By what authority is the US continuing to participate in this NATO effort? Did Congress vote on a War Powers resolution and I just missed it?
Chris?
I think it’s the ‘oh please, please, please don’t let anyone paint me as not supporting the troops’ authorization, aka the Cowardly Politician and Institutional Decline Act.
[quote=“Jaboney”]I think it’s the ‘oh please, please, please don’t let anyone paint me as not supporting the troops’ authorization, aka the Cowardly Politician and Institutional Decline Act.[/quote]That might be the Canadian mantra for continued support.
The U.S.A. version is more like…"'Cause Obama Sez So!"…his actions in continuing the Libyan Assault are increasingly under legal scrutiny.
Now that ‘The One’ has ramped-up War #4 in Yemen, U.S. Is Intensifying a Secret Campaign of Yemen Airstrikes the tail is again wagging the dog.
Oh, and then there’s this…Pentagon sees Libya military costs soar…the current regime is one of the few, if not only, admin in U.S. history to not be able to use a ‘war time’ economy to create jobs…interesting trick.
[i]"Despite continuing to press the White House for additional funding for Libya operations, in his May comments Secretary Gates suggested that “in the case of Libya, unfortunately, we’re fundamentally having to eat that one.”
Any additional costs could also add to pressure on the US to limit its mission in Libya. Last week, the House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution demanding that President Obama explain the US involvement in Libya, forestalling a more radical measure seeking an end to US involvement.
Although it is working under Nato, the US is by far the largest contributor to operation Unified Protector. As of mid-May it was conducting 70 per cent of reconnaissance missions, over 75 per cent of refuelling flights and 27 per cent of all air sorties.
The US has about 75 aircraft, including drones, involved in the operations and since the end of March has conducted about 2,600 aircraft sorties and about 600 combat sorties. In addition the US military can call on a number of naval assets in the Mediterranean.
As well as its contribution to the Nato operation, US spending on Libya includes its twelve day operation Odyssey Dawn that took place before Nato took over.
In total the US military has fired about 228 missiles as of mid-May. For comparison the US Navy plans to buy 196 or so missiles this year for about $300m or about $1.5m each, according to US budget documents."[/i]
And still…jobs and the economy decline…way to go Barry…right on course.
It’s an inconvenient truth.
Representative Kucinich put forth a resolution calling for the president to remove US Armed Forces from Libya, but the GOP leadership refused to allow a vote. From OpenCongress:
[quote]The House Republican leadership is worried that Congress might stand up to the Obama Administration and assert its constitutional prerogative as the only branch of government that can declare war. The House was scheduled to vote this afternoon on a a privileged resolution from Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D, OH-10] directing the President, pursuant to the War Powers Act, to remove U.S. armed forces from Libya. But the House leadership has pulled it from the floor because, according to Republican aides who spoke with Fox News, “it became clear that it might succeed.”
“[Republican leaders] hadn’t seen much of a threat from [the Kucinich bill]. He’s kind of this marginal figure and having his resolution go down narrowly would be no big deal and might even send a message to the administration,” said one of the Republican aides. “But once they saw that there was substantial support, they were like, ‘Whoa.’”
Under the War Powers Act of 1973, if a President authorizes military action without approval from Congress, they must terminate the action within 60 days unless they get specific approval from Congress, or unless there is a national emergency due to an attack on the U.S. In the case of Libya, the 60-day period has come and gone without any action from Congress, yet, in a direct violation of the law, U.S. military involvement in Libya continues. In fact, it has now been extended for another 90 days.
The Obama Administration argues that Libya is not a U.S. mission. It’s a NATO mission, they say. But as Kucinich points out in a letter to supporters of his resolution, the U.S. is still in charge. “The fact remains that we’re bombing another country and we pay, by far, the largest percentage of NATO’s military bills,” he says. “This is a war that we’re leading – and it’s a war that violates our Constitution and the War Powers Act.”
According to a new poll, the public seems to back Kucinich and his allies. When asked by CNN pollsters who should have final authority for deciding whether the U.S. should continue its use of military force in Libya — Congress or President Obama — 55% of respondents answered Congress.
House Republicans have been actively working to expand presidential war powers. They recently added language to the annual Defense authorization bill that expands presidential authority to use military force without consent from Congress against virtually anybody suspected of being a terrorist, anywhere in the world (including domestically), indefinitely. Obviously, the growing support for Kucinich’s resolution is a significant challenge to their unilateral-executive-war-power agenda. So, it’s been postponed, supposedly “in an effort to compel more information and consultation’ from the Administration,” but actually just to give the Republican leadership more time to twist arms.[/quote]
I just don’t get it. The House leadership won’t even let members vote on a resolution requiring the president to obey the law. And they have authorized the executive branch yet more authority to act militarily without consent from Congress. I think everybody understands the need for decisive military action. But isn’t that why the War Power Act was created to begin? To create a balance between the executive branch’s need to commit US forces at a moment’s notice, but then to go Congress within a couple of months and get their say-so? And, if the president fails to get approval, the Act provides another month to safely withdraw forces. Doesn’t this seem like a reasonable balance of power?
And yet, the Obama Administration has flagrantly violated the War Powers Act. This seems to be a non-issue to the Congressional leadership of both parties, and apparently, to many posters here. Why?
Dr McCoy, that is the very image of modern bipartisanship: when you leverage the stupidity and venality of the other party to fuck your own party and the United States. Washington politics is like an endless loop of the final scene of Animal Farm.
Let’s not forget, in addition to the Libyan intervention, we are also “secretly” bombing the shit out of Yemen.
Meanwhile China announced this week it is conducting naval exercises in the western pacific.
Vorkosigan
[quote=“Gao Bohan”]Representative Kucinich put forth a resolution calling for the president to remove US Armed Forces from Libya, but the GOP leadership refused to allow a vote.
[…]
I just don’t get it. The House leadership won’t even let members vote on a resolution requiring the president to obey the law. And they have authorized the executive branch yet more authority to act militarily without consent from Congress. I think everybody understands the need for decisive military action. But isn’t that why the War Power Act was created to begin? To create a balance between the executive branch’s need to commit US forces at a moment’s notice, but then to go Congress within a couple of months and get their say-so? And, if the president fails to get approval, the Act provides another month to safely withdraw forces. Doesn’t this seem like a reasonable balance of power?
And yet, the Obama Administration has flagrantly violated the War Powers Act. This seems to be a non-issue to the Congressional leadership of both parties, and apparently, to many posters here. Why?[/quote]Kucinich is being consistent – he didn’t like Bush II’s take on this Act either; nor was he successful in doing anything about it then.
I was being serious – no one in Congress wants to be seen as getting in the face of the Commander In Chief or military. They know how little respect the institution enjoys, and recognize how much power has bled away to the executive (I’ve seen a study stating that the centralization of power, apparently, is still worse in Canada, btw). Result: the GOP doesn’t want to give Obama cover in case this goes bad and the misadventure can be used against him; nor do they want to follow the law, nor defend their institutional prerogatives, because that would be used to paint them as soft on the military front.
Publius doesn’t sway this Senate; it’s all ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Bush II received Congressional approval and funding for his wars.
[quote]I was being serious – no one in Congress wants to be seen as getting in the face of the Commander In Chief or military. They know how little respect the institution enjoys, and recognize how much power has bled away to the executive (I’ve seen a study stating that the centralization of power, apparently, is still worse in Canada, btw). Result: the GOP doesn’t want to give Obama cover in case this goes bad and the misadventure can be used against him; nor do they want to follow the law, nor defend their institutional prerogatives, because that would be used to paint them as soft on the military front.
Publius doesn’t sway this Senate; it’s all ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.[/quote]
I think you’re probably right.
Bush II received Congressional approval and funding for his wars.[/quote]
I only said Kucinich was being consistent: Bush Impeachment articles.
Meanwhile, in this “easy” war, the rebels say they need Nato’s support and that they are grateful for it, but, they all agree that they’re not getting enough of it. It’s very sporadic and it’s not enough to allow the rebels to push forward at anything more than a snail’s pace.
It appears that the House has finally decided to protect Congress’ institutional interest and demand the president obey the law. From CNN:
[quote]Washington (CNN) – [b]A bipartisan group of House members will file a lawsuit Wednesday challenging U.S. participation in the Libya military mission.
Meanwhile, President Barack Obama is set to defend U.S. military involvement in Libya to Congress, according to the White House.[/b]
The administration will provide a report to address a June 3 House resolution that raised questions about the president’s goal in Libya, how he hopes to achieve that goal, why he has not sought congressional authorization for involving U.S. troops abroad and how much the conflict will ultimately cost, National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a letter to Obama on Tuesday that the administration could be in violation of the War Powers Resolution if it fails to get congressional authorization by Sunday, which he notes will be the 90th day since the mission began.
The lawsuit, which will be formally announced at a Washington news conference, will cite the War Powers Resolution as well as the role of Congress in protecting taxpayers’ money, said Rep. Walter Jones, R-North Carolina, one of the 10 legislators filing it.
A statement by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, an anti-war liberal who is leading the lawsuit effort with Jones, said that the lawsuit will “challenge the executive branch’s circumvention of Congress and its use of international organizations such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to authorize the use of military force abroad, in violation of the Constitution.”
“With regard to the war in Libya, we believe that the law was violated. We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies,” Kucinich said in his statement.
In his letter to Obama, Boehner complained that the administration has failed to address questions about the mission that were in the June 3 House resolution, which set a two-week deadline for a response.
Boehner’s letter reiterated the Friday deadline and took the additional step of warning that a failure to respond could violate the War Powers Resolution.
According to Boehner, a 90-day deadline for congressional authorization of the Libya mission expires Sunday.
“It would appear that, in five days, the administration will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution unless it asks for and receives authorization from Congress or withdraws all U.S. troops and resources from the mission,” Boehner’s letter said.[/quote]
More at link.
Good. Sounds like a relatively weak response, though.
Wonder if Joe Biden will move to impeach Obomber?
Heck, maybe Obomber will move to impeach himself?
I read somewhere online a comment that Obomber is applying the Whoopi standard… the military action in Libya isn’t war war!
Nobody gives up power. The unitary executive was a dangerous idea when Cheney was peddling it for Bush, it’s a dangerous idea now. Ditto Commander In Chief usurpations of power. Ditto ‘laws mean what I say they do’ signing statements. Ditto, ditto, ditto.
Good. Sounds like a relatively weak response, though.[/quote]
It is a weak response. But it may be a predecessor to impeachment, as it appears unlikely the administration will get Congressional approval prior to the 90 day mark passing. President Andrew Johnson was impeached by the House for violating a similar law.
Impeach Obama for participating in a Nato-led effort to back a pro-democracy revolt in Libya, after allowing Bush to torture, spy on Americans, etc? Possible. Perhaps justified, objectively speaking. But relative to what came before, obscene.
I’m just going by what Biden and Obomber stated previously. They weren’t talking about torture or democracy. Just Congressional approval.
You know my record on Bush’s violation of FISA (and the many arguments I had with fred smith). However, Bush is no longer the POTUS, Obama is. I think we can judge President Obama on his own merits. The simple fact of the matter is that it appears highly unlikely the president will obtain Congressional authorization for the war against Libya within the legally specified time-frame. Really, he already has violated the law, because at this point he’s supposed to be withdrawing forces. Having said that, I do not support impeachment at this point, but nor am I against it. Speaker Boehner wrote to President Obama on Tuesday:
I think that’s fair, don’t you? President Obama’s apparently chose the first option, and replied, well, we’re not really engaging in “hostilities”, exactly. You know, it’s not a WAR war. Hmm, we ARE killing people, right? That’s what’s happening, right? Maybe, I’m missing something, Jaboney, and you can set me straight, but I tend to believe when the US military bombs a foreign nation, then we are at war with that nation. Or at least, we’ve engaged in “hostilities”. I imagine that’s how the folks getting bombed see it. What do you think? 
Sure, that’s fair. I think Obama’s position is hypocritical and ridiculous, and consistent with a long list of past presidents.
I think Boehner’s position is hypocritical given the positions he took when Bush was in office, but far closer to correct than the Administration’s.
(I don’t think killing people in itself qualifies as waging war, btw.)