House Rejects Libya Action


The House Friday resoundingly rejected a measure that would authorize the United States’s mission in Libya, with 70 Democrats deserting President Obama on an issue that has divided their party and became a major Constitutional flash point between Congress and The White House. The resolution — one of two that the House took up Friday — failed 295 to 123, with 70 Democrats joining an overwhelming majority of Republicans in rejecting it. Only eight Republicans supported the measure, which was based on a Senate measure introduced Tuesday by Senators John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and John McCain, Republican of Arizona that has yet to be voted on in that chamber.

< Political Bargaining | New McCarthyism, Hillary Style >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    And what does (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 11:47:56 AM EST
    this mean? Does it mean Obama will have to get out of Libya or does it mean nothing which is what I think.

    it means nothing (none / 0) (#3)
    by CST on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 11:56:12 AM EST
    they probably won't vote to defund it, which would actually have teeth.

    "Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with scores of House Democrats and urged them to vote against the defunding resolution, insisting the collective effort in Libya was close to ousting the nation's leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. In emphatic language, Mrs. Clinton warned them that a resolution to bar money for Libya would be disastrous to American interests in that war-torn nation, said some of the 60 or so Democrats who attended.

    "The secretary was there to make the case on behalf of the administration on why they want to continue the war," said Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, one of the attendees. He added: "It would appear inside the caucus that there is a split on this," Mr. Kucinich said, "and I think the fact that the secretary came over tells you a couple things. One, that the White House is very concerned about the vote, and second, that there is a sudden awareness that the fact that the administration has ignored Congress may carry with it a price."

    "She did a really good job of making the administration's case," said Representative Lynn Woolsey, a Democrat from California, who added that she was ultimately not swayed to support the activities in Libya. "She did what the White House should have been doing all along, which is come to us, talk about the situation, tell us what their perspective is, and have a conversation.""

    Sounds like we'll still be there for a little while.


    I guess it means that (none / 0) (#2)
    by scribe on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 11:56:06 AM EST
    Hillary stamping her foot and demanding "whose side are you on?" of Congressional Dems did not have the desired effect.

    were you there? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 12:05:24 PM EST
    Go up the page one post (none / 0) (#14)
    by scribe on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 02:26:49 PM EST
    to here and see for yourself.

    While I won't vouch for her literally stamping her foot, at a bare minimum she figuratively stamped it.  And she definitely asked "whose side are you on".


    And (none / 0) (#18)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 05:40:46 PM EST
    what was the answer?

    Good, But How Do They Enforce ? (none / 0) (#5)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 12:58:08 PM EST
    I always wondered about the defunding aspect.  Sure that works for a large scale operation like Iraq.  But how do you defund what is essentially bomb runs ?

    The Navy is there and will stay there, the only costs above normal operations are the bomb themselves.  And it's not like certain bombs are designated Libya, these bombs are a tiny portion of the munitions a Aircraft Carrier holds. They could probably bomb for 6 months without resupplying, and even then the resupply ships/ports would have bombs that are already purchased.

    How do you defund such a small operation ?

    In my mind this would be like mom defunding my ability to pick up a hitchhiker while traveling cross country.  Everything is in place, the only real costs would be the marginal ones associated with the actual stop.  Costs that would be nearly impossible to separate from the trip.

    I was on a flight deck, and the aircraft operate every day regardless, pilots have to book so many hours to keep their flight status.  So the fuel and maintenance costs or jets/ships are the same.

    How does Congress pull the purse strings on small venture like this ?

    Practical questions, Scott (none / 0) (#7)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 01:09:50 PM EST
    My thinking (in answer to your question): One way or another, the "defunding" does not really happen OR is not really enforced...but, the Repubs claim assertive power & (here's the catch) the Democrats quietly continue, with the WH counting on a positive outcome--sooner rather than later at this point--from NATO. (If the outcome is positive from NATO--trans: Qaddafi is seen to be legally diminished, the rebels appear protected, etc.--then the loudest Repubs today on this issue will slink away in a jittery fashion on this challenge-what challenge of the day.)

    Agreed, but What if They Wanted to... (none / 0) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 01:46:18 PM EST
    ... could Congress defund this little adventure, I really can't see how, but that definitely isn't my area of expertise.

    The Libyan adventure (none / 0) (#15)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 02:47:16 PM EST
    has cost about $l billion in US costs, so far. This non-war is not off budget  (supplemental) such as is Iraq and Afghanistan, but is coming out of the Pentagon's budgetary hide.   The usual, we can't stop/cut funding since we need to support the troops, has the catch of no troops on the ground.  But, the substitute reason is it would hurt our credibility (also a tried and true cry) and it would destroy NATO (an effort the NATO nations participating are doing a good job on, all by themselves).

    Woud that be for the Supremes? (none / 0) (#16)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 02:50:33 PM EST
    It seems as if the funds being used/to be used in the short term are earlier appropriated funds. I'm also guessing that minor re-allocation(s) could be done by DOD.  Beyond that, your guess is as good as mine...but, it likely would track back to the longtime questions about the War Powers Act and ways for the Executive to expand it or not. Assuming that both parties might find it in their self-interest to preserve the broadest possible read of the Act (& Executive's authority), there may be incentives not to play the ultimate legal challenge.

    Only 8 Brand R's? (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    Color me surprised...I thought the party never met a bombing run, and the subsequent bomb stock replishment order, they didn't like.

    If we always had a Brand D pres, Brand R might not be half bad on issues of war and peace...Obama-hate trumps war mongering...good to know.

    I Think The Bomb Makers... (none / 0) (#10)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 01:43:50 PM EST
    ... got lazy in regards to lobbying.  Iraq and Afghanistan was the ultimate gravy train, they probably forgot what it was like to want war.

    I am as shocked as you on the vote, if this is a new trend, electing any D seems to be a guarantee for peace, definitely worth the price of admission.

    What blows my mind...  if asked, I am sure each and every R on the planet would say Ronnie's bombing was an act of heroism, now when their hallowed democracy could be at stake, bombing Libya isn't all that that it was in the 80's.  And all their bluster of installing democracies seems to be a thing of they have all but forgotten.

    I'm glad with the results and only mildly curious as to why.


    The hypocisy is astounding.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 01:56:41 PM EST
    comedic really.  He who pulls the trigger makes all the difference to partisan morons.

    Sadly this is ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 01:11:16 PM EST
    just cover for Dems running in very liberal districts.

    The war won't end.  But they can claim they tried to stop it.  Of course, they won't do anything to really stop it.  Like defund it.

    And here they could defund it and avoid the usual putting soldiers in harms way argument. (A spurious argument, but on that has sent Dems skittering for the baseboard in the past.)  Because there aren't supposed to be any "boots on the ground".

    they also just voted (none / 0) (#13)
    by CST on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 02:25:20 PM EST
    not to defund the war.

    Let us watch DOD (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 04:14:43 PM EST
    Pull all the funding they need out of what they already have.  I think they can do this easily.  What a mindphuck though as we all witness how powerless our legislative branches are in the making of the wars this country participates in at this time in our history.  It is one thing to analyze all the components and draw conclusions, make informed assumptions...and then it something completely different to watch something like we are going to witness here.

    Good (none / 0) (#19)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 10:53:54 PM EST