June 24th, 2011
12:22 PM ET

House set to rebuke Obama on Libya

The House of Representatives is expected to officially register its disapproval of U.S. involvement in the NATO-led Libya campaign Friday, voting to restrict funding for America's role in the mission.

The Republican-sponsored bill, which would effectively prohibit U.S. offensive operations such as drone strikes, is seen as a sharp rebuke of President Barack Obama's policy in the war-torn North African country.

It would limit the U.S. role to nonhostile actions such as search and rescue, aerial refueling, operational planning, intelligence gathering and reconnaissance.

Post by:
Filed under: Libya • U.S.
soundoff (54 Responses)
  1. john

    @leeintulsa: Afghanistan, yes france and many other countries sent token amount of troops in the beginning. Iraq no,it was us, Spain, Italy, Britain and a few other countries but not france or germany. Mostly in both cases it was us.

    June 24, 2011 at 10:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • leeintulsa

      I don't know that any country can be faulted with 'minimal' assistance or pulling out before us. That's just us being stupid. Our assistance in libya is about as minimal as it can be, and likely we will stop long before our allies there

      June 25, 2011 at 11:21 am | Report abuse |
  2. john

    @leintulsa: you seem to miss the point that NATO is arguing over who should take control with no one wanting to so we're left holding the bag again. That was the point I was making.

    June 24, 2011 at 10:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • leeintulsa

      I'm not in a position to know what goes on behind closed doors at nato.. I try not to assume anything.

      June 25, 2011 at 11:25 am | Report abuse |
  3. john

    @Canadian Genius: a token amount of help yes, as far as Iraq goes yes Bush pushed for the wrong reasons to invade his staff should've went to the NATO and the U.N. and made their presentation about the genocide that was occurring, after us helping them with Bosnia for the same reason just years before they would've been hard pressed to vote not to help and if they had they couldn't come crying to us now.

    June 24, 2011 at 10:19 pm | Report abuse |
  4. john

    Sorry about the the before NATO I changed the sentence midway through and forgot to erase it.

    June 24, 2011 at 10:21 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Jazzzzzzzz

    As I remember it, going in they were to have a limited role. 'air strikes only" or did I not get the amendment to that limitation on increased involvement.

    June 24, 2011 at 11:33 pm | Report abuse |
  6. Jazzzzzzzz

    BTW the above post is by the REAL jazz. I also have been trolled.

    June 24, 2011 at 11:34 pm | Report abuse |
  7. john

    I don't think the Cons ti tutional Amendment differentiates between full involvement and limited involvement.

    June 25, 2011 at 5:09 am | Report abuse |
  8. ***dude***

    The law is the law. If we don't like it, change. But until we do, follow it. Where is the leadership example? What if I don't like a law and don't follow it. Is Obama ok with that?

    June 25, 2011 at 5:41 am | Report abuse |
  9. officer john kimble

    any one breaking the law will be arrested... i'm a cop you iddiots...

    June 25, 2011 at 11:09 am | Report abuse |
  10. Alan MacDonald

    Regarding the swath of wars throughout the Middle East and beyond:

    The Congress is either too 'stuck on stupid' to understand, or too complicit in this disguised global Empire that now controls the US.

    This series of increasing  wars is easily understood if one reads Thomas Barnett's 2006 war strategy plan and Naval War College book, "The Pentagon's New Map", in which he promulgates the strategy for the global Empire (called the "Old Core" - US, UK, Israel, Europe) to start and prosecute a series of aggressive military actions across the entire swath from Mauritania to the boarders of China and India, in order to control the natural resources (predominantly oil) of the Middle East and to dominate the geopolitical structure of this entire global sector of what he calls the "Gap" countries.

    The highly CIA-connected "journalist" Bob Woodward has cynically alluded to this well understood and deadly war strategy, and the seminal, but hidden, driver of this strategy, which may very likely cause a third World War is the global corporate/financial/militarist Empire which has now taken full control of our former country by hiding behind the facade of the Empire's modernized version of a Nazi-like TWO-Party 'Vichy' sham of democratic government - of which these dolt or complicit Congressmen and Senators (and the mainstream-media) are just 'fronting for'.

    Global Empire must be understood by the American people soon, or it will quickly become painfully apparent to all.

    Alan MacDonald
    Sanford, Maine

    Liberty & democracy

    New America People's Party 2012 (the last chance)

    June 25, 2011 at 11:41 am | Report abuse |
  11. john

    @leeintulsa: I guess you missed the memo that we are the ones operating drones and dropping million dollar bombs on Libya.

    June 25, 2011 at 12:23 pm | Report abuse |
  12. john

    @leeintulsa: You don't need to be in a position to know what is going on behind closed doors, Obama stated several times that we are taking the lead until NATO comes to an agreement on which Country is going to be the one to take charge of the reigns.

    June 25, 2011 at 3:20 pm | Report abuse |
  13. nur amabo nur

    World reserve currency, if americans understood the function of the US dollar in the world it would be crystal clear why we are attacking Libya. Libya wanted to trade oil for gold only, this would give Africa and the middle east power over the international banksters. Iraq (saddam) wanted to exchange oil for the euro only and now he's dead. What a coincidence that the only two countries to ever try to undermine the US dollar as the world reserve currency get attacked by the US. Then there is the man made river that will eventually supply the UK and China with fresh water. So its a little more complicated than war for oil.

    June 25, 2011 at 7:10 pm | Report abuse |
  14. kerrygomez

    That is not a bill that someone should be passing now … to take permission or not … to fund or not … the bill that should be passed right now collectively with all nations is “NO MORE WARS FOR MONEY”. That’s the bill they should pass right now. This bill should imply that the warring nations … this is the nations that are bombing the country should not in any way get involved in any kind of direct or indirect financial transactions with the victim country. That’s what we should fight for now … that’s the bill they should pass now.

    After seeing what they have done in Ruka … what is stopping us from bringing about such a resolution?

    Common sense!?

    Read more:


    June 27, 2011 at 5:49 am | Report abuse |
1 2 3