Proof the Republicans Are Posturing

This article proves that all this noise Republicans are making about Obama violating the War Powers Act is just a pretense. They're not actually going to DO anything. They want Qaddafi taken out as much as anyone. They just want an excuse to criticize.

Why Democrats Don't Defend Each Other

The best example of this is the way Al Gore distanced himself from Bill Clinton. Given that most people did not give a shit about Bill Clinton's personal life and his approval ratings continued to rise all the way through the impeachment process, this was not only unnecessary, it was strategically stupid.

The real question though, is not so much why Democrats won't defend each other as it is why Republicans never seem to get any heat for defending the guys in their own party when they get into trouble. It's clear why Democrats wont defend each other; they don't want the stink of scandal to rub off on them. The real question is why the stink never seems to stick to Republicans who defend corrupt Republicans.

Obama's Interpretation of the War Powers Act

As I said earlier, the attack on Libya, while arguably justifiable, and legal according to international law, is of questionable constitutionality due to the fact that Congress has not declared war on Libya, nor has an authorization for the use of military force been issued.

Obama's defense is that the War Powers Act does not apply to American involvement in Libya, because American soldiers are not being put in harm's way.

The relevant text of the War Powers Act is as follows:
"SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations."

Now, I suppose one could interpret the prohibition of unapproved introduction of forces "into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated" to be intended simply to keep soldiers out of situations where they would be harmed. It seems to say "don't go into a war zone, and don't go into a place that is clearly becoming a war zone." The text, however, seems to prohibit more than just being introduced into hostilities. It also seems to prohibit involvement in hostilities. The fact that American forces are not somewhere they can be shot at, does not mean they are not involved.

Of course, if mere involvement in hostilities is that standard by which we should judge whether an action need congressional approval, then there are potentially many other conflicts in which American forces have involved themselves that must now be turned over to Congress.

Two Kinds of American Exceptionalism

When Republicans accuse the Democrats of not believing in "American Exceptionalism" and when people on the left reject the idea of "American Exceptionalism", it's clear that they are talking about two different things. When Republicans say they believe in American Exceptionalism, they are saying they believe that America is exceptionally awesome. When those on the left criticize American Exceptionalism, they are criticizing the idea that America should be exempt from the rules and expectations placed on other countries. The American Exceptionalism to which these critics are referring is that which says America is right to try the Japanese for war crimes for waterboarding POWs, but should also be able to make an exception for itself when it comes to the same practice.