Why is the Admin returning to Libya? Didn't they mess it up enough last time?

[moonshine]

@Cratic3947

Benghazi was bad, but it’s nothing compare to the years of chaos and loss of life, the return of slavery, and the boats of refugees, and all the other horrors the Obama admin inflicted on Libya for unknown reasons.

Biden administration's return to Libya inexplicable when US faces multiple crises at home: Jim Jordan | Fox News

Now, Who ever runs this admin want to do more damage by returning there.
Why? Didn’t they learn from there last attempt to “fix” things.

We were probably there the first time because the intel community seeded the press with false stories they they later bring to up to justify the bombings. As we learned during the russian collusion lie era. Or from Fast and Furious scandal

rule #1. if a story on fox news and its anti biden its probably garbage…

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Ben_Natuf

when did the UN become the body that could lawfully order US forces to invade anything?

its not

no he doesn’t, the idea that he does is a purposeful misreading of the war powers act which completely ignores section 5.

(d)Constitutional authorities or existing treaties unaffected; construction against grant of Presidential authority respecting use of United States Armed ForcesNothing in this chapter—

(1)

is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provisions of existing treaties; or

(2)

shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this chapter.

all of the verbage used to support the authority is taken from the section of the law regarding reporting requirements, not authorization.

under the WPA the President does NOT have authority to introduce US forces into combat without either congressional authorization, treaty requirements (which all caveat authorization), or to repel or prevent invasion (which can be widely interpreted).

50 U.S. Code § 1547 - Interpretation of joint resolution | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Well, the OLC came to a different conclusion, so here we are.

I would hasten to add that throughout our history, presidents have engaged in military actions including full fledged wars with nary a war crimes trial.

If you want to overhaul the WPA and (especially) the AUMF, I am right there with you. But to single out Obama’s intervention in Libya to the exclusion of all other instances is disingenuous

[Ben_Natuf]

when did i single out his? i merely pointed out it was unlawful. so was korea, so was panama. the others can be justified (liberally) with the existing constitutional powers of the president.

and why would i care if the olc came to the conclusion they wanted to instead of the one provided for in the law? the law itself states clearly that it is not and cannot be used as a de facto 90 day authorization.

[W_and_C]

I still don’t understand how exchanging ambassadors equals to nation building

[Ben_Natuf]

did anyone claim that? i see it more as resetting the target.

[WuWei]

Great strategery move. Endless wars.

[W_and_C]

@Ben_Natuf

did anyone claim that? i see it more as resetting the target.

It sounded like what the OP was saying.

[SixFoot]

@Cratic3947

You think there’s peace in Libya right now?

Not without “help” there won’t be.

[gooddad409]

@SixFoot

Quagmire. No end in sight. World policing. No blood for oil.

Ah, the good ol’ days. lol

The dems apparently seek a return to that. Quagmire and war.

[SixFoot]

As predicted.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Ben_Natuf

when did i single out his? i merely pointed out it was unlawful. so was korea, so was panama. the others can be justified (liberally) with the existing constitutional powers of the president.

and why would i care if the olc came to the conclusion they wanted to instead of the one provided for in the law? the law itself states clearly that it is not and cannot be used as a de facto 90 day authorization.

Well, okay then. I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but it’s not going to happen.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@W_and_C

I still don’t understand how exchanging ambassadors equals to nation building

It doesn’t. This thread is just garden variety conservative complaint.

We all know damn well, that if a Rep president was fixing to re-establish a diplomatic mission, they wouldn’t say a word about it.

[W_and_C]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@W_and_C

I still don’t understand how exchanging ambassadors equals to nation building

It doesn’t. This thread is just garden variety conservative complaint.

We all know damn well, that if a Rep president was fixing to re-establish a diplomatic mission, they wouldn’t say a word about it.

I mean - they might’ve said something about it, but it’d likely be a very different take.

[WuWei]

@Ben_Natuf

so was panama

What? WHAT?

[Ben_Natuf]

no, its not. it should.

[Cratic3947]

@moonshine

@Cratic3947

Benghazi was bad, but it’s nothing compare to the years of chaos and loss of life, the return of slavery, and the boats of refugees, and all the other horrors the Obama admin inflicted on Libya for unknown reasons.

Biden administration's return to Libya inexplicable when US faces multiple crises at home: Jim Jordan | Fox News

Now, Who ever runs this admin want to do more damage by returning there.
Why? Didn’t they learn from there last attempt to “fix” things.

We were probably there the first time because the intel community seeded the press with false stories they they later bring to up to justify the bombings. As we learned during the russian collusion lie era. Or from Fast and Furious scandal

rule #1. if a story on fox news and its anti biden its probably garbage…

Projecting from 3 years of lies on all democrat media? The admin is going back into Libya.

[Cratic3947]

@SixFoot

@Cratic3947

You think there’s peace in Libya right now?

Not without “help” there won’t be.

Describe “help”.

[Cratic3947]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@W_and_C

I still don’t understand how exchanging ambassadors equals to nation building

It doesn’t. This thread is just garden variety conservative complaint.

We all know damn well, that if a Rep president was fixing to re-establish a diplomatic mission, they wouldn’t say a word about it.

No, It’s about how this admin and our intel agencies messed up Libya last time, and learning from that.

The middle east was much more peaceful with Trump, than who ever runs this admin. Remember ISIS etc…

[Cratic3947]

Shouldn’t we call this type of interventionist foreign policy " Neocon"?

[W_and_C]

@Cratic3947

Shouldn’t we call this type of interventionist foreign policy " Neocon"?

If and when they actually start nation building, sure. That has not happened.