He is in violation of the statute. There was/is no authorization for military action beyond 60 days. I don’t see the words to mince here. He is currently engaged in open active criminal activity.
This is completely consistent with the Obama Doctrine, which is basically this: whatever Obama wants is, by definition, lawful and good. What displeases or inconveniences Obama is illegal and evil.
What about the Al Qaeda terrorists within the Libyan rebels that Hussein is aiding??? No one asking the pertinent questions in DC!
In other words, “We don’t need no stinkin’ resolution!”
The Congress and Attorney General, let alone WH counsel, Bauer, apparently didn’t get the memo about how 0bama can do whatever the frack he bloody (well, other American families’ blood)wants. Huh.
Making $h!ite up as they go along. And greasing the skids of the TOTUS’ agenda with American military guts and blood. Ayres and Dohrn, let alone Wright, 0bama, Pelosi, Reid and Soros, must be screeching with delight. Break out the Cristal! More American military died in the last 3 days ALONE!
/loathing
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
“We believe we are acting consistent with the War Powers resolution,” Carney continued.
Gee Mr.Carney, who died and made you president.
He should have said, “The President believes he was
acting consistant with the War Powers resolution.”
Baaah, probably a Ivy league education.
-PJ
“The measure is nonbinding, but expressly prohibits ground troops”
Uh - K...
This is really an impeachable offense. I believe that the Republicans in Congress need to draft articles of impeachment.
There is no question he is in “violation of the statute”.
What is also not in question is that he will not be the first POTUS to question the constitutionality of the statute and in that regard he has both Ronald Reagan and G.H.W.Bush, among others, he joins - they too thought they had wiggle room over it, Constitutionally.
My first real complaint is Obama’s phony base, and the phony candidate Obama himself, both of whom DID demand that a President could not act whatsoever militarily, in Contravention of the War Powers Act, unless WE were threatened.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot - now that he occupies the seat of the POTUS, Obama sees it differently. I guess humility is not one of his strengths.
My second real complaint is toward the backers of the bill in the House of Representatives. Their bill makes them hypocrites as well. They wanted to say Obama had no authority to act, and then they refused to legislate the imposition of their own Constitutional authority - to block funding of any U.S. related actions in/over/around/regarding Libya.
So, which is it guys?
Defund the dam war!
Why are we spending our young lifves and blood for oil that china is getting in the first place?
This needs to be stopped.
From the War Powers law:
c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Soebarkah did not get (1) a declaration of war from Congress or (2) specific authorization from Congress and (3) he was not responding to an attack on us.
The 60 days doesn’t matter because it was illegal from the beginning.
The Constitution doesn’t allow the president to go around declaring war on whatever country he feels like.
He should be impeached and removed from office for attacking a country not at war with us without the authorization of Congress as required by the Constitution.
IIRC, the last demoncrat pResident also shorted our Tomahawk inventory shooting-up camel asses, trying to get Monica off the front page ....................................... FRegards