I detest it when Presidents and their administration play self-evident language games to assert intellectually dishonest positions, whether it is Bill Clinton’s minions claiming blow-jobs aren’t “sex with that woman,” or Dick Cheney arguing that torturing prisoners by water-boarding technically isn’t torture. Such deceit and mendacity by the representative of the Chief Executive or the President himself vastly increases public cynicism about our government and diminishes our democracy’s most precious and endangered asset, trust.
The Obama administration, despite its leader’s stirring words in the 2008 campaign, has already shown itself capable of outrageous misrepresentations, as when it reported “jobs saved” by the stimulus package using fictional Congressional districts and counting single jobs as multiple jobs “saved.” So we shouldn’t be surprise, only nauseated, when it tells Congress, as it did this week, that U.S. participation in the Libyan uprising doesn’t fall under War Powers Resolution.
The Resolution requires presidents to get approval from Congress for armed interventions within 60 days of their initiation and to begin ending hostilities within thirty days from the deadline without such approval. Obama needed to obtain congressional approval by May 19 to keep U.S. forces in the Libyan campaign, but didn’t; now the thirty days is up.
Confronted by Congress, the Administration argued this week that it didn’t require approval under the War Powers Act because the operations in Libya “are distinct from the kind of ‘hostilities’ contemplated… U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors.”
But as the Washington Post correctly pointed out in an editorial, the Act doesn’t define “hostilities,” so such Clintonian word-parsing is particularly disingenuous. Our planes and weapons are bombing the headquarters and abodes of the leader of Libya; the U.S. Air Force is killing Libyans. That sure sounds hostile to me. I bet the Libyans think that it is hostile:
1. Unfriendly; antagonistic.
2. Of or belonging to a military enemy.
The Post is fair and direct:
“We believe that an honest appraisal of the activities that the United States continues to engage in would put the administration squarely within the purview of the War Powers Resolution. By the administration’s own account, these include airstrikes aimed at “suppress[ing] enemy air defense,” “occasional strikes by unmanned Predator” drones, and intelligence and logistical support that aid other NATO members in carrying out their strikes.”
Obama doesn’t even have the dodge available to him that Bush did in the torture debate, claiming then and now that he approved waterboarding based on the opinion of the Justice Department. The New York Time’s Charlie Savage has confirmed that the President overruled the opinion of both the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel and the Defense Department general counsel regarding what constitutes “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution, preferring instead the contrary (that is to say, dishonest) conclusion reached by the White House Counsel’s office and the State Department.
As Savage reports, presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and to act against its advice, but it happens rarely, perhaps because when it happens, we end up with positions like this one, arguing that the United States military bombing another sovereign nation doesn’t qualify as hostilities.
Philosophically, I think the War Powers Resolution is an unwise Congressional infringement on the President’s powers as Commander-in-Chief, but the law is the law. I am also in favor of the U.S. action with NATO in Libya, if not Obama’s halting, half-hearted, equivocal prosecution of it. (Why Libya and not Syria? Alas, an ethics site cannot discuss such mysteries….) Nevertheless, the Administration’s argument that the Resolution doesn’t apply isn’t even legalistic nonsense—it’s just dishonest nonsense of the kind that the President of the United Sates should not indulge in, to Congress, to the media, to the public, to anyone.
7 thoughts on “White House Mendacity on Libya”
I beat you to this one. Different perspective; same conclusion.
This is just the latest example of what our Liar-in-Chief does so well. Most sentient Americans are well past any respect for this one who is probably the most, if not one of the most, duplicitous occupants of the office of President of the United States. I will not deign to address this one as President, just because he occupies the office with this title. I don’t know who still believes that he gives a sh… what Americans think anymore.
Except that this isn’t effective lying, Peter, it’s arrogant, inept lying, like Nixon You have me thinking, though: who WAS the most dishonest president? Lots of contenders.
If it comes down to the worst in all categories, my pick is still LBJ. He was a clever liar and manipulator… but he turned out to be too clever for his own good. Ditto with Nixon. Carter tried to be the same, but his downfall came through sheer ineptitude. It’s still too early to see how Obama will rate alongside them. Right now- as with those other Gentlemen- the main focus has to be in surviving his administration. Then we can argue (after about a quarter century) over who was the worst.
In the interest of even-handedness and bending over backwards I decided to criticize Obama’s dishonest position on Libya and the War Powers Act, pointing out that he was doing his part to erode trust in the Presidency. I was inspired by your blog and by Rick’s. But I couldn’t find any evidence of anything like crude dishonesty, nothing to match “I did not have sex with that woman.
Obama reported to Congress in accordance with the Act (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/15/letter-president-war-powers-resolution), explaining what the U.S. was doing and what the justification was. A supplementary White House report never said that we weren’t involved in hostilities; of course we are. The report argued that they weren’t the kind of hostilities “contemplated” by the Act. I don’t have a clue what was contemplated, but Obama is—unwisely, in my opinion—continuing the argument made by every President since Nixon that the Act should not interfere with the President’s ability to carry out foreign policy and act as commander in Chief.
So I have to give Obama a poor mark for policy, a worse mark for politics, but clear him of “deceit and mendacity.”
I agree with that stance, Bob. You are fair, as always.
The problem with the hostilities argument is that since the Resolution doesn’t define “hostilities,” saying that they refer to a different kind of hostilities is disingenuous on its face. It sure sounds like the ‘waterboarding isn’t torture argument” to me.