Looks like Kucinich and some Republicans are gonna sue Obama for going to war in Libya without getting congressional approval. Personally, I have been an Obama supporter, but I think this is absolutely correct. Lots of us railed about Bush overstepping his bounds but even he got congress to give him the authority to go to war. Obama has decided he can just send troops anywhere for as long as he would like it seems without getting approval. Obviously on the behalf of at least some if not all of the Republican sponsors this is little more than a political gambit. But really, hasn't he left himself open for this by overstepping his authority?

I thought it was a mistake to go. I don't know if a suit makes things any better.

Is there another, less intrusive way for Congress to tell a President NO when he does something he has no right to do?

I think one needs to ask if this is really about Libya.

Ask Andrew Johnson

Also bothersome to me is that he has claimed he also has the authority to send drones over Yemen without Congressional authority. Not a good precedent to set for when a less intelligent president comes into office.

No, because there's no way this will see the light of a courtroom and if it does, no way they'll win. It's purely a PR move by these congressmonkeys.



Sure. Hold an up or down vote. Or cut off funding.

Was war officially declared on/in Libya? Because I'm pretty sure the President has the right to send troops anywhere he wants to, and only needs congressional approval to declare war.

Under the War Powers Act (passed after Vietnam), the President is supposed to get approval after 90 days of deploying troops...Obama is arguing that this Libya thing doesn't rise to the level of armed conflict covered under War Powers.

I like to act like I know what I'm talking about for the sake of conversation.

I'm not defending Obama's Libya actions, but wasn't this a NATO thing? I've never completely understood the difference between USoA vs. United Nations vs. NATO actions, but I've always assumed that military action as part of a larger treaty or agreement didn't fall under the same rules as a declaration of war?

If this isn't sig worthy, I don't know what is

I guess in my mind whether we have officially "declared war" is splitting hairs, as is Obama's argument that somehow we are in combat, but not in combat enough, for this to be covered by law. We are sending troops to kill and be killed. If that's not the kind of action that is meant to be covered by these laws I really don't know what the fuck is.

I guess I'm jut kinda pissed off how many on my left side of the fence are supposedly anti-war in general but seem to be giving Obama a pass on sending troops to combat and completely bypassing any systemic safeguards built in to keep a president from randomly fighting wherever he wants.



and yes, Jerkass's comment is pretty great...although isn't making random conversation pretty much what this place is all about anyway?

Are you talking to me, you worthless piece of shit?

If so, I'm pretty sure I know more about this subject than to just be conversational.

The counter to this would be that A. There aren't any of our troops on the ground to actually be killed (except for CIA/Special Ops spotters and no one in the government is going to admit that) and that B. Nobody (not nobody) has actually been killed.

I'm not saying it's not a flimsy argument, I'm just saying that it's the argument.

As to the other part, the left is always going to be disappointed in Obama because he is a centrist and not what they want him to be. You could argue that his big entitlement program is more Republican than Bush's because it was actually designed to pay for itself, and he has managed to escalate us into conflicts in FIVE countries (Pakistan, Libya and now Yemen in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan) where Bush kept it to a modest two.

Oh and he's cut taxes further and maintained some of the most ill advised tax cuts ever conceived.

Fuck Romney et al, this This Barry O'bama character needs to be running for the GOP nomination.

knock yourself out with a suit, but take a took at the past, say, 75 years of supreme court decisions on the power of the executive in the area of foreign affairs/war and take then take a guess on what the outcome might be of such a suit.

just another attempt by to stomp their feet in a childish fit against their worst nightmare President.

I don't hate much, but I fucking HATE politicians. I don't think they possess qualities that I admire in other human beings. I seriously don't know how GAR does what he does.

Forgot to add this in my post earlier, but I totally respect that you fall more into the column of ideologue than partisan.

I don't give Obama a pass on this whole Libya thing, nor do I give Congress a pass for having it both ways and not calling it out sooner. That's a big part of the problem. The safeguard is there, but Congress doesn't like to exercise it.

I thought the tricky part of it all was that it is being sold as humanitarian work, not actual combat and even though fighting may occur with real guns, bullets, bombs, and death, it's just the US doing good around the world, thus, not subject to the same congressional checks as an actual military conflict...

Sounds familiar.


What is irking me is the lack of media coverage that this story is getting. This would seem to be a pretty big fucking deal and, while it is getting coverage, it does not seem to be getting the same kind of attention that it probably should be getting.