iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Libya Resolution Agreed To By Senate Democrats, Republicans

Libya Senate Resolution

DONNA CASSATA   05/23/11 08:09 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — Top Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed Monday on a resolution backing limited U.S. involvement in the NATO-led military campaign against Libya, days after the expiration of the legal deadline for President Barack Obama to seek full-blown congressional authorization.

Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., and Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, introduced the non-binding resolution along with five other Republicans and Democrats.

The measure supports the limited use of military force and concurs with Obama that the stated goal of U.S. policy "is to achieve the departure from power of Moammar Gadhafi and his family, including through the use of non-military means, so that a peaceful transition can begin to an inclusive government that ensures freedom, opportunity and justice for the people of Libya."

The resolution calls on Obama to submit to Congress a description of U.S. policy objectives in Libya – during and after Gadhafi's tenure – and to consult with Congress regarding U.S. operations in Libya.

Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 a president can only send troops into combat for 60 days without congressional approval. That deadline passed on Friday, with little pressure from Congress. The frustration and anger among many lawmakers shortly after the U.S. launched air strikes in support of a "no-fly zone" in March have largely dissipated as the American military role has diminished.

On Monday, France and Britain pledged to deploy attack helicopters to help the rebels amid their standoff with Gadhafi's forces.

In a letter to congressional leaders on Friday, Obama said he would welcome a resolution.

"While we are no longer in the lead, U.S. support for the NATO-based coalition remains crucial to assuring the success of international efforts to protect civilians from the actions of the Gadhafi regime," Obama wrote. "Congressional action in support of the mission would underline the U.S. commitment to this remarkable international effort. Such a resolution is also important in the context of our constitutional framework, as it would demonstrate a unity of purpose among the political branches on this important national security matter."

McCain, in a statement, said he supports Obama's decision to commit U.S. forces and he hopes the resolution attracts widespread bipartisan backing. Kerry said the country is "on the strongest footing when the president and Congress speak with one voice on foreign policy matters."

Also backing the resolution were Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich.; Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.; Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.; Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

It was unclear when the Senate would vote on the resolution.

Separately, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar of Indiana, sent a letter to Obama complaining about the "administration's failure to recognize the role of the Congress in matters relating to U.S. involvement in Libya's civil war."

Lugar argued that the administration's inability to engage with Congress "has left the American people without a clear understanding of the U.S. interests at stake in Libya and how they relate to the other important challenges we currently face as a country. Nor do the American people understand what costs they will be asked to bear in connection with our Libya operations, and what other priorities will have to be sacrificed to support these operations."

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, is pushing for a vote to pull U.S. forces out of the Libya operation.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — Top Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed Monday on a resolution backing limited U.S. involvement in the NATO-led military campaign against Libya, days after the expiration of the...
WASHINGTON — Top Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed Monday on a resolution backing limited U.S. involvement in the NATO-led military campaign against Libya, days after the expiration of the...
Filed by Alexander Belenky  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 425
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FACTISFACT
A war veteran. Finally retired
06:03 PM on 06/19/2011
A right decision at the right time keeping n line with the American values of tolerance and to stand by the side of the oppressed. congrats.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
truly moderate
Paleo-conservative and Anti-tea party
12:43 AM on 05/25/2011
All you anti war liberals can bite me! You FAIL to realize that sometimes conflict is necessary for peace to actually exist. You also fail to realize American (also applies to some of our allies) exceptionalism in that we have the power to do the right thing to to stop this dictator from killing his own people and oppressing them. The US should do the right thing and is doing the right thing supporting both the UN resolution (in other words the INTERNATIONAL community agreed this regime was out of control) and the NATO mission.

Kudos to president Obama. Would you rather have a weak US president that turned a blind eye and let our allies go this alone, making the US look tolerant of human rights violations?

Again liberals, where are your cohonas? Not everything can be healed by hugging a tree. I wish it were that easy honestly.

Maybe I'm letting my previous tenature as a soldier influence me, but I do see the bigger picture and the meaning of international security. I wish some of you would just take a look at the big picture and put asside your predisposed thoughts of oil and see this conflict for what it really is. A true chance for freedom and better security and stability. It will take time but in years to come, the middle east will benefit from this.

I fully support president Obama, John Mccain, and John Kerry on this one!!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vlad Roudenko
02:05 PM on 05/25/2011
Conflict is necessary for peace to actually exist? In what world is that a condition for peace? Can you explain this concept of american exceptionalism as you see it? What you state is somewhat in conflict with the concept as it is stated elsewhere. The fact that America has a very powerful military does not make it exceptional. This does not give America the right to invade sovereign nations and try to depose its leaders. Gaddafi isn't killing his own people. Perhaps you don't see news reports coming from Libya because the corporate media blocks out all of this content in the US so as not to let the people see what is being done in their name, mainly genocide and indiscriminate bombing of innocent civilians. Just as I stated in my previous post, America and its NATO cronies have already overstepped the UN resolution by bombing everything in sight. They also chose to ignore UN resolution 36/103 that prohibits any intervention into internal conflicts by other states.

I would prefer to have a US president who understands and respects international laws and our obligations in conventions that we have signed. I wouldn't even speak of human rights violations. Exterminating American Indians for centuries to the brink of extinction has taken away America's right to speak of such things and judge others.

Perhaps you are looking at this from a really narrow perspective of a former soldier of US. Expand your view a little.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
truly moderate
Paleo-conservative and Anti-tea party
12:34 AM on 05/25/2011
Nato is enforcing a UN resolution. The US is acting with its GLOBAL partners in the best interest of international security. I'm getting sick of liberals bashing Obama for supporting NATO in getting rid of the gaddafi regime. Maybe you all need a good history lesson on exactly what type of person this man is....we are talking about someone worse than Fidel Castro here!!!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vlad Roudenko
01:52 PM on 05/25/2011
Truly moderate, have you actually read the UN resolution and what it authorized ,mistaken as it is? What it authorizes is a no fly zone. What this means is that an air force can't function. This does not authorize strikes on virtually everything on the ground or on water. The US and NATO war criminals have struck ministry buildings, police stations, ports, ships (didnt know those could fly) residences of a sovereign head of state. They have also struck mosques. NATO isn't enforcing a UN resolution. It is overstepping its bounds. It now states that its goal is to overthrow Gaddafi. They are also violating UN resolution 36/103. They are not acting in best interests of international community. France, UK, and are not "global" partners. They are old world imperialists who are hungry for oil.

Perhaps you should refresh on the history lesson before you talk about Gaddafi and Castro. These two men have given their countries free health care, education, housing and so on. They stopped the theft of their countries wealth by the old imperialists. Is that such a bad thing to keep the wealth of your country for your countrymen? Did you choose your screen name as a joke? Your points of view are very singular, generally in support of destroying peaceful countries and starting global conflicts without any justifications.
09:00 PM on 05/24/2011
I really don't see how Obama is any different than Bush in getting the US involved in a foreign war. Iraq was a planned incursion while Libya can more be thought of as a war of opportunity.
Mr. Obama should mail back his Nobel Peace Prize as soon as possible.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
truly moderate
Paleo-conservative and Anti-tea party
12:37 AM on 05/25/2011
Or Maybe president Obama ACTUALLY did everything by the book with full UN and NATO support and this is truly an international mission. While there are some similarities to Iraq (in that both Bush and Obama are trying to rid a ruthless dictator), Obama did things the right way and in a way in that was in both the US and our international allies best interest.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vlad Roudenko
01:41 PM on 05/25/2011
I can tell point out a few differences to you between Obama and Bush. Bush towards the end of his presidency wasn't leading the wars very actively. Despite promises of ending those wars, Obama injected even more soldiers into those conflicts. He is considerably more aggressive than Bush in that respect. Obama should definitely send that Peace Prize medal and the 1.4 mil that he received. What he has done so far merits international condemnation rather than a Nobel Peace Prize.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eric Sandoval
Patriotism IS the last bastion of the scoundrel
01:16 PM on 05/24/2011
Gaddafi never did anything wrong. We're all just trying to stop him from torpedoing our paper currencies with his gold dinar an his oil nationalization and trading oil in gold dinars. But we are only postponing the inevitable abandonment of the dollar... But it's not just GOING to happen, it's HAPPENING. Wake and grow up!!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vlad Roudenko
01:38 PM on 05/25/2011
It's true. He has done nothing wrong. In fact, I think that the ones who are currently bombing Libya don't want his style of government to spread. Imagine not having career politicians who siphon off billions of dollars into various offshore accounts or spend it on idiotic pet projects who no one really supports. The fact that Libya has a lot of oil certainly doesn't help the situation. Gaddafi has protected his country for a long time, preventing theft of national wealth by the large oil companies of the west. It's no wonder how convenient it was to find out that there were actually rebels present in the country, waving old monarchic flag, fighting for democracy. Just another excuse to bomb one of the few democracies in the region. It's not American style democracy; were are coming over to bomb you until you agree with us!
12:11 PM on 05/24/2011
And this is why our country is in the pits. We have been involved in the current Libyan issue since March and Congress has just now decided if we can actually go ahead with what we have already been doing for 2 1/2 months.
10:14 AM on 05/24/2011
I see a picture of chuckleheads Kerry and McCain this early and it makes me want to start planning a little day drinking. Yeah, right, we're just "helping" NATO. Who is supplying the bulk of the money and materiel? Wanna guess? Didn't we learn our lesson about tinpot dictators in the Mideast in the last go around? Didn't think so. Libya is no threat to the US and has no weapons of mass destruction. Most of the weapons they have at all are over 20 years old. The very idea that Moe has lasted this long leads me to believe that there is little resolve to end this.
Political Piggy
Free comments and ideas are worth every penny paid
11:24 AM on 05/24/2011
This was also true of Iraq when the US decided to invade. The rationale was "war of terror". Few protested. Those who did were accused of being un-American or even anti-American. Libya is a well know sponsor of terrorists, including those who have blown civilian airplanes out of the sky. Is this only different because the President is a Democrat?
photo
asiclilpup
Tax the rich Feed the Poor.
11:52 AM on 05/24/2011
Sound logic piggy. Fav
photo
rich07
High Hopes Indeed...
01:14 PM on 05/24/2011
Thank you for being open minded and consistent on your view...very respectable to call out the pres for Libya and not try to somehow defend it because he is a dem.
09:58 AM on 05/24/2011
This is why we will never shrink ot kill the Overseas Empire because there has always been and is now a bipartisan agreement for an never ending expansion of the Empire. People should go back and read how prominent democrats waxed enthusiastic about invading Iraq and Afghanistan and now Libya. The only people who appear to be serious about really cutting the pentagon budget are a small number of progressive democrats, Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul and a few tea party radicals.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
1Kcifar
09:46 AM on 05/24/2011
The president's stragety in Libya was and is the correct one..If Bush/Cheney were still in office it would have been war #3......shot first, ask questions later.

President Obama's call was also correct in GETTING BIN LADEN ...

This will be our president in 2012 also...so get used to it Republicans
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
too young but old enough
I already know how this is going to turn out...
02:27 PM on 05/24/2011
Not to nitpick, but aren't we in war #3 in Libya? Just because we say it's under the NATO banner doesn't make us any less 'at war' there.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vlad Roudenko
01:23 PM on 05/25/2011
How is that strategy correct? It's absolutely correct to fight Al Quada in Afghanistan and Iraq but sponsor them in Libya to fight against a government supported by roughly 6 million people? Is it also correct on the part of US and NATO to bomb the civilian population (genocide)? As far as I know that's a war crime. 1Kcifar, your moral compass must be pointing in all directions. I don't know how you can support this lunacy. Perhaps your judgement is getting clouded by the prospects of US stealing all that Libyan oil so that you can drive your car at below 4 dollars per gallon. I doubt the fact that this oil will contain a large % of Libyan blood in it will discourage you or change your mind in advocating on behalf of Obama.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
godsonecooldude
09:18 AM on 05/24/2011
Will i think we should blow this nut ball in a million pieces and get out of there.shoot till he leaves.
photo
Helzapoppin
Don't Piss Down My Back And Tell Me It's Raining.
09:18 AM on 05/24/2011
Obama's failure to seek the proper resolution from Congress is absolutely shameful, despicable, and yes - illegal (not that anyone will ever do anything about that). But it's sadly on par with Congress' continued laziness and craven failure to assert its constitutional role in matters of military actions. Bush and Obama have made anti-Constitutional power grabs, it's true. But Congress has been willingly handing those powers over, and that must stop.

This issue goes far beyond party politics.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Le Facteur 99
Jeremiah was right.
10:18 AM on 05/24/2011
He gave the Sen in writing what he was going to do, and had 60 days for the Sen to take a vote, all according to the War Powers Act. Get educated.
photo
Helzapoppin
Don't Piss Down My Back And Tell Me It's Raining.
01:22 PM on 05/24/2011
Without an authorization in force after the expiration of the deadline, any current continuing action is illegal. YOU get educated.
photo
GEORGE W TUSH
To Republicans, Earth is a MILF.
08:33 AM on 05/24/2011
Bush says Obama needs to define Libya mission: "That way, you can put up a cool banner once it's accomplished."
celticfireusa
I Am A Limousine Liberal
08:26 AM on 05/24/2011
Sen Kerry how much money will this be ? you speak of starveing childeren and homeless and yet you give foreign aid and support a #3 war ? watch what i say but not what i do...
08:46 AM on 05/24/2011
mmm all by himself huh?
Political Piggy
Free comments and ideas are worth every penny paid
11:26 AM on 05/24/2011
Why do you want to see sponsors of terrorists like Libya succeed just because a Democrat is President?
celticfireusa
I Am A Limousine Liberal
04:43 PM on 05/24/2011
What lurks in the shadows ...waiting,,,, to take over ...and its not going to be pro -west or Irsreal
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter007
07:57 AM on 05/24/2011
The Congress passed a resolution that said it is now the policy of this government to over throw a leader of a foreign country.
If its good enough for other countries, why not this country too?
09:44 AM on 05/24/2011
There is a precedent, the Iraq war, regime change.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Foxrocks
Level III Thermographer
06:25 AM on 05/24/2011
"Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., and Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, introduced the non-binding resolution along with five other Republicans and Democrats."

A non-binding resolution? Cowards, stand up and take a real vote on this issue.
photo
Helzapoppin
Don't Piss Down My Back And Tell Me It's Raining.
09:19 AM on 05/24/2011
This may be the only time I ever agree with you on anything.