<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=GB2312" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
[From the Libertarian website <antiwar.com>. The author is
described as "a scientist who lives in Cambridge, Mass. He is a
frequent contributor to CounterPunch.org."]<br>
<br>
Impeach Barack Obama<br>
A Challenge to Tea Partiers and Antiwar Liberals<br>
by John V. Walsh, March 24, 2011<br>
<br>
The time has come for those who claim high regard for the U.S.
Constitution to show that they mean what they say. The time has
come to begin impeachment proceedings against President Barack H.
Obama for high crimes and misdemeanors. <br>
<br>
The United States has initiated a war against Libya, as Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates has conceded. When one country bombs another,
which has not attacked it nor posed any immediate threat to it, that
is an act of war. No "humanitarian" rationale justifies such an
act. Only an act of Congress suffices according to the United
States Constitution. Barack Obama has violated that provision of
the United States Constitution, which he swore, falsely it is now
apparent, to defend and protect. Barack Obama has committed this
greatest of impeachable offenses. Other offenses related to torture
and violation of the civil liberties of U. S. citizens may emerge as
articles of impeachment are drawn up. <br>
<br>
Many Tea Party candidates and paleo-conservative and libertarian
Republicans, such as Rep. Ron Paul, won office by declaring their
high regard for the Constitution. Rep. Paul stated in advance of
the attack on Libya that a Congressional declaration of war was
necessary according to the provisions of the Constitution before an
assault could proceed. If these Republicans do not act now to begin
impeachment following the lead of the very principled Dr. Paul,
their words meant nothing, and they should be turned out of office.
<br>
<br>
Similarly antiwar liberals such as Dennis Kucinich backed candidate
Barack Obama because of his promises of peace. But President Obama
has given us ever more war. His pledge to end the war in Iraq by
2009 turns out to be an empty promise, and he has widened the war in
Afghanistan. He has also ordered the bombing of Pakistan, another
act of war not authorized by Congress. If such liberals are genuine
agents of peace, they too have an obligation to follow the lead of
Kucinich who has used the term impeachment with respect to Barack
Obama¡¯s behavior to initiate impeachment proceedings. Otherwise
they are poseurs, and they should be turned out of office. <br>
<br>
Barack Obama can himself be called as the first witness to the
hearings on his impeachment, so obvious is his crime. In 2008 as a
candidate for the presidency he replied as follows to a question
from the Boston Globe¡¯s Charlie Savage. <br>
<br>
Savage:" In what circumstances, if any, would the president have
constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force
authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic
bombing of suspected nuclear sites ¡ª a situation that does not
involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)<br>
<br>
Obama: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to
unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does
not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." <br>
<br>
High members of his administration agree and might provide ancillary
testimony. Vice President Joseph Biden has declared: "The
Constitution is clear: except in response to an attack or the
imminent threat of attack, only Congress may authorize war and the
use of force." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was of the same
opinion: "If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack,
of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us.
At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize
war. I do not believe that the President can take military action ¨C
including any kind of strategic bombing ¨C against Iran without
congressional authorization."<br>
<br>
Barack Obama has further isolated the U.S. in the world by going to
war against Libya, contrary to his claims of being a part of a broad
international effort. This can only do more damage to our country,
bleeding now with so many problems. Consider the vote in UN
Security Council. Michael Lind informs us of the demographics and
power relationships lying behind the UN vote as follows: "In the
vote to authorize war against Libya, the U.S., Britain and France
joined by Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria,
Portugal and South Africa. Abstaining from the vote were five
countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China and Germany."<br>
<br>
"What do the five countries that registered their opposition to the
Libyan war have in common? They make up most of the great powers of
the early twenty-first century. A few years back, Goldman Sachs
identified the so-called "BRIC¡¯s" ¡ª Brazil, Russia, India and China
¡ª as the most important emerging countries in the world. The
opponents of the Libyan war on the Security Council are the BRIC¡¯s
plus Germany, the most populous and richest country in Europe."<br>
<br>
"Including the United States, the Security Council nations that
voted for the no-fly zone resolution have a combined population of a
little more than 700 million people and a combined GDP, in terms of
purchasing power parity, of roughly $20 trillion. The Security
Council countries that showed their disapproval of the Libyan war by
abstaining from the vote have a combined population of about 3
billion people and a GDP of around $21 trillion."<br>
<br>
"If the U.S. is factored out, the disproportion between the pro-war
and anti-war camps on the Security Council is even more striking.
The countries that abstained from the vote account for more than 40
percent of the human race. The countries that joined the U.S. in
voting to authorize attacks on Libya, including Britain and France,
have a combined population that adds up to a little more than 5
percent of the human race."<br>
<br>
The situation appears worse the more one regards it. Lebanon¡¯s
government controls only part of its territory. Gabon is a statelet
with a mere 1.6 million people, smaller than many American cities.
And the UN ambassadors of two of the countries who sided with the
U.S., Nigeria and South Africa, were not present when the vote was
scheduled to be taken. Ambassador Rice had to leave the Security
Council chamber, find them and usher them in herself. <br>
<br>
Partisan considerations should not impede the move to impeach Barack
Obama. When George W. Bush was president, many on the Democratic
Party Left called for his impeachment. They must do the same for
President Obama who has more clearly violated the Constitution than
President Bush since he did not even seek the dubious Congressional
"authorization" which George W. Bush asked for and received. If the
Left cannot do this, its credibility will be in shambles, and quite
deservedly so. On the other side clearly there is reason to indict
Bush, and some on the Left are calling for that as are certain
authorities in European countries where the former President dare
not go. But at the moment Barack Obama is in charge and capable of
greater damage if he is not stopped by impeachment. Impeachment of
Barack Obama can no longer be avoided. <br>
<br>
President Barack Obama has violated the U.S. Constitution and
employed the armed forces of the U.S. as a king¡¯s army. The U.S.
made its revolution to escape such a predicament, and if this
usurper of Congressional authority is not stopped and punished,
these crimes will continue under each succeeding executive. This
must end and it must end now. Impeachment proceedings must begin at
once. <br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://original.antiwar.com/john-v-walsh/2011/03/23/impeach-barack-obama/">http://original.antiwar.com/john-v-walsh/2011/03/23/impeach-barack-obama/</a><br>
<br>
On 3/23/11 9:32 AM, Corey Mattson wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTimuJL0igfr+bN3qGK2AnA2sGftU37KGusADYdoo@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">I'm not sure where this comes from. "Little faith in
the evangelism of your ideology?" I threw out evangelism with the
religion of my childhood.<br>
<br>
Of course I'm all for people educating each other and people
disagreeing with each other. Anyone who is anti-war can come to
our BNCPJ meetings, educationals and rallies. The Randists
(followers of Ayn Rand) can attend the BNCPJ meetings, but choose
not to, apparently because they don't want to be associated with
the anti-war arguments from the Left. Sometimes 2-4 attend our
rallies and some are nonparticipating members of our listserv.
That's fine, that's their choice. Again, for strategic reasons,
what I'm opposed to is an alliance with right-wing groups that do
not share our movement goals and values, act in an unprincipled
manner, organize in and belong to a movement (Tea Party) that is
heavily reactionary and is not anti-war, and would use such an
alliance with the Left to strengthen their movement. I think the
goal of the anti-war movement should be to deepen anti-war
sentiment in unions (through USLAW), reach out to people being
attacked by austerity policies (the poor, workers), and that these
goals work contrary to an alliance with Tea Partiers who are part
of the attack against workers and the poor. This is a strategic
question. It has little to do with the warm-fuzzy feelings of
inclusiveness.<br>
<br>
Also, the strength of a group or movement involves much more than
the ability to convince others. A group can be stronger based on
the money it receives, as well as the extent to which its views
coincide with ruling ideas. From what I can see, both the Tea
Party and Libertarian groups can outspend groups on the Left at
the local level, another reason not to enter into coalitions that
will further help them when they already have an advantage. On the
flip side, I don't see a much stronger anti-war movement resulting
from such a right/left alliance. Given that AWARE seems to have
accepted the right-left coalition perspective, are people beating
down your doors to attend your meetings or rallies?<br>
<br>
--- Corey, BNCPJ<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2011/3/23 "E. Wayne Johnson ÖìÎÈÉ" <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ewj@pigs.ag">ewj@pigs.ag</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Corey,<br>
It seems that you have quite little faith in the evangelism
of your
ideology. If you can't teach others your views and convince
others
that you are correct one wonders what is wrong. If you
think that the
non-followers are unteachable that seems xenophobic, perhaps
even
Racist to me.<br>
<br>
Perhaps you arent working hard enough on articulating your
ideology in
such a way that it would be universally acceptable.<br>
<br>
Of course there is yet another possibility.
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On 2011-3-23 10:17, Corey Mattson wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">My opposition to a coalition
with the Right has little to
do with Absolute Ideological Purity. This is a straw
man argument. I,
and others with my view, work quite closely with
people from my union,
progressive organizations, veteran's organizations,
etc. I'm opposed to
such a coalition because it can damage the sort of
anti-war coalition
we should be trying to build - including working
people, involving
unions, racially inclusive, etc. And, frankly, I'm not
interested in
helping the Randists build their movement and be able
to put forward
their own reactionary agenda.<br>
<br>
Until we get hundreds of thousands, millions of
people, in the streets,
the wars will continue. I really don't see that coming
from the Tea
Party, since they only protest government spending
when it is for human
need. As for individual Libertarians and Republicans,
I believe the
strength of our movement comes from its independence
from business
politicians. We shouldn't subordinate an anti-war
movement to any
politicians or party groups, whether they be Ron Paul,
the Democrats,
the Libertarian Party, or MoveOn.<br>
<br>
--- Corey <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 7:39
PM, "E. Wayne
Johnson ÖìÎÈÉ" <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:ewj@pigs.ag"
target="_blank">ewj@pigs.ag</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:
1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">The "No, No,
No, Absolutely
No" that would have been my knee-jerk
response was probably too strong a statement.
And after all, the
American Pharoahs have proven willing to proceed
on their own. Abstain
may have been the most peaceful and quietistic
form of No, although a
principled veto directed to the right ventricle
seems appropriate to
me. <br>
<br>
No use to be rude about it. Let the other guy
wear the millstone on
his ardourous neck.
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
On 2011-3-23 7:54, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">--The inscrutable
and amoral world of
geopolitics/foreign
relations. The inscrutable oriental mind
(?) comes to mind.
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Mar 22, 2011, at 6:28 PM, E.
Wayne Johnson ÖìÎÈÉ wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff"
text="#000000">I thought that too,
Mort. <br>
<br>
Amazingly, I was not consulted. <br>
<br>
I suppose the local PTB decided I
was too busy teaching pig farmers
down in Jiangsu to be bothered
with such trivial matters that
they
could manage on their own.<br>
<br>
My interpretation is that a
vetoing No by those who could veto
would
have been interpreted as an act of
aggression against those with
ardor
for the resolution.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2011-3-23 6:07, Morton K.
Brussel wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">So why did
China abstain, instead of
vetoing, the UN
Security Council resolution?
<div>--mkb</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Mar 22, 2011, at
11:58 AM, E. Wayne Johnson
ÖìÎÈÉ wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff"
text="#000000"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">This
statement about
opposition to use of
force and recognition
of Sovereignty seems
to come
directly from
Libertarian
fundamentals, albeit
from a somewhat
unexpected source.
Given such a "message
in a unknown tongue"
(in this
case, Mandarin
Putonghua Chinese) one
could hardly refrain
from the
"amen" given the clear
interpretation
provided in standard
English.<br>
<br>
When I saw it on
CCTV9, I told Dr.
Qiao, "Hey, this guy
is a
Libertarian!" She
smiled.<br>
<br>
</font>
<p><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">BEIJING,
March
18
(Xinhua) -- China on
Friday said it had
serious reservations
with part
of the latest U.N.
resolution on Libya.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">"<font
color="#cc0000">We
oppose
the use of force
in international
relations</font>
and have some
serious reservations
with part of the
resolution," Foreign
Ministry
spokeswoman Jiang Yu
said in a statement
on Friday.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">Jiang's
comments
came
after
the United Nations
Security Council
adopted a resolution
which
authorized a no-fly
zone over Libya
Thursday.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">The
resolution
also
called
for "all necessary
measures," excluding
ground troops, to
"protect civilians
and civilian
populated areas
under threat of
attack"
in Libya, "including
Benghazi," a key
eastern city
currently held by
the rebels.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">"Considering
the
concern
and
stance of Arab
countries and the
Africa Union as well
as the
special situation in
Libya, China and
some countries
abstained from
voting on the draft
resolution," Jiang
said.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">Apart
from
China,
Russia,
a permanent Council
member with veto
power, and Brazil,
Germany and
India, the three
non-permanent
Council members,
also abstained from
voting on the draft
resolution.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">"We
support
the
commitment of the UN
Secretary General's
special envoy for
Libya, the
Africa Union and
Arab League to deal
with the current
crisis in Libya
in a peaceful way,"
Jiang said.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
color="#cc0000">China
has
always
maintained that
actions of the UN
Security Council
should
follow the
objective and
principle of the
UN Charter and
international
laws, respect
Libya's
sovereignty,
independence,
unification and
territorial
integrity</font>,
Jiang said.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">"<font
color="#cc0000">The
current
crisis
in Libya should be
resolved through
dialogue</font> <font
color="#cc0000">and
by other peaceful
means," Jiang
said.</font></font></p>
<p><font color="#cc0000"
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">"We
expect
Libya
to restore stability
at an early date and
avoid an
escalation of armed
conflicts and
worsening
humanitarian
crisis," Jiang
said. </font></p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2011-3-23 0:02, C. G.
Estabrook wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">"[Rep.
Ron
Paul] said his
opposition to the wars
in Iraq and
Afghanistan give him
an edge over other
Republicans and could
help him
defeat President
Barack Obama in a
national election. At
CPAC, Paul
drew thunderous
applause for bashing
the Patriot Act, US
aid to foreign
nations, and US
military bases
overseas during his
speech. The
conservative group
Young Americans for
Freedom (YAF) later
announced
that he would be
expelled from the
group's National
Advisory Board
because of his
'delusional and
disturbing alliance
with the fringe
Anti-War movement.'"<br>
<br>
Rep. Ron Paul wins
another Republican
presidential straw
poll<br>
By Eric W. Dolan<br>
March 21, 2011 @
8:14 pm<br>
<br>
Texas Congressman Ron
Paul beat out top
Republican
presidential
hopefuls Mitt Romney
and Newt Gingrich in a
straw poll for the
second
time this year.<br>
<br>
Nearly 18 percent of
Republicans voted for
Rep. Paul in the straw
poll
conducted at a GOP
Convention in
Sacramento on
Saturday.<br>
<br>
He was followed by
former governor Mitt
Romney, who received
10.9
percent of the vote
and 2010 president
candidate Sarah Palin,
who
received 7.9 percent
of the vote. Former
House Speaker Newt
Gingrich
came in fourth place,
with 6.9 percent of
the vote.<br>
<br>
The informal survey
was conducted by the
libertarian-leaning
Republican
Liberty Caucus of
California [1]
(RLCCA).<br>
<br>
"Given that
Congressman Paul and
the RLC share a common
commitment to
individual rights,
limited government,
free enterprise and
constitutional
principles we are
happy with the
results," RLCCA
Chairman John Dennis
said. "In these times
of big government and
even
bigger deficits, it is
exciting to see
increased conservative
interest
in candidates such as
Paul."<br>
<br>
The results of the
RLCCA poll reflect
another presidential
straw poll
conducted at the
Conservative Political
Action Conference [2]
(CPAC) in
February, where Paul
took 30 percent of the
vote, followed by Mitt
Romney with 23
percent.<br>
<br>
Paul describes himself
as a libertarian and
is hardly the party's
typical standard
bearer.<br>
<br>
He has said his
opposition to the wars
in Iraq and
Afghanistan [3] give
him an edge over other
Republicans and could
help him defeat
President
Barack Obama in a
national election.<br>
<br>
At CPAC, Paul drew
thunderous applause
for bashing the
Patriot Act, US
aid to foreign
nations, and US
military bases
overseas during his
speech. The
conservative group
Young Americans for
Freedom (YAF) later
announced that he
would be expelled from
the group's National
Advisory
Board because of his
"delusional and
disturbing alliance
with the
fringe Anti-War
movement."<br>
<br>
URL to article: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/21/rep-ron-paul-wins-another-republican-presidential-straw-poll/"
target="_blank">http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/21/rep-ron-paul-wins-another-republican-presidential-straw-poll/</a><br>
<br>
URLs in this post:<br>
<br>
[1] Republican Liberty
Caucus of California:
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.rlc.org/2011/03/21/ca-gop-convention/" target="_blank">http://www.rlc.org/2011/03/21/ca-gop-convention/</a><br>
[2] straw poll
conducted at the
Conservative Political
Action
Conference: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/12/ron-paul-wins-cpac-presidential-straw-poll/"
target="_blank">http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/12/ron-paul-wins-cpac-presidential-straw-poll/</a><br>
[3] said his
opposition to the wars
in Iraq and
Afghanistan: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/14/congressman-ron-paul-slams-obama-hes-a-warmonger/"
target="_blank">http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/14/congressman-ron-paul-slams-obama-hes-a-warmonger/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/22/11 10:16 AM,
C. G. Estabrook wrote:
<blockquote
type="cite">The
so-called Tea Party
is as we
know a mood rather
than a
movement,
much less a party,
and is even more
various than the
anti-war
movement. Unlike
the antiwar
movement, it has
moneyed interests
(such
as the Koch
brothers) and
traditional
political groups
that re trying
to co-opt it.<br>
<br>
But we can't simply
ignore the anti-war
currents within the
TP/Libertarians,
e.g.<br>
<br>
~ the Ron Paul
movement: Paul won
the straw poll for
president at both
recent CPACs; he's
been consistently
anti-war,
anti-intervention,
anti-Pentagon.<br>
<br>
~ <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://antiwar.com/" target="_blank">antiwar.com</a>>,
one
of the best sites on
the web, is a
Libertarian site.<br>
<br>
~ paleo-conservative
elements, such as
the journal American
Conservative, have
been against the
neo-con wars in
principle from the
beginning; Pat
Buchanan has
attacked the Libyan
adventure as
unconstitutional
(which it is). <br>
<br>
For the anti-war
movement itself, the
co-option has
already taken
place, by the
Democrats and Obama.
We forget that the
Democrats were
given control of
Congress in 2006
specifically to end
the war, as they
recognized. The
firing of Rumsfeld
after the election
was the
administration's
recognition of the
fact. But the
Democrats quite
consciously and
cynically pissed it
way - e.g., with
"timelines" - when
they could have
de-funded the wars
(which required only
41 votes in the
Senate) in the SE
Asia and LA were
finally defunded.
Then the
coup-de-grace was
provided by Obama's
smiling lies and the
foolish
trust that so many
people who should
have known better
put in him.<br>
<br>
Remember that the
antiwar movement of
the 1960s grew up in
opposition
to both business
parties. There were
attempts to co-opt
it, notably by
Robert Kennedy and
Richard Nixon.
Nixon (whom Obama
much resembles in
this regard) was
elected in 1968 as
the "peace
candidate" because
in
part it was widely
believed that he had
"a secret plan for
ending the
war."<br>
<br>
Events of this week
have shown once
again how much a new
antiwar
movement of that
sort is required.
The percent of the
population
opposed to the
administration's
wars is now about
where it was in
1968.<br>
<br>
Regards, Carl<br>
<br>
On 3/22/11 9:13 AM,
Corey Mattson wrote:
<blockquote
type="cite">I
support what Iraq
Veterans
Against the War
did in
Madison on March
12 --- bring the
anti-war cause to
our natural
allies,
workers and
students <i>fighting</i>
the Tea Party.
When I was in
Madison February
19th, there were
about 1,000 Tea
Party
counter-demonstrators
to our 80,000.
Those 1,000 Tea
Party activists
were way more than
any of their
number ever
protesting the
war.<br>
<br>
An anti-war Tea
Party movement?
Where is it?
Fledgling
right-wing
libertarian groups
clearly haven't
been that
successful in
bringing
them to the
anti-war cause.
It's not worth
diluting the
substance of
our opposition to
the war to attract
a handful of
libertarians who
are
opposed to the war
for the wrong
reasons and are
our enemy on
practically every
other issue. In
the proposed
movement to "Stop
the
War, Stop the
Spending," what
are left-wingers
supposed to say
when
their right-wing
partners attack
the poor, bust our
unions, and make
U.S. capitalism
even more savage
and inhumane?<br>
<br>
By the way, in the
piece below, David
Boaz gets the
timeline wrong as
to when the
anti-war movement
weakened, and I
believe he does it
purposefully for
political points.
The anti-war
movement was
already
seriously weakened
by 2006, maybe as
early as 2005, as
demoralization
set in. Surely
hopes in a
electoral victory
played a role, but
there
was no sudden
death of the
movement upon
Obama's election.
If Boaz is
going to blame the
Democrats for the
movement's demise,
he should at
least get it
right. I suspect
that he wasn't
involved in the
anti-war
movement back then
and wouldn't know
what happened.<br>
<br>
--- Corey <br>
Bloomington-Normal
Citizens for Peace
and Justice<br>
<br>
<br>
<div
class="gmail_quote">On
Mon, Mar 21,
2011 at
11:29
PM, C.
G.
Estabrook <span
dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu"
target="_blank">galliher@illinois.edu</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left:
1px solid
rgb(204, 204,
204); margin:
0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex;
padding-left:
1ex;">[From
a
director
of
the
'libertarian'
Cato
Institute.]<br>
<br>
"...the
$64,000
question ¡ª
though these
days it would
have to be at
least a $64
billion
question ¡ª
could a new
antiwar
movement hook
up
with the Tea
Party movement
in a Stop the
War, Stop the
Spending
revolt?"<br>
<br>
What Ever
Happened to
the Antiwar
Movement?<br>
David Boaz -
March 21, 2011<br>
<br>
About 100
antiwar
protesters,
including
Daniel
Ellsberg of
Pentagon
Papers fame,
were arrested
Saturday
outside the
White House in
demonstrations
marking the
eighth
anniversary of
the U.S.-led
war in
Iraq. It¡¯s a
far cry from
the Bush
years, when
hundreds of
thousands or
millions
marched
against the
war, and the
New York Times
declared
¡°world public
opinion¡±
against the
war a second
superpower.
Will
President
Obama¡®s
military
incursion in a
third Muslim
country revive
the antiwar
movement?<br>
<br>
On a street
corner in
Washington,
D.C., outside
the Cato
Institute,
there¡¯s a
metal box that
controls
traffic
signals.
During the
Bush
years there
was hardly a
day that it
didn¡¯t sport a
poster
advertising
an antiwar
march or
simply
denouncing
President
George W. Bush
and the
war in Iraq.
But the
marches and
the posters
seemed to stop
on election
day 2008.<br>
<br>
Maybe antiwar
organizers
assumed that
they had
elected the
man who
would stop the
war. After
all, Barack
Obama rose to
power on the
basis
of his early
opposition to
the Iraq war
and his
promise to end
it. But
after two
years in the
White House he
has made both
of George
Bush¡¯s
wars his wars.<br>
<br>
In October
2007, Obama
proclaimed, ¡°I
will promise
you this, that
if we
have not
gotten our
troops out by
the time I am
president, it
is the
first thing I
will do. I
will get our
troops home.
We will bring
an end
to this war.
