THIS is why we're intervening in Libya

[Seth]

President Obama declared last week that the three-month-old Libyan campaign should not be considered “hostilities.” That word is important, because it’s used in the 1973 War Powers Resolution: Presidents must obtain congressional authorization within a certain period after sending U.S. forces “into hostilities.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... print.html

Fuckwit.

hos·til·i·ty

noun /häˈstilitē/ 

1. Hostile behavior; unfriendliness or opposition
* - their hostility to all outsiders

2. Acts of warfare
* - he called for an immediate cessation of hostilities

Impeach Obama!

[Cormac]

If we were after oil, wouldn't we prop up Qadafi and make him reward us by selling us low priced oil?

That's a movie. You won't find American weapons in north Africa. You'll find lots of AK-47's though, and they aren't made in the US, and the vast majority of them are sold by Russians and Chinese.

Or by Colonel Oliver North, as I recall...

[Coito ergo sum]

By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press – 11 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The House on Friday overwhelmingly rejected a measure giving President Barack Obama the authority to continue the U.S. military operation against Libya, a major repudiation of the commander in chief.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110624/ap_ ... s_us_libya

[Coito ergo sum]

President 'becoming an absolute monarch' on war powers, Dem says
By Pete Kasperowicz - 06/24/11 09:56 AM ET
A House Democrat warned Friday that the U.S. president is becoming an "absolute monarch" on matters related to the authority to start a war.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Congress must act to limit funding for military operations in Libya in order to correct that trend.

"We have been sliding for 70 years to a situation where Congress has nothing to do with the decision about whether to go to war or not, and the president is becoming an absolute monarch," Nadler said on the floor. "And we must put a stop to that right now, if we don't want to become an empire instead of a republic."

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/h ... war-powers

[Ian]

By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press – 11 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The House on Friday overwhelmingly rejected a measure giving President Barack Obama the authority to continue the U.S. military operation against Libya, a major repudiation of the commander in chief.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110624/ap_ ... s_us_libya

I wonder if this is what the Obama administration has had in mind from the get-go? I kinda doubt they simply "forgot" to bring up the War Powers Resolution until after it kicked in, or they honestly thought that the use of drones in recent weeks did not constitute any possible definition of hostilities. I think Obama might be seeing US involvement over Libya as an excuse to finally get rid of this clause. Why else wouldn't he have tried to invoke it earlier? It would have passed, quite easily.

Even the fact-checkers at Politifact.com have had a hard time trying to figure out if the WPR even applies: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... esolution/
A 2400-word article discussing the article and US military actions, and they end up figuring the whole thing is pretty iffy - there are realistic interpretations either way, and the constitutionality of the WPR itself is suspect. But they did find the administration's recent definition of "hostilities" (or technical lack thereof) to be rather puzzling, and I agree.

My opinion: if US strikes had been limited to the first week or so, and the only thing US forces were doing now were continuing to play rear-echelon support roles to British/French/other NATO operations, then I'd say no way does the WPR even apply. But involvement of drones firing so much as a single bullet after the WPR expiration date negates that, and the WPR does now apply. Still, I have yet to hear a salient point on why the WPR is such a big deal, other than 1) someone's zeal to prove that Obama is a hypocrite and a tyrant, or 2) naive idealism in wanting to shift many of the powers of the commander-in-chief from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other (which seems to describe Dennis Kucinich and possibly the Tea Party types), which I would describe as wooly-headed.

Every President from Nixon onwards has thought the WPR was a lousy idea. And Libya has been a perfect example of why it is so silly - the US engaged in a very brief period of hostilities at the outset of NATO's campaign, followed by a prologed period of doing little else but refuelling and ISR ops, then gets into drone strikes as the WPR expiration date passes. And naturally Congress gripes about wanting to use its quill pen to regulate American war powers, as if conflicts anywhere have really worked like that ever since Japan signed a formal peace treaty in 1945.

Those who are eager to criticize Obama over anything at all are quick to jump on this, of course. "A-haaa! See there! Hypocrisy! You see it right? Isn't it perfectly obvious! See?!" I have a hard time seeing it, for two big reasons. One, the nature of the conflict is totally different from, say, Iraq. The casus belli is vastly different, and the level of American involvement is vastly different, thus comparisons are almost meaningless. And second, I still don't see the "so what" of the War Powers Resolution. I think Congress is reacting exactly the way Obama has been expecting it to react for weeks. So what's he up to? On behalf of the Executive Branch, he might be gambling on this: before long Qaddafi will be gone, NATO's Libya operation will be long over, and several months or maybe a year or two from now will be a perfect time to finally get rid of the WPR. If Libya ends up going well, he'll actually be able to use it as a talking point in his favor: "Bush did that check-in-the-box and got us into Iraq, and my opponents tried to hamstring me with it and darn near cost NATO into a humiliating loss." Who's going to want to keep it around?

[Coito ergo sum]

Regarding the Constitutionality of the War Powers Act, the issue there is that the War Powers Act delegates congressional authority to the President. So, the idea is that overturning the War Powers Act would reduce Presidential Power.

