June 24, 2011  

BREAKING NEWS: House Rebukes Obama on Libya


The House on Friday delivered its strongest rebuke yet to President Obama over his handling of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, refusing to endorse the U.S. operation three months after it began.
The House, in a 295-123 vote, rejected a resolution to “authorize” the mission in Libya — even a limited operation with no ground troops.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/24/house-weighs-cutting-off-funds-for-libya-mission/#ixzz1QDU3IyPB

Tags:

About giliar

An American patriot who has gone rogue - I will remember in November!

6 responses to “BREAKING NEWS: House Rebukes Obama on Libya”

  1. giliar says :

    So it looks like the funding stays: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-congress-libya-20110624,0,1213107.story

    • Lee says :

      It is far more politically difficult to cut funding for troops in the field than it is to refuse to “authorize” sending them in the beginning. That is appropriate, because it is the President who fights wars, not Congress, and when Congress is going to intrude, even if constitutionally, on that, it should have a d@mn good reason, and it should be on the hook for it. If these critics are so convinced the operation is wrong, they need to stand up and take the hit.

      The vote on authorization was 295-123 against. The vote on defunding was 180-238 against. That means that there are…, uh… carry the 1… up to 115 members of the House who opposed an authorization similar to that approved for Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom did not in turn vote to defund the operation. Argue the matter all you want, this demonstrates my point–be d@mn sure before you defund an operation in progress. We are there, and thus we must win. Any American who does not want victory in an American military operation is by definition a traitor and by law deserves he death penalty.

      The same will go for when President Palin launches, “Operation: Black Hawk Pound,” a long-term revenge strike on Somalia for the 1993 “Black Hawk Down” battle in Mogadishu. We killed some 1100 wastes of human flesh (not that those things had much flesh, considering the food crisis) then, with a loss of 19 of our people. We obviously still owe them some serious payback. (Hey, let me dream.)

  2. Lee says :

    Repost from earlier HDR:

    “The war is a violation of the War Powers Act”–Is the War Powers Act constitutional? The President (or, if the one holding that office is in fact ineligible, then the Acting President–aka Vice President) is the Commander-in-Chief, and can order troops anywhere overseas anytime for any reason or no reason. The Constitution simply does not follow the flag, as the Supreme Court has held. Congress’ check on this is the power to defund the operation and force its end, which is what happened when Congress betrayed South Vietnam in 1975.

    A formal Congressional declaration has NEVER in American history been considered essential for the legitimate waging of military action. In the late 1790s, the “XYZ Affair” led to an undeclared naval war with France. Later, the wars against the Barbary States–America’s first run-in with sheethead jihadists–was never declared. Neither were the wars against Indian nations within American borders, nor the War of Northern Aggression against the Confederate States of America (though the CSA did fulfill this practice against their Northern invader). And innumerable other campaigns, big and small, have been waged by the United States against countries and peoples we didn’t like without such a legal nicety.

    Those who say the Constitution requires a Congressional declaration of war before we can kill people we don’t like and conquer things we want make one mistake–it doesn’t say that. [USUAL SPIEL AGAINST UNEDUCATED CONSERVATIVES OMITTED]

    Presidents have, since the unconstitutional act’s passing, generally heeded it in order to avoid trouble. But they have never acknowledged it held any legitimate authority.

    Before we start pushing this issue, remember that in a few years President Palin might need to launch a few beatdowns without support from Congress. We can be consistent by saying now what we will say then, and what we said in 1991, 2001, and 2002-03–the War Powers Act is an unconstitutional intrusion on the power of the Executive.

  3. giliar says :

    True, Lee – it will be interesting to see how this afternoon’s vote goes. Will Congress finally truly rebuke 0bama? We’ll see….

  4. Lee says :

    The real news is that the House is considering withholding funding from the operation. THAT is their constitutional prerogative and their check on the Commander-in-Chief. The War Powers Act is unconstitutional, the President can–overseas, to be sure–deploy forces to kill people and destroy things for any reason or no reason, and any such vote for “authorization” is as meaningless as an Obama claim he’s not a Muslim.

    (Keep in mind Dennis Kucinich said war in Libya is “illegal [and] unconstitutional.” That alone is an argument in favor of the operation.)