Nobel Peace Prize winner...

...orders missiles to be launched into Libya. In reference to an earlier discussion on another thread, this would qualify as being Orwellian.

Obama's own words:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Bara...ar_+_Peace.htm

Q: In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?

A: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007

Well I'll be damned.

Anyone? No comments? Come on LongerMonger, I know you're out there.

LOL

Yeah, c'mon Longer. It's been a long day and I need a laugh.

They are talking impeachment for this action. Democrats, that is. The Libs want impeachment; the GOP say "define the mission". Stay tuned for more fun.

Hell, if he took no action, you would be bitching about that. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

I fully understand that Obama is in a very difficult spot.

Gaddafi is a terrorist, plain and simple. So one would generally support his overthrow.

But....he is really a former terrorist. He flew implements of his Nuke program to TN for disposal at Oakridge several years ago, and has opened up his nation to inspection by the UK. This resulted in our lifting of sanctions on him in 2006...and BP moved in to exploit the oil resources. He had become alot like a Saudi prince...deciding to love money much more than any ideology.

But...his response to the recent uprising in his country was brutal. Anyone see the videos of the 'yellow hat mercenaries' from central Africa, swarming the streets and beating/stabbing/shooting people? It was brutal.

But...its a civil war that doesn't really affect us. There is also a rising death toll in Yemen...and a few in Bahrain. We know we won't intervene in those uprisings...because it puts us on the wrong side of the Saudis.

So he's in a tough spot. I understand that. I only ask one thing from the CIC however: What is our Mission? Its a central concept in all military operations...and it is missing. So far we have heard 'no fly zone', 'limited action', 'not targeting Gadaffi', but it has been very unclear....especially as we bomb convoys and strike Gadaffi's compound. The chain of command concerning our allies in this mission is also very confused. I just mentally put myself in the place of the sailor who is launching the cruise missiles. Does he know why? I would very much wish that Obama go to congress for a vote on authorization. That way, members of the administration can articulate to the American people what the goal is.

Ask Mccain why were there. Look I know its messed to be in anther war but aleast he made the french shoot first. But hay be damn if he do be damn if he dont atleast no ground troups.

Hell, if he took no action, you would be bitching about that. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Originally Posted by BigMikeinKC

I can only speak for myself, but I had wanted him to take no action. Regardless of Gaddafi's past, he and Libya have posed no threat to the U.S.

"Ask Mccain why were there"

Nope. You see President Obama won the election...he can articulate our position...not the guy who lost to him. McCain can go on all the talk shows he wants...but he isn't the CIC of the military.

Why not ask Obama? He seems to be the logical person to ask about our mission statement.


The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.

I agree with Phil, I would not bitch at all if President Obama took no action against Libya.

Obama is joining a U.N. sanctioned military operation, similar to the operation in Kosovo when Clinton was president. Heck, the French and English are even taking the lead.

The talking heads on the right are trying to equate this to the invasion of Iraq, which is completely ridiculous.

Yes, it is ridiculous. Bush went to Congress and explained his intentions. Congress then voted and authorized force. Of course, some of the democrats tried to say that they didn't think it meant war. Yes, ridiculous.

You may think of Khadaffi as a former terrorist but he still killed Americans and I think their families would like to see him drawn and quartered. He may have said that dismantled his nuclear program but we know that he still has tons of mustard gas which he was scheduled to destroy in May of this year.

"Obama is joining a U.N. sanctioned military operation..."

1. Which nation has operational control?
2. What are the ROE?
3. Are we, or are we not trying to oust Gadaffi?

None of these questions have been answered...and the media has indeed asked them.

These are very important questions. Answers so far:

1. Libyan operation hampered by confusion and dispute
Lack of resolution over who will take control of military operation tests patience of US http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...fusion-dispute

2.
A rebel may be protected as a civilian if he is not too heavily armed, whereas a rebel in a commandeered tank may not merit protection as a combatant, not a civilian. A Libyan army unit on the move may be blown up if it seems to be moving against a civilian position, but not if it is moving away or hunkering down. Ham admitted to reporters that the rules likely sounded more feasible in a briefing room than in a cockpit, but by trying to live within the means of an international mandate and without congressional approval, the military is pretty far out on a limb.

Rules of Engagement are Murky in Lybia Air War. http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po..._libya_air_war

3. "We're trying to convince Colonel Gaddafi and his regime, and his associates, that they need to step down from power," said state department spokesperson Mark Toner.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, has said the military operation in Libya called for by the UN Security Council is not aimed at regime change

The former U.S. first lady also asserted that the U.S. government wants Muammar al-Gaddafi to resign. “First we must see the end of this regime and with no more bloodshed,” said Hillary, on Monday (02/28/2011).

Clinton said Saturday that although ousting Gadhafi is not an explicit goal of the campaign, his departure might be hastened as the conflict continues.

huh?
______________________________ ______________________________ __
I haven't stated my opinion on whether or not we should have entered into this...we're in it now. But these guys have got to figure out what the heck they are trying to accomplish.