Back when Claire and I were in Israel, and the U.S. started its military invention in Libya, President Obama told members of Congress that the timeline was "days, not weeks." That was over 60 days ago.

Not only does this mean that we're in the "months, not weeks" phase of things, there's also some legal trouble. As ABC's Jake Tapper reports:

The legal license President Obama used to justify U.S. military intervention in Libya expires today, and there's little sign the White House is working quickly to get it renewed....

But under federal law -- the War Powers Resolution of 1973 -- Obama is only allowed to keep U.S. forces engaged in hostilities for 60 days, unless Congress declares war, authorizes funding for the effort or extends the deadline....

Experts say this is the first time an American president has defied the War Powers Resolution's deadline for participation in combat operations without any concurrent steps by Congress to fund or otherwise authorize the role.

If President George W. Bush had attempted this, I imagine we'd be hearing a lot more about it from the media and the anti-war movement. Republican Senators have asked Obama if he intends to follow the law. No word from the White House yet. The "days, not weeks" action in Libya has cost close to a billion dollars thus far.

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Tom Meyer
Joined
Jan '11
Tom Meyer

So let's review here: in the past year, Congress failed to pass a budget long after the required deadline, then sat back and allowed the president to initiate hostilities against a sovereign nation with no oversight, and now can only bring itself to "ask" him if he plans to abide by the lenient standards of the War Powers Act.

Put me on record as saying that these precedents have permanently damaged -- if not actually destroyed -- our separation of powers.  Annual budgets and declarations of war are now outdated formalities that Congress will never bother with again because they don't have to.

Edited on May 20, 2011 at 7:50am
Steven Zoraster
Joined
Feb '11
Steven Zoraster

My disgust with Congress is great. Now it has issues it can address with national support, yet it does not.

Is the entire American political process corrupt at the national level?

Jimmy Carter
Joined
Jul '10
Jimmy Carter

Perhaps Obama said,"daze[?]"

Franco
Joined
Sep '10
Franco

I've long ago stopped believing a word the man says. I'm an a little surprised that the media is so deeply complicit. I'm not really surprised Democrats are giving him a giant pass and have gone against their many pronouncements about war, congressional participation, distractions from Afghanistan, limited resources of our military, wars for oil, etc.

Now with Obama's speech on Israel, I'm thinking he wants conflict. He wants to empower our enemies and he wants a war in the ME. Everything he does is provocative. Everything.

Kervinlee
Joined
May '10
Kervinlee

A corrupt hyper-partisan Democratic party and a lap-dog media protecting their Frankenstein creation is what happened "days, not weeks."

The hypocrisy in service to this administration is a sight to behold.

The New Clear Option
Joined
Apr '11
Gen. Victor Ball

He prolly figures anyone who might press the issue will be "Camping" by tomorrow, Mollie.


Joined
Apr '11
Quinn the Eskimo

Someone in Congress ought to submit a bill to repeal the War Powers Act.  If we have laws, they should be followed.  If they are unconstitutional, they should be challenged. If we don't like them, they should be repealed.   But we should at least acknowledge they are laws; they shouldn't be ignored.  If Congress doesn't want to be bothered with the War Powers Act, it should repeal it.

At the very least, a bill to repeal will provoke WPA defenders in Congress to say something about Obama's Libya policy with respect to Congress.  People should not be allowed to bellyache about stopping "illegal" wars while ignoring the WPA when their guy is the violator.

Instugator
Joined
Aug '10
Instugator

Every promise President Obama has made / will make comes with an expiration date. Every one. He just doesn't tell us what it is.

The only good thing is that his actions (and the 4th estate's unwilling to report on them) undo unconstitutional acts almost as fast as the constitutional ones. The difference is that the difference between the two depends on your political persuasion (unless the courts have already ruled).

The practical upshot is, since he is demonstrating terrible abuses of power at every turn, he is single-handedly reducing the scope of power for future governments!

Win-win!

Or as Charlie Sheen would say "Winning!"


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In