Who says he can’t?

Here’s what former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had to say about using force against another country — one considered far more offensive than Syria — when she was a U.S. Senator:

“If the administration believes that any, any, use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to congress to seek that authority.” –Sen. Hillary Clinton, Feb 14, 2007

Again referring to Iran, Vice President Joe Biden, agrees. And then some – – –

The president has no Constitutional authority to take this nation to war against a country of 70 million people unless we are attacked or unless there is proof that we’re about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him.” –Senator Joe Biden, Chris Matthews’ Hardball

Who do you suppose said this – – –

“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.” —Q&A with Charlie Savage, The Boston Globe, December 20, 2007

If you guessed candidate and Constitutional scholar Barack Obama, you nailed it. Mr. Obama himself stated, unequivocally, the President can’t Constitutionally do what he nearly just did. Again.

That time U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich suggested it was likely an impeachable offense.

18 thoughts on “Who says he can’t?”

  1. WE need to impeach Obama, he has made it clear he doesn't care if Congress doesn't authorize it. Kerry said Obama doesn't have to have Congress's authorization. NoObamaWar.com #NoObamaWar

    1. Obama has shown that he has no regard for the law. He will do whatever he wants to do regardless of what Congress or the Constitution says. I'm sure if the Supreme Court had ruled against Obamacare, Obama would have continued to implement it. This man is unfit for office and should be removed.

  2. The spin is in:

    "For weeks he weighed what to do about Syria. The decision to strike came more quickly. Then, in a long walk around the White House grounds, he told a close aide of a second decision, to postpone the strikes and ask Congress for approval.

    Throughout, President Barack Obama underwent the ordered ritual of his decision making. Deliberative, private, perhaps even isolated at times. He reached out to a few outside his inner circle about the decision to launch airstrikes against Syria’s government. And he didn’t even reach out to his inner circle until the last minute about the decision to go to Congress, a thought that not a single one of his closest advisers had even suggested."

    I bet no one suggested it…

    Someone at the WH sure submits copy to MCClatchy

    1. Here's something a little closer to the political-hack truth, El Tonno – – –

      [GEORGE] STEPHANOPOULOS: … We start at the White House with ABC's Jon Karl.

      And Jon, this didn't just surprise us, the president kept his team in the dark until late Friday.

      JON KARL, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: It sure did. George, this was a total reversal for the president. Until late Friday, this was an idea not under consideration. … But he decided, especially after that vote in Britain, that this was the direction he had to go.

      … There were serious concerns expressed by his national security team, concerns chief among them that Congress could vote no on his request for authorization.

      STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, that's the big question, Jon. He would be the first president in modern times to lose a vote for military force. 'This Week' Transcript: Secretary of State John Kerry – ABC News

      1. No clinton was refused by congress to bomb Yugoslavia but he did it anyway . Did you know it is a felony to give false information at a public hearing Almost evreything said about why we should bomb Yougoslavia , Iraq and even Libya , Egypt and now Syria is false or untrue . according to my best judgement . So when we finally find out the truth why do we just forget about all these felonies . Why don't we put some people in jail .

        1. Your best judgement is PDG, eric s. Here's some ammo to prove it – – –

          False Pretenses: Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq., By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith, January 23, 2008 Bush's 935 lies article from Informationliberatioln.com

          –Leading to War [Compiled video clips of the Bush Administration's lies]

  3. I'm glad he held off and obeyed the US Constitution this time. Congress has avoided its responsibilities regarding war and peace for far too long. If they vote no on intervention (which would be a miracle) and Obama ignores them then they will lose face themselves. The blame should be shared among the warmongers and not just Obama if the needless war on the Shia crescent is to commence.

  4. Ehud Barack Obama should be sent to the ICC along with George Warmonger Bush, the 2 Hillbilly Clintons and George Herbert Warmonger Bush. They should be put in a chain gang. David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy , Francois Hollande and Tony Blair Witch Project should join them.

  5. I expect that this, or some close analogue, is how it will go:

    "The White House will bribe, cajole, and intimidate the Congress. The regime’s argument will be that with America’s prestige and credibility on the line, Congress must support the President. The President and Secretary of State have made unequivocal statements of Assad’s guilt and their determination to punish Assad. Given Washington’s insanity, the way Washington punishes Assad for (allegedly) killing Syrians with chemical weapons is for Washington to kill more Syrians with cruise missiles."

      1. the bankster neocons are aiming for a rush to buy up more US treasury bonds while the oily speculators are gouging every barrel. MIC benefits from higher defense spending, and rocketing weapons sales. overlords rule

  6. Of course, bribing, cajoling, and intimidating the Congress is what Obama will attempt, but that leaves out a few bits, like:

    Democracy; Q: What do the people think?

    Sample A: "Some 53 percent of those surveyed this week said the United States should stay out of Syria's civil war, down from 60 percent last week. Just 20 percent said the United States should take action, but that was up from 9 percent last week.

    Support for U.S. involvement is not likely to climb much higher before any military action because most Americans are now fully aware of the situation in Syria and likely have made up their minds about it, …"

    Legality; Q: What about the UN Charter?

    Sample A1: "As for that bunch of amateurs surrounding Obama – including R2P groupies such as Susan Rice and new Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, all of them liberal hawks – they are all suckers for Kosovo. Kosovo – with a Libya add-on – is being spun as the ideal model for Syria; R2P via (illegal) air strikes. Right on cue, the New York Times is already frantically parroting the idea."

    Comment: NYT&ilk = MSM + AusBC&ilk = PFBCs are mostly in the pro-war corner, continually catapulting the (mostly lying) propaganda.

    Sample A2: "During the past decade, the Western powers have invented and promoted a theoretical “right to protect” (R2P) in an effort to get around the UN Charter in order to clear the way for wars whose final purpose is regime change. The use of R2P to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya gave the game away, ensuring Russian and Chinese opposition for any further such manoeuvre in the UN Security Council.

    Brownlie added that the alleged right to use force for humanitarian purposes was not compatible with the UN Charter."

    Comment: Normal people (i.e. non-psychopaths) know that what is going on here is yet another episode of mass-murder for spoil; neither of the two world's worst rogue regimes (US, Zs) can live without the supreme international crime. Gallows for the perpetrators = so-called 'leaders.'

  7. Surprise! A politician said one thing and then did another! When are we going to give up on politicians and the State? When are we going to embrace an actual contractual society and not a “social contract”?

  8. The UN should not authorize a war with Syria or anyone else. The US of arrogance and many of its allies should become permanent members of the Insecurity Council.

  9. I googled: bush constitution just a piece of paper (About 6,300,000 results)

    Hit #2:
    «[Suspect source]: “I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
    “Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
    “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

    "The report that Bush "screamed" those words at Republican congressional leaders in November 2005 is unsubstantiated, to put it charitably.»

    Hit #5:
    «"The Constitution is just a piece of paper" – G.W. Bush» (getting off the track a bit.)

    But as Ben Busby pointed out, it's not what's said that counts, it's what's done.

    Following Ben's "contractual society," an "of, by, for the people" system depends on the so-called 'democratic covenant' whereby the electorate delegates its sovereignty to representatives who then govern in the interests of the majority, whilst respecting minorities.

    IF the representatives go corrupt (by selling-out to the highest bidder, usually the <1% and/or 5th-column traitors, say), THEN the covenant is violated, and such representatives lose our delegated authority. This means that they may not act on our behalf, amongst other things, no taxation without valid representation, say, and no action corrupt politicians take has any 'sovereign protection,' so IF they offend THEN they should be prosecuted.

    In the specific case of Obama ordering an illegal attack on some hapless country, here Syria, he makes himself liable to prosecution, by the ICC, say, if local authorities = US courts fail to act. It's really only a matter of using the available, legal options – or even make appropriate ones up, as required by circumstances.

    Ah, but the US doesn't recognise the ICC, you say? Typical law-breaking behaviour; most of us recognise vicious criminality when we see it – looking at you, illegitimate-ME-entity improperly alienating ever-more of mandate-Palestine using genocidal, ethnic cleansing Z-methods = murdering for spoil, here soil. Since all law is manufactured, what we need to do is return to then enforce 'natural' law, like "Thou shalt not lie, cheat or steal, let alone kill." Let the tumbrels roll – but only after a people's-court convicts the obvious criminal perpetrators. That’s what we need to do; start by taking the electorate's sovereignty back from corruption-prone representatives.

Comments are closed.