Congress, Constitutional Law, Military, Politics

Once More Unto The Breach, Dear Friends: Obama Seeks Sweeping Authorization In The Name Of “Limited” War

President_Barack_Obama220px-B-2_spirit_bombingWhile claiming that he just needs a “limited” war against Syria to back up his “red line” threat, President Barack Obama is actually seeking a far broader mandate from Congress. The authorization would allow Obama to take any action that he “determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria” as well as acting to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of the weapons or to “protect the United States and its allies and partners” from the weapons.”


Indeed, it reminds one of the authorization leading into Iraq with only the 9-11 angle replaced by a chemical weapons rationale. The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002), stated “That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

Now replace the terrorist attacks with the chemical attacks and you have our latest blank check demanded by a President. The language accomplishes two things. It allows members to claim that they merely wanted to protect the nation while making it unnecessary for the President to ask them again (and expose them to difficult votes). This is how politicians like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry voted to allow the Iraq War. While they later claimed that they had no idea and were misled, they ignored critics at the time questioning the evidence and objecting to the blank check language of the authorization. They also took no action later as the war killed thousands of U.S. personnel and spent hundreds of billions.

Nevertheless, democrats like Nancy Pelosi are demanding action and once again absolute (and blind) loyalty to Obama. The speech for Obama in the final vote has already been written (with a few modest edits):

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our [] dead.
In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour’d rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o’erwhelm it
. . .
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call’d fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. . . .
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game’s afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry ‘God for [Barry], [America], and Saint George!’

112 thoughts on “Once More Unto The Breach, Dear Friends: Obama Seeks Sweeping Authorization In The Name Of “Limited” War”

  2. the latest ceo of the corporation is at it yet again. its been proven over and over again that there was no gas attack syria. cnn has been caught faking news reels of interviews with phony syrians. possibly the same phonies who committed 9/10- 9/11.. and that is why no one will ever be punished again for any war crimes against america. since they are no longer trying to hide the fact that the usa is a corporation and not a government.

  3. I see nothing in the US Constitution that says Congress is allowed to abrogate its war powers or the power of the purse, or cede them to the executive branch. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but the whole Founding Document is written in elementary English and is easily understood. IMHO, the AUMFs and War Resolutions of the past are unconstitutional and illegal – especially the AUMFs which were written and passed to pacify George the Lesser when he threw temper tantrums about wanting to go after a small criminal gang (which is all Al Qaeda ever was and still is), and since Georgie had already diverted forces from Afghanistan to the illegal and unconstitutional invasion (and war crime) of invading Iraq, they had to come up with some oddity to explain his idiocy and allow his spoiled-brattiness to proceed with what he wanted to do.

    Meanwhile, no constitutional convention was ever called, the Constitution was not changed or amended. The US Constitution is unequivocal on the subject of who has the authority to declare war (and pay for it). Among a long list of duties and responsibilities for the Legislative branch are the following:
    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

    Article I, Section. 8.

    The Congress shall have Power…

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    For the Executive branch:

    Article II, Section. 2.

    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

    Notice the Constitution says WHEN CALLED, the President shall be Commander in Chief. Nothing in the Constitution requires a President to be called upon to act as Commander in Chief – no matter how cocky Bush the Lesser was about the title (and I notice sometimes Obama is, too), even erroneously saying we elect a Commander in Chief. Wrong. We elect a President who may or may not be called upon to act as Commander in Chief. Technically, the military is under civilian control through Congress.

    Our Founding Document will work just fine…, if the President and members of Congress step back, read the document, and follow its precepts – and vote a resounding NO to bombing Syria and compounding the illegal actions the US has done for the last 13 years.

  4. The End and the Beginning by Wisława Szymborska
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X2XdyGO1ww

    Excerpt from Szymborska’s poem translated by Joanna Trzeciak:

    After every war
    someone has to clean up.
    Things won’t
    straighten themselves up, after all.

    Someone has to push the rubble
    to the side of the road,
    so the corpse-filled wagons
    can pass.

    Someone has to get mired
    in scum and ashes,
    sofa springs,
    splintered glass,
    and bloody rags.

    Someone has to drag in a girder
    to prop up a wall.
    Someone has to glaze a window,
    rehang a door.

    Photogenic it’s not,
    and takes years.
    All the cameras have left
    for another war

    http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/237694

  5. Jill,
    Obama wouldn’t overtly flaunt his ability to act criminally HAD HE, as a member of the Senate had not folded like a house of cards… But he smiled pretty and had Obama Girl.

    Had Nancy not folded to protect the Democratic Party’s chances at making history… She would have made a “positive” dent in both her history and Americas. But really, does she care about positive dents in history, or merely concerned with the current image of firsts?

    Firsts at all costs speaks more about character than principle because at some point, the greed… Ed, need to be first, cheating and lying take root.

  6. Magginkat
    Tea Party are racially motivated.
    Kenya… Birth Certificates.
    THAT’S ALL THAT MATTERS TO THEM.

    The Tea Party is but another excuse for racists to feel politically acceptable.

    The question that MUST be asked is: How are our Representatives “supporting and defending” OUR RIGHTS by shedding those Rights into the trash bin?

  8. If congress has the stones to say NO, I will be surprised, but Happy. If any action is taken it should be an international response, not just an American response.

  9. Pelosi is not blind nor willfully ignorant…. She wants leadership restored…. In the house to the democrats…. And if you’ll listen…. You’ll hear demos are polling fairly well….

    I think it’s time to line hem all up… Drop the bomb on them…. Tell god it was a act of mercy…. And start all over….we have 5 year olds in charge….. Maybe Jeff Foxworthy could tutor them…

  10. How should the world respond to the use of chemical weapons? Weapons of mass destruction are very different than conventional weapons. Isn’t the reason they are rarely used is that the world responds? Hitler used them and he was punished. Sending Assad to The Hague is a great idea, but will it not require boots on the ground to capture him? Who does that? Gassing children must be stopped. I believe a free pass for gassing humans unacceptable. The question should be how to respond, not whether to respond.

  11. All the pols will be posturing to get a prime time slot to pontificate on national TV before they cast their “sincere” and “reasoned” vote! Presidential hopefuls will do anything for a prime time slot. The vote will be a civics lesson on sanctimony and dishonor. Oh, not all. Some will take this vote, the most important vote a pol will ever make, seriously and solemnly. Most will just be trying to make it look that way.

  15. What this will authorize is a war of aggression. That is a war crime. Any Congress member who votes for this should be tried (no doubt in absentia) before the ICC.

    This same is true of Obama. If we had a functioning govt. he would have been impeached a long time ago. He is a war criminal.

  17. So……… he’s just using the same ole crap that Bush/cheney used to attack Iraq? Both as illegal as all hell. But hey, didn’t Obama just say that no Bush Admin people will be prosecuted for their illegal activities? Is that the equivalent of a pardon? AND if so did that leave Obama facing possible impeachment which we know a number of Republicans/Tea Baggers want more than anything else we can think of at the moment>

  18. Parents: How many times have you heard some mom or dad (or both) say that Johnny should go join the Marines because it will ‘make a man out of him’? It is much cheaper than college tuition. And, when he gets out he can have access to government assistance with college. Cause after all there is no market for snipers back here in Philadelphia. But he needs to learn to say ‘Yes Sir’ and shine his shoes better. Then, Johnny can come marching home again, Hurrah, Hurrah! You can stay up late watching WWII era movies and watch all those Hollywood actors smoking and marching home again, Hurrah– and feel good about Johnny.

    Yes. Feel good. Until he comes home in a box!

    Wake up America.

Comments are closed.