Liberal House Democrats question the constitutionality of the US missile strikes against Libya
Once it was learned that the United Nations had given the United States and our allies permission to set up and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya and that the president had agreed to give United States support to the effort I asked the question, “The United Nations has authorized military strikes against Libya, but has the United States Congress?”
In that post I asked the left if they supported this action even though this is exactly what they opposed during the Bush administration. When President Bush extended the war on terror into Iraq using the Bush Doctrine of preemptive warfare the left was up in arms because he did not go to the Congress to get approval for this action. This was the basis of a line of attack on the Bush Doctrine that still exists to this day from the leftists in this country–the Iraq war is an illegal, undeclared war.
Using this logic of the left wouldn’t this make these airstrikes on Libya an illegal war? And wasn’t this basically an admission from the current president that the former president was right all along, after all, he does appear to be following the Bush Doctrine.
After writing that post it became evident that there was a little bit of trouble possibly brewing between the president and the Congress because he did not seek their authorization before agreeing to attack Libya. Some House Democrats and Republicans alike are calling on the president to let them vote on authorizing the actions that are already taking place in Libya. They are not happy that America’s Nero decided it was more important to seek permission for these actions than it was to seek permission from the United States Congress.
And now we are seeing that the liberal wing of the Democrat party is very upset with the president for his airstrikes on Libya. They are questioning the constitutionality of these airstrikes and Dennis Kucinich is even questioning whether these airstrikes are an impeachable offense.
Here is the list of Democrats who have questions about the Libya airstrikes:
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.
And here is some of the reactions of these far leftist Democrats:
They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.”
“Almost everybody who spoke was opposed to any unilateral actions or decisions being made by the president, and most of us expressed our constitutional concerns. There should be a resolution and there should be a debate so members of Congress can decide whether or not we enter in whatever this action is being called,” added another House Democrat opposed to the Libyan operation.
I have to give credit where credit is due; at least these anti-war Democrats have been consistent in their beliefs–and remain so now. We have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid–who have bashed President Bush at every turn for invading Iraq–now in support of intervening in the Libyan civil war and we know that if Barack Obama was not a Democrat they would not be in support of this action. There appears to be a rift growing between the leadership in the Democrat party and the far left wing of the Democrat party.
While America’s Nero dithered for five weeks waiting for the United Nations to act there was ample time for him to go to the Congress and brief them on what everybody knew was going to happen eventually, but he did not do that and now he is finding that the most liberal part of the Democrat party isn’t simply willing to fall in line just because he is a Democrat. Perhaps he was afraid he might not be able to gain enough support for this effort from the Congress and did not want to be embarrassed on the world stage–if he can not lead his own party than how can he lead on the world stage?
The one lesson that Barack Obama has learned since becoming president is that it is much harder to lead and make decisions than it is to be the one sitting back and second guessing everything the president says and does. Barack Obama had no problem when he was running for president criticizing President Bush for making exactly the same types of decisions that Barack Obama himself just made in Libya.
America's Watchtower 
Oh……….you are going to love this too………..Obama’s buddy Farrakahn (who loves Gaddafi and are friends with him), spoke this about Obama yesterday in Chicago:
http://www.hapblog.com/2011/03/who-hell-do-you-think-your-are.html
Enjoy
LikeLike
Even Farrakahn is turning on him! This has the potential to become very interesting.
LikeLike
I’m sure it never occured to “THE CHOSEN ONE” that he needed anyone’s approval. The man doesn’t know what he is doing so how can he know what his limits are.
I do hope this rift amongst Democrats gains momentum.
You’ve been on top of this one from the beging, Steve. Thanks!
LikeLike
Now that is a great point; he probably has no idea that he needs approval for this, he probably just feels as if he can do whatever the hell he wants to. I think this is going to gain momentum with the Democrats and it is going to be interesting to watch.
LikeLike
This may do the trick in winding down Zero’s popularity big time. Now there is cover for the lefties to make a few “negative” remarks about the chosen one.
LikeLike
It certainly isn’t going to help and if by some chance an anti-war cadidate were to emerge and challenge him in the primary I would love to see how many votes this would cost him.
LikeLike
Barack continues to prove that George Bush was not as bad as all the Democrats believed. That said, George did make a few mistakes.
LikeLike
Bush may have made some mistakes, but they pale in comparision to Barack Obama’s.
LikeLike
When Bush did it, the libbers went nuts, Obama does it and a few moonbats *question* it… Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat…
LikeLike
I have been reading several article about this and it amazes me the way the liberals are defending this. If this were Bush who ordered these attacks these same people would be asking why we were doing this when there was no national interests involved.
LikeLike
Pop might eat itself but the Left always does this first. I feel sorry the country is going to go through this even though it will help the Republicans in the elections.
LikeLike
They also defended Clinton’s “police action” in the Balkans, I want to note.
LikeLike
Funny how that works, isn’t it?
LikeLike
This ought to be fun to watch, but I think that the plug will get pulled on all of this.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Obama bail out on our allies now that he has committed us to this action.
LikeLike