Posted on 06/16/2011 7:24:12 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
At UPI.com there is a 3/21/2011 news article entitled "Obama Sends War Powers Notification."
In the article, Obama notified Congress of his decision to deploy U.S. forces against Gadhfi. Obama said that the strikes against Libya's air defense systems and military airfields to establish no-fly zones were authorized under U.N. security Resolution 1973.
Obama said "These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration and scope. Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce U.N. Security Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners."
Based upon this and based upon Obama administration officials recent comments that we are not at war presently there...
A.) We were never at war, and Obama misled us when he cited the WPR. (Which I do not believe to be the case).
B.) Obama considers us to not prsently be at war with Libya, though we once were since he cited the WPR, and since there are no boots on the ground - which raises the following:
1.) Obama cited the WPR as justification for striking Libya. Given that, strikes against them are warfare. How could they be warfare earlier but not warfare now? If air strikes aren't warfare then why cite the WPR. Given that Obama cited the WPR, strikes then and now are apparently warfare - so Obama is presently under the authority of WPR, and Congress as well.
2.) Obama no longer believes himself to be under the WPR, but is now operating under UN Security Resolution 1973. If so, then air strikes/predator drone strikes would be putting him at odds with his own words and he has ezceeded the "limited nature, duration and scope" of these strikes under the WPR and thus his own words "These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by OTHER COALITION PARTNERS." Hence, other coalition partners will now have to engage in air strikes, not the U.S.
If Obama didn't want to be hemmed in, he shouldn't have cited the WPR initially as justification for his actions and asked Congress to nullify the WPR through new legislation that he could have signed into law. He should have done these and not try to wiggle his way out now.
Obama can try to say that it is boots on the ground that constitutes war, but he apparently believed that air strikes then, and thus they would be warfare now as well. Otherwise his citing of the WPR was misleading America on his part (which I don’t believe to be the case.
Either way, he will have to say that we are at war now or that he misled America.
Damn those poor Japanese!
Since now Bombing a country seems to be no longer an act of war as long as you don´t have boots on the ground i guess we really did them serious wrong after they bombed pearl harbor.
It seems that the only way out now for Obama is to say that airstrikes at the beginning were warfare, but they aren’t warfare now.
I believe that Zer0 is both hemmed AND hawed in.
BTW, how can the Obama administration say that cyber strikes on the U.S. constitutes warfare but air strikes aren’t warfare? Why then do Obama administration officials say that we aren’t presently at war with Libya?
All the Laws or Reality or Facts or Logic in the world, no matter how correct, will have no effect on him. He just does and says anything he wants and gets away with it every time.
It is good to be the KING.
I don’t believe so. Boehner took the short route and asked publicly how continued air strikes/predator drone strikes aren’t warfare, which will mean that Obama will have to say that they were acts of warfare, but not now or to say that he is no longer under the WPR, but under the 1973 UN resolution, which will mean that the limited duration has been exceeded and that other coalition partners must now do all of the bombig. If Obama violates this, then Congress can crightly cut off funding for US actions and/or proceed against him like some are doing now.
In the article, Obama notified Congress of his decision to deploy U.S. forces against Gadhfi. Obama said that the strikes against Libya’s air defense systems and military airfields to establish no-fly zones were authorized under U.N. security Resolution 1973.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRZT624kQjs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7AkFc47Q2I
Wont the court just say to congress, you have the power to impeach him, do it. I think they want the court to do what they are not wiling to do.
I believe that he could be impeached, if he can’t show how strikes were war then but they aren’t now, or if he continues to let the US do what it is doing now instead of only letting other coalition partners do all of the bombing with the US only acting in ways that don’t constitute military warfare. Otherwise he would exceed his own promises and the WPR.
That is why we are there: to capture this hitherto unknown and amazing technology from Libya. Sarc...
There’s so little public support for this fiasco, I can hardly believe we are still bombing. It’s a crappy thing to do to our pilots.
He uses a UN resolution to conduct military operations under NATO ? are we nutz ?
Sorry all those old statements go in the Kindergarten,Columbia Grades,Thesis,Birth Certificate Files,not fit to be seen or heard from again!
GREAT cartoon.
agree!
Im not sure how congress lets this go as it would set a precedent for future presidents and congress. It is amazing that it has gone this long. It should have come down like a ton of bricks for blurring the lines of separation of powers. Remember Boehner went golfing with Obama on sunday, then sent the letter on monday. Which tells me this may just be all political show.
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.