LaRouche: Obama Could Now Be Facing His Watergate

[Ares]

Lyndon LaRouche today said that the bipartisan Congressional revolt against President Barack Obama's flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Act is just like the early moments of the Watergating of President Richard Nixon. "It is just the beginning, but the parallels to Watergate are unmistakable," LaRouche commented.
Since the beginning of the week, a bipartisan upsurge has put President Obama on the spot, for his lying attempts to avoid his Constitutional responsibilities to go to Congress in order to obtain permission to take the nation to war in Libya.

A senior U.S. intelligence source with close ties to the Obama White House was blunt in commenting this morning: "President Obama is in violation of the War Powers Act and the Federal Constitution. His argument that the U.S. military involvement in Libya is a 'humanitarian intervention' is an evasion. The United States, as of last week, had spent $718 million on the Libya military operation. By next week, the amount will have passed $1 billion." He added that, without direct U.S. military involvement, NATO would be unable to carry out the Libya operations. "Seventy-five percent of all NATO operations involve U.S. capabilities. Without the U.S., the NATO military operation cannot be sustained."

LaRouche noted the irony that this week marked the 40th anniversary of the leaking of the Pentagon Papers, revealing the extent of the American involvement in Vietnam. "The Pentagon Papers were part of the early mosaic of Watergate, and Daniel Ellsberg was correct in saying that Nixon would have been jealous of President Obama's seeming ability to get away with serious violations of the Constitution. But now, we have bipartisan action in the Congress to restore Constitutional rule. And that is, I believe, the beginning of the end for the Obama Presidency."

The senior intelligence source emphasized that the Obama White House arrogantly mis-read the situation in Congress, anticipating that a bipartisan non-binding resolution by Senators John McCain and John Kerry would allow the President to bypass the War Powers Act requirements. But a June 5th Washington Post op-ed by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, put the fundamental Constitutional issues so squarely on the table, that McCain and Kerry withdrew their draft resolution of support for the continuation of the Libya mission. That helped spark the bipartisan revolt that we are now seeing, in the passage of the Brad Sherman amendment, barring any funding of the Libya mission, and in the bipartisan Federal law suit, filed on Wednesday, to bar the President from continuing the Libya war, on the grounds that it violates Article I Section 8 of our Federal Constitution, giving Congress the sole authority to declare war.

Reflecting the same bipartisan revolt, on June 8 Senators Jim Webb (D-VA) and Bob Corker (R-TN) introduced a joint Senate resolution challenging President Obama's unconstitutional act of initiating U.S. military action in Libya without Congressional approval.

In introducing S.J. Res. 13, Sen. Webb emphasized that what is at stake, is "whether a President—any President—can unilaterally begin, and continue, a military campaign for reasons that he alone defines as meeting the demanding standards worthy of risking American lives and expending billions of dollars of our taxpayers' money."

In an interview with MSNBC June 9, Sen. Webb warned of the dangers of allowing the precedent to be set, in which a President can use the argument of "humanitarian crises" to justify military interventions. That is not how the United States government is supposed to work, he said. This sets "a very broad standard as a precedent, when we're looking to the future of a President making a unilateral decision to use military force, and then not seeking at the appropriate time the approval of the Congress."

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/18492

[Glass]

It's on tip of my tounge. I really want to say it. Here goes... It's about time they did something... but I expect there's more to this yet. I'm sure of it and it is what holds me back. These snakes are probably just leveraging something up here. We will have to wait and see what it is. Perhaps they have just realised that they, the Congress are just a whisker away from being on the receiving end of unilateral action from the President/Dictator of sending anyone of them out the back to face a firing squad. That is where things are nearly at in America today.

[gunDriller]

compared to all that has gone down since Nixon -

1. the Iran hostage crisis/ October surprise, Iran contra, building up Saddam under Reagan
2. tearing down Saddam & destroying Iraq under Bush41
3. happy-face Fascism under Clinton (that's when they shredded the Depression era laws meant to prevent the 2007-2008-2009-2010-2011 economic shenanigans)
4. Bush43 who needs no introduction, he was like a Robot who channels Ariel Sharon & Bibi Netanyahu, with Cheney as his medium.
5. Obama with his Food Safety Act & Obamacare & how many wars going on ?

These guys make Nixon look like a nice guy, a Constitutionalist, and possibly even, a pacifist. OK well that's stretching it, Nixon had Kissinger to stay up late nights to figure out where in Laos & Cambodia to bomb next.


then again, no false flag attacks on America occurred during Nixon's administration.

[JJ.G0ldD0t]

You'll have to pardon my skepticism... its just a trait that I've been honing since the day I realized the people of the world are set up for perpetual butt hurt.


As long as the people of the US of A think their congress will do something, the people will do nothing.
Its theater. Its deception. The mack daddy need not worry.

The people will sit back wagging their fingers at Obama "oooo you gonna get it now boy" till their short memory moves on to something else. Congress is impotent.


That's my pessimistic prediction.

[JJ.G0ldD0t]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MF23Ak02.html



Kerry, McCain back Obama's war power
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - Hoping to head off growing insurgencies in both major parties over Washington's participation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO's) military campaign against Libya, two key senators on Tuesday unveiled a resolution that would give President Barack Obama the authority to continue operations there for up to one year.

Democratic Senator John Kerry, who also serves as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Republican Senator John McCain, the party's 2008 presidential candidate, said their measure would authorize "the limited use of the United States Armed Forces in Libya, in support of United States national security policy interests".

The resolution was co-sponsored by several senior senators from

http://asianmedia.com/GAAN/www/delivery/lg.php?bannerid=1076&campaignid=23&zoneid=36&loc=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atimes.com%2Fatimes%2FMid dle_East%2FMF23Ak02.html&cb=b7eb2ffdc0

each party, notably majority whip Dick Durbin and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, as well as several prominent Republican hawks, including Lindsey Graham and John Kyl.

The White House said it welcomed the resolution. "[W]e support that and would welcome passage of it by the senate, and, if it were taken up in the House [of Representatives], by the House as well," said Obama's chief spokesman, Jay Carney.

The resolution - the product of weeks of negotiations - comes amid growing controversy within both parties about Washington's continued involvement in three ongoing wars.

That controversy was further fueled last week by the Obama administration's much-disputed contention that US military operations were not significant enough to require congressional authorization under the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

It also comes on the eve of a much-anticipated announcement on the timing and pace of Washington's withdrawal of combat forces from Afghanistan - which Obama promised would begin next month.

That decision, which Obama is expected to announce in a nationally televised speech on Wednesday evening, has also provoked growing controversy within both parties.

Democrats, who were never enthusiastic about Obama's decision to substantially increase US forces in Afghanistan, generally favor an accelerated withdrawal of the 100,000 US troops currently deployed there. Republicans are increasingly split between hawks - such as McCain, Graham and Kyl - who are urging a slow drawdown, and a fast-growing coalition of 'realists', fiscal conservatives, and 'isolationists' in the party's congressional caucus, who are increasingly allying themselves with their colleagues across the aisle on both Afghanistan and Libya.

The latter forces are particularly strong in the House, which could take up several proposed resolutions this week that - if enacted - would limit the president's ability to use appropriated funds to continue the military operations in or over Libya. Those operations, which are estimated to cost about US$10 million a day, consist mainly of aerial surveillance, refueling costs, and logistical support, but also include drone strikes and occasional piloted aircraft strikes.

One resolution, co-sponsored by anti-war Democrat Dennis Kucinich and Republican Walter Jones, would cut off all funding for Libya operations. Earlier this month, another measure sponsored by the two lawmakers would have cut all funding after 15 days unless Obama received congressional authorization to continue operations.

Despite strong Republican backing, it was defeated 148-265, but only because the Republican speaker of the House, John Boehner, offered a substitute resolution reproaching Obama for not seeking congressional authorization under the War Powers Resolution, that passed easily with bipartisan support.

The Kerry-McCain measure is clearly designed to settle the War Powers issue and thus stave off additional legislative challenges to the Libya operation at a time when war fatigue appears to be growing rapidly in congress and within the public at large, most notably among Republicans.

Originally approved by congress over president Richard Nixon's veto, the War Powers Resolution was designed to end the decade-long US military intervention in Vietnam and establish curbs on the executive branch's ability to engage US forces in conflicts abroad without seeking congressional authorization or a declaration of war.

The act requires the president to notify congress within 48 hours of introducing US forces into imminent or ongoing "hostilities". It also requires him to end operations within 60 to 90 days unless congress gives him the authority to continue, or extends the deadline. In the Libya case, the 90-day period ended on Sunday.

Until now, every president, beginning with Nixon himself, has argued that the act is unconstitutional because it infringes on the president's authority as commander-in-chief. At the same time, however, they have respected the law's notification requirements. The courts, where conflicts between the legislative and executive branches are supposed to be resolved, have consistently avoided ruling on the constitutional question.

Obama has also ducked the constitutional issue, contending instead, as he did in a 38-page report submitted to congress last week, that the resolution did not apply because Washington's intervention in Libya does "not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve US ground troops".

That argument convinced almost nobody, and may indeed have backfired against the president.

"It just doesn't pass the straight-face test. that we're not in the midst of hostilities," Boehner, who has supported the Libya campaign, said after the report was submitted, while Durbin, the number two Democrat in the senate and one of Obama's closest allies in congress, felt compelled to part ways with the president.

Obama's position was further weakened by the disclosure in the New York Times that both the normally authoritative Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department and the Pentagon's top lawyers also disagreed with the report's contentions.

As the controversy intensified over the following days, it appears that Kerry and McCain, who had been trying to draft a resolution that could gain overwhelming support in both houses of congress since shortly after the Libya campaign began three months ago, renewed their efforts.

"The senate has been silent for too long on US military operations in Libya," McCain said on Tuesday. "It is time for the senate to act. It is time to authorize the president's use of force, whether he thinks he needs it or not."

The resolution authorizes the deployment of US armed forces "as part of the NATO mission to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973", which authorizes "all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack" in Libya for up to one year.

That is "more than enough time to finish the job," McCain told reporters. The resolution noted that Washington's goal is to "achieve the departure from power of Muammar Gaddafi and his family", although it did not explicitly authorize the use of military power to accomplish that end.

The resolution also states that the congress opposes the deployment of ground troops in Libya "unless the purpose of the presence is limited to the immediate personal defense of United States government officials or to rescuing members of NATO forces from imminent danger".

The resolution is almost certain to enjoy strong support in the senate, where majority leader Harry Reid suggested that it would be put on a fast track. The House, however, could be more problematic. While the number two Democrat there, Representative Steny Hoyer, said he would support the resolution, Boehner and other members of the Republican leadership were non-committal on Tuesday.

(Inter Press Service)