Trump must be impeached and removed from office for illegal war

Volsrocks is wrong as usual

Bill Clinton did not obtain new, specific congressional authorization for U.S. military strikes in Somalia, Bosnia, or Kosovo. Each operation rested on a mix of prior statutory authority, War Powers Resolution reporting, and international mandates, rather than a fresh Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). The key distinctions lie in how each action was justified and how Congress responded.

Somalia (1993–1994)​

What authority Clinton used​

  • The Somalia mission began under George H. W. Bush as a UN‑authorized humanitarian operation (UNITAF, then UNOSOM II).
  • Clinton inherited the deployment and continued it under UN Security Council resolutions and commander‑in‑chief authority.
  • He reported to Congress under the War Powers Resolution, but did not request a new AUMF.

Congressional posture​

  • Congress never passed a new authorization.
  • After the “Black Hawk Down” battle, Congress pressured Clinton to withdraw, and he set a timetable for exit, but no new authorization was enacted.

Bosnia (1995)​

What authority Clinton used​

  • Clinton ordered U.S. participation in NATO airstrikes against Bosnian Serb forces.
  • The administration argued that NATO operations and the president’s Article II powers were sufficient.
  • Congress was deeply divided and never passed a binding authorization.

Congressional posture​

  • The House passed a resolution prohibiting ground troops, but it was nonbinding.
  • Congress did not authorize the air campaign, but it also did not force its termination.

Kosovo (1999)​

What authority Clinton used​

  • The 78‑day NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo is the clearest example of Clinton using military force without congressional approval.
  • The administration relied on NATO authority, UN resolutions on humanitarian protection, and Article II powers.
  • Clinton submitted War Powers notifications but did not seek a new AUMF.

Congressional posture​

  • The House voted down an authorization for the air campaign.
  • The House also voted down a declaration of war.
  • Yet the House also voted down a resolution to force withdrawal.
  • The Senate passed a nonbinding resolution supporting the campaign.
  • The operation continued despite the lack of congressional authorization.
This episode is widely cited in legal scholarship as a major precedent for presidents conducting sustained air campaigns without congressional approval.

Why Clinton did not need (or seek) new approval​

Across all three conflicts, Clinton followed a pattern that scholars note began with Truman in Korea and continued through later presidents:
  • Treating operations as coalition or humanitarian missions, not “wars” requiring declarations.
  • Relying on international mandates (UN, NATO) to bolster legitimacy.
  • Using Article II commander‑in‑chief authority for limited or air‑only operations.
  • Filing War Powers Resolution reports without seeking a new AUMF.
This approach remains controversial, but it is consistent with how modern presidents have interpreted their war powers.

 
volsrocks is wrong as usual.

Did Obama need a congressional approval for strikes on Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo?

Obama did not need new congressional approval for strikes in Somalia, Bosnia, or Kosovo, because he did not conduct military operations in Bosnia or Kosovo at all, and his actions in Somalia relied on existing authorizations, not new ones.
The confusion comes from mixing Clinton‑era interventions (Bosnia and Kosovo) with Obama‑era counterterrorism operations (Somalia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan).

🧭 What Obama actually did — and what he did not do​

Bosnia — No Obama involvement​

  • The Bosnia air campaign occurred in 1995 under Bill Clinton, not Obama.
  • Obama had no military operations in Bosnia.
  • Therefore, no congressional approval was needed because no strikes occurred.

Kosovo — No Obama involvement​

  • The Kosovo War and NATO bombing campaign occurred in 1999, also under Bill Clinton.
  • Obama conducted no airstrikes in Kosovo.
  • Again, no approval was needed because no military action took place.

Somalia — Yes, Obama conducted strikes, but without new authorization​

  • Obama authorized airstrikes and drone operations in Somalia against al‑Shabaab.
  • These were justified under the 2001 AUMF, which allowed force against al‑Qaida and “associated forces.”
  • No new congressional authorization was sought.
  • This pattern is documented in analyses of presidential war powers.

