I'll bet we're all over that map on the rightness of the attacks Obama has ordered on Libya. I think that a determined effort to support rebels to overthrow Kaddafi is a good idea. He's been a thorn in our side for decades and no matter who takes over there after he is overthrown, it can't be any worse. He should have been killed after he ordered the Pan Am Lockerbie bombing that killed I think over 200 Americans. But, even our hero, Ronald Reagan, just did a light retaliation for that horrible act. In my opinion, the most powerful nation in the world, if it wants to remain the most powerful nation in the world, smashes opponents who pick fights like that. Kaddafi has needed eliminating for quite some time. Saying "but he's one of many assholes in the world that need taking out, what has he done this time that sets him apart from the others?" I say, past behavior for which he should have paid, and also, and this is something that it seems pundits on the left and right fail to account for in trying to be righteous for their side: it would be relatively easy to overthrow him. This as opposed to say Ahmedinajad (sp?) or Communist China. Yes, this asshole can be overthrown and held up as an example (like Saddam Hussein) for a relatively small amount of effort on our side. So, I generally support the mission in Libya, so long as it includes overthrowing and killing Kaddafi. If those are not goals, and they don't appear to be the publically stated goals of the French, British, or Obama, then I'm wondering what we're doing.Regardless of how I feel about the action, the way Obama, the Boy King, has gone about this, and how he has arrived at the point where he felt justified sending American men and material in harm's way is greatly flawed, to the point of being disgusting. And the path he has taken will greatly increase the dissention on both the right and the left for his war effort. Ace has an outstanding article discussing this, As always, a read the whole thing article, but here are a couple things: on the legitimacy of Obama charging ahead without Congressional authority (you know, the kind Bush actually got before Afghanistan and Iraq)-emphasis mine:
The Constitution does not merely enumerate the powers of office; it also enumerates the duties of office. Certainly politicians, being politicians, would occasionally enjoy ignoring their Constitutional duties. That does not give them license to do so, however.
There is and always has been argued an inherent presidential war-making power in cases where the situation is moving too quickly for formal Congressional debate, and thus, any debate would in fact resolve the issue by default -- if national interests are at risk within hours, the President (it has long been argued) can act on his own authority, temporarily, to preserve the status quo ante so that meaningful debate over options can be had (in the sense that there will still be options remaining, rather than a fait accompli), and that the president, as commander in chief, can always act in the defense of America itself.
Obviously that last part is inapplicable here; America is not directly threatened by anything that happens in Libya. American interests are indirectly threatened, depending on hypothethical future contingencies, and that means that there may be a reason to act, but this sort of indirect, hypothetical threat is not enough to give the president license to act purely on his own authority.
As to the "we must not tarry" argument -- that is disproven wholly by Obama's perfect willingness to debate this for weeks at the United Nations. He was perfectly willing to allow the rebellion to crumble to the very brink of defeat in order to secure United Nations authorization; obviously, then, this was not a "we must not tarry" situation, because the President tarried quite a bit. In fact, he tarried so much that the situation may now in fact comprise an unrecoverable loss.
What's most disgusting to me is that Obama seems to think getting permission from the UN and France is more important than getting it from Congress:
What is preposterous here, and offensive, is the apparent belief by Obama that an international Tyrant's Club created in 1945 is the true, genuine war-authority authority while the Congress specifically named in the Constitution as the war-approving authority is... what? Nothing, apparently. The international tribunal called the United Nations has, somehow, without a Constitutional amendment, displaced the Congress as the lawful tribunal for approving the injection of United States armed forces into war.Obama is following his beliefs; he is not being given sufficient credit for that: the military of the US should only be used for causes deemed important to the UN. Anything else, such as causes deemed important to the US, is evil.
When did that happen? When, as United States citizens, did we all agree that we should no longer have the democratic power to decide when we would and would not go to war, and would instead leave the matter up to foreign powers, many (most) of whom are allied against us in one fashion or another?
Obama believes this did happen. He doesn't think we agreed on it, of course, as he knows, surely, that no such vote every took place. But he thinks that those International Representatives are much more competent to decide the fates of Americans and so, consistent with his left-liberal worldview, such responsibilities and powers are taken away from the American public and reposed instead in "better" people, either a small self-declared American elite or a foreign elite, better able to make decisions on behalf of ignorant, uneducated Americans.
