There are many of whom it may be said, “He has an inflated opinion of self,” but there are few of whom it would be more applicable than Barack Hussein Obama.

Speaking from Chile, Obama said of his decision to attack Libya, Gadhafi “has lost his legitimacy,” and that “it is U.S. policy that Gadhafi needs to go.” My question is, exactly how and when was that “policy” arrived at? His explanation amounted to little more than Obama-babble – in which he pleasured himself with the sound of his own voice and assumed we received the same thrill; it was weak and ineffectual. The question I proffered was not answered.

Article II of the Constitution only gives the president the power to make treaties with other countries and appoint ambassadors to other countries – both of which powers require the consent of the Senate.

But according to Obama, there’s a policy in place that specifically provides authority (at his own discretion) to launch massive air attacks on a foreign nation because he unilaterally decides the leader of that country must go – a leader (dictator notwithstanding) who has been in place for 41 years.

Dropping bombs on another country (sovereign or otherwise) requires congressional input – the same input President George W. Bush sought and obtained from Congress – the same congressional approval Bush announced he had obtained in his address to the nation from Oval Office. (See: The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Itaq Resolution of 2002, Pub.l. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497, enacted Oct.16, 2002. H.J. Res. 114 is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No. 107-243, authorizing the Iraq war.)

President Bush, accompanied by the leaders of both Houses of Congress, publicly announced the aforementioned joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq, Oct. 2, 2002.

On March 19, 2003, President Bush addressed the nation from the Oval Office announcing the commencement of military operations to disarm Iraq. In his “War Address,” Bush carefully laid out the reasons for going to war, with the goals and objectives to be accomplished.

Obama didn’t offer anything remotely close to this because he couldn’t. As a presidential candidate in 2007, he told the Boston Globe: “The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that doesn’t involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to this nation.” Yet, that is exactly what he did. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have assailed his unilateral actions, most notably Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who has called for his impeachment.

Gadhafi faced the wrath of the United States under President Reagan in 1986, after Libya was found to be responsible for bombing a Berlin nightclub, killing American servicemen. President Reagan, in an address to nation moments after the attack commenced, laid out in specific detail the reasons for the attack.

Libya at this point in time was guilty of no such actions. Obama does not have the right or authority to arbitrarily decide whom he will attack, based on his approval of them. And if he was so inclined, I suggest that Mexico might be a good place to start. Yet, here, as in his arbitrary decision of what laws he will defend, Obama acted as a monarch, not as the president of the United States constrained by the Constitution to act in accordance to its dictates.


The Arab League, NATO and the United Nations want Gadhafi out no less than American patriots, who embrace the Constitution, want Obama out. Obama is not a monarch – his title is “president,” not Pharaoh Tutan-Rah-Obama. He has a sworn obligation to uphold and defend the Constitution – not render it of no effect by acting in ways that countermand it.

He had a responsibility to go to Congress first, and then lay out the matter in detail to the American citizenry. Waiting until his objectives were accomplished or until he has no choice but to explain his actions to America simply means we could count on his lying. His administration has been one lie after another, and his brazen pontification after the fact was no different.

Using the hastily thrown together excuse that Gadhafi had to go because he was killing his own people is a charade. Gadhafi is a dictator – here’s a news flash: That’s what dictators do. It’s happening in Algeria, Angola, Sudan, Kenya and a host of other sewers around the world – aren’t their people worth saving from genocide?

Pharaoh’s speech to his subjects last evening did nothing to satisfy this essayist. I argue he must go because his legitimacy and his ability to lead have been increasingly challenged since his assumption of office – and with continued good reason. What are the chances of NATO and the Arab League helping us?

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.