Schadenfreude is oh-so sweet

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

For years I had to watch while the Kook Left slammed George W. Bush again and again over Iraq. While that was annoying, it was expected; they aren’t called “moonbats” for nothing. But what made it maddening was the cynical exploitation of said kooks by the Democratic party, the leaders of which put their short-term electoral fortunes ahead of the nation’s interests in a time of war. Foremost among them was one Senator Barack H. Obama, who said:

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.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. 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. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

My, how time flies. Just four short years later, and now-President Obama has launched his own war in Libya. Sure, he got the permission of the UN Security Council and the agreement of the international community (all bow), which is all that really matters to a progressive transnationalist, but he forgot that little part about honoring the Constitution and obtaining the “informed consent of Congress.” And that has the moonbats meeping and gibbering in outrage.

I love it:

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.

And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.

While other Democratic lawmakers have publicly backed Obama — including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and top members of the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees — the objections from a vocal group of anti-war Democrats on Capitol Hill could become a political problem for Obama, especially if “Operation Odyssey Dawn” fails to topple Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi, leads to significant American casualties, or provokes a wider conflict in the troubled region of North Africa.

So now the Kook Left*, which the Democratic leadership wielded like a baseball bat to bludgeon Bush, has turned on… the Democratic leadership.

Why yes, I believe I will have another helping of schadenfreude, thanks. It’s delicious!

via Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt

*I mean, just look at the names on that list.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

What are the goals and objectives of the US role in the Libya airstrike war?

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Tim Carney wonders what many of us are in light of the news over the weekend that the US is “leading” the airstrike campaign against the Libyan military (hat tip):

At once presumptuous and flippant, President Obama used a Saturday audio recording from Brazil to inform Americans he had authorized a third war — a war in which America’s role is unclear and the stated objectives are muddled.

Setting aside the wisdom of the intervention, Obama’s entry into Libya’s civil war is troubling on at least five counts. First is the legal and constitutional question. Second is the manner of Obama’s announcement. Third is the complete disregard for public opinion and lack of debate. Fourth is the unclear role the United States will play in this coalition. Fifth is the lack of a clear endgame. Compounding all these problems is the lack of trust created by Obama’s record of deception.

“Today, I authorized the armed forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya,” the president said. For him it was self-evident he had such authority. He gave no hint he would seek even ex post facto congressional approval. In fact, he never once mentioned Congress.

Since World War II, the executive branch has steadily grabbed more war powers, and Congress has supinely acquiesced. Truman, Johnson, Reagan, Clinton and Bush all fought wars without a formal declaration, but at least Bush used force only after Congress authorized it.

And, once more, the president’s actions belie his words on the campaign trail. In late 2007, candidate Obama told the Boston Globe, “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.”

There is no claim that Moammar Gadhafi poses a threat to the United States. But asking President Obama to explain his change of heart would be a fruitless exercise. This is a president who has repeatedly shredded the clear meaning of words in order to deny breaking promises he has clearly broken — consider his continued blatant falsehoods on tax increases and his hiring of lobbyists.

It’s interesting, when you consider how George W. Bush was treated  – and still is – by hardcore leftists in the aftermath of the start of the Iraq war, even after we’d had considerable public debate about the issue for a good year or so.   He was a “warmonger” who was waging war with Iraq for no reason other than “oil.”    According to the left, Saddam “didn’t present a threat” to us, and therefore we had no business going into Iraq.  And don’t forget how the left verbally brutalized Bush for allegedly not getting Congressional authorization for the war in Iraq – even though he did.  Yet our celebrity President can launch an air war against the Libyan military with little to no public discussion/debate whatsoever, no Congressional vote, with the rationale/goals unclear, and all of a sudden it’s supposed to be ok (update: with a few exceptions, as my co-blogger notes here).

Ah – I’ve figured this out now, I think.  President Obama has the UN’s permission, more or less, and for most on the left, that’s pretty much all that’s necessary – unless we’re talking about a Republican president, and then so much more is needed, like time, debate, Congressional authorization, etc …

Oh, and didn’t we hear all during the Bush admin on how waging war with Muslim countries only emboldened the terrorists??

If the word “hypocrite” wasn’t in the dictionary, it wouldn’t be too difficult to offer up ideas to The Powers That Be for what the word should be: Democrat.

Phineas butts in: For another possible explanation of why Obama changed his mind on Libya, William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection offers “wag the dog.” Maybe Obama really is taking Clinton’s advice?