Thursday, March 24, 2011

Hey hey, ho ho, to Libya we won't go!

No blood for oil! Not in my name!
You know, part of me wants to shout that from the rooftops with regard to American military involvement in Libya. President Obama did not gain Congressional approval for launching strikes against the North African country. So, it's an illegal act of war, is it not?
Say what you will about Dennis Kucinich, the far-Left whackjob Representative from Ohio, but he was the very definition of consistency in denouncing the air strikes and calling Obama's action a potentially impeachable offense.
From a recent interview with MSNBC:
Interviewer: "Alright, so, Congressman—impeachment? Really?"
Kucinich: "I raised the question ... because the President is acting outside of the authority of the Constitution. There is no question about that whatsoever ... And then you think about, there's no imminent threat, there's no end-game. They're still after regime change. We could be strengthening Islamic extremists who could be setting up camp in eastern Libya. There are people who want to divide that nation. This is a nightmare."
Regarding the United Nations approval for these actions, Kucinich said during an interview with the RT America network, "It's good that the U.N. is involved in security matters, except for one thing: When it comes to the United States, we have a prior process that trumps the U.N., and that's called our Constitution, which requires that Presidents have to get Congressional approval to take our country into war. If the President feels there's an imminent or actual threat to the United States, he can move forward. This threat is to citizens in Libya. That's regrettable. But last I checked, Libya isn't one of our states."
I could never have imagined a scenario in which I would like to give Kucinich a slap on the back, but give him credit. He is absolutely correct. I, of course, disagreed mightily with Kucinich's objections to action in Iraq, but as I say, at least he's being consistent.
(I dearly wish these men of the Left, such as Kucinich, would realize that the Constitution also doesn't authorize the mass invasion of American soil by foreign nationals viz-a-viz illegal immigration. But, alas, that's a different topic ...)
Consider this: While campaigning for the Presidency in December 2007, Obama said, clearly referring to the War in Iraq, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
So, Mr. President, how on earth, given your own apparent convinction in that very process, could you authorize attacks, from outside the nation no less, while on your "working vacation"?
Furthermore, where are the massive protests? Who's out there shouting "not in my name"? Libya has oil, so why no large-scale denouncements from anti-war liberals about this being another war for oil? Why no demonstrations against the French, who kicked-started this attack on Libya? (Looks like they're not "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" anymore!) I don't care what the anti-war crowd says, Bush did not act illegally with regard to Iraq. The resolution for the action against Iraq granted the authorization by the Constitution and Congress, so where's the uproar over the complete absence of a similar resolution in this case?
I direct you, dear reader, to this extremely well-written column by John Hawkins. Hawkins writes:
"Can't you just see it? The Communist Party, Code Pink, the black bloc, and the free Mumia wackjobs all joining together with the Tea Party to protest Obama. Wouldn't that be fun? I mean personally, I've been waiting for years to wear a "No Blood For Oil" sign while I carry around a giant puppet head. Someone call the commies and union members who organize all these hippie shindigs for the Left and let's do this thing!"
I concur that this was unconstitutional, that we can ill afford it, and that the U.S. does not need this diversion from Afghanistan. NATO isn't sure what the end-game, as Kucinich calls it, is either, and France and Turkey are bickering over what route to take in these proceedings in Libya.
Moammar Gaddafi is a horrible little man, no doubt about it, and he had this coming. It's the perfect opportunity for us to work with NATO and with U.N. approval to exact our revenge on him for all the American deaths he's been responsible for in the past. But isn't it also true that Gaddafi kept a low profile with regard to terrorism after Saddam Hussein's fall? We can, and should, ensure that Gaddafi goes six feet under, but who will replace him? Does anyone know the motives behind the rebels' insurrection and what they hope to achieve? Who will take over Libya in Gaddafi's absence?
Let's get to the nuts and bolts: Should American troops be put in harm's way in a conflict whose objectives are unclear if not totally missing? Absolutely not!
This story in Libya is completely missing a plot. Dennis Kucinich and I are in total agreement on this one.


NeonNoodle said...

What Obama did was not against the Constitution. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to seek Congressional approval whenever the armed forces are sent into action. Nixon, who vetoed the resolution, and all subsequent presidents have expressed their disapproval of the resolution because they believe it extends Congress's power into the realm of the executive, i.e. Congress has the power to declare war, but the president has the power to make war. Nonetheless, most presidents have sought approval from Congress before sending troops into battle, but there have been times -- Reagan when he bombed Libya and Clinton when he bombed Serbia -- when presidents didn't seek approval from Congress first. So, please stop making these things out to be unique to Obama.

Discuss and debate whether it's right or not to be interfering in a country's internal affairs, but don't be so hypocritical to accuse a president of doing something that other presidents have done without consequence.

rocslinger said...

Have you noticed that liberals have no problem getting involved in wars where the US has little or no interest?

The Powers Act has yet to be tested for constitionality.

Nightdragon said...

Interesting, Duane, because you have not said if you back the operation in Libya, but that's fine ... for the purposes of the conversation you launched, it's neither here nor there.

My main objection is that we still have a presence in Iraq (right or wrong, we're still there), and we're still very much engaged in Afghanistan. Why are we in Libya? Funny how we haven't acted one shred to free the people of Zimbabwe, the Ivory Coast, et al. from their tyrants, but I digress. Point is, we don't need a third war to oversee, especially when you consider what happens when the other coalition members start dropping out. One guess as to who will be stuck with mop-up duty, not to mention the bill.

Secondly, Obama himself has said that President of the United States, any President, does not have sole authority to launch a military attack on anyone. That was in 2007. So, what changed? He hasn't bothered explaining this. Too busy filling out his March Madness brackets and samba dancing in Rio, I wager.

Roc said here that the War Powers Resolution should be tested for its constitutionality, and I agree. If we can determine that, we can prevent future incidents of Presidents acting with or without consequence.

Nightdragon said...

P.S. Duane: I find it most intriguing -- but, alas, not at all surprising -- that we should not be talking about this military operation in Libya, or so the inference goes, because the Messiah is the one who initiated our participation in it. You can bet your sweet bippy that if Bush had declared this action, it'd be front-page, bold-type news everywhere. But it's front-page news nowhere, especially not the New York Times, Washington Post, et al.

goddessdivine said...

I just love how Obama gets a pass on all this. The once anti-war, "the pres must get approval" Senator is now doing everything he campaigned against. If we need to use force in Libya, fine. But Obama has backtracked on so many of his outrageous claims that he's become the biggest hypocrite to reside in the White House. (And I'm tired of the fawning left's silence. Though, kudos for Kucinich for calling him out.)