Kucinich: War is a swamp, Obama Libya action unconstitutional

[The Northerner]

Run time: 08:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjJWsbAcG_I   Posted on YouTube: March 22, 2011 By YouTube Member: RussiaToday Views on YouTube: 1362   Posted on DU: March 22, 2011 By DU Member: The Northerner Views on DU: 1022

 
Amid the ongoing coalitional bombardment of Libya it turns out President Obama may have had no constitutional authority for ordering US military involvement. US Rep. from Ohio Dennis Kucinixh says the use of US armed forces is unconstitutional, explaining Obama had no authority to commit US resources without congressional approval. The US now finds itself involved into another war in addition to Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. 'Bombing villages in order to save villages' -- that didn't work in Vietnam, Kucinich explained. In fact, he argued this time around the Libyan intervention could end up strengthening US enemies.

[Catherina]

1. Rec'd. Excellent and thoughtful.

In Obama's own words "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." -- Barack Obama, 2007

[Iliyah]

4. What I remember

he did do this during the Cheney presidental era, oops I mean Bush. Of course many ignored him including the corporation media. Now that a Dem is in office, of course, the righties are all for it and the corporation media is having a hay day.

Do I not find it impeachable but if it goes further, than, I suggest every sitting president from WW2 be impached as well. Bring every piece of documents out in the open. Revert every wars and battles that we won or lost (unfortunately can't bring the dead back).

I personally want to veiw the documentation regarding Irag.

That said, I am a proud Dem. One thing about this party, they do not march in many cases to the same tune, unlike the gopers.

[damntexdem]

2. Dennis is wrong this time.

As Michael Moore was on Bosnia/Kosovo.

[Charleston Chew]

3. Recommend +1

[JJW]

5. Dennis is d man

Obama is dead wrong war is not peace.

[emilyg]

10. ....

[JDPriestly]

6. "Call America Home" That is powerful.

Everybody can understand that, even Teabaggers.

That should be Kucinich's campaign slogan.

[sasha031]

7. I love Dennis, he is right on as usual

:applause:

[Marblehead]

8. United Nations

is not our government

[Shining Jack]

9. K&R

[JonathanBrowne]

11. Ill say this again.

This is just hilariously stupid.

It's clear that we are dealing with a psycho who is killing his own people (gaddafi). This is like watching someone get raped and murdered in front of you and then being self righteous enough to say "I'm antiviolence, so I won't do anything". No, actually, your just a coward.

It's also quite clear that Obama is fully within his presidential powers to use the US Military in establishing a no-fly zone under UN authority.

We've got jackasses like Kucinich saying this is an impeachable offense.

Dude, the ability for the president to take military action of this nature without the declaration of war by congress is something established in high school history class. This is high school level political science we are dealing with.

I can't believe how uninformed you can be and serve in congress.

A great sign that Obama is right on is the flack he constantly is getting from both the right and left.

What we are going to see emerge here is clown from the right who previously were complaining vehemently that Obama wasn't taking action quick enough, doing an about face and saying he should be impeached for taking action so fast without congressional approval.

Then we will see the typical parade of liberals who need to lay off the drugs, claiming that this is just more proof that Obama is some sort of neoconservative in disguise and that he never was on our side.

This, despite the absolute fact that Obama has more effectively advanced the progressive agenda than any president in most of our lifetimes.

The reason Obama is so effective is because he is a person that does things that make sense based on reason and good judgement. He is wearing clear lenses of reason, not the multicolored funhouse mirror glasses that ideologues are all wearing, with varying levels of distorted vision resultant.

Eventually, (if you live to be around for it) you will all see that Obama is a genius when the history books are compiled, and he is remembered as one of the most effective presidents in American history.

Of course their are cynics who will always attempt to revision all history into a series of dark events. This only reflects a dark and pessisimistic worldview. In other words, those who have had terrible lives seek to justify their own life by wringing their hands about the supposed dark works of the man keeping them down.

The reason that so many rich people are republicans is because they get tired of hearing people whine and moan about how the system is keeping them down, knowing that it is possible to bootstrap oneself to any kind of life one desires. Not that their political views are right, but it makes sense that they have that point of view. They aren't neccessarily evil, as is commonly portrayed here, just deeply misguided. For instance, I think the Koch brothers truly believe their agenda is what's best for the country - they make their case rather passionately in Charles Kochs book. Once in a while we have people like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates who are sensible enough to understand that although it is true that one is responsible for ones life, for the most part, it is also true that some people do need a helping hand out of the doldrums they are in both economically and perhaps mentally.

If only we could all try to understand each others point of view rather than taking up arms at one side of an ideological battlefield. In the war of ideas, typically neither side is actually in the right, and the truth is an innocent victim that gets caught in the crossfire and sent to a shabby poorly funded hospital with post traumatic stress, temporarily unable to walk. The truth (of the moment) ends up spending the next couple decades in rehab only to emerge in what's known as "hindsight".

Anyway, i'm sure most of you in your self righteous rage against the machine, will just ignore this and load up your next round for the never ending ideological/class war.

Have at it.

OH AND BTW:

Your dumbass quote of "candidate obama" is completely invalid. Learn what Unilateral means. This military action is MULTILATERAL. This is military support for a multilateral un decision and as such it is part of our obligation as members of the U.N.

[davidthegnome]

12. Excellent satire piece...

Oh wait, you were serious.... huh. Tell us some more about what Charles Koch had to say in his book, I think we're all very interested.

Excuse me, I need to bootstrap myself into the life of the rich and famous.

[JonathanBrowne]

13. Further Explanation.

Charles Koch is a staunch advocate of the libertarian position. As are a lot of business men who took companies from small to multibillions, for instance the CEO of Whole Foods. The CEO of Whole Foods is quite socially liberal, but very socially conservative.

This is a common political ideology for successful businessmen. The reason why is because they believe that one can go from nothing to everything with determination, drive, and good ideas.

They have a point.

On the other hand, I don't think they quite understand that some people are casualties of life, so to speak. I'm sure they are quite aware that the middle class is in many cases barely treading water financially, but they rationalize it as the result of government policies rather than despite them.

In a sense, it is the result of government policies. The lack of good ones.

What's happened in America is the result of a rapidly changing world economy and the fact that during a 4 year term the whole planet can change. Things just happen faster than ever before in history.

As a result, a president/congress taking away regulations on industry can lead to that industry going absolutely out of control within an incredibly short period of time.

The libertarian argument is that we should just have allowed the banks to fail. They believe that a business engaging in bad business practices will eventually implode, and the market will self correct. This may be true in some cases. Unfortunately it is based on a somewhat blind faith in the market. While eventually things might self correct, can we really afford to have the economy collapse for 15 or 20 years while we wait for that to happen?

If we can anticipate results that are bad for everyone, why shouldn't the government put in place sensible policies to stop those results from happening? It's not a command economy, just a regulated economy. It's good sense.

The libertarians just fail to see that government is necessary and have a sort of utopian capitalist idealism in mind.

The non libertarian republicans are just sort of non idealistic versions of the same thing. They operate by a sort of watered down libertarianism, although many of the things they hold to be true a true libertarian would despise.

Republicans represent the zeitgeist of the past generations.

Democrats represent the zeitgeist of the present.

And of the course their are many people in either political party that only represent their own political self interest and the interests of lobbyists.

This is why so many people on both sides have a problem with Obama. Most of us are just casual students of the ideology and the politics and we are captured by the rhetoric of one or the other side, whichever appeals to us. Barack Obama is a true scholar of the nuances of politics, the constitution, foreign policy, etc.

His insight transcends the perpetual rhetoric.

Oh, and yes, you should try to bootstrap yourself to being rich. Famous doesn't matter. Why not? Would you rather just sit back and whine or actually have the power to make a difference?

Getting money is just part of the game of life. Some people are better at it than others. Most of the rich are just really good players. Some break the rules, and of course we put all of our attention on them, and go around hating or being resentful of rich people as if by being successful they had to have committed some crime.

[davidthegnome]

14. Power?

Say what you mean - WEALTH. For wealth is the only power in this day and age.

Do I desire it? In my weaker moments, perhaps. For the most part I despise it - for it is wealth and the desire for wealth which is destroying us all - NOT government policies or ideals, or rationalization.

If I'm "whining" as you put it, it's because I realize that wealth is not merely a means to an end - it is a means an and end in itself for so many people. It gets to a point where principle no longer matters, where the great rule of gold (or cash) becomes paramount and supreme. I know too many wealthy people to think that they are happy, or that their power fulfills. Rather, it corrupts - and absolutely power corrupts absolutely.

I don't need a trillion, a billion, or a million dollars to accomplish my goals or serve my purpose. I need far, far less, simply to support my family and survive. Those you admire in positions of wealth and power have a great deal of both - what they lack is humanity and compassion - compassion and PASSION are not the same thing, regardless of what they would have you believe.

I tell you, I have known the powerful, the rich and the famous. They vary as all people do - but far more do I admire the humble and the compassionate. Their power is the power the touches hearts, the power that lasts.

[JonathanBrowne]

15. well

Touching peoples hearts is all good and everything, but it doesn't really put in place distribution of goods and services, or radically change a culture from poor and destitute to prosperous and comfortable.

There is certainly lots of problems with our modern industrial world, but their are also far more people who have a decent standard of living, worldwide, than in any other time in history.

Money is not some new objective created in the modern world. Since the beginning of humanity, the accumulation of wealth has been a goal. Without accumulating wealth, is is unlikely for anything to be accomplished beyond the abilities of a single persons labor and conceptual capabilities.

It is no rule that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That phrase is just a defeatist phrase that has become popular wisdom based on nothing but rationalization and contempt for those who are more succesful in the game of life. Jealousy and envy are what drives the majority of the popular hatred toward rich people. What possible natural law says that power is invariably corrupting? Do you think warren buffet is a corrupt man? Do you think bill gates is corrupt? How about the thousands and thousands of millionares you never hear about who make useful goods and provide useful services?

Most rich people worked extremely hard and smart to create companies that produce a massive amount of value for society, in some form.

I doubt you would want to give up plumbing, refridgeration, electricity, your car, your computer etc.

None of these things came out of the ether (Although you could say that their conception was in the ether, however we live in a material universe where a man must coordinate his ideas, gather the resources, and direct the labor of others in order to bring something to life in reality). They came about because men with intelligence and determination developed the technologies and brought them to the market. They became so cheap and standard because of the economics of mass distribution.

Most of the woe is me sentiments shared by so many people in America involve envy rather than reality. Think about it. Even if your making 8 bucks an hour and you have to get food stamps and live with a couple other people... you do realize that most people in this situation have electricity, a fridge, a toilet, a tv, a computer, a shower, a vehicle etc.

That is a situation that the average person throughout history would absolutely marvel at. The richest kings did not have some of the standard conviences almost everyone in america has access to.

The "evil" wealthy capitalists are the ones who made all this possible.

[davidthegnome]

16. Wealth itself is not an evil thing

I have no contempt for those who honestly earn their wealth and use it to contribute to humanity. Sadly, their number is few. A CEO earning 200-300 times what their most talented employees bring home - that is something deserving of contempt. Men like Koch who use their wealth to purchase government officials and fund radical political movements for a means of furthering their own agenda (in large part - the destruction of social programs and environmental protections which decrease the amount they could perhaps, bring in) - that is deserving of contempt.

I'm sure there are many ways to rationalize enormous greed and corruption, or great wealth that is never put to good to use. I simply can't think of any I'd believe.

In a perfect world, I'm sure Capitalism would work quite well. However, it is unchecked - "Capitalism gone wild", if you will, that has brought us to the brink of complete economic ruin.

Can you blame those who earn 8 dollars an hour for finding their lot unfair? Particularly when their employers could afford to pay them far better, perhaps even a fair wage on which they could not only survive, but thrive and support their families with. There are exceptions of course, but very few.

I have nothing against wealth honestly earned - what is morally contemptible however is how the majority of the wealthy lack human decency. How so many are willing to use any means to increase that wealth, regardless of the cost to others. The tax cuts for those already in positions of great wealth - that's one example. The bail outs for large corporations that became "too big to fail", is another. To a great extent so are these wars we are currently engaged in - America still does some things better than any other Nation. Weapon production is one example - and the amount we as a Nation (and the very rich in particular) have invested in such is staggering. Those weapons are not made to never be used. War may be profitable, in fact, very profitable. Not for most of us though - rather for those who have invested in destruction.

Consider the homeless rate in America, the literacy rate, the failing and currently and constantly de-funded public education system (it is in such a place because of federal mandates that are not federally funded). Yet it isn't these things which our media focuses on, rather, far more attention is given to the stock market, to wars we really have no business fighting. Social programs are eliminated and the less fortunate are cut off. We have plenty of money to spend on weapons production, the DOD budget, etc. We haven't, however, the wealth to aid our educational system, or to support the less fortunate among us. Nor to provide health care for everyone. The HCR bill does not go nearly far enough.

Kucinich is not wrong when he says that we are able to fund war at the expense of everything else. Once upon a time there was a great manufacturing industry in America, there were jobs available that could help you pay your way through college. There were even decent enough jobs for those who didn't or couldn't go to college. That has changed - labor has moved over seas, into other Nations because it is cheaper and more efficient.

The budget axe continues to fall on all but the wealthy - you can't tell me that is just or even economically sound.