View Full Version : Obama decides he can do as he damn well pleases.
Veritas
6/18/2011, 12:43 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html
President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.
If you voted for this guy and you haven't taken your compulsory kick in the nuts for that decision, it's time to seek out someone to do that for you.
OUHOMER
6/18/2011, 12:46 PM
didnt the dems say the same thing aginst the repubs
soonerchk
6/18/2011, 12:47 PM
didnt the dems say the same thing aginst the repubs
Yes, but that doesn't count.
StoopTroup
6/18/2011, 12:47 PM
What's this mean?
Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.
olevetonahill
6/18/2011, 12:49 PM
;)
lexsooner
6/18/2011, 12:50 PM
didnt the dems say the same thing aginst the repubs
Well, like there is much of a difference between the two - other than a few social issues, all you are going to get from a D or R is the status quo, and the rich get richer, the middle class gets poorer, and the U.S. continues to fade in world status.
StoopTroup
6/18/2011, 12:50 PM
Has Muammar Gaddafi declared War on us?
StoopTroup
6/18/2011, 12:53 PM
How many bombs do we make in Oklahoma and how does it affect our Economy if we quit and just let that dude wipeout his own people??
SoCaliSooner
6/18/2011, 12:55 PM
How many bombs do we make in Oklahoma and how does it affect our Economy if we quit and just let that dude wipeout his own people??
Dems were content to let Saddam do the same thing to his peeps...
How many bombs do we make in Oklahoma and how does it affect our Economy if we quit and just let that dude wipeout his own people??
George Bush, is that you?
StoopTroup
6/18/2011, 01:08 PM
Dems were content to let Saddam do the same thing to his peeps...
I think they voted to let Bush go get his Nukes.
Seriously....
You do understand how America came about right? We don't like Kings and Queens, Dictators, Tyrants.....etc....
Since we finally got what we want....you think we should just let others who rule the people of this World with a Genocidal Hand to continue until they hand it off to one of their kids?
The people of Libya have asked the World for help with this guy. If Congress would wake the hell up and realize there were more important things than trying to get a bunch of folks who aren't anymore capable than what we already have as POTUS elected....I think this thing would be over.
Your point merely continues to give weight to some folks that were in power nearly a decade ago and not sure we should be going into Iraq when the guy we were looking for was OBL.
Well, like there is much of a difference between the two - other than a few social issues, all you are going to get from a D or R is the status quo, and the rich get richer, the middle class gets poorer, and the U.S. continues to fade in world status.
Exactly.
Republicans and Democrats are just the two sides of the same coin the banks, Wall Street, oil companies, etc. use to keep screwing us common folk over to their perpetual benefit.
SoCaliSooner
6/18/2011, 01:25 PM
I think they voted to let Bush go get his Nukes.
Seriously....
You do understand how America came about right? We don't like Kings and Queens, Dictators, Tyrants.....etc....
Since we finally got what we want....you think we should just let others who rule the people of this World with a Genocidal Hand to continue until they hand it off to one of their kids?
The people of Libya have asked the World for help with this guy. If Congress would wake the hell up and realize there were more important things than trying to get a bunch of folks who aren't anymore capable than what we already have as POTUS elected....I think this thing would be over.
Your point merely continues to give weight to some folks that were in power nearly a decade ago and not sure we should be going into Iraq when the guy we were looking for was OBL.
You think Hussein wasn't a threat to his people or that his sons weren't going to be worse? Where's the oil that we supposedly invaded Iraq to get?
I think Bush was a bit prophetic in saying that once one part of the middle east gets freedom from dictators (Iraq) the desire spreads to other oppressed countries (egypt, Libya).
In case you haven't heard, Osama is dead. I guess that means we can get out of Lybia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and shut down guitmo now....right?
In case you haven't heard, Osama is dead. I guess that means we can get out of Lybia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and shut down guitmo now....right?
Al Quaeda just promoted that Wasabi guy to take his place.
GKeeper316
6/18/2011, 01:30 PM
Al Quaeda just promoted that Wasabi guy to take his place.
al quaeda likes japanese hot sauce?
walkoffsooner
6/19/2011, 02:21 AM
They just give us a vote to make us think we decided something. If you voted period, come get your kick in the nuts.
jk the sooner fan
6/19/2011, 06:32 AM
Libya must have more oil than Syria......
sappstuf
6/19/2011, 06:49 AM
What's this mean?
Great question.
Later in your quote is a clue:
Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.
So normally it is legally binding.. Obama knew that.. So what did he do to get around it? It is in the story if you know what you are looking for:
The administration followed an unusual process in developing its position. Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel solicits views from different agencies and then decides what the best interpretation of the law is. The attorney general or the president can overrule its views, but rarely do.
In this case, however, Ms. Krass was asked to submit the Office of Legal Counsel’s thoughts in a less formal way to the White House, along with the views of lawyers at other agencies. After several meetings and phone calls, the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision.
The Office of Legal Counsel(OLC) is often called the President's law firm. But Obama didn't want the OLC's formal opinion because that interpretation is binding. So instead he told them to do the equivilent of writing their thoughts down on a bunch of post-it notes that wouldn't be binding and he would make the decision.
In short, he rigged the game because he knew what the probable outcome would be if he didn’t.
Pretty ****in shady.
ouwino
6/19/2011, 07:08 AM
obama and all the dems who got elected in '06-'08 did so by campaigning that W got us in an illegal war in Iraq. and unjustified war. etc, etc, no Obummer is doing the exact same thing. sorry sack of poop politicians... i hate 'em all. repubs and demos.
It is even worse. Obama claims Congressional approval is NOT needed because the UN already authorized the mission.
The White House is facing pressure from Congress to clarify U.S. actions in Libya, where the conflict has settled into a stalemate despite NATO military efforts launched under a U.N. resolution aimed at protecting civilians.... "We're not engaged in sustained fighting. There's been no exchange of fire with hostile forces. We don't have troops on the ground. We don't risk casualties to those troops," Bauer said.
Even without congressional authorization, the White House believes U.S. actions are consistent with the resolution, Bauer said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-obama-libya-20110616,0,2155860.story
This is the true issue - being subservient to the UN. This is a key tenent in the Progressive's view of the US. The convicted felon, George Soros has been pushing this for a long time - he approved Obama's stance.
this reminds me of when George Costanza tried breaking up with that girl, but she wouldnt let happen cause she didnt agree with it
soonercruiser
6/19/2011, 01:40 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html
If you voted for this guy and you haven't taken your compulsory kick in the nuts for that decision, it's time to seek out someone to do that for you.
If so.....I'm not busy Tuesday!
Sec. Gates was on FOX News Sunday today, and said that they got lots of legal support for the continued actions in Libya!
I guess that you ask around, and get as many opinions as it takes, to get a few that agree with you!
Agree with the (Dems and Repugs) two sides of the same coin comment!
So much for Hope & Change!
:rolleyes:
crawfish
6/19/2011, 01:44 PM
The only real difference between Obama and Bush is that the former doesn't mispronounce words.
soonerloyal
6/19/2011, 02:00 PM
I happen to agree about Obama's bad handling of having us involved in Libya, as well as his continuation of the Patriot Act debacle. I do find it fascinating that our Conservative friends are suddenly worried about wars and rights when Obama is President. I well remember the hawks' passionate "if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops" diatribe. Especially interesting was "If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't need to worry about it."
But welcome aboard the True Patriot Wagon. Coffee or tea?
I happen to agree about Obama's bad handling of having us involved in Libya, as well as his continuation of the Patriot Act debacle. I do find it fascinating that our Conservative friends are suddenly worried about wars and rights when Obama is President. I well remember the hawks' passionate "if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops" diatribe. Especially interesting was "If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't need to worry about it."
