House Rebukes Obama on Libya, Stops Short of Funding Cutoff

House Rebukes Obama on Libya, Stops Short of Funding Cutoff
FOX News
The House on Friday delivered its strongest rebuke yet to President Obama over his handling of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, refusing to endorse the U.S. operation three months after it began. But the House stopped short of stripping funding for the mission.
In the last of two votes Friday afternoon, the House rejected a Republican-authored bill to strike funding for the Libya operation. The House voted 238-180 against it, with 89 Republicans opposing.
The vote ensured that, at least for the moment, the Obama administration has the money to sustain its involvement in the NATO-led campaign — though the funding bill was unlikely to pass in the Senate anyway. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said afterward that the funding vote sends an important message about the need to continue the mission.
However, the vote came after the House, in a 295-123 decision, rejected a resolution to “authorize” the mission in Libya — even a limited operation with no ground troops. One-hundred-and-fifteen Democrats and only eight Republicans voted for the proposal; in a blow to Obama, 70 Democrats voted against it. Though that resolution is non-binding, it represents the most definitive statement the chamber has made about the conflict.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the administration was “disappointed” by that vote. “We think now is not the time to send the kind of mixed message that it sends,” he said.
Taken together with proposals in the Senate, the House measures represent an accelerating move in Congress toward formally weighing in on Libya after months on the relative sidelines.
Ahead of the votes, lawmakers delivered impassioned arguments on the House floor, with Democrats and Republicans joining together on both sides of the debate.

“We have no business in Libya,” declared Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, reprising an anti-war argument heard often during the height of the Iraq war. “We’re there because we don’t like Muammar Qaddafi. Well, there are a lot of bad guys in the world, and if we start picking them off one at a time, we will be at war with most of the world.”

Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., had offered the funding bill, which would restrict funds for Libya save for search and rescue, intelligence, surveillance and a few other contingencies.

“The president has ignored the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, but he cannot ignore a lack of funding,” Rooney said in a statement.

Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, the president was seemingly required to seek congressional authorization within two months or withdraw troops within three months. That deadline passed, but the Obama administration argued that it never needed authorization because the NATO-led mission in Libya did not constitute hostilities.
That argument angered many lawmakers. A New York Times report that said Obama overruled some of his legal advisers further incensed members of Congress.

“The war in Libya is illegal, unconstitutional and unwarranted. It must end,” Ohio Democrat Rep. Dennis Kucinich, said.

.

Wild Thing’s comment……..
This is kind of hard to understand, I watched the speeches and the Republilcans for the most part were fantastic. But they had this whole thing divided up between being against it and funding it. weird.
Undeniable bipartisan support AGAINST the Libyan fiasco and yet it will continue unchecked.
The defunding bill appears to have been a scam. Allen West voted against it because there were “exceptions” that seem to allow Obama to actually increase our involvement.