If ever you needed proof that Fox News reflexively opposes whatever President Obama stands for, regardless of the underlying issues or ethics, check out judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano’s flip-flop on the subject of whether or not President Obama should seek Congressional approval before a military strike.
You may recall (and thanks to Media Matters for remembering so we don't have to) that back in March, 2011, when President Obama was considering military action against Libya without consulting Congress, Napolitano railed against the “terrible” War Powers Act and questioned whether Obama was planning on using it, “whether the American people, whether the Congress wants it or not? Even though the Constitution says only Congress shall declare war?”
Fast forward to September 3, 2013, three days after President Obama announced that he “will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.” Why? Because “I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Just what Napolitano would have wanted, right? Wrong. Not now that Obama’s doing it. Napolitano announced on Fox & Friends, “It’s a little mystifying, legally, why the president is asking Congress for authority to do something that it has already given him authority to do. When the War Powers Act was enacted… it basically said the president can bring troops into any area that he wants offensively or defensively without the approval of congress for 89 days. …So the president has the authority to do this. …It’s been used by every president since Richard Nixon. …So again, mystifying as to why the president wants the approval of the Congress."
Co-host Steve Doocy interrupted to say, “Oh, come on, it is not mystifying. …It’s political!”
Actually, the president clearly explained his reasoning – and it just so happens to exactly match Napolitano’s supposed beliefs in 2011. But now that Obama has embraced them fully, Napolitano has done an about-face. And what’s really mystifying is how this kind of knee-jerk antagonism to just about any decision made by President Obama passes for legitimate news or analysis.
I don’t think Napolitano changed his position on the War Powers Act but his view on President Obama viz a viz the Act.
I was going to say that if Obama resigned it would make the righties happy. But on second thought, I’ll bet that even then they would attack him for being a quitter.
He would disagree with Rand Paul about just what the Constitution and the War Powers Act allow a president to do, and that would be an interesting argument to see. But there’s no contradiction in saying the president is permitted to do X, but I’m strongly opposed to his doing this particular X.
I’ve seen a fair amount of Napolitano and I find many of his beliefs pretty far off the mark, but he’s always stuck to his principles, whether they agreed with whatever Fox host he was talking to or not.
So I suspect this is an unfair rap on him.
And I’m sure it’s a coincidence that Rush Limbaugh is now spending his program calling President Obama a “clown” who is “bumbling”. I wonder what Limbaugh would call someone who referred to George W. Bush as a clown?
We should also keep in mind that there is strong resistance to military action against Syria from the left wing and the right wing. But for very different reasons. The left wing opposes bombing Syria for the reason that this would be violence being inflicted in the name of preventing violence. As the left wing repeatedly said in the 2000s, “Not in Our Name”, and as Alexander Cockburn said very well around 2002 “You’ve had an act of barbarism and now you’re going to respond to it with more barbarism. We stand apart from that.”
The right wing opposes action in Syria for the reason that they hate President Obama and wish to obstruct every policy he voices. So if he said he was going to do nothing, they would castigate him for inaction. If he said he was going to attack without approval, they would castigate him for acting like an imperial presidency. If he says he will seek Congressional approval, they castigate him for appearing somehow weak and they demand their congressmen vote against the approval. One wonders if there is ANYTHING President Obama could do that would merit anything but disgust from the right…
Now, (grinning & salivating) hand over my big fat paycheque!