Obama's Wrong About Congress and Libya

Henry Louis Gates' "The Root" ^ | 21 June | Swerdlick

[flowerplough]

The president's end run on the War Powers Act is a missed opportunity to define his foreign policy and put congressional rivals on the spot.

To put the hypocrisy of Republicans into context when it comes to Libya, it's worth pointing out that two of the congressmen joining Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich's suit to stop President Barack Obama's prosecution of the ongoing NATO action in Libya's civil war -- North Carolina Reps. Walter Jones and Howard Coble -- both backed the 2002 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

At the time, you'll recall, Jones even frivolously coined the term "freedom fries" to embarrass the French for their refusal -- now clearly prudent -- to participate in America's Iraq expedition.

That a once-interventionist GOP caucus has become divided on the proper role of the military is encouraging in the long run -- echoing the national mood that the cost in blood and treasure of three Middle East wars is unsustainable. But it also represents the abandonment of a president who -- had he chosen two years ago to rapidly withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan -- would have been attacked by those same Republicans as a "dithering" commander in chief who'd "cut and run" instead of defending America from the threat of terror.

But the congressional flip-flop still isn't a good-enough excuse for Obama to disregard the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which says that "within sixty calendar days" of entering a military engagement, Congress gets a chance to weigh in.

So far, on Libya, the president has been ducking the legislative body.

[flowerplough]

Obama's usually wrong, about most things.

[RC2]

Who in Congress has the cajones to stand up to him?

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"To put the hypocrisy of Republicans into context when it comes to Libya"

"Whether or not you support U.S. involvement in Libya, it's pretty tough to say that Congress -- and its Article I powers -- should just be ignored."

So you point out the difference between the Libyan conflict and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan yet you call the Republicans hypocrites. Because they are opposing this on the grounds of the war powers act and the fact that Obama never went to Congress to get authorization for this. Exactly how are they being hypocrites again? Mr. Swerdlick your stupidity knows no bounds.

[StonyMan451]

The irony is that he would have had no problem getting the authorization.

[carolinacrazy]

I admit I only scanned this story, but how is he equating the “invasion of Iraq” with what is going on in Libya? Bush received congressional approval for both Iraq and Afghanistan.

[ExTxMarine]

Hey, Democrats do not believe you should let FACTS get in the way of a really heart-felt, feel-good article with which they can strike out at the Republicans!

[Smokin' Joe]

Is this a COngressional flip-flop? Or is it a 'turf battle'?

Congress has the power to declare war. The President had his SOS all over Europe putting together a coalition but didn't consult Congress?

If they don't protect their turf, they'll lose it, and DuhWon is already running roughshod over Congress with his 'ruling' by edict.

If they don't stand on their hind legs and say "NO!", they're going to go the way of the Reichstag.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"The irony is that he would have had no problem getting the authorization."

You are probably correct. That is why it is the Democrats who were hypocrites during the Bush Presidency. The same ones who voted for the authorization of use of force like Kerry, Clinton etc.. are the same ones who criticized Bush when the going got tough. This clown needs to look up the definition of hypocrite. He obviously does not know it's meaning.