Obama lies again...

[targus]

"US Doing Limited Airstrikes for NATO in Libya"

"The revelation came as Pentagon officials laid out U.S. participation in the Libya conflict over the past 10 days, including that Americans have flown 35 percent of all air missions.

Those missions, they said, include bombing attacks against Libyan surface-to-air missile launchers, as well as surveillance and refueling operations. It was the first time the Pentagon acknowledged that airstrikes continued after the U.S. handed over control of the Libya mission to NATO on April 4."

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/13/u...a/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk3|55873

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Is the US not as part of NATO?

Maybe I missed it, did the president say that NATO minus the US would carry out the strikes?

 

[Robert Snow]

Is the US not as part of NATO?

Maybe I missed it, did the president say that NATO minus the US would carry out the strikes?

Yes, the U.S. is a member of NATO, but when it comes to insulting President Obama, many don't let the truth stand in the way.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Can you imagine the outcry if the president refused to fulfill our obligations to our allies of 60+ years?

It is amazing that any news story can be turned anti-Obama.

He has plenty of issues. I would never support or vote for him, but keeping our NATO commitments is hardly a reason to criticise him.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Can you imagine the outcry if the president refused to fulfill our obligations to our allies of 60+ years?

It is amazing that any news story can be turned anti-Obama.

He has plenty of issues. I would never support or vote for him, but keeping our NATO commitments is hardly a reason to criticise him.

You know the Obama haters are never wrong and there is nothing he can do that they will approve of ... even if it is a position they have been pushing for.

 

[Arbo]

You know the Obama haters are never wrong and there is nothing he can do that they will approve of ... even if it is a position they have been pushing for.

Sounds like we're back in the GWB days. Same story, different characters. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Sounds like we're back in the GWB days. Same story, different characters. :smilewinkgrin:

And that sort of sums up the best of the history of politics

 

[carpro]

Can you imagine the outcry if the president refused to fulfill our obligations to our allies of 60+ years?

It is amazing that any news story can be turned anti-Obama.

He has plenty of issues. I would never support or vote for him, but keeping our NATO commitments is hardly a reason to criticise him.

He might try first keeping his commitment to the American people to abide by our own laws. Then there wouldn't be any problem with working with NATO.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

He might try first keeping his commitment to the American people to abide by our own laws. Then there wouldn't be any problem with working with NATO.

And what law is he violating?

 

[carpro]

He is required by law to get congressional approval for military action when there is no threat to this nation or it's citizens.

As it stands right now, our participation in attacks on Libya are illegal.

Until that is resolved, NATO has to take a back seat.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

When a Democrat does it, it doesn't matter.

The lie was posted, plain as day. Easier to call people haters, than to take an honest look at the hero.

This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it....

 

[billwald]

Maybe targus could define "lies" as used in his thread title for me.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

He is required by law to get congressional approval for military action when there is no threat to this nation or it's citizens.

As it stands right now, our participation in attacks on Libya are illegal.

Until that is resolved, NATO has to take a back seat.

And where is that law?

 

[InTheLight]

And where is that law?

Ability to go to war with another country is covered by the War Powers Clause of the U.S. Constitution (article 1, section 8)

Ability to temporarily engage U.S. forces is covered in the War Powers Resolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Ability to go to war with another country is covered by the War Powers Clause of the U.S. Constitution (article 1, section 8)

Ability to temporarily engage U.S. forces is covered in the War Powers Resolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

I believe he has 90 days to inform Congress. The US has not been at war since WWII. Does that mean every military action by presidents since then has been illegal?

The president is the commander-in-chief. His hands cannot be tied for every minor action.

History proves that this is a long standing practice. The citizenry cannot determine legality. Has any part of the court system ruled on legality?

Do we really want our commander-in-chief's hands to be tied so.

Funny how the hawks are all peace loving doves now.

 

[carpro]

And where is that law?

I think you may be being deliberately obtuse.

But it's called the War Powers resolution and Obama is blatantly ignoring it.

 

[carpro]

I believe he has 90 days to inform Congress.

Wrong.

No action is authorized if there is no threat to the nation or our citizens.

Ig there is a threat, he is authorized to take action and has 60 or 90 days? to notify Congress.

his current action is clearly illegal.

 

[carpro]

Funny how the hawks are all peace loving doves now.

Funny how Republican presidents have followed the law, including the hated George W. Bush, with Clinton, and now Obama, simply ignoring it.

Obama is deliberately thumbing his nose at Congress and our laws. I believe he would have had no trouble getting Congressional approval. He simply chose not to. Arrogance describes it pretty well.

 

[NiteShift]

Can you imagine the outcry if the president refused to fulfill our obligations to our allies of 60+ years?

I believe NATO allies France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Luxembourg and Greece refused to support the US in Iraq. Whether or not they were obligated to do so is up for debate.

We do owe the UK though. They have helped us as much as they could, in spite of the domestic opposition.

 

[poncho]

Might all be different if we were actually at war to protect our nation from attack or invasion.