Boston Globe rewrites history to claim that Obama should have gotten Congress' approval

[ProSense]

Obama should have obtained Congress’ approval on Libya

IN HIS remarks last Friday announcing the new military campaign against Libyan ruler Moammar Khadafy, President Obama stressed that the United States would not be acting unilaterally. “In response to a call for action by the Libyan people and the Arab League,’’ he said, “the UN Security Council passed a strong resolution. . . with an explicit commitment to pursue all necessary measures to stop the killing’’ of civilians.

The Security Council’s vote confers undeniable legitimacy to “Operation Odyssey Dawn.’’ So does the Arab League request that preceded it.

In the American system, both political branches have a role to play in war-making. Congress is expected to check and balance the chief executive’s military authority, both by passing judgment on the exercise of that authority and through its power of the purse. That is why the 112th Congress should even now go ahead with debating, and taking a stand on, US action in Libya.

Like many Americans, Obama was scathing in his criticism of George W. Bush’s stewardship of the war in Iraq. But not even Bush’s most strident foes could claim that he acted without congressional approval: Legislation endorsing military operations against Saddam Hussein was approved by the House and Senate in October 2002, months before the invasion actually began. In 1991, the first President Bush likewise sought a congressional resolution before using military force to expel Iraq from Kuwait.

<...>

Three points:

1. The editorial claims the operation gained legitimacy from international approval.
   
   
2. Given point 1, these demands by the media for Congress to act are beginning to sound more like a desire for Congress to officially declare war.
   
   
3. The editorial completely rewrites history to justify the actions of both Bushes. In fact, Bush Sr. relied on a U.N. resolution and Bush Jr. lied to Congress.

The first Gulf war was launched in August 1990 and the AUMF approved January 1991.

The Persian Gulf War (August 2, 1990 – February 28, 1991), commonly referred to as simply the Gulf War, was a war waged by a U.N.-authorized coalition force from thirty-four nations led by the United States, against Iraq.

link

<...>

Within hours of the invasion, Kuwaiti and U.S. delegations requested a meeting of the UN Security Council, which passed Resolution 660, condemning the invasion and demanding a withdrawal of Iraqi troops. On 3 August the Arab League passed its own resolution, which called for a solution to the conflict from within the League, and warned against outside intervention. On 6 August UN Resolution 661 placed economic sanctions on Iraq.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 665 followed soon after, which authorized a naval blockade to enforce the economic sanctions against Iraq. It said the “use of measures commensurate to the specific circumstances as may be necessary ... to halt all inward and outward maritime shipping in order to inspect and verify their cargoes and destinations and to ensure strict implementation of resolution 661.”<28>

link

The no-fly zones weren't established until after the war:

The Iraqi no-fly zones were a set of two separate no-fly zones (NFZs), and were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect humanitarian operations in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south. Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. The policy was enforced by US, UK and French aircraft patrols until France withdrew in 1998. While the enforcing powers had cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorizing the operations, the resolution contains no explicit authorization. The Secretary-General of the UN at the time the resolution was passed, Boutros Boutros-Ghali called the no-fly zones "illegal" in a later interview with John Pilger.<1><2>

<...>

The NFZ in the north of Iraq was established shortly after the Gulf War. In August 1992 the NFZ in the south to the 32nd parallel was established,<3> but in 1996 it was expanded to the 33rd parallel.<4> From 1992 to the United States-led coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003, there were two NFZs in Iraq. The northern NFZ extended from the 36th parallel northwards, while the southern extended from the 33rd parallel southwards. The northern NFZ was initially part of Operation Provide Comfort relief operations to a persecuted Kurdish minority in Iraq, and was followed on by Operation Northern Watch. The southern NFZ was maintained by Operation Southern Watch.

<...>

Bush Jr. secured an AUMF from Congress, but made false claims in his report in order to launch an illegal attack on Iraq.

Iraq war illegal, says Annan:

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

<...>

Given the War Powers Act, and the fact that Iraq didn't meet the criteria of an imminent threat, the right course of action would have been to follow the lead of the international community. Millions of lives could have been saved.

[FrenchieCat]

1. Then they could really say that he took too long......

even if Obama got a resolution from the Senate...back on March 1st.

Only Obama is subject to new rules no one else follows,
and in real time.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. So Bush had the right to attack Iraq

Because other countries attacked too.

OK.

[ProSense]

6. Who said that?

Because the international community refers to the U.N., and they U.N. did not sanction the attack on Iraq.

The Boston Globe justifies the attack by invoking the AUMF.

Do you agree with the BG that since Congress passed the AUMF, Bush was within his right to attack Iraq by lying in his report?

[kristopher]

3. There is only one hope I hold out for the Obama presidency.

In the near term I've been disillusioned on every front. But even as I get angry, I want to believe that he is really one of the good guys. Sometimes things in government take a long time to come to fruition, and I'm hoping the "3D chess" scenario isn't just a way to get rid of cognitive dissonance. It is possible (if you squint your eyes and tilt your head just right) to see a lot of his actions as laying the groundwork for major, long term changes in the status quo. I keep telling myself that his constitutional law background has inclined him to operate the system in a way that results in court cases or legislation that will produce the changes.

For example, his behavior towards congress in this case edges towards abuse of power. It is barely conceivable that he wants to provoke his enemies in Congress into taking a position for amending the War Powers Act in a way that removes the option for future presidents to get us entangled in wars without a proper public debate.

One can hope, even if the hope is slight.

[democrat2thecore]

4. Very true

You said the following and I needed to fix one thing: "For example, his behavior towards congress in this case edges towards abuse of power. It is barely conceivable that he wants to provoke his enemies in Congress into taking a position for amending the War Powers Act in a way that removes the option for future presidents to get us entangled in wars without a proper public debate."

And/or his friends in congress.

[kristopher]

5. True.

And his friends.

[ProSense]

7. What?

"For example, his behavior towards congress in this case edges towards abuse of power. It is barely conceivable that he wants to provoke his enemies in Congress into taking a position for amending the War Powers Act in a way that removes the option for future presidents to get us entangled in wars without a proper public debate."

So he abused power to provoke amending the WPA "in a way that removes the option for future presidents..."?

That makes no sense. Also, go back to before the WPA and there is precedent for action under the U.N. Charter.