Obama lies again...

[MamaCW]

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.

Someone posted that they've been handling 35% of Libyan airstrikes in the past.. were all of those times with congressional approval? I'm asking this for information- sake..I didn't know the facts being stated..Its true the US should be keeping their allies but if that goes against laws and policies here in the homeland, then that isn't right either..

personally i wouldnt vote for obama ( i cant vote yet anyway not a US citizen lol)..but I'm definitely not an Obama hater.. they are people too just like me and I don't really agree with democratic stance and policies..but he seems like a good guy...despite his political agenda...

and and on a side note..

I don't quite agree with your sign carpro lol

The Roosevelt quote.. I'm Salvadorean American.. or Central American..that doesnt mean i have a split allegiance..we all live in the AMERICAS.. central AMERICA.. south AMERICA..as for the United STATES of America..i'm not a US citizen but my i will be and i love the US..doesnt make me less american for being proud of where I and my family came from...

totally offtopic at hand..but I just had to comment on that lol

 

[carpro]

Someone posted that they've been handling 35% of Libyan airstrikes in the past.. were all of those times with congressional approval?

None of them were. They are all in violation of U.S. law..

 

[MamaCW]

really...so why hasn't congress done anything about this? especially since that means multiple presidents have violated the law?

 

[InTheLight]

I believe he has 90 days to inform Congress.

Actually, it's 48 hours.

The US has not been at war since WWII. Does that mean every military action by presidents since then has been illegal?

I am sure there are some that would interpret it that way, especially after the War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973.

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

A minor action would be what Reagan did in Grenada, or Bush Sr. did in Panama. Launching cruise missiles and flying sorties over another sovereign nation is not a minor action.

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

Yes, when it comes to this sort of military action and there is no imminent danger to the U.S.

Funny how the hawks are all peace loving doves now.

I think if you looked at the record it is Democratic presidents that get involved in these war actions without Congressional approval. Truman had North Korea, Kennedy had Vietnam, Clinton had Bosnia, now Obama has Libya.

In contrast, Reagan got congressional approval to put troops in Lebanon. In the Gulf War Bush Sr. got U.N resolutions passed then went to Congress to get approval to attack Iraq. George W. Bush got congressional approval to go into Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[carpro]

really...so why hasn't congress done anything about this? especially since that means multiple presidents have violated the law?

Not that many have so deliberately snubbed Congress. some have had weak reasons, but they had reasons. Only 2, since Truman, have done it so blatantly. Clinton and Obama.

Nothing will be done. Democrats control the Senate and any action will get stopped dead in it's tracks right there. So they just won't bother.