Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama’s Libya War: Unconstitutional, Naïve, Hypocritical
Our founders would be appalled that a President of the United States could launch the country into an armed conflict half a world away without a formal declaration of war by Congress, much less barely any discussion of it by the House or by the Senate.
Article 1, Section 8, of our Constitution is unambiguous: Only Congress has the authority “to declare war.” James Madison warned that allowing the President to take the country into war would be “too much of a temptation for one man.”
At this point in the warping of our system of checks and balances, a President can wage war almost whenever he feels like it — or at least whenever he can cobble together some “broad coalition,” as Obama put it, or a “coalition of the willing,” as his predecessor put it.
Sounding just like George W. Bush when he attacked Iraq exactly eight years ago to the day, Obama said that military action against Libya was not our first resort.
Well, it may not have been the first resort, but it sure is Washington’s favorite resort.
We, as Americans, need to face facts: We have a runaway Executive Branch when it comes to warmaking.
And Obama appears naïve in the extreme on this one.
It is naïve to expect U.S. involvement in this war to be over in “days, not weeks,” as he said.
It is naïve to expect that he can carry this out without using ground troops.
It is naïve to wage war that is not in response to a direct threat to the U.S. national security.
It is naïve to expect millions of Libyans to cheer as their own country is being attacked by Western powers.
It is naïve to expect civilian casualties not to mount as a result of his actions, which he said were designed “to protect Libyan civilians.”
And it is naïve to expect the world to go along with the ruse that this is not a U.S.-led act of aggression.
Finally, Obama’s stated reasons for this war, which he refuses to call by its proper name, are hypocritical and incoherent.
He said “innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government.”
That’s true of the people of Yemen, our ally, which just mowed down dozens of peaceful protesters.
That’s true of the people of Bahrain, our ally, which also just mowed down dozens of peaceful protesters.
Then there’s the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, our chief Arab ally and a repressive government in its own right, which just rolled its tanks into Bahrain.
In the Ivory Coast today, another country on good terms with Washington, a dictatorial government is brutalizing its people.
And a brutal junta has ruled the people of Burma for decades now.
There is no consistent humanitarian standard for Obama’s war against Libya. None whatsoever.
Obama has now pushed the United States to a place where we are now engaged in three wars simultaneously.
He’s a man, and we’re a country, that has gone crazy on war.''
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
112 Comments so far
Show AllWe couldn't possibly pay the going rate for oil, while we stay at home becoming the greatest democracy on Earth.
I attended protests for the Iraq war. Where do I go, this weekend, to protest the Libyan war?
Time to draft a serious contender for the 2012 Democratic party nomination.
US to World - It's O.K. to suppress your rebellions, just don't jiggle the US Stock Market or the Price of Gas.
If it's not a war, it's murder. Thank god, there's no divine justice.
My friends both right and left thought I was a lunatic when from the beginning I said "Obama is Bush on steroids".
Most still probably think I'm a lunatic, but I don't think they disagree as much as they used to with regards to the offending statement.
Oh by the way, How about that peace prize!
I have no problem going to war to protect our strategic interest. However, we have no strategic interest in Libya. I supported the attack on Afghanastan by not Iraq. Bush made a major strategic mistake by taking out Saddam that gave Iran the opportunity to grow and expand their influence. Obama has made another by supporting all the uprisings in the ME and not he wants to protect the rebels in a civil war. Protecting civilians is a lame excuse. If this was really the case, why not Syria, Bahrain, Iran, Burma, North Lorea, and all the other dictators who govern their countries. We need some real leadership but regretfully I don't see anything on the horizon in either party.
Then you should have supported Iraq, you should support Libya and you should support America's turning of a blind eye to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia as it is indeed all in America's (the America that matters) strategic interests. Going to war to protect America's strategic interests is a problem that you should absolutely have.
I agree with the headline except for the word "naive". I would put the word "cynical" in there instead.
Sorry, Matt, I'm not hearing you.
Did you forget to identify the cause of this war offense?
Matt, You're making my head spin with too much data on executive explosions, undeclared wars, unconstitutional bombing, fraud frequencies, corporate oily looting, tortured secrecy, spying, domestic lying, anti-aircraft attacks and anti-union attacks, etc., etc., etc., --- Ad nauseum.
Why not focus on the source of all these awful things --- The seminal causal cancer of the hidden EMPIRE at the heart of all these 'symptom issue' distractions!
Will protests have any effect on EMPIRE? if you don't say that EMPIRE is the cause of the problem? Of all problems?
If complaining about blocked corrective actions and protesting about unfairness by the supposed intellectuals behind the protest movements do not soon realize that they need to clearly identify the focus of their protest singularly at the "EMPIRE", which is the cancerous cause of everything from the divided 'symptom issue' protests against wars, economic oppression, spying ... and all the way down to saving the friggin whales, then they will soon enough find that Empire does not respond to anything that does not have the guts or brains to name its target as EMPIRE.
You can't attack Empire if you don't have the basic sense to identify it as 'Empire'.
Just some advice from an old strategic marketing guy who knows that you can't sell cars if you haven't educated (and told) people what a 'car' is.
And you can't sell a revolution "Against Empire" (Parenti) if the multitude don't know what an Empire they live in!
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Liberty over violent empire -- People's Party 2012
BTW, Matt, you start by saying, "Our founders would be appalled ..."
But what our founders would really be appalled about is that we seem not to understand that we are fighting against EMPIRE.
At least those founders had the good sense not to say to the colonial Americans they were trying to recruit to the revolution, "well, men, it's a kind of thing that oppresses us economically, and it's hurting the environment, and it puts troops in our homes, and the phony government that rules us is in its pocket, and it's connected to the tea corporation somehow, and it taxes the farmers more than the royalists --- but we just don't know what to call it, and it may be that all these awful things are just a bunch of bad coincidences that can't be called by any name we can think of --- so, come on men, lets go revolt against that vague thing that has no name, and maybe some of us will come up with a name to call it after we start fighting it?"
Thank God the founders knew what they were fighting against --- they were fighting "Against Empire" --- and so do Chalmers Johnson, Michael Parenti, Christopher Hedges, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Antonio Negri, Michael Hardt, Sheldon Wolin, Niall Ferguson, Gore Vidal, Kurt Vonnegut, Garry Wills, David Korten, William Greider, Bruce Fein, Ted Rall, Jared Diamond, Matt Taibbi, Morris Berman, Andrew Bacevich, Ralph Nader, and a few hundred others, but it's always helpful to spread the word, spread the alarm, and tell others who might not yet understand it, that "it's the empire, stupid" behind all of these assaults on us and our dying democracy that we need to call by its real name, and confront as our common scourge.
Best,
Alan
Oilybomber wins the Nobel war prize!
Who's paying for this one?
There appears to be no limit to the defamation by die-hard Obama supporters of us who believe that Obama betrays the compact between government and governed by using the resolution of a non-elected body, the UN, as a fig leaf to wage war against a country that has neither threatened nor attacked us. "Kadaffi-lovers" is among the mildest of epithets. Let me remind you Obama-defenders that you are in the company of Joe McCarthy who called middle-of-the-road China-hands "commies" because they warned of the consequences of supporting Chang against Mao in the Chinese civil war. I am not surprised though because I have met you during the Texas caucus of the 2008 primaries. When it comes to President Obama you "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, and smell no evil".
Thanks, Matthew, for reminding us of other concurrently repressive regimes.
Perhaps we need a clarification from obama white house on their definition of protecting "civilians". Would that be the elite industrialists?
And the rest of us are just present-to-future collateral damage??
purrsun, if this successfully disguised ruling-elite global EMPIRE keeps fooling most of us into believing that we don't have to worry about an Empire right here in River City, then you're sure as hell right when you say, "the rest of us are just present-to-future collateral damage".
We better all quickly wake-up to the fact that the Empire is hiding among us, or we won't wake up --- forever.
Best,
Alan
Curious, Alan...
What do you mean by "the Empire is hiding among us?" How is it hiding?
The same people who made a pile of money and maybe some others will make a killing off this one. Why should that be any surprise to those paying attention to the Western power elites and what they really want not what they say they want with echo chamber media telling us that's what they want.
The same people who made a pile of money and maybe some others will make a killing off this one. Why should that be any surprise to those paying attention to the Western power elites and what they really want not what they say they want with echo chamber media telling us that's what they want.
The same people who made a pile of money off previous wars and maybe some others will make a killing off this one. Why should that be any surprise to those paying attention to the Western power elites and what they really want not what they say they want with echo chamber media telling us that's what they want.
Obama is naive? Get real Rothschild. This kind of killing is not naive, it's an opportunity, part of a vision. You are being disingenuous to say otherwise and I am offended by it. And I don't think you're naive to push this nonsense.
I also have to endure the meme, "Democrats are weak and spineless." Granted, with the Rs in majority, Democrats can afford to pretend otherwise, put on a show here and there. In fact, they must pretend otherwise! or their party would die overnight. Neither the duopoly nor the corporate empire they work for wants that.
Are you sick in the head or something? What were they supposed to do, let evil Gadaffi slaughter thousands in a blood bath? Stand idly by? I am clapping and cheering every single rocket fired. Gadaffi should have his head chopped off in a sports stadium, and tickets should go on sale, and they should try to turn a profit.
I wish I could fly a warplane. I would love to be out there killing bad guys/ Lot of you people don't understand they ARE BAD guys. You people are so manure brained, you would oppose any war ever just for the sake of it. In your book no war is ever ever ever justified. You people have got something wrong with you, you need psychiatric help.
sorry, all the psychiatrists are busy treating troops with PTSD.
No offense-- but if you're "coolsimon", I'd hate to meet "uncoolsimon".
" I would love to be out there killing bad guys/ Lot of you people don't understand they ARE BAD guys."
As far as psychiatric health, look in the mirror simon.
And while your at it, go read 1984, very carefully. According to the US government and US military The BAD GUYS change hats all the time. Remember, the US trained Osama bin Laden as a GOOD GUY. The US armed Sadam in the 80's when the US considered him a good guy.
Even Gadaffi has bounced back and forth on the US good guy meter.
I'm afraid to asy that you, cool simon, are the naive one here. You are a completely duped by militraist and imperialist propaganda.
If the US cared about civilians and hated dictators so much, then why haven't we invaded Yemen, Bahrain or Saudi Arabia???
I just wrote a long-winded screed at the John Nichols version of this article. Go figure.
And yes, it's tiresome to keep coming across Obama being described as "naïve". It's projection at best.
Naive! You have to be kidding! O is nothing more than a warmed-over version of Bush and the sooner all his apologists realize that the closer we may get to a viable third-party candidate who can help save this miserable country from its masters of destruction.
And when it comes to Congress weighing in on the subject of wars, first they would have to be in session. Right now they are scattered all over the country enjoying another 10-day vacation on the taxpayers' dime while crowing about their ability to cut the budget deficit. They are as useless as O when it comes to giving a damn about anything beyond their reelection.
WAR is what the USA is about!
the only way to change direction is to RECALL all Congressional WAR mongers and Profiteers.
Obama is a shill who takes orders from his masters. Nothing More. He has never has an independent thought in his life. He went to Harvard, not a place one learns independent action or thought.
Remember Obama is:
"Change you can believe in."
Oilybomber was completly intimidated by Hillary who
has been promoting the invasion of Libya for some time.
How many jobs did Hillary outsource to India? Keep in mind that it was her lover, Slick Willie Clinton, who gave us Nafta and the loss of our industrial base to China, through Walmart where Hillary was on the board of directors.
Who knows what the Clinton Circus will do next?
Who knows what their real intentions are?
Does Obama know?
>>Obama has now pushed the United States to a place where we are now engaged in three wars simultaneously.<<
Four. You forgot Pakistan.
And those are just the ones we know about. The U.S. government history of waging secret wars is extensive.
''
Not to worry...........the CIA is toppling Fat Hugo this weekend !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
//
Don't bet on it.
I am sooo tired of Mr. Rothschilds endless propaganda... the real question here is this: Is Matthew Rothschild REALLY so naive as to actually believe deep down that Obama is naive in getting into yet another war? Or Is Rothschild happily and knowingly fullfilling his duty as a Left Gatekeeper and a 'voice of progressives' by purposefully misleading how people understand/percieve politics with his pathetic misinformed rants? Having read articles by this stooge for more years then I care to admit AND knowing a thing or 2 about the history of the Rothschild family the only reasonable conclusion is that Mr Rothschild knows the truth but writes endless lies and disinformation and for some reason Common Dreams continues to post his work as if it is something to consider. It is NOT! Just ignore this pathetic disinformation jag!!!
It is foolish to suggest the coalition fighting Libyan mercenaries can be equated with the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq by George Bush. Oil imperialism and Israel's agenda were the reasons for Bush's illegal and disastrous actions. Stopping a madman's murder of his people is the justifiable action of Obama. This is not war in Libya. It is a humanitarian effort, which should have come earlier, to halt a dictator's destruction of the people he wrongfully controls. Congress should be the one to declare war. This is not war, but an effort to halt the very obvious homicidal efforts of a mad ruler. - George Beres
The only reason it's not a war is because Obama and Congress are too chicken to decalre it and don't want to be held accountable to the people for their decision to go to war. What's the difference between a war and a resolution when innocent civilians are being slaughtered and infrastructure is crumbling all around them?
Why this particular dictator? Why this country?
Seriously, if you actually believe that Obama is spending millions per day to stop a dictator, you have a lot of reading to do.
it does not require a document in writing, or a statement from a founding father to know war is wrong. Ask the women and children of Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Somalia- or maybe better just open your eyes. no matter how lofty may be your motives,
waging war will destroy peoples lives, and whatever your "reason" for doing it cannot ever be worth all the death and misery wars always bring.
I love what the Progressive's main man is saying here, but we must remember this-- one of my alleged ancestors and illegitimate one at that, Thomas "the man" Jefferson and main man to Sally Hemmings also one of alleged ancestors did get the USA in a war this far from the USA with the Barbary pirates and states in his presidency. He was right to go to war then though if he had asked for a declaration of war, which he didn't. Now I respect him for respecting Hemming by taking her to Paris, his favorite town anywhere and doing it in the open not hiding behind the plantation house the wau olld Georgie Washington did with his slaves. He was wide open about Sally Hemmiing and if any white fellow didn't like it he could go take a flying leap. But on this the power got to his head and he was corrupted by it as Lord Acton woulld have said. Jefferson would also lie about this later by saying no US bllod was spilled during his presidency. Don't tell that to the US Navy and Marines fighting in that war. They did give their blood and lives for "the main man" in the White House. He of all people should have respected the US Constitution but the Barbary pirates got on his nerves with their taking our people into slavery. Hey, only we can do that to us.
But to be fair he did preside over the congress passing legialtion to put an end to all importation of slaves and never had a good word for slavery. Jefferson even put in his original drafft of the Declaration of Independence in attacking the depsotism of that mad dog George III, but a committee took that passage out of the final draft. I know about if as have the origiinal myself to this very day.
I look all white but my dad was black/I can see right through my ancestor Jefferson's platic mac/I was born with a plasic spoon im my mouith/ the north side of my town faced east and the east was facing south. . ."-- special thanks to the Who..
This is what people believed in Germany in 1939:
An intervention was planned to protect innocent ethnic Germans in Poland from abuses and oppression by the Polish military dictatorship. This abuse had escalated into killings of those who had complained to Polish authorities. Then Poland launched a preemptive attack on Germany.
On the morning of September 1st the German leadership announced to the people that German military forces were 'retaliating'.
What can I say, Obamba is a fucking idiot
I have to wonder if it's naïve to think that such a war machine as has been bombing the hell out of Libyan targets could be readied at short notice, a UN Security Council resolution pushed through in a matter of days and missiles and bombs launched with such alacrity, all to protect civilians in another country, and that too by the usual suspects such as France, Britain, US, Italy, Canada, etc.? And Russia and China not bothering to use their veto? Perhaps some future Wikileaks releases will show that some kind of planning and preparation had gone on long before all this came on the news? All the while when similar problems exist right around the corner in the same region in other countries?
It is more than oil. After all, Libya ***was*** ready to do business - not just to sell its oil, but to buy weapons and all, so Gaddafi could well have been left in place like those in Bahrain and Yemen. You have to wonder: who would really benefit by taking out Gaddafi? Something has been conspicuously missing from all the news stories lately.
Obama as a constitutional scholar, knows better than anyone that the Constitution is just a damn piece of paper! About the same as toilet paper! U.S foreign policy for a long time, has been a military dictatorship posing as a democracy. Obama takes his orders from the banksters , the war profiteers, and the Pentagon.
"Obama takes his orders from the banksters , the war profiteers, and the Pentagon."
Couldn't agree more except you could have saved some typing by rolling it all together:
"Obama takes his orders from the Prince of Darkness."
"three wars"
They are not wars; they are "conflicts," "interventions," "enforcement of UN resolutions," "police actions," "responses to aggression," "counter-terror operations," "liberations," . . .
For all the Dead, Tortured and Terrorized
To Shrub and O'Bomber
Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerer of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds, oh lord yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor
...
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees, the war pigs crawling
Begging mercies for their sins
Satan laughing, spreads his wings
OH LORD YEAH!
War Pigs, Black Sabbath
Big confusion here. The US did NOT attack Libya. The US didn't bomb Libya. The US is part of the United Nations and it is the United Nations that has decided to take action. The US is acting as a member state of the United Nations, not as a nation declaring war on Libya. It would be totally unconstitutional for the President to have decided, without Congress approval, to throw the US in a war or to simply attack Libya. Again, because I have the feeling that a lot of people just don't get this, THIS IS NOT WHAT HAPPENS HERE! Obama didn't have to ask Congress to be part of a UN resolution because the U.S. is acting under the authority of the U.N. Security Council in the air and missile attacks on Libya. Again and again and again, this NOT a declaration of war of the US toward Libya. Please, before you post and rant, get your facts straight!
So the U.S. is just part of a big UN team, huh, and we're all just equally bombing away, is that right? Here's Jason Ditz at antiwar.com (entitled "Who Will Command the War on Libya?"):
"Speaking in Chile on Monday, President Obama promised that the US command over the Western attack on Libya would be transferred in a “matter of days.” Exactly whom he intends to transfer it to, however, is unclear.
So far, the whole “coalition” that President Obama is referring to seems to begin and end with Britain and France. Qatar is expected to join in soon, in some very limited fashion, but the Arab League has already condemned the bombings. Norway is also planning to deploy a handful of planes."
Who's going to end up being the sucker once again? Which country's citizens are going to end up paying the largest part of the cost? Which country is going to be blamed for this travesty?
So now we have another excuse for Obama: he's "naive." He's just a simple guy with no worldly experience, and that's why he says it's going to be days, not weeks (shades of Rumsfeld and Iraq). President BFF of Oil Industry attacks a country that poses no threat to us because well, he's so gosh darned unsophisticated, he didn't know any better. Please. President BFF of Defense Industry wasn't around the last ten years. You can't blame it on him. Reading this author's lame excuse for Obama makes me want to slap him. Is he trying to fool us or himself?
Unconstitutional? Yes. Hypocritical? Yes. Naive? Give me a fu**ing break.
Good grief, the author is just NOW realizing that it is unconstitutional for a President to launch wars without Congressional approval?? Where has he been for the last 70 years? The last time Congress actually "declared war" - using its Constituinally-granted war-declaration-powers - was World War II. Every single "war" since then has been unconstitutional, including the Iraq invasion: just because Congress voted on a legislation that granted a "utilization of force," or whatever the hell it was, didn't make it illegal.
There is a reason for this abdication by Congress of one of its key Constitutional powers to the Executive branch. 1) This is a dictatorship, and the President now has all of the powers any dictator could ever dream of. The right to assassinate any person on the planet - American citizen or otherwise - on his say-so alone. 2) The right to start any war he wants without a declaration of war by the Congress, in violation of the Constitution. 3) The right to imprison anyone on the planet on his say-so alone, without any trial or due process, indefinitely, until the end of their natural life. 4) The right to torture - oops, sorry, I mean "use enhanced interrogation techniques", my bad - anyone he pleases.
If these aren't the powers that a dictator has - and in many cases dreams of having - then the American people are truly living in their own little dream world. So yes - bomb the fuck out of Libya. Bomb the fuck out of Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or any other country, on the Executive's say-so alone. And even if the executive DOES ask Congress for "permission" - who CARES? They will just rubber-stamp it anyway, as they always do and always have done.
Ok, I'm going to try again in English, then I'll use the other two languages I'm familiar with. You're ready, OK, here we go: 1, 2 ,3 THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T LAUNCH A WAR OR ATTACK ANY COUNTRY. THE US TOOK PART IN A UN RESOLUTION!