Impeach Obama

I disagree with Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who merely says impeaching Obama is something that ought to be looked at. [Huh?] He hastens to add, though, that he himself isn’t going to make a formal motion to impeach. Even though he’s claiming Obama violated the Constitution in the way he inserted US military force into Libya. And this is why Kucinich bills himself (on his own website) as, “America’s Most Courageous Congressman.”

Wow, talk about tooting your own horn. [Frankly, I think Kucinich is a weenie who won’t do squat about this or much else.]

Obama should be impeached for two very good reasons – one explicit, the other a bit esoteric:

Two Reasons to Impeach

ONE: I will quote the pertinent section of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, emphasizing one key word:

QUOTE:

In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced –

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat…

The President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth –

(A)    the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces…

:UNQUOTE.

Stop the presses…the key word above is necessitating…It wasn’t necessary for the United States to insert itself into the Libyan Civil War. It was far more “necessary” that the League of Arab States act; it was necessary, though less so than for the LAS, for the European Union to act. Since there were others of whom it can be claimed there was a greater “necessity” to act, there’s no way it was “necessary” for the United States to act at all. And if “humanitarian reasons” should ever constitute such a necessity, surely we should have intervened in Rwanda back in the day.

TWO: Now for the more esoteric reason for impeaching Obama: The President ought to be kept to his word. For Obama gave his word, back in 2007, when he said:

“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.”

It’s true that his response was to this particular question: “In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?”

I think Obama’s 2007 response should be applied to the Libyan situation. And if so, Obama violated his own word – his own integrity. Perhaps here I am depending on a definition offered by former President Gerald Ford (then a Congressman): “[An impeachable offense means] exactly what the Congress wants it to mean at a certain moment in history.” I wish Congress would decide to make violating a President’s word an impeachable offense. But then Congress would have to live up to that same standard themselves – heaven forbid!

What I would have done…

…if elected President instead of Obama. I would not have intervened in Libya at all, not even in a supporting role. In fact, I wouldn’t have even made any public (or private) statements one way or the other in support of the rebels.

Obama said what he said back in 2007, about “the President does not have power…to unilaterally authorize a military attack…” But that’s where he and I are so very different. Obama spoke in response to question; I put my various positions in the form of a written contract which contained 47 points. If I were to violate any of these 47 campaign promises, I would have forfeited the presidency. In particular, note item #11 in my contract:

QUOTE:

ELEVEN: Under no circumstances, during my presidency, will the United States militarily intervene (including by means of nuclear weapons) on behalf of any foreign nation without a declaration of war by Congress. In addition, all U.S. forces will be withdrawn from all foreign nations, except for the token numbers needed at our embassies. This will include total withdrawal from NATO and will also include advisors we station in foreign nations in support of anti-terrorist suppression and training of local forces. Bottom line: All of these forces are to come home.

:UNQUOTE.

Judging from this, do you think I would have involved the United States in Libya? Do you think I would have upped the ante in Afghanistan? Had I violated item 11 by doing so, my contract had this to say, as its very first item:

QUOTE:

ONE: If I violate any of the terms of this contract, I will be removed from office by means of impeachment. I hereby affirm, in advance, that I will not defend myself nor authorize any other party to defend me against any impeachment activity in the House or trial by the Senate. I further agree to a speedy trial - within less than 10 minutes, if deemed necessary by the Senate.

:UNQUOTE:

Webb complains and I respond

I posted this recently on Yahoo! as a comment to one of their news articles:

QUOTE:

"We began a military action at the same time that we don't have a clear diplomatic policy…” – Sen. Jim Webb.

Let’s be very clear about this:

As for Senator Webb: As long as the US president is solely in charge of our diplomacy, the only place where we have to have a “clear diplomatic policy” is in Obama’s head. And, according to the rules of the game, Obama doesn’t have to explain squat to anybody – including Senator Webb – and Webb knows this.

We engaged in acts of war against a sovereign nation without provocation, without any threat to the United States, without any threat to any of Libya's neighbors, and without a congressional declaration of war. Not all of our air strikes were to “protect civilians” or to enforce a cease fire, so we didn’t even bother to follow the UN mandate.

And worst? We took it upon ourselves to do what others (notably the Arab League) should have done. As for the League, it’s jolly good to hear the mighty Qutarian Air Force will be joining the fray – this weekend. Where are the Saudis, who have a far greater military?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Obama should be impeached for this.”

:UNQUOTE.

As long as we have Dem/Pub Congressmen (that is, Party Animals instead of independents), we will always be at the mercy of the majority party’s “definition” of an impeachable offense. Senator Webb and the all-so-courageous Kucinich can fuss and fume all they want. It won’t change the bottom line: We’re doomed to go to war whenever the President feels like it.

Selected Yahoo! postings

In closing, I’d like to offer two of my recent postings concerning the Libyan Civil War:

ONE:

“…the mission's goal of protecting civilians from being snared in attacks by Gaddafi's troops. He said it could take days or weeks, but certainly not months, to crush Gaddafi's military."

"to crush Gaddafi's military?" I thought the "mission's goal [is] protecting civilians."

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"I actually bothered to read the UN resolution (the whole thing) and it doesn't say anything about picking sides in a civil war."

TWO:

“Gadhafi's air force strikes back - hits an air base deep in the heart of France" - now that would be a headline. However, could the French really complain? Especially if there were only minimal civilian casualties. This is war, you know.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"What goes around, comes around....arghhh...INCOMING!!!"


THREE:

[RE: two US pilots whose plane malfunctioned & crashed in Libya]

Good thing those guys didn't fall into Gadhafi's hands. Somehow, I don't think he would have turned out to be a very good host. He would, however, have been a better host than his troops - who would have probably drawn and quartered them on the spot. Then what would you do, President Obama?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"I hope our war planners had taken the time to take something like this into consideration."

  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Even Obama’s most diehard supporters must be at least uneasy by now…but they surely won’t admit it. And besides, it’s too late now.”