The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

According to the War Powers act, President Obama must get congressional approval for continued bombing of Libya.

His own Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) along with Attorney General Eric Holder and Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson, told Obama he needed congressional permission to continue participating in NATO operations against Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi's forces or withdraw.

Even though the advice of the OLC is binding upon the executive branch, the president is not bound to follow this advice.

As you may remember, President Bush went before congress and they voted approval for the war in Iraq (before they were against it  :D).

Regular procedure would be to have  the OLC solicit opinions from different departments and determine which best comported with the law, and then follow the opinion. 

However, taking a page from the Clinton play book, President Obama has engaged the White House Counsel Robert Bauer and State Department  legal adviser Harold Koh, to provide a "re-definition" of the mission.  By Friday we will be offered a new term such as "support services" or "humanitarian tactical coordination" to define the bombings, cruise missile attacks and drone strikes.

At this point we will no longer be able to refer to the "War in Libya" as a war.  From that point forward it will be considered a form of foreign aid, like providing food for starving villagers. . . except in this case the food explodes and stuff.

This should be a fun exchange to watch.  I am very curious as to how many of my liberal friends will interpret it. 

They have already crafted the language:

"U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof. . ."


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/06/16/us/politics/20110616_POWERS_DOC.html?ref=politics

Any reach around on this?

CBS News was reporting this morning that AlQaeda could wind up with control of Libya if Uncle Moamar is deposed.

That's some cheery developments!

We learned this lesson half a dozen times already. 

Their hands are full dealing with Huntsman.

You waited a whole three minutes for a comment, then tried calling out someone to argue with?

Are we sure you are not a City Councilor?

Look out...you're about to get pulled into a Gaspar political post.

I just found it an interesting bit of legal wrangling, and thought it would be worthwhile to solicit responses from those who may be passionate on the subject.

Even Dick Durban is saying it can't pass the "straight-face test."

I think this would be a hard baby to deliver.

Where did all these "dovish" conservatives come from? Its the liberal tree hugging hippies that are against conflict. This new conservative isolationism is refreshing and I agree; lets finish President Bush's wars, bring the troops home and close the borders. If MK wants to kill civilians, well they are his civilians to kill and it is his right as a dictator to slaughter them.

There's your reach around post you were looking for Gassy.

Way to go G.  Your contributions are always a star.

A 2 hander no less......

So far a 3 stooge thread.

Now we just need Kraut and you guys have a pick 4 going for you.

Congratulations.

Saying that anyone who disagrees with you is committing a sexual act?

Are you guys twelve year olds?

Larry, Curley and Shemp have nothing else RM.  They don't even rate a Moe.  If Kraut joined in he'd just be another Shemp.

This is the typical framework.

I apologize that the subject of this thread upsets you.  I was just hoping at least one person would be willing to discuss it.

I guess even war can be considered just another government program.

Please disregard this thread.

(http://theoverflowroom.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/nothing_to_see_here.jpg)

Interesting, Gaspar brings up an valid point of how President Obama has basically circumvented the law, continues to ignore his legal advisors, and engages in acts of aggression he was critical of President Bush for and it turns into a 12 message round of ad hominems.  

Is anyone else concerned that the President is not getting Congressional approval prior to engaging our troops in acts of war?

Gaspar, not sure what you were hoping to achieve by the second post, but the result was predictable.

I don't particularly care about Libya policy.  Presidents have had the ability to wage war of varying scales without actual declarations for at least a couple of generations.  And Congress has typically given Presidential actions very wide latitude.  This isn't a D or R thing; all Pres's have had that ability since Truman (at least).  It's a tradition that has really strayed away from the letter of the Constitution, but in the modern era at least it's been extended non-ideologically to each President.  

I don't have a dog in the Libya hunt, really . . . I think Obama's justification rises about to the level of most other actions I've witnessed or read about.  No better but no worse than Grenada, say, or Lebanon.  Etc.  As a dollar amount spent, it's about right for similar actions.   We've only now started asking for a legal justification for such things, so I'd expect there to be a lot of stretching of limits.  And that's again because the latitude given the Pres has always been off the books.  

The GOP doing what they've been doing for the last couple of years, which is flip-flopping on prior Republican ideological pillars in order to hobble anything Obama tries.  You know, like suddenly deciding that tax cuts to small business is off the table. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/democrats-explicitly-call-out-gop-for-sabotaging-the-economic-recovery.php?ref=fpblg)

How could he join though?  Wouldn't the distance prevent that?

He got exactly what he wanted out of it.  Typical of a conservative.  Reply to your own OP with an inflammatory phrase.  That's called baiting last I checked.

Waiting for the obligatory juvenile post referencing self-pleasuring from BB in 3...2...1

OK.

Straight up!

Do you agree with what the administration is doing in attempting to redefine the military action in order to continue the bombings?

I'm not sure I can get any clearer.  


Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there, and to be guided by truth as one sees it. But no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his own view of truth. – Mohandas Gandhi

You know, you may have actually gotten credible answers had it not been for your 'reach-around' comment replying to your original post.

You've obviously been taking hints from BB on posting lately....

I apologize that that comment provided license not to respond, and relieved any need for useful dialogue.   ::)

I forgot that type of thing could be seized as a distraction.

Making a joke out of it won't get you much further either...

Really....

So back to the subject.  Some of the reasoning being presented by the president's attorneys is amusing.

"The United States shifted to primarily a supporting role — providing refueling and surveillance to allied warplanes, although remotely piloted drones periodically fire missiles, too."

The Drones are somehow being characterized as semi-autonomous.

Every now and then those darn drones just fire off a missile or two.  What are you going to do?
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_69I41elICUE/S6h3JDd1bxI/AAAAAAAAAIY/QS_JXb4OGp8/s400/I-Don%27t-Know.jpg)

Oh get over your damned self RM. You are just as "bad" as we are, with your head firmly entrenched in the Democrat rectum, with your attacks on the right. Hell, how many threads have you recently started attacking GOPers?

I thought this was freakin hilarious, and was going to post a "mental bleach" image in response. In googling that phrase, this picture turned up:

(http://static.sportressofblogitude.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Anki-Cosmic-bath.jpg)

Here's the link that resulted in this image. Fitting?

http://www.google.com/search?q=mental+bleach&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1013&bih=419

edited.

G & G are attempting to form a dutch rudder.  One posts, the other is outraged at the information in that post so the other posts something the other is outraged at.  The rudder keepsa movin..

Oh, guido lost his binky again.

There are many reasons why posters didn't immediately respond to gaspar's bait.

One, fatigue. It is hard to have the energy to compete with his fanaticsm against Obama.

Two, maybe people don't approve of any war, regardless of the President's political party.

Three, gaspar, guido and breadburner demand responses and you are not our bosses. This is especially true when you throw out insults to us before anyone has time to respond.

Four, he is arguing about procedure. This is like the city council not approving the mayor's travel budget because he didn't submit his paperwork through their procedures. Yes, war is much more serious, but gaspar just wants to argue with anybody and anything that can be said about Obama.

Not really. I just love how the same 3-4 people are always coming to one another's defense. It's like clockwork. As for the thread, I could care less about it. I have always felt the WPA was unconstitutional. But rather than take that approach, Obama ignores is own legal team and laughably alleges that there are no hostilities of the sort that would require him to get Congressional approval. Here a story.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110617/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_libya

I think I read yesterday 9 innocent people were killed over in Libya, two of whom were TODDLERS, in this non-hostile action.

Gaspar's turn to post, keep the rudder going guys..

What you are doing right now is the same as the 3-4 spooners. Why?

Way to go. A real opinion and a relevant thought.

Please explain how the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. I really do care to discuss this.

You are starting to lose momentum.

I admit, I do enjoy the debate.  It makes me think, and helps me to understand the thought processes of others, when a process exists.

Most of the time it is you, we vs us, and Hoss's posts that I admire the most because they employ some reason and critical thought.  I typically disagree with the basic foundations but I enjoy learning how you come to your conclusions, and every now and then I find agreement.

I believe, that the best and worst qualities of a person become visible in political discussion.  Motivations become naked, and influences are uncovered.  I think that's what we all enjoy about political discourse and that is also why it is a bad idea at Thanksgiving.

This thread is an excellent example of the psychology of political discussion.  The initial post was an invitation to discussion on a policy that the current president is engaged in that violates his own political philosophy, and the philosophy of many of his constituency.

The bait was my second post.  It offered those unwilling to engage the first an out by diverting focus from the subject (anyone with a 2 year old knows this tactic).  The primary posters took advantage of this opportunity, leaving the subject unaddressed.   This opens the door for weaker posters to shout from the peanut gallery and for reasonable posters such as yourself to either attack the subject or attack the poster.  You did a little of both.

I am sorry that sometimes I enjoy a good game of chess when a simple conversation would suffice.

. . .and it's President Obama.  You really should respect the office.  ;)

Nice try.  You just don't have the ability to have a genuine political conversation.  So you post something asinine like "reach around".

Go ahead and answer "Exactly".  You know you want to.  I figure your hands are trembling since you haven't been able to yet.

Watch it..if you start saying you admire my posts, then you might fall out of favor with Gweed, as he only likes to throw ad-hominems my way..

Well, I'm not the only target, but with others, he'll actually address them directly and by name/screen-name.  He somehow thinks that leaving my name out of the equation makes me less valid.

Reminds me of a feud that two news channel hosts were having over the past few years.  One, the liberal, usually called out the conservative (who told people he was an independent but most knew that was bunk) on propoganda and spin.

The conservative, who thought the liberal was beneath him, wouldn't directly use the liberal's name, but attacked those close to him or those who employed him.

Well duh.  How many people post here in total?  About 8 or 9 regs.  How many conservatives and how many libs?  We're about evenly split, give or take.  If you remember some of your basic math, half of 8 is 4, which is the amount of folks generally agreeing with one another on a given issue. 

Yeah, and you four are the half wits.







I keed, I keed!

It's a pretty good mix.  There is the fringe and the serial posters, but I think there is an even balance on the issues.

It's interesting to watch the fluctuations in civility as elections approach and the retreat afterwords.  I think for the most part everyone here is far more civil than I've seen on other forums.  

My bad. . .there are no other forums, TNF is the only one.  I would never betray that relationship  ::)

Then there's the cereal posters like Sauerkraut.
(http://www.miltontrainworks.com/MTW/services/KCC/images/FL_frontPanelDesired_fromKCC.jpg)

So are we bombing anything in Libya right now, or are we just refueling the French and providing AWACS support?

It's not about agreeing with one another, it's about the big ol' bandaids that your side's regulars use to nurse the wounds after one of you gets attacked. If I ding RM on something, he's a big enough guy to take care of himself. Still, that won't stop T from jumping to his defense as if he is RM's older brother. That's precisely what happened here, AGAIN. I bet a majority of our flame wars would end quickly if we would jest leave the squabblers alone. And before anyone goes all Rodney King and suggest we should all just get along, ain't going to happen.

Stop the name calling and personal attacks, the calling out of anyone you have an issue with and perhaps things would get better.

Up yours T. Damned hypocrite. You and the dooshy forum cop are the worst exhibitors of my point.

edited.

Ta daaaaaa

Oh. You got me...

(http://www.rapierwit.com/images/Rapier%20and%20Cape.jpg)

Should've parried my lunge.

hook line and sinker  You can't  resist the ad hominem.

Seriously, he just can't help it.

Good luck to you G.

I freakin knew this would happen. What is it with you guys? Are you the same person, or do you live together, do you have each other on speed dial? Seriously, this is very creepy how fast you can run to each other. I may really need to get that mental bleach to erase that Spock & Kirk image in the tub together. It's getting too real.

What's with your infinite supply of bad attitude?

Are you freakin kidding me? You are the most contrary person in this forum and you ask me about bad attitude? I am maxed out on that back-biting/whiny little clique that's in this forum. I feel like I am talking to these people in here.

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRutWa51oqGVZyjqYFRHu2t9okV9Wty5RuMrokTG5ZWUOzhEP9Y)

I'm sure you do think I'm quite contrary, given that I disagree with you on almost everything political.

You are probably right, but to your credit you are not part of that teenage girl nonsense.

Who's doing the whining now?

Have you ever stopped to think that the reason no one comes to your defense is because nobody likes you?

I've heard that you have this set up as your 'online persona'.  Usually, you want a persona to make people take you seriously, maybe even like you a little.

You're doing it wrong, Tony.

I am a bit busy with a project, so I do not have the time to map out my entire legal basis for my opinion on the WPA. In a nutshell, I do not think Congress has any business interfering with the presidential power to use force to protect the country.

But they do have the power to cut off funding for anything they damn well please, surely?

Then let them cut off funds. Just don't pass laws that restrict a president's power which is plainly expressed in the Constitution.

Do 4 half wits make 2 wits?

There's the caboose.

Thank you. When you have the time, start another thread on this.

The whole issue of when is the right time to use military force to protect the rest of the world from evil leaders of other countries is beyond me. I don't know why we are always the world's police force.

Guys, could we please have a discussion without three out of five pages being nothing but insults and ad hominems.  The occasional gig is expected, but to seriously carry this on over a couple of pages is ridiculous.

Guido, quit baiting.  Townsend and Hoss, ignore the baiting.  Please.

Agreed.  It's tough to invite decent contributors when the threads look like this.

I'll ignore him.

Actually, the baiting started with Gas and the 'reach-around' comment, but I digress.  I'll ignore both for the time being.

I was preemptively ignoring the other's existance in the political arena.

The reason why there were no serious replies is because this wasn't a serious post.  He might as well make threads upon threads with the subject and contents "Obama did something so its wrong".  Thats great.. He already posted this same thing in another thread.  We wouldn't be having this conversation if it was Bush or McCain.  The war powers act does state that anything over 60 days requires at least an authorization of force.  So by that it should be voted on.  Unless of course you claim that Al Qaeda is in Libya.  In which case force was already authroized under the AUMF Against Terrorists I would imagine.  I think an "authorization of force" should also have some sort of time frame as well.  Seems like over a decade in Iraq is a little more than an authorization of force and the WPA isn't exactly specific on anything.   

I disagree with that. This is a serious issue in that one GOP congressman and at least one nutcase on the left (Kucinich) are suing to have this statute enforced. The GOP-led House is demanding compliance. THE WPA is a Congressional overreach in my opinion, and the thought that our courts would inject itself in a political dispute/squabble is disturbing. The other thing is Obama's about-face from this position he took in 2007:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/15/kucinich-obama-war-powers-act-libya_n_877396.html

This, on top of his flip on the need to raise the debt ceiling, deserves to be pointed out.  

I didn't say it wasn't a serious issue.  I said it wasn't a serious post (there is a difference).  This isn't Iraq (as many of you compare it to) but shouldn't necessarily be treated differently.  
 said.  From another article

“We’re not engaged in sustained fighting. There’s been no exchange of fire with hostile forces. We don’t have troops on the ground. We don’t risk casualties to those troops,” said one senior administration official, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity during a conference call arranged by the White House. “None of the factors, frankly, speaking more broadly, has risked the sort of escalation that Congress was concerned would impinge on its war-making power.”

These are things that didn't exist when the war powers act was created.  Obviously the war powers act was in a reaction to Korea and Vietnam.  This is a new type of fighting that does cost money but doesn't necessarily cost lives.


And on the debt ceiling
Obama "thinks it was a mistake," presidential spokesman Jay Carney told reporters. "He realizes now that raising the debt ceiling is so important to the health of this economy and the global economy that it is not a vote that, even when you are protesting an administration's policies, you can play around with."

So he said he was wrong in voting against it.  What more do you want him to say?  I must admit that I as well see things differently than in 2006.  You had the Iraq war that was only going to last a couple of months according to Rumsfeld et al.  The economy was WAY better than today.  Given the economy today and the weakness of the global economy I do believe that this is a way bigger deal than in 2006.  Do you disagree?  Basically to not raise the debt ceiling is to force a balanced budget immediately. 

I see the difference, but despite the flame war I have tried to discuss the issue. Disputes over whether the WPA should be invoked raged when Reagan invaded Grenada, when Bush I invaded Panama, and when Clinton got involved in the Balkans. This not a knew thing, and the size of the conflict is immaterial. It's more of a political tool used by the party out of power to saber rattle. Just another reason to throw this Act away.

As for the debt ceiling vote I know what Carney said, but here is what Obama said:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjnN_J6wPmk[/youtube]

It was a political vote and had nothing to do with the excuses you set out. That's the reason why I brought it up.

War is the same as any large government program.  It is expensive and very hard to revoke.  I am in favor of ending all 4 of these useless and expensive conflicts.  The problem with implementing a time-frame is that you telegraph an opportunity for failure.

If the City of Detroit made an announcement that they were going to cut the police force by 75% on July 23, 2011, don't you think that the major criminal groups, gangs, Mexican cartels, mob bosses, and serial bank robbers, and rappers rapists would mark their calendars (so to speak)?

When you enter into a conflict your goal is victory by the fastest means possible.  Not victory on July 23rd.

Sure it is necessary to set up milestones with objective dates, but that is an internal matter.  To provide the enemy with an envelope for your retreat is insane.  You want them to think that your merciless attacks against their aggression will go on forever unless they surrender or are killed.   You have to make surrender the only reasonable option.  To provide a mission termination date gives the enemy new options.

I am no general or military strategist, and I may be missing some advantage in issuing a withdraw date, but I can't think of what it is.  You should never deploy military force unless victory is your objective.  In my opinion this means you should never deploy military force unless the imminent safety of the nation is at stake.  That logic renders most of our recent actions illegitimate. 

 

 

I can't find any specifics from anybody on why they voted against it.  A politician saying they did it for politics isn't a very descriptive answer.  I assume you are saying the politics of blowing through our surplus?

Sometimes your goal is the most money possible.  We already did some pulling out of Iraq and actually gave a date.  Was that horrible?  I haven't heard much about Iraq recently.

Iraq was a whole lot more relevant to the MSM and left leaning media when President Bush was in office.  Things like a daily body count in the newspaper appear to have disappeared.  I've not seen it in the paper in awhile but I don't look for it when I pick it up here at the office.  Certainly the tide has turned in Iraq, but it's not ended all fighting and attacks on our troops.

I took a late lunch today and I think it's Mark Simone who is sitting in for Limpbaugh today.  He was bleating about how now President Obama has double the troops in Afghanistan than he did when he came to office.  To be perfectly fair to President Obama, wasn't it 18 months ago the same right wing talking heads were blasting him for dithering on the surge and not getting more troops in there?  He can't win with the conservative media just like Bush couldn't win with the liberal media.  One difference I do see, however, is the alphabet networks aren't giving Iraq near the coverage they did prior to the election in '08.  JMO.


I don't agree.  Any missiles we supply NATO or an ally and any bombs dropped from drones which kill innocent civilians in such a situation could result in a much larger scale involvement and would certainly be construed as an act of war in the country we are doing it.  So would a forceful regime change.  Were we not involved in the shelling of Uncle Moamar's compound?

I bet anything that Congress votes to continue funding of the war in Libya.

When your enemy is doing something foolish, it is wise not to interrupt him. - Unkonown

I was wrong.  The war in Libya is over!

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) says "the president is not an absolute monarch."

In other Libya news, not only have we not rooted out Uncle Moamar, we've managed to lose 2mm barrels per day of global oil production as a result of the Libyan war operation.  Now we are dipping into the strategic reserves. It's also viewed as "stimulus".  30mm bbls is not even two days consumption for the United States.

What a load of smile!  I'm sorry, I really try to give him credit, but it seems like at almost every turn he exhibits what happens when someone with no leadership skills is allowed to run the show.  The Senate was a great fit for him, but he Peter Principled after that brief stop.

"Four reasons are emerging for President Obama's surprise decision Thursday to release 30 million barrels of oil from the nation's strategic reserve -- economic stimulus; a looming supply shortage; a wake up call to OPEC; and a warning shot to speculators in the oil market."

http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/24/news/international/oil_obama/

Wow!  They got it both ways. . .

They voted not to authorize the mission, AND to continue funding for the mission.

That way President Obama can't come back and claim that republicans are trying to starve the troops by cutting funding for operations (or push them off cliffs in wheelchairs). 

Firs the leading Republican on the Senate armed services committee says Obama isn't acting soon enough.  Then he acts, then the GOP say he shouldn't have acted.  Then they vote to fund it but don't authorize the use of the funds.  Flippity Floppity

Hey, think of it this way. We just made up the money that Guido's $10/month/family assessment on po' folks would have made!

Seriously, though, Libyan oil isn't as relevant as you'd think. 2 million barrels a day is a whopping 2% of world production.

Don't tell me, tell President Obama.  He's the moron that authorized the release of oil from the strategic reserves.

Terrific. Hillary "I am Sick and Tired..." Clinton wants to know whose side you are on if you oppose the Libyan operation.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/23/hillary-to-congressional-libya-critics-whose-side-are-you-on/

The times, they are a changin:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Why is that moronic? Past releases have consistently been effective at reducing oil and gasoline prices. Granted, it's 99% about sentiment and not any real effect on the supply chain, but it usually works.