House rejects measure to continue US role in Libya

Well it is campaigning season.

Gosh, you mean all that bluster from the Republicans about how this war was 'illegal' and they were going to defund it was just partisan douchery and not actually a real representation of their intentions.

Gosh. WHO could have seen that coming?

Since no one bothers to read legislation anymore, here is the text of what they passed. Note the very last section:

H. R. 2259 To require the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from operations in Libya, and for other purposes.

[...]

SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT TO WITHDRAW UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM OPERATIONS IN LIBYA.
(a) CONGRESSIONAL FINDING.—Congress finds that the President failed to articulate a clear national security imperative for United States military actions in support of operations in Libya.
(b) WITHDRAWAL OF ARMED FORCES.—The President shall withdraw the United States Armed Forces from operations in Libya not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) LIMITATION ON FUNDS.—Funds available to the Department of Defense may not be used to conduct further operations in Libya, except for purposes of providing for the continued withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces from operations in Libya.

The bill they didn't pass:

H. R. 2278 To limit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for United States Armed Forces in support of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya, unless otherwise specifically authorized by law.

[...]

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FUNDS FOR UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN SUPPORT OF NATO OPERATION UNIFIED PROTECTOR WITH RESPECT TO LIBYA.
(a) LIMITATION.—None of the funds appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Defense may be obligated or expended for United States Armed Forces in support of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya, unless otherwise specifically authorized by law.
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—The limitation on funds under subsection (a) does not apply with respect to—
(1) search and rescue;
(2) intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance;
(3) aerial refueling; and
(4) operational planning.

They defunded everything except for the funds required to bring everyone home in the same bill where they authorized withdrawal. (Or denied Obama authorization for military action, however you want to word it.) They just defund support of NATO with regards to Libya. Essentially they told Obama "We won't give you troops or funds for our own war in Libya, but you can give NATO money to support their efforts in Libya." It's not really all that confusing. NATO can do what they want, but we aren't giving them any manpower and aren't running the show as far as Libya is concerned.


Edit: Didn't mean to kill the thread. Was just correcting the mistaken belief that they continued funding a mission they weren't authorizing to continue.

reply to post by Jenna

They just defund support of NATO with regards to Libya. Essentially they told Obama "We won't give you troops or funds for our own war in Libya, but you can give NATO money to support their efforts in Libya." It's not really all that confusing. NATO can do what they want, but we aren't giving them any manpower and aren't running the show as far as Libya is concerned.

Thanks for the clarification, but I'm not sure I see the distinction, exactly. Isn't the US a member of NATO? IF they are continuing funding for NATO, then arent they continuing to fund the US's participation in that operation?

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


Not exactly. The bill they passed, if also passed by the senate, gives Obama 30 days to pull US forces out of Libya. The bill that didn't pass would have prevented any money from going to NATO for the Libya situation except for funds contributed towards the things listed in the quote from my first post. Any money that we continue sending would not be used for our own soldiers, it would be given to NATO to do with as they please in their efforts in Libya. That could mean supporting other NATO-led troops or it could mean humanitarian efforts such as food, water, and medicine. That's assuming that other funds do continue to be sent to NATO of course, and without something authorizing it (a resolution at the least I would think) I don't know that they actually will be sending NATO any funding for it. I'd have to go searching to see if they've passed a resolution authorizing NATO funding for Libya, but I don't recall hearing about one off the top of my head.

What it looks like to me is that they had the first bill to end US operations in Libya and yank all funding, and the second bill was just to end all funding except the things listed. Since they passed the first one, the second bill was essentially useless. Could be wrong, but it's a possibility that would explain why one passed and the other didn't. If funding is already ending, why pass another bill ending it?