Bipartisan House Rebukes Obama on Libya

Friday, June 3, 2011

The U.S. House of Representatives on Friday rebuked President Obama for failing “to provide Congress with a compelling rationale” for the military campaign in Libya, but stopped short of demanding he withdraw U.S. forces from America’s newest war.

By a vote of 257 to 156, the House approved a resolution that criticized Obama for not seeking congressional authorization for the 76-day-old campaign against Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi.

Obama’s Libya folly now exceeds the 60-day ‘War Powers Act‘ by sixteen days.

The resolution gives Obama 14 more days to convince Congress the attacks against Gaddafi are justified by U.S. interests.

Legislators from both parties said they might try more stringent measures if Obama fails to make his case in the next two weeks. Their options include cutting funding for the operation, or voting formally to “disapprove” of the war.

Obama’s Libya war has failed to dislodge Gaddafi. But it has done something rare on Capitol Hill: angering Congress so much that they considered sticking their nose in the middle of an ongoing military campaign.

On March 18th, the UN Security Council approved a “no-fly zone” for Libya. President Obama then, without first consulting Congress, ordered amphibious ships to the Mediterranean, including the USS Bataan Amphibious Group. His actions were a clear violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which reads: (the) Powers of Congress shall pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense.

About these ads
This entry was posted in International News, Libya, News, President Barack Obama, U.S. House and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Bipartisan House Rebukes Obama on Libya

  1. Big Hank says:

    Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) expressing outrage said, “To tie the president’s hands — whether it be a Republican or Democratic president — is wrong.”

    But violating the Constitution, exceeding the War Powers Act of 1973 and acting above the law with arrogance and disregard, is now acceptable?

    What the hell has happened to the Democratic party?

  2. Adirondacky says:

    Barack Obama needs to be stopped. Either by the congress or by the voters in 2012. He’s remarkably reckless and is beginning to remind me of another arrogant SOB, Richard Nixon. I can’t believe I was so easily duped. Oh well, never again.

  3. Seabec says:

    I don’t understand why Libya isn’t front and center in the news and blogs? Reporters and bloggers prefer to cover irrelevant garbage like Palin’s bus tour or the arrest of some old French creep who headed up the IMF and assaulted a hotel maid. With Libya Obama is endangering American lives and spending resources we don’t have to spend and when it’s all said and done, Gaddafi will still be in-charge and the US that much more diminished. The American people are fools for demanding so little of the men we elect to be president. I plan to stay home in 2012. Never again.

  4. Randy Arroyo says:

    Seabec – Noooooooo! If you stay home it’s a victory for Obama and the status quo. Even if you write-in “John Lennon” or “Che Guevara” it’s a vote against Obama. I’m hoping a viable third party candidate appear on the scene in late 2011 or early 2012. Obama isn’t unbeatable. Far from it.

  5. feminazi says:

    I was extremely disappointed to see so many Democrats abandon Rep. Dennis Kucinich and vote against his Libya resolution last week. These are Democrats I thought were truly reliable but alas, they embraced war over peace at a time when we can’t afford another military action.

  6. Robyn says:

    It’s about time, and I hope Congress follows through on this in a few weeks.

  7. tamerlane says:

    Despite the disinformation spread by his media whores, barry did NOT automatically get another thirty days. Per the War Powers Resolution, the 60-day period expires:

    unless the Congress
    (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,
    (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or
    (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.

    This is not about “embracing war over peace” — one can favor the Libyan action and still be mortified by barry’s arrogant disdain for the constitution and federal law. We no longer live under the rule of law — we have an imperial president, with a flock of sheep instead of a congress, and anything goes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s