House rejects measure backing Libya war
House Speaker John Boehner talks to the press following a political strategy session on Capitol Hill in Washington, June 14, 2011. / AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
Updated 2:15 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON - The House on Friday overwhelmingly rejected a measure giving President Barack Obama the authority to continue the U.S. military operation against Libya, a major repudiation of the commander in chief.
The vote was 295-123, with Obama losing the support of 70 of his Democrats one day after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had made a last-minute plea for the mission.
While the congressional action had no immediate effect on American involvement in the NATO-led mission, it was an embarrassment to a sitting president and certain to have reverberations in Tripoli and NATO capitals.
Complete coverage: Anger in the Arab World
The vote marked the first time since 1999 that either House has voted against a military operation. The last time was over President Bill Clinton's authority in the Bosnian war.
That limited, pro-war resolution mirrored a Senate measure sponsored by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz., that Obama has indicated he would welcome. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will consider the resolution on Tuesday.
The measure's defeat was seen as a slap on the wrist for Obama, who critics say ignored the decades-old War Powers Resolution, which requires Congressional authorization for military actions not prompted by an attack on, or imminent threat to, the United States.
The House planned a second vote on legislation to cut off money for the military hostilities in the operation.
House Republican leaders pushed for the vote, with rank-and-file members saying the president broke the law by failing to seek congressional approval for the 3-month-old war.
The Republican leader of the House, Speaker John Boehner, said he supported the president's authority as commander in chief. "But when the president chooses to challenge the powers of the Congress, I as speaker of the House will defend the constitutional authority of the legislature," he said.
McConnell says GOP criticism of Obama action in Libya would have been muted if it were Bush
Some Democrats accused the Republicans of playing politics with national security. They said the vote would send a message to Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.
Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said the vote would essentially "stop the mission in Libya and empower Muammar Qaddafi."
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, White House spokesman Jay Carney expressed disappointment.
"We think now is not the time to send the kind of mixed message that it sends when we're working with our allies to achieve the goals that we believe that are widely shared in Congress: protecting civilians in Libya, enforcing a no-fly zone, enforcing an arms embargo and further putting pressure on Qaddafi," Carney said. "The writing's on the wall for Colonel Qaddafi and now is not the time to let up."
Carney also dismissed the action as just one House vote.
The defeated resolution mirrors a Senate measure sponsored by Sens. John Kerry, a Democrat, and John McCain, a Republican, that Obama has indicated he would welcome. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will consider the resolution on Tuesday.
The second Houe vote to eliminate money for the Libya operation would make an exception for search and rescue efforts, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, aerial refueling and operational planning to continue the NATO effort in Libya. That measure has no chance in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
House Republicans and Democrats are furious with Obama for failing to seek congressional authorization as required under the War Powers Resolution. The 1973 law, often ignored by Republican and Democratic presidents, says the commander in chief must seek congressional consent for military actions within 60 days. That deadline has long passed.
Obama stirred congressional unrest last week when he told lawmakers he did not need authorization because the operation was not full-blown hostilities. NATO commands the Libya operation, but the United States still plays a significant support role that includes aerial refueling of warplanes and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance work as well as drone attacks and bombings.
A New York Times report that said Obama overruled some of his legal advisers further incensed members of Congress.
In a last-ditch effort Thursday, Clinton met with rank-and-file Democrats to explain the mission and discuss the implications if the House votes to cut off funds. The administration requested the closed-door meeting.
Rep. Tim Walz, a Democrat, said Clinton apologized for not coming to Congress earlier. But he said she warned about the implications of a House vote to cut off money.
"The secretary expressed her deep concern that you're probably not on the right track when Qaddafi supports your efforts," Walz said.
Rep. Howard Berman, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said such a vote "ensures the failure of the whole mission."
Earlier this week Clinton said lawmakers were free to raise questions, but she asked, "Are you on Qaddafi's side, or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been bringing them support?"
In the Senate, backers of a resolution to authorize the operation wondered whether the administration had waited too long to address the concerns of House members.
"It's way late," said McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee. "This is one of the reasons why they're having this veritable uprising in the House, because of a lack of communication. And then the icing on the cake was probably for them when he (Obama) said that we're not engaged in hostilities. That obviously is foolishness."
He added, however, "That is not a reason to pass a resolution that would encourage Muammar Qaddafi to stay in power."
Earlier this month, the House voted 268-145 to rebuke Obama for failing to provide a "compelling rationale" for the Libyan mission and for launching U.S. military forces without congressional approval.
Popular in Politics
- Obama prom pictures surface
- Obama: America at a "crossroads" in fighting terrorism 100 Comments
- IRS official Lois Lerner placed on leave
- Protester heckles Obama during counterterrorism speech Play Video
- Lawmakers push to punish sexual offenders in the military
- Boehner calls out Obama administration's "arrogance of power" 101 Comments
- Rep. Jo Bonner to resign from House for university job
- Could the GOP pull an upset in Mass. senate race?
Silly me, why did I believe Obama???
the Arab league called for the no fly zone against the actions of local pariah Moamnmar Gaddafi. Although several UN member states expressed reservations against the action, they abstained from using their veto to quash the intervention.
There is no such Arab league will to attack She syrian regime. Not only does the Assad family has a lot of respect among the power brokers of the middle east, Russia (and most likely China )would never allow an attack on Syria who, no matter it's human rights record, is very much playing ball with the federation's interests. They would undoubtedly use their veto.
However distasteful one may find these distinctions, the fact remains, Under international law, to which the US is signed, the NATO actions in Libya are legal. Unlike Iraq.
This action protects the UK's energy and national security interests . It is, if you will, a quid pro quo for their loyalty in the UN over Iraq.
Obama does not.
Too bad the corporate media didn't hold bush's nose to the fire when he started screamin' about those fantasy WMD that allowed him to start his illegal WAR in Iraq that has cost over $2 Trillion already!
LOL!
Actually, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have cost the Amercian Tax Payer 1.4 Trillion total. Obama's figures not mine.
The same ammount of money you and Obama spent to buy votes the last two years..........
Aaaaaah.....so this was just another symbolic GOP House vote, like all the rest!
Too bad the republicans cannot follow through with their promises to the voters in 2010, and pass some job creation legislation instead!
LOL!
Actually, the GOP promised America that they would stop you and Obama from buying votes with the Tax Payers money........
I guess it worked didnt it?
Very true, since today we have TWO private contractors for every military person on the ground, so the halli-cheney-burton and blackwater thugs get tremendous lobbyist support in Washington for huge and extended military operations like the WARmongering republicans love!
Luckily, by the end of this year, we'll see all 47,000 of our troops come home from Iraq, along with the 100,000 private contractors still there getting a government paycheck and perks!
LOL!
So why did you and Obama renew all their No-Bid Contracts then?
How ever it would behove Republicans to be a little more gracious about this little quid pro quo. For was it not Tony Blair's singular stand, against the will of his own electorate, with Bush that leant legitimacy to the Iraq invasion thus sparing Bush the ignominy of an international war crimes trial?
It doesn't matter whether Democrats or Republicans are in charge. Congress always pontificates that only it can do something...in this case, to declare war...and then they don't want to take the responsibility for doing it."
That's why it is so hard to take these clowns seriously. They're not serious. All they do is posture.