Ask yourself this basic question: what would you say about the bombing of Libya if it had been ordered by George W. Bush or some other Republican? If your answer is that you would have the same position, ok–but there is a legitimate question to be asked here, as some members of Congress are doing:

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

   Abiding by the law, and the Constitution, means sometimes going against what you heart might want. But, you can believe that Quaddafi is a nutty, brutal dictator and that it would be good if he exited AND also be opposed to military action. Or you can also believe that you want the bombs to fall AND believe that Congress must be consulted BEFORE the bombs drop.

   Of course, the chances that the president would face impeachment are somewhere between nil and zero. But, that doesn’t mean people should roll over the play poodle to the executive branch–no matter who is in the White House.