Liberal Democrats in Uproar over Libya Action

[Catherina]

Liberal Democrats in Uproar over Libya Action
by John Bresnahan & Jonathan Allen

WASHINGTON - A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

...

And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.

...

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.”

...

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/03/20-1

[leftstreet]

1. We're gonna need a bigger bus n/t

K&R

[Catherina]

66. I don't think they could possibly come any bigger rec'd n/t

[QC]

71. Fear not! There is room for all under the Hopemobile! n/t

[emilyg]

142. Correct.

[Modern_Matthew]

2. It's nice to have some reasonable voices in the warmongering Capitol. nt

[David__77]

3. It's true. The people's representatives should be consulted.

It was true with Iraq and it is true now.

[russspeakeasy]

74. Democrats with balls...Where did they come from?

[patrick t. cakes]

4. well well well.....

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.”articles)

that pesky constitution strikes again! Go Chicken hawks!

[fasttense]

109. That's what happens when you allow a royal president to reign on a whim. n/t

[Marblehead]

5. ya

I knew I was a liberal

[Karmadillo]

6. Stop looking backwards!! Stop it!! Look forward! Look forward!

nt

[chill_wind]

7. K & R. And one of the groups they consulted is having buyers' remorse

immediately. The Arab League
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x593925

[RufusTFirefly]

18. Besides, who knows what "consulting the Arab League" means

Was it an invitation? Or a threat?

We have a history of playing hardball with members of the Arab League when they don't do exactly as we tell them to:

When Yemen, serving as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, voted against the U.S.-led effort to authorize the use of force against Iraq to drive the country' military from Kuwait, a U.S. representative was overheard declaring to the Yemeni ambassador that it was "the most expensive vote you have ever cast." The United States immediately withdrew $70 million in foreign aid to Yemen while dramatically increasing aid to neighboring dictatorships that supported the war effort.

Source: Foreign Policy in Focus

[chill_wind]

25. Yes. Very revealing. Who knows the price they'll pay now.

Western leaders brandished the Arab League decision as a justification for their decision to move militarily and as a weapon in the debate to obtain a U.N. Security Council resolution two days before the bombing began.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-condemns-broad-bombing-campaign-in-libya/2011/03/20/AB1pSg1_story.html

[Catherina]

28. Do you recall the Arab League had signed on to Chavez' Peace Commission Plan

then all of a sudden it was off the table, the League said it had only been only consideration and US intervention was on. It was pretty clear something happened.

Qaddafi, Arab League Reportedly Agree To Chavez Mediation Proposal

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez may play a role in mediating the Libyan crisis.
March 03, 2011
Reports say Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi and the president of the Arab League have agreed to a peace plan from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez aimed at ending the crisis in Libya.

Venezuelan Information Minister Andres Izarra said Chavez spoke with Qaddafi on March 1 about the possibility of creating a bloc of "friendly countries" to launch an international mission to mediate between Qaddafi's regime and rebels who seek to end his 41-year-old regime in the North African country.

The Al-Jazeera news network reported that Venezuela's foreign minister had spoken with Arab League President Amr Mussa, who also agreed to the plan.

...

http://www.rferl.org/content/chavez_mediation/2326506.html

[ProSense]

8. Has Kucinich lost his mind?

The OP "Published on Sunday, March 20, 2011 by Politico.com"

Impeach Obama Over Libya, You Got to Be Kidding

Perennial congressional gadfly Dennis Kucinich completely lost his political screws when he even uttered the word "impeachment" of President Obama over his action in Libya. Kucinich has often been the lone, outraged voice, in blistering Obama on everything from his tax cut compromise with the GOP to his Afghan war policy, but the Libya outburst made no sense by even Kucinich's radical rhetoric standards.

No one disputes the legal, constitutional and political need of Presidents to get approval from t Congress when the issue is waging war.

This obligation is clearly spelled out in the War Powers Act. And those congresspersons that made that point were right to make it. Kucinich and the handful of Democrats that rip Obama about Libya certainly know that there is virtually no possibility that Obama will blatantly abuse that power as Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan and commit American ground troops to combat in Libya. That would be a gross violation of the provisions of the Act.

Obama backed the Libyan no fly zone because the United Nations "Security Council by unanimous vote backed it. The House Foreign affairs and intelligence committees backed the action. The Arab league backed it. And nearly every humanitarian group around has backed it. But most important he backed it because it's the politically and morally right thing to do. Kucinich and others would have screamed the loudest if Obama had done nothing and Khadafy slaughtered thousands in a revenge blood lust rampage against the rebel groups. In his case, and that of every other dictator that's ever been under siege from their own people that almost always translates out to the slaughter of innocent women children and old folk, under the guise of restoring order. If Obama hadn't acted he would have been even more loudly damned as being weak, indecisive and a chronic ditherer when it comes to making tough decisions on foreign policy issues.

He's already heard that slander endlessly from his GOP attackers. So the screams about the president violating congressional trust and prerogatives simply adds to the noise. Kucinich and some of Obama's severest critics among Democrats real goal is to send the message that they don't like a lot of what Obama does and they will pick at every little issue to dramatize their pique at him. They continue to hope that they can nudge Obama from his cautious, centrist stance they loath on issues a little more to the left. Libya is just the latest, and the most convenient way to do that.

<...>

A U.N. resolution is not a unilateral U.S. action.

[girl gone mad]

12. It's called consistency.

An antonym of hypocrisy. Look it up some time.

[ProSense]

17. I call it

idiocy. It's a U.N. action. Congress cannot impeach a President for following the U.N. Charter. It's completely bizarre to even suggest that. Also, even the War Powers act gives the President months to gain Congressional approval.

Kucinich is either pretending to be or is oblivious of those facts.

[DJ13]

21. Congress cannot impeach a President for following the U.N. Charter.

If it violates our own Constitution they can.

The UN charter isnt more important than the Constitution.

[ProSense]

32. Hmmm?

"If it violates our own Constitution they can."

How did it violate the Constitution?

Why didn't Congress impeach Bush Sr. for the first Gulf War?

Why did Kucinich support this: Iraq Liberation Act of 1998: Establishing a Program to Support a Transition to Democracy in Iraq

It's not like his support for the Aghanistan war in 2001, when the U.S. was attacked.

[Sonicwall]

38. Um. big difference - the Gulf War of 1991 was different.

Iraq was threatening Kuwait and its oil fields. Kuwait asked for help. They got it, and the war was done within a few weeks. And Chimp restarted the war for no reason and we're still stuck there. That's the big difference. Kuwait didn't ask for further help beyond what was done in '91.

[ProSense]

39. "Iraq was threatening Kuwait and its oil fields. Kuwait asked for help. They got it,

and the war was done within a few weeks."

Um, wrong.

[DJ13]

41. I didnt say this action violates the Constitution

I said a President CAN be impeached for following a UN sanction which would lead to him/her violating the Constitution.

Say an authorization by the UN to attack another sovereign country, where the President authorizes a full scale attack without prior Congressional approval.

In that kind of case (which Libya is not...yet) the President would be in violation of the Constitution, opening up the possibility of impeachment.

I know you like to think in absolutes, but the world doesnt operate that way.

[JDPriestly]

78. ProSense, I answered your questions about the Constitution above.

Article I, Section 8, without equivocation give Congress the power to declare war.

Article II makes the president the commander in chief. Thus the president's power as a civilian commander in chief of the military is separated from the Congress's power to declare war.

The separation is quite intentional. It was part of the wisdom of the men who wrote the Constitution.

The concept is clearly explained in the Federalist Papers.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/fed.asp

[Avant Guardian]

81. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was about covert assistance to iraqi opposition groups

SUMMARY:


Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations.

Directs the President to designate: (1) one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that meet specified criteria as eligible to receive assistance under this Act; and (2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President's criteria.

Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.

Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:

[Bodhi BloodWave]

44. do you know what the Supermacy clause is?

[tcaudilllg]

92. He's breached the constitution already. The constitution is not beholden to the U.N. charter.

Besides, he has hoodwinked thousands into slaughtering themselves. The Bahrainians have no shot at greater freedom. That movement is doomed by Islam itself.

[tcaudilllg]

93. I call your knowledge of the facts erroneous.

[swilton]

121. Despite the rhetoric

The UNSC (dominated by the 5 'permanent members' with veto power) is owned by US business interests.

[MNBrewer]

137. Congress can impeach the President for anything it damn well pleases

[NorthCarolina]

45. Oh, snap!

:applause:

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stevedeshazer]

31. No. He's right.

It amazes me that you and others here think this is okay.

Starting a third war is insane, whether it's Bush or Obama does not matter.

[bvar22]

140. Starting a third war is insane?

No its not.
It makes perfect sense if your patrons are the Armaments Industry and the MIC.
Like it or not, the Iraq War is winding down,
and there is not enough justification to keep the MONEY flowing.
We need a NEW Boogieman to justify an INCREASE in Military Spending.

YeeHaw! "We've ALWAYS been at WAR with EastAsia!!!"
Let the bombings begin.
Lets GET THE WAR ON!!!


It makes PERFECT sense.

[Plucketeer]

143. Right on!

Gotta start crankin' out some replacement Cruise Missles! At over a million apiece, firing a few hundred now and then, helps to keep the inventory fresh and the production lines humming! ;)

[RufusTFirefly]

37. Standard Politico fare

Kucinich raised the question of why attacking Libya without consulting Congress isn't an impeachable offense.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

He did not call for the President's impeachment.

But Politico (the source of this Common Dreams article) and, tellingly, the right-wing blogosphere, has quickly distorted and sensationalized this reasonable question.

It's a wonder they didn't figure out a way to incorporate UFOs and olive pits into the story.

[NorthCarolina]

46. There you go throwing "Gray" into an attempt to paint the picture in strictly black-and-white terms.

:spank:

[RufusTFirefly]

54. Sorry! I'll try harder next time!!

:blush:

(I'm so ashamed of myself.)

[chill_wind]

70. Good eye.

:thumbsup:


"It's a wonder they didn't figure out a way to incorporate UFOs and olive pits into the story."

The day is young. And we're desperate for the distractions.

[grahamhgreen]

50. No, he found his ethics. Fact is, we have to let America know that Obama does not

represent most of us here in the party, let alone the country.

81% want to tax the rich.

60+% want us out of Iraqistan.

70+% want a public option.

Obama has neo-conned himself into believing the neo-cons will stay behind him - they wont.

[tcaudilllg]

94. Exactly. It's time to protest HIM.

[JDPriestly]

77. I don't know enough about the Libyan situation to have an opinion

about whether Obama is doing the right thing or not.

But, Article II

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

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; . . .

and Article I

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power . . .


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;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

. . . .

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2

The Constitution is quite clear on the separation of powers on a declaration of war. Personally, I think that bombing another country is an act of war. I doubt that Congress would say "No" if Obama asked it to declare war in this instance.

Perhaps Obama does not look on the bombing of Libya as an act of war. As I said, I think it is. I don't know what else it might be. People die when bombs are dropped.

I just don't understand what is going on in Libya well enough to have formed an opinion as I said above. What I don't know is just who the so-called rebels are, what they represent. I have questions about that. I assume that Obama does know.

The area in which I have the most confidence in Obama is foreign policy. He does not understand economics or business, but he sure knows foreign policy. I believe that was his undergrad major.

[tcaudilllg]

91. This is not a no-fly zone.

The president has breached the constitution and must be impeached.

[vaberella]

113. That's what I was waiting for. n/t

[sasha031]

9. I am relieved that we have good Democrats speaking out against this

I am sure their are others, Bernie Sanders comes to mind.
You have been missed Catherina so glad your back :pals:

[ClarkUSA]

10. FFS, we should've waited weeks for their useless blessing for what reason?

This is not a declaration of war we're talking about, much to Republicans' disappointment.

Meanwhile, Gadhafi would continue to visit the Rwandan-style genocide he promised onto the "rats" that he called the opposition rebels.

