• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could Obama be Impeached over Libya? Let's ask Biden

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Biden strikes again, making the impeachment case against Obama, and I don't think it's plagiarized.



.
 
That was then... this is now. The excuse for not applying that to Obama will be... 'But President Obama has not entered into a war with Libya. He's simply following the mandate of the UN Security Council regarding efforts to stop Quadaffy from harming his own citizens'
 
Biden strikes again, making the impeachment case against Obama, and I don't think it's plagiarized.



.


Personally, I think Mr. Boehner should go for it.
 
Personally, I think Mr. Boehner should go for it.

Of course you do. I don't. I think Obama should start answering questions from Congress though.

.
 
Of course you do. I don't. I think Obama should start answering questions from Congress though.

.

Why he will give more non answers like he has been doing his whole presidency
 
Of course you do. I don't. I think Obama should start answering questions from Congress though.

.

His reply will be the same as Bush's was with Iraq - Nothing substantial.
 
Impeachment is such a long drawn out thing. Besides it would probably be winding up the same time as he is voted out of office. It's a wash really. Bush wasn't impeached. Obama won't be either.
 
Shrug....it's politicians, they're full of crap. If Republicans do go for this, what excuse will they come up with for not impeaching Bush? Wow, you mean Joe Biden said something while he was running for President that he didn't really mean? He should have stuck to "Read my lips, no new taxes." Or even better "I am not a crook." Maybe he could talk about WMD and how we'll be "welcomed as liberators."

OK, Joe Biden's full of sh*t. A lot of Democrats are full of sh*t. To hear the strident Conservatives you'd think that this whole "lying politicians" is something Obama invented. Guess what -- Republicans are just as full of sh*t as Democrats are. Welcome to reality.
 
Of course you do. I don't. I think Obama should start answering questions from Congress though.

.
Then what was the point of the video of Biden??? President Clinton's approval ratings suffered as a result of being impeached. Yes?
 
His reply will be the same as Bush's was with Iraq - Nothing substantial.

Examples. A couple perhaps? I recall he was forthcoming but Leftists did not like his answers or rationale. There must be a lot of them for Bush did give a number of pressers, unlike Obama who is redefining what it means to live in a bubble.

.
 
Then what was the point of the video of Biden??? President Clinton's approval ratings suffered as a result of being impeached. Yes?
You really have to ask?

The point of the video was:

1. Obama's VP was selected due to his great insight into foreign policy (rotflol).
2. Obama's VP just gave grounds to impeach Obama.
3. Obama's VP should have let The One know what he was getting into with said actions. No?
4. Seems with all the above, Biden is fairly useless, at least as useless as Obama.

Get it now? I don't have to call for impeachment just because Biden does, nor do I have to react like-kind to the idiotic Leftists that did so during Bush's term. And Bush went to both the UN and got approval from Congress... the only body that matters.

You have anything else to say except complain this vid was brought to light?

.
 
Last edited:
His reply will be the same as Bush's was with Iraq - Nothing substantial.

Why am I not surprised that this tripe came from you? Bush had a congressional resolution that supported his plan, plus two UN resolutions. Obama has nothing at all, but don't let that stop you.
 
Its just like when Reagan got Congressional approval to send the Marines into Lebanon as part of a mutlinational coalilition to oversee the withdraw of PLO forces in that country in 1982. O wait he didn't? And he got his approval from the UN which commanded the force? Scandalous...

But surely its like that other time he got Congressional approval in 1981 to send 3 carrier battle groups into the Gulf of Sirte off of Libya's coast in order to enforce an international law and mandate which gaurenteed free passage in international waters? O he didn't get it then either? What about when he did the EXACT SAME THING in 1986? On top of imposing a NFZ over Tripoli!??!! No Congressional approval? What about in 1989 when the first Bush did THE EXACT SAME THING AGAIN? No not then either.

God damn we should have impeached Reagan...
 
Last edited:
Biden strikes again, making the impeachment case against Obama, and I don't think it's plagiarized.



.


:rofl Wise Biden: "Impeach Obama" and "support Bush' pre-emptive Doctrine" :rofl
 
Biden should lead the charge to impeach Obama. Since the O-man is a one-termer for sure now, it's about the only way Biden becomes President :rofl:
 
Even though I personally don't like him as the President. I don't believe he was done anything Impeachable and trying to Impeach him on this will set a precedence that could give Congress considerable power over the President. Specially if the two are of two different parties. Should he have talked to Congress first yes should he be Impeach no.

Also I hope everyone realize the Impeach just means bringing Charges against him.
 
I think the Bush/Obama analogies are a bit off.

Most liberals I know were more angry because they viewed the invasion of Iraq as being done under false pretenses (WMDs and all that) especially after Bush kept changing his stated reasoning for the invasion. The main issue was that they perceived him as deceiving the nation and manipulating post-9/11 fears. I don't see Obama really doing that, as he sort of had to be dragged into this conflict in the first place.
 
Personally, I think Mr. Boehner should go for it.

Absolutely. What is the old saying about either do it or get off the pot? It applies here to the GOP.
 
Even though I personally don't like him as the President. I don't believe he was done anything Impeachable and trying to Impeach him on this will set a precedence that could give Congress considerable power over the President. Specially if the two are of two different parties. Should he have talked to Congress first yes should he be Impeach no.

Also I hope everyone realize the Impeach just means bringing Charges against him.

Bottom line here is this: Reagan set the president; GW Bush and Pres. Obama are merely following his lead. Republicans can't stand that someone outside their party had the balls to use the military WITHOUT getting their consent first. But it was just fine with two of their own did it.
 
Do no of you really care that Reagan and other Reps have done the exact same thing in the past?
Bombing of Libya (1986) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I mean its almost the EXACT SAME OPERATION

I do not recall Reagan breathlessly berating a previous president for taking military action. I don't recall him doing it after the Marines had their mishap in Iran. Obama had, and not just off-handedly, he laid out a long diatribe berating Bush43 about it all through the election, and based a lot of his election campaign on his "superior judgment".

Had he not, this wouldn't be the big deal it is.

Some of us on the right might actually believe the president shouldn't have to go to Congress to get approval to go to war, echoing some of the Founders.

.
 
Last edited:
They did so it is okay if we do it. This shows a lack of integrity and doing the right thing. The democrats and the left making excuses for the lack of leadership in the White House

You want to talk about "lack of integrity" and "leadership", yet I don't hear you denouncing the wrong doings of either Reagan nor GW Bush when it's been made clear to you that they failed to seek Congressional approval for some of their military actions in the past. So, until your side starts holding true to these ideals of "political intergrity", I'll start condemning Pres. Obama for following their lead as they set the precedent for this kind of usurpting of their authority as Command-in-Chief.

Until your side start condeming Reagan and GW Bush for exceeding their authority from their past actions, and I'll continue to support Pres. Obama's actions against Libya. Until then....:kissass
 
Last edited:
I do not recall Reagan breathlessly berating a previous president for taking military action. I don't recall him doing it after the Marines had their mishap in Iran. Obama had, and not just off-handedly, he laid out a long diatribe berating Bush43 about it all through the election, and based a lot of his election campaign on his "superior judgment".

Had he not, this wouldn't be the big deal it is.

Some of us on the right might actually believe the president shouldn't have to go to Congress to get approval to go to war, echoing some of the Founders.

.

So yet again,for a time beyond count or calcualtion, this is merely the latest excuse to bash Omaba?

What does any view of a citizen matter when they talk as a citizen or even an elected official compared to the actual power that a President of the USA has?

Are you saying that a President cannot take military action which may be legal for him to take because he voiced opposition to previous military action taken years before in a different circumstance and in a different country?
 
Back
Top Bottom