House defeats Libya authorization measure

[Bosonic]

Source: MSNBC

WASHINGTON — The House on Friday resoundingly defeated a resolution that would have given President Barack Obama limited authority to continue the American involvement in Libya in the NATO-led operation against Moammar Gadhafi's forces.

Lawmakers are also scheduled to vote later Friday on a bill to cut off funds for U.S. military attacks there. The bill would make an exception for search and rescue efforts, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, aerial refueling and operational planning to continue the NATO effort.

The votes, which could embarrass the White House and reverberate in Tripoli and NATO capitals, came as lawmakers became increasingly frustrated with Obama for failing to seek congressional authorization for the 3-month-old war against Libya, as required under the War Powers Resolution.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43521037/ns/politics-capitol_hill/t/house-defeats-libya-authorization-measure/from/toolbar

[Hippie Puncher]

1. What a waste! The US is primarily doing the intelligence work there.

The actual bombing is being done by others.

This Bill won't stop anything. Just another Repig one-act play.

[PurityOfEssence]

9. Not true: there have been at least 60 US manned bombing missions since the handoff, per the military

Thanks to Distant Observer for finding this, but it really shoots holes in the concept that we're just holding their jackets and providing them with cool drinks.

WASHINGTON — Since the United States handed control of the air war in Libya to NATO in early April, American warplanes have struck at Libyan air defenses about 60 times, and remotely operated drones have fired missiles at Libyan forces about 30 times, according to military officials.

The most recent strike from a piloted United States aircraft was on Saturday, and the most recent strike from an American drone was on Wednesday, the officials said.

While the Obama administration has regularly acknowledged that American forces have continued to take part in some of the strike sorties, few details about their scope and frequency have been made public.

New York Times

More bullshit, more prevaricating and quibbling about what is actually "war" and what is actually "involvement". That Saturday would be last Saturday, June 18th.

This should forever stop the continual carping of the interventionists that we're really not involved, and it should stop the quibblers about the total violation of the UN Participation Act and the War Powers Resolution, but it won't. It's like a religion to far too many of the partisans: belief is all that's needed, and any contrary facts are irrelevant.

[ieoeja]

2. So the GOP is officially supporting Gaddafi.

[Iliyah]

12. I can't wait for

another letter from Gaddafi, except this one will thank the US House Congress.

[former9thward]

14. The vote was bipartisan.

The GOP may have their own reasons but progressive democrats want out of Libya.

[pampango]

30. There are 77 members in the Progressive Caucus and only 36 voted in favor.

Apparently less than half of the progressives in the House voted for the bill.

It was more bipartisan than most but still it was:

republicans - 144 yes, 89 no
Democrats - 36 yes, 149 no.

It would appear that a majority of the Progressives voted not to limit funding the Libya intervention, while a majority of repubs voted to limit the funding.

[former9thward]

31. On this issue my definition of progressive is out of Libya.

Others may differ.

[No Elephants]

38. Members of Congress (both houses) tend to support a President of their own Party.

Not 100% of them or 100% of the time, but the tendency is strong. Among many other things, they want to keep their assignments and they want DNC $$ for re-election efforts. And Party loyalty plays a strong role as well.

Any vote that has some support from both sides is considered bi-partisan, especially these days. Look how much Democrats gave up to get Collins' vote for health care reform (and if I recall correctly, didn't get her vote anyway).

With the numbers you cite, this falls well within the meaning of "bi-partisan vote."



OT, but weren't there about 100 members of the Progressive Caucus in 2008?

Not that they had much of a chance in a House of over 400 members anyway, but it's still sad to see their numbers decline.

[No Elephants]

37. Too bad no one is supporting the Constitution of the United States.

Only Congress has the power to decide when the U.S. goes to war.

And yes, bombing a country is an act of war.

[Xithras]

3. Good job Dennis!

No war!

[Iliyah]

4. If this was a

goper prez this would not be happening. Funding will not be cut-off by the upper house, so therefore I truly HOPE this goes on records because when a goper prez gets in, and since he or she being a goper can do anything they want, will this fly? Nope.

Since no boots are on the ground and no bombing by our miltary recently, I guess the congress wanted to throw their weight, only because in my opinion because there is a Dem in the WH. Is this a war, nope. Could be become one, maybe. Will all hell break out in the middle east, I hope not, maybe thats why the WH did what they did in Lybia.

[PurityOfEssence]

11. The most recent manned bombing sortie by US forces was Saturday, June 18th, per the military

See above.

Yes, politics are at play, but they always are.

[No Elephants]

39. Let's not conflate. Yes, the measure was political. However, the

Constitution of the United States still says what it says, no matter who is in office. Please see Reply 37.

And Bush, whatever else you (and I) want to say about him did go to Congress for both the Iraq War Resolution and the WOT Resolution. And, most Democrats voted for both, right along with their Republican, ahem, colleagues. Something my Republican friends never tired of pointing out to me whenever the subject of WMD and the Iraq War came up.

Granted, Bush probably knew they would and was politically smart (or Rove was) to go to Congress, but, for whatever reason, at least the Constitution was not ignored.

[JJW]

5. Anyone know why?

Anyone know why Obama didn't get authorization in the first place? Even Bush knew better. than to pull the tin cup dictatorship card.

[Fuddnik]

6. Cut the funding for ALL the fucking wars.

I don't give a shit if it's a Dem, Repub, Commie, or whatever president.

Just conducting intelligence operations? How do you do that with Hellfire missiles from a drone?

[Vidar]

32. Amen to that!

[No Elephants]

40. We're cutting only things that have operated at a surplus and things that keep people alive,

like home heating fuel subsidies and health care.

The fewer people who live, the fewer there will be sucking at the government teat (which happens to be comprised solely of their tax dollars).

Get in line with the program, willya?

[backscatter712]

7. Now we know why Obama is NOT seeking approval from Congress for the Libya thing.

Yes, there's legitimate concern about the Constitution, and Obama not deferring to the War Powers Act or Congress' power to declare war. So why is Obama, President of the United States and constitutional law professor flouting this?

Let's face it. Congress is barking mad right now, especially in the House with the fundies and the Tea Partiers.

We have the Democrats, and a few Republicans genuinely not wanting another war. Legitimate, but in the minority. Then we have the Republicans who will vote against this solely to embarrass the President and fuck over foreign policy - the same group that was colluding with the Iranians to ensure the hostages weren't released until Reagan was sworn in. Then there's the Republicans who could be talked into authorizing the Libya thing, and probably give Obama enough votes to pass the authorization, but only at a price. And that price is giving them things that we won't like - cuts to Medicare, Planned Parenthood, more extensions of the Bush tax cuts, etc. etc. etc.

So Obama's not giving Libya to Congress as another hostage for Eric Cantor and John Boehner to take when demanding yet more cuts & concessions to the teabaggers. Basic realpolitik at work.

[Fuddnik]

8. It's also illegal, no matter who is doing it.

[ButterflyBlood]

36. Nope, approved by UN Resolution

the operation is merely enforcing the Resolution.

[No Elephants]

42. Um, no. Nothing relieves a President of seeking Congressional approval.

First, a UN resolution cannot possibly trump the Constitution of the U.S. PLease see the wiki on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and google "U.S. Constitution trumps treaty."

Second, a U.S. law expressly says that the President has to go to Congress, UN or no.

ETA: As I continued reading the thread, I saw that Purity of Essence had written a much more specific (and therefore much better) post than mine on the subject. Please see Reply 13. However, I won't delete my text because POE did not mention the Constitution, which, as to how an elected federal official is required to operate, trumps even laws made by Congress, such as the War Powers Resolution.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. It's illegal, and we are bound by laws for them and for us

This is no different than Reagan violating the Boland Amendment and supporting the Contras: we have laws for such things, and if the deliberative bodies don't want to commit military force, we can't do it.

The very attack was completely illegal: under the UN Participation Act, a President may only respond to an Article 42 call-up without Congressional authorization if he has already gotten their authorization of a Special Agreement via a vote of both houses. He may NEVER send armed forces without Congress' specific approval via vote except if it's no more than 1000 people sent specifically as guards and in a non-combat role.

Under the War Powers Resolution, he may only introduce armed forces into hostilities or areas where they are imminent under three conditions: a Declaration of War, an Authorization by Congress, or if we're attacked. It's not "threat of attack" or "fear of bad guys", it's if we're attacked. None of these conditions were met. He's tried to justify this as following the UN Charter, but that is specifically NOT a self-actuating treaty. (NATO actually is, but only to follow up if one of its members is attacked, which they weren't.)

The idea that "we know better" and should be allowed to break the law to do such unquestionable good is the arrogant statement of privilege. We are a nation of laws and agreement, and this needs to be maintained.

[No Elephants]

43. Thank you for your knowledge, sanity, and respect for the rule of law.

[Igel]

33. No, you really don't.

The primary spouting-off point motivating hostility towards continuing in Libya has been Obama's unwillingness to ask for permission.

After all, he says he doesn't need permission.

Members of Congress are very jealous when it comes to their authority and prerogatives. Remember the (D) with the $90k in the freezer that was accused of improprieties? The person who defended him, as was appropriate, was an (R). This wasn't because the (R) had any great admiration for the (D), far from it. It was because the very idea that the executive branch could stage a raid of any sort on legislative offices was seen as a threat not to (D), not to (R), but to all legislators and their rights.

Prezes have consistently said that the WPA is unconstitutional. It infringes on their ability to declare war without a formal declaration, esp. if the US is attacked but also if they just have a hankering for regime change or stomping on some group they don't happen to like.

Congress has consistently claimed otherwise. Not willing to declare war, they want to be consulted if the prez decides to send in the troops. They're wimps, but at some point we have to declare that we still have a republic and that the president is not emperor.

I find Obama's view not just specious but dangerous. If the US attacks China and then hands off to NATO--note that many of the top planners in NATO are US troops--hey, it's not covered, NATO is waging the war even as we funnel equipment and munitions to them. We could exchange cruise missiles, use subs outside of Chinese territorial waters, even send a few ICBMs to targets. None of these would seem to be "hostilities". Even the bombing of Hiroshima wasn't a "hostility." It's unclear if it's hostilities if, for example, San Diego were nuked.

[azurnoir]

34. nice however youe scenerio really does not apply here

I find Obama's view not just specious but dangerous. If the US attacks China and then hands off to NATO--note that many of the top planners in NATO are US troops--hey, it's not covered, NATO is waging the war even as we funnel equipment and munitions to them. We could exchange cruise missiles, use subs outside of Chinese territorial waters, even send a few ICBMs to targets. None of these would seem to be "hostilities". Even the bombing of Hiroshima wasn't a "hostility." It's unclear if it's hostilities if, for example, San Diego were nuked.

If the US were to"attack China" that would be a unilateral action, if you'll remember this action was initiated at the request of the Arab League to the UNSC.

[No Elephants]

44. Still illegal under the Constitution and. statutes of the U.S. Please see Replies 9, 13 and 42.

[azurnoir]

47. really your posts on the subject (the ones you suggest I read)

do not address the fact that this is not a unilateral action nor is it a war, the US's involvement is the result of international treaties and alliances

[No Elephants]

41. So, a President has a right to disregard the Constitution?

Or only when the President is a Democrat? Or it is only when the President is Obama?

Are there no limits to the "it's okay if Obama does it" rationalizing?

[Theo Haffey]

10. This is how Democracy is supposed to work

I applaud the measure. There are three branches of government.

[meow mix]

15. congrats dennis, for stabbing our allies in the back

what a waste of skin... i officially hate that little puke fuck.

next time any UN action is needed you can kiss any chances of that happening, goodbye.

[Theo Haffey]

16. do you think the Constitution should be amendend?

To allow incursion into war without Congressional approval?

[totodeinhere]

17. Would you be saying the same thing if it were a Republican president who got us

involved in Libya? Dennis is a Democrat, but he doesn't let partisanship get in the way of dong what be believes is the right thing. I respect him for that and I wish there were more in Congress like him.

[mazzarro]

18. +100% - Amen fellow DU'er! -- n/t

[meow mix]

25. yes i would support a president from any party, on this particular issue of Libya.

considering everything happened exactly as it did.

[totodeinhere]

26. OK then I can respect your consistency even though I disagree with you on the issue. n/t

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ButterflyBlood]

35. Yeah fuck that sellout piece of shit

Just another Gaddafi-lover like the rest of the GOP. Of course the GOP will stick fuck him over in redistricting anyway, so no clue why he's siding with them.

[No Elephants]

45. Replies 9, 13, 37, 41 and 42 may provide some perspective.

At least, one hopes so.

[Bosonic]

19. House vote to defund Libya mission fails

Source: MSNBC

WASHINGTON — Hours after rejecting a resolution to authorize the U.S. military operation in Libya, the House on Friday voted down a measure that would have cut off funds for the mission's hostilities.

The measure, which would have had no chance of passage in the Democratic-controlled Senate, would have made an exception for search and rescue efforts, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, aerial refueling and operational planning to continue the NATO effort in Libya.

The roll call vote exposed splits in both parties. Over 30 Democrats voted to defund the NATO-led mission, while 89 Republicans voted against the measure backed by GOP leaders.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43521037/ns/politics-capitol_hill/t/house-defeats-libya-authorization-measure/from/toolbar

[Drale]

20. Obama must not be letting the Repukes good friends

make money in Libya like they want to, that can be the only reason repukes would vote against war.

[BeFree]

21. Bad news

We're down to just 30 really good house members.

[David__77]

22. Democrats are the War Party now.

Escalation against the people of Afghanistan, aggression against Libya. I am thankful for the minority of Democrats who oppose the immoral and unjust wars. My congressional representative, Matsui, voted against it. She is clearly pro-war.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll494.xml

[PurityOfEssence]

27. Grandmother always said that Democrats get you into wars and Republicans get you into Depressions

She was a Democrat.

[No Elephants]

46. She was probably accurate for her day. However, more recently, Republicans and Democrats both

get us into wars--see both Presidents Bush--and the economic policies of Republican and Democratic administrations are not so sharply distinguishable.

[ProSense]

23. There was no vote

to defund the mission, the vote was to limit funding and authorize limited involvement..

[Iliyah]

24. So the first vote was

a hand slap and the second vote just allowed Prez O to continue???

If they wanted to make a case, the House should have voted for Both. And this sh*t about Dems are a party of war, suck it up. Gopers want world war three because as good "Christians", God will widely open the door for them and everybody else will go to hell.

[inna]

29. thanks for the info and clearing the confusion on this

[joshcryer]

49. So, the GOPers didn't authorize it nor did they not authorize it. Story of my life.

[ellisonz]

50. Flip-flop?

[joshcryer]

48. I don't think these topics should've been merged, but I love how the GOP is playing "progressives."

:rofl: