Boehner Gives Obama a Deadline on Libya

[BostonPirate]

theres too much precedent on this from presidents from both sides of the aisle.

THe supreme court wont hear it, and it will go there or it will stand.

 

[JB3]

theres too much precedent on this from presidents from both sides of the aisle.

THe supreme court wont hear it, and it will go there or it will stand.

There's not much precedent for the type of action we're engaged in. The Bipartisan nature of the sharp rebuke of the president, and the ensuing demand that he consult them as required by law, should tell you how deep the shit he's in is.

 

[jackoroe]

theres too much precedent on this from presidents from both sides of the aisle.

THe supreme court wont hear it, and it will go there or it will stand.

The remedy for any president breaking the law is called impeachment. That's where Obama is heading if he keeps playing these games. Bombing people for humanitarian reasons? Come on!

 

[kallipolis]

The United States military is not employed in the NATO action over Libya.

 

[JB3]

The United States military is not employed in the NATO action over Libya.

Erm. What? What are you smoking?

 

[kallipolis]

Erm. What? What are you smoking?

The United States military is not employed in the NATO action over Libya.

The United Kingdom, and France are the two NATO countries that are deploying ships, and aircraft against Gadaffi's forces, and command posts.

The Americans are not involved in this operation.

 

[jackoroe]

Nonsense. He's going to be rightly called to account.

The United States is providing NATO with intelligence, logistical support and armed drones in what is largely a bombing campaign against Libyan government forces. The administration has contended that it is within Mr. Obama’s power to initiate American participation in the hostilities without Congress’s approval because the combat is limited to an air offensive. These notions were reiterated in a letter that Mr. Obama sent to Congress last month, in which he said that the United States had turned control of the operation over to NATO and that it was primarily providing support to allies.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/boehner-warns-obama-on-libya-operations/

 

[JB3]

The United States military is not employed in the NATO action over Libya.

The United Kingdom, and France are the two NATO countries that are deploying ships, and aircraft against Gadaffi's forces, and command posts.

The Americans are not involved in this operation.

Are you kidding me right now?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/22/nato-libya-data-journalism-operations-country

The US has 153 aircraft, 12 ships, 8500 forces, and over 228 cruise missiles (so far) involved in the action.

Seriously Kalli, you just lost my respect for making such a ridiculous argument.

 

[kallipolis]

Nonsense. He's going to be rightly called to account.



http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/boehner-warns-obama-on-libya-operations/

There will always be logistical support, and cooperation that comes under the cooperation of NATO.

But there are no American warships, aircraft bombing Libyan targets, or boots on the ground in Libya. President Obama ceded control of operations in Libya to NATO.

The American made drones are under British ownership, and control.

 

[kallipolis]

Are you kidding me right now?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/22/nato-libya-data-journalism-operations-country

The US has 153 aircraft, 12 ships, 8500 forces, and over 228 cruise missiles (so far) involved in the action.

Seriously Kalli, you just lost my respect for making such a ridiculous argument.

Those ships are part of the permanent American presence in the Mediterranean, and are not tasked in the current NATO operations over Libya.

President Obama ceded control of operations in Libya to NATO.

 

[kallipolis]

Note the date of the newspaper article:


Obama to declare Libya operations under NATO's control, U.S. to keep 'limited' role
BY HELEN KENNEDY
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Monday, March 28, 2011

President Obama is expected to declare tonight that the mission to impose a no-fly zone on Libya has been accomplished and the U.S. is ceding control to NATO.

American airmen will switch to a supporting role as NATO - especially the French and British - takes over, the White House says.

"Our involvement there is going to be limited, both in time and in scope," Obama told a high school town hall Monday a few hours before his speech.

The Pentagon was already planning to pull back some Navy ships in the Mediterranean, Reuters reported.

Obama's address comes nine days after American and Allied strikes began pounding Libya's air defenses, halting an almost-certain massacre in the rebel city of Benghazi.

In the last week, the tide of the civil war has turned against Col. Moammar Khadafy and rebels have retaken several key cities. On Monday, French jets hit Khadafy's hometown Sirte, his most important stronghold after the capital of Tripoli.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-03-28/news/29375759_1_civilians-nato-president-obama

 

[BostonPirate]

You're dealing with a harvard law professor as a president. Do you think he might have read the laws, the treaties, and proceeded in a legal manner?

There can be many ways laws are interpreted. When is it a war vs when it is asistance to actions.

We are sitting off the coast selling munitions to the other nato allies.

Boehner is overplaying his hand. Kusinich just had a bill before the house that would have ended the entire action, and Boehner opposed it.

Much to the shock and dismay of Boehner, it almost passed fully bipartisan mix... but without boehner and cantor on board, it failed. Boehner had run a competing bill that only made a non binding resolution to stop delpoyment of ground troops.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...olution-to-derail-kucinichs-anti-war-bill.php

Kucinich's resolution was scheduled for a vote on Wednesday, but House leaders pulled it at the last second when they became concerned it had enough Republican votes to pass. Boehner told reporters on Thursday that rank and file Republicans were concerned not only with the Libya conflict, but Afghanistan and Iraq as well.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) decried both the Kucinich and Boehner resolutions in a statement on Thursday.

"The resolutions by Speaker Boehner and Congressman Kucinich, as currently drafted, do not advance our efforts in the region and send the wrong message to our NATO partners," she said.

well its never been about ground troops. Boehner intentionally shot down Kusinich's bill to make sure the status quo in Libya was maintained, just to have a show down of his own making a week later.

Its political showmanship.

Its not going anywhere.

 

[jackoroe]

You're dealing with a harvard law professor as a president. Do you think he might have read the laws, the treaties, and proceeded in a legal manner?

Well, the war powers act does not allow for bombing for humanitarian purposes on any level. I don't doubt that Obama can read sufficiently to understand that he's acting unlawfully. He apparently feels he's above the law.

 

[BostonPirate]

Well, the war powers act does not allow for bombing for humanitarian purposes on any level. I don't doubt that Obama can read sufficiently to understand that he's acting unlawfully. He apparently feels he's above the law.

and that means, my friend

that its in the hands of the lawyers. I wonder how long that one will take to go through countless appeals and stays?

And when will Obama just withdraw as he is signaling NATO he is considering, through Sec Gates? Who will win the slow grind of the system?

Do you really think Obama will stay there much longer as an election nears, and he is looking to cut deeply into the defense budget? The troops and the people Of Libya are going to be political pawns for him, just like they are right now for the GOP.

Lets see who wins.

 

[chrisrobin]

Let's see... Boner is running the country, right? Obama reports to him.* Or was that Mitch McConnell? If everything about the War Powers Act is true, let the impeachment begin. Oh, by the way, under what decree did Dubya invade Iraq? Why was he not impeached? Who's responsible for the 5,000+ kids that were killed in an undeclared war under false pretenses? I know, I mean "that old thing". Turn the page, let's move on to more important things, like Anthony Weiner's penis.

*I hope Obama has finally learned his place! It's about time.

 

[chrisrobin]

congress authorized the war in iraq.

don't you remember Obama criticizing Hillary's vote for it nonstop even though he wasn't in the senate at the time, wasn't given cooked intelligence, etc.

Small point: I don't think war has been declared since WWII. Korea was a "police action" and Viet Nam was God knows what.

 

[JB3]

You're dealing with a harvard law professor as a president. Do you think he might have read the laws, the treaties, and proceeded in a legal manner?

There can be many ways laws are interpreted. When is it a war vs when it is asistance to actions.

We are sitting off the coast selling munitions to the other nato allies.

Boehner is overplaying his hand. Kusinich just had a bill before the house that would have ended the entire action, and Boehner opposed it.

Much to the shock and dismay of Boehner, it almost passed fully bipartisan mix... but without boehner and cantor on board, it failed. Boehner had run a competing bill that only made a non binding resolution to stop delpoyment of ground troops.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...olution-to-derail-kucinichs-anti-war-bill.php



well its never been about ground troops. Boehner intentionally shot down Kusinich's bill to make sure the status quo in Libya was maintained, just to have a show down of his own making a week later.

Its political showmanship.

Its not going anywhere.

You'd be surprised. When you can get people like John Kerry and John Boehner to agree that the President has exceeded his constitutional authority on this, you should take that as a sign that the President is not in the right.

Here's how it will end: The President will admit his error, and cede to congress the responsibility of drafting and passing a force authorization. It will be a contentious vote, but it will pass.

If he doesn't, he's risking a full-fledged bipartisan investigations into his, and his administration's, conduct in the Libya matter.

 

[JB3]

Those ships are part of the permanent American presence in the Mediterranean, and are not tasked in the current NATO operations over Libya.

