In election years, candidates inevitably promise voters they will do more than their opponents. In practice that usually means increased debt-spending and expanding unconstitutional encroachments on liberty. Now one Republican presidential candidate has doubled-down on the most blatantly illegal action of this presidency, saying Barack Obama has not gone far enough in waging war-by-decree in Libya — and those who want to follow the Constitution are bead-wearing hippies bent on dragging America down in disgrace.
On Tuesday, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty gave what he dubbed a “major” foreign policy speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. In it, Pawlenty pouted, “parts of the Republican Party now seem to be trying to out-bid the Democrats in appealing to isolationist sentiments.”
“America already has one political party devoted to decline, retrenchment, and withdrawal,” he said. “It does not need a second one.”
He fleshed out what he meant in the speech — calling on Obama to “commit America’s strength to removing Ghadafi” and recognize the rebels as Libya’s legitimate government. During a question-and-answer session afterward, TPaw agreed with President Obama that the War Powers Resolution “does not apply” to the war in Libya.
In March, Pawlenty told students at Vanderbilt University that getting Congressional authorization for a war, as required by the Constitution and the resolution, is “a very complex matter and it’s not something that lends itself to an easy answer.” He added, “we need to make sure we don’t tie the executive or the commander in chief’s hands so tightly that he or she can’t respond in an emergency quickly or in a situation that deserves and needs a quick response.” Pawlenty told the CFR on Tuesday he would consult with Congress “as a courtesy and gesture of respect.”
His speech and his attack on his fellow Republicans raises (at least) 15 questions this author would like to ask Gov. Pawlenty:
- You have stated the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the war in Libya. However, the administration’s best lawyers disagreed with your assessment. Attorney General Eric Holder reportedly sided with them. The highest legal scholar in the administration to hold to your view is Harold Koh, who advocates “transnationalist jurisprudence,” who once branded the United States a member of the “axis of disobedience,” and who often co-authors articles with members of the Center for Constitutional Rights — a pro-terrorist legal house founded by Marxists. How can a self-identified “conservative” find himself to the Left of Eric Holder? If elected, will you rely on the advice of Koh or others of his ideology?
- The Founding Fathers clearly placed the war-making power in the hands of Congress alone — in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution as well as their deliberations before its passage and their practice following its adoption. Since the Constitution has not been amended, what legal precedent do you believe suspended and nullified the Founders’ intentions?
- Since you do not believe Congressional authorization is necessary to initiate hostilities, at what point, if any, would you consider Congressional authorization necessary to continue military interventions abroad in which American personnel or weapons were killing or attempting to kill foreign nationals (referred to as “hostilities” in the War Powers Resolution)?
- The president has argued, since American soldiers are not likely to be harmed, the war in Libya does not reach the definition of “hostilities.” You seem to agree with this thinking. At what level of severity, if any, would these “hostilities” require Congressional authorization? Could the president drop a bomb on a foreign head of state? If no U.S. soldiers would be threatened, could the president drop a nuclear bomb on a foreign country?
- You stated Congress should not tie the president’s hands under certain conditions. In your view, was Obama’s intervention in Libya an “emergency” that deserved a “quick response”? Since the rationale of an impending genocide has been disproved, what evidence leads you to this conclusion?
- You told the CFR, “Our enemies in the War on Terror, just like our opponents in the Cold War, respect and respond to strength. Sometimes strength means military intervention.” When, specifically?
- You stated the Saudi Arabian royals must “open their society.” What leads you to believe the people of Saudi Arabia are less radical than the royal family, or that granting the popular will in the peninsula will result in less violence and more stability?
- Your speech stated if America brings down Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, “the mullahs of Iran will find themselves isolated and vulnerable.” How isolated is Iran in light of its alliances with Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, and even the regimes we secured or instituted in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq?
- Although the leadership in Syria and Iran is far from sympathetic, who will replace them?
- In recent uprisings in Iraq and Egypt — nations with historic Christian minorities — fundamentalist Muslims have intensified the persecution of the Middle East’s Christians. What intelligence convinced you this would be unlikely to occur after the overthrow of Syria or Iran? If there is no such information, is the liquidation of the region’s Christian population a price you are willing to pay? What greater good would their mass martyrdom serve?
- In front of the CFR, you told the president “to stop leading from behind and commit America’s strength to removing Ghadafi, recognizing the TNC [Transitional National Council] as the government of Libya, and unfreezing assets so the TNC can afford security and essential services as it marches toward Tripoli.” The TNC has undeniable links to al-Qaeda, and Ali Aujali told the American Enterprise Institute the Muslim Brotherhood should be able to shape Libya’s future. In what way is this an improvement over Qaddafi?
- Muammar Qaddafi was in a position of strength because of a deal he hammered out with George W. Bush in 2006, giving up support for terrorism and WMD ambitions. In return, Condoleeza Rice cited Qaddafi as “an important model” for rogue states everywhere and reopened Tripoli to the international community. When did you decide the Bush/Rice agreement was a bad idea? Do you believe it is a good idea for the United States to renege on its foreign policy commitments? What other Republican precedents would a President Pawlenty undo?
- If the overthrow of Qaddafi requires increased risk of casualties, would you press forward with it?
- The Wall Street Journal reported this week that your remarks at the CFR “suggested [you] supported the use of ground troops” as “necessary to topple Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.” Do you? If so, would you commit these U.S. troops to foreign (NATO) command?
- If Congress refuses to authorize placing combat troops in Libya, would you press forward anyway? If so, please return to question 2.
Thank you, Governor Pawlenty. We wait in anticipation for your answers.
Note: Nothing in this article should be construed as an endorsement, positive or negative, of the Pawlenty candidacy.
Loading ...
Obama Lies About Stealth Amnesty, TSA Cancer; Media Bash Bachmann
Before the invention of movable type, newspapers created a tablet for each page they wished to print and broke it at the end of the day. If the media wanted to conserve resources, they could simply fuse the words “The Obama administration lied” to the opening line of each day’s edition and fill in the blank appropriately. This week alone, the press exposed Obama administration lies — in some cases under oath — about its stealth amnesty program for illegal immigrants and about whether airport x-ray scanners were tested for safety. Yet instead of focusing on the cascading batch of left-wing lies and misdirection, the media have trained their targets on Michele Bachmann’s off-the-cuff comments about her hometown and Bristol Palin’s first sexual encounter.
The administration’s lies would come as no surprise to readers of this website. This author exposed both stories nearly a year ago.
Amnesty By Fiat
Susan Carroll of The Houston Chronicle opened her lead story on Monday with the words, “Homeland Security officials misled the public and Congress last year in an effort to downplay a wave of immigration case dismissals in Houston and other cities amid accusations that they had created a ‘back-door amnesty,’ newly released records show.” The Chronicle reported that ICE Director John Morton released a memo last June instructing local immigration officials to dismiss pending cases against “thousands” of illegal immigrants who were set to be deported. Morton insisted ICE agents deport only the worst offenders, leaving all others in the country.
The Chronicle received a series of ICE documents in response to its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. (You can read them here.) Carroll wrote, “It was unclear from the documents, some of which were heavily redacted, exactly how the Houston office handled cases involving illegal immigrants with criminal records.”
Nonetheless, the number of case dismissals increased 40 percent during the last fiscal year.
Gary L. Goldman, ICE’s chief lawyer in Houston, eagerly implemented the memo, releasing hundreds of illegals. He rescinded the order only August 25, after Morton’s actions came to light.
Chris Crane, the president of the border agent union the National ICE Council, told reporters bluntly, “The desires of foreign nationals illegally in the United States” — and not the well-being of his officers — “were the framework from which these policies were developed.”
When confronted, the Obama administration lied.
Broken Oaths
When reporters asked ICE officials, they insisted the amnesty only affected illegals with pending green card applications — a policy written in a different memo on August 20. Homeland Security officials told the Senate Judiciary Committee the same lie.
There is no word on whether Congress intends to do anything about the administration lying to it, presumably under oath.
Others are more outraged. Tre Rebstock, the Houston representative of ICE’s union, said by lying Obama officials chose to “throw all of their credibility out of the window.”
Canning Stories on Cancer, Big Sis-Style
Meanwhile, another batch of declassified e-mails show the administration lied about the safety of airport scanners the TSA uses to
harassensure the safety of innocent Americans.When outrage peaked last November, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano wrote an op-ed in USA Today entitled, “Scanners Are Safe, Pat-Downs Discreet.” Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) machines, she insisted, “have been independently evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, who have all affirmed their safety.”
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has received administration e-mails from an FOIA request proving Napolitano’s statement false.
Officials at the NIST wrote an e-mail expressing “concern” at the Obama administration’s “mischaracterization” of their work. The document states members of NIST were “a little concerned about the USA Today op-ed” and offered a few clarifications (which I quote):
NIST warned TSA workers not to stand next to the machines to minimize exposure to radiation. New clusters of TSA workers who have developed cancer at Boston’s Logan Airport say the administration failed to issue them dosimeters, which would have allowed them to measure their exposure to unsafe radiation.
Moreover, the Johns Hopkins University study found the machines could exceed “General Public Dose Limit.”
This author exposed significant scientific doubts about the machine’s safety at the time.
Dr. Marc Shuman of the University of California-San Francisco led three other scientists in critiquing the safety of the machines last April. When the government replied, Dr. Shuman found the government’s analysis “seriously flawed.”
Arizona State University physics professor Peter Rez found the government had understated the amount of radiation by a factor of five to ten. He estimated the likelihood of getting cancer from a single exposure to an x-ray machine is one in 30 million — the same odds as dying in a terrorist attack. According to his figures, at least one to two American citizens each year will get cancer courtesy of the U.S. government. Dr. Michael Love of Johns Hopkins University agreed, “statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays.”
An Administration of Fabrication
Lies are the lingua franca of politics, but Obama exceeds all previous records by several orders of magnitude. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez testified under oath that the Justice Department’s dismissal of voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party was merely “a case of career people disagreeing with career people,” when several political appointees including Democratic Party lawyer Sam Hirsch lobbied career officials. To date, no one has been held accountable for this apparent perjury.
In the week two fresh Obama lies — one of them before Congress — hit the presses, where is the media outrage? Instead, the Fourth Estate — including Fox News — has focused on Michele Bachmann’s remarks about the town of Waterloo, Iowa. In an off-the-cuff moment, she said John Wayne had been born in her hometown; he was not, but his parents had strong ties to the area, and the media went ballistic. Supposedly “conservative” outlets such as Fox News have had their employees (the ones who survive the RINO purge) imply Bachmann is a “flake” and write an “analysis” claiming it is virtually impossible for Bachmann — who is currently polling a strong second in Iowa — to win the Republican presidential nomination.
If the salt hath lost its savor, what good is it? If conservative media watchdogs refuse to hold a lawless administration accountable, who will?
This author, this website, and a few courageous others will be in the fight to the bitter end.