PDA

View Full Version : Kerry, McCain Senate Resolution: Authorize Obama To Employ the U.S. Funds/Forces In Libya




HOLLYWOOD
06-21-2011, 06:09 PM
Man it never ends with these warhawks... it appears, as usual, going through a secondary to launder the dirty work, most likely, hired mercenaries to assassinate the Qaddafi, his cabinet, and forces.

Posted at 03:20 PM ET, 06/21/2011 Kerry, McCain to introduce bipartisan resolution on Libya

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/kerry-mccain-to-introduce-bipartisan-libya-resolution/2011/06/21/AGlabReH_blog.html


By Felicia Sonmez (http://www.washingtonpost.com/felicia-sonmez/2011/03/03/ABfoBaN_page.html)
Two of the Senate’s leading voices on foreign policy said Tuesday morning that they plan to introduce a resolution authorizing the limited use of military force in Libya.
The resolution “would authorize the president to employ the U.S. Armed Forces to advance U.S. national security interests in Libya, as part of the international coalition that is enforcing U.N. Security Council Resolutions in Libya,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) announced on the Senate floor. He is joined in the effort by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.).

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he has had conversations with McCain and Kerry but that it wasn’t clear yet whether they would try to pass the resolution out of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee or whether Reid himself would try to move the measure to the Senate floor.

“I support what they’ve done,” Reid said of the McCain-Kerry resolution. “It’s bipartisan. I think it’s really well done and well thought-out.”
Among the co-sponsors of the resolution are Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.).

“It would limit this authority to one year, which is more than enough time to finish the job,” McCain said. “And it makes clear that the Senate agrees with the president that there is no need, and no desire, to commit U.S. conventional ground forces in Libya.”
The proposal comes as House leaders have suggested that the House may consider a resolution this week defunding the U.S. involvement in Libya, which is in its 94th day. The Libyan conflict has brought divisions among both parties. Some unconditionally back President Obama’s decision to commit U.S. forces to the conflict without first seeking authorization from Congress. Others support the goals of the mission but feel that Obama acted without properly consulting with the legislative branch. And others want the administration to better explain the goals of the intervention and argue that U.S. forces should not be committed to yet another conflict when they are being stretched thin in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In remarks on the Senate floor on Tuesday, McCain and Kerry spoke out forcefully on their resolution. Kerry criticized the resolution to defund the mission, saying that such a vote would represent a “moment of infamy” for the lower chamber.
“It would reinforce the all-too-common perception on the Arab street that America says one thing and does another,” Kerry said.

McCain acknowledged lawmakers’ concerns over the Obama administration’s handling of the Libyan mission and agreed that the White House had made missteps. Yet he argued that “the president did the right thing by intervening to stop a looming humanitarian disaster in Libya.”

The two senators also said that the question of Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi’s fall is a matter of when, not if.

“We are all entitled to our opinions about Libya policy, but here are the facts,” McCain said. “Gaddafi is going to fall. It’s just a matter of time. So, I would ask my colleagues, is this the time for Congress to turn from this policy? Is this the time to ride to the rescue of a failing tyrant when the writing is on the wall that he will collapse? Is this time for Congress to declare to the rest of the world ... that our heart is not in this, that we have neither the will nor the capability to see this mission through, that we will abandon our closest friends and allies on a whim?”

On one of the biggest questions looming over the Libya debate – whether the United States is involved in “hostilities” in the region – Kerry said that the current American involvement does not amount to hostilities.

“No American is being shot at,” Kerry said. “No American troop is on the ground or contemplated being put on the ground. So the mere fact that others are engaged in hostilities and we are supporting them, I don’t believe” amounts to hostilities.
The senators also said that their resolution is not a “blank check” for the president in Libya.

“It says specifically that the Senate does not support the use of ground troops in Libya,” Kerry said, “and the president has stated that that is his policy, but we adopt that policy in this resolution.”

McCain said that a date had not been set for a floor vote on the resolution.
Several senators, including Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), had been planning (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/with-senate-talks-in-flux-webb-crafts-alternate-libya-resolution/2011/06/07/AGnABNLH_blog.html) to introduce a resolution rebuking the administration for failing to seek authorization from Congress for the mission. It’s unclear whether that resolution may be taken up by the full Senate.

Asked at his weekly roundtable Tuesday whether he agreed with Kerry’s statement that a House resolution defunding the Libyan mission would be “a moment of infamy,” House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) responded, “I would share that view.”
“It certainly would undermine the confidence of NATO in the ability of the president of the United States to participate in the support of an effort that NATO had agreed to, the United Nations had agreed to and the Arab League had agreed to,” Hoyer said of a potential resolution to defund the Libyan mission. “And it is inconceivable to me that we would at this point in time defund that effort.”

He added that he welcomed the Kerry-McCain resolution authorizing the U.S. mission.
“Whether you agree or disagree with the War Powers Act, the fact is that in Iraq I and Iraq II, both President Bushes did seek and receive authorization for their actions,” Hoyer said.
Following is the full text of the resolution.

Joint Resolution Authorizing the Limited Use of the United States Armed Forces in Support of the NATO Mission in Libya
use link for details on the resolution by Kerry-McCain...

nobody's_hero
06-21-2011, 07:13 PM
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program 'limited' war.

To adapt the words of Milton Friedman.

muzzled dogg
06-21-2011, 07:22 PM
winter soldier

manny229
06-21-2011, 07:37 PM
Why is it everytime our representatives work together in some "feel good" bipartisan effort it always ends up screwing the American people?

muzzled dogg
06-21-2011, 07:38 PM
ron rips this kinda bipartisanship in liberty defined

QueenB4Liberty
06-21-2011, 07:58 PM
The resolution “would authorize the president to employ the U.S. Armed Forces to advance U.S. national security interests in Libya,

And those would be.......

oil?

Magsec
06-21-2011, 08:00 PM
Message to Kerry/McCain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKN57C0iB0c

eduardo89
06-21-2011, 08:17 PM
And those would be.......

oil?
Libya may not have as much oil as Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, but it has some of thr best quality petroleum in the world.

sailingaway
06-21-2011, 08:17 PM
I see they couldn't get any bipartisan support, just the war party.

HOLLYWOOD
06-21-2011, 09:06 PM
Libya may not have as much oil as Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, but it has some of thr best quality petroleum in the world.
http://apcheck.blogspot.com/2011/02/george-soros-libyan-oil-stocks.html


2/22/11

George Soros' Oil Stocks In Libya Skyrocketed, Then He Sold (http://apcheck.blogspot.com/2011/02/george-soros-libyan-oil-stocks.html)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2791/4309799402_ed83e729ec.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2791/4309799402_ed83e729ec.jpg)
George Soros' top energy investments (http://www.gurufocus.com/news.php?id=89230) all happened to be Top Oil Producers in Libya: Suncore Energy (http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Calgary+based+Suncor+evacuates+expatriate+staff+fr om+Libya/4326510/story.html?cid=megadrop_story), Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyProfile?symbol=PBR), Occidental Petroleum (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/22/occidental-libya-idUSN2229998420110222), Marathon Oil Corp. (http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN2228026720110222), Conoco Phillips (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/22/us-libya-usa-oilcompanies-idUSTRE71L5Y820110222), Halliburton (http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2007/02/27/soros_buys_halliburton), and Hess Corp. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-22/u-s-calls-violence-against-libyan-civilians-appalling-1-.html).

They were purchased fairly recently, each over the last several years.

Each company saw stock prices skyrocket over the last six months: Suncore Energy (http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:SU) up 46%, Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras (http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/dynamic_charting.aspx?selected=PBR&symbol=PBR&timeframe=6m&charttype=line) up 15%, Occidental Petroleum (http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:OXY) up 36%, Marathon Oil Corp. (http://www.dailyfinance.com/quotes/marathon-oil-corporation/mro/nys) up 61%, Conoco Phillips (http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:COP) up 42%, Halliburton (http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:HAL) up 67%, Hess Corp (http://www.dailyfinance.com/quotes/hess-corporation/hes/nys) up 57%. They have all done very well since Soros invested. But he started dumping these stocks very recently.

Soros somehow knew to reduce Suncore stocks on New Years eve (http://www.gurufocus.com/StockBuy.php?symbol=SU). Soros dumped almost all his holdings. Likewise, Soros dumped almost all of Halliburton (http://www.gurufocus.com/StockBuy.php?symbol=HAL&rec=1) on New Years eve. Same for Hess (http://www.gurufocus.com/StockBuy.php?symbol=HES). Soros dumped almost all of Occidental (http://www.gurufocus.com/StockBuy.php?symbol=oxy) at the end of September, along with most of Conoco Phillips (http://www.gurufocus.com/StockBuy.php?symbol=cop). He dumped much of Marathon (http://www.gurufocus.com/StockBuy.php?symbol=MRO) in June. Soros actually increased PBR (http://www.gurufocus.com/StockBuy.php?symbol=PBR) but that might have more to do with its huge oil bock buy in Africa (http://www.gurufocus.com/StockBuy.php?symbol=PBR). Each company began to tumble over these last few days because of the bloody revolution in Libya.

Soros switched much of that over to Russia and Venezuela oil giant Harvest National Resources (http://seekingalpha.com/article/251219-soros-fund-adds-to-harvest-national-resources-holdings), which skyrocketed right after his initial September 2010 buy.

Last March, Soros invested in airport screeners (http://www.gurufocus.com/StockBuy.php?symbol=OSIS). How did he know to do that? Insider info! But how did he know what would go down across the Middle East?

Brett85
06-21-2011, 09:12 PM
Unfortunately, this resolution will pass the Senate easily. Conversely, the resolution will fail by a large margin in the house. The house is generally just a lot better body than the Senate, regardless of party affiliation.

cindy25
06-21-2011, 09:52 PM
I hope this is allowed an up or down vote in both the House and Senate.

flightlesskiwi
06-21-2011, 09:53 PM
“It says specifically that the Senate does not support the use of ground troops in Libya,” Kerry said, “and the president has stated that that is his policy, but we adopt that policy in this resolution.”

until that policy changes. and then will the administration's argument be that, despite the "language" in the resolution, the senate funded boots on the ground so boots on the ground it will be. or maybe that "we've gotten this far, we just can't leave the Libyans to die in the chaos that figure out how to run the democracy we've created they obviously wanted us to help plant and we need a nation building force on the ground after the non-hostilities."

nobody's_hero
06-22-2011, 05:00 AM
I hope this is allowed an up or down vote in both the House and Senate.

They will probably use some new device called 'autovote' and then it will be sent to Obama's 'autopen'. :rolleyes:

HOLLYWOOD
06-22-2011, 07:57 AM
Unfortunately, this resolution will pass the Senate easily. Conversely, the resolution will fail by a large margin in the house. The house is generally just a lot better body than the Senate, regardless of party affiliation.

With all the backroom deals and payoffs, the thirst for crude oil, Nat Gas, and big lobby can get the votes. Steny Hoyer is already onboard... and we know Boehner is spineless, Pelosi and Cantor will do anything to protect Israel Near East.N, Africa region. We shall see if history repeats: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-hc51/show

159 Democrats
and
152 Republicans did not vote for Dennis Kucinich's Libya bill HR 51

Here's an interesting bit on the Libyan Oil
Check this out: http://www.oilslick.com/Newsletter/Default.aspx?id=389


Paper Trail Shows Big Oil Had Dangerous Qaddafi Ties 6/14/2011 4:50:32 PM: From the perspective of price, Libya's political mess is still front and center for oil industry observers because, at this point, it seems all but certain that Libya's production for 2011 is a lost cause. The political element of what is going in Libya has sort of been shuffled to the back burner, unless you are a big fan of global geo-politics. Surprisingly or not surprisingly, Muammar Qaddafi is still in power in Libya, Africa's third-largest oil producer and home the continent's largest reserves. Sure, Qaddafi is hanging on by a thread, but the same was said about him in February. Here we are and it is mid-June.

It kind of reminds me of that scene in the ''Godfather II'' when one of the characters said Hyman Roth had been dying of the same heart condition for 20 years. In other words, the world can think Qaddafi's grip on power is tenuous. He could also still be in power a year from now.

All of this is my long-winded way of saying that Qaddafi is royal pain in the neck, to put it delicately, but the allure of Libyan oil riches was too compelling for some of the world's biggest oil companies to ignore.

Back in March, we had a news story here on OilSlick about Qaddafi's attempt to essentially extort money from big oil companies to pay $1.5 billion in fines Libya was facing related to acts of terrorism. That story can be viewed (HERE) (http://oilslick.com/News/?id=2460&type=2) Oil Execs Reportedly Discussed Terrorist Fines With Qaddafi.

(http://oilslick.com/News/?id=2460&type=2)
There is a bit more drama to that story today after Bloomberg, citing documents filed by the company, reported Occidental Petroleum (OXY) (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/h?s=OXY+Headlines), the fourth largest U.S. oil company, hired an esteemed Washington law firm in 2008 to help get Libya exempted from legislation that allows American victims of terrorism to seize assets of the countries found liable.

Diplomatic cables released by the infamous whistle blower Web site WikiLeaks show many of the big boys of the oil business, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell (RDS-A) (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/h?s=RDS-A+Headlines) and BP (BP) (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/h?s=BP+Headlines), just to name part of the group, came to Qaddafi's aid.

I am not defending the oil companies, but they were certainly in a bad spot here. As Bloomberg reports, this was matter of get Qaddafi off the hook or else. The ''or else'' being lost opportunities to tap Libya's plentiful oil reserves.

Beyond that less-than-appealing scenario, oil companies operating in Libya in 2008 were faced with the specter of not being too vocal about the legislation they opposed because it would have appeared as though they were attempting to diminish the rights of victims of terrorism. Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place.
For their parts, ConocoPhillips (COP) (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/h?s=COP+Headlines) and Exxon (XOM) (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/h?s=XOM+Headlines) refused to comment on the report as their right to do so, but this situation underscores an important point and that is dealing with folks that are not exactly stable, such as Qaddafi, is the lay of the land for big U.S. oil companies. And that gets us back to why the U.S. government should be encouraging more domestic exploration.

There is no getting around the fact that companies like Exxon, Chevron (CVX) (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/h?s=CVX+Headlines) and their peers will always have to operate in some unfriendly locations and do business with some unsavory characters, but this really is a case of less is more. As in less dealings with guys like Qaddafi is better for all involved.

Todd Shriber