Libya Is Not Iraq

Saturday a coalition of troops began a military intervention in Libya to enforce a no-fly zone. This action came after weeks of diplomatic wrangling. The resolution was approved by the Arab League and the United Nations. The U.S. wasn’t the first country to attack, it was actually France. Marc Ambider argues that we’re actually seeing an outline of an Obama Doctrine.

It was important to the U.S. that Libyans and the world understand that this coalition of the willing was more than a U.S. rhetorical construct. An hour before bombing began Saturday, Clinton spoke to the press in Paris. Asked why military action was in America’s interest, she gave three reasons and implied a fourth. A destabilizing force would jeopardize progress in Tunisia and Egypt; a humanitarian disaster was imminent unless prevented; Qaddafi could not flout international law without consequences. The fourth: there’s a line now, and one that others countries had better not cross.

The development of a new doctrine in the Middle East is taking form, and it could become a paradigm for how the international community deals with unrest across the region from now on. The new elements include the direct participation of the Arab world, the visible participation of U.S. allies, as well as a very specific set of military targets designed to forestall needless human suffering. Though the Libyan situation is quite unique – its military is nowhere near as strong as Iran’s is, for one thing – Obama hopes that a short, surgical, non-US-led campaign with no ground troops will satisfy Americans skeptical about military intervention and will not arouse the suspicions of Arabs and Muslims that the U.S. is attempting to influence indigenously growing democracies.

A lot of smart people have argued that the action in Libya should not be judged in the context of Iraq but in context of Kosovo. The deliberations described above are definitely a step-change improvement from the Bush Doctrine. I’ll have to admit to huge reservations about this military action. While I do support stopping a slaughter in Libya, it feels like we don’t have clear goals. We’ve already said no ground forces and we are not toppling Gaddafi. So, are there going to be two Libyas? What will we do if Gaddafi moves ground forces against Benghazi rebels? How long do we plan to be there and what is the end point?

I do think that we need to stop being the world’s policeman but can we stand on the sidelines when people are begging for action? Why Libya and not Yemen, Bahrain and Ivory Coast?

67 comments on this post.
  1. Jason330:

    You have to wonder how much better shape we (and the world) would be in right now if not for the unmitigated disaster that was the Bush Presidency.

  2. Where oh where have the lib-er-als gone oh where oh where can they beeeeeee » The Wage Slave - Fighting stupidity with an attitude:

    [...] someone over at DL showed their true Liberal roots and said something about the US newest war. UI, whom I have a deep admiration for had this to say. Saturday a coalition of troops began a [...]

  3. socialistic ben:

    “The fourth: there’s a line now, and one that others countries had better not cross.”
    how is it any different comming from Clinton/Obama than from Rummy/Bush?

    UI, I have the same questions as you regarding when do we leave and all the What Ifs…. remember, we’re dealing with a crazy dictator who has no problem torturing his own people to stay in power. we might as well be doing this in North Korea. I also have to take Obama’s war record into account and all signs point to “we’ll be there for a long time” I say let some other western country squander their blood and fortune.

  4. socialistic ben:

    To clarify…. i dont think Obama “lied” about Iraq and Gitmo and Afghanistan. I think he made a bunch of promises that had to be voided by changing conditions….. it’s weird. wars and killing never go the way you plan. How much change does the Lybia plan have room for? Kawdoughghy has no reservations about trying to force us to send in ground troops so will we let millions of Lybians die to prove a point? (no) I’ll be on Obama’s side about this action after we are gone.

  5. donviti:

    Does anyone know if Carper voted yes or no for this new war?

    oh wait….

  6. socialistic ben:

    DV, Congress doesnt have to authorize exxon mobil to use the US military.

  7. donviti:

    Good point Ben {slaps forehead}

    As long as the Arab League ok’s us to bomb a foreign country I guess UI is right. This war is OK!

  8. Phil:

    We fell right into this one. No US military weaponry should of been used in this. The only thing authorized should of been use of intelligence and strategic advisement. Why have we been selling middle eastern “allies” aircraft and other weaponry if they aren’t going to use it in their own back yard. Some members of the arab league are already voicing their opposition to the amount of force used so far. This, unfortunately, will just be seen as more unwanted US intervention.

  9. Dana Garrett:

    The USA’s piety about “preventing” a “humanitarian disaster” in Libya is a load of bunk. If this is an emergence of an “Obama doctrine,” then it’s off to an inconsistent and arguably hypocritical start. Protesters in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are being brutally repressed and, in some cases, mowed down in the streets. Where is the USA fleet to protect them and their democratic interests? Well, it’s parked in safe ports in Bahrain…present in the region to protect the flow of oil from nations like Saudi Arabia.

    The truth is that Gaddafi is not being attacked because of his undeniable abuses and outrages (otherwise we’d also be targeting the leadership of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia) but because he has become persona non grata in the region and world community. In short, if there were a cunning strategic reason to prop up Gaddafi and ignore his abuses, we would do it just like we are doing with Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

    The USA is merely ONCE AGAIN projecting its power in the region, gambling that what might emerge in a post-Gaddafi Libya could be friendlier to USA regional strategic interests. This is about maximizing a preponderance of power and influence in the region, not humanitarian principle.

  10. Delaware Libertarian:

    Every tomahawk missile fired into Libya costs a million dollars, not to mention the fuel, food, repairs, etc. needed to move and maintain the submarines and aircraft carriers. Are we willing to increase taxes or cut domestic spending to ambiguously accomplish unclear goals?

  11. Geezer:

    “This is about maximizing a preponderance of power and influence in the region, not humanitarian principle.”

    If humanitarian ends are realized by accident, are they less worthwhile? Not saying they will be, but what if, despite our malign intentions, if really does save thousands of lives? I have no answer to that, just asking.

    “Are we willing to increase taxes or cut domestic spending to ambiguously accomplish unclear goals?”

    We have been elsewhere in the region, so that’s no impediment. I would trade the hundreds of millions we’ll spend on Libya for the hundreds of billions on Afghanistan in a heartbeat.

  12. donviti:

    3 wars at one time….

    3
    WARS

    But it’s ok this time around, we asked the UN. so the other 2 are a push and still really are being fought by Bush. This one though, this is Obama’s war and he did this one right by liberal standards apparently.

  13. Delaware Libertarian:

    Geezer,

    False dilemma. The preferred choice for the US government and its Industrial Military Complex is to spend hundred of millions (will probably become billions) in Libya AND billions in Afghanistan. The choice is more likely to become letting the tax cuts expire for everyone or cutting medicare vs. the three wars.

    Furthermore, air power, in itself, will not be enough to stop any type of genocide. The rebels do not have the hardware to stop the Libyan army. As we saw from Rwanda, advanced weapons are not a requisite for genocide. What happens if Qaddafi’s forces come into Benghazi and start shooting people with pistols? I fear the entrance of American troops, Somalia style.

    Why can’t we just leave these situations alone? Why do the other countries have to free ride on our policing? The Defense department should refer to defending America.

  14. socialistic ben:

    “Why can’t we just leave these situations alone? Why do the other countries have to free ride on our policing? The Defense department should refer to defending America.”

    we left Sudan alone. look how great THAT turned out. Lybia has oil. Barack Obama isnt in charge… neither was Bush. They CEOS let the president look like he is leading on insignificant things like health care and financial reform… they always win anyway. but mess with their oil and game on. Id believe this was about protecting free people if the non oil producing nations were held to the same standard, but my observation of facts is stronger than my liberal ideology. I support the reason we are being told we are doing this, but c’mon.

  15. Dana:

    Is the goal to depose Muammar Qaddafi? The Security Council resolution says absolutely nothing authorizing regime change, nor could I see how the UN could order a regime change in one of its member states.

    Rather, the resolution authorizes a no fly zone and demands a cease fire. But a cease fire means that the rebels must stop shooting, too, and that means that Colonel Qaddafi’s government is being guaranteed by the Security Council.

    If President Obama and the Europeans had acted three weeks ago, to impose the no fly zone, before the mercenaries could be brought in to fight for Colonel Qaddafi, the rebels would almost certainly have won (following up on their initial advances), and the Western intervention would have been less intensive, and less costly in both blood and treasure. Of course, they wouldn’t have had that precious Security Council resolution as justification, would they?

  16. Dana:

    The esteemed Mr Viti wrote, on his site:

    She (the Unstable Isotope) really believes that there was diplomatic wrangling and that the Arab League in conjunction with the United Nations makes killing hundreds and possibly thousands more people okie dokie.

    It seems reasonable to point out at this time that “hundreds and possibly thousands” of Libyans, many of whom were civilian non-combatants were already being killed. If the Western nations hadn’t taken the action they did, it’s not as though there’d have been no one getting killed. It’s just that different people — some of them Colonel Qaddafi’s forces — are getting killed now than would have been killed before.

  17. Cpt Robespierre:

    “Why Libya and not Yemen, Bahrain and Ivory Coast?”

    Well, with the Ivory Coast, there were some mumblings a while ago about a possible British intervention, but they seem to be handling it themselves with a basic civil war around the capital region between essentially equally capable sides. That’s very different from Libya where the sides were very mismatched and one was about to get overrun and wiped out.

    With Bahrain, a lot of people seem to forget that a) It’s an archipelago with one main island that’s still fairly small (about 2.2x the size of Las Vegas, but the population is mostly concentrated in one end) and b) It’s very clearly inside Saudi Arabia’s geopolitical “sphere of influence” and they would never allow an American interference without their support. So that’s really about feasibility and chance of success. I don’t think totally unfeasible operations should ever be undertaken.

    As for Yemen, apparently that’s resolving itself along the lines of Egypt, without our interference:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/middleeast/22yemen.html

  18. donviti:

    yes Dana, but they were being killed before by him and we didn’t do jack or run and end round the constitution.

    Doesn’t anyone find it strange that we didn’t need the UN to wage war in Iraq the first go around, now we don’t the US congress to wage it this time?

    Obama is a constitutional lawyer my ass.

    Oh, and, thanks for stopping by my site and commenting over here. :)

    I don’t see what’s liberal about this website anymore. I really don’t.

  19. Dana:

    Oh, by the way, as some of my friends on the left compare this to Kosovo, I’d point out that we still have peacekeeping troops in Kosovo, long after the Serbian government which launched the attacks had been changed and long after Slobodan Milosevic departed his prison cell for Hell.

  20. Dana:

    Mr Viti wrote:

    Oh, and, thanks for stopping by my site and commenting over here. :)

    I followed the pingback you sent to this post.

  21. donviti:

    :)

  22. socialistic ben:

    we’ll see what “innocent free people” we protect when the Saudi Royal Family Kings of America are threatened. Hell, even Fox News will support their major share holders.

  23. socialistic ben:

    If the US government (im starting to realize it really doesnt matter who is in charge) and the europeans really gave a flying F about averting humanitarian crisis, we wouldn’t try to stop them in oil rich countries only. There are so many other… and have been so many other.. cases exactly like Lybia… but the people are much blacker and the ground is much less profitable so who cares about them?

  24. Jason330:

    1) Libertarian my ass.
    2) I’ll bet Qaddafi regrets giving up his nuclear program.
    3) Bombs are only free when used by Republicans.
    4) There is no number 4.

  25. Geezer:

    “Why can’t we just leave these situations alone? Why do the other countries have to free ride on our policing?”

    As I wrote elsewhere, it’s a logical extension of the decision to prevent Germany and Japan from re-arming after WWII. I’m not endorsing it, but you asked, so I’m explaining.

  26. socialistic ben:

    so why now? That is a possible explanation of the motives of the people who decide to be “TEAM AMERICA….. but now that the 3rd Reich and the Empire of the Rising Sun are no longer big threats…. in fact the Nazis have their biggest armed population right here in Jesusland…… why are we still doing this stuff?

  27. donviti:

    Ben,

    PEAK OIL

  28. socialistic ben:

    oh i know the answer… i’m just too young to be jaded and bitter.

  29. Cpt Robespierre:

    Sudan had the 20th largest proved oil reserves in the world, and we didn’t intervene there either. I’m getting tired of hearing people claim the US *only* intervenes based on where there’s oil. People who complain that we didn’t intervene in Sudan would almost universally be complaining that we wanted Sudanese oil, if we had intervened, I’m sure.

    Also I have no idea what donviti’s talking about when he says “we didn’t need the UN to wage war in Iraq the first go around.” The 1991 war had UN authorization.

    As for Dana’s observation that “we still have peacekeeping troops in Kosovo, long after the Serbian government which launched the attacks had been changed and long after Slobodan Milosevic departed his prison cell for Hell”… well that’s true. But they’re actual peacekeeping troops in a generally very stable situation. So what’s the problem? It’s not an occupation facing active resistance.

  30. socialistic ben:

    if it is so stable, why are we there?

    Lybia has much more oil than sudan. It is a simple math equation. the lives of those in Darfur wasn’t worth what could have been gained from the oil there.

  31. socialistic sock puppet:

    The genocide in Darfur also wasn’t having much of an effect on oil prices…. getting involved and stopping it however might have, so Exxon said no.

  32. Avagadro:

    “Libya is not Iraq”

    True, Congress authorized military action in Iraq.

  33. socialistic ben:

    so Obama has just said that it is US policy that Gadapheee must go…. not part of the UN mandate. we know UK France and anyone else wont help out in that, so it looks like we will …. “make him leave”
    How does Obama plan on carrying out that policy if we are only going to have a limited role? The lack of explanation from the Commander in Chief is very disturbing indeed. All we know now is that it is our policy to get rid of Gadafi….. and that the UN doesn’t support that. Maybe we wont need to wait for President Palin for WW3

    why not make Italy deal with this mess…. it is their fault.

  34. Dana Garrett:

    “If humanitarian ends are realized by accident, are they less worthwhile? Not saying they will be, but what if, despite our malign intentions, if really does save thousands of lives?”

    The point is that no objective person could seriously consider that “humanitarian ends” is a driving agenda for the USA’s involvement in the Libyan conflict. Otherwise, the stunning veritable silence from the USA about the democracy movements in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia wouldn’t exist. So, from my perspective, I see the question put this way: Would the achievement of a humanitarian outcome ennoble the USA hegemonic purposes in the Libyan conflict after the fact? What’s more, would the achievement of a humanitarian outcome in Libya deter or hamper the achievement of the USA’s hegemonic purposes for participating in the military conflict? Probably not. If anything, it would probably enhance the USA’s regional hegemonic purposes by providing a justification for its involvement in the conflict.

    Mind you, I’m not saying that no one shouldn’t come to the aid of the Libyan rebels. I’m just convinced that the USA should have no role in it. None. Just about whenever the USA acts in the region, it’s hegemonic purposes are transparent to the people of the region. That long-term problem of perception could someday cut the USA off at the knees in ways so obvious they require no description.

  35. socialistic ben:

    “If humanitarian ends are realized by accident, are they less worthwhile? Not saying they will be, but what if, despite our malign intentions, if really does save thousands of lives?”

    and what if the long term outcome of the iraq war ends up bringing more democracy to the middle east? will Bush’s lie about WMD be forgiven?

  36. skippertee:

    All I know is that those stand off cruise missiles cost BIG BUCKS and steaming at flank speed to put up an air cap is big money too.
    Let the EURO-TRASH take on ALL the responsibility for this.
    Better yet, the Chinese.

  37. donviti:

    Ben he’s not bush, so don’t worry about it (pat’s head)

  38. socialistic ben:

    heh. thanks DV.

    Just remember this about gadaphi, he has lots of support all over africa. You think the former French and English colonies are just going to sit by and let Europe throw out another african leader?
    It’s a good thing we’ve forced them to be so poor the past 50 years… not like a conflict in a wealthy country like afghanistan……

  39. Dana:

    The Mr Garrett with the good first name wrote:

    Mind you, I’m not saying that no one shouldn’t come to the aid of the Libyan rebels. I’m just convinced that the USA should have no role in it. None. Just about whenever the USA acts in the region, it’s hegemonic purposes are transparent to the people of the region.

    While I’m certain that most of the regulars at the Delaware Liberal would see the United States as an aggressive, imperialistic power — not that there’s anything wrong with that! :) — just how do you see what President Obama has done, under the UN authorization, and Secretary Gates’ statement that we’ll be turning it over to the British and the French in just a couple of days as transparently hegemonic?

    Me, if I thought we could simply conquer Libya and take it’s oil, I’d be all for that, but I don’t see the will to do it.

  40. socialistic ben:

    “just how do you see what President Obama has done, under the UN authorization, and Secretary Gates’ statement that we’ll be turning it over to the British and the French in just a couple of days as transparently hegemonic?”

    because based on what obama said about Iraq and Afghanistan, I don’t believe him. Not that i think he is lying, im not THAT jaded yet…. i just think it is impossible to predict anything about that region and therefor foolish so make statements and assumptions about when it will be over.
    What about when France gets bored and there is still a significant threat to the civilian population? Do we just pick up the bill for france, go back in and … what?

  41. Avagadro:

    Who are the anti Gadaffi forces?

    Liberal reformers
    Islamists
    Communists
    Monarchists

    Who are Obama’s new Libyan allies in his war against Gadaffi?

  42. Cpt Robespierre:

    @socialistic ben: “if [Kosovo] is so stable, why are we there?”
    Well there’s still a minority Serb population and Serbia still doesn’t accept Kosovar independence…

    Also, more generally (i.e. not related to the first part of this comment), there is a shocking amount of racism, factual ignorance, and general stupidity in many of the comments in this threat…or shocking coming from a group of people claiming to be enlightened left-wing folks and criticizing the author for allegedly insufficient liberalism (according to a contorted and subjective definition of the word).

  43. Chris Slavens:

    You’re correct about Obama’s approach to military intervention being different than Bush’s. Though you wouldn’t know it from the rhetoric of 2003-2008, plenty of congressional Democrats voted for the Iraq War. On the flip side, Obama’s move against Libya was made without congressional authorization — even Bush, bad as he was, sought and received the backing of Congress.

    Hey, they’re just the people we elect to represent us. It’s not as if their (or our) opinions matter, right? That is the Obama Doctrine.

  44. anon:

    Destroying Libya to save it? What Obama has done is an impeachable offense. Professor Francis Boyle, who authored the impeachment articles against George WAR Bush, said Obama has done precisely the same thing. ONLY Congress can declare war! Liberal democrats are outraged that once again the Constitution is shredded by an imperialist president. It matters not whether the Prez is dem or rep…it unconsitutional. Should we liberals, progressives etal who still believe in the Consitution stand with it? Lets call a spade a spade. It doesnt matter to me how many presidunces have violated the Constitution…Obama is supposed to be a consitutional law professor?

  45. Phil:

    “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.”

    - Sen. Barack Obama December 20, 2007.

  46. skippertee:

    “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.”

    - Sen. Barack Obama December 20, 2007.

    Fuck!- We in the peace movement have been saying this since the Gulf of Tonkin for Christs sakes.
    It’s never made a goddamn bit of difference to POTUS and the pussies in congress only worried about their testosterone levels and re-elections.

  47. Cpt Robespierre:

    @skippertee: President Johnson had a resolution from Congress after Tonkin…

  48. skippertee:

    Yes, a resolution that he took to the farthest reaches and was never reined in by the body that could have STOPPED him,if they had the will,by DE FUNDING him in any budget.
    We were LIED into Vietnam.
    We learned NOTHING.
    We continue our national ignorance.
    We are a short attention span nation, with violence as our evening entertainment broken up by commercials that keep our bodies fresh and clean.

  49. Dana Garrett:

    “just how do you see what President Obama has done, under the UN authorization, and Secretary Gates’ statement that we’ll be turning it over to the British and the French in just a couple of days as transparently hegemonic?”

    If the USA can get the UN to rubber stamp its aggression and if it can get other nations to act as military proxies to instantiate its hegemonic goals and allow it (the USA) to take an ostensibly lesser role, then why wouldn’t it opt for that route? The USA gets both legal sanction and a less costly option for pursuing its hegemonic aims in the region. You are not seriously suggesting that it’s only hegemony if the USA does it all by itself, are you? That would be a narrow conception of how hegemony operates.

    “Me, if I thought we could simply conquer Libya and take it’s oil, I’d be all for that, but I don’t see the will to do it.”

    Well, then, you are a monster. I suspect you lack a conscience about many possible despicable actions. Consequently, your opinion doesn’t count about these matters.

  50. Joe American:

    Kosovo?

    Oh, you mean where a discredited Democrat president conducted a war without congressional authorization (indeed, over specific congressional disapproval) based upon the say-so of an international organization, in order to raise his approval ratings, despite the lack of a discernible US interest.

    I guess that does mean Libya is more like Kosovo than Iraq.

  51. Jason330:

    I’m not a huge Bill Clinton fan, but I sure miss the peace and prosperity.

  52. Dana:

    anon wrote:

    What Obama has done is an impeachable offense. Professor Francis Boyle, who authored the impeachment articles against George WAR Bush, said Obama has done precisely the same thing. ONLY Congress can declare war! Liberal democrats are outraged that once again the Constitution is shredded by an imperialist president. It matters not whether the Prez is dem or rep…it unconsitutional. Should we liberals, progressives etal who still believe in the Consitution stand with it? Lets call a spade a spade. It doesnt matter to me how many presidunces have violated the Constitution…Obama is supposed to be a consitutional law professor?

