Kucinich: Obama's Impeachable Offense

[JudeBrando]

Why is Kucinich such a racist?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Obama is a fascist!

just trying to be fair and balanced

Don't forget giant hypocrite.

 

[Travis]

Don't forget giant hypocrite.

I think he just changed his mind. People are allowed to do that.

You see people will say all sorts of things that stem from their personal ideologies. The problem is that reality has a bias against ideologies. It's one thing to criticize the actions of a President when you are not responsible for the consequences and another when you are actually the POTUS.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Or maybe he is a hypocrite.

Still seems like the right thing to do.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Found this at CNN's blog. I can't post links yet.

Thoughts?

Not sure. I stopped after reading these three words - "Rep. Dennis Kucinich".

 

[Ziggurat]

I think he just changed his mind.

What makes you so sure he was serious about what he said the first time?

Obama has been breaking promises from the beginning of his presidency. That's not unique in a president, but the degree to which this was predictable, and predicted, is something a lot of people are still in denial about.

The rubes continue to self-identify, though. Suckers.

 

[Brainster]

If only there were some Constitutional scholars to back Kucinich up with that claim. Surely there's been some thought on to whether or not the War Powers Act is constitutional or not.

Wait, how about this one?

The guy said what he had to in order to get elected by the crackpot left "Bushitler" crowd.

 

[Cain]

Problem is that Kucinch, who keeps a copy of the Constitution on his person most of the time, has these things called principles, which are anathema to most Democrats. Paraphrasing Madison, who I believe said, "there is no greater wisdom in the Constitution than giving the authority to declare war to the people (Congress) and not the executive." I know some here are inclined to reflexively argue, "this isn't a war, just a little ol' bombing." And I'm sure that if another country were to do the same to us, they'd feel exactly the same way.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Found this at CNN's blog. I can't post links yet.

Thoughts?

I think he is right. But we will all be much worse off if the Vice President took over the country.

Let's just find a Republican that is not too bad and vote Obama out of office.

As I said here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7002551&postcount=190

If you disagree that the President has no authority to commit military action where there is not actual or immediate threat to the United States, google December 20, 2007 when Obama himself spoke about this Constitutional fact.

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=+President+has+no+authority+to+commit+military+action+where+there+is+not+actual+or+immediate+threat+to+the+United+States%2C+google+December+20%2C+2007+when+Obama+himself+spoke+about+this+Constitutional+fact&btnG=Google+Search&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1&cad=b

“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.”

— Senator Barack Obama, December 20 2007

By nation, of course, he means the USa. Khadaffi's TCB in Libya has no threat to the nation of the United States. In fact, Khadaffi had been our ally on the War on Terror.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

So Kucinich has moved to Obama Derangement Syndrome, huh? He's a real contrarian, especially when the left was infested with Bush Derangement Syndrome back in 2001-2009.

 

[eeyore1954]

If only there were some Constitutional scholars to back Kucinich up with that claim. Surely there's been some thought on to whether or not the War Powers Act is constitutional or not.

Wait, how about this one?

Originally Posted by Barack 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.

I am guessing this is not an attack just an exercise.

 

[TraneWreck]

I think most of the people pointing this out are just upset at the abrogation of powers. They want he-of-many-spellings gone as well. Obama can push for military action. But Congress must authorize it. It's a check and balance. It's there for a reason. Congress should censure him. Tell him he's naughty. And next time, ask Congress to rush through some emergency resolution authorizing it.

The issue is fairly easily handled by Congress, they control the funding for this little excursion. The problem over the last few decades has not been presidents over-stepping their authority, that we can safely assume will always happen, the founders certainly assumed as much, it's that the balance to such action, Congress, has ignored its duties.

That's not to say that any of the various military exercises we've been involved in, from Granada to Somalia, were propper or well-thought out, but once everyone decided to let Iran-Contra go, we were set on never needing Congressional approval again.

Obama is clearly a hypocrite on this issue, just like Bush was when he said he wouldn't be a nation-builder and wanted a humble foreign policy. Presidents will always extend their powers. Congress and the Judicial branch are supposed to restrict this expansion of power, but they haven't.

 

[Peephole]

Aside from everything terrible about this subject, what I don't get is why doesn't Obama ask authorisation? I'd think Republicans' love for war would overcome their hatred for Democrats. And Democrats are always spineless pushovers.

 

[dudalb]

I think he just changed his mind. People are allowed to do that.

You see people will say all sorts of things that stem from their personal ideologies. The problem is that reality has a bias against ideologies. It's one thing to criticize the actions of a President when you are not responsible for the consequences and another when you are actually the POTUS.

QFT. When actually in a position of power, a great many people find their ideologies simply do not work.,make changes,which upsets the blind followers of ideology.
I suspect, as time goes by, the freshmen GOPers in Congress will make this discovery.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Presidents have been ignoring the War Powers Act (and the Constitutional provision reserving to Congress the right to declare war) for at least 5 decades now.

Which doesn't refute the argument that what Obama did was illegal.

And Newton's Bit is exactly right (in what he implies anyway): Obama is at least being hypocritical or horrendously inconsistent.

 

[dudalb]

Aside from everything terrible about this subject, what I don't get is why doesn't Obama ask authorisation? I'd think Republicans' love for war would overcome their hatred for Democrats. And Democrats are always spineless pushovers.

Nice stereotyping there, slick.
I got a feeling from your history of posting that you don't really have a high opinion of Americans in general.

 

[sarge]

QFT. When actually in a position of power, a great many people find their ideologies simply do not work.,make changes,which upsets the blind followers of ideology.
I suspect, as time goes by, the freshmen GOPers in Congress will make this discovery.

President Obama's personal statements are pretting damning in this instance. He is a hypocrit on this subject at least. His actions are impeachable.

That's not to say I believe an impeachment is in order. After allowing the practice to go un-checked in the past, Congress set the stage for ever greater encroachments by the Executive Branch. In my opinion, Congress' past and present are guilty of greater crimes against the principle of checks and balances than is the Executive branch.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Obama is trying hard to spin this as a different use of executive authority than Bush's invasion of Iraq, but I think he failed. In fact, one could make a case that Bush at least cowed Congress (or Congress caved under rampant patriotism-baiting) into giving him authorization and his decisions were more legal than Obama's.

 

[Darat]

Which doesn't refute the argument that what Obama did was illegal.

And Newton's Bit is exactly right (in what he implies anyway): Obama is at least being hypocritical or horrendously inconsistent.

I read the quote from Obama above and that was an answer to a question about a specific action so I'm not sure whether that can be extended to cover all military action. I would have thought that it would revolve on what the legal interpretation would be of the action in Libya and whether that falls outside his powers.

 

[tyr_13]

Aside from everything terrible about this subject, what I don't get is why doesn't Obama ask authorisation? I'd think Republicans' love for war would overcome their hatred for Democrats. And Democrats are always spineless pushovers.

If he had gone to Congress, and they said no, or worse they dragged it out for weeks on end just to turn around and accuse Obama of abandoning the Libyan rebels, he wouldn't have been able to take the action.

Politically, it would have been great to take it to Congress because either his opponents say, 'no', in which case they look silly and inconsistent, or they say 'yes' and everyone gets to hold it up as 'when it really matters we work together regardless of what crazy left/right wingers those other guys are'.

If Obama actually believed it needed to be done quick for the best effect, than it makes more sense, but still if it were that important why not do it a week ago? Of course perhaps he saw the need as dire enough to justify the War Power Acts abuse but not dire enough to go without broad UN and Arab support.

At any rate, it's not a clear cut situation on most levels.