Of course Dennis is going to offer something — something that has no chance of passing, will get derailed in the Senate even if it did, and has a presidential veto as well as SCOTUS challenge hanging over it.

You gotta give Kaving-inich credit: nobody takes meaningless, grandstanding, no chance of happening purely symbolic actions like he does.

HCR was when it counted. Now he’s just a worthless POS.

well said. he is a weasel and thinks we can not see him for what he is. It is sad that there are not enough brave politicians that will stand up for the constitution and defend it. Well I guess if the UN says yes that is all the authority we need. We are moving closer to one world govt where the rights of individuals and countries are subverted to an unelected body, but whose decisions will be paid for by us

Sternly worded letters, followed by ball licking.

Republicans are posturing; Dennis knows it won’t pass. Democrats continue to be in duck-and-cover posture. The beat goes on.

Not enough profit-making opportunities in Libya to make it worthwhile for Congress’ corporate masters, with the exception of the makers of war toys. Libyan oil is sold on the open market so whoever rules makes no difference to the oil barons. Tax money spent on War, MK III won’t make it to the coffers of Goldman-Sux.

Defund

Then impeach and remove

We need Presidents who will abide by the Constitution unless and until it is amended to authorize their unilateral actions on matters of war and killing.

Well, if it’s a bipartisan effort, then I’m sure O will want to get out in front of that parade! Wait…

Obama is a lying piece of shit.

When are any of you apoligists going to say you are sick and tired of being lied to by candidates that switch positions as soon as the election is over?

Let’s make an example of him. We have had too many of these warmonger scumbags – Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, bush and now Obama – in OUR times.

DKos is 2 doors down and to the right. The only Obama apologists you’ll find here are trolls.

The no-fly zone will not be able to simply deliver Libya to the rebels, as Gadhafi’s troops still have capabilities on the ground (and never used their air force much to begin with, truth be told)

Still, I won’t look for mission creep. I’ll look for mission leap.

With both feet.

Maybe you should have read the blog a bit before putting your fingers on your keyboard and in one sentence removed every scrap of credibility you had.

But that’s not Serious Bipartisanship the Village can believe in.

When will liberals speak up for and support something that is actually right? Can you be against military action everywhere and in the process be for the thugs who kill their own people? Dennis, wake up!

You know, I remember the days not too long ago when Presidents took us to war whether we had a say or not, and no one proposed impeachment.

Look at you. We have men and women who are far more worthy of the term ‘commitment’ and ‘honor’ than any idiot that would call the sitting, fairly elected President of the US a lying piece of _____ because you can’t or won’t understand what the War Powers act allows him to do – and he acted entirely within the strictures of that act. This kind of sedition would have gotten you a jail sentence or a beating with a rubber hose in other administrations, or at least resulted in you being branded a traitor or unpatriotic. Especially during war time, with these men and women in harm’s way.

Where were you during Afghanistan and Iraq? Kaddafi was bombing his own people from the air, for G-d’s sake. If the President hadn’t done anything, you would’ve been after his hide because he didn’t take a stand. Hell, even if the President tried to explain it to you, you wouldn’t get it because you can’t see past your own hatred.

De-funding a current military action is just as stupid. If my two morons vote for it, they can count on me voting for Jeff the Drunk for Senator the next time around.

People like you make me sick.

Jeebus! Mention Libya and Kucinich in the same sentence and the sock puppets swarm out.

It’s like the health care hasbara last year. Sheesh.

Probably many of the same puppets.

No mater the reason, I still find it interesting Kucinich is willing to oppose Obama on anything, especially publicly like this. Perhaps Demecrats are waking up to where Obama is leading them and trying to distance themselves from him.

Spare me, chickenhawk.

from Admiral Locklear’s news conference Mar 22:
Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Africa, Adm. Samuel Locklear
–some topics raised and the admiral’s responses.

has Qatar joined the allies?

Qatar has — as you know, has been planning to enter the coalition here. They are in the process of moving their forces in this direction.

civilian casualties from allied attacks?

Fortunately, the coalition brings together a wide array of capabilities that allow us to minimize the collateral damage when we have to take kinetic operations. . .we will — under the Security Council resolution mandate that we have, we will continue to do operations that we believe will be ultimately effective in ensuring that we be in state prescribed by the Security Council and our individual leadership of our individual countries in the coalition.

the no-fly zone has been established — what next?

I’m not going to comment on future operations, what future operational designs might be. Right now we are building the no-fly zone and that’s our primary goal.

Did the Marines open fire on villagers when rescuing downed pilots?

there will be a complete investigation conducted, so I’m not prepared to talk about the — what’s — what that investigation may or may not reveal.

You can’t even say if you opened fire?

What I’m going to say is that we are doing an investigation.

allied tactical air strikes in Misurata?

There have been tactical operations, airstrike operations throughout the coastal areas of — military targets throughout Libya.

Marine Harrier jets dropped bombs on Gadhafi military positions in and around Ajdabiya?

If Colonel Gadhafi would meet that requirement, would have a cease-fire implemented; stop all attacks against citizens and withdraw from the places that we’ve told him to withdraw; establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas and allow humanitarian assistance, then the fighting would stop. Our job would be over.

communications with rebel forces on the ground?

I haven’t had any unofficial communications or official communications with the — I think what you refer to as the opposition forces.

In other words, he didn’t say much of anything about anything.

Elephant Balls?

But the following day, Rice signaled it was prepared to take action. Following a closed door Security Council meeting, Rice told reporters, “The U.S. view is that we need to be prepared to contemplate steps that include, but perhaps go beyond, a no-fly zone at this point, as the situation on the ground has evolved, and as a no-fly zone has inherent limitations in terms of protection of civilians at immediate risk.” http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/18/obamas_multilateralist_march_to_war_strategic_choice_or_rushed_improvisation

Obama did not act within the authority of the War Powers Act.

The War Powers Act is found as 50 USC S.1541-1548, passed in 1973 over the veto of President Nixon.

The particularly relevant portion is S.1541(c), which reads:

(c) 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.

See this

“You know, I remember the days not too long ago when Presidents took us to war whether we had a say or not, and no one proposed impeachment.”

And you’re a fan of this because???

“If the President hadn’t done anything, you would’ve been after his hide because he didn’t take a stand.”

Ah yes, presenting the false choice of either being for an unauthorized war or wanting the President not to have “done anything.”

There is nothing wrong with calling the president names when he fails to obey his presidential oath.
Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Dya think the pentagon trolls will perform any better here than the Koch ones?

No. They’ll still have that funky wee-bit-o-sulphur kinda smell.

Yeah, I’ve seen that. I expect eCAHN is right though and I don’t expect a rise in quality.

It does not appear to me to be a humanitarian effort and even if it were, we are in no position to take on any more military actions with or without allies. Kucinich at least is someone who is voicing our protests. It does not seem reasonable to condemn him for saying what some of us think true: no. war(s).

Geez, I hope so. I’m so tired of these bottom-of-the-barrel trolls. Pretty bad when they blow their cover with the first comment.

And in other news: peanut butter is sticky.

Are YFKM?? It will be wasted days and wasted nights.

The same arguments were used for supporting the Mujaheddin. It’s all in the marketing. Some are more susceptible to Madison Ave. than others. I guess you think the name “Odyssey Dawn” is just so uplifting. Why don’t you get out your little American flag and march around your basement waving it with abandon.

Wish somebody would offer me a job as a troll but I suspect that the same qualities that would make me a better one than any others also makes me unsuitable as a troll.

Many of us took an oath when we entered service.

“. . .do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic,. . .”

Obama is a “domestic enemy” of the Constitution because he refuses to recognize the “declare war” clause. Obama, as a former teacher of the Constitution, has said in the past that he would not go to war without a congressional declaration, and now he’s done it.

Obama is a “domestic enemy” of the Constitution.

Yeah. It would be nice if someone would pay a troll well enough to get one we could sharpen our wits one. *g*

Must be Obama has the same opinion of the Constitution that GWBush had. “It’s just a goddamn piece of paper.”

I couldn’t do it, it’d be like trying to play chess with 4 year olds.

Someone needs a martini and a Haldol…

I thought Odyssey Dawn was a stripper who worked the morning shift.

They’re the same people ;-)

Took me a while to figure it out but it finally dawned on me that the Viet Cong posed no real threat to the US.

Ya mean the unemployment rate for trolls is so low they have to do double shifts?

Gutless drive-by trolls are the worst.

Yeah, as I said, I’d be entirely unsuitable but while it held my interest, I could outperform them all. Trouble is, what would I do for the rest of the morning?

Here’s Candidate Obama saying the President doesn’t have authority under the Constitution to go bombing unless there’s Congressional authorization:
2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/candidate-obama-vs-president-obama-a-message-on-the-use-of-military-force/

Win!

Acts passed by Congress allow Obama to wage military action for a period of 60 days before Congressional authorization. The plan is to turn over the mission ‘within days’ to coalition forces.

becca656 is Becky Kinsley
Hi, Becky.

Come back in 57 days and let’s see where we are.

What “acts passed by Congress allow Obama to wage military action for a period of 60 days?”
First, Congress doesn’t pass “acts” it passes bills.
Second, those bills have to be signed by the president to become law. Otherwise they don’t allow anybody to do anything.
Third, there are no such laws.

Over to you.

“Turn over mission” – what exactly does that mean?

That’s rhetorical, btw.

And people forget the exact wording of the War Powers of ’73 Act:

(c) 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.

In any case, dedicated US forces must have that Congressional Authority on day 60. With the split amongst Democrats and in-between Republicans in the House, do you think Boehner can deliver an approval?

I agree with your sentiments. Wake Up Dennis! I deplore war. However, I deplore tyrants even more.

Part of the reason I think it was a smart move not to wait for congress before the 60 days was up. Repugs will do anything, including block an arms treaty or a no fly zone to make Obama/ Dems look bad.

Well, I think it’s because most teabaggers don’t have the knowhow to work the magic ‘puter machines, so that the only ones who do, have to do all the work ;-)

What do you mean “smart move not to wait till 60 days was up?” That doesn’t make any sense.

Way to go, Tuffgrrl. You showed me.

Wait a second. Sarah Palin vs. Mike Huckabee; Obama vs. the GOP … those are primarily political power struggles.

These people are are physically fighting each other. With weapons. This is what they call primarily a military struggle. Unique in that unlike with a primarily political struggle, the one who loses … dies.

Go to a hospital then, ~~~Edited by Moderator. Do not insult other commenters~~~.

I am glad to read your optimism, but they (the Obama Apoligists) are everywhere.

Bigfooting and poor messaging–two reasons not to put US general staff in charge of an international coalition. He sure takes the obligation not to provide operational intelligence to Gaddafi’s regime to a new extreme.

It’s all specious bullshit imo. Because we’d still be able to afford it while screaming about how broke we are and we’d still be right in there slaughtering people. Sounds like rhetorical mumbo jumbo to me.

Can Congress enact a law (presumably signed by a President into law) that abrogates its responsibility under the US Constitution to declare war? I don’t think so. The War Powers Act, the AUMF, etc., are chimeras. If we accept a ‘war’ on terror, we accept an unending assault on human and civil rights, underwriting the national security state and the unitary executive based on fear, because this a war that does not have a defined end. (See unwarranted wiretaps, Bradley Manning, drone attacks, etc.)

The corrupt, corporatist Democratic-Republican Axis in the US government will not overturn this attack on the Constitution. But someone must.

I mean to say it was a smart move to take the 60 day option. The plan is to be out before 60 days is up.

In 60 days there is a good possibility we will have reached a situation where Bohner doesn’t need to. If we stop firing missiles and let the Europeans take over military patrols, there’s nothing to ask permission over.

“Repugs will do anything, including block an arms treaty or a no fly zone to make Obama/ Dems look bad.”

Obama needs no help in looking bad. Obama has the whole Three Stooges routine going on with who is actually in charge, what the exact mission is and when it will be over.

You mean then we can carry on slaughtering with impunity and without Congressional oversight? Oh happy day!

Thanks for spreading the truth, donbacon.

Funny,Dennis has held the same position regardless of Dem Prez or GOP Prez….seems like he is a “man of his word” politican.

virtually no other pol has his courage.

Even with Congressional oversight, it would suck. But Congress has abandoned its duties under the Constitution. Are we at war, or are we not? If we are at war, who is the enemy? And most important, especially as we ask for shared sacrifice of our children and our treasure, did our elected representaives in Congress declare this?

There has been enough subterfuge and weasling around to gag a maggot.

Umm, see 1 year ago; Affordable Care Act.

Hey Moderator!

“~~~Edited by Moderator. Do not insult other commenters~~~.”

You have a pretty limited understanding of “insult”.

Pull ~~~Edited by Moderator~~~and read what “Margaret March 22nd, 2011 at 3:31 pm – 12″ and “becca656 March 22nd, 2011 at 3:34 pm – 15″ had to say to me. If you are gonna play fucking patty cakes here, you should tell us.

Mod Note: They did not directly insult you though they may have insulted your arguments. There is a difference. And do not insult the Mods as you will lose.

That’s an ill advised comment I think. And it’s gone before I even hit publish. You won’t win arguing with the mods. Again, shoulda spent some time lurking and reading before jumping in.

You do think!

Affordable Care Act ? what did he do,had a different position when GWBush wanted Health Care as opposed to Obama ?

Really? So all the times when hes thrown his supporters under the bus over the years apparently is courage?

Is that a remark about your opinion of my ability to reason? Please, do tell.

Is that what I said? I think I said we’re likely out before 60 days is done. Not killing anyone.

No. He was a chickenshit coward then. I was responding to your second sentence. Not your first one.

I love watching you spank idiots.

Tell that to the 6 civilians that were shot by United States Marines today.

On edit – or maybe you don’t consider those Libyans to be “anyone”?

Actually, the so-called ‘coalition’ is pretty confused as to where things go from here – the ‘hand-off’.

Sarkozy opposes Nato taking control of Libya operation. Dissent from Germany, Turkey and Norway leaves question marks over command structure

LMAO! Just like Iraq and Afghanistan eh? Oh wait….war was never declared in those places either yet there we still are!

He has thrown his supporters under the bus with regards to what ?? his stance on war ????

I haven’t seen Kucinich change his position with regards to war & the Presidency….please show me if he has,it might change my opinion of him.

Sock puppets to the left of me, trolls to the right…..

There’s been a time when the US Congress hasn’t allowed this? Oh, yes. Iran-Contra. Made a certain talk show host’s career.

Oh? Which one was that? Seriously, I was at sea during the time all of that blew up.

Well, time will tell. If I’m wrong he’ll need to get congressional authorization.

Not seeing it though. We can try and twist an entirely different circumstance to be equivalent to a full-scale unilateral invasion and occupation, but doing so doesn’t seem to be based on analysis of the actual situation we’re facing. The underlying logic seems to be based 80% on cynicism and 20% mad at Obama about other stuff.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m livid at Obama about other stuff too and if he got himself in trouble playing loose with the War Powers Act … I’d love to see him smacked down for it. But I know congress would have gone along with it and so do you – so that’s just another “fucking Obama” thing to me. If we get two weeks down the pike and he didn’t do what he says he will … I’ll join you in complaining about the operation itself.

I supported the Libyan opposition last Wednesday (as did FDL ostensibly, I thought). I support them today. I’m glad they didn’t get slaughtered over the weekend and I hope the best for their struggle ahead.

I wouldn’t place the blame for that entirely on Obama’s shoulders. His main position going into this is that the US is not going to simply be the leader and engage in yet another protracted engagement. I give him credit for that. Obama wants power shifted to the coalition ASAP and it’s a very good sign that he’s publicly stating it at the outset. It’s not simply a matter of setting a date of withdrawal from day one, as that would be unrealistic.

Supporting them and doing their killing for them are entirely different things. I support the Libyan people, I don’t support getting involved in their civil war. Those are not exclusive positions. And you know what? The way I feel about slaughtering civilians has nothing, nothing to do with my opinion of Obama. Perhaps next you’ll tell me why I don’t like seafood or how I feel about classical music.

Oh, I’m sorry … did 60 days pass us by in like 30 seconds when I wasn’t looking?

Maybe youre right he hasnt. Except of course that time when he endorsed a “pro war” dem candidate in one of the elections when his campaign went nowhere and he dropped out.

Sorry never been a fan of the guy.

You really believe that Jim ?….”the US is not going to simply be the leader”.

Fair enough. So you support them …. until they are slaughtered. Wow. A Democratic thing? That would explain a LOT about Obama.

Congress should have to declare war before a single shot is fired. They represent us, the people. Granted they don’t do it very well, but they are supposed to be our voices. They are too cowardly to do it so they just let it slide.

I’m stating what the official position is, as per Gates. Gates has a good track record. It certainly beats a no comment, go f*ck yourself Neocon approach.

I see many of you are very opposed to this military action. I understand where y’all are coming from, but I believe the people of Libya, whose lives have just been saved from murder by Khadafi’s military, see things differently. They’re thankful for our help. PS-I am a progressive voter and a daily FDL reader.

I’m not a Democrat. Never have been, never will be. I’m somewhere to the left of Bernie Sanders. Only people who have never seen war, want war. I’ve seen war. Obviously, you have not.

This isn’t war.

You could have fooled me.

The way I feel about slaughtering civilians has nothing, nothing to do with my opinion of Obama.

Perhaps. But your response to my saying we’d be out in 60 days was based on little else. You realize that your position is in FAVOR of civilians being slaughtered, right? Just because you could have washed your hands of it doesn’t mean those people would have been any less dead.

Welcome. We’re glad to have you here. Comment often.

Another salvo of the Cruise Missile Liberals ™ – with us on everything but War.

Obviously you are unaware that the people of Libya were already fighting a war. We didn’t create that.

Agree completely.

Greenwald:

But whatever else is true, the notion that opposing a war is evidence of indifference to tyranny and suffering is equally simple-minded, propagandistic, manipulative and intellectually bankrupt in both the Iraq and Libya contexts.

That’s a specious argument and a ridiculous claim. My response to you @ 69 was:

You mean then we can carry on slaughtering with impunity and without Congressional oversight? Oh happy day!

Please point to the part where I mentioned anything about Obama or my feelings about him. I’ll wait… The fact is that you think you’re qualified to get inside my head and determine what I’m thinking better than I am myself. I submit that were you to live to be a thousand and learn everything there is to learn, you would still not have the ability to speak for me.

Jim,I just ask if you believe “the US is not going to simply be the leader” statement ?

Anything the Govt says take with extreme caution ,that’s how trustworthy our Govt is.

Tell that to the people who are being slaughtered in it. legalities are irrelevant when you’re being blown up or set on fire or your children are buried in rubble.

Apparently the leaders of the Coalition of the Purchased are arguing among themselves about who will be the leader. What a joke!

Yep. Flipping coins about who gets to call the shots….Might as well be a whole crew of Neros.

I was construing your equation of Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya to be that, but you are right you didn’t mention Obama.

Sorry. My conversations are kind of blurring together.

Or sock puppets….

I don’t see how my belief is relevant. The point is, they are following proper procedures and publicly stating their position to withdraw. It’s 90 days btw not 60.

You realize that argument makes zero sense. All of that stuff was happening before we got there and it would be happening right this minute either way.

Not having intervened wouldn’t somehow have turned an active war zone into peace.

Many civilians and rebels were already being slaughtered at the hands of Gaddafi’s forces and many more would die without a no fly zone. All conflicts have casualties, I’ll take an enforced no fly zone complete with the destruction of Gaddafi’s weaponry over Gaddafi sending his tanks and planes unrestricted to kill his opponents.

It’s 60 at which point Congress needs to reauthorize.

(b) Termination of use of United States Armed Forces; exceptions; extension period
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress
(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,
(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or
(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

And you think that’s going to let you off the hook, do you? You’ve just spent the better part of an hour arguing with me based on an erroneous belief about what I said and now you think “sorry” is going to absolve you for insisting that I’m being intellectually dishonest and hypocritical when it comes to Libya? Not today.

Sorry.

Yeah, save your typy fingers. Your credibility meter just went into negative integers with me.

Ok then I was right in the first place.

“You’ll take it”? Good for you! Why don’t you grab a weapon and head over there and “take it” then? Or is that only for the poor saps who live there or who live here and had the bad judgment to join the service? More comfortable for you in your chair, typing out your “support” is it?

~~~ModNote: It would be good if we could return to something resembling the topic, instead of arguing about the argument about the…~~~

No, because of my comment at #54.

Where was the imminent threat to the United States?

There is no doubt that 6wks from now…there will be another excuse to do “something” with regards to Libya…..if not upfront in our faces behind the scene.You don’t make that kind of military investment(cruise missiles ) & then call it a day.

Maybe they will hire Blackwater to fight for the rebels…

Good point lurk. Thanks for reminding us.

Irrelevant, Obama is authorized to engage in the UN sanctioned no fly zone w/o Congress for up to 60 days.

You know they are following proper procedures ???? well,well……

Gov Trolls in Bahrain too

Yes, I’ll take it. I’ll take well ordered strikes against a dictator’s war machine over doing nothing, which would absolutely result in many, many more deaths. You make no sense.

This is so exhausting. On a sidebar, perhaps: Can we elect a President willing to cede executive power to restore checks-and-balances? I didn’t think so. Game, set, match.

Uuuuuh, you seem to think I *care* … or that the factual basis of our disagreement was based on that at all. I don’t. It wasn’t.

You called me on something out of line I said. I corrected my mistake immediately. If you are really that petty, well, you’ve gotta live with you. Not my problem.

… I believe the people of Libya, whose lives have just been saved from murder by Khadafi’s military …

Gawd, I hate this. It might look like I’m defending Kaddafi, but this isn’t true

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4777

Where was the imminent threat to the United States?

It’s the oil. They’re afraid somebody might accidentally or purposely blow up the oil. This isn’t about humanitarian help. If it was, wouldn’t we be doing the same thing in Bahrain? In Yemen? The whole humanitarian mission argument is as bogus as Iraq’s WMD. Same song, different verse.

Thank you, and you are welcome, Margaret.
/~~~

Jim,

I was just logging off and read your comment. Do you know how many places cry out for your constancy?

Jim @ 131: “(I) make no sense.”
kgb999 @ 120 “…if (I) really (am) that petty…”
Nice. Ran out of argument so you resort to calling me names and disparaging my character? I think we’re done here.

So the imminent threat piece of the law is “irrelevant”.

Good to know.

If there are other pieces of the US code that are “irrelevant” I wish you would point them out to me now so I don’t have to worry about them.

Blue Texan is upstairs!
In Which Donald Rumsfeld Helpfully Demonstrates the Post Hoc Fallacy

So the imminent threat piece of the law is “irrelevant”.

It’s the new, improved way of looking at things. Laws are only relevant when convenient. Ask any politician.

I hate to be lazy … but I can’t figure out the significant part of that transcript you wanted to highlight.

I’m kind of with the “There were an awful lot of tanks getting ready to decimate an entire city full of revolutionaries and civilians … good on us.” crowd on this. Curious what you found significant there.

I did not disparage your character. In my opinion, you make no sense. I’d suggest a stronger argument instead of a strawman.

The law states Obama is allowed to do this for 60 days without Congressional approval. Why is that so hard to understand. Search RMA.

“A President who launches a military operation without a congressional authorization will attempt to make the use of force short and decisive. It is desirable to terminate an engagement within the 60 to 90 day limit imposed by the War Powers Resolution. Since long and large-scale interventions may lead to a political conflict between the Presidency and Congress, this threat undoubtedly has an impact on Presidents’ conduct of foreign affairs. Such political conflict might weaken and undermine a President’s position as a Commander in Chief or as a leader of an international coalition. A short and decisive war, however, does not pose a threat of a constitutional conflict between the President and Congress.”

Didn’t run out of argument … ball’s actually in your court. My point is still hanging from where you made a “save your typie fingers” comment rather than answer.

It’s not hard to understand. What is required under this law is an credible threat to the US:

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.

What’s so hard to understand about that?

Congress amended that with the RMA. Look it up.

And for the same reason neocons want to curtail the rights if Muslim Americans – they might abuse them.

This kind if partisan argument is also projection is what is tearing us apart. It’s not about Republicans and Democrats, it’s about making intelligent decisions, following laws, and respecting the constitution. It’s the reactionaries that shove things like this through as fast as possible in some perceived emergency that turns out to be the wrong actions, with unintended consequences. This civil war has been developing for a month. A discussion and getting congressional approval wouldn’t have taken much time. Oh, John Boehner is siding with the president, btw, as are many war loving Republicans.

No, again you’re assuming you know what I’m thinking but your comment @ 117 presumes that I believe things would have turned out hunky-dory if we hadn’t intervened. I have never made that argument. I have never made it to you or to Jim who also seems to be laboring under that delusion. That’s why you have no more credibility to me. Because immediately after you admitted that your whole previous argument had been based on “(your) conversations kind of blurring together”,(@114), you launched yet another attack on my position based on an argument that I have never made. Go on, find where I said that I think everything would have turned out fine had we not intervened. That’s why our conversation is over. That’s why Jim is hilarious in saying that I am creating straw men without irony. That’s why I said I think we’re finished here.
On Edit: Please re-read TheLurkingMod @ 124 and understand why I’m not going to continue this pointless exercise with you. You’re not even arguing about substance anymore. I try to respect the wishes of the moderators here even if you don’t.

I’ve provided links for my claims. Provide them for yours.

I’ll see you 1,000,000 million dead IRAQ citizens to the inane arguments.
Those were the human beings who were going to shower us with flowers.

And someone was twisted into knots over 1000/6500 Libyan rebels, God rest their souls, that have died this far before some military madman pulled the trigger. Really, I mean really ?

http://www.nps.edu/Academics/centers/ccc/publications/OnlineJournal/2003/sept03/strategy.html

Now they’ll paint blue squares on the airplanes. That’ll make a huge difference

That’s a study, not US Law/Code.

Find the amended law that states what you claim. It starts with USC….

You true believers can split hairs if you need to, but …

Q: Do you see any evidence that he actually has fired on his own people from the air? There were reports of it, but do you have independent confirmation? If so, to what extent?

SEC. GATES: We’ve seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that.

ADM. MULLEN: That’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever.

Again. Not defending him

Do you claim their conclusions are false?

I’ll claim what the Author, Lukasz Kamienski says:

Strategic Insights is a quarterly electronic journal produced by the Center for Contemporary Conflict at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. The views expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of NPS, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

And? The conclusions are based on interpretation of law based on applied precedent.

Looks to me as if you just can’t win the debate with the hole you dug yourself into and rather than admit it you’re flailing at any reason you can come up with not to address the point.

You are indeed correct, this has reached a point of diminishing returns. Namaste.

That’s right. An interpretation.

The law doesn’t say what you claim it says; this interpretation does. My challenge to you is that the code does not say what this author claims. There is no amended USC Statute beyond what I linked to.

The law doesn’t say what you or Kamiensky claim it does.

Nevertheless, enough.

Be proud of and totally own your support for more war.

Looks to me as if you just can’t win the debate with the hole you dug yourself into and rather than admit it you’re flailing at any reason you can come up with not to address the point.

You, of course, are welcome to your opinion. I’ll take reality though. I’ve addressed your point. I’m not the one flailing though we could put it to a vote.

~~~Okay folks, please return to the substance of the post, or go get some dinner.~~~

Stephen Walt on the what the intervention in Libya tells us about the Neocon-Liberal Alliance

Last Wednesday I spoke at an event at Hofstra University, on the subject of “Barack Obama’s Foreign Policy.” The other panelists were former DNC chair and 2004 presidential candidate Howard Dean and longtime Republican campaign guru Ed Rollins. [...]

During the Q & A, I talked about the narrowness of foreign policy debate in Washington and the close political kinship between the liberal interventionists of the Democratic Party and the neoconservatives that dominate the GOP. At one point, I said that “liberal inteventionists are just ‘kinder, gentler’ neocons, and neocons are just liberal interventionsts on steroids.”

Dean challenged me rather forcefully on this point, declaring that there was simply no similarity whatsoever between a smart and sensible person like U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and a “crazy guy” like Paul Wolfowitz. (I didn’t write down Dean’s exact words, but I am certain that he portrayed Wolfowitz in more-or-less those terms). I responded by listing all the similarites between the two schools of thought, and the discussion went on from there.

I mention this anecdote because I wonder what Dean would say now. In case you hadn’t noticed, over the weekend President Obama took the nation to war against Libya, largely on the advice of liberal interventionists like Ambassador Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and NSC aides Samantha Power and Michael McFaul. According to several news reports I’ve read, he did this despite objections from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon.[...]

It seems like the liberal interventionists are Democratic party loyalists (partisans) too. Also reactionary, and paternalistic.

Lurk, directly in the post is:

Democratic Congressman Stephen Lynch is blasting President Obama for joining yesterday’s international air assault on Libya, saying he is “very, very troubled” by the decision to commit military assets to what Lynch considers a “civil war.”

“I think generally under the Constitution, there has to be a direct threat to U.S. national security,” said Lynch, of South Boston. “I don’t see anything that would warrant the type of commitment we’ve made.”

My participation in debate has been exactly on topic and germane to the discussion.

Sure it does. It’s already been used to justify conflict. Have a nice day.

Ahhh. Thanks.

That transcript is from the 1st of March. I don’t think anyone *had* confirmed air strikes at that point. Since then, a lot of video has been trickling out and the MSM sources have recorded some air attacks as well.

Are you familiar with the attack on Saddam Husseins forces in Kwait, when they were tapping a large oil field that was under both countries without negotiating for sharing revenues? have you heard the story of Saddam’s army taking infants out of hospital incubators and throwing them out of the windows? It was propaganda.

The Mustafa `Abd Al-Jalil council

“The behavior of the fledgling rebel government in Benghazi so far offers few clues to the rebels’ true nature…..
Like the Qaddafi government, the operation around the rebel council is rife with family ties. And like the chiefs of the Libyan state news media, the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda, claiming nonexistent battlefield victories, asserting they were still fighting in a key city days after it fell to Qaddafi forces, and making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior.”  

I should only add that the `Abd Al-Jalil marginalized the lawyers and professionals and secularists.

Thanks for noting the legal requirements that shameless Obama-shill assholes like Randi Rhodes conveniently forget when defending our new warmaking in Libya without prior Congressional approval.

I find it inconceivable, and unacceptable, that presidents would be allowed by law to make war for any arbitrary reason they choose, and then be able to recall all the troops within 60 days and call it good with no accountability or liability for their actions.

Yea, I haven’t missed the possible unintended irony in your ‘nom de internets,’ kgb

KGB, a secretive government agency which, in part, tried/succeeeded in shaping public opinion through propaganda. Is that your job here?

Don’t believe everything you read or see