June 20th, 2011
06:00 PM ET

Should Congress cut off funding for operations in Libya?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Questions continue over President Obama's decision to send U.S. forces to Libya. Whether or not he complied with the War Powers Resolution, or if he even needed to.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/06/20/art.cap.bldg.jpg caption=""]
The president says he didn't.

Either way, lawmakers didn't have much say in the matter - and 90 days into the conflict, they still don't. But what they do have a say in is how much money can go toward a military operation like this one.

And House speaker John Boehner– who has said repeatedly that the president was in violation of the Vietnam era resolution - says the House could cut funding for U.S. military involvement in Libya when it takes up a defense appropriations bill later this week.

On the Sunday talk show circuit, two Republican Senators - Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona - both said they oppose cutting funding and warn that it could hurt NATO efforts in the region. Outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates also said cutting off funding in the middle of a military operation is always a mistake.

Gates also said he thinks that this conflict will "end okay" but he could not make a prediction as to how long it would last or when Moammar Gadhafi would fall.

But for a number of lawmakers the eventual outcome as well as the decision to go into Libya are beside the point. Last week, a bipartisan group of 10 House members filed a federal lawsuit challenging Obama's decision to send U.S. forces to Libya.

This is far from over.

Here’s my question to you: Should Congress cut off funding for operations in Libya?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Bryan in Colorado:
If the votes are there, why not? Let’s start cutting waste now. I applaud the congressmen who are demonstrating their disgust with our country's inability to break our spending addiction to war. This thing is starting to pickup steam because it crosses party lines. Americans are politically broke. They have nothing left to buy into the scare tactics and lies.

Ken in Pinon Hills, California:
Sure, and the funding for the other 60 countries in our military empire. Sooner or later we will have to, because we are broke. France, England, Spain, among others had to give up their overseas empires.

No, and prepare to step up operations there and Syria. Can’t stop now.

Steve in Clifton, Virginia:
Sure, if they want to commit political suicide and explain why they didn't cut off funding to the war of choice in Iraq once it was confirmed that there were "no weapons of mass destruction.

Denny in Tacoma, Washington:
I think that we would be better off if Congress cut off funds for running Congress.

Tom in DeSoto, Texas:
No, it's a wonderful opportunity to help the people escape tyranny. It may even do some good for the people, unlike in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Larry in Kansas:
While we have Congress seated and they're in the mood to cut something, not only should Congress cut off all funding for Libya, they should cut off funding and withdraw all troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, and any other Middle East Territory. It would save 700 billion dollars which could be used for American jobs, instead of helping people who hate us.

Paulette in Dallas, Pennsylvania:
No! President Obama needs to send the same crew that killed Bin Laden over to Libya to silence Gadhafi once and for all.

Filed under: Congress • Libya
soundoff (168 Responses)
  1. Dave - Phx, Az

    Yes, and Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Germany, Japan, etc...

    June 20, 2011 at 1:44 pm |
  2. JENNA

    Should Congress cut off funding for operations in Libya?


    The GOP has whined about Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi for decades. Now that THIS president has joined NATO to put an end to that regime to get democratic elections for that nation now and only now do the GOP have a problem with this.

    This is only one more shameful display of the GOP refusing to work with the Democrats and our president.

    Funny you don't see that "maverick" John Sydney McCain III crossing the aisle to work with Democrats as he claimed he often did when running for president.. He's too busy blaming the AZ fires on Illegal Immigrants without a single shread of proof to fan more hate.

    The GOP needs to get over themselves, work together to make this nation great again and stop acting like SORE LOSERS.

    Roseville CA

    June 20, 2011 at 1:51 pm |
  3. Alex in Bremerton, WA

    Only if they want to end our commitment to the NATO alliance. They shouldn't undermine our treaty obligations just to score points against President Obama. They can't just ignore the US Constitution, which clearly states that a ratified treaty has the force of law, when it doesn't suit their political agenda.

    June 20, 2011 at 1:55 pm |
  4. virginia - Atlanta, GA

    This is the first time we have entered a conflict in many years when we did it right. We are not the aggressors, we have the support of most of the world and NATO is shouldering the bulk of the responsibility. I never wanted us in Iraq, I always thought we should go into Afghanistan quickly and get out, with Bin Laden (that was a few years ago) This has me a bit baffled. I am proud of President Obama for handling our involvement in Libya in the manner he has, the way he has overall improved our relationship with the rest of the world, I don't know why he hasn't run this through Congress.

    June 20, 2011 at 1:56 pm |
  5. David

    Absalutely Not. We owe it all of our friends in Europe to support them in their efforts to get rid of Ghadaffi. USA would be so diminished as a nation if we were to walk away from our obligations. Stay the course and finish the job.

    You can argue if we should be there..but don't jeopardize the USA's standing in the world.

    June 20, 2011 at 1:59 pm |
  6. Harry Hallstrom

    Why?? We're footing the bill for the UN so why not one more bill. It's a joke by those jokers in Washington to hear them talk "lets take over Libya & sell their oil to pay for the war". We're so broke its now out of desperation we look for $$$. USA is slowly decaying – from within.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:02 pm |
  7. Larry Feierstein-Denver

    and to Afganistan, Pakistan, Egypt, the list goes on. Can you imagine if we took what we spend weekly on these countries and used those funds here to fix roads, tunnels, bridges , etc? WOW! Pipe dream (like in oil pipe)

    June 20, 2011 at 2:03 pm |
  8. maggieb

    Yes ,, as well as stopping all Foreign Aid

    Houston Texas

    June 20, 2011 at 2:05 pm |
  9. Jayne

    Yes. Also for Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria and any other place in the world we have no business being.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:13 pm |
  10. Chris

    Congress should only cut funding unless the President continues to ignore the Constitution. But then again, when has he not ignored it!

    June 20, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
  11. John from Alabama

    Jack: There are no troops on the ground. If US military troops show up in Libya then funds should be cut off immediately. I realize it is costing the United States millions of dollars. How much did the Bush Administration's Iraq War cost from 2003 to 2008? Do not mention the over 4000 young people who died in Iraq, because they are past hurting. But the over 30,000 wounded who will need support for the next 40 to 70 years due to their wounds. How much have military families had to pay for the Iraq War.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
  12. Gary H. Boyd

    You bettcha Jack because it would tell Obama just who's really running the show in Washington. Of course your question is phrased "should" as opposed to "would" and so they won't.

    Gary in Scottsdale, Arizona

    June 20, 2011 at 2:16 pm |
  13. Wilhelm von Nord Bach

    YES, Jack

    although I think the initial response by the Obama administration to Muammar Gaddafi potentially MURDERING upwards of one hunderd thousand of his people in Benghazi WAS correct, it's now really a European problem and THEY need to step up and PAY the BILL for this "police action".

    time for NATO to STOP riding the coat tails of their Uncle Sam.

    and with bin Laden now consigned to the trash heap of history, it's also time for the United States to GET the HELL OUT of Afghanistan too. the most recent al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on the West originated in Yemen or Pakistan NOT Afghanistan.

    did we learn NOTHING from the Vietnam War?

    June 20, 2011 at 2:17 pm |
  14. Tina Tx

    Are they going to cut the funding for the other two wars, NO. Republicans love war and the defense get richer.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:20 pm |
  15. Dave, Orlando, FL

    You bet your sweet bippy! And not only that, they should cut off funding for Afghanistan since we accomplished our goal there with the death of OBL, and for Iraq since that was started with a lie. And while they are in the fund cutting mood, they should also stop funding those countries that do us more harm than good or are really not allies such as Pakistan. That would leave us with enough unsquandered money to fund Medicare, Social Security, our educational system and so forth. But then all of that makes too much sense and as long as John Q Sap is paying all the bills, who cares?

    June 20, 2011 at 2:20 pm |
  16. David in Tampa

    Why shouldn't these hypocrites Jack. Aren't these the same nut jobs that brought us the worst recession since the Great Depression, two inadequately funded wars, smear campaigns questioning the patriotism of Democrats that did not go along with these ill planed follies, billions for corporate greed, not one cent in tribute for those that have toiled and sacrificed and are now old or poor. All this brought to you by those claiming to be the Moral Majority.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:22 pm |
  17. Russ in PA

    Yes, but that is only a single piece of the puzzle. Funding for all of the military adventures should be stopped, as well as for all of the overseas bases. End it all...

    Ron Paul in 2012...

    June 20, 2011 at 2:23 pm |
  18. Bizz, Quarryville Pennsylvania

    Jack, that is a good question. I feel that as long as there are not troops on the ground. Then Congress should not interfere. I personally am not in favor of the action we're taking in Libya. But I don't like the idea of limiting the President authority from taking action. Because there could be a time the President needs to take quick action and will not be able to.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
  19. Loren

    This is one of the oddest acts by President Obama, in a line of puzzling acts. The War Powers Act is basically a Democratic Party inspired law, and until he delayed so long seeking approval, he was a shoo-in to get all the votes he needed for authorization. Yet by delaying, he put approval in jeopardy. Has any President made such continual missteps for no apparent reason?

    June 20, 2011 at 2:32 pm |
  20. Ed from MD

    They should impeach Obama and put him on trial for war crimes. If he is illegally killing people in our names then he should be put to death.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:41 pm |
  21. Richard C.

    This one is easy. Cut off the funding, now! We cannot continue to be the world's police force. Oh, and by the way, stop all foreign giveaways.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:42 pm |
  22. Scott in Bellingham

    Yes, the US should now cut off all funding for future operations in Libya.

    Britain, and BP, can provide most of the funding needed to wrap up operations in Libya. After all, Britain and BP released the killer to Libya in return of favors, and are therefore deserving.

    Italy, as recipient of Libyan sweet crude, can provide some funding as they can. France can make a deal with Italy for some of the crude in exchange for France's help.

    After wiping out Gadhafi, Britain, Italy, and France must reimburse the US for the US expenditure in Libya just as soon as the oil is flowing. This will show their gratitude for the US help.

    If they, and rest of NATO, chince out on reimbursement to the US, then to hell with them all in any future dealings. Leave them on their own and see how in the hell they like it!

    June 20, 2011 at 2:48 pm |
  23. Larry from Georgetown, Tx

    That would be a good start. Now, cut off the funding to all the other wars, conflicts and countries outside the US. Cutting the funding for Afghanistan is over $100 Billion per year. Cut, cut and cut.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:52 pm |
  24. Rich McKinney, Texas

    Absolutely. This loop hole that Obamas attorneys have found for starting this war is ridicules. Just because there are no "Boots on the ground" in Libya. Our military forces engaging targets in Libya might end up bailing out over it and certainly their boots would then be on the ground. What is Obama going to claim then? That he was engaging in a search and rescue mission while launching bombs and rockets on Libya? Right now we do not know how many civilians we might have killed or might yet kill in these air raids. How much of Libya will we then have to rebuild when the dust settles? How much will we have to borrow from China to pay war reparations to the victims?

    June 20, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
  25. 1berty4all

    Yes, Congress should cut off funding for operation sin Libya.

    The president seems to think that NATO and the Federal Reserve can replace the Congress for authorization, and funding of his military agenda, and he is wrong on both accounts.

    The president can not go to war on the request of NATO, only the authorization of Congress as spelled out in The Constitution.

    Congress is also the body of government that the president has to deal with to get funding for these activities, not through the Federal Reserve, and not from borrowing more money from China.

    The President can have his military activity, but he first has to get right with the people & the law of the land, by dealing with congress and not NATO or the Fed.

    June 20, 2011 at 3:04 pm |
  26. Michael "C" Lorton, Virginia

    Jack: They should-and without reservation. We have to come to grips that bombing countries for the sake and investments of all parties concern is not the answer. Our role as the international policeman has long come and past--we are bombing Lybia--and we can't even get control of the money that we are spending-and lets hope that another country doesn't bomb us for that!!!!

    June 20, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
  27. Tom in Desoto, TX

    No, it's a wonderful opportunity to help the people escape tyranny. It may even do some good for the people, unlike in Afghanistan and Iraq

    June 20, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
  28. sheila

    Why to the folks in Washington feel we need to police every situation in the world? Let's fix our problems and then reach out and help others when we have our problems solved.

    June 20, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
  29. Carl

    This idiot of a president we have now, Obama, should of never gotton us involved in another war, we can't pay for the ones he promised to get us out of, instead he just throws gas on the 2 existing wars, and then starts another, this 1 term idiot needs to go. Can you believe it, this war monger won the nobel peace prize, it just goes to show that prize just went way down in value.

    June 20, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
  30. pat in michigan

    yes why don't the french and british pay the tab ?they will be getting the oil.

    June 20, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
  31. riley oday

    No, and prepare to step up operations there and Syria. Cant stop now.

    June 20, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
  32. Bryan, Colorado

    If the votes are their why not. Lets start cutting waste now. I applaud the congressmen that are demonstrating their disgust with our countries inabilty to break our spending addiction to war. This thing is starting to pickup steam because it crosses party lines. Americans are politically broke. They have nothing left to buy into the scare tactics and lies.

    June 20, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
  33. Jeff Pierce in Bishop, Georgia

    Yes, Mr. Cafferty, this should happen. Immediately after cutting the funding, Congress should move to impeach, or at least censure, Obama for conducting an illegal war.

    June 20, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
  34. Steve

    Why would they not support the commander in chief in war totally amazes me..They have a name for this type of behaviour, and it shows their true colours. It shows the extent of what they will do to undermine your president. Quite a show for the rest of the world to watch....

    June 20, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
  35. Kathie

    Absolutely. what right do we have to stick our noses into everyone else's business? The war in Iraq was started with lies and deceit. The unending war in Afganistan drags on while the president of Afganistan described the US as occupiers. Our military is also involved in fighting in Yemen. Where does it stop?? Cut the wars, save billions, bring our troops home and take care of business at home.

    June 20, 2011 at 3:32 pm |
  36. hubieee barton ms

    No Jack its time to stop playing politics and get about the businees @
    hand. Thank God for Sen. LIndsey Graham & Sen. John McCain two republicans who have some common sense. I am a democrate!!!

    Barton MS

    June 20, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
  37. Joe CE

    Congress should cut funds fo Iraq & Afganistan, forcing withdrawl of 90% of theforces. This would really accomplish something. Negotiations with the Taliban are a ploy to keep troops there but they are a failure even if successful and an embarassment with regard to human rights. Our involvement in Lybia is on a resonable scale and supports self=determination. Cutting it would weaken us in the middle east – not a good idea.

    June 20, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
  38. Gregory Leftwich (Auburn, AL)

    The intent of the War Powers Act was to prevent a president from plunging us into another Vietnam scenario. That's not what is going on with Libya. We've not lost a single life.

    June 20, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
  39. Larry from Kansas


    While we have Congress seated and they're in the mood to cut something, not only should Congress cut off all funding for Libya, they should cut off funding and withdraw all troops from Afganistan and Iraq, and any other Middle East Territory. It would save 700 billion
    dollars which could be used for American jobs, build electric cars and secure the Homeland and not worry about helping people who hate us. BRING THE TROOPS HOME!


    June 20, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
  40. Pete from Georgia

    Cut off funding ??
    Perhaps it's time to resort to a middle east barbaric custom where we would cut off the hands of those who provide the funding.

    Maybe then the politicians would start listening to the people who elected them.

    June 20, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
  41. D.Wilson

    Not only should we get out of Libya, But we should absolutely cut all money to Pakistan. You know the allies that keeping stabing us in the back. Stop trying to fix the world and let's fix up our country
    D. Wilson St.Louis, MO

    June 20, 2011 at 4:00 pm |
  42. Paulette in Dallas,PA

    NO! President Obama needs to send the same crew that killed Bin Laden over to Libya to silence Gadhai once and for all.

    June 20, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
  43. Peg in NY

    Funds for operations in Libya should be funds used to create worthwhile employment for American citizens.

    June 20, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
  44. cal

    Yes. let N. A.T,O pay for it.

    June 20, 2011 at 4:07 pm |
  45. Ken from Pinon Hills. California

    Sure, and the funding for the other 60 countries in our military empire. Sooner or later we will have to, because we are broke. France, England, Spain, among others had to give up their overseas empires.

    June 20, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
  46. Kim Smith

    Absolutely. We should have never been there in the first place. Our constant involvement in the Mid-East is killing our country, and our own government can't seem to figure this out. Nothing over there is ever going to change because it is a cultural impossibility.

    June 20, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
  47. Greg in Arkansas

    If there were a Republican in the White House, instead of voting to cut funds for Libya, the GOP would be wanting to splurge on a surge in the middle east to oust an evil dictator, then, put it all on the congressional credit card and tell everyone that deficits don't matter when it comes to spreading democracy and freedom.

    June 20, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
  48. Rick, Medina, OH


    The short answer is a qualified 'Yes.' At this point, nearly all options appear lousy. Sanctions have not worked, a total embargo would create an even greater humanitarian disaster than is already taking place, and the American people will not tolerate a further escalation. And there is no 'honest broker' with whom to negotiate anything meaningful. Although there have been some consistent loud voices in Congress from the beginning, most have been largely silent until now. This is another example of political cynicism and insanity and cowardice. Where was their 'advise and consent' three months ago?

    Medina, OH

    June 20, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
  49. Michael Bindner, Alexandria, VA

    No, only if they are willing to pull out of NATO totally.

    June 20, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
  50. Rudy Padgett

    No one intervened when our country was having our Civil War, so why should we intervene in someone elses's civil war?

    I say cut off funding to Libya because we can't afford it, and we are not keepers of the world.

    George Washing ton said to mind your own country's business and let other countries do the same.

    Rudy Padgett
    Roanoke, VA.

    June 20, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
  51. Denny from Tacoma

    I think that we would be better off if Congress cut off funds for running Congress.

    June 20, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
  52. Jim in Gardendale, Alabama

    Yes, Jack, I believe that they should as well as funding for Afghanistan. Why hasn't anyone posed the question as to what we would do if Al Quadi spread into other countries and took over in lets say Yemen, Kuwait, Tunisia, Spain, and any other country? Would we then begin military operations in those countries? There has to be a limit as to what we are capable of doing both financially and militarily and those idiots in Washington don't seem to realize that. It's obvious that this country has already bitten off more than they can chew and yet it continues. Where is the disgust and rage?

    June 20, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
  53. Linda in Charleston, SC

    Obama will hang himself if we are really supporting Al Quaeda, who is opposing Ghadfi, would be a real twist in this Libya craziness that goes on. We are all tired of the war nonsense, cut off funding, or kill Ghadfi quickly and be done with it.

    June 20, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
  54. Ralph Nelson

    No. The President is doing the right thing in Libya...keeping our land forces out of it and leaving it to the Europeans (who can't do it without our background support). If we require the War Powers Act the next Republican president well use its approval to expand a war in Libya. Cut funding for Afganistan. A 5,000 troop cut there is laughable.

    June 20, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
  55. Steve, Clifton, VA

    Sure if they want to commit political suicide and explain why they didn't cut off funding to the war of choice in Iraq once it was confirmed that there were "No" Weapons of Mass Destruction.

    June 20, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
  56. Ed from California

    Do you watch the news?? The European Union is doing most of the work. We have a small part. Great Britain and France, along w/Germany have the lead...it's their oil! Would you like to sit back and watch Momar kill off his people? I for one, say No! Sometimes we have to stand up for what's right! Besides, Newt wanted us to be bombing them one day before we did! The Kochplicans need, Prozac, extra strength!!

    June 20, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
  57. Lori - PA


    Yes Congress should. They should also cut spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Iraq War, after all, was begun under false pretenses, and we've caught Bin Laden. Since Bin Laden is no longer a threat, why are we still in Afghanistan?

    June 20, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
  58. ken, atlantic city, nj

    Yes congress should cut off funding for the libya civil war immediately, and imnpeach this phoney war monger president.

    June 20, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
  59. Mike in Minneapolis

    No. You know what would have happened if President Obama put involvement in Libya up to Congress? The same thing that happened with the budget and the debt ceiling – deadlock and bickering. Gadaffi would die of old age or boredom before Congress got around to accomplishing something. These clowns couldn't pass a kidney stone.

    June 20, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
  60. Mark in Oklahoma City

    No, we just need someone in the White House who tells the other members of the U.N. "Hey, guys, we're tired of doing all the heavy lifting, our forces are sitting this one out."

    June 20, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
  61. Karl in Flint

    Three words: I dare them. It won’t happen, though, because Congress doesn’t have the testosterone. If it should blow up in their face, and there is an excellent chance it could, they won’t get re-elected and that is the name of the game. They can huff and puff all they want. Though they are stupid, they aren’t that stupid..

    June 20, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  62. Dee in New Paris Ohio

    I don't think the problem is funding such operations. I think the problem is OVER funding them. I think we could help other countries when warranted without bankrupting our own.

    It would be one thing to help those in Libya who are being tortured and killed. It would be another to insert our military and spend BILLIONS of dollars we do not have. Just like Afghanistan and Iraq!

    We have to STOP spending so much helping others or spending so much in hunting terrorists!

    It would be much better to send a few Navy SEALS or some commandoes, at a minimum cost, take out the targets, and get the hell out! It would cost a lot less too!

    June 20, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  63. Unknown Person

    No, because we should be helping the Libyan people gain independence. If the French wouldn't have helped us during our revolution, we might have not won. Gaddafi is this dictator lying over and over again. We must do it to make a better world.

    June 20, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  64. Gary in Pa

    No Jack, I would not cut funding. I would just begin impeachment proceedings against President Obama.

    June 20, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  65. Annie, Atlanta

    Yes. And while they're at it, Iraq and Afghanistan too. Maybe then we can take care of our neglected infrastructure before a whole lot more people die.

    June 20, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  66. Kirk (Apple Valley, MN)

    Yep. The "rebels" have had 3 months to do their job and they haven't done squat. Get out now before we have another Afghanistan/Iraq and let the "rebels" fend for themselves. Or let the Brits and French take the hit instead of us. I'm tired of being the world's cop. Besides, like I said 3 months ago, what are we going to do now? Invade?

    June 20, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  67. Sandstone.

    "I can't connect to this one, so: No Comments!"

    June 20, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  68. Vin

    Yes, we should cut off funding for Libya. Right after we pull all of our troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany. Never thought I'd agree with Ron Paul...

    June 20, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
  69. Michael Roepke

    Have some faith, Jack. Congressmen will look at the ramifications to North Africa, the Arab world, the future of NATO and the reputation of the United States and then they will do whatever will give then the best chance for re-election.

    June 20, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
  70. dave in nashville

    Cutting off funding to congress is more like it.

    June 20, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
  71. Gary

    Mr Obama claims because there are no "boots on the ground" this is not a "war". Did the Japanese have "boots on the ground" at Pearl Harbor? Did Al Qaeda have "boots on the ground" in New York?
    I just hope I don't have to pay for the "rebuilding" after I finish paying for the missiles.

    St. Louis Missouri

    June 20, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  72. Rich McKinney, Texas

    Yes they should. Immediately. Obama would have the congress believe that while there are no, " boots on the ground", that there is no need for congressional approval and that is just not the case. Obama is spending our countries money to bomb and shoot American made arsenal at a foreign country that did not attack America. Those weapons are killing civilians. They are putting our soldiers lives in harms way to deliver them. That in and of itself should require the approval of congress.

    June 20, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  73. Dave

    This is a clear cut case of a power struggle, and has nothing to do with whether or not Baner supports the involvement in Libya. Since Obama taught constitutional law at Harvard, I think he knows what he's doing is not in violation of the War Powers Act, and Baner is'nt smart enough to know that. We don't even have troops in Libya, and our involvement is as part of NATO. No way is it comparable to Viet Nam.


    June 20, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  74. Bill in New Mexico

    Should Congress cut off funding for operations in Libya?

    1.) With an annual budget deficit of well over a $ trillion and a half, Congress needs to cut over $2 trillion–preferably $3 trillion from the annual budget.

    2.) With no tax increase on the horizon, the U.S. solvency looms far more critical than any or all of these wars.

    3.) When we are realizing that Medicare and Social Security are going–by default.

    4.) When we know nothing about the loyalties of these rebels!
    -–And, there are rumors.

    Sure! Congress should cut!
    But, is it already too late?

    June 20, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  75. Renee Peoria,Ill

    No president has payed any attention to the War Powers Resolution since it was passed. Boehner disagrees with the president because he's a Democrat, he'd be singing the exact opposite tune if the president was Republican. Same ol', same ol' politics. The Libyans asked for outside help. It's the countries we're in where we WEREN'T invited that shouldn't be getting funds.

    June 20, 2011 at 5:38 pm |
  76. John Blythe

    Funding should be cut off for operations in Libya. Whether or not the president violated the War Powers Act, I think any rational leader should consult with Congress before moving forward. If Obama cares so much about "humanitarian" efforts, then why is NATO not involved in Yemen, Syria or heck even Myanmar or North Korea with much worse human rights violations. Besides, Libya was not a threat to our national security anyway, and we should all know that this has to be about oil. Thank god for Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich filing this law-suit to challenge the President's decision. And according to AFP, the U.S. has spent more than $700 million on the Libyan operation. Boy, we just keep spending money, even though we're flat broke and tens of millions of people are still unemployed. It is an absolute joke and a complete disgrace!

    Lake Isabella, California

    June 20, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
  77. lou

    Libya is located smack dab in between Tunasia and Egypt. Both countries have rose up and successfully removed their dictator for the first time in history. Does anyone trust madman Ghadaffi and his powerful army in the middle of these two struggling democracies? This is not a country we can risk turning our backs on.

    June 20, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
  78. NM in PA


    Y E S !

    And Iraq, Afghanastan, Pakistain, too.

    We could also get the U. S. military out of Korea, Germany, England, and the other hundreds of places we have bases.

    June 20, 2011 at 5:45 pm |
  79. Michael in Albuquerque, NM

    Kadaffy is in fact a terrorist and sponser of terrorism. He may not have attacked the U.S. but we are still fully engaged in the war on terror. The attack in Libya is a NATO operation which is being carried out mostly by our allies from Britain and France. Since we are still the major force behind NATO we should abide by our treaty with them.

    June 20, 2011 at 5:45 pm |
  80. Jim Bailey

    We have NO operations IN Libya....
    NATO has operations OVER Libya....
    If we stopped supporting them we would have to close our part of the NATO bases.
    If we're going to blow our international credit rating why not burn a few treaties too?
    Jim Bailey
    Cripple Creek, CO

    June 20, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
  81. a.g. maine

    Okay here we go again.i am being forced to say this...........this is how i think.....well of course we wouldnt want to fund the war on Libya....
    and help people who are being oppressed by their government ...
    But its okay for Beyonce to go over there do a private concert ,dressed in longerie FOR A PRESIDENT who comes from a region where women get raped,stoned and tortured for doing so.......so we tell the Libian People look......we wont help you defend yourself while you are being murdered but we see nothing wrong with sending our women over to your country and take a million dollars out of your economy so we can entertain YOUR PRESIDENT....are we sending the right message??????????????????? now i would say this from a Libian
    persons point of view???

    June 20, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
  82. Carol from Georgia

    Congress should cut off funding for operations in Libya; furthermore, they should get our troops out of ALL the no-win military situations we are currently embroiled in. Vietnam should have taught us that lesson.

    June 20, 2011 at 5:50 pm |
  83. Donald in New Mexico

    Congress needs to quit fighting our country's recovery. It's still the economy stupid. Why don't they get off their collective butt and get the country working. Why no jobs bill? Why aren't Congressional perks on the table for cuts? I wonder how many lawmakers know where Libya is on a map. So whine and cry about Libya, and cut Social Security and Medicare. They are out of touch with the real America.

    June 20, 2011 at 5:53 pm |
  84. andyz Lynn, MA

    No. If Congress truly believes that our adventure in Libya is truly illegal; impeach the President.

    June 20, 2011 at 5:53 pm |
  85. randy

    yes, if congress is so high and mighty on funding these country. let them all pool their money and help them out, but no way should the taxpayers be made to foot the bill. how about helping the elderly and the working class for a change, we need it more than them,

    June 20, 2011 at 6:02 pm |
  86. Greg P.

    Of course. We cant afford it!! For that matter, STOP all U.S. funding to any country or war. This is just nuts. Let China take over as the world police. we have too many debt issues here to worry about everyone else

    Greg P

    Clearwater, FL

    June 20, 2011 at 6:06 pm |
  87. thom richer

    The Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan "wars" are all imperialistic motivated wars and funding for all these "operations" should be cut off by Congress. We, the U.S., have known from the start they were wrong, immoral, illegal wars and their continuance is criminal. Adding Libya, or any other country to the mix would be another war crime act by us. Time to mind our store, take care of American's need, stop giving our money to foreign interests and stop sacrificing our young soldiers lives in pretentious "wars." Bring our troops home and keep our money here.

    Thom Richer
    Negaunee, MI

    June 20, 2011 at 6:08 pm |
  88. Ron, WA

    Yes. Cut the funding but don’t stop there. Begin impeachment proceedings.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:15 pm |
  89. Alex

    Yes. We can't afford all of these wars.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:15 pm |
  90. a.g.

    i say no,and get the job done!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    June 20, 2011 at 6:16 pm |
  91. Holmes

    No. We should honor our NATO responsibilities...

    June 20, 2011 at 6:16 pm |
  92. Cory

    Yes, we don't belong there we never belonged there. No matter how much you say this is a humanitarian crisis. If you think of it Afghanistan was and Iraq both times the crisis happened when the US got involved, how would this be different?

    June 20, 2011 at 6:16 pm |
  93. Adam Wise

    Yes, I'm sure Henry Cabot Lodge is rolling over in his grave right now. Not only was more time spent by the Obama Administration courting foreign governments then the U.S. Congress but it's also the first time that U.S. soldiers are under foreign command. Yet no one seems to be discussing the slippery slope that Libya Conflict has created for American Foreign Policy.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:16 pm |
  94. Victor

    Immediately. This war was illegal to begin with and represents the deceit of US imperialism fought in the name of human rights

    June 20, 2011 at 6:16 pm |
  95. Hank Leser

    Yes sir !
    As a matter of fact they should also cut off spending in Iraq,
    Afghanistan, Korea and other areas where we have no business
    Our beautiful country is broke (?) and we need to fix it.
    So, stop spending !

    June 20, 2011 at 6:17 pm |
  96. Lee

    We have to stay in for the sake of NATO. If the USA doesn't step in to help other NATO nations in a time of need, they have no incentive to stay in the organization. A favor for a favor. A world with only the UN is a dangerous one.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
  97. Ron, WA

    Yes. Cut the funding but don’t stop there. Begin impeachment proceedings. We met our NATO treaty obligations but we still have to work w/in confines of US law – over 90 days w/out Congressional approval – we’re out.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
  98. Al Desrosiers

    I don't think they should cut funding because they don't approve of the American presence in Lybia, anymore than your typical American taxpayer should with hold part of their taxes because they don't approve their money being spent for abortion, religion, gay marriage, gun laws, etc. If the American taxpayer has the right, then and only then should congress have that right.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
  99. EJ in Metro Houston

    of course they should, just like they did during the Bush years when the Democrats wanted the funding cut off to Iraq. OOpps the warmongering GOP didn't agree to that? Sorry about that Jack but as the GOP is fond of saying "that was then, this is NOW!"

    June 20, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
  100. Tony

    Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and wherever else we've insinuated ourselves in the name of being the world police.

    I, for one, am sick to death of trillions being poured into conflicts for which there are neither victories nor good reason for entering.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
  101. jerry

    damned if you do damned if you dont!! Three months ago I watched politicians and the media clamour for US intervention in Libya. The day after we went in I started watching the same politicians and the same media persons asking what why doing there. Are these people for real or just trying to invent news?

    June 20, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
  102. Chris Menkemeyer

    The same people who want to stop the funding complained at the start we weren't doing enough . Sounds more like Obama bashing than business.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
  103. Chris

    Shortly after Libya's Foreign minister defected he stated that orders came directly from Gaddafi to carry out the Pan Am bombing. Certainly an act of war, so what is the problem with our involvement in Libya ?


    Las Vegas

    June 20, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
  104. Martin Wielgus

    Absolutely. We cannot afford it. If we fund the Libyan operation, then what about Syria, Bahrain, and who knows what other dictatorial regime in the world. We are not the world's police force. It's time for the Europeans to step up and take responsibility for this. It's in their interest, after all, not ours.
    Martinsburg, WV

    June 20, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
  105. Emilio Gomez

    Yes! I'm an 18 year old liberal Democrat but I strongly agree with the Speaker of the House. Real revolutions start from the bottom up. Libya's freedom should be fought by the people of Libya. You can make a good case that Iraq was much better off before United States involvement. Honesty can we afford it anyway.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
  106. Chris

    I'm a registered Republican, and I am ashamed of my party for acting like spoiled school children fighting over a toy when it comes to President Obama. They absolutely should NOT cut off funding, or play any other partisan games. If they want to re-take the government, they should try showing maturity instead of immaturity. I think we could get alot more of what we want if we tried working WITH the administration instead of making demands and throwing a tantrum when we don't get everything we want. I'd be happy with a compromise personally...

    June 20, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
  107. AJ


    No, we should not cut funding for the military operation in Libya. Over 10,000 people have died in Libya because the Gadhaffi loyalists are indiscriminate in their attacks. They will attack civilian and rebel alike; and then block off all the hospitals so that nobody can get in. Brutal dictators will not be tolerated any longer. We had to deal with Adolf, Benito, and Saddam in the exact same way. When no one will help the people win their freedom, the U.S. will always be there to say "We're on your side."

    Bossier City, Louisiana

    June 20, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
  108. Henry Roko Jr

    Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall. All the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again. If we continue trying to be the liberators and meddlers in every country's inward revolutions, stretch our military to far in undefined objectives and end games and commit our limited funding resources that are more needed for our citizens and the USA's welfare, we will continue to reduce our inward ability to provide for the wellbeing of our own society and citizenry. As Humpty Dumpty went, so will go the USA.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
  109. Fran from Rockville

    Absolutely Congress should cut funding to the Libyan operation. No question about it. It is simply too expensive. Our economy is recovering too slowly. We could use that money here at home to create jobs. We don't need another War under our belt. Let's exit the ones we are currently in and leave the Arab League, the GCC and the African Union and those in left in NATO to figure this out themselves. This is not a National Security interest.

    Francine from Rockville

    June 20, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
  110. Rick in Northern California

    Jack, they should NOT cut funding. At least these people in Libya actually DO need and want our help unlike Iraq and Afghanistan who don't even want us there. They just want our money. These people in our government who want to stop the funding would be the first to whine about it if Gaddafi had killed all those people and we didn't do anything. Not to mention the rest of the world thinking we are a bunch of wimps who only help those with something to offer us. That's the bottom line Jack. If we were getting oil from Libya they would be voting to pump loads of money into taking out Gaddafi.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
  111. Gigi Oregon

    No we should not cut off funding for operations in Libya. We should have cut off funding to Iraq. We would not have lost thousands of young warriors, if the Republican party had any real smarts. Going to war with out a budget and in the wrong country, the Republican party and President Bush should have been impeached. John Boehner is not the smartest brick in Washington to be the head of anything.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
  112. David g dwinell

    I am tired of the military industrial complex first described by Eisenhower, of getting us into every dirt fight and billing the average Joe,for the stupid exercise. Tell the world,hey natural selection works,fight for yourselves, and we won't take on the winner

    June 20, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
  113. Joe Koechler

    No, there should be no funding cut-off. I resent that many Republicans are questioning this Libyan action. Where were they when the last President did what he wanted without similar authorization. I was really offended when Wolff Blitzer said that this Libyan operation could cost over a billlion dollars. How about over a trillion dollars for Iraq? Give me a break, guys.

    Joe, Ormond Beach Florida

    June 20, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
  114. Jesslyn Bordine

    Embedded lies ("Don't you remember when Obama said this would all be over in a few days?") are sprinkled throughout your newscasts. I HATE that you and others count on Americans being gullible. Unfortunately, many are.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
  115. Dan in Fort lewis

    Jack im a little upset with your comment.. It is too late to keep face and cut funding. It will send the wrong political message of how weak the UN is and now we are stuck with Libya.. and to correct Bush had over welming support of Congress aprroval. Lets get the facts straight first

    June 20, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
  116. Hank

    The last thing we need is for the politicians in congress to involve themselves in this conflict. The horse is out of the barn! If congress wants a greater say in future involvements of the nature of what we have in Libya, then they need to pass specific legislation. Congressmen can sue the President until they are blue in the face, but I doubt – I hope – that the courts will not involve themselves in such functions of the executive and legislative branches. This conflict needs to play itself out. Afterall, our allies that need our support are supporting us in Afganistan.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
  117. Athanasius Georgy

    Frankly, no. The global ramifications that would ensue if Gadhafi remained in power would prove to be boundless. I think everyone is overlooking not only the importance of U.S. and NATO participation, but also the necessity of the operations done. We cannot risk forsaking the Libyan rebels, who have fought relentlessly for their right to freedom, just as millions of others have demanded during this Arab Spring. When Egyptians demanded help, the US federal government, puppies to the Mubarak regime, came strolling in and all eyes were on Egypt as well as Tunisia. The United States, particularly Congress, cannot leave the people of Libya.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
  118. Vince

    Should we no, but Canada has 34 combat aircraft on standby if we do pull out, that's what i have heard. Besides the Rebels are 20 Kilometers from Tripoli from what i heard, seems no one noticed this last week.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
  119. Jim

    The Re-pug-ni-cans had no problem giving George Bush free reign to do anything that he wanted without question! They had no problem giving him a blank check to start an unnecessary war in Iraq! They are just trying to undermind any and everything that Obama does. It is nothing more than sidition! They ruined the United States and want the American people to give them another chance to them off!

    June 20, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
  120. Brad.B

    I say Send in the Navy Seals.Get Gadafi.and wrap it up.

    U.S.Army soldier

    June 20, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  121. Steven Hanes

    Yes Jack, Congress should cut off all spending for military operations in Libya. And, if we're ever going to solve the budget crisis they should do it for Korea, Germany, Japan, Iraq, and Afghanistan. They should also look into consolidating the military under one source of leadership. Plus, mothballing four or five carrier battle groups, etc. But, for now I would be happy if they'd just start with cutting off our involvement in NATO.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  122. Britt

    I believe the real problem is NATO. If all of the countries that are part of NATO contributed an equal amount of money to the Libyan effort, then there would not be so much pressure on the United States to spend the most money. Just because we have the largest army in the world does not mean we have to be the backbone of NATO's efforts.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  123. chris

    No they should not. This is importaint for NATO and our involvement. On the other hand, reduce funding for Afghanistan/Iraq and the perks for the members for congress. Have them all resign on July 1st, have all the states elect new "fresh" members.....start over and get rid of all the knuckle heads. Without NATO the lesser nations would reek havock among themselves...Inmates running the Asylum. Quit bickering and get something done...send the bill to the Bushes.....they are worth Billions....

    June 20, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  124. Eric myricks

    The republicans are the one that said it was global war on terror, kadfi was committeing terror on his people, oboma did the nobal thing as a member of nato.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  125. Athanasius Georgy

    Frankly, no. The global ramifications that would ensue if Gadhafi remained in power would prove to be boundless. I think everyone is overlooking not only the importance of U.S. and NATO participation, but also the necessity of the operations done. We cannot risk forsaking the Libyan rebels, who have fought relentlessly for their right to freedom, just as millions of others have demanded during this Arab Spring. When Egyptians demanded help, the US federal government, puppies to the Mubarak regime, came strolling in and all eyes were on Egypt, as well as Tunisia. The United States, particularly Congress, cannot leave the people of Libya.

    Athanasius Georgy
    Corona, CA

    June 20, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  126. Al E.

    Yes. Our government has 3 branches specifically to provide a check and balance system. If the President is going to ignore the advice of his lawyers then yes, Congress should cut funding. Obama has overstepped his bounds with the action in Libya. p.s. – imagine how safe our borders would be if we re-diverted the $12,000,000,000 a month in war spending and used it for securing our own borders.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  127. Dean

    Cut funding for Libya ? No ! If we do, the world will look at us like we're a bunch of dithering idiots that can't make up our minds.
    I'm all for getting out of Afghanistan – that's a War. Libya is a small, relatively inexpensive operation being taken care of by NATO with a little help from us. Gaddhafi will be gone within a year and the Libyan Rebels will Not be in charge because they're not organized enough to run anything. So it doesn't matter where the rebels' loyalties are.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  128. James Cowan

    No! Finally there is an Arab country's population that looks up to the US and offers to repay US military expenses involved in their liberation from a murderous tyrant. Also, what about justice being done for the Pan Am bombing? For Congress to throw the Libyan people to Gadaffy's wolves during congressional political grandstanding is really disgusting, and will give the wrong message worldwide concerning American sincerity.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
  129. cjonesjr in Orlando

    Yes, but only if Congress wants to keep the power that the Constitution gives them. If they want to have no opinion of military operations, then let THEM tell the PEOPLE that our control over the government is a fiction, and propose a constitutional amendment. I think they should just ask Ron Paul what they should do.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
  130. Jeff

    Yes, because Obama doesn't care what the courts say he showed that when a Fed court put the Obama admin in contempt of court over shuting down oil drilling. Obama thinks he's above the law.
    Oh !! and another thing Jack your remark at the end that it seems like any Pres. just does what they want like going into Iraq towards Bush. your way off the mark there, Bush went to Congress twice for permission and Congress voted for it. CNN always seems to leave that part out. So maybe you need to report that instead of saying half the story Bush did it right and got permission and Obama just did what he wanted.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
  131. Isabel from the UP - Michigan

    Should they? No. Can they? Yes. How ironic that when G.W. Bush engaged in his illegal, unsanctioned, globally unsupported war, the Republicans in Congress backed him 100% By the time he had already sent troops over, the Democrats had little stomach for pulling the funding out ( with the notable exception of Bart Stupak from the UP...) Now, when our troops are committed by President Obama to a NATO sanctioned action, the Republicans are yelling and want to withdraw funding? This is a legitimate actions, whereas Iraq never was. Bottom line: NO. We should get OUT OF IRAQ and should never have been there.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
  132. Lisa Indiana

    Yes! Cut, cut and cut some more! The President cannot be given the power to start war any which way he pleases. With that kind of power, would our government be any different than a true monarchy?

    June 20, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
  133. Fred in San Mateo

    Congress should probably cut off funding for operations in Libya. I support the Lybian people in their struggles, but I oppose this gradual increase in presidential power that Obama is participating in. We've gotten ourselves to a place where one man can start a war now. That can't be anything but a mistake. Obama must not realize that this will probably work to the advantage of the Republicans in the long run, since they usually win the presidency.

    Fred Griswold
    San Mateo CA

    June 20, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
  134. Art DeMille

    Funding for Libya operations should be cut. Let the Middle East sort out their own affairs in the way they have handle crisis over the last 1000 years. They will cull the weak, and oppress all anti-Islamic thought. US Policy should allow the dust to settle, and subsequently display strength and conviction in dealing with the regimes that emerge, that means never compromise.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
  135. Mack Williams

    Just like the Weeny. Cut it off. Blah Blah a la Hillary, Obama, et al, about "protecting civilians" is just eyewash for people who have to pay taxes. The US of A has no dog in the Libyan fight. If we did, we should have put our best pit bull in there way back after Pan Am/Lockerbie. Cut off the tail that wags the dog.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
  136. Donnie H. Bay St. Louis Ms.

    Yes as soon as funding for Iraq and Afghanistan is withdrawn. Bush and the Gop relied on outdated intel from unreliable sources as well as just flat out lying in order to get Congressional approval to send in troops. Once that information was proven to be false Congress could and should have issued a new resolution based on facts and de-funded the mission. Funny how the Gop can waste trillions of tax dollars on false or fabricated intel for nearly a decade but then demands strict adherence to the law and all of a sudden becomes deficit hawks once they are out of office. While they are in office if someone disagrees with their decisions on war the VP simply says "So"...If you disagree with the war spending, policy, or military actions while the Gop is in office, then you are simply un-American. Can someone be more hypocritical Jack?

    June 20, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
  137. Jack - Lancaster, Ohio

    Mr. Cafferty:

    Forget Libya, cut off funding for congress. They do nothing, give themselves pay raises, claim that homeland security has saved us from some unidentified event, start wars and sacrifice soldiers for what? Is a great country measured by the collosal mistakes it makes, the financial meltdown, multiple wars, political scandals and grotesque amounts of money spent on campaigns? Libya is just another diversion to polish their mirrors and ready their smoke machines for the upcoming elections. Humbug !

    June 20, 2011 at 6:30 pm |
  138. larry (hampton, virginia)

    No. Not at all. Gadhafi has been a pain in the butt for years. He's willing to kill his own people just to stay in power.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:30 pm |
  139. Tim

    Dear Jack,

    Yes. Cut it off. It would be different if we got a refund for the costs of these wars. But, let's be honest. We are the only country in the history of the world that conquers a nation and doesn't pillage their wealth. For example, the oil in Iraq was suppose to pay the bill. It didn't. What do the jokers in Washington continue to think we are stupid. We need to cut off Congress while were at it.

    Love Tim 🙂

    June 20, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
  140. Nardo Cape Coral FL

    NO! NO! the U.S. has a great opportunity to really set that region on a path to democracy, I would venture to say maybe Syrian people should receive aid from Nato forces too, you won't get an opportunity like this again, if not now when do we put an end to turmoil in that region?

    June 20, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
  141. Christian

    Of course the US should cut funding and should STOP participating in this military operation right now! We all know that there is NO valid reason to help innocents or give a hand to people that can't help themselves...
    I guess the Las Vegas saying should apply to these situations as well: "what happens overseas, stays overseas!"...
    We should continue to use the moral high ground and only go into war that we can make a profit out of it! We should ignore countries like Libya, Congo, Rwanda...

    June 20, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
  142. ronvan

    Dear Jack: YES, YES, and of course YES!! When are we going to wake up and realize that the ONLY thing we are accomplishing is to bankrupt our country! Is is WAY past time to bring EVERY military member, where ever they are, HOME!! Then we can try and recover, and watch these 2 bit countries kill each other off.

    Van from Columbus, GA.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
  143. jonathan morse

    Want to jump start the economy? Stop spending millions of dollars supporting, what is in reality, a French operation in Libya. When have the French ever had any respect or feeling for the United States ? The only thing they have ever had is a love of our money. Have doubts? Go to France. Get out of Libya. Congress should vote down any money for this French sponsoresd civil war.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
  144. Jay in South Florida

    My first thought would be yes cut off funding, however, this is small potatos compared to the outpouring of $$ in all of the other operations that the US is involved in overseas.

    There is a movement to cut social security & medicare, medicaid is being cut and the US infrastructure is falling apart. It's time we pulled in our horns and took care of the miriad of domestic problems that we are systematically ignoring!!

    June 20, 2011 at 6:33 pm |
  145. Brian, Pensacola FL


    I agree with SECDEF. I don't think it's a good idea. But, if congress wants to bring the issue to a vote, they should feel free to do so. If they can show me 60 Senators that can agree on a major issue facing this nation, I can show them a major budgetary crisis that could sure use their attention.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:35 pm |
  146. aaron from OK

    yes, and get out of NATO also.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
  147. Lois e. Turnbow

    Yes,I believe it is time to cut off funding for the civil war in any country that is not ours.I am sick and disappointed that we are spending billions in these countries and ours are going to pot.Our graduates can't get a job,just ask me We are own social security and we have two young people living with us----no Jobs.Keep our money at home for awhile.

    A new Supply depot just opened a few weeks ago so what does that mean , Oh,we will be in that part of the country for a long time.That Supply depot is in Kuwait.I feel our troops should come home from Afghanistan,Iraq
    and No Boots in Libya.Thank you for letting me vent.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
  148. Derek Hodge

    It just seems that congress is purposely sabotaging the President and his policies. They are the ones who need to be held responsible for not assisting the President with what the US needs in quickly resolving the conflict in Libya. At every turn they are using politics as their guiding force to try and tell the American people what Obama has done wrong on a so-called policy initiative. However , we have seen already what a Republican President would do, or has the country forgotten about George W. Bush already?

    June 20, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
  149. Elise Starek

    Yes – Stop funding for these wars. Plus it's time to get out of NATO, why our we funding NATO 80%
    If we can spend this kind of money of these wars, we can surely support Social Security and Medicare. Our government has taken money out of the Social Security Fund for years without payment back.
    It was free to use without any input from the American people – which most of them don't even know about. Why don't we hear this on the news!!!!!!

    June 20, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
  150. Joe from Waco

    YES. Obama needs to have congressional support for the U.S. involvement in Libya. What the president is telling congress and the American people is that he only answers to the U.N. and that he has sole power to wage war anytime, anywhere.

    America is supposed to be a democracy, not a dictatorship.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:40 pm |
  151. KC Boulware

    I would rather have the U.S play no role in Libya at all. We're not turning are backs on our Allies, we're simply turning are faces towards the American people.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:42 pm |
  152. Jeremy D from Michigan

    The last thing that the American people want is to be in yet another war. I am happy that congress is standing up to the president, because they are doing what they are supposed to do. If we the people don't want to be there, then we shouldn't be there!

    June 20, 2011 at 6:43 pm |
  153. david

    Yes!, the other so called friends, can pay for it!...our new found friends want to let us step up while they use money they hustle out of our economy that is used for thier own weapons of mass destruction... let others pay for it.. they barely help in afghanistan and some already pulled out, foresaking us every chance they get. but, always willing to extract more money and favors out of 2 party monopoly

    June 20, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
  154. Claudia, Houston, Tx

    Cutting off funding to Libya operations would increase the cost of oil and empower China to be the World's 3rd largest oil supplier as they are seeking control of oil rich Africa.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
  155. Dean

    Is it economically prudent to do the right thing? This question will have to be answered by Americans for every social and political aspect of our lives from now on. Let's hope that the balance sheet doesn't rob us of our humanity and our ideals.
    Silver City, NM

    June 20, 2011 at 6:48 pm |
  156. Eric CO

    Isn;t this why we went into Iraq, A group of U.S. drilling companies, including Halliburton, stand to make tens of billions of dollars in Iraq under new oil deals. International oil companies have signed contracts with four largely American oil service companies to drill for oil and build wells.

    I guess Libya doesn't have enough oil for Americans. And republicans want to do anything but come up with ideas.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
  157. Jeanie

    No. And I am appalled after reading many of the comments here. It appears that so many people are oblivious to the fact that the actions taken was to prevent the slaughter of innocent people, or maybe they just don't care why it was being done, just the fact that Obama is the one doing it is the only key factor here and why he is being sued. To date, not one american has been killed, yet some want Obama impeached for his actions, when Bush and Chaney put us in a war based on lies without prior Congressional approval that has caused the death of over 5,000 americans and over 60,000 maned and disabled, yet to date, none of the rage here was ever displayed for them and no one filed charges against them or felt strong enough about it to do so. This is just a good example of the double standards used in evaluating and critique of this president.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
  158. Ron

    Cut funding for libya, afghanistan, Iraq and all other places were US keeps the military installation. Bring every single soldier outside of US back. That will save a lot of money. Does Boehner have the balls to do that??

    June 20, 2011 at 6:54 pm |
  159. Diana

    The greatest problem in sending our money to Libya is our addiction to oil.

    Incidentally, your previous blog about removing the word God from the pledge maybe should be applied to money first.
    removing the word God from the pledge is saying it like it is. Our political leaders think of themsleves as greater than or more powerful than God.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:56 pm |
  160. Derek Hodge/LosAngeles, Ca.

    Because Libya does hold an interest for the U.S. Congress should not cut the funding for the Libya campaign, this would be unthinkable if George W. Bush were still in office.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:56 pm |
  161. ken mcconnell

    cut fundingnow, we already put in 75% of nato,s budget we no longer can be the policemen of the world.

    We are going to have a really big p[roblem with flooding in the mississippi & missouri water sheds,so what country is going to come to our aid???

    June 20, 2011 at 7:02 pm |
  162. Rod Beier

    Doesn't Europe have the necessary funds to carry out this misson.Instead of dropping bombs everywhere,and filling the defense contactor trough,why not dig ourselves out of this supply-side mess we're in.

    June 20, 2011 at 7:17 pm |
  163. Brad

    Time to get out of all the "so called" wars. Non of these countries are of any threat to the US.–Time to get real people.

    June 20, 2011 at 7:18 pm |
  164. Ralph Spyer

    Congress cut off the funding for the war in Vietnam, but by then we lost the war and pull out of country.If we are not at war in Libya why are we killing them ? Gadhafi is no better than some of the CIA friends in south America that we help get into power. Threre is no good or bad ,right or wrong ,we will go to bed with killer, it all about money.

    June 20, 2011 at 7:24 pm |
  165. Jonathan

    I think that we should stay out of their own internal problems and focus on more important issues here at home like on education.

    June 20, 2011 at 7:42 pm |
  166. Tom Stites

    Congressional cuts to funding would only be symbolic; any fiscal cuts/limitations would not materialize in substantial reductions. Congress and the Department of Defense (DoD) are masters of fiscal manipulation. Thousands of DoD staffers are rewarded annually for working in concert with congressional staffers to achieve classified DoD strategic objectives. The fact that military leadership has embraced the "business model" for fiscal management complicates and compounds oversight.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:24 pm |
  167. Kyle O.

    Libya is not our problem. The UN and NATO don't trump the US Constitution which states that only Congress can declare war, and the President is only Commander-in-Chief AFTER Congress declares war, thereby "activating" Presidential command powers.

    One commenter said "we are not the aggressor" – that's funny, I don't know of any Libyans that have invaded the United States and tried to overthrow our government. Do you know why I haven't heard of that happening? Because it hasn't. Libya's civil war is Libya's problem, not ours.

    It's time to admit that this is a war of choice for BP and Total, nothing more.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:29 pm |
  168. Robert Fick

    It is just an example of how select media wants to make change and control Americans. What is bad is that it seams most Americans put up with this meda behavior day in and day out like puppets.

    June 20, 2011 at 9:49 pm |