On Capitol Hill, A Chorus of Critics (Part II)

Obama Administration officials will hold a classified briefing for members of Congress on Wednesday, a session scheduled as criticism of the President’s handling of the Libyan conflict builds to a crescendo.

As Obama returned from his Latin American swing yesterday afternoon, House Speaker John Boehner released a letter that raises a series of questions about the world’s top kinetic conflict. Many of them are both fair and important. “Because of the conflicting messages from the Administration and our coalition partners, there is a lack of clarity over the objectives of this mission, what our national security interests are, and how it fits into our overarching policy for the Middle East.  The American people deserve answers to these questions.  And all of these concerns point to a fundamental question: what is your benchmark for success in Libya?” Boehner concludes.

The letter also includes an obligatory swipe that invokes one of the many complaints coming from the denizens of Capitol Hill: that Obama failed to meet his Constitutional obligation to consult the legislation branch before launching Tomahawk missiles at the Libyan coastline. “At the same time,” Boehner writes, “by contrast, it appears your Administration has consulted extensively on these same matters with foreign entities such as the United Nations and the Arab League.” It was, of course, a U.N. resolution that set the framework for military action, and the Arab League is a partner in that effort.

The White House and the Speaker’s press shop have since been trading barbs over the nature of Obama’s interactions with Congress during the march toward intervention in Libya. During today’s gaggle, Press Secretary Jay Carney listed the litany of briefings Boehner and other members had received from high-ranking Administration officials. At one point, when a reporter tried to cut Carney off, the press secretary plowed ahead: “Let me just continue, because it’s important that the American people understand how much consultation there has been.” Politico’s Glenn Thrush reports that on March 18, during a bipartisan conference call with House and Senate leaders, Boehner–by contrast–stayed silent. Brendan Buck, Boehner’s spokesman, argues that the call was not an open policy debate, but rather a courtesy to inform Congress of settled policy. “Consulting implies one is seeking input on if and how to act,” he wrote this morning. “Notification is always appreciated, but it is not a substitute for the long-respected custom of congressional consultation.”

In response to Carney’s laundry list, one reporter asked a pertinent question of the persistent gripes: “Is this just whining?” Carney’s response was that it wasn’t. Obviously it’s to the White House’s benefit to defuse a shouting match between the poles of Pennsylvania Avenue, but I think he’s also right, to a large degree. Certainly there’s a bit of jockeying for air time and point-scoring by partisan opponents. But even those critics have a leg to stand on. Congress has a Constitutional role to play in the process of going to war, even if presidents from both parties have for years effectively launched attacks on their own. (And even though Congress has repeatedly declined to declare wars–even the broadly popular ones, like Afghanistan–that have been subject to robust debate on its floor.) Many members, from Boehner to Sens. Richard Lugar and Jim Webb, have raised key questions about the scope and purpose of the mission, which the White House is working to answer.

Some of those answers will come at Wednesday’s briefing, which will feature Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Others will come in committee hearings planned for next week. Sen. Dick Durbin, the majority whip, has said he supports a floor vote authorizing U.S. military action in Libya, which could come as the first, U.S.-led phase is giving way to one in which the U.S. plays a “support and assist role,” as Carney put it. As we’ve written, for all the sturm und drang, Obama has substantial support in Congress. Next week, we’ll find out how deep that support runs. A bigger segment of the public favors intervention than disapproves of it, as polls have shown, even if the numbers are pretty tepid in comparison with past points of reference. For now, these are the numbers that matter.

Related Topics: Congress, Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of  a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty number two), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay marriage advocates—as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

  • mni08

    Enough said Congress is suddenly waking up from a slumber . . . give me a break. See below

    Mark Halperin’s answers this week in TIME.
    How can the U.S. military go into Libya without asking Congress to declare war?
    Ever since Harry Truman bypassed Capitol Hill in 1950 and sent U.S. forces into Korea without a declaration of war, no President has sought such a formal decree to deploy American troops. Despite the clear words of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8: Congress has sole power “to declare war”), Commanders in Chief of both political parties, the current Oval Office occupant included, have briefed and consulted Congress but initiated military action alone. Sometimes, as in the two Gulf Wars, Congress has finessed its constitutional role by passing a resolution in support of a proposed military action. But no President has felt bound by the actions of the Legislative Branch.

    Read more: http://thepage.time.com/2011/03/24/the-big-questions-libya-pawlenty-and-health-care/#ixzz1HYZe4YHe

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    “Many members, from Boehner to Sens. Richard Lugar and Jim Webb, have raised key questions about the scope and purpose of the mission, which the White House is working to answer.

    Some of those answers will come at Wednesday’s briefing, which will feature Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff”

    Well, there will be answers Wednesday, but it’s highly doubtful that securing a steady stream of low-cost oil to our European/subaltern partners is going to be among them.

    But, hell, with all the talk aof defeating a revolving cast of evil-doers, it should make for some fantastic theatre.

  • shepherdwong

    …one of the many complaints coming from the denizens of Capitol Hill: that Obama failed to meet his Constitutional obligation to consult the legislation branch before launching Tomahawk missiles at the Libyan coastline.
    .
    Wake me when they discover that the word “corporation” isn’t in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Like they give a sh!t what the Constitution says.

  • shepherdwong

    “…it’s highly doubtful that securing a steady stream of low-cost oil to our European/subaltern partners is going to be among them.
    .
    Yeah, I’ve been hearing that a lot and I’ve been meaning to ask someone who’s smart enough to give me a good answer (and it looks like you’re it). Since the multi-national oil cartel already has access to Libyan oil and we’ve only created a lot of uncertainty about Libya’s future government, why is this military campaign about “a steady stream of low-cost oil”? Know something about the “end game” you’d like to share with the rest of us? Everyone’s asking.
    .
    http://www.gulfoilandgas.com/webpro1/Main/NewsCTRY.asp?nid=LY

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Our role, whether diplomatic or military, in the entire region is about resources and geopolitical leverage (vis a vis China, Russia…) Tell me you’re not going to go on about lolly pops and democracy and aiding poor oppressed Libyans, however noble such a thought is if stripped clean of the nakedly agressive and predatory objectives at Foggy Bottom and that 5-sided building.
    .
    In Egypt and Libya, to take but two examples, our role has been all about soothing that multi-national beast, that it will remain fed–of course we’re partnering with democracy activists and dissidents, as we hope to shape the evolving state that will emerge, but it will, ultimately, bring about little fundamental change in their lives or the status quo in the region. Meet the new bosses…
    .
    From the Hindu Kush to Tripoli, it’s all part of the same game.
    .
    And/or perhaps you’re just reading the wrong sources. Chomsky, anyone?
    .
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0321/1224292709087.html
    .
    I know, I know, I may as well sign this Michael Fury, right?

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Aside from the pungent hypocrisy involved, do you think Obama failed to meet his constitutional obligation, particularly given that as a candidate back in 2007 he said:
    .
    “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
    .
    As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.”

  • shepherdwong

    And/or perhaps you’re just reading the wrong sources. Chomsky, anyone?
    .
    Possibly, but I’m just thumbing through my umteenth reading of Manufacturing Consent so it must be someone else I’m missing.
    .
    But if you like lollypops, this poor sod apparently just doesn’t get it about the ME and oil:
    .
    http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-accomplishments-of-the-un-no-fly-zone.html

  • shepherdwong

    …do you think Obama failed to meet his constitutional obligation…
    .
    Absolutely. But this is the same guy who played a major role in shredding the 4th Amendment (see FISA) and claims to be able to hold an American soldier without charge and torture him with isolation, sleep deprivation and humiliation. So, considering…so what?

  • http://shortplaysaboutrealpeople.wordpress.com Michael Maiello

    I actually agree with Boehner (and, uh, Kucinich said this way before he did and you guys didn’t report on it seriously) that Congress deserved a lot more consultation and deference here, but the notion that Obama spent more time consulting with the UN than other branches of the American government is absurd. Let’s face it, Obama didn’t consult with the UN, he led it. He pushed the resolution and he arranged for opponents to abstain rather than veto. The US led the UN process. As for consulting with the Arab League… notice how that ended when the Arab League tried to distance itself from the bombing?

    What happened is that Obama exercised the unitary authority that Bush injected into the presidency and that Boehner (but not Kucinich) failed to object to at the time. I happen to believe that Obama was wrong to do that. But Boehner is being entirely hypocritical and you’re not pointing that out. Why?

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Been reading Cole steadily throughout and while I agree with most of what he has to say about what’s happening in the region, this has nothing to do with what our/European objectives are. But again, when I see Sarkozy and Cameron and Obama go on the tube and say how deeply committed they are to aiding the suffering Libyans, my first reaction is violent retching. Per your comment at 7:18, do you honestly think that’s what we’re there for Shep? Come f@cking on, man!
    .
    BTW, there’s a reason why Juan Cole is on the roster of approved blogs here at the Swamp. He’s hardly Greenwald or Chomsky or Sean Paul Kelley or…

  • troubador222

    If providing low cost oil was the only reason, would it not make more sense to bomb the people investing in the commodities market?

  • shepherdwong

    Per your comment at 7:18, do you honestly think that’s what we’re there for Shep? Come f@cking on, man!
    .
    The point is no one knows all of the reasons. And even though I’m educated enough to understand that, because of where this is taking place, oil is undoubtedly a factor, I also have no reason or need to believe that the humanitarian motive wasn’t also a reason.
    .
    And I still don’t have an answer to why this helps anyone’s position regarding western access to oil better than the status quo ante. Just cynical conjecture.
    .
    I’m beginning to think Obama’s grand strategy was to drive both “conservatives” and liberals around the bend so he’d be the only guy left looking halfway sane.

  • shepherdwong

    And very funny, troubador. You’d have my vote even it made the price go up.

  • pintortwo

    How long before we start building bases in Libya? (for national security, of course…)
    .
    Over/under on how long our military stays there: 15 yrs.
    .
    (I got the over)

  • afguy

    What do you mean “build” bases?
    .
    Just take Wheelus back. It was ours once anyway.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    After my ungodly commute … I’m sure you’ve read this but for others who haven’t, here’s a post by Digby a few days back that sums up my own feelings to a T. Ironic that I’m copying/pasting Digby to you:
    .

    The other complaint I’m getting is that my gripe about using the “humanitarian” excuse is shallow. “Just because we can’t intervene everywhere to save the people doesn’t mean we can’t intervene somewhere.” To that I’ll just say that when you use this rationale in a blatantly cynical way, you not only abuse and cheapen the whole notion of humanitarian intervention, you create even more cynicism about humanitarianism in general. Being a humanitarian only when it suits your own interest isn’t humanitarianism, it’s opportunism.

    What’s the reason we can’t we intervene here? If anything, this seems like a much more obvious humanitarian intervention than Libya where a spontaneous uprising to overthrow the government has not even come close to the mayhem and displacement in Ivory Coast. It’s not that I think we should intervene in every humanitarian crisis. But honestly, the truth is that we don’t intervene in any humanitarian crises. We intervene in places in which we have large financial and strategic interests, period. It’s merely a convenience to attach a humanitarian label to it and persuade everyone that we are doing God’s work instead. Even the arguments for Iraq were all wrapped up in “rape rooms” and “he gassed his own people” rhetoric. The entire debacle eventually rested on the trope “the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein.”

    The reasons being stated for this one are even more unconvincing than usual. Insulting, actually. Millions of people are suffering all over the world, even here in the US. And the money that’s spent to protect oilfields and our “strategic interest” in keeping people drunk on scarce resources so that the already wealthy can get wealthier would go a long way toward alleviating it. Calling these oil field protection operations “humanitarian” is Orwellian and it prevents the American people from facing the real questions before them about their own futures and how to genuinely work toward a more peaceful, equitable and decent world.

    .
    And ditto Shep’s vote for Troubie’s idea.

  • http://milascurtains.wordpress.com milascurtains

    well, during this week all that we have seen – Administration was doing a job and Congress – just Barking nonsense.

    Isn’t it already time to recall all those barking lazy idiots from there????

  • http://milascurtains.wordpress.com milascurtains

    how about to think before to post here?
    To think – it does not hurt, just brains require.

  • shepherdwong

    To that I’ll just say that when you use this rationale in a blatantly cynical way, you not only abuse and cheapen the whole notion of humanitarian intervention, you create even more cynicism about humanitarianism in general. Being a humanitarian only when it suits your own interest isn’t humanitarianism, it’s opportunism.

    .
    Which is why I truly, deeply hope that this doesn’t turn out to be an act of pure opportunism. Time will tell. But I see no evidence that “it’s all about the oil,” and I tend to make important judgments based on the available evidence, not personal prejudices. Right now, there’s a good, logical rationale for humanitarian intervention – Gaddafi was massacring his people on a massive scale and an almost unprecedented array of world powers saw intervention as supportable. No one has presented any evidence, that I know of, of any planned or expected benefit related to better access to Libyan oil. It’s sloppy, prejudiced thinking and quite unfair to lots of people in the administration until someone does.
    .
    If you want to reach for an obvious, unspoken motive for this intervention, since it’s also the stated opinion of the President, it is the removal of Gaddafi from control of Libya (even Bob Shrum figured that out). That’s also rational and good, even if it can’t be said because it goes beyond the UN mandate and doesn’t provide the market with cheaper oil from 2% of the world supply. Or even if it does.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Well, for evidence, one could refer to the 20th century, but I wouldn’t burden you with such an overwhelming task. As Digby say, declaring this a humanitarian mission means you have to jettison from consideration all previous military actions since the War with Spain. But, I know, those of us too cynical to take the latest president at his word are merely acting out our personal prejudices. I’m sure if Bush or whichever GOP buffoon of the moment were at the helm now, you’d give them the same benefit of the doubt. I’m merely the inverse—I distrust all presidential rhetoric were deploying the military is concerned, regardless of party affiliation. History provides rich source material as to why this is in fact the common sense position to take.

    There may be a “good logical rationale for humanitarian intervention” but what that has to do with the current campaign is beyond me. And you are too damned smart and baldly cynical yourself to try to pull off such a rhetorical sleight of hand. But, hell, one never wants to be unfair to people with the record you briefly summarized at 3.2. By the same tortured rationale, I’ll allow the local, thrice-convicted pedophile to approach within a meter of my daughter b/c any of his previous/concurrent actions are irrelevant to his present moral goodness.

  • apr2563

    Actually, I think the Administration should get in a high dudgeon and claim that those who criticize the military action in Lybia are traitors, treasonous, unamerican, and hate the military.
    .
    I might have doubts about our mission in Lybia. But I have no doubts about Republican hypocrisy.

blog comments powered by Disqus