Skip to main content

Should Obama be impeached for engaging U.S. in unconstitutional war?

By Howard B. Owens
John Stone

Yes, and it's only ONE of MANY impeachable offenses he has committed.

But, too much of the country has it's eyes glued shut, so it won't happen... However, these people are the ones that will cry the loudest when THEIR Constitutional rights being taken away finally effects them personally.
I shouldn't want to see the fear and confusion in their eyes, but I do... It won't take long, at this rate!

Mar 22, 2011, 10:48am Permalink
Jeremiah Pedro

Here is my take on the poll. All the republicans voted yes. All the democrats voted no. the remainder that voted undecided like myself are reading the US code 50 the war powers resolution to see if the current conflict allows for the President to involve US military forces.

Mar 22, 2011, 10:59am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

The war powers act only authorizes the president to act without congressional approval if the US is under attack or serious threat.

What threat did/does Libya present to the United States?

Mar 22, 2011, 11:07am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

I wonder what the poll results would be if it read “Should Obama be impeached for being a black man and the son of a Muslim?” I’m guessing 45% Yes.. 46% NO…

Mar 22, 2011, 11:18am Permalink
Jeremiah Pedro

(b) Termination of use of United States Armed Forces; exceptions; extension period
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress
(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,
(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or
(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sup_01_50_10_33.html

Mar 22, 2011, 11:22am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

That part, in this circumstance, doesn't matter as much this:

"(a) Congressional declaration
It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations. "

"(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. "

And that even grants that the war powers act is itself constitutional.

Mar 22, 2011, 11:39am Permalink
Jason Brunner

I don't know about anyone else, but I for one wouldn't vote to impeach for those racial and disgusting reasons! Are you saying that everyone who doesn't like our President or his views is racist??? That seems like a very ignorant statement to me!

Mar 22, 2011, 12:02pm Permalink
George Richardson

So far we are not engaged in a war in Libya, as best I can tell anyway. It's more like the self proclaimed World's Daddy and Mommy taking a switch to Junior for throwing rocks at his brothers, sisters, cousins and their friends and breaking windows. Junior says: "They started it." and they all say: "No you started it, you bully." I think the Egyptians started it this time and we egged them on. My dear departed Mother would get very angry after my Grandfather would tickle me or goad me on, because eventually I would jump on his back or bang heads with him or step on his sore toe and the mood would totally change. I loved it, if Mom had left it alone it would have gone away quickly. But, when you are the self proclaimed Mom and Dad of the World...what are you supposed to do?

Mar 22, 2011, 12:02pm Permalink
George Richardson

Charlie, I'm sure the results would be similar if the question asked was: "Should Obama be impeached for getting elected President of the United States?"
When my mom passed there went one straight ticket Republican vote. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh should have sent flowers.

Mar 22, 2011, 12:13pm Permalink
John Roach

If Obama insist that Iraq was a war of choice, then what is this? The attack on Libya is an act of war and is clearly a war of choice.

And why Libya? Since other Arab nations (Syria, Yemen, etc) are now killing their own people, is it to keep oil flowing to Europe?

Mar 22, 2011, 12:18pm Permalink
George Richardson

No one ever tried to impeach Bush because that would make Cheney President. It was a brilliant strategy and perhaps the only thing that Karl Rove ever orchestrated that truly impressed me and caused a modicum of respect for the roly poly twerp, "Old Turdblossom."

Mar 22, 2011, 12:20pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

This isn't a war, it's an enforcement of a UN sanctioned and Arab League requested No-fly zone much like the two no-fly zones that were enforced in Iraq by three U.S. presidents known as Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch. No invasion, no regime change(yet,) no war.

Mar 22, 2011, 12:36pm Permalink
Shawn Maher

This is a terribly biased and leading question/poll. It overly simplifies the situation.

Could the question be reworded without the foregone conclusion?

Mar 22, 2011, 12:45pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Shawn, as far as I'm concerned, it's an accurate question. U.S. bombing Libya violated the Constitution and the War Powers Act. I'm surprised anyone would even debate the point. It's as clear cut an issue as they come.

Mar 22, 2011, 1:01pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

According to Howard's logic, the following Presidents should have been impeached: Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Van Buren, Tyler, Pierce, Buchanan, Lincoln, Johnson, Grant, Harrison, Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

That's a conservative list. I dind't include presidents who put troops in foreign countries for the sole purpose of 'protecting American interests.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operati…

Mar 22, 2011, 1:07pm Permalink
Jeremiah Pedro

Actually Chris the war with Iraq did in fact have a UN blessing since as a member of the security council the American Government to include the President and Congress approved an action using military force to enforce a UN resolution.

Mar 22, 2011, 1:10pm Permalink
John Roach

Chris,
Madison, Wilson, and FDR all had declarations of war. Lincoln did not need one as it was a "rebellion".

Truman had a fuzzier UN mandate, but our troops were at least attacked first.

Mar 22, 2011, 1:15pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

UN Resolution 1441 did not authorize war. In fact, John Negroponte got pissy about it afterward:

[T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[2]

Edit: FOrgot to Add Syria's comments on Res 1441:

Mar 22, 2011, 1:20pm Permalink
Michele Case

Some of you guys get so enmeshed in this political crap of Democrat vs Republican it often turns me off and I usually stay out of political discussion. I have been a Republican since I was legal to vote, actually I think 5th grade. When I was younger I voted straight party line. Now I try to make an informed decision based on the background of the candidates. I would never assume that all dems vote one way and all republicans vote the opposite any more than I believe the race/Muslim thing. I did not even vote on this question yet, I wanted to see first if it was an impeachable offense and how so. Thanks Howard for your input. I still am unsure about it however. I will say one thing regarding local politics...Eric Adams, a Republican is a disgrace to the Judicial bench. I am aware of his past much more than he even knows. I know the trouble he tried to cause a dear friend (who is highly respected in the community) for speaking up against him when he was trying to get elected the first time. I was convinced after 10 years his pitiful decisions would catch up with him at re-election but you democrats never even had anyone run against him! You can't blame the republicans for that. Write in votes don't stand a chance although I did notice quite a few! Adams lied to me twice that I know of and I can prove it so not worried a bit if he gets mad at me for this. I speak nothing but the truth and I CAN back it up.

Mar 22, 2011, 1:20pm Permalink
Mary Shepard

Very disappointed in the question today Howard. I too find it leading and agree with Jeremiah. All the republicans voted yes. All the democrats voted no. I would guess if your poll question was regarding Obama being a U.S. natural-born citizen. You would get similar results.

Side note - Wish we could like/dislike comments made on thebatavian

Mar 22, 2011, 1:28pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

There are a lot of Republicans who disagree with foreign intervention. The entire Ron Paul wing of the GOP, for example.

Further, if this was just a straight party line poll response, the yes and nos wouldn't be so evenly split. There are a lot more Republicans in this county than Democrats.

Mar 22, 2011, 1:35pm Permalink
Don Vickers

Who did he declare war on? Last I heard the issue with Libya was a United Nations Resolution and we are participating because we are a member of the UN. I didn't know we declared war, I must have missed that on CNN.

I am all for assisting other people who can't help themselves as long as they try. The Libyan people took on their government and many of them died for it.

It would not be ethical to let a mentally insane dictator murder thousands of people just to stay in control over them.

Mar 22, 2011, 1:51pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Sara, no I’m sorry if you got the wrong inference. I’m not calling Republicans who disagree with Obama racist. I probably could have done a better job at choosing the question. My point was, it doesn’t matter what the poll question is, 40% of the people from the opposing party will always want the president out. The same thing happened to GW Bush. I really don’t like this idea that we should immediate point to tossing out a duly elected president, just because of a decision we don’t agree with.

There are a lot of young kids flying those planes over Libya right now and I believe we are sending the wrong message. Chief among the glory hounds is Dennis Kucinich(D), just the sight of him makes my stomach turn.

Mar 22, 2011, 1:55pm Permalink
Mary Shepard

Howard, never said all Democrats would agree with Obama's decision but they're not going to vote impeachment in this poll. Also, I could almost guarantee the ONLINE population of Genesee county would skew much younger than it's actual population. Sure, the Republicans may still be in the majority, but I would guess not as much online.

Mar 22, 2011, 2:19pm Permalink
Tim Miller

@John Stone - how many calls for impeachment of the Criminal Bush Administration did you call for?

My guess - zero (and you wanted to give the felons medals for their criminal activity).

Mar 22, 2011, 2:30pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

I wish we weren't in the lead in Libya. There are enough governments with reasonable air power in the region to handle the brunt of the no-fly zone enforcement.

I'm as sick of being the world's police as anybody, but to call this an unconstitutional war is a real stretch of the imagination.

Mar 22, 2011, 2:50pm Permalink
Michele Case

That is the problem I have Chris...ya feel like we need to stay out of some of this stuff and let these other countries solve their own problems, but it becomes a dilemma cuz it is also hard to sit on your hands doing nothing when a dictator is killing their people. When I first heard about the bombing i had mixed feelings, and my biggest concern was how the rest of the world would react toward the americans. I was relieved that we were in with like 4-5 other countries but sure enough the next thing I heard was that everyone was singling out the US. They always hate us, the ugly americans! It was after that I read we played the lead role. Well no wonder. Then i read this stuff where we are only gonna start there and not carry this through to get Qudaffi out of there. What is that? How do you manage that? We had no business being in the lead and then to not have a plan? Just seems stupid now. I was pretty young, but wasn't Quadaffi a lunatic 35 years ago?

Mar 22, 2011, 3:36pm Permalink
John Roach

Wouldn't you feel better if Obama had stayed in the US while bombing another country? I'm sure he could have gone on his South America tour later when this is supposed to be over.

Anyone know the last time we attacked another country and the President went overseas the at the same time?

Mar 22, 2011, 3:46pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Chris, let's follow the very clear logic.

Bombing another country is an act of war. It always has been.

Only Congress can declare/authorize war.

It violates the Constitution for the president to unilaterally start a war. It violates the War Powers Act for the president to engage in war without an imminent threat to the United States.

The president is sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The president violated that oath.

How is that a stretch of the imagination? It's factual and it's logical. It's the indisputable truth.

The UN has nothing to do with it. Our Constitution trumps any UN charter.

However honorable the president's aims have nothing to do with it. The rule of law trumps doing something just because it "feels" like the right thing to do.

Mar 22, 2011, 4:15pm Permalink
Jason Meyer

Amen George!! I think these Fox News Wacko's forget that we started, and are still in, a war in that I don't think fills any of those criteria which have been posted. Not to mention the lies that were told.

Why are we there, because the UN and other Arab countries believes this guy is out of control. I can't remember, was the UN backing us in our invasion of Iraq. How many boys and girls have died over there! Whatever he would have done, he would have gotten criticized for! Maybe we would be better with Sarah Palin in office. Get a freakin grip!!!

Mar 22, 2011, 4:27pm Permalink
Tim Howe

As an bigtime right winger i proudly voted NO.
Do i like Obama? Not at all.
Do i want him president? Absolutely NOT
Do I agree with ANYTHING he says or does? No way

However.....

We finally did it the "right way" this time. The dems yelled and screamed over Iraq and Afghanistan saying we supposedly did it the wrong way and that in thier opinions we should not be there. So now all we are doing (so far) like Charvella said is simply enforcing UN sanctions. We have our "friends" with us this time too. Lets all take a deep breath and Simmer down...

For the record, please don't ever make me defend Obama again :)

Mar 22, 2011, 4:23pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

After years of hearing "no WMD","never a direct threat to the United States", "no ties to 9/11", "we cannot afford to intervene in these civil wars", "we have no business telling other countries how they should govern". Watching the left stumble over themselves to try and defend Obama on this one is absurd. I don't care for Kusinich or Nader but at least they stand on their Anti-war principle and not just take part in the Right-wing hate dujour. Where is Cindy Sheehan?, MoveOn.org?, CodePink? Where are the protests in the streets? We are STILL in Iraq, the highest casualty months in Afghanistan have all occurred during Obama's watch and now we are in a third war. Where are the "war criminal" outcries?

Mar 22, 2011, 4:46pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Logic requires statements of fact and your first assumption is one of opinion. I would argue that an act of war is judged by the intent, not the deed. I'll just refer you back to my list of presidents who should have been impeached based on your logic.

Mar 22, 2011, 4:54pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

For those who have said this isn't about regime change, as if that somehow makes it OK,

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/white-house-now-says-goal-in-libya-is-…

Also, regarding Jeff's post -- the main reason I posted the link to the Daily Show skit was the quote in it from Obama saying it is against the law for a president to do exactly what he is doing now (of course, he was a junior senator from Illinois at the time).

Mar 22, 2011, 4:55pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Chris, you couldn't possibly accept the first premise because it completely undercuts your position.

But contrary to your statement that it is a premise of opinion, I stand by it as fact.

Bombing a country is an act of war. Period. There is no other logical way to look at it.

I knew you wouldn't accept the premise, but I was curious to see how you would try to get out of it.

Of course, you can't, but nice try.

As for your list, completely irrelevant. I couldn't care less. We're talking about this president now.

Mar 22, 2011, 5:01pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Jeff, other than your comparison of Libya to Iraq, I agree with just about everything you said. I'm not anti-war though. I think we needed to be in Afghanistan and I think it's too bad that this president and the last one couldn't get it right.

I don't like being in Libya, not because I thinnk the mission is wrong, but because I don't see why we need to be so heavily involved when there are regional governments taht are more than capable militarily to get teh job done without us.

I think our involvement in Libya should have stopped with our 'Yes' vote on the UN Security Council. If the Arab League is so happy to have us there taking out their trash, they should have been willing to do it themselves. Ten years down the road, I'm sure some dictator will find a way to use our involvement in Libya to stir up anti-American fervor. I've seen this movie already, I know how it ends.

Mar 22, 2011, 5:02pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

'Chris, you couldn't possibly accept the first premise because it completely undercuts your position.'

Just like you can't accept any part of my argument because it completely undercuts yours.

This is what they call an impasse.

Mar 22, 2011, 5:07pm Permalink
Brandon Burger

Howard, the War Powers Act specifies that the president must submit to Congress, within 48 hours of the start of any action, a report detailing the justifications for those actions he has initiated. Upon delivery of that report, Congress must review the report and consult with the president for up to sixty days whereupon they must make a decision on whether or not to declare war, authorize extended action, or order the President to withdraw forces from action. Ostensibly, this gives the President sixty days to conduct war without Congressional approval.

You focused on the justification of the actions earlier. You quoted from the US Code 50:33:1451 wherein the legal justifications for military action is detailed. Subsection 1541(c)(2) states that military action is allowable pursuant to "specific statutory authorization." Further on in the code, in Subsection 1547(d), the law states:

"(a) Inferences from any law or treaty
Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred—
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before November 7, 1973), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter; or
(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter. "

And there is the ambiguity that makes hazy the question of legality. Our obligations to the Security Council of the United Nations and any treaty or agreement (such as NATO) that may authorize the use of military action to enforce the decisions or plans of that entity may be contrued as being justification for the legal use of American military forces under the War Powers Act.

I agree with you, Howard, that this entire Act is unconstitutional; but in light of the current legality it enjoys, I cannot see how its employment by a President - in "good faith" - should lead to impeachment. If anything, it should lead to a greater debate on the constitutionality the War Powers Act itself, the status of our standing army, and the general nature of our foreign policy.

Of course, it won't.

Mar 22, 2011, 5:13pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

I like Brandon's take:

"And there is the ambiguity that makes hazy the question of legality. Our obligations to the Security Council of the United Nations and any treaty or agreement (such as NATO) that may authorize the use of military action to enforce the decisions or plans of that entity may be contrued as being justification for the legal use of American military forces under the War Powers Act."

No President since it's inception has deigned to recognize the constitutionality of the War Powers Act. This argument has been in fuzzy legal territory since people started having it.

Mar 22, 2011, 5:27pm Permalink
Brandon Burger

Chris,
According to US Code Title 18, Pt.1, Ch.113B, ss.2331(4):

"the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; "

I'd say that our planes bombing Libyan military installations could be construed as (c).

Mar 22, 2011, 5:31pm Permalink
John Roach

Chris,
Other than we just don't like Omar, this is a civil war, and we took sides.

The people of Libya demonstrated for change and freedom, but they didn't get it. The people then rose up in rebellion against the government. This is called "Civil War". We were just fine with it until the bad guy started to win and Europe's oil from Libya was threatened. Then we bomb the hell out of Omar.

There are other countries in the area, like Yemen, that are doing the same thing Omar is doing, killing their own people. But those countries are allies, so we don't bomb them. We scold them, but we don't bomb them. We only bomb the guy we never liked anyway.

Mar 22, 2011, 5:59pm Permalink
Michele Case

I was ready to write after i read Howard's link, but first I read your comment John and had to LOL at your last line. no truer statement ever written.
Now that I read Howards link I see we do have a plan now. Contrary to what Obama said it is to oust Gadhafi (hey I got the spelling right!) You would have to be a Philadelphia lawyer to understand those acts and treaties above, not to mention weave through the ambiguity. I guess though it was what Brandon wrote that finally got my vote to the question...NO

Mar 22, 2011, 6:20pm Permalink
Mark Potwora

Do we know who we are backing in Libya..What to they stand for...Just because they are anti-Gadhafi doesn't make them pro American..Will we just get another dictator in charge..

Mar 22, 2011, 6:39pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Howard, I actually hadn't watched the Jon Stewart link. I just did and I hate to say this (actually I have hinted to it before), Jon Stewart may be the most balanced voice out there right now...MAY be

Mar 22, 2011, 6:40pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

John, the UN took sides. We were just one vote.

I feel like I'm arguing both sides of this because I really don't want us to be there. At the same time, I feel the need to defend this military action against ridiculous charges that it's illegal.

Mar 22, 2011, 7:11pm Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Good Afternoon Howard and everyone..... Howard, I am just getting up to speed on this but I have to point out something. Bombing another country is not automatically an act of war by any means.

Let me explain this, standard ops for a no fly zone is to establish the zone itself for the peacekeeping forces to patrol. After this is established, to keep the patrolling jets safe, radar, anti-aircraft and airfields from which the adversary can launch attacks on jets are bombed or neutralized, this reinforces the no fly zone and gives the peacekeep forces the upper hand.

That is the short version..... pretty standard as far as military operations go, I also remember that we werent the first to strike for this libyan op, the french were and I believe the President mentioned either over the weekend or mon that we would be stepping aside from taking the lead in this operation and leaving it to others and merely be providing support after the 1st couple of weeks.

Mar 22, 2011, 7:21pm Permalink
Kyle Couchman

I agree with Chris too as far as the ambiguity here, we dont belong in or need another conflict added to our plate, however we need to pull our weight as far as commitments to the UN and I dont think there is actionable cause to be considering impeachment in this case as it stands so far.

Mar 22, 2011, 7:26pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Have I missed something here? What ever happened to the CIA, covert operations, special forces units, clandestine stuff? As this started to unfold weeks ago, we could have just woke up one morning and read on pg. 3 of the paper that Quaddafi suffered a heart attack or fell down a flight of stairs at his palace. Jeesh, even Martin Sheen did it as Jed Bartlett on the West Wing.

Mar 22, 2011, 8:31pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Kyle, you're equivocating.

Bombing another country is an act of war, each and every time. No exceptions. It's very cut and dried.

No pretext changes that.

Mar 22, 2011, 9:00pm Permalink
Kyle Couchman

It's not a pretext Howard, it's just a plain fact. Thats the way things are done especially with multinational peace keeping forces. You remove the opposing sides ability to fight an air war and keep it's air assets grounded. It's not an act of war.

This is way things work in the military, as anyone who has served in the last decade or two can tell you.

By the way check this link as well....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42216222

As I said before we are participating but not really interested in leading this conflict and many others are eager and planning to take over the leadership of this conflict.

Mar 22, 2011, 9:53pm Permalink
RICHARD L. HALE

No, Obama should not be impeached. All Obama and his cohorts are doing, is reserving our rights to pay $4.00 for a gallon for gas. The answer to this whole deal.......Oil!!!

Mar 22, 2011, 11:34pm Permalink
John Roach

Bahrain, Yemen, Darfur are all examples where the government, has and is, killing its own. Obama did bomb them. But Libya has oil and that seems to be the difference.

Mar 23, 2011, 7:16am Permalink
Jeremiah Pedro

Maybe it is all about the oil? But then again most Americans like the things they have. Also most Americans think that oil is only used as a source of fuel. They don't realize that oil is also used to produce plastic.

Also John, just to point out all those countries you mentioned do have oil. Granted Libya by far has a larger proven reserve according to the CIA World Factbook.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html

Bahrain-

Oil - production: 48,560 bbl/day (2009 est.)

Oil - exports: 238,300 bbl/day (2007 est.)

Oil - proved reserves: 124.6 million bbl (1 January 2010 est.)

Yemen-

Oil - production: 288,400 bbl/day (2009 est.)

Oil - exports: 274,400 bbl/day (2007 est.)

Oil - proved reserves: 3.16 billion bbl (1 January 2010 est.)

Sudan-(Darfur)

Oil - production: 486,700 bbl/day (2009 est.)

Oil - exports: 303,800 bbl/day (2007 est.)

Oil - proved reserves: 6.8 billion bbl (1 January 2010
est.)

Libya-

Oil - production: 1.79 million bbl/day (2009 est.)

Oil - exports: 1.542 million bbl/day (2007 est.)

Oil - proved reserves: 47 billion bbl (1 January 2010 est.)

Mar 23, 2011, 9:43am Permalink
Brandon Burger

Jeremiah- Don't forget that petroleum products are also the main element in the fertilizers that keep our over-worked soils so incredibly productive. Those petroleum-based fertilizers allow mega-sized corporate farms and giant agribusinesses to exist and thrive.

Mar 23, 2011, 10:06am Permalink
John Roach

Chris,
Great link. I would say that while the link hints the military loves this, all the evidence is that they were against this. Hope more get a chance to read your link.

MSNBC had a story earlier today that while France fired the first missile, that has been the only one, no more. Britain fired 12 and is now reported to be low on missiles. Germany is not supporting this and is pulling the 4 warships it had in the area out of the Mediterranean. No other major (or even minor) country has joined in the attack. Looks like we'll own this war.

Mar 23, 2011, 11:09am Permalink
Bob Harker

Frank:

"I think the whole debate is irrelevent, the U.S. Constitution was written long before the UN was born."

Are you saying the US Constitution is no longer "relevant"? Are you one of the "it's a living document; subject to change" people?

Which parts do you choose to declare "relevant" and which ones not? If the document is "irrelevant" or is meant to be interpreted, not followed, we may as well throw it in the trash and allow government to do whatever it likes whenever it likes.

Kinda sounds like Libya to me,

Mar 23, 2011, 12:01pm Permalink
Michele Case

Bob, I am not sure that is what Frank meant? It could be construed the other way to say the Constitution was first and takes precedence...when I read his comment yesterday it left me questioning what he meant by it? Sometimes i wish everyone had to say what their answer to the question is before they respond, sometimes it is hard to see what side their on or how they voted!

Mar 23, 2011, 1:36pm Permalink

Authentically Local