On Capitol Hill this year, one of President Obama’s most troublesome critics has been Senator Obama.
President Obama, for instance, wants Congress to raise the national debt limit. But his opponents have brought up a statement that then-Sen. Barack Obama made in 2006: The first-term Democrat representing Illinois said that merely debating a debt-limit increase was “a sign of leadership failure.”
The Republican-controlled House on Friday adopted a resolution rebuking President Barack Obama for dispatching U.S. military forces against Libya without congressional approval. (June 3)
President Obama now insists that he had the right to dispatch U.S. forces to the conflict in Libya without authorization from Congress. Critics have noted that Sen. Obama seemed to feel differently about the proper use of military force in 2007.
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) even carries a quote from Sen. Obama in his pocket, to show people who don’t believe it.
“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama said four years ago.
The past is always an occupational hazard for presidents, who find themselves disowning statements they made when they were candidates or legislators embroiled in partisan fights.
But Obama seems to have gotten himself into unusually hot water this year. In three different battles, his own words have become weapons for both Democrats and Republicans.
Asked about the apparent contradictions last week, a White House spokesman said that “the president has already explained his position on each of these issues, and we will let those responses speak for themselves.”
On the debt ceiling, Obama has said his past position was a mistake. Moreover, he has called on Republicans not to make the same mistake.
Two views of war powers
But on Libya, the president’s past words appear to have forced him into legal contortions. As a senator, Obama spoke with respect about the 1973 War Powers Resolution, a law that requires presidents to get congressional authorization after sending U.S. forces into hostilities abroad.
Now, Obama has sent forces to the simmering conflict in Libya and has missed that same law’s deadline to get approval from lawmakers.
But as commander in chief, Obama’s argument for this is not that the law is unconstitutional, as other presidents have contended. It is, instead, that the law simply doesn’t apply.
Because U.S. forces primarily play a supporting role in the NATO-led Libya operation, and because Libyan forces are too battered to retaliate effectively, Obama declared that this conflict does not amount to “hostilities.”
But House Republicans are incredulous, as are some House Democrats. Friday, in a rebuke of Obama, a restive House voted not to authorize the Libya campaign. The chamber then, however, rejected a bill that would have eliminated funding for offensive operations in Libya, such as airstrikes and drone attacks.
“Senator Barack Obama would be among the Obama administration’s fiercest critics,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). “In 2007, he urged Congress to stand up to the White House, but now . . . he’s hiding behind the claim that there’s nothing hostile about bombs, missile strikes and Predator drones.”
Campaign 2012 tools
The Post Most: PoliticsMost-viewed stories, videos and galleries int he past two hours
Featured Blogs & Columns
Loading...
Comments