-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Libya, NATO, Congress, and the President
Author: BobR
Date: 03/23/2011 11:11:17
Once again, President Obama has taken an action which is approved by the majority of Americans, but condemned by those on the right and by some on the left. His measured actions in Libya have Republicans questioning his lack of hawkishness, and Progressives angry about yet another war front.
The biggest question is whether he got Congress involved enough:
According to the President, however, he did consult with them. In fact, the Senate passed a resolution calling for a "no-fly zone", which ended up in the UN resolution:
As required by the War Powers Resolution, Obama sent an official notification to Congress. Of course, the House ison vacation recessed for "constituent outreach" this week, so that doesn't help. That hasn't stopped Kucinich from talking about impeachment. For what, I ask? What high crime or misdemeanor? While some people question the Constitutionality of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, until some court says otherwise, it is law and - from a technically legal point of view - therefore within the Constitution.
So the politics of this are all over the map. There are Democrats like Anthony Weiner (D-NY) who remind people what happened in Rwanda when we did nothing. On the other side are Democrats like the aforementioned Kucinich who are trying to block funding from being used for this. Republicans, on the other hand, would normally support this sort of thing, but are torn between supporting the action and trying to find a way to not support Obama. They seem to have settled on the talking point that it is "too little, too late", or for allowing another country to take leadership on this. On both sides, there is the question of the monetary costs involved.
The challenge to Obama as this plays out is to define our mission there, and keep our involvement short and not let "scope creep" turn this from disabling Ghadaffi's ability to attack his own people to a mission to unseat him completely. Remember criticisms of the first Gulf war, when people said Papa Bush didn't "finish the job"? That criticism will occur here as well, because once again - that is not the job. That is not in the UN resolution which NATO is enforcing.
The other question is: what will arise from the smoke? Who are the rebels, and will they be able to coalesce into a working government, should Ghadaffi step down? Libya tends to be a tribal country; there is no single unifying leader to step into a power vacuum.
The end result of this will be the final measurement to whether or not the mission was ill-advised and could be a boost or an achilles heel for the Obama presidency. I hope this turns out well, and the post-mortem analysis shows that it was the right thing to do. Not just for Obama, and not just for our country, but for Libya as well.
The biggest question is whether he got Congress involved enough:
Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.
And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.
According to the President, however, he did consult with them. In fact, the Senate passed a resolution calling for a "no-fly zone", which ended up in the UN resolution:
Exhibit A for the White House: A Senate resolution that passed March 1, which denounced Khaddafy's atrocities. The White House says the U.N. resolution authorizing force in Libya incorporates it.
The resolution was incorporated unanimously and calls for a "no-fly zone."
As required by the War Powers Resolution, Obama sent an official notification to Congress. Of course, the House is
So the politics of this are all over the map. There are Democrats like Anthony Weiner (D-NY) who remind people what happened in Rwanda when we did nothing. On the other side are Democrats like the aforementioned Kucinich who are trying to block funding from being used for this. Republicans, on the other hand, would normally support this sort of thing, but are torn between supporting the action and trying to find a way to not support Obama. They seem to have settled on the talking point that it is "too little, too late", or for allowing another country to take leadership on this. On both sides, there is the question of the monetary costs involved.
The challenge to Obama as this plays out is to define our mission there, and keep our involvement short and not let "scope creep" turn this from disabling Ghadaffi's ability to attack his own people to a mission to unseat him completely. Remember criticisms of the first Gulf war, when people said Papa Bush didn't "finish the job"? That criticism will occur here as well, because once again - that is not the job. That is not in the UN resolution which NATO is enforcing.
The other question is: what will arise from the smoke? Who are the rebels, and will they be able to coalesce into a working government, should Ghadaffi step down? Libya tends to be a tribal country; there is no single unifying leader to step into a power vacuum.
The end result of this will be the final measurement to whether or not the mission was ill-advised and could be a boost or an achilles heel for the Obama presidency. I hope this turns out well, and the post-mortem analysis shows that it was the right thing to do. Not just for Obama, and not just for our country, but for Libya as well.
