International, Military, Politics, Society

Obama Seeks Congressional Approval For Strikes While Insisting That He May Attack Regardless Of Lack Of Approval

President_Barack_Obama220px-B-2_spirit_bombingThere is a wonderful scene unfolding on Capitol Hill. In the past, President Barack Obama has insisted that he alone decides what constitutes a war and when he needs a congressional declaration. It was a claim that was challenged in federal court when I represented members of Congress. Now, however, England has refused to go along with the latest American-led military venture and there is heavy opposition in the public. Obama therefore is now saying that he wants to consult with Congress while his aides insist that he really does not need such consultation and, unless they agree with him, may just ignore them. Welcome to the new Imperil Presidency and what now constitutes checks and balances.

What is interesting is that Obama appears to be looking for an out after he painted himself in a corner by declaring a “red line” over the use of chemical weapons. According to some reports, that was not in the prepared comments for him to read but, once he said it, it became U.S. policy. He was clearly ready to go to war to show that he is not to be mocked but then the English balked at his latest military venture. It appears that he may be willing to blame Congress if there is a vote against the attacks, even though he continues to maintain that he does not need such approval. He is calling for a vote in direct conflict with his position in the Libyan war.

I have spoken to people at the Pentagon who have complained privately that there appears to be no adult supervision at the White House and that there is major opposition to this course in the military. The feeling is that Obama aides are drifting again into a war with wider implications and uncertain ends.

What is left is utter confusion. You have a President who claims unchecked powers who wants to attack another nation. You have an attack that has been steadily downgraded into “limited” and “brief” operations to try to get the world to just let Obama carry out his threat and leave. You have a Congress that it desperately trying to pretend that it is relevant in any respect to this country going to war while not making any substantive decision. This is what comes from departing from the clear language of the Constitution in requiring declarations of war before attacking another country.

83 thoughts on “Obama Seeks Congressional Approval For Strikes While Insisting That He May Attack Regardless Of Lack Of Approval”

  1. Obama, Congress and Syria
    The president is celebrated for seeking a vote on his latest war even as his aides make clear it has no binding effect
    By Glenn Greenwald
    9/1/13
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/01/obama-congress-syria-authorization

    Excerpt:
    It’s a potent sign of how low the American political bar is set that gratitude is expressed because a US president says he will ask Congress to vote before he starts bombing another country that is not attacking or threatening the US. That the US will not become involved in foreign wars of choice without the consent of the American people through their representatives Congress is a central mandate of the US Constitution, not some enlightened, progressive innovation of the 21st century. George Bush, of course, sought Congressional approval for the war in Iraq (though he did so only once it was clear that Congress would grant it: I vividly remember watching then-Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joe Biden practically begging the Bush White House to “allow” Congress to vote on the attack while promising in advance that they would approve for it).

    But what makes the celebratory reaction to yesterday’s announcement particularly odd is that the Congressional vote which Obama said he would seek appears, in his mind, to have no binding force at all. There is no reason to believe that a Congressional rejection of the war’s authorization would constrain Obama in any way, other than perhaps politically. To the contrary, there is substantial evidence for the proposition that the White House sees the vote as purely advisory, i.e., meaningless.

    Recall how – in one of most overlooked bad acts of the Obama administration – the House of Representatives actually voted, overwhelmingly, against authorizing the US war in Libya, and yet Obama simply ignored the vote and proceeded to prosecute the war anyway (just as Clinton did when the House rejected the authorization he wanted to bomb Kosovo, though, at least there, Congress later voted to allocate funds for the bombing campaign). Why would the White House view the President’s power to wage war in Libya as unconstrainable by Congress, yet view his power to wage war in Syria as dependent upon Congressional authorization?

  3. Leejcarrol,
    If you read my comments, you will notice I do not absolve Bush of his crimes. Check out the dates I referenced. Again, was Obama responsible for Katrina? Dates matter and that’s why I referenced them. Now, to be clear, if one man commits a crime, does the next man to follow absolved from committing those crimes if the former is never held accountable?

    BOTH Administrations are violating the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment through illegal spying on Americans w/out warrants specific to the search and persons to be searched.

    Congress abdicated their Congressional role to defend OUR RIGHTS and instead chose to assault our Rights. We won’t get anywhere near “on track” as a Nation until we get a body of Congress that takes their OBLIGATION to the people seriously. Instead they’ve CHOSEN to protect Corporate banking culture, war, and the fossil fuel industry. Period. We, the People, mean nothing to them BUT job security. Full stop.

  4. You drop a bomb… You have consequences…. Not at all unintended…. Just not wanted… Now, its 4 letter word time and I will stop…

  5. My guess is that Obama’s worst fault as President, among oh so many, is that he has assembled a group of idiots as advisers on all manner of topics.

  6. The irony is that Obama was prepared to attack if he got UK or UN support (neither was forthcoming).

    Since he didn’t get the desired foreign support, he now wants congressional support (though he might attack anyway if he doesn’t get it).

    Essentially Congress is third is the desired approval list – regardless of what the Constitution says.

  7. Here’s what I wrote to my Congress persons. I’m not hopeful but I am committed to speaking up.
    ———————————————————————————————
    There are many problems with Obama’s plan to go to war with Syria. I am asking that you raise questions on my behalf. I do not consent to this war. Here are my questions.

    1. I want to know why a non-violent response is considered “doing nothing”. The US civil rights movement used non-violence to confront injustice. It was one of our people’s most courageous acts. I want to know if the administration has examined peaceful methods to taking a stand against the use of CW. If not, why not? I want my Congress to carefully evaluate all the options, not just the military options.

    2. How will this be paid for? The US govt. claims we are in a state of fiscal crisis. Where will the money for Obama’s war come from?

    3. I demand independent evaluation of Obama’s evidence. It is not enough to say a CW strike occurred. Harkin said the evidence seemed “circumstantial”. The administration keeps arguing by assertion. People who have evidence, present it openly for evaluation. I also see the constant attempt to claim that CW were used elided into CW were used by the Syrian govt. The fact that the administration keeps using propaganda to “make their case” casts serious doubts about that case.

    Finally, Where is the US’s own red line in what it will do to other people? We don’t need to use military force to send a message that CW won’t be tolerated. In fact, we only send the message that we will never choose a peaceful solution, that other nations have no reason to trust us at all.

    If the true end is a diplomatic solution, then you will not use force. You stand against injustice just as those in the civil rights movement did, with the use of soul force. You draw your line in the sand not only about your enemies actions, but your own nation’s actions.

  8. Itchin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBdeCxJmcAo
    Country Joe McDonald.

    (I don’t know I kind of don’t have a problem right now with the President saying he wants approval but also does not need it. I think that gives Syria an opportunity to see that they are still not off the hook from action. That being said I can’t imagine what can be done that will matter to these kinds of people who think it is fine to use chemical weapons against their own people but the world cannot stand back, wring it’s hands, and say how terrible and there are no repercussions.

    BTW Max NSA spying started under Bush, not Obama, under PRISM which Bush has only a few months back come out to remind us it is his program.

    That isnot to give Mr Obama a free pass since it appears to have expanded exponentially.

  9. John Kerry was inside Nancy Pelosi’s office along with the 90 year old Feinstein. He was heard through the closed door singing these lyrics to a guitar.
    [music- and Jonboy Kerry singing]
    And, its one, two, three, What are we fightin for?
    Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn!
    And its Five , six, seven, Open Up the Pearly Gates!
    Ain’t no time to wonder why…
    Whoopee, we’re all gonna die!

    —
    Does anyone know the author of that song and from whence it came? If the person who wrote it was from the Vietnam era and taught it to Kerry, you would think that Kerry would be thinking with something other than his thing when he wants to go off to Syria to bomb civilians because someone over there used poison gas on humans.

    I thought that John Kerry had some war experience in his past but maybe someone out there has a better recollection of things. I am just an 8 year old dog.
    ….

  13. What the news media is forgetting is that congressional approval will not make it legal under international law.

    What the congress should require is for the president to seek a U.N. resolution.

    If that pans out, then the congress can proceed legally to authorize the president to give Bashar a spanking.

  16. Too bad we can’t have sitting members of Congress arrested for failing to uphold their Oath of Office to the People. Iran, We, the People, are so unimportant to the political Slite because the ONLY accountability mechanism is to vote them out. In the mean time, they back legal wars of aggression and choice with OUR TAXES!

    The office of the President should have been constrained after 2004 spying was revealed. Then again in late 2006 when it was confirmed and then the Speaker took accountability off the table.

    Torture! Do we even need to cover how a Nation that claims to follow the rule of law yet refuses to abide by said humanitarian laws is anything BUT unjust and immoral?

    WAR! Endless war is NOT the pursuit of a peaceful Nation. It is the method of an Empire to maintain oppression and influence/coercion over a people.

    Then look at the police tactics at home, against our own people.

    The shadow of America is fading in the sunset of her life.

  18. That was a disturbed and disturbing speech. He summarily dismissed another branch of the govt. making them meaningless except as cover for his terrible decision. But there is something else which truly alarms me. I had written my Senator about the need for Congress to vote on this (before Obama asked for them to vote. He wrote back: “I believe that President Obama should make his case to the American people and consult with Congress before taking any military action.”

    This means my Senator was O.K. with just being consulted. This is how busted this nation really is. Consulted is not O.K. Rubber stamping is not O.K. We need a functioning Congress. It’s not just Obama who thinks the Congress isn’t relevant, it’s the Congress. It’s time for Congress to get relevant and take their oath of office seriously.

    The resolution Obomber wants is as broad as AUMF. It includes his right to attack other nations such as Iran if he deems it in US interests. My question is this– Where is the US’s own red line in what it will do to other people? We don’t need to use military force to send a message that CW won’t be tolerated. In fact, we only send the message that we will never choose a peaceful solution, that other nations have no reason to trust us at all.

    If the true end is a diplomatic solution, then you will not use force. You stand against injustice just as those in the civil rights movement did, with the use of soul force. You draw your line in the sand not only about your enemies actions, but your own nation’s actions.

  19. Isn’t the proposed AUMF pretty open-ended? Maybe the president realizes that a limited strike won’t help the rebels enough and hope to use the chemical weapons attack and the hand-wringing to buffalo a blank check on a narrow vote through Congress?

Comments are closed.