The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Harmony Amongst the Ranks

  1. #1
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,869

    Default Harmony Amongst the Ranks

    Liberal Democrats in Uproar over Libya Action

    A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

    Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

    Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

    Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.

    And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.

    While other Democratic lawmakers have publicly backed Obama — including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and top members of the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees — the objections from a vocal group of anti-war Democrats on Capitol Hill could become a political problem for Obama, especially if “Operation Odyssey Dawn” fails to topple Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi, leads to significant American casualties, or provokes a wider conflict in the troubled region of North Africa.

    (Pelosi did not participate in Saturday’s call; she is in Afghanistan to meet with U.S. military and diplomatic officials.)

    U.S. warships fired more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missles on Saturday in a bid to knock out Libya’s air-defense systems, targeting command-and-control and radar units near Tripoli, the Libyan capital, and the city of Misurata, according to Pentagon officials and media reports. French aircraft attacked armored units loyal to Qadhafi around the city of Benghazi after they ignored international calls for a cease-fire.

    Saturday’s conference call was organized by Rep. John Larson (Conn.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus and the fourth-highest ranking party leader. Larson has called for Obama to seek congressional approval before committing the United States to any anti-Qadhafi military operation.

    “They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.”

    “Almost everybody who spoke was opposed to any unilateral actions or decisions being made by the president, and most of us expressed our constitutional concerns. There should be a resolution and there should be a debate so members of Congress can decide whether or not we enter in whatever this action is being called,” added another House Democrat opposed to the Libyan operation.



    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1HEAFb5K8

    __________________________________________________ _______

    It appears Obama tlaked with every body available, except the US Congress!!!!


    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  2. #2
    Senior Member cotts135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    Liberal Democrats in Uproar over Libya Action

    A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

    Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

    Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

    Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.

    And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.

    While other Democratic lawmakers have publicly backed Obama — including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and top members of the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees — the objections from a vocal group of anti-war Democrats on Capitol Hill could become a political problem for Obama, especially if “Operation Odyssey Dawn” fails to topple Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi, leads to significant American casualties, or provokes a wider conflict in the troubled region of North Africa.

    (Pelosi did not participate in Saturday’s call; she is in Afghanistan to meet with U.S. military and diplomatic officials.)

    U.S. warships fired more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missles on Saturday in a bid to knock out Libya’s air-defense systems, targeting command-and-control and radar units near Tripoli, the Libyan capital, and the city of Misurata, according to Pentagon officials and media reports. French aircraft attacked armored units loyal to Qadhafi around the city of Benghazi after they ignored international calls for a cease-fire.

    Saturday’s conference call was organized by Rep. John Larson (Conn.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus and the fourth-highest ranking party leader. Larson has called for Obama to seek congressional approval before committing the United States to any anti-Qadhafi military operation.

    “They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.”

    “Almost everybody who spoke was opposed to any unilateral actions or decisions being made by the president, and most of us expressed our constitutional concerns. There should be a resolution and there should be a debate so members of Congress can decide whether or not we enter in whatever this action is being called,” added another House Democrat opposed to the Libyan operation.



    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1HEAFb5K8

    __________________________________________________ _______

    It appears Obama tlaked with every body available, except the US Congress!!!!


    RK
    Just wondering what your position on this is?

  3. #3
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cotts135 View Post
    Just wondering what your position on this is?
    I have to be honest.

    I don't know.

    To me, just take out Ghadaffy, but I know that is illegal etc.

    I am admitting where I stand.

    I have not been critical on this.
    I am just curious where all the cries for impeachment are??

    WEll, here they are.

    I'll give Kucinich that he is consistant.
    I respect him for that.

    Because when Bush had the APPROVAL of Congress you leftys were screamin' bloody murder.
    But when Obama does it without approval or even conferring with Congress......oooooooh aaaaaaah what masterful diplomacy.


    stan b
    Last edited by road kill; 03-21-2011 at 07:20 AM.
    Stan b & Elvis

  4. #4
    Senior Member cotts135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    697

    Default

    This is a tough issue as you have pointed out. I appreciate your honesty also, some might think that not taking a stand one way or the other is a sign of weakness, at least some on this forum might think that. However the issue is more complex than just what appears on the surface.
    Your point that the left was screaming about going to war even with the approval of Congress is well taken. My primary concern with this whole issue is since when has the UN General Assembly preempt our Constitution, and then the whole idea of a President, whether Republican or Democrat, sending troops into conflict without the peoples approval is very troublesome. The founding fathers has some strong thoughts and feelings about going to war and the importance of involving the people. We would be well served to remember what they said

  5. #5
    Senior Member BonMallari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    LV/CenTex/Idaho
    Posts
    12,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cotts135 View Post
    Just wondering what your position on this is?
    not RK but here is my take: I think everyone agrees that Kadafy has to go but these Congresspersons are doing nothing more than grandstanding, their concern or disapproval doesnt mean squat..In Kucinich,Waters and Jackson Lee they all like to play contrarian, especially when a microphone is put in front of their mug...there are certain lawmakers that will always give the media their take on any subject and give a sound bite, but its means absolutely nothing...
    All my Exes live in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by lanse brown View Post
    A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.E. Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,211

    Default

    RK, I agree with you 100%. I'm getting old enough to really question myself at times. And the thing that really bothers me is most of these we have elected to office don't appear any smarter than myself. Now that scares me to death !

    First time I read the first post was shortly after you started this thread. Not sure about my eyesight anymore........I read "Banks" instead of "Ranks" at first glance. It was too early for me to be reading anything, vbg.

  7. #7
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,869

    Default

    Hmmmmm, the leftys (ooops, I mean middle of the road independents) silence is deafening.


    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  8. #8
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    Hmmmmm, the leftys (ooops, I mean middle of the road independents) silence is deafening.


    RK
    This exact topic was discussed days ago, that a few said they weren't sure if this was the right course of action.

    There are two very coherent and valid schools of thought on this.

    But there is a huge difference between this and 2003, in terms of congressional approval. As Bush claimed (and he was correct) the CIC has the ability to maneuver troops and order missions. To commit to a long-term war is different. How exactly one defines these actions is up for debate of course, but if we indeed offer support for several days or a week or two, then disengage, that would likely be within the powers of the president. Clearly, Iraq and its hefty price tag to the US taxpayer needs the consent of congress.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  9. #9
    Senior Member cotts135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    This exact topic was discussed days ago, that a few said they weren't sure if this was the right course of action.

    There are two very coherent and valid schools of thought on this.

    But there is a huge difference between this and 2003, in terms of congressional approval. As Bush claimed (and he was correct) the CIC has the ability to maneuver troops and order missions. To commit to a long-term war is different. How exactly one defines these actions is up for debate of course, but if we indeed offer support for several days or a week or two, then disengage, that would likely be within the powers of the president. Clearly, Iraq and its hefty price tag to the US taxpayer needs the consent of congress.
    I disagree with you on this. First though let's go back to when Obama was a candidate for President.


    Charlie Savage, then of The Boston Globe:

    Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

    OBAMA: 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.







    Not exactly what he is saying now.

    More important to me though is the Constitutionality of it.

    John Jay in Federalist #4 argued that President's are more likely to engage in wars for their own self serving interest than the people would. That's why the need for Congressional approval:

    " But the safety of the people of America against dangers from foreign force depends not only on their forbearing to give just causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to invite hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are pretended as well as just causes of war.

    It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people."


    Is there really any reason why their should not be any debate before Congress on this issue? This is to important to not let the people be involved.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cotts135 View Post
    Is there really any reason why their should not be any debate before Congress on this issue? This is to important to not let the people be involved.
    As always, I appreciate your non-hypocritical and consistant point of view. I'm not surprised that all the other libs on this board are as quiet as church mice (and at least one has the unmitigated gall to start a thread cheerleading Obama when just a few weeks ago he/she was saying we had no business in Libya).

    And as almost always, I disagree with you re: Congressional debate on this particular issue. If we can entrust our elected President with the ability to effectively end the world with nuclear weapons at his discretion, I believe that granting him the leeway and uthority to take limited action when time of the essence is a no-brainer. If Congress doesn't agree then they're free to kill the funds.
    I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •