I’m trying to get my head wrapped around this one. Obama claims that providing financing and logistic support to NATO, without a committment of armed forces, does not amount to making war on Libya and therefore is not covered by the War Powers Act of 1973.
Most Republicans (and some Democrats) think otherwise. They would call it war, and hence, claim that Obama is, as of Sunday, in violation of the War Powers Act.
Today there was a House vote to authorize limited military involvement in Libya. It failed 123 (yes) to 295 (no).
Washington’s delegation split along partisan lines with Democrats Dicks, Smith, McDermott, Inslee, and Larsen voting yes and Republicans Herrera Beutler, Reichert, Hastings and McMorris Rodgers voting no.
Huh…I distinctly remember George W. Bush suggesting that John Kerry’s criticisms against Bush’s handling of the Iraq war was giving aid and comfort to the enemy and endangering the troops.
So…if Obama is right in his interpretation of the War Powers Act, then the Republicans have engaged in little more than toothless political theater by defeating an unnecessary “authorization” today.
But if the Republicans are right in their belief that Obama is waging war in Libya in violation of the War Powers Act, then doesn’t their vote against authorizing the action mean, by their own standards, that they are giving aid and comfort to the enemy?
Yo Reps. Herrera Beutler, Reichert, Hastings and McMorris Rodgers did y’all just give Gaddafi a big ol’ group hug? And why are you willfully endangering the troops?
When have Republicans ever worried about such niceties as legality when it comes to waging war?
Let’s face it, today’s House vote on Libya was just grandstanding, which for Republicans is par for the course. Everything GOPers do is partisan. They put partisanship above everything including Motherhood, Country, and Apple Pie. Did I mention the people we’re saving from Gadhafi are Muslims? To a Republican that means they deserve to murdered by a bloodthirsty tyrant.
Well, we don’t have any troops on the ground in Libya, so they can’t be endangering the troops. And our pilots aren’t flying the planes, either. So I think they’re innocent of that charge, Darryl. But they are endangering the lives of innocent Libyan civilians who yearn to breathe free, which to Gadhafi is worthy of the death penalty so he unleashed jet fighters, helicopter gunships, and tanks against unarmed demonstrators. These are the people our Republican reps are throwing under the bus. This isn’t too surprising, and it’s consistent, because remember they also criticized Clinton for saving Kosovars from Serbian genocide — without losing a single American life. Those people were Muslims, too. Hmmm, I wonder if there’s a pattern here?
Consistency is not a value highly prized among politicians.
Roger Rabbit,
“Well, we don’t have any troops on the ground in Libya, so they can’t be endangering the troops. And our pilots aren’t flying the planes, either. So I think they’re innocent of that charge, Darryl.”
Indeed…as I point out in the first paragraph. But the War Powers Act specifically invokes the introduction of Armed Forces into hostilities in the territory, airspace, or waters of a foreign nation as the trigger for the reporting and consent requirements.
Hence, the Wingnuts must believe there are, somehow, Armed Forces involved. And if so, their actions must be putting them at risk.
RR @ 3: “… But they are endangering the lives of innocent … civilians who yearn to breathe free, which to Gadhafi is worthy of the death penalty so he unleashed jet fighters, helicopter gunships, and tanks against unarmed demonstrators….”
What the Republicans probably did was look at Gaddaffi’s repression, and mutter to themselves…
“Gee, you can do that??? Someone take notes, we will need them when we get back in charge…”
Only if you’re willing to adopt the faulty logic of and jump into the moraless abyss that was the Bush Admin. Personally, I’m not willing to go there.
Like Michael says, this kind of gotcha-from-10-years-ago anti-logic isn’t really all that persuasive.
You should show venal and stupid the Republicans and the right were at that point in history, without looking like a told-you-so.
The failure of the vote to defund the war should be seen as a de facto vote of approval of the war. If you didn’t approve of it, shouldn’t you have voted to defund it?
What a bunch of hypocrites…on both sides.
You’ve got some previously anti war Democrats now big time warmongers. Heck, we even have Hillary channeling Bush, asking “whose side are you on?”
Then you’ve got the previously pro war Republicans playing politics and suddenly becoming anti war..
Killing innocent civilians, wasting billions, bombing with drones..none of that really seems to matter.
The only thing these greedy MIC controlled politicians care about is the letter after the president’s name.
@10
Different times, places, and situations call for different actions.
Huh…I distinctly remember George W. Bush suggesting that John Kerry’s criticisms against Bush’s handling of the Iraq war was giving aid and comfort to the enemy and endangering the troops.
——————————————–
As rodent points out, we had troops on the ground in combat with the enemy then, you nitwit. How looney do you have to be to not see the distinction; the issue is should we be spending our money on another mideast civil war. You fools can’t understand that we don’t have enough money to keep pouring it down these ratholes.
AmericaFirst @ 12,
I hate to break it to ya, Dumbass, but if we don’t have Armed Forces at risk in a foreign land, sea, or airspace, then the War Powers act doesn’t apply. (I know subtly isn’t your strength, but that’s the point I was getting at.)
And before you go off with some half-cocked theory of why it DOES apply (but then somehow doesn’t make the Republican put them at risk), READ THE FUCKING ACT.
Sheesh… imbeciles!
@12,13
The Republican’s chose to keep funding the war effort anyway, which is the same thing as saying they’re cool with it.
AmericaFirst @12,
” You fools can’t understand that we don’t have enough money to keep pouring it down these ratholes.”
Get a grip, asswipe. George Bush simply lost 12 times as much money in Iraq in $100 bills (seriously!) than Obama has spent in Libya.
The cost of Libya doesn’t register compared to the outrageous expense of Iraq. And I am only talking dollars here. The Human costs alone were many orders of magnitude higher in Iraq.
Oh…and a belated welcome to the anti-war movement…asshole.
@15
At least Max is entertaining, this guy’s just belligerent and thick.
@13. Darryl spews:
AmericaFirst @ 12,
I hate to break it to ya, Dumbass, but if we don’t have Armed Forces at risk in a foreign land, sea, or airspace, then the War Powers act doesn’t apply. (I know subtly isn’t your strength, but that’s the point I was getting at.)
———————————————
I hate to break it to ya, Dumbass, but your paragraph which I quoted didn’t mention the WPA;
“Huh…I distinctly remember George W. Bush suggesting that John Kerry’s criticisms against Bush’s handling of the Iraq war was giving aid and comfort to the enemy and endangering the troops,”
nor does my reply implicate it. Kerry was bashing the conduct of our troops in combat long after Congressional approval had already been given and the Republicans are not accusing our troops of doing anything wrong. You are trying to change the subject because your nitwit analogy doesn’t hold up.
Americafirst @ 17,
“Kerry was bashing the conduct of our troops in combat long after Congressional approval had already been given and the Republicans are not accusing our troops of doing anything wrong.”
Are you fucking retarded??? Read the fucking link I included. Bush was SPECIFICALLY commenting on Kerry’s criticism of Bush as “giving aid and comfort”. Try to keep up, Squirt.
” You are trying to change the subject because your nitwit analogy doesn’t hold up.”
Wait. What?!? I DEFINED the topic ya dope! You responded without reading the link (apparently). Consequently, you responded with nonsense.
Please…in the future, CAREFULLY read and try to figure out what is going on before making stupid-ass responses.
@18. Darryl spews:
Americafirst @ 17,
—————————-
Now you are running away from your absurd War Powers Act excuse and trying something even weaker. How does;
“ Read the fucking link I included. Bush was SPECIFICALLY commenting on Kerry’s criticism of Bush as “giving aid and comfort”. Try to keep up, Squirt,”
defend your nitwit analogy, we already know what Bush supporters accused Kerry of, the issue is your claim that what Republicans are doing now is comparable to what Republicans accused Democrats of then, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
You are comparing what Kerry and other Democrats did, which was accuse our troops in combat of war crimes, with what Republicans are now doing, which is attacking Obama but not accusing our troops of doing anything wrong, and not while the troops are in combat.
You can’t run away from that by claiming that you control the topic, it was your own effing analogy, and you can’t defend it except by going off on tangents and running away from the point. Try to focus on the point and explain why the conduct is comparable.
Americafirst,
“…the issue is your claim that what Republicans are doing now is comparable to what Republicans accused Democrats of then, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
Sorry…I assumed you were reading at a higher level than appears to be the case.
I wasn’t actually claiming what you say. Rather I was pointing out that if the Republicans REALLY BELIEVE that Obama is violating the War Powers act, then they would be guilty of “providing aid and comfort to the enemy” under their established standard. (Of course, I don’t actually believe this to be so, as is apparent to the intelligent reader—rather, I think they are engaging in bullshit political theater, as the intelligent reader would discern at once.)
“You are comparing what Kerry and other Democrats did, which was accuse our troops in combat of war crimes”
Nope. I was not doing that, and the link to the criticism of Kerry does not touch at all on that particular criticism of Kerry you mention. You are mistaken (again!) It was Bush’s criticism of Kerry in 2004–during the presidential contest–specifically, in response to Kerry’s criticism of Bush and his handling of Iraq in 2004. Here is a useful hit: READ THE ARTICLE AT THE FUCKING LINK!
“You can’t run away from that by claiming that you control the topic, it was your own effing analogy”
Sure I can…because you totally misunderstood what I was talking about.
“and you can’t defend it except by going off on tangents and running away from the point.”
Huh. What you call a “tangent” is what I call the topic of my original post. Funny how that works…
Basically…you didn’t read carefully enough to understand the post.
Why am I not surprised?
There is no “enemy” because there are no “hostilities”. Duh.
Why is it that the Libyan civilians are more valuable, command more attention, and more military commitment than the civilians of Darfur?
@16
I will take that as a compliment.
@22: There are 1.6 or 7 million reasons, i.e., barrels of oil/day.
And it’s light and sweet to boot. The EU refineries it (normally) goes to have difficulty with (aren’t set up for) any thing heavy or sour.
@20. Darryl spews:
——————————
Keep right on running away from what you said, but here it is in your own words:
(1)“Huh…I distinctly remember George W. Bush suggesting that John Kerry’s criticisms against Bush’s handling of the Iraq war was giving aid and comfort to the enemy and endangering the troops.”
Kerry called our troops who were then in combat, in Iraq, war criminals (perhaps you have conveniently forgotten the Abu Garab prison story).
(2)“But if the Republicans are right in their belief that Obama is waging war in Libya in violation of the War Powers Act, then doesn’t their vote against authorizing the action mean, by their own standards, that they are giving aid and comfort to the enemy?”
Republicans voted against authorization of military action in Libya; our troops are not in combat there and no accusations were made against our troops.
You are obviously comparing (1) and (2). Keep dancing around as long as you like, what you did speaks for itself.
Funny how DUMMOCRAPTS forget one of their own Dennis Kucinich is against Libya…
@26
He won’t be much longer.
Americafirst@25,
“Republicans voted against authorization of military action in Libya; our troops are not in combat there and no accusations were made against our troops.”
Man…you are one DENSE motherfucker. The point you are making is part of the point I was making. The logical conclusion is that if our armed forces are not involved in hostilities (and we seem to agree on that), then Obama isn’t violating the War Powers act.
Perhaps you can find someone to read my post to you VERY, VERY slowly! I know you can get to the bottom of it!
And then they turned around and voted to continue funding the very same thing. Kinda leaves you wondering which vote really counts.