In Defiance of Biden, Israel Prepares to Finish Hamas
An American Surfer Has Been Murdered in Mexico
With Latest Move, Columbia Again Caves to Pro-Terrorism Mob
This Democrat Just Got Busted for Putting Dead People on Election Petition
Another Boeing Whistleblower Has Died
Why Everyone Thinks Biden Had an Accident in Front of the Press Corps
Don Lemon: The DEI Stuff Has Gone Off the Rails
GW President Begs for Help Dealing With the Pro-Terrorist Camp She Allowed
Biden Says 'Never Again' While Withholding Military Aid to Israel
Border Crossing Where Humanitarian Aid Enters Gaza Has Been Blown Up. Guess Who's...
'Weakness Is on Display': New Trump Video Hits Biden for Botched Response to...
No Satisfaction With Stone Age Celebrities Jagger and De Niro
Guess Who's Funding the Pro-Hamas Hate Rallies and Encampments?
University Trash Heaps
Why Do Leftists Hate Israel? (It’s Not What You Think)
OPINION

Maybe Obama Should Have a Beer Summit With George W.

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

WASHINGTON -- Well, it is official. The president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, has asked the Norwegian Nobel Committee to take back President Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize owing to Obama's missile strikes in Libya. The head of Russia's Liberal Democratic Party, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, also has weighed in, and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is really in a snit. This is the best news Col. Moammar Gadhafi has had in weeks.

Advertisement

President Obama, who ordered airstrikes against Libya and then took his wife and the girls on a sightseeing and official junket to South America, probably took little note of the Bolivian's and Russians' actions, but it does show how difficult it is to get "world opinion" behind the use of force, even against a fla fla dictator such as Gadhafi. There is more unease in the "world community." Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League, at first was for enforcing a "no-fly zone" over Libya. Now he is not so sure. The next thing you know, he will be on Gadhafi's side. World opinion can be volatile.

Progressives have long been in favor of One World vouchsafed by the United Nations. Henry Wallace, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's second vice president and the 1948 presidential candidate for the Progressive Party, spoke of it often. On the campaign trail in 1948, he spoke of "jobs, peace and freedom" that "can be attained together and make possible One World, prosperous and free, within our lifetime." He, too, promised to coordinate policy through the United Nations. Had President Roosevelt died but six months earlier, America would have had this fantastico in the White House. As it was, in one last act of cunning for his country, Roosevelt maneuvered Wallace out of the vice presidency and Harry Truman in. Harry was green, but he was not naive. We came that close to Henry Wallace and his "Gideon's Army" in the White House.

Now we have another progressive on the scene, and this one is in the White House. He sleeps in the very bed that Wallace sought, though Wallace got only 1,157,328 votes pursuant to the big bed at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. In the 1940s, the Democratic Party was divided among diverse groups: the urban machines, the populists of the West, ethnic groups with roots behind the Iron Curtain, labor unions that were often staunchly anti-communist. It was more difficult to get a left-wing loony through. Certainly, it was difficult to get a left-wing loony through with no executive experience. Even Wallace had been vice president and secretary of commerce. In the homogeneous Democratic Party of today, Henry Wallace might have made it through a convention. Certainly, a community leader from Chicago, Barack Obama, could, and he only had four years' experience in national politics, two of those years spent on the campaign trail.

Advertisement

Now he has shown the progressive's traditional impatience with our constitutional process. He did not go to Congress to get a declaration or an authorization of war. He has no authorization from Congress to spend money on his no-fly zone. In fact, he did not go to Congress at all. He went directly to the United Nations, seeking authority to act in Libya. There he was given the runaround for four days, while Libyans were dying.

What should he have done? I think Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had a very good thought on this. According to him, President Obama first should have sought "a congressional debate on a declaration of war under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution." Now, President Obama did not do this. He went over the Congress of the United States to the United Nations. He was more comfortable with "world opinion" and "the community of nations." But now that community is breaking up. China and Russia are not with him. The lesser nations are in flux, and even military commanders in the coalition are uncertain. President Obama does not really know what is happening. I suggest he have another of his beer summits, this time with George W. Bush, though I would caution him to follow George's custom and make it a sarsaparilla summit. Ask George, Mr. President, how he got the wisdom to go to Congress before going to war.

If there is no hero in this mess, there is at least an antihero -- and one of the first order -- Col. Gadhafi. He has proved that a tyrant spared the presence of a resolute leader in the White House can get away with murder. How unlucky for Saddam Hussein and, for that matter, Adolf Hitler that they did not have an Obama or a Wallace in the White House in their day.

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos