Well, I'm back because...I am. Let's get right to this crap. It's going to be a short one but more will be coming. It seems that Alex Jones doesn't like Defense Secretary Panetta says that we need the UN (United Nations) to ok wars instead of just using our U.S Constitution to go to war...this is why it's going to be short. Here's the website for Alex Jones and his nut-job of a rant: http://www.infowars.com/panetta-authority-of-un-trumps-congress-in-getting-approval-for-war-on-syria/ Let's get it on...
-----------
1st paragraph - Following controversy over his assertion that seeking "international permission" from the UN to launch wars trumps the authority of Congress, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta re-affirmed this premise during recent testimony in which he again stated that Congress would play second fiddle to the international community.
------
Yeah, it's not like we're going to go to war with another nation. Wait...Syria isn't a part of the US? Damn it!
-----------
2nd paragraph - Asked by Congressman Walter Jones, who has launched a resolution re-affirming the limits to Presidential power by making the launching of war without Congressional approval an impeachable offense, whether President Obama would seek authorization from Congress before attacking Iran or Syria, Panetta stopped short of answering in the affirmative.
-------
Ok, to be fair, I do think that Congress should have an up or down vote, or whatever, to start up a war if we are attacked, but Syria has been killing their own people in a Civil War since, what, 2010. So, this isn't a war, this would be considered an humanitarian mission to save the people of Syria from death of the Al - Assad regime.
-----------
3rd paragraph - "We will clearly work with Congress if it comes to the issue of the use of force," said Panetta, backing away from comments made in March when he told a Senate Armed Services Committee, "Our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress."
------
Ok...and?
------------
4th paragraph - However, Panetta later told Congressman Randy Forbes during the House Armed Services Committee meeting, "The commander in chief has the authority to take action that involves the vital interests of this country," adding that the President would have to "take steps" to get Congressional approval under the War Powers Act.
"Would the approval be required before you could take military action against Syria?" asked Forbes.
"The President could in fact deploy forces if he had to if our vital interests were at stake," said Panetta.
"So you get the support of Congress after you began military operations?" asked Forbes.
"In that particular situation, yes," said Panetta, re-affirming that Congressional authorization would not be needed.
-----
I guess we're just choosing to not ask what "vital interest" would be at stake to take that drastic move...kind of like Reagan getting the troops to take back control of Granada for no reason execpt to stop the sperad of (bum bum bummmm) COMMUNISM!
---------
5th paragraph - Asked by Forbes if the Obama administration’s position was that a consensus of opinion from the international community would be required before military action was taken, but that no such permission would be required from Congress, Panetta responded in the affirmative.
"In that situation if the international action is taken pursuant to a Security Council resolution or under our treaty obligations with regard to NATO that obviously we would participate with the international community," said Panetta, adding that Congress would only have an influence later when it came to questions about funding the effort.
----
So, what Panetta is saying here is if other UN / NATO forces are already engaging whoever they are going after, we would then help out if we can. That's it. I have no idea how Alex Jones took so much stuff out of context...it's amazing.
------------
6th paragraph - Although not as brazenly as in the first instance, Panetta’s testimony once again highlights the Obama administration’s unconstitutional position in believing it has the power to launch foreign military interventions without Congressional approval.
-----
See what I mean? It's only after the UN / NATO would go after someone that we would then help out anyway we could.
------------
7th paragraph - In June of last year, President Obama arrogantly expressed his hostility to the rule of law when he dismissed the need to get congressional authorization to commit the United States to a military intervention in Libya, churlishly dismissing criticism and remarking, "I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question."
-----
Yeah, forget about the Civil War that was started by Col.Gaddaffi and all the bloodshed and violence towards peaceful protesters in the Captial of Libya. I bet if Roanld Reagan did something like that, he'd be hailed as a hero, but wait...what's this. OH SNAP! (Click on the words What's this...it's a hell of a surprise for you. No, it's not anything scary.)
------------
8th paragraph - Obama tried to legitimize his failure to obtain Congressional approval for military involvement by sending a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault was "authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council."
----
Well, it probably was. Now if we started going over there while the UN was still trying to tell Gaddiffi to step down, then we'd have a small problem, but the UN was all ready to go into Libya and ready to fight for the people to stop Gaddiffi killing his own people, so it looks like President Obama is in the green on this.
And that's it for right now. I'll have another one up tomorrow.
See ya later.
No comments:
Post a Comment