Skip to main content

View Diary: If Republicans really want to investigate what went wrong in Benghazi, they need to look in a mirror (77 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  As for this in the piece (4+ / 0-)

      you site:

      Even after Congress approved the U.S. military joining a NATO mission in May 2011
      House Votes Against Authorizing Obama's Libya War
      The House has overwhelmingly voted down a bill that would have authorized U.S. military action in Libya after months of bipartisan outrage over President Obama's decision to launch military strikes in the North African country without the approval of Congress.
      Congress never signed off on US involvement, which is why it violated domestic law.

      One need not recognize (or care about) the unfolding tragedy in Libya right now to see the absurdity of blaming only Republicans for the security nightmare in Benghazi, which was caused by military action that President Obama ordered.

      •  the military action (27+ / 0-)

        which prevented a massacre of civilians in benghazi by qaddafy's forces. one need not recognize (or care), indeed.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Mon May 12, 2014 at 09:02:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you agree with the piece (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          happymisanthropy

          you site that Congress voted to support the military action?

          •  it's sloppy reporting (25+ / 0-)

            but the senate did vote for the security council to impose a no-fly zone.

            was it a violation of law? every president has claimed similar right, since the law was enacted. none has been impeached for it. obama's interpretation on libya follows established precedent.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Mon May 12, 2014 at 09:20:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, ok (4+ / 0-)

              It's "sloppy reporting" not blatantly false and it's not illegal because everybody does it:

              IT has now been over three months since the first NATO bombs fell on Libya, yet President Obama has failed to request Congressional approval for military action, as required by the War Powers Act of 1973. The legal machinations Mr. Obama has used to justify war without Congressional consent set a troubling precedent that could allow future administrations to wage war at their convenience — free of legislative checks and balances.

              When Mr. Obama first announced American military involvement in Libya, he notified Congress within 48 hours, as prescribed by the War Powers Act. This initiated a 60-day period, during which he was required to obtain approval from Congress; if he failed to do so, the act gave him at most 30 days to halt all “hostilities.”

              Last Sunday was the 90th day of bombing in Libya, but Mr. Obama — armed with dubious legal opinions — is refusing to stop America’s military engagement there. His White House counsel, Robert F. Bauer, has declared that, despite the War Powers Act, the president can continue the Libya campaign indefinitely without legislative support. This conclusion lacks a solid legal foundation. And by adopting it, the White House has shattered the traditional legal process the executive branch has developed to sustain the rule of law over the past 75 years.

              It's one thing for you claim NATO regime change was a good idea -- we can argue about that forever, at least till your position becomes untenable -- but you can't reasonably claim that it was legal. To do so would require you to accept the Admin's claim that NATO intervention in a civil war didn't amount to "hostilities."
              •  that is factually wrong (17+ / 0-)

                it set no precedent. it followed a precedent every president has followed, and no congress has challenged.

                The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                by Laurence Lewis on Mon May 12, 2014 at 09:44:48 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  & while it's true that some war pigs in the (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                happymisanthropy

                GOP like McCain supported intervention, indeed slammed Prez O for going to slowly, it's not true that Republicans in Congress signed off, so the premise of that article, and your post, is weak.

              •  This dispute didn't start with Obama. (5+ / 0-)

                Whatever one thinks of the process by which the White House arrived at its decision in this case (and that process is the subject of the linked article), IIRC, no president has openly recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act since its passage.  And no Congress has ever had the guts to try to force the issue in the courts, precisely because neither branch is certain of victory in the courts.

                My personal opinion is that the War Powers Act obviously should bind presidents, since the Constitution states that only Congress can declare war.  But at least as far as I am aware, the courts have never definitively resolved the constitutional question.

                (I'm not an expert in this area of law by any means, so I'll happily be corrected by lawyers who are more knowledgeable.)

                "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                by FogCityJohn on Mon May 12, 2014 at 11:28:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Actually your correct; and the bitching between (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  anon004, JohnB47

                  Congress and the Executive over who controls foreign policy goes all the way back to at least President Jefferson (um . . . Tripoli, Libya).

