The President's National Security Speech was Full of Contradictions

Yesterday, President Obama gave his national security speech. He outlined a flowery justification for drone attacks. Certainly, the President wants to do what is necessary to keep the American people safe. There is no reason to doubt his sincerity.  However, his speech was full of contradictory messages. He essentially tried to advocate both sides of the issues.

On one hand, he emphasized his commitment to Constitutional principles. On the other hand, he essentially argued that the U.S. has the right to execute Americans abroad without due process, without evidence or trial. During that segment of the speech, he focused on Anwar Al-Awlaki and conveniently failed to provide a rationale for killing the other three Americans. The President talked about working with Congress to increase oversight of the drone program. However, that is no guarantee that anything will actually happen. We see what happened with GITMO.

In one breath, he complained about the U.S. waging perpetual war. He further mentioned that the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution ("AUMF") should be refined or repealed. In next breath, despite acknowledging that Al Qaeda is defeated, he proceeded to justify waging and supporting perpetual war around the world in countries such as Libya, Syria, Yemen, Mali and Somalia. Since President Obama acknowledges that Al Qaeda has been defeated in Afghanistan, why are U.S. troops still there?!?! Why do the American people have to wait until the end of 2014 for the troops to leave.

Moreover, the President talked about defeating Al Qaeda and its affiliates. Yet, by aiding so-called rebels in Libya and Syria, the Administration has inadvertently aided Al Qaeda affiliates. They have filled the power void created by America supporting coups in those countries.

One minute, Obama expressed concern about civilian casualties. The next moment, he justified civilian casualties by claiming that more civilians would die if he did nothing. By the way, no one is arguing that the President should do nothing.

President Obama discussed addressing the root causes of extremism. Yet, his drone policy is breeding future generations of terrorists. Every time an American drone bombs innocent women, children and men, it serves a recruiting tool for terrorists. It is hard to convince people that you are not waging war against Islam when you bomb villages and kill babies and women. It is hard to convince people that you are not waging war against Islam when you waging wars in Muslim countries around the world.

In addition, if the U.S. wants to truly stop "the well spring of extremism", America must fundamentally change its foreign policy. The U.S. can no longer afford to continue to provide unconditional support to the rogue State of Israel. Furthermore, the U.S. cannot profess to love democracy as long as it continues to support some of the most repressive regimes in the so-called Middle East. Such regimes violently oppress secular opposition and promote religious fananticism.

At the end of his speech, the President talked about the need to close Guantanamo Bay. He explained how detaining suspects indefinitely without charge is contrary to American values. Nonetheless, here we are into his second term and GITMO remains open. I understand that Congress has failed to act. However, what is stopping the President from taking more action to close Guantanamo Bay?

In sum, the President's speech was not an announcement of a major policy shift. For the most part, it was simply a justification for continuing to use drones around the world. Despite all of eloquent rhetoric, Obama's drone policy is George Bush's drone policy on steroids.

Finally, in a time when many so-called progressives have become sycophants and Obama worshippers, it was refreshing to see Code Pink protest. Ironically, during the Bush years, many progressive commended Code Pink for holding similar protests against the Bush Administration. Today, many of those "progressives" are now condemning Code Pink for protesting against Obama. That is hypocrisy. Principles are more important than personalities. No politician, including President Barack Obama, deserves unconditional support.

Do You Support the President's Foreign Policy?

Good morning family. Yesterday, President Barack Obama addressed the United Nations. Do you support the President's foreign policy? Why? Why not?

What Does Muammar Gaddafi's Death Mean for Libya and Africa?

CNN reports that Muammar Gaddafi has been killed:

There are reports that deposed Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has been either captured or killed. This story is fast developing.

[Update 9:56 a.m. ET] A State Department official familiar with the latest information coming out of Libya said it “looks like he’s been killed," but the department is still awaiting official confirmation. The official would only speak if his name not be used.

If the reports are true, what does Muammar Gaddafi's death mean for Libya and Africa?

All US Troops Should Leave Afghanistan Now!

