The completely and totally not surprising truth about the war in Libya, courtesy of wikileaks, written by Greenwald. More at the link. This is, as I noted earlier in a thread on the "new Iraq", precisely the history of United States foreign policy all the way back to approximately the time of Teddy Roosevelt. Absolutely, indisputably, the rationale for every stupid unnecessary war we've been in; so many I've lost count.
war?? i prefer to call it kinetic military action Totally agree with you on all these stupid unnecessary wars. Sigh.. problem is I don't think that is ever going to change no matter who we elect in office.
there are probably a lot of factors why the us helped in lybia. a) europe is actually concerned about lybia for whatever reasons, number one being oil. b) kaddhafi is a lot higher profile dicatator whom we have wanted out of there for a while. the guy supported a terror bombing against americans that we know of c) he is overall just an easy target, he's crazy, its time for hime to go.
More on the influence of US oil conglomerates that lead to war with Libya (from Bloomberg, again sourced from wikileaks).
Boehner warns Obama over Libya Quotes: Not sure this is anything more than routine politicking, but even if it is, I'm happy that this issue is being scrutinized within congress and that Obama is being held to task for the decision to supply resources and troops in support of the effort against Libya. I dont support the Libyan government, but find little unique about the Libyan conflict in comparison to the many uprisings happening in the Arab world today. I'd prefer that we sit back and wait for them to work themselves out while making public declarations of support for the people to have self-governance....
10 US Lawmakers Sue Obama over Libya lawmakers say Mr. Obama violated the Constitution in bypassing Congress and using international organizations like the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to authorize military force. The lawmakers want a judge to issue an order suspending military operations without congressional approval. They said they were filing their lawsuit Wednesday against Mr. Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/15/politics/main20071286.shtml#ixzz1PMvyazkj
if obama had gotten an "authorization to use force" would boener and the republicans still have a problem with our involvement? if it was bush leading us into more war would boener and the republicans be against it or would they be telling the rest of us to shut up and support the troops? and conversely, if it was bush would democrats be making more of an issue of of this than they are now? when is the last time a president actually got a declaration of war before starting one?
This is a Constitutional issue that does need to be addressed but I have the feeling that any legal actions, such as the lawsuit that SunsRockets posted about, will be defeated because the UNSC authorized this action and the US is both a signatory and ratified the UN Treaty. Also the War Powers act does allow the president to deploy troops as long as Congress is informed of it within 48 hours which Obama did. While the act says that troops cannot remain for more 60 days without authorization of Congress, that deadline has passed in Libya, there is a 30 day period for draw down and considering Gates was just talking to allies about the need for allies to pull more weight they might argue that we are in the current draw down period. Even if Obama goes past those other presidencies have gotten away with technically violating the War Powers act without much consequence. Not saying that is right just that the precedence has been established. Keep in mind at the time that the UNSC authorization was passed and bombing began Gadafi's troops were at the doorway to Benghazi. Them working it out would've been a blood bath in Benghazi and other rebel held areas.
World War II. Every other US military action since then has not been conducted under an actual declaration of war but under authorizations of force.
I honestly think this is an issue that needs to be looked further into and discussed and I think Congress should hold hearings on the matter if the President has violated the War Powers Act and how relevant that act is. That said I would feel a lot better if many of those same Republicans pushing this had looked into the prior Admin's use of the military.
I recognize that it's kinda complicated because of our treaty obligations to the UN and NATO, but in the basic principle I don't see any reason why Obama shouldn't have to get Congressional authorization. The "no troops on the ground" is a bs distinction. Dropping thousands of bombs on someone is a war, and it should be up to Congress. I think it'd be interesteing to see if House Republicans would actually pull the plug on the operation if it was dropped in their laps. And, how much would it really matter in Libya? The work gets harder for the European countries, but I don't see them stopping just because the US did. It might force an escalation.
FWIW, this scenario definitely reveals a lot of the differences between the two parties and how they operate. Not in a good way mind you, just interesting from a distanced, sort of cynical, purview.
Yale Law professor Bruce Ackerman says Obama is more imperialist than Bush with his handling of the unconstitutional war in Libya.
I am so tired of the dick-measuring competitions that these political parties do to each other. I just wish an independent would win it all one day. Very unlikely since the Republicans and Democrats push out millions of dollars just for advertising alone. Can't stand rich people determining the future of the middle-class and lower.
I feel like the US is required to commit to the NATO military plans by the Supremacy Clause. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
