And Henry... if our troops ARE withdrawn by the end of Obama's (1st) term will you support him?
I would support his actions in doing so. Here is what I'm hoping for out of Obama, I'm hoping he will follow through with his campaign promises by the end of his first term. Since there is no guarantee he will get re-elected he needs to stop the BS and follow through what the people elected him on. End the wars, withdraw all our troops, end gitmo, and make the argument to repeal the unconstitutional laws put in place under the last administration.
Time is running out for him to make good on those promises, although I don't believe he will because I truly believe he sold out. If by some miracle he does make good on those promises I will be the first to say he will probably be unbeatable in 2012, economy in the tank or not. I would still vote for RP just because I know where he stands on the issues and has a voting record to back it. I think Ron Paul forgot more on economics than Obama knows so Paul would have a better solution in getting the economy back into shape. Although I will give credit where credit is due if Obama does those things, kinda late in my book but hey.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
If... A HUGE IF... Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination... say all the other candidates get a flu and die and Paul is the only man standing... and Obama is found out to be doing the white house maid and Michelle shoots and kills him... and by some miracle... Ron Paul IS elected President of the USA.
What power will he have... The Republicans in congress don't want him in the White House... The Democrats in congress don't want him in the White House... So Paul is there all alone with no way to promote any legislation.
Then What?
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Well Box he will have the power to veto, although congress would have to over rule that it would tie them up. He has control of the military so he would be able to pull them out from overseas. The presidents role is actually very limited under the constitution but he would have the power to really start shrinking the size and scope of this out of control mess we are in. It's funny most of his supporters including Paul say they want him in for the things he wouldn't do, that says allot. Most candidates run on promises they know they can never make good on, like handouts. Most legislation out there we want ended, good thing is many have to be brought back up and voted on, even if congress and the senate pass a unconstitutional piece of legislation it still must be signed back in by the president. Other bills can be simply allowed to sunset, we seen that happen with Clinton's assault weapons ban under Bush.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
White House to Congress: We Don't Need Your Authorization On Libya First Posted: 06/15/11 07:08 PM ET Updated: 06/15/11 07:13 PM ET
WASHINGTON -- The White House finally made its case to Congress on why it doesn't need lawmakers' approval to forge ahead with military operations in Libya: Because we're not at war.
Senior administration officials said Wednesday that the fact that the U.S. is only playing a support role in the NATO-led military effort in Libya -- that is, no U.S. troops on the ground and no potential for casualties -- and only plans to be involved for a short time means Obama doesn't need congressional authorization per the War Powers Act to proceed.
"We are confident that we're operating consistent with the resolution," an administration official said on a conference call with reporters. "That doesn't mean that we don't want the full, ongoing consultation with Congress or authorization as we move forward, but that doesn't go to our legal position under the statute itself, and we're confident of that."
The call came hours before the White House submitted a detailed, 32-page report to Congress that maps out the administration's legal justification for Obama continuing to call the shots on Libya without congressional approval...................>>>>>.................................>>>>>.......................http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/15/war-power-act-congress-libya_n_877736.html
The following is from a questionable source but I wouldn't put it past our government now a days, so take it for what it's worth.
Infowars.com has received alarming reports from within the ranks of military stationed at Ft. Hood, Texas confirming plans to initiate a full-scale U.S.-led ground invasion in Libya and deploy troops by October.
The source stated that additional Special Forces are headed to Libya in July, with the 1st Calvary Division (heavy armor) and three corps deploying in late October and early November. Initial numbers are estimated at 12,000 active forces and another 15,000 in support, totaling nearly 30,000 troops.
This information was confirmed by numerous calls and e-mails from other military personnel, some indicating large troop deployment as early as September. Among these supporting sources is a British S.A.S. officer confirming that U.S. Army Rangers are already in Libya. The chatter differs in the details, but the overall convergence is clear– that a full-on war is emerging this fall as Gaddafi continues to evade attempts to remove him from power.
A caller identified as “Specialist H” working for mortuary affairs under USCENTCOM revealed that there have already been American casualties inside Libya. He confirmed that at least 2 soldiers and 3 civilians have died from combat bullet wounds, something the media has yet to report, and needs to investigate and address.
Geo-political expert Dr. Webster Tarpley also told the Alex Jones Show today that wider war is being planned for Libya, while the count of simultaneous U.S. wars has reached five conflicts– including Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya and Yemen. The potential for an even greater spread of regional conflict could well provoke a World War III scenario, drawing in tenuous nations like Syria, Lebanon, Iran or even Saudi Arabia, according to Tarpley.
For his part, President Obama has brushed off demands to answer to Congress for continuing military action beyond the 60 day limit set under the war powers act. The engagement he first claimed would be over in mere days, Obama then dubbed a “kinetic action” rather than a war. Further, Obama has justified his commitment of American forces under a United Nations mandate, unconcerned by his own admission with the will of Congress. Now, with significant overlap in reports, we can confirm an apparent decision by Obama to support wider war and a longer-term involvement in Libya.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
10 Congressmen Sue Obama over Strikes in Libya Wednesday, June 15, 2011 By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — A bipartisan group of 10 lawmakers is suing President Barack Obama for taking military action against Libya without war authorization from Congress.
The lawmakers say Obama violated the Constitution in bypassing Congress and using international organizations like the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to authorize military force.
The lawmakers want a judge to issue an order suspending military operations without congressional approval. They said they were filing their lawsuit Wednesday against Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The plaintiffs are Democratic Reps. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, John Conyers of Michigan and Michael Capuano of Massachusetts and Republican Reps. Walter Jones and Howard Coble of North Carolina, Tim Johnson and Dan Burton of Indiana, Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland and Ron Paul of Texas.10 Congressmen Sue Obama over Strikes in Libya Wednesday, June 15, 2011 By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — A bipartisan group of 10 lawmakers is suing President Barack Obama for taking military action against Libya without war authorization from Congress.
The lawmakers say Obama violated the Constitution in bypassing Congress and using international organizations like the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to authorize military force.
The lawmakers want a judge to issue an order suspending military operations without congressional approval. They said they were filing their lawsuit Wednesday against Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The plaintiffs are Democratic Reps. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, John Conyers of Michigan and Michael Capuano of Massachusetts and Republican Reps. Walter Jones and Howard Coble of North Carolina, Tim Johnson and Dan Burton of Indiana, Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland and Ron Paul of Texas.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
LONDON (Reuters) - NATO admitted it carried out an air strike that killed civilians in Tripoli on Sunday.
"Although we are still determining the specifics of this event, indications are that a weapons system failure may have caused this incident," said Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard, Commander of Operation Unified Protector in a statement.
NATO said a military missile site was the intended target of the air strikes and acknowledged the civilian casualties.
Early on Sunday Libyan officials took reporters to a residential area in Tripoli's Souq al-Juma district where the reporters saw several bodies being pulled out of the rubble of a destroyed building.
Later, in a hospital, they were shown the bodies of two children and three adults who, officials said, were among those killed in the strike.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Obama’s negation of ‘hostilities’ in Libya draws criticism By David A. Fahrenthold, Published: June 20
The White House has officially declared that what’s happening in Libya is not “hostilities.”
But at the Pentagon, officials have decided it’s unsafe enough there to give troops extra pay for serving in “imminent danger.”
The Defense Department decided in April to pay an extra $225 a month in “imminent danger pay” to service members who fly planes over Libya or serve on ships within 110 nautical miles of its shores.
That means the Pentagon has decided that troops in those places are “subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions.”
Home » News Under Obama, U.S. Casualty Rate in Afghanistan Increased 5-Fold Wednesday, June 22, 2011 By Edwin Mora In this picture taken Tuesday, May 10, 2011, United States Marines run through dust kicked up by a Blackhawk helicopter from Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment as they rush a colleague wounded in an IED strike for evacuation near Sangin, in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer)
(CNSNews.com) - The average monthly casualty rate for U.S. military forces serving in Afghanistan has increased 5-fold since President Barack Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009.
1,540 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan since Oct. 7,2001, when U.S. forces began action in that country to oust the Taliban regime that had been harboring al Qaeda and to track down and capture or kill al Qaeda terrorists.
During the Bush presidency, which ended on Jan. 20, 2009 with the inauguration of President Obama, U.S. troops were present in Afghanistan for 87.4 months and suffered 570 casualties—a rate of 6.5 deaths per month.
During the Obama presidency, through today, U.S. troops have been present in Afghanistan for 29.1 months and have suffered 970 casualties—a rate of 33.3 deaths per month.
This evening President Obama is expected to announce the scope of U.S. troop withdrawals set to begin next month.
Of the 1,540 U.S. casualties in Afghanistan, according to CNSNews.com’s database of all casualties in the war, 1,340 have resulted from enemy action and the other 200 have resulted from non-combat accidents, illnesses and other non-combat causes.
The 970 U.S. casualties that have occurred while President Obama has been commander in chief equal 63 percent--or almost two-thirds—of all U.S. casualties that have taken place in the nearly-ten-year-long war.
I don't give a damn about the Taliban... Bush went to Afghanistan to get Osama BinLaden...(President Barack Obama got him) Bushy made it about the Taliban... not US Public Opinion. Osama BinLaden has been killed... (Unlike GWB's banner) this really IS "Mission Accomplished!"
As soon as possible we should leave Afghanistan and as planned leave Iraq by the end of the year.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I don't give a damn about the Taliban... Bush went to Afghanistan to get Osama BinLaden...(President Barack Obama got him) Bushy made it about the Taliban... not US Public Opinion. Osama BinLaden has been killed... (Unlike GWB's banner) this really IS "Mission Accomplished!"
As soon as possible we should leave Afghanistan and as planned leave Iraq by the end of the year.
Well don't hold your breath box, Obama just stated our "Combat" troops won't be out until 2014, other reports are saying 50,000 will stay beyond 2014 as support and training will continue under our effort. I agree with you though this mission is accomplished but don't expect our troops home under Obama, we need a leader who will bring them home now not later and not when the Generals see fit.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Box is still under the illusion that Obama is the decision maker. Obama wants to win re-election, he knows where his bread is buttered.
Quoted Text
Obama Beats McCain in Defense Contributions Barack Obama's campaign has pocketed $870,165 from defense-contractor sources, 34% more than the $647,313 in contributions McCain's campaign received from the same sector.
House of Representatives House Rebukes Obama on Libya, Weighs Funding Cutoff Published June 24, 2011
The House on Friday delivered its strongest rebuke yet to President Obama over his handling of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, refusing to endorse the U.S. operation more than three months after it began.
The House, in a 295-123 vote, rejected a resolution to "authorize" the mission in Libya -- even a limited operation with no ground troops. Only eight Republicans voted for the proposal. Though that resolution is non-binding, it represents the most definitive statement the chamber has made about the conflict.
The vote comes ahead of another this afternoon on a bill -- which has the force of law -- that calls for cutting off funding for the U.S. operation in Libya.
Taken together with proposals in the Senate, the House measures represent an accelerating move in Congress toward formally weighing in on Libya after months on the relative sidelines.
Ahead of the votes, lawmakers delivered impassioned arguments on the House floor, with Democrats and Republicans joining together on both sides of the debate. ...................>>>>.......................>>>>..................Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....ssion/#ixzz1QDTUHK3n
2 hrs 3 mins ago House rejects approval of Libyan operations, but does not vote to defund
By Chris Moody
The House of Representatives on Friday rejected a resolution endorsing limited military operations in Libya, but fell short of cutting off funds for U.S. military action in the region.
The measures were largely symbolic--but showed 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. During the second vote, 89 Republicans voted to continue the war funding.
This is the first time in 12 years that Congress has not voted to support a national military 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 first vote poses 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 today's set of resolutions, the Obama administration scrambled to keep the level of 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.
Logged
