Posted on 03/21/2011 8:43:39 PM PDT by Libloather
Republican says action in Libya is an 'affront' to the US Constitution
By John T. Bennett - 03/21/11 06:33 PM ET
A senior Republican on the House Armed Services Committee escalated his party's attacks on the Obama's administration's military action in Libya, calling the move unconstitutional.
“The United States does not have a King's army," Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) said in a statement released Monday evening. "President Obama's unilateral choice to use U.S. military force in Libya is an affront to our Constitution."
Bartlett said Obama's team has repeated "the mistakes" made by the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations when they plunged U.S. forces into the Kosovo and Iraq conflicts without first seeking congressional approval.
Bartlett lashed out at Obama for opting against getting lawmakers OK before using "military force against a country that has not attacked U.S. territory, the U.S. military or U.S. citizens."
Obama notified lawmakers of his authorization for the mission in a letter.
Bartlett's statement was the harshest yet from House Republican leaders, who are lining up against the Libyan operation.
House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif.) issued separate statements Sunday afternoon questioning the administration's goals in Libya.
Some senior Senate Republicans, including John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), have said they support sending U.S. forces to Libya to help set up and maintain a no-fly zone.
In the statement, the Bartlett called Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi a tyrant who has mercilessly attacked his own people.
But, for Bartlett, that is not enough to justify U.S. military intervention.
"It is self-evident that the tragic situation in Libya is not an emergency since the Obama administration sought and obtained support from both the Arab League and the United Nations Security Council to authorize military force against [Gadhafi]," Bartlett said in the statement.
The veteran lawmaker also panned the administration for taking the time to organize over 20 nations for the no-fly zone mission, but not to gain congressional approval.
Bartlett also sought to place the responsibility for the operation squarely on the president's doorstep.
"Failing to obtain authorization from the U.S. Congress means that President Obama has taken sole responsibility for the outcome of using U.S. military forces against [Gadhafi] onto his shoulders and his administration," Bartlett said.
While on vacation.
>>While on vacation. <<
Just an extension of his now 2-1/2 year vacation. The TOTUS-reader has played more golf in 30 months than Bob Hope did in 30 years.
Impeach and remove, now!
I believe that Bush got Congressional approval prior to both Afag. and Iraq.
Yeah, but he took the time to phone it in to the U.S. media...
Poor Obama-boy screwed up. He’s supposed to get them in the tent pissing out, not the reverse.
This must be his first public statement in 20 years! Old-time back-room wheeler-dealer with a fair-to-middling conservative voting record. Got his kid into the state legislature with some suspicious counting during a primary against a Republican.
Hey Marylanders, is he still voting OK?
Sounds like the GOP are on both side — some okay with the military action, some against.
Sen. Graham was on one of the Sunday morning news programs. He said Obama didn’t need Congressional approval, but he, Graham, would sign any approval request Obama might send to Congress.
He has become the Vacationer-in-Chief.
Kudos to him for being the first to speak out. The rest of the pubbies need to get together with Dennis Kucinich and other liberals which have a conscience and introduce articles of impeachment-- sooner rather than later.
Hey Bartlett! You might just want to go and look up what actually occurred before W "plunged" the U.S. into Iraq. G.W. Bush went to Congress, and the U.N., and received Congress' approval for military action against Iraq. This current case is in no way similar to Iraq, MORON!!
Excuse me, but W did ask for congressional approval prior to the 2002 midterm elections. In fact, that was an historic midterm, because it was the first time since 1934 that the incumbent president's party gained seats in the House and in the Senate in a midterm election.
Obama was very clear on why he did not go to Congress for approval as required by the Constitution. He said he did not have to because the UN approved the war.
Obama really thinks the constitution is dead and he can do whatever he wants to do. Given he’s not even legally in the White House and he has the media and both parties covering up that fact of constitutional betrayal, he is right to make the assumption that they won’t do anything to stop him from violating the constitution.
The GOP could care less if he violates the constitution. They want the constitution dead, too. The same with our esteemed judicial branch of government.
Obozo, and the Libs I can agree with regarding your comment that they want the Constitution to be dead. I do not, however, agree that the Conservatives want the same thing.
NO, he is NOT 100% right. He said...
Bartlett said Obama's team has repeated "the mistakes" made by the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations when they plunged U.S. forces into the Kosovo and Iraq conflicts without first seeking congressional approval.
President Bush sought and received congressional approval. Was this moron on vacation when that happened?
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq October 2, 2002
Bill Text 107th Congress (2001-2002) S.J.RES.23.ENR
______________________________________ S.J.RES.23 -- Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
Here is what I said:
“Obama was very clear on why he did not go to Congress for approval as required by the Constitution. He said he did not have to because the UN approved the war.
Obama really thinks the constitution is dead and he can do whatever he wants to do. Given he’s not even legally in the White House and he has the media and both parties covering up that fact of constitutional betrayal, he is right to make the assumption that they won’t do anything to stop him from violating the constitution.
The GOP could care less if he violates the constitution. They want the constitution dead, too. The same with our esteemed judicial branch of government.”
Why would he think any different?
He never had to prove his constitutional eligibility to be in the Oval office and no one who had the power to stop him did a damn thing about it.
He took over the auto industry, fired a CEO of a private business, told the stockholders to go to hell as he stole their stocks and money and redistributed them to his pals in the union.
Obamacare, aka deathcare, aka unconstitutional takeover of health care.
Sorry...don't have time to go on.
If you are not hearing Conservatives and other members of the GOP raising a “stink” about this, then you are not listening very well.
Who is raising a stink. Are there hearings set in the house?
I must apologize for myself, and for Ole Roscoe. Neither of us, it seems, knew what the Hell we were talking about.
Was this moron on vacation when that happened?
Speaking again for Roscoe, I must point out that except for campaigning every two years, he has been more or less on vacation for years. However, he is a reliable Republican voter on the floor most of the time, and living 100 mile from the capitol, his attendance record is fair to good most years.
I plead "Guilty, with an explanation." In admitting that I was wrong, I want it understood that I was in shock at this very unusual public utterance of Roscoe.
Roscoe, STFU, you old hack. You will be called when your vote is required.
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.