Yes, Presidents are taking too much power these days. Left wing, right wing, they're all going above and beyond the powers granted to them.

He didn't act unilaterally. The leaders of other countries were with him on the decision. Who is this Congress you speak of?

Cue leftist rationalization in 3... 2... 1...

"Yes, Presidents are taking too much power these days. Left wing, right wing, they're all going above and beyond the powers granted to them."

Not true. Read up on the War Powers Act.

The sad part is that the American public lets a President act based on popularity, not the law.

Barack Obama - He's George Bush with a Peace Prize.

When it comes to Obama's actions regarding foreign policy and the power of the executive, this is a reasonably accurate statement. Despite his Kenyan anti-colonial philosophy (I joke), Obama's approach to these issues is fundamentally that of the D.C. establishment going back to at least Clinton's intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo – that the U.S. can and should intervene in the internal politics of nations in which we have no meaningful strategic interest.

Not true. Read up on the War Powers Act.

My understanding of that act is that Congressional authorization is still required for any prolonged military engagement, but that the President can act without authorization for short-duration missions in response to an immediate threat.

I think the Libyan intervention is likely to turn out badly, and the President's failure to even try to get Congressional authorization is another serious blow to our currently weakened doctrine of separation of powers.

James Fallows blogged about this in a way that reflects a lot of what I think:

How it was made: it cannot reassure anyone who cares about America's viability as a republic that it is entering another war with essentially zero Congressional consultation or "buy-in," and with very little serious debate outside the Executive Branch itself. And there the debate was, apparently, mostly about changing the President's own mind. I recognize that there are times when national safety requires an Administration to respond quickly, without enduring the posturing and institutionalized dysfunction that is the modern Congress. Without going through all the arguments, I assert that this is not such a moment. To be more precise: the Administration has not made the public case that the humanitarian and strategic stakes in Libya are so unique as to compel intervention there (even as part of a coalition), versus the many other injustices and tragedies we deplore but do not go to war to prevent. I can think of several examples in my current part of the world.

I didn't like the "shut up and leave it to us" mode of foreign policy when carried out by people I generally disagreed with, in the Bush-Cheney era. I don't like it when it's carried out by people I generally agree with, in this Administration.

...

Where it might lead: The most predictable failure in modern American military policy has been the reluctance to ask, And what happens then? We invade Iraq to push Saddam Hussein from power. Good. What happens then? Obama increases our commitment in Afghanistan and say that "success" depends on the formation of a legitimate, honest Afghan government on a certain timetable. The deadline passes. What happens then? One reason why Pentagon officials, as opposed to many politicians, have generally been cool to the idea of "preventive" strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities is that many have gone through the exercise of asking, What happens then?

...

Launching air strikes is the easiest, most exciting, and most dependably successful stage of a modern war, from the US / Western perspective. TV coverage is wall-to-wall and awestruck. The tech advantages are all on our side. Few Americans, or none at all, are hurt. It takes a while to see who is hurt on the ground.

But after this spectacular first stage of air war, what happens then? If the airstrikes persuade Qaddafi and his forces just to quit, great! But what if they don't? What happens when a bomb lands in the "wrong" place? As one inevitably will. When Arab League supporters of the effort see emerging "flaws" and "abuses" in its execution? As they will. When the fighting goes on and the casualties mount up and a commitment meant to be "days, not weeks" cannot "decently" be abandoned, after mere days, with so many lives newly at stake? When the French, the Brits, and other allies reach the end of their military resources -- or their domestic support -- and more of the work naturally shifts to the country with more weapons than the rest of the world combined? I usually do not agree with Peggy Noonan, but I think she is exactly right in her recent warning* about how much easier it is to get into a war than ever to get out.

And to make thing even more awesome, the Arab League is already criticizing the operation that their support was essential to starting.

... so provided they don't stay more than 60 days?

Who wants to bet they stay longer than 60 days?

Here's a link to the Kucinich article.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html

NicoleK, the US is talking about handing over to France and the UK once they've flattened the air defense net. So arguably the 60 day rule could still be held to. So far it *probably* falls under the threshold for a major war requiring authorisation under the War Powers Act anyway. Maybe. My view is the act is intentionally vague to provide a bit of flexibility.

Yes, Christopher, the Arab League are already back-pedaling with "but we didn't mean bombing". Good summary here

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/libya_but_what_next/

My biggest problem is that there isn't any defined objective here. How do you "protect civilians" with aircraft? Who are the civilians? Lots of people not wearing uniforms there. If the rebels start massacring civilians (or even killing some as collateral damage), do we bomb them? If Gaddafi's forces hide in cities or attack with human shields tied onto their tanks, does everyone hold off and let them win? Do they just want everyone to stop where they are, or is the idea to re-establish a unitary government in Libya? If so, which one?

Obama - pick a fucking side, and see it through - or don't bother. This is bullshit.