[neverforget]

16. fuck the constitution. it's just a piece of paper

[ClarkUSA]

19. Exactly what part of the Constitution did Pres. Obama violate? Quote, please?

[RufusTFirefly]

61. Article 1, Section 8

8. Powers of Congress

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Just because it's been brazenly violated for more than half a century doesn't suddenly make it Constitutional.

There are at least two reasons why the Founding Fathers gave this power to the Congress, not to the President.

1. Congress has the power of the purse. War costs money.


2. Declarations of war must represent the will of the people. Congress, not the President, represents that will. (Think about it: There's a reason why members of the House are called "representatives.")

[anaxarchos]

106. "Rwanda-style genocide"? Really?

Did Qadaffi really kill 800,000 to 1 million people, because that is how many died in Rwanda.

Did he kill 100,000 civilians, because that is at least how many the US killed in Iraq, with some estimates running to almost 10 times that.

Human Rights watch had Qadaffi killing 300 by the last week of February, when the rebellion had already turned into civil war.

"Rwanda-style genocide"?

Control yourself.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Well, the "daddy knows best" crew around here disagrees with idea of congressional oversight.

Questions might be asked. Alternatives might be proposed. What a scary concept.

[ClarkUSA]

13. Congressional oversight for what? A UN resolution for a no-fly zone that involves 12 nations?

What witnesses are they going call? Three months and a genocide later...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Committing U.S. military to another war.

Oh, wait. Vietnam wasn't really a war. Nor, is Afghanistan. And, Iraq is just a matter of sorting through the roses and candy flung at the "liberators". And, the drones killing people in Pakistan are doing it for their own good.

Nah. We don't need oversight in our non-wars.

Clue: 10 members of the Security Council is not "The UN".

[ClarkUSA]

33. Prove that Pres. Obama is "committing the U.S. military to another war."

A declaration of war is what Republicans want and they've been bitching about the UN resolution because a no-fly zone is not what they want. Get a clue.

Do you not understand the phrase "U.N. mission"?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. You must be thilled to see that the likes of Wolfowitz, Lieberman, and Perle think it's grand idea.

Meanwhile, even the Arab League is condemning that attacks. Remember them, the ones whose endorsement was so vital to launching the latest venture into nation building by bomb.

[ClarkUSA]

55. Actually, conservatives and Senate Republicans want a declaration of war, not a wimpy no-fly zone.

The Arab League is speaking with forked tongues in a CYA statement. According to news reports, member nations were consulted and briefed prior to this military action. Note that Qatar is joining the coalition as our ally.

[tcaudilllg]

95. There won't be a declaration of war.

He can't get it through the senate.

[Dangerman]

65. What about the genocide in...

Gaza... Iraq... Afghanistan...

[vaberella]

115. Gaza has nothing to do with us but Iraq and Afghanistan---was authorized by these bums. n/t

[tcaudilllg]

101. Only an idiot couldn't see their real strategy is to hem Obama into intervention.

They know the American people will kick them out of congress (harder) if boots go on the ground.

[Erose999]

126. We are launching missles at Libyan military targets. Thats a bit more aggressive than just enforcing

a "No Fly Zone".

Have we ever committed to enforcing a "No Fly" or a "peacekeeping" or whatever and it NOT ended up in a war?

And just before the revolution, Obama was about to sell the Gadhafi a whole bunch of troop transports.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=134322378

[DefenseLawyer]

127. We can't wait til the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud!

Try that one. Of course you can't go wrong with "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" either.

[Upton]

14. Good..

at least some Democrats are sticking to their principles..

[disillusioned73]

15. Where are the folks to tell us that we don't know how..

things work?? They're normally here on cue when we question why things CAN'T get done with this administration...

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. "Liberal Democrats"

enough said.

Except: GOOD FOR THEM.

[undeterred]

75. They used to be called Democrats.

:kick:

[tcaudilllg]

96. They still are. We need to bring CNN, MSNBC etc to their knees. Current will take their place.

[meow mix]

23. they also support massacre..

im glad the worlds sanity is taking the lead on this

[Critters2]

27. So, congressional oversight is a bad thing now?

That pesky ol' Constitution, with all those irritating checks and balances!

