« Clear contrast | Main | Busted... And Utterly Unashamed »

The Audacity Of Dope

One of my strengths as a blogger, I think, is my ability to draw connections where none are readily visible. It often leads me astray, making links where none exist, but every now and then it steers me right.

Today, I'm seeing a pattern that has me deeply troubled. And it's in the actions of President Obama.

In no particular order:

The Un-War in Libya. President Obama ordered the armed forces of the United States into combat against a sovereign nation without a declaration of war, without any kind of approval from Congress, or even without formally notifying Congress that it was going to happen. This is in direct violation of the War Powers Resolution Act, which says that the president can only do so when there is an imminent threat to the United States or our interests. Historically, no president has ever officially accepted the Act as binding (it was passed over President Nixon's veto), but no president has ever openly challenged it, either.

The "Czars" Signing Statement.
When President Obama signed the recent budget deal, it included a ban on funding for specific advisors and offices that he had appointed without Congressional approval. But as he signed it, he specifically said that he did not believe that provision was binding on him. Similar to above, this is nothing new -- all recent presidents have used signing statements to lay groundwork for future challenges to laws. But also like above, that potential has never been explored before -- but Obama is likely to openly challenge this one, too.

The plan to impose the terms of the "Disclose Act" by executive fiat, after it was defeated in Congress, the Courts, and at the FEC. This one is unconfirmed, so it should not be considered as another solid example, but it's entirely consistent with the rest. Such an overarching policy should be treated as law, but it failed there. So apparently the Obama administration is weighing the possibility of just saying "make it so" all by their lonesomes.

The apparent scuttling of anti-terrorist criminal investigations and prosecutions of suspected terrorists for political gains. This one is truly ugly. It's alleged that the Obama/Holder Justice Department, in an attempt to curry favor with America's Muslims, engaged in such aggressive "outreach" to key radical Muslims in the US that they actually compromised investigations into those radicals' activities.

The EPA's refusal -- apparently with the White House's blessing -- to comply with Obama's Executive Order requiring all agencies to analyze and report on the effect of regulations on employment. Here, we have Obama issuing an order that was apparently only for public consumption, not to actually be taken seriously.  But those orders have the force of law, and unless Obama issues another order saying "just kidding!," then the EPA is in legal trouble.

These are just five examples. There are others. But there's a common thread here, tying them all together: each has the potential to trigger a Constitutional crisis, a direct conflict between the Executive and the Legislative branches.

The ultimate expression of that conflict is the impeachment of the president.

Which brings me to what should be an unthinkable possibility:

Does Barack Obama want to be impeached?

On the face, it sounds absurd. But I can construct two scenarios under which he just might.

In the first, it would be a way for Obama to leave the office. It's been clear for some time that he's largely disinterested in the office. Oh, he loves the perqs and benefits and attention, but he's bored and annoyed with the responsibilities and burdens and obligations that go with the office. Impeachment would allow him a way to leave office -- and in a historic fashion, as he would be the first president to be removed from office. Plus, it would allow him to spend the rest of his life claiming victimhood, how he was pushed out of office by his political enemies.

In the second, Obama could be looking at the Clinton administration for historical precedent. Bill Clinton's impeachment was the lowest point of his administration -- but when he won acquittal, it ended up as one of the biggest net pluses for his career. Clinton's impeachment ended up giving his opponents a huge black eye, and they are still being cudgeled over it.

Practically speaking, an impeachment of Obama is doomed to fail. Oh, sure, the House could impeach, but there's no way in hell the Senate would vote to convict. Obama's alienated a lot of his base, but nowhere near enough to put him at any risk here. Even if all 47 Republicans vote to convict, there's no way that 20 Democrats (counting the two "independents," Lieberman and Sanders, as Democrats for this purpose) would vote to remove Obama from office.

But the mere attempt could galvanize support for Obama like little else could. And all those people who insist that any and all criticism of Obama is a form of racism would totally lose control of themselves in glee.

"When you strike against a king, be sure to kill him." This is very sound advice for two reasons. The first is, hell hath no fury like a wounded king lashing back at his assailants. Secondly, failed attacks against a king tend to rally support behind that king, if only to demonstrate their loyalty to the crown.

So no, impeaching Obama would be a disastrous move, tactically and strategically. But it really looks like Obama is pushing for such a move, calculating that it would do him far more good than harm.

What must be done is to fight back against his pushes on a case-by-case basis ,challenging his unconstitutional moves one by one, and reserving the "big guns" for lesser targets. Eric Holder, for example, is a particularly low-hanging fruit. And it's not like Obama has demonstrated a great deal of loyalty to his allies and minions in the past; he might not even notice if Holder is forced out of office until he's forced to name his successor.

Plus, there's always the possibility that the longer Obama is denied his impeachment, the more aggressive and reckless and offensive he'll grow, and might even push enough Democrats into abandoning him and going along with removing him from office. Yeah, it's a long shot, but why rule out the chance?

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/41454.

Comments (88)

Well, he hasn't been a trad... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Well, he hasn't been a traditional President, that's for sure.

And I think you're right about him not being interested in functioning as President. BEING President is one thing - all that icky crap about 'working' as President is something else.

So - why not go out with a bang? (So to speak...)

The "War" we entered in Lib... (Below threshold)

The "War" we entered in Libya was like poking a rabid raccoon with a stick and them turning around and walking away. But that stick also happened to cost a lot of money. You have to wonder about the motives of an Administration that would do that after complaining about the 2 other "real" wars for over a decade.

Very interesting. This is o... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Very interesting. This is one of those things that make you go Hmm! Truly Machevellian to the nth degree.

What is sad is he is playing the fiddle while the USA burns. ww

Boy -- I bet the White Hous... (Below threshold)
Woop:

Boy -- I bet the White House is just in even greater chaos now that Jay has declared his fatwa on Obama.

lol.... you folks are always good for a laugh! Like Obama has the brains to even think of this!

I bet it was the headline that sent Obama to his bunk. So... edgy. So... childish. So... Rovian in its magnificent brilliance.

I agree whole-heartedly wit... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

I agree whole-heartedly with your thoughts Mr Tea. The United States is proud to have elected an African-American as president. But considering this particular man and his ideology and what that means for our country, he basically served his purpose at his inauguration. Following that he offers really nothing much at all to this country. I think the best we can do is simply neuter him or isolate him. I think the Republicans should continue to work hard at attaining and maintaining majorities in both houses of Congress as well as majorities in the governor's houses and legislatures at the state level. For some inscrutable reason Obama can maintain a reasonably high personal approval rating while the public remains turned off by this policies. I find it hard to believe the public cannot correlate the fact that his policies are based on deceit and that this reflects his persocnal character but so be it. But, yes impeachment is out. I believe the Republicans can do very well if the focus remains on policy.

Jay Tea:If I were ... (Below threshold)
James H:

Jay Tea:

If I were in a less charitable frame of mind, I would point out that these measures are another evolution of the theory of the "unitary executive," put heartily endorsed by one Vice President Dick Cheney.

But I'm in a more charitable frame of mind, so I'm going to recommend instead that you read Arthur Schlesinger's 1973 The Imperial Presidency, particularly the chapters covering the 19th century. Presidents and their minions have enlarged the power of the presidency over time, a tendency that encompasses behavior by members of all of America's major political parties.

Hey look! Jay is using his ... (Below threshold)
Woop:

Hey look! Jay is using his righteous authority to edit comments, and I'm whining and claiming to be the victim! How edgy of him! How childish of me!

What a pompous ass! Lol. Hi... (Below threshold)
Woop:

What a pompous ass! Lol. His "righteous" authroity! lol...

Hey Jay! Tell us more about... (Below threshold)
Woop:

Hey Jay! Tell us more about your "righteous authority" to change comments that point out your inane childish behavior!

lol...

Gladly, Woop. Check the nex... (Below threshold)

Gladly, Woop. Check the next posting. It's all about you...

J.

President Obama ordered ... (Below threshold)
Chico:

President Obama ordered the armed forces of the United States into combat against a sovereign nation without a declaration of war, without any kind of approval from Congress, or even without formally notifying Congress that it was going to happen. This is in direct violation of the War Powers Resolution Act

I totally agree. You should expand on this and publish it in Antiwar.com

No thanks, Chico. I can't g... (Below threshold)

No thanks, Chico. I can't go over there -- I haven't had my shots. But feel free to lift it and do it yourself. I won't even ask for credit. In fact, I'd prefer if you didn't give me any.

J.

Back on topic: James, you'r... (Below threshold)

Back on topic: James, you're right -- but I'd argue that Obama's moves aren't evolutionary, but revolutionary -- total game-changers. And Cheney's ideas were theory, as were Bush's moves in that direction -- Obama's trying to put them into practice.

It's kind of like the difference between the Pentagon having plans to invade and conquer Canada (they probably have plans for every nation on earth), and actually sending in the troops. Or someone planning out a murder in their head, but never taking a real action in that direction. As long as it's theoretical and potential and only a plan, it's no big deal. Once it's put into action, though, that's when it matters.

J.

I agree that Obama and Hold... (Below threshold)
Chico:

I agree that Obama and Holder are playing politics with the terrorist prosecutions, but this is a continuation of Bush playing politics.

First, if Bush hadn't made the military commissions procedure such an outrageous Kangaroo court that the Supreme Court revolted, the 9/11 terrorists would have been tried a long time ago. Remember, you had the military Chief Prosecutors resigning in protest. I never could understand the long delays after the Supreme Court handed down their orders, either.

Second, under Bush, there were a lot of bogus prosecutions of retarded "terrorists" who were led into the web by some informant who was getting paid by the government. Those stupid guys in Florida who were supposedly going to blow up the Sears Tower come to mind. This was to keep the fear level high and the threat level orange. Even Tom Ridge, the first Homeland Security Secretary, said he left government because he was sick of Bush pressuring him to raise the threat level and announce "threats" based on old intelligence for political reasons.

I don't think it's so much ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

I don't think it's so much a case that "The Smartest Man in the World" is "bored". It's that he's in over his head and hasn't a clue. All the crap he was fed growing up - he's finding it doesn't work in the real world.

When it comes down to it, the extreme left would much rather have dictatorial powers - you get a lot more done that way. Like China.

An interesting theory, but ... (Below threshold)
Andrew X:

An interesting theory, but even if true, I doubt it would go anywhere.

I think even the so-called "Stupid Party" gets that in Spring of 2011, impeachment on any grounds other than personally videotaped child molestation would be insane, for many of the reasons you mention.

Obama may be difficult but not impossible to beat, and would be as beatable as a crippled horse if the GOP had the right candidate right now, but impeaching him (in the House) will not do the slightest good to anyone, anywhere. And of course, it would never become a racial issue, we are beyond all that, as we all know, of course.

No, like the British decision in 1944 to call off any assassination attempt on a certain uniquely mustachioed friend, based on the fact that he was doing more harm than good to his own political movement, Mr. Obama probably has free reign right now. If we can't beat him electorally as of now, impeachment (that will die in the Senate) won't accomplish jack squat except to make him more powerful, not less.

Of course, if he wins in 2012 (ugh!), all bets are off on all sides.

This is not just obama but ... (Below threshold)
dunce Author Profile Page:

This is not just obama but the dem. party, impeachments are tried in the senate and after clinton they know that it will die there.This is why he acts like he is above the law. He owns his judges.An impeachment would tie the govt. into a knot and no action could proceed on the budget or repeal of obamacare or any of the other serious matters facing the country. The republicans are too responsible to launch a futile effort at such great cost to the country.

"When it comes down to i... (Below threshold)
PBunyan:

"When it comes down to it, the extreme left would much rather have dictatorial powers - you get a lot more done that way."

Actually that's the only way to make Communism work. (Of course, even when it "works", it doesn't really work, so I should have said, "Actually that's the only way for a Communist government to exist," or something like that.)

The Dems have been trying to do it with lawsuits, lies, deception, propaganda disguised as news reporting, and replacing education at all levels with indoctrination, and yet they still keep failing.

I mean sure, we keep getting closer and closer to a fully Communist system, but then things like the Tea Party movement and the 2010 election happen and set them back.

Gotta be a major bummer for Woop, Chico, and O'Bammi.

The republicans are too ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

The republicans are too impotent and beholden to their corporatist daddies to launch a futile effort at such great cost to the country.

FIFY! YW, TTYL, KTHXBAI!

The bottom line is, the man... (Below threshold)

The bottom line is, the man occupies the most powerful office on the planet and it is just not enough for him. His magnificence is too limited by that musty old Constitution thing, so it's best just to pretend it doesn't exist.

Chico, I heard a democrat g... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Chico, I heard a democrat got a flat tire last week and blamed Bush. What a putz.

The military tribunals were all set to go but your buddy Obamalama stopped them in their tracks and made the poor terrorists have to wait another two years to have the day in court. But you go ahead and blame Bush.

Oh yeah! Give me a credible source on the Ridge comment. Bet you can't. ww

I blame the Koch's!... (Below threshold)
914:

I blame the Koch's!

Barry is like a lot of his ... (Below threshold)
glenn:

Barry is like a lot of his contemporaries. He wants the perks but not the work. He's like that kid who sat in the back of the room in Social Studies. Wearing shades, cracking wise, charming the teacher out of being mad at him. Always on the tightrope. And a GF who did his homework so he got an "A".

Here we go again, liberals ... (Below threshold)
John:

Here we go again, liberals can't manage to defend Obama without comparing him to Bush. Come on guys what ever happened to Obama the smartest post partisan, post racial healer in cheif, the guy that can heal the earth? It's sounding like we're in the 3rd Bush term. How far the mighty have fallen.

Jay Tea:You're wro... (Below threshold)
James H:

Jay Tea:

You're wrong about everything being just theories. My Cheney jibe aside (which was there mainly to get a rise out of you), the accretion of power to the presidency is a very real thing that goes back to the Washington, Adams, and Jefferson administrations. Wikipedia has an entry about it if you look up "Imperial Presidency."

OK, James, I'll grant you t... (Below threshold)

OK, James, I'll grant you that there have been steps. But they've been gradual ones, baby steps, and most often followed Congress abdicating a power and quietly letting the president take it over. Here, it's far more blatant and active.

In simpler language (out of deference to the trolls), it's the difference between "it's gotta be done, and if you won't do it, I will" and "I'm gonna take this over -- hope you don't mind, but tough if you do."

J.

I think the Czar signing st... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

I think the Czar signing statement is the most dangerous move of all ...

Congress DEFUNDED those positions, they didn't eliminate them ...

The Presentdent thinks he can continue funding them ... a clear seperation of powers break that needs to be stopped asap ...

What Obama seems not to grasp is that anyone nobody cares if he hires a bunch of boot licking power jock sniffers to "advise" him ... he's always been free to do so ...

It is giving them executive powers over entire Departments of the government that is the issue ...

Don't want to do too much o... (Below threshold)
exposer of fools:

Don't want to do too much of an expose on Woop since he is already on the right end of the ass kickin' but.... How come he and chico can only manage 1 - vote against J until Hyper comes along?

And vice versa for whooop voting + for chico? Seperate entities? I think not.


Sorry for being a whistle blower woop. May as well stick sock job chico back up your ass. Hahahahahaahhahaahaha

I'm in awe of your greatnes... (Below threshold)
Woop:

I'm in awe of your greatness....

It isn't that Obama wants t... (Below threshold)
Hank:

It isn't that Obama wants to be impeached, it's the fact that he can skirt the law and no one will call him on it. Jay has a good list. Another example was his online fundraising where the address verification was disabled.

From Ayers to Rezko to Blago, he's gotten away with everything. Why stop now?

Who's going to go after him? The MSM is so far in the tank they actually run interference. The repubs don't dare; most are afraid to speak up. Those that do are ruthlessly attacked by the MSM. And sadly, the MSM still seems to retain the power to affect public perception, in spite of the rise of the internet.

So expect more of this from Obama. There's no reason for him to stop.

"I'm in awe of your greatne... (Below threshold)
914:

"I'm in awe of your greatness....

29. Posted by Woop | April 20, 2011 1:31 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)"


Glad to see your puppet pal chico still votes positive for you.

Hey exposer of fools, two t... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Hey exposer of fools, two things:

1) IP addresses can be tracked. If I were the same person as Woop or Chico, an admin would be able to tell. I use several different IPs (home; work; girlfriend's laptop; parents' place when I'm home for holidays and it's too early in the day to drink); however, none of them are identical to Woop's or Chico's.

2) Your name is beyond ironic.

Oh yeah! Give me a credi... (Below threshold)
Chico:

Oh yeah! Give me a credible source on the Ridge comment. Bet you can't. ww

I'm sure you'll say that the New York Times is totally lying about what was in Ridge's own book:

Tom Ridge, the first secretary of homeland security, asserts in a new book that he was pressured by top advisers to President George W. Bush to raise the national threat level just before the 2004 election in what he suspected was an effort to influence the vote.

After Osama bin Laden released a threatening videotape four days before the election, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld pushed Mr. Ridge to elevate the public threat posture but he refused, according to the book. Mr. Ridge calls it a “dramatic and inconceivable” event that “proved most troublesome” and reinforced his decision to resign.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/us/21ridge.html

I haven't read all these po... (Below threshold)
gladius:

I haven't read all these posts yet but when I read post #5 I thought of something that may be off topic but I want to write it now. Obama is the worst Pres. in my lifetime. Of his many faults him be classy and presidential are certenly high on the list but having experienced this abombination would not stop me from voting for another black man or women. Cain,Sowell,Williams,Condi Rise... what's there not to like. One difference among many, between these folks and the Won is interedy.That seems to be such a big problem with the left... like our resident trolls...they just don't have it and they don't understand it is so easy to see.

#32I did no... (Below threshold)
exposer of fools:

#32


I did not think you hyper, were woop or chico. Thats obvious by the content of Your posts.

I was making the point that woop loves chico and chico loves woop. But they each can only vote up or down once for both of them.

As for President PrompterBi... (Below threshold)
Knightbrigade:

As for President PrompterBinky deserving/wanting to be impeached, SURE!
But....my opinion would be to beat his pathetic ass out of office next year, and take the Senate.
Now if PrompterBinky happens to fool enough idiots to get re-elected, then Republicans should have the firepower to get the job done.
We would still have to maybe hold our breath with the Maine twits, and the Alaskan traitor etc.

All this aside, I don't car... (Below threshold)
James H:

All this aside, I don't care for the czars much at all. They've been in administrations going back for decades now, but they're basically a way for a White House's political operation to seize control over policy from the cabinet secretaries.

"They've been in administra... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"They've been in administrations going back for decades now, but they're basically a way for a White House's political operation to seize control over policy from the cabinet secretaries."

Well you can chalk that up to the resident constitutional scholar currently sitting in the White House.

Chico"but this is ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Chico

"but this is a continuation of Bush playing politics.'

Let's see, Jay Tea writes an article which shows numerous actions by Obama that could be construed as impeachable offenses and you blame Bush.

You leftists never cease to let crap cease to flow from your mouth do you.

Should read"You le... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Should read

"You leftists never cease to amaze me with the

crap you let flow from your mouth.
'

Chico, my man. Epic fail a... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

Chico, my man. Epic fail as the saying goes. First off the NYT shouldn't be considered a reliable source by anyone seeking FACTUAL evidence. Secondly you stated Ridge left because Bush pressured him to raise the threat levels. The NYT/grocery checkout rag you cited wrote that Ridge asserted that "top advisors" to Bush pressured him. Keep in mind that Ridge himself was a "top advisor", so the normal way to address this would be to say there was a disagreement amongst the "top advisors". Also the NYT says that Ridge says in the new book that he "suspected" it was to influence the election. "Suspected" in poli-speak generally means "I'm taking a guess".

Chico.Of course of... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Chico.

Of course of the reason that many top advisors suspected there would be an increase threat around the Elections is because of Spain's Elections Only 200 people and 1861 injured to influence the elections. Which worked. If they did not do it and someone died we would of heard how Bush did not take the threats seriously.

Just like they tried to hang him with the Intelligence report.

Obama of course does what he wants it combination of Ego and Socialist certainty. He WON and everyone must go to the back of the Bus. Obama rules by by the Picard school Make it SO but without the competence and understanding of what needs to be done.

Jay, you are wrong... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Jay,

you are wrong about the War Powers Act. Obama has 90 before needing approval from congress. To show what Obama has done is not unprecedented:


1) Danang, Vietnam. On April 4, 1975, President Ford reported the use of naval vessels, helicopters, and Marines to transport refugees from Danang and other seaports to safer areas in Vietnam. His report mentioned section 4(a)(2) of the War Powers Resolution and authorization in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for humanitarian assistance to refugees suffering from the hostilities in South Vietnam. Monroe Leigh, Legal Adviser to the Department of State, testified later that the President "advised the members of the Senate and House leadership that a severe emergency existed in the coastal communities of South Vietnam and that he was directing American naval transports and contract vessels to assist in the evacuation of refugees from coastal seaports." (97)

(2) Cambodia. On April 12, 1975, President Ford reported the use of ground combat Marines, helicopters, and supporting tactical air elements to assist with the evacuation of U.S. nationals from Cambodia. The report took note of both section 4 and section 4(a)(2) of the War Powers Resolution. On April 3, 1975, the day the President authorized the Ambassador to evacuate the American staff, he directed that the leaders of the Senate and House be advised of the general plan of evacuation. On April 11, the day he ordered the final evacuation, President Ford again directed that congressional leaders be notified.

(3) Vietnam. On April 30, 1975, President Ford reported the use of helicopters, Marines, and fighter aircraft to aid in the evacuation of U.S. citizens and others from South Vietnam. The report took note of section 4 of the War Powers Resolution. On April 10, the President had asked Congress to clarify its limitation on the use of forces in Vietnam to insure evacuation of U.S. citizens and to cover some Vietnamese nationals, but legislation to this effect was not completed. On April 28, the President directed that congressional leaders be notified that the final phase of the evacuation of Saigon would be carried out by military forces within the next few hours. (98)

(4) Mayaguez. On May 15, 1975, President Ford reported that he had ordered U.S. military forces to rescue the crew of and retake the ship Mayaguez that had been seized by Cambodian naval patrol boats on May 12, that the ship had been retaken, and that the withdrawal of the forces had been undertaken. The report took note of section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution. On May 13, Administration aides contacted ten Members from the House and 11 Senators regarding the military measures directed by the President. (99)

(5) Iran. On April 26, 1980, President Carter reported the use of six aircraft and eight helicopters in an unsuccessful attempt of April 24 to rescue the American hostages in Iran. The report was submitted "consistent with the reporting provision" of the War Powers Resolution. President Carter said the United States was acting in accordance with its right under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter to protect and rescue its citizens where the government of the territory in which they are located is unable or unwilling to protect them. The Administration did not inform congressional leaders of the plan on grounds that consultation could endanger the success of the mission.

(6) Sinai. The United States, Egypt, and Israel signed an executive agreement on August 3, 1981, outlining U.S. participation in a Multinational Force and Observers unit to function as a peacekeeping force in the Sinai after Israel withdrew its forces. In anticipation of this accord, on July 21, 1981, President Reagan requested congressional authorization for U.S. participation. Congress authorized President Reagan to deploy military personnel to the Sinai in the Multinational Force and Observers Participation Resolution, P.L. 97-132, signed December 29, 1981.

On March 19, 1982, President Reagan reported the deployment of military personnel and equipment to the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai. The President said the report was provided "consistent with section 4(a)(2) of the War Powers Resolution" and cited the Multinational Force and Observers Participation Resolution.

(7) Lebanon. On August 24, 1982, President Reagan reported the dispatch of 800 Marines to serve in the multinational force to assist in the withdrawal of members of the Palestine Liberation force from Lebanon. The report was provided "consistent with" but did not cite any specific provision of the War Powers Resolution. President Reagan had begun discussions with congressional leaders on July 6, 1982 after the plan had been publicly announced, and after leaks in the Israeli press indicated that he had approved the plan on July 2. (100)

(8) Lebanon. On September 29, 1982, President Reagan reported the deployment of 1,200 Marines to serve in a temporary multinational force to facilitate the restoration of Lebanese government sovereignty. He said the report was being submitted "consistent with the War Powers Resolution." On this second Multinational Force in Lebanon there was a considerable amount of negotiation between the executive branch and Congress, but most of it occurred after the decision to participate had been made and the Marines were in Lebanon. (101)

(9) Chad. On August 8, 1983, President Reagan reported the deployment of two AWACS electronic surveillance planes and eight F-15 fighter planes and ground logistical support forces to Sudan to assist Chad and other friendly governments helping Chad against Libyan and rebel forces. He said the report was being submitted consistent with Section 4 of the War Powers Resolution. On August 23, 1983, a State Department spokesman announced that the planes were being withdrawn.

(10) Lebanon. On August 30, 1983, after the Marines participating in the Multinational Force in Lebanon were fired upon and two were killed, President Reagan submitted a report "consistent with section 4 of the War Powers Resolution." In P.L.98-119, the Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution, signed October 12, 1983, Congress determined section 4(a) had become operative on August 29, 1983, and authorized the forces to remain for 18 months.

(11) Grenada. On October 25, 1983, President Reagan reported that U.S. Army and Marine personnel had begun landing in Grenada to join collective security forces of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States in assisting in the restoration of law and order in Grenada and to facilitate the protection and evacuation of U.S. citizens. He submitted the report "consistent with the War Powers Resolution." President Reagan met with several congressional leaders at 8 p.m. on October 24. (102) This was after the directive ordering the landing had been signed at 6 p.m., but before the actual invasion that began at 5:30 a.m., October 25.

(12) Libya. On March 26, 1986, President Reagan reported (without any mention of the War Powers Resolution) that, on March 24 and 25, U.S. forces conducting freedom of navigation exercises in the Gulf of Sidra had been attacked by Libyan missiles. In response, the United States fired missiles at Libyan vessels and at Sirte, the missile site.

(13) Libya. On April 16, 1986, President Reagan reported, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution", that on April 14 U.S. air and naval forces had conducted bombing strikes on terrorist facilities and military installations in Libya. President Reagan had invited approximately a dozen congressional leaders to the White House at about 4 p.m. on April 14 and discussed the situation until 6 p.m. He indicated that he had ordered the bombing raid and that the aircraft from the United Kingdom were on their way to Libya and would reach their targets about 7 p.m.

(14) Persian Gulf (103). On September 23, 1987, President Reagan reported that, on September 21, two U.S. helicopters had fired on an Iranian landing craft observed laying mines in the Gulf. The President said that while mindful of legislative-executive differences on the interpretation and constitutionality of certain provisions of the War Powers Resolution, he was reporting in a spirit of mutual cooperation.

(15) Persian Gulf. On October 10, 1987, President Reagan reported "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that, on October 8, three U.S. helicopters were fired upon by small Iranian naval vessels and the helicopters returned fire and sank one of the vessels.

(16) Persian Gulf. On October 20, 1987, President Reagan reported an attack by an Iranian Silkworm missile against the U.S.-flag tanker Sea Isle City on October 15 and U.S. destruction, on October 19, of the Iranian Rashadat armed platform used to support attacks and mine-laying operations. The report was submitted "consistent with the War Powers Resolution."

(17) Persian Gulf. On April 19, 1988, President Reagan reported "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that in response to the U.S.S. Samuel B. Roberts striking a mine on April 14, U.S. Armed Forces attacked and "neutralized" two Iranian oil platforms on April 18 and, after further Iranian attacks, damaged or sank Iranian vessels. The President called the actions "necessary and proportionate." Prior to this action, the President met with congressional leaders.

(18) Persian Gulf. On July 4, 1988, President Reagan reported that on July 3 the USS Vincennes and USS Elmer Montgomery fired upon approaching Iranian small craft, sinking two. Firing in self-defense at what it believed to be a hostile Iranian military aircraft, the Vincennes had shot down an Iranian civilian airliner. The President expressed deep regret. The report was submitted "consistent with the War Powers Resolution."

(19) Persian Gulf. On July 14, 1988, President Reagan reported that, on July 12, two U.S. helicopters, responding to a distress call from a Japanese-owned Panamanian tanker, were fired at by two small Iranian boats and returned the fire. The report was submitted "consistent with the War Powers Resolution."

(20) Philippines. On December 2, 1989, President George H. W. Bush submitted a report to congressional leaders "consistent with" the War Powers Resolution, describing assistance of combat air patrols to help the Aquino government in the Philippines restore order and to protect American lives. After the planes had taken off from Clark Air Base to provide air cover, Vice President Quayle and other officials informed congressional leaders. On December 7, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Dante Fascell wrote President Bush expressing his concern for the lack of advance consultation. In reply, on February 10, 1990, National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft wrote Chairman Fascell that the President was "committed to consultations with Congress prior to deployments of U.S. Forces into actual or imminent hostilities in all instances where such consultations are possible. In this instance, the nature of the rapidly evolving situation required an extremely rapid decision very late at night and consultation was simply not an option."

(21) Panama. On December 21, 1989, President George H. W. Bush reported "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that he had ordered U.S. military forces to Panama to protect the lives of American citizens and bring General Noriega to justice. By February 13, 1990, all the invasion forces had been withdrawn. President Bush informed several congressional leaders of the approaching invasion of Panama at 6 p.m. on December 19, 1989. This was after the decision to take action was made, but before the operation actually began at 1:00 a.m., December 20.

(22) Liberia. On August 6, 1990, President George H. W. Bush reported to Congress that following discussions with congressional leaders, a reinforced rifle company had been sent to provide additional security to the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia and helicopter teams had evacuated U.S. citizens from Liberia. The report did not mention the War Powers Resolution or cite any authority.

(23) Iraq. On August 9, 1990, President George H. W. Bush reported to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that he had ordered the forward deployment of substantial elements of the U.S. Armed Forces into the Persian Gulf region to help defend Saudi Arabia after the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. The Bush Administration notified congressional leaders that it was deploying U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia on August 7, the date of the deployment. After the forces had been deployed, President Bush held several meetings with congressional leaders and members of relevant committees, and committees held hearings to discuss the situation.

(24) Iraq. On November 16, 1990, President George H. W. Bush reported, without mention of the War Powers Resolution but referring to the August 9 letter, the continued buildup to ensure "an adequate offensive military option." Just prior to adjournment, Senate Majority Leader Mitchell and Speaker Foley designated Members to form a consultation group, and the President held meetings with the group on some occasions, but he did not consult the members in advance on the major buildup of forces in the Persian Gulf area announced November 8.

(25) Iraq. On January 18, 1991, President George H. W. Bush reported to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that he had directed U.S. Armed Forces to commence combat operations on January 16 against Iraqi forces and military targets in Iraq and Kuwait. On January 12, Congress had passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq Resolution (P.L. 102-1), which stated it was the specific statutory authorization required by the War Powers Resolution. P.L. 102-1 required the President to submit a report to the Congress at least once every 60 days on the status of efforts to obtain compliance by Iraq with the U.N. Security Council resolution, and Presidents submitted subsequent reports on military actions in Iraq "consistent with" P.L. 102-1. An exception is report submitted June 28, 1993, described below.

(26) Somalia. On December 10, 1992, President George H. W. Bush reported "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that U.S. armed forces had entered Somalia on December 8 in response to a humanitarian crisis and a U.N. Security Council Resolution determining that the situation constituted a threat to international peace. He included as authority applicable treaties and laws, and said he had also taken into account views expressed in H.Con.Res. 370, S.Con.Res. 132, and the Horn of Africa Recovery and Food Security Act, P.L. 102-274. On December 4, the day the President ordered the forces deployed, he briefed a number of congressional leaders on the action.

(27) Bosnia. On April 13, 1993, President Clinton reported "consistent with Section 4 of the War Powers Resolution" that U.S. forces were participating in a NATO air action to enforce a U.N. ban on all unauthorized military flights over Bosnia-Hercegovina, pursuant to his authority as Commander in Chief. Later, on April 27, President Clinton consulted with about two dozen congressional leaders on potential further action.

(28) Somalia. On June 10, 1993, President Clinton reported that in response to attacks against U.N. forces in Somalia by a factional leader, the U.S. Quick Reaction Force in the area had participated in military action to quell the violence. He said the report was "consistent with the War Powers Resolution, in light of the passage of 6 months since President Bush's initial report...." He said the action was in accordance with applicable treaties and laws, and said the deployment was consistent with S.J.Res. 45 as adopted by the Senate and amended by the House. (The Senate did not act on the House amendment, so Congress did not take final action on S.J.Res. 45.)

(29) Iraq. On June 28, 1993, President Clinton reported "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that on June 26 U.S. naval forces had launched missiles against the Iraqi Intelligence Service's headquarters in Baghdad in response to an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate former President Bush in Kuwait in April 1993.

(30) Macedonia (104). On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported "consistent with Section 4 of the War Powers Resolution" the deployment of approximately 350 U.S. armed forces to Macedonia to participate in the U.N. Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia. He said the deployment was directed in accordance with Section 7 of the United Nations Participation Act.

(31) Bosnia. On October 13, 1993, President Clinton reported "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that U.S. military forces continued to support enforcement of the U.N. no-fly zone in Bosnia, noting that more that 50 U.S. aircraft were now available for NATO efforts in this regard.

(32) Haiti. On October 20, 1993, President Clinton submitted a report "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that U.S. ships had begun to enforce a U.N. embargo against Haiti.

(33) Macedonia. On January 8, 1994, President Clinton reported "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that approximately 300 members of a reinforced company team (RCT) of the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) had assumed a peacekeeping role in Macedonia as part of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) on January 6, 1994.

(34) Bosnia. On February 17, 1994, President Clinton reported "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that the United States had expanded its participation in United Nations and NATO efforts to reach a peaceful solution in former Yugoslavia and that 60 U.S. aircraft were available for participation in the authorized NATO missions.

(35) Bosnia. On March 1, 1994, President Clinton reported "consistent with" the War Powers Resolution that on February 28 U.S. planes patrolling the "no-fly zone" in former Yugoslavia under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) shot down 4 Serbian Galeb planes.

(36) Bosnia. On April 12, 1994, President Clinton reported "consistent with" the War Powers Resolution that on April 10 and 11, U.S. warplanes under NATO command had fired against Bosnian Serb forces shelling the "safe" city of Gorazde.

(37) Rwanda. On April 12, 1994, President Clinton reported "consistent with" the War Powers Resolution that combat-equipped U.S. military forces had been deployed to Burundi to conduct possible non-combatant evacuation operations of U.S. citizens and other third-country nationals from Rwanda, where widespread fighting had broken out.

(38) Macedonia. On April 19, 1994, President Clinton reported "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that the U.S. contingent in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had been augmented by a reinforced company of 200 personnel.

(39) Haiti. On April 20, 1994, President Clinton reported "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that U.S. naval forces had continued enforcement in the waters around Haiti and that 712 vessels had been boarded.

(40) Bosnia. On August 22, 1994, President Clinton reported the use on August 5 of U.S. aircraft under NATO to attack Bosnian Serb heavy weapons in the Sarajevo heavy weapons exclusion zone upon request of the U.N. Protection Forces. He did not cite the War Powers Resolution but referred to the April 12 report that cited the War Powers Resolution.

(41) Haiti. On September 21, 1994, President Clinton reported "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" the deployment of 1,500 troops to Haiti to restore democracy in Haiti. The troop level was subsequently increased to 20,000.

(42) Bosnia. On November 22, 1994, President Clinton reported "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" the use of U.S. combat aircraft on November 21, 1994 under NATO to attack bases used by Serbs to attack the town of Bihac in Bosnia.

(43) Macedonia. On December 22, 1994, President Clinton reported "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that the U.S. Army contingent in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia continued its peacekeeping mission and that the current contingent would soon be replaced by about 500 soldiers from the 3rd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Armored Division from Kirchgons, Germany.

(44) Somalia. On March 1, 1995, President Clinton reported "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that on February 27, 1995, 1,800 combat-equipped U.S. armed forces personnel began deployment into Mogadishu, Somalia, to assist in the withdrawal of U.N. forces assigned there to the United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM II).

(45) Haiti. On March 21, 1995, President Clinton reported "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that U.S. military forces in Haiti as part of a U.N. Multinational Force had been reduced to just under 5,300 personnel. He noted that as of March 31, 1995, approximately 2,500 U.S. personnel would remain in Haiti as part of the U.N. Mission in Haiti UNMIH).

(46) Bosnia. On May 24, 1995, President Clinton reported "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that U.S. combat-equipped fighter aircraft and other aircraft continued to contribute to NATO's enforcement of the no-fly zone in airspace over Bosnia-Herzegovina. U.S. aircraft, he noted, are also available for close air support of U.N. forces in Croatia. Roughly 500 U.S. soldiers continue to be deployed in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as part of the U.N. Preventive Deployment Force (UNPREDEP). U.S. forces continue to support U.N. refugee and embargo operations in this region.

(47) Bosnia. On September 1, 1995, President Clinton reported "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that "U.S. combat and support aircraft" had been used beginning on August 29, 1995, in a series of NATO air strikes against Bosnian Serb Army (BSA) forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina that were threatening the U.N.-declared safe areas of Sarajevo, Tuzla, and Gorazde." He noted that during the first day of operations, "some 300 sorties were flown against 23 targets in the vicinity of Sarajevo, Tuzla, Goradzde and Mostar."

(48) Haiti. On September 21, 1995, President Clinton reported "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that currently the United States has 2,400 military personnel in Haiti as participants in the U.N. Mission in Haiti (UNMIH). In addition, 260 U.S. military personnel are assigned to the U.S. Support Group Haiti.

(49) Bosnia. On December 6, 1995, President Clinton notified Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that he had "ordered the deployment of approximately 1,500 U.S. military personnel to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia as part of a NATO 'enabling force' to lay the groundwork for the prompt and safe deployment of the NATO-led Implementation Force (IFOR)," which would be used to implement the Bosnian peace agreement after its signing. The President also noted that he had authorized deployment of roughly 3,000 other U.S. military personnel to Hungary, Italy, and Croatia to establish infrastructure for the enabling force and the IFOR.

(50) Bosnia. On December 21, 1995, President Clinton notified Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that he had ordered the deployment of approximately 20,000 U.S. military personnel to participate in the NATO-led Implementation Force (IFOR) in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and approximately 5,000 U.S. military personnel would be deployed in other former Yugoslav states, primarily in Croatia. In addition, about 7,000 U.S. support forces would be deployed to Hungary, Italy and Croatia and other regional states in support of IFOR's mission. The President ordered participation of U.S. forces "pursuant to" his "constitutional authority to conduct the foreign relations of the United States and as Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive."

(51) Haiti. On March 21, 1996, President Clinton notified Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that beginning in January 1996 there had been a "phased reduction" in the number of United States personnel assigned to the United Nations Mission in Haiti (UNMIH). As of March 21, 309 U.S. personnel remained a part of UNMIH. These U.S. forces were "equipped for combat."

(52) Liberia. On April 11, 1996, President Clinton notified Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that on April 9, 1996 due to the "deterioration of the security situation and the resulting threat to American citizens" in Liberia he had ordered U.S. military forces to evacuate from that country "private U.S. citizens and certain third-country nationals who had taken refuge in the U.S. Embassy compound...."

(53) Liberia. On May 20, 1996, President Clinton notified Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" of the continued deployment of U.S. military forces in Liberia to evacuate both American citizens and other foreign personnel, and to respond to various isolated "attacks on the American Embassy complex" in Liberia. The President noted that the deployment of U.S. forces would continue until there was no longer any need for enhanced security at the Embassy and a requirement to maintain an evacuation capability in the country.

(54) Central African Republic. On May 23, 1996, President Clinton notified Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" of the deployment of U.S. military personnel to Bangui, Central African Republic, to conduct the evacuation from that country of "private U.S. citizens and certain U.S. Government employees," and to provide "enhanced security" for the American Embassy in Bangui.

(55) Bosnia. On June 21, 1996, President Clinton notified Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that United States forces totaling about 17,000 remain deployed in Bosnia "under NATO operational command and control" as part of the NATO Implementation Force (IFOR). In addition, about 5,500 U.S. military personnel are deployed in Hungary, Italy and Croatia, and other regional states to provide "logistical and other support to IFOR." The President noted that it was the intention that IFOR would complete the withdrawal of all troops in the weeks after December 20, 1996, on a schedule "set by NATO commanders consistent with the safety of troops and the logistical requirements for an orderly withdrawal." He also noted that a U.S. Army contingent (of about 500 U.S. soldiers) remains in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as part of the United Nations Preventive Deployment Force (UNPREDEP).

(56) Rwanda and Zaire. On December 2, 1996, President Clinton notified Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that in support of the humanitarian efforts of the United Nations regarding refugees in Rwanda and the Great Lakes Region of Eastern Zaire, he had authorized the use of U.S. personnel and aircraft, including AC-130U planes to help in surveying the region in support of humanitarian operations, although fighting still was occurring in the area, and U.S. aircraft had been subject to fire when on flight duty.

(57) Bosnia. On December 20, 1996, President Clinton notified Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that he had authorized U.S. participation in an IFOR follow-on force in Bosnia, known as SFOR (Stabilization Force), under NATO command. The President said the U.S. forces contribution to SFOR was to be "about 8,500" personnel whose primary mission was to deter or prevent a resumption of hostilities or new threats to peace in Bosnia. SFOR's duration was Bosnia is expected to be 18 months, with progressive reductions and eventual withdrawal.

(58) Albania. On March 15, 1997, President Clinton notified Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that on March 13, 1997, he had utilized U.S. military forces to evacuate certain U.S. Government employees and private U.S. citizens from Tirana, Albania, and to enhance security for the U.S. embassy in that city.

(59) Congo and Gabon. On March 27, 1997, President Clinton notified Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that on March 25, 1997, a standby evacuation force of U.S. military personnel had been deployed to Congo and Gabon to provide enhanced security for American private citizens, government employees and selected third country nationals in Zaire, and be available for any necessary evacuation operation.

(60) Sierra Leone. On May 30, 1997, President Clinton notified Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that on May 29 and May 30, 1997, U.S. military personnel were deployed to Freetown, Sierra Leone to prepare for and undertake the evacuation of certain U.S. Government employees and private U.S. citizens.

(61) Bosnia. On June 20, 1997, President Clinton notified Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that U.S. Armed Forces continued to support peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and other states in the region in support of the NATO-led Stabilization Force (SFOR). He reported that most U.S. military personnel then involved in SFOR were in Bosnia, near Tuzla, and about 2,800 U.S. troops were deployed in Hungary, Croatia, Italy, and other regional states to provide logistics and other support to SFOR. A U.S. Army contingent of about 500 also remained deployed in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as part of the U.N. Preventative Deployment Force (UNPREDEP).

(62) Cambodia. On July 11, 1997, President Clinton notified Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that in an effort to ensure the security of American citizens in Cambodia during a period of domestic conflict there, he had deployed a Task Force of about 550 U.S. military personnel to Utapao Air Base in Thailand. These personnel were to be available for possible emergency evacuation operations in Cambodia.

(63) Bosnia. On December 19, 1997, President Clinton notified Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that he intended "in principle" to have the United States participate in a security presence in Bosnia when the NATO SFOR contingent withdrew in the summer of 1998.

(64) Guinea-Bissau. On June 12, 1998 President Clinton reported to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that, on June 10, 1998, in response to an army mutiny in Guinea-Bissau endangering the U.S. Embassy and U.S. government employees and citizens in that country, he had deployed a standby evacuation force of U.S. military personnel to Dakar, Senegal, to remove such individuals, as well as selected third country nationals, from the city of Bissau.

(65) Bosnia. On June 19, 1998, President Clinton reported to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" regarding activities in the last six months of combat-equipped U.S. forces in support of NATO's SFOR in Bosnia and surrounding areas of former Yugoslavia.

(66) Kenya and Tanzania. On August 10, 1998, President Clinton reported to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that he had deployed, on August 7, 1998, a Joint Task Force of U.S. military personnel to Nairobi, Kenya to coordinate the medical and disaster assistance related to the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He also reported that teams of 50-100 security personnel had arrived in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania to enhance the security of the U.S. embassies and citizens there.

(67) Albania. On August 18, 1998, President Clinton reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that he had, on August 16, 1998, deployed 200 U.S. Marines and 10 Navy SEALS to the U.S. Embassy compound in Tirana, Albania to enhance security against reported threats against U.S. personnel.

(68) Afghanistan and Sudan. On August 21, 1998, by letter, President Clinton notified Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that he had authorized airstrikes on August 20th against camps and installations in Afghanistan and Sudan used by the Osama bin Laden terrorist organization. The President did so based on what he termed convincing information that the bin Laden organization was responsible for the bombings, on August 7, 1998, of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

(69) Liberia. On September 29, 1998, by letter, President Clinton notified Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that he had deployed a stand-by response and evacuation force to Liberia to augment the security force at the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia, and to provide for a rapid evacuation capability, as needed, to remove U.S. citizens and government personnel from the country.

(70) Bosnia. On January 19, 1999, by letter, President Clinton notified Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that pursuant to his authority as Commander-in-Chief he was continuing to authorize the use of combat-equipped U.S. Armed Forces to Bosnia and other states in the region to participate in and support the NATO-led Stabilization Force (SFOR). He noted that U.S. SFOR military personnel totaled about 6,900, with about 2,300 U.S. military personnel deployed to Hungary, Croatia, Italy and other regional states. Also some 350 U.S. military personnel remain deployed in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as part of the UN Preventative Deployment Force (UNPREDEP).

(71) Kenya. On February 25, 1999, President Clinton submitted a supplemental report to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" describing the continuing deployment of U.S. military personnel in Kenya to provide continuing security for U.S. embassy and American citizens in Nairobi in the aftermath of the terrorist bombing there.

(72) Yugoslavia/Kosovo. On March 26, 1999, President Clinton notified Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that on March 24, 1999, U.S. military forces, at his direction and acting jointly with NATO allies, had commenced air strikes against Yugoslavia in response to the Yugoslav government's campaign of violence and repression against the ethnic Albanian population in Kosovo.

(73) Yugoslavia/Albania. On April 7, 1999, President Clinton notified Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that he had ordered additional U.S. military forces to Albania, including rotary wing aircraft, artillery, and tactical missiles systems to enhance NATO's ability to conduct effective air operations in Yugoslavia. About 2,500 soldiers and aviators are to be deployed as part of this task force.

(74) Yugoslavia/Albania. On May 25, 1999, President Clinton reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that he had directed "deployment of additional aircraft and forces to support NATO's ongoing efforts [against Yugoslavia], including several thousand additional U.S. Armed Forces personnel to Albania in support of the deep strike force located there." He also directed that additional U.S. forces be deployed to the region to assist in "humanitarian operations."

(75) Yugoslavia/Kosovo. On June 12, 1999, President Clinton reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that he had directed the deployment of about "7,000 U.S. military personnel as the U.S. contribution to the approximately 50,000-member, NATO-led security force (KFOR)" currently being assembled in Kosovo. He also noted that about "1,500 U.S. military personnel, under separate U.S. command and control, will deploy to other countries in the region, as our national support element, in support of KFOR."

(76) Bosnia. On July 19, 1999, President Clinton reported to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that about 6,200 U.S. military personnel were continuing to participate in the NATO-led Stabilization Force (SFOR) in Bosnia, and that another 2,200 personnel were supporting SFOR operations from Hungary, Croatia, and Italy. He also noted that U.S. military personnel remain in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to support the international security presence in Kososo (KFOR).

(77) East Timor. On October 8, 1999, President Clinton reported to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that he had directed the deployment of a limited number of U.S. military forces to East Timor to support the U.N. multinational force (INTERFET) aimed at restoring peace to East Timor. U.S. support had been limited initially to "communications, logistics, planning assistance and transportation." The President further noted that he had authorized deployment of the amphibious ship USS BELLEAU WOOD, together with its helicopters and her complement of personnel from the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable) (MEU SOC)) to the East Timor region, to provide helicopter airlift and search and rescue support to the multinational operation. U.S. participation was anticipated to continue until the transition to a U.N. peacekeeping operation was complete.

(78) Yugoslavia/Kosovo. On December 15, 1999, President Clinton reported to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that U.S. combat-equipped military personnel continued to serve as part of the NATO-led security force in Kosovo (KFOR). He noted that the American contribution to KFOR in Kosovo was "approximately 8,500 U.S. military personnel." U.S. forces were deployed in a sector centered around "Urosevac in the eastern portion of Kosovo." For U.S. KFOR forces, "maintaining public security is a key task." Other U.S. military personnel are deployed to other countries in the region to serve in administrative and logistics support roles for U.S. forces in KFOR. Of these forces, about 1,500 U.S. military personnel are in Macedonia and Greece, and occasionally in Albania.

(79) Bosnia. On January 25, 2000, President Clinton reported to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that the U.S. continued to provide combat-equipped U.S. Armed Forces to Bosnia and Herzegovina and other states in the region as part of the NATO led Stabilization Force (SFOR). The President noted that the U.S. force contribution was being reduced from "approximately 6,200 to 4,600 personnel," with the U.S. forces assigned to Multinational Division, North, centered around the city of Tuzla. He added that approximately 1,500 U.S. military personnel were deployed to Hungary, Croatia, and Italy to provide "logistical and other support to SFOR," and that U.S. forces continue to support SFOR in "efforts to apprehend persons indicted for war crimes."

(80) East Timor. On February 25, 2000, President Clinton reported to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that he had authorized the participation of a small number of U.S. military personnel in support of the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET), with a mandate to maintain law and order throughout East Timor, facilitate establishment of an effective administration there, deliver humanitarian assistance, and support the building of self-government. The President reported that the U.S. contingent was small: three military observers, and one judge advocate. To facilitate and coordinate U.S. military activities in East Timor, the President also authorized the deployment of a support group (USGET), consisting of 30 U.S. personnel. U.S. personnel would be temporarily deployed to East Timor, on a rotational basis, and through periodic ship visits, during which U.S. forces would conduct "humanitarian and assistance activities throughout East Timor." Rotational activities should continue through the summer of 2000.

(81) Sierra Leone. On May 12, 2000, President Clinton, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" reported to Congress that he had ordered a U.S. Navy patrol craft to deploy to Sierra Leone to be ready to support evacuation operations from that country if needed. He also authorized a U.S. C-17 aircraft to deliver "ammunition, and other supplies and equipment" to Sierra Leone in support of United Nations peacekeeping operations there.

(82) Yugoslavia/Kosovo. On June 16, 2000, President Clinton reported to

Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that the U.S. was continuing to provide military personnel to the NATO-led KFOR security force in Kosovo. U.S. forces were numbered at 7,500, but were scheduled to be reduced to 6,000 when ongoing troop rotations were completed. U.S. forces in Kosovo are assigned to a sector centered near Gnjilane in eastern Kosovo. Other U.S. military personnel are deployed to other countries to serve in administrative and logistics support roles, with approximately 1,000 U.S. personnel in Macedonia, Albania, and Greece.

(83) Bosnia. On July 25, 2000, President Clinton reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that combat-equipped U.S. military personnel continued to participate in the NATO-led Stabilization Force (SFOR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, being deployed to Bosnia, and other states in the region in support of peacekeeping efforts in former Yugoslavia. U.S. military personnel levels have been reduced from 6,200 to 4,600. Apart from the forces in Bosnia, approximately 1,000 U.S. personnel continue to be deployed in support roles in Hungary, Croatia, and Italy.

(84) East Timor. On August 25, 2000, President Clinton reported to Congress,"consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that the United States was currently contributing three military observers to the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) that is charged by the UN with restoring and maintaining peace and security there. He also noted that the U.S. was maintaining a military presence in East Timor separate from UNTAET, comprised of about 30 U.S. personnel who facilitate and coordinate U.S. military activities in East Timor and rotational operations of U.S. forces there. U.S. forces currently conduct humanitarian and civic assistance activities for East Timor's citizens. U.S. rotational presence operations in East Timor are presently expected, the President said, to continue through December 2000.

(85) Yemen. On October 14, 2000, President Clinton reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that on October 12, 2000, in the wake of an attack on the USS COLE in the port of Aden, Yemen, he had authorized deployment of about 45 military personnel from U.S. Naval Forces Central Command to Aden to provide "medical, security, and disaster response assistance." The President further reported that on October 13, 2000 about 50 U.S. military security personnel arrived in Aden, and that additional "security elements" may be deployed to the area, to enhance the ability of the U.S. to ensure the security of the USS COLE and the personnel responding to the incident. In addition, two U.S. Navy surface combatant vessels are operating in or near Yemeni territorial waters to provide communications and other support, as required.

(86) Yugoslavia/Kosovo. On December 18, 2000, President Clinton reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that the United States was continuing to provide approximately 5,600 U.S. military personnel in support of peacekeeping efforts in Kosovo as part of the NATO-led international security force in Kosovo (KFOR). An additional 500 U.S. military personnel are deployed as the National Support Element in Macedonia, with an occasional presence in Albania and Greece. U.S. forces are assigned to a sector centered around Gnjilane in the eastern portion of Kosovo. The President noted that the mission for these U.S. military forces is maintaining a safe and secure environment through conducting "security patrols in urban areas and in the countryside throughout their sector."

(87) Bosnia. On January 25, 2001, President George W. Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution,"that about 4,400 combat-equipped U.S. Armed Forces continued to be deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and other regional states as part of the NATO-led Stabilization Force (SFOR).Most were based at Tuzla in Bosnia. About 650 others were based in Hungary, Croatia, and Italy, providing logistical and other support.

(88) East Timor. On March 2, 2001, President George W. Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that the U. S. armed forces were continuing to support the United Nations peacekeeping effort in East Timor aimed at providing security and maintaining law and order in East Timor, coordinating delivery of humanitarian assistance, and helping establish the basis for self-government in East Timor. The U.S. currently has three military observers attached to the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET). The United States also has a separate military presence, the U.S. Support Group East Timor (USGET), of approximately 12 U.S. personnel, including a security detachment, which "facilitates and coordinates" U.S. military activities in East Timor.

(89) Yugoslavia/Kosovo. On May 18, 2001, President George W. Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that the United States was continuing to provide approximately 6,000 U.S. military personnel in support of peacekeeping efforts in Kosovo as part of the NATO-led international security force in Kosovo (KFOR). An additional 500 U.S. military personnel are deployed as the National Support Element in Macedonia, with an occasional presence in Greece and Albania. U.S. forces in Kosovo are assigned to a sector centered around Gnjilane in the eastern portion. President Bush noted that the mission for these U.S. military forces is maintaining a safe and secure environment through conducting security patrols in urban areas and in the countryside through their sector.

(90) Bosnia. On July 24, 2001, President George W. Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," about 3,800 combat-equipped U.S. Armed Forces continued to be deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and other regional states as part of the NATO-led Stabilization Force (SFOR). Most were based at Tuzla in Bosnia. About 500 others were based in Hungary, Croatia, and Italy, providing logistical and other support.

(91) East Timor. On August 31, 2001, President George W. Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that the U. S. armed forces were continuing to support the United Nations peacekeeping effort in East Timor aimed at providing security and maintaining law and order in East Timor, coordinating delivery of humanitarian assistance, and helping establish the basis for self-government in East Timor. The U.S. currently has three military observers attached to the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET). The United States also has a separate military presence, the U.S. Support Group East Timor (USGET), of approximately 20 U.S. personnel, including a security detachment, which "facilitates and coordinates" U.S. military activities in East Timor, as well as a rotational presence of U.S. forces through temporary deployments to East Timor. The President stated that U.S. forces would continue a presence through December 2001, while options for a U.S. presence in 2002 are being reviewed, with the President's objective being redeployment of USGET personnel, as circumstances permit.

(92) Anti-terrorist operations. On September 24, 2001, President George W. Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," and "Senate Joint Resolution 23" that in response to terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon he had ordered the "deployment of various combat-equipped and combat support forces to a number of foreign nations in the Central and Pacific Command areas of operations." The President noted in efforts to "prevent and deter terrorism" he might find it necessary to order additional forces into these and other areas of the world...." He stated that he could not now predict "the scope and duration of these deployments," nor the "actions necessary to counter the terrorist threat to the United States."

(93) Afghanistan. On October 9, 2001, President George W. Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," and "Senate Joint Resolution 23" that on October 7, 2001, U.S. Armed Forces "began combat action in Afghanistan against Al Qaida terrorists and their Taliban supporters." The President stated that he had directed this military action in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. "territory, our citizens, and our way of life, and to the continuing threat of terrorist acts against the United States and our friends and allies." This military action was "part of our campaign against terrorism" and was "designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations."

(94) Yugoslavia/Kosovo. On November 19, 2001, President George W. Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that the United States was continuing to provide approximately 5,500 U.S. military personnel in support of peacekeeping efforts in Kosovo as part of the NATO-led international security force in Kosovo (KFOR). An additional 500 U.S. military personnel are deployed as the National Support Element in Macedonia, with an occasional presence in Greece and Albania. U.S. forces in Kosovo are assigned to a sector centered around Gnjilane in the eastern portion. President Bush noted that the mission for these U.S. military forces is maintaining a safe and secure environment through conducting security patrols in urban areas and in the countryside through their sector.

(95) Bosnia. On January 21, 2002, President George W. Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that about 3,100 combat-equipped U.S. Armed Forces continued to be deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and other regional states as part of the NATO-led Stabilization Force (SFOR).Most were based at Tuzla in Bosnia. About 500 others were based in Hungary, Croatia, and Italy, providing logistical and other support.

(96) East Timor. On February 28, 2002, President George W. Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that U. S. armed forces were continuing to support the United Nations peacekeeping effort in East Timor aimed at providing security and maintaining law and order in East Timor, coordinating delivery of humanitarian assistance, and helping establish the basis for self-government in East Timor. The U.S. currently has three military observers attached to the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET). The United States also has a separate military presence, the U.S. Support Group East Timor (USGET), comprised of approximately 10 U.S. personnel, including a security detachment, which "facilitates and coordinates" U.S. military activities in East Timor, as well as a rotational presence of U.S. forces through temporary deployments to East Timor. The President stated that U.S. forces would continue a presence through 2002. The President noted his objective was to gradually reduce the "rotational presence operations," and to redeploy USGET personnel, as circumstances permitted.

(97) Anti-terrorist operations. On March 20, 2002, President George W. Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution,"on U.S. efforts in the "global war on Terrorism." He noted that the "heart of the al-Qaeda training capability" had been "seriously degraded," and that the remainder of the Taliban and the al-Qaeda fighters were being "actively pursued and engaged by the U.S., coalition and Afghan forces." The United States was also conducting "maritime interception operations...to locate and detain suspected al-Qaeda or Taliban leadership fleeing Afghanistan by sea." At the Philippine Government's invitation, the President had ordered deployed "combat-equipped and combat support forces to train with, advise, and assist" the Philippines' Armed Forces in enhancing their "existing counterterrorist capabilities." The strength of U.S. military forces working with the Philippines was projected to be 600 personnel. The President noted that he was "assessing options" for assisting other nations, including Georgia and Yemen, in enhancing their "counterterrorism capabilities, including training and equipping their armed forces." He stated that U.S. combat-equipped and combat support forces would be necessary for these efforts, if undertaken.

(98) Yugoslavia/Kosovo. On May 17, 2002, President George W. Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that the U.S. military was continuing to support peacekeeping efforts of the NATO-led international security force in Kosovo (KFOR). He noted that the current U.S. contribution was about 5,100 military personnel, with an additional 468 personnel in Macedonia; and an occasional presence in Albania and Greece.

(99) Bosnia. On July 22, 2002, President George W. Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that the U.S. military was continuing to support peacekeeping efforts of the NATO-led Stabilization Force (SFOR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina and other regional states. He noted that the current U.S. contribution was "approximately 2,400 personnel." Most U.S. forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina are assigned to the Multinational Division, North headquartered in Tuzla. An additional 60 U.S. military personnel are deployed to Hungary and Croatia to provide logistical and other support.

(100) Anti-terrorist operations. On September 20, 2002, President Bush reported to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that U.S. "combat-equipped and combat support forces" have been deployed to the Philippines since January 2002 to train with, assist and advise the Philippines' Armed Forces in enhancing their "counterterrorist capabilities." He added that U.S. forces were conducting maritime interception operations in the Central and European Command areas to combat movement, arming, or financing of "international terrorists." He also noted that U.S. combat personnel had been deployed to Georgia and Yemen to help enhance the "counterterrorist capabilities" of their armed forces.

(101) Cote d'Ivoire. On September 26, 2002, President Bush reported to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that in response to a rebellion in Cote d'Ivoire that he had on September 25, 2002 sent U.S. military personnel into Cote d'Ivoire to assist in the evacuation of American citizens and third country nationals from the city of Bouake; and otherwise assist in other evacuations as necessary.

(102) Yugoslavia/Kosovo. On November 15, 2002, the President reported to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that the U.S. was continuing to deploy combat equipped military personnel as part of the NATO-led international security force in Kosovo (KFOR). Currently the U.S. has approximately 4,350 U.S. military personnel in Kosovo, with an additional 266 military personnel in Macedonia. The U.S. also has an occasional presence in Albania and Greece, associated with the KFOR mission.

(103) Bosnia. On January 21, 2003, President George W. Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that about 1,800 U.S. Armed Forces personnel continued to be deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and other regional states as part of the NATO-led Stabilization Force (SFOR). Most were based at Tuzla in Bosnia. About 80 others were based in Hungary and Croatia, providing logistical and other support.

(104) Anti-terrorist operations. On March 20, 2003, President Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," as well as P.L. 107-40, and "pursuant to" his authority as Commander-in-Chief, that he had continued a number of U.S. military operations globally in the war against terrorism. These military operations included ongoing U.S. actions against al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan; collaborative anti-terror operations with forces of Pakistan in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border area; "maritime interception operations on the high seas" in areas of responsibility of the Central and European Commands to prevent terrorist movement and other activities; and military support for the armed forces of Georgia and Yemen in counter-terrorism operations.

(105) War against Iraq. On March 21, 2003, President Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," as well as P.L. 102-1 and P.L. 107-243, and "pursuant to" his authority as Commander-in-Chief, that he had "directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq." He further stated that it was not possible to know at present the duration of active combat operations or the scope necessary to accomplish the goals of the operation -- "to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States."

(106) Yugoslavia/Kosovo. On May 14, 2003, President Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that combat-equipped U.S. military personnel continued to be deployed as part of the NATO-led international security force in Kosovo (KFOR). He noted that about 2,250 U.S. military personnel were deployed in Kosovo, and additional military personnel operated, on occasion, from Macedonia, Albania, and Greece in support of KFOR operations.

(107) Liberia. On June 9, 2003, President Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that on June 8 he had sent about 35 combat-equipped U.S. military personnel into Monrovia, Liberia, to augment U.S. Embassy security forces, to aid in the possible evacuation of U.S. citizens if necessary. The President also noted that he had sent about 34 combat-equipped U.S. military personnel to help secure the U.S. embassy in Nouakchott, Mauritania, and to assist in evacuation of American citizens if required. They were expected to arrive at the U.S. embassy by June 10, 2003. Back-up and support personnel were sent to Dakar, Senegal, to aid in any necessary evacuation from either Liberia or Mauritania.

