Bipartisan Congress Rebukes President on Lybia Policy

[bigrebnc1775]

day 9 of this thread and the 13th day since the dead line. Has congress told obama to get the hell out of Libya or have they extended the actions?
17 days left

 

[bigrebnc1775]

day 10 of this thread and the 14th day since the dead line. Has congress told obama to get the hell out of Libya or have they extended the actions?
16 days left

 

[Foxfyre]

Seems an uncharacteristically bipartisan congress has soundly rebuked President Obama on his Lybia policy. One of several resolutions was adopted with the strongest one (that didn't pass) coming from Dennis Kucinich, Democrat.

Crossing party lines to deliver a stunning rebuke to the commander in chief, the vast majority of the House voted Friday for resolutions telling President Obama he has broken the constitutional chain of authority by committing U.S. troops to the international military mission in Libya.

In two votes — on competing resolutions that amounted to legislative lectures of Mr. Obama — Congress escalated the brewing constitutional clash over whether he ignored the founding document’s grant of war powers by sending U.S. troops to aid in enforcing a no-fly zone and naval blockade of Libya.

The resolutions were non-binding, and only one of them passed, but taken together, roughly three-quarters of the House voted to put Mr. Obama on notice that he must explain himself or else face future consequences, possibly including having funds for the war cut off.

“He has a chance to get this right. If he doesn’t, Congress will exercise its constitutional authority and make it right,” said House Speaker John A. Boehner, the Ohio Republican who wrote the resolution that passed, 268-145, and sets a two-week deadline for the president to deliver the information the House is seeking.

Minutes after approving Mr. Boehner’s measure, the House defeated an even more strongly-worded resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, that would have insisted the president begin a withdrawal of troops.

Most lawmakers said that was too rash at this point, and said they wanted to give Mr. Obama time to comply. Some also said immediate withdrawal would leave U.S. allies in the lurch.

Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission - Washington Times

 

[LibocalypseNow]

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's always a moral dilemma for many. Do you look the other way when thousands of innocent people are being slaughtered? Intervene? Arm the weaker side (as we did in the Iraq/Iran war) etc.?

But whatever we do it has to be done with the consent of our elected leaders and not be the arbitrary unilateral action of the President. There is a reason that the Constitution gave Congress powers to declare war and not the Executive Branch. Evenso, the President can give the order to attack and then ask Congress to declare war.

The NYT version:

WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives voted Friday to harshly rebuke President Obama for continuing to maintain an American role in NATO operations in Libya without the express consent of Congress, and directed the administration to provide detailed information about the cost and objectives of the American role in the conflict.

The resolution, which passed 268 to 145, was offered by Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio to siphon off swelling Republican support for a measure sponsored by Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat, which calls for a withdrawal of the United States military from the air and naval operations in and around Libya.

The resolution criticizing the president passed with the support of 45 Democrats and all but 10 Republicans.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=3716461

Just 45 Democrats? How about it Democrats. Do you wish more of your elected representatives had gotten on board with this? Or are you glad they voted no?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Same basic question as in Iraq, Afghanistan or for that matter, Vietnam. Why are we there, what are we trying to achieve, how will we know if we are making a positive difference, and when do we go home?

At least Bush had an answer to questions one and two. Obama doesn't even have that.

Unless we have good answers for all those questions, we should stay home.

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree. I have this horrible image of twelve years of flying the Lybian border or a 'no fly' zone as we did in Iraq which cost tens of thousands of deaths and injury to innocent Iraqi citizens, many of which were children. Saddam simply took the Oil for Food monies for his own purposes--more lavish palaces--bigger payoffs to his foreign cronies and local sock puppets, etc.--and let the poorest people starve, go without medicine and other basic essentials. And we wound up fighting a bloody war anyway.

If that is what is accomplished in Lybia, I want no part of it.

Herman Cain's 'war policy' is looking better and better to me:

1. What is the purpose of the Mission - what is it supposed to accomplish?
2. How will the mission be carried out. By whom?
3. What will success look like and how will we know that we have accomplished it so that we can bring everybody home?

So far as I can tell, Obama hasn't answered any one of those questions.

 

[BenNatuf]

Seems an uncharacteristically bipartisan congress has soundly rebuked President Obama on his Lybia policy. One of several resolutions was adopted with the strongest one (that didn't pass) coming from Dennis Kucinich, Democrat.

Crossing party lines to deliver a stunning rebuke to the commander in chief, the vast majority of the House voted Friday for resolutions telling President Obama he has broken the constitutional chain of authority by committing U.S. troops to the international military mission in Libya.

In two votes — on competing resolutions that amounted to legislative lectures of Mr. Obama — Congress escalated the brewing constitutional clash over whether he ignored the founding document’s grant of war powers by sending U.S. troops to aid in enforcing a no-fly zone and naval blockade of Libya.

The resolutions were non-binding, and only one of them passed, but taken together, roughly three-quarters of the House voted to put Mr. Obama on notice that he must explain himself or else face future consequences, possibly including having funds for the war cut off.

“He has a chance to get this right. If he doesn’t, Congress will exercise its constitutional authority and make it right,” said House Speaker John A. Boehner, the Ohio Republican who wrote the resolution that passed, 268-145, and sets a two-week deadline for the president to deliver the information the House is seeking.

Minutes after approving Mr. Boehner’s measure, the House defeated an even more strongly-worded resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, that would have insisted the president begin a withdrawal of troops.

Most lawmakers said that was too rash at this point, and said they wanted to give Mr. Obama time to comply. Some also said immediate withdrawal would leave U.S. allies in the lurch.

Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission - Washington Times

about time they grew some balls.

 

[BenNatuf]

It's always a moral dilemma for many. Do you look the other way when thousands of innocent people are being slaughtered? Intervene? Arm the weaker side (as we did in the Iraq/Iran war) etc.?

But whatever we do it has to be done with the consent of our elected leaders and not be the arbitrary unilateral action of the President. There is a reason that the Constitution gave Congress powers to declare war and not the Executive Branch. Evenso, the President can give the order to attack and then ask Congress to declare war.

No he can't. Not lawfully at any rate.

 

[American Legacy]

It is incumbent upon the president to make the case to the American people that action by our armed forces is necessary to protect our national interests. Obama has failed to articulate why we have an interest in the outcome of Libya. Unfortunately his failure is going to weaken the office of the presidency by giving Congress more impetus to enforce the War Powers Act.

 

[BenNatuf]

It is incumbent upon the president to make the case to the American people that action by our armed forces is necessary to protect our national interests. Obama has failed to articulate why we have an interest in the outcome of Libya. Unfortunately his failure is going to weaken the office of the presidency by giving Congress more impetus to enforce the War Powers Act.

The President does not and never has had the authority to make war without congressional authorization except to respond to, repel or prevent an attack on the US, it's territory, it's forces, or it's people; or to put down an insurrection or rebellion.

Any President who does so is not using power he has, he's abusing power he doesn't have.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's always a moral dilemma for many. Do you look the other way when thousands of innocent people are being slaughtered? Intervene? Arm the weaker side (as we did in the Iraq/Iran war) etc.?

But whatever we do it has to be done with the consent of our elected leaders and not be the arbitrary unilateral action of the President. There is a reason that the Constitution gave Congress powers to declare war and not the Executive Branch. Evenso, the President can give the order to attack and then ask Congress to declare war.

No he can't. Not lawfully at any rate.

If the USA is attacked by anybody, the President can absolutely immediately order our military into combat against that aggressor.

I agree the President cannot otherwise deploy combat troops into a war zone without the advice and consent of Congress. Johnson had full authority of Congress before ordering combat troops into Vietnam. Bush 41 and 43 both had full authority of Congress before ordering combat troops into Iraq.

I don't believe Clinton got Congressional consent before deploying troops to Kosovo though but I could be wrong about that. He did have Congressional support after the fact. There are numerous incidents where he ordered bombing raids on this or that and went over the heads of Congress to do that. Congress usually looks the other way at such times.

Did Obama get Congressional advice and consent to go after bin Laden? I dunno. There was certainly no vote on it which would have broadcast it to the world. Apparently no constitutional problem with that.

 

[BenNatuf]

It's always a moral dilemma for many. Do you look the other way when thousands of innocent people are being slaughtered? Intervene? Arm the weaker side (as we did in the Iraq/Iran war) etc.?

But whatever we do it has to be done with the consent of our elected leaders and not be the arbitrary unilateral action of the President. There is a reason that the Constitution gave Congress powers to declare war and not the Executive Branch. Evenso, the President can give the order to attack and then ask Congress to declare war.

No he can't. Not lawfully at any rate.

If the USA is attacked by anybody, the President can absolutely immediately order our military into combat against that aggressor.

in response to to repel or prevent an attack yes, that was not my meaning, your post made it sound as if you thought he could do it whenever he felt like it.

I agree the President cannot otherwise deploy combat troops into a war zone without the advice and consent of Congress. Johnson had full authority of Congress before ordering combat troops into Vietnam. Bush 41 and 43 both had full authority of Congress before ordering combat troops into Iraq.

I don't believe Clinton got Congressional consent before deploying troops to Kosovo though but I could be wrong about that. He did have Congressional support after the fact.

all true. Clinton and Truman are the only Presidents to have ever commanded troops into a war without congressional authorization where we were not attacked in any way until Obama. One could say with validity that GHWB did the same in panama, but I believe that was characterized as enforcing an extradition against a criminal. It stretches the intent about as far as it can be stretched so i'll throw him on their too if you like.

There are numerous incidents where he ordered bombing raids on this or that and went over the heads of Congress to do that. Congress usually looks the other way at such times.

most of those (other than Kosovo) would fall under the precept of responding to an attack

Did Obama get Congressional advice and consent to go after bin Laden? I dunno. There was certainly no vote on it which would have broadcast it to the world. Apparently no constitutional problem with that.

He already has it, the AUMF of 2002 is still in force. It however does not cover the actions in Libya which are unlawful.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Congress needs to step up. That's what Checks & Balances are all about. It's good to see Republicans and some Democrats in Congress finally getting involved with this farce. They should have gotten involved earlier though. Better late than never i guess. This Libyan War is a very sad scam. Time to end our involvement.

 

[BenNatuf]

I do believe we have an interest in Libya, but i don't believe what Obama is doing there serves it. It may be too late to change that.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is incumbent upon the president to make the case to the American people that action by our armed forces is necessary to protect our national interests. Obama has failed to articulate why we have an interest in the outcome of Libya. Unfortunately his failure is going to weaken the office of the presidency by giving Congress more impetus to enforce the War Powers Act.

Interesting perspective. Please explain how Congress enforcing the War Powers Act weakens the office of the presidency.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Answer to the poll's question:

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

 

[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:

March 17, 2011
From Maria Golovnina and Patrick Worsnip, Reuters:

The United Nations authorized military strikes to curb Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, hours after he threatened to storm the rebel bastion of Benghazi overnight, showing "no mercy, no pity."

"We will come. House by house, room by room," Gaddafi said in a radio address to the eastern city late on Thursday. ...

The U.N. Security Council, meeting in emergency session, passed a resolution endorsing a no-fly zone to halt government troops now around 100 km (60 miles) from Benghazi. It also authorized "all necessary measures" -- code for military action -- to protect civilians against Gaddafi's forces. ...

Residents said the Libyan air force unleashed three air raids on the city of 670,000 on Thursday and there has been fierce fighting along the Mediterranean coastal highway. ...

Ten of the Council's 15 member states voted in favor of the resolution, with Russia, China and Germany among the five that abstained. There were no votes against the resolution, which was co-sponsored by France, Britain, Lebanon and the United States. ...

UN authorizes military action in Libya | Atlantic Council

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

 

[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...

 

[Foxfyre]

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