U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 25, 2011 01:21 AM UTC

Udall Warns on Libya, Calls For Swift Transfer of Command

  • 15 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

This weekend as Western forces commenced air strikes against the military of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, Colorado Sen. Mark Udall joined most of Congress in support.

Today, a press release from Sen. Udall’s office, while reiterating his support, warns of the consequences and potential costs of a long campaign, and calls for a quick transfer of operational command to NATO or “another coalition nation.” Full release after the jump:

A protracted and deepening U.S. engagement in Libya is neither affordable nor is it in our long-term strategic interests.  Ultimately this is not our fight.  As the administration has stated, our military objective – and that of the United Nations – is to help the people of Libya by leveling the playing field and making this a fair fight. But in the end, it is the Libyan people who must determine their future.

As we go forward, I have a number of concerns; among them: that the administration isn’t sufficiently prepared to deal with the possible outcomes of this action…

March 24, 2011

Udall Urges Swift Transfer of Command in Libya to NATO

Today, as international coalition forces continued to make progress in their push to enforce a no-fly zone in Libya, Mark Udall reiterated his belief that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi gave the international community no choice but to launch military action.  But Udall, a member of the Senate’s Armed Services and Intelligence committees, added that he has a number of concerns about the future of the U.S. role in the conflict.  Ultimately, he believes the responsibility for the enforcement must be turned over to NATO soon.  Importantly, he said he will not support American ground troops in Libya.

Udall’s full statement follows:

“As a member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees, I’m continuing to monitor the situation in Libya very closely, and I have received briefings from the administration about U.S. military operations in support of the Libyan people.

“Last week, with the situation on the ground rapidly changing for the worse for the rebel forces and the Libyan people, the president had to make a relatively quick decision to act.  I support his decision, but I’m concerned that there is still no plan in place for the United States to transfer operational command to NATO or another coalition country.  I’m encouraged by new reports that NATO may well take over the operation and I urge that transfer to move swiftly.

“The president has consulted with Congress on these operations – however – I also believe he has an obligation to provide Congress and the American public with ongoing updates and more details about the mission and the United States’ role in enforcing the United Nations resolution.

“A protracted and deepening U.S. engagement in Libya is neither affordable nor is it in our long-term strategic interests.  Ultimately this is not our fight.  As the administration has stated, our military objective – and that of the United Nations – is to help the people of Libya by leveling the playing field and making this a fair fight.  But in the end, it is the Libyan people who must determine their future.

“As we go forward, I have a number of concerns; among them: that the administration isn’t sufficiently prepared to deal with the possible outcomes of this action.  A Libya with Qaddafi still in charge is a potentially greater security threat to the United States, while a stalemate could divide Libya and leave a power vacuum in an already unstable region.  And we can only hope that if Qaddafi leaves the scene, the alternative will be a regime we can support.

“I’m also concerned that ultimately boots on the ground will be called for – and I am strongly opposed to U.S. troops playing that role.  I am anxious to hear details very soon about how the United States plans to transition primary responsibility to NATO for this operation.  It’s time for the president to address some of these concerns and to provide more information to the American people.  I look forward to hearing more specifically from him in the coming days.”

###

Comments

15 thoughts on “Udall Warns on Libya, Calls For Swift Transfer of Command

  1. The media is searching out media exposure seekers on Capitol Hill to criticize the President.  Realistically, there isn’t much to criticize the President over.  Clearly he consulted Congress as required by law.  This is supported by Sen. Udall, “The president has consulted with Congress on these operations…”  The Senate also backed the President on March 1st with an unanimous resolution supporting a no-fly zone.

    Thank you Sen. Udall.

      1. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

              1. Wikipedia notes that the War Powers Resolution hasn’t been tested in the courts and there are some doubts about its Constitutionality.  And the Founders debated giving Congress the power to “make” war and downgraded it to the power to “declare” war explicitly as a deference to the Presidential C-in-C powers.

                Yet another instance it seems where the Founders intended use of the power of the purse or impeachment to express displeasure with the President’s actions and where Congress has tried to make it easier on themselves to take the smallest of motions instead.

        1. I’ve not listened to Sirota once since the no-fly zone was implemented because he seems to think that Obama’s action was somehow the worst thing to happen since, well, at least since the Iraq War.  Completely missing the whole assault on voting, women’s, and worker’s rights going on in our country right now in favor of some point I can’t even begin to see (other than “war bad”).

          I guess I’m just missing the part where Obama didn’t do what he’s supposed to do under War Powers.  He instituted a military action, told the Congress the next day (and my guess is, he told the appropriate secret committees in Congress before it even happened), and his obligations under the War Powers Resolution are thereby fulfilled, at least until either 60 days has passed or the Congress does something affirmative about the issue.

          1. Sirota always looks for anything to criticize the President for.  More than once he has jumped the gun with incomplete information but no matter, he will never alter his stance or, heaven forbid, apologize.  Sirota is just sooo offended!

            When he started criticizing Bernie Sanders, I decided that he was pretty hopeless.

            Truth be told, I haven’t listened to much of Sirota for quite a long time.  I give it a try sometimes but I don’t usually last long.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

95 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!