August 15, 2014 EIR National 29
Aug. 12—With its overwhelming July 25 vote declaring
that “the president shall not deploy or maintain
United States Armed Forces in a sustained combat role
in Iraq without specific statutory authorization for such
use,” the U.S. Congress reasserted its constitutional authority
to decide on questions of war and peace by passing
House Concurrent Resolution 105, which, in compliance
with the War Powers Act, mandates consultation.
On Aug. 8, President Barack Obama thumbed his nose
at the Congress and the Constitution, and announced a
campaign of bombing in northern Iraq.
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) has been the only federally
elected official to unequivocally condemn Obama’s
unconstitutional, unilateral re-bombing of Iraq. He immediately
sent out a tweet declaring, “There is no such
thing as humanitarian bombing, in Iraq or anywhere
else.” He followed up with an op-ed published Aug. 11
in USA Today, entitled “Mr. President, When It’s Our
Money, and It’s Our Blood, Then It’s Our Decision.”
Citing recent opinion polls showing fewer than 40%
approve the bombing, and 55% oppose, Grayson says
he is siding with the American people, and against the
President. “We all know the history: U.S. soldiers invaded
and occupied Iraq, looking for ‘WMDs’ that
weren’t there. That 10-year war cost us the lives of
4,425 American soldiers, left roughly 250,000 with permanent
brain abnormalities from IEDs, etc., and cost us
$2 trillion—approximately 2.5% of our national net
worth, accumulated over 200 years. Isn’t that enough?”
Obama’s decision “makes a mockery” of the socalled
“Powell Doctrine,” Grayson said, since “no national
security interest is threatened, we don’t have a
clear strategy, we’re not using overwhelming force, and
we have no way out.”
But neither Grayson, nor any other Congressman,
has called for Congress to reconvene to assert its authority
in the only way which would be effective—impeachment
of a lawless President. Apparently, it’s the
American people, who overwhelmingly reject Obama,
who will have to light a fire under their elected representatives
to get them to do so.
No Justification
For months prior to this decision, Obama had declared
that he did not need to have Congressional authority
to take military action in Iraq. The Narcissist-in-
Chief meant what he said.
In his public statements on the reasons for the bombing,
Obama declared that he was authorizing airstrikes
both in order to defend American personnel in the Kurdish
regional capital of Erbil, and to avert a humanitarian
disaster (“genocide”) among the Yazidis, an ethnic
group which is under mortal threat from the spread of
the Islamic State (ISIS) jihadis. Obama also reiterated
that he did not believe that a solution for Iraq could be
achieved by military intervention, and that he had absolutely
no intention of putting “boots on the ground.”
Yet, Obama already has approximately 1,000
“boots on the ground,” and the U.S. airstrikes, of
which there have now been at least nine, are a de facto
IMPEACH NOW!
Obama Violates Constitution
Again—with War in Iraq
EIR National
30 National EIR August 15, 2014
initiation of a U.S. war in the region.
The intervention fulfills the condition of HCR 105,
in being “sustained combat.” In his Aug. 9 press conference
on the South Lawn of the White House, Obama
declared: “I don’t think we’re going to solve this problem
in week. I think this is going to take some time,”
prompting the New York Times to headline its coverage,
“Iraq Strikes May Last Months.”
Indeed, military experts have noted that the “pinprick”
bombing strategy being carried out by U.S.
forces appears to presage greater U.S. military involvement
down the line, as the strikes were followed by a
simple repositioning of the Islamic State forces, often
with more people and weapons.
Regime Change
Obama has also made clear that another major objective
of his new war in Iraq is regime change, which
he characterized as forming an “inclusive government”
in Baghdad. A new Iraqi prime minister, Haider al-
Abadi, was nominated over the weekend by the new
President, thanks to U.S. pressure.
After initial threats to oppose the nomination militarily,
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has backed
down, and merely threatened to challenge the appointment
in court.
“Regime change” has been the watchword of
Obama Administration and British war efforts—including
in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Russia itself,
where the major target of U.S./NATO hostility to President
Vladimir Putin. In the first three cases, the Obama
Administration has succeed in sparking a “humanitarian”
civil war of barbaric dimensions, as is now taking
place in Iraq, in part, due to the administration’s support
for the Saudi sponsorship of Islamic terror.
When Will Congress Act?
Despite the dominance of warmongering idiots in
Congress (such as Senators John McCain and Lindsay
Graham), and of pro-war talks in the dominant media,
Congress is fed up with Obama spitting in its eye. But it
needs to be forced to act.
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), initiator of HCR
105, released a weak statement hours after Obama
dropped the first bombs on Iraq, saying that Obama’s
action “goes beyond protecting our military and diplomatic
personnel. I am concerned that we are already
seeing these different missions blur into one in the press
and in Congress. That is deeply troubling.”
McGovern didn’t call for the military action to stop
immediately, but said the “strikes do involve the United
States directly in hostilities, regardless of how limited
they are and regardless of whether there’s a humanitarian
purpose involved.” Therefore, he added, Congress
must act according to the powers of its office if the
combat is still going on when Congress returns in September.
That is much too late.
He also reiterated that “370 Members of the House
voted for my amendment last month [in which] we
made it very clear that we believe Congress has a significant
constitutional role to play.”
Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D-Hi.) was more direct.
“Getting involved in airstrikes moves us a dangerous
step closer to direct involvement in Iraq’s sectarian
civil war, an entanglement we must avoid.” the Wall
Street Journal reported her saying. “[W]e cannot allow
a humanitarian crisis to draw us into a war that would
again cost the Iraqi people far too much in destruction
and lives lost.”
The current state of murderous chaos in Libya, where
the U.S. has been forced to pull out of its embassy, is a
constant reminder to the Congress that Obama’s unconstitutional
wars of regime change and so-called humanitarian
intervention are disasters. The author of a petition
calling for Congress to make the decision on this war,
Robert Naiman, noted that the Libya war was also
launched during a Congressional recess.
Congress should have listened to LaRouche and
stayed on the job. But they still have the mandate to act,
before it’s too late.
In response to Obama’s unconstitutional bombing of Iraq, Rep.
Alan Grayson stated: “There is no such thing as humanitarian
bombing, in Iraq or anywhere else.”
Aug. 12—With its overwhelming July 25 vote declaring
that “the president shall not deploy or maintain
United States Armed Forces in a sustained combat role
in Iraq without specific statutory authorization for such
use,” the U.S. Congress reasserted its constitutional authority
to decide on questions of war and peace by passing
House Concurrent Resolution 105, which, in compliance
with the War Powers Act, mandates consultation.
On Aug. 8, President Barack Obama thumbed his nose
at the Congress and the Constitution, and announced a
campaign of bombing in northern Iraq.
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) has been the only federally
elected official to unequivocally condemn Obama’s
unconstitutional, unilateral re-bombing of Iraq. He immediately
sent out a tweet declaring, “There is no such
thing as humanitarian bombing, in Iraq or anywhere
else.” He followed up with an op-ed published Aug. 11
in USA Today, entitled “Mr. President, When It’s Our
Money, and It’s Our Blood, Then It’s Our Decision.”
Citing recent opinion polls showing fewer than 40%
approve the bombing, and 55% oppose, Grayson says
he is siding with the American people, and against the
President. “We all know the history: U.S. soldiers invaded
and occupied Iraq, looking for ‘WMDs’ that
weren’t there. That 10-year war cost us the lives of
4,425 American soldiers, left roughly 250,000 with permanent
brain abnormalities from IEDs, etc., and cost us
$2 trillion—approximately 2.5% of our national net
worth, accumulated over 200 years. Isn’t that enough?”
Obama’s decision “makes a mockery” of the socalled
“Powell Doctrine,” Grayson said, since “no national
security interest is threatened, we don’t have a
clear strategy, we’re not using overwhelming force, and
we have no way out.”
But neither Grayson, nor any other Congressman,
has called for Congress to reconvene to assert its authority
in the only way which would be effective—impeachment
of a lawless President. Apparently, it’s the
American people, who overwhelmingly reject Obama,
who will have to light a fire under their elected representatives
to get them to do so.
No Justification
For months prior to this decision, Obama had declared
that he did not need to have Congressional authority
to take military action in Iraq. The Narcissist-in-
Chief meant what he said.
In his public statements on the reasons for the bombing,
Obama declared that he was authorizing airstrikes
both in order to defend American personnel in the Kurdish
regional capital of Erbil, and to avert a humanitarian
disaster (“genocide”) among the Yazidis, an ethnic
group which is under mortal threat from the spread of
the Islamic State (ISIS) jihadis. Obama also reiterated
that he did not believe that a solution for Iraq could be
achieved by military intervention, and that he had absolutely
no intention of putting “boots on the ground.”
Yet, Obama already has approximately 1,000
“boots on the ground,” and the U.S. airstrikes, of
which there have now been at least nine, are a de facto
IMPEACH NOW!
Obama Violates Constitution
Again—with War in Iraq
EIR National
30 National EIR August 15, 2014
initiation of a U.S. war in the region.
The intervention fulfills the condition of HCR 105,
in being “sustained combat.” In his Aug. 9 press conference
on the South Lawn of the White House, Obama
declared: “I don’t think we’re going to solve this problem
in week. I think this is going to take some time,”
prompting the New York Times to headline its coverage,
“Iraq Strikes May Last Months.”
Indeed, military experts have noted that the “pinprick”
bombing strategy being carried out by U.S.
forces appears to presage greater U.S. military involvement
down the line, as the strikes were followed by a
simple repositioning of the Islamic State forces, often
with more people and weapons.
Regime Change
Obama has also made clear that another major objective
of his new war in Iraq is regime change, which
he characterized as forming an “inclusive government”
in Baghdad. A new Iraqi prime minister, Haider al-
Abadi, was nominated over the weekend by the new
President, thanks to U.S. pressure.
After initial threats to oppose the nomination militarily,
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has backed
down, and merely threatened to challenge the appointment
in court.
“Regime change” has been the watchword of
Obama Administration and British war efforts—including
in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Russia itself,
where the major target of U.S./NATO hostility to President
Vladimir Putin. In the first three cases, the Obama
Administration has succeed in sparking a “humanitarian”
civil war of barbaric dimensions, as is now taking
place in Iraq, in part, due to the administration’s support
for the Saudi sponsorship of Islamic terror.
When Will Congress Act?
Despite the dominance of warmongering idiots in
Congress (such as Senators John McCain and Lindsay
Graham), and of pro-war talks in the dominant media,
Congress is fed up with Obama spitting in its eye. But it
needs to be forced to act.
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), initiator of HCR
105, released a weak statement hours after Obama
dropped the first bombs on Iraq, saying that Obama’s
action “goes beyond protecting our military and diplomatic
personnel. I am concerned that we are already
seeing these different missions blur into one in the press
and in Congress. That is deeply troubling.”
McGovern didn’t call for the military action to stop
immediately, but said the “strikes do involve the United
States directly in hostilities, regardless of how limited
they are and regardless of whether there’s a humanitarian
purpose involved.” Therefore, he added, Congress
must act according to the powers of its office if the
combat is still going on when Congress returns in September.
That is much too late.
He also reiterated that “370 Members of the House
voted for my amendment last month [in which] we
made it very clear that we believe Congress has a significant
constitutional role to play.”
Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D-Hi.) was more direct.
“Getting involved in airstrikes moves us a dangerous
step closer to direct involvement in Iraq’s sectarian
civil war, an entanglement we must avoid.” the Wall
Street Journal reported her saying. “[W]e cannot allow
a humanitarian crisis to draw us into a war that would
again cost the Iraqi people far too much in destruction
and lives lost.”
The current state of murderous chaos in Libya, where
the U.S. has been forced to pull out of its embassy, is a
constant reminder to the Congress that Obama’s unconstitutional
wars of regime change and so-called humanitarian
intervention are disasters. The author of a petition
calling for Congress to make the decision on this war,
Robert Naiman, noted that the Libya war was also
launched during a Congressional recess.
Congress should have listened to LaRouche and
stayed on the job. But they still have the mandate to act,
before it’s too late.
In response to Obama’s unconstitutional bombing of Iraq, Rep.
Alan Grayson stated: “There is no such thing as humanitarian
bombing, in Iraq or anywhere else.”
No comments:
Post a Comment