It is time for the US to end that senseless war in Afghanistan. The President's decision to withdraw 33,000 troop definitely is a step in the right direction. However, it does not go far enough. The Washington Post reports that:

"In a prime-time address from the White House, Obama said he will bring home 10,000 U.S. troops by the end of the year and 23,000 more by next summer, a withdrawal window that will conclude two months before voters decide whether to give him a second term. The first troops will leave Afghanistan next month.

The pullout schedule he outlined Wednesday will leave 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan by the end of next summer, and Obama said their departure will continue steadily through 2014, when the Afghan army is scheduled to take over security."

After the 9/11 terror attacks, President Bush, with Congressional authorization, declared war on Al Qaeda and those who harbored them, the Taliban in Afghanistan. At that time, the war was a righteous cause. It was a war to protect our national security.

Here we are 10 years later. If America's goal was to defeat Al Qaeda and to remove the Taliban from power, that goal has been accomplished. Al Qaeda has been defeated in Afghanistan. Less than 100 Al Qaeda fighters remain in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is dead.  By the way, the terrorist leader was found in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. The Taliban has been removed from power. Since the mission has been accomplished, there is no need for US troops to remain in Afghanistan.

Our goal should not be rebuild a failed state. That is virtually impossible. After almost 10 years of intervention, the US has not been able to transform Afghanistan into a sustainable and democratic nation. I doubt that an additional three years will make any difference. 

As President Obama said during his address last night, our focus should be on nation building here at home. We should not be building schools in Afghanistan as we close schools in Detroit and New York. We should not create jobs in Afghanistan while the African American unemployment rate remains in the double digits, twice the national average.

In these tough economic times, it makes no sense for the US to continue to squander billions of dollars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Before even discussing cutting Medicaid, Medicare, education and other vital services, this nation must stop funding those three wars.

Not one more US soldier should be injured or killed to prop up a failed, balkanized, narco-state. The Afghans must determine their own destiny. All US troops should leave Afghanistan now!

This article is cross posted on Jack and Jill Politics.

The President is Violating the War Powers Act

As reported in the Washington Post last week,

"The Obama administration argued Wednesday that its nearly three-month-old military involvement in Libya does not require congressional approval because of the supporting role most U.S. forces are playing there, a position that puts it at odds with some Republican leaders and the antiwar wing of its own party.

The White House reasoning, included in a 32-page report to Congress, is the administration’s first detailed response to complaints from lawmakers of both parties, who say President Obama has exceeded his authority as commander in chief by waging war in Libya without congressional authorization.

The report came on the same day a bipartisan group of lawmakers filed suit in federal court against Obama seeking to end the U.S. participation in Libya, pushing what has been a slow-moving confrontation over the power of the president at a time of war toward the center of the political debate...

The United States has spent $715.9 million in Libya, the vast majority of it on military operations, according to the report. The administration estimates that the cost will rise to $1.1 billion through September, although it does not plan to request additional funds from Congress to pay for the mission...

The report says that “because U.S. military operations [in Libya] are distinct from the kind of ‘hostilities’ contemplated by the resolution,” the deadlines for congressional approval or force withdrawal do not apply.

“We’re not engaged in sustained fighting. There’s been no exchange of fire with hostile forces. We don’t have troops on the ground. We don’t risk casualties to those troops,” said one senior administration official, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity during a conference call arranged by the White House. “None of the factors, frankly, speaking more broadly, has risked the sort of escalation that Congress was concerned would impinge on its war-making power.”"

However, this week, the Washington Post reported that:

But at the Pentagon, officials have decided it’s unsafe enough there to give troops extra pay for serving in “imminent danger.”

The Defense Department decided in April to pay an extra $225 a month in “imminent danger pay” to service members who fly planes over Libya or serve on ships within 110 nautical miles of its shores.

That means the Pentagon has decided that troops in those places are “subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions.”

Many in Congress have said they were outraged by Obama’s argument last week.

“Hostilities by remote control are still hostilities,” said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), normally a close Obama ally, on Sunday’s “Meet the Press.” “We are killing with drones what we would otherwise be killing with fighter planes. And we are engaged in hostilities in Libya.”

Legislators have proposed resolutions that would express disapproval of the operation or cut off its funding — or authorize it outright. Congressional leaders have not said when any of those options will be voted on.

For the record, I oppose the war in Libya for the reasons outlined in my article entitled I'm Not Buying What Obama is Trying to Sell. I support Rep. Kucinich's and Rep. Conyers' War Powers Act lawsuit.

Clearly, by any definition, the United States is engaged in hostilities in Libya. According to the New York Times, "since the United States handed control of the air war in Libya to NATO in early April, American warplanes have struck at Libyan air defenses about 60 times, and remotely operated drones have fired missiles at Libyan forces about 30 times, according to military officials."

Moreover, NATO action is US action. NATO is led and funded by the United States. As stated on the AP, "in transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning the reins over to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show."

Al Jazeera reports that NATO has hit 1,000 targets, killed approximately 718 (according to Libya), and injured 4,000 people. This past Sunday, NATO bombed a two-story house and killed two children and seven adult civilians. The Washington Post reported that "Libyan officials on Monday accused NATO of killing 15 noncombatants, including three children, in a massive strike on a farm in western Libya." Again, the US is essentially waging war in Libya. Therefore, the President's failure to get authorization from Congress is a violation of the War Powers Act.

This nation is supposed to be a democracy, not a monarchy. Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, not the President. The War Powers Act enshrines that general principle into law. If properly enforced, the War Powers Act can prevent an abuse of power. If we elect progressive members of Congress like Conyers and Kucinich, the War Power Act may be able to curb America's natural, imperialistic and militaristic impulse.

Some may suggest that members of Congress are taking action because the President is African American. That argument does not have much merit because similar action has been taken against other Presidents. According to the CRS Report for Congress - War Powers Resolution After Thirty, in May 1981, members of Congress took action against President Reagan for sending military advisers to El Salvador. The same report notes that members of Congress filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Reagan's invasion of Grenada. According to the report, in 1999, members of Congress sued President Clinton for violating the War Powers Act with regard to US military operations in Kosovo. In sum, the War Powers Act has been raised during many conflicts during several Administrations. Obama is not being singled out because of his race.

Sure, the Republicans who support the lawsuit and proposed resolutions are probably political opportunists. I am sure that many, if not most of them, are merely looking for an opportunity to undermine the Obama Administration. While that may be true, it does not negate the fact that the President is violating the War Powers Act.

This article is cross-posted on Jack and Jill Politics.

U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich Speaks Truth to Power on Libya!

I'm Not Buying What Obama's Trying to Sell!

Yesterday, President Obama explained his decision to wage war against Libya. In a nutshell, Obama made the following basic points.  

• When U.S. interests and values are at stake, America has a responsibility to act.  Failure to act would betray our values. 
• U.S. action was necessary to prevent a horrific massacre in Libya. A broad coalition, including the Arab League, demanded action.
• Although there are many places where civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what is right. 
• America's role is limited. There are no ground troops. Responsibility for enforcement of the arms embargo and the no fly zone will transfer to NATO on Wednesday. The U.S. will play a supporting role. 
• U.S. military will not be used for regime change. The U.S. will use other means to overthrow the Gaddafi regime.

The President is one of the greatest orators of our time.  His speech writers are awesome. However, I'm not buying what Obama is trying to sell.

For the record, I oppose the brutal Gaddafi regime. Innocent civilians should be protected. Yes. There are some situations that warrant the use of military force. However, where does America draw the line? The U.S. cannot be the world's policeman. The President argues that we must act when our values and interests are at stake.

Contrary to the President's argument, U.S. interests are not at stake. Does Libya pose a threat to American national security? Of course not. Libya abandoned its weapons of mass destruction program and established a better relationship with the West. Did Libya recently attack any of its neighbors? No. Libya is no greater threat to emerging democratic movements than Yemen, Bahrain or Saudi Arabia. Like Libya, those countries are brutally suppressing democratic movements.

Why doesn't Obama apply the same arguments for intervention to those nations. I guess the U.S. has no problem tolerating the violence of its allies. The U.S. did nothing when Saudi troops entered Bahrain to repress the people's democratic movement. Even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates acknowledged that no vital U.S. interests were at stake in Libya. Obama's beautiful rhetoric cannot negate that fact.

The Administration's hypocritical response to developments in Yemen, Bahrain and Egypt undermines its argument about values being at stake. Were American values at stake when we sat back and watched civilians slaughtered in Ivory Coast, Darfur, Gaza, Congo, Rwanda and other countries? What about the U.S. violating its own values, i.e. Guantánamo Bay, coddling and defending dictators like Hosni Mubarak, civilian causalities in Afghanistan, soldiers posing with corpses, etc.?

Although I welcome the news that the U.S. will now play a limited role in Libya, I wonder how long that supporting role will last. What does it entail? How much will it cost us in lives and money?

Instead of wasting money on a third war, we should use our resources to address problems here at home such as unemployment, failing schools, poverty and crime.

Obama Gives Gaddafi An Offer He Can't Refuse!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Today, in the gangsta tradition of George W. Bush and the Godfather, President Obama gave Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi an offer he can't refuse. It looks like war is inevitable. I guess that the President decided to heed the advice of the war mongers. Thoughts?

Mr. President...Don't Listen to the War Mongers!

Shout out to all my Facebook friends for your thought provoking discussions on this issue.

I support the legitimate aspirations of all people for freedom and democracy. I was outraged when I heard reports of Gaddafi forces attacking and killing nonviolent demonstrators. See my articles Defending the Indefensible and Muammar Gaddafi: "People who don't love me don't deserve to live. If the allegations are true, I support U.N. sanctions and I.C.C. action. However, I do not support calls to impose a no fly zone in Libya. 

President Obama is under intense pressure from Republicans and fellow Democrats to wage war against Libya.  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made it clear that the enforcing a no fly zone in Libya will be an obvious act of war.  As reported in The Hill,

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Wednesday said the U.S. military could establish a no-fly zone over Libya, but he cautioned that doing so would first require widespread air strikes across that nation.

“If it’s ordered, we can do it,” Gates told the House Appropriations's Defense subcommittee.

But establishing control of Libyan air space would “start with attacks to destroy” Libyan air defense systems. That kind of assault would require more U.S. military aircraft than “you would find on a single aircraft carrier.”

Listen to former President Bill Clinton, Senator John Kerry and Senator John McCain beat the drums of war.







I urge President Obama to ignore this call for war. First of all, U.S. national security is not jeopardized by the civil war in Libya. In fact, U.S. military intervention will pose a threat to our national security. It will help promote the false narrative that America is at war with Islam. Remember the establishment of a no fly zone in Iraq paved the way for the 911 terror attacks. To maintain the no fly zone, the U.S. had to keep troops in Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda's primary grievance against the U.S. was the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.

Moreover, this proposed war is not about human rights or preserving human life. There are numerous armed conflicts around the world. I don't see the U.S. resorting to military intervention in those countries. In fact, when Clinton was in office, he did absolutely nothing to prevent to the genocide in Rwanda. Now, he has the audacity to call for U.S. military intervention in Libya.

Human rights are being violated in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Yemen. For example, as reported in the Washington Post,

"Witnesses in Bahrain said that more than 100 people were injured after police fired tear gas at protesters and attacked them with batons...

In Yemen, police on rooftops fired live bullets and tear gas at protesters, also injuring more than 100 people, a day after security forces killed seven demonstrators in protests around the country."

Since Yemen and Bahrain are U.S. allies, no one is talking about imposing no fly zones in those other countries.

Oil is the real reason why the U.S. is considering waging war in Libya. Corporate interests are probably driving this rush to war. Currently, Libya's oil industry is nationalized. Apparently, U.S. and other Western countries want to seize Libya's oil. No Arab League resolution will change that fact.

How any of our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters must be sacrificed to satisfy the insatiable greed of the oil industry?

America is already squandering tremendous financial and human resources in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, politicians are urging the President to waste more lives and money in Libya.  Frankly, it is fascinating how those deficit hawks have no problem slashing valuable social programs. Yet, they always find enough money to wage war.

Moreover, the U.S. government probably knows virtually nothing about those Libyan insurgents. In addition to imposing no fly zones, some prominent politicians and pundits assert that the U.S. should provide military assistance to Gaddafi's opposition. For all we know, such actions may aid the Libyan version of the Taliban. In 1980s, the U.S. supported the Afghan groups opposing the Soviets. Some of those groups included the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We do not need to repeat that colossal mistake.

Many of us voted for Obama because of his opposition to the Iraq war. We viewed Obama as the candidate of peace, hope and change. We did not vote for war and political calculation. I urge the President to put the interests of the American people over the interests of the oil companies. During his inauguration and Cairo speeches, Obama discussed extending a hand to the Arab world. Bombing Libya will undermine that hopeful message. Mr. President, please don't listen to the war mongers.

Defending the Indefensible: Farrakhan on Muammar Gaddafi

During the Nation of Islam's Savior's Day, Minister Louis Farrakhan defended his friend, Muammar Gaddafi. He asserted that no leader receives 100 percent of the people's support. Incredibly, Farrakhan proceeded to compare the ruthless dictator's plight to the persecution of Jesus.

Instead of condemning Gaddafi's deadly attacks on nonviolent protesters, Farrakhan asserted that if Gaddafi is tried before the International Criminal Court then former President George W. Bush and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld should be tried for war crimes as well. Farrakhan went on to argue that America would do the same thing if there was an uprising here.

Although I have respect for Farrakhan, I strongly disagree with him on this. Justice should be universal. It should apply to friends and foes alike. If the U.S. shot down nonviolent demonstrators, Farrakhan would raise righteous hell. Yet, he excuses Gaddafi.

The same standard applies to American foreign policy. On one hand, the U.S. to coddles repressive so-called "friendly" dictators in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordon, etc. The U.S. also condones Israel's repeated violations of human rights and international law. Conversely, America calls for immediate actions against its enemies, i.e. Iran, Libya, etc. Such hypocrisy is unjust.

Muammar Gaddafi: "People who don't love me don't deserve to live."

Many moons ago, when I was in college, I had some respect for Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. As Stephen Zunes notes in his Truthout article,

"Under Gaddafi's rule, Libya made impressive, if uneven, gains in health care, education, housing, the rights of women and basic social services. His brand of Islamic socialism, combined with the country's relatively small population and large oil reserves, made Libya one of the more prosperous and egalitarian societies in the Middle East, even though the promise generally outpaced actual performance. Though he was a classic strongman in one sense, Gaddafi also allowed for a relatively decentralized political system which allowed for direct democracy and popular participation in some limited political spheres."

In addition, he gave millions of dollars to the Nation of Islam. He stood up to U.S. imperialism and survived. More specifically, as Stephen Zunes writes,

"In April 1986, following a terrorist bombing in Berlin that killed an American serviceman, the United States bombed Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya's two largest cities, killing up to two dozen civilians, including Gaddafi's daughter. The attack was widely condemned as a violation of international law, which recognizes the legitimacy of the use of military force only in self-defense from an armed attack, not for retaliation. The civilian casualties from the air strikes and the serious damage caused to the French embassy and other diplomatic facilities provoked outrage throughout the world and bolstered Gaddafi's standing both at home and abroad."

Whatever little respect that I had for Gaddafi quickly evaporated when I read about his vicious, brutal and self serving response to the pro-democracy uprising in Libya. In 1969, Gaddafi seized power by overthrowing "the unpopular pro-Western monarchy of King Idris". Now, Gaddafi is the one who is unpopular. The whole situation is reminiscent of George Orwell's Animal Farm. For those who do not know, Animal Farm is about liberators who morph into oppressors.

Gaddafi has become the oppressor of his own people. Intoxicated by power, he declared, "People who don't love me don't deserve to live." According to some news reports, his soldiers and loyalists have killed at least 1,000 protesters. Pro-Gaddafi forces have fired on and bombed nonviolent demonstrators. As reported in the Washington Post,

"Everyone is very devastated," said another resident who lives near the square and watched from her window as men in sport-utility vehicles opened fire on protesters in the street below. She said she thought that as many as 60 people had been killed and knew of three who died when pro-Gaddafi gunmen stormed a mosque and opened fire on worshipers.

"We are just hearing about people dying, and it's like this isn't going to end," she said. "This guy will kill until the last day of his life."





I commend the people of Libya for standing up and demanding democracy. I salute the United Nations for imposing sanctions on the Gaddafi regime. President Obama was right when he said "when a leader's only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now." No leader should be in power for 41 years.