Flashback: White House says War Powers Act doesn't apply for Libya conflict (same for Syria?)

[Cali_Democrat]

If the US does indeed launch strikes against Syrian targets, I would imagine that we could see similar justifications.

From the New York Times:

White House Defends Continuing U.S. Role in Libya Operation

WASHINGTON — The White House, pushing hard against criticism in Congress over the deepening air war in Libya, asserted Wednesday that President Obama had the authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities.

In a 38-page report sent to lawmakers describing and defending the NATO-led operation, the White House said the mission was prying loose Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s grip on power.

In contending that the limited American role did not oblige the administration to ask for authorization under the War Powers Resolution, the report asserted that “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.” Still, the White House acknowledged, the operation has cost the Pentagon $716 million in its first two months and will have cost $1.1 billion by September at the current scale of operations.

The report came one day after the House Speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, had sent a letter to Mr. Obama warning him that he appeared to be out of time under the Vietnam-era law that says presidents must terminate a mission 60 or 90 days after notifying Congress that troops have been deployed into hostilities, unless lawmakers authorize the operation to continue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Dreamer Tatum]

1. So as long as he keeps the carnage to a dull roar...

no approval needed?

[cali]

3. Lying dog shit is what it is whether it comes from a dem admin or a repuke one

[cali]

2. what dishonest bullshit from them.

the act says nothing whatsofuckingever about this: “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.”

Here, just for you and your kind:

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

No wriggle room whatever.

It's disgusting and from a republican YOU and your ilk would be howling.

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Why are you attacking me personally like that? You seem angry with me for some odd reason.

Here, just for you and your kind

<...>

It's disgusting and from a republican YOU and your ilk would be howling.

I don't want the US involved in any conflict in Syria.

I've made my opinion on this known.

Please stop with the personal attacks.

[cali]

8. I'm attacking the white house, not you

by you and your kind, I mean those who support the President's argument that he doesn't need Congressional approval to launch a military strike.

and you would be howling if a repub made that same argument.

[Cali_Democrat]

9. I don't usually howl on an anonymous message board like this one

I leave that to others.

Melodrama is not really my thing.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

7. Can this administration make a signing statement for a bill

they did not sign?

[DesMoinesDem]

5. Another illegal war from the Nobel Peace Prize winning constitutional law professor.