Obama`s Foolish and Unconstitutional War

"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."

So said constitutional scholar and
Senator Barack Obama in

December 2007
—the same man who, this weekend,
ordered U.S. air and missile strikes on Libya without
any authorization from Congress.

Obama did win the support of Gabon
in the Security Council, but failed with Germany. With a
phone call to

acquitted rapist Jacob Zuma,
he got

South Africa
to sign on, but not Brazil, Russia,
India or China. All four abstained.

This is not the world`s war. This
is Obama`s war.

The U.S. Navy fired almost all the
cruise missiles that hit Libya as the U.S. Air Force
attacked with B-2 bombers, F-15s and F-16s.


"To be clear,
this is a U.S.-led operation,"
said Vice Adm.
William Gortney.

"In wartime,
truth is so precious that she should always be attended
by a bodyguard of lies,"
said Winston Churchill.
Obama is a quick study.

In his

Friday ultimatum,
he said,
"We are not going
to use force to go beyond a well-defined
goal—specifically, the protection of civilians in
Libya."

Why, then, did we strike Tripoli
and Moammar Gadhafi`s compound?

So many U.S. missiles and bombs
have struck Libya that the Arab League is bailing out.
League chief Amr Moussa has called an emergency meeting
of the 22 Arab states to discuss attacks that have

"led to the
deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians."

We asked for a no-fly zone, said Moussa, not the
"bombardment of
civilians."

What caused Obama`s about-face from
the Pentagon position that imposing a no-fly zone on
Libya was an unwise act of war?

According

to The New York
Times,
National Security Council aide Samantha
Power, U.N. envoy Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton flipped
him. The

three sisters
feel guilty about us not invading
Rwanda when

Hutu were butchering Tutsi.

They did not want to be seen as
standing by when Gadhafi took Benghazi, which he would
have done, ending the war in days, had we not
intervened.

While Obama is no longer saying
Gadhafi must go, Hillary insists that has to be the
outcome. No question who wears the pants here.

As U.S. prestige and power are
committed, if Gadhafi survives, he will have defeated
Obama and NATO. Hence, we must now finish him and his
regime to avert a U.S. humiliation and prevent another
Lockerbie.

The Arab League and African Union
are denouncing us, but al-Qaida is with us. For eastern
Libya provided more than its fair share of jihadists to
kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq. And jihadists are prominent
among the rebels we just rescued.

Yet, even as Obama was announcing
U.S. intervention to prevent
"unspeakable
atrocities,"
security police of

Yemen`s President Saleh
, using sniper rifles,
massacred 45 peaceful protesters and wounded 270. Most
of the dead were

shot in the head or neck,
the work of marksmen.

Had Mahmoud Ahmadinejad done this
in Tehran, would U.S. protests have been so muted?

In Bahrain, 2,000 Saudi

soldiers and troops from emirates of the Gulf
have
intervened to save King Khalifa, whose throne was
threatened by Shia demonstrators in the Pearl roundabout
in Manama. The town square was surrounded, the Shia
driven out, the 300-foot Pearl monument destroyed.

This crackdown on Bahrain`s Shia
has been denounced by Iran and Iraq. Grand Ayatollah
Sistani, most revered figure in the Shia world, ordered
seminaries shut in protest. This is serious business.

Not only are the Shia dominant in
Iran, and in Iraq after the Americans ousted the
Sunni-dominated Baathist Party, they are heavily
concentrated in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia,
where the oil deposits are located.

They are a majority in Bahrain,
where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is based. Shia Hezbollah is
now the dominant military and political force in
Lebanon.

Riyadh must have regarded the
threat to Bahrain a grave one to have so exacerbated the
religious divide and raised the specter of sectarian
war.

Yet, again, why are we bombing
Libya?

Gadhafi did not attack the West. He
faced an uprising to dethrone him and rallied his troops
to crush it, as any ruthless ruler would have done. We
have no vital interest in who wins his civil war.

Indeed, Gadhafi has

asked
of Obama,
"If you found
them


taking over
American cities by

force of arms
, what would you do?"

Well, when the South fired on Fort
Sumter, killing no one,

Abraham Lincoln
blockaded every Southern port, sent
Gen. Sherman to

burn Atlanta and pillage Georgia and South Carolina
,
and Gen.

Sheridan to ravage the Shenandoah.
He

locked up editors
and

shut down legislatures
and fought a four-year war of
reconquest that killed 620,000 Americans—a

few more
than have died in Gadhafi`s four-week war.

Good thing we didn`t have an
"international community" back then.


The Royal Navy would have been bombarding

Lincoln`s America
.

COPYRIGHT

CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.



Patrick J. Buchanan

needs

no introduction
to
VDARE.COM readers; his book
 
State
of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and
Conquest of America
, can
be ordered from Amazon.com. His latest book

is Churchill,
Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How
Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost
the World,

reviewed

here
by

Paul Craig Roberts.