Tomahawk Cruise Missile's ----> Moammar Gadhafi

by Sam Whiskey 81 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  skeeter1

  President Obama bypass Constitutional law? Say it ain't so! A double edged sword cuts both ways, dear liberals.
• 

  beksbks

  You realize when you make generalizations, mostly incorrect, about darn near everything, you belittle the actual issues that warrant attention?
• 

  villabolo

  Skeeter: "President Obama bypass Constitutional law? Say it ain't so! A double edged sword cuts both ways, dear liberals." . The issue of bypassing constitutional law is moot for me as regards to this issue. It is motivation that counts. . George Bush waged a full invasion of Iraq for the purpose taking its oil. Libya was attacked in order to diminish a dictator's assault on his people. . There is a huge difference between the two in the moral sense and that is what counts to me; not anyone's petty politics. . Villabolo
• 

  skeeter1

  Just google "how president obama has bypassed the constitution" It's been happening over & over again, since he was elected. Now, the Democrats want to impeach him? Would it even matter if Congress got a bill? I mean, would they be allowed to read it before they voted on it? Perhaps the UN could be another Czar (administrative official who is not vetted out by Congress and enjoys the powers of Department chairs) under President Obama? Seems everyone is not wanting to play by the rules laid out in their constitution and laws! Even Wisconsin is accused of bypassing their rules of giving notice in the Senate. The rules are the rules. WE the People want the rules followed. This problem in Libya was brewing for enough time to have followed the rules.

  I do strongly believe that the slaughter had to stop and our being involved in this No Fly zone was the best option out there. I'd rather see a few die, then the masses be slaughtered. ......... as for the Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. who is going to reimburse us? The United Nations signed the order for the No Fly zone. The Arab League asked the UN for it. We pay the Arab League a boatload of money for oil; and are we going to send them a bill for our taxpayer funded military operations? I bet not! "Why pay for the cow, when you can get the milk for free!" We are the world's cow, and we are in debt to our eye-balls in the tune of $14 trillion.

  Bombs are expensive:

  http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/drones-suicidal-cousins/

  "From the outside, the Block IVs look much like their predecessors: a little over 20 feet long, and about 3,300 pounds. Like the older models, they’re still expensive, too — at about $1.1 million a pop, the initial assault on Libya chewed through $134 million in missile costs alone. They can fly for about two hours or 1,000 miles, whichever comes first"

  Arab League asked UN, so our bill should go to the UN and to the Arab League:

  http://bosco.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/14/an_arab_league_intervention_in_libya

  An Arab League intervention in Libya

  Posted By David Bosco Monday, March 14, 2011 - 10:09 PM Share

  Matt Yglesias is perplexed by the spectacle of the Arab League endorsing a no-fly zone over Libya:

  I’m a little confused by this idea of the Arab League calling on western powers to intervene militarily in Libya. If the Arab League is so eager to see an intervention, why don’t Arab League member states intervene in Libya? Egypt, in particular, is conveniently located adjacent to Libya and specifically to the opposition-held portion of Libya. Even better, Egyptian soldiers would speak the same language as Libyan people.

  Of course mounting a intervention would be expensive for Egypt, but there are plenty of rich Gulf states that could help defray the costs. The point is that it seems to me like an Arab League that sincerely wanted to help the Libyan rebels has plenty of ways of doing so while the kind of western intervention they’re calling for seems very unlikely. But is there some logistical or geographical angle I’m missing here?

  First, the Arab League didn't call on Western powers to intervene. It asked the UN Security Council to authorize a no-fly zone. But let's assume, as would almost certainly be the case, that Western powers would be the ones implementing a no-fly zone. If we're talking about complex air operations involving actual strikes, I can think of a number of reasons--not least, precision--why you'd want Western air forces in the lead.

  A reader comments: "Conducting even simple air ops at a distance is beyond the capability of most nations. the roughly 50 miles each way that planes from Egypt would face goes well beyond what they have been trained to do."
• 

  beksbks

  Just google "how president obama has bypassed the constitution" It's been happening over & over again, since he was elected.

  I can google Obama Antichrist and come up with plenty of hits too. I would prefer you tell me what YOU believe is unconstitutional.

  Now, the Democrats want to impeach him?

  No, one extremely anti war congressman is questioning if this was an impeachable offense.

