EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Yet Another Illegal War - Now in Yemen
Both The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post report today that the Obama administration is planning to exploit the disorder from the civil war in Yemen by dramatically escalating a CIA-led drone bombing campaign. In one sense, this is nothing new. Contrary to false denials, the U.S., under the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner, has been bombing Yemen for the last two years, including one attack using cluster bombs that killed dozens of civilians. But what's new is that this will be a CIA drone attack program that is a massive escalation over prior bombing campaigns; as the Post put it: "The new tasking for the agency marks a major escalation of the clandestine American war in Yemen, as well as a substantial expansion of the CIA's drone war."
Leaving aside the standard issue -- that continuously slaughtering civilians in the Muslim world is going to exacerbate every problem which ostensibly justifies the bombing, beginning with Terrorism -- Kevin Drum asks the obvious question:
Exactly what theory of military action allows President Obama to do this without congressional approval? In Afghanistan and Nicaragua in the 80s, you could argue that we were merely funding allies, not fighting a war ourselves. In Grenada and Panama, you could argue that we were merely pursuing small-scale police actions.
...
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...
23 Comments so far
Show AllI lived in Yemen for four years. Yemenis are more progressive than Saudis. These poor people need that we regard them as something other than "pawns" in our international pursuit of our own destruction. We are going to wither and die away, but let's not sacrifice the Yemenis on our path of destruction. They are too poor, too uneducated, and really not worthy opponents of our American magnificence!
"Our American magnificence" was being facetious, of course. Just trying a Mark Twain response...
Obama is an expert on constitutional law. If he can justify his claim to be able to unaccountably order the murder of any American citizen, I'm sure he will be able to find some authority to wage war in Yemen. No problem. Remember the Nixon dictum, "If the President does it, it's legal". Tricky Dick was a man before his time.
Tony Vodvarka
Waging war on Yemen would be the ultimate shame of President Obama. It's the "Bully" versus the "ant". It's a bad decision by Obama and it's a bad decision if we let President Obama get away with it.
Can a Nobel "Peace" Prize be recinded?
It should be; preemptive Peace Prizes should be ignored, as least.
Peacemaker: I had the same sentiment (and reaction) and posted it on another thread. This is so sickening... like this excuse for a prez gets off on his 007 "right" or should I say license, to kill! Meanwhile, all the media authorities will wonder aloud why it is that some teenager, on a sugar binge, picks up his daddy's gun and takes down 7 kids in the class one sunny afternoon? Bowling for Columbine... style.
Who's to stop him?
only the people can stop this cruelty
While reading this article, I thought of "The Emperor's New Clothes"-- again. Greenwald astutely and trenchantly points out that our Unitary Executive, de facto Emperor Obama, is parading around still again without so much as a scrap of Constitutional loincloth, fig leaf, or G-string.
And that, in turn, made me realize that I really couldn't remember how that famous and celebrated tale ENDS. So I looked it up:
_______________
“... 'But he has nothing on at all,' said a little child at last. 'Good heavens! listen to the voice of an innocent child,' said the father, and one whispered to the other what the child had said. 'But he has nothing on at all,' cried at last the whole people. That made a deep impression upon the emperor, for it seemed to him that they were right; but he thought to himself, 'Now I must bear up to the end.' And the chamberlains walked with still greater dignity, as if they carried the train which did not exist."*
_______________
I was mildly surprised. I vaguely expected, or thought I remembered, that the Emperor has a comeuppance after the innocent child naïvely speaks truth to power. The actual ending as quoted above is honest, if bleak-- it can't even be called cynical.
Only in my unreliable, uncharacteristically Disneyfied imagination did the Emperor's exposure teach either him, his court, or the public a chastising object lesson.
I thought for sure that at least the Emperor would be mortally shamed or embarrassed, or the crowd would "come to its senses" and, even in the throes of its own shame, turn on the emperor and his sycophantic ministers. Or at least congratulate the child and vow not to be so complacent or gullible in the future.
In Andersen's version, everybody just more or less lives happily ever after.
Tragically, the moral arguably echoes the cynical contempt of Deadeye Dick Cheney: "So what?"
I'm not knocking Glenn for hewing to the task of calling out Obama and its maladministration for flouting the Constitution. But it really IS like "The Emperor's New Clothes", to an extent I hadn't realized until I refreshed my memory of the tale.
Obama's constitutional nakedness is indeed unconscionable and shameful, deserving of reproach and even impeachment. And there is a constant murmur of discontent to that effect in the rear echelons of the crowd.
But Obama's profound obscenity is rendered esoteric and trivial compared to, say, the sensational and much-attended "obscenity" of a scandal du jour like Anthony Weiner's social-media soft-porn indiscretions.
It once more brings to mind journalist Ron Suskind's 2004 quote from "a senior adviser to Bush", reportedly Karl Rove:
"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"
I write without pleasure or satisfaction that I am coming to see Glenn's laudable "judicious study of discernible reality" as important only to a dwindling reality-based community effectively sidelined and ignored in a corporate mass-media mainstream hubbub of superficial "news" and "analysis" broadcasting sensational melodrama and authoritarian government-serving scripts.
I wish it weren't so, but Glenn might as well be holding up a sign reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as the procession serenely passes by.
* http://hca.gilead.org.il/emperor.html
How many people do we, generally, meet who share our views, who have even heard of cd, or who visibly advocate for peace? Almost nil?
The Karl Rove quote sums it up nicely. The elites have had it their way for so long, that they can casually sit and enjoy watching the peasants scrambling for any remaining crumbs.
VOLCANOES, THEY DO WAKE UP TOO.
No terror no torture just truth.
I seriously think we'd have been better served by McCain/Palin's selection.
O.S. Your posts are always good, some even great... I think this falls into the latter category. That's quite a powerful analogy you made use of. Very telling, and an image apt to remain in the minds of many who read it. The naked constitutional lawyer cum unitary exec. Has a ring to it. Excellent work.
The American Empire rolls on in Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Somalia. Where will our next conquests be? Will it be in Syria, Iran, or Mexico? Hell, why don't we just invade China, Canada, Russia, India, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Africa, South Africa, Central and South America, the Caribbean and the entire Pacific rim and exercise dominance over the entire world? We've already got western Europe in our back pocket under the auspices of NATO.
Everybody sing now, "We are the world, we are the DU'd children..
it won't be russia or china. a bully only picks on smaller, weaker opponents. this country still carries the reality of korea 60 years later. call it a draw and retreat behind the dmz. since then it only goes after third world nations, more or less live fire training.
>>Where will our next conquests be? Will it be in Syria, Iran, or Mexico?<<
Don't forget Venezuela. I would also not be a bit surprised if the US is already in another couple-two-three "clandestine" wars not yet reported in the MSM.
dbl
Your oil, or your life!