PRESIDENT OBAMA TO URGE TO BANK BOYS TO LOAN CASH - face to face in the Oval Office / POTUS and the bank executives /// this is the leadership we need and that only the President can provide - similar to President Kennedy with the steel executives /(120909)
President Obama to urge banks to lend more - - POLITICO.com
www.politico.com
Obama will meet with bank CEOs next week./////
It Is Time To Leave Iraq and Afghanistan
Prior to the start of the conflict in Iraq, we called upon President Bush to continue with diplomacy and sanctions and urged Saddam Hussein to likewise comply with relevant United Nations resolutions.
In 2004, we set forth a detailed list of suggestions in a commentary entitled "AN AQUIDNECK INQUIRER SPECIAL FEATURE: UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY (FIRST IN A SERIES): THOUGHTS ON IRAQ TODAY (vol4/no25/pt1-nov. 10. 2004)".
That commentary has been recently republished and can be read in full now.
We have continually and consistently opposed the policies of President Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We have weighed the issues - the cost in terms of our most valuable resource: our citizens. And the cost in financial and diplomatic terms.
We have watched three previous Presidents make irreparable and exceedingly valuable mistakes in conflicts in Southeast Asia and now in the Middle East.
We are not ready to witness another President make the same mistake for a fourth tragic time.
Whatever the real intentions of Presidents Johnson, Nixon and George W. Bush may have been, the decisions that they made were wrong - for the United States and for the ultimate cause of peace.
johnson
nixon
gw bush
obama
Now it appears that a new President is poised to make the same mistake - again.
We sincerely hope that the President will avoid the tragic errors of his predecessors.
In this case, the facts of history stand as the best evidence for changing policy.
Accordingly, tonight we call for the immediate commencement of the withdrawal of all United States troops from these two sovereign nations and the implementation of a policy similar to that suggested in The Aquidneck Inquirer in our November 2004 commentary, coupled with a rededication of all funds being spent in those two lands to programs in the United States for (i) education of youth and older citizens in our inner-cities, (ii) a public works New Deal-style citizens' jobs program in rural, suburban and urban venues; (iii) a loan program for small business, (iv) increased and real security here, (v) Federal deficit reduction and (vi) other programs.
We oppose any further spending of U.S. taxpayer dollars on infrastructure or similar programs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To the extent that private companies wish to invest their capital in those nations, they shall in the future do so at their own risk, financial and otherwise.
We urge a legal and binding Declaration of War against alQuaeda to remove what we have considered to be, and have stated to be, the past, current and ongoing un-Constitutionality and international law illegality of the two conflicts.
Finally, we would use only volunteers, from among our already volunteer Armed Forces, for the special, covert and other operations designed to remove the clear and present danger to our national security and our very future posed by alQuaeda.
The precedent of history here is overwhelming. Let us act now.
(Dated as of November 30, 2009.)
AN EDITOR'S NOTE ::::: AS AT SEPTEMBER 11, 2009 /////
SIGNING THE CONSTITUTION AT PHILADELPHIA
WE ARE TODAY REPRINTING OUR NOVEMBER 10, 2004 SPECIAL FEATURE ON UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY AND IN PARTICULAR VIS A VIS IRAQ:::::We are printing it unedited as as it was published five years ago. /////////
Here is The Aquidneck Inquirer Special Feature from November 10, 2004:
AN AQUIDNECK INQUIRER SPECIAL FEATURE: UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY (FIRST IN A SERIES): THOUGHTS ON IRAQ TODAY
\We may never know why President Bush decided to invade Iraq.
\Perhaps the reason was to avenge the assassination attempt upon his Father by Saddam Hussein.
\Or, perhaps to finish the job that his Father decided against in the first Gulf War. \Or maybe just to do better than his Father and gain his Father’s approval.
\Perhaps President Bush wanted to help his Vice President’s company by breaking a country that would later require fixing.
\Maybe the President wanted to help his Father’s global company that could see profits through war –related investment.
\Perhaps it was a move to take the focus off of the “royal” family of Saudi Arabia.
\Maybe the President based his decision on a sentimental desire to gain some degree of control over Iraqi oil for his friends in his home state.
\Or, maybe the decision sprang from a mystical desire to see the cradle of civilization lying between the Tigris and Euphrates finally in the hands of what the President deems to be our Christian nation.
/We base our conclusion that the time has come to exit Iraq upon the President’s stated reasons for the invasion.
/And we base our conclusion on a number of things which we do know:
*1. American and Iraqis are dying and being wounded daily;
*2. the invasion was illegal;
*3. the invasion was embarked upon without an overall strategy;
*4. the cost to the United States has been gigantic and none of us voted for the expenditures;
*5. in 2000 George Bush stated that he would never go to war without an exit strategy and would not engage in nation building;
*6. Mr. Bush has broken both of those promises.
/We write here not to put forward a mandate or a manifesto, but merely to suggest an option for United States policy toward Iraq. We do not hold ourselves out to be experts but, having reviewed and studied the issues discussed here, we hope that our comments may serve as a starting point for the consideration of a positive change in our policy vis a vis Iraq.
\That said, let us review the details of the legality, objectives, the status of the objectives and some specific proposals.
\\\THE LEGALITY OF THE INVASION:
/////The Congressional Authorization:
/As we stated on the eve on the invasion in this publication, the resolution passed in October of 2002 by the Senate and House (the “Congressional Resolution”) was an illegal delegation of power by the Congress to the President with insufficient oversight and other flaws – so that the President could make the final decision as to whether to go to war.
/The subsequent invasion, decided solely by the Executive Branch, was illegal. Although the Congressional Resolution authorized the President to “…strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts…”, as noted below, the United Nations resolution of November 8, 2002 (the “UN Resolution”) did not authorize invasion.
/Subsequent Congressional authorizations of money for the invasion and occupation do not operate to ratify the initial illegal action by the Congress taken in the Congressional Resolution.
/The Congressional Resolution did not expressly authorize invasion or occupation and the reporting requirements placed upon the President were illusory.
/////The UN Resolution:
/As regards international law, the invasion was similarly illegal.
/The UN Resolution did not expressly authorize armed action or an invasion by any member nation as would be required by Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.
/The second to last paragraph of the UN Resolution states, in part, “…the [Security] Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations [regarding inspections]….” (Comments in brackets supplied.)
/No invasion or occupation was authorized by the UN Resolution.
/The UN Charter was also violated by virtue of the invasion of Iraq in that there was no armed attack by Iraq upon the United States or upon any other UN member which, pursuant to Article 51 of the UN Charter, would justify the exercise of self-defense.
/Article 51 of the UN Charter reads as follows:
“Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
/Thus, although the UN Charter clearly recognizes the right of self-defense, the point is that the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001 by Al Quaeda – not Iraq. Our invasion of Afghanistan was clearly justified under international law. The invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq were not.
/The Bush Administration never stated that an attack by Iraq upon the United States was a justification for the invasion in the context of classic national self-defense nor was there any basis upon which to do so.
\{We should note that the difficulty with the language of Article 51 of the UN Charter is that it does not adequately address the issue of imminent threats of armed or other attack by one nation or group – such as Al Quaeda - upon a nation. That difficulty raises the issue of the propriety of preemptive action when it is clear that a country or a group is about to take offensive action. No nation should be forced to have to wait until it is attacked before it can act in its own defense. However, for us today that issue is only a hypothetical one. The United States has already been the subject of several armed attacks expressly acknowledged to have been the work of Al Quaeda and thus the United States has a clear right under international law to take all necessary action to defend itself by proactive military action against Al Quaeda and its affiliates.}
\However, the invasion of Iraq was not such an operation, is extra-constitutional under our law and, to the extent relevant, is a continuing violation of international law.
\\\THE OBJECTIVES OF THE INVASION:
/There were several key rationales provided for the invasion by the Bush Administration at various times:
1. to find and remove existing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
2. to eliminate any real or potential threat that Saddam Hussein might pose to his neighbors and others
3. to establish an elected government in Iraq
/Since the invasion and during the occupation of Iraq, the President and his people have shifted and adjusted the objectives, but these three have been constant throughout this ordeal.
\\\THE OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN MET:
/Whatever his unstated reasons may have been for taking the Nation to war, the President’s stated reasons have been satisfied.
/There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
/Saddam Hussein and his regime are gone.
/The Iraqis have an established government and will go to the polls in early January 2005 to elect new leaders.
\There is no reason why the United States should maintain its current policy and presence in Iraq.
/It is now time, once the Iraqi people vote in January, for the Government of Iraq to fully take control, provide necessary and essential services to the Iraqi people, defend the sovereignty of Iraq from terrorists and to get the oil flowing so that Iraq can fully return to the community of nations.
/We made the error decades ago in another land war in Asia by presuming that we could prop up a government by pouring in more American lives and more American money.
/In Vietnam it took years and American and Vietnamese lives and untold resources to finally realize that, if a the people of a nation do not wish to help themselves and fight for their freedom, we will not succeed in doing it for them.
/We cannot afford to make that mistake again.
/In the final analysis, the destiny of Iraq must be determined by the people of Iraq.
\\\SUGGESTIONS FOR A NEW IRAQ POLICY:
/The threat of terrorism is the greatest external threat which the United Sates and the civilized world face. The threat is real.
/We are in a war that will, as President Kennedy said, likely be a long twilight struggle.
/It is a fight between good and evil.
/There appears to be no way to negotiate with Al Quaeda and its affiliated groups, and we certainly have no obligation to try to do so.
/The United States has the right and obligation to act in its best interests as it operates in the post-9/11 world.
/At he same time, the responsibility for the future of Iraq rests with the people of Iraq. /Here is what we would suggest for consideration.
\\\ONE: Current troop levels should be maintained until after the Iraq elections are properly completed in January 2005. However, as many non-essential personnel as possible should immediately begin to be sent home now, with non-essential Reservists and Guardsmen falling within that category going home first.
\\\TWO: The United States should recognize, and establish diplomatic relations with, the newly elected Government of Iraq after the elections there, notwithstanding what form or direction the Government takes.
\\\THREE: Remaining United States troops should begin to be withdrawn so that, by on or about April 15, 2005, and only if the Government of Iraq requests us to do so, all that remain in Iraq will be discreet specialized units to patrol the border between Iraq and Syria to prevent infiltration by terrorist elements of arms, personnel and material from and through Syria into Iraq.
\\\FOUR: All continuing expenses of our armed forces operating within Iraq will be paid for by the Government of Iraq.
\\\FIVE: United States troops taken out of Iraq will be sent home for alternate duty.
\\\SIX: Specialized discreet forces would be dispersed as necessary throughout the region, based upon intelligence, to search for and destroy Al Quaeda camps. In that connection, as this publication has suggested in an earlier edition, the propriety and possibility of an express declaration of war upon Al Quaeda should be considered. At the least, a new comprehensive and specific resolution should be passed by the Congress limiting Executive Branch action vis a vis Iraq.
\\\SEVEN: At least one Naval battle group will be, or continue to be, stationed in the eastern Mediterranean Sea and at least one will be, or continue to be, stationed in the Persian Gulf for use as necessary or appropriate. A battle group can be configured as needed, but consists essentially of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier with a cruiser, two destroyers, and a frigate, a Los Angles-class submarine and a supply ship. This type of presence, along with the discreet covert land forces, would give us a less vulnerable and safer presence and a less expensive presence. All United States military forces will always be under the command and control of United States officers.
\\\EIGHT: The United States embassy in Baghdad would be hardened and would be defended by rotating special forces groups.
\\\NINE: If requested by the Government of Iraq, the United States would train Iraqi civilians for military activities. The training would be outside of Iraq and all expenses would be paid for by the Government of Iraq.
\\\TEN: The United States would engage in over flights of the region for intelligence purposes.
\\\ELEVEN: All security for contractors working in Iraq would be provided by the Government of Iraq at the Government’s or the contractors’ expense, not at the expense of the United States.
\\\TWELVE: All future contracting of projects by United States companies would be done transparently, with notice, open and competitive bidding, publication of proposals for public review and other safeguards.
\\\THIRTEEN: The Government of Iraq would be solely responsible for obtaining and paying for its own armed forces, police and other security measures.
\\\FOURTEEN: The United States would reserve its right to self-defense and to act in what it considers to be its best interests.
\\\FIFTEEN: Armed conflict would be the last resort and there would be return to intelligent and creative diplomacy in order to marginalize and eliminate the terrorist threat.
/////So, those are our thoughts.
/////It is all a risk.
\\\\\But, George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney and Condolezza Rice and Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz got us into this situation.
\\\\\We do not have to continue to live with their mistakes.
\\\\\It is time to reconfigure in Iraq.
\\\\\It is time for action.
\\\\\We have a war to fight.
\\\\\Let us now begin to fight it correctly.
======
THE AQUIDNECK INQUIRER
EDITORIAL BOARD:
J.C. CARTER, PUBLISHER and EDITOR.
SCHUYLER VANBUREN, SOCIETY EDITOR AND CRITIC.
JULIAN CINCINNATUS COFFIN, MANAGING EDITOR.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CRITICS AND ADVISORS:
MONA KERR, OMNIPRESENT CRITIC.
MORDECAI COSGROVE III, SPECIAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT.
R.S. LAPER, TECHNICAL ADVISOR.
BENJAMIN R.R. CARTER, EDITORIAL ASSISTANT.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Aquidneck Inquirer welcomes written comments from readers and reserves the right to reprint all such comments in whole or in part; all submissions to The Aquidneck Inquirer become the property of The Aquidneck Inquirer. No portion of The Aquidneck Inquirer may be reprinted in whole or in part without the express prior written consent of The Aquidneck Inquirer.
"The Aquidneck Inquirer", "Aquid", "Aquidneck Quickies", "aquid.net", "Cosa Nostra Corner", "Aquidlinks", "Aquidobits", "Aquidneck.ws", "The Preston Political Primer", "The Calhoun Ivy Pre-Review", "PPP" and "The Virtual Smoke-Filled Room" are Trademarks of J.C. Carter. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
COPYRIGHT (C) MMIV BY J.C. CARTER. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.J.C. CARTER, PUBLISHER and EDITOR.
THE AQUIDNECK INQUIRER
The Aquidneck Inquirer is a publication of The New Commonwealth Company
EDITORIAL BOARD:
J.C. CARTER, PUBLISHER & EDITOR-IN-CHIEF.
At left: the publisher and editor-in-chief
EDITORS: SCHUYLER VANBUREN, SOCIETY EDITOR AND CRITIC.
JULIAN CINCINNATUS COFFIN, MANAGING EDITOR.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CRITICS AND ADVISORS:
MONA KERR, OMNIPRESENT CRITIC ///// MORDECAI COSGROVE III, SPECIAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT ///// BARTHOLOMEW WASHINGTON, AQUIDTIPS EDITOR /////ROGER O. THORNHILL - GOVERNMENT OVERSEER OF WASTE, CORRUPTION AND BAD STUFF ///// SVEN BIN-OMAR KEVIN CASTILLE - HOMELAND SECURITY EDITOR /////BIFF BENDER, FREELANCER/////R.S. LAPER, TECHNICAL ADVISOR ///// BENJAMIN R.R. CARTER, EDITORIAL ASSISTANT.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Aquidneck Inquirer welcomes written comments from readers and reserves the right to reprint all such comments in whole or in part; all submissions to The Aquidneck Inquirer become the property of The New Commonwealth Company. No portion of The Aquidneck Inquirer may be reprinted in whole or in part without the express prior written consent of The New Commonwealth Company. The views and opinions contained and expressed in (i) the links to other publications or to individuals' websites listsed from time to time in the Aquidlinks and (ii) the advertisements provided from time to time by Google do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy, views or opinions of The Aquidneck Inquirer.
"The Aquidneck Inquirer", "Aquid", "Aquidneck Quickies", "aquid.net", "Cosa Nostra Corner", "Aquidlinks", "Aquidobits", "Aquidtips", "Aquidneck.ws", "The Preston Political Primer", "The Aquidneck Inquirer Burgermeister", "The Aquidneck Burgermeister", "Schuyler VanBuren"; "Mona Kerr"; Julian Cincinnatus Coffin"; "Biff Bender"; "R.S. Laper"; Bartholomew Washington"; "Mordecai Cosgrove III"; "BARACK - "O" - METER"; "Roger O. Thornhill"; "Sven Bin-Omar Kevin Castille"; "The Calhoun Ivy Pre-Review", "PPP" and "The Virtual Smoke-Filled Room" are Trademarks of The New Commonwealth Company.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
COPYRIGHT (C) 2009 BY THE NEW COMMONWEALTH COMPANY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
