Boehner to introduce resolution tomorrow demanding that Obama seek congressional approval on Libya

posted at 9:20 pm on June 2, 2011 by Allahpundit

He’s forcing him to make a decision. And you know how he hates to make decisions.

In a resolution to be voted on in the House tomorrow, Boehner is giving the president two weeks – until the Pentagon Appropriations bill comes up – to either:

a) Ask for authorization for the military intervention in Libya, or

b) Figure out how to disengage the US from the NATO operation in Libya.

The resolution states: “The President has not sought, and Congress has not provided, authorization for the introduction or continued involvement of the United States Armed Forces in Libya. Congress has the constitutional prerogative to withhold funding for any unauthorized use of the United States Armed Forces, including for unauthorized activities regarding Libya.”

Boehner is explicitly and formally stating that the president did not check the box on the War Powers Act before sending the US military to intervene in Libya.

Actually, I think Boehner’s the one being forced to make a decision. Dennis Kucinich recently introduced a resolution demanding immediate withdrawal from the Libya coalition; the GOP leadership had to scramble to yank it from the floor before a vote yesterday when it started to look like the thing might actually pass. The new plan, I thought, was to offer a watered-down resolution by Republican Michael Turner and 63 co-sponsors stating that the House “does not approve” of the mission, but I guess even that’s a bridge too far for GOP strategists. Operations in Libya remain popular-ish with the public thanks to the war’s small footprint and lack of media coverage, and Republicans are probably worried after the Bin Laden raid about ceding too much of their cred among hawks to Obama ahead of the election. Hence Boehner’s resolution, which frames congressional opposition as procedural rather than substantive. He’s not saying the GOP disapproves of the mission, just that it disapproves of the way Obama’s handled it legally under the War Powers Act. It’s a punt, in other words, not unlike how The One punted recently on this issue by asking for a resolution of congressional support but not a formal authorization of the mission under the WPA. Hot potato!

One slight flaw in Boehner’s plan, though: Isn’t the choice presented by his resolution an easy call for Obama? He’s not going to be cowed by the House into pulling out of the mission, especially given the defections in Qaddafi’s military lately and new pressures on the regime. He’ll call Boehner’s bluff and formally request authorization, knowing that any House resolution that passes will deadlock in the Senate anyway. Before the Bin Laden raid, I might have thought he’d be leery of letting Congress challenge his authority as C-in-C by risking a “no” vote, but post-OBL, even if the House votes no in bipartisan fashion, it won’t do him much harm. He’ll cite the fact that there hasn’t been a single American casualty in Libya, that Qaddafi’s own cronies are starting to abandon him, etc, and then this will drop off the media radar. But at least it’ll change the topic for the GOP from Medicare for a few days. Small victories, right?

Exit question: What if Boehner’s resolution passes and Obama simply ignores it, or sends back a letter reminding him that the House is free to vote on authorization or deauthorization without a formal presidential request? What’s the GOP’s move then?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Good.

Better late than never.

portlandon on June 2, 2011 at 9:22 PM

Exit question: What if Boehner’s resolution passes and Obama simply ignores it, or sends back a letter reminding him that the House is free to vote on authorization or deauthorization without a formal presidential request? What’s the GOP’s move then?

Impeachment proceedings.

portlandon on June 2, 2011 at 9:22 PM

Dennis Kucinich recently introduced a resolution demanding immediate withdrawal from the Libya coalition; the GOP leadership had to scramble to yank it from the floor before a vote yesterday when it started to look like the thing might actually pass.

Why did they yank it?

itsnotaboutme on June 2, 2011 at 9:23 PM

Next move? Is impeachment possible in this situation?

Eh, who am I kidding, the GOP will roll over no matter what.

Bishop on June 2, 2011 at 9:23 PM

What if Boehner’s resolution passes and Obama simply ignores it, or sends back a letter reminding him that the House is free to vote on authorization or deauthorization without a formal presidential request? What’s the GOP’s move then?

deauthorize it, of course…

equanimous on June 2, 2011 at 9:26 PM

Forcing his hand…awesome

thebrokenrattle on June 2, 2011 at 9:26 PM

I blame Gaddafi . He didn’t get the message.
Days not weeks.

Electrongod on June 2, 2011 at 9:26 PM

I had read that Boehner said the President was not technically in violation of the war powers act. I put a note on my calendar first thing in the morning to call the Speakers office in D.C. and fill me in on the details of that technicality.

AndrewsDad on June 2, 2011 at 9:26 PM

Impeachment would be nice, yes.

Instructing DoD that Congress has not budgeted them for a military conflict in Libya and that spending for that is illegal under the War Powers act without an authorization from Congress and that they are to stop all operations in Libya without such authorization… that’s the other.

The first might be dicey.

The second will get attention.

ajacksonian on June 2, 2011 at 9:29 PM

Dennis Kucinich recently introduced a resolution demanding immediate withdrawal from the Libya coalition; the GOP leadership had to scramble to yank it from the floor before a vote yesterday when it started to look like the thing might actually pass.

That sounds just like something Pelosi would do. I didn’t think she was still Speaker with a majority.

Cheshire Cat on June 2, 2011 at 9:30 PM

Why bother? We’re not even involved anymore.

Tony737 on June 2, 2011 at 9:30 PM

; the GOP leadership had to scramble to yank it from the floor before a vote yesterday when it started to look like the thing might actually pass.

Why did they yank it?

itsnotaboutme on June 2, 2011 at 9:23 PM

They were worried that it might pass

darwin-t on June 2, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Dennis Kucinich recently introduced a resolution demanding immediate withdrawal from the Libya coalition; the GOP leadership had to scramble to yank it from the floor before a vote yesterday when it started to look like the thing might actually pass.

Why would they do that?

Wouldn’t it make more sense for them to support the legislation and force the Democrats to either vote against it or back it, both of which works well for the Republicans?

sharrukin on June 2, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Good grief, Nancy Pelosi is feeling her oats. I just heard in the news at the top of the hours, the Minority Leader weighing in on the issue. She said that Speaker Boehner is wrong to bring the issue before the House because the Libyan mission is important to the stability of the region. How, pray tell, is that so? Could she tell us in 25 or 50 words or less what our mission is and how it stabilizes the region?

I didn’t think so.

onlineanalyst on June 2, 2011 at 9:33 PM

They were worried that it might pass

darwin-t on June 2, 2011 at 9:32 PM

What was in it that was so bothersome?

sharrukin on June 2, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Now these pinheads are getting it. We have no business in Libya, and should get our asses out of there.

Chudi on June 2, 2011 at 9:34 PM

He’s not saying the GOP disapproves of the mission, just that it disapproves of the way Obama’s handled it legally under the War Powers Act.

Well if the GOP doesn’t disprove of helping a bunch of al Queda tied muslims who are for sharia law and who are killing non-muslims (mostly black non-muslims btw)then they are no better than Obama.

HalJordan on June 2, 2011 at 9:35 PM

Why would they do that?

Wouldn’t it make more sense for them to support the legislation and force the Democrats to either vote against it or back it, both of which works well for the Republicans?

sharrukin on June 2, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Because that would mean that they are playing games with the lives of our soldiers. Even a drama queen supporter should get that.

Chudi on June 2, 2011 at 9:35 PM

“… but I guess even that’s a bridge too far for GOP strategists.”

I watched that movie over the Memorial Day Weekend…

… Why do I think that our GOP strategists will come to the same fate?

Seven Percent Solution on June 2, 2011 at 9:35 PM

What was in it that was so bothersome?

sharrukin on June 2, 2011 at 9:33 PM

It was a challenge to the WH and Boehner doesn’t have the boehner for that.

darwin-t on June 2, 2011 at 9:36 PM

Wouldn’t it make more sense for them to support the legislation and force the Democrats to either vote against it or back it, both of which works well for the Republicans?

sharrukin on June 2, 2011 at 9:32 PM

I wondered the same thing, but odds are that Qaddafi will lose this – ultimately. Better – I think – that we use the opportunity to highlight the imperial presidency. I mean, it’s a great question: beyond 60 days, does the president actually have the authority to thumb his nose at the peoples’ representatives? Or does he just get to do as he pleases?

That point is like worth the highlight.

beatcanvas on June 2, 2011 at 9:38 PM

….wasn’t this supposed to happen a week or so ago? What happened?

Bee on June 2, 2011 at 9:38 PM

It was a challenge to the WH and Boehner doesn’t have the boehner for that.

darwin-t on June 2, 2011 at 9:36 PM

So he’s actually protecting Obama with this and extending the Seinfeldian Mission About Nothing? Great!

sharrukin on June 2, 2011 at 9:38 PM

Boehner lasted all of 6 weeks in the Navy.

HalJordan on June 2, 2011 at 9:39 PM

Why would they do that?

Wouldn’t it make more sense for them to support the legislation and force the Democrats to either vote against it or back it, both of which works well for the Republicans?

sharrukin on June 2, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Because that is how the system WORKS: anything you want to spend money on in the government must be authorized by Congress.

It doesn’t matter if it is paperclips or wars, without Congressional approval in the budget, in writing, you can’t do it. Presidential discretion is limited. If Congress tells the DoD to stop cutting the checks then DoD is to do so… because THEIR check can be stopped if they don’t.

Following the CinC is one thing.

Going against Congress that funds you is something else, again, and against the military code. If you are running the DoD would you really like to start seeing Courts Martial revving up due to Libya?

What part of ‘following an illegal order’ isn’t clear, here?

ajacksonian on June 2, 2011 at 9:39 PM

He probably cried too much.

HalJordan on June 2, 2011 at 9:39 PM

If you are running the DoD would you really like to start seeing Courts Martial revving up due to Libya?

What part of ‘following an illegal order’ isn’t clear, here?

ajacksonian on June 2, 2011 at 9:39 PM

For that to happen the military top brass would have to take their oath to the U.S. Constitution seriously, and they don’t.

HalJordan on June 2, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Interesting….Hopey “COWBOY’D UP”,

“Warrior In Chief”!!

canopfor on June 2, 2011 at 9:42 PM

What part of ‘following an illegal order’ isn’t clear, here?

ajacksonian on June 2, 2011 at 9:39 PM

What the hell does your post have to do with which form of legislation they use? Dennis Kucinich introduced one and so did Boehner. The question is why did they get rid of Kucinich’s?

sharrukin on June 2, 2011 at 9:43 PM

For that to happen the military top brass would have to take their oath to the U.S. Constitution seriously, and they don’t.

HalJordan on June 2, 2011 at 9:41 PM

No, but they take their FUNDING seriously.

Believe me on that… it is the last thing any part of DoD ever wants to even think about and they are not going to cross the Rubicon for Obama.

ajacksonian on June 2, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Test

SouthernGent on June 2, 2011 at 9:46 PM

What the hell does your post have to do with which form of legislation they use? Dennis Kucinich introduced one and so did Boehner. The question is why did they get rid of Kucinich’s?

sharrukin on June 2, 2011 at 9:43 PM

Congress must SPECIFICALLY authorize the Libyan expedition or DoD can’t spend money on it.

The WPA is an authorization mechanism, not a withdrawal mechanism.

Without authorization from CONGRESS under the WPA the President has limited discretionary spending for military conflicts.

That is why it is called ‘War Powers Act’: war is a power that must get authorization. That is why Congress made it, so as to yank funding from unauthorized expeditions.

ajacksonian on June 2, 2011 at 9:46 PM

Anyone else notice the irony of Obowma 2012 ads in the Hot Air banner…?

Seven Percent Solution on June 2, 2011 at 9:47 PM

It would be so much easier being President of China.

KMC1 on June 2, 2011 at 9:51 PM

That is why it is called ‘War Powers Act’: war is a power that must get authorization. That is why Congress made it, so as to yank funding from unauthorized expeditions.

ajacksonian on June 2, 2011 at 9:46 PM

So they are extending the mission in Libya by authorizing funds for it which is what I said. If Boehner is against the Libyan mission then he should back the Kucinich legislation forcing Obama to leave. If he backs the Libyan mission he should say so and stop playing games.

sharrukin on June 2, 2011 at 9:52 PM

What if Boehner’s resolution passes and Obama simply ignores it, or sends back a letter reminding him that the House is free to vote on authorization or deauthorization without a formal presidential request? What’s the GOP’s move then?

good point. POTUS can rhetort with, “So what? y’all got any gum?”

ted c on June 2, 2011 at 9:55 PM

Heres Hutchinsons Resolution,back in April!
——————————————–

Press Releases Media
**********************

April 14, 2011
ENSIGN, HUTCHISON RESOLUTION DECLARES LIBYA NOT IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST
********************
********************

Washington, D.C. –Senators John Ensign (R-NV) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) today introduced a resolution that would declare that the United States has no vital interest in Libya. The resolution would also assert that Congress has not authorized military force in the region, contrary to what the Administration says.

“As the situation in Libya has played out, I have been asking questions of this Administration as to what our role is and will be in the region,” said Ensign. “These questions have not been adequately addressed by either President Obama or his cabinet members. For this reason and because the Senate has yet to fully debate this issue, I believe that the Senate needs to pass this resolution declaring that our country has no vital interest in Libya so that we can get our servicemen and –women out of there once and for all.”

“The president should never commit our military forces to battle unless there is a vital national security interest at stake and without authorization from Congress. The conflict in Libya does not meet this test,” said Sen. Hutchison. “With our forces providing the leadership for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, our NATO allies and the Arab league, which do have vital interests in Libya, should bear the major share of the costs and the burden for future operations there.”

The resolution does three things: declares that there is no vital U.S.-American interest in Libya; states that Congress has not authorized military power in the region; declares that the NATO allies and Arab nations that do have a vital interest in the region step up their military and financial contributions. Passage of this resolution by the Senate would express its disapproval of the handling of this intervention and serve as a warning against deeper military involvement in a conflict that does not affect our vital interests.

To read Senator Ensign and Senator Hutchison’s Resolution,
—*click here.
=============

112TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION S. RES. ll
************************

Expressing the sense of the Senate that it is not in the vital interests
of the United States to intervene militarily in Libya, calling on NATO
to ensure that member states dedicate the resources necessary to ensure
that objectives as outlined in United Nations Resolutions 1970 and
1973 are accomplished, and to urge members of the Arab League who
have yet to participate in operations over Libya to provide additional
military and financial assistance.
===================================

The (PDF)is a SECURE DOCUMENT,you have too click on the
link,to access it,I copy/pasted a bit above!

**To read Senator Ensign and Senator Hutchison’s Resolution, click here.(At the bottom of the Press Relesae
thingy)

http://ensign.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Media.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=55bfb410-0527-a803-1132-20fd6ee53faa

canopfor on April 18, 2011 at 8:08 PM

canopfor on June 2, 2011 at 9:57 PM

So they are extending the mission in Libya by authorizing funds for it which is what I said. If Boehner is against the Libyan mission then he should back the Kucinich legislation forcing Obama to leave. If he backs the Libyan mission he should say so and stop playing games.

sharrukin on June 2, 2011 at 9:52 PM

Boehner needs to call the people cutting the checks for the expedition… that requires all of one phone call. Then a follow-up to GSA.

They don’t need to pass anything to stop funding that is illegal. Just tell the people to stop spending the money or it comes from their paycheck, next. And, yes, each and every single person cutting those checks must be authorized by Congress to do so… getting that yanked from you means you don’t spend the money any more.

Notice how this works?

If Obama wants to continue he must ask for permission.

If Boehner wants it ended, it is a couple of phone calls to remind everyone who authorizes the funding and that there are serious problems with trying to fund something illegally with federal funds. Things get very nasty, very quickly, and no need to talk to Dennis the Menace.

ajacksonian on June 2, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Dire? Dire? Where are you, Dire?

predator on June 2, 2011 at 10:01 PM

I don’t know what the big deal is.

These are NATO troops, not American troops

:/

cntrlfrk on June 2, 2011 at 10:03 PM

If Boehner wants it ended, it is a couple of phone calls to remind everyone who authorizes the funding and that there are serious problems with trying to fund something illegally with federal funds. Things get very nasty, very quickly, and no need to talk to Dennis the Menace.

ajacksonian on June 2, 2011 at 10:01 PM

I agree with this, but Boehner isn’t serious here. He’s not making those calls and for all intents he seems to be willing to back the Libyan adventure and is running interference with Obama’s own party by short-circuiting Kucinich’s legislation. Why is he carrying Obama’s water on this? Let Obama face Kucinich’s bill and vote for it, or against it. Why bury the legislation?

sharrukin on June 2, 2011 at 10:09 PM

He’ll {Obama} cite the fact that there hasn’t been a single American casualty in Libya…

That’s a “yet.”

GrannyDee on June 2, 2011 at 10:20 PM

Dire? Dire? Where are you, Dire?

predator on June 2, 2011 at 10:01 PM

I’m here!..:)

Dire Straits on June 2, 2011 at 10:38 PM

(Grrrr, I hope that the ObaMao campaign is paying HotAir big bucks for those ads. I cannot abide that self-satisfied grin much longer.)

As you were…

onlineanalyst on June 2, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Boehner, you are a f’n idiot that needs to step down.

If you can’t call for Treason on half the democratic party (treason as defined that is) then you need to GTFO and STFU.

Treason, as defined, can be applied to 75% of the Democrat party and 90% of the liberal media.

MadDogF on June 2, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Exit question: What if Boehner’s resolution passes and Obama simply ignores it, or sends back a letter reminding him that the House is free to vote on authorization or deauthorization without a formal presidential request? What’s the GOP’s move then?

….why not demand that we pull out since Obama continuously is stating that we have taken a back seat.

Obama has misled the country about why we are in Libya…
………he has not stated exactly what the mission is for…how it is beneficial to the US…. what the end game is….or how much it is costing.

We should get answers to all of these questions before continuing Obama’s Libyan adventure.

….For one thing…Obama has shifted the mission as time has gone by.

Let’s start with this:

Obama:

Let me be clear…again…about our policy…which is determined by me….the President of the United States………….

Obama March 11, 2011

…okay…..let’s take a look at the only little bit of policy that Obama has even talked about:

When Obama was against war and running for President…he insisted that humanitarian reasons were not enough of a reason to use military force and that any force that was used…needed Congressional approval.

” the AP reported on July 20, 2007 (my italics). withdrawal would unleash a massive Iraqi bloodbath. “Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep US forces there,” the AP reported on July 20, 2007 (my italics).

…and of course this gem………..

Obama:

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.

…now that has gone the way of the anti-war movement….it’s okay as long as a democrat is doing it.

Then after more than a week…Obama’s rational for not getting Congressional approval falls flat:


…White House on why Obama did not get Congressional Authorization:

Carney said that if Obama had waited for lawmakers to return from a recess next week, events could have overtaken plans for a no-fly zone and many civilians could have been killed.
“There was an urgency to act here,” he said.
“Had (Obama) waited for Congress to come back, had he taken more time to debate and consult on this issue, I think there is very little doubt that Benghazi would have fallen and many people (would have) died.”

…now remember…Obama was filling NCAA brackets…Golfing….and campaigning before he launched this war from the beaches in Rio…..
………… what pathetic spin to claim “he did not have time to consult Congress”

…Then Obama tells us that we have taken a back seat and that NATO is in charge so Congressional approval is not needed….
..of course this goes 100% against what he stated as a Presidential candidate and also the statement that we are in the “back seat”…is a flat out lie:

President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.

…since we have the most Soldiers and hardware in Libya…that must be one he!! of a back seat Obama is talking about:

Nato operations in Libya: data journalism breaks down which country does what

How much is each Nato country contributing to operations in Libya? Here’s the most comprehensive analysis yet of who is doing what
•http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/22/nato-libya-data-journalism-operations-country#

What it shows is that, besides the US – which dominates operations with over 8,000 personnel in the area in several ships and aircraft at the peak of the first weeks of the war

..now other countries might have taken the lead in sorties and bombing now…that is only after we bombarded Libya in the beginning and still provide to this day the foundation of this mission.

….but all of this ends up being nothing more a distraction since the Obama administration declares that they would go ahead without Congressional approval.

The White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a classified briefing to House members Wednesday afternoon.


….Obama sure has come a long way from declaring just a few years ago how important it was to go to the American people and Congress before taking military action……

……of course this clown circus going on at the White House probably had a lot to do with the fact Obama had no idea what he was doing in the first place:


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Friday about the immediate future of Libya: ‘We don’t know what the outcome will be.’

Western leaders acknowledged, though, that there was no endgame beyond the immediate United Nations authorization to protect Libyan civilians, and it was uncertain that even military strikes would force Colonel Qaddafi from power.

 

……Well okay then…let’s do it anyway!!!!

Hey Pentagon!!…is there anyway to do this on the cheap and without boot on the ground???????

The White House wanted the Pentagon to come up with a low-cost regime-change plan for Libya. Ideally, this strategy would have toppled Col. Muammar Gaddafi without bogging the U.S. down in another inconclusive foreign adventure. And by no means could the plan have included young American infantrymen advancing under fire across the sand.
The military kept insisting that no such option existed. A real regime-change operation, some officers argued, requires “boots on the ground.” That was a cost the White House, given rising domestic pressure to bring the troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq, was unwilling to consider.
In long meetings and email exchanges, arguments over strategic details often led to more serious disagreements, the official told The Huffington Post. The White House thought the Pentagon was disrespecting the president by refusing to propose a politically acceptable action plan, while the Pentagon became furious that White House officials didn’t “seem to understand what military force can and cannot do,” the official said.

Well…..let’s do it anyway and see what happens….

Then we get the “it’s all about the civilians….we are not pursuing regime change”…..

and second, that to have acted alone or expanded the military mission to topple Qaddafi would have been too costly and repeated the mistakes of the Iraq War.

Nevertheless he cautioned: “But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.”

….but now we get this…..


This week the military mission in Libya changed. Now it’s all about regime change.
The New York Times reported:

President Obama has subtly shifted Washington’s public explanation of its goals in Libya, declaring now that he wants to assure the Libyan people are “finally free of 40 years of tyranny” at the hands of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, after first stating he wanted to protect civilians from massacres.

….that would be “regime change”…..

……So far the Obama administration has shown a consistency of ignorance and blatant hypocrisy in every move with Libya.

…..So even after we spend billions of dollars and months trying to topple Qaddafi…we still have no idea what will fill the power vacuum there…or we could simply look at the Rebels and what is happening in Egypt/Yemen to get a good idea:

Al Qaeda to Obama: Thanks
Toppling Arab governments feeds Islamist revolution

Al Qaeda central’s views are detailed in the latest issue of their English-language propaganda magazine Inspire, which features a special section on “The Revolution.” American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki writes in an essay entitled “The Tsunami of Change” that, “Our mujahideen brothers in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and the rest of the Muslim world will get a chance to breathe again after three decades of suffocation. For the scholars and activists of Egypt to be able to speak again freely, it would represent a great leap forward for the mujahideen.”
Al Qaeda has always recognized that the greatest obstacles to jihadist progress in the Middle East were what they call the “apostate regimes,” the generally pro-Western kings and authoritarian rulers who have kept a lid on violent extremists like al Qaeda and other groups. As these regimes totter and fall, the conditions are being created for the kind of radical change the Islamists have been working towards for decades.

Gitmo alumnus, two other Islamists at head of Libya’s rebellion?

Two former Afghan Mujahedeen and a six-year detainee at Guantanamo Bay have stepped to the fore of this city’s military campaign, training new recruits for the front and to protect the city from infiltrators loyal to Col. Moammar Gadhafi.


Libyan Rebels to Reporter: “Now Is the Time of Jihad!”

“We were at Benghazi with many other volunteers. From there, we are at Ajdabiya, the center of the Jihad.”


Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.

Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but added that the “members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader”.

The GOP needs to demand serious answers from Obama and a plan on Libya before continuing Sgt. Barrack’s war.

“Days not Weeks!!!!
!”

Baxter Greene on June 2, 2011 at 11:19 PM

I’d like to see the War Powers Act go down, actually. So that when we have a Republican President again, and another major and real threat comes along, she won’t have to go crawling to congress for a ‘please excuse the President, she needs to fight a war’ note.

starboardhelm on June 2, 2011 at 11:24 PM

Link:

Nato operations in Libya: data journalism breaks down which country does what
How much is each Nato country contributing to operations in Libya? Here’s the most comprehensive analysis yet of who is doing what
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/22/nato-libya-data-journalism-operations-country

Baxter Greene on June 2, 2011 at 11:25 PM

Baxter Greene on June 2, 2011 at 11:25 PM

Nice post Friend..Come on to the QOTD thread!..:)

Dire Straits on June 3, 2011 at 12:36 AM

What’s the GOP’s move then?

Put it in the campaign quiver…Obama won’t follow the constitution or the laws of the land, he’s a “maverick”…

right2bright on June 3, 2011 at 1:22 AM

I have a theory. The Pax Americana is over. So how do I prove it? What metrics do I use to prove that it is over? This is the burning geo-political question running through my mind. I can’t say that I have it all figured out but I can recognize a road sign along the way. This is one of them. The odds of Congress continuing kinetic whatevers in Libya is slim and none, and slim just left town. Obama will have to wind it down. This is a significant shift in foreign policy. A Republican forced military withdrawal. This sets a new precedent. If our interests are not clearly served then we do not need to be there.

This new philosophy will permeate the American culture and questions will be asked, Ron Paul like questions. Why are we in Europe? Why are we in Libya? (That is Sarkosy’s oil not ours) Footing the bill for security far afield will only be used to blunt other powers or serve our interests. Europe can field their own Army, Navy and Marine Corps. The idea that they are getting a free ride form us will be commonplace. “Spend some of that welfare money.” The saying will go.

Pax Americana will be replaced with Pay Americana. If it doesn’t pay we won’t be there. Sure a few aid ships for an ally in a natural disaster. Another Libya? Please. Better call Norway. I’m sure their aerial refueling fleet can take of all your airstrike needs. The left of Europe will finally get the America they think they wanted. When their countries have to ramp up military spending and deal with a North Africa , Middle East, and Iran boiling over with fundamentalism they’ll remember the Cold War fondly.

Theworldisnotenough on June 3, 2011 at 1:47 AM

What’s the GOP’s move then?

Force him to withdraw, period. Boenher is a bit of a punk-ass. Vote with some principles.

Theworldisnotenough on June 3, 2011 at 1:49 AM

I think I am close to numb.

The transgressive nature of the 0bama presidency has been so stark and unprecedented, with no real legal pushback at all
(cf. 0bamacare ruled illegal, Gulf moratorium ruled illegal, etc., etc.)

I am so tired that there is nothing to do but wait for November 2012. And if he wins, then … the abyss.

Our courts have failed us by not enforcing prohibitions on 0bama’s illegal actions.

Our congress has failed us by not enforcing prohibitions on 0bama’s illegal actions.

Our news media has failed us by not reporting on 0bama’s illegal actions.

The world’s view of America’s adherence to honest principles is being destroyed by this unquestionably ILLEGAL and TREASONOUS war in Libya.

Every single person who votes for 0bama in 2012 is voting, wittingly or not, for the continued, inexorable, destruction of America.

I never thought I’d say this, but, yes, bring back the poll tax. Bring back the literacy tests. Restrict the voting pool. Ban ballots in foreign languages. Check all IDs. People dependent on the government for a certain percentage of their income may not vote.

If we do not do this, America is LOST.

cane_loader on June 3, 2011 at 4:05 AM

Due to voter neglect, too busy playing Xbox and watching American Idol, we are one scant whisker shy of Fascism.

Right here, right now, in the United States of America.

0bama is a Fascist.

No other president comes close.

Mussolini, in charge of a bigger country, but the trains don’t run on time.

cane_loader on June 3, 2011 at 4:11 AM

When hasn’t this GOP leadership punted on everything? They are the biggest bunch of candyasses in the world! Put Paul Ryan in a Speaker and get someone who is will to stand up for this country to do the job.

flytier on June 3, 2011 at 6:32 AM

Exit question:

bloody infuriating…he’s getting away with this crapola….nan and harry would be all over the networks crying foul, why can’t the gop????

cmsinaz on June 3, 2011 at 7:17 AM

Impeachement?

I can hear Jesse and Al already threatening a long -hot-summer. You cannot -repeat cannot – impeach an African-American messiah. Why do you think they put him up there in the first place – when they had a lot of other Marxists eager to take America down? He’s invincible -but not
unbeatable -go Sarah!

The truth shall set us free.

Don L on June 3, 2011 at 7:39 AM

Here we go again: Why is it so difficult for Congress (particularly conservatives) to wrap their heads around the Bolton doctrine?

“First, we must reverse course now and declare regime change to be our objective… Second, because Libya’s opposition leadership is still inchoate at best, we must identify anti-Gadhafi figures who are pro-Western and find ways, overt or covert, to strengthen their hands.”

Kaddafi has publicly VOWED to resume targeting civilian airliners.

Does any serious person doubt the sincerity of Kaddafi’s vow? Do you honestly imagine he will not attempt to “settle scores“? Are you willing to put innocent Americans’ lives at risk on some conceit that Kaddafi isn’t as evil as al-Qaedists like al-Awlaki?

Wake up, hand-wringers. The clock is now ticking, again.

If Americans learned anything from 9/11, it’s that we can’t afford to wait for terrorists to follow through on their threats.

America now has a duty to bring Kaddafi to justice; or justice to Kaddafi.

I don’t much care whether Kaddafi meets a Predator drone or Mussolini’s fate on a meat-hook. But Kaddafi (personally) must answer for his actions.

Mark these words: Anything short of a Kaddafi dirt-nap will be a grave mistake.

Terp Mole on June 3, 2011 at 9:48 AM

He’ll cite the fact that there hasn’t been a single American casualty in Libya, that Qaddafi’s own cronies are starting to abandon him, etc,

I just read the War Powers Act, and it doesn’t say anything about US casualties, defections or public thinking. In other words, it doesn’t give either the President or Congress an option to ignore its requirements if “its going well”.

Here’s a crazy thought: If its “going well”, why doesn’t the WH or Congress make it official by authorizing military action in Libya?

Both sides of this issue are simply playing politics with the lives of US soldiers and Libyan civilians. And that is just awful.

BobMbx on June 3, 2011 at 10:01 AM

“Days not Weeks!!!!!”

Baxter Greene on June 2, 2011 at 11:19 PM

That depends on what the definition of “day” is.

BobMbx on June 3, 2011 at 10:05 AM

Actually, I think Boehner’s the one being forced to make a decision. Dennis Kucinich recently introduced a resolution demanding immediate withdrawal from the Libya coalition; the GOP leadership had to scramble to yank it from the floor before a vote yesterday when it started to look like the thing might actually pass.

What? Why pull it?
Should have let it go for a vote and let it pass. What would have been the problem?

bridgetown on June 3, 2011 at 10:06 AM

About freakin’ time!

And, while we’re at it . . . why are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan? There are lots of places that need our help more than these folks.

Pablo Snooze on June 3, 2011 at 10:21 AM

About.Damn.Time.

roy_batty on June 3, 2011 at 10:29 AM

He’s forcing him to make a decision.

Yeah, right. Just like the judges he ignores.

Big John on June 3, 2011 at 12:50 PM

blink drooled: “Seriously, you’re worse than Nixon.”

Thanks. I certainly hope so.

Terp Mole on June 3, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Funny how different War Powers looks from either side of the aisle.

I’m not a fan of the War Powers Act. It’s not the constitutional approach, in my view (and yes, I’m WELL aware of the various arguments on the topic).

It tries to kind of defuse a legislative check on the executive that should actually remain incendiary, and should require either a crisis of government or a resolution through negotiation and compromise between the branches.

A president can’t operate effectively if he’s got the War Powers Act hanging over him. But Congress does have the power to undercut his policies, if it’s willing to go nuclear with the power of the purse. There should be no easier way than that to do it.

This won’t be resolved during Obama’s tenure, any more than it was in any presidency since Nixon’s. This isn’t the smartest thing Boehner has done, but it probably won’t go anywhere.

I think the way Obama is handling the KMA in Libya is execrable, both strategically and operationally. McCain is right; this could have been over two months ago. But with the defection of Russia from his “sovereignty” cause, Qaddafi is on the run now. Boehner should watch and wait for now.

J.E. Dyer on June 3, 2011 at 3:29 PM