[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
War, War, War See other War, War, War Articles Title: House Spurns Obama on Libya, but Does Not Cut Funds WASHINGTON — The House dealt a symbolic blow to President Obama on Friday by resoundingly rejecting a bill to authorize United States military operations in Libya. But the chamber also defeated a measure that would have limited financing to support those efforts. The result, coming after weeks of tension between Congress and the White House over authorization of American military aid for the NATO mission in Libya, was a mixed message to the Obama administration, with Republicans and Democrats forming alliances that splintered customary party lines. The resolution to support the mission failed 295 to 123, with 70 Democrats joining Republicans in a rebuff to Mr. Obama. The resolution was based on a Senate bill written by Senators John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and John McCain, Republican of Arizona, to blunt criticism that the president has failed to seek Congressional approval for his actions in Libya. “We are disappointed by that vote,” said Jay Carney, a White House spokesman. “We think now is not the time to send the kind of mixed message that it sends when we are working with our allies to achieve the goals that we believe that are widely shared in Congress.” He said that these goals included “protecting civilians in Libya, enforcing a no-fly zone, enforcing an arms embargo and further putting pressure” on Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Libya’s leader. A second bill, which had the strong support of Speaker John A. Boehner, would have prohibited money for military operations outside of support activities like search and rescue, aerial refueling, operational planning, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. It was intended to essentially end direct American combat activity like missile strikes while remaining supportive of NATO’s efforts. That measure failed 238 to 180, with 89 Republicans deserting their party and only 36 Democrats voting in favor. The resolution refusing to authorize the Libyan operations has no real effect; the Senate is expected to pass the Kerry-McCain proposal, giving official Congressional authorization for the mission, in the coming weeks. But the votes on Friday were an expression of the House’s frustration with the White House, drawing together some odd bedfellows: left-leaning antiwar Democrats and hard-right Republicans, Obama loyalists and hawks who did not want to abandon NATO, as well as members of both parties who objected to the administration’s argument that it did not need Congressional approval for the Libyan operations. “Politics is to Congress like wet is to water,” said Representative Stephen F. Lynch, a Democrat from Massachusetts. “But this issue is really one of substance,” said Mr. Lynch, who voted against authorizing the Libyan operations and favored taking away funding for most of them. “I think we should allow our international neighbors to pick up this load.” Democrats, though, were mostly loath to desert President Obama, and refused to back the bill limiting financing. But a small group of antiwar Democrats and scores of Republicans concluded that the bill, while permitting such things as search and rescue, was actually just another form of authorization for American involvement in the conflict. “It didn’t go far enough,” said Representative Jason Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah, in an interview after the vote. “Under that resolution, the president is still going to be engaged in the war.” He added: “We’ve been inept and irrelevant on the war actions. We have not lived up to our constitutional duty.” A bipartisan group of representatives plan to offer an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill after the Fourth of July, when the House returns from a week’s recess, which would further cut funding for intelligence and operational support in Libya, and end all activities there by October. The prospects for that amendment seem far from clear. On the one hand, the more limited measure to restrict funding failed to pass. But on the other, the amendment attached to the appropriations bill could be more popular among those members who felt the financing resolution amounted to back-door authorization. As the Libyan conflict has dragged on, there has been increasing hostility toward the Obama administration in the House among Democrats who oppose the war and many Republicans who cite constitutional issues over authorization for the military operations. Those lawmakers argue that such authorization is required by the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Under that law, presidents must end unauthorized deployments 60 days after notifying Congress that they have begun. If what the United States military is doing in Libya constitutes “hostilities” — the administration argues that it does not — then that deadline passed on May 20. The United States has handed the leadership of the air war in Libya over to NATO, and has largely played a supporting role, offering things like aerial refueling, surveillance, and signal jamming. But it has also conducted about 90 missile strikes from piloted aircraft and remotely operated drones, aimed at Libyan air defenses and ground forces, and United States aircraft have flown more than a quarter of the total sorties. The total cost of United States operations is expected to top $1 billion by the end of September. In an effort to avert a vote that would embarrass the administration, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with scores of House Democrats on Thursday afternoon to urge them to vote against the resolution limiting funds, insisting that the collective effort in Libya was close to ousting Colonel Qaddafi. The votes on Friday followed two hours of fascinating and sometimes fierce debate that was unlike any other in this 112th Congress. “We don’t have enough wars going on?” asked Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, on the House floor. “We have to wage war against another nation which did not attack us?” Mr. Kucinich’s remarks were echoed in part by Representative Dan Burton of Indiana, a Republican member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, who said, “We’re adding to the debt by going into a war we shouldn’t be in.” He added: “My big concern is not just Libya. My big concern is this president, unless we send a very strong message to him, may take us into Syria. There are a lot of wars of opportunity.” But Democrats and some Republicans also chastised members for deserting a NATO-led mission right in the middle of operations. “Now is the time to stand together against a murderous dictator,” said Representative James P. Moran, a liberal Democrat from Virginia. Agreeing with him was Representative Adam Kinzinger, a freshman Republican from Illinois, an Iraq war veteran and supporter of American involvement in Libya. “The vote we have on the House today will have implications far beyond our shores and far into the future,” he said. From among 75 comments: John Adams Hermosillo, Mexico Endless wars define the (impereialist) United States, and don't look to the "Loyal Opposition" to buck the president. It simply will not happen. These are lawmakers, and virtually all of them are lawyers, and lawyers posture, which is exactly what they are doing. To these people, all positions they take are tactical. They play "Good Cop, Bad Cop," for in reality they all support U.S. foreign policy. The posturing is for the votes, that's all. Only socialist revolution, which will topple the United States and create a new country, of, by, and for the working class, will put an end to all this madness. Only the working class has the power to carry this out. Tatarewicz, Canada: Voting against Obama's authorization of the mission against Gaddafi but keeping the funds for military action flowing does two things. It enables House reps to keep conning voters they're against the war. Providing funds to keep the war going against an enemy of Israel ensures the usual generous election campaign support from the Israeli lobby and its media associates. To understand what's going on find out who benefits.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: All (#0)
I should have mentioned/recommended going to the comments following the NYT article and voting/recommending those taking an anti-war position. My comment was pending approval.
There are no replies to Comment # 1. End Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||