The War Powers Resolution is Clear: Obama is Breaking the Law in Libya

ummm, blogs aint news.

But what's the real reason for this scrap ?

The House wants the chance to actually stop US involvement ?

Yeah, but it pales in comparison to the string of outrageous lies Bush told Congress and the world so he could invade and occupy Iraq.

Yet oddly enough, Bush always asked for and received legal authority to fight his war. It's not a question on if Obama is misrepresenting the war, or if the war is justified; it's a question if Obama will ask Congress for the legal authorization to extend the mission beyond 90 days as required by the War Powers Act.

Yet oddly enough, Bush always asked for and received legal authority to fight his war. It's not a question on if Obama is misrepresenting the war, or if the war is justified; it's a question if Obama will ask Congress for the legal authorization to extend the mission beyond 90 days as required by the War Powers Act.
So to understand the right-wing position here, it's cool that Bush told multiple lies to get the permission to invade a sovereign nation that Obama hasn't gotten to tool around in Libya.
There may be a slight legal distinction but I'm failing entirely to see a moral distinction.

Oddly enough, in a government of laws, laws trump morals (unless those morals are written into laws). Furthermore, having authorization and not having authorization is quite a large legal distinction.

Look at it this way; there must be consent to legally have sex. You may lie to a girl, telling her you love her and that you will call her the next day. She says yes, and you sleep with her. You lied, but she gave you authorization. Was the encounter legal?

Now consider you told her truthfully that you only wanted her for sex, and then slept with her without explicit authorization. Was this encounter legal?

This is not the right-wing position (it's not usually my M.O. to adhere to a "wing"), but the legal position.

This could also become a very serious issue. Some congressmen will ask the courts to end the mission if Obama doesn't seek authorization, and others are considering impeachment. It's very similar to someone being in contempt of Parliament.

Oddly enough, in a government of laws, laws trump morals (unless those morals are written into laws). Furthermore, having authorization and not having authorization is quite a large legal distinction.

Look at it this way; there must be consent to legally have sex. You may lie to a girl, telling her you love her and that you will call her the next day. She says yes, and you sleep with her. You lied, but she gave you authorization. Was the encounter legal?

Now consider you told her truthfully that you only wanted her for sex, and then slept with her without explicit authorization. Was this encounter legal?

This is not the right-wing position here (it's not usually my M.O. to adhere to a "wing"), but the legal position.
Getting lucky hardly compares to jumping right into the middle of a sovereign nation's shit. But let's use that analogy for a second. Let's say instead of telling her you love her, you put it in writing that you do, and that you'll call the next day, all while using a fake name and knowingly infecting her with AIDS after lying to her about being clean. Is that legal?
Explicit authorization becomes invalid if you've been defrauded of it.
All I'm saying is, anyone that has defended Bush's war in Iraq,(I'm not saying you have, or do) really can't bitch about the legality of Obama's actions re: Libya.

Keep in mind, I initially agreed with the US going into Iraq, I just had no idea that they had ZERO plan for the country post-Saddam and weren't really all that keen to come up with one, relying more on wishful thinking than anything else.

Obama doesn't need to have the authority of congress because this isn't an US lead mission, its a United Nations sanctioned mission, not hostile action taken solely by the states.