"War Powers Act? Never heard of it."
Thus when all intel agencies concluded that Saddam Hussein was almost certainly running a nuclear weapons program, and Bush correctly concluded that the only way to force him to stop was to send in the troops, the law required Bush to go to Congress first and seek an "Authorization for the use of military force."
Fair enough: I don't want war to be lightly entered into, and I suspect you don't either.
But now, when a Democrat is president, and starts bombing sites in Libya...oh my, the double-standard comes out swinging!
"War Powers Act? Never heard of it.."
So now we have a chance to turn a negative situation–U.S. forces bombing Libya with neither our objective nor an exit strategy articulated–into a really strong positive:I think we should call on either Allen West or some other conservative rep to introduce a resolution in the House to:
- Note that Obama has violated the “War Powers Act,” an act duly passed by a Democratic-dominated congress to compel the president to obey the Constitution;
- Take formal notice that Obama sought to end-run the provisions of the WPA by terming the bombing in Libya a “kinetic action;”
- Notify Obama that he has 30 days to either get authorization from congress to continue, or else cease combat operations in Libya;
- Formally note that the Constitution reserves the power to declare war to congress; and
- Declare that when a president violates the Constitution *and* the law, impeachment is the only option to the people to compel obedience to the document once said to be the “Law of the Land.”
And whoever introduces the res should also announce that he/she has an alternative measure ready to go if the first one fails: Repeal of the War Powers Act. Democrats can’t reasonably allow Obama to violate it and simultaneously claim it’s still operative law.
I realize neither resolution could ever get a majority of votes in the treacherously Dem-controlled senate, but merely *forcing a vote* on one or both would put the Democrats in a tough bind. One could understand a yes vote on either of the two, but a “no” on *both* would instantly be recognized (even by political naifs) as rank hypocrisy.
And I get the impression that hypocrisy is a charge beginning to gain traction with independent voters (and conservatives, of course).
Pair that clip with Nancy Pelosi saying “We need to fight global warming” while using a military jet to fly her family between San Fran and DC; hypocrisy is one of the hallmarks of Democrat lawmaking.