Right-Wing Media Ready To Impeach Obama, Again
This month, right-wing media figures are arguing that President Obama should be impeached for actions he has taken with respect to Libya. Undermining the possibility that they really care about the constitutional issues involved, this argument is just the latest in the right-wing media's neverending quest to see Obama impeached.
Conservative Media Agitate For Obama Impeachment Over Libya Intervention
Wash. Times' Kuhner: "Only One Remedy Will Teach [Obama] That He Cannot" "Cavalierly Circumvent" Constitution: "Impeachment." In his March 24 Washington Times column, Jeffrey Kuhner wrote that "[t]he Libyan war is part of a pattern of Mr. Obama's unethical and criminal behavior" and that "[i]f Republicans and conservatives are serious about restoring constitutional government, they will demand that Mr. Obama be impeached." Kuhner continued:
Mr. Obama is a socialist thug. Since entering office, he has engaged in a massive, almost unprecedented power grab. He thinks he is above the law, that he can cavalierly circumvent the limits imposed by the Constitution. Only one remedy will teach him that he cannot do so: impeachment. [The Washington Times, 3/24/11]
WND's Farah: "Yes, It's Time To Impeach Obama." In a March 29 column headlined, "Yes, it's time to impeach Obama," WorldNetDaily editor and CEO Joseph Farah -- who has repeatedly called for Obama to be impeached -- wrote:
Never before in the history of the United States has an occupant of the White House displayed less concern for the Constitution and the rule of law than Barack Obama.
It's about time somebody said it: It's time to impeach Obama.
Both Obama and his vice president stated explicitly and emphatically while serving in the U.S. Senate that the president did not have authority to take the nation into armed conflict without the express will of the U.S. Congress or unless the nation was under attack or faced imminent attack.
Sen. Joe Biden said a president who did so should be impeached.
I don't often agree with Obama and Biden, but they were right then. And it's time for them to be accountable to the same rule of law they saw so clearly in 2006 and 2007.
[...]
There were plenty of grounds to impeach Obama before Libya, as a WND special report prepared late last year revealed: jeopardizing America's ability to defend itself; undermining the free-enterprise system; corrupting democratic institutions; transferring massive amounts of power and wealth from American citizens to extremist special-interest groups whose loyalty lies not with the Constitution but with a global socialist movement.
However, misusing the U.S. military forces for some globalist mission without any accountability to the people or the rule of law should represent the last straw for every American -- no matter their political ideology.
[...]
It's not enough for us to hold our collective breath until 2012, hoping America can find qualified, mature, experienced, pro-American, pro-Constitution leadership. Obama is systematically destroying the country and all it stands for.
It's time to gear up the impeachment machinery. Let the opening argument be made by Obama and Biden themselves. [WorldNetDaily, 3/29/11]
Ace Of Spades: "Obama Never Went To Congress On Libya Because He Never Expected To Have To; Oh, And Impeach Him." From a March 22 post on Ace of Spades titled, "Obama Never Went To Congress on Libya Because He Never Expected To Have To; Oh, and Impeach Him":
The President has committed the United States to war and placed Service Members in danger without constitutionally-required authority to do so.
Waging war in violation of the U.S. Constitution sounds like a High Crime to me. So I'd like someone to explain to me why we shouldn't be talking about impeachment right now. [Ace of Spades HQ, 3/22/11]
Right-Wing Media Saw Obama's DOMA Decision As Grounds For Impeachment
Vadum: "So Many Reasons To Impeach Obama, Now He Gives Us A New One: DOMA." In a February 24 post on his Twitter feed, Capital Research Center senior editor Matthew Vadum wrote:
The link Vadum included went to a post by Ben Stein on The American Spectator blog, in which Stein argued that Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder's decision on the Defense of Marriage Act amounted to "a major constitutional coup." [Matthew Vadum, Twitter, 2/24/11]
Gingrich Flirts With Notion Of Obama Impeachment Over DOMA, Then Backtracks. In an interview with Newsmax TV, then-Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich asserted that Obama "is breaking his word to the American people over the Defense of Marriage Act. When the host asked, "Is what he's doing impeachable in your view?" Gingrich replied: "I think that's something you get to much later. But I think clearly it is a dereliction of duty, clearly it is a violation of his constitutional oath, and clearly it is something which cannot be allowed to stand." When the host pressed further, "At what point would the House or would you recommend the House consider articles of impeachment for that?" Gingrich replied: "Look, I don't think these guys set out to cause a constitutional crisis. ... I think that they didn't understand the implication that having a president personally suspend a law is clearly unconstitutional. This is an impossible precedent." [Newsmax TV interview, 2/25/11]
- Gingrich later backtracked, reportedly issuing a statement saying that "Congress has every responsibility to demand President Obama live up to his constitutional obligations, but impeachment is clearly not an appropriate action." [Politico, 2/25/11]
Fox Nation Promotes Gingrich's Flirtation With Obama Impeachment. With the headline, "Gingrich Warns of Constitutional Crisis if Obama Isn't Stopped," Fox Nation promoted Gingrich's suggestion that Obama's DOMA decision could be an impeachable offense:
[Fox Nation, 2/26/11]
In Fact, Both Obama And The Justice Department Have Pledged To Continue Enforcing DOMA. In a statement, Holder acknowledged that, although the administration will not provide a legal defense in court of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, the Obama administration will continue to enforce the law while court challenges to the section continue. Furthermore, a 1994 memorandum issued by the Department of Justice cites numerous Supreme Court decisions establishing the legal basis for the Executive Branch to not enforce a statute it deems unconstitutional. [Equality Matters, 2/24/11]
Fox Contributor Pushed For Obama Impeachment Over Egypt Crisis
Fox Contributor Tammy Bruce Calls For Obama To Be Investigated, Possibly Impeached Over Egypt. In a series of posts on her Twitter feed, Fox News contributor Tammy Bruce called for Obama to be investigated and possibly impeached over the crisis in Egypt:
[Tammy Bruce, Twitter, 2/1/11]
Fox Nation Jumps On Tammy Bruce's Obama Impeachment Bandwagon. Fox Nation linked to an article on Bruce's tweets calling for investigations into, and possible impeachment of, Obama over the crisis in Egypt:
[Fox Nation, 2/3/11]
Right-Wing Media Called For Obama's Impeachment Over Health Care Reform Bill
Kuhner: Passing Health Reform Using So-Called Self-Executing Rule "Would Open Mr. Obama ... To Impeachment." In a Washington Times column headlined, "Impeach the president?" Kuhner argued that passing health care reform using a legislative procedure called a "self-executing rule"-- a common and perfectly constitutional procedure -- would "replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government -- meeting the threshold of 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' " [The Washington Times, 3/17/10]
Conservative Media Use Phony Sestak Scandal To Push Impeachment Of Obama
Fox News Personalities And Other Conservatives Pushed For Impeachment Over White House Involvement In 2010 Election. Right-wing media figures claimed that the White House offering former Rep. Joe Sestak a position on a presidential panel if he did not enter the Pennsylvania Senate primary constituted a "high crime" and an "impeachable offense." They made similar assertions with regard to their false claim that the White House offered Andrew Romanoff a job in exchange for dropping out of Colorado's U.S. Senate election.
- In fact, numerous legal experts who assessed the Sestak case concluded that no law was broken, and political and legal experts and historians have noted that such offers are commonplace. Likewise, Richard Painter, former White House ethics adviser to President Bush, has called it a "real stretch" to say the White House's conversations with Romanoff violated the law. [Media Matters, 10/14/10]
Morris Predicts Victorious GOP Will Convene An "Impeachment Panel" Over Sestak, Romanoff Allegations. On the June 3, 2010, edition of Fox News' On the Record, Fox News political analyst Dick Morris said: "I'll bet that the Republicans win majorities in both houses in the November elections and convene an impeachment panel" regarding the allegations about the White House's discussions with Sestak and Romanoff because it "is very clear" those conversations were illegal. [Fox News, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, 6/3/10]
Hannity: "De Facto Bribe" To Sestak Is "An Impeachable Offense." On the May 24, 2010, edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity asked Morris: "This, at a minimum, we're talking about a congressman offered a high-ranking job, this is a de facto bribe, no?" Morris replied, "It is," later adding that the offer might be "a high crime and misdemeanor." Hannity then asked: "That would be -- in other words -- an impeachable offense." Morris replied, "Absolutely." [Fox News, Hannity, 5/24/10]
Morris: "If That Offer Were Conveyed, I Think That That Would Be, In My Judgment, Grounds For Impeachment -- If Obama Knew About It." On the May 28, 2010, edition of Fox News' Hannity, Morris said that with regard to Sestak, Bill Clinton "was acting as an agent of Rahm Emanuel. And the statute says 'you may not offer something of value.' Well, if it was valuable enough to possibly get him out of the race, it's valuable enough to qualify under that statute." He later added, "If that offer were conveyed, I think that that would be, in my judgment, grounds for impeachment ... if Obama knew about it." [Fox News, Hannity, 5/28/10]
Beck: "If This Guy From Pennsylvania Is Telling The Truth, Then Someone Has Just Committed An Impeachable Offense." On the May 28, 2010, of his radio show, Glenn Beck said of Sestak, "If this guy from Pennsylvania is telling the truth, then someone has just committed an impeachable offense, a felony. There is prison time." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 5/28/10]
Limbaugh: "We Have A Potential Impeachable Offense With This Joe Sestak Thing." On the May 26, 2010, broadcast of his show, Rush Limbaugh said: "We have a potential impeachable offense with this Joe Sestak thing. Was he or was he not offered a federal job in exchange for not running for the Senate in the primary against Arlen Specter?" [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/26/10]
Doocy Repeated Morris's Claim That Sestak Offer Could Be "An Impeachable Offense." On the May 25, 2010, edition of Fox & Friends, co-hosts Gretchen Carlson and Steve Doocy speculated on the potential legal repercussions of the Sestak offer. Carlson said, "The reporter there says what's the harm; the harm is this: it could be illegal! It could be illegal to offer somebody a job to drop out of a race." She went on to say "somebody's going to get them under oath. Hasn't Darrell Issa already called for hearings on this?...Somebody's going to get them under oath and somebody's going to have to start telling the truth." Doocy responded: "Dick Morris says that if this really happened, if for instance, he was offered a job to drop out, that is an impeachable offense!" [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/25/10]
Farah: "Obama's Stonewalling Over The Allegations Of Sestak, Is The Most Nixonian Reason Of All" For Impeachment. In a June 1, 2010, column headlined, "Impeach the stonewalling Obama," WorldNetDaily editor and CEO Joseph Farah argued that there are "many reasons to impeach Barack Obama," but "Obama's stonewalling over the allegations of Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., is the most Nixonian reason of all." He added: "Yes, it's time to start talking about impeachment. Ultimately, that was the only thing that shook the truth out of the trees during Watergate." [WorldNetDaily, 6/1/10]
Right-Wing Media Suggest Obama Should Be Impeached Over Immigration Issues
Gaffney: Obama "May Well" Have "Engaged In An Impeachable Offense" In Disputed Kyl Conversation If "Something Bad Happens Across That Border." On the July 13, 2010, edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Washington Times columnist Frank Gaffney said that according to Tom Tancredo, "When Senator John Kyl says the President isn't going to close the border or do steps to close the border until he gets a deal giving amnesty to illegal aliens already here, he's actually engaged in an impeachable offense." Gaffney added, "I don't know about that, but I can tell you this, if something bad happens across that border as a result of these kinds of things not being stopped, that may well be." The White House had already flatly denied Kyl's claim that Obama had made such a statement, and Kyl subsequently walked back his allegation. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 7/13/10]
Napolitano: Obama Is "Violating His Oath" And Committing "Impeachable Offense" If He Grants "Amnesty." On Alex Jones' show, Fox Business' Andrew Napolitano played along with Jones' conspiracy theorizing that Obama is planning on committing "treason" and an "act of sedition against our republic." Napolitano recited a litany of complaints, saying Obama is "effectively writing laws himself. That is on its face unconstitutional." [Genesis Communication Networks, The Alex Jones Show, 6/24/10]
Conservative Media: Impeach Obama "Before He Destroys Our Nation!"
Farah: "Obama Should Be Impeached." In a November 1, 2010, column headlined, "What's wrong with impeachment?" Farah wrote lamented the fact that "there is 'not a chance' Republicans in the House will impeach Obama," arguing that "[t]his isn't about 'process.' It's about the Constitution. It's not just about Obama 'misusing' authority. It's about Obama exceeding his constitutional authority." Farah added: "The future of our nation is at stake. The survival of our nation is at stake." He concluded: "Obama must be challenged on every front - even if we don't win every battle. It's time to go on offense, buddy. We won't get a second chance this time. Obama should be impeached." [WorldNetDaily, 11/1/10]
Savage: "I Think It Is Time To Start Talking About Impeachment." On the March 10, 2009, edition of his radio show, Michael Savage said: "Well, what I don't like is that this guy is doing this by executive order, one after the other, and the American people are sitting like a bunch of schmucks watching a dictatorship emerge in front of their eyes." He continued: "And I think it is time to start talking about impeachment! Somebody's gotta get this guy under control. He's out of control." [Talk Radio Network, The Savage Nation, 3/10/09]
WND: "Impeach And Convict Obama Now, Before He Destroys Our Nation!" In a March 5 WorldNetDaily piece headlined, "Obama: Impeach and convict now!" Larry Klayman wrote: "[F]rom what has already occurred, the offenses of the 'mullah in chief' are 'already' so compelling as to warrant immediate impeachment and conviction for his high crimes and misdemeanors, before the United States is totally destroyed by him." After listing several reasons " of the most impeachable and convictable of President Obama's offenses," including "his recent refusal to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act," Klayman concluded: "These are just a few of the compelling reasons to impeach and convict Obama now, before he destroys our nation!" [WorldNetDaily, 3/5/11]
WND's Floyd And Mary Beth Brown: "The Groundswell Of Calls For The Impeachment Of Barack Hussein Obama Is Growing." An October 8, 2009, column by WorldNetDaily columnists Floyd and Mary Beth Brown claimed that "discussion of impeachment is mushrooming amongst conservative activists" and that "[t]he groundswell of calls for the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama is growing." The Browns wrote that "his worldview makes Barack Hussein Obama a very dangerous man, and a threat to your personal liberty." [WorldNetDaily, 10/8/09]
Breitbart: "I Want There To Be An Impeachment" Of Obama. On the November 5, 2009, broadcast of Fox News' Red Eye, Andrew Breitbart said: "You know what I -- where I stand on -- I want there to be an impeachment, and I want Andy Levy to go after me at the halftime report for my wanting Obama impeached." [Fox News, Red Eye, 11/5/09]
Floyd Brown: After Republicans Take Congress, "The Next, Most Important Step For Them Is To Impeach Barack Hussein Obama." At WND's "Taking America Back 2010" convention, Floyd Brown said, "Every morning I get down on my knees and I pray that we're going to have a dramatic change in the makeup of Congress in November." Brown went on to say, "And, when that comes ... the new members of Congress should look look to the Constitution," which will convince them that "the next, most important step for them is to impeach Barack Hussein Obama, and they have all the grounds to do it." [WorldNetDaily, "Taking Back 2010" convention, 9/21/10]
Until then, stop being stupid.
