You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Maddow laying groundwork for war again. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-13-13 03:39 AM
Original message
Maddow laying groundwork for war again.
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Fri Sep-13-13 04:22 AM by No Elephants
A while back, before the bomb Syria applecart was upset, Maddow made a case for why other nations should join us in bombing innocent Syrians for allegedly humanitarian reasons, one of the most heinous oxymorons I have ever had the misfortune to hear. (Makes "Great Depression" seem downright cheerful in comparison.)

Well, obviously, if Obama has been, in theory, chewing over intevention (beyond providing weapons, CIA, etc.) for at least seven months, there was no imminent need for the US to start bombing Syria to protect the US, was there? Of course not. Because if there had been an imminent need, surely Obama would have begun bombing, right?

Last night, Maddow began laying the groundwork for why no one, let alone the US, should trust Russia to safeguard WMD or potential WMD, like nuclear weapons or materials necessary for making nuclear weapons, or, say, chemical weapons, like those Syria possesses. (MSM now saying Syria is "the" super power of chemical weapons. Obvious much?)

In her painstaking way of building a case, Maddow spoke to how, when the USSR broke up--to the total shock of the US, she claims--many of the nations that were once part of the USSR had nuclear weapons and/or materials for making nuclear weapons, that were totally unsecured. Until the heroic US, at the urging of Democratic cold warriors like Nunn, stepped in and helped secure them.--And, by then, the real and present danger that materials necessary to make nuclear weapons might have gotten into the hands of terrorists.

(Rachel said nothing about our own security as to WMD, nuclear, chemical and biological, which has, on past occasions, been shown to be less than perfect. However, like Republicans, New Democrats seem to be far better at casting stones at others than they are at seeing their own flaws.)

Boys and girls, can you guess the connection between that and Putin's brokering a deal for Syria to give up its form of WMD?

Heck, if we can't trust either Syria or Russia with WMD, even if one or both has no intention to create global danger, why, this whole attempt at preventing a conflagration in the Middle East is just never going to work, is it? To the contrary, it's going to present in imminent danger to the national security of everyone on the planet, including the US, isn't it?

And you know what happens when the CIC perceives an imminent danger to US national security? Yep, you guessed it. The War Powers Resolution gets triggered, the WPR being a law by which Congress purported to empower the President to take defensive war actions without first seeking the approval of Congress, as Articles I and II of the Constitution seems to require. (Article I by express statement that Congress has the power to declare war; and Article II by omitting any mention of power in the President/CIC to initiate an act of war--and despite the attempts of the Obama administration to re-define "war" in a nuclear age to mean only "boots on the ground," bombing another nation, or the territory of another nation, or the ships of another nation, is indeed an act of war. Just ask Japan and Germany.)

The powers of the CIC under the WPR had not been triggered before, because of perceived absence of an imminent threat to national security, as stated above. But, also as stated above, Rachel painstakingly proved that things get very, very dangerous for everyone on the planet once Russia gets involved with WMD, especially for nations that are primary targets of terrorists as we are. Badda boom, badda bing. Unilateral power in the executive to act under the WPR.

Is the WPR itself constitutional? Never been tested in court, but we know what the former lecturer on voting rights and campaign finance law at UChi would say.
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC