There is a small coterie on the Left who I have to give credit for being consistent, expecially Dennis Kucinich, in that they are calling for the impeachment of President Obama for the same grounds that they called for the impeachment of President Bush. Then there are the members of the Democratic press corps, also called the Main Stream Media, and MSNBC in particular who are bending over backwards to support this President in his use of force. Sure, Bush went to Congress and obtained a Joint Resolution for the Use of Foce in Iraq, but it wasn't an actual, you know, declaration of war. In technical terms, this is called pole vaulting over mouse turds.
But it is kind of fun watching the hypcrites of the Left who used to say that any criticism of Obama could only be because of racism. You might notice how that dull sword has been sheathed for now. It's also refreshing to note that Obama seems to be carrying George Bush's foreign policy forward, even if he won't admit it.
But is the President's actions really an impeachable offense? Jack Goldsmith, writing in Slate argues that the President's actions are completely constitutional. In addition to the examples that he cited, it is also ironic that I think Thomas Jefferson did not declare war on the Barbary pirates, now home to the quasi nation of Libya either.
But what about the requirement that the Congress is the only one that can actually declare war? True, but it has lost a lot of its meaning over the years as Mr. Goldsmith says. In fact, for Congress to declare war is an extremely significant action which implies the full weight of the country behind the destruction of an opponent. At the moment, we are using less than our full capability. But if Congress actually did declare war, would that license the use of nukes?
I am a traditionalist when it comes to the Constitution, but I appreciate that there have changes. For instance the Commerce clause being used to restrict growing wheat for personal use was never contemplated by the Founders, but it is the law of the land. In the same way, we have to acknowledge that through unopposed use of force without Congressional declaration of war is the norm, and it fits within the President's dual role of Commander in Chief and the primary director of foreign affairs.
Obama has made a lot of mistakes in how he got into this, and his handling has not been any better, but it is his call. And to those who still object to the fact that Libya never posed a threat to us, I will agree with you. But neither did Rwanda, and I am still ashamed that we stood by and did nothing when three quarters of a million people were literally butchered. There is no good answer, and in questions involving foreign policy, the default position has to be to support the President.
And I do.