[in_cog_ni_to]

34. LOL! Good grief! In the last day Du has proclaimed disgust with Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and

now LIBERAL Democrats!

It's unfreakingreal!

[sad sally]

63. Does this mean us liberals need to leave?

[iwishiwas]

90. I am not amongst them

[tcaudilllg]

97. Obama's supporters do not speak for a majority of Democrats.

[neverforget]

72. black and white thinking; with us or against us; good and evil

:eyes: nuance is lost on you

[myrna minx]

118. Oh - like we swooped in and freed those being slaughtered in Darfur?

Oh that's right, Darfur isn't part of PNAC and the Neo-Cons' strategic plan. And since when is Congressional oversight a bad thing when it comes to war?

[Countdown_3_2_1]

24. Congress SHOULD have been consulted, even if it meant postponing another vacation in Rio

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House.

Now a president is able to conduct limited military action for a number of days...
But this appears to be a long protracted operation and will need congressional approval and funding.

No matter how you look at it, cutting one third of the US govt out of decision making is bad news.
If congress is angry now, just how cooperative will they be when the President needs approval to continue?

[meow mix]

26. and thier about to go down on the wrong side of history. fucking cowards.

glad to see the rats jump the ship

[inna]

29. who's cowards, now? i'm not sure if i understand your post.

[patrick t. cakes]

40. "I see your true colors shining through..."

remeber that song?
wow! on DU liberals are COWARDS for not supporting war.

Bizarro times

[shanti]

85. very very bizarre

people are wigging out, or it appears so.

[krabigirl]

67. Wow, more proof that the R and D parties should just merge and be done with it.

[tcaudilllg]

102. No way, the Dems are reborn next spring.

[harun]

145. They both act the same, Dem's just say they are sorry afterwards.

[bowens43]

107. The war mongers are out in force here on DU loving Obama's wars.

Remember the days when you could count on sanity here? Long gone.

[Union Scribe]

120. As opposed to... sitting and rooting on a war

and not fighting it?

Join up, coward.

[Erose999]

130. Don't think for a minute that this war in Libya is about preventing massacres

Obama has been content not to act of Haiti, Congo-Kinshasa, Darfur, and Somalia. All places where massacres, human rights atrocities, etc have been happening for years. The difference between Libya and those places is

Black Gold
Texas Tea

[JCMach1]

30. We need these voices as there are real constitutional issues here...

[ClarkUSA]

35. Like what? Quote the parts of the Constitution where "there are real... issues here."

[JCMach1]

108. Ummmmm...

Congress has the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, control the war funding (Article I, Section 8), and has "Power … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", while the President is commander-in-chief (Article II, Section 2).

[Critters2]

36. +1 nt

[Rex]

42. Wow, do they ever even read the passed bills that are in effect?

Did they forget about the War Powers Act? How can you impeach someone for using a policy YOUR own governing body passed into law!!! Did they do away with that right and I just missed it?

I am one liberal that is not mad at Obama over Libya. Guess I am screwed now by both groups...should just go live in the desert now.

[Luminous Animal]

79. Obama bypassed the War Powers Resolution which restricts the right of Presidents

to engage in military operations only one of 3 conditions:

1) Congressional approval (Obama did not seek it)
2) Specific statutory authorization (There is none)
3) A national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. (There was no attack on the U.S., its territories or possesions)


Obama ignored both the Constitution AND the War Powers Resolution. That is, he made a unilateral decision to commit military operations illegally.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp

"(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. "

[chill_wind]

43. Sen. Lugar: No-fly zone requires declaration of war

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/17/lugar_no_fly_zone_requires_declaration_of_war

"Clearly, the United States should be engaged with allies on how to oppose the Qaddafi regime and support the aspirations of the Libyan people," said Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) at the start of the committee's Thursday morning hearing on the Middle East. "But given the costs of a no-fly zone, the risks that our involvement would escalate, the uncertain reception in the Arab street of any American intervention in an Arab country, the potential for civilian deaths, the unpredictability of the endgame in a civil war, the strains on our military, and other factors, I am doubtful that U.S. interests would be served by imposing a no-fly zone over Libya."

[SOS]

141. The Republican position on US military action

is contingent only on who occupies the White House.

Republicans on US military offensives (all without declaration by Congress):

Grenada: for
Libya (1986): for
Gulf War: for
Serbia: against
Iraq (2003): for
Libya (2011): against

Their position is meaningless as it is based solely on domestic political gain.


“You can support the troops but not the president.”
–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
on the Serbia intervention under Clinton

[chill_wind]

144. Of course it is.

But that's not going to stop him from pressing his concerns, and he has company.

[TomClash]

47. They are right nt

[grahamhgreen]

48. Maybe if the Dems impeach him, Biden can do the right things. At least we could get home the message

the BO does not represent the FDR wing of the party.

[ProSense]

49. Yeah,

I hope Kucinich follows through so people can see ODS in action.

[Rex]

51. It would send the message that we impeach Democratic POTUSs

ONLY. That is the WRONG message to send, especially if you consider the fact that George Walker Bush should have been impeached every single day he was in office! THINK ABOUT IT FOLKS!

[grahamhgreen]

53. But we got the same policies. Really, we would be impeaching the Bush policies.

[Paka]

110. Thank you, Rex!

The Libya strikes are part of a "real coalition" and so very different than Iraq that Bush & Co. got a free pass on. We are not leading any action. We are simply supporting our humanitarian values for a change. Albeit, a tad late, but not misplaced. IMPEACHMENT...ARE YOU KIDDING????

:banghead:

[ClarkUSA]

57. Why would they do that, unless they turned into teabaggers?

Nice try.

[grahamhgreen]

58. Because enacting Bush policies is the same as electing Bush.

[ClarkUSA]

59. I had no idea Bush got a UN resolution explicitly approving his invasion of Iraq!

:sarcasm:

[grahamhgreen]

68. No, but he did have wars on the backs of the poor without taxing the rich who profit from it.

[vaberella]

114. Sure...wow...you people n/t

[Cetacea]

56. K&R n/t

[ProSense]

60. The U.S. signed the U.N. Charter

The U.S. signed the U.N. Charter

It would be good if members of Congress knew this.

[RufusTFirefly]

64. Constitution has supremacy over a treaty

In 1957, a Supreme Court plurality opinion stated that "(t)his Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty":

This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:

"The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent."

Source: Media Matters

[PurityOfEssence]

87. So? Resolution 1973 doesn't require nations to attack, it merely permits them.

There's nothing in the UN Charter that allows nations to disregard their own laws if the Security Council permits them to do certain things that their own laws don't.

The War Powers Act requires Presidents to consult with Congress.

"The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations."

[anaxarchos]

103. UN charter is it?

And, UN resolutions?

Well perhaps Obama could start with the several hundred UN resolutions that the US has ignored or actively undermined before he got to this one...

How about starting with... oh, I dunno... 242, maybe?

[swilton]

125. ++++

[myrna minx]

119. So this trumps the Constitution? n/t

[L. Coyote]

129. And, it seems, noone read the document. I recommend you do

and do let us know where in tyhat document you find the legal justification for intervening in a civil war.

[Stinky The Clown]

62. Message to Liberals: "Fuck off"

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Union Scribe]

124. Was that a confession? 'cause it certainly doesn't apply to Stinky

in any way shape or form.

[CommonSensePLZ]

69. I think it's the only way

Provided it's done legally and with the right leaders, which is to say NOT the US. Amirite?

[orbitalman]

76. K & R

[somone]

80. Nonsense. When in doubt, just pull the trigger

[AllTooEasy]

82. Yes, let those Lybians die. Damned if the US helps, damned if we don't

I know, I know, let's just TALK to Qaddafi again.

[tcaudilllg]

104. We've made the situation worse.

Guerrilla warfare there for years, people fighting each other in the streets with SMGs. Instead of one side getting slaughtered, now both the sides will slaughter each other incessantly. Heimdall and Loki, no less.

[vaberella]

116. You know nothing about what's going on. We did not make it worse.

You seem to be wishing we did though.

[Berserker]

83. shouldn't it read

DU Democrats in Uproar over Libya Action.

[shanti]

84. k&r!

no more war!

[ohheckyeah]

86. And why wasn't Congress consulted?

I find it incredibly disturbing.

[chill_wind]

88. Congress and WH haven't begun to see the meaning of backlash if this doesn't end well

Americans (except for the 2 percenters) are FED UP with the war-mongering and the economic disaster in this country. It's a simple unpleasant fact that the national mood of this country isn't feeling particularly feeling "humanitarian" in seeking more war adventures at this point.

As people point out here from time to time, DU political intelligentsia here is just not always all that representative of political mainstream America, as much as we love to think so.

67% Say U.S. Should Steer Clear of Political Unrest in Arab Nations
Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Americans are wary of the current chaotic political situation in several Arab countries including Libya but strongly believe the United States should stay out of the picture.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 29% of American Adults think a change of government in any of these Arab countries will be good for the United States, while slightly more (33%) feel such a change will be bad for America. Twelve percent (12%) say it will have no impact, but one-in-four (26%) aren’t sure what to expect. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

However, as with the recent turmoil in Egypt, most Americans (67%) say the United States should leave the situation in the Arab countries alone. Just 17% say the United States should get more directly involved in the political situation there, but another 17% are not sure.

Americans are skeptical about the political changes that are likely to come from the growing - and, in Libya’s case, violent - protests. Thirty percent (30%) believe it is at least somewhat likely that most of these Arab countries will become free, democratic and peaceful over the next few years, but that includes just four percent (4%) who say it is Very Likely. Sixty-one percent (61%) view a democratic and peaceful outcome as unlikely, with 14% who say it is Not At All Likely.

more: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/israel_the_middle_east/67_say_u_s_should_steer_clear_of_political_unrest_in_arab_nations


Add to that the exhaustion and resentment that already exists about Afghanistan:
Nearly two-thirds of Americans say Afghan war isn’t worth fighting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/poll-nearly-two-thirds-of-americans-say-afghan-war-isnt-worth-fighting/2011/03/14/ABRbeEW_story.html

It's going to take a WHOLE lot more FoXNews/CNN war pimping this time around and they're going to have to turn up the volume real loud, because Americans aren't lining up for this. Democrats better be careful what they're stepping in this time, and they deserve to know what the costs will be and are very right to ask what the end-game here -being played over their heads and ours right now - is truly going to be.

[tcaudilllg]

98. Gadhafi will hold Tripoli for years, and Saif for years after.

[DeSwiss]

89. K&R n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

100. How dare these Dems criticize the Neo-Neo-Con wing of the Democratic Party!

Scoop Jackson, the Senator from Boeing, is probably rolling in his grave!

[tcaudilllg]

105. You mean the EX Neo-Neo-Con wing.

[Skidmore]

111. So what else is new?

Democrats live to be in an uproar... liberal or otherwise.

[vaberella]

112. They should call for Obama's impeachment because that is what they are suggesting. n/t

[rpannier]

117. Ron Paul agrees with them

Just pointing it out

[Upton]

122. And Paul is right..

just like he's right about ending the War on Drugs..

[TBF]

133. Ron Paul opposes any interactions overseas because he doesn't want

to spend any $$$. He wants as limited a government as possible. While you will see Leftists (I mean socialists, communists - not liberals) agree with Libertarians on some issues, it is always for different reasons.

[swilton]

123. Why We Fight

Tomahawk® Cruise Missile

Description
The Tomahawk® Land Attack Missile (TLAM) is an all-weather, long range, subsonic cruise missile used for land attack warfare, launched from U. S. Navy surface ships and U.S. Navy and Royal Navy submarines.

Features
Tomahawk carries a nuclear or conventional payload. The conventional, land-attack, unitary variant carries a 1,000-pound-class warhead (TLAM-C) while the submunitions dispenser variant carries 166 combined-effects bomblets (TLAM-D). The Block III version incorporates engine improvements, an insensitive extended range warhead, time-of-arrival control and navigation capability using an improved Digital Scene Matching Area Correlator (DSMAC) and Global Positioning System (GPS) — which can significantly reduce mission-planning time and increase navigation and terminal accuracy.

Background
Tomahawk® cruise missiles are designed to fly at extremely low altitudes at high subsonic speeds, and are piloted over an evasive route by several mission tailored guidance systems. The first operational use was in Operation Desert Storm, 1991, with immense success. The missile has since been used successfully in several other conflicts. In 1995 the governments of the United States and United Kingdom signed a Foreign Military Sales Agreement for the acquisition of 65 missiles, marking the first sale of Tomahawk® to a foreign country.



General Characteristics
Primary Function: Long-range subsonic cruise missile for striking high value or heavily defended land targets.
Contractor: Raytheon Systems Company, Tucson, AZ.
Date Deployed: Block II TLAM-A IOC - 1984
Block III – IOC 1994
Block IV – IOC expected 2004.
Unit Cost: Approximately $569,000 (FY99 $).
Propulsion: Block II/III TLAM-A, C & D - Williams International F107 cruise turbo-fan engine; ARC/CSD solid-fuel booster
Length: 18 feet 3 inches (5.56 meters); with booster: 20 feet 6 inches (6.25 meters).
Diameter: 20.4 inches (51.81 cm).
Wingspan: 8 feet 9 inches (2.67 meters).
Weight: 2,900 pounds (1,315.44 kg); 3,500 pounds (1,587.6 kg) with booster.
Speed: Subsonic - about 550 mph (880 km/h).
Range: Block II TLAM-A – 1350 nautical miles (1500 statute miles, 2500 km)
Block III TLAM-C - 900 nautical miles (1000 statute miles, 1600 km)
Block III TLAM-D - 700 nautical miles (800 statute miles, 1250 km
Block IV TLAM-E - 900 nautical miles (1000 statute miles, 1600 km)
Guidance System: Block II TLAM-A – INS, TERCOM, Block III TLAM-C, D & Block IV TLAM-E – INS, TERCOM, DSMAC, and GPS.
Warhead: Block II TLAM-N – W80 nuclear warhead
Block III TLAM-C and Block IV TLAM-E - 1,000 pound class unitary warhead
Block III TLAM-D - conventional submunitions dispenser with combined effect bomblets.

[L. Coyote]

128. It's about time the Dems put impeachment back on the table.

It is never too late to impeach Bush for starting illegal wars and the tradition of starting illegal wars.

[harun]

146. If it was illegal for B*sh it is illegal for Obama.

DK is the only one intellectually honest enough to admit this.

[JCMach1]

131. Support the action, but not how it was done...

[trud]

132. Thank God.

Who knew Obama would throw the Constitution under the bus. Not me, or I never would have voted for him. H*ll, this warmongering is part of why I didn't vote for Hillary. This is just the latest example.

[TBF]

134. K&R nt

[Shagbark Hickory]

135. Luckily for the administration, It's the ones nobody ever pays attention to. nt

[DutchLiberal]

136. Bush = not impeached for war crimes; Obama = impeached for preventing war crimes in Libya?

Good message to send! :eyes:

[bigbrother05]

138. Maybe it's 3D chess and now we'll tax the rich for the new war

and back pay for the last 8 (or 30) years. :shrug:

[bvar22]

139. I am glad there are still a handful of "Democrats"...

that speak for me.
Otherwise, I would be GONE from the "New Democrat Centrist Party".

K&R



Who will STAND and represent THIS American Majority?
Rhetoric, broken promises, and excuses mean NOTHING now.
"By their WORKS you will know them,"
and by their WORKS they will be held accountable.

[Bo]

147. I AM VERY ANGRY AT THIS INVOLVEMENT...IDIOT OBAMA

WTF IS HE THINKING