CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 22, 2011 07:30 PM UTC
49 Comments
At least he bothered with trying to drum up public support and getting congressional resolutions before pulling something like this.
By lying to them about WMD.
I have a hard time finding anything better about that approach.
But I still feel better about it than having a self-appointed Roman-style dictator. At least Bush could have been hypothetically stopped at some point in the process.
I guess Cheney could have tired of yanking Bush’s strings . . . that would’ve stopped him, huh?
but it’s hard to justify ignoring the War Powers Resolution. I thought Obama was supposed to be taking us away from the “imperial presidency” model. He deserves to be taken to task a bit.
He submitted his required notice to Congress today.
That’s not what the fight is about. Obama had the power to commit troops under the War Powers Act. Certain members of Congress wanted him to ask “Mother May I?” instead.
And if he had waited for the ‘do-nothing’ Congress to debate this issue for a week or more before taking action, the people of Benghazi would have been massacred
broke one off in the Obama bashers on MSNBCs’ “Morning Joe” early today.
After listening to Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan slam Obama for taking action, Rendell asked them, “and had he done nothing, and Gaddafi massacred 75,000 people in Benghazi…what would you say then?” There was not a single coherent response.The French led the operation and the U.S. is playing a role proscribed by its’ agreements with the U.N.
Gaddafi screwed up when he used the words “no mercy”.
But I guess the U.S. could have been considered complicit in the deaths, given that we were training and arming Gaddafi’s people:
http://www.salon.com/news/poli…
For weeks the administration and Congress has been discussing military action in Libya. There were Senate hearings on a no-fly zone. It’s all the media has been talking about (minus a few days on Japan). The U.N. Security Council discussed this for a week and 2/3rds of it’s members supported the decision. This is far from coming out of nowhere.
Sure, there was no congressional resolution, but there doesn’t need to be one. The War Powers Act gives the President 60 days before he needs congressional permission.
If he had waited for Congress to approve this, Ghaddafi would have crushed the rebels before we could act. Then intervening would be pointless.
yeah, Shrub had Daddy & his cronies get him appointed Pres by SCOTUS and then drummed up an illegal & unfounded war that cost the lives of almost 4,500 US soldiers just so he could get a stiffy.
yeah Shrub had his whole admin lie so US people would buy into his shock & awe BS and accept his macho stupidity. He stabbed Colin Powell in the back, let how many US generals twist & retire, and added how much $$ to the debt just so he finish off his supposed delusional vendetta.
You’d have 2 be shitall stupid to forgive Bush for his transgressions — guess Smalls might fit the bill.
This is President Obama’s first use of the War Powers Act. How many times did President Clinton use it?
Let’s see: Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Serbia…
There is precedent behind what President Obama is doing. The law is vague and only says the president must “consult” congress before engaging. One can say that the Senate hearings on a no-fly zone a couple weeks back was a “consultation”. You can disagree with his decision, but it is not illegal.
You can make apologetics for something we would condemn if wasn’t our guy doing it.
I will not.
I guess the President’s problem with his own party now is reconciling the difference between Barack Obama the candidate and Barack Obama the President.
You really lose a lot of your credibility when you have publicly condemned what your predecessor did and then do the same yourself.
Then yes, he is doing the same thing as his predecessor. Although, it is at a far less rate than President Clinton committed troops into conflicts.
The key term in that quote is “unilaterally”. The criticism of Bush is that he used military force without the support of our major allies and without approval from the U.N.
There is nothing unilateral about the Libya situation. The French are spearheading this whole effort and the U.N. Security Council approved it with 2/3rds support. And the 5 countries that did not support the U.N. resolution didn’t vote against it, or veto it.
And I wouldn’t condemn this if it was a Republican in office. Just like I supported going into Afghanistan in 2001. I didn’t support Iraq because that was a preemptive unilateral ground invasion and occupation of a country that posed no threat to us and was not actively slaughtering it’s people.
Ghaddafi was en route to Benghazi where a massacre was about to ensue. We had to act quickly. That is exactly the President’s job as Commander and Chief!
In fact I think this is retroactive word-parsing at its worst. The man is not Jesus, we do not need to divine his meaning.
The situation in Libya is many things, but an “actual or imminent threat to the nation” is not one of them.
Turns out campaigning for an office is much easier than actually being in office and having to make real decisions that affect people’s lives.
As much as Congress wants to bitch about being left out of this decision, I didn’t see anyone introducing resolutions last week addressing the Libya situation. While thousands of civilians were being bombed by their own government, members of Congress were busy getting their Spring Break plans in order.
The intervention was to avoid the imminent mass killing of civilians in Benghazi. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Now the President has said we will assume a support role in a matter of days, not weeks. It is up to the Europeans and Arab League to finish this since they are the ones most affected. I agree, we have no vital interests in Libya, they do. Give the President a break. He’s doing exactly what he said he would do. Quit grandstanding.
This is exactly why the war powers act has the 60 day exception.
The US has been telegraphing the plan and also the diplomatic strategy.
This is the first brilliant thing President Obama has done. I mean getting the Arab league and the UN security council to sign off on a US led (from behind the curtain) military operation in a Muslim Oil producing nation, all while the Arab and European street were basically coming to the realization that the world NEEDS the US to be a military power that acts, but acts responsibly.
That is leadership. It reminds me of Bush–George Herbert Walker Bush and his secretary of state James Baker.
The GOP is just grousing because he doesn’t talk like a clown (or he is a D, or black, I never know anymore) like Bush the Lesser, clown prince of Texas.
As for the left. I am liberal, but I believe in the responsible use of force. It was always the Bush lies, incompetence and arrogance that I had a problem with.
when I see us actually in nothing but a support role in a matter of days and when I see the Arab League taking any active role in this, sending in their own Arab pilots so that it absolutely can’t be characterized as more western crusader on Muslim aggression and when I see what happens when Qadaffi remains in power in spite of the no fly, no drive zone actions and it becomes impossible to prevent genocide without boots on the ground and when I see that none of those boots are going to be ours, I’ll be ready to agree that this is all going to turn out just peachy for us. As it is, it still looks like it could go very bad, very fast.
Seriously. What’s the option? What are you willing to allow in the world? And I’m not asking in any kind of a combative way. Everyone’s hindsight on this will be brilliant. I’m glad I’m not the one making the decision to do nothing (killing civilians) or to kill civilians and a whole lotta troops (total sidenote: lives more important than $$$, but it’s not going to help our budget situation).
OTOH, that whole Rwanda thing was a bit FUBAR and soul killing (among other things), too. Give me 40 days in the future and I’ll tell you what option will result in the smallest massacre.
I’m not OK with war, I’m not OK with jamming our nose in a place it doesn’t belong. I’m also not OK with air strikes on civilians by their own government. I’m sure we all have our own limits. I fail to see why people are attacking folks over their own. (not that you did, it’s a general statement) There’s no lie here, only personal lines. I find myself in agreement with Medvedev (doesn’t happen everyday). Other’s mileage may vary.
I also have to point out (since we were talking about it the other day) that Secretary Clinton was saying that no matter what happens everyone will play the oil card. Funny that everything she predicted has come to pass. Oh, but no one had said anything before now! Oh noes!
Oh, and it does suck that the larger Arab community of countries isn’t active in this.
is the hardest part but we really can’t go in everywhere. Not as in we don’t want to. As in it isn’t possible. We have just so much blood and treasure to spend. Once again, what about Yemen, Bahrain, Syria? What about take your pick in Africa?
My beef is that the Arab League wanted us to do this but they aren’t putting any skin in the game. I think there should have been hard bargaining to get Arab League countries to be the face of the no fly zone.
But beyond that, where does it go from here? Qadaffi will not surrender or negotiate a deal to leave. We call lots of leaders we don’t like and who do nasty things madmen but he really is. As long as he remains alive and in power there will be a blood bath as soon as we cease operations. In other words indefinitely unless he is killed or decisively deposed (no doubt also meaning killed) after the overwhelming majority of his loyal forces defect. Until then there will be no time when we can say the danger of a bloodbath is over. How many wars can we be stuck in indefinitely?
Long term, we need to get to a place where we don’t need to take oil into consideration in our foreign policy at all. Short term, we need to tell the Arab League, this is your neighborhood. We aren’t crusaders. We’ll help you but Libya is your affair. This needs to be an Arab League responsibility. You Arab leaders don’t get to keep your hands clean while we do your dirty work and take a beating in your press as the crusader aggressors so you can keep your public happy with you and distracted from the fact that your governments are corrupt cleptocracies that will never give them a scrap more than you think you absolutely have to.
If they refuse we announce that our hands are tied as we can only be there in a support role and the Arab League refuses to take action. If the people of Egypt hadn’t been successful, if their army had backed Mubarak, would you have been for us taking aggressive military action there? In Tunisia? It’s a hard world. The American taxpayer and military can’t be responsible for every madman out there.
I wrote several responses, but didn’t want to fuck up your thought out comment.
I will say that I understand your frustration and feel it with you.
the Arab League is definitely playing both sides, and if that shit dosen’t change soon and they don’t put up something meaningful we should just up and leave.
Please come help people are dying every day/get out now infidel USA crusader is getting rather old.
Saudis use some of those airplanes we sell them in this cause, but . . . those planes and arms were always meant and intended to serve other purposes closer to home.
The biggest problem for the “Arab league” is that, except for a few rare cases, it is precisely those folks who have the power to order their militaries in those countries that have the most to fear from their citizenry seeing citizens of other Middle Eastern nations becoming personally and democratically empowered. See also: Egypt, Tunisia — neither of which could be considered the worst and most oppressive of the bunch.
I can’t help but believe that the Arab League, left to their own devices, would be helping Gadhafi “re-establish order in the interest of peace and regional stability.” Better to have them sit this one out — again. (No easy answers to complicated problems.)
those most immediately in need — the Libyans.
would be better for whom?
The truth is that, since the War Powers Act was passed, literally no president has conceded its constitutionality. It has been violated literally tens if not hundreds of times. The WPA is useless and unenforceable. The Supreme Court hasn’t opined on it, but they would probably dismiss it as a political question.
So, all this talk about the WPA is a total waste of time. We can discuss the role of the legislative branch versus the exec. in going to war, but you might as well leave the WPA out of it.
Though I really, really would like to see Qadaffi in Florence it seems the whole world is better off if he expires so that is what I hope happens. If he lives he can use the $100 Billion+ that he has squirreled away to wage terror attacks.
And, yes, I do think similar efforts are warranted elsewhere, such as Yemen. Unfortunately, since Bush cost us $1 Trillion in wars that should not have been waged we just can’t afford to.
I was in favor of the early invasion of Afghanistan but thought we should have left within months. I was never in favor of Iraq, either time, because I knew that 1) there were no WMD (see inspector’s report) and, 2) it simply was illogical in the extreme to think Hussein, a secularist, had conspired with an ideological group of Muslims. It was too much like James Dobson conspiring with the American Atheists.
…and after having to watch that horror unfold while in Germany, I’m still terrified that it will happen again in Libya.
Go thru all the gyrations you want regarding how and if President Obama said the Constitutional Magic Words in the right order to start this military action, it’s still not enough.
If he’s smart (and it appears he is) he’ll let the French take over this messy intervention, and let their ground troops try and keep the Pro-loyalist forces from massacring the rebels. They’ve spent enough time on the ground backing Chad in the Toyota War, so it’s not like they’re screwing around somewhere new.
“a plain reading of the 1973 War Powers Resolution is tough to square with ordering airstrikes against Libya without congressional authorization.”
In fact, the War Powers Resolution, had you bothered to read it, requires the President to inform, but not seek consent, from Congress, for the first sixty days of hostilities. In effect, it weakens, rather than strengthens, any constitutional requirement, by interpreting it to have exceptions.
U.S. interest in turning over command and control of the coalition in this action despite the fact that it is only a few days old, no doubt reflects that fact.
Also, keep in mind, the U.S. has made no documented deployment of ground troops in Libya, has been a secondary player in sending in airplanes (although there has been one F-15 lost producing minor injuries to the crew), and has had naval action limited to firing cruise missles and operating sensors in support of others.
Nothing that the U.S. has done so far, other than its command and control role, could not be stopped on a dime by the President if Congress deemed fit, and it should be in a position to discontinue involvement in sixty days without difficulty if that is the intent of Congress.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc…
We did read it, thanks.
while you cite 1541 correctly, it is 1543 that applies and congress doesn’t matter for 60 days under 1544.
So I must concur with the counselor.
I just read the whole thing. I understand the reporting requirements and the sixty day limit. But are you saying those provisions trump the first, quoted here, very clearly limiting the circumstances under which forces may be committed?
How does that not “apply?” I’m asking not arguing, I’d really like to know.
it’s more like how your car is required by law to be licensed.
You just have a window to do it in. No one declared war, this situation falls under the other requirements for reporting (under the termination clause).
Or that’s how I’m reading it. I’m not a lawyer. Hell, I don’t even play one on TV.
1541 describes the situations to which the war powers act applies (“introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances”), however 1543/4 is “specific statutory authority” under 1541(2) and it is under this exception that the president is free to act unilaterally–even if his justification is bad.
Congress has two options if they don’t like it–wait out the 60 days or pass a concurrent resolution demanding the removal of the troops.
Can I ask where you are getting this?
This section defines when it is appropriate for the commander in chief to commit military forces — period. If the test of 1541 is not met, the position of Congress is now and has always been that the military action is not legal. Presidents do not agree, and have considered the War Powers Resolution unconstitutional. It has not yet been settled by the Supreme Court.
Again, where are you getting the idea that this is all cut and dried? I’d like to know, Congress and Presidents have been arguing about the War Powers Resolution since the moment it was passed. It would be truly historic if you had suddenly resolved the whole issue.
(Hint: you haven’t)
People who answer their own questions shouldn’t ask questions
However, I will show you where I am getting it.
Which clearly indicates the president can do whatever he wants for 60 days absent a concurrent resolution from congress saying “get out.”
That is not debated by legal scholars. Blogs–maybe so.
The UN resolution is all the authority the President needs. We have a treaty with the UN; it’s the supreme Law of the Land. If you disagree, a membership in the John Birch Society is always available to you as an option.
I’m not saying I like the war. I’m just saying that the President has sufficient power to fight it.
So that’s why Mexican trucks rolled into the US of A right after NAFTA?
If congressional approval means nothing in the face of a UN resolution, why did Bush I get both for Desert Storm?
I’m looking into any precedent close to this that may exist, though. It’s an interesting argument, but the courts would probably need to sort out how it fits with Article I, Section 8: “The Congress has the power to declare war.” This is the authority the War Powers Act is based on, and Congress outlined the exceptions in the WPA.
For example when does the War Powers Act kick in in this situation, if at all? Do our treaty obligations mean the Congress must fund the air strikes, too? Does this supremacy apply to all UN resolutions, or just treaties, which are different things?
Oddly enough, I don’t feel like a Bircher for asking. Because I don’t think the courts have fully answered these questions, and I think you’re making presumptions.
Security Council resolutions are binding under the UN Charter. Meaning binding on Libya in this case of course, obviously the no-fly zone is manned voluntarily.
But in the specific case of the use of military force, you have a constitutional conflict that the courts need to resolve, and you may not want to dismiss as John Birch bullshit. When it comes to guns and bombs, I don’t really think you do.
“In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced-
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;”
So far as statutory authorization goes, there is 10 USC 127d (general authorization to engage in coordinated action with military allies), 10 USC 164 (general authority to direct troops by combat commands under the direction of the President), 22 USC 441 (power to acknowledge existence of war between foreign states and take various actions as a result to protect American interests), or how about 22 USC 1962:
“The President is authorized to undertake, in the general area of the Middle East, military assistance programs with any nation or group of nations of that area desiring such assistance. Furthermore, the United States regards as vital to the national interest and world peace the preservation of the independence and integrity of the nations of the Middle East. To this end, if the President determines the necessity thereof, the United States is prepared to use armed forces to assist any such nation or group of such nations requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism: Provided, That such employment shall be consonant with the treaty obligations of the United States and with the Constitution of the United States.”
Similarly, in 22 USC 1963 which provides: “The President should continue to furnish facilities and military assistance, within the provisions of applicable law and established policies, to the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East, with a view to maintaining the truce in that region.” spent? It refers to the “United Nations Emergency Force” but it isn’t obvious that this is restricted to a historic event and could not apply to a new UN Emergency Force.”
Is Gaddafi a communist? If he is, there is statutory authorization.
You have a period where the Pols have a comma, and you left out something important. Bad form, owilleke.
In theory, 1541 is the fundamental legal test of a president’s decision to commit military forces, and the other sections are the reporting process. The other sections assume compliance with the first.
Perhaps your problem is that it has been ignored for so long, but that does not change the law. The President, under the WPA, can ONLY commit forces based on a declaration of war, other statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack.
I learned this in college, so I’ll have to find you a link. How about…Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W…
What the hell are you talking about, man?
but not by U.S.
http://www.state.gov/secretary…