Yes! This gives to much power to the President to go to war. Congress is suppose to declare war.
67%
No! They're too busy talking about NPR and Planned Parenthood to talk about declaring war on a 3rd country.
33%
Comments
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
At Mondragon - both the mountain and the cooperative city - in Spain (written about in "Threshold" book)
From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"If you wonder why and when giant corporations got the power to reign supreme over us, here’s the story."
From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"Beneath the success and rise of American enterprise is an untold history that is antithetical to every value Americans hold dear. This is a seminal work, a godsend really, a clear message to every citizen about the need to reform our country, laws, and companies."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"With the ever-growing influence of corporate CEOs and their right-wing allies in all aspects of American life, Hartmann’s work is more relevant than ever. Throughout his career, Hartmann has spoken compellingly about the value of people-centered democracy and the challenges that millions of ordinary Americans face today as a result of a dogma dedicated to putting profit above all else. This collection is a rousing call for Americans to work together and put people first again."
I have some trust left in Obama. We will be 90% out of this way before Congress comes back from another vacation. This is mostly a Navy operation with no US boots on the ground. As I saw the ship inventory listed in the Med, we don't even have a carrier air group in the area. If we save the freeedom fighters from being massacred, it will be worth the financial cost.
As a Veteran and a graduate of History, I am distraught at the events that are unfolding. We have not declared war, yet our actions have placed us in a 4th War. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and now Libya. There isn't any other word for it. Our credibility in the Middle East and the world is very suspect. As President Eisenhower feared, we have become a Military Industrial Complex. As a progressive, I believe we should not only put an end to the ongoing wars, but immediately stop the use of Private Security Forces. Although I could spend a great deal of time talking about the Privatisation of far too many Government functions, I can think of none more dangerous than making war a means to achieve profit. Our Armed Forces should be used for Defence only. We need bold progressive leadership in so many things. I can think of none more important than this.
This is Western Imperialism masked as a humanitarian intervention. What's going on is a "civil war" and the U.S. and NATO intervening is akin to the British Empire intervening on the half of the South during the American Civil War. Libya is a sovereign nation and for better or worse Qaddafi/Ghaddafi is the leader of Libya and I would imagine that he does have the loyalty of a significant segment of that nations population. This is like De Ja Vu when you look at Western/NATO intervention in the civil wars in Bosnia and southern Serbia (Kosovo) in the 90's. The Western intervention in the Balkan wars against the Serbs was largely aimed at weakening Russia's closest ally in the region. Thus diminishing Russia's influence and making way for oil and natural gas pipelines from the Caspian to the Black Sea and finally to the Mediterranean Sea. As for Libya. It has the largest oil reserves in North Africa. That fact alone takes some of the guess work out of the possible motives the U.S., U.K., France and other NATO nations have in meddling in the Libyan civil war.
I'm surprised at you Thom for using such a "push poll." You left off the 3rd alternative, that the Commander in Chief can only engage in military action under the limitations of the War Powers Act. The WPA requires timely notice to Congress - which President Obama met - and limits action to 60 days unless Congress approves continued action. If we went strictly by the wording of the Constitution it would severely limit the Commander in Chief from meeting urgent demands. I have too much respect for you to let this ride - even the wise Thom Hartmann can sometimes violate his own principles of transparency and honesty and airing all sides of an argument, even those with which he disagrees. Since you left off that 3rd option many of us can't vote in this poll.
Hi mblockhart,
Here is an excerpt from the War Powers Resolution of 1973: President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.
The Libyan Adventure fails on the terms of both counts.
The War Powers Resolution though ratified twice, and over a presidential veto. Still does not supercede the wording of The U.S. Constitution. It actually gives the President too much additional power. This brings to mind that the sitting President has neglected his duties to the U.S. Constitution, and has committed an Act Of War, in violation of Article one Section eight of The U.S. Constitution. The 112TH Congress shall now have to take him to task, on this serious infraction, along with the Citizens of each individual State.
I'm hoping that this helps. thanks.