Pawlenty: Obama’s right, the War Powers Act doesn’t apply to Libya

posted at 6:04 pm on June 28, 2011 by Allahpundit

A nugget from the Q&A following his speech on the Middle East today. I can’t find a transcript or video, so The Hill’s account will have to do:

GOP presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty said Tuesday that the War Powers Act “does not apply” to the U.S. intervention in Libya, but that he would have consulted with Congress anyway if he had launched the mission as president.

During a question-and-answer session following a speech on foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, Pawlenty said that he would confer with members of Congress “as a courtesy and gesture of respect,” but that he does not believe congressional authorization would be required for such a mission…

Even though the ex-governor distinguished himself from Congress on war powers, he sought to assuage concerns that he would not work in concert with lawmakers on similar issues.

He’ll consult with the legislature, just to be a stand-up guy, but he’s conspicuously silent about seeking their approval. In which case, is he saying that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional and therefore no war requires congressional authorization, or is he saying that it is constitutional but this war doesn’t require authorization? I can understand if it’s the former insofar as he’s a would-be executive seeking to maximize his warmaking prerogative and a would-be nominee seeking to define himself as the true hawk in an increasingly dovish field. But in that case, someone really needs to press him on what he thinks Article I means when it grants Congress the power to declare war. If instead he means merely that the WPA doesn’t apply to Libya, then I’m anxious to hear why he thinks this war merits some special exemption. He’s not going to make the White House’s lame “this doesn’t rise to the level of ‘hostilities’” argument, is he? Because The One’s legal lackeys tried that at a Senate hearing again today and it … didn’t go so well:

“You’ve said the United Nations has authorized this and there is no need for Congress to act,” Corker told State Department legal adviser Harold Koh at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Libya and the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

That’s a “cute argument,” Corker added. “You’ve undermined the credibility of this administration, undermined the integrity of the War Powers Act, and by taking this very narrow approach, you’ve done a great disservice to our country.”

Corker’s attack came during a hearing examining whether the Vietnam-era War Powers Resolution applies to the United States’s role in the three-month-old Libya conflict. Koh and Obama, a constitutional law professor, have argued that America’s limited operations in Libya – which include airstrikes, drone attacks, refueling and intelligence, but no troops on the ground – do not constitute “hostilities” contemplated under the resolution.

By that reasoning, Corker said, U.S. drones could drop a nuclear bomb on Tripoli and it would not amount to “hostilities.”

Watch the end of the clip below for a taste of the pure, well-justified disdain on display from Corker, especially when he notes how convenient it is that no lawyers from the DOJ or Pentagon were sent to testify. I wonder why. As for T-Paw, here’s the transcript of his speech laying out a four-tiered approach to the new Middle East. It’s not long and it’s packed with red meat about Obama’s antipathy to Israel and the new GOP’s antipathy to interventionism. (“America already has one political party devoted to decline, retrenchment, and withdrawal. It does not need a second one.”) The part that jumped out at me:

US-Saudi relations are at an all-time low—and not primarily because of the Arab Spring. They were going downhill fast, long before the uprisings began. The Saudis saw an American Administration yearning to engage Iran—just at the time they saw Iran, correctly, as a mortal enemy.

We need to tell the Saudis what we think, which will only be effective if we have a position of trust with them. We will develop that trust by demonstrating that we share their great concern about Iran and that we are committed to doing all that is necessary to defend the region from Iranian aggression.

At the same time, we need to be frank about what the Saudis must do to insure stability in their own country. Above all, they need to reform and open their society. Their treatment of Christians and other minorities, and their treatment of women, is indefensible and must change.

We know that reform will come to Saudi Arabia—sooner and more smoothly if the royal family accepts and designs it. It will come later and with turbulence and even violence if they resist. The vast wealth of their country should be used to support reforms that fit Saudi history and culture—but not to buy off the people as a substitute for lasting reform.

