Obama lied about US role in Libya to skirt War Powers Act

cyberhog

When the military operation got underway in Libya Obama argued that the United States's role in the assault would be so limited that he would not have to seek congressional authorisation to continue military activity after the 60 day deadline of the War Powers Act.

I said that America's role would be limited...and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners...And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community, and – more importantly – a task for the Libyan people themselves

Obama wanted to give the impression that the US was merely playing a secondary, supportive role.

we will work with our allies and partners as they're in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-president-obamas-address-nation-military-action-libya/story?id=13242776


However it turns out that Obama's allies and partners relied heavily on "significant support" from the US to carry out the campaign.

...a confidential NATO assessment paints a sobering portrait of the alliance’s ability to carry out such campaigns without significant support from the United States...The findings undercut the idea that the intervention was a model operation and that NATO could effectively carry out a more complicated campaign in Syria without relying disproportionately on the United States military.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/world/africa/nato-sees-flaws-in-air-campaign-against-qaddafi.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp

Clearly the US role in Libya wasn't as limited as Obama wanted Congress to believe.

Overheal

A quick google of the legal measure does point out the War Powers Act has been breached in some form by Clinton, Bush, and Obama, and argued as unconstitutional by every president since 1973.

troposphere

Bigger story here is that other NATO countries had to rely on the US so much.

cyberhog

Overheal wrote: »

A quick google of the legal measure does point out the War Powers Act has been breached in some form by Clinton, Bush, and Obama, and argued as unconstitutional by every president since 1973.

Ah, the "but the other guys did it too!" response. Predictably immaterial.

Manic Moran

troposphere wrote: »

Bigger story here is that other NATO countries had to rely on the US so much.

Something that the US has noticed. They ran out of ammunition. Begs the question what sort of a war the NATO forces were planning to fight if a small-scale intervention depleted the stocks so much.

As for the OP... This is news?!

NTM

cyberhog

Manic Moran wrote: »

As for the OP... This is news?!

So you already knew before the NYT report that the much vaunted transfer of authority for the campaign from the US to NATO was a shell game? Care to cite a source?

Overheal

Are you more concerned that the war powers act might have been violated or that the us played a large NATO role? Maybe I'm missing the bigger issue here.

Manic Moran

cyberhog wrote: »

So you already knew before the NYT report that the much vaunted transfer of authority for the campaign from the US to NATO was a shell game? Care to cite a source?

Who actually was holding the Commanding Flag was pretty much just a political statement, especially when the number of missions were being launched from the local US Navy carrier group didn't change too much as a result.

cyberhog

Overheal wrote: »

Are you more concerned that the war powers act might have been violated or that the us played a large NATO role? Maybe I'm missing the bigger issue here.

There is no question the War Powers Act was violated.

the War Powers Resolution, ... requires an approving action by Congress or withdrawal within 90 days from the notification of a military operation.

http://www.speaker.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=246444

Obama did not fulfill either requirement. Instead he created a cock and bull story about the US playing a limited role which in his opinion meant congressional approval was not necessary for continued military activity.

Overheal

Wasn't handing command to NATO a withdrawal action? Has congressed pursued a legal case against the presidents actions?

cyberhog

Overheal wrote: »

Wasn't handing command to NATO a withdrawal action?

You think handing command to NATO satisfies the requirement to withdraw from military operations? I mean I know you have it bad for Obama...but really lol

Overheal wrote: »

Has congressed pursued a legal case against the presidents actions?

legal action would be unlikely to succeed.

...because the War Powers Resolution does not include a definition of “hostilities” and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue, the legal debate is likely to be resolved politically, said Rick Pildes, a New York University law professor.

“There is no clear legal answer,” he said. “The president is taking a position, so the question is whether Congress accepts that position, or doesn’t accept that position and wants to insist that the operation can’t continue without affirmative authorization from Congress.”

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/president-obama-to-congress-war-powers-act-doesnt-apply-to-libya/

In the end the House acquiesced to Obama's will. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) described the mood in the House.

The news that the U.S. House of Representatives had mandated a withdrawal of U.S. forces would send a ray of sunshine into the hole in which Qaddafi is currently hiding. It would ensure his hold on power. It would be seen, not only in Libya but throughout the Middle East and North Africa, as open season to threaten U.S. interests and destabilize our allies.

...

“We must not let our frustration with the President’s contempt for Congress cloud our judgment and result in our taking action that could harm our standing, credibility, and our interests in the region.

http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press_display.asp?id=1854

Overheal

cyberhog wrote: »

I mean I know you have it bad for Obama...

Do you "know" or are you guessing?

..because the War Powers Resolution does not include a definition of “hostilities” and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue, the legal debate is likely to be resolved politically, said Rick Pildes, a New York University law professor.

“There is no clear legal answer,” he said. “The president is taking a position, so the question is whether Congress accepts that position, or doesn’t accept that position and wants to insist that the operation can’t continue without affirmative authorization from Congress.”

And see that's my point, we're not really discussing cut and dried law here. However on paper, the handover seems legit. Whether or not you agree is inconsequential. I seem to recall there was plenty of public support for the action either way, even if congress got in a twist about it. Libyan planes landing unannounced in neighboring countries for refusing to drop bombs on civilians; it's a little hard to say 'meh' to. Seemed like a pretty worthwhile "abuse" of the war powers act, if you ask me. I just don't want to be there for the next 15 years trying to chase some idea of "victory".

cyberhog

Overheal wrote: »

Seemed like a pretty worthwhile "abuse" of the war powers act, if you ask me.

So you have no problem when a President violates the Constitution as long as it furthers US interests?

Overheal

cyberhog wrote: »

So you have no problem when a President violates the Constitution as long as it furthers US interests?

I have a huge problem with Constitutional violations actually.

Care to show me where the War Powers Act is, on the Constitution?

cyberhog

Overheal wrote: »

I have a huge problem with Constitutional violations actually.

First you declare Obama's action a worthwhile abuse and now you have a huge problem with violations? Geez, make up your mind, will ya?

Overheal wrote: »

Care to show me where the War Powers Act is, on the Constitution?

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

That was Barak Obama in 2007.

We know Obama didn't receive congressional authorisation for the military attack on Libya so by acting unilaterally he took action that, under the Constitution, can only be taken by Congress.

Just like his predecessor Obama has treated Congress with contempt and the Constitution like it's just a piece of toilet paper.

Overheal

cyberhog wrote: »

First you declare Obama's action a worthwhile abuse and now you have a huge problem with violations? Geez, make up your mind, will ya?

I didn't declare that. I did say it was a worthwhile "abuse", with an emphasis on the bit where I think calling it abuse of the law is a load of crock. Which is to say I think the Executive used its power responsibly in Libya. If I need to be more explicit to avoid further confusion on your part, please let me know.

That was Barak Obama in 2007.

Yes. The "Messiah" turned actual politician: often in the habit of saying things they don't really do. You've exposed the man for a bit of a hypocrite, but not a violater of the Constitution.

We know Obama didn't receive congressional authorisation for the military attack on Libya so by acting unilaterally he took action that, under the Constitution, can only be taken by Congress.

And Yet under the War Powers Resolution, he didn't need to. Again, did he actually breach the law, or are you just upset that this smalltown Illinois Community Organizer with his Degree in Constitutional Law did a handover that satisfied the terms of the law?

Just like his predecessor Obama has treated Congress with contempt and the Constitution like it's just a piece of toilet paper.

Frankly, no he hasn't. At least not where this scenario is concerned.

cyberhog

Overheal wrote: »

And Yet under the War Powers Resolution, he didn't need to.

You seem to be conveniently forgetting that the Resolution has a 90 day deadline at the end of which if the President has not asked for, or recieved, congressional authorisation then the military must withdraw.

The House passed a resolution which made clear that Obama failed to comply with that basic tenet.

The President has not sought, and Congress has not provided, authorization for the introduction or continued involvement of the United States Armed Forces in Libya.

http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/flooraction/Jan2011/boehnerlibya.pdf

If you don't want to believe your lying eyes, that's up to you, but any honest observer can see that Obama did not adhere to the spirit of the War Powers Resolution.

Overheal

He did however, contact congress in the 48 hour window, this is the letter he sent to both the house and the senate:

http://www.c-span.org/uploadedfiles/Content/Documents/2011libya.military.rel.pdf

I'm well aware of all the panty twisting that happened over the summer, but I'm not too sure what kind of legal obligations the US has involved itself in with respect to bodies like NATO or the UNSC. Either way, as I had said earlier, if its a problem it would be adressed legally. I believe a few people in the legislature filed a awsuit against the Obama Administration about the whole thing. So thats being looked into, or, it already has and the outcome was so anticlimtic nobody bothered to herald it.

Again though I'm not exactly trying to argue that the situation was iron clad legal (or wasnt). We've done 'such' a good job as a country adhering to our own laws regarding international interests, haven't we? The part that I really don't get from your post is the whole about it being made worse only because of how many guns the US brought compared to other NATO allies: that is immaterial. In which case there really is nothing in this discussion that was new information.

Scofflaw

cyberhog, dial down the personal snipery, please. You can make your points without all this "geez Louise" rolly-eye stuff.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Manic Moran

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation

Also doesn't seem to say that he doesn't.

NTM

cyberhog

Overheal wrote: »

The part that I really don't get from your post is the whole about it being made worse only because of how many guns the US brought compared to other NATO allies: that is immaterial. In which case there really is nothing in this discussion that was new information.

The NATO report mentioned in the NYT undermines Obama's justification for ignoring the War Powers Act i.e. that he did not need congressional authorisation because US involvement in Libya would be limited. When in actual fact NATO relied heavily on the US for every aspect of its operations.

cyberhog

Overheal wrote: »

He did however, contact congress in the 48 hour window, this is the letter he sent to both the house and the senate:

What's your point? Obama sent that letter months before The House approved Boehner's resolution scolding Obama for failing to seek congressional authorisation.

Overheal

cyberhog wrote: »

The NATO report mentioned in the NYT undermines Obama's justification for ignoring the War Powers Act i.e. that he did not need congressional authorisation because US involvement in Libya would be limited. When in actual fact NATO relied heavily on the US for every aspect of its operations.

Is that the US's fault or that of it's NATO allies and how prepared they ended up being for the situation? Air refeuling and military consultation for the most part, wasn't it?

cyberhog

Overheal wrote: »

Is that the US's fault or that of it's NATO allies and how prepared they ended up being for the situation?

I don't see how you can put the blame on NATO allies for the lies Obama told Congress? Obama would have been well aware before the campaign commenced that the allies would be highly dependent on the US.

The report also spotlights an important issue for the alliance that dates to the Balkan wars of the 1990s: that the United States has emerged “by default” as the NATO specialist in providing precision-guided munitions — which made up virtually all of the 7,700 bombs and missiles dropped or fired on Libya — and a vast majority of specialized aircraft that conduct aerial intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions, or I.S.R. in military parlance.

“NATO remains overly reliant on a single ally to provide I.S.R. collection capabilities that are essential to the commander,” the report said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/world/africa/nato-sees-flaws-in-air-campaign-against-qaddafi.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp

Since it has been evident for two decades that NATO is incapable of fighting its wars without the US, Obama's spiel about the US playing a "limited" role was clearly a load of baloney!

Overheal

cyberhog wrote: »

I don't see how you can put the blame on NATO allies for the lies Obama told Congress? Obama would have been well aware before the campaign commenced that the allies would be highly dependent on the US.

with all due respect you'd have to have some kind of proof the POTUS didnt know that given the POTUS is largely reliant on the advice of joint chiefs and military strategists.

Keep in mind im not trying to defend him outright; I'm just here to act as the foil of your argument. To accuse the President of outright lies you have to be able to back it up at the very least, in part.

cyberhog

Overheal wrote: »

To accuse the President of outright lies you have to be able to back it up at the very least, in part.

Look, Obama stood before the American people and told them that "America's role would be limited...and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners"

Now we know NATO lacks the ability to take the fight to anyone unless the US is heavily involved. So what was Obama doing telling the American people our "role would be limited"?

How can he claim to "transfer responsibility to our allies and partners" when they are clearly incapable of carrying out such campaigns without significant support from the United States?

I don't see how you can argue Obama was giving an honest account of the situation?

Overheal

your implication is that Obama knew explicitly that our NATO allies were incapable of running the operation? That he was laughing in the back of his head or something? I think you'd need to back that up with some kind of evidence that shows he was somehow advised prior to this that the NATO mission wouldn't survive without a majority share of support from the US.

cyberhog

Overheal wrote: »

I think you'd need to back that up with some kind of evidence that shows he was somehow advised prior to this that the NATO mission wouldn't survive without a majority share of support from the US.

Give me a break! As I pointed out in post #24 its been a known issue since the Balkan wars that NATO is overly reliant on the US so I'm afraid your request for evidence that Obama was advised of something that has been evident for two decades is utterly ridiculous.

Overheal

cyberhog wrote: »

Give me a break! As I pointed out in post #24 its been a known issue since the Balkan wars that NATO is overly reliant on the US so I'm afraid your request for evidence that Obama was advised of something that has been evident for two decades is utterly ridiculous.

But was Obama in conscience of that when he made the statement? You can't really be sure of that. I'm frankly still unconvinced of your original premise that he lied to skirt the WPR

Overheal

I forgot about Poltifact's existence for a while there...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/jun/22/are-us-actions-libya-subject-war-powers-resolution/

Decided to see if they had anything to say, and it turns out they did. Seems pretty thorough to me. Basically just reinforces what we've talked about earlier: it's unclear, it's for the courts to decide, etc.

cyberhog

Overheal wrote: »

your implication is that Obama knew explicitly that our NATO allies were incapable of running the operation?

That is correct, and I think you'll find my point has been corroborated by Obama's former Defence Secretary.

...

Despite the pressing need to spend more on vital equipment and the right personnel to support ongoing missions – needs that have been evident for the past two decades – too many allies been unwilling to fundamentally change how they set priorities and allocate resources...This has both shortchanged current operations but also bodes ill for ensuring NATO has the key common alliance capabilities of the future.


...

Looking ahead, to avoid the very real possibility of collective military irrelevance, member nations must examine new approaches to boosting combat capabilities – in procurement, in training, in logistics, in sustainment.


...some two decades after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. share of NATO defense spending has now risen to more than 75 percent

...The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress – and in the American body politic writ large – to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense. Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.


Indeed, if current trends in the decline of European defense capabilities are not halted and reversed, Future U.S. political leaders– those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me – may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/sede/dv/sede190911robertgates_/sede190911robertgates_en.pdf

Overheal wrote: »

I'm frankly still unconvinced of your original premise that he lied to skirt the WPR

That you remain unconvinced doesn't mean it isn't so.

Obama said the US would only play a limited role in the campaign. That was clearly a lie!

...behind the scenes, the U.S. military played an indispensable role in the Libya campaign, deploying far more forces than the administration chose to advertise.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/30/america-s-secret-libya-war-u-s-spent-1-billion-on-covert-ops-helping-nato.html

Obama then used that lie to skirt the War Powers Act.

