TRUMP'S NATIONAL SECURITY TRAVEL BAN UPHELD BY SCOTUS (VICTORY)

TRUMP'S NATIONAL SECURITY TRAVEL BAN UPHELD BY SCOTUS (VICTORY):

BANS TRAVEL FROM SIX MUSLIM COUNTRIES LINKED TO TERRORISM.

IRAN, LIBYA, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SYRIA, YEMEN,

SCOTUS AGREES TO HEAR FULL ARGUMENTS ON TRAVEL BAN IN OCTOBER.


Sources: BBC News, CBS News, Fox News, Youtube


****** Supreme Court Upholds Trump Administration’s Travel Ban


The Supreme Court is allowing President Donald Trump to forge ahead with a limited version of his ban on travel from six mostly Muslim countries to the U.S. Trump hailed the decision as a “victory for national security,” but it’s likely to set off a new round of court disputes over anti-terror efforts and religious discrimination.

The justices will hear full arguments in October in the case that has stirred heated emotions across the nation and pointed rebukes from lower courts saying the administration is targeting Muslims. Until then, the court said Monday, Trump’s ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen can be enforced if those visitors lack a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

The ruling sets up a potential clash between the government and opponents of the ban over the strength of visitors’ ties to the United States. A senior official said plans already had been written to enforce the ban aggressively. But immigrant groups said relatively few people try to enter the United States without well-established ties. Those groups said they will be sending lawyers and monitors back to American airports, where the initial, immediate implementation of the ban in January caused chaos and confusion.

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said the ban would be implemented starting 72 hours after being cleared by courts. That means it will take effect Thursday morning.

The president has denied that the ban targets Muslims but says it is needed “to protect the nation from terrorist activities” committed by citizens of the six countries. All six have been designated as presenting heightened concerns about terrorism and travel to the United States.

The 90-day ban is necessary to allow an internal review of screening procedures for visa applicants from the countries, the administration says. That review should be complete before Oct. 2, the first day the justices could hear arguments in their new term.

The ban will have run its course by then, raising a question of whether the justices will even issue a decision in the case or dismiss it because it has been overtaken by events.

The court asked both sides to address the issue of timing, along with questions about whether the ban is aimed at Muslims, the impact of Trump’s provocative campaign statements and federal courts’ authority to restrain the president in the area of immigration.

A 120-day ban on refugees also is being allowed to take effect on a similar, limited basis.

Three of the court’s conservative justices said they would have let the administration apply the bans without the limits imposed by their colleagues.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, said the government has shown it is likely to win the legal case in the end. Thomas said the government’s interest in preserving national security outweighs any hardship to people denied entry into the country.

Trump hailed the court’s order as a “clear victory for our national security,” especially after lower court rulings that blocked the travel ban in its entirety. He said in a statement that his “number one responsibility” is to keep Americans safe.

His administration’s implementation plans, largely orchestrated by White House adviser Stephen Miller, focus on refusing entry to people who are unable to show a substantial and pre-existing tie to a person or institution in the United States. The plans were described by a senior official who was familiar with them, speaking on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to discuss them publicly by name.

But some immigration lawyers said relatively few people would fall under the ban because people coming to study, work or visit family members already have sufficient relationships with others already is in the country.

“This order, properly construed, should really allow for only the narrowest implementation of any part of the ban. It’s going to be really important for us to make sure the government abides by the terms of the order and does not try to use it as a backdoor into implementing the full- scale Muslim ban,” said Omar Jadwat, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is representing some of the challengers to the travel ban.

The court’s opinion explained the kinds of relationships people from the six countries must demonstrate to obtain a U.S. visa.

“For individuals, a close familial relationship is required,” the court said. For people who want to come to the United States to work or study, “the relationship must be formal, documented and formed in the ordinary course, not for the purpose of evading” the travel ban.

The opinion faulted the two federal appeals courts that had blocked the travel policy for going too far to limit Trump’s authority over immigration. The president announced the travel ban a week after he took office in January and revised it in March after setbacks in court.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the ban was “rooted in religious animus” toward Muslims and pointed to Trump’s campaign promise to impose a ban on Muslims entering the country as well as tweets and remarks he has made since becoming president.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the ban does not comply with federal immigration law, including a prohibition on nationality-based discrimination. That court also put a hold on separate aspects of the policy that would keep all refugees out of the United States for 120 days and cut by more than half, from 110,000 to 50,000, the cap on refugees in the current government spending year that ends Sept. 30.

Trump’s first executive order on travel applied to travelers from Iraq and well as the six countries, and took effect immediately, causing chaos and panic at airports as the Homeland Security Department scrambled to figure out whom the order covered and how it was to be implemented.

A federal judge blocked it eight days later, and that was upheld by a 9th circuit panel. Rather than pursue an appeal, the administration said it would revise the policy.

In March, Trump issued the narrower order.

LOUIS FARRAKHAN CALLS HILLARY "EVIL WOMAN", PRAISES TRUMP (SORT OF)

MIN LOUIS FARRAKHAN CALLS HILLARY AN EVIL WOMAN WHO DESTABILIZED LIBYA BUT HE PRAISES TRUMP (SORT OF):

FARRAKHAN SAYS TRUMP IS DANGEROUS TO THE STATUS QUO.

Sources: Alex Jones, NOI, US News & Report, Youtube

~ Note:

 The views expressed in the posted videos above are solely those of Louis Farrakhan.

**** Louis Farrakhan on Donald Trump: 'I Like What I’m Looking At'

The strange-bedfellows truism of American politics was all but redefined Tuesday when Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump – currently taking fire from his own party for the support he's getting from the Ku Klux Klan – got a salute from Louis Farrakhan, longtime leader of the Nation of Islam.

Speaking at the black nationalist organization's annual Savior's Day in Chicago, Farrakhan told parishioners that he admires Trump because he believes the celebrity billionaire's purportedly self-funded presidential campaign isn't taking money from the "Jewish community."

"[Trump] is the only member who has stood in front of [the] Jewish community and said, 'I don't want your money,'" Farrakhan told his followers Sunday at the Mosque Maryam in Chicago, according tothe Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights organization.

"Anytime a man can say to those who control the politics of America, 'I don't want your money,' that means you can't control me. And they cannot afford to give up control of the presidents of the United States." Farrakhan said in the sermon. Though he said he admires Trump's independence, the 82-year-old leader stopped short of endorsing the first-time novice politician for president.

"Not that I'm for Mr. Trump," he said, "but I like what I'm looking at."

On Sunday, CNN host Jake Tapper pressed Trump about whether he'd disavow David Duke – a former Klan leader who's active in conservative politics – and other white supremacists backing his presidential campaign. Trump at first said he didn't know anything about Duke, then hastily disavowed him Monday under an ongoing firestorm of criticism.

The critics include House Speaker Paul Ryan, the GOP's 2012 vice presidential nominee, who backhanded Trump when speaking to reporters Tuesday.

If a person wants to be the nominee of the Republican Party, there can be no evasion and no games. They must reject any group or cause that is built on bigotry. This party does not prey on people's prejudices," Ryan said.

For Farrakhan, the enemy-of-my-enemy support for Trump is nothing new: Besides calling for a separate African American state, the Nation of Islam strongly believes Jews were responsible for the slave trade and that they're part of a vast conspiracy that controls the government, the media and the entertainment industry, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. That the NOI's fierce brand of anti-Semitism puts them on the same side as the Klan, which also despises African Americans, is largely viewed as incidental.

Praising Trump, however, is a reversal for Farrakhan, who a few months ago suggested a White House run by the former reality show star would lead America into "the abyss of hell."

Abdelbeset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi Is DEAD At 60! Flight 103 Surviving Family Members Relieved

Lockerbie bomber dies more than two years after release

Abdelbeset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the only person convicted in connection with the Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people, died Sunday, the Libyan government and a family member said.

He was 60.

The former intelligence officer, who had suffered from prostate cancer, will be buried Monday, a foreign ministry spokesman said.

Al Megrahi's cousin Omer al-Gharyani told CNN he was with al Megrahi at the Tripoli hospital when he died.

His death came more than two years after he was freed from a life sentence in Scotland on the grounds that he was dying.

The destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 in the deadliest act of air terrorism against Americans until the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, according to the FBI.

American and British investigators who painstakingly pieced together the wreckage of the Pan Am 103 found it had been destroyed by a bomb, and they accused al Megrahi and another man of planting it.

Al Megrahi -- once the security chief for Libyan Arab Airlines -- and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah were Libyan intelligence agents, the United States and Britain charged, indicting them in November 1991 on 270 counts of murder and conspiracy to murder.

The indictment set off the first of two international battles over al Megrahi. The first resulted in international sanctions and finally led to his trial and conviction.

The second came after he was released from a Scottish prison, on the grounds that he was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer in August 2009 and was expected to have only a few months to live. He was sent home to Libya on "compassionate" grounds, and received a hero's welcome at the airport.

His release -- a little more than eight years after being sentenced to life in prison -- and the celebrations that greeted him in Libya sparked condemnation from the U.S. and British governments and some victims' families.

The fury grew as he lived long past the time doctors had expected him to survive.

U.S. senators including Robert Menedez and Frank Lautenberg, both New Jersey Democrats, and Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York, called for an Investigation into why he was set Free.

"This man was a horrible man," Schumer said Sunday in an interview with CNN. "It would have been better had he not died in freedom, but died in prison. That's what he deserved, and I still believe that the Scottish government, perhaps with the participation of the British government, created a major injustice when they let him out."

"The only legacy we have is in the memory of all those who were lost," Schumer added.

"...We have to just make sure we continue this battle against terrorism on airplanes. We made great progress and we have to keep it up."

As rebels swept into Tripoli two years after al Megrahi's release, politicians on both sides of the Atlantic called for him to be extradited, with the Americans demanding a trial in the United States, and British lawmakers saying he should return to prison in Scotland.

CNN Senior International Correspondent Nic Robertson tracked al Megrahi down last year at the palatial villa Moammar Gadhafi had built for him during his reign as Libyan leader. Al Megrahi was apparently in a coma and near death.

His family said al Megrahi's son and mother were trying to care for him with oxygen and an intravenous drip, but with no medical advice.

Al Megrahi's death may make it impossible ever to get the full story behind the Lockerbie bombing.

In an interview with Reuters last October, al Megrahi said the truth will come out "one day, and hopefully in the near future." He vowed that "new facts" would come to light.

When Washington and London accused him and Fhimah of responsibility for the attack, Libya refused at first to hand the men over.

That prompted the United Nations Security Council in April 1992 to slap sanctions on the north African country, clamping down on arms sales and air travel.

The FBI put the two on its 10 Most Wanted Fugitives list -- the only time officers of a foreign government have ever been named on the list, as far as the FBI knows, spokesman Ken Hoffman said.

Two years later, Libya floated the idea of trying the men in an international court, which the United States and Britain rejected.

In the summer of 1998, Libya made a fresh proposal: that the men face justice in the Netherlands under Scottish law.

By the end of the year, matters came to a head when Kofi Annan, then U.N. secretary-general, met Gadhafi in Tripoli.

Ten days later, a U.S. Appeals Court ruled that the families of the 189 Americans killed in the bombing could sue Libya for its possible role in sponsoring in the attack.

Libya agreed the next day to let the men face trial.

They were handed over on April 5, 1999, to the United Nations, which suspended its sanctions the same day.

The handover helped break a long-running standoff between the United States and Libya.

Two months later, American and Libyan officials met face-to-face for the first time in 18 years, and al Megrahi and Fhimah made their first court appearance before the end of the year.

The trial lasted nine months.

In 2001, al Megrahi was convicted of the murders after prosecutors dropped lesser charges, and was sentenced to life in prison, having to serve a minimum of 27 years. Scotland does not allow the death penalty.
Fhimah was found not guilty.

Al Megrahi always insisted he was innocent, and filed one appeal after another against his conviction. The first was rejected in 2002.

Relations between the United States and Libya improved swiftly.

Libya agreed in 2003 to pay $2.7 billion in compensation to the families of the bombing victims, though Gadhafi always remained cagey about admitting official Libyan involvement in the bombing.

For his part, al Megrahi continued to fight to clear his name.

In June 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission allowed am fresh appeal, ruling that it had uncovered new evidence and that al Megrahi "may have suffered a miscarriage of justice."

Before the appeal could be heard, however, it emerged that al Megrahi had terminal prostate cancer.

Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill ordered him freed on compassionate grounds in August 2009. MacAskill had authority over al Megrahi's case because the convicted bomber was jailed in Scotland.

Al Megrahi dropped his appeal when he was freed.
The release proved immediately controversial.

Some family members of Lockerbie victims complained that with the legal process ending when al Megrahi dropped his appeal, they would never know the full truth about the bombing.

The British press, meanwhile, alleged the release was tied to oil deals with Libya.
British and Scottish officials denied the claim, and released more than 100 pages of previously secret documents to make their case.

The papers included a handwritten letter from al Megrahi to MacAskill, pleading to be allowed to see his family before he died, and continuing to proclaim his innocence.

The documents also showed that senior Libyan officials warned their Scottish and British counterparts it would be "catastrophic" for British-Libyan relations if al Megrahi died in prison.

When Al Megrahi returned to Libya on August 20, he was accompanied by Gadhafi's son, Saif al-Islam.

The younger Gadhafi confirmed that Libya was "very angry" at British efforts to keep al Megrahi out of a separate prisoner transfer agreement, but said ultimately, the bomber was released for a different reason anyway.

It "was based on the compassionate grounds, not because of business deals," he told CNN's Nic Robertson in early September. "The guy is sick, seriously sick.

He has cancer and because of that they made their decision and I think it was the right decision. Very simple."


View Larger Map


Source: AP, CNN, Guardian, Wikipedia, Google Maps

Gadhafi Surrounded In Tripoli Claims Minister! Countdown To His Capture & Trial! Loyalists Too!

Libyan Minister: Gaddafi Surrounded

A minister in Libya's National Transitional Council said on Friday rebel forces were surrounding an area of Tripoli where Muammar Gaddafi and his entourage were hiding and were monitoring their presence before attempting to capture them.

"The area where he is now is under siege," Justice Minister Mohammed al-Alagi told Reuters. "The rebels are monitoring the area and they are dealing with it."

Alagi, a lawyer who said he had come to Tripoli to establish the new "legal authority" declined to specify where Gaddafi was.

Other rebel officials have said they believe the fallen strongman has taken refuge in the Abu Salim area in the south of the capital -- an area that saw clashes in recent days.
Rebel fighters have said earlier this week that they thought they had Gaddafi cornered but these reports have turned out to be inaccurate, or at least premature.






Rebels in Libya work to rub out loyalist pockets

Opposition and NATO forces took aim at the Gadhafi regime in Tripoli and Sirte on Friday as rebels worked to consolidate their power across strife-torn Libya.

British warplanes pounded a "large headquarters bunker" overnight in Moammar Gadhafi's hometown of Sirte, the UK Defence Ministry said on Friday. Tornado aircraft fired a salvo of precision-guided missiles into the city, east of Tripoli on the central coast.

The opposition says its forces made late gains on Thursday as it closed in on Sirte, and clashes flared on Friday in that region, considered by fighters as a hot war zone.

Tornado aircraft destroyed one of Gadhafi's "few remaining long range surface to air missile systems, near Al Watiyah, close to the Tunisian border on Thursday, the ministry said.

The ministry said Tornados and Typhoons destroyed a loyalist-held command and control site in the Tripoli area, also on Thursday. Britain is part of NATO's mission to enforce a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for the protection of Libyan people against Gadhafi regime forces.

As for the airport, rebels said they controlled the facility, but were struggling to secure an area east of it controlled by Gadhafi loyalists.

They claim Gadhafi loyalists have been indiscriminately shelling the airport from a civilian village east of the facility in an effort to repel the advance of rebel forces. Rebels say they are cautious in their response to the incoming fire because of the civilian casualties.

One aircraft burned as loyalists resumed mortar and Grad rocket shelling of the airport, according to a CNN team that witnessed the attack.

This comes amid world concerns over revenge killings by rebels and loyalists.

Amnesty International has gathered accounts from survivors of abuse in Zawiya by pro-Gadhafi soldiers and rebel forces. It also issued a report on Friday about the killings of detainees in Tripoli by Gadhafi loyalists.

Evidence emerged of executions in the battle for Tripoli.

A dozen bodies, with their hands bound behind them, were discovered near Gadhafi's compound in Tripoli where fierce fighting erupted Thursday.

Rebels at the scene told CNN they had been executed by Gadhafi's men, but it was not immediately clear. The victims were black Africans, who composed a large part of Gadhafi's army.

The discovery of the bodies came a day after a doctor at a Tripoli hospital told CNN that he had examined a number of dead rebels who appeared to have been executed with a bullet to the head.

On the political front, the opposition National Transitional Council has announced it is moving its political base to Tripoli from its strong in Benghazi in eastern Libya.

Libya's rebel leadership on Friday pleaded urgently with the United States and other countries to unfreeze billions of dollars, saying the funds are vital to establish peace and stability in the nation.

"Our friends throughout the world are talking about the procedures needed to bring back peace and stability," Mahmoud Jibril, a senior NTC leader, told reporters at an international conference in Turkey. But we cannot do that unless we can fulfill our duties."

His call for funds came a day after the U.N. Security Council's sanctions committee approved a U.S. request to free up $1.5 billion of the at least $100 billion in Libyan assets frozen at the start of the war.

The National Transitional Council has been recognized by nations and alliances across the globe. The Peace and Security Council of the African Union failed to do so at a Friday meeting.

Neverthless, the council issued a communique that urged the "formation of an inclusive transitional government."

It called for the "establishment of a constitutional and legislative framework for the democratic transformation of Libya, as well as for support towards the organization of elections and the national reconciliation process."

It encouraged "the Libyan stakeholders to accelerate the process leading to the formation of an all-inclusive transitional government that would be welcome to occupy the seat of Libya in the AU, which represents countries across Africa.


View Larger Map

Sources: Al Jazeera News, CNN, Daily Beast, PBS News, Youtube, Google Maps

Where Is Gadhafi? How Long Can He Hold Out?

Where is Gadhafi and how long can he hold out?


Tripoli may fall; the Libyan regime, collapse. But the rebels say they will not rest until Moammar Gadhafi is captured or killed.

How long they will have to wait for that moment of victory remains as uncertain as ever.

The strongman they are hunting is known to be eccentric, mercurial and, judging from his actions, often disconnected with reality, making it all that more difficult to predict his moves, said John Burns, a New York Times journalist who recently reported from Tripoli.

"It's a mystery," Burns said. "We are all speculating. And we are all speculating about an unpredictable man."

The rebel takeover of Tripoli and most notably, Gadhafi's compound, brought celebratory gunfire and street jubilation that evoked memories of another Arab capital more than seven years ago: Baghdad.

In 2003, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, just like Gadhafi, had vowed to stand with his people. But in the end, both vanished from sight.

Hussein managed to elude capture for eight months after his fall and was eventually discovered hiding in a hole in the ground by U.S. soldiers.

Burns, who covered Hussein and the Iraq war extensively, called both men "killers," but said Hussein was much more calculating. He said Gadhafi was missing an element of rationality.

"The concept that the game is up may not apply with the same kind of rigor and rationality as it might in others," Burns said. "That suggests a propensity for a last-ditch Alamo situation.

"I think he has been delusional for quite a few years and becomes more delusional as this endgame for him develops," Burns said.

At the moment, conjecture trumps evidence as to Gadhafi's whereabouts and how long he will be able to evade rebel fighters.

CNN's Nic Robertson, who also covered the fall of Hussein, said Gadhafi's time is limited and that he would not hold out as long as Hussein did.

Unlike Iraq, where Hussein was overthrown by international forces, a popular uprising led to Gadhafi's predicament. Hussein, said Burns, also found an obvious refuge in what became a sectarian divide in Iraq. Gadhafi does not have that option.

"Most of the country wants him gone," Robertson said. "But even so, it could be weeks."

Former Gadhafi aide Abubaker Saad described a network of bunkers under the Gadhafi compound that could serve as a hideout. But the bunkers have been targets of NATO bombings and it's unlikely Gadhafi would remain there.

Others have suggested that he is hiding in a farm near the airport, waiting to escape. That theory gained ground after a purported Gadhafi audio message aired Wednesday that seemed to have the sound of a squawking chicken in the background.

But Gadhafi has a fear of flying over water and an intense dislike of staying in the upper floors of buildings, according to U.S. diplomatic cables released last year by the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks. So he could instead try to flee by ship from the port.

There has also been talk that Gadhafi may be accepted in another country -- Venezuela, Chad and Algeria are possibilities.

"He could be at the Algerian border," said Fouad Ajami, a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. "Take a look at the neighborhood of this new Libya, free Libya, which is what it is, a free Libya. It has favorable borders -- Tunisia on one side, Egypt on the other, but the Algerians are committed to Moammar Gadhafi.

"He has options," Ajami said. "He could go to Chad where he paid tons of money to the rulers there. I think he is a hunted man. We should see him for what he is, a fugitive from Libyan justice and international justice."

Charles O. Cecil, a former U.S. ambassador to Niger who served as charge d'affaires in Libya from 2006 to 2007, said several African nations may feel beholden to Gadhafi for the aid he has given them. Gadhafi even helped negotiate a peace accord in the Central African Republic.

But given Gadhafi's personality, Cecil was inclined to believe that Gadhafi would remain true to his vow and remain on Libyan soil. Cecil said Gadhafi might find relief in his native Sirte, surrounded by members of his own tribe, the people who have benefited most from his rule.

That's what Hussein did in Iraq. He escaped to his hometown of Tikrit and survived for many months.

"I am wondering how he (Gadhafi) would get there," Cecil said, referring to rebel control of the roads leading to Sirte. "He would almost have to fly."

The head of the World Chess Federation told Russia's Interfax news agency that he spoke by telephone with Gadhafi Tuesday. Kirsan Ilyumzhinov said Gadhafi was "alive and well in Tripoli and not going to leave Libya."

Ilyumzhinov had traveled to Libya to promote chess in schools in June. Burns, the New York Times reporter, took note of Gadhafi's chess match with the Russian visitor unfolding amid NATO bombardment as another example of Gadhafi's delusion.

But perhaps, given the chess match, the Russian knew the truth this week about the Libyan dictator's whereabouts.

"That's more like his personality," Cecil said. "He would choose to be in his own eyes a martyr."

Cecil quoted Welsh poet Dylan Thomas in describing the man who has ruled Libya for more than four decades.

"Do not go gentle into that good night,

Old age should burn and rage at close of day;

Rage, rage against the dying of the light."



View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Google Maps

GOP's Plan To Sidetrack Obama's Libya Strategy Failed! Obama Was Right!

Obama's Libya Strategy Proves His Critics Wrong


President Obama, when he first announced the United States' intervention in the Libyan revolution, was assailed from all sides for his war plan. Five months ago, both Democrats and Republicans were offering up pointed criticisms for just about every aspect of Obama's decision. Whatever Obama did, there were large numbers of both Republicans and Democrats quite willing to loudly second-guess him. Including Representative Dennis Kucinich (a Democrat), who became the first member of Congress to call for President Obama to be impeached over the Libyan war.

These criticisms were often contradictory (coming from the same people, at times), and were scathing and absolutely relentless: Obama had waited too long, Obama had moved too quickly, Obama should have gotten Congress' approval, Obama shouldn't have gotten the U.N.'s approval, America should just invade in a land war, America should just drop a bomb on Gaddafi and be done with it, the rebels were in reality al Qaeda, why are we intervening in Libya and not elsewhere in the Arab Spring, America can't afford another war, air power alone never wins wars, America will be forced to put "boots on the ground" whether we like it or not, America should be leading the war, Obama is "leading from behind," we're letting the French take control (?!?), Obama is kowtowing to the Arab League, another war in a Muslim country will just serve to inflame the region, what about the War Powers Act, we're going to wind up occupying Libya no matter what happens, the "ragtag" rebels will never win, the best the rebels can hope for will be a stalemate, Libya will end up partitioned with Gaddafi holding on to the west of the country, Gaddafi will unleash international terrorists against us, Obama didn't come home from South America when it began, Obama is "dithering," Obama didn't explain to the American public what was going on, and (an old favorite) America will end up in a quagmire. Back at the beginning of the war, Salon ran an amusing flowchart to track the Republican complaints, which isn't all that far from the reality Obama faced at the time (although the chart is admittedly partisan, because it doesn't address the criticism directed towards the president from his own party).

When Obama first announced his decision to join with N.A.T.O. to intervene in Libya, I wrote an article titled "Obama's Libyan Gamble" which explored what the American military strategy for Libya was going to be. This gamble has now proved successful for the president. At the time, I concluded:

If it works out reasonably well, this could become a model for American involvement in future flareups. If a ruthless tyrant was massacring his own people, then regional military coalitions would be free to call for American action. America, as everyone knows, is very, very good at executing the initial phases of a war. Iraq proved that. But America, also as everyone should have figured out, is also not that good at getting out of such wars. Iraq -- once again -- proves this, too. But if our new model is to limit our major involvement to the opening phases of war, then the responsibility for solving these regional problems would fall to regional organizations with much bigger vested interests in the outcome than the United States.

Of course, this isn't a perfect answer because sometimes regional alliances strong enough to bear this responsibility simply don't exist. Obama's Libyan strategy has yet to play out, and it's impossible at this juncture to see what will happen next. Obama's gamble that America can join in the initial phase of a war and then extricate itself quickly is one of those ideas which sound really good on paper, before reality sinks in when they're actually attempted. Other presidents have had equally cheerful predictions about the length of American military involvement, which later proved to be embarrassingly shortsighted. But, I have to admit, that if the gamble pays off -- if America can prove to the rest of the world that it can lead when asked, but also relinquish control when we're no longer needed -- it could bear fruit in future conflicts of this nature. If it works, people might start speaking of Obama's gamble as the Obama Doctrine.

Looking back, I have to admit that I overstated the case. Barack Obama is anything but "doctrinaire," on pretty much any subject. The Libyan intervention was tailored to a unique situation that may indeed never arise again. The set of circumstances in Libya was (and is) different than in other hotspots in the world right now (such as Syria), making it unlikely that Obama will use the Libyan battle plan again any time soon. So calling it the "Obama Doctrine" was a bit of a stretch, I suppose.

But it cannot be denied that the positive outcome in Libya has validated the way Obama sent America into this conflict. Sure, in the future, the whole Libyan Revolution could become sidetracked in any number of ways -- just because they've taken Tripoli (and even if they soon capture Gaddafi), it doesn't mean that they're going to successfully make the transition to a modern democratic state. There simply are no guarantees of this type in the real world. But that doesn't preclude us from examining the military strategy in its own light, especially when held up against our interventions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Because the news from Tripoli is so uplifting right now, in other words, it is hard to step back and examine the bigger picture of what America's efforts in Libya may mean for our future involvement in other wars of this nature which may flare up. But it's worth the exercise.

By just about any measure, America's involvement in Libya has been less burdensome to the United States than the last two wars we've fought. For example, six months into Iraq (the same time period that Libya took), 289 American troops had been killed (according to icasualties.org). In addition, 53 coalition troops had died. Six months after N.A.T.O. began air raids on Libya, a total of zero American troops have died, and an additional zero coalition troops have died. Hundreds of American servicemen and servicewomen are still alive today because we did not launch a land invasion of Libya.

It was pointed out just after we began attacking Libya -- with alarm -- that American involvement might cost upwards of one billion dollars. I haven't seen any strict accounting of the war yet, but assuming the estimate was true, it absolutely pales in comparison to the hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars (upwards of over a trillion dollars by most estimates) we have so far spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is several orders of magnitude of difference, right there.

Our military involvement in Libya was requested by the rebels. This is an important fact which many gloss over. We were not invited in to Afghanistan or Iraq, by any group. Even more important, we never actually "went in" to Libya (at least as the phrase refers to troops on the ground), so we don't have to now "get out" of the country. Ten years on, we still have tens of thousands of soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The so-called "Pottery Barn" rule ("you broke it, you own it") simply did not apply in Libya, meaning America is not left holding the bag when it comes to the nation-building phase. We can help out, if needed and requested, but the Libyans will be financing their own reconstruction with their abundant petrodollars.

Our international coalition on Libya actually shared the burden with America, as planned. The coalition bore the costs and responsibility for a large part of the mission, instead of mostly being window-dressing for an American army. In fact, this could be the most important comparison of them all, when we look back at the lessons of Libya. Maybe we don't always have to shoulder almost the entire burden of these sorts of wars, in the future. Maybe the "Obama Strategy" will actually become an important military tool for future presidents to use on the international stage, when circumstances allow.

Today, President Obama gave a short address on the Libyan situation. At the end, he spoke directly to the Libyan people themselves:

Your courage and character have been unbreakable in the face of a tyrant. An ocean divides us, but we are joined in the basic human longing for freedom, for justice and for dignity. Your revolution is your own, and your sacrifices have been extraordinary. Now, the Libya that you deserve is within your reach.

The most important takeaway line from this was: "Your revolution is your own." This simply could not be said of what we did in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

The American involvement in Libya was not perfect, but then no war effort can truly claim that distinction. The outcome may not be perfect, either. There are still plenty of valid points of criticism to be made. President Obama's critics will doubtlessly bring up the situation in Syria, Yemen, or Bahrain to make the point that the Obama's Libya strategy is not being used elsewhere, or even that it cannot successfully be used elsewhere. Calling it the "Obama Doctrine" is likely a step too far, I fully admit. It is true that Obama pushed the boundaries of the War Powers Act further than any previous president, but virtually all presidents (of both parties) have pushed these boundaries ever since the Act was passed (and until either Congress or an Oval Office occupant pushes it to the Supreme Court, the constitutionality of the Act itself will have to remain an open question). Obama may have moved too slowly for some at the war's onset, but he also moved too quickly for others. Finally, there are no guarantees that the rebels will form a new Libyan government to America's liking.

Even with all those caveats, however, Obama deserves a victory lap at this point. At the heart of Obama's war plan for Libya was an enormous gamble that could have failed in any number of ways. It didn't. America successfully cleared the skies of Libya, and then "within days, not weeks" we bowed out of the lead role in the fight. The French, the British, and the rest of N.A.T.O. stepped up to the plate and performed admirably well. The American military continued in a support role -- exactly as Obama told us would happen -- and the outcome, at this point in time, has to be judged a clear success.

Plus, Barack Obama is now -- together with the leaders of France, Britain, and the United Nations -- being hailed as liberators of Libya (to use the Bush administration's phrase). All in all, Obama's gamble seems to be paying off exceedingly well. Whether this helps the president or not politically (here at home), the Libyan rebels seem pretty happy with the way the war was fought, and with the way America fought our part of it. And it needs pointing out -- to all of Obama's critics -- that this may be the truest measure of success possible. How long has it been, after all, since America took part in a war where at the end of it throngs of people crowded around a sign thanking us for our efforts?


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps

Qaddafi Vs Obama: Obama Wins! Democracy For Libyans Begins!

Rebels Storm Qaddafi Compound

Rebel fighters on Tuesday, overwhelming what remained of its defenses, running pell-mell through the grounds and ransacking caches of weapons, as the crackle of gunfire and rumble of explosions spread across a confused and wary Libyan capital in spasms of renewed fighting.

Hundreds of rebel fighters on foot and in pickup trucks moved quickly into the Bab al-Aziziya compound in Tripoli, where smoky fires shrouded the palm trees and bullet-scarred multistory buildings of what the rebels have called Colonel Qaddafi’s last hideout. Many of the rebels searched the buildings room by room, but there was no immediate sign that Colonel Qaddafi or any member of his family was there.

Many of the buildings were looted, and rebel fighters could be seen walking around with high-quality advanced machine guns and, in one case, a gold-plated rifle. Some of the looted weapons were still wrapped in plastic.

CNN showed images of fighters emerging from one building carrying what its reporter was told were medical files of the Qaddafi family. Other footage showed rebels commandeering a Qaddafi golf cart, which they hitched to a truck and paraded down a street.

In what could become a defining image of the day, video footage on Al Jazeera showed fighters scrambling to upend one of Colonel Qaddafi’s favorite sculptures: a giant fist crushing an American warplane. Colonel Qaddafi installed the sculpture in front of a house in the compound that was bombed in 1986 on the orders of President Reagan, at a time when Libya was considered a pariah state. The wrecked building became Colonel Qaddafi’s backdrop for major speeches, including his defiant challenge to the rebels at the start of their uprising six months ago.

Despite rebel claims of a new triumph, it was not clear whether they had complete control of the compound — or for that matter, whether the rebel gains in Tripoli were the beginnings of a decisive victory in the conflict — or the start of potentially prolonged street fighting for control of the capital. Overstated claims of advances by the rebels — including the arrests of two Qaddafi sons that later proved false — have not helped their .

The sound of firefights in the compound could be heard for hours after the fighters first broke through. Al Jazeera reported sniper fire inside, and there were reports that one of the network’s employees had been shot.

A spokesman for the Transitional National Council, the rebel government based in the eastern city of Benghazi, where the uprising began, said that the rebels assumed that Colonel Qaddafi was still in Libya. “We believe that he is either in Tripoli or close to Tripoli,” the spokesman, Guma el-Gamaty, told BBC television. “Sooner or later, he will be found, alive and arrested — and hopefully that is the best outcome we want — or if he resists, he will be killed.”

Russian news agencies reported earlier that Colonel Qaddafi had a telephone conversation with the Russian head of the World Chess Federation, Kirsan N. Ilyumzhinov, who is one of Colonel Qaddafi’s eccentric circle of foreign friends. Mr. Ilyumzhinov quoted Colonel Qaddafi as saying that he was alive and well in Tripoli. Colonel Qaddafi’s son Seif al-Islam, who made a surprise appearance on Monday at a hotel with foreign journalists to refute reports of his arrest, also boasted that his father was safe in Tripoli.

They were the first indications of the besieged leader’s location and condition since the rebels swept into Tripoli on Saturday, in what appeared to be a crucial turn in the Libya conflict, the most violent of the Arab spring uprisings.

Video footage and eyewitness reports from elsewhere in Tripoli depicted heavy clashes around the international airport, which the rebels had claimed to control.

NATO officials in Brussels and London said the alliance’s warplanes, which have been helping the rebels, were flying reconnaissance and other missions over Libya.

“Our mission is not over yet,” said Col. Roland Lavoie, a NATO spokesman, at a news conference in Naples, Italy, urging pro-Qaddafi forces to return to their barracks. “Until this is the case we will carry on with our mission.” Asked if the alliance knew where Colonel Qaddafi was, he said: “We don’t know. I don’t have a clue.”

“The situation in Tripoli is still very serious and very dangerous,” Colonel Lavoie said.

He acknowledged that the urban environment in Tripoli, a city of some two million, was “far more complex” for airstrikes than past targets have been. But he said the alliance had precision weapons at its disposal to enforce its United Nations Security Council mandate, which is to protect civilians from attack.

Elsewhere, rebels claimed they had had seized control of Ras Lanuf, an important Mediterranean oil port, and that loyalist soldiers defending it had fled west to Colonel Qaddafi’s home town of Surt, according to news reports from Benghazi. There was no confirmation of the reports about Ras Lanuf, which has changed hands previously in the seesaw pattern of the Libya revolt.

Additionally, Al Arabiya satellite television reported, rebels killed dozens of pro-Qaddafi troops on Tuesday in a convoy from Surt. There was no independent corroboration of the report. The Pentagon reported late on Monday that its warplanes had shot down a Scud missile fired from Surt.

While rebel leaders said on Monday that they were planning for a post-Qaddafi government, the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Tripoli was a vacuum of power: no cohesive rebel government was in place, and remnants of the Qaddafi government were still in evidence.

Such was the uncertainty that the International Organization for Migration in Geneva said it had delayed a seaborne mission to rescue hundreds of foreigners from Tripoli because “security guarantees and assurances are no longer in place,” said Jemini Pandya, a spokeswoman for the organization. A ship that left the eastern port of Benghazi on Monday, bound for Tripoli, would remain at sea until some level of safety for the mission could be assured but would not dock in Tripoli as planned on Tuesday, she said in a telephone interview.

The BBC reported meanwhile that the Qaddafi-controlled Rixos luxury hotel in central Tripoli, where most foreign reporters are based, had also come under attack on Tuesday, sending some reporters to take cover in a basement.

“There are still some pockets of resistance,” the French foreign minister, Alain Juppé, said in a radio interview in Paris, but he said he believed “the fall of Qaddafi is close.” Along with the United States and Britain, France has played a central role in the diplomatic and military campaigns to oust Colonel Qaddafi and Mr. Juppé said those efforts still needed time “to get to the end of this operation.”

On the diplomatic front, Oman, Bahrain and Iraq said on Tuesday that they formally recognized the rebel authorities, following Egypt, which took the same step on Monday, calling the Transitional National Council the “new regime.” Mohammed Amr, Egypt’s foreign minister, said that the council would take over the Libyan Embassy in Cairo, and would assume Libya’s seat on the Arab League, which is based in Cairo.

It was not clear if the renewed fighting was linked to the surprise reappearance of Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, whose capture the rebels had trumpeted since Sunday but who walked as a free man to the Rixos Hotel early Tuesday. He boasted to foreign journalists there that his father was safe in Tripoli, his government was still “in control” and that the rebels had been lured into a trap, the BBC and news services reported. The episode raised significant questions about the credibility of rebel leaders, who had claimed to be holding him prisoner.

It was not clear whether he had been in rebel custody and escaped, or was never held at all. Another Qaddafi son, Muhammad, escaped from house arrest on Monday.

The struggle to a impose a new order on the capital presents a crucial test of the rebel leadership’s many pledges to replace Colonel Qaddafi’s bizarre autocracy with the democratic rule of law, and it could have consequences across the country and throughout the Arab world.

Unlike the swift and largely peaceful revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, the Libyan insurrection was the first revolt of the Arab Spring to devolve into a protracted armed struggle, and at times threatened to descend into a civil war of factions and tribes.

A rebel failure to deliver on their promises of justice and reconciliation here in the capital could spur Qaddafi loyalists around Libya to fight on. And an ugly outcome here might discourage strong foreign support for democracy movements elsewhere.

For now, governments throughout the West and the Middle East welcomed the rebels’ successes and pledged to assist them in the transition. The Iraqi government announced Tuesday that it had recognized the Transitional National Council as the legitimate government of Libya. The European Union said on Monday that it had begun planning for a post-Qaddafi era, and Turkey’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, flew to Benghazi on Tuesday and met with the rebel leader, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil.


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama's Debt Ceiling Press Conference: Congress "Shellacked" On Taxes & Jobs!

Where Is The Obama From 2008 Campaign Trails?

HE'S BACK!

Except Today He Sounded Like A Bold U.S. President Who Knows Exactly Where He's Headed & Knows Exactly What To Do!

This Morning's White House Press Conference Also Proved That Unlike Most GOP Congressional Leaders & Some Democrats, Pres. Obama REALLY Does Care About The American People NOT Just Winning Another Campaign.

Obama Proved He's Sincere & NOT An Opportunist!

Attention GOP Leaders On Capitol Hill:

The Ball Is Now In Your Court!

But Beware Because American Voters Are NOT Stupid!

We Are Watching & Waiting.

If GOP Leaders Continue To Protect Billionaires & Millionaires By Playing Around With The American Economy & Continue To Filibuster Badly Needed Jobs Bills, They Will Pay Big Time In November 2012!

Bye Bye GOP!!!

RE-ELECT OBAMA IN 2012!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama: Republican Leaders Must Bend on Taxes

President Obama said Wednesday that he believed Republicans would concede to tax increases as part of a deficit reduction package in time to avoid a default on the nation’s debt, and voiced exasperation at the lack of progress in negotiations between the administration and Congressional leaders.

“Call me naïve,” he told reporters at a midday news conference in the East Room of the White House. “But my expectation is that leaders are going to lead.

He accused the Republicans, who last week dropped out of negotiations on the budget, of avoiding tough decisions and said they were playing a dangerous game that could significantly affect the nation’s struggling economy and capital markets and slow down private efforts to create jobs.

Mr. Obama repeatedly mocked tax breaks that he said were for “millionaires and billionaires, oil companies and corporate jet owners,” saying that voters would not look kindly on Republican lawmakers who defended such breaks at the cost of cuts in popular programs like health care, education and food safety.

But he did not explicitly say that he would reject a deal that did not eliminate such breaks, saying that he believed his adversaries would eventually agree to what Democrats have called a “balanced approach” that included trillions of dollars in spending cuts along with tax increases.

“If you are a wealthy C.E.O. or hedge fund manager in America right now, your taxes are lower than they have ever been. They are lower than they have been since the 1950s. And they can afford it,” Mr. Obama said. “You can still ride on your corporate jet. You’re just going to have to pay a little more.”

Questions about the looming debt deadline dominated the early part of the news conference, the first in several months for the president. But Mr. Obama was also asked about a series of other domestic and foreign policy issues.

On the American intervention in Libya, Mr. Obama defended his administration’s actions against Congressional critics who say the military activities there violate the War Powers Act, which requires Congress to give its formal approval.

“We have engaged in a limited operation to help a lot of people against one of the worst tyrants in the world,” Mr. Obama said, deflecting a question about whether he believes the War Powers Act is constitutional. “This suddenly becomes the cause célèbre for some folks in Congress? C’mon.”

On the issue of same-sex marriage, Mr. Obama declined to say whether he had changed his mind about his personal opposition. But he said New York’s decision to legalize same sex marriage was a “good thing.”

“That’s exactly how things should work,” he said, noting that different communities will come to different conclusions on the issue. “I think we are moving in a direction of greater equality, and I think that’s a good thing.”

Mr. Obama said his administration had done more than all of his predecessors combined to advance the rights of gay men and lesbians in America. Mr. Obama is scheduled to host a gay pride event at the White House on Wednesday afternoon.

But his remarks are likely to disappoint gay activists, who were hoping that Mr. Obama would say that his personal opposition to gay marriage had ended. In the past, the president has said his position is “evolving.”

On the economy, Mr. Obama sounded dire warnings about the consequences of delaying a resolution on the debt negotiations, and expressed exasperation with Republicans in Congress, saying they needed to “do their job” instead of blaming him for a lack of leadership.

In a remarkable display of frustration, Mr. Obama said he was “amused” by Republican comments that he had not offered a clear direction in the effort to cut the budget and increase the nation’s debt ceiling.

“They are in one week, they are out one week,” the president said, in a week that the House is out of session. “You need to be here. I’ve been here. I’ve been doing Afghanistan and Bin Laden and the Greek crisis. You stay here. Let’s get it done. All right, I think you know my feelings about that.”

Mr. Obama compared the lack of resolution in the debt talks to his daughters’ ability to get their homework done a day early.

“They’re not waiting til the night before. They are not pulling all-nighters,” Mr. Obama said. “They need to do their job. They need to go ahead and make the tough choices.”

Mr. Obama also mocked Republicans in Congress who have questioned whether the Aug. 2 deadline set by the Treasury Department for a default on the debt has been hyped for political reasons. He said the people making those claims would force the government to pick and choose who they would pay and who they would leave hanging.

“This is not a situation where Congress is going to say we won’t buy this car or we won’t take the vacation. They took the vacation. They bought the car. And now they are saying, maybe we don’t have to pay,” Mr. Obama said. “If the United States government, for the first time, cannot pay its bills, if it defaults, then the consequences for the U.S. economy will be significant and unpredictable. And that is not a good thing.”

In his opening statement, Mr. Obama said his administration was making efforts to spur job creation, but challenged Congress to pass bills that would help private companies add to their payrolls. He cited bills that would make it easier to get patents on inventions, expand loans to private businesses for hiring and pass long-delayed trade deals.
“I urge Congress to act on these ideas right now,” he said.

On the debt talks, Mr. Obama said he was open to extending payroll tax cuts and other tax breaks that would help spur economic growth in the short term. “I think that it makes perfect sense for us to take a look at can we extend the payroll tax cut another year?” the president told reporters. “What we need to do is to restore business confidence and the confidence of the American people that we are on track.”

The president declined to comment on a controversial decision by the National Labor Relations Board to go to court to contest a decision by Boeing to build a nonunion plant in South Carolina. The decision by the independent agency has been criticized by Republicans as an infringement on right-to-work states and on the right of corporate managers to decide where to do business. The case is before a judge in Seattle.

But the president acknowledged the political sensitivities of the issue at a time when people are clamoring for the kinds of jobs that the Boeing plant would create. “If they are choosing to relocate here in the U.S., that’s a good thing,” Mr. Obama said. “What defies common sense is the notion that we would be shutting down a plant or laying off workers because labor and management can’t come to an agreement.”

Asked about concern in the military that the policy on how to handle terrorist suspects captured abroad was unclear, Mr. Obama said that his “top priority” was “to make sure that we are apprehending those who would attack the United States, and that we are getting all the intelligence that we can.”

But he said that “frankly, there are going to be different dispositions of the case depending on the situation.”

Pressed a second time on his personal views of same-sex marriage, Mr. Obama declined to elaborate, saying, “I’m not going to make news on that today” and telling the reporter who asked, Laura Meckler of The Wall Street Journal, “Good try, though.”

Later, Mr. Obama added: “I’ll keep on giving you the same answer until I give you a different one. And that won’t be today.”


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, NY Times, Google Maps

Libya Funding Maintained 180-238; Mission Revoked! Racism Or No?

Today The U.S. House Voted To Revoke Pres. Obama's Authority To Cooperate With NATO In Helping To Free The Libyan People Of Moammar Gadhafi's Murderous Reign.

Members Of "Boehner's Congressional House Of Horrors" Did NOT Vote To Defund The Libyan Project, However They Did Vote To Prohibit Pres. Obama's Ability To Continue On With The Mission.

One Can Hardly Question That Speaker Boehner's Motive Was Political Because It Was.

However I Also See Clear Signs Of Racism In Boehner's Motives As Well.

Racist How You Ask?

Well When Former WHITE Presidents Chose To Help With Humanitarian Efforts In Kosovo Sarajevo & The Bosnian War, NO One In Congress, Especially Republicans, Said A Word!

Is It Because The Citizens Of Those Countries Were European? i.e., WHITE!!

Is It Also Because The U.S. Presidents In Power During Those Conflicts Were WHITE??

Or Is It Due To The GOP Attempting To Stop Pres. Obama From Bringing Down Anymore Terrorists & Killers Akin To Osama Bin Laden?

Could Be. More Like YES!!

So If Pres. Obama Were WHITE Would Congress Still Have Held A Vote To Limit His Authority In Libya's Conflict?

NO!

If Pres. Obama Were WHITE Would Congress Be Attempting To Stop Him From Bringing Anymore Terrorists & Killers To Justice?

NO!!

And For The Democrats Who Sided Against Pres. Obama In Carrying Out This Mission, What A Bunch Of Losers!

No Wonder The GOP Is Regaining Control Of Congress.

What Better Way For The GOP To Regain Control Of The White House & Congress Than To Have Democrats Join Them In Schemes To Embarrass & Limit Pres. Obama's Executive Authority?

If Democrats Don't Get It Together The GOP Will Once Again Control BOTH Chambers Of Congress!

I Didn't Agree With ALL Of Pres. Obama's Decisions Either.

However I Have Decided To Stick By Him & Help Re-elect Him.

After All What Choice Do I Have?

The GOP's Crazy, Racist, Unfair Agenda (NOT All GOP Members But Most) Or Pres. Obama's Inclusive Agenda?

I Choose To Support Pres. Obama's FAIR Agenda.

Its Time For Democrats & Independents To STOP Being Stupid!

STOP Falling For The GOP's Political Traps Against Pres. Obama!

Let's Unite, Mobilize, Rally Around Pres. Obama, Pray For Him & Help Re-elect Him In 2012!!





House preserves Libya funding but refuses to authorize mission


The House on Friday afternoon rejected legislation that would have prohibited the funding of military operations in Libya with only a few exceptions.

The 180-238 vote against the bill came after a debate in which both parties were split on how best to handle U.S. involvement in Libya, even as they seemed to agree that President Obama should have involved Congress in that decision at a much earlier stage.

s expected, most Republicans supported the bill: 144 voted in favor of it, but 89 voted against. These vote totals changed at the last minute several times as members altered their votes.

Democrats were less divided: 36 voted for it, and 149 voted against.

Earlier in the day, in a rebuke to President Obama, the House rejected a resolution that would have authorized continued U.S. military operations in Libya for one year. Congress and the White House have been disputing the extent of the president's power to act in Libya without congressional approval. Although the House did not authorize the effort Friday, it also did not go so far as to defund it.

The defeated resolution, offered by Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.), would have restricted the role that U.S. troops would play in the continuing NATO military campaign to oust Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi from power in that country.

Chief Deputy Whip Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) broke with his fellow House GOP leaders to oppose the measure; he watched the tally board along the back wall of the House until the 15 minute vote was moments from closing before casting his no vote.

House GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) made a point of noting that the votes on the Libya matter were not whipped by leadership - it was up to individuals to "vote their conscience," as an aide explained.

Earlier in the day, it was all but expected that the House - clearly upset with the President for not having made a case to Congress before involving U.S. forces in Libya - would support Rooney's measure.

36 House Democrats, including outspoken liberal Reps. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) and John Conyers (Mich.) joined 144 House Republicans in support of the measure. But 89 conservative Republicans joined 149 Democrats to ultimately defeat the measure.

The bill would have allowed the U.S. to continue its involvement in activities such as search and rescue, intelligence, aerial refueling and operational planning. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) called it a "reasonable approach" that would let the U.S. continue to help its NATO allies.

But Democrats argued that these limited activities would prevent the U.S. from helping much with the humanitarian mission, and several suggested that the U.S. needs more authority to assist than what was offered in the bill.

Some Republicans agreed with this broad sentiment. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) added that even if passed, it would not have any immediate effect as it would also have to be approved by the Senate.

Another Republican, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), called on members repeatedly to reject this bill because it would continue to authorize some activities in Libya.


View Larger Map

Sources: Charlie Rose, CNN, Politics Daily, The Hill, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps