Obama begins an illegal war in Libya, where are the anti-Bush people now?
By Taskr36
@Taskr36 (13963)
United States
March 20, 2011 11:56am CST
I'm truly fascinated by the left in this country. For the last decade I've heard them screaming about Bush's illegal war in Iraq. The Iraq war was voted on in congress and received bipartisan support yet many of the same morons who voted for it later bashed Bush for going into that country.
Now we have Obama going to war in Libya. Libya has not attacked us. Libya has not threatened us. They are dealing with a civil war in that country. Obama did not seek congressional approval. NOBODY in congress proposed a bill to authorize military action in Libya much less voted on and passed such a bill. Regardless, we are now fighting that country and the Libyan dictator has vowed a "long war with the US".
Oddly, all those people who bashed Bush for the war in Iraq support this. I don't here them calling it an illegal war. Much like Clinton's illegal war in the former Yugoslavia they are just fine with this. Many are even PRAISING him for his actions and for letting the UN decide instead of thinking for himself. Apparently our military now answers to the UN and they have the power to declare war for us while congress is ignored in direct violation of the US constitution.
Can anyone explain to me the left wing support for this illegal war?
Article one Section 8 clearly states
"The Congress shall have Power...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8
7 people like this
26 responses
@RobtheRock (2433)
• United States
20 Mar 11
You may have forgotten, but many of those so-called morons voted for it because Bush had “proof” of weapons of mass destruction. It was all a lie, and so many of those “morons” had a reason to bash Bush. Of course, some of them should have bashed themselves for not listening to the U.N. inspectors who had told them that there were no weapons of mass destruction.
Obama is the Commander in Chief, he does not need congress’s approval. to do what he is doing. Congress’s role is to declare war. America has a history of going into countries without Congress declaring war. For example, when we went into Panama and got Noriega.
It seems that with you, the president just can’t win. There would be complaints if he didn’t do anything. Bush invaded a country. Obama is doing something in conjunction with the U.N., which most of the world feels is needed.
2 people like this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
20 Mar 11
Really? When did Bush claim he had "proof"? There was plenty of intelligence that indicated Iraq had WMDs. We knew they had them in the past and had used them. It was only a question of whether there were any left. But go on, show me where Bush claimed he had proof.
"Obama is the Commander in Chief, he does not need congress’s approval. to do what he is doing. Congress’s role is to declare war. America has a history of going into countries without Congress declaring war. "
And those wars are illegal. Unless congress votes to declare war, or the more PC thing, to "authorize military action" then the war is illegal. Simply saying that presidents have broken the law before doesn't suddenly make it ok for Obama.
"Obama is doing something in conjunction with the U.N., which most of the world feels is needed."
Well "most of the world" doesn't get to vote on whether we go to war. That is the job of the legislative branch as clearly articulated in the constitution. The UN doesn't have the authority to send our troops to war.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
21 Mar 11
I remember reading that yellowcake was shipped out of Iraq and bought by Canada. I also remember seeing horrible pictures of torture cells in the palace. A friend who was there and is now home says Iraqi's wept and hugged the liberating army and told broken english stories of midnight raids for their young girls and men. I do doubt that Bush had proof, I think he just got lucky. But then why doesn't he defend himself now that he's back in the public eye.
Maybe I should quit trying to figure out human motivation for everything, but I really believe that doing so is the key to finding out the truth of the mattter.
1 person likes this
@FRANCISCOANDLEE (750)
• United States
21 Mar 11
The President may be Commander-In-Chief, but he does not have sole power...as the forefathers of our country and Constitution realized the potential for giving sole power to one individual...everything must be done through Congress, including military action.
Look it up.
@sonofmercury (407)
• United States
21 Mar 11
taskr is correct the congress has to vote for the military to be involved in and conlfict look it up.
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
20 Mar 11
At least one Democrat noticed. Diane Degette (D-CO) issued this statement:
"I am concerned by President Obama's decision to commit U.S. forces in Libya without involving Congress. This action may require substantial U.S. resources. While there is no question that Gaddafi's regime is brutalizing the people of Libya, launching military action against another nation requires Congress be fully informed so we can exercise our Constitutional authority.
"I therefore call on Speaker Boehner to call an emergency session, returning Members to Washington, so the President may address a joint session of Congress and be given the opportunity to make the case for war."
This is not being reported on the major networks, found it only in local papers and from Greta van Susteren's blog.
I have been bashing Obama for his lack of a position or strong statement on Libya. He has proven himself a follower, not a leader. He's become so much of a follower that he now deploys the military on the orders of the UN.
Wouldn't you think a Constitutional scholar like Obama would know he had to consult Congress on this?
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
20 Mar 11
Wow. Thumbs up to Diane Degette. Thank you very much for sharing this information. It's certainly good to know that there are still people in congress who value the constitution even when it's their own party ignoring it. I'll have to add her to my list of congresspeople who may actually respect the constitution. It's a VERY short list.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
20 Mar 11
Yeah, I just checked on that. She along with Kucinich and a few others are objecting now. Kucinich is even going so far as to call it an impeachable offense. I really have to give him credit for being non-partisan since he said the exact same thing about Bush.
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
20 Mar 11
I thought the U.S. and U.K. were taking out air defense systems controlled by Gaddafi's military in order to keep the French jet that are enforcing the No Fly Zone from being shot down? I know I've been busy lately but didn't I hear, see and read something about a U.N. resolution and a coalition of many countries? 
2 people like this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
20 Mar 11
They've spent over $72 million attacking those systems. Wouldn't you consider it an act of war if someone started firing missiles at our air defense systems?
"didn't I hear, see and read something about a U.N. resolution and a coalition of many countries"
The UN and this coalition of countries do not have the right to send our troops to war. That power rests with congress who Obama has completely ignored. Did I miss the part of the constitution that gives the UN or a coalition of countries the authority to declare war for us?
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
20 Mar 11
some say too may toe and some say too mah toe...but military action is war as far as I'm concerned. Now, I do understand that Obama has the right to send in troops for military action for 48 hours, I believe, before he HAS TO consult Congress. What concerns most of us is this dependance on the UN to tell us what to do, or give us permission before we act. And yet you all also claim we're nuts for believing their is a conspiracy for world government. Just a thought....
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
20 Mar 11
People have short memories. Our involvement in the mid east is always about oil, which in turn is about power and control. My opinion is that I need oil to stay warm, drive to work and the grocery store...and so does everyone else. Oil drives our entire economy. So a war that is about oil is not surprising.
As a human being, not left or right, just as a human being...I feel that bullys have to be stood up to.
As a conservative I am upset that we value the opinions of the countries around us more than we value our Constitutional process. I am angered that our president has handed the authority to engage in war, or not to engage in war, over to the UN rather than to Congress where it belongs.
I believe that we are headed into something bigger and badder than we know.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
20 Mar 11
The Illuminati are students of Bible prophecy. It is said in the Bible that the devil knows the scriptures, and uses them against the faithful.
You know I have strong opinion there Rollo, but I will avoid voicing them here out of respect for the OP. I wouldn't want his discussion deleted as mine was. But politics and religion certainly have melted into one entity during our generation, even if mylot doesn't think so. 
You know I have strong opinion there Rollo, but I will avoid voicing them here out of respect for the OP. I wouldn't want his discussion deleted as mine was. But politics and religion certainly have melted into one entity during our generation, even if mylot doesn't think so. @motorizedmillie (138)
• United States
20 Mar 11
I stand by our president, and have never liked the negativity that is thrown his way.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
20 Mar 11
Well, the war powers act could cover Obama here, but for no more than 60 days.
I am laughing at all the democrats making excuses for Obama though. It is yet another example of their hypocrisy!
1 person likes this
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
20 Mar 11
I wonder what it's like inside of the mind of someone who bashes everything Bush but spins to approve everything Obama. I really do.
I can't call it - is it a real belief that one's just while the other is somehow evil, or do folks know they're that partisan? It confuses me.
My personal feelings don't matter. I think Bush was right in the end. I think Obama is right (later rather than sooner; and perhaps Obama's urging for this loon to stay in prison might have had weight, but that's impossible to tell).
When people are suffering at the hands of evil, a supposedly compassionate and supposedly civilized world should step in to help if it has the means. Much of the world picks and chooses just how much suffering is enough. Then they shake their heads in disapproval when someone decides to do something about it. So the fact that this action is something other countries support is beyond inconsequential to me.
Waiting on the fray to move to action so we can feel like one big, happy world is getting to be too little too late. But all that's beside the point.
Other than conspiracy theories about it being for oil or being for some daddy revenge, the only difference I see here is that Bush put it through proper channels with swift action and Obama leaned back with Fat Joe before deciding to wave his decider stick. The situations are somewhat different, but the end result has to be the same for the safety of everyone - snuff out the evil.
@FRANCISCOANDLEE (750)
• United States
21 Mar 11
Well I will let you in my mind, since you're wondering...
I don't like Bush, nor do I like Obama.
Bush is a victim of conspiracy theories...perhaps, but let's look at this from my mind...
Bush kept changing his reason for wanting to invade Iraq...from Hussein backing the 9/11 terrorists, to Iraq having WMD to ousting a dictator for being a threat to his people and the world. Inconsistent reasons hide the truth, ask any law-enforcement official and attorney. I know!
Bush was right in the end? Maybe. But if he cared about Hussein killing his own people, that would have been stated as such from the beginning...and he would have acted sooner, as Hussein had been killing his own people for many, many years.
Bush had a personal, vested interest in oil. Period. He owns oil investments. The price of oil more than tripled after the Iraq invasion, to which it was supposedly justified as Supply and Demand...what Supply and Demand? There was a spontaneous industrial boom? Nope, as the the domestic and foreign economies crashed, and many, many businesses closed. Was there a spontaneous boom in the auto-market? Nope, the auto market was the biggest victim of the global economic crash. Was there a spontaneous population boom that required more fuel consumption? Nope, if that were the case, neither the global economy nor the auto market would have crashed. Was it the terrorists burning the oil fields? Nope, if that were the case, every country on the planet would have been involved in eliminating the source of their economic woes.
Bush put it through the proper channels...perhaps you should do just a little more research...Congress and many others highly questioned the motives of Bush. Bush had a REAL hard time convincing ANYONE of his reasons for the invasion...many countries, including friendly countries, questioned Bushs' motives and reasons.
I'm all for snuffing out evil...as long as it's for that reason...and not be biased and selective as to just what evil chosen to be removed from power.
Obama should have gone by the U.S. Constitution and informed Congress of his intentions. He should have told them if Gaddafi fails to adhere to the UN Resolutions, what his actions would be, and out-line his plan and just what the U.S. participation actions will involve. He did not.
Gaddafi needs to be removed, that we can all agree on, and it should not have taken this long...but still, there are Constitutional laws which the the Commander-In-Chief must adhere to...period. Our country is built upon the Constitution, not the Presidency. It is the Constitution that governs our Nation, not the Presidency. It is THE responsibility of the President of The United States of America to serve and protect the United States Constitution...FIRST & FOREMOST...NO EXCEPTIONS.
@ClassyCat (1214)
• United States
21 Mar 11
It seems to me that the looooong period of trying to get any approval to do something, costs us dearly in the long run.
Mr. Bush was in a bru-ha-ha with the UN and the congress for so long that it did give Saadam time to remove the WMDs. Saadam's own closest military advisor made that very statement, that while all of the bickering and to and fro was going on, the WMD's were move out of Iraq.
There was a co-ordinated plan between the enemy, the media in the middle east and other areas abroad, to make Bush look like a fool and a liar, and it succeeded. Therein lies the great tradgedy of it all.
Bush's interest in the oil there? Give me abreak. the man has plenty of money, and the 'media' always says it's about oil when it's really another matter.
It doesn't matter who is president, even if he was Jesus Christ Himself - there'll always be those who will criticize them.
I've seen good and bad in all of them thus far.
Elections have been kind of scary, but this next one will be the scariest of them all !
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
21 Mar 11
"Bush put it through the proper channels...perhaps you should do just a little more research"
So Congress didn't vote?
@K46620 (1986)
• United States
28 Mar 11
It is fascinating indeed. It is yet further proof that the antiwar left was merely an antiBush left.
We can't afford this war, we did not follow the Constitution and declare war, it's something the government shouldn't do. Hence, Obama and most of the establishment crooks support it.
1 person likes this
@TheMetallion (1834)
• United States
20 Mar 11
If you're not finding left-wing opposition to the missile firings, you're not looking very hard. But that's hardly new.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/how-many-teachers-salaries-or-years-fundin
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/coalition-clinton-rice-and-power-sway
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/20/mike-mullen-libya-military-mission-end-game_n_838093.html
1 person likes this
@aeiou78 (3445)
• Malaysia
21 Mar 11
America is Right.
America is the Big Brother.
America is the International Police.
Earlier, I were impressed wrongly.
Now, I understand the situation.
Similar to Kuwait, because of America, they can save their country from the Irag, Saddam Hussein.
All of the world depends on the oil in Middle East.
If the terrorists or any other similar party control the production of the oil, indirectly they are controlling the world.
America is doing something for the world.
They are helping to those pity civilians whom will be killed by their mad president.
We all salute to all of the foreign armies in Libya to protect the innocent civilians.
Even though the China and the Russia never agree the deployment of army to Libya, but none of them object too.
1 person likes this
@liuyh0619 (108)
• China
21 Mar 11
Maybe US had the bombs and missiles reach their expiration date and just look for a place to use them. Once those used up, Us military will leave Libya. Above is just for kidding. I do believe that president see the military action as a opporunity to economic recovery after yaers of recession. If there isn't abundant oil in Liyba , did those country really fight for the rights of humanity in Libya?
1 person likes this
@Svidrigaylov (390)
• Guadeloupe
21 Mar 11
Interesting that the "West" has picked on Libya when other tyrannts have massacred their own people when they wanted freedom, for example Zimbabwe. The regimes in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen have also used excessive force to quell revolution by those wanting democracy, and they have not been bombed.
@xfiendfyre (14)
• United States
21 Mar 11
I agree! I remember when Obama was campaigning, one of his biggest pitches was pulling out of the Iraq war... and did that ever happen? It sure didn't!
I don't think that any president will do a perfect job, but they at least need to do things legally....
1 person likes this
@danishcanadian (28955)
• Canada
30 Mar 11
I'm Canadian, my American husband is thinking of converting. LOL We're just tired of Americans and war. You don't see Canadians invading other countries like the Americans do.
@clrumfelt (5490)
• United States
22 Mar 11
I think all the anti-Bushers are hiding behind fancy rhetoric with their leader at present. At least President Bush had the fortitude to stick to our constutition when he went to war. Congressional approval was mandatory with him. UN approval would have been great to have, but not necessary. I am still applauding President Bush for his statement to the world of US sovereignty as an independent natiion apart from the wishes of the UN.
@trruk1 (1028)
• United States
22 Mar 11
Seems like every president feels compelled to shoot something. Both of the W. Bush wars were illegal. Vietnam was illegal. Panama. Grenada. Despite their frequent urges to hand all the country's power to the person in the White House, the Supreme court has ruled (on the line-item veto) that Congress cannot voluntarily relinquish its responsibilities.
Congress has the authority to declare war. Legally, they cannot just hand over that power to the Oval Office, but they do.
@FRANCISCOANDLEE (750)
• United States
20 Mar 11
Let me begin by saying this...
I AM not an Obama supporter, didn't vote for him nor will I the next time. I did NOT vote for Bush..neither time.
This is not, technically, a war. The reason the United States is even involved is from the pleas of the citizens of Libya and the Arab League Nation. The United States is only offering assistance on an extremely limited initiatives.
The problem with the Iraq war, it was for the personal reasons of Bush..and the FACT that Bush kept changing his reason for even going to war with Iraq.
You can research this for yourself, but his reasons were, in order;
1) Iraq was involved and behind the 9/11 attacks.
2) Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he violated the UN Security Nuclear Commission, therefore we had to go in by force.
3) To "liberate" Iraq from the Axis Of Evil and install a diplomatic and democratic government.
You go to war with a clear agenda and an even more clearer reason for going to war...Bush's reason kept changing.
What is happening in Libya is NOT a civil war, per se...it is the people rising up against a dictator that the world itself has had many problems with. The Arab League Nation is involved and had asked for western assistance in dealing with Libya...how serious of an issue is it when the Arab League gets involved?
It is about stopping the mass killings of civilians, including little children. Those people there were begging and pleading for help, showing the atrocities via their cell phones.
I'm sorry, but this subject is offensive to me...as I witnessed the deaths of little children and women...Gaddafi is a brutal, cruel and merciless killer, and we are discussing the legalities of this effort to stop this tyrant?
Obama didn't start this war, the United Nations did, France led the charge! Gaddafi has to be stopped, one way or another!
This is sad...to say the least!
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
20 Mar 11
"I AM not an Obama supporter, didn't vote for him nor will I the next time. I did NOT vote for Bush..neither time."
Good for you, I really mean that.
You're right, what's happening in Libya could be called more of a people's revelation than a civil war, but it's still internal to that country. I won't pretend for a second that Gaddafi is anything other than a sick and brutal dictator. I'm quite eager to see him removed.
That said, Obama still needs congressional approval to go to war. If we were attacked, I could understand retaliating quickly and then going to congress for approval for a planned war effort. We were not attacked. Obama was not in a hurry. Obama watched things happen there for quite some time before going in with the UN. During the time that he watched, waited, and played golf he could have put the matter before congress and had full approval to go in. He still has time to do that, but I have yet to see him take any steps to get congressional approval.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
20 Mar 11
I'm a bit confused here. Ghaddafi is killing his own people so it's ok to go and stop him, us and Europe and the Arab League say so.
Saddam Hussein was not only killing his own people, he was torturing them and gasing them and using their daughters as his own personal harem...but Bush is still wrong and we distrust his reasons?
I don't get it. Help me understand.
@FRANCISCOANDLEE (750)
• United States
20 Mar 11
I'm in no way supporting Obama here, just that those Libyian citizens need help.
If I could myself, I would be there helping them. What they are going through...none of can possibly imagine, as we have never experienced the atrocities they are suffering.
Obama should have done the right thing from the beginning, but he hasn't since he's been in office, so why would he act in the correct manner now? I've been reading news that Obama is even trying to get rid of the Constitution...I tend to believe it without actual physical proof of the accusation...as he has acted "unConstitutional" since he got into office.
I have my own personal views on the Presidency, which I will refrain from here.
Obama needs to get this right, and hopefully he, like Gaddafi will be held accountable for his actions.
@mercedlegurpa (955)
• Philippines
22 Mar 11
I'm a Filipino and we have many of our own people working in Libya that went home because of fear. I wonder why their hit is Libya again. I think that their civil war is triggered by intrigues from the outside intelligence agency. It's like the People Power in the Philippines which was authored by a foreign intelligence agency. I am pleased with the US President that he'll cut off wars because of recession but why the war in Afghanistan still exist. And now the US has allied herself with Britain, Italy, France and most recently Belgium.
@GanChoSan3 (25)
• United States
26 Mar 11
It is true that the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but presidents have started many conflicts. Bubba Clinton, in 1993,signed a presidential directive to bypass Congress.
