Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"

[Chappy]

“It would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense. Now, it doesn't necessarily follow that simply because a president has committed an impeachable offense, that the process should start to impeach and remove him. That's a whole separate question. But we have to clearly understand what this Constitution is about.” — Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)​

The usual suspects, ultra liberals and card-carrying libertarians are standing up and decrying the President's order for our military to participate in the U.N. authorized intervention in Libya, putting to the lie that liberals only oppose Republican presidents' wars and that all conservatives move in lockstep to war.

Excerpted from “Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"; Both say President Obama overstepped his constitutional authority by giving green light to intervention in Libya” BY PETER FINOCCHIARO, “The War Room” (blog), Salon, MONDAY, MAR 21, 2011 17:37 ET
[SIZE="+2"]O[/SIZE]utspoken critics on the left are raising hell over the Obama administration's authorization of military force in Libya, calling it "unconstitutional." …

Excerpted from “Strikes In Libya Divides GOP, Puts Boehner In A Bind” By Susan Crabtree, TPMDC March 21, 2011, 10:34AM
[SIZE="+2"]F[/SIZE]reshmen House Republicans are already putting House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) in a bind over the budget, with a contingent of Tea Party-backed fiscal conservatives refusing to vote for any more continuing resolutions. Now a group of libertarian-leaning Republicans are balking at President Obama's missile strikes in Libya.

Republican Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Justin Amash (R-MI) over the weekend objected to the President's decision to use military force to contain Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, with some questioning the constitutionality of the operation and others opposing U.S military intervention in another Arab country because they aren't convinced that the U.S. has a clear national interest in the action. …

 

[Chappy]

Excerpted from “Did Obama lose Congress on Libya?” By JONATHAN ALLEN & MARIN COGAN, Politico, 3/21/11 5:20 PM EDT
[SIZE="+2"]P[/SIZE]resident Barack Obama is facing growing anger from lawmakers who believe he overstepped his authority by launching missile strikes into Libya without first seeking the consent of Congress.

The criticism is from all directions: from moderates, like Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Dick Lugar (R-Ind.); from those on the far left and right, like Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Ron Paul (R-Texas), who believe the president acted outside the Constitution; and from the establishment on both sides, including House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson of Connecticut and Republican Rep. Candice Miller of Michigan, a self-described “hawk.”

What it adds up to is this: The president, already taking heat for a perceived lack of engagement on pressing domestic matters, will arrive home from South America needing to justify to Congress and the public his decision to use force in Libya without seeking approval. …

Some days, you just can't win.

 

[rocket88]

Finally - Kucinich and Glenn Beck agree.

 

[MaggieD]

“It would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense. Now, it doesn't necessarily follow that simply because a president has committed an impeachable offense, that the process should start to impeach and remove him. That's a whole separate question. But we have to clearly understand what this Constitution is about.” — Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)​

The usual suspects, ultra liberals and card-carrying libertarians are standing up and decrying the President's order for our military to participate in the U.N. authorized intervention in Libya, putting to the lie that liberals only oppose Republican presidents' wars and that all conservatives move in lockstep to war.

Best part of the post?? Freshmen are makin' noise. Love it.

 

[Animus]

If all the nitwits in Congress oppose it, it must be good.

 

[Catawba]

If all the nitwits in Congress oppose it, it must be good.

Are the GOP opposed to establishing a no fly zone? I have not heard of their official position. Anyone know what it is?

 

[jhon]

Col Muammar Gaddafi - complete uncensored interview [eng subs]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-LGrTdL7B0&feature=related

 

[deltabtry]

Are the GOP opposed to establishing a no fly zone? I have not heard of their official position. Anyone know what it is?

I think the GOP is for it, No fly zones what a assinine idea, that idea got us into Gulf war 2 and I really hate to say but I have to give credit to Hilliary Clinton for that statement. Now for my meds....

 

[StillBallin75]

Nader and Dennis are just jealous they didn't get the job, lol.

 

[Chappy]

Are the GOP opposed to establishing a no fly zone? I have not heard of their official position. Anyone know what it is?

They are as divided as the Democrats. “Republican Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Justin Amash (R-MI)” are opposed to foreign intervention; see the OP, third link.

 

[Catawba]

They are as divided as the Democrats. “Republican Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Justin Amash (R-MI)” are opposed to foreign intervention; see the OP, third link.

But there has been no official position from the GOP like their has been on saying no to health care and and yes to tax cuts for the rich?

 

[washunut]

They are as divided as the Democrats. “Republican Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Justin Amash (R-MI)” are opposed to foreign intervention; see the OP, third link.

Seems like good news that we have an issue not totally overcome by partisan politics. People actually saying what they believe versus the party line.

 

[X Factor]

They are as divided as the Democrats. “Republican Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Justin Amash (R-MI)” are opposed to foreign intervention; see the OP, third link.

They're divided? I thought you said in your OP that Republican's move in "lockstep". It's funny that, to you, Dem disagreement means something positive, but Republican disagreement means they move in lockstep. Can you explain your numerous contradictions?

 

[Chappy]

They're divided? I thought you said in your OP that Republican's move in "lockstep". …

I think you misread, my point was that Republicans are divided, too, and are not marching lockstep to war.

 

[X Factor]

I think you misread, my point was that Republicans are divided, too, and are not marching lockstep to war.

My bad, Chappy. I reread your OP and I did misread it the first time.

 

[Utility Man]

I wonder if we haven't already given the President all the power to combat "terrorism" that he needs. The previous administration and the current one have launched attacks into other nations such as Pakistan in the name of anti-terrorism etc etc, and I am quite certain that some people would argue that if Libya became a failed state it would become a breeding ground for terrorist. If Presidents can stand at the podium in front of a world audience and shake their fist while threatening to take action against certain individual nations it's the same thing as launching a missile without congressional authorization IMO. My point is I believe that the Presidents have been given a blank check already when it comes to using our armed forces to contain any sort of threat that could be even remotely tied to terrorist activity(even when that future threat may not exist yet).

 

[Councilman]

I got into it with someone who claimed Bush went into Iraq without authorization but the votes were
United States Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0

United States House of Representatives
Party Ayes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3

The Constitution is very clear on this and Obama cannot on his own declare war and call it what you will, when you attack another Nation it is by definition a declaration of War, meaning Obama violated the Constitution and his oath of office.

This I see as a test for Obama to see what he can get away with before he's called on it, and has to back down.

Nader, & Kucinich seem to be right.

 

[Catawba]

I got into it with someone who claimed Bush went into Iraq without authorization but the votes were
United States Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0

United States House of Representatives
Party Ayes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3

The Constitution is very clear on this and Obama cannot on his own declare war and call it what you will, when you attack another Nation it is by definition a declaration of War, meaning Obama violated the Constitution and his oath of office.

This I see as a test for Obama to see what he can get away with before he's called on it, and has to back down.

Nader, & Kucinich seem to be right.

I think Congress should vote on whether we continue to provide assistance to this NATO operation. By your count above, almost 3 times as many Republicans than Democrats voted on invading Iraq. It would be interesting to see how the vote would come out today on whether we should withdraw our support or not.

I take it you are for withdrawing our support?

 

[Utility Man]

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001), one of two resolutions commonly known as "AUMF" (the other being "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"), was a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.

IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

This has little to do with Iraq and more to do with the power given to the President concerning terrorism. If Libya could even remotely(someday)become a safe haven for the "bad guys" he would have the authority to act(legally speaking). Not to mention this is a matter of national security and congress will get stonewalled if there is a hearing/inquiry.

Maybe the rules have changed since bush left office, I dunno.

 

[Catawba]

This has little to do with Iraq and more to do with the power given to the President concerning terrorism. If Libya could even remotely(someday)become a safe haven for the "bad guys" he would have the authority to act(legally speaking). Not to mention this is a matter of national security and congress will get stonewalled if there is a hearing/inquiry.

Maybe the rules have changed since bush left office, I dunno.

This has nothing to do with fighting terrorism that I've read about. It is a NATO operation to prevent the leader of Libya from committing genocide of his own people.

 

[spud_meister]

The President has the right to use the military without congressional approval under the War Powers Resolution., what Obama's doing is perfectly legal and within his powers.

 

[the makeout hobo]

The President has the right to use the military without congressional approval under the War Powers Resolution., what Obama's doing is perfectly legal and within his powers.

He has what, 60 days, under it?

 

[deltabtry]

The President has the right to use the military without congressional approval under the War Powers Resolution., what Obama's doing is perfectly legal and within his powers.

Your right but only when a country poses a direct threat to the U.S., and Libya is not by any means a threat. Obama over stepped his authority and he could very well be impeached for this, but we will see the power at be haven't decide what they are going to do.

 

[spud_meister]

He has what, 60 days, under it?

Yep, and 30 days to pull out.

 

[American]

“It would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense. Now, it doesn't necessarily follow that simply because a president has committed an impeachable offense, that the process should start to impeach and remove him. That's a whole separate question. But we have to clearly understand what this Constitution is about.” — Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)​

The usual suspects, ultra liberals and card-carrying libertarians are standing up and decrying the President's order for our military to participate in the U.N. authorized intervention in Libya, putting to the lie that liberals only oppose Republican presidents' wars and that all conservatives move in lockstep to war.

Let's get something straight, woman; the UN doesn't run this country. Do you understand that? The US Constitution establishs law in this country. Now Kucinich is a bumbling clown, nevertheless. I don't support our involvement in this action, because I think Europe should handle it. I'm tired of their worthless asses hanging on our coattails, then bitching about what we do. Let them send their aircraft carriers and soldiers over. Let the French die for a change.