President George W. Bush lied his way into Iraq, making the congressional sanction he received for his adventure not worth the paper it was written on.
Obama is a more subtle operator. He has minimized military risk for US forces and taken only carefully calculated political risks for himself.
Qaddafi is a loathsome despot who, even if he can hold on to shred of power, will be a much reduced player on the world stage.
But those who support Obama in this matter need to realize that any success that may result in Libya comes at the expense of allowing the White House to make war not quite at whim — but with relatively no oversight.
What this means is that the ideal set forth by the Founding Fathers, especially James Madison, of a system of legal checks and balances within government is proving to be practically null and void — in so far as it extends to the a president's ability to wage war without congressional approval.
Instead, we have a system of political checks, which is not the same thing. Laws are usually clear; political accommodations are free-floating. In this case, for voters who identify as liberal, or progressive, or Democratic and support NATO's Libya intervention either because of who is running it (Obama) or who it is aimed at (Qaddafi), the issue of how this military action erodes constitutional powers is overlooked.
Does it matter? It will matter the next time right-wing Republicans capture the White House.
