EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Bipartisan House Coalition Votes to Rebuke Obama on Libya
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives sent President Barack Obama a strong bipartisan message Friday that it's frustrated and impatient with the U.S. military mission in Libya.
Longtime liberal war critic Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, called the U.S. mission a "distraction". The war-weary US House of Representatives delivered a harsh, symbolic rebuke to President Barack Obama over the conflict in Libya but beat back efforts to cut funds for direct US air strikes. (AFP/Tim Sloan) The House voted 295 to 123 to deny congressional consent for extending the three-month-old effort for another year, a clear rebuke to Obama.
But the House would not take the extra step of denying funding for the mission. A bid led by Rep. Thomas Rooney, R-Fla., to cut off money for all but search and rescue, intelligence, aerial refueling and non-combat operations got bipartisan support, but lost on a 238 to 180 vote; 144 Republicans and 36 Democrats supported the restrictions.
The votes mean that U.S. involvement in the NATO-led effort to prevent Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi from crushing his people can continue. But the emotional, half-day debate illustrated the discontent that many lawmakers and their constituents feel about the mission, similar to their reservations about the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney voiced dismay at lawmakers' action:
"We are disappointed by that vote. We think now is not the time to send the kind of mixed message that it sends when we are working with our allies to achieve the goals that we believe that are widely shared in Congress, that _ protecting civilians in Libya, enforcing a no-fly zone, enforcing an arms embargo and further putting pressure on Qaddafi. And the writing is on the wall for Colonel Gadhafi, and now is not the time to let up."
Democratic House leaders had pressed for the legislation to authorize the Libya mission for one more year, while barring most U.S. ground troops. In all, 70 Republicans and 225 Democrats voted against it. The Senate is expected to consider a similar measure early next month, and Democratic leaders there expect it to pass.
The breadth of the bipartisan coalition against the Libya mission was striking. Longtime liberal war critic Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, called the U.S. mission a "distraction," while Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, argued, "We have no business being in Libya."
Others railed about the cost _ estimated by the White House at $716 million as of June 3.
"We're broke," said Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark. Extending U.S. involvement "could result in billions of dollars by the American taxpayer we just can't afford," he said.
But it was clearly hard for a lot of other doubting Democrats to vote against Obama. They maintained that the mission was consistent with the U.S. role as part of an international coalition, and that Obama should be given one more year to complete it.
Efforts to limit the president, said Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., are little more than Republican efforts to embarrass Obama.
"They want to continue to play games with U.S. national security," Berman said.
Lawmakers from both parties are also frustrated because Obama hasn't personally briefed Congress about his intentions in Libya. Lawmakers want the White House to comply with the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which no president has ever acknowledged as binding. The law requires a president to seek congressional approval within 60 days of the start of any conflict. If that approval is not granted, U.S. involvement is to end within 30 days.
Obama informed Congress of his intentions in Libya just before U.S. forces got involved in March. Last week, it advised Congress that "U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops." Therefore, the White House maintained, the Libya mission isn't subject to the War Powers Resolution's purview of "hostilities."
House Minority Steny Hoyer, D-Md., wasn't pleased.
"I do believe that President Obama could and should have done a better job of consulting with Congress at the outset of hostilities. I do believe that our armed forces are engaged in hostilities," he said Friday. "But I also believe that…the president's consultation with Congress has been comprehensive and respectful of Congress's role and responsibility."
Many of his colleagues disagreed.
"The question for me is it illegal or not. ….The president continues to be in violation of the War Powers Resolution," Griffin said. "What's so hard about coming to the House and consulting with the Congress?
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
22 Comments so far
Show All" a harsh, symbolic rebuke"
that's all.
Exactly.
But, you know, this has an upside. Anyone who doesn't know the real score in congress would tend to believe that congress orders the MIC (i.e. Pentagon + Wall Street) and not the other way around.
This will show that it IS the other way around. Furthermore, I hope this sheds light on the following bits of painful reality to the propagandized sheep:
1) The USA is a corporatocracy with a top down, undemocratic command structure.
2) The rest is PR to provide flag waving cannon fodder for the MIC.
The crooked billionaire Koch brothers once said that politicians are actors paid to read a script. They wanted to control what was on that script.
The logic of urging a politician to do something right and decent because of popular pressure only applies in democracies, not here in the USA corporatocracy.
Here you can get a politician to do anything you want if you have enough money to write that script for him or her. You're going to need more than the Koch brothers because, in addition to writing the script for the politician, you have to convince him or her that dodging the bullets which the elite are going to be sending in the form of Wall Street paid goons is worth it.
The deck is stacked against support of peace preserving, people serving laws by our politicians.
For those who still believe it is congress that decides whether wars are funded or not, I suggest you are in denial of our present state of tyranny.
And we paid for this farce. Millions out of work, millions with no health care, homes lost, the country reeling under climate disruption, soldiers with brain injuries coming home and being abandoned...and we paid for a symbolic rebuke!!!!
But, oh, here's even more money to spend so Obama can keep on being 'rebuked.'
And the Congressional Progressive Caucus (Democrats) couldn't even form a block to vote against funding the Libyan war (2nd resolution). They split on the voting. "Progressives" from this Caucus voted for the health care (sellout to insurance co's) bill, voted for extending and expanding the Bush era tax cuts (Kucinich), and now voted against cutting funding for the Libyan war. Considering Nancy Pelosi is an ex-member of the Caucus, we knew already that it didn't take much to enter that club.
Rebukes but continues to fund this latest Corporate Plunder-War.
How come the newspapers or these stories NEVER have a link to see
how our own Representatives/Senators actually voted?
A little diligence could come up with a link to thomas.gov instead of having to dig it up every single time...
Quite awhile ago, Ralph Nader suggested that there be a section of the newspaper which would list all of the facts and stats of the congressional voting records, salaries, donors, etc. We do it with Sports, Ralph reasoned, why not Politics?
I really hate two things:
1. All this talk like it is some sort of technicality of some old Act of Congress that Obama is violating here when he is really violating the CONSTITUTIONAL powers of the President. How many articles have we read here recently that reference the "War Powers Act of 1973" and NEVER mention the actual WAR POWERS in the Constitution that that Act's name refers to?!?
2. The fact that none of these articles -and no others after a quick search- ever mention the TIMING of the friggen votes. If the rejection of authorization was in the morning, and the approval of funding was in the afternoon, then obviously some of these folks were "corrected" over lunch, right? Anybody have advice on a site that shows the timeline of the voting today?
-matti.
OK CSPAN indicated that the rejection DID come first.
So I'm guessing I'm right. Goes along with all of this "symbolic" spin, and all this talk as if the "funding" is what really matters.
In case anyone is curious, Obama can be impeached for starting an Executive War in violation of the Constitution and neither "precedent" from past unconstitutional wars, nor the fact that the war was "funded" by the Congress should get him off the hook. The Congress is not bound by precedent that way.
Not voting to cut funds to an ongoing military action involving U.S. citizens DOES NOT negate one's vote against -symbolically, since it is unconstitutional- approving the war in the first place.
Every Rep. that voted for the funding has made a craven political choice.
Every Rep. that voted for the "approval" of the Executive War has committed Treason alongside Obama.
If that seems harsh or crazy to you, you need to look up what the hell "treason" means and open your eyes.
Bipartisan?
A minority of Democrats (mostly the House Progressives) and the vast majority of Republicans voted against authorizing military force in Libya.
There you have it folks. The Democrats are now the pro-War party and the Republicans are anti-War!!!
The previous bill introduced by Kucinich dealing with "You're time is up on Libya, Mr. President" was shot down by both parties. That gave rise to legal problems for the President in that Kucinich and others were thinking of suing him in court for violation of the War Powers Act.
Today's War Authorization act failed with mostly the Republicans switching votes from their prior stand against support for enforcing the War Powers Act time limits.
In the last debate Mitt Romney also decided that Libya was a distraction.
What changed in the Republican party to flip?
My guess is their fear that a real anti-war candidate (Ron Paul) may win the hearts and minds of the Republican voters and it's time for the incumbents and their lackey Romney to fake anti-war feelings against a smaller war like Libya.
How about a bill authorizing the war in Pakistan?
How about a bill re-authorizing war in Afghanistan?
How about a bill re-authorizing war in Iraq?
I'm sure the Republicans will flip back to their original pro-War positions.
Repubs are not anti-war, just anti-other party. All is game playing while the world goes to hell. Put a Repub in office in the next cycle of madness, the next swing of the pendulum of confusion, and see what hell and war can really be.
How about a bill authorizing war in Iran?
That would make for some real horseshit and gun smoke.
A few Republicans are anti-war.
I think it comes down to who is corrupt and who isn't.
Ron Paul says what he believes without regard for how well he will be rewarded by his party.
Both Kucinich and Paul are very clearly not corrupt.
This puts two people on the opposite ends of the political spectrum in almost complete agreement on all 3 wars.
The lesson here is that the evil forces in the world want the public to identify with either the left or the right.
What they don't want is for us to stop fighting each other and realize that we have a common enemy--corporations, drug lords--those types.
I get so annoyed with CD and much of the media for promoting this Republican Bad. Democrat Good nonsense.
"We strongly oppose this military action! Now, how many zeroes did you want on the check, again?"
The Macdonalds eating slaughter gorillas are hungry.
Interestingly, this is how Democrats handle Republicans in general--use a lot of harsh languiage...then give them everything they want.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU3RgXDt8wg
"protecting civilians in Libya"? What an outright lie considering reports that around 900 have been killed by NATO forces. Personally I find it difficult to believe the figure is as low as that.
"We think now is not the time to send the kind of mixed message that it sends when we are working with our allies to achieve the goals that we believe that are widely shared in Congress, that _ protecting civilians in Libya, enforcing a no-fly zone, enforcing an arms embargo and further putting pressure on Qaddafi."
Protecting civilians: tell that to the families of the kids that were killed by NATO and the rebels.
Enforcing a no-fly zone: who's doing any flying over Libya but NATO? The last domestic flight I heard about was actually flown by the rebels in a stolen plane.
Enforcing an arms embargo: who's arming the rebels?
Further putting pressure on Qaddafi: Mr. Obama said this was NOT about regime change.
So please, someone tell me exactly who can reasonably support any of this?
Rep. Ted Poe points out that "We have no business being in Libya" while refusing to acknowledge that the United States has no business being in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unjustifiably dropping bombs on people in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. If the U.S. is wrong in invading Libya then it most certainly is wrong in being involved in other military conflicts in the Middle East as none of those countries remotely comprises any kind of serious military threat to the most heavily armed country on the planet.
Yeah Bush...oops that is Obama should stop being such a meanie head!
So there!
The media is giving much more attention to the biggest Republican fools--McCain and Lindsey Graham--ignoring the anti-war Republicans of which there is a growing number.
However, when the Armed Forces Committee interviewed General Mullen about the Afghanistan troop drawdown, the Republicans were more concerned about too big of a drawdown and the Democrats were more concerned about too small of a drawdown.
In reality, no one was asking very tough questions.
Mullen was allowed to say over and over that we don't want to destroy our "gains" and jeopardize the mission.
The Republicans put their money where their mouths are, for whatever their motivations.
The Democrats, as usual, don't. For they, too, are whores to the military industrial complex.
Or maybe not "too"? The Republicans also took less money from the health insurance industry.
Whatever produces the correct result, AFAIC. I don't have to love them or know what's in their minds or souls.
Just do what the People want and GET OUT. CUT THE MONEY OFF.
So Barry's promise of days, not weeks has morphed into years (not decades). Trillions for the never-ending wars and pennies for stateside social programs, infrastructure and jobs.
When will workers begin direct action against the ruling elite's looting of the treasury?