Posted on 05/26/2011 6:19:56 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
Remember when President Obama assured us his Libyan adventure would be over in "days, not weeks"? To employ a Clinton-era euphemism, "That statement is no longer operative." (Translation: I lied.)
On Friday the 60-day clock ran out, leaving Obama in clear violation of the War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973 to "fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution ... [and] insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities."
Instead of withdrawing U.S. forces, the president sent a letter to congressional leaders insisting—bizarrely—that drone attacks and "suppression and destruction of air defenses" don't qualify as "hostilities" under the resolution.
"The U.S. role is one of support," an Obama adviser told ABC News, "and the kinetic pieces of that are intermittent."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates couldn't even keep a straight face while trying to sell the "kinetic military action" line to Katie Couric on 60 Minutes recently, when she asked him, "Are we at war with Libya?"
Six Republican senators, led by Kentucky's Rand Paul, sent the president a letter Friday, challenging him to comply with the War Powers Resolution. But they won't get much help from their colleagues. There's no Senate action scheduled on the WPR, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.), says it's because "we're deferring to NATO." Who elected them?
With Congress AWOL, it's not clear what recourse is left to those who oppose unconstitutional wars. Perhaps what remains of the "peace" movement can update the old John Lennon anthem: "All we are saying is give static military activity a chance ..."
Meanwhile, as the Senate dithered, the House moved toward granting the president sweeping new war powers.
The defense spending bill that recently cleared the House Armed Services Committee contains a new, post-bin Laden Authorization for Use of Military Force. This authorization is even broader than its post-Sept. 11 predecessor, whose language was stretched by the Bush administration to justify warrantless surveillance and holding U.S. citizens without charges. Even so, the proposed replacement got only a few minutes of post-midnight debate.
The first authorization at least contained a link to the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks. The new authorization empowers the president to go to war with any nation he determines is aiding al Qaeda, the Taliban, or "associated forces." How far can that language be stretched? Maybe far enough for Congress to finally get this war powers hassle off its plate permanently.
One thing is clear, you can't blame our burgeoning "imperial presidency" solely on aggressive, power-hungry presidents. As Arthur Schlesinger Jr. explained in his book of that name, the presidency's transformation from limited, constitutional office to Supreme Warlord of the Earth has been "as much a matter of congressional abdication as of presidential usurpation."
In fact, the last time I can remember Congress roused to righteous indignation about threats to the separation of powers was in May 2006, when the FBI searched then-Rep. William Jefferson's congressional office in a bribery investigation. (They'd previously found $90,000 in cash in Jefferson's freezer at home.)
The raid on Jefferson's office was the rare event that got then-Speaker Denny Hastert (R-Ill.) and Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) singing from the same hymnbook about "constitutional principles ... designed to protect the Congress and the American people from abuses of power."
It would be nice to see similar bipartisan outrage from Congress today about "abuses of power" like, say ... illegal wars.
But it seems that sort of thing doesn't hit as close to home.
First off let me say I’m all for bombing Libya. To me its payback for Pan Am 103...
Now all you “conservatives” need to step back and look at this rationally.
If this were under Bush all of you who, for nothing more than political reasons against this one, would be cheering it on demanding we send in SPECOPS to off Momar like Bin Laden...
Where is Cindy Sheehan and Code Pinko when you need them??
They are our representatives thus WE don’t care, right?
Sorry pal. This action against Lybia is nothing but an expensive taxpayer funded bank robery for Lybian oil and gold.
SF Code Pinker interrupts Netanyahu before Congress. Coming next to SF
To yo, maybe... but you'r just trying to justify your stance because you hate Obama and nothing more. I don't like him, but I agree with the ousting/killing of Momar.
Did Clinton ever get approval for Kosavo or Somalia or Haiti?
I disagree “all of you” would be supporting the Libyan adventure if Bush were President. This conservative believes it is time to return to governing by the Constitution. This means adhering to the requirement the President obtain a formal Declaration of War from Congress before committing US troops to combat. The last Declaration of War, Dec 8, 1941, took about 24 hours to get after the nation was attacked. I suggest the President should not be able to commit troops for more than 48 hours without a Declaration of War. If Congress won’t vote for war, we don’t go to war. Period.
BALLS! I was against Panama and Afghanistan - Iraq, I was for.
It’s not an issue when Code Pinks guys do it.
You mean neo-cons not real conservatives right?
Great post good thread. Since when do socialists abide by rules/laws they impose on others?
“Everything about socialism is sham and affectation.” - 23.11 Ch23 Evil; Economic Harmonies; Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850.
Life, liberty and the pursuit and destruction of totalitarians (foreign and domestic).
In fact he was in violation of the War Powers Resolution the minute he committed armed forces to the conflict.
§ 1542. Consultation; initial and regular consultationsThe President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
When Obama threw his hat in the ring, congress and the nation’s entire judiciary shredded the constitution and hasn’t looked back.
When the terrorist animal Kadaffi slaughtered dozens of innocent American civilians, he made an enemy out of me not for ten years, not for twenty years, but for LIFE!
Bomb their haji asses back to the stone age!
If Congress wanted to — and the House Foreign Affairs Committee is meeting this week to discuss the War Powers Resolution — it could easily construct mechanisms that would compel members to take a stand on instances such as Libya: to choose between authorizing the military operation or directing the president to end it. Congress has never imposed such discipline on itself because in these kinds of cases some lawmakers want to keep a third option available — not just “yes” or “no” but also “maybe.” And when the time comes to make life-or-death decisions about committing U.S. forces to combat, “maybe” has often been Congress’s preferred answer. - Congress and the myth of the 60-day clock
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.