My understanding of recent U.S./Saudi relations must be screwy because I thought the big wedge came when Obama suddenly turned against their mutual ally, Hosni Mubarak, after 30 years of serving U.S. interests. T-Paw’s playing up O’s “yearning” to engage Iran to frame him as a weak leader with a broken moral compass, but U.S./Iran relations have been overwhelmingly hostile ever since the Green Revolution made dialogue impossible. Remember Stuxnet, for example? Remember the umpteenth round of sanctions that were applied? I don’t think the Saudis doubt that we’re “greatly concerned” about the mullahs. If they have a big complaint about The One, it’s that he thinks way more highly of political reform as a cure for the region’s ills than they do, a trait he apparently shares with, er, Tim Pawlenty. As for nudging the royals to “support reforms that fit Saudi history and culture,” I can’t begin to imagine what those “reforms” would look like given that the undercurrents of Saudi history and culture are precisely what the royals are afraid of. We tinkered with the Egyptian revolution and here’s where that’s at these days. As repulsive as many of the Kingdom’s policies are, what happens when we tinker there too?

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

Comment pages: 1 2

“On Saturday, President Obama while visiting Brazil launched a United Nations war without obtaining Congressional approval. We all must remember how the left crucified President George W. Bush over a 9 month debate concerning war with Iraq. This debate included multiple UN Resolutions and a Multi-National Force composed of dozens of nations. Many refer to this time of debate as a “rush to war.” Yesterday however, President Obama approved the launch of Tomahawk missiles effectively engaging us in a Libyan civil war. This decision came with no debate in Congress and one UN Resolution that was only voted on 48 hours before.”

HalJordan on June 28, 2011 at 7:33 PM

So, Tom Woods, anti-war zealot and Paultard, uses the 1794 Naval Act and dishonestly spins it to make it the supposed ‘congressional approval for the First Barbary War Jefferson launched in 1801.

How does he do it? By Cut/Paste from the 1794 Naval Act adding his own commentary to link it to the 1801 Barbar War

Intellectual Dishonesty on display:

Immediately prior to Jefferson’s inauguration in 1801, Congress passed naval legislation that, among other things, provided for six frigates that ‘shall be officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct.’ … In the event of a declaration of war on the United States by the Barbary powers, these ships were to ‘protect our commerce & chastise their insolence — by sinking, burning or destroying their ships & Vessels wherever you shall find them.’”[14]

Tom Woods is a disgrace and like his ally RuPaul, is smearing the Founding Fathers and the Constitution on a daily basis.

jp on June 28, 2011 at 7:34 PM

GOP presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty said Tuesday that the War Powers Act “does not apply” to the U.S. intervention in Libya, but that he would have consulted with Congress anyway if he had launched the mission as president.

Tough to triangulate using only one vector.

Roy Rogers on June 28, 2011 at 7:37 PM

He’ll consult with the legislature, just to be a stand-up guy, but he’s conspicuously silent about seeking their approval. In which case, is he saying that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional and therefore no war requires congressional authorization, or is he saying that it is constitutional but this war doesn’t require authorization? I can understand if it’s the former insofar as he’s a would-be executive seeking to maximize his warmaking prerogative and a would-be nominee seeking to define himself as the true hawk in an increasingly dovish field. But in that case, someone really needs to press him on what he thinks Article I means when it grants Congress the power to declare war. If instead he means merely that the WPA doesn’t apply to Libya, then I’m anxious to hear why he thinks this war merits some special exemption. He’s not going to make the White House’s lame “this doesn’t rise to the level of ‘hostilities’” argument, is he? Because The One’s legal lackeys tried that at a Senate hearing again today and it … didn’t go so well:

So far as I know we have not had a declaration of war since 1941. Since then we have had military operations in Korea, Viet Nam, Cambodia, the Persian Gulf, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Bosnia, Panama, Honduras, Grenada…and probably a few other places I have not thought of.

So, were all of those operations sanctioned by Congress? And if not, should they have been? It would seem to me that Congress can always make itself heard if it’s authority is being violated.

