Obama unilaterally going to war against Libya, against the wishes of the House of Representatives which is now suing Obama over it, is about as dictatorial as it gets.
And Obama is simultaneously backing out on withdrawing troops from Iraq, as he said he would.
Dude sucks just as much as any of our past presidents.
Obama did go to war against Libya. True.
He did not get Congress' approval. True.
The wishes of Congress are unclear.
The wishes of Congress are crystal clear, they voted 295-123 across party lines against it on 6/24.
What's unclear about that?
As I said in the part of my post that you didn't quote:
It seems to me that they support the action of the president, since they decided to fund the war on Libya. They could have chosen to not fund and to specifically bar any American action there.
That is what Congress did in the 80s when Reagan meddled in Nicaragua against congress' wishes.
Passing a resolution that has no force of law and then voting to fund the action you just voted against is the very definition of unclear in my book.
Not if you examine the options.
At this point, if the U.S. pulled out, the operation in Libya would collapse in less than a week. The sad fact is that NATO cannot sustain even this limited engagement without the U.S. involved. In fact, not a single other country can even provide the logistical support necessary. Britain comes closest and they have admitted publicly that they are unable to do it.
So, if the U.S. pulls out the NATO action will fall apart, the rebels will be left without protection and a massacre will ensue. And congress will get the blame.
Not to mention that this would completely undermine NATO and alienate our allies.
Voting to prevent this is a far cry from supporting our entry in the war in Libya - That's why they had a separate vote for that issue.
Bon Vivant is correct to point out that this is also grandstanding - congress is pissed that Obama tried to do an end run around their authority (after promising repeatedly while campaigning that he would never do such a thing). But a closer examination reveals, imo, that they would never have voted to go ahead with this anyway. Obama knew that, which is why he didn't even bother trying to get their approval.
I agree, that the majority in Congress wanted Obama to ask before, or in the x# of days that the WPA requires, going to war with Libya.
That is a far cry from it being crystal clear that a majority are against the war in Libya.
As you point out, they want to support NATO, they want to support Libyan rebels.
Comments
Not if you examine the options.
At this point, if the U.S. pulled out, the operation in Libya would collapse in less than a week. The sad fact is that NATO cannot sustain even this limited engagement without the U.S. involved. In fact, not a single other country can even provide the logistical support necessary. Britain comes closest and they have admitted publicly that they are unable to do it.
So, if the U.S. pulls out the NATO action will fall apart, the rebels will be left without protection and a massacre will ensue. And congress will get the blame.
Not to mention that this would completely undermine NATO and alienate our allies.
Voting to prevent this is a far cry from supporting our entry in the war in Libya - That's why they had a separate vote for that issue.
Bon Vivant is correct to point out that this is also grandstanding - congress is pissed that Obama tried to do an end run around their authority (after promising repeatedly while campaigning that he would never do such a thing). But a closer examination reveals, imo, that they would never have voted to go ahead with this anyway. Obama knew that, which is why he didn't even bother trying to get their approval.
That is a far cry from it being crystal clear that a majority are against the war in Libya.
As you point out, they want to support NATO, they want to support Libyan rebels.