Obama's War: Grounds for Impeachment?

fedr808

First you say:

Then you say:

So did he start a war or didn't he? I'd think that whenever you send in over 150 missiles, 50 military aircraft and AWACS then a war has been started in another country that is hostile to America.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's a no win situation.

If we had done nothing and played isolationists, then some people would complain.

As it is, some people complain because we're doing something in Libya, but not elsewhere.

If we got involved in other places, then some people would complain that we shouldn't be playing world police.

So, someone is always going to be upset with any decision.

In many interviews I've heard with Libyans, it sounds like they welcome the no fly zone, if not more help.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

'Cos oil would have shot up to $300 a barrel.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I used the word "war" in the second post as synonymous with intentional destruction of life or property resting within the borders of another country as an attack on that country or that country's leadership.

In the first I was using it in it's purest form as an all out war fought between two countries. A no fly zone does not qualify as an all out war.

 

I think the no fly zone is not the actual goal. In order to enforce it the UN has to destroy anti air defenses, such as surface to air missiles, or anti air guns. The same guns that have been decimating the rebels.

 

There is nothing Obama has done that has violated any sort of law.

 

Cosmic, I am not arguing the reasons for attacking only that it is not an illegal act. It is not impeachable, if we operate under the rule of law.

The value of attacking Gaddafi is that he is a known terrorist and his people are rebelling against him. He is a weak and easy target right now. That is why I suspect President Obama has chosen to attack him at this point in time. You cannot say the same for Iran or Yemen.

 

You seem to forget your history, and that Vietnam, was a 'Policing action' not a war. There are many ways to intervene, and having UN approval is about the best excuse there is, whatever the designation of the action.

 

I think if war was actually declared then congress would've had to have been the one to do it, which they haven't.

So it's not a decloration of war.

 

Indeed, Bill Clinton use cruise missiles against Taliban encampments long before the invasion of Afghanistan. But then he also screwed up and blew up a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan, 'cos the Intel was that it was a nerve gas factory. He probably killed a bunch of people who couldn't get the drugs they needed because of that. But that wasn't war either.

 

Indeed, Bill Clinton use cruise missiles against Taliban encampments long before the invasion of Afghanistan. But then he also screwed up and blew up a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan, 'cos the Intel was that it was a nerve gas factory. He probably killed a bunch of people who couldn't get the drugs they needed because of that. But that wasn't war either.

 

If it wasn't approved as a decloration of war through congress than no, it probably wasn't a war either.

 

This isn't an easy situation; stop treating it like a joke

There are two aspects of this thread that catch my attention. The central question, whether the Libya action is an impeachable offense, is obviously one of them, but the answer to that can be variously phrased; we'll come back to it in a moment.

The pro-Qadafi anti-Obama anti-war ... damn, what do I call these folks? Look, when it's Rep. Kucinich, I can deal with that. The question is consistent with his outlook and behavior. But many of the objecters are of the attitude and consistency that would move me to say something controversial like, "Well, fine, but I just hope you remember this standard the next time it's a white Republican."

And, of course, that phrasing is a bit unfair, but as has been pointed out, Reagan didn't have a declaration when he invaded Grenada. Nor did Poppy Bush have a declaration when he invaded Panama, deposed the leader, swore in a new president, and dissolved the Panamanian army. I think it's going to be a hard case to impeach Obama.

Nor do I think if it's President Pawlenty bombing the shit out of some dictator in 2014, will we hear this kind of ridiculous criticism. Apparently, it's some manner of hypocrisy to see a difference between an airstrike and a full-blown invasion.

But if you pay attention to allegedly liberal news sources, you'll find the anti-war faction of American liberalism is absolutely squirming right now. MSNBC yesterday called it "the Third War". What of CPUSA, who demand an immediate cease-fire:

In spite of the all-too-evident crimes and abuses of Gadaffi's regime, a civil war with massive foreign intervention is not in the interests of the either the Libyan or the American people, or humanity in general, which is served only by peace and cooperation among the nations. The Middle East area is one of the most conflict-ridden and unstable in the world, and there is real danger that a civil war in Libya could lead to a wider conflagration.

This situation needs to be deescalated, also, because of the bad precedent it sets for NATO and/or U.S. intervention in situations of internal conflict all over the world. We have only to recall the situations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia to perceive how such military interventions, carried out under humanitarian pretexts, end up causing more death, suffering and destruction than the situations they were supposed to remedy.​

The World Socialist Web Site (SEP/ICFI) denounces the war for being "driven not by humanitarian concerns, but rather the imperialist aims of dominating the country and seizing its oil wealth".

In the long run, I can accept any number of changing standards, but I reject the way in which those changes come around. It would be one thing to say, "Okay, look, we've built ourselves this bad habit, and we need to break it, so just like cigarettes, President Obama, you need to stop bombing."

But the shock and revulsion some of Obama's opponents have voiced is wearing thin. These one-eighties keep happening. When Obama nominated Justice Sotomayor, one would have thought, hearing the outcry, that he was sending Hitler to the bench. Oh, my goodness! She has empathy! Doesn't President Obama know that empathy has no place on the Court? To the other, one wonders if President Bush understood that. Because when it was the male conservative, Justice Alito, empathy was a laudable characteristic. Okay, so we've decided empathy isn't a good thing for a judge. That's fine. Just ... don't pretend that's always been the standard. Don't pretend it's not a new standard since last time.

What crushes me is that this discussion of impeachment and Obama's hideous offense against Congress might actually be bipartisan cover fire. As long as the discussion stays out in absolutely ludicrous territory, how many are going to have what seems a more vital discussion? As I noted in another political consideration of the action against Libya:

I've wanted Qadafi for a long, long time. My first ever political cartoon, drawn in 1986, was about Colonel Q. But I'm not sure there's any "right" way to do this for the United States, no matter who is in the White House. Setting aside the writhing conflict of being at least a nominal pacifist, I can at least say that it probably shouldn't be our airplanes and bombs. This has the potential to get incredibly messy.

Get the Arab League to acknowledge the need for regime change; put France on point for the Western contribution, and have the U.S. stand by for operational support and humanitarian relief.

The more we blow up in Libya, the deeper our shit creek gets. I get Obama's rationale, and I want Qadafi down and out, but if that's the plan, it could have been done by now.​

The longer this goes on, the deeper our hoopla. Some peoples is gonna die, and one would hope that toll doesn't amount to absolutely nothing.

David Addison said, "Live fast, die young; lean, clean underwear."

Master Chiun said, "Remember: In, out, like a duck mating."

Cowboy Feng said, "Do the job."
____________________

Notes:

Communist Party USA. "Libya: Stop the bombing, cease-fire now". March 22, 2011. CPUSA.org. March 24, 2011. http://cpusa.org/libya-stop-the-bombing-demand-cease-fire-now/

Van Auken, Bill. "US-NATO warplanes strike Libyan ground forces". World Socialist Web Site. March 24, 2011. WSWS.org. March 24, 2011. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/liby-m24.shtml

 

your picture and complete left wing attitude renders every piece of bs that spews out of your mouth useless.. everything u state now past presedents have done or would do...

 

As funny as the spectacle of "liberals" taking plays out of the TeaBagger playbook (Congress! War Powers! Isolationism! Fuck the UN!) is, the question arises: are you guys trying to render yourselves laughably irrelevant, or just walking into it backwards?

 

Remember when Congress declared war on North Korea and Vietnam? No, you don't, because they never did. No one was impeached and we refer to both incidents as "wars."

If Congress does not like the Libyan attacks (and many republicans were calling for a no fly zone to be established by America...until Obama did it, and now you'd think it was a war crime), Congress can choose not to fund the operations.

Here's the view I tend to hew to, by Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard professor and reasonably well known expert on constitutional and international law:

http://www.slate.com/id/2288869/

 

They want a President Gingrich evidently.

 

Quite possibly.

And maybe before the Reagan Revolution, it might have led to impeachment - or at least serious trouble.

But you can't make an institutional custom out of kissing up to a "Unitary Executive" for decades, and then suddenly decide you want to do things differently. The changes in the US federal governance that W tamped so firmly into place are going to be some time in the uprooting - after we get started, which hasn't happened yet.

 

As far as this thread is concerned, it seems most of the respondents are supportive of this action, and make excuses for Obama based on the actions of previous presidents.
The predictable stance on either side seems to be "It's okay, as long as it's OUR guy doing it."

Who exactly are you referring to? Newt?
Don't rule out a ground invasion either.
http://www.enctoday.com/news/marine-88422-jdn-troops-marines.html

The question I ask is: if and when this becomes a ground operation, will it still not require Congressional approval? What does the term "war" even mean if you can bomb, launch missiles, and use ground forces in another country without calling it a war?

What does the Constitutional provision that only Congress declare war mean if the President can launch any attack or invasion at anytime, under the banner of some international coalition, as long as it isn't formally called a war?

Why don't we just admit that the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the checks and balances are absolutely meaningless as long as you use the right wording?
Why don't we dissolve Congress entirely, and just let the United Nations govern our country as they see fit?

 

the law that allows him to do so( it came about of the gulf of tonkin incidint) was ruled on by the supreme court. you have zero grounds for your impeach obama rant. I get it your miffed that liberals thought dubya and company should have been held accountable for their many crimes but that doesn't mean obama has done anything impeachable here.