Libya a Litmus Test for Leadership, as Proved by Kerry, McCain (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | According to Politico, senators John Kerry and John McCain have joined forces to put an end to partisan bickering over Libya and move forward with a plan that would allow the president to continue U.S. involvement for one year with the proviso that ground forces stay out of the conflict. This is a departure from recent congressional rhetoric that threatened political retribution and may result in changing the tone in Washington in regard to U.S. involvement in Libya. The debate will likely continue ad nauseam in the coming days as we get into specifics about eliminating Gadhafi and whether it is wise to give a year's worth of authorization for action in such a tiny country or limit a commander-in-chief from utilizing ground troops to complete a mission.

The real story, though, is that while some congressmen (including some who have campaigned or are campaigning to become president) played politics, two men of the strong caliber required to gain the nomination of their parties for the presidency stood up (in the face of overwhelming support for theatrics) and decided to lead.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said to Piers Morgan, in a recent interview, that he had not yet seen anything special from any of the G.O.P candidates that told him who should win the nomination. More than likely, he's looking for something like that. In fact, it is likely what we are all waiting for in the midst of the theatrical but shallow field of Republican candidates for president.

While Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul was teaming up with former presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich to sue the President over Libya, playing politics without deference to the very real situation on the ground or the status of the troops whose funding Kucinich threatened to cut off, it took two men who many consider "has-beens" to show the difference between men who think themselves ready to lead and men who simply lead.

Two men stood together Tuesday and showed up an entire field of presidential hopefuls. Two men of class and accomplishment put politics aside to lead on Libya, not by way of looking for a job, but by way of doing the one they already have. The Republican candidates could learn a thing or two from two men who have been there... whether they won the presidency or not.

View the original article here

Clinton argues for Libya mission on eve of vote (AP)

WASHINGTON – Scrambling to turn back the fiercest congressional challenge to the president's military authority on Libya, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pleaded with House Democrats on Thursday to continue U.S. military involvement in the NATO-led operation.

Defiant Republican leaders pushed toward a crucial vote to cut off funds for hostilities.

Just hours after bluntly posing the question, "Whose side are you on?" — Moammar Gadhafi or the Libyan people, Clinton met with rank-and-file Democrats to explain the mission and the stakes if the House votes to prohibit funds. The administration requested the closed-door meeting.

"The issue today, as she pointed out, was whether or not we were going to abandon what is an effort that our allies have made at the request of the United Nations, the Arab League and others to intervene and to support our allies in this effort," Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat, said following the session. "I agree with her strongly that ... to send any signal today that Congress is not supportive of the effort to involve itself in a humanitarian effort at the request of a broad international coalition would be a mistake."

House Republicans and Democrats are furious with President Barack Obama for failing to seek congressional authorization for the 3-month-old war against Libya, 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 within 60 days. That deadline has long passed.

Obama stirred congressional unrest last week when he told lawmakers he didn't need authorization because the operation was not full-blown hostilities. NATO commands the 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.

Reflecting the widespread dissatisfaction, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the chamber will vote Friday on two measures: a resolution to authorize the operation and legislation that would cut off funds for hostilities such as Predator drone attacks and airstrikes.

"I just believe that because of the president's failure to consult with the Congress, failure to outline for the American people why we were doing this before we engaged in this puts us in the position where we have to defend our responsibility under the Constitution," Boehner said. "And that's why these resolutions are in fact going to come forward."

The bill would make an exception for search and rescue efforts, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, aerial refueling and operational planning to continue the NATO effort.

"I don't want to do anything that would undermine NATO or to send a signal to our allies around the world that we are not going to be engaged," Boehner told reporters. "This is primarily a fight between the Congress and the president over his unwillingness to consult with us before making this decision."

Three-term Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., 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 Gadhafi supports your efforts," Walz said.

Rep. Howard Berman of California, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said such a vote "ensures the failure of the whole mission."

Shortly before her appearance, the Congressional Progressive Caucus issued a statement calling for lawmakers to vote to cut off funds, saying the Libya operation undercuts the powers of Congress and is a blow to the constitutional checks and balances.

During a brief visit to Jamaica, Clinton said lawmakers were free to raise questions, but asked, "Are you on Gadhafi's side, or are you on the side on the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been bringing them support? For the Obama administration the answer to that question is clear."

Proponents of the House bill, including Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., the sponsor of the measure, said the administration "should have thought about that before they ignored the law."

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 Sen. John McCain of Arizona, 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 Moammar Gadhafi to stay in power."

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., said no matter the view of the War Powers Resolution or the president's March 19 move to launch airstrikes against Gadhafi's forces, "either we finish the fight and Gadhafi's overthrown and he leaves Libya and the Libyan people have a chance to govern themselves or a vicious anti-American dictator stays in power, which would be very hurtful to us and our credibility in the world."

___

Associated Press writer Alan Fram contributed to this report.

View the original article here

House scolds Obama on Libya; dozens of Dems join (AP)

WASHINGTON – The House harshly scolded President Barack Obama on Friday for launching U.S. military forces against Libya without congressional approval, fiercely disputing constitutional powers and flashing bipartisan frustration over a nearly three-month-old conflict with no end in sight.

However, lawmakers stopped short of a more draconian resolution to order an outright end to U.S. involvement in Libya. They rejected that measure, 265-148, with anti-war Democrat Dennis Kucinich of Ohio winning the votes of 87 Republicans and 61 Democrats.

Over White House objections, the House did adopt a resolution chastising Obama for failing to provide a "compelling rationale" for the Libyan mission and demanding answers in the next 14 days on the operation's objective, its costs and its impact on the nation's two other wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The resolution, though non-binding, says U.S. ground forces must not be used in the conflict except to rescue an American service member.

The vote was 268-145 for the measure by Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, with 45 Democrats joining 223 Republicans in a challenge to the Democratic president.

The resolution will not affect current military operations to aid the rebels who are battling Moammar Gadhafi's forces. NATO commands the operation, but the United States still plays a significant support role that includes aerial refueling of warplanes and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance work.

The hours of debate reflected the anger among House members over Obama's treatment of Congress, over tea party concerns about constitutional authority and expensive military operations in tough fiscal times and the nation's growing weariness over war — in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

Obama ordered air strikes in March after a U.N. resolution and limited consultation with Congress. The Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war, and the 1973 War Powers Resolution requires the president to obtain congressional authorization within 60 days of the start of military operations, a deadline that passed last month.

"This is a defining moment for the Constitution," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah. "For the president to suggest he got approval from the United Nations is offensive and is wrong. We must stand tall and true to the Constitution."

Democrats as well as Republicans criticized the commander in chief.

"Shall the president, like the king of England, be a dictator on foreign policy?" asked Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. "The authors of the Constitution said we don't trust kings."

Freshman Rep. Tim Scott, R-S.C., revived candidate Obama's words from December 2007 when he said the president does not have the constitutional power to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless there is an imminent threat to the nation.

"The current president got it right in 2007," Scott said.

The White House pushed back against both resolutions, with spokesman Josh Earnest calling them "unnecessary and unhelpful."

"It is the view of this administration that we've acted in accordance with the war powers act because of these regular consultations," Earnest said aboard Air Force One en route to Toledo, Ohio.

Not so, scoffed Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga.

"What did he do, send a tweet to the chairman of the Armed Services and Intelligence committees?" Gingrey asked mockingly during the debate.

In Libya on Friday, rebels contended they had forced Gadhafi's troops from three western towns and had broken the siege on another as NATO jets bombed 10 targets across the country.

The military action, in addition to the first publicized diplomatic contact between China and the rebel leaders, appeared to reflect continued erosion of Gadhafi's power since the uprisings challenging his 42-year rule began in February.

In Congress, Boehner had hastily pulled together his resolution after both parties realized the Kucinich measure was gaining ground this week. A vote on Kucinich slated for Wednesday was abruptly postponed.

Boehner assailed the administration for failing to answer several questions about the operation, and lawmakers made clear that if the president doesn't cooperate they have control of taxpayer dollars for the military.

"Today's debate on Libya is the first step, and clearly there's information that we want from the administration that we asked for in this resolution and it's information that we expect to get," he told reporters. "But there isn't any question in my mind that Congress is going to take further action in the weeks to come."

Several Democrats suggested the Boehner resolution was toothless, with no force of law and merely an opportunity to criticize the president.

"It's a non-binding resolution that takes pot shots at the president," said Rep. Howard Berman of California, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The House stopped short of abandoning the mission against the widely reviled Gadhafi and angering NATO allies who have come to America's aid in Afghanistan.

"The news that the U.S. House of Representatives had mandated a withdrawal of U.S. forces would send a ray of sunshine into the hole in which Gadhafi is currently hiding," warned Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., the chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. "It would ensure his hold on power. It would be seen, not only in Libya but throughout the Middle East and North Africa, as open season to threaten U.S. interests and destabilize our allies."

The president has argued that he acted to prevent a massacre in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, and he had the backing of several lawmakers, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee. McCain and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., have introduced a resolution in the Senate backing the mission.

Obama said when he ordered U.S. forces to support the mission that there would be no American ground troops. Although no U.S. military forces are present, The Associated Press and other news organizations have reported that the CIA has paramilitary officers operating alongside rebel forces in the North African nation.

The cost of the mission remains unclear. The Pentagon provided an estimate of $608 million in early April, but more recently some NATO countries were running low on supplies and the United States has provided munitions and some spare parts. More than $24 million in supplies have been provided in the last couple of months under the U.S. Foreign Military Sales program.

NATO and its partners said this week they have decided to extend for another 90 days their military campaign to protect Libyan civilians.

"Make no mistake that this issue of Libya is not going to go away," Kucinich said in a statement. "With the spending soon approaching $1 billion, with NATO openly talking about committing ground troops, we'll be back here another day to consider further what our appropriate constitutional role is."

___

Associated Press writers Alan Fram and Pauline Jelinek contributed to this report.

View the original article here