Posted on 07/02/2011 9:59:58 AM PDT by darkwing104
When asked about his personal war against Libya and criticism about ignoring congress in a blatant disregard of the War Powers Act the President brushed both aside as just “noise”. Obama has no intention to seek congressional approval as required by law. The President wants Americans to ignore the fact that the incursion into Libya was supposed to be a US Lead effort to establish a UN mandated “No Fly Zone” and no more.
He wants us to overlook the fact that this “kinetic military exercise” which started as a NATO air operations is now an overt effort to assassinate Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi.
Congress strikes back
In an effort to justify the president’s contempt for the law, legal adviser to the State Department Harold Koh stated “From the outset, we noted that the situation in Libya does not constitute a war”. Outraged, Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) shot back “When you have an operation that goes on for months, costs billions of dollars, where the United States is providing two-thirds of the troops, even under the NATO fig leaf, where they’re dropping bombs that are killing people, where you’re paying your troops offshore combat pay and there are areas of prospective escalation — something I’ve been trying to get a clear answer from with this administration for several weeks now, and that is the possibility of a ground presence in some form or another, once the Qaddafi regime expires — I would say that’s hostilities.”
Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) accused the White House of “sticking a stick in the eye of Congress” and saying it had done “a great disservice to our country.””
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
I agree with him. The GOP is all talk no action...Noise.
Sue, schmue! Impeach the bastard.
Shouldn’t the word be ‘’flouts’’ the law?
Obama started out as simply another hate driven Leftist--one, incidentally, with no effective American roots. But he has now become a dangerous loose cannon.
As for his Libyan adventure: Libya, America & The Law Of Nations.
Frankly, it is difficult to see how any of this ends nicely! We need to make Monday a day for prayerful reflection. There is very little to celebrate.
William Flax
i’m working through a thought.
when it comes to the topic of ‘corruption’ during leadership:
the right’s primary effort is to take care of the nation first, directing efforts and following laws to support that end. while doing that, taking advantage of and creating benefit to themselves and those on their side as a side benefit.
the left’s primary effort is to benefit them selves and those on their side by twisting/distorting laws and images...like the image that they’re trying to take care of the nation.
as i say...i’m trying to work this through...would welcome your input. thanks.
From Languagetips.com:
Tip 1: If you’ve got it, flout it?
Someone recently asked me if there was a difference between flout and flaunt. The answer is decidedly yes. The two words are often, and more and more commonly, confused, but, in truth, the only similarity between the two is in their pronunciation–not in their meanings.
Flout means to disregard in a smug manner, defy, show disdain for, mock.
This so-called writer flouts all the rules of grammar.
Flaunt means to show off, to parade or display ostentatiously.
That investigator flaunts his success in getting NIH grants in front of the whole faculty.
If you’ve got it, flaunt it.
The problem is that people often use “flaunt” when they mean “flout,” although you don’t often see “flout” used as “flaunt.” But “flaunt” should be used as “flaunt,” and “flout should be used as “flout.” I think part of the problem may be that both “flaunt” and “flout” imply some arrogance (flouting the law, flaunting her wealth), but the meanings are actually distinct, and one word should not be used as the other.
I've completely lost what little respect I ever had for the GOP. The House should have months ago initiated impeachment proceedings based on Obama's repeated blatant disregard for the law, in this a numerous other areas. No, the Senate would not have convicted, but we should have required them to take a vote.
This is a high crime. If the House of Representatives does not move forward with impeachment, then its members are complicit.
“Sue, schmue! Impeach the bastard.”
______________________________________
He should be tried for treason for what he’s attempted (and is doing) to our country, and hung by his balls!
One of the key components of leftist logic is projection. Last week is an excellent example of projection.
Obama screws up his daughter,s ages. Press attacks Bachman for founding fathers comment (even though she was correct).
Accused the Congress of slacking their duties, well this president is known as the King of Vacations.
Wants to be serious and works with congress to solve the budget problem as long as the republican abandoned their partisanship...but he won't abandon his.
Democrats accused Republicans of Sabotaging the economy, while they have been doing that by themselves since 2006.
As for the war in Libya, its what the rats falsely accused President Bush did concerning Iraq. If anyone in congress tries to attack Obama the LSM and Jon Stewart will all sing in harmony that "It's Bush's Fault".
We all know that such laws only apply to Republicans. Ask any major news outlet! They know all of the fact the White House tells them to repeat...
This creature, elected by a sick American populace, is dangerous. Right now he is testing the waters by violating laws most people do not care about or evn understand. Once the populace becomes used to his ignoring such laws his law breaking will grow more frequent and serious.
Bingo!
Talk is cheap.
If I were in Congress, I would be demanding that this War Powers Act violation be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court.
This is not about being for Gaddhafi or against Gaddhafi. This is about upholding The Rule of Law.
i agree with you completely. although i didn’t say so explicitly, i include them projecting onto the right in their twisting of ‘image’.
thanks for your input
Thank you. My Websters defines ‘’flout’’ as an adjective.1. To treat with disdain,scorn or contempt. 2. to show disdain, scorn or contempt. to mock or gibe.
The whole “flaunt/flout” thing is one of my pet peeves, though not to the extent of the ‘prolly for probably’ idiocy (which will become a capital offense if I ever become Supreme World Dictator). Like it or not, that’s one of the mistakes-like e.g. “marshal(l) law” for “martial law”-that wipes out 90% of the reader’s faith in the author knowing what s/he’s writing about. It creates a ‘credibility gap’, if you will.
One of my pet peeves is ‘’pre-planned’’. How do you get together to plan something ahead of planning it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.