2 Senate Repubs still have brains

[caseagainstfaith]

Two influential Republican senators said Sunday they oppose any effort by House Republicans to cut funding for U.S. participation in the Libya military mission.

The comments by conservative Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina came on the 90th day of the Libya campaign -- which House Speaker John Boehner says is the deadline in the War Powers Resolution for the Obama administration to get congressional authorization it has yet to seek.

Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week that cutting funding for the mission was an option that the Republican-controlled House will consider when it takes up a defense appropriations bill this week. He contended that President Barack Obama has failed to comply with the War Powers Resolution, and that the main tool Congress has to respond is to control the spending.

However, McCain and Graham told Sunday talk shows such a move would send the wrong signal and undermine NATO allies leading the Libya mission with U.S. support.

"If we do not continue this effort in Libya, if (Moammar) Gadhafi remains in power, it could have profound consequences," McCain said on the ABC program "This Week."

Graham, appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," adhered to longstanding conservative dogma by declaring that the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which limits the ability of the president to unilaterally engage U.S. forces in combat, is unconstitutional.

source- www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/19/war.powers/

Color me shocked. It is surprising yet nice to see not all republicans have lost their connection to reality even if only 2 out of the bunch. Maybe they can knock some sense into the others....maybe.

[vcvicesquad]

Knocking sense into others. . .I don't think that's likely, certainly with Graham and McCain. At least thoes two, like you said, still have their brains.

[Jodie]

John McCain does not have brains, and is very disconnected from reality.

[vcvicesquad]

Ok, so McCain is a little off his rocker. . .but at least Senator Graham still kind of has his.

[verasthebrujah]

First of all, Senator Graham is the genius who brought you the "anchor babies" argument and wants to repeal the 14th Amendment. He is farther off his rocker than McCain is. In fact, he is one of the biggest wingnuts in the Senate.

Second-- and I hate to say this-- Boehner is right. Unless I missed it, Obama hasn't complied with the requirements set forth by the War Powers Resolution: he has not asked permission to use military force in Libya. The President is Commander-in-Chief of the military, but only Congress can declare war. Whether cutting funding for the conflict is right or wrong is up for debate, but the House leadership isn't wrong to at least use cutting funding as a political threat.

Granted, Boehner probably isn't making this move to uphold the rule of law, so much as to be a thorn in Obama's side. Democratic and Republican Presidents have frequently ignored the War Powers Resolution, and many of them have even claimed that it is unconstitutional. Congress usually doesn't challenge the President because cutting funding to the military during an operation looks bad. It seems like a bluff to me.

[vcvicesquad]

Seeing that we are helping the rebels with the airforce and the navy. . .I don't know why we would pass the war powers act. We're also helping the UN and the EU that want an end to the fighting in Lybia and to get Gaddiffi out of there and on trail. Now if we were to send in ground troops then I would say that, yes he needs to pass it. . .but we don't have troops on the ground, just the airforce and navy out at sea.

[Mlle Antéchrist]

How did Bush handle the war powers act in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan?

[vcvicesquad]

Anyway. . .Bush didn't even get a pass by the UN to go into Iraq. . .but, this, helping out people making sure they won't be killed by a crazy bastered, this is ok to bring up, right???

[MaybeNever]

Well, if the issue is the legality of the war, Bush actually did get a formal authorization against Iraq. Probably Afghanistan, too, but I didn't check that.

[vcvicesquad]

Yeah, let's nt forget how many WMD's we found in Iraq. . .oh, wait there wasn't any. So, Bush lied to this country.

What formal authorization was that MaybeNever?

[MaybeNever]

The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, House Joint Resolution 114. Whether or not it was based on wrong or even falsified information, it nevertheless clearly meets the President's Constitutional obligations in regards to the use of military force.

[vcvicesquad]

Ok. . .I'll shut up now. We still didn't get the ok to go in to Iraq by the UN and the war in Iraq was on false info.

[MaybeNever]

Yeah, well, I'm not saying it was legitimate by any international standards, just by the US's legal standards.

[vcvicesquad]

Yes, but we got the ok by the international community to go into Lybia. . . by the international community no less. We went into Iraq on our own (I think) in 2003 because of George Bushes asumptions that there was WMD's in Iraq. I think George Bush should be in jail.

[scienceisgreen]

Eh if the US personnel aren't doing the bombing themselves after that 60 day limit and rather just supplying the equipment, supplies, and information to NATO I can see how Obama would have an argument. Sort of like a "We're not fighting, we're just providing for NATO" at which point open hostilities between nations wouldn't be fulfilled. It would be convoluted but he could likely cite other such things that didn't require congressional approval except for funding.