You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Obama Suggests U.S. Involvement In Libya Limited, Authority Not Needed
2011-05-21
President Barack Obama, facing criticism from some lawmakers that U.S. military action against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is about to become illegal, said Friday the mission would benefit from congressional support.

Obama did not explicitly ask Congress to authorize the action he ordered in March to protect Libyan civilians, as his critics say is demanded by the 1973 U.S. War Powers Act.

Instead, he suggested U.S. involvement in Libya was now so limited that Congress's authority was not needed.
If even one tanker airplane is supporting the mission, you need to go to Congress. That's what the WPA says. It's your job to lead on this one, Bambi, so send a resolution to the Congress and ask for their support. You'll likely get it. But then you're on the hook, which is what you're trying to avoid.

As usual.
"I wish to express my support for the bipartisan resolution ... which would confirm that the Congress supports the U.S. mission in Libya and that both branches are united in their commitment," the president said in a letter to top lawmakers.

"It has always been my view that it is better to take military action, even in limited actions such as this, with Congressional engagement, consultation, and support."

Obama notified Congress on March 21 he had ordered military action against Libya as part of a multinational coalition.

That made Friday the 60-day deadline to seek congressional authority for the action under the War Powers Act. But the White House indicated it did not view the current level of U.S. military involvement in Libya as reaching that threshold.

"This is a narrow U.S. effort that's intermittent and is principally to support the ongoing NATO-led and U.N. authorized mission," a White House official said. "The U.S. role is also not only one of support but the kinetic pieces of that effort are intermittent."
Posted by:tipper

#7  Please, don't call it a war. For now it's a 'Narrow U.S. Effort with intermittent kinetic pieces'. Not exactly bumper-sticker material but hey it's a work in progress.

Oh and BTW, here's a couple of overlooked nuggets from Obama's speech regarding Libya.

"The opposition has organized a legitimate and credible Interim Council."

And...
"Across the region, we intend to provide assistance to civil society, including those that may not be officially sanctioned, and who speak uncomfortable truths."


Sounds like real soon somebody might be gettin their presents.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2011-05-21 11:40  

#6  So this is what a Steve Urkel presidentcy looks like? They are both from Chicago. Coincidence? I think not.
Posted by: whitecollar redneck   2011-05-21 11:11  

#5  The real Constitutional war powers act is the legislative control of the purse strings. The Trunks, lacking any backbone, will just go along rather than go back to the Donk resolutions from the 70s which cut the funding for operations in Vietnam and the South Vietnamese. All they have to do is swap out names and reintroduce it loudly pointing out its basically a Donk document. Wimps that they are, they won't.

Forcing this would at least make the administration articulate exactly why the hell we're there which, I suspect, can't be sold to the public.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2011-05-21 08:58  

#4  Constitutional / United States Law Authority Not Needed Does Not Apply to Me or my Muslim Brotherhood Friends in North Africa
Posted by: Thomoger and Tenille3718   2011-05-21 07:48  

#3  He's a smart politician. His base would kill primary him if he asked for authorization. It would be his war. But if the Republicans give it to him for free, well, he'll just have to do whatever his generals say. He got bi-partisan support after all.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2011-05-21 07:30  

#2  "Badges? I doan need no steenkin' badges."
Posted by: Zebulon Thranter9685   2011-05-21 07:25  

#1  IOW- the War Powers Act only applies to Republicans. Why not just repeal it?
Posted by: Free Radical   2011-05-21 06:45  

00:00