Terrye on June 28, 2011 at 7:38 PM

This is why Mark Levin called out TOm Woods as so on Facebook on this issue:
Professor Thomas Woods cutting and pasting history for a dogma

jp on June 28, 2011 at 7:39 PM

Hahahahaha…

Sorry Pawlenty, you were one of my top 3 choices.

No longer.

ButterflyDragon on June 28, 2011 at 6:35 PM

As of now I would support Pawlenty, Bachmann, and Perry over Romney any day.

camtheman7 on June 28, 2011 at 7:39 PM

We were in Grenada for YEARS

jp on June 28, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Hostilities lasted less than 60 days. Do you have a coherent argument?

blink on June 28, 2011 at 7:36 PM

Congress accused Reagan of being in violation of the War Powers Act no less than three times, his response was to tell them to go pound sand more or less.

So, has the conservative stand changed? After decades of refusing to acknowledge the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, has the party decided not only to support it but to invoke it? I think that Pawlenty is wise enough to know that someday a Republican president could be on the business end of a liberal Congress and this reversal could set a bad precedent.

Terrye on June 28, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Hostilities lasted less than 60 days. Do you have a coherent argument?

blink on June 28, 2011 at 7:36 PM

yeah, that Congress huff’d and puff’d about Reagan refusing to go to them, passed their own resolution and tried to force Reagan to withdrawal from Grendada and he ignored them, under his Article II powers and removed the troops when he wanted, as Commander in Chief.

Do you have an excuse for relying on dishonest cranks like Tom Woods to mislead you in a major way in regards to the Barbary Wars?

Seriously, citing the 1794 Naval Act, as being just prior to Jeffersons 1801 Inaugaration, whats 7yrs anyway? So the Naval Act 7yrs prior, was all the Authorization Jefferson needed to re-create the Marines and invade North Africa.

LOL

By Woods logic, the same act or say the 2001 AUMF applies to Libya today.

jp on June 28, 2011 at 7:44 PM

lets put it this way. IF and thats a big assed if , if there is video and he did say that , I wont vote for him even if he is the nominee. I will write in Herman Cain.

ColdWarrior57 on June 28, 2011 at 7:44 PM

Rate by “squish” factor:

1. Romney
2. Huntsmann
3. Gingrich
4. Paul
5. Pawlenty
6. Bachmann
7. Santorum
8. Perry
9. Christie
10. Cain
100. Palin

Roy Rogers on June 28, 2011 at 7:44 PM

Seriously blink, how do you trust Ron Paul and Tom Woods when they dishonestly cite the 1794 Naval Act, 7yrs prior to Jeffersons inaugration and claim it was ‘immediately prior”

and that Naval Act, which funded the creation of 6 naval brigades, was the supposed Congressional authorization for Jefferson invaded North Africa with the marines?

LOL

RuPaul and Woods are dishonest because they are anti-war zealots and utopians with an agenda. They don’t even believe in the Constitution and think its a “statist” document

jp on June 28, 2011 at 7:49 PM

This proves Bachman is gaining traction. She’s the “flake”, so he’s trying to stand out from her.

SouthernGent on June 28, 2011 at 7:50 PM

ColdWarrior57 on June 28, 2011 at 7:44 PM

so you wouldn’t vote for Ronald Reagan either? TPaw cited the EXACT 100% position of REagan on Constitutional War powers.

jp on June 28, 2011 at 7:51 PM

That trouble wasn’t valid. Reagan notified congress at the commencement of all hostilities.

With Grenada, congress argued that Reagan’s use of military force didn’t constitute protection of US interests. Reagan argued that it did.

After 60 days, congress argued that Reagan needed their approval to keep troops in Grenada longer. Reagan argued that hostilities had ceased because, you know, hostilities had ceased.

blink on June 28, 2011 at 7:51 PM

This is an absolute total Lie, care to cite all your accusations….and try not to get duped by Tom Woods again.

jp on June 28, 2011 at 7:52 PM

The Marines are part of the Navy. Congress authorized Jefferson to use the navy in the manner that he intended knowing how he intended to use them. Jefferson used the Marines to invade Tripoli in response to pirate attacks on US flagged merchant vessels. Congress later approved this invasion.

blink on June 28, 2011 at 7:47 PM

So Congress, in 1794 knew Jefferson would be President and want to invade North Africa in 1801?

brilliant, truly brilliant in the Orwellian fashion of LewRockwell.com

jp on June 28, 2011 at 7:54 PM

First Romney, now he is off my list!!

OneConservative on June 28, 2011 at 7:55 PM

I will say it again-
-
Perry / ????? 2012

esblowfeld on June 28, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Last troops left Grenada in 1985, not 1983 like Congress demanded

http://articles.latimes.com/1985-06-12/news/mn-6111_1_american-military-police

jp on June 28, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Buh-bye T-Paw!

EasyEight on June 28, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Go away Pawlenty . . . you’re just another obstacle on the path to defeating Obama and his regime. Pawlenty has become too indoctrinated by his liberal state.

rplat on June 28, 2011 at 9:13 PM

I’ve heard a number of people argue that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional because it interferes with the President’s power as CINC, but that has never made sense to me. The Constitution didn’t contemplate the country having a standing army. War occurred when the Congress declared it and an army was raised and trained. Now we have a military that strives to be ready all the time. The commander in chief has broad powers to direct its efforts, but his ability to launch the nation into war cannot be absolute. We should never send our troops into battle with a divided government behind them.

flataffect on June 28, 2011 at 9:38 PM

John Bolton’s position in the Headlines thread. Pawlenty did a very poor job of explaining that Obama may be Constitutonally correct but politically incompetent.

Getting Congress onboard is not constitutionally required, but it would have been politically prudent. When things get rough, as they have, it’s always good to have an insurance policy. Inexplicably, Obama didn’t, as his political instincts seemed to vanish. Even worse, before the House voted last week, the White House did precious little lobbying to salvage its position

Basilsbest on June 28, 2011 at 9:41 PM

The Saudis should be happy.

Zero waged war on Louisiana and Texas with the Offshore Drilling Ban thus screwing the supply, skyrocketing the price and putting lots of American petroleum workers out of work in the process.

viking01 on June 28, 2011 at 10:37 PM

Obama, a constitutional law professor…

Dork-ass liberal Scott Wong apparently thinks that Obama’s credibility as Commander in Chief is so weak that he needs to exaggerate his academic credentials to support his Libya war position.

Either that or he’s a complete moron.

Update: someone fixed the lie.

Obama, who’s taught constitutional law…

Jaibones on June 28, 2011 at 10:55 PM

Why would the WPA apply to this mission–the liquidation of a foreign head of state by U.S. forces at the bidding of the UK, France, Italk, et al? Pawlenty’s argument that consulting Congress as a courtesy before snuffing Qaddafi is rather quaint and collegial, though.

Christien on June 28, 2011 at 11:27 PM

Good God all of you claiming Reagan did the same thing better take a history lesson. Grenada had butt loads of American students there going to school. Does Libya ? NO, there was a clear threat to their safety. who’s s being threatened in Libya, Libyans. so you cannot equate the 2. jesus educate yourself before you come to a place like this and make a damned fool of yourself. Jumpen Jesus on a pogo stick I hate political hacks. Again if pawlenty said this he has lost any support from me. we don’t need another obummer there..

ColdWarrior57 on June 28, 2011 at 11:38 PM

TPaw,
You are a stupid fellow. You need a serious lesson in foreign policy. There are a bunch of guys you could pick from this website. Come on? Don’t kill your campaign.

antisocial on June 28, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Hollowpoint said T-Paw was “Top Tier”.
Hollowpoint said T-Paw was “Top Tier”.

HP actually said “TOP TIER” after the first debate. Bachmann wasn’t Top Tier according to HP.

Sorry. T-Paw =/= Top Tier.

Geochelone on June 29, 2011 at 12:24 AM

A TPAW THREAD! One thousand postssszzzzzzzzzzz….huh..wha…zzzzzzzzz

BDavis on June 29, 2011 at 12:33 AM

This proves Bachman is gaining traction. She’s the “flake”, so he’s trying to stand out from her.

SouthernGent on June 28, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Can’t wait til Chris Wallace interviews T-Paw…

Gohawgs on June 29, 2011 at 12:36 AM

Can’t wait til Chris Wallace interviews T-Paw…

Gohawgs on June 29, 2011 at 12:36 AM

So, Are you a placebo?

Geochelone on June 29, 2011 at 1:34 AM

Wonderful that we have no one that will stand up to him….Thanks for your insight, Pawlenty…

theaddora on June 29, 2011 at 1:34 AM

So, Are you a placebo?

Geochelone on June 29, 2011 at 1:34 AM

Heh…You’d see lots of hemming and tpawing if I were to interview T-Paw on national TV…

Gohawgs on June 29, 2011 at 1:36 AM

This is why T-Paw won’t win the Republican nomination. He pretends to give the straight truth on issues and yet he flip flops on them.

He attacked Mitt Romney’s health care plan and then backed away from it.

Now this.

T-Paw is the most milquetoast candidate out of all the 2012 candidates.

Conservative Samizdat on June 29, 2011 at 3:33 AM

Conservative Samizdat on June 29, 2011 at 3:33 AM

T-Paw and his “advisors” are trying to reinvent him for the ’12 election, changing long held policy positions/statements…It ain’t working…

Gohawgs on June 29, 2011 at 3:56 AM

Conservative Samizdat on June 29, 2011 at 3:33 AM

How’s it going, CS?…

Gohawgs on June 29, 2011 at 3:58 AM

If he can be this wrong about the Constitution, he’s no longer a candidate I can support in the primaries.

{^_^}

herself on June 29, 2011 at 4:11 AM

Media narrative:

You know who this benefits? Jon Huntsman.

BKennedy on June 29, 2011 at 5:59 AM

T-Paw is the most milquetoast candidate out of all the 2012 candidates.

Conservative Samizdat on June 29, 2011 at 3:33 AM

What’s this guy made of…smoke? Can’t get a handle on him. Tap dancing is entertainment, not politics.

Extrafishy on June 29, 2011 at 6:25 AM

T-Paw seems to be evaporating as a serious candidate.

Too bad, he seems like a fairly solid conservative and a decent guy. But, there are too many self-inflicted wounds lately.

CatoRenasci on June 29, 2011 at 8:10 AM

jp: I’ll stand with Reagan and the founders and not Dennis Kucinich

FLASHBACK Lebanon (9/82): Reagan deploys 1,200 U.S. Marines to Beirut.

President Reagan reported the first deployment without referring to [the War Powers Act], despite a warning from the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the deployment should be reported with specific reference to Section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution.

President Reagan also reported the second deployment without reference to the War Powers Resolution, stating that the Marines would not engage in combat unless attacked.

In June 1983, *Congress passed the Lebanon Emergency Assistance Act of 1983 (P.L. 98-43), requiring statutory authority for the President to significantly expand the number or role of U.S. military personnel in Lebanon. As a result of the continuing War Powers debate, on September 20, 1993, *Congress passed a joint resolution (P.L. 98-119) authorizing the Marines to remain in Lebanon for 18 months. The resolution specifically invoked section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution.

[Note: Reagan was never sanctioned for reporting the deployment and awaiting *Congressional action. I’m with jp, Reagan and the Founders.]

Terp Mole on June 29, 2011 at 8:29 AM

Kaddafi must be comforted watching Ron Paul neo-isolationists and Dennis Kookcynic neo-internationalists twist our Congressional Quislings into his own private mob of terrorism appeasers in DC.

George Soros and Code Pink couldn’t have done better.

Terp Mole on June 29, 2011 at 8:32 AM

I will say it again-
-
Perry / ????? 2012

esblowfeld on June 28, 2011 at 8:01 PM

I really hope Perry gets in the race. He could crush Obama as far as his record with jobs go.

As far as who should be vice president, I would be open to Pawlenty, Bachmann, or Rubio.

camtheman7 on June 29, 2011 at 8:49 AM

Hahahahaha…

Sorry Pawlenty, you were one of my top 3 choices.

No longer.

ButterflyDragon on June 28, 2011 at 6:35 PM

Right now if I had to give my top three I would say:

1. Perry(yes I know he’s not in the race yet.)
2. Tim Pawlenty
3. Michelle Bachmann.

ButterflyDragon who were/are your top 3?

camtheman7 on June 29, 2011 at 8:55 AM

Lets not tear each other apart.

Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?

I seen you ’round for a long long time
I really ‘membered you when you drink my wine

Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?

I seen you walkin’ down in Chinatown
I called you but you could not look around

Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?

I bring my money to the welfare line
I see you standing in it every time

Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?

The color of your skin don’t matter to me
As long as we can live in harmony

Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?

I’d kinda like to be the President
so I can show you how your money’s spent

Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?

Sometimes I don’t speak too bright
but yet I know what I’m talking about

Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?

I know you’re working for the CIA
they wouldn’t have you in the Mafia

Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?

Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?

Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?

Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?

Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?
Why can’t we be friends?

camtheman7 on June 29, 2011 at 8:57 AM

The Republican party must have unity and these egotistical fools run around jabbing each other in the eyes with sharp sticks. Obama must love some of these pandering idiots.

rplat on June 29, 2011 at 9:03 AM

Thanks Gov. Pawlenty. Mitt is so jealous of such audacious viewpoint of yours, as another sterling R governor unlike that unelectable one from Alaska. He’s now thinking of a more savvy pandering statement to compete with T-Paw’s golden points on the viewpoint of the LSM.

Let Obama stay in the office. Coz … he’s sooooooo right on this foreign affairs issue!

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE REPUBLICAN LOSERS PARTY OF MITT AND T-PAW!

TheAlamos on June 29, 2011 at 9:15 AM

Right now if I had to give my top three I would say:

1. Perry(yes I know he’s not in the race yet.)
2. Tim Pawlenty
3. Michelle Bachmann.

ButterflyDragon who were/are your top 3?

camtheman7 on June 29, 2011 at 8:55 AM

NONE OF THE ABOVE, SORRY!

TheAlamos on June 29, 2011 at 9:16 AM

jp: Seriously blink, how do you trust Ron Paul

Good question.

Q: How does one identify an authentic specimen of spittle-flinging RuPaulian idiotarianism?

A: When it repeatedly asserts that John “Kill Qaddafi” Bolton “supports Obama.”

*gaze*

Terp Mole on June 29, 2011 at 9:24 AM

jp: Seriously blink, how do you trust Ron Paul

Q: How can you tell when a RuPaulian is a bona fide Kaddafi-kuddler?

A: When it peddles the outlandish fiction that advocating regime change in Libya somehow proves Marco Rubio is a tool of the Obama Administration.

blink credibility: 0.00

Terp Mole on June 29, 2011 at 9:30 AM

“enforcement action” pursuant to an order of the Security Council “would not be an act of war, but would be international action for the preservation of the peace,

that is an abdication of sovereignty.

The commander in chief has broad powers to direct its efforts, but his ability to launch the nation into war cannot be absolute. We should never send our troops into battle with a divided government behind them.

flataffect on June 28, 2011 at 9:38 PM

1812: a divided nation goes to war, nearly breaking up the Union.

he would have consulted with Congress anyway if he had launched the mission as president.

Well, maybe not entirely clear but correct. We are at war with the dictator of Libya, a rabid dog who should have been relentlessly pursued and disposed of long ago for all the blood of American and other innocents on his hands.

AshleyTKing on June 29, 2011 at 10:12 AM

And since we are at war the President needs a declaration from Congress. Maybe Reagan should have got one for Grenada.

