Skip to main content

View Diary: Contrary to POTUS, Removal of Qaddafi is the Military Objective (49 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  On March 1st (4+ / 0-)
    The Senate unanimously approved a nonbinding resolution on Tuesday calling for the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and urged Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi to resign and allow a peaceful transition to democracy.

    The resolution, offered by Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., has no force of law. And its symbolic impact on U.S. posture toward Libya is uncertain. But the resolution puts the full Senate on record behind an aggressive posture and could bolster a growing number of calls for the United States—which has already sent warships carrying hundreds of Marines into the region—or its allies to take limited military steps in support of Libyans seeking to overthrow Qaddafi. Earlier on Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told lawmakers that all options to address the Libyan crisis are on the table.

    “There is a bipartisan consensus building to provide assistance to liberated areas of Libya and to work with our allies to enforce a no-fly zone," Kirk said in a statement.

    [emphasis added]

    One could argue that Congress had already given it's tacit approval. Not sure it's a strong argument, but it is an argument.

    In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

    by jsfox on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 09:56:43 AM PDT

    •  The senate is not congress. n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jsfox, Robert Naiman
      •  I should have clarified (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DerAmi, Statusquomustgo

        not Congress, but Senate. However had the House taken up a similar resolution at the same time it probably would have passed. The calls coming from the House for a no-fly zone were also mounting.

        Yahoo News

        The chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Florida Republican Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Michigan Republican Rep. Mike Rogers have also expressed a desire to impose a no-fly zone.

        Finally, yes I do think Congress should vote, but beyond grumbling do you see them actually doing it? They won't because it far easier to complain than actually go on record with a vote.

        In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

        by jsfox on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:13:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What are they waiting for? (0+ / 0-)

          Many Republicans were calling for action. What did they do?

          Where is the vote? I'm no fan of the War Powers Act, but absent an different act of congress, the War Powers Act is in effect.

          For Iraq the congress passed a law giving the POTUS the choice. A declaration would bind the Commander in Chief to carry out his duties, would it not? And if they do not want the War Powers Act to be in effect then I believe it is up to congress to take a f'ing vote.

          This better be good. Because it is not going away.

          by DerAmi on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:19:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  But the vote was unanimous (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        If the House wasn't more busy with emergency sessions over the funding of Sesame Street or other sundry events, do you think a House resolution vote would be much different?  

        It's really the contortions here that bother me.

        The notification and 60 day rule seem to pretty clearly give the President the legal foundation for the US role in Libya -- but beyond that, should Obama have asked for a congressional resolution?

        Well - then we're playing political games (at least, more than we were inevitably going to anyway).  John McCain no doubt takes to the Sunday shows trumpeting an alternate resolution that adds ground troops.  Michelle Bachmann offers her two cents.  John Boehner tries to play both sides as people like Allen West argue that we ought to get of the FDA to fund the action.  

        I just can't help but get this feeling that the answer to the question of "should Obama take a lead role in X" generally depends less on any coherence, but more on what makes for a better cudgel.

        When it comes to the ultimate function and proper "everything in its place" role of the US government, I'm pretty much a traditionalist:

        The President and the Executive Branch have the predominant responsibility for foreign affairs - congressional oversight is certainly important, but I think congressional approval is limited to extensive and costly actions.   Congress has the predominant responsibility for domestic affairs, with the President playing a supporting role of checking its power.

        I'm not some wild-eyed constitutional originalist, but that is fundamentally the way the founders did envision the two branches working -- and I think it's ultimately been for the best.

        It's simply not feasible for a parliamentary body to conduct foreign affairs, while a singular leader dictating domestic policy is totalitarianism.

        I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

        by zonk on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:24:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No Senator would block this anyway (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ... they all want to be President, they are not going to curb the power to look manly on television.

          It would be nice if they did (and indeed there are a principled few), but basically they are all angling for the keys to the kingdom.

      •  and it was not an authorization (0+ / 0-)

        in the past, when Congress was authorizing, it did so explicitly.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site