Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Congress urged to tell Obama: Iraq military action impeachable

Peace and human rights groups warn Obama military action against Iraq impeachable offense
Peace and human rights groups warn Obama military action against Iraq impeachable offense
Getty Images, Codepink

After Obama told Congressional leaders he did not need to consult Congress before taking military action in Iraq, completely unconstitutional, Congress needs to warn him that military action is an Act of War that would not only be unconstitutional, but also an impeachable offense. Perhaps he senses the nation's dismay. Today, has said no amount of US military might will help Iraq, although followed that with threatening war against it anyway.

Obama has stated Sunday that without political consensus, “no amount of American firepower” would “be able to hold the [Iraq] together,” according to the Guardian.

Until today, he was beating the war drum against the crippled country that the U.S. had left in chaos.

Thursday, due to lack of Congress warning Obama about his planned illegal aggression, America's leading peace and human rights groups united to warn the president that military action in Iraq is unconstitutional and an impeachable offense.

The same held true when Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attacked Libya with impunity. Congress failed to prevent that illegal act of aggression and subsequent catastrophe for Libyans.

More: Libya War Video Uncensored: Obama, Clinton War Crimes

US-led Libyan abuses worse than Gadhafi

Warning: NATO War Crimes Against Libyans Graphic Photos

Now, however, polls show most Americans are finally fed up with foreign policy involving bombing people to democracy, even if they have not worked out that Hillary Clinton has been right behind and even led such wars of aggression and war crimes.

"President Obama has told leaders of Congress he can take military action without congressional approval. No doubt he knows where the American people stand as the White House is constantly polling the people. He knows if he went to Congress there would be a flood of anti-war opposition," says David Storey for Reuters.

Americans overwhelmingly oppose U.S. intervention in Iraq, a Reuters-IPSOS Poll showed on Thursday.

"Fifty-five percent of those polled said they were against U.S. intervention of any kind, while only 20 percent supported it. There was little disparity in the overall response among Democrats, Republicans and independents.

"Among those who supported some form of intervention, the most popular action was humanitarian aid for refugees from the conflict, and the second most popular was air strikes to support Iraqi government forces."

Americans' unmet needs at home is finally impacting the White House military decisions enough to make a difference.

"One concern is that it would require more military spending despite immense and unmet needs for funding in a broad array of areas at home," says national human rights leader Kevin Zeese. "Unlike any other policy area, there never seems to be a lack of funds for a military attack or even a war. The military-industrial complex has a powerful hold on US lawmakers."

Zeese stated, "The American public is sick and tired of war.

On Obama deciding he can take military action in Iraq without congressional or UN approval, Zeese agrees this is a mistake.

"He likely made this decision because he knows that if Congress were allowed to consider the issue, there would be a tidal wave of opposition from constituents in an election year. If Congress really functioned as a check and balance, it would be warning President Obama that a military attack without congressional approval is an impeachable offense; that the Constitution is clear – only Congress has the power to declare war and a military attack is an act of war. The silence of Congress will mean complicity in another illegal military action and will again reveal the bi-partisan nature of the war machine.

Building intelligence to justify

Zeese says that if unchecked, it seems the most likely scenario is that Obama will build intelligence to justify further intervention and will then use drones to bomb Iraq.

"The President, with the support of groups like Human Rights Watch [an arm of the State Department, not a human rights group], acts as if unmanned bombing is a legal military attack even though his drone policy is being questioned by the UN, the legal community and the public. This will ultimately lead to another US war in Iraq."

Zeese opines that perhaps this is the President’s desired purpose.

"The goal of having US military bases in Iraq to control the region, which is the center of the Middle East at a time when oil is desperately needed, has not been achieved. A justification for intervention would provide an excuse to re-occupy those bases.

"If we re-occupy Iraq, we can expect a long-term presence. The (currently) most likely next president, Hillary Clinton, has a track record as a hawk. She has already signaled to the military-industrial complex that she is open to more war.

"Clinton recently said she was even open to staying in Afghanistan beyond President Obama’s already-too-slow exit from that country."

Sunday, Obama said, “Part of the task now is to see whether Iraqi leaders are prepared to rise above sectarian motivations, come together, compromise. If they can’t, there’s not going to be a military solution to this problem … there’s no amount of American firepower that’s going to be able to hold the country together and I’ve made that very clear to Mr Maliki and all the other leadership inside of Iraq …

"They don’t have a lot of time.”

Americans don't have time to waste with another impeachable offense.

"Call Congress 202-224-3121 or find your representative here and let them know they should be doing their job and telling President Obama he cannot commit an act of war without congressional authorization," urges Zeese.

Report this ad