Washington (CNN) – As U.S. military action in Libya approaches the 60-day mark this Friday, does the Congress need to vote to continue that involvement to comply with the War Powers Act?
Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Tuesday he is "talking to the administration" about what exactly Congress and the White House might do to abide by the 1973 law which says Congress must authorize any military action that lasts more than 60 days.
"We want to make sure we're not stretching anything inappropriate. So we're looking at some language," Kerry said as he entered a weekly policy lunch in the Capitol with Democratic senators. "We're really looking at it very seriously to keep everyone on the same page."
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, a vocal advocate of U.S. military support for the Libyan rebels, has been in talks for weeks with Democrats and Republicans about a resolution backing the Libya mission - but perhaps something short of voting on a War Powers resolution. He said Tuesday that congressional leadership has not shown an "inclination" to vote on something.
McCain said he doesn't believe the War Powers Act is constitutional and therefore he doesn't believe the president needs congressional authorization to continue the mission.
"I've never recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, nor has any president, either Republican or Democrat," McCain said.
From CNN Politics
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
He would be a perfect replacement for Hillary.
Sen. Kerry and Sen. McCain are out front on this issue and that's good! With the whirlwing going on in the middle east right now, every member of the Armed Services Committee and Intelligence Committee need to be fully engaged in these uprisings. As far as the War Powers Act goes, it's the law and it's nothing we can do about it. Therefore, there should be an ongoing resolution to maintain the constitutionality of the provision.
It's unfortunate for everyone involved that this is dragging out so long. If we are determined that this is a fight worth fighting, why are we not overwhelming the Ghadaffi government with force and getting on with it? I like Ronald Reagan's approach to armed conflict when and only when it becomes necessary; " We win. You lose.". Keep it simple like that and it is better for everyone involved, including the Libyan people.
But aren't we 'leading from behind" in Libya? Why do they need to do anything? Do the Democrats actually want to conduct a vote in Congress on us getting involved in a Libyan civil war? Now this ought to be interesting.
Reagan's approach? You bomb our Marines, we withdraw?
Duck Fallas
Reagan's approach? You bomb our Marines, we withdraw?
_____________________________________________________________
Actually yes, this is consistent with the simple approach. If you make a decision to use force, it must be all or nothing. Unless he saw where defeating a specific target was meaningful and a solution to the problem, then it would be nothing. The point is, once you have identified an enemy and made a decision to use force, it should be only with overwhelming force to end quickly with a win. Otherwise, don't go there.