Congress, Constitutional Law, Military, Politics, Society

Once Upon A Time There Was An Imperial President. . . Pelosi Explains To Five-Year-Old Why We Are Again At War

220px-nancy_pelosiWe have been following the abandonment of virtually core liberal values by Rep. Nancy Pelosi in her adherence to the cult of personality surrounding Barack Obama. From her attack on privacy to her new enthusiasm for war, Pelosi is the truest believer of the true believers surrounding Obama in the Democratic Party. Now she has been sharing a charming little story of how “Mimi” explained to their grandson how we are now at war. It turns out it is all about the children . . . not about the chemical weapons or reports that Obama is playing to turn the tide of the losing war for the rebels. Sort of like Save The Children . . . but with cruise missiles.

Here is Pelosi’s story on how you convince a five year old that war is a good thing:

REP. NANCY PELOSI: I’ll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he’s five years old. We’re not talking about war; we’re talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, ‘Well, what do you think?’ He said, ‘I think no war.’ I said, ‘Well, I generally agree with that but you know, they have killed hundreds of children, they’ve killed hundreds of children there. ‘ And he said, five years old, ‘Were these children in the United States?’ And I said, ‘No, but they’re children wherever they are.’

So I don’t know what news he’s listening to or — but even a five year old child has to — you know, with the wisdom of our interest has affected our interests or it affects our interests because, again, it was outside of the circle of civilized behavior. It was humanity drew a line decades ago that i think if we ignore, we do so to the peril of many other people who can suffer.

I love how she qualifies her remarks to the five year old that “we’re talking about action.” It is a point that would only be recognized by constitutional experts — and Pelosi grandchildren — as an excuse to relieve the President of securing an actual declaration from Congress. Pelosi wants to preserve the Imperial Presidency around Obama (and future presidents) by reminding her grandson that attacking another sovereign nation is no longer viewed as an act of war but just something relabeled as an “action” to maximize the unilateral authority of the President.

Of course, in her wartime story for toddlers, Pelosi does not mention the recent disclosure that it was the United States that gave Saddam Hussein intelligence used his widespread chemical attacks and then lied about knowledge and evidence of the attacks. She does not mention how the Syrian rebels include Al Qaeda allies and extremists who do such things as eat the hearts of the fallen and abuse their corpses in violation of international law. She does not mention how she has supported the continuation of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where hundreds of thousands, including thousands of children, have died. She does not mention the thousands of children who have lost their mothers or fathers in the service in Iraq where we started a war based on a false allegation of WMDs and then continued to wage the war even after acknowledging that our original claims were false.

Yet, the most interesting aspect of Pelosi’s story is that this is precisely the level of discussion seen on Capitol Hill — just slightly above that of a five year old children . . . except of course that five year olds do not play poker during the briefings.

Nevertheless, I still prefer bedtime stories like “Princess Bride” but in Pelosi’s version President Humperdinck gets his war with Guilder, which is then obliterated in a rain of tomahawk missiles.

Source: RCP

80 thoughts on “Once Upon A Time There Was An Imperial President. . . Pelosi Explains To Five-Year-Old Why We Are Again At War”

  1. Once upon a time there was a small pack of lunatic sociopath Wallst bank/insurance billionaire types that bankrupted many nations in Europe & the USA.

    As the walls of fraudulent notional value OTC paper derivatives of approx 1.5 Quadrillion $$$ were collapsing upon them, they became very scared & confused.

    So they came up with a lame plan to have their sock puppets Rodeo Clown Prez Obonzo, Crazy Aunt Nancy & Maddog McCain arm the Saudi Govt’s Al CIAduh terrorist with Chemical Weapons & attack their own guys, for at least the 2nd time this year, in Syria & blame it on the other guy in a False Flag attack.

    And then like in the movie Idioicracy the Sociopath mafia Wallst Banker scum had their sock puppets go onto their owned MSM & sell their scam to start a Nuclear World War 3 to their supporters in terms they thought a 5 year old could understand.

    Because the Sociopaths knew from Hilter’s/Stalin’s use of Sodium Fluoride in the water & from the studies of the toxic vaccines that they believed the US’s general population was now so dumbed down they had to speak to them as if they were 5 year olds.

    Yet no one in the land, not even the military, were buying into the mafia sociopaths scams expect for the bought n paid Astroturf trolls online.

    **Please watch this video carefully. It is accurate with one exception. That exception is the size of the notional value of OTC derivates outstanding. The size quoted therein is but 1/2 of the real size of approx. 1.5 Quadrillion.**

    http://safeshare.tv/w/jkbxcFMkyu

  2. ap,

    If one reads all the articles of which the link you provided in your post at 11:24am is just one example … one could speculate that the US/Israeli/Jordanian/Other Unnamed Regimes backed CIA plan has failed thus necessitating the need for overt military action in order to rid the area of Assad’s presence and thus finish the sweep that began when Bush invaded Iraq.

    Did I say finish? Foolish me … one must not forget Iran.

