People are quite upset over this latest report from TPM, in which we learn that Secretary of State Clinton told Congress that the White House would disregard any Congressional resolution placing restraints on the mission in Libya:
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), who asked Clinton about the War Powers Act during a classified briefing, said Clinton and the administration are sidestepping the measure's provisions giving Congress the ability to put a 60-day time limit on any military action.
"They are not committed to following the important part of the War Powers Act," he told TPM in a phone interview. "She said they are certainly willing to send reports [to us] and if they issue a press release, they'll send that to us too."
The White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a classified briefing to House members Wednesday afternoon.
[...]
The answer surprised many in the room because Clinton plainly admitted the administration would ignore any and all attempts by Congress to shackle President Obama's power as commander in chief to make military and wartime decisions. In doing so, he would follow a long line of Presidents who have ignored the act since its passage, deeming it an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power.
In this post I'd like to focus on that last sentence. It's true that since at least Truman, Presidents have strayed further and further from their warmaking fetters in the Constitution; and it's true that the War Powers Act has never really had any bite.
But up until this moment, I don't think we've ever had an Administration so baldly say what we all know is true. You'll recall that even President Bush, during the days of peak-Addington, would at least feign a regard for Constitutional procedure when it comes to war. (Once they knew they'd get it passed, they did go to to Congress to get the AUMF approved, after all--more than you can say about this Libyan venture.)
So what we have here is, again, Obama not so much setting new worrisome precedent as really, truly solidifying it. The other more prominent instances of this--Gitmo, and prolonged detention, for example--are perhaps more important, since the precedent he built off was so recent and thus, one would think, reversible. But they're generally all of a whole, the Imperial Presidency.
Which brings me to the question in my title. Honestly, what is more outrageous to those of you who care dearly for the Constitution (and no, not the Constitution of the Tea Party's fevered imagination; the real one)--being lied to, and knowing you're being lied to, by someone like Bush; or hearing, ugly awful truth straight and plain a la Clinton?
Personally, I think that as flimsy and absurd as our pretenses to Constitutionality can be, it's a distressing--though hardly surprising--sign to see them disregarded so brazenly. Once we no longer even pay homage, however disingenuous, to certain principles, we can forget why they ever mattered in the first place.