heck is going on.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kVQAyKR-v0w?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kVQAyKR-v0w?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

What's going On K.O. giving a toned down but serious rebuke to Obama here, If this keeps ups we might even see Fox criticize republicans over the a few things now and then.
"Cats and dogs living together the end of the world man."

[red states rule]

Yes that's true. I'm a bit surprised at what has trickled out from the left Faithful.
But at least there a little, I give them credit for that.
Even Kieth Oblermann pop outta some were to ask Obama what the heck is going on.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kVQAyKR-v0w?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kVQAyKR-v0w?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

What's going On K.O. mild but serious rebuke of Obama here, If this keeps ups we might even see Fox criticize republicans over the a few things now and then.
"Cats and dogs living together the end of the world man."

I do give them credit. It is shocking these white guys are bashing the black liberal.

Will some on the left tag them as racists? Hell no! The rest on the left like Gabby will IGNORE what Obama is doing

Its not serious Rev. This "outrage" from the left will accomplish nothing. Like most liberal outrage, they libs expressing the outrage are more interested in boosting their own stature then actually accomplishing something

[jimnyc]

If you guys are truly interested if Virgil has anything to say, your answer would be a resounding no! He views the thread often but obviously avoids replying to anything that makes his beloved (D)'s look like idiots. Imagine just how many lies he avoids telling by ignoring things he doesn't like? :laugh2:

http://i54.tinypic.com/4kwup5.jpg

[jimnyc]

Now watch, 'ol fatbody will be along before long when he's seen that he's been busted, and of course we'll see just another lie.