- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 133,429
- Reaction score
- 43,228
- Location
- Miami
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
In effect, yes, atleast where a U.S. President wishes to commit U.S. armed forces to a foreign conflicts on humanitarian grounds in accordance with U.N. Resolution(s). It is the very reason GW Bush (and possible even Bush, Sr) went to war w/Iraq...he invoked U.N. resolutions. But oddly enough, no one was clamouring about whether or not he was in violation of the War Powers Act or the Constitution back then.
Umm... they had congressional approval prior to military action.
(bold mine)And yet, here we are seaking justification for President Obama to commit armed forces to Libya when he has the authority under two Acts of Congress, 3 U.N. Resolutions and a Congressional Resolution to atleast continue military actions until he can provide further explanation to justify continued use of armed forces.
Someone clarify, please. I presume one of the acts is the WPA.
The congressional resolution was approving the use of the WPA as appropriate? If so, that doesn't mean "until..."; it means until 90 days, lacking further approval/authorization within 60 days from the resolution. He had to provide further explanation, and get authorization from congress, within 60 days, to get more than 90. He does not get more than 90, any way shape or form, at this point (under the WPA). He is, however, still required to submit explanation to congress (I believe before the 90 day period), even though he waved the opportunity to extend the WPA resolution within 60 days.
It's thursday here. He's got 3 days to remove Gaddafi (making it a different mission, and restarting the 'paperwork'), give the gear to NATO or withdraw it. If none of those happen by Monday morning, impeachment proceedings will begin. In which case, I hope he's got an Oliver North.
Last edited: