Tuesday, March 22, 2011

With Libya, Obama can't even say, "Bush did it too!"

In 2003, when President Bush unleashed the Gods of War on Iraq, he had first obtained clear and overwhelming consent from the U.S. Congress - Democrats included. You can disagree with his reasons for going there, but you cannot disagree that he didn't send U.S. troops there all on his own.

Can President Obama make the same claim about his actions toward Libya? Opinion seems to be pretty split in both major political parties about whether or not attacking Libya is the right idea, but that is exactly the point. Before Obama sent 100+ cruise missiles hurtling toward a sovereign country, he should have waited for the people's elected representatives to debate this issue and consent to any action before spending the smallest amount of blood or treasure on this little endeavor.

The U.S. Constitution says in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 that only the Congress may declare war. I am aware that the Congress hasn't declared war against a country since 1941 - and I don't like that one bit - but in the absence of an official declaration, shouldn't the president at least obtain some sort of resolution or consent from the legislative branch? Is that too much to ask?

I am not the only one who thinks that the President of the United States should not act unilaterally when using military action.

Here is what Senator (and presidential candidate) Barack Obama had to say on the subject in 2007:
“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,” Obama responded. “As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”
Does Libya currently pose an "imminent threat to the nation"? Are we currently bombing Libya in "self-defense"? To borrow the oft-used words of those on the Left, we are attacking a country that has not attacked us; a country that has done nothing to us.

I am still waiting for tens of thousands of protesters to march down the Embarcadero or Market Street in San Francisco like they did when the U.S. invaded Iraq eight years ago. I am waiting for these protesters to be carrying signs showing Obama with bloody fangs and a Hitler mustache like all those signs depicted Bush all those years. Nothing yet. Where are you Lefties? Where is your consistency Lefties?

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson


Atlanta Roofing said...

Americans are least aware of the scope of their empire and its nature. The worst thing is that Americans don't grasp the corrosive influence of the empire on our republic. The evidence of this degradatio¬n is all around us but we choose neither to see it nor recognize it as a mortal danger to whatever is left of our democracy.

The Wood's said...

Very nicely said!