Bartlett: Libya action 'an affront to the Constitution'
Updated, with comment from Bartlett staff qualifying his support for the Iraq war.
Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett, who supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is calling the decision of President Barack Obama to deploy force again Libya without first seeking congressional authorization “an affront to the Constitution.”
Bartlett, a Western Maryland Republican, chairs the House Armed Services subcommittee on tactical air and land forces. In a statement Monday, he said “The United States does not have a King's army.”
“President Obama's administration has repeated the mistakes of the Clinton administration concerning bombing in Kosovo and the George W. Bush administration concerning invading Iraq by failing to request and obtain from the U.S. Congress unambiguous prior authorization to use military force against a country that has not attacked U.S. territory, the U.S. military or U.S. citizens,” he said. “This is particularly ironic considering then-Senator Obama campaigned for the Democratic nomination based upon his opposition to President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq."
While Moammar Gadhafi “ is a tyrant despised throughout the Middle East and North Africa,” Bartlett said, and “his brutal and merciless attacks against his own citizens are horrific,” it is “self-evident” that the situation in Libya “is not an emergency.”
“The Obama administration sought and obtained support from both the Arab League and the United Nations Security Council to authorize military force against Qadhafi,” Bartlett said. “The Obama administration also had time to organize a 22-nation coalition to implement a no-fly zone with military attacks led by U.S. Armed Forces against Qadhafi’s forces.
“Nonetheless, the Obama administration failed to seek approval from the American people and their elected legislators in the Congress. Failing to obtain authorization from the U.S. Congress means that President Obama has taken sole responsibility for the outcome of using U.S. military forces against Qadhafi onto his shoulders and his administration."
Update: Bartlett spokeswoman Lisa Wright has contacted us to qualify his support of the Iraq war:
“Rep. Bartlett was a reluctant supporter of H.J.Res. 114 [the joint resolution to authorize military force] after [the] failure of the Spratt subsitute which would have required an additional vote by Congress to authorize military force by the U.S. in the absence of a UN resolution. The Spratt resolution was his preference. Rep. Bartlett was critical of the UN for failing to uphold its resolutions and of President Bush's interpretation that the ambiguous wording in UNSC Resolution 1441 [the November 2002 U.N. Security Council Resolution that offered the regime of Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations"] was an authorization for the US to use military force.
Comments
Rep. Roscoe has probably never heard of the War Powers Act. Big surprise.
Posted by: Paul_D | March 21, 2011 4:55 PM
Obama has effectively handed over the sovereignty of our nation to the UN.
Never before in my life has this country dedicated its military for a strike on another nation with UN approval alone.
Time for impeachment hearings.
The man in the WH is destroying the country he so hates. This is true "fundamental transformation" he promised.
Posted by: Impeach Obama now | March 21, 2011 4:56 PM
"Not an emergency"?
nah....killing thousands of his own people....just a walk in the park huh?..
Who on earth voted for you?.,.wait, wait,...don"t tell me....
Talk about hypocrasy.....
Posted by: Ray Barcia | March 21, 2011 5:11 PM
"Never before in my life has this country dedicated its military for a strike on another nation with UN approval alone
Then you were born after 1990 (though it sounds more like yesterday), when the UN approved a coalition force to invade Iraq.
Posted by: Paul_D | March 21, 2011 5:14 PM
Let the world butcher each other-who cares?
Put the troops on the Mexican border-stop the invasion.
Posted by: Cato | March 21, 2011 5:20 PM
It is pretty offensive and franlky un-American for a republican to critiize a president for preventing death and destruction by a tyrant. Talk about overtly political
Posted by: Carl Hyman | March 21, 2011 5:25 PM
Awwww, shut up. Hypocrite.
Posted by: Johnny | March 21, 2011 6:03 PM
Last time I checked the Constitution clearly states only Congress has the power to declare war. Just because congress passed the War Powers act does not make it constitutional. Every time a nation has Civil unrest are we going to be there to bomb their military into submission. What's next our troops bombing Yemeni and Bahrainian armies? Where were we in Rwanda?
Posted by: Rob | March 21, 2011 6:20 PM
Uh, moron, are you aware that Reagan never sought Congressional when he bombed Libya? I don't support Obama's actions here and I think that there are other nations who should be taking the lead on this. However, the absolute hypocrisy coming from the right is so ridiculous, it has to be pointed out. Well, it's either hypocrisy or it's the fact that you right-wing idiots are simply too dumb and clueless. I suspect it's a mix of both.
Posted by: Dave | March 21, 2011 6:29 PM
Since when does congress seek what the american people want? Paybacks, Bummer. And if I am not mistaken, there was UN approval prior to the strikes, France being the first to strike. At least the President has to courage to step back and let someone else carry the ball
Posted by: j white | March 21, 2011 6:43 PM
So i am not a huge Barrack Hussein Obama fan, but i do feel that, the tyrant in Libya is a POS. He as done this before,and needs to be ousted. Just because we dropped a few bombs, oh no were so evil. I do feel like there are other avenues we sould be following, but to be honest. I hate France
Posted by: mason | March 21, 2011 6:48 PM
"Then you were born after 1990 (though it sounds more like yesterday), when the UN approved a coalition force to invade Iraq."
Posted by: Paul_D | March 21, 2011 5:14 PM"
Wow Paul, did you miss this?
"UN approval ALONE"!! In other words if you didn't get it, ALONE no one else.
See, in Iraq both houses approved it as well as the UN.
You seem so eager to disagree with someone you look like an idiot.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2011 7:28 PM
"Uh, moron, are you aware that Reagan never sought Congressional when he bombed Libya?"Posted by: Dave | March 21, 2011 6:29 PM
Uh moron, it was in retaliation for a direct attack on Americans! MORON!
Does La Belle discotheque mean anything to you? It was 10 days before Reagan defended this country from a state sponsor of terrorism! . MORON!
Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2011 7:33 PM
"During the 1970s and '80s, Qaddafi's government financed a wide variety of Muslim and anti-U.S. and anti-British terrorist groups worldwide, from Palestinian guerrillas and Philippine Muslim rebels to the Irish Republican Army and the Black Panthers."
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/us-bombs-libya
Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2011 7:34 PM
If republicans want to take sides with Muamar on this one, I like Obama's odds on that one. Seriously, get over yourselves for a minute.
Posted by: dood | March 21, 2011 8:20 PM
Oooohh Pleeease!!!When Ronald Reagan launched his attack on Qadhafihe didn't seek for Congressional Approval..
Posted by: S | March 21, 2011 9:10 PM
Didn't we just establish diplo. relations w/ Libya a year or so ago? Isn't Gadhafi an ally in the war on terror? Maybe we shoulda declared bin Laden an ally in the war on terror; he'd be dead by now. Further evidence of the ceaseless battle betw. DoD & the State Dept.: eliminate them both! DoD defends nothing; State has no diplomats.
Posted by: Hexexis | March 22, 2011 6:35 AM