You can take
that to the
bank.¡±
Speaking of
Iraq in
February 2008,
candidate
Barack Obama
said, ¡°I
opposed this
war in
2002. I will
bring this war
to an end in
2009. It is
time to bring
our
troops home.¡±
The following
month, under
fire from
Hillary
Clinton, he
reiterated, ¡°I
was opposed to
this war in
2002¡.I have
been against
it
in 2002, 2003,
2004, 5, 6, 7,
8 and I will
bring this war
to an end in
2009. So don¡¯t
be confused.¡±<br>
<br>
Indeed, in his
famous ¡°the
moment when
the rise of
the oceans
began to
slow¡± speech
on the night
he clinched
the Democratic
nomination, he
also
proclaimed, ¡°I
am absolutely
certain that
generations
from now we
will be able
to look back
and tell our
children that
. . . this was
the
moment when we
ended a war.¡±<br>
<br>
Today,
however, he
has tripled
President
Bush¡¯s troop
levels in
Afghanistan,
and we have
been fighting
there for more
than nine
years.
The Pentagon
has declared
¡°the official
end to
Operation
Iraqi Freedom
and combat
operations by
United States
forces in
Iraq,¡± but we
still
have 50,000
troops there,
hardly what
Senator Obama
promised.<br>
<br>
And now Libya.
In various
recent polls
more than
two-thirds of
Americans have
opposed
military
intervention
in Libya. No
doubt many of
them voted for
President
Obama.<br>
<br>
There¡¯s
another issue
with the
Libyan
intervention:
the
president¡¯s
authority to
take the
country to war
without
congressional
authorization.
As many
bloggers noted
over the
weekend, in
2007 Barack
Obama told
Charlie Savage
of the Boston
Globe,<br>
<br>
The President
does not have
power under
the
Constitution
to
unilaterally
authorize a
military
attack in a
situation that
does not
involve
stopping an
actual or
imminent
threat to the
nation.<br>
<br>
Candidate
Hillary
Clinton spoke
similarly:<br>
<br>
If the country
is under truly
imminent
threat of
attack, of
course the
President must
take
appropriate
action to
defend us. At
the same time,
the
Constitution
requires
Congress to
authorize war.
I do not
believe
that the
President can
take military
action ¨C
including any
kind of
strategic
bombing ¨C
against Iran
without
congressional
authorization.<br>
<br>
And candidate
Joe Biden:<br>
<br>
The
Constitution
is clear:
except in
response to an
attack or the
imminent
threat of
attack, only
Congress may
authorize war
and the use
of force.<br>
<br>
Fine words
indeed. Will
their
supporters
call them on
their apparent
reversal?<br>
<br>
It¡¯s hard to
escape the
conclusion
that antiwar
activity in
the United
States and
around the
world was
driven as much
by antipathy
to George
W. Bush as by
actual
opposition to
war and
intervention.
Indeed, a
University of
Michigan study
of antiwar
protesters
found that
Democrats
tended to
withdraw from
antiwar
activity as
Obama found
increasing
political
success and
then took
office.
Independents
and members of
third parties
came to make
up a larger
share of a
smaller
movement.
Reason.tv
looked at the
dwindling
antiwar
movement two
months ago.<br>
<br>
With his
launch of a
third military
action,
President
Obama seems to
have forgotten
a point made
by Temple
University
professor Jan
C. Ting:
¡°Wars are easy
to begin, but
hard to end.¡±
Americans
haven¡¯t
forgotten,
though.<br>
<br>
Nearly
two-thirds of
Americans now
say that the
war in
Afghanistan
hasn¡¯t been
worth
fighting, a
number that
has soared
since early
2010.
Where are
their leaders?
Where are the
senators
pushing for
withdrawal?
Where are the
organizations?
Could a new,
non-Democratic
antiwar
movement do to
Obama what the
mid-2000s
movement did
to Bush? And
the
$64,000
question ¡ª
though these
days it would
have to be at
least a $64
billion
question ¡ª
could a new
antiwar
movement hook
up with the
Tea
Party movement
in a Stop the
War, Stop the
Spending
revolt?<br>
<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2011/03/happened-antiwar-movement/"
target="_blank">http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2011/03/happened-antiwar-movement/</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss
mailing list<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" target="_blank">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss"
target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<pre><fieldset></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" target="_blank">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><fieldset></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" target="_blank">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><fieldset></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" target="_blank">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" target="_blank">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss"
target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net"
target="_blank">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss"
target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
This body part will be downloaded on demand.</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>