let me start by telling you that i am a strong supporter of dennis kucinich. i am working on his campaign here in hawaii, i will vote for him in the primary and when (unfortunately, not if) he loses to one of the top three democratic contenders, i will neither work on, nor vote for, whoever the party chooses as it’s candidate….
admittedly, i probably don’t know much about senator obama as maybe i should. the thing is, what i do know doesn’t thrill me. in a hopeful attempt to make progressive obama supporters reconsider, here are a couple of items i find disturbing:
several months back, while attempting to collect information about ALL the democratic presidential hopefuls, i sent a list of questions, via email, to each of the campaigns. while i’m still waiting (pretty much given up hope of a response) from most, i did finally receive a response from the obama camp. i, in turn, replied asking for a more direct, detailed response, particularly with regard to his stance on impeachment. his response, it seems to me, has become the standard tag line for democrats. basically, senator obama says an impeachment process now would be too divisive and lock up the government from working to improve the lives of average americans.
this position regarding impeachment makes me see red (figuratively, that is). senator obama won’t consider impeachment because he wants to avoid partisan politics and help people. at least the second excuse is admirable, if not misguided. the democratic presidential hopefuls wax poetic about restoring america’s place as the moral beacon of the world on the one hand, but on the other hand, won’t even consider impeachment hearings against a president at a time when roughly half the country thinks he’s broken the law. his claims of executive privilege and use of signing statements is nearly unprecedented and now he is directly and intentionally hindering not one, but several congressional investigations. could it be he actually has something to hide, some wrong doing maybe? well, according to obama, getting to the bottom of these issues would be playing partisan politics and that would be wrong.
personally, i think he’s a coward, but that’s purely my own opinion….
also, as obama works to position himself as something new, a centrist democrat who can truly attract support from every side of the party, he recently stated he would, as president, bomb pakistan, if necessary, without that country’s approval. of course, he’d do it all in the name of national security, so that makes it ok. oh and it’s worked out oh so very well for us in iraq…. did i miss something?
i am, of course, no legal scholar, but have read the United Nations Charter and i’m pretty sure that what obama suggests is similar to what bush did in iraq. Chapter One, Article 2 of the UN Charter reads as follows:
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article
1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.
i added the boldface. so, it would seem that the mere threat of the use of force against the government or it’s territory is a violation of the UN Charter and, as follows, a violation against the US Constitution. obama says he would only do such a thing if the evidence was strong and well supported by intelligence. whew, now i feel better…. oh wait, isn’t that what bush said he was doing when he sent troops to invade iraq…?
sorry, i’m ranting just a bit. the point, however, is this; on the one hand obama wants to go and meet with leaders around the world who are ‘hostile’ toward us, so as to improve our international relations. of course, on the other hand, if he doesn’t like what they have to say, we may just go and bomb them. someone explain to me how that policy differs from bush’s?
if obama is elected, i fear we will have yet one more president who will SPEAK honorably about the US role in the world, and then DO whatever is necessary to protect and further US power and influence with little or no regard for justice or the rule of law.