Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich didn't stop at blasting President Obama on his Libya war policy recently in a meeting of ultra-liberal Congressional Democrats. He practically invited Congress to consider an impeachment discussion of Obama.
Kucinich didn't even stop there. He rammed the impeachment point home further in a follow-up interview in which he flatly said that the president went squarely against the Constitution in approving the Libya military action. So far, no other Democrat went quite that far. But several key Congressional Democrats including Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), and Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), did openly grouse that Obama went too far in not getting approval of Congress for his action.
There is no dispute that presidents have a legal, constitutional and political responsibility to get approval from Congress when the issue is waging war. This obligation is clearly spelled out in the War Powers Act. And those who made that point were right to make it. But Kucinich and the handful of Democrats who ripped Obama about Libya certainly know that there is virtually no possibility that Obama will blatantly abuse that power as Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan and commit American ground troops to combat in Libya. This would be a gross violation of the provisions of the Act.
Obama backed the Libyan no-fly zone because the United Nations Security Council by unanimous vote backed it. The House Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees backed the action. More importantly, the Arab League requested that the United Nations impose a no-fly zone over Libya. And nearly every humanitarian group around has backed it.
But, most important he backed it because it's the politically and morally right thing to do. Kucinich and others would have screamed the loudest if Obama had done nothing and Gaddafi slaughtered thousands in a blood-lust rampage against the rebel groups. In his case, and that of every other dictator that's ever been under siege from their own people, it always leads to the slaughter of innocent women, children and elderly, under the guise of restoring order. If Obama hadn't acted, he would have been even more loudly condemned as being weak, indecisive and a chronic ditherer when it comes to making tough decisions on foreign policy issues.
The real troubling thing about Kucinich's far-fetched hint that Obama could be subject to impeachment is that there are more than a few Republicans that would gladly relish the thought of having a contentious, distracting, and uproarious debate over Obama's conduct not only in Libya but also over every other one of his policies. This would be more than a classic case of politics makes strange bedfellows, it would be a major destabilizing debate just at the point when Obama is gearing up in his push for re-election in 2012.
The GOP presidential field is weak, divided, and top heavy with controversy and even loathing. Just mention Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Newt Gingrich and listen to the loud groans among a majority of voters, and that includes a significant number of Republicans.
The outbursts from Kucinich and other Democrats, then, about Obama violating Congressional trust and prerogatives on Libya, simply adds to the political confusion. And that's political manna from heaven for the GOP. Kucinich and Obama's severest Democratic critics hope they can push Obama off his cautious, centrist stance on financial reform, tax cuts, government spending on jobs and more aggressive action on the home foreclosure crisis. Libya was just the latest, and the most convenient way to do that.
Any other time and place, it would be a fair and even needed tactic to get the administration's full attention on the issues that Kucinich and liberal Democrats have pushed, prodded, and hectored Obama on for the last two years. But that tactic at this crucial stage of Obama's presidency is fraught with political perils.
Kucinich, for instance, has found a warm reception on some conservative talk shows; shows that normally would not give him the time of day at any other time. But a lambaste of Obama coming from a liberal Democrat is something that the Right will always gleefully welcome. At any other time, Kucinich would lustily demand and cheer the action Obama and the United Nations took. The fact that he and few others don't, but chose to nitpick instead tells more about their ongoing political anger at Obama than any real concern over whether Obama snubbed his nose at Congress. The GOP noise machine is in delirium at this. They get their fondest wish of pillorying Obama without saying a word, all courtesy of the Democrats.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He hosts a national Capitol Hill broadcast radio talk show on KTYM Radio Los Angeles and WFAX Radio Washington D.C. streamed on The Hutchinson Report Newsmaker Hour on blogtalkradio.com and wfax.com and internet TV broadcast on thehutchinsonreportnews.com

Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/earlhutchinson
Despite Obama's vilification of Bush for his alleged unilateralism, "Obama's 'coalition of the willing,'" according to foreign policy reporter Josh Rogin, "is smaller than any major multilateral operation since the end of the Cold War." Obama's Libyan intervention is more unilateral than Dubya's in another respect, as well: Obama has brazenly refused even to consult Congress, much less seek its blessing.
Think about it. Obama's secretary of defense, Robert Gates, admitted on national television Sunday that Libya poses no actual or imminent threat to the United States and that it is not a vital national security interest. This was no gaffe. Surely, Obama's team is not so incompetent and undisciplined that it didn't anticipate this question and carefully prepare the answer.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton damaged the administration's credibility even more by opining that as long as international bodies approved of America's kinetic military action, the president didn't even need to pick up the phone to call Congress. Consider what that reveals concerning the administration's mindset about America's sovereignty and prerogatives.
In regards to your interventionist principles, please tell me, where the US and others have intervened, how many sons, daughters, mothers and fathers did we kill, all in the name of humanity.
Even assuming, that Obama had principled reasons for intervening in Libya, under the law he was required to consult with Congress (not just a few committee members) before the US military became involved in hostile activities in and/or above Libya.
Christina Moorshead
I am just hoping the left wakes up and sees what happened during the last election cycle before the next one. The right has held its power through unity. The left had a brief glimmer of unity in 2008. Will the right fracture while the left only develops a hairline crack?
Standby Canada for GOP 2012, it'll be a really interesting show.
_______________________________________
Funny, the opposition is being slaughtered in Syria and Bhrain and I don't hear anybody screaming because Obama hasn't sent us in there.
Kucinich's job isn't to work to only support Obama's presidency he was sent there to do what he sees is best for the country.
In a word, baloney.
If we're going to play the morality card, where have we been in Darfur? Where were we when the Kurds were gassed by Saddam in 1988? Where were we in Rwanda?
We can obviously pick and choose which atrocities to respond to. And after ten years in the war-torn Middle East under dubious circumstances, this didn't deserve even a month of serious debate? I think President Obama is placating, once again, his conservative, corporate backers he hopes to woo for additional campaign funding. Cynical? Yes. But the truth hurts.
Good for Kucinich. He's got my support.
Why in the world would you, a democrat, get on cable tv and say "Impeach a democratic president'. In this political climate when any democratic president is 100 times better for the country than conservative republican - didn't we just finish 8 yrs of republican president. Why didn't these same dems come on yelling about 'impeach Bush43' when they gained control of congress in 2007. That's what the country was waiting for them to do. I heard Pelosi took impeachment off the table because she didn't want the country tied up in this debate. I didn't hear Dennis, Charles, or anyone else going on cable tv bashing Pelosi.
President Obama has become the whipping president for everyone. We don't deserve this man as president. He's too honest, too sincere, too non-cowboy.
We deserve Bush43 and his posse of take no prisoners, tell big lies to scare us into letting them go unilaterally into country like Iraq with guns blazing. After worldwide debate thru the UN, President Obama with a coalition went into Libya to establish a 'no fly zone' that all countries including our congress wanted and all he gets from congress is GRIEF and more grief.
Where was the outrage when Bush43 went into Iraq.
Here's the thing. Democrats are angry with Obama because they feel betrayed. Betrayed because his delivery on campaign promises is weak, and betrayed because his alignment with corporate interests seems against traditional Democratic values. And so when he makes a decision to bomb the crap out of another country without deigning to involve members of Congress--a move we would expect of the GOP, not a Democrat--then that's "why in the world a Democrat would get on cable TV and say impeach the President."
We hold Obama to a higher standard because that's who he told us he was when we voted for him. We are only taking him at his word. We don't hold the illusion that the GOP and the Tea Party would act honorably because they have given us no reason to believe they would do so.
And so, when Obama acts more like the GOP folks we've come to expect the worst of, you bet the people who supported him in the past are going to be just a tad pissed off.
I notice you site the untested/unconstitutional War Powers Act and not the relevant provisions from the constitution.
Truth of the matter is, what Obama did, despite whatever political or humantarian argument you choose to make, was unequivocally unconstitutional. To deny this would be rediculous, and interestly enough you never once did. All you did was argue that somehow it was misguided for any congressman to take his oath to country more seriously than his oath to power.
If that is the case, then it is you Mr. Hutchinson who is doing our country a serious disservice by continuing this game where nothing is an impeachable offense if your guy does it, which has allowed for the growth and development of the lawless society we currently live within; a lawless society whereby our leaders are never accountable for mass murder or corruption but for our citizens, particularly the poor and politically umpopular, the laws can be a vicious and discriminating beast.
I honor Dennis because at least he is consistent. AT least he applies the constitution he swore to protect equally among the democratic wing and the republican wing of the plutocratic party. Maybe one day you will also discover such levels of patriotism?
This is a strawman argument. It is somewhat ironic that you would berate someone else for supposedly lacking intellectual arguments, while you rely on logical fallacies.
I merely asked questions. Does he believe that the President acted outside of the constitution, and, if so, does he care? If he doesn't care, then why not. He seems to suggest he does not because to care would damage Obama's election chances and the claims are only coming from the right and the "ultra left". I am sorry but I am not sure how else I could interpret his words. If it was a strawman argument, then I am not sure how else to discuss this piece.
The vote was 10 for war and 5 abstentions. That is not a "unanimous" vote. Unanimous would have been 15 yes and no abstentions. Nor is has this military attack been a "no-fly" zone. US and other NATO forces are bombing ground troops in a concerted attack with rebel forces.
Call it what it is, a military invasion. In truth we know nothing about the rebels or whether or nothing they are capable of seizing power, let alone if they will be any better then Qadaffi.
It's time to stop trying to tell other countries what to do by bombing them.