Sherrod Brown: Boehner asked right questions on Libya

[ProSense]

Dem senator: Boehner asked right questions

By Daniel Strauss

House Speaker John Boehner’s strongly worded letter to President Obama on the U.S. mission in Libya asked the “right questions,” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said Thursday.

<...>

Those are the some of the same issues Boehner (R-Ohio) told the president, in a two-page letter sent Wednesday night, he wants addressed.

"I think the questions Speaker Boehner asked were generally legitimate questions — I think they were the right questions," Brown said.

But Brown suggested Obama need not answer all those questions in as much detail as Boehner demanded.

more

[jdadd]

1. Boehner's like my broken watch....

Right time twice a day,but the date is only right once a month....

[ProSense]

2. Beohner can ask all the questions he wants to

President Obama acted under the U.N. Charter and fulfilled the War Powers Act requirements: Consulted with Congress, notified Congress within 48 hours and now has 60 days to submit a report.

Irony: Imagine if these questions were applied to the Afghanistan war, especially in light of Congress' recent vote to allow it to continue.

[MrTriumph]

3. And it still doesn't excuse the point that Pres. Obama made the wrong decision in Libya

So your argument is Bush was wrong (and he was) so it permissible for Obama to make a bum decision?

[ProSense]

4. Who said he made the wrong decision?

That's an opinion. Senator Brown didn't say that.

Asking question is Congress' job.

[MrTriumph]

8. I said he made the wrong decision. One of many.

x

[Bodhi BloodWave]

13. and I say he made the right decision, one of many. So my opinion would cancel yours out yes? :)

Well, not really, but an opinion is not a fact so who knows which one of us have the right one

[yurbud]

5. even if it was done within the letter of the law, there are still legitimate questions about

priorities.

Military action doesn't have to rise to an impeachable offense to merit questioning.

I for one would like to hear the president say honestly that our interest there is oil, and American oil companies access to it.

I suspect neither he nor Bush have gone there because the logical follow up questions might be:

• Would we still get the oil if we weren't there?


If a new drug dealer kills the old one, does he still want to sell to his biggest customer?


• Who will profit from our military stabilizing the country for oil companies?


The oil companies, the defense companies that replace the cruise missiles, and those contracted to rebuild the country.



• Will those profits benefit the American people or even pay for the military action?


http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-mobil-paid-no-federal-income-tax-in-2009/">ExxonMobil paid zero taxes in 2009, so don't hold your breath waiting for a thank you check from them, or expect a thank you in the price at the gas pump.

[sad sally]

6. As evidenced in the price of oil, speculators sure seem to favor

this unrest and fear. Both their profits on the stock market and those of oil companies are booming and truth be known, probably don't mind if this shut-down of Libyan oil, which mainly went to Europe, continues. Means Europeans will look at US sources, which in turn raises the prices we pay. A good deal for all the greedy bastards.

[ProSense]

7. "Who will profit from our military stabilizing the country for oil companies?"

Oil companies from around the world are already in Libya.

ExxonMobil signs PSA with Libya National Oil


Why do you think that BushCo propped up Gaddafi?

Why Gaddafi's Now a Good Guy

<...>

At the time, it may have sounded like the typical ramblings of the Libyan leader. But now, a year later, Gaddafi and Bush do apparently see eye to eye. On Monday, Gaddafi accomplished one of history's great diplomatic turnarounds when Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice announced that the U.S. was restoring full diplomatic relations with Libya and held up the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya as "a model" for others to follow. Rice attributed the ending of the U.S.'s long break in diplomatic relations to Gaddafi's historic decision in 2003 to dismantle weapons of mass destruction and renounce terrorism as well as Libya's "excellent cooperation in response to common global threats faced by the civilized world since September 11, 2001."

<...>

The Libya no-fly zone is not about oil.

Human Rights Watch.

Update: The Security Council voted on March 17 to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and authorized the use of “all necessary measures” to protect civilians, with the exception of foreign occupation. In response, Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth said: “For the second time in a month, the Security Council has defied expectations and risen to the occasion by making clear that all options are on the table to prevent mass atrocities in Libya. We hope that from now on, the Security Council will consistently live up to its duty to protect civilians in Libya and beyond.”

(New York) - The Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's violent crackdown on protests and his long record of serious abuses raise grave concerns for the safety of the civilian population in Benghazi and other eastern cities as the fighting in Libya shifts eastward, Human Rights Watch said today.

The international community, and especially the UN Security Council meeting on March 17, 2011, has a responsibility to use necessary and appropriate measures to protect civilians from large-scale atrocities, Human Rights Watch said.
"Libyan security forces' possible capture of Benghazi heightens concerns of more abuses as we've seen elsewhere in Libya, including killings and disappearances," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "The world should not ignore the serious abuses by Libyan security forces over the past month, as well as Gaddafi's demonstrated disregard for human rights over four decades."

<...>

Amnesty International

<...>

Have Libyan forces been respecting international humanitarian law?
Amnesty International is troubled by reports that Libyan government forces have been bombarding rebel-held cities and towns, including through the use of artillery. In a densely populated urban environment, artillery cannot be used in a way that properly distinguishes between civilians and fighters. Its persistent use in these circumstances violates the prohibition on indiscriminate attack.

There have also been unconfirmed reports that Libyan airstrikes directly targeted civilians or were indiscriminate. Amnesty International is still working to verify these reports. We have received worrying reports of ongoing shelling or air strikes in several towns and villages where civilians are likely to have been at risk, and which are effectively cut off from the rest of the world because telephone networks have been disconnected. There are serious concerns for the fate of the population trapped in these areas.

While the use of aircraft to attack military targets may be legitimate, attacking forces must adhere strictly to the rules that safeguard civilians. Under no circumstances can they carry out attacks which directly target civilians or are indiscriminate or disproportionate.

<...>

What is Amnesty International calling for from al-Gaddafi's Government?
Colonel al-Gaddafi must immediately rein in his security forces and end killings, enforced disappearances and other human rights violations.

He should disclose the names of all those whom his forces are holding and where they are held and allow international access to ensure their safety and well-being.

<...>

[yurbud]

9. since he no longer has a firm grip on power, he is not a reliable ally and must be replaced

an ongoing civil war could interfere with business.

[killbotfactory]

10. He doesn't have a firm grip on power because of the NFZ

IF the UN and US sat back and watched Gaddafi slaughter his way through cities opposed to his rule, his critics hammering him for taking action would be hammering him for not doing anything, like they were doing with Libya just over a week ago, and like they did with Egypt before that (saying we were going to let the demonstrators get squashed because the US was such great buddies with Mubarak). The left would quickly come out saying Obama chose to let the rebels get slaughtered to protect oil company profits, and it would be added to the big book of Obama betrayals and corporate sell-outs.

[yurbud]

12. there is something to the damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, but it's more from the right

[OhioBlue]

15. I think you are spot on. n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

17. Yes, all sides are playing cynical games with this, it's exceedingly complex, and dangerous

It's physically, politically and economically dangerous, and far too many people are playing fast-and-loose with this, and using it for personal/factional gain. The cruel joke is that it can easily blow up in everyone's faces and set them all back a bit.

The Republicans are creaming their jeans over further precedent for allowing the President to be a Warrior King and just pissing all over the Constitution and the mitigation of having to get consensus among deliberators before going off to a killing spree and meddling in other people's affairs. This will apply pressure to not take the obvious illegality of violating the War Powers Act AND the UN Participation Act.

They are also perfectly happy to bellyache that they weren't brought into the decision-making process so they can be sniping critics when something goes wrong. ANYTHING that goes wrong in the region or the world's economy that can even marginally be attributed to this will be stapled right to Barack Obama's face with intimations of rogue governing, while still hoping to castrate the War Powers Act and Clause 6 of the UN Participation Act.

Our President is a big fan of being a leading-man, and his attitude toward various Executive "rights" ginned up by the past few regimes make him own this. Anything that doesn't go swimmingly in Libya or attributable to it will be his fault, but he also thinks he can be the big hero here. I don't think he's really on some ego-rampage, but I do think he falls into the pitfall of many intelligent people: feeling hindered by lowly groups of functionaries.

The French are playing a shitty game to get a better Oil deal, as witnessed by the reduction of oil that they produce that they're allowed to keep as of '09, coupled with Qaddafi's repeated saber-rattling of nationalization. The Rebels have threatened the world community that they wouldn't be all that charitable with people who didn't help them, and the world community has thrown its lot in with them.

Who knows how uneasy the alliance between "secularists" and the "Islamists" are in the Rebel Government, and I am always skeptical about religious fanatics: they don't play fair.

What a mess.

[donheld]

11. But Obama wants to know why there were orange tear stains on the letter

:hide::D

[Armstead]

14. Those were beer stains

[opihimoimoi]

16. Boner doing the GOP thing of always asking Questions to steer the conservation

Its THE Questions they ask...always in such a way to pin...

Tweety does this...then he answers his own question.

Boner....usually need 4 days to from a question...I am suprised he asked so many...musta been in a bar...