Bush had Congress' okay to go into Iraq based on credible evidence later found to be false. The invasion was carefully planned and had gotten prior approval from Congress. That was a totally different operation. As to Granada, I don't know the details and trust you that you're right. The fact that another president did something similar is not, repeat not, justification for President Obama.Neither the War in Iraq nor the invasion of the island nation of Granada were declared by Congress as "acts of war". Both were perceived as "liberation" acts or actions taken for "humanitarian" reasons. Moreover, when Reagan invaded Granada he received neither U.N. support nor did he inform Congress until the day of the invasion.
If Reagan used intelligence that told him that our national security was in danger, whether it was later proved false or not, that's a different story. Our national security is not in danger from Libya. The American people (I know I sure did) looked at helping Libya as a humanitarian mission -- a NFZ. That's not what we've got here.1) It was okay for Reagan to invade Granada on false pretenses claiming "national security" out of fear that Cuba and Russia were constructing of military airport when the evidence proved false.
First, we don't need no stinkin' UN resolution to use military force when we (or our allies) are in imminent danger. And that's what intelligence showed at the time.2) It was okay for GW Bush NOT to receive a legitimate U.N. resolution authorizing not only the use of military force but also to remove Saddam from power, thereby, in his opinion continuing the "war effort" against Iraq by virtue of the previous U.N. resolution granting the U.S. the lead in combat operations again for reasons of "national security". i.e., WND, that later also proved false.
It's not just pundits. It's Congress. It's American citizens. Only military people knew what this NFZ meant. If indeed that's what a NFZ customarily means. The American people had no idea we'd be bombing military installations and strongholds. That's where that transparency thingie comes in. And, of course, Obama specifically criticized Bush for not getting Congressional approval, said it was gross over-reach...and we have Biden telling us it's an impeachable offense.But when Pres. Obama, a Democrat who Republicans have been claiming is so anti-military and soft on using U.S. military force when prudent, actually goes to the U.N., receives U.N. approval in a 10-0 vote w/the Arab League also being onboard for establishing a no-fly zone over Libya on "humanitarian" grounds and with it also establishing a U.N. coalition force that limits our military involvement to "no ground troops", suddently the pundits are pissed about it?
This is just one more quagmire, in my opinion. Congress: Fail. Again.