Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

House rebukes Obama on Libya mission, but does not demand withdrawal

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-03-11 01:46 PM
Original message
House rebukes Obama on Libya mission, but does not demand withdrawal
Edited on Fri Jun-03-11 01:52 PM by alp227
Source: The Washington Post

The House on Friday rebuked President Obama for failing to provide Congress with a compelling rationale for the military campaign in Libya, but stopped short of demanding he withdraw U.S. forces from the fight.

By a vote of 257 to 156, the House approved a resolution that criticized Obama for not seeking Congressional authorization for the 76-day-old campaign against Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi.

The resolution would give Obama 14 more days to convince Congress the attacks against Gaddafi are justified by U.S. interests.

The House rejected, by a vote of 148 to 265, a more drastic measure from one of the fixtures of anti-war sentiment in the House, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio). That resolution would have demanded Obama pull out of the Libyan operation within 15 days.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-rebukes-ob...



Roll call vote, HR 292, http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll411.xml

Of course a heavily party-line vote: Republicans primarily voted yea, Democrats nay. (My rep, Zoe Lofgren, didn't vote on this.) Pete Stark, the atheist Democrat from Alameda County, California, voted yea with the GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-03-11 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. They know where their campaign contributions come from.
They rebuked it because Obama is the President but they didn't want to withdraw because it means cash for the defense industry.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
razorman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-03-11 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. Congress is chickenshit.
None of them have the balls to stand up for what they believe, and stick with it. That goes for both houses and both parties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-03-11 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
3. House Passes John Boehner's Modest Libya Resolution, Defeats Dennis Kucinich's Measure to Withdraw
Source: ABC News

In a bipartisan vote, the House of Representatives approved a resolution declaring that the President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon United States national security interests for current United States military activities regarding Libya while it rejected a more forceful resolution that would have directed the president to remove U.S. armed forces from Libya within 15 days of passage.

H.Res. 292, which was introduced by House Speaker John Boehner, passed by a vote of 268-145, with one member, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., voting present. Forty-five Democrats joined 223 Republicans in voting in favor of the measure, while 10 Republicans voted against the resolution.

We have an obligation to support our troops in harms way, and stand by our allies, Boehner, R-Ohio, said on the House floor Friday morning during debate on the resolution. This resolution puts the president on notice. He has a chance to get this right. If he doesnt, Congress will exercise its constitutional authority and make it right.

The House also voted to reject H.Con.Res. 51, a resolution introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, by a count of 148-265. Eighty-seven Republicans voted in favor of the resolution, more than the 61 Democrats who supported the measure.


Read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/06/house-passes-j...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orangeapple Donating Member (167 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-03-11 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. what 'troops' in harms way?
Edited on Fri Jun-03-11 03:27 PM by orangeapple
The ones we choose to keep sending back in to harm's way day after day?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/31/libya-sas-v...
"Former SAS soldiers and other western employees of private security companies are helping Nato identify targets in the Libyan port city of Misrata, the scene of heavy fighting between Muammar Gaddafi's forces and rebels, well-placed sources have told the Guardian.

...

The revelations about the role of the rebels' advisers follow the filming of armed westerners on the frontline with rebel fighters in Misrata. A group of six were visible in a report by al-Jazeera from Dafniya, described as the westernmost point of the rebel lines in the city. Five of the men were armed, wearing sand-coloured clothes, baseball caps and cotton Arab scarves. The sixth, who seemed to be in charge, carried no visible weapon and wore a pink short-sleeved shirt. The six were seen talking to rebels, and quickly left after they realised they were being filmed.

...

Senior British defence sources revealed in April that they were urging Arab countries to train the rebels. The sources said they were looking at hiring private security companies, many of which employ former SAS soldiers."


So we have the U.S. taxpayers and firepower backing up mercs on the ground to help former colonial powers install a new government based in the oil rich part of the country.

We have to prolong the war to protect the civilians. Not a very pithy 2012 slogan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smuglysmiling Donating Member (82 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-03-11 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
5. I thought "The War Powers Act"..
gave him 60 days to explain or withdraw. If they don't like the way things are done they need to stop abrogating their responsibilities. Revoke the act and use The Constitution as a guide to prevent anymore of these follies without a Declaration of War..

PS...as long as they have troops in action it should be the War Department and the Secretary of War. When they are out of action it can be changed back to the Defense Department and the Secretary of Defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 31st 2014, 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC