Aa
House rejects resolution endorsing Libya operations, expected to deny funding
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110624/ts_yblog_theticket/house-rejects-resolution-endorsing-libya-operations-expected-to-deny-funding
The House of Representatives on Friday rejected a resolution endorsing limited military operations in Libya, and is expected to approve a bill this afternoon that would cut funds for most U.S. military action in the North African country.
The measures are largely symbolic--but show a growing rift between Congress and the White House on presidential war powers, even within President Obama's own party. Seventy-two Democrats joined the Republican majority to kill the resolution approving of the operations.
This is the first time in 12 years that Congress has not voted to support a national operation. The last instance was in 1999, when the House voted 213-213 on a resolution that would have approved of Bill Clinton's military action in Kosovo.
The resolution to cut off funds, introduced by Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL), would allow the United States to continue working with NATO on intelligence gathering, search and rescue and aerial refueling operations. But a follow-up measure would restrict the military from leading an escalation of force in the region. That vote is expected around 1:30 p.m. EST.
The votes pose a dilemma for congressional Democrats, some of whom believe the White House failed to consult Congress before initiating force against Libya. Within the caucus, the debate raged: Support the president, or take a stand for the chamber and send a clear message to Obama that demands him to consult Congress first.
In preparation for the vote, the White House scrambled to keep the level embarrassment to a minimum. The White House sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to meet with Democratic House members Thursday night, and White House officials spent the evening contacting Democratic members of Congress to sway their votes, Politico reported.
Some Democrats who supported the resolution consider the vote on restricting funds a cheap political stunt. Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, accused the GOP of "toying with national security."
"The majority is bringing up this resolution in order to embarrass the White House," Berman said on the House floor before the first vote. "They know it will fail. They want to continue to play games with U.S. national security. Let's be honest about what's happening here."
The operation in Libya has tepid support among the public: Just 39 percent of respondents to a recent Gallup poll said they support the nation's involvement in Libya while 46 percent disprove.
The House of Representatives on Friday rejected a resolution endorsing limited military operations in Libya, and is expected to approve a bill this afternoon that would cut funds for most U.S. military action in the North African country.
The measures are largely symbolic--but show a growing rift between Congress and the White House on presidential war powers, even within President Obama's own party. Seventy-two Democrats joined the Republican majority to kill the resolution approving of the operations.
This is the first time in 12 years that Congress has not voted to support a national operation. The last instance was in 1999, when the House voted 213-213 on a resolution that would have approved of Bill Clinton's military action in Kosovo.
The resolution to cut off funds, introduced by Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL), would allow the United States to continue working with NATO on intelligence gathering, search and rescue and aerial refueling operations. But a follow-up measure would restrict the military from leading an escalation of force in the region. That vote is expected around 1:30 p.m. EST.
The votes pose a dilemma for congressional Democrats, some of whom believe the White House failed to consult Congress before initiating force against Libya. Within the caucus, the debate raged: Support the president, or take a stand for the chamber and send a clear message to Obama that demands him to consult Congress first.
In preparation for the vote, the White House scrambled to keep the level embarrassment to a minimum. The White House sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to meet with Democratic House members Thursday night, and White House officials spent the evening contacting Democratic members of Congress to sway their votes, Politico reported.
Some Democrats who supported the resolution consider the vote on restricting funds a cheap political stunt. Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, accused the GOP of "toying with national security."
"The majority is bringing up this resolution in order to embarrass the White House," Berman said on the House floor before the first vote. "They know it will fail. They want to continue to play games with U.S. national security. Let's be honest about what's happening here."
The operation in Libya has tepid support among the public: Just 39 percent of respondents to a recent Gallup poll said they support the nation's involvement in Libya while 46 percent disprove.
I heard they rejected the motion to defund.
We all know there is more to this story, we are NOT in libia cause we are humanitarian, there is something for us there, just dont know what yet or how it works but I can gaurantee you it is in our best intersest some how, especially when in the midst of our econemy issues. But I agree, it is time to take care of home and let other countries do the same where we can. Problem is we are just so globally connected that it is hard to wrap your head around the particulars.
Well the situation is exactly whether he should have or not, and this has been ongoing. He probably SHOULD have taken it with congress sooner, but the question of the day is why are they making such a big deal when all the presidents before him ignored it all as well. Here is where and how I was making my point when it comes to what the war powers act actually says, and if it indeed was or was not a declarationof war or if in fact it were participating along with other countries to make it a united force for nato. To answer these questions and not be swayed by the opinions of either side, you would have to investigate the war powrs act itself and refer to the international laws of the UN. You see altho we citizens like to think we so smart, all this is really complicated. You have some saying, no it was not a declaration of war on lybia, others saying it is, others still saying he had no right without congress and others saying why enforce it now when all presidents in the pass have ignored it as well. So you see, regardless of what we all think, to get to the meat of it all, again a lot of research is in order. I have no problem with us being in there and I also have no problem with boots on the ground for that matter. But what amuzes me and yes I am being a bit sarcastic here is this. How many countries are going after this dude all in the name of ousting him and he stands there and gives all of us the middle finger. Now is it me, or am I the only one feels a might insulted at this. All these countries and this one little man flipping all of them off? Go in and drag himout by the boots and be done with it! So they gonna what deny funding? Oh boo hoo, if that not political bs, I dont know what is.
How about he could have gone into the Ivory Coast have you checked that one out when we talk about slaughtering ...just a thought .he also went to the UN for permission instead of the US congress..he bypassed congress....another thought our US drones are bombing Yemen and Pakistan ..I believe there are pics out,on BBC of Americans in Libya showing them how to use weapons so we do have 'boots on the ground '.
I am not pro going in there either. I feel so badly for the people of Libya and the other countries this is going on in (look at what is happening in Syria). However, the middle east and parts of Africa are going through huge transition, and personally, I think the people of these countries have to sort this one out. I do however believe in supporting them in the the sense of sanctions against the leaders, and strong messages coming from world leaders condemning their actions, as well as limited support. I know it won't really stop anything, but it will make the local people feel supported. But NATO and the various western countries just cannot police these situations. They are fighting for their freedom...it was bound to happen eventually and I just believe this has to remain an internal issue. If NATO goes in with full military action, gets rid of their leader and puts another in place, the people haven't really won anything but another occupation. I gotta say it kills me to say that because these folks are literally being butchered. But for every free country, freedom has come with a cost. I wish them success, but the only way real change will happen is from the people themselves.
What I wonder about is why Libya? 1/2 the world is in civil turmoil right now. I do have to wonder if the oil thats there has anything to do with it? I mean, this has been going on for years in many countries and no one has said boo about it.
What I wonder about is why Libya? 1/2 the world is in civil turmoil right now. I do have to wonder if the oil thats there has anything to do with it? I mean, this has been going on for years in many countries and no one has said boo about it.
WHOA stop the presses!!!! There's actually another Obama supporter other than me here!!!! WOW!! LOL
Mary on Magi's puter
OK everyone hold on to your hats ! As most of you know, I was and still am a Obama supporter.......but.......on this one I think he should have taken it up with Congress sooner. I'm pretty certain they would have approved going into Libya with NATO. I mean really, none of them would want to pull out of NATO and Kadafy (sp) had already started to slaughter his own people. I think what's really chapping Congress's butt's is he didn't run it by them. Now it has all become about re-elections. Remember Rwanda they slaughtered thousands with machetes. I know we are broke and need to take care of us, but we really can't sit back while people are being slaughtered and screaming for help. (Well at least I can't). I don't think I'd put boots on the ground, but at least, I sure would be dropping some AK-47's for them to defend themselves, or send in some drones to take out Kadafy (sp).
OK everyone hold on to your hats ! As most of you know, I was and still am a Obama supporter.......but.......on this one I think he should have taken it up with Congress sooner. I'm pretty certain they would have approved going into Libya with NATO. I mean really, none of them would want to pull out of NATO and Kadafy (sp) had already started to slaughter his own people. I think what's really chapping Congress's butt's is he didn't run it by them. Now it has all become about re-elections. Remember Rwanda they slaughtered thousands with machetes. I know we are broke and need to take care of us, but we really can't sit back while people are being slaughtered and screaming for help. (Well at least I can't). I don't think I'd put boots on the ground, but at least, I sure would be dropping some AK-47's for them to defend themselves, or send in some drones to take out Kadafy (sp).
@ teko...Excellent info. I'm def going to do just that... 2 questions tho! If the war powers act was in place how did former pres. George Bush Veto the house and declare war on Iraq anyway? Again forgive my ignorance...lol Also, Do you think the house denied this so Pres Obama can look like he just wanted to start another war which would deter some people to vote for him??? Things that make you go hmmm huh?!
Well, its all in how you look at it I guess. Altho we were under the impression it would be a short stint too, and here we are! The problem comes tho from the pubs and others claiming that under the war powers act Obama had to get permission from Congress to go into Libia. BUT, we went in as part of a plan, with nato and how many other countries to support the position of the people of Lybia. So the pubs and others are using this as a declaration of war without their consent. However, if you look up and resear the war powers act, no one can decide if it is or is not the Presidents right to declare war apart from congress. lol This is where it gets sticky. It still is not agreed upon from what I understand one way or the other, is still up for intrepetation. Regardless, at a time when the pugs are making points by defunding and all, it is a political ploy imo. We also all have to abide by international law as well and again, in order to understand you have to view all sides. Look up UN website, I think I posted it here somewhere on this site.
I gotta say, I agree with the house on this one......Some please tell me why we are concerned with Libya to begin with? I'll be honest and say I haven't followed this particular story so forgive my ignorance on the situation...
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
