More than 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles struck over 20 targets inside Libya today in the opening phase of an international military operation the Pentagon said was aimed at stopping attacks led by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and enforcing a U.N.-backed no-fly zone. President Obama, speaking from Brazil shortly after he authorized the missile attacks, said they were part of a “limited military action” to protect the Libyan people.
“I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice and it’s not a choice I make lightly,” Obama said. “But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy.”
The first air strikes, in what is being called Operation Odyssey Dawn, were launched from a mix of U.S. surface ships and one British submarine in the Mediterranean Sea at 2 p.m. ET, Vice Adm. William E. Gortney told reporters at a Pentagon briefing.
They targeted Libyan air defense missile sites, early warning radar and key communications facilities around Tripoli, Misratah, and Surt, but no areas east of that or near Benghazi. Because of darkness over Libya, Gortney said it was too early to determine the strikes’ effectiveness.
Kucinich Slams President Obama’s War Actions With Senator Obama’s Anti-War Rhetoric
http://breitbart.tv/kucinich-slams-president-obamas-war-actions-with-senator-obamas-anti-war-rhetoric/
Kucinich nails it
McGuyver–can you understand the difference between plus and minus? Positive and Negative? Action vs Inaction?
I have asked you 3-4 times what you would have OBAMA DO—–DO—–and you continue to respond with what he should not do. NOT do. As in: “Anything he does is wrong.” An idiot Obama Bashing Kneejerk naysayer UNTIL you offer a plausible alternative.
You are smart enough to think of something? Given your inability to even understand the direct request of you, I doubt you will actually come up with a positive action he should have done, more likely just a rephrasing of what he shouldn’t have done.
You got nothing. Do you really not see it?
Ha, ha.
Stoopid Human.
This is not a unilateral action.
#175 & # 176 Man, for just passing over his post with peripheral vision, you certainly spend quite a long time answering Mr. E. Newman.
Quite a peripheral vision you have. Horse blinders (winkers) in order?
#180 Definitively he doesn’t use blinders. He sees Mr. E Newman’s post quite well.
Quite funny that I thought of blinders for #175 too.
http://nationalreview.com/corner/262725/president-reticent-stanley-kurtz
From the above link
It seems reasonable to conclude from his long-term relationship with Power that Obama shares her interest in making humanitarian military interventions more common. Yet the president has said little about this, and the obvious policy implications of his ties with Power are rarely drawn. In his biography of Obama, David Remnick describes the beginnings of the Power-Obama relationship thus: “Obama did not strike Power as a liberal interventionist or a Kissingerian realist or any other kind of ideological ‘ist’ except maybe a ‘consquentialist.’ In foreign policy, Obama said, he was for what worked.”
Here we have the classic protective presentation of Obama. The future president reads a book by a passionately ideological humanitarian interventionist and quickly hires her as his key foreign policy advisor. Yet the obvious ideological implications of this are left entirely unexplored. Instead we are quickly reassured that Obama is nothing but a pragmatist.
>of course the Pres “has the power.” You have confused the concept of power with the concept of a right or authorization. common mistake as are most of your notions.
It’s not my notion. This is from a professor of Constitutional Law. Perhaps you should read it again with that in mind.
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
182, Bobbo,
Yup… it’s definitely a comprehension problem on your part. I answered your question. You just don’t like it because you want a proactive response on what I would rather have him doing to occupy his time.
You’re so partisan that you’re trying to make this into a Repub vs. Dem ideological rant.
If the guy really wants to demonstrate he’s really taking his job seriously as commander-in-chief, maybe he should be spending more time at the office and less time playing games?
Hasty conclusion. Are you so dumb that you need to have pointed out to you what presidents do? That you’re so sensitive over criticisms over how your messiah handles himself in the public that you demand an alternative?
Only an idiot would assume that something MUST be done in exchange for not doing something that is in bad taste.
Just because someone can easily point out something done in bad taste, does not mean that the person needs to provide something to be done in good taste.
You SEEM to be trying to turn this into a “now that you’ve identified the problem, what is the solution” situation. I gave you a solution. Just don’t do it. It’s THAT simple.
If you want me to give suggestions on what he should be doing as Commander-in-Chief other than playing soccer with some kids while we fight a foreign civil war, then you’re just being stupid. Don’t get so upset because your messiah is too dumb to realize his actions while conducting military actions are in bad taste. But hey, it could be worse… he could have been shoving a cigar into one of his interns at the office while giving orders for military action.
Bobbo, I haven’t seen a reasonable explanation as to the Constitutional arguments around the War Powers Act.
You seem to think maybe it authorizes the president to go to war. That makes no sense at all. Imagine Congress passing a law that the President can make laws in the public interest for 60 days.
Walter Dellinger’s article defending the actions in Libya say the text of the War Powers Act assumes the President has authority to make war on his own, and indeed it does.
That could be an argument in favor of WPA is unconstitutional, and idiotically so.
Mike–Regarding the Powers/Obama/Reticence issue you’ve done the best job of posting the link, posting what you think the relevant part of it is, and making your argument===but you aren’t ENGAGED with anyone on that particular subject. Who are you talking to? Remember: its ok to talk to yourself, but you should never argue.
Regarding the “definition” of power, you also do a good job there but by definition if you have done/ARE DOING something, how can you possible not have the power to do so? And so you/the scholar add “under the Constitution” but that is the very definition of a “right.” You see the definitional quagmire you have entered? All too much like McGuyver who also doesn’t get the linguistic foundation of rational thought.
McGuyver: you do puzzle me. Like Mikey–cool, calm, and collected never taking offense where many would. I respect that, it usually leads to deeper thinking than either of you regularly demonstrate. You think being shown playing the NATIONAL OBSESSION of Brazil with the local kiddies is “in Bad Taste.” What should he be doing? Teaching how to brush their teeth? That is why I ask for the alternative you would find tasteful. He is in Brazil to better relationships. Brazil is a culture based on catholicism (ie–lots of kiddies), soccer, and sugar cane. I can’t think of anything BETTER he could do to accomplish better relationships, that don’t cost the USA anything, than playing soccer. Well, raising the dead might impress them?
I have so very adroitly pointed out to you in two different ways: acting like Carter, all bound up and paralyzed by a single issue, makes one nothing but ineffective and TRAPPED/defined by your adversaries. Then I sharpened this recognition by directing your attention to the fact that there are GENERALS running Odyssey Dawn—WHAT DO YOU WANT OBAMA TO DO? “we” are not at war. Our Military is, the military in the Mediterranean more specifically. What do you want Obama TO DO???? Knit socks? Give Blood?
You are a nit picking, anything Obama does is wrong. In short, an idiot. I guess you think it would be more appropriate for the press to show him reading tactical reports and looking at maps? Is that the Hollywood drivel you accept as responsible leadership? Or would you then criticize Obama for “playing at war?” What does a Harvard Law Professor/Community Organizer think he can do except double guess the Generals?
Its one kind of stupid to be so out of the gate. Once your error and the correct position is repeatedly pointed out to you, then its not being stupid anymore. That, is being a tool.
Democrats are shouting for Obama to be impeached.
World leaders are demanding Obama give back his Nobel Peace Prize.
Hey Bamster… how’s that hope and change doing?
Obama tells Turkish Prime Minister the goal is to install a democratic system in Libya.
A question for Obama the neocon: How does one “install” a “democratic system” from 30,000 feet?
Mike–I have time before an appointment so I thought I would peruse your professors comments, but I don’t see a link or quote anywhere. Nothing to read again.
I have not argued the constitutionality of Operation Odyssey Dawn. Legal analysis is mostly irrelevant as it is DECIDED by the Supreme Court. There really is nothing to argue–just wait for that 5-4 decision with 4 written submissions for the definitive answer. Doesn’t matter what the logic or the words or the history or the sense of the issue is. The Supremes decide. Thats why I prefer more accessible issues like the pro’s and con’s of defeating tyrants. Supremes may mention that in passing, but its not binding.
Let’s see. Two by JB. Anything there?………….. No. Ha, ha.
Bobbo, Really what will the Supreme Court decide? Bring the soldiers home? Good luck with that.
>so I thought I would peruse your professors comments, but I don’t see a link or quote anywhere.
OK, I’ll do the reveal. The Constitutional Law professor who made these statements was Barack Obama in 2007.
Hahahahahahaha. Hook, line & sinker. Le Puke has been pwned.
Well Mickey, I’m confused. Who is Walter Dellinger then, and regardless, what did he or Obama ACTUALLY say? Was he questioned on the fine distinction between a power and a right?
Either you are confused as usual, or more likely, just caught on which lie you are currently spinning.
But bottom line, rather than misconflicting what other’s have said, do you have your own opinion on whether or not Obama should have taken us to war. and a bonus: while doing so, is it an impeachable offense that he played soccer with the kiddies in Brazil or will he later only roast in hell for that lack of taste?
#191 Don’t forget libertarians/tea party folks…
We have common cause now, impeach Obama…
There are lots of grounds to impeach him in addition to killing innocent Libyan civilians…innocent of attacking us that is…
How about creating oil drilling jobs in Brazil with US Taxpayer money while destroying those same jobs here, impoverishing our country?
That’s an act of war if any foreigner did it.
Le Puke still assimilating the punch given by Mike.
The US (and UN) didn’t get involved when the Tunisian or Egyptian rebels were having a rough time. And the US didn’t nothing to help those in Bahrain, who have been largely defeated. But soon as things started getting bleak for the rebels in Libya, the UN decides that the US (and coalition) military forces will be useful in helping out. What changed? Well you’ve got to figure that big Oil is a factor.
But I’m thinking it’s not just because Libya has oil, and the other north African countries had much less. But also that the Japan crisis was threatening to bring the price of oil down, in the world market. And heating things up in Libya, war-wise, would turn that around and sent oil and gas prices back upward. Or at least keep them from dropping too fast, too soon. I mean, the US and UN didn’t care enough about the Libya dictator, to get rid of him, before now. But suddenly, they’re all hot to do it. And they may just end up doing what they did back in the 80s. Bomb a few Libyan strongholds. And then give up and go away. I don’t remember the price of gas shooting up, back then. So why does a little war in Libya, do that now?
They call it “Operation Odyssey Dawn”. Which is just word they chose to fit the two letter designation “O.D.”, and it really could be anything you want. Supposedly the two letters are randomly chosen by computer. But it’s a interesting pair of letters the just happen to come up with. Because they could also stand for Operation “Oil Demand”. Or “Outa Dictator”. Which makes more sense than “Odyssey Dawn”. What the hell does that even mean?!