REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Approval for no-fly zone

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 6, 2011 10:03
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1496
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, March 31, 2011 2:05 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I keep hearing screaming that Obama didn't "consult" with Congress before moving on the UN Resolution for same. Yet, from a RIGHT-WING article, I find this:
Quote:

O'Donnell tried to pinpoint the hypocrisy of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for criticizing Obama's failure to obtain authorization from Congress for military action in Libya. The liberal MSNBC host referred back to a nonbinding Senate resolution passed unanimously on March 1, calling for the U.N. Security Council to implement a no-fly zone over Libya.

Since the resolution passed unanimously, O'Donnell believed McConnell to be a hypocrite for voting for a no-fly zone and then calling out President Obama for failing to seek authorization from Congress. The nonbinding resolution, though, was effectively an opinion from the Senate on the matter. The U.S. Congress never authorized President Obama to declare war or preside over military action in Libya.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2011/03/28/larry-odonnell-cont
essa-brewer-spin-libya-scrutiny-away-obama?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nb+%28NewsBusters.org+-+Exposing+Liberal+Media+Bias%29


So by voting unanimously for a resolution calling for a no-fly zone, what did the Senate MEAN?? It says it was just an "opinion", and it was nonbinding, and didn't authorize Obama to "declare war". But neither he nor anyone else HAS "declared war"; if they were giving their unanimous "opinion" in favor of a UN no-fly zone, and did so without discussion or debate, what did they think would happen? Why didn't they want to debate, discuss, or learn more about the situation BACK THEN, before voting unanimously in favor of what the UN and Obama DID, only to now say they should have been "consulted". Doesn't them passing the resolution (unanimously, again, remember) mean they WERE consulted? Isn't even just asking for an "opinion" consulting?

I'm getting dizzy again. This wouldn't be a political ploy, would it? I mean by a body of people who don't want to be held accountable for actually voting IN FAVOR of intervention in Libya, who want to be left free to criticize Obama, but who actually already VOTED in favor of a UN no-fly zone? Naaaa, that's just not possible.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 31, 2011 3:14 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


That Senate Resolution (S. Res. 85) also says that the United States Senate welcomes any and all efforts to aid the rebels.



"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 31, 2011 6:05 PM

DREAMTROVE


Pretty broad interpretation


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 1, 2011 2:40 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Wow. It's a good thing Pres. Bush II got Congressional approval for his attack on Iraq back in 2002, or folks might be saying he also started an illegal war.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 1, 2011 2:57 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Pfft, what are you talking about? Bush lied, people died. You can tell it's truth cause it rhymes and is catchy. All that congressional approval is irrelevant cause Bush is a big dumb monkey. Oh, but you can't say that about Obama, cause then it's racist.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 1, 2011 3:07 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
I keep hearing screaming that Obama didn't "consult" with Congress before moving on the UN Resolution for same.

I think the actual accusation was the president did not have congressional authorization to declare war. Kucinich actually brought up the transgression as an impeachable offense.

Here is his awesome speech again:

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=233188

Quote:

...The power to declare war is firmly and explicitly vested in the Congress of the United States under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Let us make no mistake about it, dropping 2000 lb bombs and unleashing the massive firepower of our air force on the capital of a sovereign state is in fact an act of war and no amount of legal acrobatics can make it otherwise.

It is that same arrogance of power which the former Senator from Arkansas, J. William Fulbright, saw shrouded in the deceit which carried us into the abyss of the war in Vietnam. We determined we would never again see another Vietnam. It was the awareness of the unchecked power and arrogance of the executive which led Congress to pass the War Powers Act.

The Congress through the War Powers Act provided the executive with an exception to unilaterally respond only when the nation was in actual or imminent danger; to “repel sudden attacks.”

Today we are in a constitutional crisis because our chief executive has assumed for himself powers to wage war which are neither expressly defined nor implicit in the Constitution, nor permitted under the War Powers Act.

This is a challenge not just to the Administration, but to Congress itself:

The President has no right to wrest that fundamental power from Congress - and we have no right to cede it to him.

We, Members of Congress can no more absolve our president of his responsibility to obey this profound constitutional mandate then we can absolve ourselves of our failure to rise to the instant challenge that is before us today.

We violate our sacred trust to the citizens of the United States and our oath to uphold the constitution if we surrender this great responsibility and through our own inaction acquiesce in another terrible war.

We must courageously defend the oath that we took to defend the Constitution of the United States of America or we forfeit our right to participate in representative government.

How can we pretend to hold other sovereigns to fundamental legal principles through wars in foreign lands if we do not hold our own presidents to fundamental legal principles at home?...



Yes, Obama "consulted" the senate. That is not a formal declaration of war by the Congress of the USA under the War Powers Act. I think Kucinich makes a good case.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 1, 2011 2:21 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Wow. It's a good thing Pres. Bush II got Congressional approval for his attack on Iraq back in 2002, or folks might be saying he also started an illegal war.

"Keep the Shiny side up"




They only say that because he did.

Unless you can specifically show me the exact document with the words "declaration of war against Iraq".

Obama's little war is also illegal, but *NOT* for the reason the righties keep crying about ("He didn't consult with Congress! WAAAAHHHHHH!), because he did indeed consult with Congress. He just didn't get them to declare war.

In point of fact, the United States has not declared war in almost 70 years. Every single war we've been in since the end of WWII has been an illegal war, according to the Constitution.


Trivia note: The last U.S. formal declaration of war came on June 5, 1942, when we declared war on the nations of Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 1, 2011 2:28 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


CTS: No President has ever paid much heed to the War Powers Act, and no Congress has ever pushed the matter, because (a) they don't want to find out that they may not have a legal leg to stand on, and (b) they REALLY don't want the authority to have to declare war.

The War Powers Act gives the President a chance to use military force without any real debate (but only in a limited sense, allegedly), AND it simultaneously gives Congress the chance to either (a) endorse said action if it proves to be popular, or (b) distance themselves from it if it proves unpopular, claiming that THEY never voted for said actions.



"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 3, 2011 7:41 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yes,
Quote:

distance themselves from it if it proves unpopular, claiming that THEY never voted for said actions.
There's also the "small" matter that he DID NOT DECLARE WAR, dammit! Everyone keeps ignoring that, and yes, it was a unanimous "vote", anyone who wanted to could vote AGAINST the resolution, but NOBODY did, including all the Republicans. It's just easy now to point the finger at Obama for going ahead.

I still want to know: If they voted unanimously for a measure APPROVING the U.N.'s call for a no-fly zone, how can they now say he didn't "consult" them? It's an obvious dichotomy, aside from the fact that Obama did consult with congressional leaders on March 18, the day before ordering military action in Libya - not to ask their advice, but to inform them of his decision. On Monday, he explained the mission in a two-page letter to Capitol Hill, citing his authority as commander in chief. So if they knew what he was going to do, why didn't they raise questions or ask for debate THEN?

Of course we know why--people were so outraged at Ghadafi's actions they WANTED us to help, so public statements or votes against the no-fly zone would have raised a furor. As I recall, even Congressional Republicans were in FAVOR of it before Obama did it; then of course, they're against it, and, also of course, began tossing around "declaration of war" even tho' no such thing happened. Bah.




Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 3, 2011 3:20 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Unless you can specifically show me the exact document with the words "declaration of war against Iraq".



Okay, we'll do this ex post facto

I certainly didn't say anything about declaring war on Iraq. I said authorization to attack.

See Public Law 107-243. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 3, 2011 4:29 PM

DREAMTROVE



Geezer,

Why defend the indefensible? You weren't really a strong proponent of the war when we were fighting it, now it's proven to be a disaster for the US, there's pro-Iran govt. in power that won't sign the trade agreement.

The whole thing is a world war about a stupid trade agreement that doesn't benefit us anyway. Opposing it is easy. Splitting hairs between one part of this domino chain reaction trainwreck is just pointless.

Each administration is a little worse because each builds on the crimes of the last, and pushes it a little further. It's not like there's a lot of complex policy disagreements going on in D.C. It's somewhere between Roman Arena Theater and a Circus Sideshow.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 3, 2011 7:03 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


This whole thing in Libya is a disaster, the rebels don't have a plan much less cohesion with each other, I don't think we're going to get very far here. Now if the quadruple S existed (the Super Secret Sniper Society, my clandestine organization that does away with corrupt dictators whose people want them dead), the rebels would have had to contact them and they would have had to demonstrate clear forethought and a plan, then the Quadruple S would have gone in and done away with Qadaffi and let the rebels sort it out, all the while remaining distant enough that the US could say "We didn't do it"", because they sent the Quadruple S in there to take care of it. Why can't we run our affairs that way? :l, as it stands this is a disaster which I feel will prove to be pointless. At first I was like "Well if they want us to help then maybe we could" but that was before I saw how disorganized the rebels are and how they have no cohesive plan of action.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 3, 2011 8:30 PM

DREAMTROVE



It's not our choice. That's what the white man's burden is really about. It's Libya's choice. If we play god with the world we're spreading our own corrupt corporatist demagoguery.

As someone recently pointed out in a thread, we all just watched Haiti, a democracy, crumble into utter ruins while the neighboring and demographically basically identical Dominican Republic, a dictatorship, thrive.

It's all more complicated than we think. Whenever we are far from home, changing people's govts., it's a pretty safe bet that we mean them no good.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 4, 2011 7:53 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I still want to know: If they voted unanimously for a measure APPROVING the U.N.'s call for a no-fly zone, how can they now say he didn't "consult" them? It's an obvious dichotomy, aside from the fact that Obama did consult with congressional leaders on March 18, the day before ordering military action in Libya - not to ask their advice, but to inform them of his decision. They could have objected or insisted on debate THEN, rather than vote unanimously to back the U.N. resolution. Later he explained the mission in a two-page letter to Capitol Hill, citing his authority as commander in chief. So if they knew what he was going to do, why didn't they raise questions or ask for debate THEN?

The excuse has been given that the unanimous vote was just "the way it's done" and had no meaning, but MOST laws ARE voted through by this method, so they know what it means and they know JUST ONE dissenting voice will require discussion and debate.

So essentially: He DID consult; they DID vote unanimously; and he NEVER "declared war". Is ANYONE gonna respond to that?


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 4, 2011 1:14 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Geezer,

Why defend the indefensible?



Was I? I thought I was just noting that Pres. Bush II had a clearer authorization by the Congress to use force in Iraq that Pres. Obama has in Libya.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 11:40 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Geezer,

Why defend the indefensible?



Was I? I thought I was just noting that Pres. Bush II had a clearer authorization by the Congress to use force in Iraq that Pres. Obama has in Libya.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



I don't think there's a lot of dissent on that point. But when you argue it in that manner, it comes off as a defense of the invasion of Iraq, which was an unmitigated disaster. I don't see where a defense of it profits anyone.

Michael Steele got a lot of flack for blaming Obama for "most of" the war in Afghanistan, but he was correct. Afghanistan is Obama's in the way that Vietnam was more Johnson's than it was Kennedy's. If you inherit a war, and don't end it, you own it. If you radically escalate a war, you own it more severely, it becomes your war of choice.

Steele's point was: The was is really unpopular, and pretty unsuccessful, conservatives would do well to not take ownership of it.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 12:00 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Pres. Bush II had a clearer authorization by the Congress to use force in Iraq that Pres. Obama has in Libya.
And Iraq was an invasion of a sovereign nation; Libya is a no-fly zone and there is no intention of invading. Biiig difference.

Once again; they voted unanimously for the no-fly zone, so why are they screaming now?


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 4:13 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Once again; they voted unanimously for the no-fly zone, so why are they screaming now?



Because the vote, as you noted above, was a "Non-binding Resolution" which has no actual standing - as opposed to the resolution allowing military action against Iraq, which had the force of law. It's just Congress's way of weaseling out of any responsibility.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 4:27 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
And Iraq was an invasion of a sovereign nation; Libya is a no-fly zone and there is no intention of invading. Biiig difference.

Did you read Kucinich's speech at all?

Libya is also a sovereign nation.

