• waywardwind

    I never said I didn't like Ron Paul; I said he wasn't pragmatic he is guided by his own ideology. Besides there are several like Ron Paul in congress but it's about 535 members. I believe they are all patriots and some are swayed by lobbyist but not every representative is on a committee or has the opportunity to serve on one, where they will benefit from corporate donations...But that's an altogether different issue....

    The president's party doesn't control Congress because the republicans have the majority in the house and the democrats have control over the senate. I see the trend of both parties losing patience with the war in Afghanistan; it's showing up in actual votes. I think three or four democrats are members of that lawsuit against president Obama and secretary Gates.

    The mood in Washington has changed since the killing of Osama Bin Laden as more and more republicans are rethinking their previous position.

    The Congress I'm talking about the intelligence committees where serious people cross party lines for the betterment of our country...I think Congressman Mike Rodgers(R-MI) Senators Levin & Lugar are great examples of legislators who take their job seriously.

    June 16, 2011 at 12:12 p.m.

  • Mike..."Don't you think that the pentagon and Congress can merge the words "declare,war, hostilities,conflicts, drone attacks and no-fly zone" and agree on the definition that meets the "WAR" intent of the constitution?"

    No, I don't. I don't think the pentagon and Congress can agree on much of anything except, MAYBE, today is Thursday. The way politics are today, when the president's party controls Congress, they run roughshod over any opposition without regard for the good of the country. When the Congress is controlled by one party and the president is of the other, they can't agree to do anything constructive and fight among themselves without regard for the good of the country. They (Congress critters and presidents) are only interested in amassing as much power as they can and laying the ground work for getting rich(er) after they leave office by getting large checks for speaches.

    I know you don't like him, but this is the reason I like Ron Paul. He is the only person in Washington that I know of who I believe actually cares about the country and believes in the Constitution.

    June 16, 2011 at 11:51 a.m.

  • waywardwind

    I agree with your comments. Don't you think that the pentagon and Congress can merge the words "declare,war, hostilities,conflicts, drone attacks and no-fly zone" and agree on the definition that meets the "WAR" intent of the constitution?

    A couple of months ago I watched the old 1961 movie "Judgement at Nuremberg" Starring Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster, Richard Widmark and I nearly fell out of my seat because of the similarities of what we're doing and what we tried the Germans for.... I liked the part where Spencer Tracy(the judge of the military tribunal) chastised a German judge for not questioning his government. The Patriot Act and the warrant-less search warrants come to mind. The Germans who were on trial said " we were at war" as an accuse to look the other way while their own constitution was being trampled.

    You probably already know that I'm not comparing our actions to the atrocities of the WW11 Germans ,but to our reluctance to oppose the stripping of our civil liberties because we are at war.

    June 16, 2011 at 10:08 a.m.

  • arlewill

    The secretary of state said that the mission in Libya was not in our vital interest an he was right, but the No-fly zone mission has always been labeled a humanitarian one, with us being in a supporting role.. I'm not trying to be coy because I'm aware with what's going on.. As you probably recall, Gates was against the mission from outset. The outgoing secretary defense has recently chastised NATO for not living up to its obligations..... The article in the New York Times said the administration was not challenging the Constitution or the War Powers Act... The lawyers for the Obama Administration are challenging the word " hostilities" since there are no troops on the ground....I didn't buy the "torture" memo that was written by the lawyers for the Bush administration, nor do I buy the argument the Obama Administration is trying to make. The definition of war should not be ambiguous...i.e. I still don't know why it's legal for us use drones to kill terrorist in other countries without congressional approval. Is it because we're not invading and we're getting permission from their heads of state?

    I believe Congress needs to reassert their authority but they must be consistent instead of being complacent, until a favorable opportunity arises. In this case Congress will try to use the power of the purse strings but the administration says it has enough money to conclude this mission under the present defense budget and it won't seek anymore funds for Libya.

    I don't like the War Powers Act but if we're stuck with it, we should make changes to reflect today...i.e. Cyber attacks,drone attacks, and killing suspected Americans Americans that might be helping the enemy without due process.

    June 16, 2011 at 9:43 a.m.

  • Mike
    Somehow I missed the action of the House of Representatives defunding the Lybian conflict. I thought the House was waiting on a report from the Administration.
    I did a little research on the War Powers Resolution of 1973 summary and found:
    First, the resolution states that a president may legitimately act as Commander in Chief only when there is a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization to use force, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. Second, the act requires the president to consult Congress prior to committing troops and to continue doing so as long as troops remain on the ground. Third, and most crucially, the resolution requires a president, when engaging in hostilities "or enter[ing] into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances," to file a report to Congress within forty-eight hours. The filing of this report then starts the "clock": after sixty days, the president must withdraw the troops. (If circumstances are such that it is impossible to get the forces out, thirty additional days are added.)
    Like you, I am anxious to hear the report from the Administration. Defense Secretary Gates has said previously that Lybia was no threat to the U.S.

    June 15, 2011 at 8:09 p.m.

  • Mike is right about this becoming a p*****g contest between Congress and the president. Congress has the Constitutional power to declare war; the president, as Commander in Chief, has the Constitutional power to tell the military when and where to fight. "War declaration? We don't NEED no stinkin' war declaration." But, Congress has the trump card in their ability to refuse to fund an undeclared war. From the NYTimes: "[T]he Obama administration is sending to Congress on Wednesday defending its Libya policy, the White House, for the first time, offers lawmakers and the public an argument for why Mr. Obama has not been violating the War Powers Resolution since May 20.

    "On that day, the Vietnam-era law’s 60-day deadline for terminating unauthorized hostilities appeared to pass. But the White House argued that the activities of United States military forces in Libya do not amount to full-blown “hostilities” at the level necessary to involve the section of the War Powers Resolution that imposes the deadline."

    The next couple of weeks should be interesting indeed. The arguments can get hot and heavy. Congress hasn't declared war since December 8, 1941. There have been a lot of armed conflicts since and a lot of US soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen have died without a declaration of war. I have a cousin who fought in Vietnam. He said it seemed like a war to him.

    June 15, 2011 at 7:45 p.m.

  • Its a shame that the GOP controlled Congress in 2003 didn't man up and put up the same kind of "opposition" when Dubya decided to go after Iraq's mythical or even legendary "weapons of mass destruction."

    Oh, but I forgot: 1)Dubya was a GOPer; 2)Dubya was a white guy. I no longer have any questions...

    June 15, 2011 at 4:52 p.m.

  • reeder

    The invasion of Iraq with 248,000 U.S. troops and the limited action in Libya is not comparable because as I've noted; the amendment was brought forth by a democrat from California.

    Besides, I think this will be a battle about the separation of powers..i.e. Congress has the right to defund an operation, but they cannot tell the commander- in -chief what to do... If president Obama would've gone through Congress, I think he would've gotten the majority to approve the mission and for sure would have avoided the noise. Instead, he chose to do what other presidents have done in the past and now he's paying the price of politics,polls, a reluctant constituency, and a battle fatigued country. He has not been forthright with Congress or the American people, so he either has to make the case or pull out.... I know this will make it harder for him to align our Allies for the next conflict. I think if Omar Gadhafi is killed or run out of the country in a relatively short time; this will be forgotten.

    All troops are supposed to be out of Iraq by next year and I think we with the majority of Americans wanting to end the war in Afghanistan.

    I'm going to have to sit back and hear the arguments 'cause right now I'm in the dark.

    June 15, 2011 at 4:15 p.m.

  • Ask yourself one question: If G. Bush had gone into Iraq without going to Congress first, can you imagine the uproar from the Liberal faction of the Democratic party?

    I'm not defending or attacking Obama, but I agree with your beginning statement that Obama should have gone to Congress first. I think at this point, it's time we got ALL troops home. Ten years at war is way too much.

    June 15, 2011 at 3:44 p.m.