AshleyTKing on June 29, 2011 at 10:17 AM

Bipartisan support:

Senate panel OKs use of force in Libya

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted Tuesday to back President Obama’s deployment of U.S. forces to Libya in a strong bipartisan vote that delivered a critical boost to a White House that has found itself under assault from Capitol Hill.

Voting 14-5, the Senate panel approved a resolution authorizing Mr. Obama to continue limited strikes by U.S. warplanes and unmanned drones, though it specifically prohibits American ground forces from being used either now or in a postwar peacekeeping situation.

Terp Mole on June 29, 2011 at 11:12 AM

And since we are at war the President needs a declaration from Congress. Maybe Reagan should have got one for Grenada.

AshleyTKing on June 29, 2011 at 10:17 AM

Seriously ? Try cracking a book and comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. If you’re a college graduate then I suggest you get your money back, you don’t know how to do your own research and do critical thinking. My guess is you get your info from KOS , MSLSD or CNN

ColdWarrior57 on June 29, 2011 at 12:02 PM

binky whined: Reagan didn’t deployed the Marines into hostilities. Reagan deployed the Marines into Beirut for a peacekeeping mission .

*pffl* idiotarian clearly doesn’t know history. The initial MNF peacekeeping force facilitated The PLO withdrawal from Beirut to Tunisia on August 30; those MNF peacekeepers successfully withdrew to ships in the Mediterranean Sea.

On September 14, Lebanese President Gemayel was assassinated. That incident prompted Reagan to organize a new MNF with France and Italy. On September 29, this new force entered Beirut, with about 1,200 Marines. Their mission was to assist the new Lebanese government maintain stability and brought them under fire from Lebanese Civil War factions. We all know how that played out.

binky can play “peacekeeper” Pokemon all day. It doesn’t change the relevant fact: Reagan was never sanctioned for reporting the deployment and awaiting Congressional sanction… a full year later.

Terp Mole on June 29, 2011 at 12:57 PM

So far as I know we have not had a declaration of war since 1941. Since then we have had military operations in Korea, Viet Nam, Cambodia, the Persian Gulf, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Bosnia, Panama, Honduras, Grenada…and probably a few other places I have not thought of.

So, were all of those operations sanctioned by Congress? And if not, should they have been?

The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but it does not prescribe the means or form for doing so. The Tripolian War was authorized by Congress by what would now be called an AUMF, not a “Declaration of War” per se.

The Korean War was not properly authorized. Vietnam was (cf. Gulf of Tonkin Resolution), as was Cambodia. Kuwait, Afganistan, Iraq all were.

The WPA arguably gives the President carte blanche for any war shorter than 61 days, and permission to seek Congressional authority after the fact for conflicts that last longer. That’s one of the problems with it.

And yes, offensive wars should all be authorized by Congress before hand. Only defensive operations are justifiable by the President’s CiC authority. Jefferson demonstrated the principle; he sent navel forces to protect American shipping, but they couldn’t go after Tripoli until after he got authorization from Congress.

LarryD on June 29, 2011 at 1:37 PM

binky whined: Are you claiming that Obama is utilizing the US military in Libya for a peacekeeping mission?

Nope. Never claimed that. Try owning your own words, ding-dong.

Your “peacekeeping” mantra is meaningless in the context of NATO’s Libya mission.

binky lied: Reagan deployed the Marines to Beirut for a peacekeeping mission. Reagan didn’t deploy the Marines for hostilities in Beirut.

The initial MNF force were peacekeepers; those MNF peacekeepers successfully withdrew to ships in the Mediterranean Sea.

On September 14, Lebanese President Gemayel was assassinated. That incident prompted Reagan to organize a new MNF with France and Italy. On September 29, this new force entered Beirut, with about 1,200 Marines. Their mission was to assist the new Lebanese government maintain stability and brought them under fire from Lebanese Civil War factions. We all know how that played out.

binky can play “peacekeeper” Pokemon all day. It doesn’t change the relevant fact: Reagan was never sanctioned for reporting the deployment and awaiting Congressional sanction… a full year later.

Cluebat: You’re not arguing “the law“, moron.

Terp Mole on June 29, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Errata: Reagan was never sanctioned condemned for reporting the deployment and awaiting Congressional sanction approvala full year later.

*point holds*

Terp Mole on June 29, 2011 at 2:45 PM

binky moaned: Then how on earth are you justifying Obama’s continued use of the military for hostilities in Libya without congressional approval?

T-Paw isn’t justifying Obama. He asserted that Presidents don’t need Congressional approval in these cases. And I think T-Paw’s position is supported by Reagan’s MNF in Beirut.

binky lied: their mission was not to engage in hostilities.

Explain why the Marines arrived locked and loaded in the midst of a civil war? And why (a full year later) did Congress pass a joint resolution (P.L. 98-119) authorizing the Marines to remain in Lebanon for 18 months that specifically invoked section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution?

I’m with T-Paw, Reagan and The Founders.

Is binky honestly admitting that he’s kuddling Kaddafi for Kookcynich? Yeh, I guess he is.

*dismissed*

Terp Mole on June 29, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Note: binky dropped the idiotic “peacekeeper” Pokemon.

I accept binky’s inability to defend that moronic assertion as the admission of intellectual bankrupcty that it is.

Grade: F- (Billy Madison)

*dismissed*

Terp Mole on June 29, 2011 at 3:41 PM

binky droned: I asked how YOU

It’s not about me, ding-dong… which is why I asked (equally gratuitously): Is binky honestly admitting that he’s kuddling Kaddafi for Kookcynich?

A: Yeh, I guess you still are.

Feel free to continue your personal rectal spelunking expedition.

*ignored*

Terp Mole on June 29, 2011 at 4:24 PM

ColdWarrior57 on June 29, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Thanks. I crack many books. Have any to suggest?

As far as Grenada, and I am going off memory here, there was a problem with a Marxist seizing power (with help of Castro?) and the endangerment of Americans on the island. Reagan took action to stop that seizure.

Now as far as constitutional points: if there is such a threat, then bring in Congressional leaders, tell them the threat, lay out the remedy, ask for their support, and go forward from there. What is the matter with that approach?

AshleyTKing on June 29, 2011 at 6:27 PM

Nope. Reagan notified congress at the commencement of hostilities in Grenada which is what the War Powers Resolution requires.

The “war” in Grenada was over quickly – much less than 60 days. There was no need for congressional approval after the “war” was over.

blink on June 29, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Well, then maybe not a “declaration” but some form of Congressional involvement.

AshleyTKing on June 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Terp Mole on June 29, 2011 at 2:41 PM

You would be more persuasive if you left the name calling out of your posts.

AshleyTKing on June 29, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Thanks. I crack many books. Have any to suggest?

As far as Grenada, and I am going off memory here, there was a problem with a Marxist seizing power (with help of Castro?) and the endangerment of Americans on the island. Reagan took action to stop that seizure.

Now as far as constitutional points: if there is such a threat, then bring in Congressional leaders, tell them the threat, lay out the remedy, ask for their support, and go forward from there. What is the matter with that approach?

AshleyTKing on June 29, 2011 at 6:27 PM

I dont know, ASK OBUMMER he didnt do it.

ColdWarrior57 on June 29, 2011 at 7:10 PM

blink wins.

spmat on June 29, 2011 at 7:24 PM

blink on June 29, 2011 at 7:03 PM

In agreement there. Very good points, all along the way. WPR, flawed or not, is the current law.

ColdWarrior57 on June 29, 2011 at 7:10 PM

Aw, come on: no titles to suggest? Here are a few I’ve read recently: Winning the Unwinnable War, Nothing Less Than Victory, A War Like No Other

AshleyTKing on June 29, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Nothing Less Than Victory: very good essay on Sherman and his march to the Sea, the fight against Japan, and more, ancient and modern.

AshleyTKing on June 29, 2011 at 7:51 PM

ok Ashley here try this one Among the valiant by Raul Morin.

ColdWarrior57 on June 29, 2011 at 8:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2