Iraq was a ground invasion of a sovereign nation. Libya is an air invasion of a sovereign nation. The difference isn't all that big.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 1:46 AM

DREAMTROVE


There's a ground invasion too, it's just not American troops. It's hired guns with our weapons, or sometimes plastic toys. It's pretty scary because I think we're setting some of them up to be killed so that we can use that. If you get your enemy to do something evil, you win the higher ground.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 5:54 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

It's just Congress's way of weaseling out of any responsibility.
Thank you, Geezer. My point precisely. No that anyone should even have to SAY it, everything that’s happened around us for decades should have made it clear to us.

CTS, you can call the no-fly zone an “air invasion”, but it’s not. That’s more politispeak, in my opinion. There is no comparison between the two as I see it. Iraq was intended and planned long before, 9/11 was used as an excuse to invade, and it was a major invasion. Libya is something we were essentially “forced” into because of the situation (not saying there’s no intent to gain from it!) and is a minor incursion. Bush was DYING to get his hands on Iraq; Obama probably wouldn’t TOUCH Libya if he’d had much of a choice...and the Republicans would have been roasting him over the coals if he hadn’t.

DT: I dunno, I think those “hired guns” (if you mean the opposition) were kind of being killed before we got in there, weren’t they? Or are you saying we SENT all those Libyans in to cause all this? Awful lot of Libyans to hire, isn't it? Are you saying WE gave them plastic guns??? I’d find that pretty far fetched, I’m afraid. I don’t think we have any need to get Ghadafi to do something “evil”, I think he’s been doing that quite nicely by himself. While we can debate the right or wrong of us being involved, I don’t think there was any need to set anything up, it was all right there before we ever got involved, wasn’t it?

The rebels can’t do it, that’s pretty obvious to me. I think the only hope is those close to Ghadafi’s defecting, which they’ve been doing, to the point where he’s got nobody. Maybe...maybe then...


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 10:03 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:

DT: I dunno, I think those “hired guns” (if you mean the opposition) were kind of being killed before we got in there, weren’t they? Or are you saying we SENT all those Libyans in to cause all this? Awful lot of Libyans to hire, isn't it? Are you saying WE gave them plastic guns??? I’d find that pretty far fetched, I’m afraid. I don’t think we have any need to get Ghadafi to do something “evil”, I think he’s been doing that quite nicely by himself.



I don't even know where to start. I'm afraid we live on different planets. Yes, obviously we sent in and armed, or fake armed the rebels to overthrow the regime because they wouldn't sign our Arab League FTA and WTO agreements, and it's pretty damn obvious that we did it through the State Dept. AKA Hillary's private little army there with the JSOC/Blackwater run COIN operations with a little assist from the CIA and the regular alphabet soup, and if this wasn't completely self apparent I'm just at a loss as to where even to begin a discussion.

Obviously the Qaddafi govt. hasn't changed in 30 years, nor has it done anything remarkable. We attacked to create an incident so we could bomb. Duh. If a blue puppet stands up and says "Oh look, now he's evil, we're heroes, the heroes of preemtion!" you're going to suddenly believe that over your own logical brain which has been informed on Qaddafi's govt. for the last three decades?

Obama flat out *said* we were going in there to protect American interests and institute financial policy changes. He said it twice that day, and he also either flat out said or implied that it was our duty and responsibility to take charge and change Libyan policy and basically save these people from themselves. Yay, pick up the white man's burden.

BTW, As a white man, I'm sick of lugging it around, and if Obama's going to take ownership of it like this, he can have it.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Wed, December 4, 2024 13:42 - 4886 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, December 4, 2024 13:16 - 4813 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Wed, December 4, 2024 12:37 - 427 posts
Pardon all J6 Political Prisoners on Day One
Wed, December 4, 2024 12:31 - 7 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, December 4, 2024 07:25 - 7538 posts
My Smartphone Was Ruining My Life. So I Quit. And you can, too.
Wed, December 4, 2024 06:10 - 3 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Tue, December 3, 2024 23:31 - 54 posts
Vox: Are progressive groups sinking Democrats' electoral chances?
Tue, December 3, 2024 21:37 - 1 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Tue, December 3, 2024 20:35 - 962 posts
Trump is a moron
Tue, December 3, 2024 20:16 - 13 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Tue, December 3, 2024 11:39 - 6941 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Mon, December 2, 2024 21:22 - 302 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL