'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization

[TimLighter]

So there ya go, in case you were wondering how that worked.


White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization
May 20, 2011 7:14 PM

In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, 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 April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.”

It's the old it's not a war "it's non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation" gambit.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/white-house-on-war-powers-deadline-limited-us-role-in-libya-means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html

[MNBrewer]

1. So as long as it's not a "total war" situation, we're cool?

I guess if we decide nukes are required, THEN Congress might be required, huh?

[provis99]

2. miltary bureaucratese bullshit.

At least Colin Powell was honest before the first Gulf War, when he said the object of the military was to break things and kill people. None of this non-kinetic suppression and precision strikes bullshit.

[nod factor]

3. NATO is the U.S.

Go ahead and hide behind it though.
It's masterful politics how they have been able to hind behind headlines such as 'Nato strikes kill x-amount of suspected taliban/terrorist' for so long. Funny how those headlines changed from U.S troops to NATO led in the blink of an eye of an election.
I am disappointed in moveon, code pink, and the anti war bloc.
It is up to us to change the policy.
After all, isn't that the essence of Obama's message?

[Cali_Democrat]

4. It's not really a war

In real wars you bring assets to bear such as tomahawk missiles, bombs, warships, intelligence and logistical support. These kinds of assets are used to attack a foreign enemy in a war.

We are currently using those kinds of assets and attacking a foreign enemy, but we're not really doing it. You know what I mean? It's complicated.

[ProSense]

5. "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."


The letter made no such suggestion.

[jenmito]

7. Kick for the facts.

:hi:

[ProSense]

6. Obama asks Congress for resolution on Libya

Since the President's letter wasn't good enough to debunk the distortion, how about a couple of other media reports:

LA Times: Obama asks Congress for resolution on Libya

The Hill: Obama asks Congress for a resolution of support on Libya

[jenmito]

8. Well THAT should put an end to this thread. Thanks for the facts again! n/t

[Hugabear]

10. And if Congress doesn't offer a resolution?

Is it okay to continue military action without Congressional approval since it's primarily just a bunch of rethugs opposing the action, and we're taking military action for a good cause?

[Enrique]

9. the good thing is that he didn't totally blow off the law

today is day 60, and Obama wrote his letter on the last day, clearly wanting to be within the deadline the law provides.

There were concerns that he and Congress were just going to completely ignore the law, which would essentially kill it.

[joshcryer]

11. I said I'd be pissed if he didn't do this and I'm glad I didn't have to eat crow.

But he damn sure felt like passing it off until the end.