\u201cWhen the president does it, that means that it is not illegal<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 These are famous and not unexpected words from Richard Nixon in his 1977 interview series with David Frost. \u00a0\u00a0It might be the finest explanation that Nixon could have had to substantiate another of his famous quotes, \u201cI am not a crook<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 No one is a crook if they are in a position to determine what is illegal.<\/p>\n

President Barack Obama is not a crook, but his arguments for asserting that the War Powers Act of 1973 need not be invoked<\/a> with regard to American action in Libya, seem very much like Nixon\u2019s assertion that if the president does it, it\u2019s okay.\u00a0 The White House\u2019s 38-page argument that the War Powers Act does not apply in Libya states<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cU.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.\u201d Still, the White House acknowledged, the operation has cost the Pentagon $716 million in its first two months and will have cost $1.1 billion by September at the current scale of operations.<\/p>\n

The War Powers Act requires<\/a>:<\/p>\n

the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

President Obama\u2019s statement is called parsing words.\u00a0 Perhaps he could win a legal argument on the technicality of American troops not having boots on the ground, but his refusal to ask Congress to authorize the military action is clearly a violation of the spirit of the War Powers Act (whose primary author was Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri).\u00a0 It\u2019s also possible that he could not win on a legal technicality because (a) do we really believe that there are no American troops on the ground in Libya, and (b) if we really want to parse the words, perhaps American pilots flying in Libyan air space are tantamount to armed forces being in the territory of Libya.<\/p>\n

In some ways, my argument is less with President Obama than it is with Democratic members of Congress.\u00a0 Richard Nixon is not the only president whose actions became somewhat unfathomable upon reaching the presidency.\u00a0 By virtue of being president, Barack Obama is in a pressure cooker unlike any other American.\u00a0 Even if we disagree with his words or actions, it is important to have empathy for the difficulty of his position and the choices he must make.\u00a0 A compelling argument on how President Obama is not the same as former Senator Obama is made in a June 24 op-ed<\/a> by David Fahrenthold entitled \u201cPresident Obama hasn\u2019t always agreed with Senator Obama.\u201d<\/p>\n

On the day of Mr. Fahrenthold\u2019s op-ed, the House of Representatives voted 123 to 295 to limit the military operation in Libya.\u00a0 Granted, many Republicans wanted to embarrass the President with what was tantamount to a vote of no confidence.\u00a0 But 70 Democrats joined with the Republicans to express a dissonance with President Obama\u2019s strategy in Libya.<\/p>\n

When it comes to war, President Obama is in a difficult position.\u00a0 Like every president, he doesn\u2019t want to be the first to \u201close a war.\u201d\u00a0 Never mind that it can easily be argued that Johnson and Nixon lost a war (Vietnam), that Reagan lost a war (Lebanon), and that Bush 43 lost two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan).\u00a0 What\u2019s important is that none of them acknowledged losing; no matter what happened they put the conclusion in the\u00a0 win column.<\/p>\n

I am na\u00efve and\/or idealistic enough to wish that President Obama would say words to the effect of, \u201cI should have gotten out of Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as I became president.\u00a0 These were losing wars and I could do the country a true service by not only saving human life and treasury, but also by setting a precedent for a president to extricate the country from a war, when victory seems either unlikely or meaningless.\u201d<\/p>\n

Those would be strong words for a president and, unfortunately, a likely prescription to go in the history books as a one-term president.\u00a0 What President Obama needs is a little bit of help from his friends in the Congress.\u00a0 Lyndon Johnson could have used the same, and George W. Bush certainly should have been thwarted by Congress.<\/p>\n

Most Republicans are going to oppose the president because their political strategy from Day One has been to embarrass him.\u00a0 However, Democrats could also be politically expedient by opposing the president.\u00a0 They could give him the cover, the excuse, to put an end to the continuation of a military policy that is suspiciously similar to Bush adventurism.<\/p>\n

Democrats supported Lyndon Johnson by approving the Gulf of Tonkin (Vietnam) Resolution in 1964.\u00a0 The initial vote might be excused, since they were given faulty information.\u00a0 However, subsequent Congresses had eleven years to repeal the Resolution, and none did.\u00a0 Shame on the Democrats in Congress whose inaction prolonged the war.<\/p>\n

<\/a>