NY Times: Obama Rejects 2 Top Lawyers’ Views on War Power in Libya

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

President's have given the middle finger to the WPA since it was pased........no news here.

Politically I don't see why he might not take it Congress......unless he feels the pubs will force him to shut it down by defunding the operation, but they can do that anyway.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I guess some might consider Pakistan to be the same theater of war as Afghanistan. I believe though he needed to go to Congress when for the drone strikes as well. Drone strikes should be held to the same standard as manned interventions.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I guess some might consider Pakistan to be the same theater of war as Afghanistan. I believe though he needed to go to Congress when for the drone strikes as well. Drone strikes should be held to the same standard as manned interventions.

But if, as you say, shua, there are the same theater......and I think most agree it is......then why bother, drone strikes or no?

The lack of outcry that Obama needs to consult Congress on this is non-existent, no?  Or have I missed it.

[stegosaurus]

Only in our government would it be debatable as to whether or not firing cruise missiles into another country should be considered hostile. If President Obama believes in the mission in Libya (whatever that mission may be) why is he so reluctant to take the case to congress and thus, ultimately, in front of the people? It's certainly not very leader like.

[Paul Kemp]

Why are people surprised by this and acting like there's no precedent? Clinton didn't receive congressional approval for bombing Serbia in 1999. What about the Latin American conflicts of the late 1980s?

The War Powers Act is something that has been ignored more than it has been followed. I'm not sure why anyone is shocked.

[Keystone Phil]

Why are people surprised by this and acting like there's no precedent? Clinton didn't receive congressional approval for bombing Serbia in 1999. What about the Latin American conflicts of the late 1980s?

The War Powers Act is something that has been ignored more than it has been followed. I'm not sure why anyone is shocked.

I guess you're right. We shouldn't be shocked at the blatant hypocrisy of Presidents (even this one). Some of us need to realize that it isn't the Fall of 2007 anymore!

[CitizenX]

I'm sorry to bring this up yet again but when Republicans are screaming about Clinton lying about sex I'm always amazed.  Because to me that is one of the most insignificant things that has happened during my life time.  Multiple White Houses have taken a full dump on the Constitution and I'm left scratching my head wondering where is the outrage?  If Republicans had as much outrage about unauthorized wars as they did about unauthorized BJs, this country would be a far better place.

You once again solely criticize Republicans, without putting any blame on a democrat.  I guess it's far to much to ask for a little bit of moderate debate with you.  Yes, you're right.  Most Republicans have also screwed them-self's here.  Besides a few Taft-like Republicans, the neo-con controlled party has basically attacked Obama, without previously acknowledging the same for Bush. 

Democrats don't impeach people for having BJs.  Then sit idly by while the president from their party lies, kills 600,000 Iraquis, blows trillions of dollars, and totally steam rolls over the UN.

Democrats have been MIA when it comes to following the Constitution and declaring war.  But at least they aren't on forums over a decade later claiming a BJ is a constitutional crisis.  Republicans lack perspective.

[Cincinnatus]

Why are people surprised by this and acting like there's no precedent? Clinton didn't receive congressional approval for bombing Serbia in 1999. What about the Latin American conflicts of the late 1980s?

The War Powers Act is something that has been ignored more than it has been followed. I'm not sure why anyone is shocked.

It's not a matter of simply not following the War Powers Act.  It's the fact that Obama, and the Republican party held completely opposite views before Obama became President.  To me, it's more about the political positioning that's taking place that annoys me, though it's not surprising.  Keeping that in mind, to say we're not in hostilities is rather comical.  

[Cincinnatus]

I'm sorry to bring this up yet again but when Republicans are screaming about Clinton lying about sex I'm always amazed.  Because to me that is one of the most insignificant things that has happened during my life time.  Multiple White Houses have taken a full dump on the Constitution and I'm left scratching my head wondering where is the outrage?  If Republicans had as much outrage about unauthorized wars as they did about unauthorized BJs, this country would be a far better place.

You once again solely criticize Republicans, without putting any blame on a democrat.  I guess it's far to much to ask for a little bit of moderate debate with you.  Yes, you're right.  Most Republicans have also screwed them-self's here.  Besides a few Taft-like Republicans, the neo-con controlled party has basically attacked Obama, without previously acknowledging the same for Bush.  

Democrats don't impeach people for having BJs.  Then sit idly by while the president from their party lies, kills 600,000 Iraquis, blows trillions of dollars, and totally steam rolls over the UN.

Democrats have been MIA when it comes to following the Constitution and declaring war.  But at least they aren't on forums over a decade later claiming a BJ is a constitutional crisis.  Republicans lack perspective.

Hmm.. They do support investigations when a certain democratic house member is sending lewd photos though don't they?  Really, wake up a little and learn that they're all politicians.  They lie, they flip-flop, they have character flaws.  These traits aren't blind to one party over another.

[bullmoose88]

Phil and MB taking the same position, are we sure the family radio guys weren't right about the impending end of the world?

[Paul Kemp]

Why are people surprised by this and acting like there's no precedent? Clinton didn't receive congressional approval for bombing Serbia in 1999. What about the Latin American conflicts of the late 1980s?

The War Powers Act is something that has been ignored more than it has been followed. I'm not sure why anyone is shocked.

I guess you're right. We shouldn't be shocked at the blatant hypocrisy of Presidents (even this one). Some of us need to realize that it isn't the Fall of 2007 anymore!

I wasn't defending the President on this issue, Phil. It's just not like the President is the only one to have gone around the act before. People are acting as if this is ground breaking when there is a history behind it.

Why are people surprised by this and acting like there's no precedent? Clinton didn't receive congressional approval for bombing Serbia in 1999. What about the Latin American conflicts of the late 1980s?

The War Powers Act is something that has been ignored more than it has been followed. I'm not sure why anyone is shocked.

It's not a matter of simply not following the War Powers Act.  It's the fact that Obama, and the Republican party held completely opposite views before Obama became President.  To me, it's more about the political positioning that's taking place that annoys me, though it's not surprising.  Keeping that in mind, to say we're not in hostilities is rather comical. 

I completely agree. It's absolutely irritating but I suppose that's the way American politics works. The party in power sets the agenda and the opposition just takes the other side, despite it being reversed only a few years ago.

[CitizenX]

I'm sorry to bring this up yet again but when Republicans are screaming about Clinton lying about sex I'm always amazed.  Because to me that is one of the most insignificant things that has happened during my life time.  Multiple White Houses have taken a full dump on the Constitution and I'm left scratching my head wondering where is the outrage?  If Republicans had as much outrage about unauthorized wars as they did about unauthorized BJs, this country would be a far better place.

You once again solely criticize Republicans, without putting any blame on a democrat.  I guess it's far to much to ask for a little bit of moderate debate with you.  Yes, you're right.  Most Republicans have also screwed them-self's here.  Besides a few Taft-like Republicans, the neo-con controlled party has basically attacked Obama, without previously acknowledging the same for Bush.  

Democrats don't impeach people for having BJs.  Then sit idly by while the president from their party lies, kills 600,000 Iraquis, blows trillions of dollars, and totally steam rolls over the UN.

Democrats have been MIA when it comes to following the Constitution and declaring war.  But at least they aren't on forums over a decade later claiming a BJ is a constitutional crisis.  Republicans lack perspective.

Hmm.. They do support investigations when a certain democratic house member is sending lewd photos though don't they?  Really, wake up a little and learn that they're all politicians.  They lie, they flip-flop, they have character flaws.  These traits aren't blind to one party over another.

That was an INVESTIGATION of one of their own.  You think an increase in political parties investigating one of their own is a bad thing

What was proposed was an INVESTIGATION, not throwing the guy out of office.  Please review the multiple statements by numerous Democratic politicians.  They all clearly stated that he would not be thrown out of office.  Furthermore no one ever said the guy broke the law.

How do you equate an ethics investigation of a minor congressman by a small committee with holding up all the business of the House for a BJ impeachment and then having a full BJ trial in the Senate in order to throw a president out of office?

Like I said, Republicans have no perspective.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Every single Republican who supported the Iraq War has zero right to criticize Obama on this in any way whatsoever.

[Keystone Phil]

I wasn't defending the President on this issue, Phil. It's just not like the President is the only one to have gone around the act before. People are acting as if this is ground breaking when there is a history behind it.

The point is that the particular President going around the act is surprising.

Every single Republican who supported the Iraq War has zero right to criticize Obama on this in any way whatsoever.

You make it way too easy to slap down your stupidity. Didn't President Bush go to Congress and get a resolution passed to allow him to use force in Iraq?

[CitizenX]

Every single Republican who supported the Iraq War has zero right to criticize Obama on this in any way whatsoever.

Well there has been plenty of blame to go around and you have to start somewhere.  A bipartisan effort to have some oversight on these wars is totally appropriate.  I don't think Republicans have moral superiority but we have to put the partisanship aside and start dealing with these problems.

[CitizenX]

Didn't President Bush go to Congress and get a resolution passed to allow him to use force in Iraq?

Based on lies.

[Keystone Phil]

Didn't President Bush go to Congress and get a resolution passed to allow him to use force in Iraq?

Based on lies.

Ok. BRTD on the cell, you're on the air...

[Cincinnatus]

Every single Republican who supported the Iraq War has zero right to criticize Obama on this in any way whatsoever.

Well there has been plenty of blame to go around and you have to start somewhere.  A bipartisan effort to have some oversight on these wars is totally appropriate.  I don't think Republicans have moral superiority but we have to put the partisanship aside and start dealing with these problems.

Wow.  This has to be the first common-sense, non troll like post I've seen you make so far.  Oh wait, I don't have any perspective, sorry

I'm sorry that Bill Clinton couldn't keep it in his pants.  For that, we have no Republican equivalent in the white house to be impeached for such.  Do you really believe that this wouldn't have been the same outcome if say, the then President was a Republican.  I lack perspective though so, I guess next I should just publicly say that democrats are ordained by God and can't possibly do anything wrong.. Sound good for you?

Didn't President Bush go to Congress and get a resolution passed to allow him to use force in Iraq?

Based on lies.

The Congress believed the intelligence, whose to say that Bush didn't as well?  Like I said before, I disagree with Iraq, but you still have yet to prove your accusations..  

[CitizenX]

I'm sorry that Bill Clinton couldn't keep it in his pants.  For that, we have no Republican equivalent in the white house to be impeached for such.  Do you really believe that this wouldn't have been the same outcome if say, the then President was a Republican.  I lack perspective though so, I guess next I should just publicly say that democrats are ordained by God and can't possibly do anything wrong.. Sound good for you?

No what you should say is that we are all human and make mistakes.  Republicans should get off this family values moral superiority thing and get on with governing the country.  Republicans allowed the biggest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam to happen on their watch but yet they think a BJ is a constitutional crisis.

And no I most certainly do not think Democrats would impeach a president over a BJ.

Like I said, no perspective.

[DrScholl]

Rather or not Bush believed the intelligence or not isn't relevant, it was his responsibility to make sure that the case he laid out was correct and the facts were not there. Ignorance is not a valid excuse.

The action in Libya is hard to define, it's a very black and white area where it can be left up to many persons interpretation. Past interventions have not been given Congressional approval.

[Paul Kemp]

I wasn't defending the President on this issue, Phil. It's just not like the President is the only one to have gone around the act before. People are acting as if this is ground breaking when there is a history behind it.

The point is that the particular President going around the act is surprising.

I seem to remember another presidential candidate campaigning on being a more "humbler" nation and opposing nation building actions overseas. Nearly every president goes back on campaign promises once they realize the realities of the office. Am I defending this? Absolutely not but it's the reality of things.

It's not as if Obama campaigned on being a dove. Sure he opposed the Iraq War but he was criticized from every angle for his hawkish comments on Pakistan.

Every single Republican who supported the Iraq War has zero right to criticize Obama on this in any way whatsoever.

Man you really have no clue.

[CitizenX]

I wasn't defending the President on this issue, Phil. It's just not like the President is the only one to have gone around the act before. People are acting as if this is ground breaking when there is a history behind it.

The point is that the particular President going around the act is surprising.

I seem to remember another presidential candidate campaigning on being a more "humbler" nation and opposing nation building actions overseas. Nearly every president goes back on campaign promises once they realize the realities of the office. Am I defending this? Absolutely not but it's the reality of things.

It's not as if Obama campaigned on being a dove. Sure he opposed the Iraq War but he was criticized from every angle for his hawkish comments on Pakistan.

Every single Republican who supported the Iraq War has zero right to criticize Obama on this in any way whatsoever.

Man you really have no clue.

I don't think enforcing a UN mandate and following France and Britain into a humanitarian mission after a large number of residents of a country beg us to save them from a dictator that is about to slaughter them is arrogance.

Totally ignoring the UN and changing the French fries in capitol hill to freedom fries after the French tried to keep us from shooting ourselves in the foot is arrogance.

[Paul Kemp]

I wasn't defending the President on this issue, Phil. It's just not like the President is the only one to have gone around the act before. People are acting as if this is ground breaking when there is a history behind it.

The point is that the particular President going around the act is surprising.

I seem to remember another presidential candidate campaigning on being a more "humbler" nation and opposing nation building actions overseas. Nearly every president goes back on campaign promises once they realize the realities of the office. Am I defending this? Absolutely not but it's the reality of things.

It's not as if Obama campaigned on being a dove. Sure he opposed the Iraq War but he was criticized from every angle for his hawkish comments on Pakistan.

Every single Republican who supported the Iraq War has zero right to criticize Obama on this in any way whatsoever.

Man you really have no clue.

I don't think enforcing a UN mandate and following France and Britain into a humanitarian mission after a large number of residents of a country beg us to save them from a dictator that is about to slaughter them is arrogance.

Totally ignoring the UN and changing the French fries in capitol hill to freedom fries after the French tried to keep us from shooting ourselves in the foot is arrogance.

Right...and?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Primary Decaf Bush.

[Keystone Phil]

I wasn't defending the President on this issue, Phil. It's just not like the President is the only one to have gone around the act before. People are acting as if this is ground breaking when there is a history behind it.

The point is that the particular President going around the act is surprising.

I seem to remember another presidential candidate campaigning on being a more "humbler" nation and opposing nation building actions overseas. Nearly every president goes back on campaign promises once they realize the realities of the office. Am I defending this? Absolutely not but it's the reality of things.

I seem to remember some major events happening in the middle of September of 2001 that can reasonably change someone's worldview. What changed Obama's?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obama, at the very least, campaigned against "abuses of the Executive branch." Not consulting Congress on hostilities overseas would be one of those abuses. Denying that airstrikes count as hostilities is certainly an abuse. My friend, please don't insult my intelligence by even suggesting that Obama would have led Bush slide on something like this.