• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama Overruled Top Advisers on Libya

DeaconCav06

Dickie Hemric
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
30,743
Reaction score
4,836
President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

...uh oh...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?_r=1&hp
 
President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

...uh oh...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?_r=1&hp

Uh oh? Bush and Cheney are still free men. Ain't nothing happening to Obama.
 
President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

...uh oh...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?_r=1&hp

War on terror, fight them there rather than here, 2 full scale wars, and people are infuriated that we're sending sorties into Libya. Give me a fucking break.
 
Get Khadafy.

Is that the official position? Honestly, this has been so far off the front page I honestly don't know what everyone is trying to do. Well, I know the Euros are protecting their oil investments and that's about it.
 
Is that the official position? Honestly, this has been so far off the front page I honestly don't know what everyone is trying to do. Well, I know the Euros are protecting their oil investments and that's about it.

I didn't say it was the real mission or only mission, just what was sold. Obviously the other two weren't just Get Saddam or Get Osama.

I have some confidence that this administration wouldn't drag us into a third war but I'm less confident every day. I still don't know who these rebels are.
 
Last edited:
Uh oh? Bush and Cheney are still free men. Ain't nothing happening to Obama.

Hate to break it to you, but they both had congressional authorization to do use military force, in spite of the Dems best attempts to backpedal later.

That having been said, it's still Obama's prerogative to veto his advisers. The question though is why? He still has not given an explanation for what is going on in Libya, and he has ignored the deadlines. His actions defy explanation. It's not like people are suddenly going to think he's hawkish for bombing the shit out of Libya.
 
If doubling down on Afghanistan and going into a sovereign country without warning to get Osama doesn't do it, nothing will. It's amazing how folks buy into this idea that Obama is some kind of socialist bent on weakening America when the evidence shows otherwise.
 
Hate to break it to you, but they both had congressional authorization to do use military force, in spite of the Dems best attempts to backpedal later.

That having been said, it's still Obama's prerogative to veto his advisers. The question though is why? He still has not given an explanation for what is going on in Libya, and he has ignored the deadlines. His actions defy explanation. It's not like people are suddenly going to think he's hawkish for bombing the shit out of Libya.

Under false pretenses, and I think we're in year 10 in both without a declaration of war. Where was Boehner with the 90 day decree on these. This is straight up pure partisan bullshit. Either we're defending our national security, or you hate America.

Again, war on terror, fighting them over there rather than here, whoo! boot in that ass, national security. When were the reasons for Iraq defined/complete BS?
 
Under false pretenses, and I think we're in year 10 in both without a declaration of war. Where was Boehner with the 90 day decree on these. This is straight up pure partisan bullshit. Either we're defending our national security, or you hate America.

Again, war on terror, fighting them over there rather than here, whoo! boot in that ass, national security. When were the reasons for Iraq defined/complete BS?

Now you're the one spouting partisan bullshit. Go ahead and do the false pretenses claim all you want. Everybody saw the same evidence and voted accordingly.

Boehner has been pretty patient on this. If Obama thinks we're fighting terrorists over there, then he needs to say as much and make his case. He hasn't, and it's befuddling. Did Kaddaffy Duck quit playing ball? Are the terrorists we're fighting elsewhere among those trying to get him out? Just offer some clarity to the situation. That's not too much to ask.
 
Last edited:
Now you're the one spouting partisan bullshit. Go ahead and do the false pretenses claim all you want. Everybody saw the same evidence and voted accordingly.

Boehner has been pretty patient on this. If Obama thinks we're fighting terrorists over there, then he needs to say as much and make his case. He hasn't, and it's befuddling. Did Kaddaffy Duck quit playing ball? Are the terrorists we're fighting against among those trying to get him out? Just offer some clarity to the situation. That's not too much to ask.[/QUOTE]

But 10 years ago you had no problem accepting the exact same explanations when they were presented by the other side of the aisle.

Why does he have to say it? It's pretty fing obvious were spending money and bombing things for that implicit reason.

And yes clarity on the situation would be great, but you and I know they would just claim national security.
 
Hate to break it to you, but they both had congressional authorization to do use military force, in spite of the Dems best attempts to backpedal later.

That having been said, it's still Obama's prerogative to veto his advisers. The question though is why? He still has not given an explanation for what is going on in Libya, and he has ignored the deadlines. His actions defy explanation. It's not like people are suddenly going to think he's hawkish for bombing the shit out of Libya.

1) Bush acted with Congressional authorization in liberating Iraq. Own your vote. That's why I admired Candidate Hillary: she was twice the man as either of those princesses in 2004.

2) Obama can veto his advisors, and in this case, should. The mission in Afghanistan is not hard to decipher, it's just hard to do: deny dangerous elements of the population by removing a hostile regime and replace it with a stable, acceptable partner. The mission in Iraq is not hard to decipher either: remove a dangerous regime capable of producing WMD, and replace it with a stable, acceptable partner. Neither of those missions are good comparisons to Libya. The best analogy for the Libya mission is Bosnia: protect a vulnerable people from destruction by a brutal regime by denying freedom of aviation to the bad guys.
 
There's something vastly different between W & Cheney's cabal shopping for a John Yu to say what they want him to say in a "legal opinion" about torture and illegal wiretapping versus Obama, a Constitutional law professor, disagreeing with other lawyers.
 
There's something vastly different between W & Cheney's cabal shopping for a John Yu to say what they want him to say in a "legal opinion" about torture and illegal wiretapping versus Obama, a Constitutional law professor, disagreeing with other lawyers.

You are correct. W. and Bush's decision led to the intel that caught Bin Laden, whereas the Libya situation does not make our country safer. Vastly different indeed.
 
There's something vastly different between W & Cheney's cabal shopping for a John Yu to say what they want him to say in a "legal opinion" about torture and illegal wiretapping versus Obama, a Constitutional law professor, disagreeing with other lawyers.

So had Bush's counsel had a legal opinion you had agreed with and he overruled them, you would've been cool with that? That's good to know.
 
RJ. Honestly GTFO of here. Are you telling me that if the headline was about Bush overruling his lawyers you would react the same way?
 
He overruled these two or three advisors. unless I missed it the article didn't say he overruled ALL his advisors or a MAJORITY of his advisors.

What this article has is a couple of people.

In fact the article mentioned as many named people who agreed with Obama. The title of the article and the premise of the thread are only telling part of the story.

The difference here is Obama is not trying to find a way around clear cut, black letter international law like W did.

At the direction of the Administration, the FBI under W committed thousands of felonies by illegally wiretapping US citizens. There is no doubt about this as the FBI has admitted it.
 
Last edited:
From the article:

"The administration followed an unusual process in developing its position. Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel solicits views from different agencies and then decides what the best interpretation of the law is. The attorney general or the president can overrule its views, but rarely do.

In this case, however, Ms. Krass was asked to submit the Office of Legal Counsel’s thoughts in a less formal way to the White House, along with the views of lawyers at other agencies. After several meetings and phone calls, the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision."


Sounds like Obama had a feeling that the DOJ would not support his legal analysis and so devised a less formal process whereby he could circumvent their legal conclusions. It is telling to me that attorneys from the Pentagon supported the DOJ view, as they would be the agency most affected by the decision to get involved in Libya.

I find this issue interesting not because I think it will really affect Obama in his reelection bid or that he could face impeachment (both unlikely), but because I think it signals a new era in how our government approaches military operations. If the Obama analysis that no American personnel getting shot at = no "hostilities" stands then I would expect much less Congressional input into future military endeavors as our armed forces move to more unmanned missions.

To me, the test of whether we are engaged in "hostilities" is very simple. I would ask, "If another country did this to us, would I consider us at war?" Evidently, the President disagrees.
 
Back
Top