Why does Obama prefer duplicity to a STRAIGHT-FORWARD DEFENCE of action in Libya?

[Distant Observer]

Why is the Obama administration afraid to go before Congress and defend hostilities in Libya.

Most constitutional commentators and analysts are saying that the White House claim that "action" in Libya does not amount to hostilities subject to War Powers Act is simply duplicitous. Why haven't they been talking with Congress and getting support for the on going military action? Why not follow the law?

Somehow, despite massive investments in the demonization of Gaddafi, the Whitehouse seems afraid that they can justify what they are doing to topple his regime.

Could it be that the Defence and Intel witnesses who before the war had testified that it could not be justified by the facts, would look stupid now going back to say it is justified by the facts.

Could it be that they just can't provide a coherent story to explain what looks like the longest, most bumbling, most expensive assassination campaign against another Head of State is really just protecting civilians?

-------


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57160.html

Senate scrambles on Libya

. . .
“They’re (Obama Administration) doing everything they can to burn goodwill among folks who, generally speaking, have a huge reservoir of good will toward them,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), a co-sponsor of one of the pending measures on Libya.

“The administration… is trying to have it both ways. I think they’re trying to be involved in this but they don’t want to admit to their base that they’re involved in hostilities,” Corker continued, adding that the White House is saying “one thing in private, and one thing in public” about American engagement in the region.

Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who has been an ally of Obama in the past . . .“The administration’s position is both legally dubious and unwise,” Lugar said. “The United States is playing a central and indispensible role in military operations that have no end in sight.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57160.html#ixzz1PWuZXUdS

[tekisui]

1. I see it as him covering his ass on his other military adventures.

Rather than make an argument that Libya somehow falls within the WPA and is constitutional for that reason, which the WH apparently realizes it doesn't fall under the WPA, they have chosen this 'drones aren't war'.

They are laying the foundation for justifying their acts of war in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and the inevitable additional drone wars to come in the future.

As long as American service-members are are not at risk, they will not call it a war and claim unitary absolute right.

[Distant Observer]

2. WPA requires just that he gets Congressional approval. Why not? Executive arrogance is Cheney

not Barack Obama.

[tekisui]

3. It is both.

[Distant Observer]

4. Obama was elected to be the ANTI-CHENEY. He now seems to front for Hillary-McCain-Cheney

[Distant Observer]

5. How does one justify the constant rain of bombs on a city aimed at killing 1 man

and primarily, it seems, to save face for the Western coalition.

I would really like to see them explain in front of congress.