An Administration Out of Control
To hear Rep. Ron Paul deliver this address, click here.
Last week the Obama administration took the United States to war against Libya without bothering to notify Congress, much less obtain a constitutionally mandated declaration of war. In the midst of our severe economic downturn, this misadventure has already cost us hundreds of millions of dollars, and we can be sure the final price tag will be several times higher.
Why did the U.S. intervene in a civil war in a country that has neither attacked us nor poses a threat? We are told this was another humanitarian intervention, like Clinton’s 1999 war against Serbia. But as civilian victims of the U.S.-led coalition bombing continue to add up, it is getting difficult to determine whether the problem we are creating on the ground is worse than the one we were trying to solve.
Though the administration seems to be playing with semantics, calling this a “kinetic military action,” let’s be clear: this is a U.S. act of war on Libya. Imposing a no-fly zone over the air space of a sovereign nation is an act of war, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates pointed out before the bombing began. That the administration hesitates to call this war, possibly due to the troubling constitutional implications, does not mean that it is not one. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution could not be clearer: the power and obligation to declare war resides solely in the U.S. Congress.
There was ample time and opportunity for the administration to consult the UN, NATO, and the Arab League before going to war, but not the U.S. Congress.
Aside from the manner in which the administration took us to war, it is also troubling that our government has taken a decisive stand for one side of an internal conflict in another sovereign country. The administration speaks out of both sides of its mouth on this, claiming that the U.S. is not attempting to overthrow the Gadhafi regime while clearly benefitting the rebels and stating that Gadhafi must leave. Does this make any sense? Gadhafi may well be every bit the “bad guy” we are told he is, but who are the rebels we are assisting? Do we have any clue? Will they bring freedom and prosperity to Libya if they are victorious? We might like to hope so, but the fact is, we don’t know. Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit, explained in a recent article that there is plausible reason to believe the rebels are current or former Islamist mujahedin, eager to engage in jihad. Indeed, Gadhafi has fought against Libyan Islamists for years and is seen by them as a bitter enemy. Astoundingly, it may well be that we are assisting al-Qaeda in this new war!
The costs of this terrible mistake cannot be ignored. Congress has been locked in battles over budget cuts and agonizing over ways to save money. Recent proposed spending cuts have by now been completely wiped out with this new war! Will we be rebuilding Libya 10 years from now? Will Congress simply roll over and rubber stamp more emergency spending bills for this new war as they have done in the past? We must end our participation in any attack on Libya immediately, and I have signed on to legislation that would do exactly that. Congress must assert its constitutional authority and rein in an administration clearly out of control.
Read more by Rep. Ron Paul
- What No One Wants to Hear About Benghazi – May 13th, 2013
- Liberty Was Also Attacked in Boston – April 28th, 2013
- Congress Exploits Our Fears to Take Our Liberty – April 21st, 2013
- Why Can’t We All Travel To Cuba? – April 15th, 2013
- Neo-Con War Addiction Threatens Our Future – March 24th, 2013





Johnny in Wi.
March 28th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
This old timer is the about the only sane politician in Washington. He needs a lot of help if this country is too be saved. The last 4 Presidents have been worse and worse. We are at the bottom of the barrel.
MoT
March 28th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
It's high time that impeachment be brought up again. Clinton deserved it and most certainly the "shrublet" but lo and behold "O" the almighty needs a smack down. Enough is enough and Congress had better start rooting around to find their balls and start exercising their authority or forever be relegated to the role of toothless tigers
DeanB
March 28th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
From Ron Paul: "Imposing a no-fly zone over the air space of a sovereign nation is an act of war"… Wrong. It's not an act of war if the "sovereign nation", i.e., the citizens being bombed, strafed and mortared are asking for help from being annihilated. And for cost, the US probably spends more in one day in Afghanistan than the cost of the US flyovers so far. Bring the troops home from the aggression wars of Iraq and Afghanistan and then talk about why we shouldn't stop genocide by an unelected dictator thug.
augustus818
March 29th, 2011 at 12:28 am
Give me some names of these people who are "asking" for our "help". You have given no argument that can be discussed, you've given no argument that anyone in their right mind would give, you have given no argument for us being there period. Stop playing the crocodile tear shedding humanitarian card, it's disgusting and very lame.
Gary
March 29th, 2011 at 2:14 am
So I take it that you feel the same way about the people of Gaza?
Bill4peace
March 29th, 2011 at 2:43 am
Uh. Ron Paul is against Obama's escalation in Afghanistan too. So your argument doesn't hold.
Joh. V. Walsh
March 29th, 2011 at 3:46 am
DeanB is the ugly hypocritical face, a death mask, really, of "humanitarian" imperialism. Gaza, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen all present the same claim for help – more so. And it can always be "arranged" by the Empire to get someone to call on it for "help.". But no matter Congress not some guys in a desert has the sole power to bring us to war.
John V. Walsh
March 29th, 2011 at 3:48 am
Great statement by Rep. Paul BUT it is missing its logical conclusion – impeachment of Obama. We must begin to demand this.
John V. Walsh
GreedRulesinDC
March 29th, 2011 at 5:05 am
I absolutely agree. I'm aware of only two politicians who have the guts to call the war illegal, and even they won't out and out call for impeachment. When the majority of politicians who are supposed to represent us care more about the defense industry than the Constitution, the president can bomb any city in the world, any time, without repercussion. When will we fight these creepy maniacs?
(Which of Obma's public relations geniuses came up with the term "kinetic military action?" Did they find it in some military manual or did they purposefully use such a vague term? Kinetic means using force and energy to achieve motion, like boiling water. WTF does that have to do with Obama's War in Libya?).
Advocat4Liberty
March 29th, 2011 at 6:08 am
"Wrong. It's not an act of war…" WRONG. It doesn't matter WHO asks or WHY…it is still an act of war against a sovereign country.
Or Dean, are you arguing that I, as a victim of the Obamanation administration and our Congress of (excepting Paul) Whores, can ask for help and get China to come over here and bomb D.C.?
Give me the phone number, I'll have jets on the way within the hour!
liberranter
March 29th, 2011 at 7:16 am
I have to believe that the only reason Congressman Paul has not called for Obama's impeachment is because he knows that it would be an exercise in sheer futility. Even IF the rest of that neutered debating society called the U.S. Congress were to act (charges levied against Obama by the House, followed by a trial in front of the Senate), a very dubious proposition at best, the most severe form of punishment likely to result would be censure – at least if the punishment imposed on the last president to be impeached servers as any precedent. If that's the WORST sanction that this captive body is willing to impose, then Congressman Paul is well justified in not wanting to make a further mockery of justice.
marko
March 29th, 2011 at 8:16 am
Sorry Dean. It is indeed an act of war according to international law, regardless of the UN, and regardless of what the people ask for and regardless of how bad we think the bad guy is. Who says the citizens being bombed aren't being annihilated by US bombing runs? In fact there is a fair amount of evidence that that is exactly what's happening. It's inevitable because "precision weapons" are a fantasy sold to you by warmongers whose profit depends on your gullibility. Did you think bombing Serbia was a humanitarian act? Best check your history closely, and think where you get your information and about who profited from that "humanitarian" aggression. Naturally the Libyan rebels ask for help, from anyone who they think will give it to them. That doesn't make them any better than Gadhaffi and it doesn't make it the right or the prudent thing to do. And just because it costs more in one place doesn't mean it makes sense to spend more that money we don't have somewhere else, even if it is "less" than the other foolish expenditures the empire undertakes. Bring the troops home from wars of aggression, I couldn't agree more. And that includes Libya.
Bob D
March 29th, 2011 at 9:04 am
I understand Rand Paul voted for the "no-fly" zone in a unanimous vote. Oh I realize how duplicitously that was probably set up, I understand how those group votes go. But shouldn't Rand (and Ron for that matter) explain to us the circumstances?
It seems to me that vote gave Obama a lot of leeway if he chooses to interpret it that way. Look at the simple logic. No-fly zone is a declaration of war. Congress declared a no-fly zone. Therefore, Congress made a declaration of War.
Don't bother me with the details about the house needing to declare war, not the senate. Are we going to impeach the Senate? Come on. Admit that the neocons pulled a fast one on the inexperienced Rand Paul let him admit to his mistake and move on.
Drake
March 29th, 2011 at 9:15 am
Hey, this is just speculation, but could it be that supporting the Jihadist revolution in Libya is part of Obama's overall strategy to change the balance of power in that region, AGAINST Israel? Is Obama shrewd enough to outsmart the Likud party militants? Arab Spring will certainly create several Moslem governments, all surrounding Israel!
Bodkin
March 29th, 2011 at 10:15 am
Thanks for reminding everyone that Obama is in fact "supporting the Jihadist revolution in Libya". You weren't supposed to reveal this secret, but I for one am glad you did. Let there be no more lies about a "democracy movement" sweeping the Middle East.
If one connects the dots, one realizes that Obama is indeed helping Israel's enemies. It explains why Obama went easy on Iran's brutal crackdown. It explains why he's ignoring Syria's current slaughtering of protestors. The double standard helps the jihadists.
I'm surprised the rabid wolves who come here every day to salivate for Israel's destruction aren't celebrating Obama's support for their jihadist comrades. Of course, it doesn't help the USA's long-term interests to have jihadists running the Middle East, but since when does rationality intrude upon a wolf's primitive thought processes?
jeff_davis
March 29th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Obama is just another ambitious weakling suck-up and liar. To imagine that, beneath this disguise, he is some kind of brilliant, courageous, crypto-jihadi über-strategist, is highly creative, but not credible.
skulz fontaine
March 29th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
"Administration out of control", no doubt. Let a 'revolution' begin in Congress. Shut the freaking government down and THEN, slap the Obama with an article of impeachment for being a silly nit. America's "presidential wars" are growing tiresome.
smithy100
March 29th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Forget about the middle east, we have our own dictatorial regime to deal with!
marko
March 29th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Bob –
I'll go with Rand having some 'splaining to do. But have no idea why Ron should take on that task as it wasn't his vote that was cast.
richard young
March 29th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
I agree with Rep. Paul but would add that this unauthorized non-defensive war also plainly violates the War Powers Act (Joint Resolution) of 1973, Section 2(c) of which expressly authorizes the President acting as Commander in Chief to introduce U.S. armed forces into "hostilities or imminent hostilities" only "pursuant to — (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possesssions, or its armed forces." Any President who deliberately violates both the Constitution and a plainly applicable Act of Congress deserves to be impeached, and that is especially so when the presidential abuse of power is to commit our nation to an unnecessary, non-defensive war of choice against a nation which has not attacked us and has no capability to do so. It is sickening to find that there does not appear to be one single member of Congress who is willing to honor his/her sworn oath to "uphold and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States."
marko
March 29th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Oh yeah, the old "Obama's playing 11 dimensional chess" argument. It could also be that he's being controlled by aliens or he's a hologram projected by Doc Oc. And Just as likely, IMO.
marko
March 29th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Awwww, poor little Israel. Are the antiwar.com meanies saying bad stuff and wishing ill on poor defenseless Israel? I could give a rat's dropping if Israel lives or dies, something akin to how much Israel demonstrates it actually cares for the US. Just so long as they don't involve me or my country, let their fate be their own. Israelis have a lot more control over their country than we do over ours, thanks to Israel.
John_Muhammad
March 29th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Ameen to that , MoT
John_Muhammad
March 29th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
"Kinetic military action" cracks me up- at no time in my 12 years in the Marines and Army did I ever hear that term, not once.
I suppose it's in the same category as calling a retreat a 'retrograde advance' , or a battle field SNAFU a 'fluid situation', or being surrounded as having a '360 degree target selection'.
Time to stop with the euphemisms and call it for what it is- we've been taken to war without our consent (again), no matter how you slice it.
Now what happens when huge crowds of American citizens take to the streets in force to protest of this and any number of other government failures- how long will it take for someone to give the order for police and/or national guard troops to open fire? And what happens when those protesting Americans defend themselves and start shooting back? Or will Americans EVER take to the streets like that- or are we, as a whole, content to just watch everything unfold around us on the nightly news while we're waiting for Dancing With The Stars to come on?
marko
March 29th, 2011 at 7:06 pm
Quick! Look over there! Something bright and shiny! (A stampede ensues.)
As I recall, it wasn't a citizens' uprising that brought down Rome. As long as they are kept dumb and distracted Americans present no threat whatsoever.
Think "proles."
Bob D
March 30th, 2011 at 7:47 am
Its called guilt by association and even support. Admittedly not fair. But Ron and Rand are tied at the hip. Rand will not run if Ron runs. In a sense that means Ron represents Rand. We're not talking about a slight difference in For something as serious as a new war I think Ron should either 'splain or state his disagreement. Or doesn't it bother him?
I've heard Russ Feingold's anti war record cited as a fraud because he associated with Joe Lieberman. And in an earlier comment to me posted on Antiwar.com. Marko must have missed that one I didn't see your comment.
It does go both ways though. Why don't Ron's interviewers ask him about it? That bothers me. They used to give Ron tough questions. And that was when he was at his best.