The irony of the Obama presidency may hinge on whether he attacks Syria. He began his presidency prematurely winning the Nobel Peace Prize and could end it being impeached for starting an illegal war without congressional or UN approval – violating both domestic and international law.
The Rigel letter warned Obama that engaging in military action “would violate the Separation of Powers Clause that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.” They also note that the justification for war in Libya also violated the Constitution. The Lee letter warns that “we all swore to uphold and defend” the Constitution; and that we should not engage in an “unwise war – especially without adhering to our own Constitutional requirements.” In their concluding paragraph they warn “Before weighing the use of military force, Congress must fully debate and consider the facts and every alternative . . .”
President Obama knows the limits of his powers. In fact, if there is an impeachment proceeding his own words will be quoted. When he was running for president, Obama told the Boston Globe: “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.”
The Green Shadow Cabinet of the United States was explicit calling on President Obama to seek congressional approval before going to war, noted that under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution, it is the Congress that determines whether the United States goes to war. They also highlight the potential of impeachment writing: “If President Obama launches an attack without prior explicit authorization by Congress, he will have committed an offense worthy of impeachment.” [Disclosure, I serve as Attorney General in the alternative cabinet.]
If impeachment proceedings are held all of the doubts about the war will come out. People in the military have protected themselves by telling President Obama that they have serious doubts about a military attack. The have warned Obama about potential blowback, misusing the military to send a message with no clear strategy, drawing the US into a vexing war when they are already burdened by a complicated withdrawal from Afghanistan. Some have used words like “potentially devastating consequences” Reportedly, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, has warned in great detail about the risks and pitfalls of U.S. military intervention in Syria, warning “deeper involvement is hard to avoid.”
If the war goes wrong, and wars almost always go wrong, President Obama will see the memorandums of various members of the military who warned him. And, they will be called to testify and tell the world that President Obama was warned but went ahead anyway – without congressional approval in violation of the Constitution.
What could go wrong? Syria has the ability to defend itself and attack US military vessels. Iran and Russia have already indicated they will be drawn into the conflict. Threats of retaliation are already being made and troop movements are occurring. Russia is moving two additional naval ships, a missile cruiser and a large anti-submarine vessel, into the Mediterranean to strengthen its presence in case of a US attack. Russia and Saudi Arabia have exchanged threats over Syria. Russia threatening an attack on Saudi Arabia if the US attacks Syria with President Putin ordering a “massive military strike” against Saudi Arabia in the event that the West attacks Syria. Saudi Arabia is threatening Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia at the Olympics.
Obama could be starting a much larger war than he realizes and doing so without congressional or UN approval. Why would Obama take this tremendous risk?
The military attack does not seem to be based on reliable intelligence. The intelligence community is also protecting itself. Yesterday, the Associated Press reported there are lots of gaps in U.S. intelligence including who ordered the use of chemical weapons and where those chemical weapons are now. President Obama himself has provided no evidence to support the administration’s claim that the chemical weapons came from Assad. In addition, people who turn off the corporate media and think about the situation realize that the claim that Assad used chemical weapons makes no sense from Assad’s point of view. He has been defeating the rebel forces. Why would he take an action that would give the US an excuse to enter the war?
And, the Guardian is reporting that the United States is acting based on Israeli intelligence that supposedly intercepted communications in Syria. Does President Obama want to risk the unpredictable consequences of war and impeachment based on reports from the government of Binyamin Netanyahu; a political leader he has had a stormy relationship with and who would like nothing more than to see the Democrats replaced by the neocon Republicans. Does he want to trust a government that has its own conflicts with Syria over the Golan Heights and that has wanted Assad replaced for a long time? Israel has its own agenda. Should they be trusted here?
If the war goes badly after Obama attacks without congressional approval, you can be sure that the fact that the closest ally of the United States, Great Britain, voted against intervention will be used against him. On the coalition front, President Obama will be standing very alone. Not only has Britain backed out but Egypt has said the Suez Canal can’t be used, and Jordan has said their land can’t be used. The solo-cowboy approach would make the phony Bush “coalition of the willing” that joined in the mistaken attack on Iraq look like brilliant diplomacy.
And, then there is international law. Great Britain has asked the Security Council to consider a resolution on Syria. The UN inspectors are returning with their initial investigation on Saturday. Reports are President Obama may attack Syria as soon as they leave. With the report and Security Council resolution pending an attack would look reckless and show incredible hubris. He will have blatantly violated international law and committed “the supreme international crime.”
This all adds up to a major blunder in the making if President Obama does not find a way to back track from his war threats. While I believe that an attack on Syria would be a mistake no matter what Congress does, those who believe a military strike is necessary should at a minimum bring the matter to Congress and wait for the UN inspectors report and a decision from the Security Council.
The risk of impeachment needs to be part of the balance in Obama’s thinking. The Republicans have been out to destroy him since he was elected. Attacking Syria without congressional approval will give them a weapon. And, you can be sure they will use it, and with their majority control of the House, a vote for impeachment in that Chamber is not unlikely.
If Obama proceeds to war without going to Congress for approval, the irony of an impeachment conviction for an illegal war by the president who won a Nobel Peace Prize may indeed come to pass. President Obama’s legacy will be that of a president who started an illegal war.
Kevin Zeese is a co-founder of Come Home America, a right-left coalition opposed to war, and an organizer of PopularResistance.org.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) warned President Barack Obama is “getting perilously close” to the standard for impeachment.
According to Tulsa World, Coburn referred to the president as “a personal friend of mine" before criticizing Obama's "lawless" administration while speaking during a Wednesday town hall meeting at Oklahoma's Muskogee Convention Center.
BuzzFeed reports Coburn said impeachment is "not something you take lightly, and you have to use a historical precedent of what that means," noting that he feels there is a great deal of "incompetence" in the Obama administration.
"I think there’s some intended violation of the law in this administration, but I also think there’s a ton of incompetence, of people who are making decisions," Coburn said.
"Those are serious things, but we’re in a serious time," Coburn continued. "I don’t have the legal background to know if that rises to high crimes and misdemeanor, but I think they’re getting perilously close.”
Coburn's not the first Republican to toy with the idea of impeaching Obama. Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (R-Mich.) recently said "it would be a dream come true" to impeach Obama, and Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) "you could probably get the votes in the House of Representatives" to impeach the president.
But not all Republicans are willing to discuss the possibility. Former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele lashed out against Farenthold's comments, calling them "beyond the pale" and said they "have no basis in fact and no grounding in reality."
Congressman Predicts Obama`s Impeachment Over Syrian Strike
Published on Aug 30, 2013
Congressman Tom McClintock says if Obama strikes Syria without the approval of Congress he could earn a one-way ticket out of the white house.
The "Impeach Obama Campaign" claims that President Barack Obama had plans to strike Syria and topple the Bashar al-Assad regime long before the alleged use of chemical weapons and Syrian civil war began, this according to an August 30 Inquisitr top news report.
The controversial group, which focuses on Articles of Impeachment against President Obama, says it has proof the decision to attack Syria was planned before the ongoing war between rebel factions and the Syrian government began.
In a purported hacked email from Stratfor, an intelligence giant, released by Wikileaks in 2012, the "Complete Grand Plan" to attack Syria was planned by the Obama Administration back in 2011.
Allegedly, information contained in the hacked email shows that the Pentagon drew up plans to attack Syria before the civil war started, at the direction of Barack Obama.
Moreover, the timeline suggested that it was months after the United States attacked Libya without the go-ahead from Congress. Eventually, Muammar Gaddafi was captured by rebel factions and killed, which led to a planned installment of al-Qaeda, according to the " Impeach Obama Campaign" report.
Secretary of State John Kerry had a broad message to the American people and International community in his address on August 30. Essentially, he said it is "No longer what do we know, it is what do we do" about the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria, citing a live CNBC breaking news report.
Despite congressional push-back and skepticism, Secretary Kerry appears to have made the case for a "limited" strike against the Syrian government.
Impeach Obama activists insist that the president deliberately planned the course of action three years ago. Allegedly, the strategy was to arm al-Qaeda operatives looking for a new operational base in Syria while the United States guts "another Arab country of its resources," according to the campaign to impeach Barack Obama.
Convinced that the country is not in a true civil war; skeptics believe the Assad regime is fighting U.S-sponsored mercenaries and Obama has eyes on the semi-rich oil-producing Syrian nation.
While Congressman Blake Farenthold believes the U.S. House of Representatives have enough votes to impeach Obama, many -- not even Republicans -- think it is a wise move at this time.
However, with the Benghazi scandal, weapons shipments to Syrian rebels without Congressional approval, Obamacare, NSA spying controversy and the potential strike on Syria over alleged chemical weapon's use, the movement to impeach President Barack Obama is quietly gaining steam -- all at a time when the country is healing from previous wars in the Middle East.
It’s all conjecture at this point, and likely a far stretch of opinion by opponents of the president. Nonetheless, the merits of these reports should not be discounted until further evidence surfaces to the contrary.
Al Jazeera Favorite McCain Ignores Constitutional “Niceties” On Syria
http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/ August 30, 2013 by Cliff Kincaid
Near the end of a long story about whether there is justification for a U.S. military strike on Syria, CNN said, “Finally, there is the U.S. Constitution, which holds that only Congress can declare war and only Congress can appropriate the funds to wage war. The last time such niceties were observed was for America’s entrance into World War II.”
The constitutional provisions have become “niceties.” In fact, however, President Bush went to war against Iraq after Congress passed a resolution of support. It was not a formal declaration of war, but it served the same purpose. At least Bush went to Congress for a vote.
CNN added, “The 1973 War Powers Act requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of launching military action and bars U.S. armed forces from fighting for more than 60 days without congressional approval.”
As we pointed put in a column on Obama’s war against Libya, the law says more than that. The War Powers Act says the president can go to war on his own only if there is an imminent threat to the U.S. It authorizes the use of force only in situations “where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.”
Where is the imminent threat to the U.S. from Syria?
Though out of session, members of Congress, led by Scott Rigell (R-VA), are moving to assert the primacy of the Constitution in the current Syria crisis. His letter to Obama says, “Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.”
In 2007, then-Senator Obama loudly declared that “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.” This is a correct understanding of the law.
At the time of the Libya operation, we noted that Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who had turned into an advocate for Al Jazeera, became an enthusiastic supporter of the war, conducted with the approval of the Arab League and the United Nations, but not Congress.
Al-Jazeera, committed to the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood in the region, openly backed the “pro-democracy fighters” in Libya, playing down their links to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Qatar, the sponsor and funder of Al Jazeera, was the only Arab state to join in NATO operations against Libya.
As Yogi Berra might say, Syria is déjà vu all over again. Once again, McCain, Qatar, and Al Jazeera are leading the cry for U.S. military intervention.
On Tuesday, McCain was on the Neil Cavuto show on Fox News, followed by an appearance on CNN about an hour later. McCain certainly knows how to use the media, and they play right into his hands. He was never asked during these interviews about the legality or constitutionality of intervening in Syria.
In our column, “Obama’s War in Libya is Illegal and Unconstitutional,” we pointed out that the comparison to the war in Iraq was wrong and that the correct parallel was President Bill Clinton’s illegal and unconstitutional military intervention in the civil war in Kosovo, then a province of Serbia. We said. “Serbia, like Libya today, did not present a threat to the U.S., but in both cases Democratic presidents went to war with those nations anyway, in order to strengthen international organizations.”
Obama is doing the same thing regarding Syria.
“As he contemplates the American response to Syria’s gas attack, President Obama has made it clear that he is consulting international law,” notes U.S. News & World Report. The publication claimed that “a consensus is building that it may be lawful to use military force in defense of human rights without violating international law,” a concept known as the “responsibility to protect” (R2P) and popularized by Obama advisors such as Samantha Power.
We noted at the time of Obama’s Libya intervention that the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine was mostly the work of the World Federalist Movement, a group dedicated to promoting world government by strengthening the United Nations system.
The only “consensus” in favor of the concept comes from one-worlders who want to supersede the U.S. Constitution.
But Al Jazeera is also weighing in. “The Obama team is said to be looking at the 1999 NATO air war on Kosovo as a precedent,” the channel reported. “Back then, the U.S. bypassed the [U.N.] Security Council and sought backing from NATO instead, using the protection of civilians as justification.”
It’s true that Clinton used NATO rather than the U.N. But NATO, which came into being through a treaty as a defensive military force, had been illegally transformed without the benefit of a treaty into an offensive military force.
The result, as we pointed out at the time, was that Clinton intervened on behalf of the Muslim terrorists in the Kosovo Liberation Army against the Christian Serbs. The result was the creation of a Muslim state, Kosovo, in the heart of Europe.
After the Libya intervention, our media tried to put the best possible face on the illegal actions of the Obama Administration. The media wanted to avoid the issue of whether Obama’s unauthorized attack on Libya was an impeachable offense. The chaos and lack of security later resulted in the murders of four Americans in Benghazi.
At the time, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell (KY) said he was depending on Senator John McCain, who had recently been praising and appearing on Al Jazeera, for the answer. “Senator McCain has been to Benghazi [Libya] as I think everyone knows. He is keeping us posted on what he thinks ought to be done,” McConnell said.
McCain had been in Benghazi meeting with Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was killed in the September 11th terrorist attack.
In a May 17, 2011, column, we tried to explain McCain’s appearances on Al Jazeera: “The only explanation that makes any sense is that Al Jazeera constitutes another channel that can give—and has given—McCain favorable publicity. The Arizona Senator has a reputation as a favorite of the press who is always anxious to get in front of a TV camera. In this regard, Al Jazeera simply constitutes another outlet, albeit an unsavory one, that he can use to promote himself. He may, however, find that it will turn on him—and the West—after Gaddafi is overthrown and the Muslim Brotherhood takes power.”
It didn’t turn on him. Rather, the Muslim Brotherhood-backed terrorists turned on Ambassador Stevens and other Americans. McCain would go on to accuse the Obama Administration of covering up what really happened, ignoring his own role in the crisis.
McCain has since called the revolution against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt a “coup” and wants termination of U.S. aid to the interim anti-terrorist regime.
Meantime, Al Jazeera America (AJAM) launched on August 20 with a clip of McCain saying, “What Al Jazeera has done is to achieve what I think all of us want to achieve—and that is to make a contribution.” He was actually talking about AJAM’s predecessor, Al Jazeera English.
McCain apparently still believes in Al Jazeera, despite the fact that the channel funded by Qatar has been booted out of Egypt and denounced for inciting violence and terrorism. That’s only a “contribution” to chaos.
It’s time for the media to count up the number of times that McCain has contributed to the chaos in the Middle East that he now decries.
This commentary originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.
- "The Top Ten Reasons for Obama to Attack Syria"
Published on Aug 28, 2013
Norvell Rose takes a semi-serious look at a serious topic on today's LNTV report. 8.28.13
GOP Rep. threatens to impeach Obama if American troops are killed in Syria
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/operations/308193-gop-rep-threatens-impeachment-if-us-troops-killed-in-syria June 27, 2013
By Jeremy Herb
Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) on Thursday threatened to impeach President Obama if any U.S. troops are killed in Syria.
“If one of our troops goes to Syria and is killed, I will introduce articles of impeachment against the president,” Jones said.
“No president, Democrat or Republican, should have the authority to bypass the Constitution and the will of the American people and bomb a foreign country because he does not like the leader of the country,” he said.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/operations/308193-gop-rep-threatens-impeachment-if-us-troops-killed-in-syria#ixzz2dWcnWypA
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Obama Should be Impeached Over Syria
James Ostrowski June 17, 2013
In a just world or a world in which a single member of Congress had any guts, Obama would be impeached and removed over his illegal war against Syria. With no declaration of war or connection to 9/11, this is an illegal and thus criminal war. Also, the expenditure of funds on the war are also illegal and criminal. Starting a war invites retaliation as George Washington taught us. Any Americans killed in retaliation for the illegal war are Obama’s responsibility.
I am no expert on foreign policy but I take for granted what the critics have said. This is a war on behalf of unknowns for obscure or unknown purposes whose end game is unknown and unknowable.
Okay, so Obama’s criminal burglary of all our phone records was at least rationalized by an illegal secret “court” order by Judge Vinson (who also be should be impeached or forced by public pressure to resign). However, there is no fig leaf of mendacious legality to cover up Obama’s Syrian war crime.
America is under attack from within. Over the last 4 ½ years, our nation has been transformed for the worse so much that one would hardly recognize it. We have a corrupt, Chicago politician in the White House who is bleeding our nation to death. Since he won re-election with the help of low information voters and a compliant media, the details of even further corruption has been revealed. The time has come and we must not relent until this happens.
IMPEACH OBAMA AND REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE
He has purposefully lied about the Benghazi atrocity, instructed others to lie, and intimidated whistleblowers who were guilty of nothing but a desire for justice and the truth. While our Libyan Ambassador burned and others were slaughtered, he went to bed, not even caring enough to make one phone call as to the status of the seven hours of Hell. Prior to the attacks multiple requests for extra security in Benghazi, including from the murdered Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were refused by his regime. This was despite the fact that the British Embassy in Libya had been previously attacked just months earlier by Islamic terrorists. He has used taxpayer funds to run TV ads in Pakistan, pushing and promoting the lie that the Benghazi attacks were caused by a YouTube video.
At a time of the "Sequester" so-called cuts, equating to a insignificant cut in the "rate of growth" of government spending, he closed White House tours to our children, while sending hundreds of millions of taxpayer funds to the known terrorist group, The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, including giving them F-16's and tanks.
He has treated our foreign friends like enemies and rewarded our enemies as if they were our friends.
He has inflicted the nation with over 20,000 pages of incoherent rules, regulations, and mandates in the form of ObamaCare, which, for the first time in history, gives the federal government the power to force its citizens to buy something that only the government approves of.
He has divided the country like in no time in history since the Civil War. He has pitted men against women, gay people against straight people, and used unAmerican, Marxist class warfare that has no place in a free America. He has caused racial strife by unjustifiably labeling anyone who disagrees with his USSR-style governance as a "racist."
He has degraded our people at every opportunity, apologizing for America on foreign soil. He has bowed to the Saudi Prince, humiliating our nation. To the Mexican people, he blamed the American people for his illegal gun-running operation "Fast and Furious." He apologized to the Mexican people for U.S. sovereignty while inferring that the lower region of our country still belonged to them.
He has continually and on numerous occasions abused the power of his office. To cover-up his regime's crimes in the Fast and Furious gun-running operation, in which the Obama regime gave guns to Mexican drug gangs, in an attempt to later attack the Second Amendment, he pleaded Executive Privilege.
He has exploded the already gargantuan national debt, increasing it by approximately 60% during his first term, while insisting that we must spend even more. He has failed to get even one of his budgets passed, even during the period when his own party held both houses of congress, with his budget being defeated, 414-0, in the House and 99-0 in the Senate, without receiving even one vote from his own party.
He burned-up $862 billion on a "stimulus" plan that was supposed to create "shovel-ready jobs". Later, he admitted there was no such thing as a "shovel-ready" job.
He has promoted voter fraud at every possible occasion, and failed to convict proven voter intimidation based upon the skin color of the lawbreakers.
He has advertised and promoted America's food stamp program over Mexican airwaves to Mexican citizens, in an attempt to swarm our country with millions more in illegal aliens and further bankrupting our country with "Cloward and Piven" tactics.
He has sued several states repeatedly, stopping them from implementing the laws their citizens had approved, violating the Tenth Amendment in the process, while completely obliterating the constitutional principle of state sovereignty.
He has unconstitutionally bypassed Congress at every turn by using the federal bureaucracy to inflict massive and crushing laws on our people.
He has appointed dozens of unconstitutional "czars," unchecked by any balance of powers, who have served no purpose but to harass.
By all accounts he has created a Nixonian "Enemies List" which has included any individual, company, or industry that disagrees with his destructive policies. He has attacked and tried to silence our once "free press," even going to the extreme of instructing Americans which media sources they should listen to.
He embarrassed and harmed our relationship with our ally, Great Britain, by sending an official U.S. delegation to Socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez's funeral, but yet sending no one to the great defender of liberty, the great former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher's funeral.
He has used tragedy and crisis to attack our constitutional freedoms, using the Sandy Hook shootings to infringe upon our non-negotiable Second Amendment rights. He used the Benghazi terrorist attacks, blaming them on the First Amendment which would allow a YouTube video critical of Islam.
He has unconstitutionally attacked our sacred freedom of religion, a God-given right guaranteed by our Founders in the First Amendment.
President Obama is the most corrupt president in U.S. history. His actions are against everything this country was founded upon and stands for. He is a danger to America. We are therefore calling for his impeachment and removal from office. We urge you to join us for the good of our nation and to keep the legacy of our Founding Fathers alive.
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.