Obama's War: Grounds for Impeachment?

Look, it's nice to consider such errors in history, but that doesn't excuse current errors. 2 Wrongs...

Obama has usurped the sovereignty of our Constitutional government, especially by deferring to the UN instead of the Congress, and he has violated the sovereignty of another nation.
There is no excuse for Obama's action.

Then again, being an honest person, Obama is really just a puppet himself.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

2 wronga the supreme court doing its job is a wrong.

I forgot your the nut job who thinks that Obama is a usurper because the majority that elected him doesn't agree with your politics. no Obama acted with in the constitution. just because you don't like it doesn't make it unconstitutional

true but there is no need to as it was a legal act

and that gets you put firmly in nut job land

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

W and Co. should have been held accountable. Period.
So should Obama.
The only thing I'm "miffed" about is the hypocrisy on either side.

And what is the difference between what W did and Obama did? The one main difference seems to be that Obama declined to confer or get any kind of authorization from Congress.

As far as the War Powers nonsense:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/18/libya

Obama's War on Libya: A Constitutional View

Joe Biden Warned In 2007 That He'd Impeach Bush For Waging War Without Congressional Approval

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can I call you names because of your poor spelling, grammar, and punctuation?
Can I say you firmly belong in Dildo-Land? Or that you're brainwashed?

By the way, you like my new look, avatar and all?

 

(shit)

One doesn't have to like Obama's decision in order to think it's different from Bush's outlook on things.

I'm reluctant to give my outright endorsement because I've wanted Qadafi since I was freaking twelve.

A quarter century. That's two-thirds of my life.

For me, it's not that Obama's doing it, but how he does it. I can't allow myself to say it's okay, as long as it's the guy I've wanted for twenty-five years.

The Colonel is my Number One.

Whatever happens now, this must go well. And I don't think it will. That is the problem I face.

It is, apparently, Qadafi's turn. I don't get to say whether it's right or wrong. I want him finished too badly to make an objective moral assessment of this intervention. They better do it right, and I don't think they will.

But there is no constituional question, as far as I am concerned. This was done under the purview of the United Nations and our contribution thereunto. That is not a congressional matter. It falls under State and Defense, and inevitably the Executive.

But we don't get to shoot him. We don't get to end him. We are not at war.

It's actually quite simple this time.

And the Marine deployments make sense. The question is whether or not the jobs they are given are the right ones. That is, the idea of emergency rescue and humanitarian assistance is great, and who better than the Corps?

But using that as a platform for an invasion or occupation? At that point, I believe we require a declaration of war.

Meanwhile, I have no doubt that somewhere among those Marines are a sniper or three who will eventually be painting targets. I mean, shit, we're the United States of America. What kind of humanitarian mission do we go on that doesn't involve blowing up a lot more shit than we already have?

I expect this will go poorly.

 

That's the flaw in your thinking. The United Nations makes null and void our Constitutional checks and balances.

Like I said, why do we even bother having a government. Let the UN and multi-national corporations rule over us. We're more than halfway to neo-serfdom as it is. Let's just be honest and admit it.

The NWO has good intentions.

 

So let's see you work on that, loudly and publicly - impeachment is possible still, for W and Cheney, and conviction would remove much of their legal armor and societal privileges. Their crimes were so much more serious than Obama's so far (Obama has been mainly just continuing their setup in milder and less batshit form), and convicting them would be of so much more benefit to the country at so much less cost in governing capablity, that it's basically a no-brainer for step one.

But failing that: after so many years of trying getting absolutely no help at all from the Teabagger crowd with the Republican takeover and the consequences of the Reaganite agenda, it's hard to take you guys seriously when you get bent out of shape about Obama's comparatively minor rule-bendings. Where have you been? If you don't like the unitary executive stuff, saddle up - it's a long road back to the 1970s.

 

Who's "you guys"? Why is it that when someone is opposed to Obama, they're suddenly "you guys" or defenses invoking the name Reagan/Bush, etc, get thrown around as if it's one or the other, all or nothing? What is this two-sided battle of the ideologies or demagogues, as if there are only two options?

If you can find anywhere in my posts that I have supported Bush, Cheney, or any of the neocon clique, I would be quite surprised.

Bush is no longer in the White House, and his actions don't justify what Obama does.

And what does "unitary executive" mean, exactly?

 

What's more, Obama's hasty, unconstitutional actions have basically committed US forces until the issue is resolved.
It's pretty hard to launch fighter jets and missile strikes on a country, and say after the fact that you don't really intend anything more. You can't engage in that kind of assault and expect to be able to just walk away.

And what is this issue? Hillary has made it pretty clear that the issue isn't over until Gadhaffi/Qadaffi or however you want to spell it, is ousted.

So it's a peace keeping mission, but the ultimate goal is regime change?

And a no-fly zone ---> bombardment --> eventual ground campaign ---> removal of a sitting head of government is only a peace keeping mission? When do they call it what it is: a war? It sure looks like one to me.


You can't engage in that kind of assault and expect to be able to just walk away.

Lord knows this can easily fan the flames of terrorism, whether real, staged, or imagined. Which only makes the imperative for a full invasion that much more likely.
"Ooops, I just like, accidentally broke a bunch of vases in this china shop. Sorry! Oh, by the way, could you do your duty and pay for all that? After all, it was done on company time."

I love this. Use a feeble excuse to get your foot in the door, and then cause havoc beyond the point of no return. Then you can do this :shrug: and say, "We have no choice now but to see this through to the end."

Especially if there are backlashes, violent ones, because of this.

 

The Teabagger types who draw Hitler moustaches on Obama, and think they were properly opposed back in the W times but don't know what "unitary executive" refers to.

The US enforced no-fly zones over Iraq for Clinton's entire tenure, without invading. We left the former Yugoslavia after serious airstrikes without the issue being resolved - just stopped rocketing and bombing.

 

Fuck Qaddafi and all dictatorial pieces of motherfucking ass. Bring on the shit, we will kill you. And if we die in the process, it will be worth it to eventually free the world from your degenerate presence.

 

Teabagger: what does that mean, exactly? How does it apply to this discussion, and what kind of argument are you making here?
BTW the LaRouche people drew that moustache. I guess they're Teabaggers as well. Whatever that means...

What does "properly opposed back in the W times" mean? How is one "properly" opposed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

I don't quite get how anything there gives any president the right to wage war without consent of Congress.
You can feel free to enlighten me.
On second thought, perhaps I can see how someone would attempt to make an argument, but certainly not a very good one.

The No-fly zone was a holdover from the ceasefire after the First Gulf War. Right or wrong, it was merely extended through Clinton's presidency. It didn't begin in lieu of prior hostilities and war.

I just don't see how any of that justifies what our current president is doing.

 

Do not weep, o blind reactionary!
I think you should organize a militia, arrange a shipment of weapons to a friendly port in Libya, and take yourself over there and get in on the action, firsthand.

 

I don't think it does. I don't think it did back when the Raganites were vesting the President with war powers, and you guys were nowhere to be seen.

You're a bit late to this party, is all - settle in, look around, drop the hysteria, realize it took a few years to dig into this hole and we'll be a long time digging back out.

 

I already voted for Obama to kick ass, and he is, this is the modern militia, eviscerating big brother before it can become comfortable in it's desert perch.

 

I still don't get the "you guys" thing nor the Teabagger shtick. Stop calling anyone who dislikes Obama a "Teabagger". Not only is it childish, but it's getting damn old.
You should drop the fat paint brush and try to stay within the lines.

And I wasn't exactly mature enough to care about what Reagan was doing, though I'm sure I would not have approved. Look, they erased his memory anyway. Well, not the collective memory...

 

I'm not. I'm calling anyone who posts pictures of Obama with a drawn on Hitler moustache, and complains about high handed Presidential warmaking as if it were a sudden emergency without any reference to W&Cheney, a Teabagger.

But the suggestion was sincere - you want to impeach this kind of Presidency, start with W or Cheney. Low cost, big reward.

 

I think this comes under treaty actions as part of NATO...and treaty is considered law of the land under the constitution.
So it's not the UN ordering us to do this, it's a NATO action authorized by the UN.

I personally find Obama much less worthy of impeachment than W....and Obama's following a long tradition of what's called the "unitary executive."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

Presidents more or less use force without running to congress, basically, and always have, although the founders did not intend that they should.

For instance, Teddy Roosevelt was denied money to send Naval vessels to Japan to intimidate the Japanese into trade...but he had enough money to send the naval ships there. So he did, and basically dared congress not to give them the return fare.

There's way too much precedent to start screaming "IMPEACH!" about all that now.

 

'left wing attitude', ffs kid, get a grip. I'm left wing, and I agree with action against Libya.

 

Not two wrongs, just two non-wars. You are barking up the wrong tree.