The American Spectator : We Have an Illegal War

Text Size

We Have an Illegal War

By Ben Stein on 3.23.11 @ 9:48AM

What will tomorrow bring from this third-rate crowd?

Okay, kids. Now, let’s see where we are today in the wacky, mad, wonderful world of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton playing at war and diplomacy.

When we last looked in, Hill and Barack had just junked the U.S. Constitution and gone to war at the order — not of Congress but of the United Nations Security Council… But look. It gets a LOT more interesting than that….

First, as of early morning Wednesday, we were learning that France actually began bombing the Gaddafi forces before there was any international agreement on the whole subject. Just on its own, France declared war or at least started fighting against Libya, or so it is reported. They then persuaded the clubbable Mrs. Clinton to go along, and Mr. Cameron was keen, so off we went.

Now, we have France, which has not really done us any favors in the world for a good long time now, bringing us into a third concurrent war. And what are our aims in this war? That’s the beauty part! No one knows.

President Obama says it’s to stop Col. Gaddafi from killing civilians. But how can he stop Gaddafi’s men from going into homes and killing people except by putting a Marine detachment into each of Libya’s roughly five million homes? He cannot do that with F-15’s flying at Mach 2 two miles above the ground. But he’s promised he won’t send in ground troops.

So, that part about stopping Gaddafi from killing civilians was just a big fat joke.

Then, there’s the aim of making Gaddafi leave office. But wait. Didn’t Mr. Obama say that was specifically not his goal one day, then say it was his goal the next day? So, what’s the goal? If it’s making Gaddafi leave office, how will he do that without ground troops?

Then there’s this nonsense about how we’re just one little player on a big team and we’re leaving the game soon. To hand off the combat to… well, that’s another problem. No other Western nation has a large, up to date military. So, that part about handing over combat to someone else… that was a joke, too!

So, we have an illegal war. No honest goal. No way of reaching any meaningful goal except by getting us into a third ground war… and here’s the best part:

We don’t even know who our allies in Libya are. We don’t know if they’re pro-Iranian, or pro al Qaeda, or just who the heck they are.

So we are going to war illegally, with the stated reasons a complete joke, and we may be placing on the throne in Libya people who are more dangerous to us than Gaddafi.

It is a terrifying thing to leave the governance of a first class nation to third-rate people. Let’s see what tomorrow brings.

About the Author

Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes “Ben Stein’s Diary” for every issue of The American Spectator.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (283) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Vern Crisler | 3.23.11 @ 10:03AM

"By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had even tried to preserve the constitution, if, to save slavery, or any minor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constitution all together." Lincoln letter to Albert Hodges

In pursuing our national self-interest it is sometimes necessary for the President to act without Congressional authorization, to prevent an immediate danger. Obama has done the right thing so far. So far.....

wbheff| 3.23.11 @ 10:10AM

"Obama has done the right thing..." What utter rot!

ENOUGH ROPE| 3.23.11 @ 4:05PM

Obama is a saboteur whose ideological background is anti-colonialist, Marxist, and radical. His background is documented in best selling books. His actions and inactions are understandable if one accepts his being a saboteur. He wants to make America weak without his being suspected of treason. His cause is aided by leftist elites and beneficiaries. We need a leader on the right, like Ronald Reagan, who will name Obama as the leader of the evil Marxist fifth column within the United States. Obama was groomed as a ONE MAN SLEEPER CELL who is a stooge and mouthpiece for the fifth column. Obama is a SMILING LIAR.

Handy| 3.23.11 @ 4:47PM

Obama has done the "Left" thing. Democrats always get us mired down in foreign adventures.

FDR did not care about Europe; but WWII served his domestic purposes. Truman couldn't find Korea on a map, but he made sure that MacArthur couldn't wn there. JFK foarsaked our Cuban allies and committed us to Viet Nam. LBJ and that Strange Mcnamara put 58,00 plus names on that black wall.

Obama is just keeping liberal wimpism alive. Nothing new here. Move along.

Alan Brooks| 3.24.11 @ 12:16AM

"58,00"

We know this was a typo, but leaving off a zero is for next month- at tax time.

Albert| 3.23.11 @ 10:23AM

President Bozo has never done "the right thing" in his adult life. And that quote from Lincoln demonstrates why he should have been impeached. 600,000 people died because of Lincoln's "assumed ground."

ds80| 3.23.11 @ 10:30AM

Vern ...

Please explain how Obama's fiat war actions in Libya are indispensable to the preservation of the constitution.

da monk| 3.23.11 @ 11:06AM

Just like Iraq, huh?

ds80| 3.23.11 @ 12:20PM

Your attempt at tu quoque is recognized, da monk.

Bush's actions were not by fiat: Congress exercised it's constitutional duty in passing (373 to 156, including Biden, Kerry, Clinton voting FOR):
PUBLIC LAW 107 - 243 - AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/P.....etail.html

Obama has exercised use-of-force-by-fiat.

Vern Crisler | 3.23.11 @ 7:48PM

Pursuing our national self interest is preserving the Constitution. By preserving the nation (national interest), you preserve the instrument of government of that nation. That was Lincoln's point.

Preserving the Constitution is not something confined to our national borders.

blackwatch| 3.23.11 @ 9:16PM

what a sophisticated pile of manure you are selling their Vern.

It is unconstitutional for the president to make war. He is the Commander-in-Chief when the Congress makes a declaration of war. Otherwise he is merely the President. We the people, give him the title of Commander in Chief only when our representatives authorize use of force. Obama is acting like a rogue African President for Life unilaterally launching our nation into a civil war. He is not leading like an American President does in times of crisis.

I guess the boy can't get away from his African roots after all.

Vern Crisler | 3.23.11 @ 10:56PM

The president can "make war" in emergency situations -- whether to protect our borders or to protect our national interest. Obama acted in an emergency situation with respect to the latter.

I suspect that most of you on this topic are opposed to Obama's actions simply because he is Obama. If he were Reagan or Bush, you'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

Others of you are just crazy, Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul anarchists, secessionists, Lincoln-bashing, all-around slack-jawed fire-eating haters of the American system. The rest of you are just crazy in a general sense.

JRGIERLACH| 3.24.11 @ 12:12PM

No Vern, opposition to Obama isn't just racism (I know you didn't articulate racism- it's inherent in your argument).
Yet You will need to demonstrate what is our strategic rationale in Libya before anyone rational personal will accept this 'little adventure.'

Dave H| 3.24.11 @ 1:43PM

Vern, your argument is very weak... It you were truly objective and not an apologist for the President, you would admit it... And it doesn't help to label anyone disagreeing as crazy... What we need here and on the national scene is a true debate on the merits of going to war in Libya... If the President had gone the congress with his plans, my feeling is that he would have been supported, not questioned and we would be in a much better place than we are in today.

Sally Morris| 3.27.11 @ 3:42PM

A nation on the brink of bankruptcy weighs the options here: do we go into a war in Libya on the side of the guy who perpetrated the Lockerbie disaster or the good folks of Al Qaeda who perpetrated the Twin Towers disaster? Or do we just stay out of it and figure out how to pay our country's bills? Hm? What would the crazy person do?

W| 3.23.11 @ 10:37AM

There is no immediate danger to the United States. There is an immediated danger to the rebel forces, but this is a civil war. We do not even know who are the rebel forces, they are probably the muslim brotherhood. Libya supplied over 20% of the muslim fighters in Iraq killing our soldiers. We are probably helping muslim terrorrists. This is like the Iran/Iraq war in 1981. Let them fight and kill each other, there will be fewer terrorrists in the future.
Where are all the lefties who opposed the "civil war "in Iraq? Where are all the lefties on this site who voted for obama because he would end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 11:05AM

The bastard broke the 1973 law and usurped the constitution without justifying any sort of national interest, military plan or consistent objective. This is the reality. Please spare us the ridiculous qouting of Abraham Lincoln. Liberalism really is a mental disorder....

Vern Crisler | 3.23.11 @ 7:51PM

Lincoln is our quintessential interpreter of the Constitution. To not care about what Lincoln said is tantamount to not caring about the Constitution.

idalily| 3.24.11 @ 4:17PM

Bull.

Sally Morris| 3.27.11 @ 3:46PM

Our quintessential interpreter of the Constitution was James Madison, Vern.

suzy000| 3.23.11 @ 12:25PM

This is gibberish...like the Canadian reporter. There was no threat to America, there is no goal or endgame...there is no Congressional approval which is required by the War Powers Act of 1973. Stein is right...Obama has really messed up this time. The American people DO NOT approve of this. Other than "redistribute America's wealth", this man has NO vision!

Redstateboy| 3.23.11 @ 2:26PM

Ben! Ben! Ben..!! You're asking for reasons why??
This is... "Life in the Land of Hussein" it makes no sense to try and make sense out of the senseless.

The Bruce| 3.23.11 @ 5:29PM

Ah, Lincoln -- the man that suspended habius corpus and usurpted States' rights.

I think the point here is that the ends don't justify the means.

Vern Crisler | 3.23.11 @ 7:59PM

Lincoln preserved the Union and the Constitution. Suspension of habeas corpus is allowed by the Constitution in cases of rebellion. Lincoln did not deny states' rights, but held with the founders that states' rights were balanced with national rights.

Ends often do justify means. The phrase, the ends don't justify the means is guarding against using an end to justify ANY means, regardless of how evil they might be. It is not ruling out the ends justifying good means.

Lincoln was NOT trying to justify any and all means but was justifying those means that were appropriate to the preservation of the nation and therefore of the Constitution.

Albert| 3.23.11 @ 9:22PM

Secession is not rebellion. Lincoln with his unconstitutional acts, set the stage for future usurpations. A successful secession did not threaten the Constitution or the Union, which would still have continued in the Northern States.

Vern Crisler | 3.23.11 @ 11:01PM

Firing on Fort Sumter was not rebellion? If you secede from paying your taxes, is that rebellion or a walk in the park? A unilateral breaking of a contract or covenant is unlawful on a personal level. It is rebellion on a national level.

The Bruce| 3.24.11 @ 1:36AM

You're wrong on habeas corpus, Vern. The Supreme Court deemed his action unconstitutional, as the Congress has that power, per the Constitution.

Vern Crisler | 3.24.11 @ 9:23AM

Oh year, the Supreme Court that was saved by Lincoln's actions. Remember, it was the Supreme Court that gave us Dred Scot. They are not always right.

idalily| 3.24.11 @ 4:24PM

No, the SCOTUS isn't always right but they are the final arbiter. Obama had NO authority, Constitutional or otherwise, for the action in Libya. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

If you feel otherwise, please make your case for the action in Libya, and without using Lincoln to do so. Our Civil War and Libya are apples and oranges.

stmichrick| 3.23.11 @ 7:39PM

The rationale for Obama's action is to establish the precedent of, If the International Community says it's good, it must be OK.

At least in Iraq we had a sketchy outline of what's next (even if Bremer messed it up). We knew we had Iraqi expatriates and others planning to form an elected government. This situation has no direction, only a vacuum and free-for-all.

wbheff| 3.23.11 @ 10:12AM

Mister Stein;

Sir, by referring to this gaggle of America haters that constitute the current mis-administration as "third-rate people," you have elevated them far above their actual status.

da monk| 3.23.11 @ 11:10AM

They are still miles ahead of the past adminstrations stooges

Teaghan| 3.23.11 @ 11:21AM

What? Stooges mabey, facists not.

Nancy in NC| 3.23.11 @ 11:46AM

But of course...your man is above reproach. Hypocrite.

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 12:17PM

Yeah, they are miles ahead alright. With all the misteps of the Bush administration from over spending to questionable military involvements, these third rate jackasses are light years ahead in bringing this country to ruin. Impeach now!

Steve A| 3.23.11 @ 12:57PM

Isin't it refreshing to see the defense of our fine, young, genius President relegated to ' " Yeah, but Bush sucked even worse." Ha ha haaaaaaa. Too funny. Now, even those that ran to the polls to vote for this jackass are forced to admit he is incompetent, at best.

Occam's Tool| 3.23.11 @ 3:14PM

No, incompetent is a pleasant stretch for Obama.

Grzmlyk| 3.23.11 @ 5:51PM

Don't forget the Obamapologists' favorite tune, Occam. By way of illustration, I shall apply it to the recent Japan earthquake/tsunami:

Sure it was virtually unprecendented in its destructive force. Sure, billions of yen's worth of damage was done. Sure, thousands of people died. Sure, hundreds of towns were wiped off the map.

But think how much worse it would have been if Obama weren't president. Why, through dint of his sheer brilliance, he saved Japan from being forever submerged in the waters of the Pacific. All hail Obama! Thank God this happened under his watch!

THAT is how the Obamapologists live their lies.

Grzmlyk| 3.23.11 @ 1:08PM

Gee, I thought it took a stooge to know a stooge. But you're a stooge and yet you don't seem to recognize your own kind.

Puzzling.

Maybe you're just dim, even by stooge standards.

One things for sure: You're an empty ideologue, devoid of any ability to discern reality.

Barack, is that you?

jppc| 3.23.11 @ 10:17AM

It's not illegal to the mind of Barry. To him, the highest authority is the United Nations - not the United States. He is acting with perfect consistency to his worldview.

Albert| 3.23.11 @ 10:25AM

True enough. But President Bozo's worldview is not law. The Constitution is. And We the People had better hold this criminal accountable under that law.

PaulD| 3.23.11 @ 10:41AM

AMEN!

Mike D.| 3.23.11 @ 10:48AM

Its thunderdome to these criminals in office. They can't break any rules because there aren't any. He's a world Marxist and Socialist and he will sell this country's existence to that cause. I don't believe there is any if no more than few in the upper levels of the military who are going to stand up and make any issue of it. Too many careers at stake.

Sally Morris| 3.27.11 @ 3:57PM

Do you mean that "archaic", "restrictive" Constitution of the United States? We all know what he thinks of America's governing documents. They're just in his way. It is too bad that he was not elected president of one of the Third World nations that is able to get by without a constitution or laws. Obama likes to make up laws as he goes along - or ignore them. He is the epitome of personality cult/dictator. He is proud to be un-American. This man despises America and other enlightened Western cultures. Another point where our Founders were correct in their thinking: the President must be a native-born citizen. We need to know our own leader is loyal to our own nation.

wbheff| 3.23.11 @ 11:51AM

I respectfully disagree, Sir. To Obama, the highest authority, is himself.

C. S. P. Schofield| 3.23.11 @ 10:20AM

I dislike Q'daffy (or however the *%^ he's spelling his name this week) and I think that over time the squabbling of the two parties in this country has more or less made it illegal for the President to actually have a foreign policy. So I'm initially inclined to give Obama (who I also dislike, just not as much as Q'daffy) some leeway.

Nevertheless, I can't help but remember that the Democrats got us involved in 4 wars in the twentieth century (WWI, WWII, Korea, & Vietnam) based on emotion and desire to please either the "Community of Nations" or the French. Of the four, WWII was the right thing to do, and the other three were splendid arguments for telling both the "Community of Nations" AND the French to F*ck Off.

I don't feel good about this.

Chuck| 3.23.11 @ 10:35AM

Didn't Harry Truman take this path...UN approval for his police action in Korea but no declaration of war from Congress? Where is the loyal opposition namely the Speaker of the House? Why doesn't Boehner invoke the War Powers Act? Can this government follow its own laws and do anything right?

Teaghan| 3.23.11 @ 11:22AM

Because Boehner is a softy. He might cry if he had to stand up to barry.

Albert| 3.23.11 @ 4:16PM

Ain't THAT the truth!

The Bruce| 3.23.11 @ 5:34PM

Apparently not. Boehner keeps asking, "what's our mission?"

As you can see, he's already missed the boat completely. Electing him as Speaker becomes more regrettable every day.

Sally Morris| 3.27.11 @ 4:04PM

And shock us all? John Boehner is one of the greatest disappointments of this Congress.

Dixie Pixie| 3.23.11 @ 10:35AM

Today Obama called for UN, NATO and Arab League intervention in the American Civil War.
Obama stated " For too long the world has ignored Abraham Lincoln's naked aggression in the battles of Shiloh, Vicksburg,New Orleans and Bull Run.".
Obama declared " The Burning of Atlanta and Sherman's March to the Sea were a horrific and common examples of Abraham Lincoln making illegal war on the civilian population."
Obama stated "...Intervention to protect the civilian population from Lincolns military atrocities is the highest duty of all humanitarians...".
Obama stopped short of calling for Lincolns ouster and exile but did suggest a war crimes trial may be necessary.

Does the above paragraph make any sense at all.
Obama reasons for intervening in the Libyan Civil war are the same as the above and make even less sense.

idalily| 3.24.11 @ 4:27PM

Exactly.

Dustoff| 3.23.11 @ 10:35AM

Let's see. The last time France started and war, we got stuck with Nam.

Mike D.| 3.23.11 @ 10:49AM

Wow, putting your military and your prestige in the hands of the only country that lost to BOTH sides in WW2. Go figure huh!

rg| 3.23.11 @ 11:17AM

I get your point but once again, France nor the US "started" the Vietnam War. NV & SV had been fighting for years. France and then we then intervened. We armed up SV as the USSR and China armed up NV.

Nunya| 3.23.11 @ 1:28PM

Vietnam was called "French Indochina" prior to WWII, and was a colony of the French. It was after WWII that the civil war started, and we got involved in the 50's to prevent the "spread of communism".

Unfortunately it has spread to our own President at this time....

Sue| 3.23.11 @ 2:49PM

Best comment of all!

rdman| 3.23.11 @ 5:07PM

... and they said the Domino Theory did not exist!!!

jd| 3.23.11 @ 10:50AM

Vern,

So Lincoln stating he, "felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution" somehow means that Obama's trashing of the constitution, might be lawful by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution??? So Odumbo's TRASHING of the Constitutiton is in essence to PRESERVE it? You are an idiot, sir.

JP| 3.23.11 @ 10:51AM

I think the War Powers Act is still in place, right? In that case, the President has the right to launch "limited operations", but must inform Congress within 90 days. Congress reserves the right to withold funding if it disagrees with the President.

In that light, yes, the President could follow UN "authorization" - but up to a point. Congress still holds the authorization if it choses to do so (big "if").

Wayne | 3.23.11 @ 1:10PM

What makes you think the War Powers Act is constitutional?

Frank| 3.26.11 @ 5:00PM

The WPA allows the president to launch "limited operations" in the event that the US was attacked or an attack is imminent. Neither of those conditions apply. So he is acting outside of his authority under the Constitution. Impeach him TODAY.

Rob| 3.23.11 @ 10:52AM

Here is the proof of ground troops about to enter Lybia

http://www.wcti12.com/news/27257042/detail.html

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.23.11 @ 11:46AM

No. Those MEU's serve aboard ship and are part of the air campaign. There's NOTHING about ground troops...yet.

That being said it took Daffy about 3 seconds to surround everything he doesn't want blown to bits with civilians. This makes Obama's stated mission near impossible. Obama said no ground troops and he is a habitual liar so I would expect boots on the ground before this is over.

D. Singh| 3.23.11 @ 10:52AM

Sir

Mr Stein states: 'And what are our aims in this war? That's the beauty part! No one knows'.

He is right.

And for that matter none of the other coalition partners know.

So could someone preferably Obama, Cameron or Sarkozy please, please tell us why we are at war?

Teaghan| 3.23.11 @ 11:33AM

Well, White House talking points says, "Humanitarian reasons". Can you swallow that?

Nunya| 3.23.11 @ 1:30PM

The last thing I heard was now he wants Q out of office. That changed from the day prior, but apparently that's now the goal.

Obozo's so far above his head that it's obvious to everyone in the world he's a fool.

God help us.

Zilla | 3.23.11 @ 10:59AM

Why are the only calls to impeach Obama over this coming from liberal democrat politicians? Where's the GOP when we finally have a great issue to reach across the aisle and make a bipartisan effort? Someone needs to light a fire under the butts of our weak kneed limp wristed spineless Republican officials and get them to do right by this country, our troops and the United States Constitution. NOW.

Mike D.| 3.23.11 @ 11:07AM

The whole NATO thing is falling apart. The Libyan clown will in the end win this thing. We are in the midst of the most incompetent and dangerous lack of leadership in the whitehouse that this country may have ever had. Republicans? Forget it. Your elections choices are marxists in one party and cowards in the other. Disaster is here boys, better get ready.

da monk| 3.23.11 @ 11:14AM

Because the GOP agrees with him and it justifies our going into Iraq

Teaghan| 3.23.11 @ 11:34AM

I hate to agree with you da monk, but I do.

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 12:25PM

Listen, liberal liar, hypocrite and jackass...Iraq and Lybia are not even close in comparison. You keep trying to skirt the issue here. Your jackass-in-chief broke the 1973 law and usurped the constitution. You have got liberal democrats that can see that. The establishment GOP for the most part are spineless cowards that want to preserve ther positions of power above all else. Troll. Skip back to the Huff and Puff.

Rupert| 3.23.11 @ 2:04PM

Easy Simon you're giving us a headache.

You did your best to convince those who were already convinced yesterday and you did an adequite job of it. You mised some huge points but we all do from time to time.

Just remember that your rage isn't getting Obama out of the White House. It will take the 2012 election and a good opponent.

So ease up son or you'll finally locate that brain aneurism . What's a little bomb here and there anyway? If you had a hero other than the one in the mirror you wouldn't say a word.
Word on the street dog.

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 3:11PM

So, which Rupert is this?
"What's a little bomb here and there anyway?"
I hope you are not referring to those being dropped on Lybians? Word on the street? What street is that? Troll Avenue? Rage? Yes, absolutely. The bible talks about a time for everything...this is one of them. If you are not outraged at this point, there is something really wrong with you. I am giving you a headache? Well, let's see what your head feels like when this nation, this Republic actually collaspes? See, the thing is you don't really believe it will, and you do not see the reality before you...whoever you are. Hero? I would not say a word? Wha? First, as a grown man, conservative, and American I am not looking for a hero..that's for little boys and liberals. Second, you are not going to get me to shut up. Remember trolls..we are done with playing nice. When you threaten my family, my nation, my Republic, my freedom, my constitution, my faith, and my traditions, you are going to get more than just spouting off on a conservative web site. So, will the real Rupert please stand up! The trolls can go to hell.

Occam's Tool| 3.23.11 @ 3:16PM

To me, Simon, you're a bit of a Saint.

Lady Thatcher| 3.24.11 @ 11:08PM

He certainly is one of the good fellows.

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.23.11 @ 11:50AM

Apparently they are required to turn in their balls when they take office. That's the only thing that makes sense...unless of course they're all just lying scumbags who really don't have the morals they portray.

The Bruce| 3.23.11 @ 5:42PM

Boehner keeps his inside his tissue box. Evidently while Pelosi was passing him the gavel, one of her staffers snuck into his newly aquired office and stole the box.

Sally Morris| 3.27.11 @ 4:25PM

As one who has consistently argued for the two-party system and that conservatives should support Republicans, I am beginning to rethink my position. It seems these Republicans are more interested in following some hide-bound "protocol" or some elitist pecking order that would put Emily Post to shame, than in saving a great nation in imminent peril. I've had it with these guys. Unless we can make Republicans responsive to the demand for taking up the burden of elective office and actually serving the country, we must abandon them. The last election was about sending people to Washington who would stop the fiscal hemorrhaging and stop the erosion of our American liberties at home. They were not sent there to sit around with a handkerchief if one hand and a china teacup in the other and remain aloof. So far all they've accomplished is extending Obams's mistaken spending. We need to AVOID foreign wars and concentrate on the effort to save our own country. This is why we're being committed to this war - whenever things get too hot at home, some Democrat always finds a war to throw us into by way of creating a distraction. Without a war iin Libya, people would be concentrating on what is going on at home, which should be budget cutting, repeal of Obamacare and stopping the raping of our economy by labor unions. See why we need to go to war?

John Navratil| 3.23.11 @ 11:04AM

Obama has acted contrary to his own stated position on such actions, but that doesn't necessarily mean he has acted illegally. Our Constitution clearly gives the *power* to the commander in chief to do what he has done. Power and policies are not laws and the separation of command in the executive branch from the purse and authority to declare war in the legislative branch was intended to provide flexibility of action with a responsibility to the people.

Now, it is up to the Congress to act to assert its power in this conflict. It can chose to authorize or it can exercise its power of the purse to refuse a supplemental budget authorization.

This was not meant as a defence of Obama's action, but merely to point out that Congress still has a role to play.

Tim the Enchanter| 3.23.11 @ 11:48AM

I have to disagree. The Constitution gives him the role of "Commander in Chief", but does not define that role specifically. Congress, however, is given the authorization to declare war. To me, anyway, sounds as if Congress gets to decide on war, and the President gets to carry it out. This latest action is the Kenyan going full rogue.

John Navratil| 3.23.11 @ 11:57AM

Tim the Enchanter,

I'll agree with you that he has gone "full rogue." However, the decision to provide the power to the executive to control the military was specifically to provide for an immediacy which could not be had from Congressional action. Even the War Powers Act provides for immediate action followed by a report the Congress.

The point of the argument hangs on whether or not Obama acted within the law. Given the subjective nature the definition of an immediate threat I suggest he did or could make a credible argument (even if you and I disagree with it) that he did.

I suggest we are trying to engage in the time-honored activity of attempting to criminalize policy differences. This is pernicious. Not everything has a solution in the law and we should stop trying to adjudicate everything.

Congress has the authority to brings articles of impeachment if they think he has overstepped and that is all. But as I have written elsewhere on this page - good luck with that!

Nunya| 3.23.11 @ 1:45PM

John,

I agree with you in part, your statement that "we are trying to engage in the time-honored activity of attempting to criminalize policy differences. This is pernicious." is absolutely spot on. However, it is obvious to almost everyone that Obozo acted without consideration to any law, War Powers Act or otherwise. As has been stated here, his marching orders came directly from the UN, which he obviously considers superior to the US, or our Constitution.

His actions are anti-Constitutional, and he seems to see himself as some kind of king who feels that he can do anything at any time, Congress or the Constitution be damned. If he can't do it with Congress' blessing, he'll do it by executive order, or simply by fiat. In this way, he is very dangerous, and is leading this country (purposely, I believe) to destruction.

John Navratil| 3.23.11 @ 3:15PM

Nunya,

I agree with everything you say.

If Congress thinks Obama has acted outside the boundaries of the law and the Constitution, it is their obligation under the oath they took to defend the Constitution to impeach him. I could be wrong, but I think, despite my disapproval of his actions, that he is within the bounds.

Drunken Sailor| 3.23.11 @ 2:45PM

From the War Power act of 1973
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Don't see how Libya met any of those 3 standards, or,

CONSULTATION
SEC. 3.
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

John Navratil| 3.23.11 @ 3:11PM

Drunken Sailor,

Seems to me that 2c(3) could mean a lot of things. If you say that 2c(3) doesn't, for example, cover the disco bombing or the Lockerbie bombing you get back to the situation where the immediate action on the part of the executive is to wait for Congress. This is clearly what the Founders did not want when they divided the responsibilities for military action between the two branches.

Just hypothetically, would an assassination of the President overseas be covered? Should it? The problem with the War Powers Act (one which hasn't to my knowledge, been tested) is precisely its usurpation of executive authority as CinC.

This is not a defence of Obama's actions.

Drunken Sailor| 3.23.11 @ 3:37PM

I could almost understand if this was done as a reaction to the disco or Lockerbie bombing if they had just happend but to use those powers after many years have gone by? Surely not.

John Navratil| 3.23.11 @ 5:11PM

Drunken Sailor,

I agree the today is not the time to respond to Lockerbie, but that really wasn't my point. Those were examples I proposed as things to which we should be able to respond but which are not apparently covered in 2c(3).

If 2c(3) doesn't permit immediate response to these, what other immediate responses would we like the CinC to be able to do which are not covered.

This is the problem with the War Powers Act. It seeks to restrict the judgement of the CinC to a list of actions in response to problems which cannot be foreseen.

Vern Crisler | 3.23.11 @ 7:32PM

John, your comments on this topic are spot on. The WPA is an unconstitutional restriction on the power of the President to act immediately in our national interest.

Sally Morris| 3.27.11 @ 4:40PM

Regardless of the arguments for (if such exist) or against committing US forces into a hostile situation in Libya, no one can argue that there has not been ample opportunity for Obama to take this to Congress and ask them to act. How long has this dithering been going on now? How many weeks? This is not an emergency. If you want to call Lockerbie the trigger, there have been years to call on Congress to declare war. Lockerbie happened long before Obama took office, so he could have spent the last two years urging Congress to act on this. Obama has no right to put a single American life in harm's way in Libya at this time. He is a criminal.

da monk| 3.23.11 @ 11:15AM

From all the comments I have read above, except mine, of course it seems Obama is damned if he does and damed if he doesn't. So put yourself in his place, what would you do if your CIC and leader of the free world. Think about it morally

Tim the Enchanter| 3.23.11 @ 11:44AM

"Think about it morally." That's rich, coming from you.

da monk| 3.23.11 @ 5:32PM

TIM THE NON-ENCHANTER: WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT MY MORALS? SINCE YOU DON'T KNOW ME OR WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING. FOR ALL YOU KNOW I MAY BE A MEMBER OF THE CLERGY

idalily| 3.24.11 @ 4:31PM

Then go administer to your flock and stop defending the indefensible.

John Navratil| 3.23.11 @ 11:49AM

When Obama stops doing damnable things, he'll stop being damned.

This is politics not religion. When Obama assaults America, his prayers for forgiveness don't grant him dispensation.

Still, not everything he does is bad. He is, after all, keeping Gitmo open ;->

Frank| 3.26.11 @ 5:07PM

Touche'

Nancy in NC| 3.23.11 @ 11:49AM

Did you support Bush going into Iraq? If not, shut the hell up.

Rupert| 3.23.11 @ 10:57PM

Who made you web princess?

Greg| 3.24.11 @ 5:31PM

But Iraq was not in the middle of a civil war. Not the same thing... and that is not a very polite response. i would expect more of people responding on a conservative website

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.23.11 @ 11:53AM

No. Any CIC who decides what our military should do based on the UN while totally ignoring congress will earn my contempt. R or D matters not. Follow the rules (Constitution) or change them.

Nunya| 3.23.11 @ 1:47PM

Amen!

DaPicayune| 3.23.11 @ 3:33PM

Touche!

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 12:34PM

Skirting the issue again. He violated the 1973 law and constitution. Whether or not the US should have been militarily involved with Lybia in any shape or form is irrevelant at this point. His handling of this whole event with Lybia in and of itself was done with such incompetence and arrogance that it is astounding. You EVEN have far left liberal talk show host like Stewart pointing this out and making fun of the whole fiasco.

Steve A| 3.23.11 @ 1:04PM

da monk,

That, sir, is an excellent question.

The answer is this: The US has no vital, national interest at stake, we are not the police force of the world. We should stay out. If we move in on Lybia because it is easy pickings, what do we do the next time Iran or China slaughters protesters?? Sorry, you guys are too tough, we take a pass? You must be consistent.

Rupert| 3.23.11 @ 11:01PM

It is impossible in international politics to stay consistent. That is a dream,not reality.
In today's world things move far to quickly and power shifts are so easily made that a foreign policy that is consistent ie. set in concrete, is a sure road to ruin. Flexible response is the name of the game.

Drunken Sailor| 3.23.11 @ 2:47PM

So we should take on Darfur as well? Innocent civilians are being slaughtered there too. Or do they not count since no other country has asked us to?

Pelligrino| 3.23.11 @ 3:04PM

Most of the slaughter there is against either Christians or non muslims. So, no, there will be no action there to assist those in real peril.

This is what the US leaders now DO NOT do. Just ask Afghani, Pakistani, Iraqi, Egyptian, Jordanian, and Lebanese Christians.

Rupert| 3.23.11 @ 11:03PM

That is Sharptons domain and he chooses to ignore it. Perhaps he is not of one of the warring tribes.

Sue| 3.23.11 @ 2:55PM

Liberals always invoke "morality" when they think it gives them an advantage and decry it otherwise. (Welfare, abortion, healthcare, taxes, soak the rich, education, etc.)

Sue| 3.23.11 @ 2:56PM

It's quite ridiculous! Where was the "morality" when Hussein was gassing the Kurds? Men, women and children? Liberals are hypocrites.

da monk| 3.23.11 @ 5:54PM

AND YOUR POINT IS?

rdman| 3.23.11 @ 6:27PM

The point was made, stupid!!! Liberals are hypocrites.

Greg| 3.24.11 @ 5:36PM

And Conservatives are not? Come one... The Medicare Drug benefit was the largest new entitlement since the Great Society --- what was conservative about that?

Rupert| 3.23.11 @ 11:09PM

duh monk,
The point is that hypocracy is corrosive to trust,a nd somewhere we need allies. The liberals are devious and hypocritical..Example
Bush I ran on "Read my lips,no new taxes"

The Dems promised budget cuts if he would increase taxes. He fell for their hypocracy because he increased taxes and they just laughed at him as they did no budget cutting at all.

You can have anything but a totally dysfunctional nation if a major party is going to lie ,cheat ,steal, and subvert the system. Dems do that.

Occam's Tool| 3.23.11 @ 3:18PM

OK---then he should have acted immediately and given the Rebels a "quid pro quo" for intervention---cheap oil, no terrorism, violate this and we kill you.

This dithering and incompetence gives me an pain.

prestonsbrooks| 3.23.11 @ 11:18AM

We need to ring the phones off the hook in Congressional offices. It is time for Barry X to be impeached. We could call him a traitor, but hey, he's an Indonesian citizen.

John Navratil| 3.23.11 @ 11:38AM

prestonsbrooks,

I don't disagree with you sentiments, but think about what it would take to impeach the man. Perhaps in the House articles could be drafted and passed. What would they be? Committing the military without Congressional authority? I'd suspect that there are quite a few how would argue that while his policy is wrong, the is nothing unconstitutional. After all, it hangs on the definition of what constitutes an immediate threat. Regardless of what one may think, the point is arguably subjective.

Assume articles do get passed. What chance do you see of getting a conviction in the Senate where a two-thirds majority is required? I give it just about zero.

It's a nice thought, but I don't think it is much more than that.

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 12:43PM

Whether or not it can be passed in the senate is irrevelant. The question is will anyone with good conscience, integrity, and love of the country and constitution STAND the fuck up like a MAN and hold him accountable. It is more than a nice thought it is a TEST! Your attitude is PRECISELY what is wrong with this country...no clarity, no integrity, no balls, no strength. It is no wonder why the progressives consider us stupid, weak, and are laughing their asses off.

Rupert| 3.23.11 @ 2:06PM

Simon, you are the only man brave enough to stand up and yell. Be proud,stay loud,stay wrong.

Rupert| 3.23.11 @ 2:25PM

But Dog , if we are going to argue legalities then we must say that the final word on that belongs to the Supremes,right? I mean isn't that what they do? Say what is constitutionall and unconstitutional?
So why do you argue legalities when the law says what the Supremes can touch. Here's a reminder from yesterday dog. The last sentence please focus on
• The court must not be asked to resolve a political question.[6]o Political questions involve matters where there is: "a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department" (meaning that the Constitution requires another branch of government to resolve questions regarding the issue); or "a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it."o Political questions include such things as whether the nation is 'at war' with another country, or whether the U.S. Senate has properly "tried" an impeached federal officer.

They won't look "at war". Now this here War Powers thing has been around since 1975. That 36 years and they haven't declared it constitutional or unconstitutional so it defaults to a duke out between the two branches of government and neither can win . Ain't it a drag?

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 2:43PM

Ok, who is Rupert? Are you the same guy below slamming me? Or is that post an impostor?

Sue| 3.23.11 @ 2:59PM

It would be said to be impeach him would be "racist." See how the liberal orthodoxy works. Everything is couched in "morality," "race," "sex," economic disadvantages," etc. The one thing they lack is principle - but they discover IT when the advantage tilts to them and their agenda.

da monk| 3.23.11 @ 5:57PM

HEY SUE, IF YOUR AGAINST MORALITY WHAT'S YOUR OPINION ON THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

idalily| 3.24.11 @ 4:35PM

Sue seems to have hit a nerve.

Rupert| 3.23.11 @ 3:59PM

SI-mon,
You evaded the Rupert| 3.23.11 @ 2:25PM post...does it flummox you?

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 5:11PM

I answered below...whoever you are, and found it weird. Must be a new troll technique..copy something from some esoteric site and then add some non-sensical, grammatically incorrect garbage around it. You know I am actually flattered. When you become the target of trolls, you know your making some very cogent arguments that MUST be addressed. Thanks.

DaPicayune| 3.23.11 @ 3:41PM

Incorrect Rupert. Congressional laws remain in force as law, unless and until they are ruled "unconstitutional" by the USSC.

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 5:13PM

Thank you DaPicayune.

Ted| 3.23.11 @ 5:50PM

Or until they are repealed by a later Congress.

John Navratil| 3.23.11 @ 3:02PM

simon templar,

My attitude has absolutely nothing to do with what is wrong with the country.

Impeachment needs to result in a conviction in the Senate to worth anything. If the Congress wishes to impeach Obama, that is their perogative. If you think he should be impeached, contact your Congressman. I happen to think it is a fools errand and that we have more important things to accomplish than to waste time in what I consider to be a fruitless endeavour. You are free to disagree with me, but I will not suggest that what because you do that you are what is wrong with the country.

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 3:39PM

Your attitude is problematic. It is not a fools errand. Yes, it will probably not happen. It is not the conviction that I seek or expect but the respect and integrity to a constitutional Republic that is sorely needed and required if we ever expect this nation to be one of laws and not men. If we used your rule of action based on the fruitless endeavor concept, most of us would not get out of bed in the morning let alone attempt to stop Obamacare or any of the other givens. The Tea party would have never formed nor would they have wasted any time with the fruitless and improbable idea that they could make history and sweep hundreds of truly conservative candidates into offices from governorships to the Congress. You need to reevaluate your underlying attitude here. I did not base my criticism of your attitude and thinking on one post but rather read all of your comments. I have lived long enough to recognize it; particularly when I have seen that same thinking in myself when I was much younger. I am not saying you as a person is what is wrong with this country but rather this attitude and thinking that all of us have had at some point. My apologies for sounding otherwise. The bottom line is you are free to think what you like....as I.

John Navratil| 3.23.11 @ 5:03PM

simon templar,

Thanks, but like the prosecutor who has to manage limited resources and chooses which cases to plead, which to drop and which to hit hard, we are similarly faced with limited resources and some serious problems to address.

We are still fighting continuing budget resolutions for a government which is out of control. With infinite resources, I'd say get after impeachment and let the chips fall where they may.

If history is any guide and Kucinich got the impeachment ball rolling this very afternoon, we would be three months before a trial in the Senate if we dropped just about everything else being done (it consumed the lame-duck session after the '98 mid-terms). So, maybe, if nothing else were pressing the House could spend all of next month preparing articles of impeachment. Do we really have time for that when we don't have a budget? OK, so we make time have a trial and even succeed and in July or August, Joe Biden is President.

What did we get? An object lesson? Who is to learn it? Obama? - certainly not. We don't change the Senate and we don't change the veto pen so needed legislation isn't made easier, it is just delayed. Then we have the relatively unscarred Biden ready to take the nomination in 2012 with a greater chance of carrying the election than the increasingly unpopular Obama. No gain there. Now if, as I expect, the Senate fails to convict we have a vindicated Obama. Spin it anyway you like, with a Republican controlled House, the Republicans will be blamed for persecuting Obama.

My underlying attitude isn't that Obama shouldn't be impeached. It's that through an unfortunate set of circumstances we do not have the resources to see it done with everything else on our plate. Then I see no upside and tremendous downside risk.

We cannot fight every battle. Let's pick the ones that will give us the greatest good. It's a question of priorities, not principal.

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 5:19PM

You make an excellent argument. I still believe that a gesture or attempt to at least confront this violation must be made even if you are correct. To overlook this has many dire consequences as well. We need to consider them. Perhaps there is a middle way to all of this whereby we do not use too much time, energy, etc. as you have stated?

John Navratil| 3.23.11 @ 5:49PM

Perhaps so. The ball is in Congress' court.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.23.11 @ 11:20AM

How can a country who chooses what laws to enforce, for instance, illegal immigration laws, be expected to follow any laws?

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 12:50PM

Bill, I do not know..it seems all subjective..you know??? I mean what are illegal immigrants? Can we even define it? It is all so subjective, you know. Really, do we have the strength to do anything about it? Besides there might be someone out there that thinks there should not be any laws and everyone is entitled to free pancakes. What are we to do? Oh, well, I am tired. I think I will go out and see if I can get a new man bag and my nails done.

The Bruce| 3.24.11 @ 1:46AM

Simon:

Illegal immigrant = any individual that entered the country illegally. Pretty easy, huh? Not subjective at all.

Or did some screaming sarcasm just fly right over my head?

winterhawk| 3.23.11 @ 11:33AM

This criminal regime residing in the Whitehouse is a disgrace to America.

The Woz| 3.23.11 @ 11:45AM

"In pursuing our national self-interest it is sometimes necessary for the President to act without Congressional authorization, to prevent an immediate danger."

Mr. Crisler, if you can provide me with an example of how a nascent civil war in Libya is an "immediate danger" to the United States then I will reconsider your argument.

John Navratil| 3.23.11 @ 12:11PM

The Woz,

I'm playing devil's advocate here.

Gadaffi is known to have been involved in terror attacks against the U.S. through attacks on its citizens abroad. He is under attack and is expected to lash out at Americans again. The solution is to keep him in a bottle or remove him from power to prevent that from happening.

I'm not asking you to believe it, and I'm not agreeing with Crisler's ultimate conclusion, but this is the level of subjectivity which provides cover for Obama's actions.

Now consider the opposite case where the CinC's actions are well defined under the law. There can be no immediate response to any evolving threat not specifically covered. This gets back to the situation the Founder's specifically did not want of having to wait for Congressional action when immediacy was required.

I disagree with Obama's policy and that is why we have elections.

Occam's Tool| 3.23.11 @ 3:19PM

Query---why is a rebellion led by the Muslim Brotherhood superior to Q, Woz? Please, seriously, I'm willing to be convinced.

John Navratil| 3.23.11 @ 4:34PM

Occam's Tool,

Was that question for me? If so, you hit on another problem with this action. I would like nothing better than the fall of Gadaffi, but we really don't know whom we are supporting. It's a case of the enemy of my enemy being my friend. We could be be disappointed. On the other hand, the rebels I've seen in news reports are, at least, making the right noises.

Still, defecting Gadaffi generals are, in my opinion, the likely front-runners for the next leader. Their resume's are likely suspect. We will have to see.

Butch | 3.23.11 @ 6:22PM

Jackpot! That's the $64 dollar question, Occam. Best possible outcome: we stay out, Q maybe gets killed, rebels learn the lesson that cooperating with the Muslim Brotherhood will get you killed.

John Navratil| 3.23.11 @ 12:12PM

The Woz,

I'm playing devil's advocate here.

I'm not asking you to believe it, and I'm not agreeing with Crisler's ultimate conclusion, but this is the level of subjectivity which provides cover for Obama's actions.

I disagree with Obama's policy and that is why we have elections.

RCV| 3.23.11 @ 11:53AM

What sheer unadultrated nonsense! Where were all these conservative constituionalists when President Reagan invaded Grenada with US ground troops without a congressional declaration of war? What partisan hypocrisy!

John Navratil| 3.23.11 @ 2:55PM

I don't know what assumptions you need to make that my facts are correct. A quick review of history will corroborate them.

But, I do not defend Obama because of what Reagan did, although I do think it is an easier job to claim the Grenada operation was an imminent threat than this operation in Libya. After all, the Cubans were building a 9000 foot runway at the south end of the island for the Russians in the midst of the cold war. It wasn't for crop dusters, that's for sure. Any comparison of that runway with others in the region gives the lie to the argument that it was necessary for commercial air travel in support of tourism.

My argument with Obama isn't that he is there. I happen to think it IS in our national interest that Gaddafi be deposed as he is responsible for the murder of American citizens on several occasions. You are free, as many do, to disagree with me. My complaint is that he did it on UN say-so without so much as a hat tip to the co-equal branch of government which shares responsibility for our military actions. We didn't elect a king. Reagan's actions, while unpopular abroad, did have broad support at home. The U.S. invasion is also celebrated in Grenada. If the U.S. and Grenada both welcomed that action, I don't know that anyone else has much to say on the point.

W| 3.23.11 @ 6:09PM

John, my questions were to rcv, but good comment

John Navratil| 3.23.11 @ 12:13PM

RCV,

I have to agree, but at least there was a Communist revolution underway and American medical students on the island.

W| 3.23.11 @ 12:46PM

Assuming for the sake of argument your are correct, does that justify Obama getting us into this war? especially when obama campaigned that he would end the iraq and afghan wars? so your defense to obama's undeclared war is that reagan also did it. you cannot defend what obama did on the merits of what obama did?

John Navratil| 3.23.11 @ 2:55PM

Oops, my misuse of this system has my response to you, above.

John Navratil| 3.23.11 @ 12:15PM

RCV,

By the way, I was in Grenada fifteen years ago and you wouldn't have believed the American flags painted as murals on just about every available wall. They were, to a man, grateful for American intervention.

PolishKnight| 3.23.11 @ 1:03PM

Here's an answer to your question, RCV from the wikipedia page:

"British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher personally opposed the U.S. invasion, and her Foreign Secretary, Geoffrey Howe, announced to the British House of Commons on the day before the invasion that he had no knowledge of any possible U.S. intervention."

So conservatives aren't all thinking in lockstep after all!

Obama is a particular pickle since he had just campaigned and even won a peace prize after bashing GW's "illegal" wars and getting bogged down in the middle east. He's really stepped in it!

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 1:21PM

Reagan was certainly justified as a communist revolution on an island near the US is certainly a imminent threat especially when it is is sponsored by the Soviet Union and Cuba, our enemies. As far as not following the procedures required for taking fast action by a President you are correct. It seems that every president, including Reagan, since the 1973 law was passed has not completely followed the law and process. So, shall we just ignore it? When will it be upheld? So..I guess the idea is if we can not get every person in the world to be perfect and always act with integrity there is no point in having any expectations that we have any laws and that we should expect them to be followed. Hey, while were at it..let's just throw the whole g&&^^damn constitution away...it can not be upheld and we just do not have enough partisan integrity anyway.

RCV| 3.23.11 @ 1:28PM

We can at least be honest about the partisan nature of the attack on Obama.

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 1:52PM

This is not partisan! This is one of the rare occasions I find myself and other conservatives on the same page as Kusinich, John Stewart, Ralph Nader, and Paul Rand. As far as Party response, the GOP establishment and the DNC have been completely silent. Labeling it as a partisan attack implies it it somekind of biased, lame, unwarranted criticism. This guy's own words have condemned him...he campaigned on this central issue. If you are looking for vast hypocricy and partisan attack take a look at the last 10 years of unbelieveable slander, lies, political distortion coming out the progressive democratic party. People are still under the lie that Bush ran an illegal war and did not follow the War act when he did consult congress, followed the 1973 law, proceeded with multi-lateral support, military objectives, and DID not rush to war.

Nunya| 3.23.11 @ 1:56PM

RCV,

There is obviously some partisanship here, but it's people in his own party that are calling for his impeachment!! It's obviously not just we conservatives that are outraged by his actions.

Also, please note that my Mom never let me get away with "Well, my friends have all done it!", so I see no reason to excuse Obozo just because others in his position have abused their power as well.

Steve A| 3.23.11 @ 3:06PM

Sure RCV, The Left is launching vicious, unfair, partisan attacks against our corageous, young, charismatic, genius President.

Ted| 3.23.11 @ 5:56PM

Honest about the partisan nature of the attack on President Obama? Hardly. If anything, it is a BI-PARTISAN attack on him.

In case you missed it, it was Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) leading the charge and declaring what the President did an impeachable offense.

Rupert| 3.23.11 @ 2:12PM

Simon,
That guy Habu clobbered you yesterday by quoting the judiciability of the laws the Supremes can touch on. You keep flogging away at that mule you're on and you'll grow hair on your tongue.
War is considered a political question according to yesterday and the Supremes don't do political question between government branches.

You're doing the cha-cha alone. Take a pill.

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 2:37PM

"War is considered a political question according to yesterday and the Supremes don't do political question between government branches."

Are you sure you do not need a pill? You just contradicted yourself and supported my viewpoint. Clobber me? LOL. I am alone? Get real. TAS is in complete agreement with my views. It is an illegal war. Period. I never said the supreme court determines or should be involved in making determinations or clarifications of the War powers Act or war itself. That was the idiot troll, habu's claim. In fact, the supreme court refused to get involved when Reagan was accused and sued for violating it. The court refused to speak about the issue and told congress that this was their responsibility and their issue to deal with. The president is responsible to the representatives of the people, the Congress. It has the last say about war. Look it up. By the way, is habu your constitutional lawyer? Habu is just another idiot liberal troll like you. You crashed this party and were not invited..so get lost...you can skip over to the Huff and Puff and give your affirmative action president all the tingles over there.

Rupert| 3.23.11 @ 11:17PM

SI-mon" The president is responsible to the representatives of the people, the Congress"

You are one messed up guy/gal/person.

You still don't understand that the three branches are co equal.

In point of fact the prez is the ONLY person elected by all the people. The Reps have little districts they get to reprersent. So who should answer to who?

simon templar| 3.26.11 @ 2:09PM

The three barnches are co-equal in the sense of the seperation of powers and the system of checks and balances. This does not imply an equal power game and three seperate branches wherby any one of them can do whatever the hell they want to do. The congress has been given the last say when it comes to wars. When I say the president is responsible to congress I do not mean he works for them. The President has a host of other functions and responsibilities defined under the executive branch. The congress represents the people..that's what a republic is. That's why they call it the House of Representatives. This congress represents the will of the people. This congress is given the authority to impeach a president if necessary, overule his veto, unfund his wars, advise and consent required for nominations, and on and on. He does not have absolute power as you like him to have even in matters of war. He must recognize the role and responsibilty of Congress as the final arbitrator in many cases pertaining to government action that falls under their purview. To whatever extent anyone answers to anyone, the president must "answer" to congress.

Occam's Tool| 3.23.11 @ 3:22PM

A minor difference, RCV, which I know from personal experience.

A friend of mine was a Med student in Grenada when Reagan intervened. He was my senior resident on my medicine rotation at UCLA during my internship. He told me that American lives, like his own, were definitely in danger. Assume he's not lying, and I don't think he was (I know he was a medical student there; I'm talking about the danger). Then the imminent danger to US Citizen's clause of the War Powers Act would apply, yes? Your area of expertise; I'm supplying motivation.

Occam's Tool| 3.23.11 @ 3:23PM

Sorry, US Citizens; no apostrophe. Oops. Honestly, I'm interested in your opinion on this one.

DaPicayune| 3.23.11 @ 4:19PM

RCV: Granada requested US assistance from Reagan, MG in Libya did not. There was an immediate threat to US Medical students in Granda, plus the issue of the Monroe Doctrine, which we enforced for years during the Cold War against the spread of Communism in the Americas. POTUS Reagan did confer with the Senate/House leadership in private in the Oval Office ( as he should have) to inform and seek Congressional approval of his war powers execution, PRIOR to launch.

Try again. BOgus, by his own admission, acted upon authority of the UN SC to enforce their Soros sponsored concept of R2P, a pernicious concept that violates the UN Charter not to interfere within a Sovereign Nation's internal affairs. BOgus spurned the War Powers Resolution requirement to seek Congressional approval prior to committing US Armed Forces to war actions against Libya, which presented No immanent threat what so ever to US interests. Our Golfer-N-Chief will twist himself into knots trying to explain his immanent threat definitions. The best place to see this take place would be a trial of Impeachment in the House where the evidence will be publicized for all voters to consider, as the Liberal Legacy media will not perform this duty.

Worse, BOgus now intends to place the command of US Armed Forces under foreign military authorities - an invitation for massive screw-ups and loss of American forces. Go see "Behind Enemy Lines" to get an idea of where this leads, as the movie is based on an actual incident under POTUS Clinton.

We have to date since 3/19/11, one US F-15E down and a bomb threat in Paris today. If this continues, BOgus' poll #'s will fall quickly, and rightly so! He is clueless and incoherent, so far, and I predict more of the same. But do feel free to defend his actions all you like, the whole world is now watching.

The Bruce| 3.24.11 @ 1:52AM

RCV... let's see. I was thirteen. So most likely I wasn't paying attention to anything but that piece of tail walking in front of me.

I might also have been burning ants with a magnifying glass, too.

Sparky| 3.23.11 @ 11:54AM

It seems the participants in this military operation (and most commentators) have only a glancing acquaintance with the Security Council resolution which authorized it. The substantive provisions of the resolution are written in neutral terms. The resolution "demands" that both the Libyan government and the rebels immediately cease all hostilities. It authorizes member states to take all necessary measures to protect civilian populated areas under threat of attack from either the government or the rebels. It establishes a no-fly zone to protect civilians from both the government and the rebels. In short, the goal of the resolution is to freeze the combatants on both sides in place so that representatives from the UN and the African Union can facilitate "dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution."

John Navratil| 3.23.11 @ 12:24PM

Sparky,

What the resolution says is interesting but not germane. The topic is whether or not Obama acted constitutionally regardless of the text of the resolution.

I'm actually in an odd spot. I agree with our being there, don't agree with how we got there, don't think Obama (for whom I have no love) overstepped his authority, but don't think we are properly committed (we should be all in or all out).

Of course, I could just be confused.

JmsA| 3.23.11 @ 1:57PM

Pie in the sky, Sparky.

Sparky| 3.23.11 @ 3:33PM

I'm not endorsing the resolution, just pointing out what is says. What the resolution says is germane because the contrast between its text and the apparent goals of the participants in this operation is breeding discord. The US constitutional issue is a red herring.

Ted| 3.23.11 @ 5:59PM

"The US constitutional issue is a red herring."

It's only a "red herring" to Leftists who don't care about the Constitution in the first place.

Bill| 3.23.11 @ 12:08PM

"President Obama says it's to stop Col. Gaddafi from killing civilians. But how can he stop Gaddafi's men from going into homes and killing people except by putting a Marine detachment into each of Libya's roughly five million homes? He cannot do that with F-15's flying at Mach 2 two miles above the ground. But he's promised he won't send in ground troops."

So true; so where are the lefties crying out endlessly at the top of their lungs, "Obama lied! People died!"? I mean, Obama really DID lie, about this, didn't he? He had to have, right?

Yosemeti Sam| 3.23.11 @ 12:26PM

BHO has it in his mind that he's gifted in trapeze.

Ohhhhh, he swings through the air with the greatest of ease - the tease!

But where, oh where, is his safety net now?

LOL.

Bill Diebold| 3.23.11 @ 12:33PM

Abbott and Costello actually were the originators of the "Who's on First" routine and it would appear that Homer Biden, Spanky Obumer and Hillery the penis master are merely copycat criminals. This triumvert should set back the lefty loon cause for decades...go spanky!!!

Bill Sundling| 3.23.11 @ 1:02PM

Obama is still commander- in-chief. It's not an illegal war. Given how the left likes to say that, it's unfortunate for a conservative to use the same tactic as the left.

Wayne | 3.23.11 @ 1:11PM

War is the responsibility of CONGRESS. So yes this is an illegal war.

Bill| 3.23.11 @ 3:15PM

Under circumstances where there is time for the President to consult with Congress about going to war, he must do so. So yes, this little adventure in imperial presidency is unconstitutional.

Jack London| 3.23.11 @ 1:13PM

If this is illegal, what were your heroes Reagan and GW Bush doing with Iran-Contra and Iraq?

Steve A| 3.23.11 @ 1:28PM

Jack, Your question is so shallow & silly it makes me feel sorry for you, seriously. Bush went to congress for approval. Iran-Contra was covert. Yes even Obama is worse than those 2. Sorry you still want to get on your knees for him.

Mike D.| 3.23.11 @ 1:40PM

Steve, you can explain this to these leftist nutjobs over and over, and they just ignore it. Bush went to congress, to congress, to congress.

MikeBee| 3.23.11 @ 1:33PM

Jack,
Iran-Contra was not a war in which U.S. soldiers were involved. Reagan simply backed the Contras in their attempt to overthrow their Communist rulers (there was war in Nicaragua; the U.S. did not send troops there). He got his hand slapped for his funding scheme to aid the Contras.

Secondly, GW Bush did nothing with Iran. I assume you meant Iraq. GW Bush secured the approval of Congress BEFORE going to war in Iraq, as did his father before him.

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 1:55PM

Thank you MikeB..finally someone with a memory and a functioning brain. Sincerely, thank you.

Rupert| 3.23.11 @ 2:40PM

Then why did Lt.Col Oliver North and his staff get into Iran Contra trouble. Oh yeah they turned into Japanese soldiers I forgot. And wasn't he seconded to the NSC at the time? Righteous dog.

MikeBee| 3.23.11 @ 3:00PM

Rupert,
Ollie got in trouble for his part in executing Reagan's funding scheme, which had been declared illegal by a Democrat Congress. U.S. soldiers were not deployed in Nicaragua; CIA agents were active on the ground there, but no troops.

Rupert| 3.23.11 @ 11:19PM

So CIA ops are cool for the prez to OK?

MikeBee| 3.24.11 @ 9:36AM

CIA ops have been taking place all over the world, in various places, since the agency's inception. They are a spying organization. CIA agents operate clandestinely, behind the scenes, trying to gather information which can be beneficial to the U.S. Hopefully, CIA agents know about the outbreak of a war well in advance. They don't do any fighting; they are spy ops. This is their life mission; those rulers of this country (citizens) who join the CIA are aware of their mission and activities, and choose to live a higher-risk life.

The issue this article brings up is the use by the President of land, sea, or air troops to kill people and break things (war). There is nothing clandestine about troops; they wear uniforms identifying them as U.S. soldiers, and their actions are very noticeable. In order for a President to command troops to perform acts of war, this must first be approved by Congress. Obama has commanded the troops to kill people and break things (war actions) WITHOUT even approaching Congress.

DRed| 3.23.11 @ 3:01PM

What Reagan did was sell arms to terrorists. But it was such a good deal they were able to use the profits to illegally fund the Contras in direct contravention of congress. But yes, it wasn't a war.

And the Bushes definitely had congressional approval for their foreign adventures. As far as I can tell, Obama has followed the war powers act, so I don't think you can say that this war (is it even a war?) is illegal. I have no idea what our goals are, or who we're trying to help, so it's likely it's a bad idea, but it's certainly not clearly illegal, like some of you seem to think it is.

RWinks| 3.23.11 @ 5:11PM

Reagan approved the sale of arms (primarily spare parts) to Iran. This was not illegal though against publicly stated policy. The Iranians were charged well above cost and the profits were used to arm the Contras. Congress appropriated no funds for such purposes but these "profits" didn't come from the Treasury making their legality a gray area.

The Congressional prohibitions against aid to the Contras were an on again/off again affair, so the aid was or wasn't illegal depending on when it took place.

The Bruce| 3.24.11 @ 1:59AM

DRed, regarding the War Powers Act, it allows the president to take us to war if we are attacked or if an attack is imminent. Do you honestly believe that Libya was about to attack us? Not to be insulting, but how many times must this dead horse be beaten.

A facepalm is in order.

JmsA| 3.23.11 @ 2:00PM

Absent Iran-Contra, Nicaragua the Lord knows who else, would be communist countries.

Occam's Tool| 3.23.11 @ 3:25PM

Jack, were you aware of the biological world war against China in 1976, The Unparallelled Invasion?

Steve A| 3.23.11 @ 1:18PM

Tthe solution here is simple.

On the one hand you have Quadaffy Duck & his band of merry opressors. On the other hand, we now disciover, you have the Al Qaeda influenced rebels.

So, you quickly determine that both factions are equally deserving of tomahawks. Create a no fly, no tank, no drive, no shoot zone & zap all fo the participants in the conflict.

I, frankly, am flat out tired of the Middle East. I am tired of our sons & daughters sacrificing for these fools. I am tired of my tax $$ going over there. I am tired of worrying about it, thinking about it & hearing about it. I could frankly care less what some a**hole in a tent in Tripoli, Cairo, Baghdad or anywhere else over there thinks or does. I don't care if his or her government tortures them, keeps them from voting, going to school, cuts out their tongue or mutilates them sexually according to some idiotic, savage religious code or standard. These people can figure it out for themselves. They do not appreciate our efforts & despise our culture. If they choose to mess with us or our citizens in any way shape or form, in any venue on Earth, I would completely obliterate their memory from the face of the Earth with any means at our disposal. Done with it.

Trinacria| 3.23.11 @ 1:19PM

By the way, is it just me, or does it not seem that someone might have mentioned to the President of the United States that the operational name (Odyssey Dawn) selected for the military intervention he has described as very short in duration and limited in scope means precisely the OPPOSITE of limited and short duration?

Odyssey, n. (od•ys•sey): a long wandering or journey usually marked by many changes of fortune. (Merriam-Webster)

Drunken Sailor| 3.23.11 @ 2:54PM

Well, they got the "wandering" part right. Just look at their objectives.

Claypoole| 3.23.11 @ 3:39PM

Odyssey Dawn--sounds like a stripper.

Paul McGrath| 3.23.11 @ 7:35PM

And Dawn, obviously, is symbolic of a beginning. So, we're at the beginning of a long journey, and boy, does that ever ring true.

Wayne | 3.23.11 @ 1:20PM

The same logic to invade Libya can be used right now to invade Pakistan, Iran and North Korea. Do we really want to give the right to do this to a loose canon like Obama? He did not think this through and the future is completely unknowable. And how conservatives can support it is beyond me.

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 1:40PM

You are absolutely correct. Conservatives, however, do not support these invasions without congressional support and the will of the people. I do not believe that conservatives per se are against a President who feels the need to take quick action under the 1973 act. The argument here is we can not find even the slightest justification, military objective, and military plan. The sheer arrogance, incompetence, and lack of prudence in this situation is amazing and unlike any other misteps of previous presidents, democrat or republican. The few defending the impostor are frigin trolls. The last few months this site has seen dozens posing as TAS readers and conservatives. Let's not forget conservatives and republicans are not one in the same as well.

Wayne | 3.24.11 @ 1:55PM

As proof on 38 percent of independents support this war, while some 58 percent of republicans do. This is why I remain independent.

Drunken Sailor| 3.23.11 @ 2:55PM

The same logic to invade Libya can be used right now to invade Pakistan, Iran and North Korea.

Let's not leave out the Gaza Strip and Hamas

Wayne | 3.24.11 @ 1:56PM

And if Soros has his way, Israel.

MikeBee| 3.23.11 @ 1:24PM

Obama sending troops into harm's way in Libya without congressional approval is a telling display of the difference in definition of "Ruler of the U.S." on the Left from that on the Right. Who is(are) the ruler(s) of the United States? The traditional (and constitutional) answer to this question is that all U.S. citizens are the rulers of this country. This reality is reflected in the U.S. Constitution's requirements for proceeding to war, and reinforced in the War Powers Act. If every citizen is a ruler of this country, and if every citizen ruler who serves in the military does so voluntarily, then no President has the power to send these rulers of the country into harms way without the permission of their immediate representative in Congress. Senators have no say in this; they are too far removed from the people. The Congress is given the responsibility for declaring war on another nation, as they are the closest representatives to the people (the true rulers of this country), and are, therefore, most responsible to them.

However, those on the Left have a very different view of the ruler(s) of this country. The Left believes that the POTUS is the de facto ruler of the United States. Senators are lesser "rulers," and Congressmen/women even lesser still. The Left believes that the process of electing the President, Senators, and Representatives is simply the people choosing who would be the best ruler over them. B.O. obviously carries this contorted view. He has acted alone in placing the rulers of this country in harms way. He obviously believes that, as supreme Ruler of this country, this is his responsibility, and that the people must go along (obey) with his decision, since they elected him the "Ruler."

It is time that the true Rulers of this country, through their elected Representatives in Congress, impeach this President for violating their trust, and for violating his oath of office (note that impeachment proceedings also begin in Congress, as do declarations of war). Both actions, impeachment and war declarations, were seen by the Founders as imperative that they both begin as close to the people (the Rulers) as possible.

What will win today in this match? Will we be a country with one, supreme Ruler who tells its citizens what they are to do, or will we continue to be a country ruled by its citizens?

A. Reasoner| 3.23.11 @ 1:26PM

Thought experiment:
G.W. Bush bombs Libya just as Obama has, without consulting Congress, using the same lame rationale, and no clear goals or exit strategies.

What would all the presidential apologists say then?

Methinks they would not be apologizing, but howling at Bush's cowbot recklessness.

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 2:04PM

You are damn right! That why he was so careful in making sure he followed the rules. Now, you can agree or disagree with the involvements in retrospect and some of the military and political misteps but it is clear he did not do this with arrogance and pure imprudence. He gave everyone a chance to say their peace. He took all the criticism on the chin. If Bush had done this, they would have impeached him in 2006. You know it, I know it.

DaPicayune| 3.23.11 @ 4:49PM

"and no clear goals or exit strategies." Hell, BOgus and Hil even lack a cogent "Entrance" strategy after weeks of dithering, and as a result, are now "doing it on the fly" according to our Sec of Defense, Gates, and their supposed, much ballyhooed "coalition of the willing", a'int so willing, after the fact of commencing hostilities, UN or no UN sanctions, right Sarkozy? Key Stone Cops, or Three Stooges, can this event get any more preposterous?

But hey, BOgus is racking up brownie points with the UN right, is that his true objective here? Makes sense to me, but, you just got to love MSNBC's efforts these days to defend this clusterXXXX!

A. Reasoner| 3.23.11 @ 1:33PM

I also have to say that this looks like Obama was duped into this feckless action by someone (a) to make the USA look like a mercurial callous cowboy regime, (b) to humiliate Obama, since there is no clear exit strategy or doctrinal rationale, and (c) to tie the USA into another costly and distracting military engagement.

The other option is that Boy One-der knew that it would fail and make the USA squander its cred, its treasure, and its energy on a lost-cause because he is simply out to destroy us. He hates the USA, and his "world tour vacations" are merely his shopping for another country to move to after his tenure as POTUS ru(i)ns the table.

Brandon| 3.23.11 @ 1:33PM

While I agree that bombing Libya is an odd decision by the president, I think the argument that his actions are illegal are:

1:Partisan
2:Ignorant

There is so much precedent for US presidents taking similar actions in our history that to argue that he's making some kind of illegal maneuver is really just an odd statement. As far as the War Powers act, I would argue that it is unconstitutional.

Wayne | 3.23.11 @ 1:36PM

Please list the similar actions?

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 2:08PM

Yeah, while you are at it..get rid of the constitution itself, I find it unconstitutional.
Liberalism is a mental disorder. Troll it out of here. Go out and buy yourself a new man bag.

hamilton lucas| 3.23.11 @ 2:38PM

Liberal isn't a bad word.

Google "define: liberal" and you'll find:

broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"

having political or social views favoring reform and progress

tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition

a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties

Sounds horrifying, doesn't it?

Drunken Sailor| 3.23.11 @ 2:57PM

Ahh yes, the classical definition. Unfortunatley the 20th century definition is

Liberal: Progressive Statist.

hamilton lucas| 3.23.11 @ 4:30PM

Pssst. We're in the 21st century, pal. And the definition hasn't changed.

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 5:28PM

Psst. Yes, it has. Ask Pat Cadelle and any other Jack Kennedy liberal alive....If Kennedy were alive today, he and Reagan would be in the same party. In fact, a whole book was written about this transformation of liberalism. You might find it interesting. "Liberal Fascism", by Jonah Goldberg. Get a copy...educate yourself to your true history.

hamilton lucas| 3.23.11 @ 6:05PM

I'll check it out. Thanks for the suggestion.

Butch | 3.23.11 @ 6:33PM

Liberal--somebody who will dig out the old "dictionary definition of liberal" and think its persuasive.

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 2:17PM

Oh, and Brandon, your Messiah just happens to vehemently disagree with you. He was BIG supporter of the War Powers Act when he falsely accused Bush of waging an illegal war throughout his election campaign. Just because other presidents have pushed the envelope and have taken similar actions does not make it any less illegal or unacceptable. I find that to be an odd statement and rather childish thinking. So, who is partisan and ignorant, eh? Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Occam's Tool| 3.23.11 @ 3:26PM

Partisan? The leading proponent of Obama's impeachment is KUCINICH.

Rupert| 3.23.11 @ 2:26PM

Simon ,
But Dog , if we are going to argue legalities then we must say that the final word on that belongs to the Supremes,right? I mean isn't that what they do? Say what is constitutionall and unconstitutional?
So why do you argue legalities when the law says what the Supremes can touch. Here's a reminder from yesterday dog. The last sentence please focus on
• The court must not be asked to resolve a political question.[6]o Political questions involve matters where there is: "a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department" (meaning that the Constitution requires another branch of government to resolve questions regarding the issue); or "a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it."o Political questions include such things as whether the nation is 'at war' with another country, or whether the U.S. Senate has properly "tried" an impeached federal officer.

hamilton lucas| 3.23.11 @ 2:34PM

Hey forum,

I brought this up yesterday and I didn't receive any response that makes sense of the situation.

Obama not only contacted and got approval from congress beforehand, but congress actually implored him to do something. Check it out:

http://voices.washingtonpost.c.....ution.html

That was reported on the first of March. As in, over three weeks ago.

It clearly states,
"(5) welcomes the unanimous vote of the United Nations Security Council on resolution 1970 referring the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court; imposing an arms embargo on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; freezing the assets of Qadhafi and family members; and banning international travel by Qadhafi, members of his family, and senior advisors;"

and also

"(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;"

Voted and passed unanimously.

I could be wrong, but isn't S. RES. 85 all the congressional approval Obama needed?

hamilton lucas| 3.23.11 @ 2:53PM

I think the crickets speak wonders.

Steve A| 3.23.11 @ 3:12PM

hamilton, I suppose you should inform Kusinich & the other 8 Democratic House members that they forgot Obama cleared it with them before they proceed with Impeachment hearings. Must be a mass memory lapse.

hamilton lucas| 3.23.11 @ 4:01PM

Will do :)

Not all members need to be present to hold a vote, so it's possible they weren't there.

hamilton lucas| 3.23.11 @ 4:17PM

Oh duh. There was no house vote :D

Occam's Tool| 3.23.11 @ 3:27PM

A no-fly zone would not have pro-active air-ground missions, HL. Am I correct, forum?

hamilton lucas| 3.23.11 @ 4:17PM

I would agree with that, OT.

What kind of information have you found so far about air-ground missions? The only way I could see this as justifiable if if the ground target would help to impose a no-fly zone (satellites, airports, etc).

John Navratil| 3.23.11 @ 3:36PM

hamilton,

This is a senate resolution. The House is not involved.

Resolution (7) urges action on the part of the U.N. but says absolutely nothing about authorizing U.S. military action.

No soap!

hamilton lucas| 3.23.11 @ 4:14PM

Hi John,

I agree - this is a senate resolution, the house has yet to pass similar legislation but under the WPR the executive branch has 60 days for this to happen, and then a 30 day period to withdraw if it doesn't. So - still no failure on the part of Obama in adhering to the law. If anything, the house is just a bit slow (haha - imagine that).

We are a member of the UNSC.
The senate urges the UNSC "to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory". The UNSC also voted yes.
We used military action to impose a no-fly zone.

How is this not authorization of military action? What would you have it rather read?
Would this have been better?
"(7) urges the United Nations Security Council (and its member countries, including the US) to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory using military action;"

John Navratil| 3.23.11 @ 4:29PM

hamilton lucas,

If you read what I have written elsewhere on this page, I do not think Obama has overstepped his authority, although I think he has overused it. My first post stated that now it's Congress' turn to act.

Obviously, your rewrite of (7) would have been better, but a resolution and the lack of House action still doesn't count for very much in the authorization department.

I repeat myself, but the UN does not control our military and to go to war on their say-so without the support of Congress is what really pains me. But, I have less than zero respect for that organization.

hamilton lucas| 3.23.11 @ 4:40PM

Thanks for your response. This makes your opinion very clear - and it's a logical opinion to have.

DRed| 3.23.11 @ 5:43PM

All you need to know about the UN is that Libya recently got done with a stint as the chair of the human rights commission. However, we didn't go to war on their say so. We could have, for example, simply vetoed the resolution calling for the no-fly zone. We are using the UN as cover for our actions, to make them more palatable to the rest of the world.

John Navratil| 3.23.11 @ 8:00PM

DRed,

We aren't using the UN for cover. Obama is.

One thing you have to say for the French, they don't feel such a compulsion.

hamilton lucas| 3.23.11 @ 5:00PM

In response to my Letter to the Editor:

Mr. Lucas:

Thanks for your note. As I understand, the resolution that passed in Congress was nonbinding and thus had no real constitutional standing. In any case, it wasn't a response to any request from the president. This was discussed some by James Taranto yesterday in his Best of the Web Today column yesterday at the Wall Street Journal's website (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704461304576216760962540454.html).

Best regards,

Wlady Pleszczynski
Editorial Director
The American Spectator

MikeBee| 3.24.11 @ 9:50AM

H.L.,
As others have also pointed out, the link you provide is a link to a Senate Resolution. In it, the Senate has given their weight to the UN using military force to enforce a no-fly zone.

But, by the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Act, the Senate does NOT have a say in the deployment of U.S.troops. It is up to the U.S. Congress, made up of the elected representatives who are the closest to the people (the true rulers of this country), to authorize the use of these citizen-soldiers to perform war actions. Obama has ignored the Congress. It doesn't matter a hoot what the U.S. Senate says. They cannot authorize the deployment of U.S. troops. The President can't, either, without the permission of Congress.

Rupert| 3.23.11 @ 2:35PM

Fredo,
Your answer smack.
• The court must not be asked to resolve a political question.[6]o Political questions involve matters where there is: "a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department" (meaning that the Constitution requires another branch of government to resolve questions regarding the issue); or "a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it."o Political questions include such things as whether the nation is 'at war' with another country, or whether the U.S. Senate has properly "tried" an impeached federal officer.

Heartache bro, real heartache the Supremes won't touch "at war " issues between Congress and Prez. since it be a political issue.political issue ,not legal issue political isssue. That's the Supremes talk'n smack Fredo

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 3:56PM

Whoever you are..my lord are you wacked. Are you taking drugs? Your sentences lack any coherence let alone grammar and punctuation. If you are somehow implying that the claim that the POTUS action was not illegal but a political question because the supreme court is not involved, then you are being ridiculous. Idiocy. The laws of the land are created by congress. Break one and it becomes a question of illegality. Act in a manner that is in contradiction of law and you have completed an illegal act. Fredo? Here we go again.

Fredo| 3.23.11 @ 4:18PM

SI-mon,
Fredo takes issue with your answer. Can you explain how if the prez has broken the law (many have over the 36 years) that it has never come up before the court?
Seems like the court is saying it ain't a legit law but a rebuff to Nixon after Watergate,nothing moe ,nothing less. And that be the time when congress had been in control of the donkeys for 46+years. The Supremes are looking the other way because it is a political fight and not judiciable. Do you under stand that concept and the politics of the Whoa Powa Ax?

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 5:56PM

It has jackass and the name fits. Reagan was sued for the same perceived violation. It was brought to the supreme court. Your ignorance, arrogance, and smugness is astounding. Oh, I am sorry..you are a liberal. Or is it progressive, now? Seems like dem courts think it ain't a legit law? My God, you liberals are mentally disturbed. Everything need not come up to a court to be considered breaking the law, you moron.

Rupert| 3.23.11 @ 4:11PM

SI-mon,
Something like this was asked yesterday and you didn't answer. Can you? Will you?

Who has the "football" near him at ALL times?

Who gives the nuclear launch order?

Does he have to gather congress to debate retaliation while we get nuked?

Why is he given this absolute ultimate authority all by hisself? Why he could blow up the world without the Whoa Powa Ax.

By the way. Some of us have simply been lurkers for years, that doesn't make us trolls especially if we ask germane questions, but you're out of control. So far as I've counted (about half of your remarks) you've used the words bastard,jackass twice,impeach now twice,said the senate is irrelevent, told a poster not to quote Abe Lincoln and another poster that their attitude was what was precisely wrong with this country.

Seems you are a blog tyrant to me.

ANSWERS Dog, ANSWERS. The world is waiting.

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 5:47PM

You don't give a damn about discourse, truth, germane questions, or answers. You are out here to provoke, distract, agitate, misinform, slander, and lie. Frankly, given what is going on...we are all sick of it. You have been answered..and you do not listen. Your smug little liberal rants, taunts, and piety comes across very well. As usual, you start with a false premise and work from there thinking us dumb f^&%k conservatives will miss it. The president does not have absolute ultimate authority. If you still do not get this after 168 posts, you will never get it. I am not your dog. Infact your master with the ultimate absolute authority considers you his "bitch."

Rupert| 3.23.11 @ 6:44PM

Si-mon
Why does the president and only the president get to launch a nuclear war.

Your tenper tantrum can not camoflage your avoiding an answer to a totally legit question. You're looking a bit shaky dude

GavInTucson| 3.24.11 @ 2:27AM

I don't mean to get in the middle of your cage match, but I was wondering about something: Was the War Powers Act of 1973 passed, in part, to address the nuclear question? I understand it's never actually mentioned in the law, but I was just curious.

Rupert| 3.23.11 @ 6:49PM

You mean the president doesn't get to give the nuclear launch order? Hmmm

Rupert| 3.23.11 @ 6:50PM

SI-mon
Chill dude.

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 6:06PM

Oh, I know who can give you the answer you are looking for!!!!! You know that two year senator, ex-community organizer from Illinois....what's his name.....Barack Husseny something Osama, no Obama..yeah that's it.

Rupert| 3.23.11 @ 6:47PM

SI-mon,
I'm not talking personalities I'm talking about the executive branch. Why does the executive branch get the football and the big red button?

simon templar| 3.26.11 @ 1:37PM

The president does not have absolute ultimate authority on matters of war. Both the constitution and the Powers Act delineate this. Congress has the last say. The president is given authority to act in non-declared war actions only in cases where imminent attack or danger exist. This factor did not exist in the Lybian situation. No clear and present danger. The fact that he is given the red phone in nuclear war and the command structure for it is irrevelant and attempt by you to skirt the issue and another opportunity to sound like the liberal smart ass that you are with your non-sensical, arrogant little boy taunts. I chill out, man....when you grow up. You and Fredo can now go out and play with each other.

Occam's Tool| 3.27.11 @ 5:07PM

Rupert--The President is C-in-C and has to have the ability to act rapidly when the US is under immediate attack. That's why he gets the football. What is the purpose of this line of questioning, sans Ebonics?

Habu| 3.23.11 @ 4:39PM

Oops late to the party. Went skeet shooting, something I enjoy and am good at.

I'm not going to read all the posts , not out of rudeness but time management issues ,however I did look up some case law review on the War Powers Act provided by Yale University and it makes a very comprehensive arguement why it is bad law. For those interested here is the site.

http://tinyurl.com/6khpbol

G\Workout time now,ugh.

Habu| 3.23.11 @ 5:08PM

Well I got delayed in my workout by reading the yale piece.....it blows the argument of illegality right out of the water.

ChuckieF16| 3.23.11 @ 5:38PM

Now now Ben, let's be civil. Let's not smear 'third-rate people' by comparing them to our current Commander in Chief and his administration!

RCV| 3.23.11 @ 6:07PM

Mark Levin: "You know, some of you aren’t going to like what I have to say because I don’t believe in politicizing the Constitution. I believe the Constitution is the rock of the society. All this talk about the attacks on Libya are unconstitutional because we don’t have a declaration of war – that’s ridiculous. That’s absolutely ridiculous. There are many occasions where we don’t have a declaration of war because a declaration of war would require that we use all of our might to destroy our enemy. So you can be involved in certain battles or military activities that would not require a declaration of war. You can look throughout American history to prove the point. You can actually look at the conduct of the Founders when they were in government, soon after the establishment of our government. Just be very careful about your arguments and think them through for a principled point of view. Don’t listen to Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, unless you want to be entertained. Stick with the Constitution."

shipley130| 3.23.11 @ 7:54PM

I can pretty much say with confidence that the actions taken in Libya would have been a requirement for a war statement according to the founding fathers. No matter, it's what we the people decide today, except, oops, congress didn't bother.

GavInTucson| 3.24.11 @ 2:39AM

RCV, Levin is making the wrong argument, here. I didn't hear anyone asking for a declaration of war. What I keep hearing them say is that Congress should have authorized this action. There is a difference.

tonypal| 3.24.11 @ 11:04AM

Should have, yes. Required, no.

Al Adab| 3.23.11 @ 6:15PM

Illegal, OK. So where are the protesters with the "No blood for Oil" and "Barack lied, people died" signs. You don't mean to suggest that only Republican wars cause moral outrage do you?

Paul from SA| 3.23.11 @ 6:39PM

Sadaam Hussein was considered a national security threat to the United States. Kaddafi is not. It's a quagmire, just like Viet Nam.

chris haynes| 3.23.11 @ 7:50PM

Why do you right wingers gang up on President Obama? You should give him credit for being right.

In 2007 he said this: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." I'd say he was 100% right.

Well, back then anyway.

GavInTucson| 3.24.11 @ 2:42AM

And there was the other bit, by then-candidate Biden, saying he'd call for the impeachment of Bush if he attacked Iran without authorization from Congress.

shipley130| 3.23.11 @ 7:52PM

I'm getting worried about all the "jokester" actions of Obama. I wasn't always happy with Bush but at least I never felt like it was a joke.

Agent Rose| 3.23.11 @ 8:22PM

No, this WAR is not a joke. The leftist, communist, socialist one-worlders have a definite plan--and this could change by the day or hour as appropriate. One commenter above noted the absence of the anti-war people and demonstrations. Yes that was a definite tip off. Is there a march on Washington this Saturday?

We are naive. And still don't understand the communist techniques which have long been operating in this country. They only have a few basic techniques 1) lies and deceit; 2) control over the press; and constant agitation and fomenting of class warfare: poor against rich; white against black; christians against Arabs; Arabs against Jews---the list goes on and on.

In this respect the anti-war leftists who were against war before they were for this war are just like the peace forces of the communists during the beginning of world war II. There were vast peace and strike campaigns in the U.S., with strikes disrupting factories producing war materials. By April of 1941 the U.S. found itself in endless chaos, almost impossible to arm itself. In June, 1941, Frederick Field, the communist national secretary was saying: "Keep America out of Europe's war, improve the standard of living, retain and defend our constitutional liberties and work for the people's peace."

AH HAH! 96 hours later--the Party Line changed and the new line was the war model. WHY? Russia had been attacked by Hitler. They were suddenly all for the war to help Russia’s interests, (recall the results of Yalta) they volunteered to serve, step up production at factories, and urged their comrades to buy war bonds.[1]Different times. The Party Line just changed. Stay tuned.......and it will change again.

[1] Spolansky, Jacob, The Communist Trail in America, 1951, p. 83.

GavInTucson| 3.24.11 @ 2:44AM

I'll have to check that out. Thanks.

Agent Rose| 3.23.11 @ 8:24PM

THE WAR AND THE NEW PARTY LINE
No. This WAR is not a joke. The leftist, communist, socialist one-worlders have a definite plan--and this could change by the day or hour as appropriate. One commenter above noted the absence of the anti-war people and demonstrations. Yes that was a definite tip off. Is there a march on Washington this Saturday.
We are naive. And still don't understand the communist techniques which have long been operating in this country. They only have a few basic techniques 1) lies and deceit; 2) control over the press; and constant agitation and fomenting of class warfare: poor against rich; white against black; christians against Arabs; Arabs against Jews---the list goes on and on.
In this respect the anti-war leftists who were against war before they were for this war are just like the peace forces of the communists during the beginning of world war II. There were vast peace and strike campaigns in the U.S., with strikes disrupting factories producing war materials. By April of 1941 the U.S. found itself in endless chaos, almost impossible to arm itself.
In June, 1941, Frederick Field, the communist national secretary was saying: "Keep America out of Europe's war, improve the standard of living, retain and defend our constitutional liberties and work for the people's peace."
AH HAH! 96 hours later--the Party Line changed and the new line was the war model. WHY? Russia had been attacked by Hitler. They were suddenly all for the war to help Russia’s interests, (recall the results of Yalta) they volunteered to serve, step up production at factories, and urged their comrades to buy war bonds.
Different times. The Party Line just changed. Stay tuned.......and it will change again.

NJK| 3.23.11 @ 9:15PM

Please don't forget he did leave the Lockerbie Bomber go free. Why is he trying to kill the man who ordered the bombing of PanAm 103 after he released the Lockerbie Bomber. Does this have anything to do with BP and the Gulf Oil Explosion?

Nite| 3.23.11 @ 10:08PM

Obama thinks he is a King. I think we can expect anything of him and his minions. They are totally with out any morals what so ever.

Marc Jeric| 3.23.11 @ 10:35PM

No - this undeclared war does have an end; that will happen when our Abu Hussein al-Mombassa installs another Muslim Brotherhood bunch of jihadis takes power in Libya.

Leroi| 3.23.11 @ 11:15PM

Has Babbling Ben apologized yet for supporting Obama for President in 2008?

Dee See| 3.24.11 @ 12:12AM

---What surprise? We have an ILLEGAL
'shadow government' fronting administration.
In fact, our fourth.

AS the currency, pensions and borders collapse,
as sovereignty evaporates, as the EUGENICS
police state grid is undeniably being laid down,
as Janet Napoitano secretly signs some 80 MILLION Mexicans into 'Trutsted Traveller'
(i.e. GREEN card) status, as our RED China
'Free Traitors' remain just that, as the private,
utterly ILLEGAL Federal Reserve has now been
connected with the destruction of worlds over
the last century----

HUAC meets NUREMBERG ------NOW!

Tom in Michigan| 3.24.11 @ 9:43AM

Ben Stein's also a comedian so; I'm a bit surprised he left off the punch-line which is, having already announced she won't return for a second term as the most incompetent Secretary of State in US history (and, that's saying a LOT, if you remember Madeleine Albright), the "third-rate" Hillary will soon announce her 2012 Presidential campaign with (here's the punch-line) her "foreign policy experience" as it's center piece.

That, my friends is a real howler (even outstripping this fourth-rate liar's greatest hits like, "I remember we landed under sniper fire" and "vast right-wing conspiracy").

Wait though, I could be wrong. The REAL punch-line is that millions of Americans will actually VOTE for her!

Eddie - The Sarge| 3.24.11 @ 11:08AM

Sad but true. See what a third rate, Hollywood creation gives you? An incompetent President, and crew, that was supposed to be the "smartest" in the history of the US. What a joke this "brilliant" idiot is. Hillary is no better. What's her claim to fame? He hubby's britches? What's HER EXPERIENCE. Same as B. Hussein's : pimping the poor, radical leftists and the ignorant.
The world laughs at us thanks to spineless dumbasses like him, Carter, Kerry, Frank. I "hope" the American electorate, who voted for him, are happy....Enjoy your screw up, dumbasses.
The Sarge

ONTIME| 3.24.11 @ 12:49PM

No Mr. Stein, not illegal according to the law but it appears to be highly inappropriate, expensive, venturous and foolish....and named after one of LT's hookers.

It is going to be most embarrassing to this WH bunch when they find out, "Reality is the enemy of my enemy is still just my enemy."

jdhaire| 3.24.11 @ 2:41PM

This "war" is nothing more than O-bomb-a trying his hand at republic-building, plain and simple! ..knock the previous admin for doing it, blame them for all our ills, and then TOP them at both!

Doc| 3.24.11 @ 2:46PM

Having spent 28 months in Iraq, 15 months in Douchebagistan, 6 months at sea in the Somali basin and Gulf of Aden I know this, these people, all of them are crazy, they make so sense to a western educated mind, its like having 9 and 10 year olds in adult bodies...
My answer kill em all and break all their shit... problem solved

knowsitallsup| 3.24.11 @ 7:52PM

"No boots on the ground" Then why are 2,200 Marines from Camp Lejune on board a Navy ship off the coast of Libya right now? Did they board the wrong ship? I dont believe these people any more than I could herd cats.

MsAngeeDepp| 3.25.11 @ 12:00PM

SOOOOO Agreed Mr.Stine. There will be a time when someone will hit us unprepared big time because we as a nation have stuck our nose into too many places

Gene Dempsey| 3.25.11 @ 2:49PM

1. Lockerbie
2. Murdered British Policewoman by Libyan embassy resident
3. Police action

Occam's Tool| 3.27.11 @ 5:05PM

In other fun news, it appears that the Moslem Brotherhood is becoming the senior leader in the revolution in Egypt, as I pointed out would happen at the start:

From National Review Online, quoting the NYT:

“Islamist Group is a Rising Force in New Egypt”

March 25, 2011 11:25 A.M. By Matthew Shaffer
That’s taken directly from the New York Times headline.

The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group once banned by the state, is at the forefront, transformed into a tacit partner with the military government that many fear will thwart fundamental changes.

It is also clear that the young, educated secular activists who initially propelled the nonideological revolution are no longer the driving political force — at least not at the moment.

As the best organized and most extensive opposition movement in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood was expected to have an edge in the contest for influence. But what surprises many is its link to a military that vilified it.

“There is evidence the Brotherhood struck some kind of a deal with the military early on,” said Elijah Zarwan, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group. “It makes sense if you are the military — you want stability and people off the street. The Brotherhood is one address where you can go to get 100,000 people off the street.”…

In the early stages of the revolution, the Brotherhood was reluctant to join the call for demonstrations. It jumped in only after it was clear that the protest movement had gained traction. Throughout, the Brotherhood kept a low profile, part of a survival instinct honed during decades of repression by the state.

The question at the time was whether the Brotherhood would move to take charge with its superior organizational structure. It now appears that it has…

When the new prime minister, Essam Sharaf, addressed the crowd in Tahrir Square this month, Mohamed el-Beltagi, a prominent Brotherhood member, stood by his side. A Brotherhood member was also appointed to the committee that drafted amendments to the Constitution.

But the most obvious and consequential example was the recent referendum on the amendments, in the nation’s first post-Mubarak balloting.

It’s disconcerting to say the least. But we can’t say nobody saw this coming."

I saw this coming, because, unlike my bete noir, my mind is functioning without the influence of CNS STDs.

ALWAYS VOTE| 3.29.11 @ 11:59AM

I hope and pray that OdumbA$# doesn't place our troops on the ground in Libya to fight with all these rebels (of which we know nothing about). It could be a trap to draw us in, then the rebels (also Muslims) join up with the enemy (also Muslims) and turn on our troops. Does the name Custer mean anything to anyone here?

darrell | 4.9.11 @ 7:07AM

With all of our modern technology, the ability to literally put a missile through Gaddafi's bedroom window, don't we do just that? His life is no more important than any of the soldiers lives on his side or of the rebels side. Just think of the lives saved if we had done this initially. Once he is gone, let the rest of the country sort itself out. Maybe they can even do it peacefully.

RyanR| 6.15.11 @ 2:50PM

Suddenly Republicans care about illegal wars? Where were you in 2001 for Afghanistan (you know, the country that never attacked us) or in 2003 for Iraq? In fact, where have conservatives been for 30 years?

During the Reagan years there was not a spot on the globe where the US wasn't involved in some sort of military or CIA paramilitary action. During GHW Bush's time we were in both Iraq and Panama for full scale invasions. Suddenly, during Barack Obama's presidency, conservatives care about war?

Maybe we should call you all traitors for not supporting your country as I was called for not supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

weddingdresses | 6.27.11 @ 5:05AM

jetconnect booking | 7.31.11 @ 11:46PM

The late, great comedian Will Rogers used to joke that America was the only country that waited until in a war to get ready for war. Sure enough, the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, designed to finance America's war effort, was passed as we entered World War I. The act also established a national debt ceiling, which has been the topic of much debate in recent weeks.

Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 11:31PM

is good

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|58 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|32 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|36 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|59 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|18 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|9 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|1 comment

The Spectacle Blog

NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 12:45PM

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 12:36PM

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 11:03AM

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 10:29AM

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 6:00AM

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 12:41AM

Good Luck Quin

Aaron Goldstein | 12:13AM

One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born

Aaron Goldstein | 5.23.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

The American Spectator

Breaking News

We Have an Illegal War

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (283) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Vern Crisler | 3.23.11 @ 10:03AM

wbheff| 3.23.11 @ 10:10AM

ENOUGH ROPE| 3.23.11 @ 4:05PM

Handy| 3.23.11 @ 4:47PM

Alan Brooks| 3.24.11 @ 12:16AM

Albert| 3.23.11 @ 10:23AM

ds80| 3.23.11 @ 10:30AM

da monk| 3.23.11 @ 11:06AM

ds80| 3.23.11 @ 12:20PM

Vern Crisler | 3.23.11 @ 7:48PM

blackwatch| 3.23.11 @ 9:16PM

Vern Crisler | 3.23.11 @ 10:56PM

JRGIERLACH| 3.24.11 @ 12:12PM

Dave H| 3.24.11 @ 1:43PM

Sally Morris| 3.27.11 @ 3:42PM

W| 3.23.11 @ 10:37AM

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 11:05AM

Vern Crisler | 3.23.11 @ 7:51PM

idalily| 3.24.11 @ 4:17PM

Sally Morris| 3.27.11 @ 3:46PM

suzy000| 3.23.11 @ 12:25PM

Redstateboy| 3.23.11 @ 2:26PM

The Bruce| 3.23.11 @ 5:29PM

Vern Crisler | 3.23.11 @ 7:59PM

Albert| 3.23.11 @ 9:22PM

Vern Crisler | 3.23.11 @ 11:01PM

The Bruce| 3.24.11 @ 1:36AM

Vern Crisler | 3.24.11 @ 9:23AM

idalily| 3.24.11 @ 4:24PM

stmichrick| 3.23.11 @ 7:39PM

wbheff| 3.23.11 @ 10:12AM

da monk| 3.23.11 @ 11:10AM

Teaghan| 3.23.11 @ 11:21AM

Nancy in NC| 3.23.11 @ 11:46AM

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 12:17PM

Steve A| 3.23.11 @ 12:57PM

Occam's Tool| 3.23.11 @ 3:14PM

Grzmlyk| 3.23.11 @ 5:51PM

Grzmlyk| 3.23.11 @ 1:08PM

jppc| 3.23.11 @ 10:17AM

Albert| 3.23.11 @ 10:25AM

PaulD| 3.23.11 @ 10:41AM

Mike D.| 3.23.11 @ 10:48AM

Sally Morris| 3.27.11 @ 3:57PM

wbheff| 3.23.11 @ 11:51AM

C. S. P. Schofield| 3.23.11 @ 10:20AM

Chuck| 3.23.11 @ 10:35AM

Teaghan| 3.23.11 @ 11:22AM

Albert| 3.23.11 @ 4:16PM

The Bruce| 3.23.11 @ 5:34PM

Sally Morris| 3.27.11 @ 4:04PM

Dixie Pixie| 3.23.11 @ 10:35AM

idalily| 3.24.11 @ 4:27PM

Dustoff| 3.23.11 @ 10:35AM

Mike D.| 3.23.11 @ 10:49AM

rg| 3.23.11 @ 11:17AM

Nunya| 3.23.11 @ 1:28PM

Sue| 3.23.11 @ 2:49PM

rdman| 3.23.11 @ 5:07PM

jd| 3.23.11 @ 10:50AM

JP| 3.23.11 @ 10:51AM

Wayne | 3.23.11 @ 1:10PM

Frank| 3.26.11 @ 5:00PM

Rob| 3.23.11 @ 10:52AM

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.23.11 @ 11:46AM

D. Singh| 3.23.11 @ 10:52AM

Teaghan| 3.23.11 @ 11:33AM

Nunya| 3.23.11 @ 1:30PM

Zilla | 3.23.11 @ 10:59AM

Mike D.| 3.23.11 @ 11:07AM

da monk| 3.23.11 @ 11:14AM

Teaghan| 3.23.11 @ 11:34AM

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 12:25PM

Rupert| 3.23.11 @ 2:04PM

simon templar| 3.23.11 @ 3:11PM