Black Agenda Report
Black Agenda Report
News, commentary and analysis from the black left.

  • Home
  • Africa
  • African America
  • Education
  • Environment
  • International
  • Media and Culture
  • Political Economy
  • Radio
  • US Politics
  • War and Empire

Obama Deserves Impeachment for War Policies, But Few Dare Say So – and Most of Them are Republicans
14 Mar 2012
🖨️ Print Article

 

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 BlackAgendaReport.com.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.



Your browser does not support the audio element.

listen
http://traffic.libsyn.com/blackagendareport/20120314_gf_ImpeachObama.mp3

More Stories


  • Rohan Rice
    Britain’s Imperialist Maneuvers in Iran
    08 Apr 2026
    Keir Starmer and Trump are putting on a puppet show for the cameras. Behind the scenes, Britain remains a junior imperialist partner working for the destruction of Iran.
  • Black Alliance For Peace
    BAP’s 9th Anniversary: Turn Imperialist Wars into Peoples’ Wars Against Imperialism
    08 Apr 2026
    The Black Alliance for Peace marks nine years of fighting against U.S. imperialist brutality. Now the movement must transform imperialist wars into people's wars for liberation.
  • Erica Caines
    Dialectics, Iran and the Long Durée of Anticolonial Revolution
    08 Apr 2026
    The war on Iran is part of a class war against any country that refuses to open itself up for foreign profit. Understanding Iran means seeing its fight as part of the same struggle that defines the…
  • Adam Mahoney
    An Oil Explosion in a Black Texas Town Traces Back to Trump’s Iran and Venezuela Crises
    08 Apr 2026
    “The chickens have come home to roost,” one resident said. “Our exact fears have come true.”
  • BAR Radio Logo
    Black Agenda Radio with Margaret Kimberley
    Black Agenda Radio April 3, 2026
    03 Apr 2026
    In this week’s segment, we discuss the impact on the voting rights of Black people if the SAVE Act is signed into law. But we begin with a discussion of an historic vote at the United Nations which…
  • Load More
Subscribe
connect with us
about us
contact us