Wednesday, June 15, 2011

War Update

Speaker Boehner recently issued a challenge to the president on Libya:
“Given the mission you have ordered to the U.S. Armed Forces with respect to Libya and the text of the War Powers Resolution, the House is left to conclude that you have made one of two determinations: either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya, or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution,” Mr. Boehner wrote. “The House, and the American people whom we represent, deserve to know the determination you have made.”
Either or. Today his weekend golf partner's lawyers replied:
“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” Mr. Koh said. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped, or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”
So it all depends on the meaning of hostilities and 'boots'. Really, do we want the meaning of "not hostile" to now include hellfire missiles coming from unmanned drones targeting the leaders of countries we don't like? Gaddafi might disagree with that characterization. Not that anyone cares--he deserves to go down based on his past if not for the al-Megrahi f-you by itself (is he dead yet?), but this is about the rule of law.

Boehner has previously supported the Libyan theater and is not about to pull the plug willy nilly without cover, so we await his retort. But here's some advice for the weekend--watch out for those foot wedges and only give one mulligan. No need to let the big guy win.

-----

Meanwhile in Pockeston, the Pockestonis have rounded up five patriots who helped rid the world of UBL by talking with the CIA. Yeah, another cartoonish story about our supposed 'ally' in the GWoT and yeah, it makes one long for the Armitage solution sometimes. But this sounds like a reasonable explanation.

Wait though, weren't we told the move was gutsy-risky because it was only a 55/45 shot that UBL was in that encampment? If we actually had five (maybe more?) CIA informants along with a CIA listening post nearby, together with satellites, stealth drones, and a Pakistani general on the payroll feeding information then really, was it really a 50/50 shot? Also, if a Pakistani general was helping us gather intelligence where was he getting his information?

Oh well. If the president is not troubled by bending the truth about just almost everything else then nobody should be surprised if he bent the truth on this a little, too. Rest assured he's tirelessly at work for us peeps, focusing like a laser on all kinds of stuff.

5 comments:

Mustang said...

We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”

Perhaps Obama thinks the War Powers Resolution only applies to missions that exceed eleventy-skillion dollars out of an upside down economy.

Right, except that Presidential power to employ American resources to blow the smithereens out of other people is exactly what the War Powers Resolution sought to limit. We have no one to thank for this other than the second communist president, Lyndon Baines Johnson. One might recall Johnson’s claim that NVA torpedo boats made an attack against the US Navy on 4 August 1964 was entirely false.

Now, of course, those who live in Leftville and Middleburg are saying that right leaning Americans are really isolationists, as if that entails some sort of multiple personality disorder. I believe the United States has an absolute right to protect itself and its people from harm. I even think preemptive attack is a wise course of action and much preferred to waiting for the actual occurrence of a likely attack on the United States. Yet, I also think that the United States government must demonstrate that such hostile action is warranted and in this nation’s best interests.

If this attitude makes me an isolationist, so be it.

A.C. McCloud said...

This is like everything else Obama does--calculated based on politics. He knew he might get embarrassed by going to Congress, which would make him look bad based on Bush being successful twice. So thinking himself as not Bush (as in torture and warmongering) he thought he'd get a pass by saying "days not weeks" and no kinectic, etc. And he basically has so far.

Whether he realizes that going to Congress is like going to the American people is unclear, but it's doubtful he cares either way. I have no doubt whatsoever that if Gaddafi ends up with the fishes tomorrow or next week or next year the bots will come out and laud Obama as the greatest terror warrior ever and hail his awesomely hostile war as being responsible.

LASunsett said...

I think you are being too hard on Pakistan. Wait until you read my post tomorrow....just you wait, you'll see.

Debbie said...

Charles Krauthammer thinks this is a bad move for Boehner, that it will backfire when a Republican president is in office, that the War Powers Act should never have been created. Interesting take.

As to Obama, everything he has done concerning Libya has been very strange.

Debbie
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com

A.C. McCloud said...

Whether there's a War Powers Act or not doesn't negate the Constitution. I think the spirit of the document is to have the president come to Congress for approval of wars, unless it's an exigency short-term situation (like several of Reagan's). To say there's no hostilities involved in a campaign to bomb a country into regime change is insulting to both Congress and the American people.