White House: Boehner inconsistent on war powers

Carney: Boehner's views "stand in contrast to the views he expressed in 1999"

Topics: John Boehner, R-Ohio, War Room, Libya, White House,

White House: Boehner inconsistent on war powersHouse Speaker John Boehner of Ohio speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, June 16, 2011. Boehner reasserted that the scandal surrounding Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-NY, had become a distraction from the important work in Congress. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia is at right. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)(Credit: AP)

The White House says House Speaker John Boehner has not always demanded that presidents abide by the War Powers Resolution as he is pressing President Barack Obama to do now over U.S. military involvement in Libya.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Thursday that Boehner’s views “stand in contrast to the views he expressed in 1999 when he called the War Powers Act ‘constitutionally suspect,’ and warned Congress to ‘resist the temptation to take any action that would do further damage to the institution of the presidency.’”

Boehner rejected Obama’s contention that U.S. forces face no hostilities in Libya, saying the argument doesn’t “pass the straight-face test,” and threatened to cut off funds for the operation, with possible House action next week. His spokesman, Brendan Buck, dismissed Carney’s reference to a “decade-old statement.”

“As speaker, it is Boehner’s responsibility to see that the law is followed, whether or not he agrees with it,” Buck said.

Anger in Congress has been growing over the administration’s refusal to seek congressional authorization for the military intervention. In response, the administration sent to Capitol Hill a report saying that because the U.S. is in a supporting role in the NATO-led bombing mission, American forces are not facing the “hostilities” that would require the president to seek such approval under the War Powers Resolution.

The 1973 law prohibits the military from being involved in actions for more than 60 days without congressional authorization, plus a 30-day extension. The Libya campaign has gone on for nearly three months and leader Moammar Gadhafi has maintained his grip on power.

Boehner joined several Republicans and Democrats in expressing incredulity over the White House’s “no hostilities” claim.

“Yet we’ve got drone attacks under way. We’re spending $10 million a day, part of an effort to drop bombs on Gadhafi’s compound,” Boehner told reporters. “The Congress has the power of the purse, and certainly that is an option.”

In a letter to Obama this week. Boehner said the commander in chief will clearly be in violation of the War Powers Resolution on Sunday and he pressed the administration to state the legal grounds for Obama’s actions. The Ohio Republican said Thursday the White House report failed to answer his questions and that he expects a response by his Friday deadline.



Reflecting the congressional frustration with the administration, the Senate Banking Committee postponed action on legislation designating frozen Libyan assets for humanitarian relief. The move indicates that consensus on the issue remains elusive.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee and one of the strongest proponents of military action against Gadhafi’s forces, criticized the administration for its “puzzling assertion” on hostilities and for adding confusion to what he called an already confusing policy.

McCain said the result has been a “wholesale revolt in Congress over the administration policy.” But he warned lawmakers, especially his Republican colleagues, against taking any step that would encourage Gadhafi. He said the United States should not cut and run from Libya.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, pressed for hearings on the administration’s legal explanation for not seeking congressional authorization.

“We owe it to every man and woman who puts on a uniform to serve our country, and every taxpayer who funds the operations, to be clear that our entry into any conflict — whether in response to an attack on the homeland or a threat our broader national security — has been entered into in a lawful and appropriate manner,” Corker wrote to the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

Countering the criticism, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said Obama did not need congressional authorization, but she acknowledged the congressional frustration.

“It’s like a marriage. You may think you’re communicating, but if the other party doesn’t think you’re communicating, you’re not communicating enough,” Pelosi told reporters.

The administration report estimated the cost of U.S. military operations at about $715 million as of June 3, with the total increasing to $1.1 billion by early September.

Adding to the congressional pressure on Obama, a bipartisan group of 10 lawmakers on Wednesday sued the president for taking military action against Libya without war authorization from Congress. The lawmakers said Obama violated the Constitution in bypassing Congress and using international organizations like the United Nations and NATO to authorize military force.

Previous presidents, Republicans and Democrats, have largely ignored the Vietnam-era law, which was created as a check on their power to authorize military force.

The White House sent Congress the 32-page report in response to a nonbinding House resolution passed this month that chastised Obama for failing to provide a “compelling rationale” for U.S. involvement in Libya.

The resolution gave the administration until Friday to respond to a series of questions on the mission, including the scope of U.S. military activity, the cost of the mission and its impact on other U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While the U.S. led the initial airstrikes on Libya, NATO forces have since taken over the mission. The U.S still plays a significant support role that includes aerial refueling of warplanes and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance work. Obama has ruled out sending U.S. ground forces to Libya.

“U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors,” the report said.

The president has said the U.S. joined the international effort in Libya to prevent the slaughter of civilians at the hands of Gadhafi’s forces, a development Obama said could have shaken the stability of the entire region.

Although Obama emphasized that U.S. involvement would be limited in time and scope, the mission already has dragged on longer than many expected. The bombing campaign has halted some of Gadhafi’s advances on rebel forces and there are increasing calls from world leaders for him to leave power, but the administration is still struggling to define an exit strategy for U.S. forces.

The report released Wednesday said that if the U.S. were to end its participation in the NATO operation, it would “seriously degrade the coalition’s ability to execute and sustain its operations to protect Libyan civilians.”

The White House also said in the report that the U.S. is working with Libya’s main opposition group, the Transitional National Council, on plans for a political transition if Gadhafi leaves power. Despite initial questions about the council’s composition, the White House said in the report that the U.S. is not aware of any ties the group has with any terrorist organization.

The White House and Capitol Hill have been at odds throughout much of the campaign over whether the administration has fully consulted Congress on the mission. Obama aides insist they have briefed Congress extensively throughout, citing more than 30 briefings with lawmakers and their staffs, and 10 hearings where administration officials have testified on Libya.

——

Associated Press writer Donna Cassata contributed to this report.

——

Julie Pace can be reached at http://twitter.com/jpaceDC.

More Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • 1 of 11
  • Close
  • Fullscreen
  • Thumbnails
    Burger King Japan

    2014's fast food atrocities

    Burger King's black cheeseburger: Made with squid ink and bamboo charcoal, arguably a symbol of meat's destructive effect on the planet. Only available in Japan.

    Elite Daily/Twitter

    2014's fast food atrocities

    McDonald's Black Burger: Because the laws of competition say that once Burger King introduces a black cheeseburger, it's only a matter of time before McDonald's follows suit. You still don't have to eat it.

    Domino's

    2014's fast food atrocities

    Domino's Specialty Chicken: It's like regular pizza, except instead of a crust, there's fried chicken. The company's marketing officer calls it "one of the most creative, innovative menu items we have ever had” -- brain power put to good use.

    Arby's/Facebook

    2014's fast food atrocities

    Arby's Meat Mountain: The viral off-menu product containing eight different types of meat that, on second read, was probably engineered by Arby's all along. Horrific, regardless.

    KFC

    2014's fast food atrocities

    KFC'S ZINGER DOUBLE DOWN KING: A sandwich made by adding a burger patty to the infamous chicken-instead-of-buns creation can only be described using all caps. NO BUN ALL MEAT. Only available in South Korea.

    Taco Bell

    2014's fast food atrocities

    Taco Bell's Waffle Taco: It took two years for Taco Bell to develop this waffle folded in the shape of a taco, the stand-out star of its new breakfast menu.

    Michele Parente/Twitter

    2014's fast food atrocities

    Krispy Kreme Triple Cheeseburger: Only attendees at the San Diego County Fair were given the opportunity to taste the official version of this donut-hamburger-heart attack combo. The rest of America has reasonable odds of not dropping dead tomorrow.

    Taco Bell

    2014's fast food atrocities

    Taco Bell's Quesarito: A burrito wrapped in a quesadilla inside an enigma. Quarantined to one store in Oklahoma City.

    Pizzagamechangers.com

    2014's fast food atrocities

    Boston Pizza's Pizza Cake: The people's choice winner of a Canadian pizza chain's contest whose real aim, we'd imagine, is to prove that there's no such thing as "too far." Currently in development.

    7-Eleven

    2014's fast food atrocities

    7-Eleven's Doritos Loaded: "For something decadent and artificial by design," wrote one impassioned reviewer, "it only tasted of the latter."

  • Recent Slide Shows

Comments

0 Comments

Comment Preview

Your name will appear as username ( settings | log out )

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href=""> <b> <em> <strong> <i> <blockquote>