Posted on 07/07/2011 12:36:44 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
The House on Thursday weighed whether to prohibit funds for the U.S. military operation against Libya in a constitutional showdown with President Barack Obama.
Calling the war illegal because Obama never sought congressional consent, Republicans and Democrats pressed for two measures — one to bar funds for military activities and equipment used against Libya, and a second to prevent funds for U.S. military participation in the NATO-led mission against Moammar Gadhafi's forces.
Lawmakers argue that Obama violated the 1973 War Powers Resolution that requires a president to seek congressional approval within 60 days of the first military strikes, a move the commander in chief did not make. Instead, Obama informed Congress last month that such assent was unnecessary because the limited U.S. role does not rise to full-blown hostilities.
Incensed House Republicans and Democrats voted overwhelmingly last month to deny Obama the authority to continue the mission, a largely symbolic vote that was still a rebuke to the president.
The move Thursday to cut off funds ratcheted up the pressure on the administration as Libya remained a stalemate between Gadhafi and rebel forces, and war-weary NATO allies signaled their patience was wearing thin. Italy announced that it was reducing its participation in NATO's campaign by removing an aircraft carrier from the region and pulling thousands of troops home.
Calling the conflict "illegal and unauthorized," Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., sponsor of the first measure, said Libya "did not attack us, did not attack NATO ... quite simply, however much we detest Mr. Gadhafi and his regime, we have no reason to be at war."
Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., a co-sponsor of the second measure, said the House had an "opportunity to stop this unconstitutional war against Libya."
The House considered the measures as part of a $649 billion defense spending bill that wouldn't go into effect until Oct. 1. The defense bill includes no funds for the Libyan operation — the Pentagon has said it could cover the expense with existing funds — but the measures would effectively bar funds for the mission.
‘Libya “did not attack us, did not attack NATO ... quite simply, however much we detest Mr. Gadhafi and his regime, we have no reason to be at war.”’
Agreed. Why are we even there, what does victory in Libya look like?
I hope sooner or later they stop talking about it and DO it. That has been my gripe about Boehner from the beginning: he enjoys talking a lot more than he enjoys DOING.
He enjoys crying more than either.
Lol! Maybe it wasn’t meant as humor, but it struck me as hilarious. I know there’s a tragic side to it [i.e.: when he’s weeping, he’s not advancing the conservative agenda], but still, the remark is funny. A good laugh now and then never hurt anybody, did it?
As Nixon would say, “another fine mess.”
Boner and the GOP Republicrats are delaying any meaningful action until Gadafi's downfall is a fait accompli. The fact is despite their Constitutional oaths and duties the decision to send Americans boys to fight and die in wars is far, far above the pay grade of any lowly CONgressmen or even a dime-a-dozen President.
I believe you, but please explain. Why is the timing of Gadafi’s downfall critical? Are they trying to slither out of their duty to challenge Obama on flaunting the War Powers Act?
Glad you had a laugh friend. Those are rare in this era. Hope your stories are coming along well. If you ever need a second pair of Eyes to look them over let me know.
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.