world

House rebukes Obama but won't halt funds for Libya

15 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

15 Comments
Login to comment

How dare the House defy President Obama!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Those poiticians in the House have always been very pro-Libya.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A split is developing in the party, just as I feared:

Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler called the Obama an “absolute monarch.”

70 Democrats abandoning the president? Not good.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Luckily, the establishment media will self-censor and refrain from calling Libya a "dumb war". That would hurt the president's feelings.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"They reminded lawmakers of Gadhafi’s role in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and said he had American blood on his hands."

How come it's taken all this time?

1988?

Something tells me that this guy has something else on his agenda.

Any ideas what?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So after getting elected president by claiming that Bush started an illegal war with Iraq - a war that was endorsed on a bipartisan basis by Congress - President Obama has gotten the US in an illegal war with Libya. How ironic!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Many Republicans have an absolute inability to be consistent, perhaps because they have no principles beyond money or power. Those with memories will recall Republicans censoring the administration in the early days of the Libyan revolution for its circumspect approach. The U.S. is providing support in terms of implementing capabilities which only it can provide,while the general operation is much more Arab and European led. If Obama were a Republican, he'd be receiving unlimited, effusive support, no doubt.

So the cowards castigated Obama but didn't cut the funding - and that is because they know the cause is important. To paraphrase Sgt. Hulka, two words describe these people: Gutless. Punks.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"funds for Libya"

There are no funds for Libya, the U.S. is broke.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Many Republicans have an absolute inability to be consistent, perhaps because they have no principles beyond money or power. Those with memories will recall Republicans censoring the administration in the early days of the Libyan revolution for its circumspect approach.

Its not just Republicans with this problem, its Dems as well. Dems wouldn't speak out early on to criticize the President. Its only now that some of them are beginning to remember they oppose wars. Republicans are fracturing on the issue. There is now a large and growing number of Republicans who favor isolationism. As in, not being the one to go out and solve the worlds problems. I find myself among them. So you have the anti-war Dems, in common cause with the anti-globalist Republicans. Not sure how strong either group is. Both sides have other axes to grind. Dems feel they have to support the President, anti-war or no, and Republicans feel they have to support the troops, anti-intervention or not.

If Obama were a Republican, he'd be receiving unlimited, effusive support, no doubt.

Except from Dems who would be unflagging in their criticism. As opposed to the deafening silence you hear now.

Gutless. Punks.

On this I agree. They should have cut the funding. Both Dems and Republicans should have voted to strip the funding.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Laguna:So the cowards castigated Obama but didn't cut the funding - and that is because they know the cause is important. To paraphrase Sgt. Hulka, two words describe these people: Gutless. Punks

70 of our fellow democrats also oppose this president.One even called him a "monarch".

Plank.

Eye.

Removal possible?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Molenir, good points. Being dovish is often difficult; even the greatest doves most likely rue our passivity in the case of, say Rwanda. Libya looked likely to develop in a similar scenario, with Gadhafi's stronger tribes set to overwhelm the weaker. Also, the potential of a string of nascent democracies across the North African Mediterranean is historical. The lack of ground troops will prolong the conflict, but that is calculated: the heavy lifting will eventually be accomplished by the Libyans themselves, thus giving them ownership of their revolution and preserving their trust. Doves must judge whether the hardships of warfare are justified by the benefits it may produce. I count myself dovish, but I support this intervention.

Lieberman, this was a Republican initiative. You've trumpeted the Democrats who split with their president while entirely ignoring the equally large number of Republicans who split with their caucus - including their previous presidential candidate, who came out extremely harshly against the measure. I'd wager the entirety of Democrats who supported the measure did so out of conviction, while the vast majority of Republicans who did so acted solely on political grounds. If the Republicans truly objected, they would have cut funding. The "plank" of which you speak is in their eye - for the moment; they'll be walking it come Autumn 2012.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This president is in violation of the War Powers Act. He deserved the rebuke. It is heartening to see 70 Democrats actually stood up to him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Being dovish is often difficult; even the greatest doves most likely rue our passivity in the case of, say Rwanda.

Has nothing to do with Rwanda, or wanting to help people. You can't be dovish and favor intervention. Its one or the other. You have to realize that in either case, both are going to cause deaths. Either from the US going in and fighting, or from a potential civil war etc. The real question is, what do you believe the US should be doing. Should the US have the role of worlds policeman? Should the US go and intervene in conflicts around the country because the citizens and leaders of those countries can't seem to get things together? Or should the US simply stay out of it regardless of the potential genocide thats occurring.

In this case, the problem is even more difficult. Not because Dems are torn by whether or not to intervene, but rather because the President insisting on intervention is a Dem as well. Speaking out against it, is being disloyal to Obama. And as we all know, daring to disagree with Obama means you are in fact racist. Heh, ah wait thats the lib spin, not reality. So stick with the disloyal option, otherwise half the Dems would be racist right along with the 60 percent of the country who thinks Obama is doing a poor job.

To be fair Republicans had the same problem when Bush was President. Dems freely condemned Republicans for going along with the War and the spending policies, while Republicans were backed into a corner. Not going along would be in their best interests, but doing so would be disloyal to the President. We saw what that cost em in 2006 and 2008. It was only when they went back to their conservative roots, that they were able to regain a bit of control in 2010. The real surprise though is the number of Republicans who are coming out as anti-war, or anti-intervention. Who are questioning the US role as the worlds policeman. The Isolationist republicans are putting partisanship aside and forming an alliance with the dems Dovish core, those who have the courage to stand up against Obama, at least on this issue. And that is a surprise.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You can't be dovish and favor intervention. Its one or the other.

Ludicrous. Progressives like myself favor interventions on humanitarian grounds far more often than not.

The House did the right thing in rebuking President Obama, however.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the house is just doing its responsibility and so was President Obama. They just need to be fair in all things since they were put in their positions because people trust them so they should be trustworthy of the people's lives. By the way, have you known already about the news wherein USA Today states that Obama has signaled a break with tradition when it comes to military suicide deaths and presidential letters of condolence. Traditionally, only battlefield fatalities have been addressed with presidential letters of condolence. I found this here: Obama offers condolences for military suicides

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites