The case for impeachment (3) 10

Is Obama’s realignment of US foreign policy so astonishing that it leaves Congress too stunned to act?

Has there ever before been such a clear case of high crimes and misdemeanors as now with the action of this president – selling out the country’s interests to its worst enemy?

Why have impeachment proceedings not begun?

Shawn Mitchell writes today, March 30, 2015, at Townhall:

Ponder the dire significance of the extraordinary story from MSNBC(!) last Friday, reporting on US “incoherence” in the Middle East, the exploding chaos there, and the shocking news Arab states like Egypt, the Saudis, and UAE are withholding intelligence and launching attacks without consulting the US. Why? Because they don’t trust Obama not to leak information to Iran. In seeking closer ties with Iran, Obama is threatening every other strategic US relationship in the region and candidly committing alliance-cide against America’s closest ally there, Israel.

The president, as chief executive and commander in chief may be the captain of foreign policy, but the Senate, representing the American public, has a Constitutional role, which Obama is deliberately evading.

What is happening is historically unprecedented. … Obama is pursuing a one-man foreign policy of realigning the US in the Middle East, ending our friendship with Israel, forging ties with Iran, and facilitating, or at least benignly accepting, the expansion of Iran’s interests, influence, and agents throughout the region.

Facilitating. Not “benignly accepting”.

This profound agenda is not one he ran on. It is not disclosed to, or understood by, the American people. It is not vetted or discussed in high circles of military and security leadership. It is contrary to long and widely held understandings of US security interests. It is a covert one man revolution.

In playing his chess pieces, Obama unsuccessfully pressed Egypt to submit to the Muslim Brotherhood; stiff-armed President al-Sisi who wants to move Egypt closer to America, keep peace with Israel, and move Islam closer to modernity; launched unprovoked missiles against Libya’s Qaddafi, lighting that nation on fire, delivering it to chaos and Iran-backed rebels; played patsy with Iran’s client Assad while Assad scorned Obama’s red lines and gassed civilians; and manufactured an escalating series of confrontations and crises with Israel, most recently exposing top secret details of its previously unacknowledged nuclear program. After Yemen fell to Iran backed rebels, the White House continues to insist its approach there is a “model of effective counterterrorism”.

… It’s becoming apparent the trade of five Taliban field leaders for one US deserter was not a “bad deal” but a head fake. Bergdahl was just cover for Obama to hand back five Jihadi leaders and move closer to his goal of closing Gitmo.

Did he swap the Taliban leaders for Bergdahl because he wants to close Gitmo, or is his spoken intention to close Gitmo an excuse for silently strengthening the Taliban? That one can even ask the question, that the suggestion is not implausible, shows how extraordinary are the circumstances in which it arises.

Recent reports of the surreal “negotiations” with Iran would make for farce if they weren’t terrifyingly real. Alone among the P5 + 1 world powers, the US is desperate to sweeten the pot to offer Iran whatever it takes. Obama originally set a redline of 500 high-speed centrifuges; we now shrug at 6,000. We’re good with Iran continuing operations at its reinforced, underground lab. It doesn’t have to reveal its ongoing research with military dimensions until after the world lifts sanctions … wink. Surprise inspections will be rare to never. Last week, the Associated Press astonishingly reported a final agreement may not even be in writing. Spokesman Josh Earnest failed to deny that unfathomable idea after three direct queries.

We recently witnessed the spectacle of France trying to put the brakes on this runaway concession train, complaining it’s a weak, bad, unenforceable deal and the US is still conceding. That’s something … the French accusing Americans of being burger eating surrender monkeys.

The president’s defenders might call his upheaval a matter of high stakes, high risk strategy to improve US standing in the Middle East by aligning it with the region’s strongest power. Other commentators might call it wrongheaded, reckless, and dangerous. And others, seeing what’s right in front of their face, might call it hostile to America’s interests and security, treacherous to America’s allies, and of great aid and comfort to America’s enemies.

Under a different Iranian regime, maybe a secular one, or a reformist product of the Green Revolution that Obama strangely spurned, it might make sense to support Iran as a stabilizing force. It’s the Mullacracy with its radical, bloody vision that makes Obama’s policy deranged. His defenders and critics alike speculate Obama is betting the regime can be enticed to make nice and join the community of nations during the limited lifespan of the agreement. But that surmise is incoherent. If Obama wanted a reformed Iran, he would have spoken up for millions of brave protesters who confronted the Mullahs and pled for his support. He stood mute as they were brutally crushed.

It’s an unresolved question if, or where, there is a redline that a president’s policies abroad become Constitutionally actionable. He leads in foreign policy. But, he also took an oath to protect American peace and security. If, for an extreme hypothetical, videotape emerged showing a president handing over US nuclear codes to Vladimir Putin, presumably, he would be dealt with as a treasonous traitor, his foreign policy authority notwithstanding. 

Obama’s actions in the Middle East raise troubling questions about how fundamentally a president can contradict deeply rooted US understandings, policies, and alliances before he enters a danger zone. Cutting off the Senate’s voice adds to the gravity. To conclude any position a president holds, no matter how radical, must be the position of the US, is akin to embracing Louis XIV’s declaration: “”L’État, c’est moi” or Richard Nixon’s more recent formulation: “When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.”

Twenty months remain in this presidency. About a day is left till Obama’s contrived deadline to reach a deal with Iran. It may be one of the only lines he means to respect. Few imagined after the 2012 election how fast events would unfold in the Middle East and how fast Obama’s hand would emerge into view. It is going to be a dangerous and scary ride.

Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s unofficial co-president, was born in Iran. Does she have a sentimental  attachment to it? With this administration that could be enough “reason” – silly as it is – for Obama to put its interests and ambitions above the interests of the United States.

Can anyone think of any other possible reason?

Ah, yes. If Iran is allowed to become nuclear armed, there is a high likelihood that it will destroy Israel. That’s a consummation the Muslim world devoutly wishes. And where the Muslim world leads, can Obama be far behind?

  • liz

    “Has there ever been such a clear case..? Not in my lifetime.
    This is the most clear cut case of treason by a president I’ve ever witnessed. And not just his dealings with Iran, but all the rest of the policies and actions that you’ve detailed here in previous posts. The list is very long!
    Impeachment doesn’t seem to be an adequate reaction. A letter formally demanding his resignation, followed by his arrest if he doesn’t comply, seems to be what’s needed in his case.

  • Azgael

    you people still think elections will fix everything, America gave the GOP a house and senate majority AND THEY STILL SURRENDERED to Obama, elections will DO NOTHING, the whole dam system is a sham, the time to realize this is not when they are about to gas or shoot you ffs, ITS NOW, if americans who believe in freedom wont exercise their 2nd amendment rights and forcibly remove the self-serving traitors in DC, they might as well point the guns at their own heads and pull the trigger and save the government the trouble of doing it. Guess you can’t expect much from the land of the slaves, home of the cowards, those who fought for independence are rolling in their graves ashamed.

    • Don L

      Calculated vs terminal risk. I’ve previously enjoyed/respected your posts. I’m offended by being “you people” as if you are now showing some signifuicant leadership skills.

      Had you started with something luike..I have amassed many like minded people and we ar marching on ____ this evening/morning/afternonn to demonstrate and act if necessry….come join us…the time is now.

      But no…grab a gun and shoot at crap and yeah we can win. An ignorance which you seem to be spewing…

      Shame on you Azgael. I would risk my life, property and honor in a considered effort. But you propose nothing and curse us for not committing fruitless suicide…tsk, tsk.

      And, had you been following, at least, my posts, I suggest a more sensible non-violent effort given us by the Founders…Artcle V state amending conventions to circumvent DC all together. This is more doable than an armed insurection…for now anyway.

      • Bruce

        I’d tend to agree. Circumvent the bastards, or at least try to. If that fails, it may well be time to repeat history.

      • Azgael

        and state governments are any better than the fed? LOL they as corrupt and a sham has the fed, article V won’t solve anything, why would the fed follow the new laws when they don’t follow current laws.
        What I mean about “you people” are those who still think elections will solve anything.

        • Don L

          Contrarily, state governments are different. They are accessible. And, even better, they can be reached through local government which is even more localized and personal. The point is that these politicians are among us…not yet party beholding. They can be persuaded. In fact I have participated in persuading state elected officials on a few occassions: Tax issues, helped establish a foreign free trade zone in Phoenix, AZ, and a coup[le others…it can be done.

          Now, I do not believe in elections as a cure. Too long a time period. And, I appreciate your frustration…not necessaruily your abandoning planning. We are not alone. I was surprised and pleased to have come across Mark Levin’s book “The Liberty Amendments” wherein he lays out a rational plan to wrestle the DC clowns down.

          I have read a coup[le books on the Constitution but never caught the provision in the Doc where our Founders foresaw the FED out of control. Mark elebrates and explains it quite well. I do find problems with Levin’s plan, however. Firrst his religion, of course, drives me up the wall and inorporates, not untypically, in the absurdity of no freedom from religion. And, he is still fixed on his compulsory schooling knowledge of economics so all his economic amadment ideas are inherently flawed as they maintain government control of the currency…the prime cause of the corruption in the first place.

          I have some health issues that annoyingly but effectively limit my productivity…not even life threatening…justt quality of life irritating. I have been working on a site to promote De-Careering DC (Graphic attached). Then, just a week or so ago, I find there are now a number of sites and organizations working on thwe Article V solution. I intend to get involved one way or another. Here’s one: I recommend you do the same.

          If, the Article V movement catches on and if the 2/3rd states amend and tyhe FED Gov’t then fails to respond…Now there is a base from which armed rebellion makes sense and would be an application of Jefferson’s idea that whenever a gov’t fails to…REPLACE IT!!! Azgael, we aren’t there yet.

          Our Founders worked hard and long and dotted the ‘I’s and crossed the ‘T’s and created a Declaration of Independence. Uncoordinated insurgency is doomed. I don’t think you’d find many following if the plan is no plan and just running off into the night screaming death to the politicians. Whadda you think? No answer actually required.

          • Don L

            Forgot to paste image of proposed site

        • liz

          I agree on both sides of this – I tend to be pessimistic that elections will solve anything, but then “hope springs eternal”….
          Elections, amendments, armed insurrection – depending on the timing of any movement towards change, I don’t doubt that a solution will eventually involve all of the above.


    We Conservatives can show good, and even some very good reasons why this maniac must be impeached! But the Republicans,(The majority in Congress now) have given Obama “Carte Blanche” by removing this important stop-gap from the proverbial table!

    They have effectively “muzzled” the ‘Watchdog Of Liberty’….These people who’ve given a loaded pistol to this “Juvenile Deliquent” in The Oval Office must suffer along with the country…

    Impeach those who’ve given away their power, and our country!!!

  • Don L

    Superb series…thank you. I fear that re-election, career, usrps doing what is right and patriotic. Repub or Dem…only party, party funds, cronyism and the resulting campaign contributions and continuation in office are all that matters…no matter the cost.

    I agree with you about Palin…and other Tea Party/conservatives seeking limited government. But, it is their outrageous religious belifs that immediately causes independents and right-side lefties to turn off her message. I fervently believe, most claiming left are there because they absolutely hate the relgious idiots!!! How any of these zealots can even raise their heads after the Terri Schiavo incident is beyond me — wathcing a Senator talk about how he knew she was alive from the Sentae floor and how he had to act on god’s behalf…two days later discovering there wasn’t even a brain in the skull anymore.

    The balance of the Repubs, the establishment…well, they are irrational, myopic self-serving trash humans…professional at duping a dumbed-down population…that they created with those “more money for education” dollars…printed by their friend the FED.

    OK, OK…enough. Great series…from your site to Boehners gavel…yeah, right! LOL.