Members of the House Republican leadership announced today their intentions to move forward with a bill to defund the war in Libya, barring a major change of perspective from the Obama Administration, which yesterday claimed the war was immune to the War Powers Act requirement for Congressional support for deploying US troops overseas.
House Speaker John Boehner (R – OH) slammed the claim, insisting that the suggestion does not “pass the straight face test.” Indeed, the letter and spirit of the act, passed during the Vietnam War era, make the administration’s claim extremely difficult to understand.
Detailing next week’s House schedule, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R – VA) said it was possible that legislation about defunding the conflict could be moved on as soon as next week. An amendment barring spending military appropriations bill funding on the conflict already passed with strong bipartisan support.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney insisted President Obama stands behind the claims about not needing Congressional approval, which are particularly perplexing since the administration previously cited the act’s 60-day grace period in justifying their lack of consultation.
We should be reading a presidential claim soon that the Congress has got a nerve trying to interfere with National security by withholding funding. After all, the president, elected by all the people, owns the armed forces, the IRS, and has influence over the Federal Reserve Bank. Those legislative bodies should just butt out and leave the King of Deeeemocracy to sort things out with his money grabbing buddies. We know in our hearts he will act in our best interests. Mrs. Robinson told me so in 3rd grade.
Next step for Congress.., impeach this man for all the lies his been telling the world about his peace doctrine.
Yep. Any day now. Any day. But don't hold your breadth…just in case.
If the House Republicans really wanted to defund the Libya adventure, all they need to do is pull out of NATO. Then the administration would have no skirt to hide behind. It would also free up a whole bunch of money that could be used elsewhere – like internal US infrastructure? Ya know…jobs!!??
The only infrastructure this government seems interested in is half way around the planet in places we've paid to blow up.
If the House defunds Obomba's Libyan adventure that is a good thing, regardless of the motives of those doing the defunding. Congress, however, will have to do alot more than defund the war in Libya to regain control of its constitutional war making powers. If the House defunds the war in Libya, Obomba will probably continue his war by moving funds around, dipping into that pentagon slush fund, or just ignoring Congress. If Congress wants to be taken seriously on this issue they will have to impeach and convict a sitting President for violating Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
Without a mass movement in the streets, congress will do no such thing. Congress is an institution with no real sense of itself, and is singularly incapable of jealously guarding it's prerogatives. It is merely 435 ambitious, well bribed individuals, with perhaps a handful of notable exceptions (probably just 2). As for impeachment, when has a president ever been impeached, or forced out of office under impeachment threat, for an act of war, or state repression? In this country, impeachment isn't used in cases of Constitutional violations. It is used when someone the majority of congress doesn't like lies about a blow job.
"If the House defunds Obomba's Libyan adventure that is a good thing, regardless of the motives of those doing the defunding."
yup, I'll take it even if it comes from a bunch of hypocritical Republicans doing it for partisan reasons.
There's a trick here.
A bill 'defunding' the war requires both Senate approval and Obama's signature. Neither is likely to happen of course. That means this is for show only.
Sen. Reid did exactly the same thing under Bush. He'd put up a bill against the Iraq war as a stand alone bill. That way, a fillibuster stops it, or a Presidential veto stops it.
The key is to stop the bill that provides the funding. Or stop some other bill they want by making this a part of that bill. Its easier to stop something than it is to pass something. 50% +1 of the House can stop something.
So, why are they doing this the hard way? Why are they doing this in a way they know will fail to a pro-war Senate and a pro-war Presidential veto? To me, it smells like its all for show.
If they really think the President is breaking the law, they should be beginning impeachment proceedings. And that's the one thing they will not do.
Americans have short memories. The Republicans were highly critical of Clinton's wars, too. They actually did try to impeach him (although for something else entirely). That lasted only until there was a Republican president.