CS Monitor: If Obama Can Bomb Libya, A President Palin Can Bomb Iran Without Congress's OK

President Obama's bombing of Libya without congressional authorization or debate puts us on a dangerous path. A minimum standard for transparency in government is that the House and the Senate go on the record for or against a new war.

The US is now at war in a third Muslim country, according to the "official tally" (that is, counting Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, but not Pakistan or Yemen, for example.) But Congress has never authorized or debated the US military intervention in Libya.

Some will no doubt claim that the president is acting in Libya within his authority as commander in chief. But this is an extremely dangerous claim.

Can the US military help Libyan rebels oust Muammar Qaddafi? Four options.

To put it crudely: As a matter of logic, if President Obama can bomb Libya without congressional authorization, then a future President Palin could bomb Iran without congressional authorization. If, God forbid, we ever get to that fork in the road, you can bet your bottom dollar that the advocates of bombing Iran will invoke congressional silence now as justification for their claims of unilateral presidential authority to bomb anywhere, anytime. […]

Obama's own words: president doesn't have that power

A memo distributed to Republican aides in the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committee made the case that congressional authorization is necessary and used Obama's own words to make the case.

On Dec. 20, 2007, then-Senator Obama was asked a question: "In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?"

His response: "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." […]

UN resolution on Libya: Does it let allies target Qaddafi?

With Benghazi apparently no longer under Libyan government threat, and with Western bombs falling in Tripoli, this dispute over the scope of Western military intervention is virtually certain to intensify. You can debate the constitutional issue of war powers until the cows come home; but as a practical matter, if Congress doesn't formally address the issue, such debate isn't very relevant.

If a majority of the House and the Senate support the present US military intervention in Libya, let them say so on the record, at least, by voting for a resolution to authorize military force. If the majority of the House or Senate are opposed, let them say so on the record. A minimum standard for transparency in government is that the House and the Senate go on the record for or against a new war.

Robert Naiman is policy director at Just Foreign Policy and president of Truthout’s board of directors.

An original version of this piece first appeared at truth-out.org.

Source:

Christian Science Monitor: If Obama can bomb Libya, a President Palin can bomb Iran without Congress's OK By Robert Naiman

The Christian Science Monitor: Sarah Palin & Glenn Beck In AK: Testing The 2012 Waters?

Kingmaker, powerbroker, digital celebrity – by whatever name, and there have been many – Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin herald the dawn of a rising phenomenon. Their ability to use virtually every form of new and old media, from television to Twitter, Facebook, and blogs, to reach large audiences in the service of personal yet political messages is something new on the political landscape, say many political strategists and historians.[...]

Such powerful “candidates without portfolio” are truly a creation of today’s hyper-media-saturated communication landscape, says branding expert Mark Stevens. “We’ve never had people as powerful as Beck and Palin who aren’t politicians with complete access to the entire country every day,” he says. “Who can we equate them to? Nobody,” he says. “It’s a unique phenomenon.”

While Palin ranked first in a July Gallup poll of top Republican presidential candidates, at 76 percent, her – and Beck’s – real motivations are less clear, says political scientist Stephen Medvic, author of the 2009 book “Campaigns/Elections: Players and Processes.” Running for president is much dirtier and less financially rewarding than what either of them is doing now, he notes. [...]

Both Palin and Beck are in a wait-and-see mode, says Jerry Kremer, a 23-year veteran of the New York State Assembly and founder of Empire Government Strategies, a political consulting firm. “Beck is a work in progress, testing whether or not he has the power to influence the national debate,” he says. Palin “takes the oxygen out of every other candidate by her charisma,” he says. “She can take a walk around the block and get media coverage.”

The midterm elections will reveal what kind of base Palin would have to tap in a future presidential run, Mr. Kremer says, suggesting that her endorsements are like money in the bank. “Politicians are all about who owes who what,” he says, “and if the people she endorses win big, then she will have a wide net of people to tap when it comes to the necessary organizations to run a national campaign,” he says. "Right now, though," he says, "I don’t see her building the kind of foot soldiers that would involve.”

However, social media is a potent indicator, says Sherrie Madia, author of the upcoming book “Social Media Survival Guide for Political Campaigns.” [...]

“... it certainly bodes well for any potential candidate to have established bandwith long before any official announcement is made,” she adds.

Source:

The Christian Science Monitor: Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck in Alaska: testing the 2012 waters? By Gloria Goodale 

Texas4Palin: CSM Testing the 2012 waters in Alaska