Very few members of congress care about anything except getting their sorry assses re-elected. Elect them to 1 6-year term and take them out and shoot them at the end of that.
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 8:08 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > *Illegal War? Congress Doesn't Care > *by Gene Healy > *This article appeared in *The Washington > Examiner<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/> > * on May 24, 2011. > > *Remember when President Obama assured us his Libyan adventure would be > over in "days, not weeks"? To employ a Clinton-era euphemism, "That > statement is no longer operative." (Translation: I lied.) > > On Friday the 60-day clock ran out, leaving Obama in clear violation of the > War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973 to "fulfill the intent of the framers > of the Constitution ... [and] insure that the collective judgment of both > the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United > States Armed Forces into hostilities." > > Instead of withdrawing U.S. forces, the president sent a letter to > congressional leaders insisting bizarrely that drone attacks and > "suppression and destruction of air defenses" don't qualify as "hostilities" > under the resolution. > > "The U.S. role is one of support," an Obama adviser told ABC News, "and the > kinetic pieces of that are intermittent." > > Defense Secretary Robert Gates couldn't even keep a straight face while > trying to sell the "kinetic military action" line to Katie Couric on *60 > Minutes* recently, when she asked him, "Are we at war with Libya?" > > Six Republican senators, led by Kentucky's Rand Paul, sent the president a > letter Friday, challenging him to comply with the War Powers Resolution. But > they won't get much help from their colleagues. There's no Senate action > scheduled on the WPR, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, > D-Mass., says it's because "we're deferring to NATO." Who elected them? > > With Congress AWOL, it's not clear what recourse is left to those who > oppose unconstitutional wars. Perhaps what remains of the "peace" movement > can update the old John Lennon anthem: "All we are saying is give static > military activity a chance ..." > > Meanwhile, as the Senate dithered, the House moved toward granting the > president sweeping new war powers. > > The defense spending bill that recently cleared the House Armed Services > Committee contains a new, post-bin Laden Authorization for Use of Military > Force. This authorization is even broader than its post-Sept. 11 > predecessor, whose language was stretched by the Bush administration to > justify warrantless surveillance and holding U.S. citizens without charges. > Even so, the proposed replacement got only a few minutes of post-midnight > debate. > > The first authorization at least contained a link to the perpetrators of > the Sept. 11 attacks. The new authorization empowers the president to go to > war with any nation he determines is aiding al Qaeda, the Taliban, or > "associated forces." How far can that language be stretched? Maybe far > enough for Congress to finally get this war powers hassle off its plate > permanently. > > One thing is clear, you can't blame our burgeoning "imperial presidency" > solely on aggressive, power-hungry presidents. As Arthur Schlesinger Jr. > explained in his book of that name, the presidency's transformation from > limited, constitutional office to Supreme Warlord of the Earth has been "as > much a matter of congressional abdication as of presidential usurpation." > > In fact, the last time I can remember Congress roused to righteous > indignation about threats to the separation of powers was in May 2006, when > the FBI searched then-Rep. William Jefferson's congressional office in a > bribery investigation. (They'd previously found $90,000 in cash in > Jefferson's freezer at home.) > > The raid on Jefferson's office was the rare event that got then-Speaker > Denny Hastert, R-Ill., and Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., singing > from the same hymnbook about "constitutional principles ... designed to > protect the Congress and the American people from abuses of power." > > It would be nice to see similar bipartisan outrage from Congress today > about "abuses of power" like, say ... illegal wars. > > But it seems that sort of thing doesn't hit as close to home. > > http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13132 > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
