Re: KUHNER: Obama’s impeachable war



On Mar 24, 6:07 pm, bodhi <psychedelictour...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
KUHNER: Obama’s impeachable war
By Jeffrey T. Kuhner-The Washington Times
Thursday, March 24, 2011http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/24/president-obama-has-l...

President Obama has lost his legitimacy to remain in office.

He did that when he continued to prosecute Dubya's illegal wars...

The
Libyan war has exposed the administration’s lawlessness and rampant
criminality. If Republicans and conservatives are serious about
restoring constitutional government, they will demand that Mr. Obama
be impeached.

The war is going badly. The coalition is cracking; the strategic aims
of the military intervention are not clear; Russia, China, India and
Brazil oppose it; the Arab League is condemning the deaths of innocent
Libyans caused by Operation Odyssey Dawn; and it appears that Moammar
Gadhafi will succeed in clinging to power - defying the international
community and humiliating the United States. Mr. Obama has called for
Col. Gadhafi to step down. He has staked American prestige and power
on helping bring about that end. The failure to achieve this will
render America a paper tiger on the world stage. We will no longer be
feared or respected.

Fear is not the author of respect, or a valid means to that end.


NATO forces launched air strikes in order to enforce a no-fly zone
over Libya. The goal: to prevent Col. Gadhafi’s forces from
slaughtering civilians. As Gadhafi loyalists marched toward the rebel
stronghold of Benghazi, Mr. Obama decided to implement an American
rescue mission. This mission, however, differs from previous ones in
Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo. The United States is not taking the lead;
rather, it is following the French and British. America is no longer
acting like a superpower but a poodle of Paris and London.

Mr. Obama has engaged U.S. forces - risking precious blood and
treasure - without a clear strategy for victory. He recklessly has
allowed his country to be sucked into a conflict without a real
national debate or consensus. His policy is shoddy, half-baked and
irresponsible. It is amateur hour at the White House.

The most disturbing aspect, however, is the intervention’s lack of
constitutional and legal authority. It is an illegal war. The
Constitution clearly stipulates that only Congress can authorize the
use of military force. Unless American territory has been invaded or
U.S. citizens have been directly attacked, the president must first
ask for congressional approval before ordering any kind of military
action. To do otherwise is to behave like a despot.

The same goes for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Congress, as
public trustee, absolutely cannot lawfully reassign its onus without
the express consent of its Sovereign by constitutional amendment, and
either Barrack the tenured professor of constitutional law and Hillary
the lawyer know it or they are functionally illiterate and
incompetent...


That is why the Founding Fathers insisted that going to war could be
sanctioned only by the people’s representatives. The most serious act
of any state is to use military force - to demand that countrymen risk
their lives on behalf of their nation. Hence, congressional input and
approval is necessary as a fundamental check and balance against an
imperial president.

The Founding Fathers were hipocrites that prescribed one thing, and
then let George Washington prosecute his wars as his whims dictated.
“There is nothing new under the sun.” – Solomon. Aristocracy is as it
does, no matter what euphemisms it hides behind. “for the tree is
known by his fruit” – Jesus

"government of the people, by the people, and for the
people" [Lincoln] is a promise US Gummint has never kept as far as
interventionist wars are concerned. War is a racket. War is the
enemy of Peace, not the road to it.


Mr. Obama claims he does not need congressional authority. His
behavior reflects contempt for the rule of law and American democracy.
His arbitrary will trumps legal restraints. Unless he is stopped and
removed from office, we are a constitutional republic in name only.

Got that right...


His blatant abuse of power is illegal, immoral and hypocritical.
During the war in Iraq, then-Sen. Barack Obama criticized President
George W. Bush for not asking Congress for a formal declaration of
war. On Dec. 20, 2007, Mr. Obama said in a speech that 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.”

Yep.


Mr. Obama has less legal and moral justification for his Libyan
campaign than Mr. Bush did in Iraq.

Huh? How'd he manage to acheve a score of less than Zero?

Mr. Bush received congressional
authorization for the use of force;

Bullshit! Congress' bestowal of authority to Dubya to 'decide' was
illicit as Hell! "I'm the decider." - Dubya

Mr. Obama has not. Mr. Bush forged
a broad coalition of nearly three-dozen countries to topple Saddam
Hussein; Mr. Obama’s coalition is much narrower, with fewer countries.
Mr. Bush’s goal was regime change; Mr. Obama’s is to protect some
civilians from Col. Gadhafi’s airplanes but not from his tanks or
artillery - which makes no sense.

Moreover, what “imminent threat” does Col. Gadhafi’s regime pose to
the United States? None. He is a capricious killer who rightly is
reviled by most of the Libyan people. Yet it is their war, not ours.
America should use military force only to protect its vital national
interests.

The US is ruled by a de facto aristocracy that serves Mammon, not its
sovereign People or God.
Q: Why Libya and not Rowanda?
A: Oil.

As the maggot gags, Sanity
.