Cesca: We’re Not at War in Libya

[dennis4868]

At least, we’re not engaged in combat per se. Therefore, President Obama isn’t responsible for violating the War Powers Act — at least not anywhere close to the extent it’s been violated by almost every modern president.

The United States in April pulled its cruise missiles and attack planes out of combat in the NATO-led Libyan mission, though it still has them on standby. It’s currently providing support such as aerial refueling, surveillance and reconnaissance, according to the AP.

The rest of this item at ProPublica is a must read.

If your definition of “hostilities” (a key word employed in the War Powers Act) is providing “refueling, surveillance and reconnaissance” to a perfectly legal NATO military operation, then okay. President Obama is all kinds of guilty. But since April, we haven’t fired a shot. And April was still within the 60 day window before congressional approval was required.

Article is here: http://bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2011/06/were-not-at-war-in-libya.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[treestar]

1. Black person in White House!

Now things that were tolerated are legalistic and subject to fine tooth comb parsing of the laws.

It's amazing how that happens. The courts, administrative agencies, wherever - the law is interpreted exactly and with complete precision when the black person applies for anything. Black applicant must document and prove everything and then a reason why that documentation or proof is not enough is asserted.

Look at birtherism for a prime example. Never before did a candidate need to release a BC, get the governor to release the long form and then what do you have - people claiming that long form is a fake because the kerns and fonts are 1961 kerns and fonts - who bothers with this type of thing? It wouldn't have been applied to anyone else's birth certificate (which hasn't even been demanded for any other candidate).

Or demands to see school records, etc. Who wanted Bush's school transcript? Nobody.

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. +1. Can you believe the high profile Dems that are trying to kneecap this president?

I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this. You can't mention the reason behind it, or even imply it. But what's so different about this president & the Democratic president who served before him? :shrug:

[JoePhilly]

3. +1

[tekisui]

4. I don'think it has anything to do with racism.

Repug hypocrisy is definitely part of it. It is because he is a Dem.

There is also a part of the repug party that are isolationists. And, they joined the anti-war Dems, who are consistent.

[tekisui]

5. This is such a weak argument.

We are certainly involved in hostilities. Yes, refueling, surveillance and reconnaissance for actions that are launching daily, deadly strikes is involvement in hostilities.

This is a dangerous argument to accept. It could be expanded to cover a wide range of actions. We will not want the next repug president to have these powers.