Bipartisan Congress Rebukes President on Lybia Policy

[Wonky Pundit]

Answer to the poll's question:

Start with option 3. If it fails, use option 2 (replace NATO with UN).

Part of the problem is leaving NATO forces aka our allies in the lurch if we pull out. But the action in Lybia was via U.N. Resolution:

So why do you want us to stay in Lybia? Were you for us staying in Iraq?

For Libya, a few reasons:
1) If Gaddafi hangs on, he's going to be a LOT more eager to train more terrorists to send to Europe and the States in revenge.
2) It would be a bad foreign policy move to allow the Libyans (and other arabs now sympathetic to them) to believe that the US is happy to abandon them on a whim.
3) Let's face it: Europe depends on those oil wells fairly heavily.

As for Iraq, I was against the 2003 operation, but after that I believed - and still do - that some international presence has to be there until the political situation is stable again.

 

[The T]

The Libyan War is a farce. It was their Civil War. Neither us or the Western Euros should have interfered. Are people really so proud that we bombed & murdered Gaddafi's Son and Grandchildren? Is that really something for us to be proud of? We should end all involvement immediately. It's good to see Republicans and some Democrats finally getting involved. The Libyan War is not only unjust but it's also illegal. Lets put an end to it.

And Obama is a couple weeks PAST his 'War Powers' authority, is he not? VIOLATE HIM on it...

Congress has been oddly silent on this up until now though. So I don't know what precisely triggered the resolution they passed today demanding Obama act, but I'm guessing it will come out. I'm watching the underground news because you usually learn stuff there before the MSM picks it up.

There was this in The Hill a couple of weeks ago:

May 20, 2011
Lawmakers largely silent on war powers authority in Libya
By Mike Lillis and John T. Bennett - 05/20/11 05:58 AM ET

U.S. operations in Libya hit the 60-day mark Friday, but Congress has grown largely silent on the administration’s unilateral intervention into the war-torn North African nation.

The 1973 War Powers Act (WPA) — the statute President Obama invoked when he launched forces in March — requires presidents to secure congressional approval for military operations within 60 days, or withdraw forces within the next 30.


Congress did not authorize the mission — which includes a no-fly zone, bombing raids, a sea blockade and civilian-protection operations — but the deadline has stirred little sense of urgency on Capitol Hill.

House lawmakers are in the midst of a weeklong recess. And the Senate, which stuck around, is also unlikely to address the issue this week, according to Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

There has been some congressional action, however.

On Thursday, six Senate Republicans wrote to Obama asking him if he intends to comply with the WPA.

“Friday is the final day of the statutory sixty-day period for you to terminate the use of the United States Armed Forces in Libya under the War Powers Resolution,” reads the letter, spearheaded by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). “As recently as last week your administration indicated use of the United States Armed Forces will continue indefinitely.”

Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) also endorsed the letter.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment Thursday
Lawmakers largely silent on war powers authority in Libya - TheHill.com

Obama is working up quite the reasons for IMPEACHMENT before his re-election...

 

[Foxfyre]

Answer to the poll's question:

Start with option 3. If it fails, use option 2 (replace NATO with UN).

Part of the problem is leaving NATO forces aka our allies in the lurch if we pull out. But the action in Lybia was via U.N. Resolution:

So why do you want us to stay in Lybia? Were you for us staying in Iraq?

For Libya, a few reasons:
1) If Gaddafi hangs on, he's going to be a LOT more eager to train more terrorists to send to Europe and the States in revenge.
2) It would be a bad foreign policy move to allow the Libyans (and other arabs now sympathetic to them) to believe that the US is happy to abandon them on a whim.
3) Let's face it: Europe depends on those oil wells fairly heavily.

As for Iraq, I was against the 2003 operation, but after that I believed - and still do - that some international presence has to be there until the political situation is stable again.

Fair enough. Adequate answers. I would be on the same page IF we had not gone in to defend the rebels and THEN decided we better investigate and find out who the rebels are. That to me was the height of irresponsibility to assume that anybody fighting Gadaffi would be a friend and then have doubts about that.

And IF we had a clear mission in mind rather than running the risk again (as we did in Cuba, as we did in Iran, and are in danger of doing in Iraq and Afghanistan) of replacing the devil we know with a worse one.

And IF Europe was footing its fair share of the bill to finance the military action and I've seen no evidence that they intend to do that.

 

[The T]

Part of the problem is leaving NATO forces aka our allies in the lurch if we pull out. But the action in Lybia was via U.N. Resolution:

So why do you want us to stay in Lybia? Were you for us staying in Iraq?

For Libya, a few reasons:
1) If Gaddafi hangs on, he's going to be a LOT more eager to train more terrorists to send to Europe and the States in revenge.
2) It would be a bad foreign policy move to allow the Libyans (and other arabs now sympathetic to them) to believe that the US is happy to abandon them on a whim.
3) Let's face it: Europe depends on those oil wells fairly heavily.

As for Iraq, I was against the 2003 operation, but after that I believed - and still do - that some international presence has to be there until the political situation is stable again.

Fair enough. Adequate answers. I would be on the same page IF we had not gone in to defend the rebels and THEN decided we better investigate and find out who the rebels are. That to me was the height of irresponsibility to assume that anybody fighting Gadaffi would be a friend and then have doubts about that.

And IF we had a clear mission in mind rather than running the risk again (as we did in Cuba, as we did in Iran, and are in danger of doing in Iraq and Afghanistan) of replacing the devil we know with a worse one.

And IF Europe was footing its fair share of the bill to finance the military action and I've seen no evidence that they intend to do that.

Just look at Egypt and the ouster of Murbarak? SAME was said when the protests were happening then...Egypt stands to go Sharia ...

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Part of the problem is leaving NATO forces aka our allies in the lurch if we pull out. But the action in Lybia was via U.N. Resolution:

So why do you want us to stay in Lybia? Were you for us staying in Iraq?

For Libya, a few reasons:
1) If Gaddafi hangs on, he's going to be a LOT more eager to train more terrorists to send to Europe and the States in revenge.
2) It would be a bad foreign policy move to allow the Libyans (and other arabs now sympathetic to them) to believe that the US is happy to abandon them on a whim.
3) Let's face it: Europe depends on those oil wells fairly heavily.

As for Iraq, I was against the 2003 operation, but after that I believed - and still do - that some international presence has to be there until the political situation is stable again.

Fair enough. Adequate answers. I would be on the same page IF we had not gone in to defend the rebels and THEN decided we better investigate and find out who the rebels are. That to me was the height of irresponsibility to assume that anybody fighting Gadaffi would be a friend and then have doubts about that.

And IF we had a clear mission in mind rather than running the risk again (as we did in Cuba, as we did in Iran, and are in danger of doing in Iraq and Afghanistan) of replacing the devil we know with a worse one.

And IF Europe was footing its fair share of the bill to finance the military action and I've seen no evidence that they intend to do that.

Out of curiosity, do you have a source for who IS footing what percentage(s) of the bill for the current military action? I'd like to see an impartial link.

 

[Foxfyre]

For Libya, a few reasons:
1) If Gaddafi hangs on, he's going to be a LOT more eager to train more terrorists to send to Europe and the States in revenge.
2) It would be a bad foreign policy move to allow the Libyans (and other arabs now sympathetic to them) to believe that the US is happy to abandon them on a whim.
3) Let's face it: Europe depends on those oil wells fairly heavily.

As for Iraq, I was against the 2003 operation, but after that I believed - and still do - that some international presence has to be there until the political situation is stable again.

Fair enough. Adequate answers. I would be on the same page IF we had not gone in to defend the rebels and THEN decided we better investigate and find out who the rebels are. That to me was the height of irresponsibility to assume that anybody fighting Gadaffi would be a friend and then have doubts about that.

And IF we had a clear mission in mind rather than running the risk again (as we did in Cuba, as we did in Iran, and are in danger of doing in Iraq and Afghanistan) of replacing the devil we know with a worse one.

And IF Europe was footing its fair share of the bill to finance the military action and I've seen no evidence that they intend to do that.

Out of curiosity, do you have a source for who IS footing what percentage(s) of the bill for the current military action? I'd like to see an impartial link.

No I don't and me too. The figures I've seen from MSN, NBC, ABC etc. are anywhere from a half billion or so in the first couple of weeks to $80k/hour that we're there. That's just our costs. NATO is supposed to take over much of the funding at some point, or maybe they already have, but the USA funds 25% or more of NATO's costs.

 

[JWBooth]

Don't stop with Libya, bring 'em home from Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Sudan, Somalia, Diego Garcia, Bahrain, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Japan, Korea, The Philippines, Germany, Italy, The Balkans, Greece, Egypt, Spain, The United Kingdom, Greenland, and any places I neglected to list.

 

[freedombecki]

Fair enough. Adequate answers. I would be on the same page IF we had not gone in to defend the rebels and THEN decided we better investigate and find out who the rebels are. That to me was the height of irresponsibility to assume that anybody fighting Gadaffi would be a friend and then have doubts about that.

And IF we had a clear mission in mind rather than running the risk again (as we did in Cuba, as we did in Iran, and are in danger of doing in Iraq and Afghanistan) of replacing the devil we know with a worse one.

And IF Europe was footing its fair share of the bill to finance the military action and I've seen no evidence that they intend to do that.

Out of curiosity, do you have a source for who IS footing what percentage(s) of the bill for the current military action? I'd like to see an impartial link.

No I don't and me too. The figures I've seen from MSN, NBC, ABC etc. are anywhere from a half billion or so in the first couple of weeks to $80k/hour that we're there. That's just our costs. NATO is supposed to take over much of the funding at some point, or maybe they already have, but the USA funds 25% or more of NATO's costs.

More heresay: "The U.S. has spent 1 billion in Libya..." I'm really not sure where I heard that because I watch several news sources, plus Fox News. To further the conjecture, if that is a quarter of what NATO has spent, the project has consumed 4 billion dollars of the world's resources. That means Libya is putting out all it can to survive, and it will have to pump and sell more gas at a premium price I'm sure its oil-rich nations would agree to.

It would follow that we have nothing to look forward to but more pain at the pump for all of the American people, which may be why the Congressmen are upset.

If the Congressmen are upset because this is bad for Americans, what is the White House surrebuttal to show why they are looking out for the American people better than these congressmen?

Here's what one Economist group came up with:

Credits

"-United States: 51,000 (0.5 percent)"

They say Libya accounts for less than 1% of America's oil imports (at credits link). If we spent a billion dollars on that amount of oil per diem, I'd say we may have gotten rooked for our trouble, not to mention that Gaddafi has no plans on going gently into the night like Mubarek, who was up for an international court drubbing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

day 11 of this thread and day 15 since the dead line. Has congress told obama to get the hell out of Libya or have they extended the actions?
15 days left

 

[BenNatuf]

The Libyan War is a farce. It was their Civil War. Neither us or the Western Euros should have interfered. Are people really so proud that we bombed & murdered Gaddafi's Son and Grandchildren? Is that really something for us to be proud of? We should end all involvement immediately. It's good to see Republicans and some Democrats finally getting involved. The Libyan War is not only unjust but it's also illegal. Lets put an end to it.

And Obama is a couple weeks PAST his 'War Powers' authority, is he not? VIOLATE HIM on it...

What war powers authoruty? The WPR does not authorize the President to do anything.

 

[BenNatuf]

And Obama is a couple weeks PAST his 'War Powers' authority, is he not? VIOLATE HIM on it...

Congress has been oddly silent on this up until now though. So I don't know what precisely triggered the resolution they passed today demanding Obama act, but I'm guessing it will come out. I'm watching the underground news because you usually learn stuff there before the MSM picks it up.

There was this in The Hill a couple of weeks ago:

May 20, 2011
Lawmakers largely silent on war powers authority in Libya
By Mike Lillis and John T. Bennett - 05/20/11 05:58 AM ET

U.S. operations in Libya hit the 60-day mark Friday, but Congress has grown largely silent on the administration’s unilateral intervention into the war-torn North African nation.

The 1973 War Powers Act (WPA) — the statute President Obama invoked when he launched forces in March — requires presidents to secure congressional approval for military operations within 60 days, or withdraw forces within the next 30.


Congress did not authorize the mission — which includes a no-fly zone, bombing raids, a sea blockade and civilian-protection operations — but the deadline has stirred little sense of urgency on Capitol Hill.

House lawmakers are in the midst of a weeklong recess. And the Senate, which stuck around, is also unlikely to address the issue this week, according to Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

There has been some congressional action, however.

On Thursday, six Senate Republicans wrote to Obama asking him if he intends to comply with the WPA.

“Friday is the final day of the statutory sixty-day period for you to terminate the use of the United States Armed Forces in Libya under the War Powers Resolution,” reads the letter, spearheaded by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). “As recently as last week your administration indicated use of the United States Armed Forces will continue indefinitely.”

Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) also endorsed the letter.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment Thursday
Lawmakers largely silent on war powers authority in Libya - TheHill.com

Obama is working up quite the reasons for IMPEACHMENT before his re-election...

True, he's even flouting a misreading of the WPR.

 

[midcan5]

Is stupidity a function of air pressure or the fear of the moment? I guess we have to go with the latter as Iraq, an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, was cheered by most. Possibly a million innocents killed there and our nations' many deaths and injuries didn't cause the outrage a more humanitarian endeavor is causing today. Humans are still primitive creatures it seems.

The dead would call it a failure. The children without parents would call it a failure. The maimed would call it a failure. And if we are so callous we ignore the unnecessary deaths, our entire society materially would call it a failure for its great waste.

Once Upon a Time...: Trapped in the Wrong Paradigm: Three Handy Rules

 

[BenNatuf]

Is stupidity a function of air pressure or the fear of the moment? I guess we have to go with the latter as Iraq, an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, was cheered by most.

When you begin by trying to highlight others stupidity it would be a good idea not to refer to a congressionally, lawfully authorized action as "illegal"

Possibly a million innocents killed there and our nations' many deaths and injuries didn't cause the outrage a more humanitarian endeavor is causing today. Humans are still primitive creatures it seems.

Million? LOL, what a rube.

 

[California Girl]

I voted 'convince congress', because we really do need to do this. We cannot withdraw now.

 

[BenNatuf]

I voted 'convince congress', because we really do need to do this. We cannot withdraw now.

Though I'm sure both our reasons for it and the methodology we'd choose differ which would result in our being in disagreement, we seem to be the only ones who agree on that part.

 

[Seawytch]

Nice to see our lawmakers working together on something...

 

[Foxfyre]

I voted 'convince congress', because we really do need to do this. We cannot withdraw now.

Though I'm sure both our reasons for it and the methodology we'd choose differ which would result in our being in disagreement, we seem to be the only ones who agree on that part.

We very well may need to do this, but nobody has convinced me that we're doing anything constructive so far. I am willing to be convinced if somebody has a convincing argument for that though.

Right now I am in the Herman Cain camp of war policy:

1. What is our mission. What do we intend to accomplish.

Does anybody know? What ARE we intending to accomplish? Remove Gadaffi? What will replace him? Protect the rebels? The last I heard we don't even know for sure who they are but we do know they've summarily thrown out anybody who attempted to broker negotiations and have refused humanitarian aid. That looks strangely as if their situation isn't so grave as we were led to believe?

I honestly don't know. Does anybody?

2. How will the mission be accomplished? What is the plan to accomplish the goal. Is the goal victory or a specific target? War should not be figured out as we go along.

Do any of you know what the plan is? The target is? If so, I need to be educated on that.

3. How do we know when we have accomplished the goal? What will victory or success look like? Or will be figure that out as we go along too? Failure to know this will likely bog us down into years and years of costly ill defined goals and constantly changing objectives as we now have in Iraq and Afghanistan and we won't likely ever know when or if we are done.

Our troops deserve better than that. If you disagree, convince me.

 

[The T]

I voted 'convince congress', because we really do need to do this. We cannot withdraw now.

Though I'm sure both our reasons for it and the methodology we'd choose differ which would result in our being in disagreement, we seem to be the only ones who agree on that part.

We very well may need to do this, but nobody has convinced me that we're doing anything constructive so far. I am willing to be convinced if somebody has a convincing argument for that though.

Right now I am in the Herman Cain camp of war policy:

1. What is our mission. What do we intend to accomplish.

Does anybody know? What ARE we intending to accomplish? Remove Gadaffi? What will replace him? Protect the rebels? The last I heard we don't even know for sure who they are but we do know they've summarily thrown out anybody who attempted to broker negotiations and have refused humanitarian aid. That looks strangely as if their situation isn't so grave as we were led to believe?

I honestly don't know. Does anybody?

2. How will the mission be accomplished? What is the plan to accomplish the goal. Is the goal victory or a specific target? War should not be figured out as we go along.

Do any of you know what the plan is? The target is? If so, I need to be educated on that.

3. How do we know when we have accomplished the goal? What will victory or success look like? Or will be figure that out as we go along too? Failure to know this will likely bog us down into years and years of costly ill defined goals and constantly changing objectives as we now have in Iraq and Afghanistan and we won't likely ever know when or if we are done.

Our troops deserve better than that. If you disagree, convince me.

Very nice. Mr. Cain attacks any problem with forethought, and not political expediency and thus the attraction of many to him because he isn't a politician, but rather the epitome of a Statesman.

 

[Foxfyre]

Though I'm sure both our reasons for it and the methodology we'd choose differ which would result in our being in disagreement, we seem to be the only ones who agree on that part.

We very well may need to do this, but nobody has convinced me that we're doing anything constructive so far. I am willing to be convinced if somebody has a convincing argument for that though.

Right now I am in the Herman Cain camp of war policy:

1. What is our mission. What do we intend to accomplish.

Does anybody know? What ARE we intending to accomplish? Remove Gadaffi? What will replace him? Protect the rebels? The last I heard we don't even know for sure who they are but we do know they've summarily thrown out anybody who attempted to broker negotiations and have refused humanitarian aid. That looks strangely as if their situation isn't so grave as we were led to believe?

I honestly don't know. Does anybody?

2. How will the mission be accomplished? What is the plan to accomplish the goal. Is the goal victory or a specific target? War should not be figured out as we go along.

Do any of you know what the plan is? The target is? If so, I need to be educated on that.

3. How do we know when we have accomplished the goal? What will victory or success look like? Or will be figure that out as we go along too? Failure to know this will likely bog us down into years and years of costly ill defined goals and constantly changing objectives as we now have in Iraq and Afghanistan and we won't likely ever know when or if we are done.

Our troops deserve better than that. If you disagree, convince me.

Very nice. Mr. Cain attacks any problem with forethought, and not political expediency and thus the attraction of many to him because he isn't a politician, but rather the epitome of a Statesman.

Well most of that was mine but he certainly is guiding that debate. He is opposed to initiating wars anywhere, but if we are going to get into one:

1. Know what the mission is before we allocate a single dollar or commit a single soldier.
2. Know how the mission will be accomplished.
3. Decide what success will look like so that we know we have accomplished it and can stop fighting the war.

 

[The T]

We very well may need to do this, but nobody has convinced me that we're doing anything constructive so far. I am willing to be convinced if somebody has a convincing argument for that though.

Right now I am in the Herman Cain camp of war policy:

1. What is our mission. What do we intend to accomplish.

Does anybody know? What ARE we intending to accomplish? Remove Gadaffi? What will replace him? Protect the rebels? The last I heard we don't even know for sure who they are but we do know they've summarily thrown out anybody who attempted to broker negotiations and have refused humanitarian aid. That looks strangely as if their situation isn't so grave as we were led to believe?

I honestly don't know. Does anybody?

2. How will the mission be accomplished? What is the plan to accomplish the goal. Is the goal victory or a specific target? War should not be figured out as we go along.

Do any of you know what the plan is? The target is? If so, I need to be educated on that.

3. How do we know when we have accomplished the goal? What will victory or success look like? Or will be figure that out as we go along too? Failure to know this will likely bog us down into years and years of costly ill defined goals and constantly changing objectives as we now have in Iraq and Afghanistan and we won't likely ever know when or if we are done.

Our troops deserve better than that. If you disagree, convince me.

Very nice. Mr. Cain attacks any problem with forethought, and not political expediency and thus the attraction of many to him because he isn't a politician, but rather the epitome of a Statesman.

Well most of that was mine but he certainly is guiding that debate. He is opposed to initiating wars anywhere, but if we are going to get into one:

1. Know what the mission is before we allocate a single dollar or commit a single soldier.
2. Know how the mission will be accomplished.
3. Decide what success will look like so that we know we have accomplished it and can stop fighting the war.

Yep...'Know before you commit blood and treasure before you go.'

It's only common sense. Something this government has sorely lacked for decades.