You repeat a lie enough times, and it becomes the truth...i wonder who said something of that nature?
Just rewind to about 4 years ago and watch Fox News for an example.
There was a typo in the above quote. Clearly it was supposed to say "George W Bush".
More Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act than Republicans.
The Republican Party was found to fight slavery.
Republicans elected the first Hispanic govener in Nevada.
A Republican president appointed the first Hispanic U.S. Attorney General
The U.S. is populated by a bunch of raving loonies.
This whole "Obama can not the president; get rid of him" shtick has been going on way too long. For the benefit of these knuckle-dragging yahoos, you are going about it all the wrong way. Facts are working against them.
Fact:
Mrs Obama (the mother) was a natural born citizen of USA when she gave birth to her son in Hawaii in 1961. Just admit this whole line of discussion is bogus.
Mr Obama's administration is constitutionally legal.
But do not despair. (I am really afraid to use the following because one can rest assured these jabroni will try to use it.) But Let us read the Constitution:
Article. II.
Section. 1.
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"
Can not this clause be understood that the 'founding fathers' make it crystal clear, only natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President? The Constitution was adopted in September 1787. So by Mr Obama's own admission that he was born in 1961, he is not eligible to the Office of President.
Poof. Problem solved. Declare victory. Move on.
sophistry off.
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
Those are two separate clauses: "a natural born Citizen", or "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution". The rationale being that ofcourse there were no natural born US Citizens at the time of ratification.
Again, positive you were joking, but you give a troll a cookie, and he'll want a glass of milk.
nominated in 2012.
Seriously though, it seems extremely stupid to pay people to post on web site threads. Why bother? They aren't going to make any sort of difference in an election by doing that. What's the point?
And, considering the posts by people we suspect are being paid to do such, the quality of reasoning and articulation are so poor that it makes me happy to think that the Koch brothers are spending money this foolishly.
I ask; couldn't they have just done the same thing with, you know, the regularly scheduled election?
They aren't called "boots on the ground" because of their footware. That term describes military servicemen who are there to personally wage or support their colleagues wage a ground war. We have no ground troops in Libya. None. The Americans who were in Libya, using laser pointers to help direct weapons to targets are also not ground troops.
I've already explained this to you once.
We have covert CIA agents in all kinds of countries. The CIA agents aren't part of the effort to enforce a no-fly zone.
Which one of your multiple screen names are you going to use to reply to me so that you can avoid having "right ON" reply to my comment?
Thank you for pointing out his hypocrisy post after post. Your insights are very valuable and intelligent. I enjoy your posts.
Here's what the UN resolution calls for.
The resolution, adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter:
demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;
imposes a no-fly zone over Libya;
authorises all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas, except for a "foreign occupation force";
strengthens the arms embargo and particularly action against mercenaries, by allowing for forcible inspections of ships and planes;
imposes a ban on all Libyan-designated flights;
imposes an asset freeze on assets owned by the Libyan authorities, and reaffirms that such assets should be used for the benefit of the Libyan people;
extends the travel ban and assets freeze of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 to a number of additional individuals and Libyan entities;
establishes a panel of experts to monitor and promote sanctions implementation.
By and large "everyone" is rarely "waiting for America (sic) to fix it and figure it out". Generally it is felt that having the U.S. running things in its usual "my way or the highway" manner has been counter productive.
There is a place for the U.S. in international affairs as part of the team, using its unique assets and resources, to help enforce internanional law. This is the original intent of such founders of the U.N. as Bert Evatt, first President of the General Assembly and former Australian Foreign Minister and Attorney General.
Doc Evatt stepped down from the High Court of Australia to stand for Federal Parliament in the late 1930s when he saw the threat of Fascism in Europe. It was his dream that not only would we have nations of laws but a world of laws with international affairs being conducted according to international laws.
We have made several tentative steps towards fulfilling that destiny down the years and at the moment we have what is possibly the best chance since the fiasco in the Former Yugoslavia. As long as the U.S. keeps its ego in check and people don't confuse international politics with international law we have a chance.
The way forward for Libya is for the international community to allow its sovereign people to determine its future - whatever that may be (and there will probably be a few bumps along the way).
Hope, pray and think positive thoughts whilst ensuring that we all seek to navigate by our moral compass.
In addition to the C.I.A. presence, composed of an unknown number of Americans who had worked at the spy agency’s station in Tripoli and others who arrived more recently, current and former British officials said that dozens of British special forces and MI6 intelligence officers are working inside Libya. The British operatives have been directing airstrikes from British jets and gathering intelligence about the whereabouts of Libyan government tank columns, artillery pieces and missile installations, the officials said.
American officials hope that similar information gathered by American intelligence officers - including the location of Colonel Qaddafi's munitions depots and the clusters of government troops inside towns - might help weaken Libya's military enough to encourage defections within its ranks.
In addition, the American spies are meeting with rebels to try to fill in gaps in understanding who their leaders are and the allegiances of the groups opposed to Colonel Qaddafi, said United States government officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the activities. American officials cautioned, though, that the Western operatives were not directing the actions of rebel forces.
This is different from when we went into Afghanistan, and had spies as well as Special Ops soldiers in-country directing and working with Afghani rebels. The CIA agents aren't doing that now. They aren't arming them at this point in time.
That being said, Obama did not overstep. CIA operatives do all the undercover dirty work for this country to keep it safe.
I'm betting most of the "covert activity" the CIA is doing right now is by agents who've been in Libya longer then Obama has been in office. Is there a possibility that new operatives were sent into Libya, sure, because whenever an area gets like this, the CIA sends in more operatives to gather intelligence so they can pass the info to our boys in sky to make sure we're not hitting innocent civilians that we came to protect in the first place.
And as Joni says, "Boots on the ground" refers to military personnel. CIA is not apart of the US armed forces. Now if it was military intelligence, you'd have an argument, a very weak one even then, but they aren't military personnel.
However, this discussion of the no-fly zone certainly seems misleading. We are monitoring a no-fly zone by bombing activity on the ground? That sounds more like an air raid.
In that sense, the air raids are being done to protect those who cannot protect themselves, thus following what Obama said he was going to do.
But that doesn't mean you still can't agree with his methods.
But, if we are going to get involved we have to go out of our way not to be seen as saying one thing and doing another. If we are going to drop bombs to protect civilians that sounds like a good rationale. But, let's stop referring to this as a no-fly zone. Let's just call it what it is....An Odyssey Dawn. A WHAT?!
George Bush lite.
George Bush lite.
This is well within the presidents power to do so. The president does not need Congressional approval to send out a CIA operative to a foreign country. And Obama is acting WELL WITHIN his powers according to the War Powers Resolution.
He is not "thumbing his nose" at anyone. And it's the War Powers Resolution, not War Powers Act. And as I stated before, he's done everything by the book, and 60 days has not even passed yet.
Even then, the majority of Presidents (including Reagan) have often ignored this act as they claim it is unconstitutional and encroaches upon the Executive Branch's power.
I do see the possibility that we are, once again, going to get caught up in a civil war in the Middle East. And, this is my biggest concern. Just like with Iraq and Afghanistan - what is the endgame?
Good point. I stand corrected.
War Powers Act was passed in 1941.
Though most sources now automatically refer you to War Powers Resolution when you search for War Powers Act, they are two completely different bills passed by Congress.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 put in place informing Congress 48 hours before the President will send troops to an area on the reasons why he/she is doing it. And em-placed the 60 days of operations and 30 days of withdrawal if Congress does not pass a resolution to continue with those military actions.
Though people often refer to the WPR as the WPA, it is something completely different Right On 2.
Now that you've been called out, your now just trying to say that you never called it that and it was the Congressman. Well I've got news for ya Right On 2, you quoted him, that makes you just as liable as him. Talk to any professor who does research papers, if the person gives off the wrong information in a quote but the rest of the quote is still good to use, you correct it. If you don't, it can be considered misleading the reader, and you lose points.
And though we're not in school writing research papers, I try to stick to that criteria when I write responses, you should too.
And in Afghanistan, the remaining warlords who united against the Taliban were practically gone by the time we invaded.
The way I see it, Obama is using the bombings for two reasons.
1. He's using them to protect innocent civilians from being massacred by pro-Ghaddafi forces
and 2. To give the anti-Ghaddafi forces a chance to fight the ground fight alone.
Now, French and British forces have been dispatched on the ground, but as far as we know, not any real American forces have been sent in to the ground fight. I believe Obama is trying to make it so that the Libyan people do most of the fighting while helping out here and there.
But, I do see where your coming from Mike. And I too do not wish to get involved in a situation like in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I'm hoping we won't see that in Libya.
The no-fly zone is U.N. sanctioned, and thus, absolves us of any potential "stupid amerikuns invading another country" labels that we received following the Iraq debacle. Moreover, there is NOTHING wrong with seeking the approval and support of other nations before we take military action...that is how we make friends and influence enemies. How hard is this for you to grasp?
I had previously stated it was 90 days, but I was wrong, it's 60 days. Probably got it confused. Anyways, Obama notified Congress on a Friday that they were discussing taking action, that basically means "We're most likely going to take action". And then launched the attack on a Monday. If my math is correct, that is at least 48 hours.
But then again, I doubt facts will ever prevail over their "ideals", which essentially is "Cheer everything a Republican does and demand the removal of a Democrat for everything they do!"
It's quite likely that the WPA passed by Congress is contrary to the Constitution, and many presidents have not been complacent with the resolution. The Obama Administration is handling this exactly the way they should behave - say that if Congress doesn't try to overstep their bounds, the administration will try to cooperate with them too.
Presidents have therefore drafted reports to Congress required of the President to state that they are "consistent with" the War Powers Resolution rather than "pursuant to" so as to take into account the presidential position that the Resolution is unconstitutional.
Torturing is not really the issue here, that is for another thread.
Any president can do just about anything they want. If the Congress doesn't approve of it within 60 days, then the president has to remove troops/stop the effort within 90 days from the time he informed Congress.
False equivalency arguments don't fly here.
Nice straw man argument though.
In reference to your post, please post some of the things that Olbermann and Mathews talked about that were legitimate reasons for impeachment and had evidence to prove them.
You are right about one thing ... Beck is an idiot ... just like Olbermann. See both sides have people they wish were on the other side. ;)
Your turn.
In no way is what I said a straw man argument. I'm not refuting anything. I'm simply answering a question.
What media called for Bush to be impeached?
Olbermann and Mathews are the only two I remember, they rank right up there with Beck and the other partisan right wingers.
Do you label every post you don't agree with as a straw man argument?
Olbermann and Matthews never asked for impeachment, but they questioned what Bush did. Did they dis Bush a lot, yeah, but they didn't go to such extremes that Fox News and the rest of the extreme right wing have gone to these past two years on Obama.
What you've done is a Straw Man Argument.
I don't recall Matthews calling for Bush to be impeached. Don't watch him much though. Do you have a link?
It did bring up an interesting point, (keep in mind that I don't think Obama should be impeached) will VP Biden call for the impeachment of President Obama since he attacked Libya without congressional approval?
Ok, before someone posts on it, I'm not saying attacking Iran is the same as attacking Libya. I'm saying that both cases would have involved a president using his powers under the War Powers Act/Resolution. Which is not an impeachable offense. But it is worth voting someone out of office for. I love voting.