Why Didn’t Obama Consult With Congress?

Barack Obama committed the United States to aggressive action against Libya and our military has launched hundreds of missiles against that country. Most Democrats are publicly supporting Mr. Obama even though these very Democrats were quite vocal in their opposition to George Bush involving us in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The big difference is that George Bush requested and received approval from Congress for the use of military force. Barack Obama did no such thing. Some Democrats believe he ignored his responsibilities when he acted unilaterally and without consulting Congress.

These Democrats are not happy with Mr. Obama and the word impeachment has been thrown around:

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses. Politico

While some of these Democrats are upset at the use of force it would appear as if they are equally or more upset that Obama did not consult Congress. They have a valid point and one can only imagine what would have happened had Bush gone into Iraq or Afghanistan without getting the approval of Congress. We would have had Democrats becoming apoplectic over the whole issue and Bush would likely have been impeached.

As it is, Bush was hammered by the left and he received the approval of Congress for the use of military force. Even though he received that approval many wanted to impeach him for using force. Some Democrats appear to want the same but I highly doubt they will be successful.

Obama has too many supporters on the left who will ensure that all is well. He will be protected by the very people who railed against Bush.

The big question that has not been answered is why didn’t Obama discuss this with Congress? I believe that Mr. Obama feels that he in encumbered by Congress (as our Founders intended) and that he would simply rather do things in a way that bypass Congress. This is a pattern we have seen with him as he and his regime look for ways to accomplish an agenda without involving Congress.

He thinks the Constitution is too limiting so he works to avoid doing things in accordance with it.

Obama was worried about having Congress say no to his use of force (he does not have a majority in the House and any Democrat defections would be bad) so he went ahead without involving that body,

Now he will have to face the music.

Or will he?

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

15 Responses to “Why Didn’t Obama Consult With Congress?”

  1. Adam says:

    “Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq … asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.”

    Look at that. A liberal calling for impeachment of Obama? One day you’re calling them hypocrites for not opposing their “messiah” (which they clearly did already though you didn’t check) and the next you’re conveniently ignoring your accusation and citing evidence that clearly makes the case that the same people concerned with Iraq are concerned over Libya.

    Now, we’re not talking about bloggers. They are notoriously partisan and biased and will do or say whatever they need to distort and skew facts to fit a particular agenda just like you do on this site. When you look at the actual specific opposition groups as opposed to unnamed unspecific “liberals” then you’ll already find fairly consistent opposition. That will only grow as long as US involvement grows.

    “The big question that has not been answered is why didn’t Obama discuss this with Congress?”

    Probably because he didn’t have to until after the fact. We’re still talking about two different situations so trying to make Obama’s actions fit neatly into what Bush did with Iraq keeps falling flat.

    First of all we were already bombing Iraq in 2002 long before the resolution passed Congress in October of that year. It would be 6 more months until the invasion.

    Second, this is a crisis that is in motion already and not something we’re causing ourselves through our actions.

    If Obama was going to spend his entire first term finding a way to fix the facts and invade Libya then you’d have seen him ask Congress for authorization. In this case he simply did not need to before the fact due to the nature of the aggression.

    • Blake says:

      Oh wait a second- the truth is it is good to be king- just ask Mel Brooks- and that is the attitude Bari has had ever since he was anointed-(I would have peed on him as he has the American people, but the Secret Service might not let me- then again, I would safely bet some of them might just look the other way)- but this allegedly superior attitude is just like Marie Antoinette’s- Let them eat cake.
      He is clueless, as is Biden- at least Biden can claim insanity due to excessive hairplugs- Bari has no excuse except natural incompetence, and the “affirmative action system” that produces dumbasses because of similiarly dumbass liberal professors.

      • Adam says:

        Long on insults and short on facts. You do know that Marie Antoinette never said that, right?

        • Blake says:

          Do you know that obama really lied when he said he was for drilling in our offshore waters, right?
          And DESERVED AND ACCURATE INSULTS are nothing more than correct adjectives.

          • Adam says:

            In the sense that broken campaign promises are lies. They aren’t really but it depends on who’s saying so and who they’re saying it about.

    • Big Dog says:

      Dennis wanted to impeach Bush for doing what Congress authorized. Obama received no such approval. Any attacks conducted prior to the authorization to invade were done under the authority from the previous UN Resolutions that were approved by us and under approval from Congress prior.

      In case you are not aware, I do not write some things at the time they are published. I am on travel and write several articles at one time and then schedule them to publish. I wrote the article about the opposition prior to those other folks and it published after they did. However, the big protests you are referring to did not mention Libya. They were aimed at Iraq and only Iraq when they started.

      The left went nuts over the invasion of Iraq even though Congress authorized it. And no, the information was not invented nor was it manipulated. It was there for all to see. One day you might actually know the truth but you are filled with the blindness you claim to see here.

      As for the few Democrats mentioning impeachment, I applaud them for being consistent even though they went after Bush after approving the action. They realize that Obama acted without authority.

      When will you all call for the war crimes investigations.

      You see Adam, I actually have no issue with what Obama did. I understand that when you are supposed to lead you have to make tough decisions and he did so. I think he should have consulted Congress but that is for them to sort out. Obama did what he did for political reasons (why did he ignore the Iranians who went through the same thing) but he acted. You defend him. Bush acted (and with Congressional approval) and you were against it.

      I know you have little or no leadership experience but sometimes leaders have to make the tough decisions. When the person in the White House commits our military to fight I will support them and give that leader the benefit of the doubt. But, you did not do that and now you have to live with the same attacks and if Obama screws it up he will be called on it.

      It must be eating you alive that your messiah attacked. It must be dawning on everyone by now (even the densest of liberals) that Obama did not deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. It was awarded based on potential and he has not lived up to that potential.

      We did not cause Iraq or Afghanistan by our actions. And this crisis that is unfolding is no different than the crisis in Iran which Obama ignored. The authorization for force in Iraq had about 20 items in it and only 3 were WMD related. The rest were about humanitarian efforts and helping the people being brutalized by Hussein. You ignore that aspect while allowing Obama to use another so called crisis to do what he wants. Let Libya figure its own problems out. He put our military in the mix so I support them all the way but it is none of our business.

      Obama was going to bring everyone together and fix our broken image. He did nothing more than add to the tarnished image.

      • Adam says:

        “When the person in the White House commits our military to fight I will support them and give that leader the benefit of the doubt. But, you did not do that and now you have to live with the same attacks and if Obama screws it up he will be called on it.”

        Right. You’re just overflowing with support, I can feel it. I don’t support the attacks no matter who is in office or why they think it’s necessary. It’s nonsense.

        “It must be eating you alive that your messiah attacked.”

        No, not really. If I wanted a truly anti-war president I would have voted for the Green Party. You’ve invented this image of Obama supporters as being in lock-step with everything Obama does but now you see that’s simply not true.

        “Obama was going to bring everyone together and fix our broken image. He did nothing more than add to the tarnished image.”

        Right, again with the support. It’s impressive how you’ll set aside your partisan differences.

      • Adam says:

        “In case you are not aware, I do not write some things at the time they are published. I am on travel and write several articles at one time and then schedule them to publish.”

        So you have two choices here: Either you wrote your your article so early that asking where the left’s cries over the aggression was a silly statement, or you published it well after the fact without checking. I’m not sure I’d want to defend either stance but you’re clearly going with option 1.

        “However, the big protests you are referring to did not mention Libya. They were aimed at Iraq and only Iraq when they started.”

        They were certainly organized for Iraq as they have been every weekend at this time of the year but to suggest they did not mention Libya is to yet again ignore the obvious:

        There was little talk at the D.C. protest of the U.S. missile strikes against Moammar Gadhafi’s forces in Libya on Saturday, part of an international effort to protect rebel forces.

        But the Times Square demonstration that was meant to mark the eighth anniversary of the Iraq invasion quickly became a protest against Saturday’s military strikes.

    • Big Dog says:

      Even Obama knows what he did was wrong. Look at what he said when he was running for office.

      “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 responded.

      Wow! And that ends Adam’s defense. Game, set, match.

      Michael Moore is telling Obama to return the Nobel Peace Prize. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      I love when liberals turn on each other.

      • Adam says:

        Actually I agree that Obama should have gone to Congress but clearly the law allows him not to until after the fact and he’s not the first president to do so. I have no idea why Obama chose this route but I’m sure it has little to do with how your side keeps spinning it.

        • Blake says:

          The reality is the man has NO PLAN- other than allowing the french to CYA- and, as a plan, that sucks.
          Anytime we allow the french to lead in ANYTHING other than souffles, we got trouble in River City.

        • Eoj Trahneir says:

          But you don’t know. You are such an idiot. You say you don’t know but are sure it isn’t …blagh blagh blagh. You moron. Just stop at You Don’t Know. Because if you don’t know you flat don’t know.

          • Adam says:

            I think I’m going to write a JavaScript helper for this site that deletes your comments when I load the page so I’m not tempted to read and respond to your vomit.

    • Eoj Trahneir says:

      Kucinich is a brainless moron with delusions of grandeur and I would respect Democrats more if they stopped electing hair-balls like Kucinich, Pelosi, Franken and…well…everyone the Democrats elect.

      Ha ha! Just kidding! I would still despise you.