With a new Gallup poll showing the public is already tired of our “support role” in Libya, the House Republicans are poised to issue a rebuke to the president and pass a bill that will cut off funds for drone strikes. The bill will not be passed in the Senate and, thus, will not become law, so John Boehner wants NATO to know that the vote is just for show and not to take it seriously.
House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday that the House action was intended as a symbolic gesture and sought to reassure the NATO alliance that U.S. forces were not likely to withdraw.
“We are engaged. I believe that NATO is an important organization, and as we’re there, I don’t want to do anything that would undermine NATO or to send a signal to our allies around the world that we are not going to be engaged,” he said. “This is primarily a fight between the Congress and the president over his unwillingness to consult with us before making a decision.”
I support rebuking the president for his failure to follow the law, but this is an awfully dumb way to do it. The way the House Republicans have structured this, they will vote not to authorize the mission and then they will vote to cut off any funds for anything that could be construed as an offensive operation. But those two votes both indicate a lack of support for the mission in Libya, and that’s not the message Congress really wants or needs to send. The issue here isn’t whether or not the U.S. should be supporting NATO or carrying out drone strikes, because Congress does not want to abandon NATO at this juncture. The issue is whether the president should have sought explicit authorization from Congress, and whether he should seek that authorization now.
The administration has stated that it would like authorization even though it doesn’t feel it is required. Congress could oblige them and limit the precedent the president has created. Or they could simply censure him, since this is clearly not an impeachable offense in this particular case. Voting to cut off funds for a mission that Congress actually supports is stupid, undermines the mission, and, despite Boehner’s excuses, sends the wrong message to both NATO and Gaddafi.
A week or so ago when I heard the idea of ending the funding, my first thought was: a win-win for Obama. If they fund it, he looks all military and decisive like. If they don’t fund it Congress look like doofi (what’s the plural of doofus?)
My take is that Congress’s Constitutional “power to declare war” has been a confused mess since the Korean War. And since the more militaristic Dems don’t let rationality get in their way of supporting stupid things like the invasion of Iraq, I don’t know if I can ever care that much about these “legalities”.
I usually say doofuses since I don’t speak Latin. But doofi works for me, too.
So would that make Rand Paul the Oracle of Doofi?
In Latin that would be Oraculum Dooforum.
I’m not sure what the Korean “police action” authorization was. I was too young at the time to follow the news. But, for me, it was Vietnam that started these responsibility-abdicating resolutions that say “the President is authorized to do what he thinks best.” I fully agreed with Robert Byrd that instead of authorizing Bush to take action “if he deemed it necessary”, Congress should have just declared war on Iraq. Or not, but either way Congress should have taken decisive action instead of punting it to the First Citizen.
This whole thing gives me a headache. Obama should get Congressional approval; but Congress is so fucked right now, there’s no way he would get it even if every republican agreed in their hearts with the policy. So, I get why he seemingly broke the law. I say seemingly because there are some lawyers who do make the argument that he doesn’t need approval (I know you and many others disagree). But, you know what…if Congress disagrees with the interpretation of the law that Obama has chosen, fucking sue him, take it to court and get an answer. They won’t do that because it makes them look like dicks (or doofi) so they’ll just take the cowards’ way out. Obama still stands as the only adult in the room, more and more each day.
honestly, there’s no one to root for here.
Stupid Reoublicans?! They are controlling the news cycle diverting attention from their only vulnerability, the Ryan budget. And they’re the stupid ones?
It was all political theater anyway.
The President got Osama bin Laden. The President is withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.
The President is firm on completing the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
You can’t insulate Presidents of your own party and then hold Presidents of the other party accountable when you already gave them the loophole.
Just another clown act in the circus that is going to continue until the clock strikes midnight on the debt ceiling expiration — which it seems the President might not have to obey because of this clause in the 14th amendment:
Seems like a stretch to me.
But…..the Treasury can decide which debts to pay first. And Congressional salaries and benefits could be one of the items to be deferred. Contract payments to government contractors could be deferred….The withdrawal of troops from Iraq could be accelerated followed by accelerated withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
People are beginning to contemplate the powers the executive has in the face of the expiration of the debt ceiling.
What powers? Section 4 seems pretty vague. Not be questioned? Doesn’t the whole debt limit question the validity of the public debt?
Are there other powers that can be inferred in the case of national bankruptcy? It would be supreme irony if a GOP-forced default gave Obama the opening to take emergency powers.
As I said, the 14th amendment gambit seems to be a wild stretch as its context is debts of the Confederate states from the Civil War.
I’m not sure that the idea of national bankruptcy occurred to the framers of the Constitution. I think until the GOP started raising it as an issue, or was it Bretton Woods, the idea of sovereign bankruptcy was unimaginable.
There is no provision in the Constitution that I know of that gives the President emergency powers over Congress or the country. The PATRIOT Act notwithstanding.
What is unclear is whether Congress has the power to tell him where to stop spending in order to pay of creditors in a reasonable amount of time. Or whether he (and the Treasury) have the executive power to do what needs to be done.
I suppose we will see if Obama shows some spine this time.
Cut off spending for farm subsidies and military spending in Republican states first. Then blame Congress for it.
The Republicans are Khadaffi’s BFF. Wonder what the Muslim-hating Tea Party thinks of that!
They’re likely cool with isolationism. None of this nation-building stuff that might get rid of a tyrant and replace a pliable autocrat with a rowdy and possibly unmanipulatable democracy. It’s either imperialism or nothing for them.
May The Lord Rebuke You !
and You
and You, also too…