Saturday, March 26, 2011

Imperial Presidency?

In November 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama introduced (actually introduced by Sen. Reid in Obama’s name) a Senate resolution stating that President Bush did not have Congressional authorization to use military force against Iran: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that nothing in the... resolution [amendment] previously adopted, or any other provision of law.. shall be construed to authorize, encourage, or in any way address the use of the Armed Forces of the United States against Iran.

Obama was busy campaigning, presumably, for the election in November 2009 (two years is such a short time-frame) that he had to have Reid to be his proxy for this vitally important document. Iran posed no direct threat to the U.S., so Bush might have needed to pay attention to Obama’s intellect…except for the fact, of course (war powers act?), that the Iranians were extremely well-documented as providing the IEDs that were used to kill U.S. soldiers 24/7 in Iraq. The devices and/or other devices were actually stamped as Iranian in origin. Bush, as he had done before, would have consulted Congress anyway since that made more sense than to just start bombing another country.

Whoa! On the basis of his own resolution, how did Obama get authorization to just start bombing Libya one night, announcing that war-act in Brasilia, Brazil, and then continuing to be AWOL for five days while U.S. Bombers and missiles slammed the bejesus out of Libya, population 6.3 million, 2 million less than New York City?

Was Libya furnishing military materiel in Iraq or Afghanistan? Well…no. Had Qaddafi flown planes into the Empire State Building? Well…no. Did he have WMD secluded somewhere in the desert? Well…no. In fact, hadn’t Libya coughed up its WMD to the U.S. years ago? Well…yes.

Obama precisely emulated Emperor Hirohito vis-à-vis 07 December 1941, when Japan almost took out Pearl Harbor, killing nearly 3,000 GIs and brought America into WWII. He plans to speak to the nation on 28 March to explain his incredible attack on a soveriegn nation that posed no threat to this country but he might be much better served at this point to keep his mouth shut. How can he explain away something as bizarre and obviously illegal as that?

Obama has proven beyond doubt that he’s reckless, arrogant and insensitive to the putting of U.S. GIs in harm’s way for no reason at all with regard to the national interest, which is all that’s supposed to concern him. In his campaign, he threatened to take military action in Pakistan if elected if the Pakistanis didn’t try harder to take out the Taliban. Imagine what would happen if he decided the time had come now, what with Pakistan having atomic bombs here and there.

Wait, some slack, please! The dear leader got his authorization from the United Nations. That’s all that was necessary – not that stuffy, slow Congress that Constitutionally has to declare war – because the world is just one great international community and he was just listening to his “gang-of-three” Amazons reminding him that mean people have to be wasted so the little people can be protected.

So…he dropped some bombs on Qaddafi’s house…and apparently missed. But he’s still trying, so his heart’s in the right place. It would be hard to make all this up…but there it is. And…puhleeze, don’t mention Reagan’s dropping bombs on Qaddafi’s house back in the 80s. He had well-documented cause and explained it quite clearly and immediately (the same day)…and it had nothing to do with authorization from the UN, which ought to either be disassembled entirely or marooned on some island on the Equator. Oh yes…Reagan announced that event in the Oval Office, not in some foreign capital.

Former president Clinton was impeached for perjury, telling a lie under oath. His lie didn’t hurt anyone and the Senate didn’t convict him and expel him from office. Obama, without any authorization or valid reason regarding the national interest, has done something that has caused the deaths of no telling how many Libyans who happened to just be in the wrong country at the wrong time. Should one assume he was just ignorant of the proper protocols for attacking another country? If so, should he just perhaps resign. After all, President Nixon didn’t cause profound death and grief, but he resigned simply because he tried a cover-up, which also didn’t hurt anybody.

Then, there’s the policy angle. Obama said Qaddafi had to go but that his bombing was not meant to cause him to go and/or effect regime-change. What, then, was it for – actually called kinetic military action or something like that? Who knows? Oh yes…to protect Libyans from Qaddafi. That’s weird since the president, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, has joined Qaddafi in the killing.

This is what Qaddafi said in his famous (infamous) speech at the UN in 2009, “We are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as president of the United States.” Oh yeah?

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

No comments: