Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

We Are Involved In Four Wars

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/06/10


The US is involved in four different wars. We are still in Iraq, fighting insurgent Islamic Terrorists. We are in Afghanistan and Pakistan (yes), fighting Al Qaida and the Taliban. We are in Libya (with ground troops as well), fighting Qadafi and giving aid to Islamic Terrorists who are fighting Qadafi. We are in Yemen, bombing Al Qaida.

Here’s the real deal, folks. Barack Obama and much of the Left are being hypocritical. I’ll get to whether we should be doing what we are doing later, but the point is the Left’s position under Bush compared to the Left’s position under Obama. And the dishonesty among the Left in regards to Obama’s actions compared to Bush’s actions.

The Left, and Barack Obama, accused Bush of Cowboy Diplomacy in his actions against Hussein and the Taliban. The Left accused Bush of unilateral engagement in both Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the truth proving the Left lied. And now that Obama has continued both of Bush’s actions, and amplified the actions in Afghanistan and into Pakistan, the Left has been largely quiet.

Obama entered into Libya with an international coalition that is less than half the size of Bush’s Iraq coalition, but the Left declared Obama’s actions to be internationally supported and Bush’s actions to be unilateral. Typical hypocrisy and deceit from the Left. Obama also entered into Libya without Congressional approval, a violation of the US Constitution and the War Powers Act, and continues to thumb his nose at the US Constitution and the War Powers Act. And Obama has gone well beyond the UN permissions upon which he based his attacks. The UN permitted “no-fly zones” and not regime change. Obama, from the beginning, went well beyond “no-fly zones” in his war on Libya. And Obama sent in ground troops, which is outside UN approval. (The UN can go suck green persimmons for all I care, but it’s the UN decision that Obama used — and subsequently violated — for his actions.)

Obama has unilaterally involved the US in bombing campaigns against Al Qaida in Yemen. Ed Morrissey states that Obama has Congressional authority in an over-broad authorization Congress gave George W Bush. Okay, fine. I’m ambivalent. But I do support the killing of Al Qaida members and the obliteration of Al Qaida. That’s not the issue. The issue is Obama’s and the Left’s utter hypocrisy in this regard.

If anyone is using “cowboy diplomacy” it’s Barack Obama. Obama is acting like a dictator, making decisions without approval of Congress, totally disregarding Congressional oversight and the US Constitution and the War Powers Act. Obama is acting unilaterally in Yemen, beyond his UN mandate and without Congressional approval in Libya (with a far smaller coalition than Bush’s Iraq coalition). Obama is continuing Bush’s Iraq campaign despite his and the Left’s despise for it. Obama has greatly increased the Afghanistan battle sphere to include Pakistan, while hamstringing the military with outrageous Rules of Engagement. And far more innocents have died from Obama’s collateral damage than under Bush. And more US military have died or been injured due to Obama’s ROE than under Bush, year to year.

Should we be in Iraq and Afghanistan? Absolutely. Destroy the terrorists. Destroy Al Qaida and the Taliban. But Obama and the Left are busily wallowing in their hypocrisy regarding both.

Should we be bombing Al Qaida in Yemen? Absolutely. Destroy them. But Obama is going in unilaterally, which is hypocritical of him. And the Left’s silence is highly hypocritical.

Should we be in Libya, trying to overthrow Qadafi? Meh. But Obama has refused to get Congressional approval, a violation of the US Constitution and the War Powers Act. It is also hypocritical of Obama and the Left. Obama has also exceeded the UN mandate from day one, the very thing he and the Left used to permit the Libya war. Obama has also armed the very Islamic Terrorists we are fighting elsewhere. And the Left’s silence on that is highly hypocritical (Iran-Contra).

Whether we should be involved in the four wars is secondary to the absolute hypocrisy out of the Left in regards to each of the four wars. But without hypocrisy, the Left would have very little to operate with.

2 Responses to “We Are Involved In Four Wars”

  1. […] of the four wars. But without hypocrisy, the Left would have very little to operate with. ________ Cross-Post Filed under Blatant Hypocrisy, Constitution, Contempt for The Constitution, Democratic […]

    Like

  2. Dana Pico said

    Should we be in Libya, trying to overthrow Qadafi? Meh. But Obama has refused to get Congressional approval, a violation of the US Constitution and the War Powers Act.

    The elder President Bush sought and received consent from both the Congress and the United Nations Security Council for the action against Iraq in 1991. The younger President Bush sought consent from both the Congress and the Security Council for the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein; he received teh consent of only one body, the Congress, and that was enough. President Obama had the consent of the United Nations’ Security Council for some of the actions he took — certainly not all of them — but never even attempted to get the consent of the Congress.

    Now, there are a couple of ways to look at this. One way would be that President Obama was defending the standard Presidential position that the War Powers Act of 1973 is an unconstitutional limitation of the authority of the commander-in-chief, by going in and not even asking for congressional consent; a lot of past presidents just might approve of that course of action, and the failure of the Congress to demand removal of American forces from the Libyan campaign since the Congress never approved adds some weight to the argument that the War Powers Act is meaningless (at best) and possibly unconstitutional.

    But another way of looking at it would be to say that the Security Council’s approval meets the standard of providing all the legislative consent required. Since the United Nations Treaty, ratified by the Senate, is part of the law of the land, such an argument would have strong legal merit, and there is history behind it: President Truman never sought congressional authorization for using American troops to fight in Korea, and President Clinton held that Security Council action was sufficient for his actions in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo.

    Mr Hitchcock — and others — will not like this, but it is my opinion that the President of the United States does have the power to commit American troops to military action solely on his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief. The Constitution reserves to the Congress the power to declare war, but there is no constitutional requirement specified — regardless of what some might think is implied — that the nation must be in a state of declared war to engage in hostilities or combat. Whether that was simply an oversight by the Framers, or what they would say about the situation today is irrelevant: they did not put in such a restriction when they had the chance.

    Now, I think that President Obama should have chosen to go to the Congress to get approval, but I don’t believe that he had to do so. I also do not believe that the Security Council resolution provides all of the legal authorization he needed, because, in the end, he didn’t need it; he had all of the authority he required by virtue of being commander-in-chief.

    If the Congress doesn’t like it, they have two options:

    1. They can decline to provide funds for the President to prosecute a military action; or
    2. They can impeach and remove the President from office.

    Instead, the Congress has chosen neither course of action, nor passed a concurrent resolution under the War Powers Act, nor done anything but run their collective and individual mouths.

    Like

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: