Obama Threatens Action in Libya

Babagounj

Strength through joy
this time is different.
The Arab League requested military action.
So the Islam clerics can't call for jihad against us.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
With all due respect to "transparency" Operation Cyclone was about as poorly handled as a covert operation could be and is as close to transparency as a covert operation can get.
 

over9five

Moderator
Staff member
I don't think Cyclone had any reason to be covert, but did it have to be done at all?

As of yesterday the US had fired 124 cuise missiles at $600,000 each! Add to that 3 B52s flying in from the US, sheesh.
Totally unnecessary, should have let the rest of the world handle this one, what a waste!
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
Wasn't it the Arabs that ordered this Libyan move.....or UN or whoever.....??? Why aren't they paying for it?? WHY ?
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
"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." — Senator Barack Obama
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
Just a point about Dennis Kucinich......he's been in politics since I was a high schooler in Ohio. I've always questioned his ethnicity. Do you suppose he's, gnome, troll or munchkin ?? :rofl:


dennis-kucinich.JPG
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
I have two very real questions here. People are upset that Obama didn't go to Congress first. First question: When is the last time Congress had the balls to actually declare war and second, since we know it's been a damn long time, what difference does it make? Seems like consulting congress is simply an opportunity for members to score political points if they aren't actually going to excercise their Constitutional powers anyway. "Authorizing force" is not the same thing, is it?
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
I think it has to do more with the $$$ for the attack. Obama just did what other presidents have done for the past 40 years.....so, you can't fault him if all the others got away with it too.
 
I have two very real questions here. People are upset that Obama didn't go to Congress first. First question: When is the last time Congress had the balls to actually declare war and second, since we know it's been a damn long time, what difference does it make? Seems like consulting congress is simply an opportunity for members to score political points if they aren't actually going to excercise their Constitutional powers anyway. "Authorizing force" is not the same thing, is it?


I think it has to do more with the $$$ for the attack. Obama just did what other presidents have done for the past 40 years.....so, you can't fault him if all the others got away with it too.

Well, other than being the legal way to do it I guess there is not much difference. It wasn't that long ago that another president went to congress received the affirmation to to use force and not long afterward was (and ever since) being criticized for doing so. Now we have a president bypassing the legal avenues and it's no big deal for some of the same people.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
I think the legal way to do it would be for Congress to declare war. Why are they so reluctant to do so anymore?
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member

In a certain way I would agree but more to the core, they abdicate that duty for purely political reasons. In the current climate they can let someone else make the hard choices and then stick their finger in the air to measure the political winds and just follow that lead thus avoiding the blame at the end of the day. Now you could translate that into "$$$$$$" as the final answer and thus why in the big scheme of things this is correct.

My wife and I became friends with the late Congressman Larry McDonald in the 70's and until his death and he use to say this about the typical Washington politician as to what their purpose in life was.

The Washington Politician only has 3 simples purposes for existence these days in America and the voter would do well to remember it. Their purpose is:
TAX! TAX! TAX!
SPEND! SPEND! SPEND!
ELECT! ELECT! ELECT!

Larry also use to tell everyone to send letters to Washington but instead of Washington put Disneyland East and if you always put in the correct zip code it would make it. After some time many of us got a do-better letter from the Washington DC postmaster that if we didn't stop this, our mail would not be delievered. Larry found out the post master was acting on behalf of a few Washington politicos who didn't appreciate our brand of saying the king had no clothes!

I have two very real questions here. People are upset that Obama didn't go to Congress first. First question: When is the last time Congress had the balls to actually declare war and second, since we know it's been a damn long time, what difference does it make? Seems like consulting congress is simply an opportunity for members to score political points if they aren't actually going to excercise their Constitutional powers anyway. "Authorizing force" is not the same thing, is it?

The first question is a given so that's settled but the other question is, what difference does it make? Depends of whether you like to see a society governed by whims of the moment or by rules more set in stone that you can trust in or at least offer an illusion of trust. To me this is the crisis of the social contract and in many respects of whether we follow Hobbes or Locke and somehow divide Rousseau into either one that wins the day. Or from a completely American POV, this again is the great battle between Jeffersonianism and Hamiltonianism and Hamilton or Hobbes has been winning the day for a long time towards a monarchial social contract. One can live under a benevolent monarch and do quiet well but if the king has the divine right, what other than violence of the masses puts the king in check if he become malevolent?

In another thread it was mentioned about the so-called "Star Chamber" and from an anti-monarch POV, it was Henry the VIII who took the Star Chamber proceeding as a useful tool to by-pass the common law courts. Movies aside, this Star Chamber became the legislative or adminstrative courts we have today but we just don't call it Star Chamber anymore. One is called IRS Tax Court for example and any common law pleading in such settling is out of order. Adminstrative Courts are under the Executive authority and thus in the Hobbesian/Hamiltonian framework, a monarchial proceeding if you will.

In 1955', the University of Chicago published a book by Milton Mayer entitled "They Thought They Were Free" which is a study on the german people from 1933' to 1945' based on their experience in Germany under Hitler. The University of Chicago has posted excepts from page 166 to 173 on their website and in the matter of your 2nd question, it is worth consideration while pondering the answers.

Even with the Constitution and all it's seemingly restricting limitations, America is not nearly as "bound down" as even some of our forefathers thought is was. Even Jefferson once in the seat of power himself realized he wasn't nearly as "bound down" as he had assured others that it would be. One IMO could argue that the precedent for much of the federal Presidential overstepping these days are in fact rooted back to Jefferson himself. The question is, at what point do we understand that Hobbes and Hamilton have won the day and send the Congress and Supreme Court home? Save lots of money and trouble and besides to quote the question you posed, "What difference would it make?"

:peaceful:
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
And just for fun, an article from July 2010' from the BBC announcing that BP would begin drilling for oil off the coast of Libya!

Let's see, 1953', Iran, Anglo-Iranian oil (see BP), coup, CIA, Hmmmmmm!
Bring in a little Operation Ajax and clean this whole mess right up!

Oh WOW, if true what does this make O-Bomb-A? A Bush Baby!
:happy-very:
 
Top