Impeach the President?

That was the left's cri de guerre when George W. Bush, who did have Congressional authorization, was conducting lawful wartime operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thursday's Air Force Times claims that U.S. piloted aircraft are conducting strike sorties in Libya, despite White House claims that our role is merely supportive. This is the fig leaf used by the administration to claim that we are not "at war." The State Department's top lawyer (pictured) was questioned by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

That view was echoed by the State Department’s top legal advisor, Harold Koh, who testified before the committee.

“We are far from the core case that most members of Congress had in mind when they passed the [War Powers R]esolution in 1973. They were concerned then about no more Vietnams. But we do not believe that the 1973 Congress intended that its resolution should be construed so rigidly to stop the president from directing supporting action in a NATO-led, [U.N.] Security Council-authorized operation [in Libya] with international approval," he said.

Note the use of the term "supporting action." However, the Air Force Times article discusses the fact that Air Force F-16's have been deployed in theater. F-16 are fighters are primarily used in air-to-air combat and but also in air-to-surface strikes. Further, here is what the AFRICOM had to say through it's public affairs office:

“U.S. aircraft continue to fly support [ISR and refueling] missions, as well as strike sorties under NATO tasking,” AFRICOM spokeswoman Nicole Dalrymple said in an emailed statement. “As of today, and since 31 March, the U.S. has flown a total of 3,475 sorties in support of OUP. Of those, 801 were strike sorties, 132 of which actually dropped ordnance.”

F-16CJ Falcon taking off for a "supporting mission."

Over 800 strike sorties, 132 bombing runs, but we're not at war Mr. Koh? If the President is going to blatantly ignore the war powers resolution and the constitution, what practical limit is there on his power?

Call for Impeachment - UPDATE

I am calling for the impeachment of Illinois state officials today. Yes, the guy on the right, Rod Blagojevich is a sleazy, corrupt pol, who should have the good sense to resign. Short of that, the Illinois legislature should move swiftly to impeach him. Also, they should impeach the Attorney General, Lisa Madigan (at left). But that's not going to happen either, and there in lies a tale that could only come from Chicagoland.

But first, why am I calling for Lisa Madigan's impeachment? Because she has petitiioned the Illinois Supreme Court to remove Blagojevich from office using an old law intended to remove an "incapacitated" governor. What the heck? State rep Jack Franks (D-McHenry County) has it exactly right:

“I don’t think the judiciary should be telling the executive branch what to do. We’ve got to make sure we do it right. And no matter how loathsome this governor is, we cannot trample on our constitution.”

Thank you and amen.

So why is the Illinois legislature moving so slowly? Turns out that the speaker of the Illinois House is Michael Madigan, father of the aforementioned Attorney General. His daughter has admitted a desire to run for governor in the future, so speculation is that going slow gives the spotlight to his daughter, enhancing her future electability. If true, this is a sad state of affairs in our era, that blatantly trampling the principles of the state constitution, which is modeled on the federal, would help any politician.

But wait, there's more. Turns out that an impeachment hearing might get nasty, with Blago naming names and all. Seems like the legislative leadership isn't down with that. See the video below of Bill O'Reilly interviewing Chicago Sun-Times correspondent John Kass. (H/T Bill Baar's West Side)




UPDATE:

On, Wednesday, Dec 17, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected, without comment, the AG's request to remove Blagojevich from office. Thank God someone still believes in constitutional government.