Subj : Good week To : TIM RICHARDSON From : BOB KLAHN Date : Sun Mar 27 2011 02:53:40 ... TR> Here's a few things to add.....Klahn ought to turn TR> red-face3d over this: ... TR> Commander in chief?Consistent with his socialist, TR> we-are-all-one agenda, Barack Obama used a non-unanimous TR> 10-vote nod from the United Nations Security Council to TR> justify commencing hostilities against Libya, bypassing If unanimous was your requirement we would not be in Iraq now. Which would be a good thing, come to think of it. Oh, and the UN vote was not the justification, but a procedural point. TR> Congress, the Constitution, the will of the American public TR> and a couple hundred years' worth of precedents. Since none Bush sent them down the garbage chute in 2003. OTOH, Reagan's invasion of Grenada also qualifies. TR> of these have mattered in the past, why should they now? They stopped mattering when Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq. ... TR> recently -- UN authority supersedes U.S. constitutional TR> authority and sovereignty. Ah, you made that one up out of the whole cloth. Bush, OTOH, did claim his authority of commander in chief superceded the constitution. By which standard Obama could claim the same thing. ... TR> state-sponsored terrorism. It was Gadhafi that ordered the TR> 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, TR> which killed 270, most of whom were Americans. That said, a That alone justifies action against Gadhafi. TR> number of countervailing arguments counsel against TR> intervening in Libya's civil war with this, as Deputy Much more conseled against invading Iraq, but that didn't stop Bush from doing it, or you supporting it. TR> For one, it is a civil war. U.S. policy -- at least TR> ostensibly -- has been to refrain from engaging in TR> conflicts where U.S. vital national interests are not at TR> stake. Those two points are not connected in any realistic way. And there is and was no such policy in any real world. TR> Whatever interests the U.S. has in Libya, the term TR> "vital" certainly does not apply. Lockerbie says it does. TR> Second, as a sovereign nation, the U.S. neither seeks nor TR> is granted authority from a supra-national organization TR> such as the UN to use American instruments of national TR> power, including military force. Doesn't change the desirability of getting international support. TR> Such authority must vest TR> from within, and in the U.S. that mechanism is the TR> Constitution. While the president has both the authority TR> and duty to use force in protection of the United States TR> from an actual or imminent attack, that is the extent of TR> his unilateral authority. Didn't make any difference to you when Bush invaded Iraq. Why is it different now? TR> Congress alone has the authority to approve the use of TR> military force in all other circumstances as it did in the TR> wake of 9/11. In the case of both Afghanistan and Iraq, TR> President George W. Bush specifically approached Congress, TR> asked for and was granted a resolution authorizing the use TR> of military force. Not for the invasion of Iraq. Bush was granted a conditional resolution authorizing action. Since the conditions were not there the invasion was not legal. Yet you didn't complain about that. TR> His successor -- not so much. Just as much so. Lockerbie alone is reason enough. TR> Next, we have no idea whether the regime that replaces TR> Gadhafi (if that happens) will actually be a change for the TR> better. That is true in every place in the world every single day. It seems the government in power in Iraq is *WORSE* for US interests than Saddam was. TR> While the words "democracy" and "freedom" are TR> bandied about indiscriminately, no one knows what Libya TR> will look like post-Gadhafi. No one knows what America will look like post 2012. TR> In fact, the rebels are TR> self-described Islamic "holy warriors" who have at least TR> the verbal backing of al-Qa'ida. This fact alone should TR> advocate for restraint. Do they? TR> Moreover, as America nears the tenth anniversary of 9/11, TR> we should pause to reflect upon the fact that our nation TR> has been at war continuously for almost a decade. Should we Yes, it has. And that is because the Bush Administration took us into war in Iraq for oil. Gen Jay Garner, the first administrator the administration sent to Iraq wanted to have elections immediately, so the administration fired him. As a result, the US has been in Iraq for nearly 8 years, and in Afghanistan for almost 10 years. You didn't complain when Bush kept us there. TR> -- or can we even afford to -- embark on a third commitment TR> of manpower and resources, much less one that is undefined TR> and open-ended? Funny, you didn't ask if we could afford Iraq. Get our troops ouot of Iraq and we have the means to deal with Libya. TR> Supposedly, no "boots on the ground" were to be committed, TR> but as we go to press 2,200 Marines from the 26th Marine TR> Expeditionary Unit are stationed just off the Libyan coast. There is a fleet there, isn't there? And Marines on the fleet. TR> In the first few days of this conflict alone, we have TR> already lost a plane and spent hundreds of Tomahawk TR> missiles -- are we prepared to commit to this effort to the TR> point that we're willing to sacrifice American lives as TR> well? We lost American lives at Lockerbie. We lost over 4500 American lives in Iraq, with far less justification, and on the basis of lies from the administration. TR> In 2007, both Barack Obama and his levelheaded sidekick Joe TR> Biden believed that the president's authority to use TR> military force is limited to repelling an imminent or TR> ongoing attack on the U.S., and that Congress alone has the TR> authority to authorize the use of military force in all TR> other circumstances. He has learned, hasn't he. TR> "The president does not have power under the Constitution TR> to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation TR> that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat TR> to the nation," said Barack Obama then. Likewise, Joe Biden TR> chimed in, "I made it clear to the president that if he TR> takes this nation to war without congressional approval, I TR> will make it my business to impeach him. That is a fact." For some reason you did not object when he invaded Iraq. TR> These claims were made when they were "Candidate Obama" and TR> "Senator Biden," respectively -- that is, before either TR> decided that their heartfelt words on the campaign trail or TR> a TV talk show were never meant to be applied to themselves TR> at some future point. Didn't bother you in Iraq. TR> Finally, it's worth highlighting how utterly disagreeable TR> is the military operation label "Odyssey Dawn." An odyssey TR> is a very long, convoluted saga -- not an event wrapped up TR> in a few days, as this effort has been promoted, thus far. TR> We're hoping that the Pentagon has a good sense of humor TR> and irony. Or just bad literary judgement. TR> Otherwise and unwittingly, it may have aptly coined the TR> beginning of yet another endless military journey. It might TR> be nice to rid the world of Moammar Gadhafi. Another? You admit Bush was guilty of reckless military judgement? Amen amen amen! TR> But before we commit American lives and resources toward TR> doing so, shouldn't we first pause to ask the question: At TR> what cost? You didn't do that for Iraq. TR> Quote of the Week TR> "We don't know whether the current U.S. president is TR> mindful of what he is uttering, or if he is unconscious and TR> confused." --Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei He said a lot worse about Bush, but you feel that was worth quoting. BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg] * Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140) .