Oh, snap! How did you guess I was talking about Clinton? Because he's the president the Republicans spent 6 years and over $60 million trying to remove from office and FAILED? The one who beat them at their own game and made them look like idiots?
This sounds pretty condemning for this administration, IMHO. However, it's quicker to just vote him out in a few months.
no. military action is most definitely NOT war. an example: the Mayaguez incident under President Ford was not war with Cambodia.
Impeachment is their default play. When all else fails and they see the next election going down the drain and have neither a candidate nor a record to run on, they all start screeching "Let just impeach him!" Downright pitiful.
Anything that gets him out is fine by me. He's more dangerous to America than Al Qaeda could ever be.
I suppose you want to argue that since war has not been declared, that it's not "war". Pretty neat trick they got going here. If Panneta et al. have their way, there will be no such thing as war, because according to them congressional approval for war is not even neccessary... henceforth, no declaration of "war".
We've been ready for moves like this for awhile. Everybody knew that once the economy started heating up again, the right would go into desperation mode. This is what we've seen over the past few months as the right-wing has become more unhinged and belligerent. They know that this election, even with all the corporate cash that is being used to buy the election, is not going to be a pretty one for the right-wing which has painted themselves into a deep corner and their usual social wedge issues are running out of steam or even turning to bite them in the ass.
Regardless of party affiliation, no one should support the president having the ability to engage our military in action without the approval of our congress. We're sliding in the wrong direction. I'll say again to Obama fans, don't forget that your guy will be out of office someday... think carefully about what precedents are being set or expanded now, which can be abuse by somone else later.
That's why the military needs to be drastically cut. It requires constant conflict to justify its bloated budget and the rules that govern offensive action are too lax.
We can agree on this. Our military needs to be reshaped to primarily serve national defense purposes.
no one should want to handcuff our president when it comes to wisely using the military as the strong and quickly reactive arm of foreign policy. Would you have wanted Obama to have to go to congress to get permission to take out OBL?
Which of course is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) as Biden wasn't talking about Obama. However, we'll have to see if Obama leads us into war with Iran. Most wingnuts seem to want it, so in a sense they'd be hypocrites to impeach over it.
What's your point? I don't care what president is in office. I don't support skirting over congress when it comes to engaging in military activity. I definitely do not support other nations, world organizations, or leagues of nations having more clout than our own congress.
And obviously, nobody should want our president acting rashly, or acting on poor/false reasoning. No, I don't agree with how Obama went about that. It seems to have been politically motivated anyhow.
I love it when so-called conservatives show their true colors by advocating ignoring the Constitution.
You're exactly right. Bush's invasion of Iraq is an example that we should never, ever forget. What do you disagree with about how he went about it? The U.S. had been trying to get Osama bin Laden since 9-11-2001 but you think the fact that Obama was successful was simply politically motivated? Really?