White House: Don't Mess Up Our War Against Peaceful Libya (Or Something)
Reading in today's New York Times:
The White House, pushing hard against criticism in Congress over the deepening air war in Libya, asserted Wednesday that President Obama had the authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities.
The White House has finally given it's explanation -- however laughable it may be -- for why Obama has not been violating the War Powers Resolution since May 20.
Apparently the guys who are firing at us are not doing so in a "hostile" manner. White House press secretary further says that Congress should be careful "not to send mixed signals about a goal . . . we all share." Clearly!
As Jim Geraghty at National Review Online writes:
Ah. Mixed signals about our war/kinetic military action, ongoing but largely ignored by the White House, that we are fully committed to yet not committing a dominant role of U.S. military forces, that is designed to stop Qaddafi but that isn't trying to kill him, unless we happen to hit him in the process of targeting the Libyan command-and-control elements? Indeed, it would be terrible for there to be a 'mixed message' in that bouillabaisse of a war.
Does the White House explanation satisfy you about why we're, uh, not violating the War Powers Resolution?
- Comment (11)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: White House: Don't Mess Up Our War Against Peaceful Libya (Or Something)
When our military pilots have mechanical problems with their fighter jet, and have to eject over Libya, they can just inform Qaddafi's troops that they were sightseeing.
Feb '11
Re: White House: Don't Mess Up Our War Against Peaceful Libya (Or Something)
It’s just a little friendly bombing. Nothing hostile about that. Heck, I send bombs in the mail to my friends all the time.
Re: White House: Don't Mess Up Our War Against Peaceful Libya (Or Something)
"Apparently the guys who are firing at us are not doing so in a 'hostile' manner."
What, are they pitching bullets and missiles underhand these days?
Nov '10
Re: White House: Don't Mess Up Our War Against Peaceful Libya (Or Something)
These are just your typical military training maneuvers. Libya is just providing an environment that won't be harmed, unlike live-fire ranges in the western hemisphere. Quadaffi is also providing the targets, the nice fella.
Nothing to see here.
Feb '11
Re: White House: Don't Mess Up Our War Against Peaceful Libya (Or Something)
This administration makes Kim Jong-il sound truthful, open and sincere.
May '10
Re: White House: Don't Mess Up Our War Against Peaceful Libya (Or Something)
Were there any threats or national interest involved here I might have given the administration a pass. But our involvement in Libya is just inexplicable. It has all the features Obama campaigned against: no identifiable national interest at stake, no immediate threat to the nation by any measure, a military adventure in a third-world oil-producer undertaken without congressional approval, and no "exit strategy". What on Earth are we doing there, except putting our, and NATO's, martial impotence on display?
Oct '10
Re: White House: Don't Mess Up Our War Against Peaceful Libya (Or Something)
As with any challenge to the Autocrat in Chief the response is: "We won the election and waddayagonnadoaboudit?"
At least the dispute about whether the pretense of Constitutional Republic is a settled issue or still in play is now put to rest.
Mar '11
Re: White House: Don't Mess Up Our War Against Peaceful Libya (Or Something)
So exactly how many cruise missles and sorties constitute "full-blown hostilities"? Say at 200 Tomahawks is there a committee meeting where the various White House staffers evaluate if we are still just "kinetic"? When we hit that 10,000th strike sortie does a massive supercomputer buried in the bowels of the Pentagon kick DEFCON up a notch?
Mar '11
Re: White House: Don't Mess Up Our War Against Peaceful Libya (Or Something)
There are definitely things about the War Powers Act that I believe need revisiting, but the idea at the core of it, that the President must get Congressional authority when American soldiers will be in harms way or when military power will be applied abroad, is not among them.
Even if you buy the imminent humanitarian crisis line of reasoning (and I do think Samantha Power is a serious thinker on foreign policy matters), there is absolutely no reason the administration cannot get Congressional approval now. The continued unwillingness to do so based on the potential political cost is unseemly, unlawful, and an abuse of Executive prerogative.
Jan '11
Re: White House: Don't Mess Up Our War Against Peaceful Libya (Or Something)
Then why are we sending the military, instead of clinical psyhologists?
During the 2008 campaign, Obama was criticized for spouting speeches with no substance - we are who we've been waiting for, etc. It was all just words. He replied with a speech in which he repeated, "Just words?"
And yet ...
My friends, the verdict is in. We were right. Obama is just words.
May '11
Re: White House: Don't Mess Up Our War Against Peaceful Libya (Or Something)
Y'all remember Country Joe's song? "And it's one, two, three/ What are we fightin for?"
Indeed!
Edited on Jun 17, 2011 at 12:13am