Because the war with Libya has no end in sight, and with the United States’ involvement in the war reaching the sixty day mark, Senate Republicans sent Barack Obama a letter asking him if he was going to comply with the War Powers Act (the very act he used as justification for doing the United Nations’ bidding without congressional approval) and ask the Congress for permission to continue the war.
Here is part of that letter:
Friday is the final day of the statutory sixty-day period for you to terminate the use of the United States Armed Forces in Libya under the War Powers Resolution. Last week some in your Administration indicated use of the United States Armed Forces will continue indefinitely, while others said you would act in a manner consistent with the War Powers Resolution. Therefore, we are writing to ask whether you intend to comply with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution. We await your response
Early indications were that the president was going to try to find a way around complying with the War Powers Act by looking for language in the law that might provide him with an escape route from compliance:
We want to make sure we’re not stretching anything inappropriate. So we’re looking at some language,” Kerry said as he entered a weekly policy lunch in the Capitol with Democratic senators. “We’re really looking at it very seriously to keep everyone on the same page
Rather than just complying with the intent of the law, the Obama regime looked for a loophole the regime could exploit and now they think they have found it because Barack Obama has answered the letter of Senate Republicans and he has told them that he does not need congressional approval to continue the war in Libya.
Since April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition’s efforts.”
Barack Obama has always maintained the position that our bombing of Libya does not constitute a war; I would ask anybody out there to tell me that dropping bombs on a nation is not an act of war, and now his defense for not seeking congressional approval is that while we are not really at war with the nation we are dropping bombs on, what little action we are currently engaged in really isn’t even worth mentioning any more–after all, we are only dropping bombs once in a while. He is using the “move along, nothing to see here” defense and it leads us to ask the question; if there is nothing to see here and the war which is not really a war is so limited why not step in front of the Congress and explain why the war needs to continue?
After all, Barack Obama did acknowledge he had the support of the Congress, so why not make it official by complying with the law he is bound to?
The president voiced support for a bipartisan resolution drafted by Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., John McCain, R-Ariz., Carl Levin, D-Mich., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Lindsey Graham, R-SC, and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., stating that Congress “supports the U.S. mission in Libya and that both branches are united in their commitment to supporting the aspirations of the Libyan people for political reform and self-government…Congressional action in support of the mission would underline the U.S. commitment to this remarkable international effort
Perhaps the president is afraid that if he asks the Congress for approval the American people will realize that we have no legitimate reason for the war, we have no goal we are hoping to accomplish in the war, and we have no exit strategy in the war. All of these were criticisms President Bush faced after going into Iraq, the parallels are interesting, and Barack Obama would rather keep this on the back burner.
Or perhaps Barack Obama hasn’t been truthful about his reasons for attacking Libya in the first place: The Obama Doctrine–created in order to defend the United States’ involvement in Libya–states that when our VALUES are at stake we are obligated to act as the conscience of the world. Barack Obama declared that because Ghadaffi was attacking his own people we were justified for engaging him because in reality this is a humanitarian issue.
But is that really the case? If we are to interfere in another country’s civil war for humanitarian reasons, why are we not involved in Syria where the government is firing into crowds of protesters? Surely our VALUES must be at stake here also and yet we are not obligated under the Obama Doctrine to act as the conscience of the world in this instance.
This leads me to believe that there is some other reason why Barack Obama decided Libya was the place where he must make a stand; was it because he is subservient to the United Nations who wanted to protect French oil? Or is there some other more nefarious reason? We will never know because Barack Obama has refused to get the authorization of the Congress which he is required by law to do.
Credits / Source