Reply #54: My Pre-emptive solution to those arguments

[Glyn Dwr]

Was to be against attacking Libya in the first place... not here, though, I mainly lurk here. On HP (I know, I know...) I found myself arguing with a lot of "liberals" who were all for invading/attacking/not-at-warring in Libya for humanitarian reasons. Basically, it's been all of the reasons that we had to go after Saddam all over again. I asked why won't he go to congress if it's so important to get involved. Why? Because NATO and the UN said it was okay! All right, I countered, why do decisions by those bodies override the Constitution and the will of the people? If the nation was founded on a (somewhat loose) notion of self-governance as a moral obligation, then isn't a unilateral decision like this from one branch of government just reinforcing the Unitary Executive principle that we all just really, really hated a few years ago? The rebuttal is always something about how I want civilians to die (though in our other invasions, we've done a pretty bang-up job of killing civilians ourselves) or something.

The whole thing is morally dicey at best and it was the wrong decision then, it remains the wrong decision now, and at the very least I'd like some congressional approval of it. I know they'd probably thumb up the thing, but I'd at least like to see them pretend to give a crap about what we think.