Obama Says U.S. Allies Won’t Set ‘Artificial Timeline’ for Libya Campaign

[Purveyor]

By Kate Andersen Brower and Hans Nichols

May 25 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama appealed for patience in the effort to remove Muammar Qaddafi from power and said allied leaders won’t set a timeline for completing military operations in Libya.

The U.S. and its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are making “enormous progress” and won’t let up until the Libyan leader is deposed, Obama said during a news conference today in London with U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron. He ruled out putting troops on the ground there.

“This is going to be a slow, steady process in which we’re able to wear down the regime forces,” Obama said. “We have not put forward any artificial timeline in terms of how long this will take.”

The NATO campaign in Libya along with the broader upheaval in the Middle East and North Africa were among the primary topics discussed by Obama and Cameron as the U.S. president switched from royal ceremony to statecraft while in the U.K. at the midpoint of a six-day trip to Europe. Obama will address Parliament in Westminster Hall later, and tomorrow he leaves for a summit with other leaders of the Group of Eight nations in Deauville, France.

MORE...

http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNzSw0sLIR4E&pos=9

[CoffeeCat]

1. Isn't that what Bush said about Iraq?

Oh boy, that neocon war plan just keeps moving right along--despite which
party sits in the White House.

Kinda...makes you want to bathe with the toaster doesn't it?

[tekisui]

2. Yeah, forget the War Powers Act and the Constitution. Wars without end

is the American way!

[ClarkUSA]

11. Bullshit. House Republicans are pushing the same Obama outrage talking points.

Cases in point: their outrage over Libya (because they don't want Pres. Obama or NATO succeeding) and their desire for war without end as spelled out in their attempt to amend the War Powers Act (which Pres. Obama has already said he would veto).

[tekisui]

16. If Obama doesn't end it by June 21, he is violating the War Powers Act

and the Constitution, regardless of the motivations of Congress.

[PurityOfEssence]

24. Actually, not: he's already in violation

Don't mean to bust your chops on this one; you've been steadfastly on the correct side of this issue and eloquent in your posts.

First off, as we both know, he had no authority to initiate conflict in the first place, since there was no Declaration of War, Authorization or Attack upon us. He sent a letter within the 48 hours of first combat, but it had none of the required specifics of forces, timetables and all that.

Fine. Whatever. Regardless of the illegality of the deployment in the first place, he has 60 days from introducing armed forces into hostilities, unless Congress authorizes more time or Declares War. He may ask for 30 further days for withdrawal, but it's ONLY for withdrawal, not continued hostile action. He has to do this in writing, and Congress has to assent. He did not do this. On the sixtieth day, he asked for Congress' compliance for continued action NOT for 30 days to withdraw.

The fact that Congress hasn't acted is not a good thing, but it still puts him at odds with the law.

5(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

Sorry to be a snot about this, but I want people to understand just how far outside the law (and the UN Participation Act as well) that our President is. This is horrible. It's imperious, flagrant, arrogant and just plain wrong. This man is a Constitutional Scholar; he knows that this law is the standing legal definition of constitutionality of the division of war powers, and yet he goes on anyway. That is a damning reflection of his character.

[tekisui]

26. No apology necessary. I appreciate the clarification.

:hi:

I agree with you and do think you are right.

[damntexdem]

3. As long as it takes.

[Marblehead]

4. and it will end up

costing a trillion dollars that the american citizens will pick up cause we are such nice folks.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. I doubt it ends up costing a trillion dollars, but being the world's policeman isn't sustainable

This one conflict isn't making or breaking us financially. But our military commitments in the aggregate aren't sustainable. Some of it is unfortunate too because US hegemony does actually keep peace in certain instances (The Taiwan strait for example). But all normative judgments aside, the fact is that we can't sustain this forever.

[PurityOfEssence]

5. weeks, not months...um...months, not years...

Because of this half-assed on-the-cheap non-war, more people will die, more people will be impoverished, more disruption will occur in families and towns. Hey, at least we don't have to spend a lot of money to do it this way.

How is this an altruistic respect for civilians?

The monarchic fecklessness of this ugly bit of conquest is just plain hard to watch: war should be a last recourse, only to be used in serious situations, and it should be fought with speed and deep, deep seriousness, instead this garden-party coolness.

[jenmito]

9. Obama kept his word that the U.S. would

transfer leadership of the military mission in Libya to NATO in a matter of days, not weeks.

[PurityOfEssence]

23. "The president expects the preponderance of our involvement to last a matter of days, not weeks"

Yes, Obama did say on one occasion that the leadership would be turned over in a matter of days, not weeks, but this is not the only time he or his spokespeople have used this phrase. And in this briefing for Congress by Denis McDonough, he's not talking only about our leadership position, he's talking about our involvement in the operation. The fact that you have one statement that ties it to NATO doesn't excuse this in the least.

It is VERY clear that the intention was to minimize the scope of things and assure the public and Congress that it was going to be a trifling little affair. In this particular quote, McDonough is speaking specifically for the President and saying that this was going to be a short-lived thing. To a certain degree, it could be deemed correct, since our big days of missile hits were at the very beginning, but we still have great numbers of ships, planes, people and now drones deployed, as well as "advisers" on the ground and money flowing like water. This whole thing has been deeply, deeply misleading and mendacious all the way. It's also been a gross underestimation of Qaddafi's will and popular support.

He may have kept his word on turning over control to an organization of which we are just a part, but he is not keeping his word on this statement issued by his subordinate, and the very clear intent is to mislead us into thinking it's an inconsequential little exercise.

Hey, Bush never said Saddam did 9-11 either, but it's funny how the conflation had so many people thinking that.

“The president expects the preponderance of our involvement to last a matter of days, not weeks,” McDonough said. ”At the front end of this effort, the United States will contribute our unique capabilities to neutralize air defenses and military equipment that threatens civilians and civilian-populated areas to enable ongoing enforcement operations led by our partners,” he said. “We will then enable and support other countries to enforce the no-fly zone…with us in a support role…. It will not be an open ended effort by the United States.”

+OTB%29|Outside the Beltway

[PurityOfEssence]

27. No response. Once again, misleading slap-downs can't respond to refutation.

He's perfect. Any dissent must be crushed.

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. Nor should they.

:patriot:

[ItNerd4life]

7. If Obama appears on an aircraft carrier and says hostilities have ended

Will Democrats who are supporting him on Libya, still say this is different than Iraq?

[Avant Guardian]

8. Where have I heard that term before?

[jenmito]

10. From Bush who invaded a country based on lies. He, unlike Obama, put ground troops into the

country he INVADED under false pretenses. Obama was being begged by the Libyan people to help them by destroying Qadaffi's killing of innocent Libyans. He only agreed after he got the support of the Arab League as well as several other countries.

[Vattel]

13. I rarely agree with you

but I'm with you on that one.

[jenmito]

14. I'll take it!

:toast:

[Avant Guardian]

19. Wow, me too!

[ClarkUSA]

12. Hopefully, a French or British plane will drop a bomb on top of Gaddafi's head soon.

That's what I call a real timeline for withdrawal.

[PurityOfEssence]

25. Aren't we cute? Let's go Rumsfeldian and roll up a whole lot of unfinished business. Who else?

Maybe we should just kill Kim Jong-Il. Why not? It's now our foreign policy.

What about Hugo Chavez? Now HE'S got oil. Mmmmmm...oil...

Might as well pop off the Iranians, too; who'd shed a tear?

How about a few outright assassinations in Cuba? Never did like those guys.

Obama already helped ratfuck Honduras, but why not just kill those annoying pluralists and be done with it? Why not? We can do all this stuff, can't we?

Ya know, much as I'm not a fan of Wesley Clark, he would be appalled at this kind of beastliness.

Kill kill kill. Oh, but let's make sure we don't have to spend much money doing it, though.

[tekisui]

28. I am appalled at the normalcy that assassination as policy has taken.

Truly frightening. And under a Dem WH!

[Enrique]

15. how is Libya being paid for?

the deficit, you know...

[golfguru]

18. Need to protect China oil supplies from Libya

China is our new landlord, our lender. They own Trillions of our Treasury bonds. We can't make them mad, or they might cash in those bonds and cause a financial tsunami here. So we must borrow more from China to protect their oil supplies from Libya. After all, Libya's largest oil exports are to China! It is not all that complicated to understand.

[Mimosa]

20. Golfguru, you nailed it. It's 'about the money'

And China has been funding the other US imperialistic adventures, so we 'owe them'.

[golfguru]

21. Thanks, and it is ironic that

we borrow more money from China and go into deeper
debt for future generations (including your slightly
dysfunctional ones j/k) to continue our military adventures
in far away foreign lands, and help China grow in the process.

[Cali_Democrat]

22. Shocking.

[Monk06]

29. He's cut a deal, BP and Elf get Libya if they foot the bill and put troops on the ground.

[Safetykitten]

30. So much for that clean getaway.