Bombs not hostile

Analysis:  The question quickly comes to mind, "Is President Barack Hussein Obama stupid or evil" as he has now directed his administration to assert that bombs are not hostile.  His actions by this assertion could be interpreted as one of two positional statements:  “The Constitution I swore to uphold is meaningless and my oath worthless" or "My idiotic ideology trumps all law, honesty, and justice on the planet.”

At issue is a bi-partisan lawsuit that congressional members filed this week against the White House.  President Obama’s administration’s answer claims the War Powers Act does not apply to U.S. action in Libya.

By calculation of time in action, Mr. Obama has violated the War Powers Resolution that has guided the nation since Vietnam as of May 20, 2011 in Libya.  However, the administration asserts the activities of United States military forces in Libya do not amount to full-blown “hostilities” at the level necessary to involve the section of the War Powers Resolution that imposes the deadline.  

All this comes after the administration took great pains to explain publicly that action was only begun after approval of the United Nations and the Arab League, but without approval of the U.S. Congress.  Apparently, these two groups supersede American law in the engagement of American military forces – when our children may die.

However, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in an Oct. 14, 2007 interview with ABC News said, “…(A)ny president, if we are attacked, if our country is attacked, has even under the War Powers Act very strong powers to go after that country. But short of that, he must come to the Congress.”

According to press reports, Harold Koh, a State Department legal adviser said, “We are acting lawfully.”  Koh expanded on the administration’s reasoning in a joint interview with White House Counsel Robert Bauer.

The administration claims that the U.S. has not been involved in “hostilities” since NATO took the helm on April 7.  According to the White House, America is merely providing a “supporting role.”  Since troops are not in harm’s way on the ground, they say there is “little risk” posed to U.S. forces. The New York Times wrote:

The administration legal team considered other approaches, including a proposal to stop the use of armed drones after May 20 in order to bolster the case that United States forces were no longer engaged in hostilities.  But the White House ultimately decided not to make any changes in the military mission.

The key issue here is the meaning of “hostilities,” as there does not seem to be a clear definition on the books. Furthermore, the administration discusses NATO as though the U.S. is not an integral part of the military alliance.  In reality, the country’s relationship in the allegiance means that America is, to a degree, still heading operations in Libya.

Apparently, Mr. Obama never visited the Pearl Harbor Memorial in his native Hawaii.  Maybe he was too busy listening on the lap of his mentor Frank Marshal Davis, a prominent Communist, to effort such a visit to the Memorial during his youth.  The watery graves of the USS Oklahoma tell a different story. 


Congressmen on both sides of the isle are not happy.  "We have got drone attacks under way, we’re spending $10 million a day," House Speaker John Boehner told reporters according to the Associated Press. "We’re part of an effort to drop bombs on Gadhafi’s compound. It doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities."

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., a combat veteran and member of the Armed Services Committee, scoffed saying, "Spending a billion dollars and dropping bombs on people sounds like hostilities to me."

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., called the claims "really totally bizarre." Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., said telling Congress and Americans "that this is not a war insults our intelligence. I won’t stand for it and neither will my constituents."