By Steve Hynd
Via Doug Mataconis, the news that the Obama administration would ignore any War Powers Act resolution from Congress if it hampered their running of the Libyan War is as predictable as it is depressing.
Clinton reportedly told congresscritters the administration felt it only had a duty to report to Congress, not take instructions or ask permission.
The White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a classified briefing to House members Wednesday afternoon.
Clinton was responding to a question from Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) about the administration's response to any effort by Congress to exercise its war powers, according to a senior Republican lawmaker who attended the briefing.
The answer surprised many in the room because Clinton plainly admitted the administration would ignore any and all attempts by Congress to shackle President Obama's power as commander in chief to make military and wartime decisions. In doing so, he would follow a long line of Presidents who have ignored the act since its passage, deeming it an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power.
...Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), who asked Clinton about the War Powers Act during a classified briefing, said Clinton and the administration are sidestepping the measure's provisions giving Congress the ability to put a 60-day time limit on any military action.
"They are not committed to following the important part of the War Powers Act," he told TPM in a phone interview. "She said they are certainly willing to send reports [to us] and if they issue a press release, they'll send that to us too."
If that sounds like a Bush move - well, it is. And a Clinton move, and a Bush Snr. move, and....
As Doug points out:
The reality, though, is that every President since Richard Nixon has taken the position that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional because is infringes on the President�s powers as Commander in Chief. Obama is merely adopting the position of his predecessors, and while it may seem odd that a President who ran against the Iraq War to be acting like this, it is not at all surprising. Once they have been asserted, Executive Branch privileges are seldom curtailed, and this is but one more example of how Barack Obama has presumed to protect Presidential prerogatives even if that goes against his previously stated principles. Truly, nobody should be surprised.
As for what will happen with regard to Libya, I think that�s pretty easy to figure out. Congress will do nothing. With American forces committed abroad, and the increasing possibility that ground troops may be necessary at some point, no Congress is going to step in and tel the President he can�t do this, no matter how much they believe that to be the case.
There is much to complain about in the fact that President Obama has continued the tradition of the Imperial Presidency that started to take root under Woodrow Wilson, but the reality is that none of this happened for nefarious reasons, it happened because Congress and the American people let it happen.
Obama the candidate promised to roll back the Bush concept of the President as King - and he was lying. Although there will be howls of protest if Republicans who were happy to carry water for the Imperial Presidency under Dubya now move to impeach Obama for doing the same thing there'll doubtless be howls of protest from Democratic "party-right-or-wrong" stalwarts.
But my view is - if Americans are to reclaim their power over their own nation's wars then they have to start somewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment