Monday, March 28, 2011

Post Obama Speech: John Bolton on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano says President has the authority to Wage War

By Douglas V. Gibbs

President Obama campaigned for president in 2008 as a unifier. He has indeed unified America. Obama has successfully brought Americans from both parties together as a unifying voice against his decision to bring a new war involving America during his presidency.

Tonight, President spoke to the nation in an attempt to defend his decision to launch military action against Libya.

Obama claimed in his speech that his new war in Libya is a humanitarian effort designed to prevent a slaughter of civilians (which, if using that excuse, would give him the green light to go into another dozen countries as well). However, though he indicated when the unrest in Libya was new that Gadhafi must go, in tonight's speech he warned that removing Gadhafi from power could be a costly mistake.

The plan, according to President Obama, is for NATO to take command over the entire Libya operation by the middle of the week, taking the United States out of the lead, though not necessarily taking us out of the operation.

Obama avoided the word "war" because he knows that using the three letter word would not only contradict everything he has said about war, but that much of the criticism against him is that he is waging war without congressional approval - something Obama was highly critical of George W. Bush over.

The argument against Barack Obama by those who oppose his Libyan policy revolves around Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, which gives Congress the power to declare war. Democrats and Republicans together believe that Obama violated the Constitution, and that Obama seems to be roaming the world searching for dragons to slay, regardless of the will of the legislature, or the people. However, what are the president's war powers?

After a number of guests on Fox Business News claimed Obama was acting against the Constitution, and against the War Powers Act of 1973, Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton defended the President's war authority. Though in disagreement with Obama's actions, Bolton made the case on Judge Napolitano's Freedom Watch program on Fox Business News, that the Founding Fathers debated over whether the Congress should have the authority to make war, or declare war, and decided upon the latter, leaving with the president the power to wage war as may be necessary if Congress is unable to be in session when the need to put the military into action arises.

I agree with Bolton. This is not to say I agree with Obama's choice to take military action. Libya's civil war belongs to them, and does not affect American interests. Congress, if the Constitution is important to them, and if both Republicans and Democrats alike are truly angered by Obama's decision, can put a stop to this war by simply defunding it - but if they are determined to take such an action, they need to be unlike Obama, and act quickly.

By the way, Obama lied when he said there would be no American troops on the ground in Libya. U.S. Marines are in fact on the ground in Libya at this very moment.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama speech strongly defends US military action in Libya - The Morning Journal

Marines on ground in Libya - One News Now

4 comments:

Tom said...

that the Founding Fathers debated over whether the Congress should have the authority to make war, or declare war, and decided upon the latter, leaving with the president the power to wage war as may be necessary if Congress is unable to be in session when the need to put the military into action arises.

What they "debated" is irrelevant. What is in the Constitution is all that matters.

But you do realize that Congress was in session when Obama ordered the attack on Libya, right? He didn't bother getting an authorization from Congress.

His actions also violated the war powers act as there was no theat to the US.

Why does the Constitution articulate the issue of war in Article 1 at all, if the President can simply attack anyone, at any time, for any reason, just because he wants to? What is the point of having it in the Constitution when it's simply "optional"?

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

I agree with you, Obama "should" have gotten Congressional approval, but he is not required to. And to understand what the Constitution says, you have to go back to what they debated. Many of the definitions are made clear when you study what the Founders debated in the Constitutional Convention. Based on what the Constitution says, and what the debates say, the Congress has the power to declare war, which is a formal announcement, and the president has the authority to wage war as the Commander in Chief. However, if he is making war in a manner not agreed with by the Congress or the people, he can be stopped through defunding, impeachment, and the vote by the people in elections.

I agree that there was no threat to the U.S., so this decision was a poor one. I am not arguing over whether or not Obama should have gone into Libya. I am arguing over whether or not he "could".

jb007 said...

However, if he is making war in a manner not agreed with by the Congress or the people, he can be stopped through defunding, impeachment, and the vote by the people in elections.

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

exactly. though he didn't have to, he should've consulted Congress. . . Instead, he decided to ask the U.N.