MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.'
MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world.'
Ralph Nader calls for impeachment
Once and future Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein shake hands December 20, 1983 in Baghdad, Iraq. Rumsfeld met with Hussein during the war between Iran and Iraq as an envoy for former US President Ronald Reagan. (Photo by Getty Images)
Obama and Muammar Gaddafi in 2009.
“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.”
— Senator Barack Hussein Obama, December 20, 2007, Boston.com
James Madison was very clear on why the founders vested the Legislature and not the Executive with the power to declare war:
"The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.”
Author, Samantha Power, and her husband, Cass Sunstein, wrote a book which may provide insight into Obama's war escalation. Power currently sits on the National Security Council, and she was counseling Obama this week when he decided to take action in Libya. But nine years ago she wrote the Pulitzer Prize-winning book “A Problem From Hell: American and the Age of Genocide.”
Power describes America’s (and then President Bill Clinton’s) early approach to the mid-90s conflict in Bosnia:
But American resolve soon wilted. Saving Bosnian lives was not deemed worth risking U.S. soldiers or challenging America’s European allies who wanted to remain neutral. Clinton and his team shifted from the language of genocide to that of “tragedy” and “civil war,” downplaying public expectations that there was anything the United States could do. Secretary of State Warren Christopher had never been enthusiastic about U.S. involvement in the Balkans.
As hinted in that passage, and as is made clear later in the book, Power scoffs at the idea that committing U.S. forces, and risking U.S. soldiers, may not be in the best interest of the United States.
In her conclusion, she writes:
The United States should stop genocide for two reasons. The first and most compelling reason is moral. When innocent life is being taken on such a scale and the United States has the power to stop the killing at reasonable risk, it has a duty to act. It is this belief that motivates most of those who seek intervention. But history has shown that the suffering of victims has rarely been sufficient to get the United States to intervene.
The second reason, Power continues, is a round-about form of “self interest.” Channeling the advice of others before her she says, “They warned that allowing genocide undermined regional and international stability, created militarized refugees, and signaled dictators that hate and murder were permissible tools of statecraft.”
From the sound of Obama’s speech on Friday, it is evident Power has his ear. His reasoning for Libyan intervention was a paraphrase of Power’s conclusion:
Now, here’s why this matters to us. Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qaddafi would commit atrocities against his people [Power's first point]. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue. The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners [Power's second point]. The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun. Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow. [Emphasis added]
There are those who disagree with Power and her interventionist doctrine. There is a balance between protecting U.S interests and going “in search of monsters to destroy,” as John Quincy Adams once put it.
Daniel Ellsberg's anti-war speech
Anti-war activist Daniel Ellsberg, author of the Pentagon Papers, arrested.
Navy Releases First Video of Tomahawk Missiles Launched at Libya
Libya and the Left's Sickening Hypocrisy on the Use of Military Force By Michael Filozof
Democrat Woodrow Wilson sent American forces to Europe in 1917 not for concrete American interests but for the hazy notion of making the world "safe for democracy." 100,000 were killed.
Democrat Franklin Roosevelt wanted involvement, but public opinion would not allow him to send troops when the British were being bombarded by the Luftwaffe in 1940. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Congress rightly declared war on them; but commander-in-chief Roosevelt committed American forces first to North Africa, then to Italy, then to Germany. Japan, the only Axis power to actually attack the U.S., was defeated last. 400,000 Americans were killed.
Democrat Harry Truman sent American forces to defend South Korea after communist North Korea invaded in 1950. The communists believed they had a green light to attack when Truman's Secretary of State Dean Acheson failed to include South Korea in America's defense "perimeter." Truman refused to use nuclear weapons to save American lives. End result: 50,000 American dead for a stalemate. Sixty years later, communist North Korea is still there, and now it has nuclear weapons.
Democrat John Kennedy began American involvement in Vietnam, and Democrat Lyndon Johnson escalated the war, sending 500,000 American troops. End result: 58,000 American dead, and a humiliating withdrawal.
Democrat Bill Clinton sent American warplanes to bomb Serbia, which never attacked us; and on Dec. 16, 1998 (which just happened to be the night before he was to be impeached) Clinton ordered four days of bombing missions against Iraq.
Bush continued Clinton's policy against Iraq and Congress approved the Iraq War. The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.
Cf. http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2011032096335
Arab League condemns broad bombing campaign in Libya.
Cf. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/25/world/middleeast/map-of-how-the-protests-unfolded-in-libya.html
Creedence Clearwater Revivial, Bad Moon Rising, 2:16
Posts
