I've heard lots of conflicting claims made here about what the president did or didn't do concerning Congress' and the President's prerogatives and responsibilities when it comes to sending US military forces into harm's way.
I've seen many comments and a few diaries concerning Dennis Kucinich and his claim that Congress needs to be brought in when the White House and Pentagon deploys forces.
My view is that he has a valid point. History shows us that like the concept of humanitarian intervention, like the War Powers Resolution of 1973, is ripe for abuse, and has in fact been abused this way more often than not. Again, exactly in the same way that humanitarian concerns are cited in every public ramp up prior to going to war.
I'm not so eager to give the President the benefit of the doubt here. Politics should stop at the water's edge and frankly, people's lives are put at risk. Not only our own military personnel, but the lives of innocent Libyans. This is a time to stick to the facts as best we know them, revise our conclusions as new facts become known, and judge accordingly.
Regardless of my disappointments on the President's performance and choices, I'm prepared to give him credit for helping save lives in Benghazi, and for going about it in the manner this administration accomplished this: giving the requirements of diplomacy and international law their just due.
However the constitution is silent on whether congress has the power to delegate it's responsibilities as the WPR implies or whether the President's authority over the armed forces and their deployments is absolute. The WPR was an attempt to define this more clearly, but as I will illustrate, is far from perfect.
Read More