October 05, 2014


The possibly illegal war that Nobel "Peace" prize-winning president Barack Obama has started in Iraq and Syria could be stopped by Nancy Pelosi, according to this article. She could choose to object to the fact that Obama is bypassing congressional approval to start a war using murky precedents--including one that Bush used that Obama claimed he disagreed with. Well, she could if Congress weren't on a two month vacation with the nation at war. And If Congress weren't such wimps that they're actually waiting to see how the war effort goes before weighing in on either side. And of course, even though there are both democrats and republicans against this new war, many democrats will just tow the party line and go along with Obama. And why not? No one is talking about a new war we're in. It's the same old good cop/bad cop story: Obama promisest limited strikes and no boots on the ground while a barrage of generals say we'll need boots on the ground and that this will be a long military effort. There is a reason that the last 4 US presidents has started war in Iraq. It isn't beheadings or Saddam Hussein. It's oil. Tell the soldiers who you are sending to die that they will lay down their lives to support oil interests to make the super-rich even richer.
HUFFPO: "The president claims that, despite the provisions of the War Powers Act, his continuing attacks on ISIS have an alternative foundation. On his view, President Bush did all the necessary work a decade ago when he convinced Congress to approve his wars against Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Obama asserts that the language of the Bush-era authorizations is sufficiently broad to support his new war against the Islamic State.
This legal claim has been vigorously criticized by constitutional scholars across the political spectrum. But neither the Justice Department nor the White House Counsel has backed up Obama's bare assertion with a serious legal opinion.
On November 7th, however, members of the armed forces will have the right to test the president's claims in court. Since they have a personal interest in determining whether they are fighting an illegal war, they will satisfy the traditional test for legal standing -- forcing the Administration to stop stonewalling and engage in sustained legal argument in defense of its much-criticized positions."