Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on March 21, 2011, 10:53:15 AM
-
Dennis Kucinich: Obama's Libya Attack An Impeachable Offense
Associated Press ^ | March 21, 2011 | Benjy Sarlin
________________________ ________________________ ______________
A number of Democratic and Republican lawmakers are concerned about the White House's air assault on Libya, but Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) raised the rhetoric to 11 on Monday, suggesting President Obama should be impeached.
"President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have Congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said," Kucinich said in an interview with Raw Story. "It's not even disputable, this isn't even a close question. Such an action -- that involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy -- is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone."
According to Kucinich, Obama's decision "would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense," though he questioned whether Congress would ever move forward with a trial in practice.
As reported earlier by Politico, Kucinich raised the specter of impeachment in a conference call with Democratic lawmakers on Saturday.
(Excerpt) Read more at tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo. com ...
________________________ ________
Go DK! ! ! ! !
If this is what it takes to get this creatue from prts unknown out of office, so be it.
-
Ralph Nader: Obama ‘Should Be Impeached’ For ‘Committing War Crimes’
Mediaite.com ^ | 03/21/2011 | Matt Schneider
Frequent candidate for President Ralph Nader is back on the scene and proves, at the very least, he is consistent with his viewpoint. Arguing that President George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were war criminals and then claiming that the Obama administration continues to engage in the same activity, Nader made the logical deduction that President Obama must also be a war criminal who should be impeached.
Nader’s critical views of Obama’s foreign policy:
“Barack Obama is committing the same crimes [as Bush and Cheney], in fact worse ones in Afghanistan. Innocents are being slaughtered, we’re creating more enemies, he’s violating international law, he’s not constitutionally authorized to do what he’s doing, he’s using State secrets, he’s engaging in illegal surveillance, the CIA is running wild without any kind of circumsribed legal standards or disclosure . . . why don’t we say what’s on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached.”
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
-
Interesting, but I doubt anything comes of it. Unless of course the POTUS has managed to piss the dems off so much they want him gone.
Again Obama's own words come back to bite him is the ass.
"Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."
-
it's not like its breaking news that obama has gone back on his word. everyone knows that.
at the same time, what would getbiggers be saying if youtube was packed with videos of 'rebels being dragged from their closets and executed in front of their families" as kadaffi promised? It would be "oh, the humanity, how could obama allow this?"
Repubs were already screaming he wasn't doing enough. so he was gonna get criticized no matter what. so he did what he wanted, breaking his word.
-
;)
-
it's not like its breaking news that obama has gone back on his word. everyone knows that.
at the same time, what would getbiggers be saying if youtube was packed with videos of 'rebels being dragged from their closets and executed in front of their families" as kadaffi promised? It would be "oh, the humanity, how could obama allow this?"
Repubs were already screaming he wasn't doing enough. so he was gonna get criticized no matter what. so he did what he wanted, breaking his word.
Who fucking cares? I don't get all emotional about the poor down trodden soles of the middle east like some of you. As far as I'm concerned you trade on asshole for another, it simply comes down to being a secular asshole or and Islamist asshole. And as far as Obama "allowing this" ::).
Going back on your word is one thing, constitutional violations are another, I don't see how this is an immanent threat to the US.
Obama's real problem, is no one knows what his policy, and frankly I don't think he does until he actually makes a decision. If the bar is being set at " dictator that oppresses his people" the US military is going to be busy as hell over the next few years.
-
Havent the US military always been pretty busy?
Cut Obama some slack he us just upholding the tradition that make this country great
-
Ha ha ha ha. Food Fight.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x699798
-
Havent the US military always been pretty busy?
Cut Obama some slack he us just upholding the tradition that make this country great
-
Havent the US military always been pretty busy?
Cut Obama some slack he us just upholding the tradition that make this country great
Why? I posted his own words on the subject. He either doesn't believe what he says or his opinion changes like the direction of the wind. Is that who should be running the country?
-
Why? I posted his own words on the subject. He either doesn't believe what he says or his opinion changes like the direction of the wind. Is that who should be running the country?
"He either doesn't believe what he says or his opinion changes like the direction of the wind."
This.
Hes a politician so his opinion probably change in the direction of the voters. Who knows how a mind works after years in politics always negotiating and keeping up appearences.
Should he be running the country? Probably not.
Is there a better alternative? Time will tell
-
"He either doesn't believe what he says or his opinion changes like the direction of the wind."
This.
Hes a politician so his opinion probably change in the direction of the voters. Who knows how a mind works after years in politics always negotiating and keeping up appearences.
Should he be running the country? Probably not.
Is there a better alternative? Time will tell
See this is the problem, this shit has been going on so long we just chalk it up to "he is just being a politician". But it's ou own fault we just accept it instead of calling the fuckers out.
-
He should be impeached. Sacrificing US money and risking US lives to secure oil for the EU while helping the Arab League push their Islamic supremacist agenda should be grounds for impeachment.
-
I'm so confused.
Hannity is screaming about the fact we should have done it 12 days ago - with zero help from our allies.
People complain when he acts. They complain when he doesn't act fast enough. And if he was doing zilch, they'd be complaining too.
-
I'm so confused.
Hannity is screaming about the fact we should have done it 12 days ago - with zero help from our allies.
People complain when he acts. They complain when he doesn't act fast enough. And if he was doing zilch, they'd be complaining too.
Well shit is Hannity says it........ whoops sorry I don't care what Hannity says.
No people complain because he can't decide what he is going to do then when he does, he doesn't bother to consult congress ( that pesky constitution again) or explain to the public when, where, why, and how shit is being done. For a constitutional scholar and supposed great communicator he does a piss poor job of both.
-
I'm very much against the attack. The slaughter would have been over by now, and kadaffi would be running shit again and our US interests would be best served.
my whole beef is with this getbig statement "it's a leftist war!"
Repubs are screaming he didn't bomb fast enough, hard enough, and shouldn't have involved our allies. Great, another American rush to war without the assistance of the world.
He's doing a piss poor job, no doubt there. But IMO it's the criticism from the repubs out both sides of their mouth that lets obama do what he wants. If the GOP had delivered a unified "Attack Libya today" bill, or a "No attack on our watch!" immediately, obama would have had his hands tied.
Now? Now he can claim a win in the 2012 election. Now he can claim he waited for a world consensus, and that the USA only had a small role in the attack. Again, GOP, please get your shit together.
-
I'm so confused.
Hannity is screaming about the fact we should have done it 12 days ago - with zero help from our allies.
People complain when he acts. They complain when he doesn't act fast enough. And if he was doing zilch, they'd be complaining too.
And?
I'm very much against the attack. The slaughter would have been over by now, and kadaffi would be running shit again and our US interests would be best served.
my whole beef is with this getbig statement "it's a leftist war!"
Repubs are screaming he didn't bomb fast enough, hard enough, and shouldn't have involved our allies. Great, another American rush to war without the assistance of the world.
He's doing a piss poor job, no doubt there. But IMO it's the criticism from the repubs out both sides of their mouth that lets obama do what he wants. If the GOP had delivered a unified "Attack Libya today" bill, or a "No attack on our watch!" immediately, obama would have had his hands tied.
Now? Now he can claim a win in the 2012 election. Now he can claim he waited for a world consensus, and that the USA only had a small role in the attack. Again, GOP, please get your shit together.
Give it a rest already. You were the twat that started the finger-pointing when you purposely left Kerry out of your initial attempt to paint the Repubs as the ones leading the call for war. You've since spent a dozen+ posts trying to make excuses for it.
Obama listens to Hillary, Power and Rice, all three of which advocated for intervention. They are leftists. Obama is a leftists. This = leftist war.
He does not listen to McCain, T-Paw or Newt. They are irrelevant. Hope this helps. 8)
-
We have no business sticking our nose in Libya's civil war. What is the end goal? There is no foreward thinking at all.
-
I'm very much against the attack. The slaughter would have been over by now, and kadaffi would be running shit again and our US interests would be best served.
my whole beef is with this getbig statement "it's a leftist war!"
Repubs are screaming he didn't bomb fast enough, hard enough, and shouldn't have involved our allies. Great, another American rush to war without the assistance of the world.
He's doing a piss poor job, no doubt there. But IMO it's the criticism from the repubs out both sides of their mouth that lets obama do what he wants. If the GOP had delivered a unified "Attack Libya today" bill, or a "No attack on our watch!" immediately, obama would have had his hands tied.
Now? Now he can claim a win in the 2012 election. Now he can claim he waited for a world consensus, and that the USA only had a small role in the attack. Again, GOP, please get your shit together.
Why should congress have to do that? The POTUS is commander-in-chief, he doesn't have unlimited authority to attack whoever, whenever the fuck he feels like it. We still have 3 branched of government not a fucking king. His hands are already tied by the constitution, and no UN resolution over rides that.
-
Why should congress have to do that? The POTUS is commander-in-chief, he doesn't have unlimited authority to attack whoever, whenever the fuck he feels like it. We still have 3 branched of government not a fucking king
agreed he has no authority to do so.
however, what platform will Newt or T-paw have in a national debate, to condemn him?
"It was messed up to bomb them without asking, Barrack".
"Yes, but YOU were screaming about it, and people were dying by the minute, I had to act".
It's no leftist war. It's a chickenhawk war.
-
agreed he has no authority to do so.
however, what platform will Newt or T-paw have in a national debate, to condemn him?
"It was messed up to bomb them without asking, Barrack".
"Yes, but YOU were screaming about it, and people were dying by the minute, I had to act".
It's no leftist war. It's a chickenhawk war.
Who gives a shit, there is procedure, if Newt or T-Paw tell Obama to jump off a bridge will he? I really don't give a fuck what an unelected official jockeying for a presidential run has to say at this point.
-
Who gives a shit, there is procedure, if Newt or T-Paw tell Obama to jump off a bridge will he? I really don't give a fuck what an unelected official jockeying for a presidential run has to say at this point.
I care a lot more about the 2012 debate dynamic than I do about some shitbird leader in lybia killing shitbirds who live there.
-
I care a lot more about the 2012 debate dynamic than I do about some shitbird leader in lybia killing shitbirds who live there.
Well then we agree on something, I don't give a shit about Libya or their civil war either. The point being Obama is the man, he makes the decisions, not Newt, not T-Paw they don't even hold office.
-
Well then we agree on something, I don't give a shit about Libya or their civil war either. The point being Obama is the man, he makes the decisions, not Newt, not T-Paw they don't even hold office.
my point is that their eagerness to show off how big their hard-ons for war put them on the same side as obama on this issue.
As pussified as it sounds - those repubs who didn't have an opinion on the invasion can stand there with 20/20 hindsight and claim they knew the answer all along, but inexplicably kept it to themselves.
-
my point is that their eagerness to show off how big their hard-ons for war put them on the same side as obama on this issue.
As pussified as it sounds - those repubs who didn't have an opinion on the invasion can stand there with 20/20 hindsight and claim they knew the answer all along, but inexplicably kept it to themselves.
Did they call for an invasion or simply a no fly zone? As it stands now we have amphibious assault ships in the area. Which more than likely means Marines on the ground at some point. No thanks, I don't buy into any of the UN peace keeping bullshit, not worth the risk to one soldier for the useless fuckers.
-
they called for no fly zone - which is an act of war.
They called for immediate war with a 3rd arab country... it's theirs too now.
IMO, their eagerness to show the war companies "Look, i'll be a war president, give donations to me" clouded their view. We aren't needed there. Period. It'd be over now. Now you'll have way more lives lost, tons of US $ spent, and the new people running it will hate us too.
-
they called for no fly zone - which is an act of war.
They called for immediate war with a 3rd arab country... it's theirs too now.
IMO, their eagerness to show the war companies "Look, i'll be a war president, give donations to me" clouded their view. We aren't needed there. Period. It'd be over now. Now you'll have way more lives lost, tons of US $ spent, and the new people running it will hate us too.
How is it theirs? They have no power, amazing that an individual who doesn't even hold office has that much influence over the POTUS, fucking scary actually
-
High crimes and misdemeanors.
-
How is it theirs? They have no power, amazing that an individual who doesn't even hold office has that much influence or the POTUS, fucking scary actually
They lose the ability to criticize him for attacking - if/when it goes bad in the next 2 years.
Reminds me of when Mitt claimed "no opinion" on the iraqi surge, then spent a year trashing obama for not backing the surge... lol...
it's politics. They traded the ability to criticize obama for it, in exchange for cozying up to war companies.
-
They lose the ability to criticize him for attacking - if/when it goes bad in the next 2 years.
Reminds me of when Mitt claimed "no opinion" on the iraqi surge, then spent a year trashing obama for not backing the surge... lol...
it's politics. They traded the ability to criticize obama for it, in exchange for cozying up to war companies.
Romney backed the surge in January 2007.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/01/10/romney_backs_bushs_surge_in_iraq/
-
They lose the ability to criticize him for attacking - if/when it goes bad in the next 2 years.
Reminds me of when Mitt claimed "no opinion" on the iraqi surge, then spent a year trashing obama for not backing the surge... lol...
it's politics. They traded the ability to criticize obama for it, in exchange for cozying up to war companies.
They can criticize if they want to, they don't have any power over the situation, Obama does. I mean shit Obama said only a few years ago that the POTUS didn't have the power to go to war with out congressional approval and look what we have.
-
Impeachable? No... of course not.
A terrible thing... Absolutely.
It's ridiculous for us to spend more money fighting for people who just don't give a damn about us.
-
my bad, it was romney wanting to withdraw from iraq.
Mccain pointed it out during the debates. In 2007 Romney wanted a timetable for withdrawl.
-
They can criticize if they want to, they don't have any power over the situation, Obama does. I mean shit Obama said only a few years ago that the POTUS didn't have the power to go to war with out congressional approval and look what we have.
Case closed.
-
They can criticize if they want to, they don't have any power over the situation, Obama does. I mean shit Obama said only a few years ago that the POTUS didn't have the power to go to war with out congressional approval and look what we have.
All that needs to be said. No amount of 240 spinwork will make up for this.
-
Republican (Rep. Roscoe Bartlett R-Md) says action in Libya is an 'affront' to the US Constitution
The Hill ^ | 3/21/11 | John T. Bennett
Republican says action in Libya is an 'affront' to the US Constitution
By John T. Bennett - 03/21/11 06:33 PM ET
A senior Republican on the House Armed Services Committee escalated his party's attacks on the Obama's administration's military action in Libya, calling the move unconstitutional.
“The United States does not have a King's army," Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) said in a statement released Monday evening. "President Obama's unilateral choice to use U.S. military force in Libya is an affront to our Constitution."
Bartlett said Obama's team has repeated "the mistakes" made by the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations when they plunged U.S. forces into the Kosovo and Iraq conflicts without first seeking congressional approval.
Bartlett lashed out at Obama for opting against getting lawmakers OK before using "military force against a country that has not attacked U.S. territory, the U.S. military or U.S. citizens."
Obama notified lawmakers of his authorization for the mission in a letter.
Bartlett's statement was the harshest yet from House Republican leaders, who are lining up against the Libyan operation.
House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif.) issued separate statements Sunday afternoon questioning the administration's goals in Libya.
Some senior Senate Republicans, including John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), have said they support sending U.S. forces to Libya to help set up and maintain a no-fly zone.
In the statement, the Bartlett called Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi a tyrant who has mercilessly attacked his own people.
But, for Bartlett, that is not enough to justify U.S. military intervention.
"It is self-evident that the tragic situation in Libya is not an emergency since the Obama administration sought and obtained support from both the Arab League and the United Nations Security Council to authorize military force against [Gadhafi]," Bartlett said in the statement.
The veteran lawmaker also panned the administration for taking the time to organize over 20 nations for the no-fly zone mission, but not to gain congressional approval.
Bartlett also sought to place the responsibility for the operation squarely on the president's doorstep.
"Failing to obtain authorization from the U.S. Congress means that President Obama has taken sole responsibility for the outcome of using U.S. military forces against [Gadhafi] onto his shoulders and his administration," Bartlett said.
-
See this is the problem, this shit has been going on so long we just chalk it up to "he is just being a politician". But it's ou own fault we just accept it instead of calling the fuckers out.
True
-
They can criticize if they want to, they don't have any power over the situation, Obama does. I mean shit Obama said only a few years ago that the POTUS didn't have the power to go to war with out congressional approval and look what we have.
That about sums it up.
-
-
Obama observe the now 37 year old War Powers Act... which lets a POTUS act unilaterally in a fast changing situation such as this, but states that s/he has to get Congressional authorization within 60 days, extendable to 90 if circumstances require it:
[SEC. 5. (b)
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.]
-
Biden disagrees with you.
-
he dosen't disagree with me he disagrees with the war powers act ;D
-
he dosen't disagree with me he disagrees with the war powers act ;D
What was the national emergency, threat, imminent danger, and national interest in this that Obama could not get cong approval fist?
-
you would have to ask them, they know whats going on there more then us
-
There is this notion that we cannot retreat from Libya without removing Gaddafi, but that's ridiculous. Obama should admit that he didn't want to go to war in the first place and back out. It doesn't look good, but we don't have the money or the right to be there.
-
There is this notion that we cannot retreat from Libya without removing Gaddafi, but that's ridiculous. Obama should admit that he didn't want to go to war in the first place and back out. It doesn't look good, but we don't have the money or the right to be there.
The British and French need Gadhafi removed or they can certainly expect terrorist reprisal attacks down the road. Not only that, but if we pull out then the entire operation collapses as neither France or England have the military capabilities to enforce the NFZ for more than a few days.
Not only that, but the govt. of Yemen has killed hundreds of protesters in the last few weeks. And now Syrian govt. forces are becoming increasingly violent, having just killed protesters for the second time in a week. Are we going in there, too?
The Messiah put this country into a gigantic cluster-fuck for no reason whatsoever.
-
The British and French need Gadhafi removed or they can certainly expect terrorist reprisal attacks down the road. Not only that, but if we pull out then the entire operation collapses as neither France or England have the military capabilities to enforce the NFZ for more than a few days.
Not only that, but the govt. of Yemen has killed hundreds of protesters in the last few weeks. And now Syrian govt. forces are becoming increasingly violent, having just killed protesters for the second time in a week. Are we going in there, too?
The Messiah put this country into a gigantic cluster-fuck for no reason whatsoever.
Agreed that Obama has put the US and it's allies at risk of terrorist attacks if Gaddafi is left in power. At this point though, there's already enough American hatred in the Middle East that it doesn't matter what we do, there will be retribution. Our best option is to totally pull out and inform the world that we're no longer a blank check. Like you said, are we going into Syria or Yemen next? It's not sustainable.