George Will – the first to mention impeachment?


Just saw this at the Daily Caller. George Will is asking why the Progessives and extreme leftists are not clamouring for the impeachment of Østupid based upon the involvement of the USA in Libya. It is a good question, because the fact that Østupid did not go to Congress to request permission, per the 1974 law means that he is in breach of yet another law in the USA. It is now 66 days and counting and Østupid has not gone before Congress to do the right thing.

The issue here is not the action in Libya, because the action is sanctioned by the United Nations resolution 1973 to use all means possible, short of boots on the ground, to prevent the massacre of Libyan civilians. The action has been carried out via air strikes, and the use of tomahawks etc. There is also a naval blockade. The issue from the American and Congressional point of view should be that Østupid is now in contempt of the Congress, in that he has had more than 60 days to request that the Congress sanction the US involvement. He had plenty of time before the UN resolution was made, but he dithered and only came on board at the last minute. He should have used that time to take the issue to Congress to seek approval for any action that was sanctioned by the United Nations. Instead, he used the 60 days and has tried to get around the meaning of the Act so that there is USA “limited involvement”.

My own government supports the action in Libya. I am a conservative person and yes I support the action in Libya. The reason that I have supported it from the beginning is based entirely upon the human rights of the people of Libya who are being attacked by their “rulers” (who are not rulers by choice, but the result of a coup in the 1960s). The Libyan people have been forced into having a socialist country. Many business owners, especially in Benghazi had their businesses stolen from them by Gadhafi. The feeling against Gadhafi runs strong in Benghazi and other Libyan cities. This is from people not associated with Al Qaeda or with Islamists. What I abhor the most has been the use of landmines and cluster bombs, as well as the shelling of Misrata harbour and the shelling of Zintan (close to the Tunisian border) in the west of Libya. Also, I abhor the use of rape as a tactic against the people.

When the action started Gadhafi tried to use propaganda as a means of splitting the coalition, especially the Arab nations. Immediately the action started the Russians and Chinese (close associates of Gadhafi) started condemning the NATO action based upon the propaganda that came out of Tripoli. Whilst it is true that there have been a few deaths, the numbers given by Tripoli have been a lie. Even the alleged death of Gadhafi’s son has not been verified. No one actually saw the face of the man in the burial shroud. Russia and China have been relentless in their opposition and it is only when you realize that they have been continuing to do business with Gadhafi does it make sense. On the other hand, Italy who was slow to get involved did the 180 degree turn and now fully supports the action. I wonder what took place when the deputy foreign minister went to Italy and Greece, because both nations turned their backs on Libya.  The other supporters of Gadhafi are Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia. Drum roll please… look at all of the countries who are supporting this piece of human garbage.

At this point, I will say that it is probable that amongst the fighters in Libya there are some who have been supporters of Al Qaeda, and who had even worked as mercenaries in Iraq. The fact of being a mercenary does not mean commitment to the cause. In this situation what trumps Al Qaeda is the need to protect one’s family from Gadhafi. Of the 100 or so  know Al Qaeda members in Libya (the ones released by Gadhafi shortly before the protests began), none of them hold a leadership role in the National Transitional Council, although some have been on the front near Brega fighting against Daffy goons. For all we know, several of them have been killed in action. Some expressing “God is greatest” before being pumped with bullets by Daffy goons is making a statement that requires context.

One of the stories that I spotted was that of a witness report about a doctor killed by Daffy goons. The doctor had been in an ambulance that had been ambushed. The Daffy goons had wounded him, and as he lay on the ground, they demanded that he give allegiance to Gadhafi, instead he declared “God is greatest”. The context here is that this man swore allegiance to God and would not give any form of allegiance to a temporal dictator. I view this scenario in the same way that I view the attitude of early Christians who were killed because they refused to sacrifice to the Roman emperor. It was the same inherent statement. On the other hand, someone who rushes at the door of the cockpit of an aircraft shouting “alluha akhbar” is having a fit of sudden jihad syndrome. It is the type of scenario that we should fear because such a person has the intention to murder.

Regardless, Østupid had no right to commit the USA to being involved without first taking the situation to Congress, and getting Congressional approval. The fact that he has not done so means that he is very close to having committed an impeachable offense according to your constitution – under high crimes and misdemeanours. Slick Willy was impeached because he committed perjury, but the Senate failed to follow through with the next step in the process.  Therefore, the question that is being raised is: why haven’t the left been baying for Østupid’s blood over his deliberate actions relating to Libya?

FYI the codename used by Scotland Yard for protecting Østupid in Punjabi means “smartass” .

Advertisements

7 responses to “George Will – the first to mention impeachment?

  1. You might want to check out this:
    http://hillbuzz.org/2011/05/27/lt-col-allen-west-obamas-libya-war-illegal/

    I actually disagree with the way this has been stated, since the action itself is not illegal, but is sanctioned by the UN. The USA has a minor role in the action.

    However, from the POV of the War Powers Act, Østupid is in contravention because he did not take it to Congress to get permission, which is what he should have done when “all options were on the table”.

    It seems that if someone is willing, then this could be the impeachable offense that will give the USA an out.

    Just think Joe Biden is so boring that OBL thought he was not worth an assassination attempt. Perhaps for the rest of the term old Joe might not be such a bad alternative ROFL….. except he is a disaster when it comes to fiscal matters!!

    Like

  2. Completely OT, but certainly worth a post!

    Congrats, Aussie, the people of Oz, and especially, Amelia.

    Absolutely wonderful 🙂

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110527/sc_afp/australiaastrophysicsscience

    Like

  3. sue that was very interesting

    Like

  4. Since when is 65% of the military force a “minor role”?

    Like

  5. where does the 65% come from? Also, the US planes are not flying the sorties every day. The bulk is being done by the UK and France, with Canada, Denmark, Italy and Qatar also providing aircraft.

    There are virtually no missiles being fired from ships at the present time, which was the major part of US involvement in the first few weeks.

    Other than that they have used some drones, which are not powered by humans within the craft but are controlled at a distance.

    So, yes, the role of the US is relatively minor at this point in time…. unless the UK press and Reuters etc are not providing exact detail, or NATO is not giving all of the detail. Not sure what role US has had in clearing landmines from Misrata harbour, I thought that was being done by other forces as well.

    That perhaps leaves who might be on the ground, but then I thought that the role was being done by MI6.

    The training role has gone to the Brits and the French in Benghazi.

    Like

  6. Do you understand how the military works? For every one guy pulling a trigger there are 100 support troops making that possible. Those UK and French sorties would be impossible without the US supplying the logistics and intelligence. Logistics is actually more important to an army than fighters. Just ask Napoleon’s army in Russia.

    Like

  7. well, the US is not supplying much of the intelligence either. Just read an article that indicates that it is the French that are on the ground doing the work of getting information etc. Except for maybe some CIA in Tripoli, there has been no real indication that USA is heavily involved.

    BTW, I have quite a strong defense and military background, and yes I do know quite a bit about logistics and what happens behind the scenes.

    All the same you have not substantiated this claim of 65% for the USA. The USA has not been heavily involved in the sorties since that initial two weeks. It has been France, UK, Italy, Denmark, Canada and Qatar doing most of the work, including the supply of aircraft.

    The UK and other NATO navies have been patrolling Misrata harbour. On top of that Turkey has been playing a role that has ensured the safety of the humanitarian aid ships that managed to dock in Misrata. In fact Turkey also sent their air force to do that job.

    None of this is relevant when the issue remains that this should have been taken to Congress when the requests for the no-fly zone were initially made by the Libyans. It was an option on the table and the permission should have been sought and granted prior to any engagement. This was not done. On top of that he has had 60 days to take it to Congress and he did not do it.

    Like