PDA

View Full Version : Grappling With the Libyan "Intervention"



Arroyo_Doble
03-30-2011, 01:02 PM
Grappling With the Libyan "Intervention" (http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2011/03/grappling-with-libyan-intervention.html)

Goddamn, how the Rude Pundit really, really wants to get on board with the whole Libyan totally-not-a-war intervention. No, he'd love to be standing there, waving his mighty fist o' liberal rage and saying, "Fuck you, Qaddafi/Ghaddafi/Kadaffy," and proudly admirin' how much we're a-savin' the rebels. As someone who back in the day was pretty much screaming, "What the fuck, Clinton?" back in the day with Bosnia and Rwanda, you'd think the Rude Pundit would wanna jump with glee at the humanitarian purpose that the no-fly zone has, as the halting of what might Gaddafi himself said would be a slaughter.

But he can't. 'Cause there's just some shit here that's gnawing at him, preventing that war hard-on. He remembers having this feeling back when the United States invaded Afghanistan, but he was able to put it aside for a couple of months while we were presumptively going to find and arrest/kill/corpse-photo Osama bin Laden. Now, though, with Libya, even though good liberals everywhere tell him that this is a good thing, this has a purpose, even though the President articulated what sounded like a decent case for decency, he can't jump on the train.

See, President Obama lost the Rude Pundit last night when, during his address to the nation, he said of the mad colonel, "He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world - including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents" and "In the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day." Yep, that's true, and it sucks and makes him a vile, evil fucker who truly deserves to live out eternity in a hell where he's chained to a table and has plastic surgery performed on him endlessly without anesthetic. The thing is that he did that shit and more, but, back before the revolt in Libya, the Obama administration was taking steps towards arms sales with Gaddafi (in the wake of George W. Bush making nice with Libya).

In March 2009, the American ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz, told the Financial Times, "The new military relationship would begin with training programs, followed by the sale of non-lethal weaponry." Then "at some point, if both sides want it...we would hope that [the sale of lethal weapons] would be a culmination of our military relationship." At the same time, a Defense Department spokesperson said, "We will consider Libyan requests for defense equipment that enables them to build capabilities in areas that serve our mutual interest." Man, Lockheed-Martin must have been worried about the Iraq war winding down.

Now, of course, things do change over the course of a couple of years. But what doesn't change is the past. And, in 2009, the very Gaddafi that the Obama administration was hoping to have defense equipment-trading sex with, ending with a lethal weapon sales orgasm, is the same Gaddafi who strung up and murdered his own people. So what fucking galls the Rude Pundit now is that, prior to the current war (and, fuck you, it's a war - we didn't all sit down and tell Libya how its actions make us feel), all that other shit that Gaddafi did was going to be forgotten about and the same President Obama who spoke so forcefully against the Libyan leader was going to see if we could get to a place where we sell him weapons.


I have to admit, I am pretty ambivalent about the whole thing myself. A good speech by Obama that appealed to patriotism and American pride is not enough. The fact that he had to use emotional appeals when he is a pragmatic leader should give people pause.

I know that I have been critical over the years of Clinton and the West's inaction in Rwanda but Libya is not even close to the severity of that atrocity nor was the cost of intervention to prevent the genocide in Rwanda as high as what this action appears to be.

Like I said, I am ambivalent.

djones520
03-30-2011, 01:22 PM
I am supportive of defending those who cannot defend themselves. That is a big part of the reason I joined the military. But I have serious reservations about this. Especially with the Al Qaeda ties that the rebel groups have. And now the talks of arming the rebels scare me even more. We would be putting our own weapons into the hands of people who I do not doubt at all will be funnelling them to Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is a dirty affair, and if we insist on continuing the operation, then we need to step back, figure out what the fuck is going on, and proceed along the best route for ourselves.

Arroyo_Doble
03-30-2011, 01:25 PM
I am supportive of defending those who cannot defend themselves. That is a big part of the reason I joined the military. But I have serious reservations about this. Especially with the Al Qaeda ties that the rebel groups have. And now the talks of arming the rebels scare me even more. We would be putting our own weapons into the hands of people who I do not doubt at all will be funnelling them to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I heard about that this morning. Very disturbing. On its face, it seems incredibly short sighted since in the same report (NPR) on Libya, there was admitted confusion over who exactly the "Interim Government" is (at least Clinton is sending an envoy to find out).


This is a dirty affair, and if we insist on continuing the operation, then we need to step back, figure out what the fuck is going on, and proceed along the best route for ourselves.

I agree.

txradioguy
03-30-2011, 01:26 PM
So when is he going to go to congress and get the approval he's required to have?

Or are you both ok with him thumbing his nose...again...at his Constitutional responsibilities?

txradioguy
03-30-2011, 01:28 PM
Never mind the fact he's used the same exact reasons we went into Iraq to justify his war in Libya.

Different President...different set of rules.

:rolleyes:

djones520
03-30-2011, 01:30 PM
So when is he going to go to congress and get the approval he's required to have?

Or are you both ok with him thumbing his nose...again...at his Constitutional responsibilities?

Of course not. I do recall he had 48 hours to do it once the action was taken. I haven't heard word about it since then, so I don't really know if he did or not. I do believe Congress was out on vacation when it happened though, so *shrugs* who knows.

txradioguy
03-30-2011, 01:33 PM
Of course not. I do recall he had 48 hours to do it once the action was taken. I haven't heard word about it since then, so I don't really know if he did or not. I do believe Congress was out on vacation when it happened though, so *shrugs* who knows.

Newsflash Jonesy...he hasn't gone to Congress for the approval he is required by the War Powers Act to get.

And guess what...he doesn't plan to go to them either.

Arroyo_Doble
03-30-2011, 01:40 PM
Of course not. I do recall he had 48 hours to do it once the action was taken. I haven't heard word about it since then, so I don't really know if he did or not. I do believe Congress was out on vacation when it happened though, so *shrugs* who knows.

Congress was notified back on the 21st.

Warning PDF (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Obama_Letter_Libya_Congress.pdf?loc=interstitialsk ip)

jediab
03-30-2011, 01:41 PM
Of course not. I do recall he had 48 hours to do it once the action was taken.

I am sure that was 48 "working hours" right? :D

djones520
03-30-2011, 01:43 PM
Newsflash Jonesy...he hasn't gone to Congress for the approval he is required by the War Powers Act to get.

And guess what...he doesn't plan to go to them either.

According to the War Powers Act, when Congress is adjourned, it is up to the Speaker and President Pro Temp to request the President to convene Congress if they see fit to do so. They did not. That's from Sec. 5. (a) if you wanna look it up.

Furthermore, he does not need to seak Congressional approval. He just has to submit a report to Congress stating this.


the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.


Action beyond 60 days requires a resolution to be passed.

Now, the question is, did that report ever get submitted? I haven't been able to find any word on that.

Edit:

Yes he did. Dated within 48 hours.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/21/letter-president-regarding-commencement-operations-libya

txradioguy
03-30-2011, 01:48 PM
Congress was notified back on the 21st.

Warning PDF (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Obama_Letter_Libya_Congress.pdf?loc=interstitialsk ip)

Funny pursuant to the Constitution...I don't recall him getting approval from Congress for anything.

You can spin this all you want to Oreo....but the fact of the matter is you're defending...and Jones is too to a point the same things you've spent years Bashing former President Bush about.

Hypocrite much?

djones520
03-30-2011, 01:49 PM
Funny pursuant to the Constitution...I don't recall him getting approval from Congress for anything.

You can spin this all you want to Oreo....but the fact of the matter is you're defending...and Jones is too to a point the same things you've spent years Bashing former President Bush about.

Hypocrite much?

Defending what? He did what he was supposed to, so I'm not sure what your talking about so far.

I am not defending him "keeping the option open" with arming the rebels. Or how vague and cloudy this whole fiasco is.

I am defending the fact that we stopped a potential slaughter of civilians by Qaddaffi. That is something I am proud of, as you should be as well.

txradioguy
03-30-2011, 01:50 PM
According to the War Powers Act, when Congress is adjourned, it is up to the Speaker and President Pro Temp to request the President to convene Congress if they see fit to do so. They did not. That's from Sec. 5. (a) if you wanna look it up.

Furthermore, he does not need to seak Congressional approval. He just has to submit a report to Congress stating this.



Action beyond 60 days requires a resolution to be passed.

Now, the question is, did that report ever get submitted? I haven't been able to find any word on that.

Edit:

Yes he did. Dated within 48 hours.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/21/letter-president-regarding-commencement-operations-libya

I suggest you and your buddy Oreo study this:

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution


He might have informed them...but he sure as hell didn't get approval from them.

djones520
03-30-2011, 01:51 PM
I suggest you and your buddy Oreo study this:

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution


He might have informed them...but he sure as hell didn't get approval from them.

We declared war? I'm sorry Tx, but I think your understanding of how this all works is lacking a bit here.

The President does have the power to declare military action. He just does not have the power to declare a military action that is to take place longer then 60 days. He does not need to seek congressional approval to order a strike. He just needs to notify them of why he did it within 48 hours.

fettpett
03-30-2011, 01:52 PM
Now the rebels want us to give them weapons....fuck that shit, we don't need to be arming Al Qeadia

txradioguy
03-30-2011, 01:53 PM
Defending what? He did what he was supposed to, so I'm not sure what your talking about so far.

Really? Where's the Congressional approval?


I am not defending him "keeping the option open" with arming the rebels. Or how vague and cloudy this whole fiasco is.

You do realize that the "open option of arming the rebels" means arming al-Qaeda right? You have ben paying attention enough to know that they are working with the rebels right?


I am defending the fact that we stopped a potential slaughter of civilians by Qaddaffi. That is something I am proud of, as you should be as well.

What national interest did it serve? Hell even the SecDef says there's none.

At least with Iraq and Afghanistan there were legitimate reasons.

txradioguy
03-30-2011, 01:55 PM
"We have heard much over the last six years about how America's larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom - that it is the yearning of all who live in the shadow of tyranny and despair," Obama said. "I agree, but this yearning is not satisfied by simply deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/world/americas/23iht-obama.5.5408168.html


:rolleyes:

djones520
03-30-2011, 01:58 PM
"We have heard much over the last six years about how America's larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom - that it is the yearning of all who live in the shadow of tyranny and despair," Obama said. "I agree, but this yearning is not satisfied by simply deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/world/americas/23iht-obama.5.5408168.html


:rolleyes:

No question this has been a huge exercise in hypocrisy.

djones520
03-30-2011, 01:59 PM
What national interest did it serve? Hell even the SecDef says there's none.

At least with Iraq and Afghanistan there were legitimate reasons.

I didn't realize we could only do the right thing if it served our interests.

Arroyo_Doble
03-30-2011, 02:05 PM
No question this has been a huge exercise in hypocrisy.

Read his Nobel lecture. I believe he is being consistent.

The Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34360743/ns/politics-white_house/)

djones520
03-30-2011, 02:07 PM
Read his Nobel lecture. I believe he is being consistent.

The Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34360743/ns/politics-white_house/)

Sure, with that. Not with all the stupid he spouted as a Senator.

txradioguy
03-30-2011, 02:09 PM
We declared war? I'm sorry Tx, but I think your understanding of how this all works is lacking a bit here.

I understand perfectly.


The President does have the power to declare military action. He just does not have the power to declare a military action that is to take place longer then 60 days. He does not need to seek congressional approval to order a strike. He just needs to notify them of why he did it within 48 hours.

And yet you and others held his predecessor to a higher standard.

:rolleyes:


BTW...which reason is he using today to justify something he said wold last "days not weeks"?

How's that handover to other countries and getting out of it working for him?

txradioguy
03-30-2011, 02:11 PM
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. Thats what Im opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
-Barack Obama, October 2, 2002

http://whitehouser.com/elections/barack-obama-calls-iraq-war-dumb/

djones520
03-30-2011, 02:12 PM
I did? I didn't hold Bush to anything. Hell I remember taking bets on the floor of the 28th OWS on when we'd be charging into Iraq. I've been wanting to go to Iraq since that day happened.

Watch how you're labelling me just because I'm defending this one point.

txradioguy
03-30-2011, 02:14 PM
Watch how you're labelling me just because I'm defending this one point.

Or what?

I'm shaking in my combat boots.


:rolleyes:

BTW...what's the objective today? Does Qadaffi have to go or just get neutralized?

Is it weeks or months we're going to be there?

Adam Wood
03-30-2011, 02:16 PM
So when is he going to go to congress and get the approval he's required to have?

Or are you both ok with him thumbing his nose...again...at his Constitutional responsibilities?He sent notice within 48 hours as required, and he has sixty days at his discretion to go to Congress. So, so far, he's still within the War Powers Resolution.

I do find it amusing that when Bush spent thirteen months talking to Congress and the UN before going into Iraq, that was "rushing us into war," but just one hastily-drawn-up and breathtakingly vague resolution from the UN Stupidity Council and we had B2s in the air within hours, and no one considers that "rushing us into war." No plan, no exit strategy, vage and contradictory goals and objectives, but that's OK with the Obamatrons, because the UN said it was OK (and somehow it's different from when the UN said it was OK for us to go to Iraq) and, apparently, because it's Obama. :rolleyes:

djones520
03-30-2011, 02:17 PM
I'm shaking in my combat boots.


:rolleyes:

BTW...what's the objective today? Does Qadaffi have to go or just get neutralized?

Is it weeks or months we're going to be there?

*sighs* Go back and reread my posts. I clearly point out that I do not agree with a lot of how this thing has unfolded. I pointed out that we need to get clear objectives set, because we don't have them. I've pointed out that this entire episode has been hypocrital of his previous stances on military issues.

All I have done that you don't agree with is point out that your assertation that he violated the Constitution is wrong. :rolleyes:

Arroyo_Doble
03-30-2011, 02:37 PM
*sighs* Go back and reread my posts. I clearly point out that I do not agree with a lot of how this thing has unfolded. I pointed out that we need to get clear objectives set, because we don't have them. I've pointed out that this entire episode has been hypocrital of his previous stances on military issues.

All I have done that you don't agree with is point out that your assertation that he violated the Constitution is wrong. :rolleyes:

I think it may just be a matter of style. Try to use more shouted rage.

txradioguy
03-30-2011, 03:39 PM
He sent notice within 48 hours as required, and he has sixty days at his discretion to go to Congress. So, so far, he's still within the War Powers Resolution.

*shrugs* Ok I stand corrected. Missed those front page headlines and top of the broadcast reports that he'd complied.


I do find it amusing that when Bush spent thirteen months talking to Congress and the UN before going into Iraq, that was "rushing us into war," but just one hastily-drawn-up and breathtakingly vague resolution from the UN Stupidity Council and we had B2s in the air within hours, and no one considers that "rushing us into war." No plan, no exit strategy, vage and contradictory goals and objectives, but that's OK with the Obamatrons, because the UN said it was OK (and somehow it's different from when the UN said it was OK for us to go to Iraq) and, apparently, because it's Obama. :rolleyes:

Different President...different set of rules.

Adam Wood
03-30-2011, 03:46 PM
*shrugs* Ok I stand corrected. Missed those front page headlines and top of the broadcast reports that he'd complied.Not exactly trumpeted out there, as far as I could tell.

I'm much more interested in what happens in 53 (?) days. I suspect we're going to see a bunch of equivocating starting a couple of weeks out while we get ever more embroiled in the quagmire.


Different President...different set of rules.
Apparently so.

djones520
03-30-2011, 03:56 PM
Not exactly trumpeted out there, as far as I could tell.

I'm much more interested in what happens in 53 (?) days. I suspect we're going to see a bunch of equivocating starting a couple of weeks out while we get ever more embroiled in the quagmire.


Apparently so.

Senator Levin is already pushing to pass a resolution allowing us to be there longer then 60 days.

txradioguy
03-30-2011, 04:00 PM
Senator Levin is already pushing to pass a resolution allowing us to be there longer then 60 days.

Not surprising. And it will get about as much media coverage and scrutiny as the WPA thing. I mean after all they've got all those soldiers that Obama brought home from Bush's illegal war they can send to the "Shores of Tripoli".

djones520
03-30-2011, 04:02 PM
Not surprising. And it will get about as much media coverage and scrutiny as the WPA thing. I mean after all they've got all those soldiers that Obama brought home from Bush's illegal war they can send to the "Shores of Tripoli".

You can't deny that it wouldn't be a bit ironic to have the Marines hitting that beach. ;)

txradioguy
03-30-2011, 04:07 PM
You can't deny that it wouldn't be a bit ironic to have the Marines hitting that beach. ;)

That thought crosses my mind every time I see a report on the latest on what's going on there.

That and how our first shots fired in anger by the U.S. against Middle East terrorists were done off the coast of the same country.

fettpett
03-30-2011, 04:12 PM
Senator Levin is already pushing to pass a resolution allowing us to be there longer then 60 days.

fuck that asshole...and anyone that votes with him. We're protecting Al Qeadia being there supporting the rebels. we should pull out and let the damn Europeans go after their oil

Adam Wood
03-30-2011, 04:33 PM
That and how our first shots fired in anger by the U.S. against Middle East terrorists were done off the coast of the same country.Technically, I think our first shots against Middle Eastern terrorists were actually dropped from 20,000 above the shores of Tripoli on April 15, 1986.



So, I can just hear it now coming from the Left: "Obama is just having to clean up Reagan's mess that he left behind." :rolleyes: I'm frankly a little surprised I haven't heard that mantra yet.

Wei Wu Wei
03-30-2011, 05:04 PM
Never mind the fact he's used the same exact reasons we went into Iraq to justify his war in Libya.

Different President...different set of rules.

:rolleyes:

same set of rules

Madisonian
03-30-2011, 06:02 PM
War Powers Act (http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm)

The War Powers Act of 1973
Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973
Joint Resolution
Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".
PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (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.


I would say that Sec. 2. (c) specifically details when the President may authorize the use of the military.
Since there was not a
(1) declaration of war
(2) specific statutory authorization or
(3) an attack on the US, its territories, possessions or armed forces
there was not the Congressional authorization as required by the act unless you want to argue that we are governed by the UN and not the Constitution and their resolution carries the force of law in this country.

The 48 hours is notification of Congress after initiation under (3), not just because he feels like it, as was the case in Libya.

txradioguy
03-31-2011, 01:57 AM
Technically, I think our first shots against Middle Eastern terrorists were actually dropped from 20,000 above the shores of Tripoli on April 15, 1986.

Nah. Go back old school. I mean REALLY old school.

Barbary Pirates. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.




So, I can just hear it now coming from the Left: "Obama is just having to clean up Reagan's mess that he left behind." :rolleyes: I'm frankly a little surprised I haven't heard that mantra yet.

Give it time you will.

txradioguy
03-31-2011, 02:02 AM
same set of rules


Really? Then where are the people now that were demaning a whole laundry list of things the President must do before he acts "unilaterally"?

Where's the comparison's to Vietnam and referring to this mission as a "quagmire" like there were two weeks after we started bombing Afghanistan and again when we had to wait for the logistical tail to catch up at the Karbala Gap in Iraq?

Where are the negative stories in the media about "nation building and regime change"?

Why hasn't there ben hundreds of push poll stories done on what the average citizen thinks about going to war again?

The media as well as the Libs in D.C. for all tense and purposes have swallowed their tonges and lost their ability to show outrage.

They are in full CYA mode for the POTUS.

And forum troll posters like you are kissing his ring.