Every President from Nixon onward has thought the WPA a lousy idea, because they think they don't need Congressional authority at all.

His opponents aren't the only ones trying to hamstring him. 70 Democrats voted against him on this one. How many of those voting "yes" held their nose and voted yes out of party loyalty?

[Ian]

Maybe they DON'T (orr shouldn't) need Congressional authority. By nature, Presidents don't want Congress to overstep its bounds, and Congress doesn't want the President to overstep his bounds. But these boundaries around the commander-in-chief were never part of the original Constitution. The WPR was born as a Nixon-era reaction against Vietnam (and Cambodia).

Congress still has plenty of other oversight. Losing the WPR wouldn't mean losing a crucial check/balance with the Executive branch. A good case could be made that its very existence is an excess check/balance.

As for those trying to draw a line between A) the commander-in-chief pushing the bounds of the WPR as the law of the land and B) Gaius Julius Obama is trying to make himself an emperor, I just don't see it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Maybe they DON'T (orr shouldn't) need Congressional authority. By nature, Presidents don't want Congress to overstep its bounds, and Congress doesn't want the President to overstep his bounds. But these boundaries around the commander-in-chief were never part of the original Constitution. The WPR was born as a Nixon-era reaction against Vietnam (and Cambodia).

Well, there is the bit in the Constitution about the power to Declare War being vested in the Congress. That's where the tug of war occurs between the Prez and Congress. Not all military action is considered "war," but if it is a war, then it is in the power of Congress to authorize it. That's why there was so much hubbub when Bush was President. It was considered (from the Democrat side of the aisle) almost an article of faith that the President had to get congressional authorization to take the US into military action. That's why the Prez when to Congress even for Afghanistan.

The War Powers Act was a response to the Presidents' actions in Vietnam. It was the position of Congress that Congress had the authority over whether War was waged in Vietnam, and to try to clarify when the Prez had to reach out to Congress and when he could act without it, they enacted the War Powers Act.

Congress still has plenty of other oversight. Losing the WPR wouldn't mean losing a crucial check/balance with the Executive branch. A good case could be made that its very existence is an excess check/balance.

Sure - but losing any meaning of the Constitutional provision giving Congress the War power would be a loss of a crucial check and balance. To suggest, as the President is now doing, that war waged by remote control, involving the use of American miiltary hardware, American military aid to combatant nations, and American drones and aircraft, dropping bombs and killing people, is not "hostilities" is an alarming bit of rhetorical gymnastics.

I can guarantee you that not a single Democrat would be silent of W. Bush was making that sort of fine distinction.

As for those trying to draw a line between A) the commander-in-chief pushing the bounds of the WPR as the law of the land and B) Gaius Julius Obama is trying to make himself an emperor, I just don't see it.

I don't think it's about him making himself Emperor (and that allegation came from a Democrat, mind you). I think that it's about him being a hypocrite.
Before he was elected, his view on this sort of thing was that it always needed Congressional approval.

[Warren Dew]

I kinda doubt they simply "forgot" to bring up the War Powers Resolution until after it kicked in, or they honestly thought that the use of drones in recent weeks did not constitute any possible definition of hostilities.

And yet, the idea that killing people with drones does not constitute hostilities is exactly the White House's claim. Basically you're saying Obama is lying. I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's an idiot instead.

Every President from Nixon onwards has thought the WPR was a lousy idea.

And yet, every president from Nixon onwards has also followed the requirements of the War Powers Act, even while griping about it. That it has been so easy to comply with kind of shows how it's a reasonable law, and how Obama's refusal to obey it is a reflection of his attitude that he was elected dictator, rather than just president.

[Ian]

Assuming he's an idiot would be a wonderful mistake for anyone to make. Do you really think he believes he was elected dictator? Come on now.

I think he's in the middle of a scheme, and he's playing Congress like a grand piano. To what end, I'm not sure... doing away with the WPR, moving towards an endgame in Libya, forcing NATO allies to raise their defense budgets by emphasizing that they can't always rely on the US government, etc. Who knows.

[Warren Dew]

Do you really think he believes he was elected dictator?

Considering all the ways in which he seems to think the executive can ignore the law, I don't see what other conclusion can be reached.

The difference between the U.S. presidency and a short term dictatorship is that the president is only head of the executive branch, in charge of executing policies decided by law through the legislative process. A dictator gets to set policy as well as execute it; the president is only in charge of executing it. Obama seems to be ignoring that, confusing executive powers with dictatorship.

[Seth]

Do you really think he believes he was elected dictator?

Considering all the ways in which he seems to think the executive can ignore the law, I don't see what other conclusion can be reached.

The difference between the U.S. presidency and a short term dictatorship is that the president is only head of the executive branch, in charge of executing policies decided by law through the legislative process. A dictator gets to set policy as well as execute it; the president is only in charge of executing it. Obama seems to be ignoring that, confusing executive powers with dictatorship.

He's a Progressive. The only difference between a dictator and a Progressive is that a dictator takes and holds office by force, against the will of the electorate, while a Progressive is perfectly willing to cede power to a duly-elected replacement...so long as it's a Progressive replacement.

Progressivism is all about the Executive State, which is a state in which Congress is irrelevant and has been relegated to the status of an advisory body and policy debating club with no power to make or repeal law, and in which unelected, appointed lifetime bureaucrats and "experts" make and enforce all laws under the guidance of a strong Progressive leader who is "attuned to the unified will of the People."

In other words, he's a demagogue who rules the country by wielding executive authority as his sovereign judgment dictates, without regard to the separation of powers doctrine or the triumvirate checks and balances created by the Founders. That describes Obama perfectly.

[Ian]

Do you really think he believes he was elected dictator?

Considering all the ways in which he seems to think the executive can ignore the law, I don't see what other conclusion can be reached.

The difference between the U.S. presidency and a short term dictatorship is that the president is only head of the executive branch, in charge of executing policies decided by law through the legislative process. A dictator gets to set policy as well as execute it; the president is only in charge of executing it. Obama seems to be ignoring that, confusing executive powers with dictatorship.

He's a Progressive. The only difference between a dictator and a Progressive is that a dictator takes and holds office by force, against the will of the electorate, while a Progressive is perfectly willing to cede power to a duly-elected replacement...so long as it's a Progressive replacement.

Progressivism is all about the Executive State, which is a state in which Congress is irrelevant and has been relegated to the status of an advisory body and policy debating club with no power to make or repeal law, and in which unelected, appointed lifetime bureaucrats and "experts" make and enforce all laws under the guidance of a strong Progressive leader who is "attuned to the unified will of the People."

In other words, he's a demagogue who rules the country by wielding executive authority as his sovereign judgment dictates, without regard to the separation of powers doctrine or the triumvirate checks and balances created by the Founders. That describes Obama perfectly.

And they say conservatives' views are more rooted in fear and paranoia than liberals. Hmph, that's just silly.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/28/c ... ter-brain/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... brain.html

[Seth]

And they say conservatives' views are more rooted in fear and paranoia than liberals. Hmph, that's just silly.

Actually, conservatives are more rooted in reality and rational, logical threat analysis, whereas liberals are rooted in...well...butterflies and rainbows insanity and denial of fact and reason.

Just because you fear something doesn't mean you're paranoid. Paranoia is an IRRATIONAL fear. There's absolutely nothing irrational about fearing Progressivism, Marxism or Obama. All three are evil incarnate, are extremely dangerous, and fearing their spread is entirely rational and logical.

[Coito ergo sum]

Those attempting to defend President Obama's claimed legal power to involve the military in the Libya War without Congressional approval have numerous problems; none is more significant than candidate Obama's own clear statement to the Boston Globe's Charlie Savage in late 2007 on this matter. In response to being asked whether "the president ha constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress" -- "specifically . . . the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites" -- Obama replied: "the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Note that Obama wasn't being asked whether the President has unilateral authority to order a ground invasion or a full-scale war, but merely the limited, "strategic bombing" of Iran's nuclear sites, and he replied decisively in the negative by invoking a very clear restriction on presidential authority to order military action without Congress.

Yesterday, State Department adviser Harold Koh testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee regarding the war in Libya. The Committee had also requested the appearance of top lawyers from the Justice and Defense Departments -- who, contrary to Koh, told the President that he was violating the War Powers Resolution by waging war without Congressional approval -- but the Most Transparent Administration Ever refused to produce them, instead sending only the State Department lawyer who told the President what he wanted to hear: that he did indeed have this unilateral power. Koh was confronted with candidate Obama's 2007 statement that directly contradicts the White House's current position, and Koh did the only thing he could do: insist that the Constitutional Scholar's view back then were "not legally correct" and was "too limited a statement," and that he'd be "very surprised if that's [Obama's] position" today. Watch the amazing, cringe-inducing one-minute video:

In other words, said the President's designated legal spokesman, what Obama the Candidate said on this crucial issue when trying to persuade Democrats to nominate him was wrong and is now officially repudiated. Let's be clear about how significant --- and typical -- this is.

Obama's late 20o7 statements about executive power were not some off-the-cuff remarks about an ancillary issue. Rather, they were part of a statement he prepared in which he cited numerous key legal advisers (Cass Sunstein, Greg Craig, Laurence Tribe, and Jeh Johnson [now the DoD General Counsel who told him he must comply with the WPR]). More importantly, the questionnaire he was answering was exclusively about executive power: one of the central concerns for Democratic voters in the Bush era. In the questionnaire, Obama himself explained why these issues -- and his answers -- were so vital:

These are essential questions that all the candidates should answer. Any President takes an oath to, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The American people need to know where we stand on these issues before they entrust us with this responsibility -- particularly at a time when our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution have been repeatedly challenged by this Administration.

Obama himself urged voters to pay attention to the candidates' answers on executive power and to rely on them before deciding whom to "entrust" with the responsibility of the awesome powers of the Oval Office. I certainly agreed with Obama back then.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... /06/29/koh

Liar and a hypocrite.