Hypocrite-in-Chief Obama’s Sixty Days To Get Congress To Approve Of Libya Adventure Now Past

Senator Obama, taking a cheap shot at then-President Bush:

Barack Obama: “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,” Obama responded.

“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”

Do you remember being attacked by Libya?  Did the Libyans invade us?  I mean, maybe I was just asleep when it happened or something.  Otherwise, Barack Obama ought to be impeached, and the single witness against him should be … Barack Obama.  Barack Obama trampled all over the Constitution according to none other than … that’s right, Barack Obama.

George Bush got Congress’ approval before both his attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.

And not only did Obama’s adventure in Libya NOT have the approval of Congress, but it also has less approval than ANY US military action in the last four decades going back to Vietnam.

And just what in the hell made our Idiot-in-Chief decide to be the first president in the sorry history of Gaddafi’s forty-plus years of abusing his own people to shake hands with the monster?

Do you see what a meandering idiot this guy is?

Do you remember how the left unrelentingly mocked and attacked Bush for “looking into Putin’s eyes” and thinking he saw someone he could work with?  I don’t know about you, but I see an awful lot of eye contact going on between Obama and Gaddafi.  But the mainstream media would never DREAM hold Obama accountable to the same unrelentingly negative standard they attacked George Bush with.

I always laugh how nobody is more blatantly unfair than the same left that constantly self-righteously lectures the right about “fairness.”

And the Obama administration is advancing the same meandering gibberish throughout the rest of the Middle East (and the world) as well, of course.  Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called brutal Syrian thug Bashar al-Assad a “reformer” because these liberals are naive clueless idiots.  John Kerry – who thought he was just so much smarter than George Bush – was unsurprisingly every iota as stupid as Obama and Clinton.  But at least after watching Assad murder at least 850 of his own people, even Kerry could “discover” that Assad was certainly “no reformer.”

So what about the president who said that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack” until he himself unilaterally authorized a military attack without even bothering to talk to Congress about said unilateral military attack?

Well, we find that our Fascist-in-Chief is basically above the law:

Congress Presses Obama On Libya, As 60-Day War Powers Deadline Arrives
by Eyder Peralta

Today marks the 60th day since President Barack Obama formally told Congress about the U.S. intervention in Libya. It matters, because Congress hasn’t authorized the action and the 1973 War Powers Act states that if a president doesn’t attain that authorization 60 days after the start of military action, the president must halt it within 30 days.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told Fox News that the House was working on a resolution for Monday that “would either get Congress to sign off on intervention in Libya or cut off the operation.”

And on Wednesday, Republican Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Mike Lee (Utah), Jim DeMint (S.C.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Tom Coburn (Okla.) and John Cornyn (Texas) sent a letter to Obama asking whether he intended to comply with Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

“As recently as last week your Administration indicated use of the United States Armed Forces will continue indefinitely,” they wrote in the letter. “Therefore, we are writing to ask whether you intend to comply with the
requirements of the War Powers Resolution. We await your response.”

Earlier this month, The New York Times reported that the Obama administration was committed to complying with the War Powers Act, but that it was also looking for ways to lawfully continue the military intervention without asking Congress to authorize it:

One concept being discussed is for the United States to halt the use of its Predator drones in attacking targets in Libya, and restrict them solely to a role gathering surveillance over targets.

Over recent weeks, the Predators have been the only American weapon actually firing on ground targets, although many aircraft are assisting in refueling, intelligence gathering and electronic jamming.

By ending all strike missions for American forces, the argument then could be made that the United States was no longer directly engaged in hostilities in Libya, but only providing support to NATO allies.

Another option, reports the Times, is to order a complete stop to military efforts and restart them shortly, which lawyers say would buy them 60 more days.

In an opinion piece for the Washington Post, Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway, professors of law and political science at Yale, argue that Obama is charting new territory here:

Make no mistake: Obama is breaking new ground, moving decisively beyond his predecessors. George W. Bush gained congressional approval for his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bill Clinton acted unilaterally when he committed American forces to NATO’s bombing campaign in Kosovo, but he persuaded Congress to approve special funding for his initiative within 60 days. And the entire operation ended on its 78th day.

In contrast, Congress has not granted special funds for Libya since the bombing began, and the campaign is likely to continue beyond the 30-day limit set for termination of all operations

Do you see how fundamentally and profoundly fascist our Führer is?  Do you not see how this creep is constantly trying to wiggle out of constitutional responsibilities and wriggle out of his responsibilities to Congress after  he personally, repeatedly and  hypocritically demonized George Bush for doing far, far LESS?

I think of Obama demonizing Bush over the debt ceiling only to now say, “Please say ‘Ja wohl, mein Führer!’  After all, am I not your Messiah?” Because, after all –

Can I get a Ja wohl I mean an Amen, from you liberals???

Libya is a mess.  But don’t expect the mainstream media to put their beloved Führer to the task and hold him accountable to the questions they should have held him accountable to months ago.  Becuse the only thing worse than having a führer for a president is having a führer for a president along with a bunch of little Reich Ministers of Propaganda for “journalists.”

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Hypocrite-in-Chief Obama’s Sixty Days To Get Congress To Approve Of Libya Adventure Now Past”

  1. HL Says:

    Can’t someone or many in the other branches of government or our military do something to restrain Obama?
    This evil Imposter just keeps going from bad to worse!

  2. devilofanger Says:

    I’m glad at least someone other than me recognizes how hypocritical the United States, specifically Obama today, can be. What is the U.S. doing going to war across the globe with a nation many of us had barely heard of. You know why Libya seemed like such a nobody? Because they never did anything to the United States, and it should respect that by leaving Libya alone as well. The U.S. has almost never had an attack on its land since the time it was created, nor does it need to seek imperialistic goals. Attacking other countries that haven’t done anything to it is the last thing it should be doing if it wants to avoid future conflicts, attacks, or invasions. This could give more reason for terrorists or even other nations to hate the U.S.

  3. Michael Eden Says:

    devilofanger,

    I agree and disagree with you. For one thing, I’ve been well aware of Libya for most of my life. And Libya has most certainly been a pain in America’s butt for much of the last thirty years. Among other things, Lockerbie, Scotland ought to ring a bell. Muammar Gadhafi gave the okay for Libyan intelligence to set up a boming that murdered nearly 200 American citizens.

    So it’s not like “they never did anything to the United States.”

    Gadhafi was a dictator and a brutal thug. He tried to develop nuclear weapons and he did develop WMD. And he was the kind of SOB who would have secretly given them to terrorists.

    Two Republican presidents put Gadhafi in his place: Reagan and Dubya. Reagan responded to the Lockerbie attack by attacking Gadhafi’s palace. Gadhafi’s son was killed in the strike, and from that point on Gadhafi started living in tents. He got real quiet after that for quite a while. Then, after the US invaded Iraq, Gadhafi realized that he might very well be next; so he offered to turn over all of his WMD.

    The biggest reason you’ve never heard of Libya is because it is a tiny pissant country and the only thing they’ve ever had to export is some oil and some terrorism.

    I would also point out that terrorists hate us whether we punch back or not. We might as well do exactly what is in our national interests and in the interests of our commitments. Pussyfooting around with these psychos won’t do any good; and Reagan and Bush pretty much proved that a strong hand and the willingness to use it is far and away the best approach to Islamic nutjob dictators.

    That said, I agree with you that the US probably had ZERO business to attack Libya, given that we are already overextended and given that we’re facing the fact that WE AINT GOT ANY MONEY.

    The other reason is because attacking Libya was NOT in the US national interest. As you point out, they had not attacked us or threatened us lately.

    So why did we go? Because of liberal fascism. There’s an article that does a pretty good job of explaining it: “Samantha Power Goes to War.”

    The money quote is, “She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.” And this woman had Obama’s ear, and Obama had his goal of “fundamentally transforming” everything.

    Obama has demonstrated that liberals are every scintilla as warlike as conservatives are. They just have different motivations. Conservatives want to speak softly and carry a big stick, and be ready to take out anybody who messes with America or her allies or her interests; liberals want to use war to advance liberal social agendas. It wasn’t just Obama; remember Bill Clinton and the whole “Blackhawk Down” fiasco in Somalia.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: