Congresswoman Bachmann has opposed the use of military force in Libya. When asked if she would have used military force if she were the President, Congresswoman Bachmann responded that Libya did not represent a threat to US interests and therefore she would not have authorized a military intervention. She noted that there was no clear goal, and that even the Secretary of Defense agreed that the minimum threshold of threat to the US was not met. She also stated that she would not authorize the arming of the rebels in Libya as their motivations and identity were still in question.
When President Obama handed over control of the mission in Libya to NATO forces, Congresswoman criticized the President's desire to both continue military efforts through handing control of US forces to another leader, and at the same time wash his hands of the war.
President Obama's actions have led to what Congresswoman Bachmann calls the "Obama Doctrine" of foreign policy. This doctrine consists of using the military for humanitarian missions in any country whose people desire assistance. She has stated that this will lead to consistent invasion of country after country with no end.
Congresswoman Bachmann has voted in favor of resolutions against deploying troops to Libya, and to remove the troops from Libya. She has voted against a resolution to grant authority to President Obama in Libya. She also voted against a resolution to restrict funding from being used for the mission in Libya.
This is Obama's War
On March 28 of 2011, Congresswoman Bachmann appeared on Fox News and stated that Libya was Obama's war. She criticized the President for a lack of leadership in handing the lead role over to NATO, and questioned the group the US was backing.
We know now why historically and for good reason why the United States has been reluctant to put United States forces under operational foreign command like NATO. Like so many other things, President Obama wants to have it both ways: he wants to only be humanitarian with United States forces and our military and money, and yet he also wants to wash his hands of a war that of his making and he can't do that.
This is President Obama's war. As long as our troops and our treasure remain at risk under NATO command. It's interesting, he's Commander in Chief, he's responsible for them and yet he doesn't want to lead. So he has to answer ... and there's two things that the President failed to answer tonight. This first is that it appears that Obama may be backing a very dangerous element in Libya because last Friday the Daily Telegraph reported that Al-Qaida affiliated veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan are among the rebels that the US is supporting. This is very troubling and we need to ask President Obama why he is supporting Al-Qaida affiliated veterans.
Second, on Sunday Secretary of Defense Gates admitted that Gaddafi was not a threat to the United States, and that United States involvement does not serve a vital United States interest.
Today Show
On March 30 of 2011, Congresswoman Bachmann appeared on the Today Shown and spoke about Libya. She states that there was no threat to the United States exhibited by Libyan leader Gaddafi. She states that the new "Obama Doctrine" of going into countries because it's people are threatened would lead to invading one country after another.
Matt Lauer: I wanna take you back to March 17, it was a Thursday, it was the day that Muammar Gaddafi told the people of Benghazi that his troops were on the way, that they would show no mercy, and that they would find them in their closets. If you had been President on that day, what would you have done, specifically.
Congresswoman Bachmann: Well, I don’t think that, at that point, we had seen the threat to the United States either from Gaddafi or have we seen a vital American national interest at risk. That really needs to be our first line of defense because, unfortunately, there are atrocities that do happen in different countries of the world. We just saw, this weekend, slaughter in Syria. So, based upon that criteria of humanitarian intervention which apparently is the new Obama doctrine, that would be the basis for the United States to enter into one country after another. I don’t think that’s in the American interest ... for us to enter into one country after another.
Matt Lauer: So, going back to my question, had you been President on that day, March 17, what would you have done? Would you have done nothing?
Congresswoman Bachmann: I would not have gone in.
Matt Lauer: So would you have called the leaders of other NATO countries and said "We support you, but we are not coming."
Congresswoman Bachmann: Well, what Presidents do is they stay involved and they try to get the very best intelligence that they can. One thing that the American people need to know is that we didn't know and neither did the intelligence community know who the opposition is. If we're going in ... and remember that there was testimony yesterday that there were flickers of Al-Qaida ... we don't know how much Al-Qaida is involved in the opposition forces. Why would we want to strengthen Al-Qaida's hand in North Africa? That certainly wouldn't be in the interests of the United States.
Initial Threshold Not Met
On March 30, 2011 Congresswoman Bachmann appeared on Fox News and stated that the threshold to commit US forces has not been met. She also noted that there was not near term outcome.
Fox News: $550 Million Dollars that's the latest estimate from the Pentagon on how much military action in Libya has cost the US so far. So, with that hefty price tag, did President Obama make a convincing case for our involvement there.
Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann joins us now for reaction to this and more. First off, do we belong there Congresswoman? Were you convinced by the speech?
Congresswoman Bachmann: No, not at all, I don't think that we do. As a matter of fact Secretary Gates said on Sunday morning that we have not identified a vital American interest in Libya, nor was Gaddafi a threat to the United States. So we haven't met the initial threshold even for United States military intervention in Libya.
What we're seeing now is the fruit of the Obama doctrine. It's a very different approach from what we did before. He's using the United States military for the purposes of humanitarian causes. We do do humanitarian work, but not necessarily with the United States military. So I don't think that we should be there and I don't think that the United States military presence was a good decision on the part of our President.
New Hampshire Debate
In June of 2011, Congresswoman Bachmann participated in the Presidential debate in New Hampshire. She spoke about her oppositon to action and called the purpose there fundamentally flawed.
QUESTION: I'd like to know your opinion on your involvement with Libya.
KING: Congresswoman Bachmann, should the president have supported and jointed more U.S. presence, but now a NATO operation? Was that the right thing to do? Is that in the vital national interest of the United States of America?
BACHMANN: No, I don't believe so it is. That isn't just my opinion. That was the opinion of our defense secretary, Gates, when he came before the United States Congress. He could not identify a vital national American interest in Libya.
Our policy in Libya is substantially flawed. It's interesting. President Obama's own people said that he was leading from behind. The United States doesn't lead from behind. As commander in chief, I would not lead from behind.
We are the head. We are not the tail. The president was wrong. All we have to know is the president deferred leadership in Libya to France. That's all we need to know. The president was not leading when it came to Libya.
First of all, we were not attacked. We were not threatened with attack. There was no vital national interest. I sit on the House Select Committee on Intelligence. We deal with the nation's vital classified secrets.
We to this day don't yet know who the rebel forces are that we're helping. There are some reports that they may contain al Qaeda of North Africa. What possible vital American interests could we have to empower al Qaeda of North Africa and Libya? The president was absolutely wrong in his decision on Libya. KING: Mr. Speaker, address the same question. Was it in the vital national interest of the United States? As you do so, I had a conversation with a soon-to-be candidate who is not here tonight, Governor Huntsman, recently, who said he didn't think when it came to vital national interest. And he also said we can't afford it right now.
Should the price tag be a factor when you're the commander in chief of the United States?
Reagan Debate
In September of 2011, Congresswoman Bachmann participated in the Republican debate at the Reagan library. She states that the President has not done what is necessary to protect the US at home.
HARRIS: Congresswoman Bachmann, on the same theme, you opposed the U.S. intervention in Libya. If President Obama had taken the same view, Gadhafi would, in all likelihood, still be in power today.
To be clear, are you advocating a shift away from the George W. Bush freedom agenda with its emphasis on removing dictators from power and promoting human rights?
BACHMANN: Well, I want to say, as devastating as our economy is with the policies of Barack Obama, I think that he has actually weakened us militarily and with the United States presence globally. We have, for many years, maintained global order in the world with our United States military. We have the finest military. But in this last debt ceiling debate, one of the alternatives that came forward that we're going to be looking at with this new super committee of 12 different members of Congress is to see that our military could be hit with a huge reduction in resources.
The president has not done what he needs to do to keep the United States safe. If you look at the biggest issue in the Middle East, it's a nuclear Iran, and the president has taken his eyes off that prize.
As a matter of fact, what he's done is he's said, in fact, to Israel that, they need to shrink back to their indefensible 1967 borders. I sit on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. We deal with the nation's classified secrets. And I firmly believe that the president of the United States has weakened us militarily and put us more at risk than at any time.
HARRIS: Congresswoman, time. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
HARRIS: I just want to follow up on that. The Arab Spring is a big, big issues in the world. And the question is, what role does the U.S. have, including militarily, to promote democracy and topple dictators? I didn't hear your answer with respect to Libya.
BACHMANN: Well, I believe that it was wrong for the president to go into Libya. Number one, his own secretary of defense, Gates, said that there was no American vital interest in Libya. If there is no vital interest, that doesn't even meet the threshold of the first test for military involvement.
The other thing is, we didn't know who the rebel forces were in Libya. Take a look at where we're at in Libya today.
Take a look at the oil revenues. We don't know if they will get in the hands of people who will have designs on radical Islam and the implication of a global caliphate. These are very serious issues, and I think it was wrong for the president of the United States to go into Libya.
Western Debate
In October of 2011, Congresswoman Bachmann participated in the Western Debate in Las Vegas. She was asked if defense spending should be on the table for spending cuts and states that the US should not ignore Iran. When pressured, she states that defense spending is indeed on the table, but $500 billion is not reasonable.
QUESTION: Currently, there's a deficit reduction measure to cut defense spending by $500 billion. Would you support such a reduction in defense spending? And if elected president, how will you provide a strong national defense?
COOPER: Congresswoman Bachmann, should defense be cut?
BACHMANN: Well, $500 billion is the amount that the questioner had mentioned. And don't forget, this was an historic week when it came to American foreign policy.
We saw potentially an international assassination attempt from Iran on American soil. That says something about Iran, that they disrespect the United States so much, that they would attempt some sort of heinous act like that.
Then, we saw the president of the United States engage American troops in a fourth conflict in a foreign land. This is historic.
Then, on Sunday, we heard the reports that now that -- in Iraq, the 5,000 troops that were going to be left there won't even be granted immunity by Iraq. This is how disrespected the United States is in the world today, and it's because of President Obama's failed policies.
He's taken his eyes off the number one issue in the world. That's an Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. That makes all of us in much danger.
COOPER: Time.
BACHMANN: And the president of Iran is a genocidal maniac. We need to stand up against Iran.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Congresswoman --
BACHMANN: And as president of the United States, I will. We will be respected again in the world.
COOPER: The question though was about budget cuts. And is everything on the table in terms of cutting the budget?
BACHMANN: Absolutely everything.
COOPER: So defense spending would be on the table, should be?
BACHMANN: Defense spending is on the table, but again, Anderson, now with the president, he put us in Libya. He is now putting us in Africa. We already were stretched too thin, and he put our Special Operations Forces in Africa.
COOPER: I just want to make sure. OK. It's on the table.
BACHMANN: It's on the table, but we cannot cut it by $500 billion. We can't do that to tour brave men and women who are on the ground fighting for us.
Voting Record
Restricting Funds for Use in Libya
On June 24, 2011 the House voted on a measure to prohibit funds for the Department of Defense (DOD) from being used for U.S. Armed Forces in support of the NATA Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya, except for: (1) search and rescue; (2) intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; (3) aerial refueling; and (4) operational planning. The vote failed 180-238. Michele Bachmann voted against preventing funds from being used for military actions in support of the NATO mission in Libya.
Michele Bachmann voted against preventing funds from being used for military actions in support of the NATO mission in Libya.
Authorizing the limited use of US Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya
On June 24, 2011 the House voted on a resolution to authorize the President to continue the limited use of U.S. Armed Forces in Libya in support of U.S. security policy interests as part of the NATO mission to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. The resolution states that Congress does not support deploying, establishing, or maintaining the presence of units and members of U.S. Armed Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose of the presence is limited to the immediate personal defense of U.S. government officials or to rescuing members of NATO forces from imminent danger. The resolution failed 123-495. Michele Bachmann voted against the resolution to limit the use of forces in Libya.
Michele Bachmann voted against the resolution to limit the use of forces in Libya.
Removing Troops from Libya
On June 3, 2011 the House voted to direct the President to remove troops from Libya. The vote was bipartisan for and against, but failed 262-148. Michele Bachmann voted in favor of forcing President Obama to remove troops from Libya.
Michele Bachmann voted in favor of forcing President Obama to remove troops from Libya.
Resolution Against Troop Deployment
On June 3, 2011 the House voted on a resolution declaring that President Obama could not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya. The vote passed 266-144. Michele Bachmann voted in favor of the resolution to declare that the President could not deploy troops.
Michele Bachmann voted in favor of the resolution to declare that the President could not deploy troops.
Sponsored and Cosponsored Legislation
This representative has not been identified as sponsoring or cosponsoring significant legislation related to this title.
