[Peace-discuss] A new left/right antiwar movement?
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at illinois.edu
Thu Mar 24 01:03:22 CDT 2011
[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."]
Impeach Barack Obama
A Challenge to Tea Partiers and Antiwar Liberals
by John V. Walsh, March 24, 2011
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?)
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."
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."
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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
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.
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.
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.
http://original.antiwar.com/john-v-walsh/2011/03/23/impeach-barack-obama/
On 3/23/11 9:32 AM, Corey Mattson wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> --- Corey, BNCPJ
>
>
> 2011/3/23 "E. Wayne Johnson ÖìÎÈÉ" <ewj at pigs.ag <mailto:ewj at pigs.ag>>
>
> Corey,
> 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.
>
> Perhaps you arent working hard enough on articulating your ideology in
> such a way that it would be universally acceptable.
>
> Of course there is yet another possibility.
>
>
>
> On 2011-3-23 10:17, Corey Mattson wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> --- Corey
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 7:39 PM, "E. Wayne Johnson ÖìÎÈÉ" <ewj at pigs.ag
>> <mailto:ewj at pigs.ag>> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> No use to be rude about it. Let the other guy wear the millstone on
>> his ardourous neck.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2011-3-23 7:54, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>> --The inscrutable and amoral world of geopolitics/foreign relations.
>>> The inscrutable oriental mind (?) comes to mind.
>>>
>>> On Mar 22, 2011, at 6:28 PM, E. Wayne Johnson ÖìÎÈÉ wrote:
>>>
>>>> I thought that too, Mort.
>>>>
>>>> Amazingly, I was not consulted.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2011-3-23 6:07, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>>>> So why did China abstain, instead of vetoing, the UN Security
>>>>> Council resolution?
>>>>> --mkb
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 22, 2011, at 11:58 AM, E. Wayne Johnson ÖìÎÈÉ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I saw it on CCTV9, I told Dr. Qiao, "Hey, this guy is a
>>>>>> Libertarian!" She smiled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BEIJING, March 18 (Xinhua) -- China on Friday said it had serious
>>>>>> reservations with part of the latest U.N. resolution on Libya.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "We oppose the use of force in international relations and have
>>>>>> some serious reservations with part of the resolution," Foreign
>>>>>> Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said in a statement on Friday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jiang's comments came after the United Nations Security Council
>>>>>> adopted a resolution which authorized a no-fly zone over Libya
>>>>>> Thursday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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, Jiang said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The current crisis in Libya should be resolved through dialogue
>>>>>> and by other peaceful means," Jiang said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "We expect Libya to restore stability at an early date and avoid
>>>>>> an escalation of armed conflicts and worsening humanitarian
>>>>>> crisis," Jiang said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2011-3-23 0:02, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>>>> "[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.'"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rep. Ron Paul wins another Republican presidential straw poll
>>>>>>> By Eric W. Dolan
>>>>>>> March 21, 2011 @ 8:14 pm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nearly 18 percent of Republicans voted for Rep. Paul in the
>>>>>>> straw poll conducted at a GOP Convention in Sacramento on Saturday.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The informal survey was conducted by the libertarian-leaning
>>>>>>> Republican Liberty Caucus of California [1] (RLCCA).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "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."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul describes himself as a libertarian and is hardly the
>>>>>>> party's typical standard bearer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> URL to article:
>>>>>>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/21/rep-ron-paul-wins-another-republican-presidential-straw-poll/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> URLs in this post:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] Republican Liberty Caucus of California:
>>>>>>> http://www.rlc.org/2011/03/21/ca-gop-convention/
>>>>>>> [2] straw poll conducted at the Conservative Political Action
>>>>>>> Conference:
>>>>>>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/12/ron-paul-wins-cpac-presidential-straw-poll/
>>>>>>> [3] said his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:
>>>>>>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/14/congressman-ron-paul-slams-obama-hes-a-warmonger/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/22/11 10:16 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But we can't simply ignore the anti-war currents within the
>>>>>>>> TP/Libertarians, e.g.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ~ 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ~ <antiwar.com <http://antiwar.com/>>, one of the best sites on
>>>>>>>> the web, is a Libertarian site.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ~ 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).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards, Carl
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/22/11 9:13 AM, Corey Mattson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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 /fighting/ 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --- Corey
>>>>>>>>> Bloomington-Normal Citizens for Peace and Justice
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:29 PM, C. G. Estabrook
>>>>>>>>> <galliher at illinois.edu <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [From a director of the 'libertarian' Cato Institute.]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "...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?"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What Ever Happened to the Antiwar Movement?
>>>>>>>>> David Boaz - March 21, 2011
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.¡±
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.¡±
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Candidate Hillary Clinton spoke similarly:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And candidate Joe Biden:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fine words indeed. Will their supporters call them on
>>>>>>>>> their apparent reversal?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2011/03/happened-antiwar-movement/
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
>
> This body part will be downloaded on demand.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110324/5a78d537/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list