Most of Gaddafi’s military forces have been reduced to burning rubble after assaults by Western nations. Nonetheless, he has vowed to arm every Libyan citizen still loyal to him and wage a long, drawn-out war against all who challenge his right to rule the country. WARNING: Graphic footage.
Can the President just declare war without any authorization from the Congress? This is the question that somehow didn’t come up on this morning’s talk shows — or if it did, I missed it.
Candidate Barack Obama, December 2007:
“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.”
President Barack Obama, March 2011:
”I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice and it’s not a choice that I make lightly.”
Glenn Greenwald comments:
The dangers from unilateral, presidential-decreed wars are highlighted in the Libya situation. There has been very little public discussion (and even less explanation from the President) about the reasons we should do this, what the costs would be on any level, what the end goal would be, how mission creep would be avoided, whether the “Pottery Barn” rule will apply, or virtually anything else. Public opinion is at best divided on the question if not opposed. Even if you’re someone who favors this intervention, what’s the rationale for not requiring a debate and vote in Congress over whether the President should be able to commit the nation to a new military conflict? Candidate Obama, candidate Clinton, and the Bush-era Democrats all recognized the constitutional impropriety of unilateral actions like this one; why shouldn’t they be held to that?
More info:
United Nations Approves War on Gadhafi
West pounds Libya, Gaddafi vows long war
Obama’s Libya Goals AWOL
Libya May Give The F-22 Its First Wartime Test
UPDATE: Why Condoleezza Rice is going to be very, very quiet for a few months. (h/t FDL)
UPDATE: Anti-war protesters arrested near White House
UPDATE: Kucinich calls Obama’s attack on Libya ‘an impeachable offense’
#1 by Ken on March 20, 2011 - 7:43 pm
Congress seems to have been taken compeley out of their Constitutional perogative to declare war.
#2 by brewski on March 20, 2011 - 9:00 pm
Richard,
If every former secretary of state had to “stay quiet” for every time they met with a murderous dictator then we would have an awful lot of quiet secrearies of state. Your comment is inane.
#3 by Richard Warnick on March 21, 2011 - 6:26 am
brewski–
I think Condoleezza Rice is the worst Secretary of State we’ve had for a long time. And let’s face it, moving to normalize relations with Libya in exchange for Gaddafi “giving up” nonexistent nuclear weapons would have been a major foreign policy blunder for any normal administration — in the case of the Bushies it was overshadowed by much worse.
#4 by Evidence on March 21, 2011 - 7:42 am
No Brew, most murderous dictators we do business with are afforded red carpet treatment until it time to dispose of them. That is when the SOS opens their mouth in order to demonize them properly before they are dumped.
#5 by brewski on March 21, 2011 - 8:31 am
I suppose Albright needs to stay quiet for the rest of her life:
http://varifrank.com/images/Kim_Jong_Il_and_Madeleine_Albright.jpg
#6 by brewski on March 21, 2011 - 8:38 am
Then I suppose that Bubba and the pantsuit need to shut up for a long time:
http://0.tqn.com/d/middleeast/1/0/K/B/-/-/1029-M6.jpg
#7 by brewski on March 21, 2011 - 8:41 am
and from now on, Richard will be very quiet for a long time:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QKwwR3v3bcA/SjjzsYDoB_I/AAAAAAAAEEQ/Dr9llQlgVTg/s400/qaddafi+son+clinton6-17-2009+6-40-55+AM.png
#8 by Richard Warnick on March 21, 2011 - 8:43 am
brewski–
There’s a difference between merely meeting with a dictator (or his son), negotiating with a dictator to advance U.S, foreign policy interests, and what the Bush administration did. Condoleezza Rice was little more than a glorified messenger, but the Bushies should never have given Gaddafi something for nothing.
#9 by brewski on March 21, 2011 - 8:46 am
and from now on, Richard will be very quity for a long time:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QKwwR3v3bcA/SjjzsYDoB_I/AAAAAAAAEEQ/Dr9llQlgVTg/s400/qaddafi+son+clinton6-17-2009+6-40-55+AM.png
#10 by brewski on March 21, 2011 - 8:50 am
I think Albright did a little more than merely a meeting. Bubba and Albright were grabbing their ankles for North Korea.
#11 by Richard Warnick on March 21, 2011 - 9:08 am
Um, the Clinton administration kept North Korea from testing nuclear weapons. Then the Bushies arrived and refused to deal with North Korea.
Colin Powell’s advice was rejected. Now, North Korea is a nuclear-armed country.
You’re really fighting a losing battle trying to defend the Bush administration’s diplomacy. It was abysmal. America’s allies were appalled by Bush and our enemies contemptuous.
#12 by brewski on March 21, 2011 - 9:16 am
No they didn’t. They just bought the con job that North Korea stopped nuclear testing. They didn’t.
I have not defended the Bush admin’s diplomacy. Show me where I did.
#13 by Richard Warnick on March 21, 2011 - 9:18 am
Do you agree that the Bush administration’s deal with Libya was not a good idea? Or are you defending it?
#14 by brewski on March 21, 2011 - 10:08 am
In hindsight lots of deals end up being bad deals. You know, Munich 1938. Geneva 1954. etc.
#15 by Evidence on March 21, 2011 - 10:11 am
Why bother asking if the president can declare war? The definition of any activity will be altered to fit the requirements and desired result. If shooting 112 cruise missiles into another country cannot be defined as an act of war, then nothing is.
What will laughable is to listen to pundits, and perhaps even the deluded here, that somehow is not war. If I had voted for O’bomber, I would be hiding under a rock by now, there is no way to any longer justify this man, I won’t even credit him with the title of president, because he has abrogated any real sense of honoring the position.
#16 by cav on March 21, 2011 - 10:19 am
Barack Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace prize winners combined.
#17 by Richard Warnick on March 21, 2011 - 10:23 am
brewski–
I think it was obvious beforehand that Gaddafi was giving up nothing. The Bush administration just wanted to make the false claim that Libya was disarming in response to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
#18 by brewski on March 21, 2011 - 10:28 am
I think it was obvious in 1938 that someone I’m not allowed to mention had no intention on honoring his commitments.
#19 by cav on March 21, 2011 - 10:40 am
So, I’m watching netflix with the 13yo yesterday and he puts on a movie from 1994 called No escape with Ray Liotta. In the opening narration, we learn that it’s 2022 and the prison system has become big business in the US. Ray has been imprisoned for shooting his commanding officer for ordering him to blast a village killing 342 women and children, in 2011, in Bahrain, Libya.
#20 by Richard Warnick on March 21, 2011 - 10:45 am
brewski–
The problem with comparing Condi and Neville Chamberlain is that Condi’s Libya deal didn’t even look good on paper!
#21 by brewski on March 21, 2011 - 11:29 am
ever see “Remains of the Day”?
One of my favorites.
#22 by Richard Warnick on March 21, 2011 - 12:34 pm
That movie wasn’t really about politics, it was about people who put life on hold for no good reason.
#23 by brewski on March 21, 2011 - 1:08 pm
It highlighted the naivite of some when it comes to the intentions of others.
#24 by Richard Warnick on March 21, 2011 - 2:26 pm
Was the Anthony Hopkins character naive, or just dim? Same could be said for Lord Darlington (James Fox).
#25 by brewski on March 21, 2011 - 2:31 pm
It was the various English aristocrats who didn’t see Hitler for what he was who were naive. Anthony Hopkins was just taking his place and not questioning his boss.
#26 by Richard Warnick on March 21, 2011 - 3:03 pm
The English aristocrats who weren’t alarmed about Hitler don’t arouse much sympathy. But maybe we ought to consider the national trauma of what was then called The Great War. Nobody wanted a repeat of that, and there was a lot of wishful thinking going around.
A more recent film also deals tangentially with pre-war British politics, “The King’s Speech.” Although some have pointed out the views of the Churchill character are oversimplified in the script.
#27 by Evidence on March 21, 2011 - 3:28 pm
Why would they be alarmed? The aristocrats gave him money, as did the bank of England. It has always been a long held practice to defeat an enemy by supporting their madmen within. Just got a little out of hand in Hitler’s case.
#28 by Evidence on March 21, 2011 - 3:31 pm
http://www.toolan.com/hitler/phoenix.html
#29 by Larry Bergan on March 21, 2011 - 4:23 pm
You can’t call Dennis Kucinich inconsistent and he’s right too, but Obama has a couple of things going for him that don’t reek.
He has support from long-time allies and he’s not in the oil business.
#30 by Evidence on March 21, 2011 - 4:31 pm
How funny Larry, you are so transfixed by the man, he would start another war without even consulting congress, and that in an oil rich country. You are now officially a neo conned person.
#31 by Evidence on March 21, 2011 - 4:50 pm
Bush had his coalition of the willing, an attack based on mass propaganda and lies, and again in an oil rich country. We had Saddam “killing his own people” which of course was not true, he was killing Shia freaks, they who now control Iraq after all of our efforts there.
This has all the possibilities of the exact same result. Who are the “freedom fighters With any luck we can impeach Obama for engaging in war and bypassing congress. As time goes by the folly of this will become apparent, another quagmire. Looking at the anarchy now in Egypt, you have to know there is a PNAC group of neo cons pulling Obama’s strings.
#32 by Larry Bergan on March 21, 2011 - 4:58 pm
It will be interesting to see if congress moves to impeach Obama for not consulting them when they didn’t even WANT to be consulted when dumb-ass was in charge.
#33 by Evidence on March 21, 2011 - 5:29 pm
Naw, it’s going so PNAC neo con now, that republicans could not be doing any better if Bush were president. Hence O’bomber is Bush’s 3rd term, and now the progressives and democrats can’t say peep as they are mesmerized by their A’freakin Prince.
#34 by Evidence on March 21, 2011 - 5:38 pm
The policies are so the same, though Bush did run his war by Congress for the rubber stamp, there is only an illusion of intelligence for Obama, if you thought Bush was stupid, we’re in for a show with O’bomber at the helm.
#35 by Larry Bergan on March 21, 2011 - 5:40 pm
I said I agreed with Kucinich, noname (75.70); what do you want?
I also agree completely with Alan Grayson, who is right up there with Howard Dean on my list:
Alan is also very funny!
#36 by Evidence on March 21, 2011 - 6:05 pm
Great, we have no account comedians in congress, just what we need.
#37 by Larry Bergan on March 21, 2011 - 6:06 pm
Neither Bush nor Obama are at the helm. That’s what I’ve been trying to say.
Even Eisenhower didn’t say anything about it until he was leaving, but even Eisenhower couldn’t have imagined what a dark cloud would obscure our true beliefs. He couldn’t have imagined that our leaders would be picked by computers.
#38 by 75.70.10.132 on March 21, 2011 - 6:08 pm
Time to get personal.
#39 by Larry Bergan on March 21, 2011 - 6:09 pm
glenn (75.70) whoever:
I thought you were a historian. Grayson is no longer in congress, because they tell us he lost.
#40 by Larry Bergan on March 21, 2011 - 6:13 pm
That’s not personal.
The last two numbers of your new name (75.70.10.132) are going to change as soon as you turn your computer off.
#41 by Richard Warnick on March 21, 2011 - 6:26 pm
Grayson is right except for the fact that it’s not just a no-fly zone. The U.S. and allies are attacking Libyan ground combat forces. From a DOD source, we are even sending in Marine attack helicopters. So this probably won’t last 12 years. A question we need to ask is, who exactly are we helping, and what kind of government will they bring to Libya?
#42 by Larry Bergan on March 21, 2011 - 6:44 pm
Hopefully somebody who won’t keep bombing poor people into submission with WMD’s or psychological WMD’s as Americans have been.
It’s humiliating and debilitating either way!
#43 by Larry Bergan on March 21, 2011 - 6:48 pm
Any body heard the word “destabilize” lately? Maybe it was too descriptive; especially when used against your own people in your own country.
#44 by 75.70.10.132 on March 21, 2011 - 6:51 pm
Who?
Sorry, I didn’t keep track of Grayson, seeing as so many Democrats were thrown out last election, who can keep track?
Richard, exactly, for all our efforts in Iraq, the Shia run it. There is worse than Khaddaffi, I’m sure if there is a way to fu#k it up, we’ll find it, unless chaos is the goal.
#45 by Larry Bergan on March 21, 2011 - 7:06 pm
glenn said: (emphasis mine)
That’s what the machines tell us, but the really bad thing is that bought Democrats don’t seem to care.
What party is 75.70.10.132 with?
#46 by Larry Bergan on March 21, 2011 - 7:12 pm
I’m with the party who has one or more members who have spoken up against the machines which count our votes then the other.
That would be the Democrats.
#47 by 75.70.10.132 on March 21, 2011 - 7:23 pm
Party? The kegger party.
Democrats are not party that has any sense of self or preservation. They act and conduct themselves like prey.
#48 by Larry Bergan on March 21, 2011 - 7:38 pm
In that vein, I would identify myself with the pot party, but then I could be felonized and you couldn’t unless you did something bad.
Unfair!
#49 by 75.70.10.132 on March 21, 2011 - 9:06 pm
Well it is what it is, The Federal domain includes all means of public transportation, and you can’t drive with beer in your car legally either.
I a free country as was intended, this would not be an issue. Speaks volumes as to what we are really ruled by.
#50 by Larry Bergan on March 21, 2011 - 9:27 pm
75.70.10.132, (glenn):
Turn your computer off occasionally as you profess to save energy.
#51 by Larry Bergan on March 21, 2011 - 9:51 pm
Noname:
I don’t know about the beer in the car.
I do know that in prior years, the alcohol bottles in Utah required a seal that had to be broken in order for you to be accused of a crime while in your car.
But the laws change all the time.
Some people can break the laws at will, and others don’t even know what the law is, but ignorance of the law is no excuse…
unless…
There are no laws for some.
#52 by 75.70.10.132 on March 21, 2011 - 11:21 pm
Who? Laws are unequally applied, Welcome to the empire.
#53 by 75.70.10.132 on March 22, 2011 - 7:39 am
Who are the Libyan rebels? Could Khaddffi be right that they are rife with hardcore Jihadi’s? If this is accurate, this is going to blow up in our faces, and one has to question what the motives of Hillary and Obama really are. We can ill afford this now. We are making the same mistakes we have made in Iraq, and elsewhere backing the wrong horses.
http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/03/17/libyan-rebellion-has-radical-islamist-fervor-benghazi-link-islamic-militancyus-milit
#54 by Richard Warnick on March 22, 2011 - 8:36 am
Good question. On MSNBC last night they raised the issue of who are these guys with Roger Cressy, who said the Libyan opposition is secular, they broke decisively with al-Qaeda years ago, and that neither side in the civil war has anything to do with al-Qaeda.
NBC’s Richard Engel, who is in Tobruk, divides the rebels into two loose-knit groups. There is the popular insurrection, a diverse collection of untrained fighters who can’t even agree on why they are fighting (one guy said it was because Gaddafi was Jewish). Then there are breakaway units of the Libyan military, who at least know who their commanders are (but Engel was unable to find the general, who was taking a day off yesterday).
#55 by 75.70.10.132 on March 22, 2011 - 9:18 am
Yeah, well that’s TV Richard, MSNBC is a lie factory, regularly wrong.
After all that has happened, who believes them? This has all the hallmarks of rebels in Iraq after the first Gulf war rising up against Saddam. We abandoned them to their fate. The question is when will we abandon “our” rebels in Libya, when things don’t work out as planned.
It is really unbelievable this is the administration’s tack after all the debacles of the last ten years.
#56 by Richard Warnick on March 22, 2011 - 9:35 am
Glenn–
Tell me when MSNBC has made a mistake in reporting and not issued a correction.
Faux News is the lie factory, which everyone knows.
#57 by 75.70.10.132 on March 22, 2011 - 9:36 am
Khadaffi the Jew. It’s just awesome the possibilities of what the truth really is, we surely have very little way of knowing other than being spoon fed be the MSM.
“For its part, the Hebrew magazine “Israel Today” alleged that al-Gaddafi was from Jewish descent. Therefore, it was his right to seek refuge in Israel. Guaita Brown and her granddaughter Rachel Sa’da, both Jewish women from Libyan descent, confirmed that al-Gaddafi was from Jewish descent. Guaita Brown pointed to the fact that her grandmother and al-Gaddafi’s grandmother were sisters”.
“Meanwhile Sa’da made clear that al-Gaddafi’s grandmother was Jewish, and that she had married someone from the same religion. However, he abused her, so she left him and married a Muslim, (who was) a tribal leader. By him she gave birth to a daughter, who was al-Gaddafi’s mother. The magazine stated that even though al-Gaddafi’s mother converted to Islam when she married that leader, she remains–according to Israeli law–Jewish”.
#58 by 75.70.10.132 on March 22, 2011 - 9:37 am
Believe in it if you want Richard, that is your make up Richard. They are all lie factories, it is just that MSNBC is the kind of lies that appeal to you.
#59 by 75.70.10.132 on March 22, 2011 - 9:43 am
The MSM maintain the dialectic of division in the production of “news”, for that is what it is, a “production”. After not watching TV news for years I have recently come back to seeing it. It is phenomenal, the news is written as script to incite emotions, and forward two agendas, the two diametrically opposed. There is “truth” though it is generally distorted to favor the division paradigm required for the oligarchy to keep the masses on their ideological tracks, or simply confused.
#60 by Richard Warnick on March 22, 2011 - 10:10 am
All Richard Engel did was report that one guy said he was fighting Gaddafi because he thought Gaddafi was a Jew. Unlike a lot of Western reporters, Engel speaks Arabic and can get an accurate sense of what people are saying.
I thought this was an interesting observation, because it reminds us that the Libyan opposition is operating from a variety of motives. There may be no single answer to the “who are these guys” question.
#61 by 75.70.10.132 on March 22, 2011 - 10:33 am
That is for sure Richard. Might I suggest we revisit our emotions upon discovering that “Bush lied, and people died”. It is no different in any war, just write the script of lies, and leave a blank for whatever shill is the supposed..”leader”. ~Lead Liar~ is more like it.
Some people know this already, as for when it comes to war, the first casualty is always the truth (1918 US Senator Hiram Warren Johnson). However he might have phrased it, intelligent people throughout the ages have known this implicitly. In fact, how else are you going to get people you don’t know, to kill people you don’t know? That would be by LYING the fools into doing that work, and dying in stead.
What astonishes me after the last ten years is that many people are still utterly devoted to their political paradigms and beliefs, and a willingness to believe again the lies from people who have been proven liars and dis-informers in the very recent past. They are all to us, how hard is that to understand anymore?
“Cui Bono”?, people, PLEASE, “Who Benefits”? Figure out your own truth, or be led to someone else’s lies…
#62 by Richard Warnick on March 22, 2011 - 10:42 am
OK, what are these lies? Put them in a list of bullet points. The only one that comes to mind is the declaration that U.S. diplomacy is committed to ending Gaddafi’s rule but our military objectives exclude that.
Mainly, it looks to me that the President and other people at the top may be just guessing. They don’t know what the Libyan war is about any more than we do. Maybe that’s why the administration broke the law by not going to Congress for authorization, because they can’t come up with a good reason for this (other than oil, which you can’t say out loud in public).
#63 by 75.70.10.132 on March 22, 2011 - 10:44 am
If Khaddaffi is a Jew, and it appears he is truly is, you can be more than certain that the “rebel” elements have Jihadis among them. so once again is it in stupidity that we operate against Israeli interests?
Or is working against Israel’s security under Obama, now in our interests?
is Khadaffi a “Rogue” Jew? Why then the news story that Israel spent monies to hire mercenaries to help defend him and destroy the rebels?
If I were a Jew, I’d really want to find out what the hell is truly going on.
#64 by 75.70.10.132 on March 22, 2011 - 10:54 am
Actually, I want to find out, as an sworn American citizen, who we are really killing and bombing for, as if it isn’t for constitutionally directed and honest motives, we are being led to crimes by those willing to commit treason for whatever purpose, yet to be determined.
Will the American people accept the responsibility of citizenship and wake TF up?
#65 by 75.70.10.132 on March 22, 2011 - 11:04 am
You have faith in MSNBC, I’m onto who benefits Richard. FUCK MSNBC, FOX, and TV! It is being directed AT you so as to influence the feeble minded, as for whatever the reason, cruise missiles and bombs are once again raining down on a sovereign nation on our dime.
So now, the “smartest” president progressives have believed we have ever had is a “guesser”? Oh boy, how excited are we about that?
How about this story, moving on? Merkel bitches out Netanyahu for not working in any way on the peace process, after he sayd he is disappointed that Germany did not vote to bomb the shit out of Libya for….fill in the blank.
Directly after this her helicopter engines fail on her personal brand spanking new PUMA helicopter, and it almost crashes. Both engines failed and were restarted only moments before imminent disaster. The Germans are doing what they do, saying there was no mischief, though rumors are that the helicopter was disabled by a directed EMP weapon. Be sure, that as relations between Israel and Germany are now in the crapper, they will keeping this information close to their vest, and will find out the truth. Another cog in this incredibly tilted wheel.
#66 by Richard Warnick on March 22, 2011 - 11:50 am
The “who benefits” stuff is what we always get from 9/11 truthers. It’s what people say when they don’t have the facts at their disposal, and want to substitute a conspiracy theory.
Guessing is how many important decisions are made. It has nothing to do with the level of smarts, just the availability of reliable info.
Please source the Merkel-Netanyahu story, then we’ll talk. FYI, relations between Israel and just about every other country have been in the crapper for a while.
Directed EMP weapon? Pretty neat, if the rumors are true. Police could stop car chases a lot more easily.
#67 by 75.70.10.132 on March 22, 2011 - 4:49 pm
Well then Richard, then we could get the same results with a three year at the helm if guessing is all we are going to do. Or perhaps a monkey, but we already had that as a decider.
Life is a conspiracy Richard, there is no damn denying it, What do you call the entirety of the run up to Gulf War 2 for instance if not a conspiracy of many neo cons to deceive the slobbering masses into supporting a war based on the flimsiest of evidence. Even you have written, stated, and linked over and over to the facts concerning this CONSPIRACY to fraudulently create reasons to justify intervention in the form of war.
“Directed EMP weapon? Pretty neat, if the rumors are true. Police could stop car chases a lot more easily”.
They already have this technology Richard, it has been around for a while.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/22/2339204/Electromagnetic-Pulse-Gun-To-Help-In-Police-Chases
#68 by Richard Warnick on March 22, 2011 - 5:12 pm
What amazes me is that anybody believed the WMD nonsense, from members of Congress down to the snuffies sweating in their chemical protective suits. The evidence just didn’t exist, and before the invasion the U.N. told us in public that it didn’t.
Your link says that the prototype EMP weapon “fills an entire lab.” Police don’t have them yet, or mythical Mossad super-spies either.
#69 by 75.70.10.132 on March 22, 2011 - 5:31 pm
What I mean to ask is, do you think any intelligent people believe Obama’s bullshit?
The Russians have a single use device that is not bigger than a thermos, operating on explosive, and using a rifled magnet in rifled tube, wound with wire to create the emp pulse. Costs about 1000 bucks. The explosion is muffled and nominal. The device has the capacity to disable all unshielded electronic equipment within a 1 k radius. They are directable in a static position.
I’ll bet Merkel’s chopper is going for shielding modifications directly.
#70 by 75.70.10.132 on March 22, 2011 - 5:35 pm
Enjoy Richard.
http://www.sovereigndeed.com/PDF/articles_Deadly_Electromagnetic_Pulse_Weapons_Going_Portable.pdf
#71 by cav on March 22, 2011 - 5:59 pm
Ronnie Ray-gun!
#72 by 75.70.10.132 on March 22, 2011 - 7:08 pm
1000 dollar Soviet solution that is highly effective and can be used by untrained people. Not like our expensive complicated crap.
Really a Pooty-Poo Ray-gun.
#73 by Larry Bergan on March 22, 2011 - 7:13 pm
Newsmax, huh?
#74 by 75.70.10.132 on March 22, 2011 - 8:16 pm
The device I described is in the article, no matter who describes it, it does exist, this is the trouble with progressives, they cannot read into what is true or not. There is no end of crap written by progressive news sources that isn’t true, then there are things that are.
The name of the device is a flux compression emp device.
For better or worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator
#75 by Richard Warnick on March 22, 2011 - 9:13 pm
Yeah, Basher (Don Cheadle) stole one in “Ocean’s Eleven” (2001). Actually he called it a pinch device but it’s the same thing. Took a full-size van to haul it, and it was not directional.
#76 by 75.70.10.132 on March 23, 2011 - 1:31 am
These things do not have to be very big. Ocean’s 11, a bad movie, and a worse source.
Meanwhile the science goes back to the early 50′s, and there is really no way of knowing what has been made. The smallest vesions do not even use explosives, but use compressed air instead to initiate the pulse. They can be directed with a parabolic dish, is that in the movie?
http://www.futurescience.com/emp/emp-gen.html
#77 by Richard Warnick on March 23, 2011 - 7:16 am
You haven’t seen “Ocean’s Eleven”? BTW the Rat Pack original version in 1960 didn’t have an EMP weapon.
Usually Hollywood goes a bit beyond what’s practical in real-life. So I assumed that a real pinch device couldn’t cause a widespread Las Vegas blackout like it did in the movie.
#78 by 75.70.10.132 on March 23, 2011 - 7:24 am
I couldn’t get through more than 20m minutes of that crap Richard. Bad movie.
#79 by Richard Warnick on March 23, 2011 - 9:29 am
I like “Oceans’ Eleven,” and it rated 82% at Rotten Tomatoes, so the critics like it too.
#80 by 75.70.10.132 on March 23, 2011 - 9:34 am
People like all kinds of things, doesn’t mean it isn’t rubbish.
#81 by Richard Warnick on March 24, 2011 - 9:39 am
Back on topic here, apparently this was a Bush-style expansion of executive power. There was plenty of time for the Obama administration to consult with Congress and obtain an authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) in Libya. After all, they consulted with the U.N. Security Council members and with NATO.
Instead, the Obama administration is stretching the meaning of the War Powers Act give the President power to initiate military action against a country that hasn’t attacked us — WITHOUT an AUMF.
#82 by 75.70.10.132 on March 24, 2011 - 9:46 am
Clinton had E.O.s and did this as well, Bush, that’s given, the amazing expanding presidency! It takes Obama to make it pop. This ongoing debacle, along with the escalation in Afghanistan, is going to make him the incredible shrinking president.
#83 by Larry Bergan on March 24, 2011 - 4:53 pm
Congress doesn’t want to authorize anything. They’re way too busy breaking unions and destroying the middle class.
They haven’t even made a statement that makes sense, have they? Gingrich, (disgraced former congressional leader), contradicted himself, but that’s all we got.
#84 by Larry Bergan on March 24, 2011 - 5:01 pm
Maybe we should ask the Koch bothers if we should have bombed Libya…
Who’s in charge? Let’s ask them.
#85 by 75.70.10.132 on March 24, 2011 - 5:13 pm
Public employee unions should not be able to strike and cannot hold the public hostage for their pay and benefit packages, if they don’t like this, start a business or get another job. Even FDR said so, in times of fiscal difficulty collective bargaining has to conform to budgetary constraints. Why should we pay teachers more, they are doing a piss poor job. You are on the wrong side of history Larry, but that’s nothing new.
#86 by Larry Bergan on March 24, 2011 - 5:24 pm
OMG, 75.70.10.132 is Sean Hannity!
#87 by bangkok on March 24, 2011 - 8:12 pm
More like Sarah Palin – a mouthpiece that repeats what it hears with zero brain cells for processing information between receiving and subsequent transmission.
#88 by 75.70.10.132 on March 25, 2011 - 7:59 am
Palin and Hannity are simply expressing progressive champion Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s sentiments on the issue. Read up on it progressive dummies, you are on the wrong side of history, but no one expects continuity from those who haven’t a clue. Why do you think you didn’t win this issue?
“… Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations … The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for … officials … to bind the employer … The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives …
“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people … This obligation is paramount … A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent … to prevent or obstruct … Government … Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government … is unthinkable and intolerable.”
http://www2.hernandotoday.com/content/2010/oct/17/ha-fdrs-warning-public-employee-unions-a-no-no/
Dummies.
#89 by 75.70.10.132 on March 25, 2011 - 9:45 am
Why you fail. Keep your eyes open, see who it is who is selling unions out.
http://wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/sell-m25.shtml
#90 by Richard Warnick on March 25, 2011 - 10:20 am
Idiots like Scott Walker are picking on public sector employees because (1) their idol Ronald Reagan did it, and (2) they want to divide the middle class against itself before they wipe us out.
But it’s ideological overreach. It’s too soon to launch a final assault on the middle class.
#91 by 70.75.10.123 on March 25, 2011 - 11:13 am
It about the no money thing. That was a dumb thing to say, and won’t help the situation, if anything such dumb statements will only encourage Walker to finish the job. The public wants these whiners that they pay for, salaries and benefits to STFU. Would they rather just be fired and then we can a new batch of people who won’t be nearly so dumb?
#92 by Richard Warnick on March 25, 2011 - 11:27 am
You’re kidding, right? If Walker wants more money for Wisconsin’s budget, why was his first official act a tax cut for the rich and corporations? Budget deficits, at the state level and nationally, are nothing more than an excuse to hammer away at the middle class.
Don Hazen on AlterNet:
#93 by bangkok on March 25, 2011 - 12:09 pm
Walker is on his way out – may not even make it a one termer if the recall goes forward. He is already pissing off republicans by his overboard and overly broad approach to cuts. The pendulum is swing back to the dems faster than anyone could have imagined.
#94 by 70.75.10.123 on March 25, 2011 - 12:14 pm
To get business to invest in Wisconsin. Cutting taxes is going to keep you in office.
Really, you understand this, public employee unions dumped millions into Obama’s campaign coffers. Too bad he sold the dummies out.
You now push a straw man of Afghanistan, if you want something to happen approach who is responsible for the spending, Obama the war monger. Even if the war to stop, we certainly wouldn’t be giving more money to public employees. FOR WHAT?? God, progressives are…dumb.
#95 by 70.75.10.123 on March 25, 2011 - 12:17 pm
hahha, bangkok, this is more wishful thinking from dumb progressives. Even if he is not reelected, nobody is going to get any more money. If it happened in Wisconsin, it is going to happen all over America.
The end of the Democrat party is at hand, Obama killed it.
#96 by Richard Warnick on March 25, 2011 - 1:01 pm
Maybe the Democratic Party will survive, and we get a Progressive Party too. Then the Republicans will be a third party. This could happen very fast, look what became of the Whigs.
#97 by 70.75.10.132 on March 25, 2011 - 1:09 pm
The progressive side of the Demorat party is busy making any other part of it ineffectual and irrelevant. We are watching it cannibalize itself before our very eyes, while republicans laugh, and take full advantage.
#98 by 70.75.10.132 on March 25, 2011 - 1:14 pm
Demorat requiem… To the theme of “taps” played at military funerals…
Dumb, dumb, dumb…., dumb, dumb, dumb,… dumb dumb,dumb,…dumb, dumb, dumb…dumb, dumb, dumb…dumb, dumb DUUUUMMBBBED, dumb dumb, dumb….dumb, dumb, Duuuuuuumb..
Sad.
#99 by Richard Warnick on March 25, 2011 - 3:29 pm
Real Reason For US Deficit: GE Greed-$14.2B Profit, $0 Tax.
While their CEO lectured Army cadets about patriotism. Shameless is not enough of a word to apply to this.
#100 by 70.75.10.132 on March 25, 2011 - 6:24 pm
GE didn’t donate 500k dollars to the Obama campaign so they could pay taxes Richard. Are you confused about who owns this farm?
Get your shit straight, telling enlistees how they should direct their patriotism is appropriate for cannon fodder. GE needs these kids to be brainwashed so they can go out, kill and smash stuff with their products, hopefully destroy them, so we can pay GE some more to replace the junk.
Look at that, the GE CEO gave the cadets some cheesy swords, that they will honor and cherish forever.
“Military people are dumb stupid animals” Henry Kissinger.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/06/266114.shtml
#101 by cav on March 25, 2011 - 6:24 pm
DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB
That trollacious lick is of the ‘it takes one to know one’ breed.
Sometimes you have it going on…some other times…not so much.
#102 by 70.75.10.132 on March 25, 2011 - 6:52 pm
C’mon, look at where progressives sit now xompared to the lection of Obama, face it, yer dumb!!
#103 by 70.75.10.132 on March 25, 2011 - 6:56 pm
That is a hurtful whip cav, ooo, it takes one to know one! Witty and cutting, I am laid low. Argh!
It is too funny, to see the whine fest going on over Obama being a simple puppet progressives have followed to their doom.
I thought I might see some anger, but you guys ‘aint even there yet. It is funny!! What truly is the matter with progressives? Has the dream and ldeology replaced the observation of the obvious? Have you volunteered your brains for mush?
Look around!! You don’t matter for shit!! Wake up! Maybe fight like men?
#104 by Richard Okelberry on April 27, 2011 - 5:23 am
Thare are a lot of responses here so I’m not sure if anyone has put this up yet! Response to your question, “Can the President just declare war without any authorization from the Congress?” This is how Obama answered that question before becoming president…
“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. As commander-in-chief, the president does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. 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.” Obama – Boston Globe, 2007
#105 by Richard Okelberry on April 27, 2011 - 5:24 am
BTW: I love the publishing of I.P. Addresses… How did that come about?
#106 by Richard Okelberry on April 27, 2011 - 5:28 am
We shouldn’t forget this quote too…
#107 by Richard Warnick on April 27, 2011 - 9:10 am
R.O.–
You can find an excerpt from the December 2007 quote in the original post above. So much for the “constitutional scholar,” huh? Few complaints have emerged from the halls of Congress, because Congress is dysfunctional.
More than a month later, we are looking for some way to break the Libya stalemate. The longer this goes on, the more responsibility we’ll have for rebuilding post-Gaddafi.
#108 by Cliff on April 28, 2011 - 6:24 pm
R.O. I see you posted (on your ZERO page ranked) blog, the birther response to the release of BHO’s long form entitled; “White House Alters Birth Record Prior to Publication”
In the first sentence, you wrote; “I HATE TO SAY IT…
I was originally on the side of Obama with this whole Birther controversy…” I searched your commentless blog for any confirmation of your “original” position to no avail.
R.O. You must know that the combination of your defensive intro begging the reader to accept that you are not a racist and, the supporting argument: “But now, much like how Clinton lying under oath turned me against him” comes across to the thoughtful reader as insulting to the most base of intellects.
Reading further, it is fairly obvious, your hatred of Obama is unimpeachable and yet, you would ask us to believe that only NOW, you are “turned against him?”
Just dying to understand how such a mind works.
#109 by Richard Warnick on April 30, 2011 - 11:34 am
Last time I checked (not recently), R.O. didn’t allow comments on his own blog.