Is it too late ?

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

A couple of stories from Libya highlight what is going on there right now, plus my obligatory two cents worth:

( Read more... )

And now for the flip side of my post yesterday:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Which Middle Eastern dictator did a President who started an illegal and unconstitutional war hail as a great and good guy for having turned in non-existent WMDs and a sign that his revolution by bayonet point was a mark of progress? 

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1194766,00.html

The Bush Administration has been quick to stress Libya's comeback as a model that Iran and North Korea should now follow. But it may have been Gaddafi's rogue pursuit of nuclear weapons, more than anything else, that made Rice's announcement Monday possible. As Gaddafi sees it, Libya's nuke program gave him some much-needed leverage in his dealings with Washington. The bargain gave each what they needed: Gaddafi is a pariah no more, and the Bush administration has a success story in the Middle East.

It's not necessarily the complete success Bush may have had in mind. In citing Gaddafi as a model, Rice has signaled the Administration's priority for security over the cause of freedom that both Gaddafi and Bush love to talk about. Even though Gaddafi has done little to loosen his dictatorship, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac, among other statesmen, have already visited Libya to signal the West's pleasure. President Bush, or his successor, could be next to visit the leader in his tent.

________________________________

I remember back when the revolutions started buffeting Egypt that someone asked "Is this a vindication of Bush's wars?" I'll let this analysis from the Bush era mostly speak for itself, while as per Rule 8 my thoughts on it are thus: Obama's not the only leader with egg on his face from this senseless Operation: War Is Peace. That people now cheer missiles aimed at a thug of a dictator whose manipulation of the Bush-Republicans by telling them what they wanted to hear is the most damning verdict of Bush's failure in the last 2 years.

But hey, we're not at war with Libya so there's nothing to be concerned about, right? Apologies for having been so posty as of late.

A Wild Gnome appears!

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Senator Kucinich managed to briefly make the news when he claimed that Obama is committing an impeachable offense by taking part in the UN backed military action against Libya.

“President Obama moved forward without Congress approving,” the liberal Ohio Democrat told Raw Story. “He didn’t have congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that’s got to be said."

Kucinich did not say he would go ahead with impeachment but at least he's being consistent. He wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney for the same thing.

Now, at the risk of turning this in to yet another Libya yes vs no post, I have some related considerations:

What's his goal here? 2012 election? He does that from time to time. When a politician starts making the news circuits saying pandering type things, one starts to wonder. I mean presidents have been doing this for ages. Kucinich *knows* nothing is going to come from this angle, except maybe raising some support. What else could he be going for?

I like Kucinich, and I would have voted for him last election if I had the chance, but he was out before Oregon even got to vote. I think he's being over-alarmist in this case claiming dire consequences, but I guess he knows his audience. I agree with him that perhaps the president shouldn't be able to perform military actions, but I think he's being a little phony declaring it an impeachable offense.

Do you think he's right? Obviously its not an impeachable offense-- in our precedent based system especially, but should presidents be able to authorize military actions? He's the commander of the Army and all, but military action can have huge far-reaching consequences for the country, as we have seen many times over. *huge* consequences. My opinion is that something like that should be hard. It should take lots of debate and questioning. Or would that hamstring our executive too much, leaving it unable to respond to national threats? Is there some sort of middle-ground on this?

Lastly, ever since its inception, the office of the executive has been taking more power. The initial intent was for a system of checks and balances. Are we out of balance? Is the executive too strong? And how would one reverse such a thing? Its not something people seem willing to do when their guy is in power, but oh man its a threat to freedom and democracy when the other guy is.