                  That's the hair across McCain's ass: he wants to make the decisions of a President, but is frustrated because only a hack and wannabe statesman in the Senate.

                  This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                  by JJustin on Mon May 12, 2014 at 12:05:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Grammar Police (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PeteZerria, pamino

            It's "cite" not "site" for the meaning you intended.

            Obi Ben Ghazi to House Republicans: "Use the Farce."

            by edg on Mon May 12, 2014 at 04:00:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Ends justifying means (0+ / 0-)

          Any act of war, no matter how good-hearted, absent a formal declaration of war is unconstitutional. No declaration of war, no war.

          Or, we could keep going with extralegal policies of foreign military intervention. Makes it harder to stop the next Vietnam war Iraq war.

          Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

          by Simplify on Mon May 12, 2014 at 10:26:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  that's just not true (6+ / 0-)

            it is and has been debated since the 18th century, and there's never been a formal legal or congressional mandate to decide it either way.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Mon May 12, 2014 at 10:52:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I agree. But it is still the reality that that (0+ / 0-)

            question falls into the crack of separation of powers between Congress and the Executive; the bitching over who should control foreign policy -- Congress or the Executive -- goes back at latest to Jefferson.

            It's a hair-splitting sort of issue: the President is "clearly" in charge of foreign policy; the Congress is clearly in charge of declaring war.  But those get wrapped up in the question, "Who is to control foreign policy -- i.e., the President's actions vis-a-vis foreign policy?"

            "Foreign policy" includes war.

            This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

            by JJustin on Mon May 12, 2014 at 12:09:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes and I'm still going to advocate what's right (0+ / 0-)

              based up on the text of the Constitution, objective reality, logical self-consistency, and morality.

              Supreme Court decisions, congressional action and inaction, executive precedent... These determine the supposedly immutable law of the land. Until they do something differently, which sometimes they do. So who's right? I reject "that's the way it's always been done," "might makes right," etc.

              Is every Supreme Court justice who joins the losing side of a decision objectively wrong? Nope.

              To be sure, sometimes what's right and what's the best thing a person can do in current circumstances can be two different things. But I'm still going to voice the former. "A more perfect union," and all that.

              Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

              by Simplify on Mon May 12, 2014 at 12:20:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree. (0+ / 0-)

                But the contention over who controls foreign policy -- clearly that's the president's responsibility -- is tangled up in the fact that Congress has a legitimate role concerning foreign policy: and that is its exclusive power to declare war.

                Would the Framers have found a way to resolve that dilemma?  Probably not, as it arose during their time, and there doesn't seem to have been any effort to resolve it.

                (Jefferson back-channel paid a ransom for the release of the hostages.  Was that a precedent for Asleep-at-the-Switch Raygun?)
                 

                This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                by JJustin on Mon May 12, 2014 at 12:33:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Korea was a police action and not a war (0+ / 0-)

              Look it up.

      •  You are omitting centrally relevant facts: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PeteZerria

        Everything Republican't is "NO!" regarding, concerning, and to President-While-Being-Black.  No matter what President-While-Being-Black proposed doing, the Republican'ts were opposed.

        When he said no to boots on the ground in Libya, they insisted that was necessary.

        When he said no to boots on the ground in Syria, they insisted it was necessary.

        And in both instances, after the initial successes without boots on the ground, they decided to "agree" with him by refusing to deal with the changes in facts on the ground.

        There are those who'll make any excuse to hate on President-While-Being-Black.

        They did not object to what Preisdent-While-Being-Black was doing; they objected because it wasn't full-on overkill.  Then they refused to deal with the changes on the ground.  

        This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

        by JJustin on Mon May 12, 2014 at 12:01:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Republican "outrage" (0+ / 0-)

        The tragic (for us)  Benghazi attack was really all of our faults.  As was the attack on the Marine Barracks in Lebanon way back in '83 was all our faults even if Ronald Regan, under bad advice, sent the Marines in with no clear purpose to hang out there naked and turning in the wind.  What were we doing in Benghazi, hanging naked in the wind, anyway?
         

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site