The Libyan Job

Latest:Even though the House rejected limiting funding for the war, 180-238, opposition to the war among House Democrats is high, and there were enough votes to pass a defunding measure. Some Democrats stuck with the president, at least 70 according toForeign Policy's Cableblog, because the measure voted on was too weak.  The measure did not cut off all funds and provided legal authorization for everything the United States is currently doing militarily in Libya such as refueling warplanes and providing airborne command and control. One hundred forty-nine Democrats voted no to limit funding for the Libyan intervention including the majority of the CPC. The Congressional Progressive Caucus called upon the House to fulfill its constitutional duty to "hold the purse strings and the right to declare war", and asked the president to immediately end the war. Interpreting the vote to be an endorsement of the war by the House, as Secretary Clinton attempted to do, would be to ignore the clear sentiment of its Democratic members to completely halt US involvement.

Even More: {24.6.11}You would have to be a hopeless romantic (US Person is NOT) to have anticipated the scope of the vote against the war in Libya by members of the House of Representatives. The Obamatron lost 70 of his own Democratic members to the stunning repudiation, 295-123 against authorizing war on Libya's tyrant Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi. Madam Secretary of State's last ditch effort on the Hill to convince members to vote for authorization did not make a difference. Rank and file members said the President broke the law by not seeking formal congressional approval for the war, now in its third month and long beyond the time limitation contained in the War Powers Act. The House is also expected to vote on a measure to cut funding for the operation, but even if that passes the House, it has little chance of passing the Democratically controlled Senate. Senator McCain (R-AZ) called Obamatron & Folks, Inc.'s position that the US military operation against Libya does not qualify as "hostilities" under the Act, "foolishness". US Person could not agree more. The loss of Libyan oil output since February represents a greater disruption to global oil supply than the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, an International Energy Agency official told Reuters.

Our side? 

Further: {23.6.11}Madame Secretary of State asks members of Congress who want to vote on the Libyan intervention, "who's side are you on?" The rhetorical inquiry is easily answered: on the side of the US Constitution, Madame Secretary. It appears both Houses are moving towards a vote on whether to authorize US participation in the air attack on Libya. The House is set to vote on two measures, one defunding the operation, and the other granting limited authority to continuing warring on tyrant Muammar Qaddafi and his forces. Cutting off funds is politically unpalatable, so odds are the authorization will pass. Better late than never, and at least the House will be on record as supporting yet another foreign intervention that looks suspiciously like a neocolonial resource grab while trying to justify cutting Medicare and Medicaid. In the Senate, an authorization for limited hostilities has been prepared by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and introduced into the Senate yesterday, but it will take weeks for the resolution to come up for a vote. Senators are erratic on the legality and application of the War Powers Act, but at least a former Vietnam aviator, John McCain (R) knows a war when he sees one, and it will continue until Congress gives its thumbs up or down on Libya which is what the War Powers Act intends.

More:  The Senate may be finally rousing itself into action, unsatisfied with the multiple-page explanations of Obamatron & Folks, Inc. of why it does not need to comply with federal law for warring against Libyan dictator, Muammar Qaddafi.  It is reported that the President overruled two of his senior White House lawyers to authorize US participation in the Libyan campaign without complying with the strictures of the War Powers Act.  Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair, John Kerry, responded to a request from Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) for a hearing on the question of the applicability of the War Powers Act to the Libyan conflict.  Senators are not buying the argument that because US military personnel are not pulling the triggers, the constitutional requirement of congressional authorization for continued hostilities does not apply.  There is an effort underway in the House to defund the Libyan intervention.  The Senate has yet to come up with war authorization language that could be voted up or down.

Update:{16.6.11}Once again in Washington up is down, black is white and doublethink reins supreme. In communications responding to mounting congressional criticism of the Libyan intervention, Obamatron & Folks, Inc. absurdly claims it is not engaged in hostilities in Libya, so the War Powers Act does not apply. In doublethink terms that means aerial refueling of allied warplanes, providing airborne command, control, and reconnaissance for close air support of rebel troops, and occasionally launching a drone missile are not "hostilities". The argument is so absurd it would be funny if people were not dying as a result of these non-hostile acts. The Libyan military intervention has already cost $716 million, and by September 1st will have cost $1.1 billion at this rate. Please, Mr. Obamatron, don't treat us all like congressmen! A bipartisan group of ten legislators have filed suit against the administration for overstepping its constitutional war making powers.

{15.6.11} An explanation so embarrassingly obvious, even the corporate media must admit that oil plays a central role in the reasons for the Nobel peace laureate's splendid little war against Muammar Qaddafi. When the rebel council came to Washington four weeks ago to speak to the US-Libya Business Council to discuss funding and recognition, one of the businesses represented at the meeting was ConocoPhilips, among other oil companies, according to a lobbyist that represents the Benghazi rebels. At another meeting, rebel chief economic policymaker, Ali Tarhouni, assured Washington that existing oil contracts would be honored.

After the bombing of Libya by Ronald 'Raygun' in retaliation for the Lockerbie attack, the American oil patch made overtures to Qaddafi to allow their return to the Libyan oil fields they spent millions developing. Qaddafi cut a deal with the Charlatan in 2004, hoping the return of occidental oil companies would boost his nation's declining oil production. But Qaddafi, an Arab nationalist in the Nasser mold, drove tough deals to the point some corporations were thinking it was no longer profitable to operate in Libya. In 2007 the US State Department noted an increase in "resource nationalism" on the part of Qaddafi. Nevertheless, Libya has the largest African reserves, some 43.6 billion barrels, and the best drilling prospects. Libyan crude is sweet and light, a veritable Pinot Noir of oil that can sell at a premium. By 2008, US joint ventures accounted for 510,000 barrels of the daily Libyan production of 1.7 million barrels according to Wikileaks cables. Now those same companies are sitting on the sidelines waiting for the outcome of the Libyan intervention. Need it be mentioned once more that the entire world is facing rapidly diminishing supplies of crude oil while consumption increases?

funeral outside Brega, credit: NYT

The obvious solution to the intractability of Col. Qaddafi's nationalism is to remove its source. But regime change has had a bad name since 2003. US legionaries are still dying for it eight years later in Iraq. Fortunately for the Nobel peace laureate living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the UN provided a convenient humanitarian pretext for regime change in Libya*. Leaked diplomatic cables thoughtfully provided the public by Julian Assange and his associates repeatedly show the US government working to promote the interests of Western corporations in the developing world and occupied countries. Libya is yet another example of "the Empire" putting profit ahead of people. All this is not to say that House Speaker Boehner calling the President on the Libyan intervention is a genuine desire to end the killing by both sides in Libya. No, Boehner is acting out of cynical partisan advantage as his party gears up to challenge the 'Killer of bin Laden' for his second term. But at least somebody in power is asking the right question: is the use of US Armed Forces to kill Qaddafi without congressional authorization legal under our constitutional system? The answer is, no.

*Germany joined Russia to abstain from the vote on the UN resolution establishing a no-fly zone to prevent a putative humanitarian disaster in Libya. But in a move that may be realpolitik in actionGermany recently gave diplomatic recognition to the rebel National Transitional Council. The Wall Street dominated IMF is imposing austerity measures on Greece in return for loans to allow it to meet its financial obligations. Deutsche Bank is heavily invested in Greek bonds. If Greece repudiated its EU membership and repaid in New Drachmas, defaulted on its bonds, or was allowed to restructure its debt, the German state bank would loose billions. Scratch a little harder, Madame Chancelor! Meanwhile, the NATO air attack is having limited success in dislodging the tyrant. The Colonel appeared on television last week playing chess with the World Federation president (using a Sicilian defense). After twelve weeks of bombing, the lights are still on and the air conditioning is working.