Posted by DrJohn on 17 June, 2011 at 1:43 pm. 37 comments already!

When Barack Obama went to war on Libya he cited the War Powers Act as his justification for doing so.

A few days ago, on March 22, President Barack Obama informed Congress formally about his unilateral decision to assist in the coalition of nations protecting rebel forces and civilians in Libya from attack from Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s loyalist troops. In the formal letter, reprinted in USA Today, the president used as justification the War Powers Resolution. But said resolution is very specific in the conditions under which a president can involve the nation’s armed forces in a conflict against other nations without Congressional consent. Some wonder if Obama exceeded his authority.

Now in a report sent first to the NY Times and sent to Congress later, Obama argues that the War Powers Act does not apply to his actions.

In contending that the limited American role did not oblige the administration to ask for authorization under the War Powers Resolution, the report asserted that “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.” Still, the White House acknowledged, the operation has cost the Pentagon $716 million in its first two months and will have cost $1.1 billion by September at the current scale of operations.

“U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.”

Now that’s pretty interesting.

Under this definition Obama is free to bomb anyone on Earth with drones for an unlimited amount of time and spend an unlimited amount of money doing it. Further, Obama could drop a nuke each on Syria, Libya and Yemen and be in accordance with the above definition. Obama could take out John Boehner or Sarah Palin under that definition.

This is the guy who opposed “dumb wars” (i.e. not those he starts)

This is the guy who said our involvement would be “days, not weeks.”

This is guy who said “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

This is the guy whose VP said he’d impeach a President who took us to war without Congressional approval.

We are now in several wars without Congressional approval.

The other screaming question is- if the War Powers Act doesn’t apply, then exactly what was the justification for involving the US in this war in the first place?

What we are seeing with great pain is the amount of sheer dishonesty Congress is willing to tolerate from a lying President. What ought to worry everyone is that tolerance for dishonesty and tolerance for trashing the laws of the land sets the stage for the emergence of dictatorships. Impeachment may be the only remedy for Obama’s disregard for the law.

By now democrats would have impeached George Bush had he done something like this, so you’re not just an idiot to believe anything Obama says, you’re an idiot to believe anything a democrat says.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
37
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x