Impeach Him!

[Gipper]

Kucinich: Libya action 'impeachable'

President Barack Obama should be impeached for approving air strikes against Libya, Rep. Dennis Kucinich said in an interview Monday.

“President Obama moved forward without Congress approving,” the liberal Ohio Democrat told Raw Story. “He didn’t have congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that’s got to be said.” Several other members of Congress have also chastised the Obama administration for not doing enough to sell the intervention to Congress, let alone to the American people.

Kucinich went a bit further in his Monday remarks than he did over the weekend when, as POLITICO reported, he questioned why the U.S. strikes weren’t impeachable offenses while on a Democratic Caucus conference call.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51668.html#ixzz1HQhuU7B9

Kucinich is a whack job, but at least he is consistent unlike most of the Left.

Maybe he will run against BO for the Dem nomination and even go independent in the general. I sure hope so.

 

[BigRob]

Humorous Biden interview:

I am glad however to at recognize that the current administration now knows leading is far harder than campaigning.

 

[Dr.Who]

I don't see how the military force would be an impeachable offense. The Pres has the authority to start military actions, even acts of war, and must get congresses approval within 90 days.

 

[Gipper]

"The expectation of the world's lone superpower in a major military operation is 'stalemate.' Welcome to the era of the Obama 'smart war.' Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen has been warning that he is unclear of the 'endgame,' as the Daily Telegraph describes it, in Libya. The outcome of Operation Odyssey Dawn is 'very uncertain' and could end up as a stalemate that keeps Col. Moammar Gadhafi in power. Appearing Sunday on NBC's 'Meet the Press,' Mullen said U.S. force will mean that Gadhafi is 'going to have to make some choices about his own future.' Sounds like we're sending Dr. Phil over to Tripoli to give the longtime tyrant some tough love. ... The president says our military operations were 'authorized' by the U.N. Security Council and the Arab League. He didn't give the U.S. Congress -- the Constitution's authorizers -- even one of those bows he likes to perform in the presence of foreign gentry. Is one of the purposes of Operation Odyssey Dawn to illustrate the New Multilateralism -- i.e., a Change-We-Can-Believe-In U.S. foreign policy in which we never shoot until the U.N. Security Council gives permission? ... Libya seems to be 'a war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics,' as Obama said of Iraq. We've seen that passion on the covers of tabloid newspapers with Navy-released photos of Tomahawk cruise missiles and headlines like 'Take That!' As for the politics, it certainly would be convenient for the president to be able play the hawk as the 2012 election approaches." --Investor's Business Daily

Send Dr. Phil...hahahaha....

Obama has insulted the Congress again. At least W involved the leadership of Congress when he was about act. Obama has upset his liberal base with these actions. This will hurt him going forward. The Dems are likely to turn on him.

His lack of understanding and the politics involved, is most amusing. He has no clue what he is doing.

It is so sad we have had to endure incompetent presidents for so many years.

 

[steveox]

Already a thread here
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12810

Vote!!!

 

[bododie]

It's even sadder that people would rather ride over the cliff with him than admit they were wrong about him...or maybe not...

 

[nobull]

President has broad powers to send troops into wars. The old argument that it requires and act of Congress to do this is flatly wrong. The Exec. Branch shares power with the congress in that congress funds war efforts. Any challenge is kicked out of the Supreme Court as a "political question." In short, Obama has the power to send troops wherever he would like including inside or outside of the United States.

The War Powers of the president has been challenged many times by various entities and lost every time. So the discussion is unproductive.

The fact that obama's pre-election statements don't conform to his present action is more about buyer's remorse than anything else. Of course I did not vote for our president so I don't enjoy the privilege of buyer's remorse; I just think the man is in over his head.

regards
doug

 

[Rick]

President has broad powers to send troops into wars. The old argument that it requires and act of Congress to do this is flatly wrong. The Exec. Branch shares power with the congress in that congress funds war efforts. Any challenge is kicked out of the Supreme Court as a "political question." In short, Obama has the power to send troops wherever he would like including inside or outside of the United States.

The War Powers of the president has been challenged many times by various entities and lost every time. So the discussion is unproductive.

The fact that obama's pre-election statements don't conform to his present action is more about buyer's remorse than anything else. Of course I did not vote for our president so I don't enjoy the privilege of buyer's remorse; I just think the man is in over his head.

regards
doug

Nonsense, you don't know what you're talking about - practically every president since the war powers act was passed has called it unconstitutional.

 

[Dr.Who]

Obama has insulted the Congress again. At least W involved the leadership of Congress when he was about act.

No matter, he DID involve the UN and the Arab League.

 

[Gipper]

No matter, he DID involve the UN and the Arab League.

Yes. That's his mindset alright.

 

[nobull]

Nonsense, you don't know what you're talking about - practically every president since the war powers act was passed has called it unconstitutional.

I agree..But I am still correct..

doug

 

[dogtowner]

No matter, he DID involve the UN and the Arab League.

Yes. That's his mindset alright.

true about his mindset but the point is

the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.

add that this covers certain allies we have reciprocal treaties with (NATO) and he still misses the mark.

by a mile.

he does not feel he has to justify anything and can freewheel anytime and everywhere. he can;t but will anyone call him on it ? if they do, he loses.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

So when Regan Bombed Lybia should he have been impeached? How about for invading Grenada?

I don't recall the house voting for them...should he be impeached or is just a Obama thing?

Clinton launched Missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan at targets with no House vote? Impeach him?

Bush Fired Missiles into Pakistan and Yemen while in office...House never Declared war..impeach him?

Carter sent in Delta to get hostages out, but actions taken would be considered a act of war..yet war was not declared by Congress...Impeach him?

 

[Stalin]

Impeach a democrat president.

Gee..that's original.

Why not send Bush to the Hague for imitating Hitler and invading a country without good reason.

Comrade Stalin

 

[Gipper]

So when Regan Bombed Lybia should he have been impeached? How about for invading Grenada?

I don't recall the house voting for them...should he be impeached or is just a Obama thing?

Clinton launched Missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan at targets with no House vote? Impeach him?

Bush Fired Missiles into Pakistan and Yemen while in office...House never Declared war..impeach him?

Carter sent in Delta to get hostages out, but actions taken would be considered a act of war..yet war was not declared by Congress...Impeach him?

IMO no to all of those.

But, your friend and leader Dennis K. would likely say yes to all of those questions.

I suspect YOU would say yes only those questions which apply to an R president. So, you see how inconsistent and PARTISAN you are?