With the recent attacks on Libya by American forces, and the resulting political back and forth, this is a time when the internet really proves its mettle in reminding people of what's been said in the past.
Asked in 2007 by the Boston Globe about how the Executive Branch should deal with the Congress when it comes to deploying American forces, Sen. Barack Obama was blunt:
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," Mr. Obama said.
"The President has no Constitutional authority to take this nation to war," said Sen. Joe Biden on MSNBC...unless we're attacked or there is proof we are about to be attacked."
Biden went one step further, saying if a President did act without the backing of Congress, "I would move to impeach him."
Republicans were having fun with the old Biden tape, spreading it around on social media, and chuckling all the way, as things are a little different now.
"Could Obama be impeached over Libya?" asked Rep. Jeff Miller of Florida. "Let's ask Biden," Miller wrote on Twitter.
It doesn't take much to imagine that the Obama-Biden team wouldn't look kindly on the idea of a GOP Senator talking about impeachment over the decision of the Executive Branch on when U.S. forces should be sent into battle.
Yes, it's a "gotcha" moment, but no different than what we've seen from many in both parties over the years, where support or opposition to military action is often determined more by whether your party controls the White House or not.
In other words, not many people have followed the same political path.
Back in 1989, Democrats criticized President George H.W. Bush after the invasion of Panama, which was undertaken without any approval from the Congress, as at that time, the GOP was okay with the idea of a military mission that wasn't signed off on by lawmakers.
"Were the appropriate articles of the Constitution considered and followed when the decision was made to invade Panama?" asked Rep. Jim Bates (D-CA), who argued the "power to declare war is granted solely to the Congress of the United States by the Constitution."
For those of my readers who hate when I point out the political hypocrisy of both parties, this is just another example.
If George W. Bush were still in the White House - and he attacked Libya - it probably doesn't take too much imagination to figure out where many Democrats in the Congress would be on Libya, and that many Republicans would be taking the other side.
For example, when President Reagan launched the invasion of Grenada in 1983 without Congressional backing, reaction split mainly along party lines, with many Democrats opposed - some on Constitutional grounds - and Republicans in support.
The basic bottom line is, if your guy is in the White House, you mainly side with your party on the use of military force. That's a pretty common theme from Congress, though there are a few who remain true to their beliefs.
Meanwhile, I'm going to spend some more time looking back at past U.S. military interventions and see where each party was on the opposite side from where they are now.
I love the internet.
