Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.  If you broadcast our audio commentaries please consider a recurring donation to Black Agenda Report.

Obama Deserves Impeachment for War Policies, But Few Dare Say So – and Most of Them are Republicans

  • Sharebar
    Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version


    A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

    It has fallen mainly to Republicans to challenge President Obama’s military flaunting of both U.S. and international law. A North Carolina congressman named Jones has submitted a resolution that would hold Obama liable to impeachment if he attacks Syria or any other country without an act of authorization from Congress. It is an action that “should have emanated from the Congressional Progressive and Black Caucuses, rather than the Republican Right.”

    Obama Richly Deserves Impeachment for War Policies, But Only a Few Dare Say So – and Most of Them are Republicans

    A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

    Congressional approval of U.S. wars is optional – not mandatory – for this president.”

    At least a few Republicans want to impeach President Barack Obama if he does not seek authorization from Congress to attack Syria or any other country that does not present an imminent danger to the territory of the United States. A resolution to that effect was recently submitted by GOP Congressman Walter Jones, of North Carolina. Jones was also among ten congressmen who joined Dennis Kucinich in a suit against Obama for his failure to notify or get permission from Congress for his assault on Libya, last year. Ron Paul was also on the list. The only Democrat among the ten besides Kucinch was Detroit’s John Conyers.

    Republicans would probably like to impeach Obama for any number of reactionary reasons. But, whatever their motives, Congressman Jones’ resolution is solidly grounded in both international law and the U.S. Constitution. The wording is impeccable, and should have emanated from the Congressional Progressive and Black Caucuses, rather than the Republican Right.

    The resolution defines “the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress” as constituting “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor,” a violation of Congress’s exclusive power to declare war.”

    Jones says his action is a direct response to an exchange between Obama’s Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, and the far-right Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions. Regarding the use of military force against Syria, the Secretary said the “goal would be to seek “international permission” and then inform Congress – but not necessarily to ask permission from the other branch of government. In other words, congressional approval of U.S. wars is optional – not mandatory – for this president.

    Now, let's be clear. Most Republicans – and far too many Democrats – would likely go along with a presidential request for war against almost anybody in Africa and Asia, if they were properly asked.

    The goal of the Obama Doctrine is to smash both international law and U.S. Constitutional law.”

    What some Republicans are really upset about is the idea of Obama going to war as a result of consultations with foreigners, based on United Nations resolutions and agreements with NATO countries. That’s the formula Obama employed in attacking Libya, which presented absolutely no threat to the United States, and is still attempting to use against Syria, despite being stymied by Russia and China at the UN Security Council.

    One of the great ironies, here, is that despite the reactionary Republicans’ rejection of anything that binds the U.S. to international standards of conduct, the Jones resolution is very much in line with international law, which forbids waging war except in cases of direct attack, and only as a last resort. The goal of the Obama Doctrine is to smash both international law and U.S. Constitutional law. It would allow the U.S. to act as a rogue nation as long as it did so in concert with some combination of other aggressor nations – like the junior imperialists of NATO and the oil kings of the Gulf. Obama would make a great exception to the rules of war, by cloaking raw military aggression as “humanitarian intervention” – as in Libya – and then telling Congress that it was none of their business. That’s why we at Black Agenda Report keep asking the question: Who is the Greater of Evils?

    For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Glen Ford. On the web, go to

    BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at

    Your browser doesn't support flash. Click the mic instead to download.

    Share this

    He has disgraced us, theres no excuse.

    As the killer in Afghanistan disgraced his unit and the US military, Obama has disgraced Black people everywhere.We elected him, he came from us,without us, there would be no Obama. There is a lack of accountability in the black community, this is only one of the areas where this phenomenon is manifest. We've been hoodwinked,and our community is isutter ruin.

    Dennis Kucinich called

    Dennis Kucinich called Obama's attack on Libya an impeachable offense nearly a year ago. I guess the Democratic Party establishment got him for that.




    "The only Democrat among the ten besides Kucinch was Detroit’s John Conyers."

    Thanks for the info.  I'll take back all those bad thoughts I had about Conyers.  I also read somewhere that Jesse Jackson, Jr. (surprisingly) had asked for an investigation into the murder of Black Libyans.

    Obama, a Fascist in Progressive Clothing? Or A Psychotic?

    The nation is falling apart because Obama, for whom, unfortunately, I voted, either ignores plausible solutions and plays dumb until it is brought to MSM attention and then his answer, after many people Bill Clinton, Paul Krugman and me among others, wrote or called during the phony “Debt Crisis” asking why he did not impose, as did Truman Article 14, Amendment 4, and simply move on. His answer recalled that falsely attributed to Marie Antoinette; “Because I chose NOT to!”

    For that lie and arrogance alone not withstanding murder, of the leader of a sovereign nation, the assassination of a civilian and many more by slaughter, his ignoring of easy fixes to the economy, such as imposing a heavy excise tax on those corporations which are trying to make a Third World Nation of America.

    Moreover, there is more than $7.77 Trillion dollars in savings by Americans deposited in banks at a Bernanke special, near zero interest earned on savings, when by raising it to the pre-war 5% interest would place into the market $385 Billion , of discretionary income, of which, marketers say within three months would be placed into the markets for new cars, second homes, renovating HVAC to energy free Geothermal and other home improvements or small business expansion. Agreeing with me are: Paul O’Neil, Bill Ckinton, Paul Krugman and Charles Schwab among many, many many others.

    Further during the Jimmy Carter era, when Big Oil tried to raise per barrel prices from $7.00 a barrel to $25 a barrel, Carter hit them with a windfall profit tax and capped oil at $8-$10 a barrel.

    He is a hooded Tea Party member in essence whose first lie was parading as a Progressive. At that thought, FDR is spinning in his grave.

    My psychoanalysis is that something horrific happened to him when he was young and now he hates everyone. A friend who also voted for him, now believes he is one of those Club of Rome, Bilderberg, Tri-Latteralist, depopulation crazies, who wants to reduce the world population by 80% 90% beginning right here in the once good old USA. While he is at that., Russia and China are poised in readiness to defend Iran and Syria.

    I dont agree with this

     I dont agree with this. It is just the interpretation. What he will gain by doing this?