  Thanks for making my point though.
• 

  villabolo

  Skeeter, I don't know the details about the current Arab situation as regards Libya; but as an example I'll use George Bush Senior's handling of Iraq's invasion "Desert Breeze" (The Grandmother of all wars.). It was unjustified to support the Saudi's directly when they were capable of fighting their own war.

  I woud have had Saudi Arabia fight their own war against Saddam; they had plenty of our modern weapons, even a license to manufacture M1 tanks in their own country. The US could have sold them all the weapons they needed to confront Saddam.

  Villabolo
• 

  skeeter1

  Beksbks:

  You are right. One democrat said "impeach", but there was a whole crew of dems fuming about being dissed on President Obama's decision. Is this a rift in the dems? I mean, many didn't want President Obama's campaign endorsement last go around.

  A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.
  
  Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.
  
  Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.
  
  And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.
  
  While other Democratic lawmakers have publicly backed Obama — including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and top members of the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees — the objections from a vocal group of anti-war Democrats on Capitol Hill could become a political problem for Obama, especially if “Operation Odyssey Dawn” fails to topple Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi, leads to significant American casualties, or provokes a wider conflict in the troubled region of North Africa.
  
  (Pelosi did not participate in Saturday’s call; she is in Afghanistan to meet with U.S. military and diplomatic officials.)
  
  U.S. warships fired more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missles on Saturday in a bid to knock out Libya’s air-defense systems, targeting command-and-control and radar units near Tripoli, the Libyan capital, and the city of Misurata, according to Pentagon officials and media reports. French aircraft attacked armored units loyal to Qadhafi around the city of Benghazi after they ignored international calls for a cease-fire.
  
  Saturday’s conference call was organized by Rep. John Larson (Conn.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus and the fourth-highest ranking party leader. Larson has called for Obama to seek congressional approval before committing the United States to any anti-Qadhafi military operation.
  
  “They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.”
  
  “Almost everybody who spoke was opposed to any unilateral actions or decisions being made by the president, and most of us expressed our constitutional concerns. There should be a resolution and there should be a debate so members of Congress can decide whether or not we enter in whatever this action is being called,” added another House Democrat opposed to the Libyan operation.
• 

  beksbks

  Is this a rift in the dems?

  Not sure what you mean, the Dems and diversity of thought and opinion is a huge part of why they don't hold office very long. Like herding cats. Nothing new.
• 

  skeeter1

  1. Unvetted Czars (yes, Bush was guilty of this too) that have government positions of authority, seemingly over entire departments of the executive branch.

  2. Interim appointments without Congressional vetting

  White House Press Corps Asking Dictator Obama Why He Bypassed Constitutional Authority

  "Why not make her director, Mr. President? Why not submit her to confirmation?," CBS' Mark Knoller asks President Obama after he announced she would oversee a new consumer protection agency.

  This video shows the members of the White House Press Corps asking President Obama if he has “bypassed Constitutional Authority” as he walked away after announcing Elizabeth Warren as an “Interim” appointment lead the newly created “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.” Obama is bypassing the need for Senate confirmation by making her an “interim” appointment rather than a director. Many doubt even enough Democrats would support her confirmation. So, Obama is, indeed, bypassing Constitutional Authority to get what he wants.

  3. Recess Appointment (note: both republicans and dems called him out on this)

  Obama Threatens Bypass Of Constitution With “Recess Appointments”? By Julie Smith on February 13, 2010, 9:01 am

  In what amounts to a political street fight, the Senate Republican minority has pushed Obama hard in its rebuke of the nomination of Craig Becker. Becker, a pro-labor nominee to the NRLB, saw his nomination come to a screeching halt last Tuesday. Republicans, joined by conservative Democrats, defeated an effort to allow the nomination process to move forward. Now the administration is pushing back, indicating a willingness to consider a recess appointment to place Becker at the NRLB and bypass a Senate confirmation vote

  4. Scheming to bypass Senate vote on Russian Arms treaty

  5. Bypassing Congress' power to make laws by using Executive Orders to make gun control laws.

  6. Obama not wanting to defend a Congressional law (Defense of Marraige Act). (Personally, I think this is a terrible law. But, the remedy is for Congress to pass a new one or the US courts to say the law violates the Constitution. It is not up to the Chief Executive to boycott this law, especially when it is not some very old law that happens to still be on the books).

  ...I'm stoping becuase it's late...
• 

  beksbks

  Wow, you're serious? You think because a blogger says something it makes it so? Again, thanks for making my point.

  Ohhhh I bet you're a Glenn Beck fan aren't you?