Did you catch that? The president of the United States is going to the UN to seek permission to attack a sovereign and independent country.Source
Where is the Tea Party when you need it? Aren’t they the ones that carry the miniature-sized versions of the U.S. Constitution in their pockets? Attention Tea Partiers: Check out the section of the Constitution that requires the president to secure a formal declaration of war from Congress before he can wage war against a foreign regime. Let’s hear from you. This is no time for silence.
The fact that Obama decides to go to foreigners to seek permission to wage another war of aggression just goes to show, once again, how far our nation has strayed from its founding principles.
HT: The Young Fogey
13 comments:
THe Presidewnt already has permission from Congress. In the time leading up to the Iraq war, Congress, abdicating tis constitutional responsibility, authorized any president to wage any war any time, any place. And you thought they just authorized the Iraq war? Nope. It's a permanent, or at least indefinite, authorization.
The authorization from the UN is just to provide a legal fig leaf.
Anastasia,
Do you have a source for that? I am pretty sure Congress did not give an open ended carte blanche to all future presidents to wage any war they want.
He is not doing anything that George W. Bush didn't do; the difference is that "W" (and Tony Blair) failed to get UN backing for the invasion of Iraq, but went at ahead anyway. As a consequence, thousands have died and not one WMD found. (Let's not even get into the enormous budget deficits that ensued and the millions of dollars which disappeared).
In reality, there is little difference between Democrat and Republican presidents.
I am sick about Libya. We cannot be the policemen for the world.
But to Mhairi - No, there weren't any weapons found. But people seem to equate that no weapons were found with no weapons existed.
We KNOW there were WMDs. Sadam used them on his own people. They existed. That is not subject to argument. What happened to them? Where are they now? That is the $64,000 dollar question. (and with that comment I am showing my age)
Actually, Mhairi, Bush did technically get congressional authorization before going to war in Iraq (but it was largely just political theater).
And I think the point isn't that it was somehow okay when Bush did it, the point is precisely the point you make: All of our presidents, regardless of party, have been usurping powers from congress for decades. And the so-called "constitutional conservative" Tea Party activists are quick to overlook Obama's indiscretions, I think, because they would have to admit that many of their admired presidents were no better.
Anam Cara: You are right that Hussein used chemical weapons; he deployed them against the Kurds in 1988 - 15 years before the US used them as a reason to invade Iraq. We may ask why the US said nothing when this happened. The answer is simple: in 1988 Iraq was at war with Iran and the US was supplying Iraq with weaponry. The Reagan administration remained silent because Hussein was a US ‘ally’ - until he invaded oil-rich Kuwait. (Can we spell ‘oil’ boys and girls).
Hussein maintained that Iraq had destroyed its chemical weapons in the 1990s. The fact that, 8 years after the 2003 invasion, absolutely none have been found would strongly indicate that Hussein was actually telling the truth. Let us be clear: if any - any - chemical weapons had been found in Iraq, the US would have paraded them before the media. We used chemical weapons as the pretext for invasion. None have been found and thus the reason (and any legitimacy) for the invasion of Iraq has been removed.
I agree that the US cannot act as the world’s policeman, but that is what it keeps doing, even when it has not been asked. Unlike with Tunisia and Egypt, until recently the US has been muted in its calls for change. (Once again, can we spell ‘oil’ boys and girls?) The UK and France were quite willing to operate a no-fly zone over Libya without any help from the US, but we had to play the big boy again. As for you being tired of hearing about Libya: how can you be indifferent to the cries of those who are thirsting for democracy and are facing a vastly superior military? Are you concerned only about the price you pay for a gallon at the pump? I pray not.
Sigmore: I believe Mhairi’s comment was about UN, not congressional, approval.
As for your observation regarding the Tea Party activists, you are spot on. Hypocrisy, thy name is US foreign policy - Democrat or Republican
@ Anam Cara
Don’t you think that if there were any Iraqi WMD they would have been found by now? Come on. Be unbiased and realistic. And, how can you be sick of Libya when a dictator is killing people? I don’t think we should invade but I support the no fly zone to stop Gaddafi’s troops, especially when he lied about a cease fire.
@ Sigmore
You’re right that GWB got congressional approval. However, if you read my earlier
comment you’ll see I was talking about the approval of the UN security council which
was not given in 2003 but was given for Libya.
Anam: You are right that Hussein used chemical weapons; he deployed them against the Kurds in 1988 - 15years before the US used them as a reason to invade Iraq. We may ask why the US said nothing when this happened. The answer is simple: in 1988 Iraq was at war with Iran and the US was supplying Iraq with weaponry. The Reagan administration remained silent because Hussein was our ‘ally’ - until he invaded oil-rich Kuwait. (Can we spell ‘oil’ boys and girls).
Hussein maintained that Iraq had destroyed its chemical weapons in the 1990s. The fact that, 8 years after the 2003 invasion, absolutely none have been found would strongly indicate that Hussein was actually telling the truth. Let us be clear: if any - any - chemical weapons had been found in Iraq, the US would have paraded them before the media. We used chemical weapons as the pretext for invasion. None have been found and thus the reason - and any legitimacy - for the invasion of Iraq has been removed.
I agree that the US cannot act as the world’s policeman, but that is what it keeps doing, even when it has not been asked. Unlike with Tunisia and Egypt, until recently the US has been muted in its calls for change. (Once again, can we spell ‘oil’ boys and girls?) The UK and France were quite willing to operate a no-fly zone over Libya without any help from the US, but we had to play the big boy again. As for you being tired of hearing about Libya: how can you be indifferent to the cries of those who are thirsting for democracy and are facing a vastly superior military? Are you concerned only about the price you pay for a gallon at the pump? I pray not.
Well, what did you think Pres. Kennedy meant when he "we will bear any burden, pay any price" yadda yadda.
You must bear in mind that when the United States became an independent nation -- over 200 years ago -- there was no United Nations or other international organization designed to maintain world peace and to protect people in aggressive nations.
@ parepidemos
I didn't say I was tired of hearing about Libya. I said I was sick about it. Yes, I would love for all people to live in freedom. But we cannot save everyone! We do not have enough troops to spread them in every country where protesters are being shot down by their governments!
We knew there were WMD. Yes, we didn't find any. Why didn't Sadam let the inspectors do their jobs instead of restricting them if he was so innocent?
Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance—not even today—of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace." Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/unmovic/unmovic-blix-012703.htm
We had, at the time, no reason to believe that there WERE NOT WMD in Iraq. And we to this day do not know what happened to the ones we knew were there. Were they destroyed? How? Were they transported to another country? If you were watching the news coverage, you saw aerial pictures taken of tractor trailer trucks moving away from sites that housed WMDs in the past. Where did they go?
It is fine and well to say, "oops, we were wrong, shouldn't have done that." But given the same set of circumstances at the same time, not being aware of the future outcome, I think the vote of Congress would have been the same.
People like to say, "If I could only do it over!" But what they mean is, "If I knew then what I know now, I'd have done things differently." We can't play the shoulda, woulda, coulda game. We did the best we could with the fact we had at the time. I am sick of people being Monday morning quarterbacks and criticizing what at the time seemed best with all we knew!
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/22/us-military-plane-crashes-in-libya-2-crew-members-eject/?icid=main|main|dl1|sec3_lnk1|206906
Great news! (said sarcastically)
We shouldn't be doing this!
Where did they go?
Doubtless, in the next country Israel wishes us to target for attack.
Post a Comment