Austin Bay on Libya and Obama

Austin Bay has one heck of nice piece over at StrategyPage about the Obama Administration’s handling of the whole Libya war which isn’t too flattering to either the Obama Administration or the ideological left, and mirrors exactly what I have been feeling about both the lack of seriousness by the MSM and the left on this whole thing. Basically Bay points out that instead of doing the right thing and challenging the need for the congressional approval as the War Power’s Act calls for, and thus strengthening the executive’s authority both morally and in regards to its relation with congress, Obama chose to vote “Present!”, play games basically, and all for a very shallow reason:

President Barack Obama has violated the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

That is a good thing. The War Powers Resolution was constitutionally dubious when it was passed — by a Democratic Party-controlled Congress intent on obstructing the powers of a Republican president. Instead of taking a principled stance against a questionable law, however, President Obama chose to mask his violation with cleverness — a corrosive, shallow cleverness smacking of the worst in partisan skullduggery.

Too bad. Tackling the War Powers Act would have strengthened the presidency as an institution and reinforced Obama’s moral authority. Democratic and Republican presidents have argued rigorous enforcement of the act leads to congressional micro-management of a war and erodes presidential prerogatives to the detriment of U.S. security.

The act forbids employing U.S. armed forces in combat for more than 60 days without congressional authorization or declaring war. The Libyan War’s 60 days ended May 20. Obama never sought congressional authorization. To do so would make him look, once again, like George W. Bush.

Get that? To actually make a stand against this resolution and actually fight the good fight, because of all the preceding BDS induced drama of the Bush years the left engaged in, Obama was forced to instead engage in slight of hand to hide what he was doing. How moronic. Where Bay and I differ however, is that I suspect this is done on purpose, and while they hope not enough people notice they are hypocrites, there is a little more to it. Democrats know their friends in the media will not call them to task like they would a republican, and hence, since this resolution proved a great political weapon they still feel might come in handy, they prefer to ignore it – like they do all other laws they straddle us with like paying taxes or only voting once, and then only when still alive too – so it’s around to beat another republican with in the future. It’s all about the rules for thee and not for me strategy that’s their MO.

Congress, where some democrats made a noise about Obama doing more Bush, might also end up having to slap him down. These democrats that were so preoccupied when it didn’t matter – where are they now, huh? – might have to take a stand to keep their credibility with the left. Added with the republicans tired of the double standards and wanting the rules to be enforced equally, this whole thing could spell disaster for him. Especially since as Bay points out when he says the right thing for Obama to have done was to challenge the law’s legality, but that Obama himself might then be in a catch 22:

Congress might also rebuff him since he has devoted so little public political effort to the war. A few legislators have raised the issue of Obama’s legal failure, but media outrage is missing, as are the usual arch-left moral seizures associated with American combat. No demonstrators, lathered in blood red paint, chant before television cameras. We hear no manic lectures from the ponytailed professoriate on the White House tyrant’s imperial arrogance.

For the good of American security, we should rescind the problematic law. Yet legislation to rescind might face a presidential veto, for Obama claims he isn’t violating the act.

So what’s the plan of action?

Which leads to the president’s corrupting cleverness. Rather than confront the resolution’s suspect demands, it seems Obama wants to keep the law for Democrats to wield as a political cudgel when Republican presidents wage war. Invoking it will prompt the profs to begin their lectures. Obama bases his claim the act does not apply to his Libya venture on word games that are as transparently silly as they are intellectually and morally dishonest.

Libya, according to Obama, is not even a war but a “kinetic military action.” If the stakes were not so serious — say, if the subject were basketball brackets rather than deadly war — we might chuckle at his buck-naked bravado. It recalls Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty. “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” The Big O echoes the big egg that Alice discovered sitting on a wall, before his fall.

Bullshit. And he is getting away with it because the usual suspects in the MSM will not call him on it. Now if he had an (R) by his name, you can be certain that this would be part of every news cycle, but to protect Bush the second, the MSM is pretending it’s not happening. I guess it’s no longer patriotic to dissent, huh? In the mean time there is nothing to look at here anymore. Even if Obama has more wars than Bush did and is out-Bushing Bush at this stuff.

Comments are closed.

  1. CM

    From the piece:

    No demonstrators, lathered in blood red paint, chant before television cameras. We hear no manic lectures from the ponytailed professoriate on the White House tyrant’s imperial arrogance.

    He’s not comparing apples with apples. Unless he honestly believes that objections to the invasion of Iraq were solely based on whether the required domestic permission had been granted? If he believes that, he’s a complete idiot.

    And yet a few paragraphs further down he has a go at Obama for being intellectually dishonest. Yikes.

    This argument would lose in a middle-school debate tournament, but in Washington’s Obama-worshipping precincts, who knows? If a Republican president made it, we’d hear for six years that the man was a low-IQ cowboy attempting “strategery.”

    That’s seriously whiney. I can just imagine a high-pitched shrill voice and nagging tone.

    As to his accusation of Obama’s tactics – yeah maybe. Obama’s domestic position on this issue looks dubious.

    Thumb up 0

  2. Rann

    And yet a few paragraphs further down he has a go at Obama for being intellectually dishonest. Yikes.

    Indeed. The very cheek. Daring to question Obama’s integrity. I bet that anti-American traitor doesn’t even get tingles up and down his leg when he hears Obama speak!

    Thumb up 1

  3. AlexInCT *

    He’s not comparing apples with apples. Unless he honestly believes that objections to the invasion of Iraq were solely based on whether the required domestic permission had been granted? If he believes that, he’s a complete idiot.

    No CM, he is saying that the left is full of two face scum that objected to Iraq because Bush had an (R) next to his name and nothing else. Besides, he is absolutely correct in pointing out that the US needed only domestic approval – as in the congress – to do what’s in its best interest. I know people like you believe we should ask permission from the den of thieves, hyenas, murderers, rapists, dictators, and any and all other forms of degeneracy that are squatting, on the US tax payer’s dime, in NYC, but thank the lord even Obama decided that wasn’t necessary before he started bombing Libya in the “kinetic engagement” he started, and that despite the fact that he and his ilk otherwise give lip service to that idiotic idea that the US should do so. Apparently what the left means is that anyone without a (D) next to their name should ask permission so their crooked cohorts at the UN can then deny them that.

    As to his accusation of Obama’s tactics – yeah maybe. Obama’s domestic position on this issue looks dubious.

    Nicely sanitized language to couch the fact that his position is clearly bullshit.

    Thumb up 0

  4. AlexInCT *

    Actually the whole Libyan affair IS a war for oil. In this case its for the Europeans to keep their oil, especially France, so it’s not going to get maligned. Go figure. When the US doesn’t the Europeans accuse us of it, when they go and start bombing people to keep oil for them, we help them. Heh.

    Thumb up 0

  5. loserlame

    http://war4oil.org/?p=153

    Interview with Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of US Treasury.

    In my opinion, what this is about is to eliminate China from the Mediterranean. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya. They are looking to Africa as a future energy source.
    The US is countering this by organizing the United States African Command (USAC), which Qaddafi refused to join. So that’s the second reason for the Americans to want Qaddafi out.
    And the third reason is that Libya controls part of the Mediterranean coast and it’s not in American hands.

    There we go. Commies out, America in, pulling the usual strings via the CIA

    But of course the CIA is. So we do have these violations of the UN resolution. If NATO, which is now the cover for the world community, succeeds in overthrowing Qaddafi the next target will be Syria because Syria has already been demonized.
    Why are they targeting Syria? – Because the Russians have a very large naval base in Syria. And it gives the Russian navy a presence in the Mediterranean; the US and NATO do not want that. If there is success in overthrowing Qaddafi, Syria is next.

    NATO, “revolutions for peace”, all unwilling, unwitting tools, puppets and pawns of the CIA

    Thumb up 0

  6. loserlame

    http://war4oil.org

    Interview with Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of US Treasury.

    In my opinion, what this is about is to eliminate China from the Mediterranean. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya. They are looking to Africa as a future energy source.
    The US is countering this by organizing the United States African Command (USAC), which Qaddafi refused to join. So that’s the second reason for the Americans to want Qaddafi out.
    And the third reason is that Libya controls part of the Mediterranean coast and it’s not in American hands.

    There we go. Commies out, America in, pulling the usual strings via the CIA

    Thumb up 0

  7. loserlame

    But of course the CIA is. So we do have these violations of the UN resolution. If NATO, which is now the cover for the world community, succeeds in overthrowing Qaddafi the next target will be Syria because Syria has already been demonized.
    Why are they targeting Syria? – Because the Russians have a very large naval base in Syria. And it gives the Russian navy a presence in the Mediterranean; the US and NATO do not want that. If there is success in overthrowing Qaddafi, Syria is next.

    NATO, “revolutions for peace”, all unwilling, unwitting tools, puppets and pawns of the CIA

    Press TV: With regards to the expansionist agenda of the West, when the UN mandate on Libya was debated in the UN Security Council, Russia did not veto it. Surely Russia must see this expansionist policy of the US, France and Britain.

    Roberts: Yes they must see that; and the same for China. It’s a much greater threat to China because it has 50 major investment projects in eastern Libya. So the question is why did Russia and China abstain rather than veto and block? We don’t know the answer.

    Because they want peace.
    !

    Thumb up 0

  8. loserlame

    In my opinion, what is going on is comparable to what the US and Britain did to Japan in the 1930s. When they cut Japan off from oil, from rubber, from minerals like ore; that was the origin of World War II in the pacific. And now the Americans and the British are doing the same thing to China

    Embargos had no justification whatsoever. The Japs had no other choice than Pearl Harbor.

    The difference is that China has nuclear weapons and it also has a stronger economy than do the Americans. And so the Americans are taking a very high risk not only with themselves, but with the rest of the world. The entire world is now at stake on American over-reach; American huberus – the drive for American hegemony over the world is driving the rest of the world into a World War.

    Ever since we’ve had Bill Clinton, George W Bush and now Obama, what we’ve learned is law means nothing to the executive branch in the US. The UN is an American puppet organization.They are in the CIAs pocket. It’s a CIA operation

    Cmon, this guy has a doctorate, is a Washington insider. End of story.

    We are only talking about NATO countries, the American puppet states. Britain, France, Italy, Germany, all belong to the American empire. We’ve had troops stationed in Germany since 1945. You’re talking about 66 years of American occupation of Germany. The Americans have military bases in Italy – how is that an independent country? France was somewhat independent until we put Sarkozy in power. So they all do what they’re told.
    America wants to rule Russia, China, Iran, and Africa, all of South America. They want hegemony over the world. That’s what the word hegemony means. And they will pursue it at all costs

    YEEEARGH!!! JOIN THE JIHAD!!!! DEATH TO AMERICA!!!!

    Thumb up 0

  9. loserlame

    Obamas Enemy Number One, now

    http://muslimsagainstcrusades.com/images/wanted.jpg

    How are the chants coming along? Whats the caption to this photo?

    Muslim women were taken and raped repeatedly by US guards, who took turns to rape sisters many times during a day. Countless Muslims were murdered and raped, others just went missing. Innocent Muslims were rounded up and arrested, tortured to extract confessions and then sent off to the concentration camp ‘Guantanamo Bay’ The United States has murdered, raped, tortured and kidnapped hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Puppet Hamid Karzai.

    Looks to me like the US wants to suppress any Islamic uprising and to humiliate Islam and Muslims. sending any survivors to the Abu Ghraib concentration and torture camps, where hundreds of Muslim men and women have been rounded up and then degraded with acts of sexual violence and torture.

    Its all still fresh in the mind of Muslims.

    Thumb up 0

  10. Poosh

    I still don’t know what we’re doing in Libya…. everyone’s leaders are saying something different, then the same thing, then something different ….. is Gadaffi dead !? What’s going on!? I feel like Mark Wahlberg in one of his movies… (reference to?)

    Thumb up 0