Why did Obama ignore the War Powers Act in reporting to Congress on Libya?

What was behind Obama refusing to go to Congress under the War Powers Act?  Not sure we will ever know the facts, but it makes no sense.  The support in Congress was there for the action so it makes little to no sense why he would ignore Congress who is being asked to approve the funds.  Obama's former legal adviser is speaking out against Obama's action overriding  Department of Justice senior people including Attorney General Holder.  What was to be gained by his action?

Does Obama believe that he does not have to answer to Congress on anything and has convinced himself he can do whatever he wants?  It is obvious that the Rule of Law means nothing to this man.  Now to overrule his own Justice Department is worrisome of what he is up to in other areas.  Is he a President out of control and will do what he wants anytime he wants?

We have seen a lot of press secretaries come and go over the years but Jay Carney is the worst by far with his spin for Obama.  Most press secretaries don't sit in on meetings so they can have plausible deniability but Carney seems to be part of the inside crowd with his comments.  He actually makes Obama look worse with some of his defenses like "The point is, it's the president's decision to make" basically telling everyone Obama is in charge and will do what he wants to do so don't bother to ask.  Does Carney not understand we have three equal branches of Government.  Doesn't sound like he does with his comments.

This sounds like a Valerie Jarrett decision to us for him to ignore Congress.  We just don't see the Chief of Staff Daley going this route.  If true, it means that Jarrett won the battle with Daley for control.  We knew she had the support of the First Lady, but does she now have support of Obama over Daley?  The jury is still out but something to watch his actions in the days ahead which will give a clue.

On Libya, President Obama evaded rules on legal disputes, scholars say 

Decision to override Justice Department unit called 'disturbing' by one former legal adviser 

By Michael Isikoff, National investigative correspondent, NBC News 

updated 6/21/2011 6:09:46 AM ET2011-06-21T10:09:46

The White House bypassed the administration’s own written guidelines for resolving major legal disputes when it overruled the Justice Department’s advice that the president seek congressional approval for U.S. military operations in Libya, according to some legal scholars.

The disclosure over the weekend that President Barack Obama rejected the advice of senior Justice Department legal advisers — including Attorney General Eric Holder — has drawn sharp congressional criticism in recent days, ranging from House Speaker John Boehner to liberal Democrats such as Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York. 

It is also provoking debate among legal scholars, some of whom told NBC News that they were unaware of any recent precedent for the way the White House reached its legal conclusions about Libya. One top former legal adviser to Obama, Dawn Johnsen, called the accounts of the White House's handling of the matter "disturbing." 

"There may be a precedent for this, but I can't think of one," said Robert Chesney, a University of Texas law professor who specializes in national security law. "This is not the way the process is supposed to work." 

For decades, Chesney and other legal scholars said, legal and constitutional questions within the government have been resolved by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). Just last year, a six-page Justice Department memo described OLC's mission as providing "controlling advice" to executive branch officials on questions of law. 

The memo spelled out how the office's decisions were supposed to be reached: After receiving input from agencies throughout the government, OLC lawyers would provide "principled" legal analysis to executive branch officials, not opinions "designed merely to advance the policy preferences of the president or other officials." 

Are drone strikes 'hostilities'? 

In this case, administration officials say, the OLC — backed by Holder — concluded that sustained U.S. support for the NATO campaign against Libya, as well as some of its elements — including U.S. drone strikes — amounted to "hostilities" as defined by the Vietnam-era War Powers Act. 

As a result of that conclusion, the president would be obligated to seek congressional approval for continuing U.S. support for the NATO air campaign in Libya, it said. 

Rather than permit OLC to vet the issue, the White House adopted an unusual and far more informal procedure: It instructed lawyers for key government agencies, including the State and Defense Departments, to submit their views directly to White House Counsel Bob Bauer rather than the Justice Department office, administration officials said. 

Bauer, who left the White House on Friday to return to his law firm (where he will serve as a campaign lawyer for Obama), then passed along the views directly to the president.
Obama, who was once a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago, concluded he did not need congressional approval for continuing the Libya campaign. His rationale, administration officials have said, was that the operations in Libya did not involve "sustained fighting" or any U.S. ground troops and there was "no exchange of fire with hostile forces."
In doing so, Obama not only rejected the views of Holder and OLC's acting chief, Caroline D. Krass, he also overruled Jeh C. Johnson, the Defense Department's chief legal counsel. He sided instead with a more favorable analysis provided by Harold Koh, the State Department's chief legal adviser. 

Legal scholars acknowledge that the president is always free to ignore the advice he receives from OLC and interpret the War Powers Act as he sees fit. (And most presidents have taken the view that the law is unconstitutional.) But some who have been closely aligned with Obama said they were surprised and disappointed that the White House would bypass the one legal office that is supposed to provide neutral legal advice devoid of any political influence. 

Ex-Obama adviser calls reports 'disturbing' 

"The recent reports are disturbing," said Johnsen, an Indiana University law professor who served as a key member of Obama's Justice Department transition team and was later nominated (but not confirmed) to head OLC. 

Johnsen emphasized in an email that "we don't have all the details yet," but added: "It is critical that the traditional central role of the Justice Department and its Office of Legal Counsel be respected, which includes OLC — not the White House counsel's office — formulating legal advice based on input from all affected agencies." 

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday vigorously defended the president's handling of the War Powers Act issues, telling reporters "there was an informal discussion" of the different legal views within the administration. 

Read more reporting by Michael Isikoff in 'The Isikoff Files' 

"The point is, it's the president's decision to make," Carney said. "Views were solicited and were shared. The president heard, was aware, of all the arguments here. This is obviously a matter where there's been disagreement since the moment it (the War Powers Act) was passed."
In a follow up email exchange, White House press spokesman Eric Schultz declined to address questions about the why the president chose to bypass the traditional legal vetting process of OLC.   

Excerpt:  Read More at MSNBC

Obama Displays a Mean Streak as he goes into Campaign Mode

We are seeing more articles about the mean streak of Obama but we only have to look back to his verbally attacking the Supreme Court Justices at his State of the Union speech on January 27, 2010, to understand that Obama is not Mr. Nice Guy. If a President will attack the Justices of the Supreme Court sitting in the front row, it is not shocking that Obama attacked Paul Ryan sitting in the front row of his speech on Wednesday night about the budget followed by his attack at a fundraiser later in the week.  What other President has been so nasty to someone he invited to hear his speech? 

Unfortunately, we agree with Mark Tapscott's last paragraph of his column which appeared at the Washington Examiner this morning, Mean streak: Obama is not as nice as he looks:

Odds are we will see more of this meaner side of the Obama persona in the months ahead because, as columnist and former GOP presidential aide Pete Wehner notes, "now that he finds himself intellectually outmatched by Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, and in a precarious situation when it comes to his re-election, Obama is dropping his past civility sermons down the memory hole. Decency and respect for others has suddenly become passe. Talking about our disagreements without being disagreeable has been overtaken by events. Not impugning the character of the opposition is fine as long as it's convenient, but it's to be ignored whenever necessary." In other words, we're now seeing the real Obama in what promises to be an ugly campaign.

We can see Obama along with the Obama media turning this into one nasty Presidential campaign. We remember how Obama treated Dr. Coburn and Senate McCain after he was elected when they extended their friendship to him with his words "I Won" which spoke volumes about the low class of this man who had been sworn in as President. Dr. Coburn went out of his way to help Obama learn the ropes of the Senate after he was elected, but obviously that didn't make any difference to Obama.

We didn't understand the 'nice guy' tag to Obama to begin with because what 'nice guy' could sit in Rev Wright's anti-white church for years and be a 'nice guy?' Rev Wright's sermons were used to inflame blacks against whites in sermon after sermon that Obama said he didn't hear but he went to Church all the time. That should have been a clue in the general election campaign that Obama and the truth are not friends. How many people did Obama end throwing under the bus during the election? Every time you turned around he was disavowing someone else. The man has 'zero' core values except he knows he wants to be king or a dictator not a President who answers to the American people.

Now his latest target is Cong Paul Ryan who took a machete to the Obama budget while Obama in his do-over speech on the budget Wednesday night brought first grader scissors to the budget but he brought a mean streak he used to attack Ryan in his bitter speech that most of the media is having trouble spinning.  With the true mean-spirited Obama coming out this week, is the Obama media going to continue to spin or are they finally going to tell the truth that deep down Obama is not a nice guy?  The Obama media has seen it up close and personal but only a few like Jake Tapper and Chip Reid have been willing to report up until now. They media has not done a good job spinning the Paul Ryan attacks so what are they going to do when he keeps attacking Republican candidates running for President with lies and untruths during the campaign? We don't think Obama when backed in a corner knows any other way except to attack. In his mind, he cannot to be shown up by anyone including his wife from all accounts.,

The review of Obama speech he delivered on the April 13th, is blistering in an editorial from The Wall Street Journal, The Presidential Divider Obama's toxic speech and even worse plan for deficits and debt starting out with the first paragraph:

Did someone move the 2012 election to June 1? We ask because President Obama's extraordinary response to Paul Ryan's budget yesterday—with its blistering partisanship and multiple distortions—was the kind Presidents usually outsource to some junior lieutenant. Mr. Obama's fundamentally political document would have been unusual even for a Vice President in the fervor of a campaign.

This morning when you read Mark Tapscott's column you are left with the thought that this President doesn't act Presidential but is now acting like a spoiled brat who wants to be a king or dictator where no one dares to question what he says or what he submits to Congress:

Mean streak: Obama is not as nice as he looksBy: Mark Tapscott, Examiner Editorial
04/16/11 8:05 PM

Liberal Democrats were often befuddled by President Reagan's "Teflon presidency."

By their lights, Reagan could commit the most heinous acts, but their criticisms were usually shrugged off by the American people, who judged him a "nice guy" who deserved the benefit of the doubt. President Obama has enjoyed something similar during his first 2 1/2 years in office. Even as public opposition mounted to his policies -- Obamacare, the failed economic stimulus program, cap and trade, skyrocketing government deficits -- Obama retained a reserve of public good will reflected in consistently strong personal favorability ratings. People who didn't like his policies generally still saw Obama as a likeable guy, somebody they would enjoy having over for dinner with the family.

But that may be changing. Recall that Obama invited House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to George Washington University to hear his Wednesday address on the federal government's dire fiscal situation. The speech was advertised by the White House as a major address in which the president would join the serious conversation initiated two weeks ago by Ryan in his detailed proposal for cutting spending. What Obama instead delivered, with Ryan sitting in the front row, was, in the Wall Street Journal's unsparing description, a "poison pen" speech dripping with mean-spirited partisanship, gross misrepresentations of fact, and sophistry of the lowest sort concerning Republicans' alleged desire to hurt old people, the poor and mentally challenged children. It was the sort of harangue one would expect from a rabidly devoted partisan hack, with no relation whatever to the thoughtful appeals to reason and common values that historically have characterized presidential leadership in this country.

Obama then spent Thursday evening regaling an audience of Democratic donors with what he thought were off-the-record insider jabs about his recent budget negotiations with House Republicans, including this cheap shot at Ryan: "When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure he's just being America's accountant, that he's being responsible, I mean this is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill -- but wasn't paid for. So it's not on the level." The reality is that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars under President Bush were regularly funded by Congress, claiming tax cuts must be "paid for" is a hoary piece of Democratic class-warfare demagoguery, and the prescription drug plan Ryan supported cost half as much as the Democratic alternative then on the table. Such fact-free commentary is to be expected from blind partisans, but not the president of the United States.

(snip)

Read more from Mark Tapscott at the Washington Examiner

The spin from the White House after Obama was caught on an open microphone attacking Paul Ryan for not being sincere is mind boggling as we learn from the Washington Examiner's, Byron York:

White House: When Obama said Paul Ryan is 'not on the level,' he meant Ryan is 'absolutely sincere'

In his caught-by-an-open-microphone remarks to a private fundraiser in Chicago Thursday night, President Obama questioned the sincerity of House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan's effort to reduce the federal deficit. Ryan's approach, Obama told Democratic donors, is "not on the level."

"When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure, you know, he's just being America's accountant…," Obama said, "this is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill -- but wasn't paid for. So it's not on the level. And we've got to keep on, you know, keep on shining a light on that."

Read more at the Washington Examiner

Would someone like to explain how the new White House press secretary, Jay Carney, could spin those remarks into Ryan is "absolutely sincere" when questioned by a reporter on Air Force One about Obama's remarks. We have heard spin but Jay Carney's spin is one of the biggest whoppers yet. When Obama picked Carney was he looking for someone who wasn't afraid to look foolish while spinning for Obama? If he was, he picked the right person.

Obama Fails as President and Commander in Chief

Obama failed to get Congressional approval to put our military into a wartime situation over the skies of Libya in an United Nations no fly zone.  At the same time Obama through his UN Secretary Rice ensured that our pilots would have their hands tied with the UN resolution they can only bomb when they see the Gadhafi troops attacking civilians.  Obama has failed his role not only as President but as the Commander in Chief by not getting Congressional approval and putting out pilots in harms way with their hands tied thanks to a UN Resolution. 

Who does Obama think is going to be responsible for funding his wartime effort in Libya?  It is the Congress and why he needed their approval to spend as much money as this is going to cost each and every day before action commences.  A President has no authority to decide on a whim to send troops.  Congress needs to be part of the decision making and looks like Obama has a reading comprehension of his powers under the Constitution.   Is Libya a threat to the United States should have been the first question and the answer is a resounding NO!

Handing the operation off to NATO control is bait and switch as the vast majority of resources will still be the United States weaponry.  No other NATO country has the airpower of the United States and Obama/Clinton know that so no matter how they spin it, US resources are going to be used.  Those two are out of their league in this action of getting us into a 3rd wartime situation with Iraq and Afghanistan operations still ongoing.

Details of the timeline are slowly coming out of when Obama made the decision and when the Congress was notified.  Noted that Obama made the decision when Secretary of Defense Gates was traveling overseas.  Who was part of making this decision?  This paragraph may be the understatement of the year and it is also an indictment of the lackluster media we have that protects Obama and spins for him daily:

"I am completely mystified," says former top Bush aide Karl Rove, who supports the Libya intervention, "that this administration, of all administrations, makes a decision on a Tuesday night and does not bother to call anybody in Congress until Friday morning, 90 minutes before the policy is going to be executed, to tell them what is going to happen. Can you imagine what would have happened if we had tried to do that? We'd have been barbecued!"

How many people did Obama call in Congress -- the vast majority found out when he gave his recorded speech from Brazil. Just who did he call? Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi? Crickets are chirping on who was notified by Obama 90 minutes before the action commenced against Libya.  Did the White House Press Corps bother to ask or have they not been able to ask any questions of Obama.  You cannot trust his aides to tell the truth.  In fact truth took the first hit in this no-fly zone operation in Libya when the pilots targeted the Gadhafi compound when Gadhafi was not supposed to be a target.

President Obama should resign for his dereliction of duty for sending our troops into harm's way without Congressional action. Even his Vice President Joe Biden said while a member of the Senate that a President should be impeached who doesn't get approval of the Congress to commit American soldiers to a wartime action.  Calling several members of Congress 90 minutes before action commenced is not enough when there is no reason for US involvement in the United Nations humanitarian mission in Libya.  Has the United States gotten involved in other places where the UN has seen dictators attacking their own people? 
What a sorry excuse for a press corps for not having 'barbecued' Obama for his actions like they did President Bush over much smaller incidents. The double standard is alive and well and with the exception of a few reporters, the rest of the broadcast White House Press Corps should resign for their biased reporting in spinning for Obama. There are only two who stand out -- Jake Tapper, ABC, and Chip Reid, CBS, who refuse to spin but we are having a hard time identifying more of the White House reporters from the broadcast networks that we would call even handed.

Obama fails to grasp the gravity of going to war
By: Byron York 03/24/11 8:05 PM
Chief Political Correspondent http://twitter.com/ByronYork

President Obama is struggling to grasp the repercussions of going to war in Libya.-Carolyn Kaster/AP"I see Obama's visiting the United States," said Rush Limbaugh on Thursday, the president's first full day back in Washington after a spring break diplomatic tour of Latin America. For the White House, it was a touch of well-deserved sarcasm; Obama's absence at the start of the Libyan hostilities, along with his haphazard conversations with members of Congress and his nonexistent effort to prepare the American public for war, left more than a few Washington insiders shaking their heads over how the president could have mishandled things so badly.

Say what you will about the Bush White House. It knew something about preparing Congress and the public for war, having done so before invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. A president needs to lay the foundation for military action by holding extensive briefings for Congress and also by explaining to the American people why action is needed and what it will involve.

That's why veterans of the Bush White House can't quite believe what they are seeing from the supposedly communications-savvy Obama administration.

Read more comments at the Washington Examiner from former members of the Bush White House.

We think the term 'supposedly' used to describe the communications-savvy Obama administration should probably be changed to 'inept' since Jay Carney took over as press secretary.   With Emanuel and Axelrod leaving the White House, the communications has gotten much worse.  We cannot fathom if either Emanuel or Axelrod were still in the White House that Obama would have waited 90 minutes before action commenced to notify the Congress.  They both knew the firestorm that would result in the end.

How many days until a new President takes over? 667 Days, 02 Hours, 11 Minutes, 20 Seconds as of a few minutes ago from Obamaclock.org