    I suppose that it’s unsurprising that a professor who wrote (why does the word “authored” need to exist?) the impeachment articles against George Bush that went exactly nowhere would be saying the same things about President Obama. Our 44th President has not declared war against Libya, and he has said that we’ll be turning over almost all of the military action to our allies. He has the power to do that as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

    Our Constitution actually has a pretty big loophole there: it gives to Congress alone the power to declare war, but to the President the power of commander-in-chief. There is no constitutional resolution of the inherent conflict if the President wants to use the troops when the Congress hasn’t declared war, or even the reverse, if the President doesn’t want to wage a war that the Congress declared, and so orders them to stay in their barracks.

  53. Jason330:

    Question: How do you turn a Republican into a small government lover who hates military action?

    Answer: Elect a Democratic President.

  54. Unstable Isotope:

    Obama invoked the War Powers Act in his letter to Congress.

  55. socialistic ben:

    @cpt uncorruptable. (Robespierre)

    “Well there’s still a minority Serb population and Serbia still doesn’t accept Kosovar independence…”

    do they not have their own army/police/security of any kind? By the kosovo doctrine, we will be in afghanistan for another 15 years.

  56. Von Cracker:

    Libya is not Iraq. Of course it is not. The rationale wasnt built on a complex pile of lies.

    Btw, liberalism doesnt equal pacifism.

  57. socialistic ben:

    I just dont see how anyone can think that it will be as easy as we are being told.
    Its one thing to draw distinctions between whatever we are doing with Lybia, and Iraq. It is another to discount the reality of the region and think this will be it. We’re in now. We are in another Muslim country that can very easily turn into a terror state…. and we are just gonna let that play out? right.

  58. Dana Garrett:

    I’ve often wondered if one could make a valid legal case that a President is constitutionally constrained to order the military into a conflict because of a treaty obligation. Article 6 of the constitution describes the treaties the US enters into as “the supreme law of the land.” The USA entered into the Libyan conflict as a result of a UN Security Council decision, which the US is, by treaty, obliged to comply with. Whether the US is obligated by treaty to assume the exact role that it has in the Libyan conflict is, perhaps, an arguable point. Nevertheless, in some cases the Supremacy Clause arguably offers a President an (unfortunate) exemption from getting Congress to declare war.

  59. Phil:

    F-15E down. Tack $31 million (build cost) to the libyan price tag.

  60. Dana:

    Mr Garrett: The resolution authorizes “member states” to take action, but it does not, and cannot, order specific action by specific states.

  61. donviti:

    when the right is defending Obama, you know you got problems on the left

  62. Jason330:

    I don’t see anyone on the right defending Obama. Granted, I only read this blog, so…

  63. donviti:

    It’s ok, I’m defending you over at places you don’t visit.

  64. Dana:

    Jason wrote:

    I don’t see anyone on the right defending Obama. Granted, I only read this blog, so…

    I can think of one you should visit both frequently and often! :)

    But at least on my site, we haven’t been defending President Obama too much: my position is that if he was going to do this, he should have done so three weeks ago, when it would have been less costly in blood and treasure, and when it stood a much better chance of toppling the Qaddafi regime. I have held that what he chose to do is perfectly legal.

  65. jason330:

    Your position is that you were, ultimately, going to be critical of the President. That’s what you have been trained by wingnuts media to do. So don’t beat yourself up over it. I mean, it isn’t like you have much free will given your obvious mental handicaps. In fact, I think you are doing a super job with what you were given.

  66. donviti:

    here is some “hoorah’ing” from the right by the way:

    http://www.tnr.com/article/world/85559/libya-intervention-american-left-wrong

  67. hmmm:

    VIDEO- BIDEN FLASHBACK: Launching an Attack Without Congressional Approval is an Impeachable Offense

    In 2007, then Sen. Joe Biden appeared on MSNBC’s Hardball and said launching an attack without congressional approval is an impeachable offense. This flashback comes on the heels of Obama launching an attack on Libya without congressional approval.

    Biden said:

    I want to stand by that comment I made. The reason I made that comment is a warning. The reason, I don’t say those things lightly, Chris, you’ve known me for a long time. I was chairman of the Judiciary committee for 17 years or its ranking member. I teach separation of powers and constitutional law. This is something I know. So I got together and brought a group of Constitutional scholars together and write a piece I’m going to deliver to the whole United States Senate in pointing out the president has no Constitutional authority to take this nation to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked, or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. If he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that– but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that- I don’t say it lightly, I don’t say it lightly.

    blog.eyeblast.tv