[Newsbot]

Title: 2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate
Category: Uncle Sam
Posted By: DanSC
Date: 2011-06-17 20:15:01

[DanSC]

$1:

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military's activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to "hostilities."

I guess they don't teach the meaning of the word "hostile" at Columbia.

[Freakinoldguy]

This makes it sound like he out debated two people who didn't work for him when the reality is that they both hold positions in his administration and are beholding to him for their jobs.

$1:

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.

Typical leftist propaganda.

[DanSC]

Here's how the exchange went.

Lawyer: Mr. President, if we're dropping bombs, we're being hostile.

President: No we're not. If I stand on the street in front of your house and throw rocks at your windows, is that hostile?

Lawyer: What? Of course that's hostile!

President: No it's not. It's only hostile if I throw rocks while standing on your lawn. If I throw them from the street, I'm not on your property, and it's not hostile.

[DanSC]

Oh crap it's actually much worse than that.

$1:

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.

.

[weaselways]

That is pretty fine line Obama is walking. Support & supply ok. Drones over Libyan airspace, how does Obama pull that out of the Crackerjackbox as not hostile? I suppose as chief executive he can also say red is green.

[andyt]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

This makes it sound like he out debated two people who didn't work for him when the reality is that they both hold positions in his administration and are beholding to him for their jobs.

$1:

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.

Typical leftist propaganda.

Unlike Bush who said torture was OK 'cause the lawyers told him so. Typical rightist propaganda. Ain't kneejerking fun>

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

This makes it sound like he out debated two people who didn't work for him when the reality is that they both hold positions in his administration and are beholding to him for their jobs.

$1:

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.

Typical leftist propaganda.

Unlike Bush who said torture was OK 'cause the lawyers told him so. Typical rightist propaganda. Ain't kneejerking fun>

Yup, especially since I took aim at the Newspaper that printed the leftist crap unlike you who took in aim at the former President.

Certain newspapers sensationalize things but this headline borders on the absurd by it's blatent attempt to trying to build up Obama's credibility and debating skills, albeit probably without his consent into something legendary.

This crap reads like something straight out of the National Inquirer for it's double speak and ineundo.

So, it was the New York Times which certainly isn't a right wing publication that made these blatently misleading statements about what actually transpired, I called it left wing bullshit because of the publication that printed it.

But here's a question for ya. Why whenever any conservative on this forum mentions the Liberal sponsorship scandal he's met with, that's past history, over now doesn't matter, but, whenever someone mentions Obama's failings, the left always brings up Bush?

[weaselways]

We don't have to go to Bush. We could go to Mulrooney's Airbus scandal however the Right would come and say thats peanuts compared to the Sponsorship scandal and its even older. Then the Left will come back with something up to date such as the Clement porkbarrel for Muskoka/Parry Sound. The Right will return with 100M Sponsorship cost in the province of Quebec. The Left will volley back 50M for only two sparsely populated counties in Ontario. It would be like a dog chasing its tail, you'll just get tired out.

[Freakinoldguy]

Then why do people keep doing it if it's as pointless as we all know it is?

[weaselways]

Looking at past indiscrestions is easier than discussing the present and holding a grudge is simpler than coming up with a solution.

[andyt]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Then why do people keep doing it if it's as pointless as we all know it is?

I responding more to your typical left wing propaganda jibe than the issue itself. As if there's not right wing propaganda.

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Then why do people keep doing it if it's as pointless as we all know it is?

I responding more to your typical left wing propaganda jibe than the issue itself. As if there's not right wing propaganda.

There is, Fox news for example, but this was still way beyond the realm of logic. Christ did the NY Times think no one would notice that he was debating his own government.

[andyt]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

andyt andyt:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Then why do people keep doing it if it's as pointless as we all know it is?

I responding more to your typical left wing propaganda jibe than the issue itself. As if there's not right wing propaganda.

There is, Fox news for example, but this was still way beyond the realm of logic. Christ did the NY Times think no one would notice that he was debating his own government.

So you see Fox News and the Times as equally slanted, just on different sides of the spectrum? How rightwing of you.

I don't really get what you're on about. If the story was spun to say he had legal advice that he could go in, that would be propaganda. Like Bush did with torture. (Had his pet lawyers give him the decision he wanted.) Obama went out on a limb by going against advice, it exposes him further to charges. So neither the paper nor the White House backing up Obama or playing CYA.

$1:

Still, the disclosure that key figures on the administration’s legal team disagreed with Mr. Obama’s legal view could fuel restiveness in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties this week strongly criticized the White House’s contention that the president could continue the Libya campaign without their authorization because the campaign was not “hostilities.”

See, it doesn't help Obama at all. The NYT must be some right wing rag to print this stuff.

[PluggyRug]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

andyt andyt:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Then why do people keep doing it if it's as pointless as we all know it is?

I responding more to your typical left wing propaganda jibe than the issue itself. As if there's not right wing propaganda.

There is, Fox news for example, but this was still way beyond the realm of logic. Christ did the NY Times think no one would notice that he was debating his own government.

Well, my aircraft kept banking to the left, so I adjusted the aileron linkage to promote straight and level flight, However it insisted on falling into a left bank. After landing I found a copy of the NYT jammed under the right aileron.