President Obama ceded control of operations in Libya to NATO.

Poppycock. Those forces are part of the Libya mission. Any claim to the contrary is false on its face.

 

[JB3]

Note the date of the newspaper article:


Obama to declare Libya operations under NATO's control, U.S. to keep 'limited' role
BY HELEN KENNEDY
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Monday, March 28, 2011

President Obama is expected to declare tonight that the mission to impose a no-fly zone on Libya has been accomplished and the U.S. is ceding control to NATO.

American airmen will switch to a supporting role as NATO - especially the French and British - takes over, the White House says.

"Our involvement there is going to be limited, both in time and in scope," Obama told a high school town hall Monday a few hours before his speech.

The Pentagon was already planning to pull back some Navy ships in the Mediterranean, Reuters reported.

Obama's address comes nine days after American and Allied strikes began pounding Libya's air defenses, halting an almost-certain massacre in the rebel city of Benghazi.

In the last week, the tide of the civil war has turned against Col. Moammar Khadafy and rebels have retaken several key cities. On Monday, French jets hit Khadafy's hometown Sirte, his most important stronghold after the capital of Tripoli.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-03-28/news/29375759_1_civilians-nato-president-obama

And yet here we are, with the US role unchanged, and his words looking more like a bald-faced lie than they did when they came out of his mouth.

 

[BostonPirate]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

On November 9, 1993, the House used a section of the War Powers Resolution to state that U.S. forces should be withdrawn from Somalia by March 31, 1994; Congress had already taken this action in appropriations legislation. More recently under President Clinton, war powers were at issue in former Yugoslavia; Bosnia; Kosovo; Iraq, and Haiti, and under President George W. Bush in responding to terrorist attacks against the U.S. after September 11, 2001. "n 1999, President Clinton kept the bombing campaign in Kosovo going for more than two weeks after the 60-day deadline had passed. Even then, however, the Clinton legal team opined that its actions were consistent with the War Powers Resolution because Congress had approved a bill funding the operation, which they argued constituted implicit authorization. That theory was controversial because the War Powers Resolution specifically says that such funding does not constitute authorization."[6]
After combat operations against Iraqi forces ended on February 28, 1991, the use of force to obtain Iraqi compliance with United Nations resolutions remained a war powers issue, even with the enactment of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (P.L. 107-243), in October 2002.[7]

as for how and why people ignore and toy with the war powers act?

There is a belief that the war powers act is unconstitutional, usually held by whichever party is in power, and no one wants to test that in the supreme court. Both parties want the power when they hold the exec branch, but hate their opponents having it.

Because it limits the President's authority in the use of force without an official resolution or declaration of war by Congress, there is controversy as to whether the provisions of the resolution are consistent with the Constitution. Presidents have therefore drafted reports to Congress required of the President to state that they are "consistent with" the War Powers Resolution rather than "pursuant to" so as to take into account the presidential position that the Resolution is unconstitutional.
One argument for the unconstitutionality of the War Powers Resolution by Philip Bobbitt[15] argues "The power to make war is not an enumerated power" and the notion that to "declare" war is to "commence" war is a "contemporary textual preconception". Bobbitt contends that the Framers of the Constitution believed that statutory authorization was the route by which the United States would be committed to war, and that 'declaration' was meant for only total wars, as shown by the history of the Quasi-War with France (1798–1800). In general, constitutional powers are not so much separated as "linked and sequenced"; Congress's control over the armed forces is "structured" by appropriation, while the President commands; thus the act of declaring war should not be fetishized. Bobbitt also argues that "A democracy cannot ... tolerate secret policies" because they undermine the legitimacy of governmental action.
A second constitutionality argument concerns a possible breach of the 'separation of powers' doctrine, and whether this Resolution changes the balance between the Legislative and Executive functions.

so once again...

Its all Kabuki theater by all sides with an exceptionally hostile GOP being driven by the radical right social angendistas and the Teabaggers.

If this could have won in court it would have by now. Let them test Obama now, and the hawks will turn to doves in front of an angry electorate.

Its good politics for Obama. He is playing the GOP on this one.

Boehner is outclassed in his job. He has been useless since he got in there, passing resolution after resolution that never sees the light of day in the senate and just withers away.

Wake me up when he writes legislation that makes Jobs, as he promised, or Writes a bill that the senate will consider and the president will sign.

Until then, the man is a useless drunk, desperate to regain the attention of the media.