Sen Lugar Seeks Hearings On US Action In Libya

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110323-715147.html

Agree with him or not, Lugar is always worth listening to.

Did anybody see anything about JK's tripi abroad? I assume he is back, right?

the impression - not corrected anywhere that there were no hearings. The fact is that there was the hearing last week with Deputy Secretary of State Burns and while it was about the Arab uprising, the majority of the questions were on Libya. That hearing, which was on the second to the last day that Congress was last in session was before President Obama/SoS Clinton announced that we would be part of the no fly zone. The next day, the President met with the Congressional leaders including Lugar. Since then, Congress has been out of session. That hearing was not even covered by CSPAN, though you would have thought it would have been given that the countries was on the brink of going to war.

It is true that there were more hearings before Iraq - but Biden, not Lugar called them - and there was over 9 months from when the public heard of the possibility of attacking Iraq and when Bush invaded. To Lugar's credit, there were many hearings on Iraq after he took over in 2003.

I think that Obama did make a huge mistake in not addressing the country at the point that he decided that the Us would be part of the no fly zone. I know he spoke about it, but what was needed was something more clearly laying out the case.

Like you, I suspect that Kerry has returned to the US, but have seen nothing that indicates that he is or isn't.

Libya came up.

Lugar is 100% right. It's pathetic that the only time Congress had a chance publicly (sorry but these secret meetings between the White House and key Congressional leadership doesn't cut it) to question the Administration about this was during a hearing where Egypt, Lebanon, Bahrain, and so on were on the agenda as well. Those are important, of course, but when the Administration was planning a war in Libya, they strike me as lower priority.

I continue to be dismayed by this action. I'll give Kerry one thing -- he actually has a vision and strategy for the Middle East and spoke about it in a that big speech last week. The President OTOH seems to be flailing, saying we're going to pass it on to the British & French. Well, by all means let's do that, but then why did we get involved in the first place? Frankly, I've had to take a break I am so MAD about this. It's like nothing was learned from Iraq. Again, WHO has the power to declare war???? CONGRESS. Apparently Democrats have just as much contempt for the Constitution in this regard as Republicans.

Edit: Also, The British parliament did vote on Libya and overwhelmingly supported this war. So why can't the U.S. Congress do the same. Kerry claimed time was a factor. Well, we're in there now, have a debate and vote in Congress starting now. Add SOME legitimacy to this foolish action. Of course, if Congress votes and approves this action, I will then just disagree with them. But at least the Constitution will have been followed, however shoddily.

What I was meaning with the hearings was that it was not clear the administration had a clear policy on Libya until the day after the hearing Kerry held. In addition, it really was not just Libya that needed a US policy and Congressional oversight of the policy. I think that was why the hearing was on the entire intertwined area.

The problem was not the scope of the hearing - and certainly not the questions asked - they were mostly very good. The problem was that Burns did not seem to have the answers. The one question I have is whether the administration HAD a plan at that point - or whether the public uncertainty was what was really happening. If the former was true, the Obama administration was not forthcoming in their responses to the committee. If the latter was true, NO hearing at that point - a day or two before the US joined the effort - would have elicited policy, vision or goals. Neither reflects well on the President or the State Department.

The British Parliament could and did vote on the action, but their government called for it three weeks before it happened - when Gates/Clinton/Obama were leaning to "no". They had time, in parallel with getting the UN resolution, to do this. If Obama would have had Kerry's position three weeks ago, he definitely should have gone for a vote. However, it is pretty clear he didn't - and really did stand with Gates et al. By the time Obama was for participating, there really was no time to get a vote.

I do think that it might be a good idea to get a vote after the fact, but that might depend on whether the US is really going to be out of it in a week or so - which I doubt. As there are many precedents for NOT getting authorization, I think the need to get it is more to spread the responsibility and because it is a political mistake not to do so.

I think the Constitution is intentionally more ambiguous than just giving Congress the responsibility to take the country to war. It splits the war powers between the branches. While it is true that the Congress is the only branch that can declare a war, the Constitution gives the President the position of Commander in Chief, with the power to commit forces. The War Powers Act tried to better define that - and it is not only vague, but many question its ability to really limit the President. By informing the Congress with in 48 hours, Obama met some people's idea of what the War Powers Act requires. Now, Congress does have a role and they can end it.

Back in early 2009, Kerry had a hearing on the war powers> I don't think anything came of that effort to clarify things. http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=75a6aeb4-cc5f-6fb4-432e-0a721eff0bfc You wrote an excellent summary of the positions taken by the various Senators there. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=157074&mesg_id=157098

What is interesting is that, if I interpret it correctly, Obama DID inform the leaders - much as Kerry and Lugar were proposing.

Thing is, I guess I only think there should be a time constraint when the U.S. is attacked or there is a threat, and for national security reasons, it must act. Then I think having at least the Congressional leadership over to the WH makes sense. But in the case of Libya, the timing issue just had to do with Quaddafi staying in power. It had NOTHING to do with U.S. national security and amounts to yet another U.S. adventure in the Middle East. For us to get involved in that, I want to see a full debate on the floor of the House and Senate. I want to see all the loudmouths yelling about it on cable and for the debate to be on the front page of the newspaper. Bush, for political reasons, decided he wanted this public debate because he could win it based on the fear the American people felt. That is cynical but at least there was a debate. With Libya, the people were not asked or invited to the conversation at all. That is just fundamentally wrong.

What all of this has solidified for me is how much a non-interventionist I am. Knowing what we know now, I still would be opposed in getting involved in Rwanda. That is the worst humanitarian crime ever committed in my lifetime, but apart from a ground campaign, nothing could have been done to stop it. Supposedly Bill Clinton pushed hard for this Libya thing in part due to his guilt over Rwanda. Well, he should let go of that guilt because being a hero is easy. It's having discipline to not bomb which I admire -- like Eisenhower.

When I voted for John Kerry in 2004, I thought I was voting for a realist. This Libyan debacle has shaken that support for him. I TOTALLY disagree and can't figure out how someone opposed to the Vietnam War having been there would think this is a good idea. Yeah, Kerry became more interventionist in the '90s but I thought Iraq taught him to go with his first younger instinct. In the end, if the U.N. flag is truly involved he is all for unnecessary wars. That is anathema to what he said in the '04 campaign: "We don't go to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to". We sure as hell didn't have to go into Libya.


Edit: Andrew Bacevich has weighed in:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/03/22/what-is-the-us-plan-for-libya/two-ways-to-remove-qaddafi

The pragmatic imperative is to end this needless war promptly and with as little embarrassment as possible.

In that regard, the center of gravity is Qaddafi himself. Remove him from the scene ...

Read the rest at the link.

If you believe that the motivation - as Kerry and others have said - there was a timeliness needed. Even if Congress was kept in session this week, it is likely that it would have been at least a week more - and there would have been a massacre.

I agree that we did not have to go into either Rwanda or into Libya. The closest thing to an argument for Libya depends on assuming many things that may be completely wrong and which I am cynical about - and that is that it with Tunisia and Egypt could lead to better governance in the Middle East. This takes a lot of faith when we have no idea what any of these governments will be. But with every massacre, there always is a question of why was this not stopped. I'm not sure I like the answer of - because it was not in our interest to stop it.

I find on this that I can argue either side - and can't 100% believe either.

I completely missed this, but looked in Thomas after Jay Carney mentioned that the Senate did pass a resolution that called for essentially what they did.

Here is the information.




Here is an article that gives Carney's answer disputing that they did not consult Congress.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/03/24/134830879/obama-aide-rejects-boehner-charge-on-lack-of-libya-consult

some of the positions he has taken recently. IMO, this is a political ploy. The Republicans are using this to gain political ground against the President. I have never seen so many of them outraged at a humanitarian mission. The public is mostly still with the President on Libya, but the talking heads are doing all they can to sway public opinion against the action.
I have said it before, but I will say it again because others here insist on pushing their point of view. This is not a declaration of war, it is not another Iraq and I don't see why the president needs to ask permission to assist our allies on a humanitarian mission that you would think people would think was the right thing to do.
I still believe all is going to turn out well, and everyone wringing their hands, declaring this a war and attacking the President over this are going to be proven wrong.

I watched his comments on the SFRC and he was extremely clear. He was against doing this. He thought itwould cost more at a point where we really are financially in bad shape. He also was concerned with invading a third Muslim country. I don't doubt his genuine concern.

I know that he knows that most actions of this type haven't gotten Congress' authority, but I think his call to get it here is just as sincere as the calls in summer 2002 that Bush could not invade Iraq based on the terrorism authority given in November 2001.

Like you, I do not think this will be like Iraq, but the things being done are clearly acts of war. I wish they would use the word - even if they modify it as having a limited purpose. (Not to mention, there is a LARGE chance the Republicans would be even more critical if this ends up with a long term NFZ (even if we are not involved at all) with Gadaffi remaining in power. )

while. And, he is expected to be hammered from both Dems and Republicans. I actually like Senator Lugar and I take his concerns seriously, but the hearing that was held was pretty detailed already.

Maybe because the POTUS thrust this on us with little to no warning.

As to Lugar, sure as a politician he is politicking. But unlike some other positions he has taken lately, I think he is sincere here, and frankly, I am glad he is pushing for hearings and for Congress to get involved.

As to being "wrong", for me this is not hand wringing; it's on the principle that it would take a HELL of a lot to persuade me that our armed forces should get itself involved in yet another country, seeing we're still stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we come out of it unscathed, that doesn't make me "wrong" for how I feel. It doesn't bring back the money wasted on this intervention or the time the POTUS and his advisors are taking on it instead of more important things like the economy. And if you were living in Libya and bombs were falling, I don't think you would be saying it wasn't a war. Even if it is for "good", it's still violence instead of diplomacy.

Any other time, it would be considered as such.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-24/kerry-to-hold-u-s-senate-hearings-on-libyan-mission-aide-says.html

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry will hold hearings “in the near future” on the military intervention in Libya by the U.S. and allies, a committee aide said.

Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, “has been been traveling in the region” during this week’s congressional recess “to get information firsthand from our allies,” spokesman Frederick Jones said in a statement.

“Senator Kerry understands the importance and complexity of our role in protecting the people of Libya and the committee will hold public hearings in the near future,” Jones said.

"Jones said the Libyan situation “was explored in depth” during a March 17 committee hearing when Under Secretary of State William Burns testified about citizen uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa."

Soon I hope.

so I figured Kerry would not be opposed to Lugar's suggestions.

BTW, I think Lugar is toast in Indiana no matter what he does. Unless politics within the GOP change, he will not win the primary in Indiana.

one of the few honest and serious politicians left in Congress.

Lugar's opponent:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/02/26/134042722/once-nixons-favorite-mayor-dick-lugar-is-now-obamas-favorite-republican

I think I read it somewhere that it doesn't look good for him, but who knows, maybe things will change between now and Nov. '12. Still, if he loses in a primary, there is a chance for a pick up in IN where there is zero chance if Lugar is on the ballot. Also, be prepared for Lugar to move to the Right. Hopefully, he won't start talking like a crazy person, but with today's GOP who knows.

If Indiana is much like the Indiana that I grew up in, I suspect that he will pull it out. Every tea party candidate that I have seen primary someone has done it in a very rude ugly way. That really won't play in Indiana, which is a pretty conservative state. Lugar is well respected and he actually fits the state very well.

On the tea party issues that resonate, the economic ones, Lugar is very very conservative.

However, I have not lived there since 1972, though, I visit family each year.

What a ridiculous, shallow, simplistic take on a serious discussion between mutually respectful GROWN-UP public servants.

That makes no sense whatsoever, but it is so fun to treat serious issues like a football game.

The issues posed by Lugar are serious and worth consideration. The person writing this piece disregards not only Kerry, but Lugar here.

to Lugar's letter. It does seem that what set him off was reading in the paper that A Kerry spokesman said there would not be any hearings on Libya. Of course, he could have picked up the phone, but I think he wanted to make it official that this should happen.

and I think they understand and respect each other. I doubt Lugar would just take the word of a spokesperson of Senator Kerry's that their would be no hearings. Why not pick up the phone and talk to Senator Kerry directly to request and confirm whether there would be hearings or not? There was really no need to be so formal and write a letter.

almost like he.she really answered that they knew of none scheduled. That is kind of silly because if it wasn't on the schedule there is nothing else a Kerry aide could say. I suspect that Lugar wanted his call to be public to give more attention to the fact that he is not happy Obama did not ask for the consent of Congress.

The fact is that there was a top secret closed hearing on Libya on March 16, the day before the hearing on Arab uprisings - as well as a top secret hearing on Afghanistan.

There is no new hearing on Libya yet - but Lugar is intentionally spreading a Republican message implying there were no hearings - this makes me think that his letter was a GOP PR move.

is being lost.

more of what the President intended to do.

This is not clear and in the past, there have been strong, but ignored, Lugar comments on the administration not providing witnesses when he thought they should have - notably in Kerry's sequence of 4 hearings on what to do on Afghanistan. It is clear from his comments that they refused to do so until the policy was decided - resulting in a hearing using non-administration experts. (There was one other time, also on Afghanistan where the administration witness would not appear - as scheduled - with (I think) Ryan Corker, who was their independent witness.)

The fact is the Obama administration has not been as open as many would want - and on foreign policy, they have gotten polite push back from Lugar and to a lesser degree, John Kerry - sometimes in tandem. This has made oversight tougher than it should be.

I still suspect that Lugar was trying to make a broader point when he blindsided JK on this. Seriously, why the hell did he put that comment on the aide's nonresponse? It added nothing to the strong, well reasoned and correct demand that hearings be held.

how skeptical Lugar was, and at the point of the hearing, it didn't seem like anything was going to happen. The truth is Congress was not consulted, and it's frankly ridiculous that it is Lugar complaining, not Kerry. After everything John Kerry has said in the past on how Congress should be consulted, he has been acting more like a member of the Administration than a member of Congress.

I hope that it all works out and Kaddafi leaves, but that doesn't change the fact that the way this was done was really bad. Neither Congress nor the public was asked, and it continues the dangerous precedent of the President starting wars or excuse me "time-limited, scope-limited military action" whenever he or she wants without any input from the other branches of government or the American people.

AND gave a reason that he thought none would be planned because of a noncommittal staff comment to the media. Kerry did list 3 comparable examples where there was no vote - and he said that he has always wanted the votes. (The fact is that Lugar did not push for votes in all actions in the past - so he is not completely consistent either.)

I agree with you that Kerry was one of the people demanding that past administrations, Democratic or Republican, consult Congress - and here he is defending the administration. Obama DID really inform Congress, but it may depend on what consult Congress means. He did have meetings and there was a hearing (closed) and this one where various Senators did give advice and opinions. That is consulting, but there was no vote. So, it was not with "no" input from Congress. It is also not clear that Kerry had any leverage to push for a vote and, as he was one of the earliest calling for pretty much what they are doing, it might be that he thought a futile argument over getting a vote that Obama did not think he would need would be counterproductive.

I think the problem was that Obama was not convinced until the Arab league asked and it was clear the UN action was approved and Gaddafi was poised tro strike within a day - and Congress was out of session.

The Honorable James B. Steinberg
Deputy Secretary of State
Department of State
Washington, DC

Wonder if he'll have more to say...

that Clinton and Gates (I think, I wasn't paying 100% attention) will have closed hearings on the Hill today and open ones tomorrow. There were no details mentioned, but I assumed that the SFRC will be involved. Maybe the armed services instead...

First, read this excellent piece by Michael Kinsley on the war powers of the President:

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=726B47E1-38D5-4BCA-9CF8-A8BA925920FC

Secondly, I did take the time to listen to the President's speech on Libya last night.

The Good:

1. I was happy to hear him say that this mission would be limited to the humanitarian side and NOT be about regime change. He was quite explicit in saying this wasn't about removing Quaddafi citing Iraq as why this would be a bad idea.

2. I did hear true passion in his voice that he did this to save lives. Although I disagree with his decision, it seems he thought this through and did not want what he felt would be a massacre to happen. I didn't sense political expediency here.

The Bad:

1. I felt he was quite condescending to those of us who disagreed with his decision, that we set it up as a "false choice". That is a load of crap and I guess maybe he figured he was talking to Right and Left haters, not longtime supporters of his like me. I just question some of his basic premises, like the fact that the U.S. is still in a position to right the world's wrongs. Despite some bad faith from Republicans, this nation truly is in a bad fiscal situation. Since nobody is serious in fixing our short and long term fiscal situation, my opinion is we can't afford any new wars. PERIOD. It better be an absolute threat on this country, which clearly, this was not. Secondly, I am not entirely convinced that this massacre was truly going to happen. Maybe it would have, but I was not 100% on it. Finally, he didn't even mention Bahrain, Yemen or Syria which shows he was spinning the situation.

2. He seemed vague as to when the Libya intervention would be over and how much the U.S. taxpayer (or shall I say the Chinese bond holders) is stuck with paying. He was clear about it not being regime change but beyond that it was not that specific.

And finally, I'm just going to nestle this into the thread, but did you all read the horrific story of the "Kill Team" in Rolling Stone? I read the entire piece, looked at all the photos, and watched the two videos. I suggest everyone else here do the same. This tells me that Afghanistan is indeed Vietnam, and we need to get out ASAP. If I were an Afghan reading that article, I would want Americans OUT NOW. We do no service to our national security by being there. Basically, we unleashed a bunch of serial killer psychopaths onto the people of Afghanistan, did flipping nothing about it when all the warning signs were there, and then the Pentagon was running around the country trying to cover it up by retrieving hard drives with the photos on it. We are no longer a credible force in Afghanistan. It's a pity, barely anyone is talking about this.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327