...on ABC’s This Week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mentioned (though she wasn’t quite sure of the date): “The United States Senate called for a no-fly zone in the resolution that it passed, um, I think on March the first.”
Well, yes, it did. On March 1st. That was long before the Brazilian Holiday, too.
But there's a bit more to the story. We are, after all, dealing with a very deceptive and secretive global-government guy when dealing with Obama.
...As Andy [McCarthy] notes, this resolution — Senate Resolution 85 — was nonbinding. It has no force of law. Nor is the Senate the same as the full Congress. And, as Andy notes in another post, this nonbinding resolution was “hotlined” through the Senate with no debate and no vote, receiving “the same amount of consideration as a bill to rename a post office.” It neither authorizes nor endorses American use of force.
Among my own sources, a congressional aide says the resolution was passed late in the day, with few members around, and the no-fly zone slipped quietly into the final version.
To this I’ll add my own observation. When this resolution passed, on March 1, the Obama administration to all appearances couldn’t have cared less. Obama did not at that point issue a clarion public call for a no-fly zone, or rush to the Security Council brandishing Resolution 85 and demanding action. Nor did the administration turn to Congress for anything of genuine heft. For almost two more weeks — during which Muammar Gaddafi’s forces were regaining the advantage and slaughtering Libyans — President Obama waited and dithered. On March 11, he held a press conference in which he talked about organizing “conversations” with NATO and consulting with the “international community” on Libya. He made not a single reference to the March 1 Senate resolution. He made precisely three mentions of the Senate. None of these had anything to do with Libya; they were strictly about the U.S. budget.Let's just stop the pretenses. Obama decided, at the behest of the French, that Qaddafy was expendible, and that the United States of America's military would help Qaddafy exit Libya. After all, wars are good for sitting Presidents who seek re-election. (It's not even important that one wins or loses the war...)
So. France and other EU countries need Libyan oil. Obama, by happy co-incidence, needs a war. Gaddafy? He's a fine target; weak military, no close allies whatsoever. No "Muslim" thing attaches--it's just a 'rebellion' over governance.
What COULD go wrong?
...If this is how foreign policy now works, and the constitutional role of Congress in declaring war now boils down to slipping a note about the UN into a nonbinding no-debate no-vote resolution passed in a sparsely populated Senate chamber, then watch out. God only knows what adventures America’s president might next embark upon...