Posted on 06/17/2011 9:04:13 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
On March 21, 2011, Obama cited the WPR which requires him to notify Congresa 48 hours before beginning military operations. That same day Obama said that the military strikes against Libya would be "limited in their nature, duration and scope."
During the past almost 90 days, Obama has given updates on these "limited" strikes. Now that 90 days draws near, Carney says that since the strikes have been "limited" that basically the 90 day rule doesn't apply. He apparently wants to use a WPA provision which allows for the president to deploy U.S. forces and engage in military strikes for 90 days to nullify the 90 day rule since the strikes are somehow "limited."
This begs the question: If this isn't a "war" but rather a "kinetic" whatever since grounds troops aren't involved, and never were going to be involed, then why did Obama invoke the WPR? As well, is the O administration trying to redefine the WPA? If the strikes are "limited" from now on, the 90 day rule doesn't apply? And if no grounds troops are used, then no war and no need for the WPA in that case?
What say you?
Bracky Huskster Obummererang said: "War? What`s war?"
I call B.S. The substance of the matter is that we are war.
I say that we owe a HUGE apology to Japan! I mean, they only BOMBED Pearl Harbor, it’s not like they landed troops or anything! According to Obama (and Whoopi), it wasn’t a war-war!
I used to think these people were hypocrites, but now I realize they are simply IGNORANT, IMBECILES who have absolutely NO CLUE to how the world works! Liberalism is OBVIOUSLY a mental disorder!
Let’s see, it dependends on ‘what the definition of IS, IS’
And that evil Joe Biden, his puppet master!
Propping up their buddies at G.E.'s Military Industrial Complex!
O what grounds?
So we should cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war?
If Obama is trying to find a way around the WPA and considers it to be unconstitutional (as other presidents have), then he should have asked Congress beforehand to scuttle it.
Took me a little while, but it’s apparent that Obama and Carney appear to indeed be pushing it. How can you use “limited” strikes under the WPA 90 day rule and then have Carney argue that the limitedness of the operations somehow does away with the 90 day rule? How can only boots on the ground be the definition of what constitutes war?
If Obama finds the WPA to be unconstitutional, then he shouldn’t push it but have asked Congress beforehand to scuttle it. Why would Obama, a Dem, want to have the WPA thrown out if Dems use the WPA to beat Republicans?
Democrats can find more ways to skirt the laws and regulations . The intent of the law, The direction it should take ,mean nothing to these craphouse lawyers.
My guess is that Obama had no idea what he was doing, rushed into things with the best excuse he could come up with, and is now living with the consequences.
If he can get congress to say "No big deal, we agree that the WPA doesn't really apply here" then the Democrats will retain the WPA as a stick with which they can beat future Republican presidents.
However, Obama may have opened a can of worms. If Congress says, "We seek to enforce the WPA" then Obama may end up trying to kill the thing and taking that weapon away from future Democrats.
Note above comment by Venturer.
In all the Birther cases you have seen ...
When you are king, compliance is unnecessary. In fact it (rule of law) is a nuisance when answering to the little people.
The king should be impeached whereas the only rule of law is a vote yea or nay for ouster which could be just a voting of conscience (morals).
The kinetic Orwellian crap is to provide cover for an adoring press, zombies who defend this Administration and Congresscritters who approve of raping the Constitution, *cough* Article I Section 8 *cough*
Indeed, we are at war but we cannot call it so, ah!
What people were thinking? Hyppies are dirty and so is war, and the both are brothers.
Zero, like all dirty dictator, is a war monger and loves blood shed of other people’s.
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.