PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues House ignores Obama's Libya request


HonestChieffan
05-26-2011, 09:34 AM
Non War continues under executive order or something? Meanwhile plans are set for vacation in Bali to get some relax time


House leaders are ignoring a request from President Obama for a congressional endorsement of the U.S. military mission in Libya.

Five days after Obama sent a letter to congressional leaders seeking a resolution of support, there has been no action in the House, and aides in both parties say there are no plans to bring legislation to the floor.

The response in the lower chamber marks a striking contrast with the Senate, where a bipartisan group of foreign policy heavyweights have signed on to a resolution backing the Libya campaign.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said he expects a vote next month on the measure, which is sponsored by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.).

A companion measure has not been introduced in the House, and in the two months since Obama launched the operation, only one of the chamber’s 435 members, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), has signed onto a resolution supporting the mission. A spokeswoman for Rohrabacher said Wednesday that his measure was in “a holding pattern.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said earlier this week that the Libya mission would be debated through amendments to the defense authorization bill currently on the floor, but the only amendments on Libya that lawmakers offered sought to criticize or to restrict the mission. With minimal debate, the House on a voice vote Wednesday adopted an amendment from conservative Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) that stated explicitly that “nothing in the [Defense] bill... shall be construed to authorize military operations in Libya.”

The top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.), said the White House has not asked him to sponsor a resolution and that it was up to the Republicans, who hold the majority, to take the lead.

“At this point, the majority has not indicated that they have a plan to bring anything up,” Smith said in an interview. “I think we should. I would be supportive of the Senate resolution. I think it’s important that we do that.

“Part of the reason that we haven’t introduced anything is that with something like this, we would like to have bipartisan support,” Smith said. “We would like something that would move through the process, and in that sense, the majority does control whether that happens.”

A White House spokesman, Tommy Vietor, had no comment, but he reiterated that the president “supports congressional action.”

In his letter last Friday, Obama said “congressional action in support of the mission would underline the U.S. commitment to this remarkable international effort.”

When Obama sent the letter, Michael Steel, a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said Republican leaders had not seen a draft of the resolution and would discuss it with their members. The actual Senate resolution was not introduced until late Monday.

Two senior Democratic aides said the GOP was unlikely to touch the issue.

“It has been communicated to us that the Republican leadership has no interest in having this come to the floor,” one aide said.

Boehner’s office declined to respond.

House tensions with the administration over Libya stem from the outset of the mission, when Boehner, along with both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, criticized the White House for insufficient consultation with Congress. Members in both parties accused the administration of acting outside of its war-powers authority, and those criticisms have grown louder in the last week with the passage of the 60-day mark on the mission. Under the War Powers Act of 1973, armed forces must be withdrawn after 60 days without authorization or a declaration of war from Congress.

With Moammar Gadhafi still in power and fears of a prolonged stalemate growing, there appears to be little appetite among House members for a full-throated endorsement of U.S. military involvement.

One Republican who initially was a strong backer of Obama’s intervention, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), said he would not vote for a resolution supporting the mission now because the 60 days of authority had expired.

Obama did not cite the War Powers Act or ask for explicit authorization in his letter. The president wrote that the resolution he wanted “would demonstrate a unity of purpose among the political branches on this important national security matter.”

“It has always been my view,” Obama wrote, “that it is better to take military action, even in limited actions such as this, with congressional engagement, consultation and support.”
The president noted the operation had become “more limited” as NATO has assumed command, but he did not say how long U.S. involvement would last.

The Senate resolution says the chamber “supports the limited use of military force by the United States in Libya as part of the NATO mission to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011), as requested by the Transitional National Council, the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council.”

The resolution says the Senate agrees that “the goal of United States policy in Libya, as stated by the president, is to achieve the departure from power of Moammar Gadhafi and his family, including through the use of non-military means, so that a peaceful transition can begin to an inclusive government that ensures freedom, opportunity and justice for the people of Libya.”


http://thehill.com/homenews/house/163379-house-lawmakers-ignore-presidents-request-on-libya

BucEyedPea
05-26-2011, 09:49 AM
Nice. Finally showing some Constitutional spine. I think Rand Paul has done quite a bit of shaking up on this which has provided some much needed good influence. I don't see him mentioned here although I skim read it. Boehner's office, of course, was quiet about it. Mr Bailout is in the hands of the bankers that are behind this illegal invasion masked as a humanitarian intervention.

Nothing has changed in the WH since George Bush left.

orange
05-26-2011, 10:07 AM
Nice. Finally showing some Constitutional spine.

"Spine?" That's what you call doing nothing? LMAO

"So when Pilate saw that he prevailed nothing, but rather that a tumult was arising, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man; see ye to it."

Fortunately, the House isn't quite totally able to take itself out of the loop. Kucinich's resolution - to withdraw immediately - must be voted on within the next couple weeks. And then the poor Republicans will have to go on record.

*** CAUTION - HUFFINGTONPOST CONTENT ***

This is an urgent matter. There are several initiatives underway which you need to know about.

1. House Concurrent Resolution 51 directs the President, pursuant to the provisions of the War Powers Act, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya.

This is a resolution I introduced on Monday, May 23, 2011. The matter will come to the floor for a vote anytime within the next 13 legislative days. Sometime within the next two weeks. Please Sign And Circulate The Petition Calling For An End To The War In LIbya.

2. Through careful gathering of information, I have been able to ascertain the principles which would successfully end the conflict in Libya, bring the opposing sides together and put a united Libya on a path toward democratic reforms. I will soon present the plan in the form of a congressional resolution.

3. I offered an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill which would defund the war against Libya. The rules committee did not accept my amendment because it was duplicative of another amendment by Rep. Scott Garrett. I have pledged my support to Mr. Garrett's amendment. Congressman John Conyers has an amendment which blocks the introduction of ground troops into Libya. I support Mr. Conyers' amendment.

4. I have been in discussion with Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina relative to taking legal action to protect the Constitution.

While the White House spins its intervention as protecting the civilians of Libya, a no-fly-zone begins with an attack on the air defenses of Libya and Gaddafi forces. It is an act of war. The president made statements which attempt to minimize U.S. action, but U.S. planes may drop U.S. bombs and U.S. missiles may be involved in striking another sovereign nation. Although the United States by far pays the largest percentage of NATO's military bills (25 percent), the President wants to depict this as NATO's action.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-j-kucinich/flashback-to-the-campaign_b_866759.html

vailpass
05-26-2011, 10:38 AM
More Huffpo Orange? Really? Does Curious George pay you some sort of fee for all the apologizing/defending you do for him?

orange
05-26-2011, 10:43 AM
More Huffpo Orange?
http://furlongspetsupply.com/ProductImages/booda/Aristo%20Silent%20Dog%20Whistle.jpg

FETCH! you uppity bitch!

vailpass
05-26-2011, 10:46 AM
http://furlongspetsupply.com/ProductImages/booda/Aristo%20Silent%20Dog%20Whistle.jpg

FETCH! you uppity bitch!

LMAO Orange peeled again. It's getting easier to send you to "post a goofy picture" land all the time. Is defending the presidential puppet boy starting to wear on you?

orange
05-26-2011, 10:53 AM
http://furlongspetsupply.com/ProductImages/booda/Aristo%20Silent%20Dog%20Whistle.jpg

FETCH! you uppity bitch!


Good girl!!! Here:

http://mombian.com/images/dog_biscuit.jpg

vailpass
05-26-2011, 10:57 AM
Good girl Michelle!!! Here:

http://mombian.com/images/dog_biscuit.jpg

fixy

BucEyedPea
05-26-2011, 11:16 AM
"Spine?" That's what you call doing nothing? LMAO
In certain cases yes. Sometimes leaving something alone is the right thing. So your Pilate example is a BS non-sequitor while illogically putting into the same category of thing such as "procedure." I fail to see how demanding to follow the Constitution by asking for an authorization from Congress is doing nothing. I mean Libya is based on a pack of lies.

Then again you used a laughing smiley....a sign of nerves in this case.

orange
05-26-2011, 11:23 AM
I fail to see how demanding to follow the Constitution by asking for an authorization from Congress is doing nothing.

It wouldn't be "doing nothing" - if they were doing that. But they're not doing that - they're doing nothing.
... ignoring ... no action ... no plans ... unlikely to touch ... no interest ...
Please show me this mythic "demand to follow the Constitution" in the OP.

My comment, on the other hand, shows that at least someone is doing something - Kucinich. We shall see what the rest of the House does.

orange
05-27-2011, 08:53 PM
Posted at 06:50 PM ET, 05/27/2011
By Felicia Sonmez

The House will vote on a Libya-related resolution sponsored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) next week. The already-contentious congressional debate over the U.S. intervention in Libya is about to get even more heated.

The House will vote next week on a measure calling on President Obama to end U.S. military involvement in Libya, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-Va.) office announced Friday evening.

The measure, sponsored by liberal anti-war Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), cites the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which states that any military operation not previously authorized by Congress must be halted 60 days after the president notifies Congress about the mission.

Pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, the Kucinich measure reads, Congress “directs the President to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya by not later than the date that is 15 days after the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution.”

The bill, H.Con.Res. 51, is likely to be taken up in the latter half of next week, according to the schedule distributed by Cantor’s office. As of June 1, the first day the measure might be up for debate, the United States will have been involved in the Libyan conflict for 72 days.

more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/house-to-vote-next-week-on-ending-us-involvement-in-libya/2011/05/27/AGFnjxCH_blog.html

HonestChieffan
05-27-2011, 09:18 PM
Do we have Armed forces in Libya?

I was told we have no troops on the ground.

If we remove them, if they are there, does crazy Dennis' bill mean we have to stop helping NATO?

Much confusion.

ChiefaRoo
05-27-2011, 09:39 PM
"Spine?" That's what you call doing nothing? LMAO

"So when Pilate saw that he prevailed nothing, but rather that a tumult was arising, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man; see ye to it."

Fortunately, the House isn't quite totally able to take itself out of the loop. Kucinich's resolution - to withdraw immediately - must be voted on within the next couple weeks. And then the poor Republicans will have to go on record.

*** CAUTION - HUFFINGTONPOST CONTENT ***

This is an urgent matter. There are several initiatives underway which you need to know about.

1. House Concurrent Resolution 51 directs the President, pursuant to the provisions of the War Powers Act, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya.

This is a resolution I introduced on Monday, May 23, 2011. The matter will come to the floor for a vote anytime within the next 13 legislative days. Sometime within the next two weeks. Please Sign And Circulate The Petition Calling For An End To The War In LIbya.

2. Through careful gathering of information, I have been able to ascertain the principles which would successfully end the conflict in Libya, bring the opposing sides together and put a united Libya on a path toward democratic reforms. I will soon present the plan in the form of a congressional resolution.

3. I offered an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill which would defund the war against Libya. The rules committee did not accept my amendment because it was duplicative of another amendment by Rep. Scott Garrett. I have pledged my support to Mr. Garrett's amendment. Congressman John Conyers has an amendment which blocks the introduction of ground troops into Libya. I support Mr. Conyers' amendment.

4. I have been in discussion with Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina relative to taking legal action to protect the Constitution.

While the White House spins its intervention as protecting the civilians of Libya, a no-fly-zone begins with an attack on the air defenses of Libya and Gaddafi forces. It is an act of war. The president made statements which attempt to minimize U.S. action, but U.S. planes may drop U.S. bombs and U.S. missiles may be involved in striking another sovereign nation. Although the United States by far pays the largest percentage of NATO's military bills (25 percent), the President wants to depict this as NATO's action.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-j-kucinich/flashback-to-the-campaign_b_866759.html

So you want the House to give Obama political cover? F*ck him, the well is poisoned and it won't possibly get better until 2012.

BucEyedPea
05-28-2011, 01:18 AM
Do we have Armed forces in Libya?

I was told we have no troops on the ground.

If we remove them, if they are there, does crazy Dennis' bill mean we have to stop helping NATO?

Much confusion.

Helping NATO? Aren't we part of NATO?

orange
06-03-2011, 02:52 PM
First Posted: 06/ 3/11 01:49 PM ET Updated: 06/ 3/11 01:53 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- The House rebuked President Obama's decision to intervene in Libya in March without consent from Congress, voting on Friday to demand the White House provide a specific justification of the national security importance of military action in Libya.

The U.S. entered Libya in mid-March and is now engaged in a NATO mission to oust dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

Just after approving a resolution drafted by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a 268-145 vote, the House voted down a more drastic resolution that would have demanded a withdrawal from Libya within 15 days. That bill, written by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), failed in a 148 to 265 vote, garnering 87 votes from Republicans and 61 from Democrats -- a surprising tally for a measure from one of the most liberal Democrats in Congress.

As the House of Representatives debated the two resolutions, each party splintered over support for its leadership. Democrats divided into Kucinich supporters and defenders of Obama, who said the administration was right to intervene in Libya.

While 223 Republicans voted in support of Boehner's resolution, others said the bill was too weak and did not offer a sufficiently strong condemnation of Obama's actions.

The Boehner resolution, unlike Kucinich's, includes no specific demands for the administration's military decisions, instead focusing on admonishing the president for failing to ask Congress before intervening in a foreign country. But the measure does not say that Obama's actions were in violation of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which states that Congress must authorize the use of force, as Kucinich's does.

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) called Boehner's bill a "puzzling, confusing, mystifying signal" for failing to clearly demand that the president follow the War Powers Resolution.

"The greater threat today, in my view, is the perpetual acquiescence of this body in situations such as we face today in Libya, where we tolerate the use of force when the threat to our national security is less obvious," he said on the House floor.

Flake, along with 86 other Republicans, voted in favor of the Kucinich resolution.

"Since we went in abruptly and illegally, we need to abruptly leave," said Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who also supported the Kucinich measure.

Democrats accused Boehner of attempting to play to both sides with his resolution, by allowing his members to vote against the president without actually demanding changes to U.S. policy in Libya.

"Either we should authorize this involvement or terminate it," Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) said on the floor. "The majority seems to be raising a fuss while winking at the White House."

It would be better, some Democrats said, to approve the Kucinich resolution, because such a move would re-assert that it is Congress that possesses the power to authorize the nation to go to war. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said he would have voted against intervening in Libya had the president come to Congress for approval.

"Yes, [Gaddafi] is a thug that ought to be removed," he said on the floor. "But it cannot be that America is the 911 call for the world and we are the ones who have to respond everywhere, every time."

Boehner, meanwhile, defended his decision to push for a weaker resolution on Libya, arguing that the Kucinich resolution would force a too-swift withdrawal that could harm American interests.

"It mandates a precipitous withdrawal from our role," he said on the floor. "In my opinion, that would undermine our troops and our allies."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/03/libya-house-obama-administration_n_870996.html

HonestChieffan
06-04-2011, 08:45 PM
More than three-fourths of House members believe Libya operation is questionable, illegal or unwise

By: David Freddoso 06/04/11 2:52 PM


The U.S. House considered two measures yesterday relating to the war in Libya. The first, which carried on a bipartisan vote, demanded that President Obama justify and explain his actions in Libya, and stated as a finding of fact that

The President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon United States national security interests for current United States military activities regarding Libya.

This successful resolution also demands that the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General "transmit to the House of Representatives" copies of any documents, records, or correspondence referencing the administration's need to communicate with Congress or the War Powers Resolution.

Obama has maintained all along that he consulted with Congress sufficiently to justify going to war. The Congress, including a significant number of House liberals, is calling him a liar with this first resolution, and demanding documentary evidence that will prove it.

The second measure, which failed on a bipartisan vote, demanded that Obama cease military action in Libya. The minority who supported it presumably consider the operation unwise, in addition to its potential illegality.

Only 86 members of Congress voted for both measures. This means that 330 members of Congress voted for at least one -- more than three-quarters of the U.S. House.

The White House reacted with a statement that "these resolutions are unnecessary and unhelpful." They are only unhelpful in that they might prevent Obama from governing in a way that ignores the clear letter and spirit of the law and the Constitution.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/more-three-fourths-house-members-believe-libya-operation-question#ixzz1OMjqEni2