EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Liberal Democrats in Uproar over Libya Action
WASHINGTON - A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.
John Larson wants the president to seek approval on U.S. enforcement of a 'no-fly' zone. (AP Photos)
Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.
Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.
Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.
And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.
While other Democratic lawmakers have publicly backed Obama — including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and top members of the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees — the objections from a vocal group of anti-war Democrats on Capitol Hill could become a political problem for Obama, especially if “Operation Odyssey Dawn” fails to topple Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi, leads to significant American casualties, or provokes a wider conflict in the troubled region of North Africa.
(Pelosi did not participate in Saturday’s call; she is in Afghanistan to meet with U.S. military and diplomatic officials.)
U.S. warships fired more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missles on Saturday in a bid to knock out Libya’s air-defense systems, targeting command-and-control and radar units near Tripoli, the Libyan capital, and the city of Misurata, according to Pentagon officials and media reports. French aircraft attacked armored units loyal to Qadhafi around the city of Benghazi after they ignored international calls for a cease-fire.
Saturday’s conference call was organized by Rep. John Larson (Conn.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus and the fourth-highest ranking party leader. Larson has called for Obama to seek congressional approval before committing the United States to any anti-Qadhafi military operation.
“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.”
“Almost everybody who spoke was opposed to any unilateral actions or decisions being made by the president, and most of us expressed our constitutional concerns. There should be a resolution and there should be a debate so members of Congress can decide whether or not we enter in whatever this action is being called,” added another House Democrat opposed to the Libyan operation.
“Whose side are we on? This appears to be more of a civil war than some kind of a revolution. Who are protecting? Are we with the people that are supposedly opposed to [Qadhafi]? You think they have a lot of people with him? If he is deposed, who will we be dealing with? There are a lot of questions here from members.”
The unrest among Hill Democrat resembles, in part, the debates inside the White House, Pentagon and State Department over the last few weeks as the Libyan crisis has unfolded.
The White House has worked to put out a narrative over the last 48 hours portraying Obama as initially opposed to any involvement in a Libyan campaign, with a major change in the president’s viewpoint developing over the course of the last week as Qadhafi loyalists appeared to be gaining the upper hand and a humanitarian crisis appeared inevitable.
While Defense Secretary Robert Gates led administration opponents of any U.S. role in the anti-Qadhafi operation, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton backed calls from the French and British governments for a NATO-led effort to assist the Libyan rebels. The Clinton clique eventually prevailed in the debate, and Clinton then worked with U.S. allies to craft a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the mission.
The Security Council then approved a resolution on Friday authorizing a “no-fly zone” for portions of Libya controlled by anti-Qadhafi rebels, as well as “all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country,” according to a U.N. statement.
With U.S. attacks already being launched, it was unclear what, if anything, Democratic opponents of the Libyan campaign could actually do to stop it. They could try to offer an amendment for under the 1973 War Powers Act, which would require a withdrawal of U.S. forces from any conflict within 60 days if the president lacks congressional approval, although it is unlikely that pass.
They could also seek to cut off funding for any extended military effort, although it is unclear how long or what the White House anticipates the cost of the operation could be.
Kucinich’s call to explore the impeachment question “got no support from anyone else on the call,” said another Democrat.
Yet there is growing unhappiness within Democratic ranks on Obama’s handling of the Afghanistan conflict, and with Obama gearing up for his 2012 reelection campaign, he will need the backing of liberal and progressive factions within his party — already disenchanted over some of the president’s fiscal and tax policies — in order to defeat any Republican challenger.
Recent opinion polls show the American public is also tiring of the Afghan war. On Thursday, 85 House Democrats — and eight Republicans — backed a Kucinich resolution calling for removal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan by Dec. 31.
A total of 321 House members, including Pelosi and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.), opposed the Kucinich measure.
On the Senate side, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) offered a similar resolution, but so far, it has only garnered three cosponsors.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
85 Comments so far
Show All"Liberal" Democrats are not the only members of congress who oppose the US invasion of Libya.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcvSmLaolr8&feature=related
######
Others question why the US is giving aid and support, and possibly sacrificing American lives to the rebels who they say are anti-American jihadist:
Eastern Libya, where the anti-Gaddafi forces are based, is a hotbed of anti-Americanism and jihadist sentiment. A report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center reveals that during the last few years, more jihadists per capita entered Iraq from Libya than from any other Muslim country—and most of them came from the region that is now spearheading the revolt against Gaddafi.
That may explain why Libyan protesters have defaced Gaddafi’s picture with the Star of David, the hated symbol of the Jews, whom the Koran designates as the “strongest in enmity” toward the Muslims. There has been a notable absence among the protesters of anything equivalent to “Don’t Tread On Me” flags or other signs that what the uprising is really all about is establishing the ballot box and the hearty give-and-take of open-society politics. The Libyan protesters have chanted not “Give me liberty or give me death!” or even “Democracy, whiskey, sexy,” but “No God but Allah!”
It's nice to see the Demoncrats preparing to eat their own.
It seems that there are a few in our Congress who understand the Constitution. It says very clearly in Section 8 that the Congress shall have the power:
To declare War, ... and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To my reading, there is no "legal" way to circumvent such clear language, BUT it has been done with the, IMHO, clearly unconstitutional "War Powers Act" . This is what the Supreme Court is "supposed" to do. In this case, declare the WPA un-constitutional. Only Congress has the Constitutional power to declare War.
Furthermore, look at the appropriations clause. "To raise & support...for no longer that 2 years" ! We now have - and since WW I - a Standing Army & Navy. Clearly unconstitutional - even though Eisenhower warned us in his Farewell Address, to whit: "...beware the unwarranted influence of the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex".
Our goose is cooked. These few Congress people are voices screaming into the wind. I do admire them, but tragically, they cannot stop the Juggernaut.
The word liberal need not be used. We can do mighty fine using the progressive which means as Howard Zinn would say were he here not minimialist and not trying to be. Let's get that out that there right now. As to who may or may not be. The actions of those who uphold the appropriate power of the congress to determine when this country goes to war and to run this country's foreign policy as Wayne Morse, professor of constitutional law would say is what this is all about, and yes I met Morse on more than one occasion in the 1960s to back his campaign and to oppose that misbegotten Vietnam War. We need more like him today and so desperately so in today's world. He put it so right when he repudiated Peter Lisago telling all that the president has the power to run US foreign policy by telling that the "president is merely the administator of the people's foreign policy." That remains the case until we adopt a parliamentary system which isn't at all likely, as we then wouild be treated to question time and a partyy would then by routinely a have party conferences every year and thus an opportunity for the party to reject the executive at the party conference and even to throw out the party leader and prime minister as the British Torries or Conservative did back in 1990. That isn't what this president woulld like to see, as that would mean accountability.
Our executives have been skipping past Section 8 ever since HST's 'police action' against Korea.
The requirement for a "Declaration of War" is in the Constitution. It has
seldom been used.
If you want to be rigid about this, then your only conclusion will be to cede back
ALL of the Floridas (to Spain). There was never any "Declaration". John Quincy
Adams (as Secy of State to Monroe) justified the conquest by Jackson after
the fact. Among the primary reasons was: "self defense".
Kucinich March 2010: "We have to be very careful that the potential of President Obama's presidency not be destroyed by this debate. And I feel, even though I have many differences with him on policy, there's something much bigger at stake here for America,"
Response: Kucinich, you can't have it both ways, ie., be against Obama policies and support Obama politically (including not criticizing Obama and Democratic party leaders directly, by name).
Progressive 101
Excellent point. If Kucinich had an ounce of integrity and if he ever gets tired of getting his teeth kicked in, he would ask himself if he is a man of principle or is he simply a loyal Democrat. As you correctly note, he can't have it both ways.
It is certainly encouraging to see him pointing out that only Congress has the ability to declare war. He likewise did the right thing by calling for the impeachment of Obama. Now if only he would continue along this same path by leaving the Savage Mules and joining or forming a third party.
Will the left in this country finally provide a challenge to Obama by offering an alternative to that warmonger in 2012? Unfortunately the possibility of that happening is about as likely as someone hitting the jackpot in a multi-state lottery.
Spot on! DK has always been there as a symbol to the "left" that change is still possible within the thouroughly corrupt and compromised Democratic Party. If he had anything close to the integrity that those who are enamored of him think he has, he would leave the Dems and go Green or Independent or start a new Progressive Party. The same for all the others mentioned. Too bad. The Progressive Caucus could be the nucleus of a new Progressive Party. But, I guess, pigs will be flying through a frozen hell first.
Erroll, how many votes will such a third party get? Maybe enough to make Sarah Palin your president or perhaps Michell Bachman? Will we ever get the right choices?
One will certainly not receive the right choices from either the GOP or the Savage Mules.
A real progressive movement has to be long term. You can't expect to awaken the American working class overnight. Continuing to vote for the lesser evil is a one-step-forward, two-steps-back exercise in futility.
The unions must commit to a labor party. Getting the weak-willed labor leaders to stop wasting their unions' funds on supporting the backbiting Democrats is absolutely necessary if there's to be any hope of creating a third party that represents the working class.
I can't add anything to the excellent replies, which are so obvious and so painful. All of the protestations by these Congresscritters in this article are basically meaningless, Kucinich particularly so. It's about loyalty to country and the majority of the people in that country over party and the corporate money attached to it -- yes, it really is that simple -- and so impossibly hard for these political creatures to do.
The odds of winning the lottery, I believe, are much better than the odds of these creatures making the move that I've just described. I hope I'm wrong.
"A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya.."
Gee guys, you've been allowing this to go on for years. What's new? Once again you've spinelessly willingly stepped aside while a single man unleashes his frankenstein killing machine upon another nation. What's the point of having a congress? Why don't you all resign and go home?
Frightened of the bullies over at the Pentagon? Or is this just simply another gob-o-goo to keep the few minority floundering, anti-war democrats sticking to the party?
I'll give you this, at least you're saying the right things.
"Gee guys, you've been allowing this to go on for years". Wrong! When President Clinton bombed Serbia a number of Congress persons including Denis Kucinich brought suit in the US Supreme Court asserting that he had acted illegally because Congress had not declared war on Serbia. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the administration.
Then why are the Democrats not turning once again to the Supreme Court in order to seek legal redress against another Democratic warmonger named Barack Obama? And by the Democrats I mean a majority of them instead of just a very few of them who have expressed outrage against their party.
Perhaps because they know the Supremes are bought and paid for, doing what they are told to, just as the vast majority of the House and Senate do. Obviously, the current tenant of the White House also obeys "His Master's Voice," doing what he is told, to enrich the bottom line of the Military-Industrial-Nuclear-Congressional-Complex.
If the politicos who claim to be anti-war had any conviction they would be out in front of the White House with the protesters.
More than likely, the O-bomb-a administration has already aligned itself with some sort of group in Libya to transition to that support US interests. Why Libya? Because the American public will go along with it without too much fuss.
O-bomb-a looks increasingly like Bush II in his actions to expand and protect empire and not the American people. Not only has he not denounced the powers the executive branch took during the last administration, he is utilizing them to their fullest.
Libya has oil. 0's passed Bush, no? Of course, he had Cheney-Bush to start him, but the doubts over what direction he's going are not well founded.
Maybe somday the great powers will intervene and bring democracy to the USA
Those "great powers" are us.
There is, however, a great malaise that hangs over this nation, and it will remain until the people become hungry for lack of resources to put food on the table. Starvation is the great malaise -breaker.
Because the American people "can't."
Congress declared war on Sept. 14, 2001. Public Law 107-40. Read it and weep.
The law declared war against enemies to be named later by the President. The President was given the power to surge the US military anywhere, anytime to prevent future terrorism.
from yesterday's G. Greenwald article:
"The United States is bracing for possible Libyan-backed terrorist attacks, President Obama’s top counterterrorism official said on Friday."
The USA is in a state of war and future terrorism is the enemy. The USA will be at war until the President (who else?) declares that the war is over. And why would he do that? Future terrorism will never be fully prevented forever, which means that he gets to keep all those powers that Congress gave him.
Congress failed us on that Sept. 14th (except for Barbara Lee). They gave away too much power to the Presidency.
Why don't these Democratic Congresspeoples try to repeal that law? Instead, all we get from them are bleatings and gnashing of teeth, which as always will be followed by them again begging and pleading the President to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.
Repeal Public Law 107-40.
Last - if the USA was withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, it still would have attacked Libya, yes?
It's a worldwide insanity that we are stuck in. The solution must be worldwide.
I agree that Public Law 107-40 should be repealed. But you talk as though Congress, by passing that law, amended the Constitution to give the President such powers. The Congress cannot, by statute, amend the constitution. And the Congress cannot, by statute, delegate its powers to the executive.
These are not political questions, and any federal judge who so rules should be summarily impeached.
It is time for the Nobel Committee to recall their "prize".
Obama is doing exactly what the Nobel "Peace Prize" Committee wants: preserving Western hegemonic interests.
I thought we were broke, I thought everyone would have to sacrifice. The deficit hawks are constantly screeching that we don't have money for Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance or anything that helps ordinary Americans. But we have money for bombs on Libya? We didn't drop bombs on Tunisia or Egypt but Libya is different? We always find money for bombs but not for universal health care, not for free university education.
Hey JerzyJoe, if you think we're broke you just don't get it, nor are you able to appreciate the really neat thing about all our wars-which is that they're FREE!!!! The Chinese and Japanese give (that's right, "give" us money-surely they know there's no way in hell we could ever pay it back) so we don't even have to raise taxes. ow tell me that's not a REALLY GOOD DEAL.
Stop all the sputtering about impeachment and impeach the bastard (for Libya) already.
And file separate articles of impeachment for Bradley Manning.
We need a Third or perhaps a forth Party. Both parties fail to listen to Voters. people are beginning to realize Big money calls the shots on every issue. I am a Senior, I aways Vote for Democrats, but now I ask myself ;Why?
Had they been given the Vote, they would have authorized Military strikes anyways.
They try and pretend they are people of principle. They are not.
Why do countries start a war? Because they believe they can win and that is the reason why our Bonaparte in the White House would never rain Tomahawks on China should another Tienanmen slaughter happen again. That is a lose-lose proposition. Libya is a win-win at least in the short run because "one does not change Presidents in the middle of a war".
Why do insurgents arm themselves and start a civil war? Because they too believe that they can win. They were wrong in Libya. No matter what happens now, no Tripolitanian or Cyrenaican ruler/government can govern a united Libya for a long time to come if ever. The interventionists will not allow Kadaffi to be the Libyan ruler and the insurgents will be forever tainted by US Tomahawks and French-British bombers.
I have still to read a believable analysis of the economic and financial backgrounds and ramifications of the intervention. No, I do not simplistically mean "oil" although oil plays a role. It is no secret that the Libyan conflict has been a major contributor to the huge spike in gas prices at the pump. The Obama administration must worry about the effects. It is in the capitalist interests of all oil consuming countries, including those that consume more than they produce, that some stability in the oil world is re-established. However, I have little sympathy for those who hope that the whole economic thing will come crashing down. That is unconscionable because the recent "crash" has demonstrated once again that it is always the powerless who suffer the most.
It is conceivable that "regime change" in Libya will bring to power a government that will accede to anything the US, Britain, and France demand and that demand will include: "out with socialism, out with the social network, repair the oil patches and resume pumping a.s.a.p. Is it too far fetched to assume that this is the goal of the Obama administration?
Barry has already shown that AmeriKKKa is a full-blown totalitarian police state when he declared the right to order the killing of AmeriKKKan citizens on his whim. Now comes the indignant Congress whining that Barry didn't "consult" them on this latest incursion into a third war in the Middle East. Where have they been for the last decade as they have ceded power to the executive branch and watched and enabled as laws that shredded the Constitution and the rule of law were wrapped in the flag and signed into law?
Good for Dennis raising the specter of impeachment, but of course, that will go nowhere with the Democrats run by Nancy "Impeachment is off the table" Pelosi.
The military-industrial-financial-pharmaceutical-media komplex have full control of the nation.
General strikes, boycotts, non-violent resistance. NOW!
How would Khadafi respond to a general strike,unless it's an air strike? Be realistic; how would you solve this problem? Do protesters who get mowed down by police or military get what they deserve, or is there something we could do to help? Are strong words enough, are sanctions enough, are missile strikes always wrong in every case?
In a perfect world, military action is never necessary; but this is the world we have, full of egotistical tyrants and suffering multitudes. I don't want to see fighting, but there is no way to ask a dictator in a nice way to please step aside and let his people pick someone else.
Your comments simply beg an obvious question which liberal interventionists never wish to address and it is this: exactly when was it that the United States was elected to become the policeman of the world? Was it after World War II when the United States decided to poke its nose into the affairs of the Greeks and the Turks? Was it during the Korean War? Or how about during the Vietnam where I and hundreds of thousands of other poor bastards ended up for no justifiable reason whatsoever? As in Afghanistan and Iraq and Vietnam and every other country the United States has invaded since World War II [writer William Blum goes into much depth on this subject in his must read book Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II] the United States simply has no business meddling into the internal affairs of another country. By taking these actions against Libya the United States is once again making a bad situation even worse.
The Egyptian people certainly did not want to see the U.S. attempt to remove Mubarak. I tend to doubt if you would have been in favor of a foreign power invading this country in the 19th century because it objected to the fact that the United States was engaging in slavery. But yet you seem to have little if any reservations upon using U.S. military fire power in order to intervene in the affairs of another country even though that country poses absolutely no threat at all to the people of the United States.
Here is a suggestion. If you are feeling so patriotic about all this why not join the military. Undoubtedly the Army or the Marines could use another disillusioned American who has no qualms at all in being used as cannon fodder by his government as the Afghans have the temerity to defend their country against the Americans.
Erroll-- you obviously know the answer to that question, or you wouldn't have started your timeline at the end of WW II. That's when the British empire became the UK and handed the baton to us, utterly exhausted. And we gladly snatched it up.
I wish we could get rid of this duty, but what happens if we do? We definitely need to stop looking for trouble (Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Lebanon, El Salvador), but sometimes it's just too hard to turn your back on brutality--unless it's in sub-Sahara Africa.
We need to get back to being a constitutional republic, or a socialist democracy, or something very much like it. Barack is not the transformative president we hoped for and desperately need, but a string of Barack-like presidents might move the arc of history ever-so-slowly toward justice, with gradually less-imperial actions, gradually less frequently. That is what I cling to for hope nowadays.
Notice that these Democratic swines are mad not because the US is bombing innocent civilians yet again, but because they weren't asked to authorize the carnage.
If asked they would vote YES no doubt. Kucinich for one would cave again in name of "humanitarian reasons". Mass-murderers all of them.
Harsh words
ezeflyer
Harsh but accurate as Democrats like Kucinich and his colleagues may complain about what Obama is doing but they always end up coming back to the fold proving, apparently, that loyalty to the party holds greater sway to them than such trifling attributes as principle and integrity.
I wrote to PDA (Progressive Democrats) and suggested that this would be a good time to separate from the Democrat Party and form the Progressive Democratic Party and run progressive candidates.
My letter:
Please give serious consideration to splitting from the Blue Dogs, forming the Progressive Democrats Party and running our own progressive candidate. Progressive discontent with Obama and conservative Democrats will result in our staying home like we did in the last election, not voting and turning the presidential election to what has become an outwardly fascist Republican Party.
Reply:
Thanks for contacting Progressive Democrats of America.
As just one organization working to build the progressive movement, we view our role as the intransigency within the Democratic Party. Through our efforts, we hope to push the party to the left to transform it. Over time we will either succeed or fail to meet this goal. Should we fail, it is entirely likely that a third party will form, and we will take thousands of delegates, party officials, elected officials with us. If we leave now, the Democratic Party machine will just roll over any attempt to create a third party. If and when we leave, we need to cripple it on the way out. We have yet to hit critical mass. With us pushing from the inside and others pushing from the outside, the Democratic Party has to respond if it is to stay (become) relevant.
We have been challenging the blue dogs since day one. The best news out of the last election was the thorough trouncing the blue dogs got at the polls while the progressives maintained their numbers.
My reply:
I'm not clear about how the Democratic Party machine will roll over any attempt to create a third party when progressives will flock to a Progressive Democratic Party, donate and work for it like we did for Obama with enough time before the Presidential election.
It seems to me that now is the best time to split from the Dems and form the Progressive Democratic Party, given the good chance that like last time progressives will stay at home and hand the election to the fascists. As we have seen with the union busting and other conservative atrocities we have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The very thought of a Progressive Democrat Party splitting off should make the ankylosed conservative Democrats run for cover.
If conservatives win again, things will change so radically that we may not be able to form a new Progressive Democrat Party. We will be overwhelmed with simply trying to survive the oligarchy's Big Money assault on elections made possible by their SCOTUS cons and their Citizens United ruling. We will be set back so far that it will surely take many years and lots of pain and suffering to overcome.
The trouncing the Blue Dogs got showed that even without all the progressive vote, mainstream Democrats are mostly progressive. With a new Progressive Democratic Party, we will have their votes plus the votes of the progressives that stayed at home and much of the Green Party's votes under the old yet new Democrat banner. We "f*king liberal retards" would be able to run progressive candidates, not Republican Lites. A version of this strategy worked for Republicans when they coopted the Religious Right and became a powerful force.
The choice is clear to me: Either stick with conservative Democrats and lose all branches of government to the fascists, win or establish a strong progressive presence to counter the fascist blitz in the unlikely chance that a Progressive Democrat Party loses.
Failing this as too radical a step for progressive Democrats to take, please check out Senator Gravel's National Initiative for Democracy at http://ni4d.us/ and consider giving it your full endorsement.
The only reason to respond to an obvious form letter is so that you can post your response to their "response" elsewhere . . . such as here. But I'm guessing you knew that. :-)
Please note that the PDA rep answered my questions directly on separating into a new PDP and my comments on the Blue Dogs and with her personal email address. I was also surprised that it was not a form letter.
If more progressives see the obvious advantages and are interested in separating Democrats from Blue Dog conservatives in a new Progressive Democrat Party and running our own progressive candidates, you can contact the PDA here:
http://www.pdamerica.org/forms/sign/contact
It was a form letter, and the PDA isn't interested in dissociating itself with the Democratic Party. It's part of the problem. The solution lies elsewhere.
No arguing with such self assurance
"If conservatives win again, things will change so radically that we may not be able to form a new Progressive Democrat Party."
Actually, it is only the intolerable conditions of an extreme right-wing government that will allow a vaiable uncompromising left-progressive movement and party to form. Just look at what is happening in some to the states.
I know that this is the "worse, the better" stragegy, but I don't know of anything that will work in the US right now.
Before we go for the "worse, the better" strategy, what do we have to lose by exhausting all other options like the one suggested?
Why not let the people decide these tough issues direct democratically with referendums? I guess it is cathartic to have politicians to blame for failures of representative government. Otherwise, who would we have to blame but ourselves?
Only one person in this whole thread has even mentioned Khadafi. That is the core of the situation, not Obama, not Kucinich, not even the constitution. We live in a much different world from that of 1787; these days, in the time it takes congress to deliberate on the need for war, the situation can become long lost. I am happy to see a UN-supported coalition, not just the US, throw some missiles at Khadafi, as long as there is indigenous and regional support for his removal. I fear, though, that it may be too little too late. It will be an embarrassment and a disaster if Khadafi survives this. And it can't drag out for more than a couple months, because if it does, it will morph into something more Iraq-like.
"And it can't drag out for more than a couple months, because if it does, it will morph into something more Iraq-like."
Ah yes, another country to "liberate" with thousands or tens of thousands of unimportant "collateral damage" and enormous profits for the MICC.
From DC comes the rotting stench of the eagle's eyrie.