Thursday, March 24, 2011

Obama Should Be Impeached for Attacking Libya. Says Who? Joe Biden, That’s Who


Videos from 2007 surface showing Joe Biden saying he would impeach President Bush if he attacked Iran. Biden is now rallying support for Obama’s unconstitutional attacks on Libya and violation of the War Powers Act. He’s not the only one changing his tune. Can you guess who else is?

by Larry Simons
March 24, 2011

I am not naïve. I do realize Presidential candidates lie their asses off while on the campaign trail and promise things they never plan on delivering, but in my years of political blogging, there might not be a more blatant flip-flop than Vice President Biden and President Obama’s stances on Presidential war powers.

The move of President Obama to take military action in Libya on March 19 has made liars and frauds of both liberals and conservatives. Those who supported Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq argue why Obama waited so long to take action, while supporters of Obama cheer him on, ignoring the fact that Obama’s military involvement in Libya is as unconstitutional as Bush’s war.

Two of those Obama cheerleaders, Vice President Joe Biden and Barack Obama himself, have previously stated that the President does not have authority to unilaterally authorize military attacks that do not involve stopping actual or imminent threats to the United States.

In 2007, on at least two different occasions caught on video, VP Biden is seen stating that he vowed to impeach then President Bush if he attacked Iran. In the video below, Biden says this:

“I went to five leading scholars, constitutional scholars, and they drafted a treatise for me, it’s being distributed to every senator. And I want to make it clear…and I made it clear to the President [Bush]: That if he takes the nation to war, in Iran, without congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him. And that’s a fact. That is a fact……Iran is no immediate threat to the United States of America.”

watch the clip


On Hardball with Chris Matthews a short time after that speech, Biden said this to Matthews after Matthews asked if Biden still stood by his comment about impeaching Bush if he attacked Iran:

“Yes I do, I want to stand by that comment I made…..The President has no constitutional authority to take this nation to war against of 70 million people unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does…if he does…I would move to impeach him.”

watch the clip


It appears that Biden clearly understood the Constitution, Presidential limits and the War Powers Act just over 3 years ago. My, oh my how things change.

When Biden was running for President, he told his supporters that he would move to impeach Cheney first, then Bush. So, in other words, according to Joe Biden, neither himself nor Obama deserve to remain in office now that both have completely flip-flopped and defend President Obama’s military action in Libya, a nation [just like Iran in 2007] that is currently not attacking the United States nor is an imminent threat to the United States.

Biden also defends Obama’s refusal to get congressional authority. Biden seems to have no problem whatsoever with Obama only getting authority from the United Nations. Are we now taking our marching orders from the U.N. and no longer from our own Congress in our own country?

Biden is not the only one who once acknowledged that the President has no constitutional authority to attack a nation that is no threat to the United States. Boston Globe writer Charlie Savage conducted an interview on December 20, 2007 with then Senator Barack Obama. This was Savage’s second question to Obama:

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 situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

Obama replied:

“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.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.”

I am convinced now that when Obama said, “Change you can believe in”, he meant he was going to physically transform himself into George W. Bush.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 clearly states that the President can send the armed forces into action overseas only by the authority of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or there is an imminent threat of an attack. The President is to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and can only keep troops deployed for 60 days with an additional 30 days for withdrawal time.

Section 1543 of the U.S. Code states:

(a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported

In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—


(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;


(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or


(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;

the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

The fact that this can be understood by pre-school toddlers and even some farm animals makes it baffling that even some conservatives cannot grasp the War Powers concept. Tuesday night on Hannity, Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was asked by Sean Hannity:

“So, did he [Obama] make a mistake by not seeking Congress' authorization, and do you view that as a violation of the War Powers Act?

Gingrich responds:

“ Well, no, the War Powers Act technically gives him 45 days. But it's a violation of common sense.”

Actually, Gingrich’s brain is a violation of common sense. Where does Gingrich get the 45 days from? If a President had 45 days to get Congress’ authority, why get it at all? An entire military conflict could be over within 45 days!

This issue has conservatives lying to protect Obama because they know Obama is violating the Constitution just as Bush did. Those who support Obama ignore the Libyan attacks entirely, because they realize in supporting Obama’s illegal military attacks, they must support Bush’s too.

2 comments:

the_last_name_left said...

What do you think of Rivero having supported intervention on behalf of Libyan 'rebellion' (and now having changed his mind)?

Real Truth Online said...

Rivero means nothing to me. Rivero doesn't make policy. I care FAR more about traitors like Obama and Biden who lied their asses off 3 years ago and acted like they cared about Presidential limits [when Bush may have attacked Iran] but now since they are making policy, Presidetial limits don't mean a flying fuck to them anymore [if they ever did].

I find it telling that you care more about what Rivero thinks than Obama and Biden's complete flip-flop. That speaks volumes about you.