President Obamaâ€™s Unconstitutional Libya War
Obama was attempting to "bring democracy to Libya while shredding the Constitution of the United States."
[Speaking Truth To Power]
Last Friday, was President Obama’s deadline for obtaining congressional authorization for America’s continuing involvement in the Libyan War.
One question to be asked now, about this war, is: is the Obama White House violating the 1973 War Powers Resolution, by bombing Libya? The 1973 War Powers Resolution was passed during President Richard Nixon’s Administration. The act’s intent was to check the power of the president to commence war without congressional approval.
It states the president must notify Congress 48 hours before sending armed forces into a conflict and forbids soldiers from remaining there more than 60 days without authorization, or, a declaration of war. However, some argue that the War Powers Resolution is
President Obama voiced “support” for a bi-partisan measure, supporting military action, being proposed by a group of senators—that was introduced, on Monday, by Senator John Kerry D-Massachusetts and Senator John McCain R-Arizona. "Congressional action in support of the mission would underline the U.S. commitment to this remarkable international effort," Mr. Obama said in a letter
directed to congressional leaders. "It has always been my view that it is better to take military action, even in limited actions such as this, with congressional engagement, consultation and support."
In a statement Senator Kerry said "The country is on the strongest footing when the president and Congress speak with one voice on foreign policy matters. I'm pleased to have worked on this resolution with a strong bipartisan coalition and I welcome debate and congressional action on this important issue." However, the measure has not been voted on.
Some members of Congress are not supportive of the president’s Libyan intervention. Rep. Dennis Kucinich D- Ohio said he intends to introduce a measure this week to end the U.S. war in Libya. "Regardless of one's position on the war in Libya, we cannot deny that the United States, in committing an act of war against Libya, went to war absent congressional authorization as required by
the Constitution," Mr. Kucinich said.
Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California said he thought President Obama was attempting to "bring democracy to Libya while shredding the Constitution of the United States." The congressman also said "He cannot continue what he is doing in Libya without congressional authorization. When a president defiantly violates the law that really undercuts our efforts to urge other countries to have the rule of law."
The involvement of America in the Libyan Civil War is wrong and reeks of hypocrisy and incredulity. History will judge the West, Washington and this president harshly for this foolhardy intervention. For, this war has nothing to do with trying to spare civilians, or, stop mass murder as has been claimed by many. This war has everything to do with imperial greed and lies.
First of all, let’s be clear: this war was spearheaded by France’s fanatical President Nicolas Sarkozy. What are Mr. Sarkozy’s real motives, and objectives behind this war? Ironically, just a short time ago, Sarkozy seemed very enamored with Libyan President Colonel Muammar Quathafi. Libya has claimed that it helped to fund Mr. Sarkozy’s election victory in 2007.
Currently, the French president is lagging in the political polls and is behind France’s right-wing presidential candidate Marine Le Pen for the April 2012 elections. With former IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn currently facing rape charges in New York, Le Pen is now, presumably, Mr. Sarkozy’s only serious challenge to retain the French Presidency. Could it be Mr. Sarkozy’s
real aim is to destroy the Quathafi Government, so, that he can renege on the money he may owe Libya while shoring up his political chances --with a "victory" -- for next year’s election?
Certain known aspects of President Sarkozy’s decision-making, in attacking Libya, are disturbing. For example, there’s the manner in which he gave the Benghazi “rebels” diplomatic recognition, after receiving a call from Bernard-Henri Levy. Mr. Levy is known in some French quarters as a pompous, intellectual know-nothing.
Apparently, Mr. Levy was in Benghazi when the Libyan Government was pursuing these “rebels.” He, reportedly, told the French president that the French flags in Benghazi would be stained with blood if he didn’t act. President Sarkozy responded by impulsively giving diplomatic recognition to these usurpers—unilaterally without consulting his foreign minister of the European Union.
It has been argued the Libyan Government was about to engage in mass slaughter of its citizens. Where is the evidence for this charge? These “rebels” are armed insurrectionists, unlike the peaceful protesters in Egypt. The 2007 Sinjar Records, from West Point Military Academy, shows the highest percentage of suicide bombers, and jihadists who fought against American soldiers came from
the Benghazi area.
If "saving" the lives of civilians in the region was a primary consideration, why is it the dictatorial despots—that Washington and
the West support—in Bahrain and Yemen are given a free pass to murder protesters? Hypocritically, while the Obama Administration and NATO seek regime change in Libya they are busy propping up their autocratic friends in other parts of the region.
The Libyan War should never have been launched. President Obama should never have gotten involved in it. And, the American people should tell Congress not to support yet another imperial war.
"Speaking Truth To Empower."
Ann GarrisonNovember 30,2013 @ 12:14 PM
It was sexy to be against the war back then. He was probably in it to get laid.
carpinteyrobwmJuly 14,2013 @ 09:29 PM
carpinteyrobwmJuly 14,2013 @ 08:34 PM
amslctciikJuly 13,2013 @ 01:47 AM
http://youngsgear.us - louis vuitton bags cheap on the inside...
No Record Exist!!