The House voted today against a resolution that would authorize the use of force in Libya. To put it mildly, it was a stinging rebuke to president Obama. The margin was over two to one to defeat the measure. Even amoung Democrats, the president got only just over 100 votes; almost half of the Democrats voted against the administration's position.
The obvious question is how could Congress actually vote against a millitary action underway with American troops involved? The answer is just one word: Obama. Strangely, Obama decided that despite the requirements of the Constitution and despite the terms of the War Powers Act, he would send troops to fight in Libya and not seek congressional approval. Indeed, Obama did not even send an explanation to Congress as to the reasons for the US involvement. He left the Congress to hear the same rationale that was put forth in bits and pieces to the American people. Not surprisingly, the members of Congress felt that the president had not carried out his constitutional duty to get their approval before commiting US troops to war.
Even today, Obama has yet to give a clear and full rationale for the conflict. What is the goal of the millitary action? We have never gotten a clear answer to that. What is the exit strategy? Again, no clear answer has been forthcoming. Who exactly are the Libyan rebels and is Al Qaeda involved with them? No answer here either. Indeed, accoridng to Michelle Bachmann who is on the House Intelligence Committee, the administration admits that it does not know the answer to this last question.
Given all of this, it is no surprise that two out of three members of Congress are not prepared to vote for the Libyan adventure. That is the case even though I am sure that the votes to support the mission are there if Obama were to actually come clean with Congress and deliver a full explanation of what is happening, why it is happening, how it is intended to end, and who the rebels are that we are helping.
No comments:
Post a Comment