Friday, August 30, 2013


Americans Stand with Israel
by Bee Sting
August 30, 2013
Obama & Biden: Past Statements On War Powers Come Back To Bite
It would be good to review Obama's own words, posted in the Boston Globe on December 20, 2007, in a "Question and Answer" form.  His response to Question #2 is very informative as to how he thought before he became President:
Question: In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
 Answer (Obama): 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.As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
and, look at this one:  Obama & Biden: Past Statements On War Powers Come Back To Bite

B Swann
August 28, 2013

The war drums are pounding and President Barack Obama is each day closer to taking military action against the Syrian government.  There are major questions about why the U.S. would become involved in Syria and whether or not the claim that the Assad regime used chemical weapons on citizens living in a Damascus suburb are based in fact.  Administration officials say that military action against Syria would be done “not to create a regime change” but some members of Congress aren’t buying it.
“If its not an effort to exact regime change then what is it?  Is it just retaliation? Is it bullying? Is it showing everybody in the world that we have missiles and we can fire them into your country because we don’t like what we see?” asks Republican Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie.
Congressman Massie talked exclusively with about the push by the Obama Administration to draw the U.S. into war with Syria.
“When you deliver missiles into somebody’s country, that is an act of war.  We can argue about whether having economic sanctions are an act of war.  But clearly when you deliver missiles, if somebody delivered missiles into the central United States or anywhere on American territory that would be an act of war.”
Massie went on to talk about the claims made by Secretary of State John Kerry that there is “no doubt” that the President Bashar al Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons a week ago.  Massie says the evidence is not clear at all.
“We don’t have proof of who used the weapons, or who used the gas.  And it is also not clear to me how you improve the situation where chemical weapons were used by delivering kinetic weapons. If we send in airstrikes or missiles from ships, it is not clear to me how killing more people is going to improve the situation.”
So, who has the authority to the hold the administration accountable?  The Congress of the United States.  It is Congress and Congress alone that has the authority to authorize an act of war against another nation.  Back in June, Rep. Massie authored a bill titled the “War Power Protection Act of 2013”.  At the time, he had 8 co-sponsors but that number has now risen to 13.  Rep. Massie says it is time for Congress to quit abdicating its responsibility on this matter and  instead enforce its Constitutional authority to authorize or deny military involvement in Syria.
“There will be civilian causalities in any conflict.  If we get involved we are going to cause civilian causalities and I think that is wrong when our interests are not clear.  It is morally wrong.  And this is a country by the way (Syria) that has not expressed aggression toward the United States at this point.  And as you pointed out, we are not in a situation where there is an imminent threat to our well being.” Massie stated.
The Congressman was referring to the 1973 War Powers Act which allows for the President to act without Congressional approval for 30 days.  Where that act has been misrepresented by lawmakers and media is that the Act only allows the President to do so if the United States is under threat of imminent attack.  Congressman Massie’s bill, in addition to preventing the President from entering a war without Congressional approval,  also blocks the U.S. from providing aid to the rebels in Syria.
“The bill itself deals with military or para-military purposes.  Obviously if we wanted to provide humanitarian aid, my bill would not prevent it.” says Massie.
As to the question of whether or not a strike against Syria could lead to an impeachment of the President, Massie says that is doubtful.
“People have asked me would you bring impeachment proceedings against the President? The harsh fact of the matter is that there aren’t enough votes in the Senate to affect an impeachment of the President.  It requires a 2/3rds vote of the Senate and before you get the process started, it requires a majority of the members on the judiciary committee.” explains Massie, who goes on to say,
“People should encourage their Congressman to support my bill, its HR 2507.  It’s called the “War Powers Protection Act.”  We only have 13 brave souls in Congress who are co-sponsoring this bill and it basically says that the President cannot intervene in Syria until he comes to Congress, its that simple.”
Of course, the role of Congress is not to sit back and do nothing while missiles are fired at another nation and then attempt to punish the President afterward.  The job of Congress is to stand up before military action is taken. Rep. Massie warns the American people as well to watch out for language being used, even by House leadership when they say that the President must first “consult” with Congress.
“Our leadership in the House of Representatives says that the President should consult with Congress.  Our leadership is not asking them to come and get permission and I think that the Administration needs to come and get permission.  And they can’t just come and talk to three or four members on the Foreign Affairs Committee or the Military Committee or just the leadership.  They need to ask the entire body in the House of Representatives and in the Senate for authorization or for a declaration of war before he can proceed.”
You can also follow the Congressman on Twitter @RepThomasMassie  or on Facebook