But welcome aboard the True Patriot Wagon. Coffee or tea?
your schtick is funny
soonerloyal
6/19/2011, 02:52 PM
:D
champions77
6/19/2011, 03:06 PM
Well, like there is much of a difference between the two - other than a few social issues, all you are going to get from a D or R is the status quo, and the rich get richer, the middle class gets poorer, and the U.S. continues to fade in world status.
I noticed where you didn't state the "poor are getting poorer". We have to be the only country in the world where folks classified as "poor" drive cars, have plasma TVs, call their friends on Iphones and weigh 300 lbs. Compared to the rest of the world, we have very few "poor" people.
And what do these politicians want from the poor folks in return? Certainly don't seem to care much if they get off of the "dole" or not. Afterall, generations of families have been on welfare. No, these elected officials just want their vote in return, nothing more.
GrapevineSooner
6/19/2011, 03:13 PM
I happen to agree about Obama's bad handling of having us involved in Libya, as well as his continuation of the Patriot Act debacle. I do find it fascinating that our Conservative friends are suddenly worried about wars and rights when Obama is President. I well remember the hawks' passionate "if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops" diatribe. Especially interesting was "If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't need to worry about it."
But welcome aboard the True Patriot Wagon. Coffee or tea?
It all depends on whose ox is being gored, or something like that.
This is an interesting litmus test to say the least.
AlboSooner
6/19/2011, 03:25 PM
Pretty hypocritical of Obama. Senator Obama loathes President Obama.
soonerloyal
6/19/2011, 03:26 PM
It all depends on whose ox is being gored, or something like that.
This is an interesting litmus test to say the least.
No matter what Party is in charge, the rules must be followed. Protecting the nation as a whole must be balanced with the liberty & rights of the citizens. Honestly, I decry the diatribes happening at all.
landrun
6/19/2011, 07:35 PM
Any democrats who are defending Obama on this, and had a problem with Iraq, are lying to yourself and have lost all credibility in future political discussions on this board. You've committed intellectual suicide and are a lackey for the democrat party. You were anti-war when a Repub was in office and now have no problem with someone starting a war on a whim without anyone's approval or knowledge.
At least Bush got congressional approval for his 'imperialistic' pursuits. This guy violates the constitution because he knows the current state of this country is a joke in that half the country would let him commit mass murder as long as he's a donkey in name. The left follow this guy as though he's their god no matter how big of a failure he is. :rolleyes:
... and that's the truth.
Chicago style politics at its best.
Penguin
6/19/2011, 07:48 PM
All hope is lost. Let's join together in a suicide pact.
SpankyNek
6/19/2011, 07:55 PM
Any democrats who are defending Obama on this, and had a problem with Iraq, are lying to yourself and have lost all credibility in future political discussions on this board. You've committed intellectual suicide and are a lackey for the democrat party. You were anti-war when a Repub was in office and now have no problem with someone starting a war on a whim without anyone's approval or knowledge.
At least Bush got congressional approval for his 'imperialistic' pursuits. This guy violates the constitution because he knows the current state of this country is a joke in that half the country would let him commit mass murder as long as he's a donkey in name. The left follow this guy as though he's their god no matter how big of a failure he is. :rolleyes:
... and that's the truth.
There is a big difference.
Our former Pres. built a case based upon bad intelligence and lobbied the UN for assistance.
Now the UN comes calling in it's chips and we have to oblige.
TitoMorelli
6/19/2011, 07:58 PM
I don't understand why he hasn't already gotten congressional approval. Seems like that would eliminate the problem. I don't know enough about the military action in support of the Libyan rebels to say whether it's wise or not, but I do feel that our president shouldn't try to sidestep the same procedure during such actions that his predecessors have followed.
Then again, Truman apparently didn't wait for approval before sending troops to Korea.
SpankyNek
6/19/2011, 08:07 PM
I don't understand why he hasn't already gotten congressional approval. Seems like that would eliminate the problem. I don't know enough about the military action in support of the Libyan rebels to say whether it's wise or not, but I do feel that our president shouldn't try to sidestep the same procedure during such actions that his predecessors have followed.
Then again, Truman apparently didn't wait for approval before sending troops to Korea.
Exactly, it's similar to every military action since WWII, save Iraq II.
TitoMorelli
6/19/2011, 08:18 PM
There is a big difference.
Our former Pres. built a case based upon bad intelligence and lobbied the UN for assistance.
Now the UN comes calling in it's chips and we have to oblige.
I don't believe, Spanky, that the current controversy has so much to do with whether we owe the UN or not.
There is another difference, and I think that is the focus of this thread. GWB formally sought and obtained congressional approval for the invasion of Iraq. I imagine Congress would also approve our multilateral intervention in Libya, if only Pres. Obama would petition them.
Exactly, it's similar to every military action since WWII, save Iraq II.
According to Wiki, since WWII Congress has given formal approval for military action in Viet Nam and in Iraq/Kuwait, as well as more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The only real difference between Obama and Bush is that the former doesn't mispronounce words.
t1AU7-bq_Wo
C&CDean
6/19/2011, 08:26 PM
All hope is lost. Let's join together in a suicide pact.
This. Please. Take all the O'lovers with you. Please.
SpankyNek
6/19/2011, 08:29 PM
This. Please. Take all the O'lovers with you. Please.
What about the America lovers?
It's looking like we have very few folks anymore that understand "Thick and Thin."
Maybe this is why we have such a high divorce rate...nobody is vested in anything.
The republic is long gone. We're Americorp now. A subsidiary of GloboChem.
http://thatsonpoint.blogspot.com/pithat-dtl.jpg
School texts should be amended to refer to our system of government as a plutocracy instead of a democracy.
SoonerKnight
6/19/2011, 09:32 PM
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
Where does it say that the President has to report to Congress on his Commander in Chief duties?
soonerloyal
6/19/2011, 09:37 PM
"Any conservatives who are attacking Obama on this, and did not have a problem with Iraq, are lying to yourselves and have lost all credibility in future political discussions on this board. You've committed intellectual suicide and are a lackey for the republic party. You were pro-war when a Repub was in office and now have a problem with someone helping in a war with the U.N.'s approval and knowledge.
Bush claimed his war was to get bin Laden and terrorists where his puppeteers wanted the oil for their imperialistic pursuits. At least this guy just perpetuates Bush's bad foreign policy & domestic spying because he has to deal with the current state of this country was left a joke and in half the country would thank God as long as he's a donkey in name. The right hate this guy as though he's the black devil no matter how big of a success he has.
... and that's the truth."
:rolleyes:
Wow, that IS easy.
delhalew
6/19/2011, 11:10 PM
I don't know about being pro war...if you ask a neocon, I prefer the armadillo aproach.
I know I would appreciate it if this pompous bastard would stop acting as though none of the rules apply to him.
StoopTroup
6/19/2011, 11:13 PM
I watched Casino today. It should be watched at all Bachelor Party's IMO.
TitoMorelli
6/19/2011, 11:19 PM
Where does it say that the President has to report to Congress on his Commander in Chief duties?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
SoonerBorn68
6/20/2011, 01:52 AM
So much for that Nobel Peace Prize, huh?
soonerscuba
6/20/2011, 08:04 AM
Man, RLIMC really whiffed on his opportunity to use the word "authoritarian" in the right context.
sappstuf
6/20/2011, 08:11 AM
I don't understand why he hasn't already gotten congressional approval. Seems like that would eliminate the problem. I don't know enough about the military action in support of the Libyan rebels to say whether it's wise or not, but I do feel that our president shouldn't try to sidestep the same procedure during such actions that his predecessors have followed.
Then again, Truman apparently didn't wait for approval before sending troops to Korea.
Exactly. It is Obama's incompetence that we are in this position anyway. If he would have asked for approval in the very beginning, he would have gotten it. Sure, some on the far left and right would have voted against it, but he would have gotten approval. Every President who has asked for it has.
soonerscuba
6/20/2011, 08:17 AM
Exactly. It is Obama's incompetence that we are in this position anyway. If he would have asked for approval in the very beginning, he would have gotten it. Sure, some on the far left and right would have voted against it, but he would have gotten approval. Every President who has asked for it has.I hate the decision, and I think it is unconstitutional, but I seriously doubt Congressional Republicans will do anything with Obama until after 2012. Obstruction is par for the course, if he had to do this, I would wait for a conflict that made more sense.
sappstuf
6/20/2011, 08:31 AM
There is a big difference.
Our former Pres. built a case based upon bad intelligence and lobbied the UN for assistance.
Now the UN comes calling in it's chips and we have to oblige.
Don't you mean he built a coalition? Odd thing for a "unilateral" president to do isn't it? Bush built up active support from 40 countries for Iraq and 48 for Afghanistan. Clinton managed to put together 24 for Bosnia and 19 for Kosovo.
Obama in Libya? 14.
Who is the unilateralist?
By the way, I don't think the UN has any role in Libya... NATO does.. Of which we comprise about 75%. And who is overall responsible for military actions in NATO? This guy:
http://www.411xd.com/images/misc/nato_adm_james_stavridis.jpg
sappstuf
6/20/2011, 08:34 AM
I hate the decision, and I think it is unconstitutional, but I seriously doubt Congressional Republicans will do anything with Obama until after 2012. Obstruction is par for the course, if he had to do this, I would wait for a conflict that made more sense.
The heat is actually coming from Obama's left. Kuchinich, Turner. Hell, Lindsey Graham is defending the President.
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20110620/NEWS/306200005/1004/NEWS01/Graham-to-Congress--Shut-up-on-Libya
Condescending Sooner
6/20/2011, 08:39 AM
Bush got congressional approval, Obama did not. That is the argument that people are trying to ignore.
soonerscuba
6/20/2011, 08:39 AM
The heat is actually coming from Obama's left. Kuchinich, Turner. Hell, Lindsey Graham is defending the President.
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20110620/NEWS/306200005/1004/NEWS01/Graham-to-Congress--Shut-up-on-LibyaThe heat is currently coming from the left in terms of pro-active protest. I doubt very much Obama could bring an up or down vote on Libya without significant Republican distraction and amendments. I am not saying the Dems wouldn't do the same to a president they hated, but without significant and imminent threat the Republicans are not likely to play ball.
jk the sooner fan
6/20/2011, 08:42 AM
why arent we involved in Syria too? the government there is doing the same thing to its citizens that Libya is doing
soonerscuba
6/20/2011, 08:45 AM
Give it time!
jkjsooner
6/20/2011, 08:54 AM
Dems were content to let Saddam do the same thing to his peeps...
Not true at all. We had a no-fly zone in Iraq and one intent of that was to keep Hussein from attacking the Kurds in the north. Other than a period during Bush 1's presidency when the Kurds got attack this no-fly zone had been very effective and had allowed to Kurds to attain autonomy.
sappstuf
6/20/2011, 08:58 AM
why arent we involved in Syria too? the government there is doing the same thing to its citizens that Libya is doing
I think there is a 4 war limit for Nobel Peace Prize winners... He will have to stop one first.
jkjsooner
6/20/2011, 09:03 AM
Any democrats who are defending Obama on this, and had a problem with Iraq, are lying to yourself and have lost all credibility in future political discussions on this board. You've committed intellectual suicide and are a lackey for the democrat party. You were anti-war when a Repub was in office and now have no problem with someone starting a war on a whim without anyone's approval or knowledge.
You simplify the issue way too much in your attempt to label others as hypocrites.
I was generally in favor of the Iraq war but turned against it and the President when I found out how the administration had misled the American people (and in some cases themselves) about the true state of the intelligence on Iraq. Also, while I was initially in favor of the war, I cringed every time Bush implied that 9/11 had anything to do with Iraq.
In addition, I would be strongly against sending ground troups (at least other than a handful of special ops) into Libya.
On both points I think my stance in completely consistent.
TheHumanAlphabet
6/20/2011, 09:05 AM
What's this mean?
It means O'bummer knows more than anyone else and he can go against the law...He will protect us all and do as he pleases.
OUMallen
6/20/2011, 09:15 AM
Reasonable people can disagree as to the wisdom or moral responsibility to going into Libya in any fashion.
However, I just think we should follow our own rules when we do it.
President FAIL.
TheHumanAlphabet
6/20/2011, 10:28 AM
I can see no earthly reason why we and/or NATO got involved in Libya. There was no real national threat, and I senothing different in Libya, than what we see in Egypt and Syria, howeever, in those locales, we have not gone in. Please tell me what is defferent in Libya than elsewhere? Does O'bummer have a hard on to get rid of The Colonel?
Hell the only real group benefitting are France (Total), UK (BP) and Germany?. THe only US oil company with any major play is Oxicidental. Have they donated big to O'bummer?
soonercruiser
6/20/2011, 01:48 PM
The only real difference between Obama and Bush is that the former doesn't mispronounce words.
But, at least Boooosh knows how many states he is President of!
:rolleyes:
soonercruiser
6/20/2011, 01:51 PM
t1AU7-bq_Wo
Crawfish and his "ilk" (like The Profit) only hate in one direction!
They only see it one way, because they are left sided brains - with no right side.
:O
opksooner
6/20/2011, 02:20 PM
"It is good to be King!"
--Mel Brooks
3rdgensooner
6/20/2011, 02:32 PM
Crawfish and his "ilk" (like The Profit) only hate in one direction!
They only see it one way, because they are left sided brains - with no right side.
:OSo what does that make you?
OutlandTrophy
6/20/2011, 02:37 PM
Crawfish and his "ilk" (like The Profit) only hate in one direction!
They only see it one way, because they are left sided brains - with no right side.
:O
that's pretty rich calling crawfish "ilk". What little credibility you had is now gone. Craw's a standup guy.
Tulsa_Fireman
6/20/2011, 02:43 PM
i shot a ilk in teh montans
silverwheels
6/20/2011, 02:43 PM
They say a glass of warm ilk before bedtime helps you sleep.
Jammin'
6/20/2011, 03:26 PM
stevo wears ilk panties, white ilk panties. mmmmmm......
diverdog
6/20/2011, 06:19 PM
Any democrats who are defending Obama on this, and had a problem with Iraq, are lying to yourself and have lost all credibility in future political discussions on this board. You've committed intellectual suicide and are a lackey for the democrat party. You were anti-war when a Repub was in office and now have no problem with someone starting a war on a whim without anyone's approval or knowledge.
At least Bush got congressional approval for his 'imperialistic' pursuits. This guy violates the constitution because he knows the current state of this country is a joke in that half the country would let him commit mass murder as long as he's a donkey in name. The left follow this guy as though he's their god no matter how big of a failure he is. :rolleyes:
... and that's the truth.
Two completely different situations. I am not saying that I agree with the bombing but there was about to be genocide if someone didn't act.
MR2-Sooner86
6/21/2011, 06:53 AM
Where does it say that the President has to report to Congress on his Commander in Chief duties?
You might find this hard to believe but when you drop a bomb on another country, it's an act of war.
If Cuba carpet bombed Orlando wouldn't you see that as a declaration of war?
Two completely different situations. I am not saying that I agree with the bombing but there was about to be genocide if someone didn't act.
So we do all the backing?
Anybody here remember Somalia? Guess who supported up to 75% of all supplies, men, and aid to that operation. Guess who got their troops killed and dragged through the streets as a result of trying to help. That's right, we did. The world was complaining but who did all the work? We did.
If Libya is so bad, why aren't we helping North Korea?
Why don't we go after China more about Tianamen Square and Tibet?
Why don't we condemn Saudi Arabia for their human rights violations?
Why don't we go after Iran for their oppressive government?
As for Bush, he got approval from Congress. Yes, his information was wrong, he might have known, and lied about it all but that still doesn't change the fact he got the go ahead from Congress.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.