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

  •  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site