In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/white-house-on-war-powers-deadline-limited-us-role-in-libya-means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho/

golden lane

cyberhog wrote: »

That is correct, and I think you'll find my point has been corroborated by Obama's former Defence Secretary.




http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/sede/dv/sede190911robertgates_/sede190911robertgates_en.pdf







That you remain unconvinced doesn't mean it isn't so.

Obama said the US would only play a limited role in the campaign. That was clearly a lie!




http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/30/america-s-secret-libya-war-u-s-spent-1-billion-on-covert-ops-helping-nato.html

Obama then used that lie to skirt the War Powers Act.




http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/white-house-on-war-powers-deadline-limited-us-role-in-libya-means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho/[/QUOTE]

you seem surprised at that.....he is a politician....honest politicians, go nowhere and get nothing done.....that is the real world..

Run_to_da_hills

Nothing surprises me about Obama's lies.

7 big lies in a 2 minutes speech. :eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfjF4UAKdrs

Overheal

There's a difference between a lie and a broken promise.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

cyberhog wrote: »

Obama said the US would only play a limited role in the campaign. That was clearly a lie!

I also said Fukushima wasn't a meltdown scenario with the best information I had. Did that make what I said false, or did it make me a dishonest liar?

cyberhog

Overheal wrote: »

I also said Fukushima wasn't a meltdown scenario with the best information I had. Did that make what I said false, or did it make me a dishonest liar?

You keep rehashing the same argument without processing what I've written.

The speech I linked to above, given by Obama's former Defense Secretary makes it clear the administration knew going into the Libya campaign that their NATO allies had significant political and military shortcomings. It is therefore dishonest to say you will play a limited role when you know your allies couldn't have won the war without extensive American help.

Manic Moran

There is a matter of perspective involved. If the country isn't the one conducting most of the bombing missions, then by the standards of a lot of people it is conducting a limited role, even if that limited role includes performing most of the surveillance, SAR or refuelling assets because almost nobody else has them.

Monty Burnz

cyberhog wrote: »

Ah, the "but the other guys did it too!" response. Predictably immaterial.

I presume you complained about it when Bush did it too? Or you don't have a leg to stand on.

Secondly, the whole premise seems to be confused: it's entirely possible for a nation to take a secondary support role and for the other nations to find this support essential in carrying out the lead role. I don't see any problem there at all unless you are deliberately confusing two separate issues.

cyberhog

Manic Moran wrote: »

There is a matter of perspective involved. If the country isn't the one conducting most of the bombing missions, then by the standards of a lot of people it is conducting a limited role, even if that limited role includes performing most of the surveillance, SAR or refuelling assets because almost nobody else has them.

As you rightly point out it is a matter of persprective. A limited role would to most people suggest minimal involvement when in actual fact the US played a far larger role than Obama acknowledged.

Take the bombing missions for example, Obama's former Defence Secretary made it clear that without the US the allies would have been hopelessly lost.

The most advanced fighter aircraft are little use if allies do not have the means to identify, process, and strike targets as part of an integrated campaign.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/sede/dv/sede190911robertgates_/sede190911robertgates_en.pdf

cyberhog

Monty Burnz wrote: »

it's entirely possible for a nation to take a secondary support role and for the other nations to find this support essential in carrying out the lead role.

What you're failing to appreciate with regards to Libya is that the non-US NATO members did not have the capability to carry out the lead role. The allies were entirely dependent on the US being intimately involved in all decisions. So I'm afraid the contention that the US was only playing a secondary support role just doesn't stack up.

Overheal

I call shenanigans. They wouldn't have been able to run the war the way it was fought. They still would have been able to fight it. Or, are you implying that say, France, is incapable of going off to fight is own war, or that the British didn't defend the Falklands and it's all just a big lie?

cyberhog

Please remember that this was a war against a third rate enemy with unimpressive forces.

The Europeans could not get their act together in a convincing way, even over a comparatively small operation against a weak and crazy opponent. The greatest military alliance the world has ever known was made to look puny in what it could really deploy.

http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4E53CF030EB3B/%20