Boehner to stick it to Østupid over Libya


Just saw this article over at HotAir, and yes I am in full agreement with the line being taken by the Speaker of the House, John Boehner.

Here is an extract from the article:

In a resolution to be voted on in the House tomorrow, Boehner is giving the president two weeks – until the Pentagon Appropriations bill comes up – to either:

a) Ask for authorization for the military intervention in Libya, or

b) Figure out how to disengage the US from the NATO operation in Libya.

The resolution states: “The President has not sought, and Congress has not provided, authorization for the introduction or continued involvement of the United States Armed Forces in Libya. Congress has the constitutional prerogative to withhold funding for any unauthorized use of the United States Armed Forces, including for unauthorized activities regarding Libya.”

Boehner is explicitly and formally stating that the president did not check the box on the War Powers Act before sending the US military to intervene in Libya.

Whilst I do not agree with the analysis at HotAir, and especially the crap about the small media footprint regarding Libya, I do agree that this is a necessary step because Østupid has deliberately chosen not to follow the law regarding this type of action.

To reiterate, the Libya action itself is legal, since it is based upon UN resolution 1973. However, the US participation is not licit because Østupid chose not to go through the correct channels before committing both equipment and manpower to the implementation of the no-fly zone. He has shown a total disregard of, and contempt for the Congress in the actions that he has taken.

I also reiterate that prior to the UN resolution Østupid had something like 2 weeks to go to Congress and to lay all the options on the table. An arms embargo would have also required the use of the military to prevent ships carrying arms to Tripoli reaching their destination, so again he needed Congressional approval if such was being considered.

Personally, I remain committed to my own belief that Gadhafi is no longer the legitimate ruler in Libya and that he must leave. Based upon what took place when the mullahs took over in Iran, Gadhafi is already at the point of no return, since he has been abandoned by senior members of his regime as well as by senior members of the military.

There is a down side, but then again, this could be something that is being said by the Libyan regime in order to throw a spanner in the works – when Gadhafi leaves there is no guarantee that a real civil war will break out. The people loyal to Gadhafi were issued with Kalishnikov rifles, and those who are anti-Gadhafi in regime were not permitted to have a gun. It means that those people remain vulnerable. As it stands there are protests in Tripoli that get no air play.

At the same time, the press that are represented in Tripoli have made sure that the message gets out regarding the level of propaganda coming from the Gadhafi regime. In many reports I see the little nuggets such as “there has been no verification of these numbers” or some such comment. Usually this is due to the exaggeration with regard to the “civilian” death count by the regime.

For the time being there is no real risk from Al Qaeda, but the danger remains that Al Qaeda could infiltrate and then get hold of Libyan weapons. I doubt it would happen at the Benghazi end, but it could happen in the west of Libyan, where it would be easier for AQ to spirit weapons across the border into Tunisia and into other African countries that do in fact border Libya. So yes, AQ remains a threat of some sort in Libya. (The same is true in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, Morocco, and Syria).

*****UPDATE***** CHINA IN TALKS WITH BENGHAZI NTC

In the latest blow to Gadhafi, a Chinese diplomat has met with representatives from the NTC in Qatar. This is a further blow to the Tripoli regime. These talks come on the back of a further spate of high level defections from Libya. The Chinese abstained from the UN Council vote that implemented the no-fly zone and up until recently had been a vocal critic of the NATO action.

 

Advertisements

Comments are closed.