Why did Ron Paul vote against limiting funds for Libya?

[wormyguy]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll494.xml

I had heard that he said it contained too many exceptions - but that's still no reason to vote against it!

[tsai3904]

H R 2278 approves funding for the following activities in connection with the Libya war: (1) search and rescue; (2) intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; (3) aerial refueling; and (4) operational planning.

The bill APPROVES funding for the Libya war. The title of the bill is misleading.

[jmdrake]

Because right now Obama has no congressional authorization for the war in Libya. Had the bill passed it could have been construed as a type of authorization.

[TheDriver]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UYcHBD4dHo&feature=player_embedded

[low preference guy]

He did not vote against limiting funding. The bill would have actually authorized funding for the things Obama is doing in Libya.

[amy31416]

The bill APPROVES funding for the Libya war. The title of the bill is misleading.

Yes it does. Yes it is. We need to get these lovely fellows under control.

[low preference guy]

I was disappointed Drudge bought the lies.


House votes 'no' on continuing Obama's war in Libya...

...Then votes against de-funding

[flightlesskiwi]

Yes it does. Yes it is. We need to get these lovely fellows under control.
+rep. Although I would chose a different adjective than "lovely" to describe most.

[flightlesskiwi]

The media is spinning this like crazy because the bill is spin-able. It's a sad, sick game. Let us see how the WH & the DoD reacts. assume they'll spin it too.

[specsaregood]

I was disappointed Drudge bought the lies.

dailycaller too, i have no doubt they know the truth too

[MJU1983]

http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul748.html

[sailingaway]

Washington Times gets it right. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/24/house-rebukes-obama-libya-lets-funding-continue/?page=1

[flightlesskiwi]

Is this a correct statement: US military intervention in any capacity is now officially a no go?

[specsaregood]

Washington Times gets it right. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/24/house-rebukes-obama-libya-lets-funding-continue/?page=1

so according to that, kucinich was behind the fake stop funding bill:


Mr. Kucinich, though, had urged anti-war lawmakers to pursue a two-part strategy: Voting for the limited support mission this week, and when the House takes up its annual defense spending bill next month, vote for a stricter amendment cutting off all funding altogether.

so kucinich wanted to authorize the war? so cearly his federal lawsuit is all talk.

[BamaAla]

so according to that, kucinich was behind the fake stop funding bill:

so kucinich wanted to authorize the war? so cearly his federal lawsuit is all talk.

I don't think that's the case. The vote was one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't votes.

After reading the bill and thinking about it for a while, I don't like Ron's vote. This bill would have ceased offensive actions; I think he should have taken what he could get.

[Brian4Liberty]

H R 2278 approves funding for the following activities in connection with the Libya war: (1) search and rescue; (2) intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; (3) aerial refueling; and (4) operational planning.

The bill APPROVES funding for the Libya war. The title of the bill is misleading.

And in the end, "no fly zone" = "bomb anyone", just like "rescue" = "bomb anyone". Think about it. Anything can be justified as "rescue". "Those people were in danger, and we had to rescue them with strategic bombing."

[low preference guy]

I don't think that's the case. The vote was one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't votes.

After reading the bill and thinking about it for a while, I don't like Ron's vote. This bill would have ceased offensive actions; I think he should have taken what he could get.

And live with the thought that he authorized the U.S. to support fucking NATO, which shouldn't even exist? I agree with what Ron did.

[sailingaway]

Is this a correct statement: US military intervention in any capacity is now officially a no go?

It is not AUTHORIZED. Obama seems to be 'going'.

[sailingaway]

I don't think that's the case. The vote was one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't votes.

After reading the bill and thinking about it for a while, I don't like Ron's vote. This bill would have ceased offensive actions; I think he should have taken what he could get.

No because Obama wasn't going to do that and says he didn't need authorization, this would CLEARLY authorize going forward 'coordination'. This would have taken away the basis for the court case by rendering it 'moot' with the ongoing actions, and it is a declaratory judgment case.

[flightlesskiwi]

I don't think that's the case. The vote was one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't votes.

After reading the bill and thinking about it for a while, I don't like Ron's vote. This bill would have ceased offensive actions; I think he should have taken what he could get.

I believe the take what you can get will come with the amendment to the defense appropriations.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=248537

[flightlesskiwi]

And in the end, "no fly zone" = "bomb anyone", just like "rescue" = "bomb anyone". Think about it. Anything can be justified as "rescue". "Those people were in danger, and we had to rescue them with strategic bombing."

I was trying to get my hubs to play devil's advocate with this. His brain nearly exploded. (he lacks cynical insight.... for now)

[harikaried]

This bill would have ceased offensive actionsWhen were offensive actions authorized?

[BamaAla]

And live with the thought that he authorized the U.S. to support fucking NATO, which shouldn't even exist? I agree with what Ron did.

Hence damned if you do damned if you don't. A yea vote could have stopped people from being killed by our offensive actions; a no vote does nothing.


No because Obama wasn't going to do that and says he didn't need authorization, this would CLEARLY authorize going forward 'coordination'. This would have taken away the basis for the court case by rendering it 'moot' with the ongoing actions, and it is a declaratory judgment case.

It would have stopped direct offensive action by the United States. To me, innocent lives are more important than some law suit that may or may not happen.


I believe the take what you can get will come with the amendment to the defense appropriations.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=248537

I hope so.

[BamaAla]

When were offensive actions authorized?

They weren't, but I promise you that they are happening and it would be nice to put an end to that.

[low preference guy]

Hence damned if you do damned if you don't. A yea vote could have stopped people from being killed by our offensive actions

I doubt it. If he violated the law to go in, why would he follow it now? Obama would've ignored it, or used funds appropriated to other things, or had the Fed print some money.

[BamaAla]

I doubt it. If he violated the law to go in, why would he follow it now? Obama would've ignored it, or used funds appropriated to other things, or had the Fed print some money.

Quite possibly, but that would have been even more blatant than the original action and could have possibly damned him.

[flightlesskiwi]

Quite possibly, but that would have been even more blatant than the original action and could have possibly damned him.

You know what all this boils down to? The flippin' careerist brass in DC. The day the WPA expired (regardless of the constitutionality of it), those people should have stood up and said, whelps Mr. Potus, seeing as this is now an illegal operation, and seeing as we swore an oath to uphold the constitution, we will no longer order our officers to carry out strikes, refueling, ISR, any longer. That's one of the things that is really disheartening if you think about it.

[sailingaway]

Hence damned if you do damned if you don't. A yea vote could have stopped people from being killed by our offensive actions; a no vote does nothing.



It would have stopped direct offensive action by the United States. To me, innocent lives are more important than some law suit that may or may not happen.



I hope so.

No it would have stopped nothing. Obama says there is no direct offensive action of the US, therefor nothing would stop.

[tropicangela]

So what will have to happen? The military will have to refuse orders?

[Matt Collins]

Ron discussed this on the Judge Napolitano's Freedom Watch show yesterday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eACE7nPLmNM#t=6m21s

Word is that the Dems put up a resolution on Libya which was really nothing more than just continuing the status quo. Ron voted against this of course.


However Republican Representative Tom Rooney introduced another resolution and he is claiming it will stop the President's involvement in Libya. However this is untrue. This resolution says that 'we're not involved' but yet it supports the President's actions anyway. Ron of course voted against this too!

[flightlesskiwi]

So what will have to happen? The military will have to refuse orders?

that's the million-dollar-a-day question. and it won't be answered until congress passes an absolute, clear, unquestionable resolution to not only NOT support the non-war in libya, but to also fund NONE of it.

the prevailing attitude in the officer ranks (now remember the air force is the key support to NATO in libya) as i have gathered opinions and leadership statements and their non-actions and actions, goes something like: "this is a political issue, not a constitutional one. the president is commander in chief, we follow his orders, not congress. if there are national interests in libya, if the president gives up marching (or flying ops as is the case now) orders, then to libya we go."

i'm not kidding. now think about the implications of that. appalled?? good.

[MaxPower]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll494.xml

I had heard that he said it contained too many exceptions - but that's still no reason to vote against it!
He absolutely did the right thing. The bill "limits" a war which was never authorized in the first place. The passage of a bill such as this would imply that the war effort (even if only for limited purposes) has the sanction of Congress and is lawful.

[MaxPower]

that's the million-dollar-a-day question. and it won't be answered until congress passes an absolute, clear, unquestionable resolution to not only NOT support the non-war in libya, but to also fund NONE of it.

the prevailing attitude in the officer ranks (now remember the air force is the key support to NATO in libya) as i have gathered opinions and leadership statements and their non-actions and actions, goes something like: "this is a political issue, not a constitutional one. the president is commander in chief, we follow his orders, not congress. if there are national interests in libya, if the president gives up marching (or flying ops as is the case now) orders, then to libya we go."

i'm not kidding. now think about the implications of that. appalled?? good.
Indeed; this is what really needs to be fundamentally altered in order to enforce the Constitution in the future. So long as the president has the immediate and unquestioned authority to "pull the trigger" on any military effort he wants and be obeyed by the generals, there is no stopping him from abusing his power short of drastic action by Congress (which is unlikely to happen, since at the least, the majority of his party will be guaranteed to stand behind him). We need to alter the immediate relationship between the president and the military itself. I think the protocols should be changed such that, if the president comes to his generals with a proposition for offensive military efforts, he should be required to prove his authority by citing a Congressional authorization or demonstrating evidence of an immediate threat to national security which cannot wait for a vote, and if he can do neither of these, the generals should be duty-bound not to obey any such demands.

[flightlesskiwi]

Indeed; this is what really needs to be fundamentally altered in order to enforce the Constitution in the future. So long as the president has the immediate and unquestioned authority to "pull the trigger" on any military effort he wants and be obeyed by the generals, there is no stopping him from abusing his power short of drastic action by Congress (which is unlikely to happen, since at the least, the majority of his party will be guaranteed to stand behind him). We need to alter the immediate relationship between the president and the military itself. I think the protocols should be changed such that, if the president comes to his generals with a proposition for offensive military efforts, he should be required to prove his authority by citing a Congressional authorization or demonstrating evidence of an immediate threat to national security which cannot wait for a vote, and if he can do neither of these, the generals should be duty-bound not to obey any such demands.

it is a precedent problem, not a protocol one. the protocol that you speak of still exists and should be implemented.

fundamentally, officers have a DUTY to disobey unlawful orders due to their DUTY to the constitution, they have no loyalty to the potus. but, due to the precedent(s) that has been set over and over again and the unspoken agreements/relationship between potus, the military-industrial complex, and the compliant, self-interested officer corps, the failure to carry out the one true DUTY has rendered the fabric of the constitution useless amongst the military ranks.

i was going to put "nearly useless" because there are still a few principled men in the ranks left, but they are so few and far between that i felt it necessary to strike "nearly." another reason i struck the word: i was told that if an officer felt he could not carry out an illegal order, his superior would more than likely put him in a position where he would not have to carry out the order, rather than risk calling attention to the unit by disciplinary action or attention by an actual discussion as to whether the order was lawful or not. this i believe whole-heartedly would and has happened.

i do agree with you. but the problem (corruption & self-interest) is, i think, a bit more far reaching than many are willing to consider. the prevailing attitude within the officer corps that we are witnessing right now is simple: their duty is to themselves.