United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Obama's unauthorized war on Libya costs $9,421,000 a day: Are you getting your money's worth?
Source:
Los Angeles Times
URL Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/was ... ress-authority-war-powers.html
Published: Jun 16, 2011
Author: Andrew Malcolm
Post Date: 2011-06-16 08:12:32 by BillNyeSG
Keywords: None
Views: 1825
Comments: 13
The Obama administration is spending almost $9.5 million every single day to blow things up in Libya because the president has determined that is in the country's national interest, this country's national interest, not Libya's. You may not have noticed the $392,542 flowing out of the national treasury every hour, day and night, since those first $1.5 million Tomahawks flashed from the launch tubes back on March 19. But Libya's dictator Moammar Kadafi has. Not enough to quit, mind you, because he can hide while his troops do the dying and killing. Kadafi's military might has been degraded sufficiently by allied missiles and bombs to perhaps create a long-lasting stalemate with rebel forces in the desert conflict that Obama initially promised House members would last a matter of days, not weeks.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: BillNyeSG (#0)
What amazes me more than the costs is 0bama's attitude about getting into a hostile conflict without Congressional authorization. Paraphrasing his letter to Congress yesterday: It appears he can receive authorization from anyone but Congress anymore. Who pays 0bama's salary anyway?
The ratification of a military treaty, which NATO most certainly is, and under which the US might have to act militarily and engage in hostilities IS COngressional authorization.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" again: the us supreme court has already ruled a treaty cannot supersede or amend the constitution. obama still has to obey the constitution no matter what our nato alliance says.
Don't you find it odd that 0bama ignores authorization from Congress? After-all, the only reason for his 38 page report (yesterday) was in response to a 90 day deadline. You don't see an obvious conflict of duty from 0bama, 'eh? Who pays that fucker's salary and benefit package NATO, the UN, the Arab League or an economically depressed nation that can't remove these foreign entanglements?
actually, it was because a bipartisan group of 10 lawmakers filed a lawsuit against obama yesterday for his breaking the law; re: libya.
His 90 day response was to thumb his nose at the WPA. Go back and read what the few objections to the NATO pact were when it was presented to the US Senate 62 years ago.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I posted a similar article yesterday about that federal case. What is more important is that the report was prepared weeks ago because of the Congressional dead-line not because of a court case.
And the treaty is discongruent to the USCON exactly how? The treaty AUTHORIZES the alliance to act miltarily and the US is within this alliance. The treay was RATIFIED by the US Senate. The USCON states quite clearly that the POTUS is CIC when the military is "called into service". This treaty is a "call into service..." I have LOOOONG stated my opposition to treaties such as these. It is an OPEN ENDED military obligation of the US.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" Sixty-two years ago? Whats that got to do with Libya, today? And, there have been no known hostile actions (for some ten years now) by Libya to any nation. In Libya is an insurrection. No one even knows who the rebels are.
When was the ratification of the treaty rescinded? Do you realize that some of the maritime laws that we observe are the result of treaties from the 17th and 18th century? The US is acting under the auspices of NATO. The US Congress provides funding for the US's participation in NATO. Frankly, I don't believe that the WPA legal issues are applicable and, given the language of the 14th September 2001 resolution authorizing the WOT, I have my doubts that the US Congress has any WPA complaint when or why a POTUS chooses to initiate ANY military action.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" It doesn't matter what you think. Gates (on his retirement speech the other day at NATO) has suggested the US is no longer playing a leadership role.
i wonder how are they able to spend too much for them when they can't feed their countrymen.
It doesn't make the US less a member nor does it obviate the fact tha the treaty was ratified.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" ....consistent with a request from the Arab League, and as authorized by the United Nations Security Council under the provisions of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973, U.S. military forces commenced operations on March 19, 2011....
#2. To: buckeroo (#1)
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#3. To: war (#2)
(Edited)
The ratification of a military treaty, which NATO most certainly is, and under which the US might have to act militarily and engage in hostilities IS COngressional authorization.
#4. To: war (#2)
#5. To: buckeroo (#4)
(Edited)
After-all, the only reason for his 38 page report (yesterday) was in response to a 90 day deadline.
#6. To: buckeroo (#4)
Don't you find it odd that 0bama ignores authorization from Congress? After-all, the only reason for his 38 page report (yesterday) was in response to a 90 day deadline.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#7. To: BillNyeSG (#5)
#8. To: BillNyeSG (#3)
(Edited)
again: the us supreme court has already ruled a treaty cannot supersede or amend the constitution. obama still has to obey the constitution no matter what our nato alliance says.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#9. To: war (#6)
Go back and read what the few objections to the NATO pact were when it was presented to the US Senate 62 years ago.
#10. To: buckeroo (#9)
(Edited)
Sixty-two years ago? Whats that got to do with Libya, today?
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#11. To: war (#10)
#12. To: BillNyeSG (#0)
#13. To: buckeroo (#11)
(Edited)
It doesn't matter what you think. Gates (on his retirement speech the other day at NATO) has suggested the US is no longer playing a leadership role.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]