Obama's War: Grounds for Impeachment?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Giambattista, Mar 23, 2011.

  1. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    And you obviously support invading Libya, therefore that makes YOU trustworthy?

    Again, here more of this decrying accusations, but only if it comes from one side. The burden of proof is on those against this invasion. Anything that comes from the rebel mercenaries (or the invading countries) is to be accepted as gospel.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Libyan Rebels Try To Arrest NATO Critics

    Many of the referenced videos have recently been deleted by You Tube.

    One Twitter account was temporarily disabled after pro-NATO cyber mobs bombarded the Land Destroyer blog's Twitter account with accusations of spam.

    More and more evidence that the mainstream media has a clear agenda, by suppressing anything they don't like.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    You do realize that using Alex Jones' Prison Planet as your source kind of defeats the purpose don't you?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Obama had to improve his scoring rate.
    he needed those hoops, or he was off the casketball team next election.

    Here's a poll from six months ago.

    WASHINGTON: Only 17 percent of Americans see President Barack Obama as a strong and decisive military leader, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken after the United States and its allies began bombing Libya.

    Nearly half of those polled view Obama as a cautious and consultative commander-in-chief and more than a third see him as indecisive in military matters.

    Obama was widely criticized in 2009 for his months-long consultations with senior aides and military chiefs on whether to send more troops to Afghanistan.

    Critics called it dithering, but he said such a big decision required careful deliberation. He eventually dispatched 30,000 more troops.

    But Obama is facing mounting discontent among opposition Republicans and from within his own Democratic Party over the fuzzy aims of the US -led mission in Libya and the lack of a clearly spelled-out exit strategy for US forces.

    If the Libya mission becomes a foreign policy mess, mixed with perceptions Obama is a weak military leader, it could spell trouble for him in the 2012 presidential election.

    The poll also found that 60 percent of Americans support the United States and its allies bombing Libya to impose a no-fly zone to protect civilians from Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s forces.

    Seventy-nine percent of those surveyed said the United States and its allies should try to remove Qaddafi, who has ruled the oil-exporting North African country for more than four decades.

    In the survey, conducted on March 22 from a nationally representative sample of 975 adults, only 7 percent supported deploying ground troops.

    Of the 60 percent in favor of the Libya military action, 20 percent strongly supported it and 40 percent somewhat supported it. Twenty-five percent somewhat opposed it and 14 percent were strongly against.

    The survey suggested Americans may see Obama in a very different light from his predecessor, George W. Bush, who launched the Afghanistan and Iraq wars with some allies but was widely seen as a go-it-alone leader.



    Now, having scored 30,000 Caskets. Obama is King of the Court.

    He's not the first Politician doing badly in the Polls to find a convenient war.
     
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    So you think the United States has to disprove that it deliberately targeted a journalist for assassination in order to shut him up about the (accidental or deliberate) deaths of civilians in Libya?
     
  9. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    correct the supreme court has to wait until some wishes to bring the case before them before they can do anything
     
  10. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    No I mean which is the last president that did not launch a new military operation in a foreign nation without getting a declaration of war from congress. Invasions of Grenada, Panama and the Dominican Republic and so on.

    Congress has not declared war much but I think every president in the last 110 years or so has bombed or sent troops into some nation against the will of that nation's government. The fact that congress does not declare war does not means that congress opposed the war.

    I think you have to go back to the 1800s to find a US president who did not initiate combat (using US troops not proxies) with some other nation without having a declaration of war.
     
  11. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    In that poll from six months ago

    The poll also found that 60 percent of Americans support the United States and its allies bombing Libya to impose a no-fly zone to protect civilians from Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s forces.


    I supported that too.
    It was a humanitarian act.

    Afterwards they should have started mediating.
    But they weren't interested in peace, they wanted regime change.
    That's illegal under UN rules, isn't it?

    Where did they get the mandate to take part in a tribal war, depose the leader of a sovereign country, and cause the same bloody mayhem as they did the last two times? I think not.

    It's not just the US it's my country as well, UK.
    We the citizens never voted for all this shit.

    The x for screwing up a series of Oil states was never on my voting paper.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2011
  12. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    Precedent would dictate no. After all we didn't impeach Bush for Iraq so......
     
  13. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    This is the campaign war for this election.
    Next election, Iran.
     
  14. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Why, no! I did NOT realize that using that site defeats the purpose.
    Why don't you kindly offer some corrective instruction for my erroneous mode of delusional, "conspiratorial" thought?
     
  15. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    F*** precedent.

    I love how many times people have said that. Why do we even have laws or a Constitution if it can be so seriously and brazenly violated with no more than a shrug of the shoulders and saying "It's justified by precedent!" ???

    What the hell do the they think they're swearing to uphold and defend when they take their goddamn oath of office? "I swear to uphold and defend the Constitution to the best of my ability to comply with prevailing political winds, reelection, money interests, personal grandstanding, and the agenda of my puppetmasters!"

    That would be the honest version of the oath.
     
  16. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Well then you also realize that according to the Constitution, 2/3rds of the Senate have to agree that the President has to go for him to be impeached and convicted.

    But 2/3rds of the Senate DON'T agree with that, so that's exactly why we have a Constitution.

    It gives the President enough "wiggle room" to do EXACTLY what he's doing in Libya.

    And YES, you can bitch about it, but in reality this activity does appear to be within the powers that the President, as Commander in Chief, has.

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2011
  17. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
  18. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    In other words, it has been done many times before in the past (Kuwait, panama, Iraq, Mogadishu, ext....) . It wasn't illegal then, and it isn't illegal now.

    Just because your against it doesn't make it illegal, no matter how much your argue to the contrary.
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,888
    Looking deeper

    A bit superficial a question, don't you think?

    I mean, to look at it a little deeper—at least, as I see it—part of people's resistance to the steady stream of indictments Republicans and Tea Party activists hurl at Obama is found in the question, "Why now?"

    Why is it that what a majority of Republicans have long accepted when it was Reagan, Bush, or Bush Jr., for instance, are somehow evil when it's Clinton or Obama? Many people feel that the objection is simply dishonest from the outset.

    Are there constitutional questions about how the Obama administration conducts its business? Of course there are. But people are going to ward off that discussion as long as it sounds dishonest in its construction.

    For instance, Libya. The technical questions pertaining to war powers are when American troops stopped participating in direct combat actions (e.g., launching rockets), and, indeed, what precedent says.

    A brief survey of relevant information suggests that the congressional authorization of the invasion and occupation of Panama isn't nearly so prominently advertised as its success. It's hard to find the actual authorization for that action, and Operation Promote Liberty—the occupation phase after toppling Noriega—continued until 1994. Indeed, in 2010, the United States had troops operating on the ground in Panama.

    Should President George H. W. Bush have been impeached for the invasion? For his failure to maintain order in Panama during our occupation?

    When people see the opposition suddenly complaining about the idea that the U.S. contribution to NATO is actually aimed toward accomplishing something good, it really is hard to forget what happened in Iraq. You know, when that opposition was on board.

    And maybe that isn't you, specifically. But that is the context in which the question arises.

    I can certainly see the legitimacy in the idea that the People would say, "You know what? No more." But the prospect that suddenly we're going to hold a president accountable for contributing something many people see as a good outcome, and in a way that no prior president has been held accountable, strikes many as opportunistic and political instead of legal and philosophical.

    In other words, it seems this really isn't about the law, but, rather, the fact that some people just loathe President Obama for reasons that, generally, when they explain them, make no sense in the context of reality.

    It's not that there isn't any legitimate question about how the U.S. goes about its warring ways. Rather, the problem with the question is its appearance of political motivation subsuming any real legal issue.
     
  20. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    You seem to have little grasp of how things like "precedent" figure in.

    The basic issue is that the Constitution is a written document. Not everyone's reading of it is equivalent. Absent some mechanism for unifying disparate readings, it doesn't add up to much - anybody could do anything they wanted, and then claim it squared with their reading of the Constitution.

    None of which is anything like a new problem, and so this was all forseen and accounted for in the Constitution. This is why we have a judicial branch, and a larger system for figuring out how to interpret laws and apply them. The uppermost thing that a politician is swearing to do, when they pledge to uphold the Constitution, is to abide by the rule of law - in the exact sense of accepting the determinations of the branches of government empowered to so interpret and act, and exactly by respecting precedent.

    That this is necessarily not going to square with whatever interpretation of the Constitution some anonymous jackass with a chip on his shoulder posting transparently-politicized screeds on the internet might embrace on any given day, is more than just a cost of doing business - it's an actual feature of the system.
     

Share This Page