Democrats who authorized it have long argued "we didn't know he'd actually do it!" to back their opposition to those wars, especially in Iraq. That's pretty lame isn't it? A responsible person would have ensured any additional requirement had been added to the authorization but when someone asks your permission to do something in a way and time of his choosing then does it, who's fault exactly is it if he goes ahead and does it but in a way that, after the fact(!), you don't like?
Anyway, my point is, President Bush followed the War Powers Act to a tee. Even though he didn't feel it was necessary(!) at the time, he took the advice of the Democratic leaders in Congress and asked for the authority. Note that he asked for it because Democrats wanted him to!!!
Now President Obama has entered us into a country's civil war and we are clearly operating in support of only one side in this conflict. It is a war! We are in it on one side of the conflict. Ergo, we ARE at war with Gadhafi. I surely think Gadhafi believes it don't you? After all we bombed the snot out of his forces and eliminated his air force. While we're not involved in actual bombing any more, we're still engaged in that war are we not?
Here is the president's authority as declared and limited by section 1541 of The War Powers Act:
"(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
Note that it governs ALL use of US armed forces "INTO HOSTILITIES". That means there doesn't have to be an actual declaration of war for these war powers rules to apply. When President Obama and his representatives have justified the Libyan actions because we're not really "at war", that was a nonsense argument because the War Powers Act applies to any situation where our forces are "introduced into ANY hostilities".
Here's what the War Powers Act says in section 1544 about notifying Congress and the REQUIREMENT to get out of the conflict after 60 days:
"(b) Termination of use of United States Armed Forces; exceptions; extension period
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress
(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,
(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces. "
Note that it says the president shall terminate ALL use of our military after 60 days unless he has extended it "by law" (ie, officially notifying Congress of the extension". Those 60 days have passed (about 4 days ago) and a legal 60 day extension has NOT been given by Congress. Therefore, he is NOW REQUIRED TO DISENGAGE and begin withdrawal which he has no more than 30 days to complete.
Contrary to law, our forces are not being withdrawn. They are still there providing actual support but the president won't tell us the details. No doubt we still have special forces engaged in Libya. What else is going on one can only guess at ... because IN SPITE OF a requirement that he tell us exactly what he's doing he's keeping that information from us. That's in violation of the War Powers Act too.
Maybe you thought Bush didn't handle the Afghanistan and Iraq wars as he should but he handled them completely(!) legally and in STRICT(!) compliance with the War Powers Act, including getting full authorization simply because Democrats asked him to. And Bush met the requirements BEFORE action against either country. President Obama is in violation of The War Powers Act in many ways. WHY IS THAT OKAY WITH EVERYONE? If Bush had done this can you imagine what Democrats and the media would be saying? Good Grief!
By the authority of The War Powers Act, Congress now has the authority (moral responsibility to The People in fact) to REQUIRE President Obama to remove our military forces immediately. Technically, it's now too late for President Obama to get authorization. Congress is now under no obligation to grant it because the president stands in violations of The War Powers Act and has therefore surrendered the authority to do anything more there other than withdraw.
Democrats ragged on Bush incessantly about his plans and exit strategy but Bush followed ALL laws as required. What exactly have we gotten from Obama? Nada! No compliance with The War Powers Act! He had legal obligations to Congress (ie, to The People) that he's disregarding! That isn't okay folks! I'm not advocating impeachment but this IS an impeachable offense. It's akin to a citizen ignoring a subpoena from Congress. WE can't ignore something Congress tells US to do. How come the president who theoretically works for us(!) can ignore something Contress has required (in writing via The War Powers Act) that he do?
BTW, if you want to check out The War Powers Act yourself here's a link to the info:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_33.html
No comments:
Post a Comment