Dems talking about impeachment

[ed1066]

LOL! I had a feeling Obama would eventually be removed from power, but I did not expect it to come from his own former worshippers...

www.salon.com/news/politics/barack_obama/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/03/21/ralph_nader_obama_impeachment

Outspoken critics on the left are raising hell over the Obama administration's authorization of military force in Libya, calling it "unconstitutional." Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader recently rattled off a list of U.S. military and intelligence directives -- apparently including action in Libya -- that he views as egregious violations of international law and grounds for impeachment:

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.

Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich made a similar statement today. In particular, Kucinich castigated Obama for pursuing military intervention in Libya without congressional authorization:

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. It's not even disputable, this isn't even a close question. Such an action ... is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone.

Kucinich's and Nader's arguments against the constitutionality of Obama's authorization of force are based on an interpretation of the War Power Act. Passed by Congress in 1973 -- after a decade-long quagmire in Vietnam -- the legislation requires the president to inform Congress within 48 hours of any U.S. military attack where national security is not at stake. President Obama submitted such a letter to House Speaker John Boehner today. Beyond that, the Act mandates that the commander in chief seek congressional approval after 60 days of military action.

[henryclay]

Ed. let's see hopw many people recognize this:

"............ every post tends to be occupied by someone who is incompetent to carry out their duties and work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence". Managing upward is the concept of a subordinate finding ways to subtly "manage" superiors in order to limit the damage that they end up doing........"

Wouldn't it be a boon to the country if there were any competent subordinates to do the managing?

[ed1066]

Mar 21, 2011 23:47:39 GMT -5 henryclay said:

Ed. let's see hopw many people recognize this:

"............ every post tends to be occupied by someone who is incompetent to carry out their duties and work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence". Managing upward is the concept of a subordinate finding ways to subtly "manage" superiors in order to limit the damage that they end up doing........"

Wouldn't it be a boon to the country if there were any competent subordinates to do the managing?

Obama chose to surround himself primarily with people like himself, radical leftist academics with no leadership or management experience. Now, sadly, the country is paying the price for his arrogance, his incompetence and his megalomania...

[hello fromWarsaw]

Horse patoot. And Ralph is no Dem.

[ed1066]

You got NOTHING libs...

[hello fromWarsaw]

We've got a president for 8 years and Pubs digging a hole who have no candidate.

[hello fromWarsaw]

The Peter Principle has nothing to do with Obama. Best President in many years, dittohead/corporate tools. ;D

[Bluerobin]

Impeach the fool! He is spending our entitlements one cruise missle at a time.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Someone correct me but hasnt every single sitting US prez been threatened with impeachment....
This is a snoozer if anyone is asking me.

[billisonboard]

Mar 22, 2011 8:31:06 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Someone correct me but hasnt every single sitting US prez been threatened with impeachment....
This is a snoozer if anyone is asking me.

William Henry Harrison wasn't.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

This topic is a snoozer, though.

[billisonboard]

So was WHH.

[privateinvestor]

LOL! I had a feeling Obama would eventually be removed from power, but I did not expect it to come from his own former worshippers...


Barbara Lee is so highly pissed off she contacted Nancy Pelosi who is recovering from fatigue and had no comment to Lee's assertion that Obama violated the Constitution by committing our military in Libya. Don't think Lee wants to impeach Obama but she does want a piece of him because Ms Lee is an antiwar Oakland Democrat who yields considerable power and clout in the Black Congressional Caucus.....so Obama better give his butt to Allah because Ms Lee may get this ole butt....IMHO ( of course.. ;D)

[billisonboard]

I agree with SF the impeachment isn't going to happen but I think the situation could be used to develop clearly law on what any president can and can't do as CinC.

[ugonow]

Nader and Kucinich calling for impeachment over a military operation should suprise no one... I am waiting to see if McCain,Cheney, Palin,Gingrich,and all the others that were mad about him taking so long to do it,defend him on this....now that would be suprising to me.....

[privateinvestor]

Rep Lynn Woolsey D Petalima said "The idea that we could be stepping into a third war just makes me sick to my stomach to you tell you the honest truth"

Again Ms Pelosi had no comment because as you Liberal Political Experts all know Ms Pelosi is under the weather and already sick to her stomach from eating some bad pasta in Italy along with fatigue from travelling all over the globe on another boondoggle again....according to my highly ticked off unreliable sources..

[mmhmm]

Most of Ed's topics are snoozers, because Ed is a one-trick-pony. His sole aim in life is to bash the current POTUS. That's it. That's all Ed's got. After awhile, who can do anything other than snooze?

[mmhmm]

Most of Ed's topics are snoozers, because Ed is a one-trick-pony. His sole aim in life is to bash the current POTUS. That's it. That's all Ed's got. After awhile, who can do anything other than snooze?

[privateinvestor]

Mar 22, 2011 9:04:48 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Most of Ed's topics are snoozers, because Ed is a one-trick-pony. His sole aim in life is to bash the current POTUS. That's it. That's all Ed's got. After awhile, who can do anything other than snooze?

I am awake this AM after two starbucks and Ed has a point or two because the anti war crowd in congress is spitting mad and so mad they are thinking about claiming Obama should come before congress and answer to the charges he violated the Constitution and War Powers Act if he doesn't pull out of Libya in a few days. And if Obama cannnot satisfy these ladies who knows what they will do?? Impeach him?? Give him a reprimand?? Your call Ma'am I don't want to guess or get in the middle of this fight with these ladies in congress as you can imagine..

Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsley, Zoe Loften, Mike Honda all want a piece of Obama and Ms Lee is trying to get the Black Caucus to join her on this issue

Ms Pelosi is the only one snoozing from what I understand

[handyman2]

To say the least I am not an Obama fan but lets look at this. First I do not remember Obama declaring war on any one. He is if I am correct as part of our UN commitment to abide by the UN request for countries that are a member to assist the UN in dealing with situations such as this.
So is he in the right to assist France, Britain and Spain in taking action with out Congressional approval or no. I remember this came up quite a few years ago over the UN between China and Taiwan and although there was not hostilities because China back off there was discussion about this and it was decided that because the UN had issued a mandate the president did not need Congressional approval for limited military action.
In short it seems that the UN can declare a military solution and members must provide any assistance requested. Although not a good thing if correct.

[floridayankee]

Mar 22, 2011 10:23:26 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

In short it seems that the UN can declare a military solution and members must provide any assistance requested. Although not a good thing if correct.

I thought off that and you may be correct. I was going on the assumption that as the POTUS, a UN resolution does not trump our laws.

[privateinvestor]

Yea but we now have a battle or min war in congress with the anti-war and anti-Khadhafy Dems. As you probably know the anti war crowd claims Obama 's attacks on Libya are illegal and the anti-Khadahfy crowd think that Obama acted in the best interests of our national security and foreign policy...but this divide is rather huge IMHO

[ed1066]

First I do not remember Obama declaring war on any one.

The president can't declare war. Only congress has that authority. That's the point of this thread. Obama made a unilateral decision to start combat operations in Libya, and his (former) supporters in congress are pissed off about it. So pissed off that they are publicly calling him out on it, a rare event for the presdient's own party...

[handyman2]

ED you are correct. However Congress is reacting as though he did in the sense that he responded to a mandate from the UN to it's members. There may be as I posted before some technicalities here involving the UN. We will have to see how this plays out. I am a lot older than many here I am sure and I have heard this argument before involving the UN. If correct I am not saying it is a good thing. But Obama may have been in a box on this situation.

[floridayankee]

Mar 22, 2011 10:36:41 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

the anti war crowd claims Obama 's attacks on Libya are illegal and the anti-Khadahfy crowd think that Obama acted in the best interests of our national security and foreign policy...but this divide is rather huge IMHO

Taking out every dictator in the world would also be in the best interests of our national security and foreign policy. That alone does not determine legality.

ED you are correct. However Congress is reacting as though he did in the sense that he responded to a mandate from the UN to it's members. There may be as I posted before some technicalities here involving the UN. We will have to see how this plays out.

That's what needs to be determined....does a UN authorization for military action trump procedures for engaging in military action as outlined in our laws?

[Shirina]

Even in ed's post, it specifically says that the POTUS only has to inform Congress of military action within 48 hours, and afterwards, has 60 days to use force before Congress has to grant approval.

In fact, this makes perfect sense, as some volatile military situations happen too quickly for Congress to sit around debating and voting on the matter for weeks on end. The US military needs the mobility and flexibility to respond appropriately.

This problem was realized during the Cold War when Soviet sub-launched ICBMs could reach US cities in under 6 minutes. The POTUS would need limited autonomy to respond and could not gain congressional approval in that short amount of time.

Now, granted, in that situation, the security of the US is definitely on the line. But what about a hostage rescue situation, especially if the hostage takers are threatening executions in, say, 24 hours? Is the security of the US at stake? No ... but the POTUS also has no time for a congressional vote to send in the SEALs.

As I said, the POTUS absolutely needs to have the flexibility to send in armed forces at a moment's notice.

[privateinvestor]

As I said, the POTUS absolutely needs to have the flexibility to send in armed forces at a moment's notice.


Try telling that to Congresswoman Barbara Lee who is having a hissy fit over this and she is also pissed because Pelosi will not return her calls...


www.ibtimes.com/articles/125486/20110322/libya-us.htm

[ed1066]

Mar 22, 2011 13:52:05 GMT -5 Shirina said:

Even in ed's post, it specifically says that the POTUS only has to inform Congress of military action within 48 hours, and afterwards, has 60 days to use force before Congress has to grant approval.

In fact, this makes perfect sense, as some volatile military situations happen too quickly for Congress to sit around debating and voting on the matter for weeks on end. The US military needs the mobility and flexibility to respond appropriately.

This problem was realized during the Cold War when Soviet sub-launched ICBMs could reach US cities in under 6 minutes. The POTUS would need limited autonomy to respond and could not gain congressional approval in that short amount of time.

Now, granted, in that situation, the security of the US is definitely on the line. But what about a hostage rescue situation, especially if the hostage takers are threatening executions in, say, 24 hours? Is the security of the US at stake? No ... but the POTUS also has no time for a congressional vote to send in the SEALs.

As I said, the POTUS absolutely needs to have the flexibility to send in armed forces at a moment's notice.

I'm not disputing if the president has the authority to react instantly to a crisis. He does, and he should have that power. The issue is what are the criteria for allowing him to act unilaterally with military action? If I understand, there has to be a direct and immediate threat to U.S. safety and security. I'm not sure that was the case in Libya. For those who think it is, and didn't think the same level of threat existed in Iraq, for instance, I would like to hear your reasoning...

[deziloooooo]

Mar 22, 2011 9:04:23 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Most of Ed's topics are snoozers, because Ed is a one-trick-pony. His sole aim in life is to bash the current POTUS. That's it. That's all Ed's got. After awhile, who can do anything other than snooze?

[Shirina]

for instance, I would like to hear your reasoning...

The president either has that flexibility or he doesn't. Most situations in the modern world, with asymmetrical warfare, hostage taking, and terrorism, will manifest in shades of gray. There will be equally valid arguments for and against unilateral military action, yet those arguments will simply cause another time-wasting debate among politicians while the POTUS waits for permission.

The POTUS either has limited unilateral control over military use (60 days in the case of the War Powers Act) or he doesn't. There is no "in between" because that will spark debate and delay, and that defeats the purpose of having unilateral control in the first place.

Since the security of the US is rarely, if ever, obviously threatened by nations like Iraq or Libya, we can debate all day over the issue, including all kinds of rationalizations concerning how the situation in Libya is or isn't a direct threat or a clear and present danger to the US.

The invasion of Panama, for instance, involved no Congressional vote, and Bush Sr. merely informed Congress a few hours before the invasion took place. This invasion was supposed to be about protecting the Americans living there, but did Noriega constitute a direct threat to the United States? Highly unlikely.

The invasion of Grenada was another issue where Americans were involved, and this invasion was condemned by just about everyone from the UN to Russia and China and even the UK. The legislation approving the invasion was never finished and thus never officially approved. In fact, did anarchy represent a direct threat to US security? No ... it only represented a threat to a few hundred Americans who lived there. This is even more dubious considering the American students said they never felt as though they were in any kind of danger.

Yet the POTUS in both situations were able to react swiftly, and if they hadn't been granted unilateral action (within 60 days), the issue would've been protracted and delayed by congressional debate. If Noriega knew the US was debating about invasion, he simply would've went underground - like bin Laden did.