From our Constitutional Law Professor In Chief, back when he was running for office:
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.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
From Ralph Nader, who thinks it is time for impeachment:
"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," Nader said in an interview with the anti-war Democracy Now! organization.
Nader's comments came before the U.S. launched military strikes into Libya on Saturday but are among the toughest criticisms Obama has endured from the left.
The consumer advocate participated in an anti-war demonstration outside the White House this weekend, during which over 100 protesters were arrested.
Here are some more anti-invasion quotes from Candidate Obama, from the Verum Serum website:
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda.
Well, yeah. I think we've proven that already. Here's Hot Air, reminiscing about the last time we saw objectives that were as muddled as those of our Barack 'n' Hillary's Excellent Libyan Adventure:
The American military has the facilities and experience to assume tactical direction of the operation, and that appears to be what has shaken out. That doesn’t mean we are in charge from the standpoint of policy or strategy. There is an enormous difference between our public finding out about the command assignments second-hand, through the news media, and the communication practices of the last seven presidents, which were direct, explicit, involved, and responsible. We haven’t had an administration even close to this coy about the use of force since Lyndon Johnson’s.
Ouch.
Ok, you remember that scene in "Taxi Driver" when Robert De Niro is on a pay phone in a hallway, and he discovers something that is so painful that the camera has to turn away, shifting its eye away from the humiliation that De Niro's character is going through? Well, the guys at The Riehl World have re-posted an old Andrew Sullivan piece called "Top 10 Reasons Conservatives Should Vote For Obama". What they've done to it hurts. It really hurts. And like Martin Scorsese, I'm not going to show any of it to you. You'll have to hit this link if you choose to go there. It's like watching someone torturing puppies. You've been warned.
And finally, here's the U.K. Guardian, via Reason magazine:
Muammar Gaddafi has been handed a "non-negotiable ultimatum" by Barack Obama to accept an immediate ceasefire, pull back from Libyan rebel strongholds and permit humanitarian assistance – or face the full onslaught of UN-endorsed air strikes.
In an attempt to reassure Middle East opinion and his own domestic audience, Obama said the US would help to co-ordinate a no-fly-zone, but not lead an operation that will include French, British and Arab jets.
You probably need one of these by now, don't you? Don't you wish everyone had purchased one before the 2008 elections?
Bovine Excrement Meters stolen from here.
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.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
From Ralph Nader, who thinks it is time for impeachment:
"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," Nader said in an interview with the anti-war Democracy Now! organization.
Nader's comments came before the U.S. launched military strikes into Libya on Saturday but are among the toughest criticisms Obama has endured from the left.
The consumer advocate participated in an anti-war demonstration outside the White House this weekend, during which over 100 protesters were arrested.
Here are some more anti-invasion quotes from Candidate Obama, from the Verum Serum website:
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda.
Well, yeah. I think we've proven that already. Here's Hot Air, reminiscing about the last time we saw objectives that were as muddled as those of our Barack 'n' Hillary's Excellent Libyan Adventure:
The American military has the facilities and experience to assume tactical direction of the operation, and that appears to be what has shaken out. That doesn’t mean we are in charge from the standpoint of policy or strategy. There is an enormous difference between our public finding out about the command assignments second-hand, through the news media, and the communication practices of the last seven presidents, which were direct, explicit, involved, and responsible. We haven’t had an administration even close to this coy about the use of force since Lyndon Johnson’s.
Ouch.
Ok, you remember that scene in "Taxi Driver" when Robert De Niro is on a pay phone in a hallway, and he discovers something that is so painful that the camera has to turn away, shifting its eye away from the humiliation that De Niro's character is going through? Well, the guys at The Riehl World have re-posted an old Andrew Sullivan piece called "Top 10 Reasons Conservatives Should Vote For Obama". What they've done to it hurts. It really hurts. And like Martin Scorsese, I'm not going to show any of it to you. You'll have to hit this link if you choose to go there. It's like watching someone torturing puppies. You've been warned.
And finally, here's the U.K. Guardian, via Reason magazine:
Muammar Gaddafi has been handed a "non-negotiable ultimatum" by Barack Obama to accept an immediate ceasefire, pull back from Libyan rebel strongholds and permit humanitarian assistance – or face the full onslaught of UN-endorsed air strikes.
In an attempt to reassure Middle East opinion and his own domestic audience, Obama said the US would help to co-ordinate a no-fly-zone, but not lead an operation that will include French, British and Arab jets.
You probably need one of these by now, don't you? Don't you wish everyone had purchased one before the 2008 elections?
Bovine Excrement Meters stolen from here.
2 comments:
I posted ten other quotes by BHO before I saw your post. None of them overlap! Any chance of the MSM pointing out the contradictions?
We have a better chance of getting out of Libya without putting troops on the ground than we have of the Lamestream Media pointing out any of this.
They are a totally owned by the Democrat wing of the Big Govmint party.
Post a Comment