RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

writing for godot

While Cameron Defers to Parliament, Obama Locks into Warfare State of Mind

Print
Written by Rob Carter   
Friday, 30 August 2013 12:20
While Cameron Defers to Parliament, Obama Locks into Warfare State of Mind
Whereas I detest Comedy Satirists approach to war or any subject for RSN serious writings of current news. I find Norman Solomon's Common Dreams article perfect on the subject so I just added a few I BELIEVE APPROPRIATE COMMENTS AND SET HERE FULLY COPIED SOLOMON STORY.

Published on Friday, August 30, 2013 by Common Dreams ~ by Norman Solomon co-founder of RootsAction.org and founding director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His books include “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death” and "Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State".



The British Parliament’s rejection of an attack on Syria is a direct contrast—and implicit challenge—to the political war system of the United States. “It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to a UK military action. I get that, & government will act accordingly,” Prime Minister David Cameron said Thursday. At least for now, Uncle Sam’s poodle is off the leash.

Now all eyes turn to Congress, where the bar has suddenly been raised. Can the Representatives measure up to the House of Commons? It’s a crucial question—but President Obama intends to render it moot with unwavering contempt for the war authority of Congress. Like his predecessors.

On Capitol Hill, the charade quotient has been high. The Gulf War began in early 1991 after the Senate vote for war was close: 52 to 47. But, as the PBS “Front-line” program reported years later, President George H.W. Bush had a plan in place: if Congress voted against going to war, he’d ignore Congress.

Robert Gates, who was deputy national security adviser said “The president privately, with the most inner circle, made absolutely clear he was going to go forward with this action even if he were impeached,” & “The truth of the matter is that while public opinion and the voice of Congress was important to Daddy Bush, I believe it had no impact on his decision about what he would do. He was going to throw that son of a bitch [Saddam Hussein] out of Kuwait, regardless of whether the Congress or the public supported him.”

Rob adds: As an Australian Expat in Vietnam now, I and I believe most of the World agreed with that GWH Bush need for a World & UN, backing of the "non-invasion of Nations" as a backbone of World opinion and UN effectiveness, to have ignored the illegal move of Sadam on Kwait (Nothing to do with oil or profit even) would destroy UN as surely as pre-WW II Axis Nations withdrawal & selfish intent destroyed the 'League of Nations' the UN predecessor World forum.

By the Pentagon’s estimate, the six weeks of the Gulf War took the lives of 100,000 Iraqis. “It’s really not a number I’m terribly interested in,” the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Colin Powell, said at the time.

Eight years later, War Powers Act’s 60-day deadline for congressional approval of U.S. warfare expired on May 25, 1999—but large-scale U.S. bombing of Yugoslavia continued. Bill Clinton was unable to get authorization from Congress but, like other wartime presidents before and since, he ignored the law that was passed in 1973 to constrain autocratic war-making. GOP Rep. Tom Campbell said: “The president is in violation of the law. That is clear.” Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich said: “The war continues unauthorized, without the consent of the governed.” And President Clinton said, in effect, I don’t care.

In October 2002, President George W. Bush won congressional approval for an invasion of Iraq, waving the fig leaf that passage would strengthen his hand at the bargaining table. Of course Bush got what he wanted—a full-scale war on Iraq. “The president’s ability to decide when and where to use America’s military power is now absolute,” pundit Michael Kinsley observed, writing in Time magazine in mid-April 2003, just after the U.S. occupation of Iraq began. “Congress cannot stop him. That’s not what the Constitution says, and it’s not what the War Powers Act says, but that’s how it works in practice.”

During the next few days, a huge and historic battle will determine whether President Obama can continue the deadly record of presidential impunity to ignore Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution (“The Congress shall have Power … To declare War”) and the War Powers Act as well as public opinion, now strongly against an attack on Syria. Will the president again be able to order a military attack on yet another country—on his own say-so?

That is Obama’s intention. “Administration officials made clear that the eroding support would not deter Mr. Obama in deciding to go ahead with a strike,” the New York Times reported on Friday morning. “Pentagon officials said that the Navy had now moved a fifth destroyer into the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Each ship carries dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles that would probably be the centerpiece of any attack on Syria.” In the next days, history will be made. Let’s make it for peace.

Rob adds but as we now see EU & UK refusal to join Obi-wan callous prick of the powerful/rich, now USA public are so outspoken against such an Obama dictatorial War he has relied on rhetoric to say "I am not interested in any open ended Middle East War". Also explaining we want to get in and get out on a limited timtable mandate for this war.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN