deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 22, 2011 14:43:59 GMT -5
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. Comes down to the fact, when it comes to Foreign Policy, it's the POTUS who has that chair, and with in limits true, he's the one who sets it. To limit this ones power, it means all future POTUS are so limited, thus they are careful to protect that. Even the war powers act of 1973, both houses had to over ride the Presdential veto,. Bes in the long run, question after the fact. This one had better not go 60 days. He either gets the hint or they should go all out and try to get him, whether directly, degrade his forces, his commanders so they take action, but to foot around now, not the way to go, IMHO.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 22, 2011 15:21:12 GMT -5
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. Not arguing legal/illegal since I have never really really researched it much but In Panama, Noriega's troops supposedly directly attacked and killed American servicemen. That would seem to satisfy The War Powers Act of 1973 Section 2 (c)(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. And about a half dozen congressmen drafted a resolution to have Reagan impeached too on charges of illegality. Sounds similar to today's situation...so the results may end up the same and go nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Mar 22, 2011 22:52:43 GMT -5
Those Democrats join GOP critics, including Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and tea party favorite Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. And Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio even suggested that Obama’s action could be an “impeachable offense.”
Read more on Newsmax.com: Dems Rip Obama on Libya, Bring Up 'Impeachable Offense' Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Mar 22, 2011 23:00:17 GMT -5
This is completely different from past "talk", of any past president. This call for Obama to be impeached is non partisan. This call is coming from both sides. That's the huge difference, and anyone who can't see that major difference is either completely ignorant or are so beyond just party loyalty that they live in the psychosis of Liberalism at all costs, so as not to be trusted in anything that they purport as fact.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 22, 2011 23:41:19 GMT -5
"major difference is either completely ignorant or are so beyond just party loyalty that they live in the psychosis of Liberalism at all costs, so as not to be trusted in anything that they purport as fact. " oooohhhhh
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 23, 2011 7:57:53 GMT -5
President Obama has a strong tendency to ignore an issue and then lecture everyone about it or how important it is i.e. Libya, Immigration, same sex marriages, gun smuzzling, narcotics trading. I think he has done it again with both the Middle East, North Africa and more recently Latin America.
He has now been to Brazil, Chile and El Salvador in the past five days, but what has he accomplished there in these countries?.. But what about the flow of guns from Mexico, and Latin America, or what about increasing trade or ratifying trade agreements with Latin America who now seems to be more prosperous. I know the politics are more complicated but is creating more jobs here that much more complicated??
Obama made a lot of canned speaches where he said that Trade between Latin America and the USA has surged and we buy more and invest more in Latin America than any other region but are we here seeing any results here?? What about Mexico which is almost in our backyard and completly ignored for too long...IMHO
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 24, 2011 7:32:51 GMT -5
Kucinich Calls for the Return of Congress to Exercise Constitutional Authority to Declare War U.S. Military Action Against Libya Absent Imminent Threat or Congressional Approval is Outside the Legal Scope of the Presidency Washington, Mar 18 - Obama v. Obama Senator Barack Obama, December 20, 2007, “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.” Washington D.C. (March 18, 2011) – Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today released the following statement and letter to Congressional leaders after the President announced that the United States will support a United Nations-approved attack on Libya: “While the action is billed as protecting the civilians of Libya, a no-fly-zone begins with an attack on the air defenses of Libya and Qaddafi forces. It is an act of war. The president made statements which attempt to minimize U.S. action, but U.S. planes may drop U.S. bombs and U.S. missiles may be involved in striking another sovereign nation. War from the air is still war. “It is also worth noting that the President did not comment upon nor recognize that the Libyan government had declared a ceasefire in response to UNSC Resolution 1973. It was appropriate for the UN to speak about the situation. It was appropriate to establish an arms embargo and freeze Qaddafi’s considerable financial assets. But whether the U.S. takes military action is not for the UN alone to decide. There is a constitutional imperative in the United States with respect to deciding to commit our U.S. armed forces to war. “Congress should be called back into session immediately to decide whether or not to authorize the United States’ participation in a military strike. If it does not, the action of the President is contrary to U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly states that the United States Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not. That was the Founders’ intent. “I have sent a letter to Congressional leadership indicating that the national interest requires that Congress be called back quickly to Washington to exercise its Constitutional authority to determine whether our armed forces should participate in the UN mission. Both houses of Congress must weigh in. This is not for the President alone, or for a few high ranking Members of Congress to decide. “It is hard to imagine that Congress, during the current contentious debate over deficits and budget cutting, would agree to plunge America into still another war, especially since America will spend trillions in total for the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and incursions into Pakistan. “The last thing we need is to be embroiled in yet another intervention in another Muslim country. The American people have had enough. First it was Afghanistan, then Iraq. Then bombs began to fall in Pakistan, then Yemen, and soon it seems bombs could be falling in Libya. Our nation simply cannot afford another war, economically, diplomatically or spiritually,” said Kucinich. Edit: Is this an impeachable offense or is this all you got Dennis??Kucinich Amendment to Defund Libyan Intervention Mar 22, 2011 - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today announced that he will offer an amendment that would prohibit federal funds from being used to fund military operations in Libya. The amendment would be offered to the next funding measure Congress considers. Kucinich sent the following letter to fellow... More kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=229992
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Mar 24, 2011 7:39:59 GMT -5
It is nice to see so many members of the right settle their differences with Kucinich,Moore,Farrahkkan and form an alliance... ...... May I add in just one days time,... "GINGRICH: The standard [Obama] has fallen back to of humanitarian intervention could apply to Sudan, to North Korea, to Zimbabwe, to Syria this week, to Yemen, to Bahrain. … The Arab League wanted us to do something. The minute we did something, the Arab League began criticizing us doing it. I think that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot. I think that the problems we have in Pakistan, Egypt — go around the region. We could get engaged by this standard in all sorts of places. I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces. "
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,395
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 24, 2011 7:48:34 GMT -5
Moving posts to existing Obama impeachment thread.
Tennesseer/Moderator
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 24, 2011 8:11:12 GMT -5
Well at least another one of my threads was not locked or deleted.....I wondered why I could not find it to answer ugonow???
But Demi found it for me and was courteous enough to send me a PM ...
Thanx Demi For letting me know..
P.I.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 24, 2011 8:19:57 GMT -5
. I would not have used American and European forces.
That is the same argument today by Mike Honda who is the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus...and I started to say before being interrupted again that I wonder if Dennis "the menace" will try to push his "Impeachable Offense" agenda with the help of Congressman Darrell Issa..??
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Mar 24, 2011 8:27:42 GMT -5
Even though there was no reason for the President to commit American forces without prior Congressional approval and that may in fact be an impeachable offense, there is no way he will be impeached over this, none at all, zero, nada, zilch.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 24, 2011 8:32:16 GMT -5
" Well at least another one of my threads was not locked or deleted"
Now PI don't be overly dramatic. You have at least 4 threads on page one here now, and who knows how many in the sub board. Ok time to go for a jog & burn off some frustrations BTW is telling an associate contributor to quit this board and go join the UK Board "member bashing" BTW the UK Board is now defunct..
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 24, 2011 8:45:16 GMT -5
Even though there was no reason for the President to commit American forces without prior Congressional approval and that may in fact be an impeachable offense, there is no way he will be impeached over this, none at all, zero, nada, zilch. Agreed. Our fine congress only impeach presidents for serious issues like lying about staining an intern's dress.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 24, 2011 8:48:48 GMT -5
Watch out Dennis "the menace" Kucinich is not Happy.....he sent a memo to Obama trying to make the case that Obama vs Obama is an impeachable offense with a note, "strong letter to follow".....BTW Dennis's wife thinks he would make a great president in 2012.. My political "rumor" for the day..
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Mar 24, 2011 17:11:41 GMT -5
I agree with dat fairly crazy, exactly. Post not made to avoid yet more accusations of mod bashing.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Mar 26, 2011 20:15:13 GMT -5
If the Democrats impeach Obama, will African American voters jump off the Democrat plantation at last?
One can dream...
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 27, 2011 7:19:23 GMT -5
If the Democrats impeach Obama, will African American voters jump off the Democrat plantation at last? One can dream... Dennis "the menace" Kucinich is the only Liberal who is hung up on impeaching Obama because he thinks Obama screwed up again by NOT notifying him about the Libyan conflict before our planes and missile were launched....but remember Dennis also sued the Congressional Cafeterias because he bit a seed in his salad and broke on of his tooth filings.. And Dennis also says he has seen Space Ships land near his house in Ohio...but then it was not ET but one of his distant cousins...
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Mar 27, 2011 16:08:09 GMT -5
Oh, I'd expect Fortney Stark and Barbara Lee will get on that train. Fortney is the biggest buttwipe in Congress. And he hates to be called 'Fortney'. I suppose he used to get his azz beaten regularly in school over that.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 27, 2011 16:13:26 GMT -5
The senate is supposed to start their hearings on the Libyan Conflict next week and according to Senator Levin the question about whether or not Obama violated the War Powers Act or the Constitution by ordering the Armed Forces to be part of the No Fly Zone per the UN resolution will be discussed...Dems opposed Obama on the NO Fly Zone and now want to know when he will order the Armed Forces to leave Libya...and Obama is supposed to Address all this in his address to the Nation tomorrow night. I guess he wanted to wait until the Final 4 were known before giving his speech about Libya..
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 27, 2011 16:40:40 GMT -5
Oh, I'd expect Fortney Stark and Barbara Lee will get on that train. Fortney is the biggest buttwipe in Congress. And he hates to be called 'Fortney'. I suppose he used to get his azz beaten regularly in school over that.
Stark is one weird dude but keeps getting re elected to congress..Lee chairs the Congressional Black Caucus who support her re: Libyan Conflict Involvement Without Congress Ok..
Should see some fireworks when the Senate Hearing start on this issue but don't think Impeachment is on the table but we never can tell what will happen in our congress with so many loose canons running around these days... Bachman, Kucinich, Pelosi, Paul(Sr) to just name a few..
Also we need to know if this is true or not:
"Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links "
Which means Obama has to dance around supporting the rebels and are our goals strictly humanitarian and trying to prevent civilian causalities by the Qaddafi forces or the mercenaries working for his government under the control of his sons.
|
|