This isn't an easy situation; stop treating it like a joke
There are two aspects of this thread that catch my attention. The central question, whether the Libya action is an impeachable offense, is obviously one of them, but the answer to that can be variously phrased; we'll come back to it in a moment.
The
pro-Qadafi anti-Obama anti-war ... damn, what do I call these folks? Look, when it's Rep. Kucinich, I can deal with that. The question is consistent with his outlook and behavior. But many of the objecters are of the attitude and consistency that would move me to say something controversial like, "Well, fine, but I just hope you remember this standard the next time it's a white Republican."
And, of course, that phrasing is a bit unfair, but as has been pointed out, Reagan didn't have a declaration when he invaded Grenada. Nor did Poppy Bush have a declaration when he invaded Panama, deposed the leader, swore in a new president, and dissolved the Panamanian army. I think it's going to be a hard case to impeach Obama.
Nor do I think if it's President Pawlenty bombing the shit out of some dictator in 2014, will we hear this kind of ridiculous criticism. Apparently, it's some manner of hypocrisy to see a difference between an airstrike and a full-blown invasion.
But if you pay attention to allegedly liberal news sources, you'll find the anti-war faction of American liberalism is absolutely squirming right now. MSNBC yesterday called it "the Third War". What of
CPUSA, who demand an immediate cease-fire:
In spite of the all-too-evident crimes and abuses of Gadaffi's regime, a civil war with massive foreign intervention is not in the interests of the either the Libyan or the American people, or humanity in general, which is served only by peace and cooperation among the nations. The Middle East area is one of the most conflict-ridden and unstable in the world, and there is real danger that a civil war in Libya could lead to a wider conflagration.
This situation needs to be deescalated, also, because of the bad precedent it sets for NATO and/or U.S. intervention in situations of internal conflict all over the world. We have only to recall the situations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia to perceive how such military interventions, carried out under humanitarian pretexts, end up causing more death, suffering and destruction than the situations they were supposed to remedy.
The
World Socialist Web Site (SEP/ICFI) denounces the war for being "driven not by humanitarian concerns, but rather the imperialist aims of dominating the country and seizing its oil wealth".
In the long run, I can accept any number of changing standards, but I reject the way in which those changes come around. It would be one thing to say, "Okay, look, we've built ourselves this bad habit, and we need to break it, so just like cigarettes, President Obama, you need to stop bombing."
But the shock and revulsion some of Obama's opponents have voiced is wearing thin. These one-eighties keep happening. When Obama nominated Justice Sotomayor, one would have thought, hearing the outcry, that he was sending Hitler to the bench. Oh, my goodness! She has empathy! Doesn't President Obama know that empathy has no place on the Court? To the other, one wonders if President Bush understood that. Because when it was the male conservative, Justice Alito, empathy was a laudable characteristic. Okay, so we've decided empathy isn't a good thing for a judge. That's fine. Just ... don't pretend that's always been the standard. Don't pretend it's not a new standard since last time.
What crushes me is that this discussion of impeachment and Obama's hideous offense against Congress might actually be bipartisan cover fire. As long as the discussion stays out in absolutely ludicrous territory, how many are going to have what seems a more vital discussion? As
I noted in another political consideration of the action against Libya:
I've wanted Qadafi for a long, long time. My first ever political cartoon, drawn in 1986, was about Colonel Q. But I'm not sure there's any "right" way to do this for the United States, no matter who is in the White House. Setting aside the writhing conflict of being at least a nominal pacifist, I can at least say that it probably shouldn't be our airplanes and bombs. This has the potential to get incredibly messy.
Get the Arab League to acknowledge the need for regime change; put France on point for the Western contribution, and have the U.S. stand by for operational support and humanitarian relief.
The more we blow up in Libya, the deeper our shit creek gets. I get Obama's rationale, and I want Qadafi down and out, but if that's the plan, it could have been done by now.
The longer this goes on, the deeper our hoopla. Some peoples is gonna die, and one would hope that toll doesn't amount to absolutely nothing.
David Addison said, "Live fast, die young; lean, clean underwear."
Master Chiun said, "Remember: In, out, like a duck mating."
Cowboy Feng said, "Do the job."
____________________
Notes:
Communist Party USA. "Libya: Stop the bombing, cease-fire now". March 22, 2011. CPUSA.org. March 24, 2011. http://cpusa.org/libya-stop-the-bombing-demand-cease-fire-now/
Van Auken, Bill. "US-NATO warplanes strike Libyan ground forces". World Socialist Web Site. March 24, 2011. WSWS.org. March 24, 2011. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/liby-m24.shtml
