I’m trying to get my head wrapped around this one. Obama claims that providing financing and logistic support to NATO, without a committment of armed forces, does not amount to making war on Libya and therefore is not covered by the War Powers Act of 1973.
Most Republicans (and some Democrats) think otherwise. They would call it war, and hence, claim that Obama is, as of Sunday, in violation of the War Powers Act.
Today there was a House vote to authorize limited military involvement in Libya. It failed 123 (yes) to 295 (no).
Washington’s delegation split along partisan lines with Democrats Dicks, Smith, McDermott, Inslee, and Larsen voting yes and Republicans Herrera Beutler, Reichert, Hastings and McMorris Rodgers voting no.
Huh…I distinctly remember George W. Bush suggesting that John Kerry’s criticisms against Bush’s handling of the Iraq war was giving aid and comfort to the enemy and endangering the troops.
So…if Obama is right in his interpretation of the War Powers Act, then the Republicans have engaged in little more than toothless political theater by defeating an unnecessary “authorization” today.
But if the Republicans are right in their belief that Obama is waging war in Libya in violation of the War Powers Act, then doesn’t their vote against authorizing the action mean, by their own standards, that they are giving aid and comfort to the enemy?
Yo Reps. Herrera Beutler, Reichert, Hastings and McMorris Rodgers did y’all just give Gaddafi a big ol’ group hug? And why are you willfully endangering the troops?