(108) Bosnia. On July 22, 2003, President Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that the United States continued to provide about 1,800 combat-equipped military personnel in Bosnia and Herzegovina in support of NATO's Stabilization Force (SFOR) and its peacekeeping efforts in this country.

(109) Liberia. On August 13, 2003, President Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that in response to conditions in Liberia, on August 11, 2003, he had authorized about 4,350 U.S. combat-equipped military personnel to enter Liberian territorial waters in support of U.N. and West African States efforts to restore order and provide humanitarian assistance in Liberia.

(110) Anti-terrorist operations. On September 19, 2003, President Bush reported to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that U.S. "combat-equipped and combat support forces" continue to be deployed at a number of locations around the world as part of U.S. anti-terrorism efforts. American forces support anti-terrorism efforts in the Philippines, and maritime interception operations continue on the high seas in the Central, European and Pacific Command areas of responsibility, to "prevent the movement, arming, or financing of international terrorists." He also noted that "U.S. combat equipped and support forces" had been deployed to Georgia and Djibouti to help in enhancing their "counterterrorist capabilities."

(111) Yugoslavia/Kosovo. On November 14, 2003, the President reported to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that the United States was continuing to deploy combat equipped military personnel as part of the NATO-led international security force in Kosovo (KFOR). Currently the United States has approximately 2,100 U.S. military personnel in Kosovo, with additional American military personnel operating out of Macedonia, Albania, and Greece, in support of KFOR operations.

Tina,Your post is ... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

Tina,

Your post is far too long to rebute in detail, but scanning it indicates that either:

a) it was an existing war (Vietnam),
b) the President at the time was recognizes the War Powers Act in some manner, as in reporting to or working with Congress.

Please provide an article where Homer J. Obama has done the same in relation to Libya.
If Homer hasn't, then Jay Tea is correct that the President is in violation of the War Powers Act.

Historically, no preside... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Historically, no president has ever officially accepted the Act as binding (it was passed over President Nixon's veto), but no president has ever openly challenged it, either.


Jay,

You are also wrong on this point. Obama never challenged the War Act (what made you think he did?). He sent this letter to congress in accordance with the War Power Act.

TinaThe first 4 or... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Tina

The first 4 or 5 examples had to do with evacuating US personnel and or rescueing hostages.

Neither was the case in Libya.

In addition, Has obama gotten approval from congress yet?

And if you look at 111 Bush was continuing a mission that Clinton got us into and told us that "the troops will be home by Christmas". We still have troops in Kosovo.


109 "he had authorized about 4,350 U.S. combat-equipped military personnel to enter Liberian territorial waters in support of U.N. and West African States efforts to restore order and provide humanitarian assistance in Liberia."

So we didnt bomb anyone just sent 2 ships in. BTW Tina all US military personnel are "US COmbat Equipped Military personel" Even medics and conscientious objectors.

Number 110. This is after Congress authorized Bush to do whatever he thought was nescessary to fight the war on terror.

These are just the ones I looked at and refuted in less than 5 minutes

You have a list that someone took and put together in a CYA attempt for Obama. And a poor attempt at CYA at that.

THanks for playing

TinaAlso looking t... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Tina

Also looking through you list Kosovo, Bosnia and East Timor are mentioned about 10 times each if not more. Ever think that all 10 times it was part of one ongoing mission.

In short your cut and past CYA attempt for Obama is pretty much worthless.

It is like saying Obama hitting someone is justified because President Bush got into a fight with someone as a kid and each punch thrown in that fight is a seperate entry on your list.

A brain is a terrible thing to waste Tina.

Scanning through the list t... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Scanning through the list there are at least a dozen if not 2 dozen missions related to evacuating personnel.

Gee maybe we ought to go Obama's route. Charter a cruise ship, provide no security, and make the people pay for a ticket.

Tina, there is no way in he... (Below threshold)

Tina, there is no way in hell that you came up with that list on your own. You wanna cite the source you cut and pasted it from?

And the War Powers Act requires Congressional approval FIRST unless there is an imminent threat to the US. That is provably false, as Obama first sought the approval of the UN, the Arab League, and NATO before acting -- but only notified Congress AFTER the fact, as your link shows. Had there been an imminent threat, he wouldn't have had time to consult those foreign authorities first.

So, you wanna cite your source, or do I have to humiliate you there, too?

J.

Also among the list is Cart... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Also among the list is Carter's failed rescue mission for the hostages in Iran.

Maybe we can have a foreign govt take Tina, Woop, Hyper, and Chico hostage and then send them a red cross package stating that a rescue attempt was against the war powers act.

As I stated above. Tina you list is worthless and the more I look at it the more pathetic of an attempt at CYA for Obama it becomes.

Jay,She lifted it (a... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Jay,
She lifted it (ala Joe Biden) from Richard Grimmett's "The War Powers Resolution: After 30 Years". That looks like pretty much all of Appendix A...
If she or her source had looked a little harder, they'd have found the updated version of the report at the 36 year mark with 127 examples, not 111.

Jay, Tina did include a lin... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Jay, Tina did include a link to the copy/pasted article. It's near the top.

And I had no idea we could paste so much info into a wizbang text box.

Man oh man, how quickly we ... (Below threshold)
John:

Man oh man, how quickly we forget all the 2008 talk from the healer in chief. Wasn't a key part of hopechange bringing a new politics to DC? Didn't he tells over and over and over again that the old way was finished? And yet every time he steps in it all we hear is but Bush did it, Tina gives us an even better list of presidents that he's just like. Seems the more things hopechange the more they stay the same.

TinaDId a quick s... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Tina

DId a quick search on your list. Some of the entries are obviously duplicated. THe following words were mentioned as below.


Antiterrorists – 5 times - authorized by Congress.

Kosovo 35 times
Bosnia 62 times
Evacuation 24 times
East Timor - 39 times
Macedonia - 18 times
Yugoslavia - 18 times

Oh and I have to mention number 14

“(14) Persian Gulf (103). On September 23, 1987, President Reagan reported that, on September 21, two U.S. helicopters had fired on an Iranian landing craft observed laying mines in the Gulf. The President said that while mindful of legislative-executive differences on the interpretation and constitutionality of certain provisions of the War Powers Resolution, he was reporting in a spirit of mutual cooperation”

I guess we were just supposed to let the Iranian vessel continue to lay mines.

And number 56
"56) Rwanda and Zaire. On December 2, 1996, President Clinton notified Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that in support of the humanitarian efforts of the United Nations regarding refugees in Rwanda and the Great Lakes Region of Eastern Zaire, he had authorized the use of U.S. personnel and aircraft, including AC-130U planes to help in surveying the region in support of humanitarian operations, although fighting still was occurring in the area, and U.S. aircraft had been subject to fire when on flight duty. "


Man having planes fly overhead to help out with humanitarian operations. Not fighting JUST FLYING and that authorizes Obama to shoot a few hundred million dollars of cruise missiles.

Next time you cut and paste something READ IT FIRST and you wont look so clueless.

TinaRef 14. If th... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Tina

Ref 14. If the iranian ship had been laying mines armed with nukes in the gulf would it have been okay to shoot at it then or would it have still made your list.

Ref 56

If it was a civilian airplane doing the recon but flown by military guys would it have still be on your list?

Whoops, Hank, you're right ... (Below threshold)

Whoops, Hank, you're right -- she did include a link. My bad.

But as the rest of you noted, she cut and pasted it with pretty much zero comprehension of what she was actually parroting. It looks like that they all either confirm my point, or have nothing at all vis-a-vis offering a precedent for Libya.

J.

Tina, there is no way in... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Tina, there is no way in hell that you came up with that list on your own. You wanna cite the source you cut and pasted it from?

Jay, I included a link to the source in the some comment that contains the list.

And the War Powers Act r... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

And the War Powers Act requires Congressional approval FIRST unless there is an imminent threat to the US.

Jay, again you are flat out wrong.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001542----000-.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001543----000-.html

TinaLet me get thi... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Tina

Let me get this right.

Liberals are now using Iraq which they have been saying was illegal, immoral, unjust and a basis for Bush to be charged with war crimes as an example of why Obama's actions in Libya are legal.

You can't make this shit up.

This is like saying that Obama can sell crack cocaine because pharmacies sell narcotics by prescription.

Jay Tea"she cut an... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jay Tea

"she cut and pasted it with pretty much zero comprehension of what she was actually parroting"

The greatest understatement since Noah said it looks like rain.


Tina

Do you even READ What you link.

The first link

":The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations"

Obama DID NOT DO THIS. He had weeks while the UN was dithering to say to congress "Hey if the UN okays action do you guys tentatively approve US involvement?"

He failed to do that before firing over 100 missiles into Iraq. Meanwhile your list has an incidence where OMG a military plane was flying overhead for a recon mission in support of a humanitarian mission.

You are truly lost and clueless.


Tine REf 58<... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Tine

REf 58

"And the War Powers Act requires Congressional approval FIRST unless there is an imminent threat to the US."

And what imminent threat did Libya pose?

/hears jeopardy music in the background.

And the answer is : NONE

Tina"REf 58... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Tina
"REf 58

"And the War Powers Act requires Congressional approval FIRST unless there is an imminent threat to the US."

"

From, your list

"“(14) Persian Gulf (103). On September 23, 1987, President Reagan reported that, on September 21, two U.S. helicopters had fired on an Iranian landing craft observed laying mines in the Gulf. The President said that while mindful of legislative-executive differences on the interpretation and constitutionality of certain provisions of the War Powers Resolution, he was reporting in a spirit of mutual cooperation”


Gee an Iranian ship putting mines in a Gulf that is traveled by not only US but a LOT of other nations as well apparantly ISNT an imminent threat in your mind.

I have seen you post some dumb shit in the past but this about takes the cake.

"But as the rest of you not... (Below threshold)
914:

"But as the rest of you noted, she cut and pasted it with pretty much zero comprehension of what she was actually parroting."


To be expected. Her handlers did the same thing with ObamaCare.

Wow, Tina, you corrected me... (Below threshold)

Wow, Tina, you corrected me over an hour after Hank did... and almost half an hour after I admitted I missed your link. Slow on the uptake much?

And Tina, did you actually READ the citations you listed? 'Cuz it's pretty clear that you didn't.

First citation, emphasis added:

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

Second citation, emphasis added:

the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place;

The only exception to "legislative authority" is in the War Powers Act, which grants an "imminent threat" exception.

There was no imminent threat to the US.

Got any more sources we can use to prove you wrong, Tina?

J.

I have long noticed that pa... (Below threshold)
James H:

I have long noticed that partisans exercise a very banal kind of hypocrisy in which they embrace ideas they shunned not long ago, if only because the other side is suddenly in powers.

But Jay TeaThey mu... (Below threshold)
retired military:

But Jay Tea

They must have been an immminent threat. Obama said it was so.

MeanwhileLaying mi... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Meanwhile

Laying mines in a gulf, and ensuring safe evacuations of US citizens are not immenent threats.

Wait Jay Tea, I know waht ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Wait Jay Tea, I know waht should have happened.

The Helicopter spotted the iranian ship laying mines. They should have called back to the ship with their report. The ship could send flash traffic to the WH. The President could have been briefed. The President then notifies Congress. Congress convenes and votes on the issue and then it is okay for the helicopter to fire on the ship.

Yep that is the way it should have gone down.

And Tina, did you actual... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

And Tina, did you actually READ the citations you listed? 'Cuz it's pretty clear that you didn't.

Jay, I read it, again you are adding things to the War Powers Act that aren't in there. It say nothing about imminent threats to the Unitied States. It says that if the President puts the Armed Forces into a hostile situation or a situation that will cause imminent hostilities, than in every possible instance congress should be notified prior.

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
So TinaAre you say... (Below threshold)
retired military:

So Tina

Are you saying that Obama thought that in Libya if he threw missiles at the Qaddafi's forces than that wasnt imminent involvement in hostilities? Or are you saying that 3+ weeks prior to this was not enough time for Obama to consult with Congress prior to throwing the missiles?

Which is it?

And Tina, since you are go... (Below threshold)
retired military:

And Tina, since you are going by precendents set by other presidents.

Is it okay for Obama to commit perjury ala Clinton?

Is it okay for Obama to get a lewinsky from lewisnky in the oval office ala Clinton?

Is it okay for Obama to perform a coverup ala Nixon?

Are you saying that all the charges against Bush about Iraq being an illegal and immoral war are ridiculous and that he shouldnt be charged as a war criminal?

Please enlighten us.

Are you saying that Obam... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Are you saying that Obama thought that in Libya if he threw missiles at the Qaddafi's forces than that wasnt imminent involvement in hostilities? Or are you saying that 3+ weeks prior to this was not enough time for Obama to consult with Congress prior to throwing the missiles?

What your getting at is why didn't Obama consult congress first. When the military actions started it was announced that Gaddafi was about a day or so from overthrowing the resistance fighters and massacaring everyone in that region. I imediately new why that statement was made. It was said so that Obama could cover his ass for not consulting congress first. That way he could have a legal justification for not consulting congress, had he done so it would have been too late and a massacare would have occured. Whether or not Gaddafi was that close to overcoming the resistance or whether a massacre would have happened, I don't know. But it does provide legal justification for not notifying congress.
The War Act states the President in every possible instance should notify congress. Now he has the justication to say it wasn't possible.

TinaAs I stated se... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Tina

As I stated several times. Obama had 3+ weeks to discuss this with congress. This was not an "oh it's happening now situation" no matter how much Obama wanted to try to hide behind that fig leaf.

As I stated several time... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

As I stated several times. Obama had 3+ weeks to discuss this with congress. This was not an "oh it's happening now situation" no matter how much Obama wanted to try to hide behind that fig leaf.

You have a good argument and I agree that it would have been better to consult congress. I think Obama walked a very thin line in not doing so.


The real question is Tina, ... (Below threshold)
John:

The real question is Tina, is this what you voted for? Is this the Obama you supported in 2008? Is this the hope or the change?

The real question is Tin... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

The real question is Tina, is this what you voted for? Is this the Obama you supported in 2008? Is this the hope or the change?

I don't have a problem with the way Obama handled Libya. I would have liked it for him to go to congress earlier, but can understand why he didn't. Under the War Act, Obama does not need congress's approval for a limited military action, he only needs to consult with congress. However, in order to build a coalition he needed the "approval" of other nations so that is what he focused on. Since Obama was only willing to use military action (in this instance) if there was a coalition to share the share risk and expense, it would have been premature to go to congress without first building the coalition. If Obama went to congress and argued the importance of military action and then couldn't get the coaltion he felt he needed, it would have been a political disaster. But more importantly the debate that would have ensued could easily have hampered his ability to build a coalition.

So TinaDo you feel... (Below threshold)
retired military:

So Tina

Do you feel that Bush led an illegal and immoral war in Iraq and that he is guilty of war crimes?

This is in direct violat... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

This is in direct violation of the War Powers Resolution Act, which says that the president can only do so when there is an imminent threat to the United States or our interests.

Jay,

This is a false statement. It is a measure of mans integrity as to whether or not he corrects his mistakes.

Yes, it is, Tina. Which is ... (Below threshold)

Yes, it is, Tina. Which is why I haven't corrected myself -- because I'm right, and you're so fucking wrong I don't think you can even see right from where you're standing.

Read the actual law, you ignoranus.

Here, let me even show you the relevant portions:

Section 2(c):

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Not one of those three requirements applied in the case of Libya.

Section 3:

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

See the word "before?" Do you need that defined for you?

Tina, I'm tired of being nice to you while you switched between playing stupid, playing concern troll, and playing righteous dipshit. Right there, in black and white, is the proof that I'm right and you're wrong, and you need to, at least, shut the fuck up and stop begging me to stomp your ass.

Or, by your own standard, admit you were wrong and apologize for being such an ignorant, blithering dolt.

I won't put it as a test of your character, because that presumes that you have any.

J.

Jay quit playing games, sho... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Jay quit playing games, show me where it says that the president can "only do so when there is an imminent threat to the United States or our interests".

Just to show everyone what ... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Just to show everyone what Jay is doing. In comment 78 I pointed out that Jay's claim that the War Powers Act is only applicable when there is an "imminent threat to the United States or our interests" was not true. So how dos Jay respond? Instead of backing up his orginal claim he offers 2 new arguments. Jay, I will address your 2 new arguments, but first I'd like to see you explan your orginal claim that it only applies if there is an imminent threat to the United States or our interests.

Tina, quit grandstanding fo... (Below threshold)

Tina, quit grandstanding for "everyone." I sincerely doubt anyone else is reading this besides you and me.

In my earlier point, I paraphrased the limits of the War Powers Act. Then, I actually quoted them, and I'd say my paraphrasing was pretty accurate.

I will give it one last whirl: Section 2 spells out 3 conditions when the president can deploy the military. NONE of the three -- a declaration of war, or other legislative authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack on the US, its forces, or its territories -- apply to Libya.

I extended "interests" as a courtesy to Obama, to give him one extra fig leaf to hide behind. And he can't even meet that one.

And your comment #78 did NOTHING -- it just said "you're wrong, and you should apologize." It didn't prove a damned thing -- that's what I did when I quoted the actual wording of the law in question.

You seem to think that if you just say "you're wrong," you've proved some point. Well, you have -- that you are an idiot with no idea how to debate. And I'm getting tired of wasting my time trying to show you just how stupid you are.

J.

I will give it one last ... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

I will give it one last whirl: Section 2 spells out 3 conditions when the president can deploy the military. NONE of the three -- a declaration of war, or other legislative authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack on the US, its forces, or its territories -- apply to Libya.

One of those 3 mentioned, "specific statutory authorization". Obama did satisfy this condition by citing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in the airspace of Libya. United States military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.
Tina, this is probably the ... (Below threshold)

Tina, this is probably the most important thing I have to say on this matter:

United Nations resolutions are NOT equivalent to measures passed by Congress. They do NOT hold the power of law, and do NOT trump US law or the Constitution.

That you would even consider putting them forward as some kind of binding, or even enabling, authority is almost certifiably insane.

J.

And your comment #78 did... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

And your comment #78 did NOTHING -- it just said "you're wrong, and you should apologize." It didn't prove a damned thing -- that's what I did when I quoted the actual wording of the law in question.

You seem to think that if you just say "you're wrong," you've proved some point. Well, you have -- that you are an idiot with no idea how to debate. And I'm getting tired of wasting my time trying to show you just how stupid you are.

Jay, it's kind of hard to offer proof that something does not exist. I will repeat, nothing exists in the War Powers Act that says it can only be used when there is an imminent threat to the United States or our interests. If you want me to provide proof I can quote the entire text of the War Act, I think that would be silly, so why don't you tell us where you think the War Powers Acts stipulates that an imminent threat to the United States or our interests is required.

Tina, it doesn't get any cl... (Below threshold)

Tina, it doesn't get any clearer than this.

1) The War Powers Act says the president can use military power ONLY IF one of three conditions are met.

2) Obama's "unwar" in Libya meets NONE of those conditions.

3) Your attempt to cite the UN resolution shows that you aren't interested in the actual issue, but just flailing to find some way to prove me wrong.

And failing.

J.

That you would even cons... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

That you would even consider putting them forward as some kind of binding, or even enabling, authority is almost certifiably insane.

Jay, just because you think U.N. resolutions should not qualify as a specific statutory authorization does not make it so. In 1992, under conditions similar to Libya, George H.W. Bush cited the U.N. Security Council Resolution as justification for sending troops to Somalia. (although I only quoted one example there are more)

Somalia. On December 10, 1992, President George H. W. Bush reported "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that U.S. armed forces had entered Somalia on December 8 in response to a humanitarian crisis and a U.N. Security Council Resolution determining that the situation constituted a threat to international peace. He included as authority applicable treaties and laws, and said he had also taken into account views expressed in H.Con.Res. 370, S.Con.Res. 132, and the Horn of Africa Recovery and Food Security Act, P.L. 102-274. On December 4, the day the President ordered the forces deployed, he briefed a number of congressional leaders on the action.

It's not too late to man up and post a correction.

Tina, it's well past time f... (Below threshold)

Tina, it's well past time for you to "gal up" and STFU. So drop the "man up" bullshit -- you're starting to piss me off.

The Somali action was a HUMANITARIAN one, at start, albeit carried out by the military. It was not an attack. It was more in line with Obama sending in the military to help Japan after their quake. In fact, I would say it's arguable whether the Somali operation -- as it started -- qualified under the WPA, as they weren't intended to get involved in the conflict at all -- just secure the port and offer humanitarian assistance.

The Libyan operation is indisputably waging war -- no matter what Obama wants to call it. And it does NOT qualify under any way as spelled out in the War Powers Act for action by the president before consulting Congress.

I have no idea what kind of point you're trying to prove, but whatever it is, you simply need to stop failing. One would think that you'd be familiar with The First Rule Of Holes, but you still keep digging.

J.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy