I read that the French really wanted this battle and to do away with Qaddafi. Maybe they want their colony back. It looks like Obama just went along and now has to use some sort of moral justification to support the action. He seems to not realize that every time he speaks it creates defacto policy. And now our apparent policy is attack those that mistreat their own citizens - without congressional approval or review.

 

Funny thing with the French. Recall that country would not allow the US to fly over their country on our way to Libya when Reagan was President to drop some bombs on Qaddafi.

 

One of the few mistakes RR made as President. He should have flown over anyway and "accidentally" lost a load or two on France...

One of the few mistakes RR made as President. He should have flown over anyway and "accidentally" lost a load or two on France...

But we did "accidently" drop one or two on thier embassy there.

Henny Youngman: why does the new French Navy have glass bottom boats? (To see the old French Navy)

Kucinich says it could be an impeachable offense.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/21/dennis-kucinich-obama-impeachment_n_838502.html

 

I don't think so... it was not unconstitutional either. The War Powers Act empowers him to commit troops for 60 days without congressional authority. Also, Congress has not officially declared war since World War II, meaning we have gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq twice, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Grenada, Panama, and probably others I can't recall without congressional authority.

I don't think so... it was not unconstitutional either. The War Powers Act empowers him to commit troops for 60 days without congressional authority. Also, Congress has not officially declared war since World War II, meaning we have gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq twice, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Grenada, Panama, and probably others I can't recall without congressional authority.

 

Not true. The War Powers Act applies in case of a threat to our nation. Lybia is not a threat.

 

I can't find the video from 2007, but Obama himself in one of his speeches said the exact same thing. That the president can't act without congress unless there is iminent danger.

 

While you are correct that we have gone into conflicts without a declaration of war, that is not the same as saying it didn't have congressional support. I'm pretty sure everyone of you examples had congressional support.

 

I don't claim to know if going into Libya is right or wrong. I don't have that kind of information. I do know he should have gone to congress with it.

Not true. The War Powers Act applies in case of a threat to our nation. Lybia is not a threat.

 

I can't find the video from 2007, but Obama himself in one of his speeches said the exact same thing. That the president can't act without congress unless there is iminent danger.

 

While you are correct that we have gone into conflicts without a declaration of war, that is not the same as saying it didn't have congressional support. I'm pretty sure everyone of you examples had congressional support.

 

I don't claim to know if going into Libya is right or wrong. I don't have that kind of information. I do know he should have gone to congress with it.

 

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

 

:thumb:

We are not at war in Libya, it's a conflict were dropping a few bombs on.

Wonder if we will ever see this woman again?

 

Newt said a couple days ago he would not have done anything including enforcing a no fly zone , but on March 7th he said we should go in and not wait for a UN resolution. Hmmm

Lets see, have we done this before. help a rebel group, teach them, arm them, train them. Yes we did, in Afghanistan and the person we ended up helping was Osama Bin Laden agaisnt the Russians. Maybe Obama needs to read his book on history repeating itself.

These rebels have no clue on what is next.

Newt said a couple days ago he would not have done anything including enforcing a no fly zone , but on March 7th he said we should go in and not wait for a UN resolution. Hmmm

 

I was not watching closely, but on Meet the Press yesterday I thought I heard them say Congress authorized us to go into Libya some time early in March. Is that correct?

I was not watching closely, but on Meet the Press yesterday I thought I heard them say Congress authorized us to go into Libya some time early in March. Is that correct?

I am not sure on that. I am getting at how someone who may be running for president (no matter which party they are from) sometimes you can never please them, first he said we need to go in now and not wait for the UN resolution, and as soon as the president (who is from the other party) decides to do something, now that person says they would not have done anything.

 

Again, this happens on both sides, I just don't like the politics of it.

Obama's speech on Libya sounded more like a campaign speech... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110329/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_libya_fact_check