When I look at the agita over Obama’s War Powers Act letter, I see a lot of misdirected anger. I agree that the war in Libya is sheer folly, that Obama has offered incomplete and illogical explanations, but what about Congress? I know that we’ve all given up on them ever doing anything, but it’s still worth nothing that it is their job to limit the power of the executive. Their power to limit the prosecution of war (or “hostilities” or “a tea party with cluster munitions”) is essentially limitless.
Here’s what Charlie Stevenson, author of the book Congress at War has to say about Libya (via):
As President Obama said in reporting, as required by the law, the deployment of US forces against Libya, it’s time for the Congress to express its will. Regrettably, Congresses of both parties have regularly evaded their responsibilities over the decades by failing to pass legislation, either to authorize or limit or halt the ongoing military operations. Lawmakers have the power of the purse. They also can impose goals and conditions for the operation — as they have done in past conflicts. […]
It doesn’t matter what the lawyers say about this. What matters is what the lawmakers do. And if that means finding majorities for something less than the most extreme positions, tough; that’s the legislative process.
Congress has an 18% approval rating for good reason: they shirk their duty, regularly. Even if you believe that Obama is as bad as or worse than Bush, it isn’t doing Democrats or Progressives any good to focus all their hate on him, because the next Republican president will also try to get away with pushing the boundaries of their war powers, and hating him or her will do absolutely no good. Having a Congress that will do something to limit executive power, on the other hand, can do all of us some good.
Also, too: Stevenson’s advocacy of a war tax is spot-on.