🗂️ Summary: Did Obama need congressional approval?​

CountryDid Obama conduct strikes?Did he seek new approval?Why not?
SomaliaYesNoUsed 2001 AUMF for counterterrorism
BosniaNoNot applicableClinton-era conflict
KosovoNoNot applicableClinton-era conflict


🧩 Why this confusion is common​

  • Bosnia and Kosovo are often cited in debates about Clinton, not Obama.
  • Obama is associated with Libya (2011) and seven counterterrorism theaters (Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan).
  • Discussions about “bombing without congressional approval” often lump multiple presidents together.

www.newsbreak.com/diane-spicklemire-204995313/4425252850692-here-s-a-list-of-u-s-presidents-who-have-authorized-airstrikes-or-military-actions-without-specific-congressional-approval-organized-by-president-and-notable-incidents-these-actions-were-generally-justified-under-the-president-s-constitutional-authority?utm_source=copilot.com

/factually.co/fact-checks/politics/did-obama-clinton-biden-drop-bombs-without-congressional-approval-10466b?utm_source=copilot.com
 
Jake Starkey said:
Volsrocks is wrong as usual

Bill Clinton did not obtain new, specific congressional authorization for U.S. military strikes in Somalia, Bosnia, or Kosovo. Each operation rested on a mix of prior statutory authority, War Powers Resolution reporting, and international mandates, rather than a fresh Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). The key distinctions lie in how each action was justified and how Congress responded.

Somalia (1993–1994)​

What authority Clinton used​

  • The Somalia mission began under George H. W. Bush as a UN‑authorized humanitarian operation (UNITAF, then UNOSOM II).
  • Clinton inherited the deployment and continued it under UN Security Council resolutions and commander‑in‑chief authority.
  • He reported to Congress under the War Powers Resolution, but did not request a new AUMF.

Congressional posture​

  • Congress never passed a new authorization.
  • After the “Black Hawk Down” battle, Congress pressured Clinton to withdraw, and he set a timetable for exit, but no new authorization was enacted.

Bosnia (1995)​

What authority Clinton used​

  • Clinton ordered U.S. participation in NATO airstrikes against Bosnian Serb forces.
  • The administration argued that NATO operations and the president’s Article II powers were sufficient.
  • Congress was deeply divided and never passed a binding authorization.

Congressional posture​

  • The House passed a resolution prohibiting ground troops, but it was nonbinding.
  • Congress did not authorize the air campaign, but it also did not force its termination.

Kosovo (1999)​

What authority Clinton used​

  • The 78‑day NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo is the clearest example of Clinton using military force without congressional approval.
  • The administration relied on NATO authority, UN resolutions on humanitarian protection, and Article II powers.
  • Clinton submitted War Powers notifications but did not seek a new AUMF.

Congressional posture​

  • The House voted down an authorization for the air campaign.
  • The House also voted down a declaration of war.
  • Yet the House also voted down a resolution to force withdrawal.
  • The Senate passed a nonbinding resolution supporting the campaign.
  • The operation continued despite the lack of congressional authorization.
This episode is widely cited in legal scholarship as a major precedent for presidents conducting sustained air campaigns without congressional approval.

Why Clinton did not need (or seek) new approval​

Across all three conflicts, Clinton followed a pattern that scholars note began with Truman in Korea and continued through later presidents:
  • Treating operations as coalition or humanitarian missions, not “wars” requiring declarations.
  • Relying on international mandates (UN, NATO) to bolster legitimacy.
  • Using Article II commander‑in‑chief authority for limited or air‑only operations.
  • Filing War Powers Resolution reports without seeking a new AUMF.
This approach remains controversial, but it is consistent with how modern presidents have interpreted their war powers.

Click to expand...
All MAGAts are liars and fascist White Nationalist scum.
 
Considering a small majority of Dearborn Muslims are Shi'a, I am bit surprised as well.

The Palestinian and Yemeni communities there are Sunni, so they are happy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top