How would you have voted on these resolutions?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

H RES 292: Prohibits the use of ground troops in Libya, and some whining to Obama about how he hasn't given a reason for the operation and demands he explain its justification under the War Powers Act: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll411.xml

H CON RES 51: Kucinich resolution requiring withdrawal of all US forces from Libya within 15 days. Vote here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll412.xml

I would've voted Nay on both. I don't support the use of grounds troops in Libya but that's a strawman anyway. It's just more GOP grandstanding bullsh!t.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Yea/Yea

[Liberté]

Yes to both. I'm not some anti-Obamanaut (he's about as bad as the rest of them), and I'm not a Republican. But if it was bad when the GOP was doing it, and it was, it's bad when the Democrats do it, too.

Now I understand that you're going to point out to me "but this isn't a full-scale invasion and it's being undertaken as part of a NATO mission". Well, I'll remind you that in the earliest days before the invasion of Afghanistan, there were some brief reports in the press that the engagement might be limited to missile strikes and SpecOps insertions. That didn't last long and the rumors were absurd on their face.

It's a funny thing, how American military engagements tend to escalate exponentially along both the linear and temporal scale. Vietnam was for years a police-action; then it became a military operation under the guise of a police-action; and it ended as a national crisis under the guise of a military operation.

Why risk it? We may assume that Obama is probably better advised relative to Bush in the foreign policy sphere. But because Obama's action to 'get' bin Laden was successful doesn't mean that his efforts to dispose of Muammar al-Gaddafi would meet with the same success. Why not now instead use this opportunity, as the Democratic Party apparently waited so long for, to publicly begin calling to wind down the wars? Why engage ourselves in another conflict when we've just had the closest thing to 'victory' possible in as asinine a war as the War on Terror.

Presumably you care about Obama's re-election chances. I don't. But let me appeal to your partisanship. Doubtless an Obama riding high on the double-whammy of the death of bin Laden and the defeat of al-Gaddafi is going to be basically unbeatable...

... and at the same time, an Obama who inadvertently gets us mired in a third war is going to be pulverized.

From your perspective, why risk that?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

why did so many congressers, including a few GOPers, vote for 51 but not 292?

[Franzl]

Yes/No

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes to both. I'm not some anti-Obamanaut (he's about as bad as the rest of them), and I'm not a Republican. But if it was bad when the GOP was doing it, and it was, it's bad when the Democrats do it, too.

Now I understand that you're going to point out to me "but this isn't a full-scale invasion and it's being undertaken as part of a NATO mission". Well, I'll remind you that in the earliest days before the invasion of Afghanistan, there were some brief reports in the press that the engagement might be limited to missile strikes and SpecOps insertions. That didn't last long and the rumors were absurd on their face.

It's a funny thing, how American military engagements tend to escalate exponentially along both the linear and temporal scale. Vietnam was for years a police-action; then it became a military operation under the guise of a police-action; and it ended as a national crisis under the guise of a military operation.

Why risk it? We may assume that Obama is probably better advised relative to Bush in the foreign policy sphere. But because Obama's action to 'get' bin Laden was successful doesn't mean that his efforts to dispose of Muammar al-Gaddafi would meet with the same success. Why not now instead use this opportunity, as the Democratic Party apparently waited so long for, to publicly begin calling to wind down the wars? Why engage ourselves in another conflict when we've just had the closest thing to 'victory' possible in as asinine a war as the War on Terror.

Presumably you care about Obama's re-election chances. I don't. But let me appeal to your partisanship. Doubtless an Obama riding high on the double-whammy of the death of bin Laden and the defeat of al-Gaddafi is going to be basically unbeatable...

... and at the same time, an Obama who inadvertently gets us mired in a third war is going to be pulverized.

From your perspective, why risk that?

Passing a resolution just to insult Obama on Libya doesn't help there. If it just prohibited ground troops it'd be one thing, but I don't think anyone thinks that's going to happen. Plus with the way the Republicans have behaved about Iraq they are giant hypocrites who don't deserve to be trusted on anything as far as this goes.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Yea/Yea

[Frodo]

Nay on both -even if we really have no intention of sending ground troops to Libya, it is still useful to keep that option open as leverage.  

[specific_name]

Nay on both. These are just political statements from the house and shouldn't be taken all that seriously.

[krazen1211]

The Democrats will vote for war as long as it is their war, a few nutters notwithstanding. See the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Nay to both

[Franzl]

The Democrats will vote for war as long as it is their war, a few nutters notwithstanding. See the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

Republicans sure seem to be more in favor of "their" wars as well.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Nay/Yea

The GOP can go ***** themselves.. having the audacity to make Obama "explain" the invasion of Libya when their demigod Reagan or W started wars and skirmishes the world over...

John Boehner... go smoke some more cigarettes and limit your political activity to shutting the hell up.

[JewCon]

Nay / Nay. NeoCon Pride.

jk, but I did vote Nay /Nay.  If Obama does justify going into Libya, than he should be allowed too...

But, currently I would not support a ground invasion of Libya.

[RI]

Nay/Nay. Libya is one of the more justified interventions we've participated in lately.

[Person Man]

Nay on both -even if we really have no intention of sending ground troops to Libya, it is still useful to keep that option open as leverage.  

Say No to War....unless its a Republican who wants it.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Nay/Yea

The GOP can go ***** themselves.. having the audacity to make Obama "explain" the invasion of Libya when their demigod Reagan or W started wars and skirmishes the world over...

John Boehner... go smoke some more cigarettes and limit your political activity to shutting the hell up.

Yeah it's not like Congress has any need to know about national security policy anyway.  Bush had so much fun with executive imperialism and now it's Obama's rightful turn at it.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Yea/yea and let's leave Iraq while we're at it.

[tpfkaw]

Nay/Yea

The GOP can go ***** themselves.. having the audacity to make Obama "explain" the invasion of Libya when their demigod Reagan or W started wars and skirmishes the world over...

John Boehner... go smoke some more cigarettes and limit your political activity to shutting the hell up.

I LOVE WAR BECUZ REPUBLICANS ARE MEAN!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, you should have more self-respect than to lower yourself to BRTD-level reasoning.

[anvi]

I'd vote no on both in their present forms.  But then, I'd introduce my own resolution demanding that the president immediately justify and define his envisioned parameters of the present conflict as well as consult more openly and extensively with Congress when contemplating large-scale military action in the future.  Even if a humanitarian crisis is immanent, that doesn't prevent the president from talking to Congress, even if on short notice.  On the other hand, if Congress wants to formally disapprove of a military action, or effectively end it by defunding it, that's in their court; they should take action if they want to, and not just complain.

[Oakvale]

Nay/Nay. Libya is one of the more justified interventions we've participated in lately.

[frihetsivrare]

Yea on both

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yea/Yea

[The Vorlon]

The constitution is nonsense, The President has always had the power to declare war.  Winston? - How many fingers am I hold up? - And which branch of the Government has the power to declare war?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Nay/Nay