Just say no to war


Politico:

The House delivered a stinging rejection of President Barack Obama’s military intervention in Libya on Friday, voting in bipartisan fashion against authorizing the mission for another year. The president’s supporters still held out hope that they could stop an effort to restrict funding for hostilities later Friday.

The overwhelming majority of Republicans and 70 Democrats combined to kill the authorization for the use of force on a lopsided 123-295 vote. GOP leaders allowed it to come to the floor so that they could demonstrate Obama does not have the support of the House for the mission — and they did just that.

The White House scrambled Thursday and Friday to save face by limiting Democratic defections on the authorization measure and the measure that would limit funding for the military intervention in Libya.

National Security Advisor Tom Donilon summoned a small group of liberal House Democrats to the Situation Room at 7 a.m. Friday for a classified briefing. The lawmakers voiced their frustration at the president’s refusal to seek congressional approval for America’s intervention in Libya, and Donilon gave them greater detail of the “facts on the ground” than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did in a private Thursday briefing for House Democrats at the Capitol on Thursday, according to participants.

I must confess that I have mixed feelings about our intervention in Libya. Ka-daffy is a dictator who won’t be missed. He has supported terrorism for decades. On the other hand he has mostly been a joke in recent years and there is no guarantee that his successors will be any better.

The Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to declare war. They ceded some of that power to the Executive branch with the War Powers Act, but Obama is in violation of that legislation.

As for Hillary Clinton she is wrong when she asks:

But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them?

That’s just a nicer version of George Bush’s “Are you with us or with the terrorists?”

I know some people will be shocked to see me criticize Secretary Clinton, but my support of her has always been based on principle and she has violated some of my principle beliefs. Questioning the motives and patriotism of the opponents of war is WRONG.

I firmly believe in democracy and the rule of law. If it is the will of the people (as expressed through their elected representatives) that we go to war in Libya I will accept that such a war is legal. That does not mean I approve of such a war, only that such action is constitutional.

I still think Hillary would be a better POTUS than anyone else available, but I’m not part of any cult of personality. I’m not going to make (or accept) any excuses for what she said – she was wrong to say that, period.


UPDATE:

House vote to defund Libya mission fails

Hours after rejecting a resolution to authorize the U.S. military operation in Libya, the House on Friday voted down a measure that would have cut off funds for the mission’s hostilities.

The measure, which would have had no chance of passage in the Democratic-controlled Senate, would have made an exception for search and rescue efforts, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, aerial refueling and operational planning to continue the NATO effort in Libya.

The roll call vote exposed splits in both parties. Over 30 Democrats voted to defund the NATO-led mission, while 89 Republicans voted against the measure backed by GOP leaders.

The final vote was 238 to 180.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Just say no to war

  1. myiq2xu says:

    Glenzilla (citing a new Gallup poll):

    Plurality of Americans love Gadaffi

    […]

    It’s not only a plurality of Americans who are “on Gaddafi’s side,” but also the head of the Arab League, a short time ago held out as the Beacon of all that’s Right (when they favored a no-fly zone). And also Democratic Rep. Lynn Woolsey. And our NATO ally Italy. Who knew Gadaffi had so many friends, allies and fans? There’s almost as many of those as there were Saddam lovers (also known as “Iraq war critics”).

    • Dario says:

      Greenwald’s hatred for everything Clinton comes out on that article. Not that he’s wrong about what he says about Hillary regarding her connections with heads of states that are disgusting, but Greenwald’s venom regarding the Clinton’s is pure CDS.

  2. myiq2xu says:

    Hillary in 2003:

  3. Dario says:

    My support for Hillary was not based on the belief that she would be right on every issue. Hillary is wrong about the Libya intervention, and Obama is breaking the law. He should be forced to come to congress and spell out what the mission is for all that bombing of a people that have done nothing to us. If Gaddafi is a terrorist, then by all means, bring the accusation and the support for the accusation to the international court. It will never happen because the U.S. has more war criminals than the rest of the world. It’s all b.s.

    • myiq2xu says:

      If we’re going to make war on countries because their leaders are dictators, we should stop supporting dictators in other places like Syria and Saudi Arabia.

      • Dario says:

        Right on. It will never happen because the U.S. has been the biggest supporter of dictators and home grown war criminals almost since its beginnings.

      • Three Wickets says:

        I’m personally not as caught up with the Congressional authorization debate. I don’t know a time in my life when Congress has been able to successfully check a sitting Potus on war powers. I’ve become too cynical maybe on that point. But I’ve been against the Libyian action from day one when we began firing tomahawks. It’s where I’ve disagreed with Hill more than on any other issue during her time as SoS. But a SoS or SoD do not ultimately make decisions to take our armed forces into wars and conflicts. In this admin at least, they offer strong counsel and recommendations, then Obama cogitates over his decision for months. He owns these decisions, and next year he’ll be running on his record, which will be a new thing for him.

        • Dario says:

          Correct. I don’t put any responsibility about the decision on Hillary. That’ she likes the bombing of Libya tells me where she’s at. Nothing new. Voters knew she’s hawkish on such matters, which is the reason the Obots bought the peace waving from Obama. Now they can cry, but they should have known that foreign policy does not change from president to president. Not if the Pentagon and the weapon companies have anything to say about it. No politician can be elected without the support of those two.

        • votermom says:

          I think Hillary may be right about bombing Libya but it’s still the President’s job to get it done legally — in other words, BO is not off the hook for getting congressional approval.

        • Three Wickets says:

          It’s a complicated situation I know, but there are far bigger numbers being repressed and killed right now in Sudan next door. So this is probably mainly about Qaddafi, which makes it similar to the war we started against Saddam. There are uprisings everywhere it seems, and not only in the Middle East and Africa. There was (maybe still is) the violent uprising in Thailand, and we probably wouldn’t intervene there. What is the criteria though. Could be that much of global statecraft takes place away from public debate, and we don’t know all the factors at play. Dunno. Also the BHL/DSK Western European style of paternalistic intervention in selective third world countries gets to me. Feels too much like old school colonialism.

        • votermom says:

          It frankly scares me a bit because I just feel like there’s stuff going on that we don’t know about for Hillary to act so out of character.

  4. myiq2xu says:

    Exclusive: Top U.S. admiral admits we are trying to kill Qaddafi

    The top U.S. admiral involved in the Libya war admitted to a U.S. congressman that NATO forces are trying to kill Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi. The same admiral also said he anticipated the need for ground troops in Libya after Qaddafi falls, according to the lawmaker.

    House Armed Services Committee member Mike Turner (R-OH) told The Cable that U.S. Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of the NATO Joint Operations Command in Naples, Italy, told him last month that NATO forces are actively targeting and trying to kill Qaddafi, despite the fact that the Obama administration continues to insist that “regime change” is not the goal and is not authorized by the U.N. mandate authorizing the war.

  5. myiq2xu says:

    Former GOPer turned Obot John Cole shows his true colors:

    If I were President, until these clowns get their shit together, I’d pretty much do whatever I wanted.

  6. myiq2xu says:

    Via Hot Air, the NYT cheerleads another war:

    House Republicans are gearing up to vote, likely Friday, on whether to authorize continued United States support for NATO-led military operations over Libya. There are two main proposals — and a clear choice to be made. We fear they are leaning in a wrongheaded and dangerous direction.

    One measure, sponsored by Representative Thomas Rooney and apparently backed by the House leadership, would allow financing only for American surveillance, search-and-rescue missions, planning and aerial refueling. Republicans say that if it passes, the Pentagon would have to halt drone strikes and attacks on Libyan air defenses.

    They claimed it would do minimal damage to the alliance and its campaign because the United States would still be providing some support. But the damage to this country’s credibility, and its leadership of NATO, would be enormous. Any sign that the United States is bailing out could lead others to follow.

  7. Spot on. I have mixed feelings about libya as well, but what Sec. Clinton said is plain wrong, and what Obama is doing is illegal. Period.

  8. More of what Hillary said in that same statement:
    [Since March] we have seen an international coalition come together unprecedented between not only NATO, but Arab nations, the Arab League, and the United Nations. This is something that I don’t think anyone could have predicted, but it is a very strong signal as to what the world expects to have happen [….]

    She’s got more information about current situations than anyone else, and she knows what worked in Kosovo, and what should have been done in Rwanda.

  9. JeanLouise says:

    I supported the action in Libya to stop the massacre that Qadaffi promised but I think it’s Obama’s duty to make the case for it. How many of the people in Congress voting against the action are doing it because Obama acted as though their opinion didn’t matter?

    • 1539days says:

      The fact is you can agreee or disagree with the action, but the Constitution says the Congress has to declare the war after 90 days. Frankly, they should either pass a declaration of war or stop funding it. There are too many quasi-legal military actions these days.

Comments are closed.