Lack of Congressional Approval for Libyan Strike Doesn't Bother CBS, NBC
Of the three morning shows, only ABC's Good Morning America on Tuesday highlighted anger and dismay on Capitol Hill that Barack Obama did not seek congressional approval for air strikes against Libya. Reporter Jake Tapper pointed out the "real disappointment" felt by "all the Republicans I spoke to and the liberal Democrats."
An ABC graphic asserted, "Obama faces critics on Libya." Yet, although NBC's Today found time for the latest on Charlie Sheen's escapades, the program couldn't manage a full report on Barack Obama's decision bomb Libya. CBS's Early Show also failed to cover this aspect of the story.
Tapper related, "There was a conference call over the weekend in which one Democrat, one liberal Democrat, read a quote from candidate Obama about the need to seek congressional approval before taking military action and the member of Congress said, 'I agree with candidate Obama.'"
The exact quote from then-Senator Obama in 2007:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.
When George W. Bush was President, journalists were much more interested in congressional approval for conflicts such as Iraq. See a post by the MRC's Rich Noyes for more.
A transcript of the March 22 GMA segment can be found below:
ABC GRAPHIC: Obama Faces Critics on Libya
ROBIN ROBERTS: Let's turn now to Jake Tapper at the White House where he's tracking the latest out of Libya. And, Jake, what is the situation right now with the coalition?
JAKE TAPPER: Well, there have been a lot of reports about the coalition fraying, but the White House is pushing back on those reports. They're saying that the coalition is growing and that yesterday, for the first time, allies flew more missions over Libya than the U.S. did. Of course, even with that news, there are reports of the UAE hesitating before contributing any military, of Norway turning its pilots back because they weren't sure who was going to be in charge. So, it is still a work in progress, this coalition, Robin.
ROBERTS: And back here at home is the U.S. Congress united in how to handle this, Jake?
TAPPER: I was e-mailing all night with members of the House and Senate and there is some real disappointment. It seems to be, basically, all the Republicans I spoke to and the liberal Democrats. There was a conference call over the weekend in which one Democrat, one liberal Democrat, read a quote from candidate Obama about the need to seek congressional approval before taking military action and the member of Congress said, "I agree with candidate Obama." But, the White House is saying they are consulting, but this was a very fast moving process and one senior White House official said, "Last week, some critics on Capitol Hill were complaining we were going to slow. Now they're complaining we're going to fast." Robin?
ROBERTS: They hear that. All right, Jake Tapper.
— Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
HYPOCRITES ALL OF THEM!
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 12:37pm.
At least ABC asked the question (Half assed) but they still addressed it the SILENCE from the other Networks and Media Outlets SCREAMS WE ARE HYPOCRITES........ and DO AS WE SAY NOT AS WE DO!This media doesn't report news
Submitted by ghost of Mary J... on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 12:43pm.
it simply helps 0bama side step landmines by omitting or ignoring negative reports. To think that this media is going to report news fairly is folly. "This is the new normal."Support Our Troops. God bless the US military.
http://adoptaplatoon.org/
70% of Americans approve Libyan attack by U. S....
Submitted by Red Jeep on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 12:44pm.
....so why is congressional approval needed? CNN poll, the most trusted name in News."Seven in ten Americans are confident that the U.S. will be successful in protecting civilians from Gadhafi's forces and three-quarters think that Gadhafi will be removed from power."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/21/cnn-poll-most-support-no...
Can anyone supply a reason
Submitted by ahusser on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 5:53pm.
for the bombing. I don't get the strategic aim of this military intervention, which like Jimmy Carter's response to the Iran hostage situation and Clinton's weird bombing campaign against Serbia and the Sudan, will end up being diffident, timid, and ultimately worthless like all dem forays into warfare. Revenge for Lockerbie doesn't cut it and Col Daffy has been rather quiet internationally since Reagan rang his bell. I doubt whether "democratic" reforms will really take hold in any of these so called spontaneous rebellions. Now if we invaded and took the oil I could see the point. These perennial wars are just draining our treasury. Also be careful in what you wish for by supporting the president in this as (who has not made any decision that made any sense in any endeavor) he will gain strength from this support. The press and his handlers are trying to morph this guy into a some dem centrist maybe even remake him into a combo of Wilson, JFK and Truman so he can get re-elected. It started with the Reagan 100th and the media are busy remaking this guy into a real American Joe which he ain't and never will be. I am being pessimistic here as the GOP with their collective heads you know where won't be able to put up someone who can win but it will look good."Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Installing democracies E-Z as rebooting,an app. Get the T shirt
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 6:24pm.
Oh wait, is Venezuela a democracy?
I think Turkey should take control.
The right thing would be,pull off a Carter-2.0 no fly zone in Iran, managed by the Iraqis.
Technically it wouldn't not be a 4 th. war.
You Didn't Build That.
I don't think you can end the discussion that easy.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 1:16am.
...Revenge for Lockerbie doesn't cut it ...
Serial killers sometimes go on break for years at a time. Does that mean we stop the manhunt when they do?
To the Vet
Submitted by ahusser on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 5:06pm.
So Vet do you believe our military with Obama's blessing is bombing Libya because of Lockerbie? Whether Col. Daffy is getting his comeuppance for past atrocities is maybe a side benefit if you will but the agenda and strategic thinking in all of this is not clear at all. I don't want the clown in chief to even seem Presidential or competent. Maybe you should have read my post all the way through.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
I am not arguing with you here Mr. ahusser.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 9:30pm.
Just said you cannot dismiss the bombing so easily.
Ok Vet
Submitted by ahusser on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 3:20pm.
Miscommunication on my part.
Take Care.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
the new sheriff in town; Big iron on his hip
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 12:49pm.
Now the main difference is
one wore a white hat
the other a black hat.
No surprises
Submitted by Franksam on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 1:33pm.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of visitors to this site knew before the election that Obama wasn't fit for the job. Although you'll never hear me say that I'd be a great President, it's clear that almost anyone who speaks in complete sentences can modestly claim that he couldn't have been worse.
The opposition (us), had better get somebody running in 2012 who's main qualification is other than 'he's been around a long time and been a real stand-up guy for the party.' Screw the party and the old guys, of which I'm one. We're talking about the future now, and some seventy-year-old who did something impressive in his youth just doesn't address that fact very well for me.
And on top of it, SOBama runs down to party in Brazil, avoiding even those few Democrats who are critical.
Clinton's NATO operation take 2.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 1:55pm.
But instead of trying a myriad of peaceful options, Clinton, Albright, and NATO reached for the old, unreliable one: Send in the bombers. They didn't bother themselves with international law. They flouted it.
International law clearly states that one country can attack another one only when it is itself under attack, about to be attacked, or when the U.N. Security Council grants permission. Belgrade was not attacking the United States or any of the NATO countries involved in the bombings. And the United States intentionally avoided the Security Council because Russia and China were likely to veto any military action.
Nor, for that matter, was the bombing in accordance with U.S. Iaw: Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war, and there was no formal declaration of war in this case.
Congress shirked its responsibilities by approving a measure that fell short of a war declaration but supported the President's decision to send in the bombers. And liberals vanished.
Only four Democrats in all of Congress bothered to protest. In the House, there was only one, Barbara Lee of California. In the Senate, just three: Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico.
Bill Clinton's justifications for the bombing were filled with distortions and omissions. In his March 24 speech to the nation on the subject, he said that World War I started in the Balkans, which is true, but it became a global war only after the biggest powers foolishly entered it. Somehow, he neglected to mention that fine point.
As we seen in the first NATO attack, not much happened to Bill Clinton.... So not much will happen to Obama.... Thankx Hillary for bending his ear.
You Didn't Build That.
As I pointed out on another
Submitted by MikeB on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:51pm.
As I pointed out on another thread, as long as Obamao does not send American Armed Forces (and a gross of tomahawk missiles is not sending in our Armed Forces) into the territory, airspace, or internationally recognized territorial waters, he does not need to consult Congress. Now, if he sent in American aircraft to deliver the tomahawk missiles, then he did need to consult congress before hand, unless there is evidence that the nation attacked was going to attack American property or interests. Ear Leader has done plenty to warrant impeachment (multiple counts of contempt of court, anyone?), but in this case he has not committed any wrong doing.I think the B-2's qualify here Mike
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 12:13am.
As far as I know (Buff?) they're not launching long range Tomahawks, they are launching precision guided missiles that don't have the not-over-the-territory standoff capabilities.
IOW, they need to be somewhat close to the target. The Brits clearly have boots on the ground (SAS has been there for three weeks, and lased targets).
This entire thing was badly thought out, the "girls" put the pressure on O, and he caved. He thought he'd be "popular" a la Reagan for going after Gahdaffi (remember in GI Jane....Anne Bancroft saying "zip, zap, we'all be POPULAR"?). Bammy's trying to wag the dog here, I am totally convinced. Only not one person in his administration has been able to convince me of the need for this. Where is our national interest?
So far, I've come up with only two possible reasons that are remotely within our "national interest", both of which are clearly outside of Obama's scope of mission, as he and many others have stated. (1) Cap Muhammar's ass in retaliation for Pan Am 103, but clearly, that is really old, old, old and (2) take their oil. Nothing else scans.
As this thing stands now, we are in the middle of a Civil War, with no clear entrance, middle, nor exit strategy. With no clear reason for being here, other than it's a liberal feel-good thing to be doing, atonement for Darfur or some such nonsense. NATO doesn't want to have a thing to do with leading it, furthermore, we will never chop our assets to a non-American command. So how does this play out exactly? I can't square it. Nor can Obama, which is HIS problem, unfortunatly.
I'd have never done anything so remotely stupid as he's done in the last six days. Never. If it had been up to me, I'd have taken care of Colonel Daffy, all by his lonesome, and been done with it.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde, Remotely stupid...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 12:47pm.
Just wait till he pulls out, and then pretends like nothing happened.
In a week the MSM will never mention Libya and Obama in any sort of story/'report".
I'm sure the Libyan people just love the interchange with our troops and the rescued pilots, and now later with the bombing of the jet wreckage.
You Didn't Build That.
MikeB...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 1:01am.
"as long as Obama does not send American Armed Forces (and a gross of tomahawk missiles is not sending in our Armed Forces) into the territory, airspace, or internationally recognized territorial waters, he does not need to consult Congress."
According to that logic, the President could order a US Trident sub in the middle of the Atlantic to drop an ICBM on downtown Tripoli without bothering to consult with Congress beforehand--as long as the launch point was located in international waters. That's not how I read the provisions of the War Powers Resolution.
On what do you base the view that a standoff launch of Tomahawk cruise missiles would not trigger the consultation requirements of the WPR?
Jer
Liberal?
Submitted by Janey on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 2:41pm.
Ah, the mainstream media has finally discovered a use for the term "liberal"! Apparently, liberals didn't exist before. There were only two types of people... conservatives and sane people. But NOW, when Obama is doing things that not all Democrats agree with, there is a useful term for those of his base who don't agree with him...liberal.The drive-by media dosen't
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 4:51pm.
The drive-by media dosen't want a congress, they want a sharia based benevolent dictatorship.Can't we stay out of SOMETHING?
Submitted by lgeubank on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 5:26pm.
Isn't there a fight anywhere in the world we can stay out of? Do we have to choose sides and wage war for one side, in every conflict that springs up?Hmm...I wonder why there was no mention
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:36pm.
of Scarborough's and Pat Buchanan's unrestrained evisceration of Obama today on MSNBC as a result of the President's executing an end run around Congress while ordering generally preemptive, largely unprovoked, strategically problematic, and tenuously justified military strikes in Libya.
Oh wait...my mistake. I keep forgetting that NB's reporting Scarborough's opposition to administration policy--and there have been numerous instances of very pointed criticisms on a range of issue [stimulus spending and debt explosion, Afghanistan, Obamacare, failure to tackle costly entitlement "sacred cows", the Wisconsin public unions controversy, etc.]--would confuse the narrative of Morning Joe serving as nothing more than an obedient media mouthpiece on behalf of Obama.
Jer
So your suggesting Jer
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:56pm.
That the broken clock isnt right occasionally? I bet he even fills his car with gas correctly. How's that for encouragement? Good grief
I think Joe would think you being
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:59pm.
Very hard on Obama Jer?
opposition to administration policy--and there have been numerous instances of very pointed criticisms on a range of issue [stimulus spending and debt explosion, Afghanistan, Obamacare, failure to tackle costly entitlement "sacred cows", the Wisconsin public unions controversy, etc.]--
What are you, a nut job Tea Partier?
Boudin, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 11:02pm.
is gonna ride that dead horse for all it's worth because in his mind, Joe Scarborough is a conservative.
The occasional little nugget that Jer gleans as somehow proving that Joe Scab is indeed a conservative somehow overshadows absolutely tons of high grade ore that prove otherwise.
Jer has made up his mind; don't confuse him with the facts.
MD
Nuh-uh, md...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 11:19pm.
I'm not confused in the least. I have this quaint belief that opinion should be based on exposure to all sides of an issue rather than dictated by a presentation of carefully selected facts and constantly edited "proof". What you dismiss as the "occasional little nugget" is actually part of a mother lode of evidence that Scarborough is anything but a shill for the administration..
Jer
Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 11:22pm.
BULLSHIT !
MD
Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 11:27pm.
Could you be a little less nuanced. I'm not quite sure I understand you.
;-)
Jer
Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 11:30pm.
Ten points on that reply.
MD
Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 11:08pm.
Guess you missed Mr. Wonderful's column in Politico today.
Scarborough's true political party is (I); which doesn't stand for "Independent" -by the way- just "I".
Thanks, bk...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 11:25pm.
Just what do you find objectionable or "unconservative" regarding the article?
Jer
"Unconservative". Now that's
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 11:46pm.
"Unconservative". Now that's funny. I almost thought you were inferring that Joe S. is conservative - the sarcasm almost escaped me.
Actually, I think the column somewhat supports your view that Scarborough is not on the full time payroll of the administration as he attacked both Democrats and Republicans. He called out John Kerry for hypocrisy and Lindsey Graham for war-mongering. Which is why I indicated that Joe seems to worry more about his own brand than any particular political party brand. A true selfish... I mean independent thinker, he is.
bkeyser...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 12:06am.
When you have about fifteen minutes, click this link to Tuesday's Morning Joe, scroll down to the video clip entitled "Senator Lugar criticizes, etc." and watch.
I'll amend my original post and concede that Scarborough is a bit more restrained than Buchanan in the evisceration of Obama--Pat pulls no punches in the first three minutes--but Joe, too, leaves little doubt about his objections to the administration's extra-Congressional approach [e.g. fast forward to around the 11:00 minute mark].
Jer