E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIt all depends on what your definition of “hostilities” is.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing today on Libya -- pitting the administration’s lawyer who wrote the argument that the U.S. is not involved in “hostilities” in Libya against some senators -- would have been almost comedic if it weren’t so serious.
Harold Koh, the State Department lawyer defended the language, saying that the word "hostilities" in the War Powers Resolution is an "ambiguous term of art.”
That was after Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) challenged the contention that the U.S. was not in a shooting war in Libya.
On not seeking congressional approval, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) asked Koh if he is glad that the administration went down the route of "basically sticking a stick in the eye" of Congress, as it relates to Libya by not seeking Congressional authorization under the War Powers Resolution.
Koh essentially apologized. "Senator,” he said, “that was not our intent, and if you felt that stick was stuck that was not our goal."
He said he would have come up earlier for briefings. "I take responsibility," he said.
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the committee’s ranking member, ripped into the Obama administration at the start of the hearing, saying the White House’s consultations with Congress have been "perfunctory, incomplete, and dismissive of reasonable requests." He said the Clinton administration on Bosnia worked much more closely -- in a “meaningful” way -- with Congress.
“There was no good reason why President Obama should have failed to seek Congressional authorization to go to war in Libya," Lugar said. "Presidents should not be able to avoid Constitutional responsibilities merely because engaging the people's representatives is inconvenient or uncertain.”
As for the “hostilities” argument, Lugar said, "The highly dubious arguments offered by the Obama Administration for not needing congressional approval break new ground in justifying a unilateral Presidential decision to use force."
Leave a Comment:
Is this the fight Obama really wants to pick with congress?
If we are involved in conflict with another entity, weather we are shooting the weapons, aiming the weapons of helping the ones doing so, we are part of a hostile act. Therefore we are involved in hostilities.
Term of art. Huh?
Lets see - dropping bombs doesn't seem very unambiguous. Bombs kill.
Man, you dems got yourself your very own shiny war mongering cowboy.
You all should be so proud. It is exactly what you wanted, right? I know, I can remember all the way back to 2005. 06, 07.
It's like our girl Maddow showed last night - there is only one difference in you all brains - a split screen of Busha and Obama. Same crap, different dude.
But you love him, you just love him so much it hurts, right?
Why in the world doesn't Obama want to ask Congress to endorse his little war in Libya? He'd get approval in both the House and the Senate in about a day, and all this silliness about what "war" means, and what "hostilities" means, and what "art" means would just fall away.
Or, maybe Obama is just clueless on how to do anything right. That would explain a lot.
According to the Liberals on this page all of us Conservatives are engaged in Acts of Hostility toward Obama just because we disagree with his Political Policies.. but Dropping bombs on another country on another country. Those are not Hostile acts... Who would have thought..
So, are all democrats afflicted with the adolescent word definition syndrome we witness from Obama and Bill Clinton?
Good grief.
On another note, this was just the latest example of Obama insisting that he knew more than the experts. As much as I dislike what he has done to this country, I pray he never has an attack of appendicitis.
Knowing him, he will declare himself more skilled than the surgeon, and remove the offending organ himself.
"I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
Barack Obama
Says it all. I am all things to all people.
I believe Senator Lugar is right. I have long been a critic of these damned invasions and incursions into the civil wars of countries all over the glove. I do find it rather odd that only recently have Republicans begun to notice that these little adventures might be a problem.
I was terribly disappointed last week when the President didn't take the opportunity to announce a full-scale withdrawal from Afghanistan, and just generally get the heck out of that region. It just didn't make sense to me. So even though he is exactly following the timetable he announced some time ago, I couldn't shake the notion that there is considerably more going on than we know.
A great deal of homework over the last week leads me to believe that there is something far worse going on in the Middle East than we know. I think Pakistan is a very, very dangerous player in that region; more than we imagine. There are some other players that are extremely volatile, not the least of which is North Korea. China is not happy about what is going on, and India is quite worried.
I just can't escape the nagging suspicion that there is something very wrong, so wrong that it may actually threaten the stability of the planet. This is one of those times where you don't want to be right.
John, Tucson, AZ - The President doesn't have to pick this fight.
The 'Decider' has already put in place precedence what allows President Obama to do exactly what he is doing with NO oversight from Congress. This is all a part of the 'Unitary Executive' mantra that 'The Decider' has left as his legacy.
This, along with the items in the Patriot Act that the Congress rushed to get the President to sign.
I haven't seen you in a while. I hope all is going well for you.
david walker - either the right is starting to understand that actions have consequences or the left wants to live in lala land.
Regardless, I don't believe that either party will be successfull in the future if they refuse to listen to the populace or at the very least fail to adequately inform the populace.
I never could grasp this new fangled "Art" stuff.
Alan,
If you don't see through it, the mind boxes you in. You interpreted the President to mean "I am all things to all people".
His comment is about how others project their world onto him and that's what you just did.
No Joe,
I saw your post to me from the other thread. Thanks for the response. I guess I understand and can accept where you are coming from regarding your contempt for the policies, but not contempt for the man.
On this topic I can agree with the majority here who appear to agree that we should not be involved in the Libya situation. Agree with Alan, NJ he said it well below - see #4.
Mark, I would not categorize my feeling about Obama as contempt. I am, however, angry over his refusal to realize that his policies do not work, and a course change is in order.
Until he does, the situation in this country will continue to deteriorate- which hurts everyone.
No Joe - Sorry for my poor grammar I meant to say that from your post on 1st thoughts I understood that you didn't hold contempt for him you only disagreed greatly with his policies. Fair enough for me.
Honestly speaking I wonder if this is not the new normal and things will not improve dramatically whatever policitian or policies are implemented. As a liberal I will continue to believe his policies can help. You and others can believe the contrary, as the loyal opposition, as long as there is an attempt to help the entire country in the process. At this point if things worsen politics won't matter much.
The man is so out of his depth. He really doesn't have a clue.
But- it is of limited viability as a strategy.
With a record glaring in front of the electorate, the ephemeral rhetoric loses it's power to allow the listener to infer what hem or she wishes.
David Plouffe knows this very well. It was a strategy he attempted to employ for the Labour Party last year, when he crossed then pond to help them hold Parliament.
Did not work out so well.
Those nasty records undo the well planned strategy every time.
Funny how Republicans want to be included in every police action commitment with the UN by "this" President and turned a blind eye to the last one. Another case of a double standard by the Republicans. We want to know everything you do since you are a Democrat. So predictable!
The difference is. Bush asked for and Got Congressional aproval to use Force. in both instances of Iraq and Afganistan.......... i mean according to liberals a Democrat shouldnt be held to that standard
@AnaBanana-1782128
Ana, I personally want us out of the 3 wars we are in. I didn't support Iraq at all, the time has come to leave Afghanistan, and if Libya was indeed a humanitarian mission as described in the UN resolution I may have supported it similar to Bosnia. However, for the administration to argue that they are not conducting hostilities, and for them to be picking sides in a civil war does not pass the smell test. As the first poster said " Is this the fight Obama really wants to pick with congress?", because to be honest I really don't get it. If you Warner and Webb questioning your actions then there are serious flaws with you logic. For you to try and reduce this to a "It's because the President is a Democrat" argument I think is ridiculous. There are serious flaws with this policy (as there were with Iraq) and the actions of the administration in not requesting authority from congress are greater than anything the Bush administration attempted when prosecuting the Iraq war.
For Example, once Ghadaffi is eliminated what is the United States policy? What if the regime keeps fighting, because it has become a tribal civil war, after Ghadaffi? Do we keep fighting? What if the rebels start killing civilians who supported Ghaddafi in Tripoli? Do we start bombing the rebels? What is our objective and why?
All of the experts posting here better look at our history of undeclared wars before shooting at the POTUS.
I love legal parsing. Being able to say nothing and at the same time covering your butt in case you do.
Harold Koh, the State Department lawyer defended the language, saying that the word "hostilities" in the War Powers Resolution is an "ambiguous term of art.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
He's the John C. Yoo of this administration...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/30/AR2010013001411.html
Examples of undeclared wars are: Invasion of the Dominican Republic, Panama. Were they declared wars? Heck, they were Latin countries, I guess that those don't count.
Not to mention the kidnapping of a seated head of state in Panama. Every Republican president since Nixon has thoght the War Powers Act was unconstitutional. Gotta laugh!
Susan Lindauer, a former CIA asset, said that the rebels are the very same Alqaida were have been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq..........