  3. America is dead. Shame on any democrat who continues to avow that their party is the lesser of two evils in an attempt to sway people into not voting for independents.

  4. Randyjet, in my opinion, dropping bombs and firing missiles into a foreign country is an act of war, no matter the reason. If Canada, Mexico or any other country on this earth flew missiles or dropped bombs on the U.S. I would call that an act of war.

    According to the Constitution of the United States, an act of war requires Congressional action.

    Since the author of this blog is a constitutional expert I will defer to him or one of the other esteemed readers of this blog if perhaps I have missed an exception somewhere in our Constitution on this matter.

  5. 69 years old in a month……….. And now I believe it’s time to abandon the Demo-Repukelican party.

  6. I do hope Pelosi’s constituents are happy with their free speech, anti war Congressperson. As you rightly pointed out, her support of Obama’s right to attack anybody, kill anybody, listen to anybody anywhere also applies to the next president.

    What a short sighted idiot.

  8. I see that Jill is fact free and adverse to answering hard questions herself. Since when did the US air attacks in Libya result in a wider war and US troops on the ground in combat? You have to answer that question. Then since you are in favor of international law and the UN, you must have supported the First Gulf War and US involvement in Afghanistan since that is ALSO authorized by the UN. Somehow I doubt that since you have no knowledge of history and think that peaceful means could have been used to stop Hitler and Tojo. That is the height of delusion and ignores the fact that WWII started because of the inaction of the League of Nations to take forceful action to stop the Italian invasion of Ethiopia. Hitler took note and a few months later retook the Rhineland and nothing happened. The rest is history as they say.

  9. I really think our “leaders” are disturbed. They live in a bubble where each person affirms the other in beliefs that don’t make sense and actually, are quite destructive.

    Our press does not ask them hard questions. They are never forced to go into the actual consequences or real meaning of what they are saying. The result of this is people with truly warped ideas meeting no challenge to their ideas/actions.

    There is a cult surrounding Obama in Democratic circles. This has been a disaster because ordinary people are not coming forward to speak truth to power. We are about to start a war which will be so destructive it is nearly unspeakable. Yet our “leaders” are spoken to with reverence.

    People are acting as if what they are saying is normal, rational and sensible. Yet these emperors and empresses are naked before us. We must stop agreeing to pretend they are moral, caring, wise or rational people. Their actions and their words show they are none of those things.

    We must stop agreeing to the “reality” they have put before us. It is our duty as citizens of the US and to people of other nations.

  10. Gene H. 1, September 4, 2013 at 9:54 am

    Ever see the movie Scanners?

    Every time Pelosi opens her mouth I think of that movie.
    =========================
    Never had heard of it but looked into it:

    Scanners are people with the ability to read (“scan”) other people’s thoughts (telepathy), and the power to move physical things with their minds (telekinesis). ConSec, a purveyor of weaponry and security systems, searches out and captures scanners, ostensibly to protect the public from them, but actually to use them for its own nefarious purposes.

    (Wikipedia, “Scanners”). It also reminds me of the military NSA scanning us … which Pelosi also favors.

    Power corrupts.

  11. Is this deja voodoo, this September 11 Psychosis, a timed event, or is it some mysterious subconscious disease that infects at a certain time in a certain season?

    Either way, I am tired of it.

  12. What I am writing to Congress: I was disturbed to hear on the news today that the Army is hoping to take a role in advising the Syrian rebels.

    I served in Vietnam in an infantry company. Our involvement there started with advisers and military aid. We all know what happened after that. The US was drawn into a major conflict that cost thousands of American lives.

    Syria does not pose a threat to the US, nor did Vietnam. I urge you to vote against any military action in Syria. What starts with cruise missiles and advisers can easily lead to the commitment of our regular forces and a disastrous regional conflict.

    1. Sorry Frank but Obama using air power did not lead to our troops being in Libya and our fighting a war there. Then you think that because Bush and Cheney lied, that therefore Obama is lying too. If you support international law, then you would have to support the First Gulf war, even though Iraq posed no existential threat to the US. Afghanistan is also authorized by the UN too.

      Vietnam is not the same as Syria either. I would hope that you would have supported Vietnam invading Cambodia, since they did a fine job in restoring a normal life to that country and stopped mass murder, even though the US and UN denounce their unilateral military action.

  13. Ever see the movie Scanners?

    Every time Pelosi opens her mouth I think of that movie.

  14. Anon Posted,

    I wrote/called about that this A.M. One Senator’s staff said calls were coming in against the war far more than for it. The other would not answer that question. Thanks for the video above.

  15. Mimi tells her grandson that the remedy to children being slaughtered is to slaughter more of them. Lots of little Syrian children will never hear Mimi’s beautiful story for them. They will be dead, unable to hear her marvelous explanation of how little their lives mean to her.

    Actually I’m going to in part agree with what Obama said this morning. It’s a great idea, he just needs to expand it to himself. “The international community’s credibility is on the line,” “We have to act because if we don’t we are effectively saying ‘someone who is not shamed can continue to act with impunity’.”

    Obama said the world cannot be silent in the face of Syria’s “barbarism”. He said failing to respond to chemicals the attacks would increase the risk of further assaults.” (Guardian)

    That’s been my feeling for a long while. First, a peaceful response is needed to the use of chemical and other weapons such as those favored by Obama, drones and cluster bombs. Because the international community fails to shame Obama and to hold him account for his own acts of barbarism he will continue to commit atrocities against civilians. Failure to take legal action against Obama will increase the risk of further attacks by the US around what this administration thinks is battlefield earth.

    There is no credibility to the international community which consistently fails to take lawful, peaceful measure in response to war crimes. There is no credibility when the international community fails to treat war crimes seriously because it is the US engaging in them.

    This world needs to return to the rule of law. We need to have faith in the ability to work together for a peaceful co-existence. We cannot attack those whom the US doesn’t like and ignore what the US and its allies are doing when they commit atrocities. It will never work. That is the “law” of might makes right. Instead, we need real justice.

    1. Jill I am glad to see that you agreed with the UN and the US in the first Gulf War and the US military actions in Afghanistan which was also authorized by the UN. So the fact is that those actions were and are legal under international law. If you do not, then you are guilty of what you accuse Obama of doing which is to ignore international law when it suits you and your views. The League of Nations by its inaction started WWII when it ignored its responsibility to take military action against Italy for invading Ethiopia. Hitler took the hint and months later retook the Rhineland, and went from there.

      Obama does have legal cover for his request since it is illegal under international law to use chemical weapons. He thus DOES have the moral and legal justification for using military force in response. If you insist that the UN must authorize that, that would be wrong since those treaties predate the existence of the UN.

      I have observed that you think Obama should go before the ICC in The Hague as though that is a country free of taint. I have to remind you that it is rank hypocrisy to have that court there since the Netherlands is home to the largest group of unprosecuted war criminals in Europe. They supplied the largest number of foreign nationals to the Nazi SS in WWII. They also in the main forgot and forgave their own Nazis and collaborators since they came in handy for use in Indonesia where they applied their talents learned from the Nazis in trying to take back ownership of that country from its people I am also unaware of any single Dutchman who was ever prosecuted for the massive war crimes that were committed by their citizens. At least the US did not try and claim outright ownership of Vietnam, and we simply followed the Dutch lead in how to act in such a war.

      Then you seem to think that the war crime of torturing a small number of individuals is equal to murdering thousands of people with poison gas. I and most people do not. I guess too that you agree with the Nazis that Nurenburg trials were simply victors justice and that because they had Soviets on that court, and that the US and UK had done some questionable things in WWII, that we had no right to try those war criminals.

  16. Obama Proposing a Bigger Intervention in Syria to Order to Win Over Republicans

    President suggests strikes could lead to longer-term mission after political negotiations in Washington.

    September 3, 2013

    by Dan Roberts, Spencer Ackerman, September 3, 2013

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/03/pelosi_uses_conversation_with_5-year-old_grandson_to_push_for_attack_on_syria.html

    Excerpt:

    Barack Obama portrayed his plans for US military action in Syria as part of a broader strategy to topple Bashar al-Assad, as tougher White House rhetoric began to win over sceptical Republicans in Congress on Tuesday.

    While stressing that Washington’s primary goal remained “limited and proportional” attacks, to degrade Syria’s chemical weapons capabilities and deter their future use, the president hinted at a broader long-term mission that may ultimately bring about a change of regime.

    “It also fits into a broader strategy that can bring about over time the kind of strengthening of the opposition and the diplomatic, economic and political pressure required – so that ultimately we have a transition that can bring peace and stability, not only to Syria but to the region,” he told senior members of Congress at a White House meeting on Tuesday.

    Obama has long spoken of the US desire to see Assad step down, but this is the first time he has linked that policy objective to his threatened military strikes against Syria. It follows pressure on Monday, from senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, to make such a goal more explicit. continues…

  17. Once again, folks cannot make see any difference between a war and a limited military action, despite the fact that the US has conducted many military actions without the sanction of Congress and/or declaration of war. Some of these actions have become wars, and other have not. As I pointed out before, Pres.Madison who was a prime writer of the Constitution used military force without a declaration of war and in the Spanish Florida incursion by Jackson had no Congressional approval, and the opponents could not even get a declaration against Jackson after the fact. Then you forget that the US and the UK committed acts of war against the Spanish, Portugese, Dutch, and Arabs when they unilaterally declared the slave trade to be illegal. I hope that to be consistent Prof Turley will agree that those actions were also illegal and a violation of the Constitution.

    I see that some on this blog think that US troops are and were in Libya and we were in a war with Libya too. Is that true? For those who want UN sanction, I hope that those who do were at least in favor of the First Gulf War and our attacks in Afghanistan since both those were authorized by the UN. If not, then you are simply brainwashed political hacks who are making a bogus argument.

Comments are closed.