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.