Posted on 06/20/2011 4:17:56 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
It seems as if that is the case, given that John McCain has chastised those GOP presidential candidates who wonder how Libya posed a threat to the U.S., how Obama has grounds for claiming that the U.S. isn't even at war with Libya or how he can claim - through Harold Koh and Jay Carney - that "the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of hostilities envisioned by the War Powers Resolution."
Obama is claiming that since U.S. troops are supposedly at little risk in this particular mission and that we have no boots on the ground that the WPA 90 day rule does not apply, thus effectively rendering the WPA null and void - but at the cost of redefining what constitutes "hostilities" - and thus what constitutes warfare.
In essence, Obama is saying that airfields, defense systems, compounds and people can be bombed by missiles from the air or from out at sea, but as long as there are no boots on the ground the WPA 90 day rule is null and void. The WPA is unconstitutional, but Obama should have asked Congress to scuttle it beforehand, not try to worm his way out of it after the fact.
And John McCain should know better.
McCain is an old fool. I’ll bet McCain can’t even tell us who the rebels are in Libya, much less why we should support them.
Anybody know how definite it is that Panetta will be given the Secretary of Defense position when Gates leaves?
McCain gives the impression that he is angling for the job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.