Obama’s War on Libya: A Constitutional View

outdoor338 wrote: The liberal spin is outstanding, I love it..you nitwits are funny..obama lied and many died! Obama believes that their are WMD's in Libya he attacks, your messiah is clueless and yet you moonbats spin like a top defending him...keep watching folks, this is going to get very interesting to say the least... :woo hoo:

:hijacked: Back on topic libs, quit spinning :Crying:

Brilliant response! And so original!

How can anyone argue with all the on-topic facts and arguements you present? Truely a master debater! :faint:

pine, over your head, I didn't expect you to understand! Keep spinning, libs and fly paper...wonderful...

outdoor338 wrote: The liberal spin is outstanding, I love it..you nitwits are funny..obama lied and many died! Obama believes that their are WMD's in Libya he attacks, your messiah is clueless and yet you moonbats spin like a top defending him...keep watching folks, this is going to get very interesting to say the least... :woo hoo:

:hijacked: Back on topic libs, quit spinning :Crying:

This is even more fun than I thought....I have never seen such convoluted logic used to justify conservative hypocracy.....

and who here is defending him? what we are doing is pointing out the conservative spin......anyone with half a brain knows that if a Republican president was doing this you would be all praise and raise the flag.....oh yeah, when Republican presidents have done this you were good little patriots.....but let a democrat do it and suddenly it's the march of the anti-war conservatives. Way too funny to even believe.

Oh....and I am still against it no matter who does it......gotta love consistency, you all might try it sometime.

outdoor338 wrote: Ouch..again..well, let's see what TM says about your post...amazing how the left is so quiet today! Let's see, obama lied and many died..nope, how about, it's bush's fault, he made me attack Libya! Man..sooo interesting..waiting for the spin :woo hoo:

Super busy right now - I'll get to this tonight before I go to bed though.

gotta love consistency

You are definitely consistent!!!!!! Can't say any more and still stay in character. Darn!!

pineinthegrass wrote: Where in the Constitution does it say it's OK to commit an act of war without authorization of Congress if it's an immediate response? You need to be consistant. Either both Reagan and Obama were in violation of the constitution, or they were not. I think they should of both gotten "permission". And by the way, Reagan's attack on Libya occured 10 days after the Berlin bombing, so it wasn't all that immediate anyway. So much for your arguement.

So are you saying if Obama had attacked Libya a couple of weeks ago then you would not of had a constitutional issue with it? Really??

We can recognize the difference between an offensive action undertaken in defense of the men and women who serve in our armed forces (the bombing in Germany specifically targeted US armed forces personnel IIRC) and an offensive action undertaken in defense of persons who have no affiliation with this nation in any manner, shape or form, can't we?

With Reagan's actions it can at least be argued that the retaliation was undertaken to defend our military personnel through an act intended to discourage any future such attacks leveled against them. Not so in this case with Obama. Korea can be argued along similar lines. The use of our armed forces was consistent with the expressed doctrine of not allowing Communism to spread as the spread of Communism threatened our national security. That is also action taken in defense of the nation - protecting our national security.

I suppose if we set our minds to it we could invent a way for what Obama did to be classified as a defensive measure done for the purposes of the common defense of the states. It might take some doing, but I'm sure it can be done, especially when one considers they found a way to suggest Obamacare would actually reduce the federal deficit. It took some doing, but they found a way to do it.

Nmysys wrote: What is interesting is that not one of you Liberals can actually defend this. Munch away Archer, on your popcorn, but try and think of one good reason except for your Infamous quote of The End Justifies The Means, to truly justify this action. The OP, which BTW I posted, says that Obama does not have the authority to wage war without going to Congress first. What say you about that??????? Nothing, of course, just your snide remark about the Right!!

I say you are a total idiot. Here let me help you out since you are so knowledgable on everything. I had to do some research to find it cause I just aint as smart as you. Go look up the WAR POWERS RESOLUTION OF 1973. Obama did have the authority per that to do what he did, and since he did have a conference call with all the leaders from both sides from the House and Senate. Those in power knew. Now since only one President has gotten the approval of Congress before going anywhere, the second Bush, he has done less than what the others have done.

PrintSmith wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote: Where in the Constitution does it say it's OK to commit an act of war without authorization of Congress if it's an immediate response? You need to be consistant. Either both Reagan and Obama were in violation of the constitution, or they were not. I think they should of both gotten "permission". And by the way, Reagan's attack on Libya occured 10 days after the Berlin bombing, so it wasn't all that immediate anyway. So much for your arguement.

So are you saying if Obama had attacked Libya a couple of weeks ago then you would not of had a constitutional issue with it? Really??

We can recognize the difference between an offensive action undertaken in defense of the men and women who serve in our armed forces (the bombing in Germany specifically targeted US armed forces personnel IIRC) and an offensive action undertaken in defense of persons who have no affiliation with this nation in any manner, shape or form, can't we?

With Reagan's actions it can at least be argued that the retaliation was undertaken to defend our military personnel through an act intended to discourage any future such attacks leveled against them. Not so in this case with Obama. Korea can be argued along similar lines. The use of our armed forces was consistent with the expressed doctrine of not allowing Communism to spread as the spread of Communism threatened our national security. That is also action taken in defense of the nation - protecting our national security.

I suppose if we set our minds to it we could invent a way for what Obama did to be classified as a defensive measure done for the purposes of the common defense of the states. It might take some doing, but I'm sure it can be done, especially when one considers they found a way to suggest Obamacare would actually reduce the federal deficit. It took some doing, but they found a way to do it.

PS I do not for one minute support this, we have no business being there, doing anything. I troops are busy enough already. This being a UN action, we are under the UN flag, but we should have told them no, have a nice day. Plenty of other countries to do it.

PrintSmith wrote: We can recognize the difference between an offensive action undertaken in defense of the men and women who serve in our armed forces (the bombing in Germany specifically targeted US armed forces personnel IIRC) and an offensive action undertaken in defense of persons who have no affiliation with this nation in any manner, shape or form, can't we?

With Reagan's actions it can at least be argued that the retaliation was undertaken to defend our military personnel through an act intended to discourage any future such attacks leveled against them. Not so in this case with Obama. Korea can be argued along similar lines. The use of our armed forces was consistent with the expressed doctrine of not allowing Communism to spread as the spread of Communism threatened our national security. That is also action taken in defense of the nation - protecting our national security.

I suppose if we set our minds to it we could invent a way for what Obama did to be classified as a defensive measure done for the purposes of the common defense of the states. It might take some doing, but I'm sure it can be done, especially when one considers they found a way to suggest Obamacare would actually reduce the federal deficit. It took some doing, but they found a way to do it.

You can try and differentiate the two acts, but I think we can agree that when you bomb a country, that's an act of war. And I'd say Reagan's actions (which I support) were a retaliation, rather than protecting the country from a real threat. There was no threat of an imminent attack and Reagan could of taken his time (which he did by waiting 10 days) and gotten approval from Congress if he wanted to. And as I mentioned, I think a strict interpretation of the Constitution concludes that Congress should at least approve such an act, unless the country is clearly under attack and you need to act quickly. But even then, if it results in a war lasting more than a few days, it seems to me you still need to eventually get Congress' approval to continue.

We can argue back and forth here, but the bottom line is I think we need the Supreme Court to finally look into just what power the President has to commit an act of war. I don't think the Constitution is perfectly clear in this case. And if you think it is clear, then Presidents have been violating it constantly, since Congress has only declared war 5 times in our history. I don't even think the War Powers Resolution of '73 has been tested by the Supreme Court.

One arument which could be made is that the recent Libya bombing was an act by the United Nations and doesn't need Congressional approval. I think that is what was argued when we got in the Korean War. I don't buy it, but it's another thing we could use the Supreme Court to settle.

outdoor338 wrote: TM, have you forgotten, the attacks on bush from your liberal pals went on day after day, month after month, because you lib's (kerry, bill and hillary clintoon, schumer, kennedy, pelosi) said that sadaam had WMD's, and he was a threat to the world?...its called payback, seems to me the crow you are eating, doesn't taste so good does it...enjoy, bon apetite

TM writes, "To be against an action just because you don't like the president shows a clear lack of integrity." Are you serious? Do you think any lib here supported bush with his actions against Iraq? rofllol then many of you lib's lack any integrity, funny..watch the spin begin..and TM, you're the first to spin on this subject...others will join you!

Actually Outdoor, I supported the action in Iraq up until the point that it became apparent that the whole thing was based on crap. (See Downing Street Memo). The whole case for war was trumped up. We sent our soldiers to war based on some study by the Project for a New American Century. That should piss off even the most avid Bush supporter, but you guys just keep on cheer leading. Still don't get it do you?