Candidate Obama would have opposed our war in Libya. My how things change...
By Taskr36
@Taskr36 (13963)
United States
March 22, 2011 10:13am CST
"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."
That was said by "candidate" Obama in December of 2007. That was back when he was pretending to be the "Anti-Bush" which we all know now was BS as he is extremely similar to Bush.
So let's look at Libya. First off, he unilaterally authorized multiple military attacks on Libya firing over 100 missiles at that country. So, were his actions meant to stop an actual or imminent threat to our nation? Of course not! Gadaffi didn't threaten us. He's fighting his own people and certainly wouldn't dream of attacking us unprovoked while dealing with a revolution in his own country.
I applaud the handful of democrats in congress who are opposing his actions as unconstitutional. It's easy to support the constitution when the other party violates it. It's much harder to support it when your own party is wiping their a$$ with it.
3 people like this
5 responses
@rogue13xmen13 (14403)
• United States
22 Mar 11
Okay, this hasn't really been declared a war, and there are no troops on the ground yet, also, our country isn't the only one going in there. Look at all of the other countries going in there. Gadaffi is killing his own people, people who want freedom and liberation. We are just helping them get it.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
22 Mar 11
Read his exact words though Rogue.
"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."
One can dither over this is "war" or not, but we have launched multiple "military attacks" which is what Obama clearly said he did not have the power, under the Constitution, to do.
I'm not arguing the involvement of the US, only the constitutionality of doing it without congressional approval.
1 person likes this
@rogue13xmen13 (14403)
• United States
22 Mar 11
Well, I am sure he wouldn't be the first president to violate a constitutional rule.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
22 Mar 11
No, nor is he the first to break a promise. I just like pointing out how eager he is to violate his promises and how, as a "constitutional lawyer" he is more than willing to violate the constitution in ways that he himself has called a violation.
1 person likes this
@Netsbridge (3253)
• United States
23 Mar 11
When I saw "... would have opposed" in your headline, I thought you were going to say Obama wanted to oppose but something said by congress forced him to engage in this absurd Libyan war. Well, as you now may already know, Obama alleges we are not at war in Libya.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
24 Mar 11
The fact that people are or will be dying means it is war. Quibbling over words is just NEWSPEAK. Calling it one thing, when it is obviously another.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
22 Mar 11
Yup, it's ironic, I support Obama's actions here (but only as long as he follows the terms of the War Powers Act), but Sen. Obama wouldn't have. lol
@Netsbridge (3253)
• United States
23 Mar 11
Of course, any barbaric conservative (especially republican) would support an absurd war! The burning rush to engage in war without reason is very typical of republicanism!
You however bring out a crucial issue: Anti-war Obama has become warlike just like his predecessor W. Bush! What happened?
Simply evidence that the US government is aa piracy government that can only thrive by intimidating and plundering!
Did you not notice that Obama only got approved for president as soon as he changed his war rhetoric? While Obama was the lesser of two evils, even McCain starting defending Obama as soon as Obama started chanting "we must defeat the enemy!" I tell you, we are simply a warlike bunch!
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
22 Mar 11
He's really been hoisted on his own petard this time. Either the brilliant Constitutional scholar was right before or he is right now, but he can't be both. By his first interpretation, his next step needs to be showing us the actual and imminent threat. He knows he can't do that.
Of course, he's just figured out how to get rid of the problem. He's going to step back, put other people in charge - he's already accomplished everything he wanted to accomplish. He's still confused - should I stay or should I go?
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
22 Mar 11
So, bottom line, are these democrats going to put their vote where their mouths are and initiate impeachment procedings or not?
Lately, talk is cheap. Actions will convince me they mean it.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
22 Mar 11
It's hard to say. Dennis Kucinich has said, in no uncertain terms, that this is an impeachable offense and he will vote against any funding bills for this illegal war. I have no doubt that he means what he is saying and would vote to impeach Obama. I can't speak for the rest of them though. I don't think they have the same guts that he has.
