portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

imperialism & war

Nader Calls for Impeachment of Obama

At least two real progressives have now said the unthinkable (to liberals and their apologists). Now where are the Greens and the socialists? Where are the people who have been screaming for the impeachment of Republicans? Doesn't anyone else care about justice?
"You know, let's be very forthright, though, Juan. George W. Bush and Cheney committed war crimes. They had surveillance of Americans illegally. They unconstitutionally pursued wars in Asia. They slaughtered innocents. And they were considered war criminals by many people, including Republican former judge Andrew Napolitano, author of four books on the Constitution, and Republican Bruce Fein. Now, Barack Obama is committing the same crimes—in fact, worse ones in Afghanistan. And innocents are being slaughtered. We're creating more enemies. He's violating international law. He is not constitutionally authorized to do what he's doing. He's using state secrets. He's engaging in illegal surveillance. The CIA is running wild without any kind of circumscribed legal standards or disclosure.

And so, why don't we—why don't we—yes, why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts? That the Obama administration is committing war crimes. And if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached."

From:  http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/18/daniel_ellsberg_joins_peace_activists_risking

Kucinich: Obama vs. Obama 19.Mar.2011 15:14

memory hole

Kucinich apparently doesn't understand that this is an impeachable offense, but at least he's talking about the issue of presidential war powers:

U.S. Military Action Against Libya Absent Imminent Threat or Congressional Approval is Outside the Legal Scope of the Presidency

Senator Barack Obama, December 20, 2007, "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."

Washington D.C. (March 18, 2011) - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today released the following statement and letter to Congressional leaders after the President announced that the United States will support a United Nations-approved attack on Libya:

"While the action is billed as protecting the civilians of Libya, a no-fly-zone begins with an attack on the air defenses of Libya and Qaddafi forces. It is an act of war. The president made statements which attempt to minimize U.S. action, but U.S. planes may drop U.S. bombs and U.S. missiles may be involved in striking another sovereign nation. War from the air is still war.

"It is also worth noting that the President did not comment upon nor recognize that the Libyan government had declared a ceasefire in response to UNSC Resolution 1973. It was appropriate for the UN to speak about the situation. It was appropriate to establish an arms embargo and freeze Qaddafi's considerable financial assets. But whether the U.S. takes military action is not for the UN alone to decide. There is a constitutional imperative in the United States with respect to deciding to commit our U.S. armed forces to war.

"Congress should be called back into session immediately to decide whether or not to authorize the United States' participation in a military strike. If it does not, the action of the President is contrary to U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly states that the United States Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not. That was the Founders' intent.

"I have sent a letter to Congressional leadership indicating that the national interest requires that Congress be called back quickly to Washington to exercise its Constitutional authority to determine whether our armed forces should participate in the UN mission. Both houses of Congress must weigh in. This is not for the President alone, or for a few high ranking Members of Congress to decide.

"It is hard to imagine that Congress, during the current contentious debate over deficits and budget cutting, would agree to plunge America into still another war, especially since America will spend trillions in total for the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and incursions into Pakistan.

"The last thing we need is to be embroiled in yet another intervention in another Muslim country. The American people have had enough. First it was Afghanistan, then Iraq. Then bombs began to fall in Pakistan, then Yemen, and soon it seems bombs could be falling in Libya. Our nation simply cannot afford another war, economically, diplomatically or spiritually," said Kucinich.

 link to dandelionsalad.wordpress.com

Re: o 19.Mar.2011 23:24

memory hole

You must be the last to have heard: Gore won the election but he and his followers elected not to do anything about it.

Why?

Gore was as much of an imperialist as Bush and, like most Democrats, he preferred that a Republican win rather than that Americans examine their flawed electoral system. The election, you apparently have forgotten, was fraudulent in many ways. It was stolen, and all but the most delusional Democrats should have read the accounts of that by Harvey Wasserman, Greg Palast, and others.

Here's what Gore had to say in a debate with Bush on Iraq policy prior to the 2000 election:

Bush/Gore debate on Iraq:  http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg01051.html

(Gore): "I was one of the few members of my political party to support former President Bush in the Persian Gulf War resolution, and at the end of that war, for whatever reason, it was not finished in a way that removed Saddam Hussein from power. I know there are all kinds of circumstances and explanations. But the fact is that that's the situation that was left when I got there. And we have maintained the sanctions. Now I want to go further."

Gore was a foreign policy hawk who chose Joe Lieberman as his VP candidate. It's entirely possible that a Gore/Lieberman White House might have gone to war in Iraq, particularly considering that 9/11 would have still happened.

Lots of Democrats were pulling for a war with Iraq. In 1998, Congress overwhelmingly (even Dennis Kucinich!) voted for a bill calling for the ouster of Saddam Hussein and providing funding to Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. You may also have forgotten that 40% of Democrats voted for the AUMF in 2002.

Progressives should have worked for Nader in 2000, and then maybe we'd at least have a legitimate alternative to the hegemony of the duality. Enjoy your new war.