I beg to disagree. Al Queada attacked the United States and under the Constitution it was the duty of the Commander in Chief, with the assent of Congress, to find and eliminate the attackers in order to defend the homeland. Iraq did not attack the United States and represented no threat to the homeland.
We have become an imperialist nation selectively intervening militarily in undeclared wars where our imperial President defines a “strategic interest”. Note the word “selectively”. It could be argued we have or had a strategic interest in eliminating the communist state 90 miles off the Florida coast but we did not invade Cuba. We also did not invade Venezuela which poses more of a strategic threat than Iraq. We also did not invade Iran which had taken direct action against US citizens.
The Constitution does not provide for the President to invade countries at will because he defines a “strategic interest” or wants to establish a democratic government. If George Bush had followed the Constitution and asked for an actual declaration of war from Congress for the purpose of regime change it would have likely been voted down. The skirting of the Constitutional requirement by Truman (Korea), Johnson (Vietnam), Reagan (Grenada), Bush I (Iraq), Clinton (Kosovo), Bush II (Iraq and Afghanistan), Obama (Libya) has resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of US lives as well as the draining of our national treasury. Obama is thumbing his nose at Congress today over Libya because his predecessors got away with violating their oaths of office and not getting the declaration of war before committing troops to combat.
I’m a strict constructionist when it comes to interpreting the Constitution and the document is very clear with respect to going to war. If one has any doubts about the meaning, read the Federalist Papers or the transcripts of the debates at the ratifying convention. It was never contemplated the chief executive would have the power to engage in multi year wars based on his definition of “strategic interest” without obtaining the consent of Congress.
Apples to oranges comparison.
GWB got in office when the official policy of the United States already was regime change in Iraq. The Clinton Administration and Congress all on board before GWB got there. We had not yet invaded, but we were working all other angles to Saddam’s demise. The liberal liars later pretended that GWB used Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq as pretext to invade, but it was a pretense, a lie. The whole lot of the Libs also believed Saddam had WMD, including nuclear along with the others he gassed the Kurds with and whatever else, we weren’t sure.
After 9-11 our great fear was that of suffering a terrorist attack that used weapons of mass destruction, not just planes into buildings. We also had Saddam’s regime dead to rights under international protocols of weapons inspections, UN Resolutions, etc. Saddam shot at our pilots doing the no-fly zone to protect the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs from further genocide. Saddam also plotted to assassinate former President GHWB.
Lastly, GWB went to Congress and got support. It was not called a Declaration of War but it authorized such actions as necessary.
Obama never did diddly in regard to such a Congressional Resolution as GWB did. This Libya thing was him acting as with dictatorial powers. Even as Congress now points out to him that under the War Powers Act he must come to them for Libyan war authority, he arrogantly dismisses them by claiming that Libya is not a war.
Obama will find a way to do as he pleases. He don’t need no stinkin’ past example of anybody getting away with anything. Not only in military and foreign policy, but domestically. That’s a fact, look at his record on all issues of his agenda, and face it.
To blame Bush is ludicrous and is so Obama-esque of you, the irony is palpable.