Category: News

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.

Grassroots pressure has forced President Obama to seek approval from Congress for an attack on Syria. But Obama is hell-bent on ordering a missile assault on that country, and he has two very important aces in the hole.

The administration is about to launch a ferocious propaganda blitz that will engulf a wide range of U.S. media. And as a fallback, the president is reserving the option of attacking Syria no matter what Congress does.

Until Obama’s surprise announcement Saturday that he will formally ask Congress for authorization of military action against Syria, the impassioned pitches from top U.S. officials in late August seemed to be closing arguments before cruise missiles would hit Syrian targets. But the pre-bombing hyper spin has just gotten started.

The official appeals for making war on yet another country will be ferocious. Virtually all the stops will be pulled out; all kinds of media will be targeted; every kind of convoluted argument will be employed.

Hell hath no fury like war-makers scorned. Simmering rage will be palpable from political elites who do not want to see Congress set an unprecedented precedent: thwarting the will of a president who wants Pentagon firepower unleashed on another country.

Continue reading “Obama Will Launch a Huge Propaganda Blitz – and May Attack Syria Even If He Loses the Vote in Congress”

Leftists, Code Pink, and a smattering of conservatives and libertarians staged a vociferous protest outside the White House while President Obama made his Syria speech this afternoon. The police forcibly cleared the street (though not the sidewalk) shortly before Obama began talking. Some folks suggested that Obama might have delayed his speech because of the noisy chants behind heard inside. (I have no confirmation on that.) I disagree vigorously with the Answer folks on numerous issues but they raised a ruckus on the right side of the issue today.

Code Pink brought this great cutout today.

 

The Secret Service (or maybe Park Police) rode in to disrupt a peaceful protest.

 

This Park Service dude made a point to slowly scan everyone in the audience with his camera.

 

A group of Syrians who vociferously favored U.S. bombing Syria.  Go figure.

 

Some conservative and libertarian protestors:

 

On Twitter @jimbovard

Other antiwar writing at  http://www.jimbovard.com/blog/

“Mr. President, in the case of military operations in Libya you stated that authorization from Congress was not required because our military was not engaged in “hostilities.” In addition, an April 1, 2011, memorandum to you from your Office of Legal Counsel concluded:…”President Obama could rely on his constitutional power to safeguard the national interest by directing the anticipated military operations in Libya—which were limited in their nature, scope, and duration—without prior congressional authorization.’”
“We view the precedent this opinion sets, where “national interest” is enough to engage in hostilities without congressional authorization, as unconstitutional.”
Text from letter of Rep. Scott Rigell (R, VA) to Pres. Obama
Signed by 140 Reps, including 21 Democrats

The letter of Scott Rigell (1) to Barak Obama has exploded on the scene with its opening words:
“We strongly urge you to consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria. Your responsibility to do so is prescribed in the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
“While the Founders wisely gave the Office of the President the authority to act in emergencies, they foresaw the need to ensure public debate – and the active engagement of Congress – prior to committing U.S. military assets. Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.”
With these perhaps historic words the Congress has begun to claw back its Constitutional right to decide issues of war and peace. Significantly the letter comes from a Republican lawmaker, and it is clearly a tribute to the leadership of the libertarians in the Republican Party, most notably Ron Paul, Justin Amash and Rand Paul.

But the situation is grave enough, possibly leading on to a World War, that 21 Democrats have challenged the President and their Party bosses to sign the statement. They are moving beyond partisanship as Ron Paul did in challenging George W. Bush on the war on Iraq.

Continue reading “Impeachment: Congress Fires Opening Shot Across Obama’s Bow.”

Though the world dodged a bullet with the British parliamentary vote Thursday against going to war, it also brought with it great dangers, notably that of complacency, today being registered in various places. Though the tactical victory in England over the parliamentary vote is important, it arguably makes the very short term dangers possibly greater, not less. The screaming front page massive headlines in the New York Times, "Obama Set for Limited Strike on Syria as British Vote No: Seeking Allies – Another Ship Moves In," the Wall Street Journal, "U.S. Prepares for Solo Strikes on Syria After Britain Balks," and Washington Post, "Obama Can Go it Alone on Syria: Lawmakers Clamor for a vote," in today’s morning papers say it all. One hopes against hope that one is wrong on this, but it’s better to be safe than sorry. US Secretary of State John Kerry invoked the catastrophe of World War I but seemed to understand none of its lessons about the dangers of using military force in a region already boiling over from ethnic and religious conflict, tension and violence, including by outside powers. The danger is that an already brutal internationalized Syrian civil war will become the flashpoint for even larger regional and global conflict. The stakes are enormous for as former US National Security Advisor and Dean of the American Foreign Policy Establishment Zbigniew Brzezinski states in a Wednesday, August 28, 2013 Financial Times op-ed, "The Steps That Obama Must Now Take On Syria,"

"In a worst-case scenario, this crisis could become reminiscent of the initially trivial violence in the Balkans a century ago."

What is being referred to here is of course the regional sectarian and ethnic conflict that led to one of the seminal catastrophes of the 20^th century, from which many others, including World War II flowed, namely World War I.

Continue reading “The Syrian Catastrophe, the British Parliamentary Vote and the Growing Risks of Regional and Global War*”