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

Democrats Try to Change the Subject from the Budget, Misery Index, Illegal Guns Crossing the Mexican Border, and Libya

Question of the Day: Is the phase "democratic politician's sense of duty" synonymous with the parse "dereliction of duty"? 

That is a good question.  For the last few weeks the democrats and the media has been focused on the Anthony Weiner scandal (BTW, he resigned today as it was getting too hot for even the Dems), Sarah Palin's bus tour and then her emails, and whatever else they could find to keep the attention off:

Lack of Budget by the Democrat Senate  

The Misery Index  

ATF Agents Ordered To Watch Guns Being Shipped Over U.S.-Mexico Border 

War in Libya with no request to the Congress under the War Powers Act by Obama costing the taxpayers $9,421,000 a day.

Not only are the democrats guilty of 'dereliction of duty" but so are the Obama media except in rare instances.  Reuters and the Los Angles Times are a few of the mainstream media who have actually been covering other stories not making the Weiner scandal the top news of the day.  One thing the tabloid journalism has done is to keep the fact that Democrats have not adopted a real budget  now for two years off the radar.

The Republican House fulfilled their constitutional duties by adopting a budget which went to the Senate looks like to die if Reid has his way.  Instead of offering an alternative that could then go to conference committee, Reid and the Democrats prefer not to bother with a budget and just keep passing continuing resolutions. 

The Misery Index is back but what have we been hearing about it -- not much as Obama and the Democrats try to hide the poor economic numbers.  Since they took gasoline and groceries out of the inflation index, it is is not as high as it should be.  Fill up your tank or buy groceries and you know that their prices have risen dramatically.

Then we have investigation by Rep Issa and his committee on the problem with guns crossing the Mexican border illegally.  Guess the media really doesn't want to cover that story that Rep Issa has been pointing out with his hearings that the DOJ also wants to ignore.

The Libya fiasco is the worst of all of this with not only the amount of money being spent at $941,000,000 a day but also the fact that Obama is not consulting Congress in violation of the War Powers Act and Democrats remain silent.  Yet these same Democrats attacked President Bush unmercifully about Iraq and still make snide remarks to this day.

This may be the worst two plus years of Government yet under the control of the Democrats led by Obama where the Rule of Law and the Constitution mean zero, zip, nada to these liberals.  From the Budget to Libya this Administration and the Democrat Senate and House (for two years) have been an abject failure by driving this Country into more deficit spending with their salacious appetite for spending the American tax dollars on their pet projects and ideas as they try to take the Country left.  When Obama cannot get something passed through the Republican House, he ignores the law like the War Powers Act and acts unilaterally like a dictator. 

Here is the collection of important stories that have been off the radar thanks to the Democrats and the media's tabloid journalism along with many bloggers following every move of Weiner.  Even hate mentioning the lowlife's name.

Scofflaw Democrats Try to Change the Subject 

June 15, 2011 Posted by John at 9:28 PM

The Democratic Congress hasn't adopted a budget in more than two years. This isn't just irresponsible, it is illegal. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, has been hammering away at the Democrats' dereliction, and things are starting to get a little hot for Harry Reid and Kent Conrad. Loyal Democrats like Dana Milbank and Tim Kaine are criticizing them for blowing off the budget, and Senate Democrats who have to fact the voters next year are reportedly getting nervous. So Harry Reid, naturally, is trying to change the subject.

For the last two mornings, Reid has started proceedings in the Senate with a demagogic blast at Sessions and the Republicans. Yesterday morning he said:

Madam President, on this side of the aisle for Democrats, protecting the seniors on Medicare is our top priority. I heard our friend, the Ranking Member on the Budget Committee, come here and talk for hours, and he keeps talking about things that really have no bearing on what I think is important for the country today, and that is we know that the Republicans have put forward a budget that destroys Medicare.

This morning, it was more of the same. It would certainly come as a surprise to most voters that the federal budget--or lack thereof--along with the broader issues of federal spending and debt, "have no bearing on what...is important for the country today."

Funny, though, that Reid should bring up Medicare in this context, since that program raises another instance of the Democrats' flouting of their legal duties. Coincidentally, yesterday Senator Sessions and Paul Ryan, on behalf of the House Budget Committee, wrote to President Obama to ask him to comply with federal law relating to Medicare. You can read the letter in its entirety here; these are excerpts:

On May 73,201l, the Medicare Trustees not only warned us that Medicare's insolvency date had advanced five years since last year's report but also confirmed that the program is now running a $32 billion cash-flow deficit. To pay current benefits, the program is redeeming tens of billions of dollars in treasury debt instruments and dramatically contributing to our nation's surging publicly held debt. More troubling is that, in total, Medicare faces $36.8 trillion dollars in unfunded obligations over the next 75 years, according to Medicare's non-partisan Chief Actuary. 

For the sixth consecutive year, the Trustees have projected that general revenues will account for more than 45 percent of all of Medicare's outlays. When Medicare breaches this limit, section 802 of P.L. 108-173, the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA), requires the President to submit a legislative proposal to Congress to respond to the warning within 15 days of the next budget. Yet again, the Medicare Trustees have issued a funding warning that requires action by your administration. In fact, the Trustees have urged action "sooner rather than later" in order to "minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations." 

(snip)

Democrats in both the executive and legislative branches are scofflaws. While they love to orate piously about the "rule of law"--usually when the law does not, in fact, say what they want it to--they happily ignore the law when it suits their political convenience. This should be a scandal, but Washington reporters have been too busy studying Sarah Palin's emails and Anthony Weiner's Twitter account to notice.

Excerpt:  Read more at Powerline

******

Return Of The Dreaded Misery Index

Posted 06/15/2011 06:55 PM ET

Economy: As if the picture weren't bleak enough, here's one more data point to worry about — the Misery Index is on the rise.
Conceived by economist Arthur Okun in the early 1970s, the Misery Index simply adds together the inflation and unemployment rates to create an effective indicator of real-world suffering.
It gained notoriety under President Carter, whose growth-choking, easy-money policies pushed the index to its post-World War II high. Now, under President Obama's equally disastrous economic policies, the Misery Index is making its return.
The annual inflation rate for May climbed to 3.6% as price spikes spread beyond oil and food. At the same time, May's unemployment rate edged up to 9.1%, yielding a Misery Index of 12.7.
That marks the fourth straight monthly increase in the index, which is now 62% higher than it was when Obama took office, and 57% higher than it was when the recession officially ended.
Obama's Misery Index average of 10.37 is higher than George W. Bush's (8.11) or Bill Clinton's (7.8).
Admittedly, we're a long way from the 21.98 peak during the Carter administration. But with Obama vigorously stirring the stagflation cauldron for the past 2 1/2 years, it should be no surprise that we're heading in that direction.
Excerpt:  Read more at IBD

******

ATF Agents Ordered To Watch Guns Being Shipped Over U.S.-Mexico Border

Posted: 06/15/11 03:23 PM ET
By Jeremy Pelofsky

WASHINGTON -- U.S. firearms agents told lawmakers on Wednesday they were instructed to only watch as hundreds of guns were bought, illegally resold and sent to Mexico where drug-related violence has raged for years.

Agents for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Arizona told the House of Representatives Oversight Committee they were told not to arrest the so-called straw buyers and instead see where the guns went.

Republicans and Democrats on the panel expressed outrage about the ATF program -- "Operation Fast and Furious" -- and demanded answers from the Obama administration about why arrests were secondary to tracking the firearms.

"We monitored as they purchased handguns, AK-47 variants and .50 caliber rifles, almost daily at times," John Dodson, an ATF special agent in Phoenix, told the committee.

"Rather than conduct any enforcement actions, we took notes, we recorded observations, we tracked movements of these individuals, we wrote reports but nothing more."
Read More at Reuters

******

Obama's unauthorized war on Libya costs $9,421,000 a day: Are you getting your money's worth?

June 16, 2011 | 3:22 am

 

The Obama administration is spending almost $9.5 million every single day to blow things up in Libya because the president has determined that is in the country's national interest, this country's national interest, not Libya's.
You may not have noticed the $392,542 flowing out of the national treasury every hour, day and night, since those first $1.5 million Tomahawks flashed from the launch tubes back on March 19.
But Libya's dictator Moammar Kadafi has. Not enough to quit, mind you, because he can hide while his troops do the dying and killing.

Kadafi's military might has been degraded sufficiently by allied missiles and bombs to perhaps create a long-lasting stalemate with rebel forces in the desert conflict that Obama initially promised House members would last a matter of days, not weeks.

Thirteen weeks later Obama, who was elected running against the war in Iraq, finds himself also embroiled in an escalating constitutional conflict at home over another war that he started while touring South America with his family in March.

You may recall that nine days later the Real Good Talker did what he usually does when attacked; he gave a speech to address the outcry over the sudden conflict without meaningful congressional consultation. 

Advertisement

Advertisement

Excerpt:  Read More at LA Times
When do you we get a media that covers the real news instead of tabloid journalism?  With so few news outlets giving real news right now and instead delivering spin for Obama, what does that say about the American people and our being willing to settle for second rate news organizations?

Cong Tom Cole: Libya Operations Disregards War Powers Law, Constitution

My Congressman hit this one out of the park with his remarks about President Obama ignoring the Constitution and the War Powers Act while committing our military to another wartime situation without approval of Congress.  If we had a media that cared about the truth, they would be asking the tough questions of Obama.  The mainstream media seems unable to do the research and formulate an article that actually told the truth of how Obama went around Congress by ignoring the Constitution and War Powers Act.  The media could use Cong Cole's article as a basis for tough questions for the Obama press secretary and/or writing an article about how Obama sent our military to war without Congressional approval if they really cared about the truth instead of protecting Obama.

This article should be mandatory reading for anyone defending Obama on his actions in Libya.  That also includes Obama, his entire Administration and the media!  Maybe they would learn the War Powers Act is law not just a piece of paper they can ignore like they continue to ignore the Constitution.

April 4, 2011

Libya Operation Disregards War Powers Law, Constitution
By: Congressman Tom Cole (R-OK)

"The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances."

So states the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Passed in the wake of undeclared wars in Korea and Vietnam, this law was intended to clarify and reassert the responsibility of Congress as the only body designated by the Constitution with the power to declare war and raise and support the armed forces. The law recognizes three circumstances under which the president has constitutional authority to introduce our armed forces into hostilities: a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization by Congress, or "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

In President Obama's belated remarks to the nation on military operations in Libya, delivered over one week after those operations had commenced, he failed to make the case that his decision to commit U.S. forces in Libya either complied with or was justified under the Constitution or the War Powers Resolution. While taking pains to emphasize his administration's coordination with the United Nations, European leaders, and the Arab League prior to launching the mission, the president inadvertently admitted to conferring with these groups far more extensively than he communicated with Congress. The president's passing reference to "consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress" seems alarmingly inadequate given the circumstances. A vote by the U.N. Security Council is not a constitutionally recognized substitute for authorization by vote of the U.S. Congress.

America's armed forces are certainly the best in the world, but they are already overstretched from engagement in two wars. While Gadhafi is a dangerous dictator who needs to go, it is highly questionable whether the rebellion forces have the capability to remove him from power without more extensive and prolonged American involvement. Even if the opposition forces do prevail in dismantling the Gadhafi regime, it is far from certain that it would be replaced by a government that would be friendly to U.S. interests. ABC News reports that Defense Department records from 2007 indicate that nearly one-fifth of al Qaeda's foreign fighters in Iraq came from Libya, making Libya "far and away" the largest provider of foreign fighters per capita to the terror group's operations in Iraq. Furthermore, "almost all of the Libyan fighters hailed from the east -- cities like Benghazi, effectively the current opposition headquarters."

These are just a few of the factors that make any intervention in Libya a delicate and dangerous proposition subject to congressional debate and authorization. Regardless of whether intervention is warranted -- and even Defense Secretary Gates stated that Libya is not "a vital interest for the United States" -- there is a constitutionally mandated process that must be followed. President Obama was right to point out that the United States is exceptional and has unique responsibilities as "the world's most powerful nation." This is all the more reason why we should protect our power by exercising it only according to the limits prescribed by the Constitution.

###

Congressman Cole has covered the aspects of why Obama had an obligation to come to Congress for approval not notify them 90 minutes before the first military flights were launched.  Has anyone heard he notified in Congress? Obviously was not any Republicans including the Speaker of the House.

Secretary of Defense Gates on Odessey Dawn: No vital national interest or imminent threat in Libya

If there is no threat to the United States or its interests by Libya, why are we sending our military into the skies of Iraq as part of the UN Odessey Dawn?

There had been no plans to do a post today until Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared on ABC 'This Week' hosted this morning by Jake Tapper. Hard to believe they paid big bucks to the former CNN correspondent Christine Amanpour to host 'This Week'when Jake Tapper is so good and she is horrible as a host. Tapper should be doing the Sunday morning ABC show every week -- we would actually get the facts not spin and be willing to watch instead of waiting for what was said to come out. Don't want to start a Sunday morning off by watching Amanpour.

Why some people still push Hillary Clinton for President is beyond us and for anyone who needs reminded read her remarks this morning from 'This Week' which are highlighted in the Hot Air article below. She doesn't understand the Constitution or the War Powers Act (WPA) any better than Obama.

Constitutional division of War Powers:

The Constitution divides war powers between the Congress and the President. This division was intended by the framers to ensure that wars would not be entered into easily: it takes two keys, not one, to start the engine of war.

The Constitution's division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief (such as decisions on the field of battle), Congress with certain other exclusive powers (such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort), and a sort of "twilight zone" of concurrent powers. In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires there to be:

“(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces”

before a President can send US military forces into a new conflict.

The WPA is pretty straight forward and we certainly don't see the wiggle room that Clinton has taken.  It is becoming more apparent that Clinton and Obama ignored not only the Constitution but the WPA rushing the United States into this conflict in Libya without consulting Congress. As reported earlier, Vice President Joe Biden as a Senator said that he would start impeachment against any President ignoring the WPA. Looks to us like Obama and Clinton need impeached after this fiasco in Libya ignoring the Constitutional duties and the WPA.

Clinton brags about the coalition the United States (Clinton) has put together but it is way smaller than WWII and half the size of the Bush Coalition on Iraq plus Bush spent six months getting Congressional approval before launching the strike on Iraq which is a huge difference than the Obama/Clinton days rush to war. Add to the fact that Obama launched the war effort while in Brazil by a recorded message and you have two people who are so far over their head in governing.

Obama and Clinton in this imperial administration are creating a very dangerous precedent and putting our military in harm's way without regard to Congress. A Republican President would have been aggressively attacked by the likes of Obama and Clinton when they were in the Senate for doing what those two have done.

Now we have the Secretary of Defense finally admitting there is no vital national interest or imminent threat in Libya before Odyssey Dawn was launched. Wonder if someday Gates, Obama and Hillary are going to admit that the rebels in Western Libya who they are supporting are members of Islamic Jihadists aligned with Al Qaeda? Clinton should have been the first to admit the fact since the State Department has the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) listed as a terrorist group in Libya. Why let a little detail like that stand in the way.

What started out this morning as a post about Gates and Clinton is now turning into much more. While researching the State Department Designated Terrorist Group, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), we discovered that the United States has probably been funneling arms to the rebels for sometime. Guess that little fact is the reason that Obama left the door open on arming the rebels. We also learned that On November 3, 2007, the LIFG was welcomed into Al Qaeda.  Since this LIFG is officially part of Al Qaeda so does that mean we are fighting alongside Al Qaeda now thanks to Obama and Clinton?

As mentioned earlier we are now learning that the United States has been funneling arms to this terrorist organization as they consider them rebels against Gadhafi. The CIA is really lame if they were involved in this operation because even the State Department website lists the LIFD as terrorists with known ties to Al Qaeda. The New American.com has a must read, well researched article about the LIFD:

The organization is officially on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. But according to countless news reports, the U.S. government has been covertly funneling arms to the Libyan rebels for weeks, via Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other nations.

Islamic extremists around the world have actually announced their support of the Libyan rebels as well. And as Raven Clabough pointed out in an article for The New American, a powerful coalition of leftist and globalist forces are also backing the war against Gadhafi’s regime.

The more I read from the article, the scarier all of this has become. Looks like Obama/Clinton got the United States involved in Libya on the side of Al Qaeda to oust Gadhafi. This whole effort in Libya to protect civilians makes no sense when Obama and others in Administration are saying they want Gadhafi taken out in favor of the rebels.  The UN Resolution specifically calls for civilians to be protected and forbids targeting of Gadhafi but Obama and Clinton seemed to be ignoring the UN Resolution as well. Was Gadhafi trying to rid Libya of Al Qaeda? We will probably never know the truth because we are sure not getting the truth from Obama or Clinton.

This excerpt from the The New American.com should make most Americans stop and ask the question, "What is the United States doing involved in Libya?"

The Obama administration’s UN-backed military intervention against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi is aiding al-Qaeda, which, according to media reports citing high-level commanders in the terror group and Libyan rebel leaders, is deeply tied to the revolution. When the dust settles, the anti-American Islamic extremists could easily emerge as the new rulers of that nation, or at least a part of it. And al-Qaeda is already reportedly grabbing up  (see excerpt below) advanced military weaponry there. 

AL-QAEDA'S offshoot in North Africa has snatched surface-to-air missiles from an arsenal in Libya during the civil strife there, Chad's President says.

Idriss Deby Itno did not say how many surface-to-air missiles were stolen, but told the African weekly Jeune Afrique that he was "100 per cent sure" of his assertion.

"The Islamists of al-Qaeda took advantage of the pillaging of arsenals in the rebel zone to acquire arms, including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries in Tenere," a desert region of the Sahara that stretches from northeast Niger to western Chad, Deby said in the interview.

Ironically, perhaps, Gadhafi has been claiming for weeks that al-Qaeda and drug use were responsible for the uprisings. "Bin Laden ... this is the enemy who is manipulating people," he told state television in late February. "Do not be swayed by bin Laden."

Most observers assumed the allegations were deliberate lies or the delusions of a madman trying to keep the reins of power. But it turns out that the claims of al-Qaeda involvement were at least partially correct.

The man identified in news reports as the leader of Libya’s rebellion, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, actually battled U.S. and coalition forces during the invasion of Afghanistan a decade ago. He was captured in 2002, handed over to U.S. authorities, and eventually released in Libya in 2008. Now, al-Hasidi, with U.S. and international air support, is supposedly leading the anti-Gadhafi revolution.

A Reuters report citing Qatar-based Gulf News said earlier this month — before Western intervention became official — that senior al-Qaeda commander Abu Yahya al-Libi released a videotaped message urging rebels in Libya to continue the battle. He also warned that failure to topple the Gadhafi regime would be unacceptable.

“The Libyan people have suffered at the hands of Kaddafi for more than 40 years.... He used the Libyans as a testing ground for his violent, rambling and disgusting thoughts,” the alleged terrorist leader said in the video. "Retreating will mean decades of harsher oppression and greater injustices than what you have endured.”

The al-Qaeda leader also blasted the U.S. government and other Western regimes — now fighting the same battle he praised — for propping up dictatorships in the region. By press time, Gulf News was not able to independently verify the authenticity of the video posted on Jihadist websites.

More recently, Libyan rebel leader al-Hasidi, who fought U.S. troops in Afghanistan, offered another startling revelation. He admitted in an interview with an Italian newspaper that Islamic warriors from Libya, whom he had recruited to battle Western forces in Iraq, are now actually fighting alongside U.S. and international forces to help topple Kaddafi.

The Daily Telegraph, in an article entitled "Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links,” quoted al-Hasidi as saying that his warriors "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists." He also praised al-Qaeda, saying they are “good Muslims ... fighting against the invader."

According to U.S. and British government sources cited by the paper, al-Hasidi is part of the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). The organization represents the second largest contingent of foreign fighters in Iraq battling coalition forces.

Excerpt: Please read more details at The New American.com

Ed Morrisey's comments at Hot Air from the interview this morning on ABC by Jake Tapper with Gates and Clinton are very telling about how little Hillary Clinton regards the Constitution or the War Powers Act as she spins and lies:

Gates: No vital national interest or imminent threat in Libya before Odyssey Dawn
Ed Morrisey
Hot Air
March 27, 2011, 10:15 a.m.

Jake Tapper reminds ABC why they foolishly spent money on Christiane Amanpour last year for the anchor job on This Week with a tough joint interview of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Tapper asks Gates exactly what vital national interest the US has in Libya and what kind of imminent threat to our security Moammar Gaddafi posed at the beginning of Operation Odyssey Dawn. Gates says … none in either case:

On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Gates, “Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States?”

“No, no,” Gates said in a joint appearance with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “It was not — it was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest and it was an interest for all of the reasons Secretary Clinton talked about. The engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake,” he said.

(snip)

Hillary felt the need to swoop to the rescue. She claimed that Obama didn’t need to go to Congress because this coalition is so darned multilateral:

Tapper asked Clinton, “Why not go to Congress?”

“Well, we would welcome congressional support,” the Secretary said, “but I don’t think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.”

“I think that this had a limited timeframe, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling,” Clinton said.

Obviously, the Secretary of State has trouble with both math and the law. There is no “multilateral” waiver in either the WPR or the Constitution, but even if there were, Obama would be the least likely President to qualify for it. This coalition is the smallest since World War II involving the US in military action, only half the size of George W. Bush’s Iraq War coalition.

She also fails vocabulary test in her claim that the mission has a limited timeframe. Later, Gates says that no one knows how long this will drag on:

On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Secretary of Defense Gates how much longer we might be there.

"Some NATO officials say this could be three months, but people in the Pentagon think it could be far longer than that. Do you think we’ll be gone by the end of the year? Will the mission be over by the end of the year?” Tapper asked

“I don’t think anybody knows the answer to that,” Gates said.

Excerpt: Read more at Hot Air

Tomorrow night you can tune in and watch Obama lie on his 'war' in Libya as he addresses the Nation.