Democrats catching impeachment fever?

posted at 2:00 pm on March 20, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

If nothing else, Dennis Kucinich is consistent.  He wanted to push articles of impeachment against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney over the Iraq war, which his own party’s leadership squelched in the summer of 2008 — when Bush’s term had all but expired anyway.  Kucinich and John Conyers instead had to settle for “impugnment hearings,” which one witness called “slightly demented.”

Now we have another military action from another president, this one without the cover of a Congressional authorization to use military force, and Kucinich wants to crank up the impeachment process, pun most certainly intended:

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.

Technically, of course, Kucinich and other progressives are correct in that the Constitution doesn’t allow for Presidents to initiate military action without the involvement of Congress unless an immediate threat to American national security arises, the “clear and present danger” exception.  One Constitutional scholar put it best in 2007:

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.

We’d get a clarification from this source to determine whether this applies to the current situation, but he’s traveling through South America at the moment and isn’t terribly engaged on this issue.

Traditionally, though, consultations with Congress have sufficed in the past.  For instance, Congress didn’t specifically authorize Ronald Reagan to attack Libya in 1986 in Operation El Dorado Canyon, a retaliation for a terrorist bombing that killed American troops in Germany at a nightclub.  Reagan consulted Congressional leadership before ordering the attack, an act of war by any definition.  Presidents have conducted similar military actions without formal acts of Congress to authorize them, meaning it has a long precedent, even if it’s not necessarily a good idea.  According to the report and Kucinich’s own objection, Obama did consult Congress before engaging in Operation Odyssey Dawn.

It’s certainly amusing in a small manner to see Obama get hoist with his own petard, but Kucinich is just as silly as ever in suggesting that impeachment proceedings should start over that action.  Now, if we want to ask whether Obama should get called to Congress to account for his absence from the White House as he sent the American military into hostile action against Libya, that might be worth highlighting.

Tags: , , , , ,

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Be funny if Obama were destroyed by his own duped weasels.

G0 Dennis!

profitsbeard on March 20, 2011 at 2:03 PM

I think Dennis is nuts, personally. But I also have a strange, grudging respect for someone who is at least consistent in their positions, even if those positions are usually ridiculous.

So you go on with your bad self, Kucinich!

(On a side note, is anyone else having login problems? I show I’m logged in, I go to post, and it tells me I’m not logged in so I have to log out then re-login.)

MikeknaJ on March 20, 2011 at 2:06 PM

At least Bush can claim Congress passed the AUMF which authorized military action in Iraq. Obama can’t claim that. The WPR is a joke for a basis as justification as well. It’s an unconstitutional piece of legislation that delegated to the president Congress’s role in deciding when the country should commit forces in an offensive military action.

taney71 on March 20, 2011 at 2:08 PM

(On a side note, is anyone else having login problems? I show I’m logged in, I go to post, and it tells me I’m not logged in so I have to log out then re-login.)

MikeknaJ on March 20, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Every once in a while, yes same thing here.

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Though I don’t agree with some of these attacks by U.S. forces both now and in the past, the President must have some latitude in these matters. However, Congress controls the purse stings that supply our military (as they reminded us over funding threats during the Bush administration).

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 20, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Now there is a brain trust lineup that could keep Guam from tipping over.

GnuBreed on March 20, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Now, if we want to ask whether Obama should get called to Congress to account for his absence from the White House as he sent the American military into hostile action against Libya, that might be worth highlighting.

I agree.

ted c on March 20, 2011 at 2:14 PM

How do our responsibilities within the NATO treaty enable the Present to work with other NATO allies in performing actions like this under the guise of the U.N. resolution and NATO countries taking part in enforcing the resolution?

exsanguine on March 20, 2011 at 2:15 PM

(On a side note, is anyone else having login problems? I show I’m logged in, I go to post, and it tells me I’m not logged in so I have to log out then re-login.)

MikeknaJ on March 20, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Every once in a while, yes same thing here.

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Has happened to me every so often since day one.

JohnGalt23 on March 20, 2011 at 2:15 PM

(On a side note, is anyone else having login problems? I show I’m logged in, I go to post, and it tells me I’m not logged in so I have to log out then re-login.)

MikeknaJ on March 20, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Sometimes.

the_nile on March 20, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Oh now the left cares about Constitutional limits? But silent when Congress jammed down the Unconstitutional Obamacare bill.

I would say, he’s inconsistent for that very reason.

jawkneemusic on March 20, 2011 at 2:16 PM

I think the House Foreign Affairs Committee should call Hillary in for a chat.

Wethal on March 20, 2011 at 2:16 PM

One Constitutional scholar put it best in 2007:

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.

We’d get a clarification from this source to determine whether this applies to the current situation, but he’s traveling through South America at the moment and isn’t terribly engaged on this issue.

Touche, Ed, great stuff.

Blackacre on March 20, 2011 at 2:16 PM

What about the fact that he launched this from a foreign country while basically on vacation. That is truly ballsy.

I’m real sure Booosh would have gotten away with such optics.

kevinkristy on March 20, 2011 at 2:18 PM

“If Not Now, When?”

Seven Percent Solution on March 20, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 20, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Scooter needs to get the U.S. out before anything like that becomes an issue; if he can leave a small enough footprint, he’ll weather this, but if it drags on,…watch those polls. He’ll have the usual lefty idiots yapping at his heels but the GOP will support for a while. If it drags on, they’ll start to kvetch.

a capella on March 20, 2011 at 2:19 PM

I am sure I’m in the minority here, but I agree with
Andrew McCarthy’s piece in National Review, to wit: Go to Congress First

flyfisher on March 20, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Presidents have conducted similar military actions without formal acts of Congress to authorize them, meaning it has a long precedent, even if it’s not necessarily a good idea.

So do a lot of things that Republicans and conservatives decry as being unconstitutional.

If we are serious about returning the federal government to within the limits defined by the Constitution then we cannot haul out the damn thing only when we don’t like those things that Democrats do.

Threshing Flora on March 20, 2011 at 2:20 PM

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.

Authorization for thee, just not for me?

ted c on March 20, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Technically, of course, Kucinich and other progressives are correct in that the Constitution doesn’t allow for Presidents to initiate military action without the involvement of Congress…

It’s a bit muddier than that. The 1973 War Powers Act (passed over Nixon’s veto) requires the president to consult Congress (Obama did that), but also mandates that he seek approval up to 60 days after the start of military action. (If approval isn’t given, he has a further 30 days to withdraw.)

The constitutionality of the War Powers Act is questionable (it essentially creates a congressional veto), but it’s never been overturned. Until that happens, presidents can credibly argue that they’re operating within the law.

irishspy on March 20, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Now, if we want to ask whether Obama should get called to Congress to account for his absence from the White House as he sent the American military into hostile action against Libya, that might be worth highlighting.

I feel sorry for the wonderful US troops that have this dork as their CIC.

disa on March 20, 2011 at 2:23 PM

I think Barry has just become a fan of Dennis losing his seat due to redistricting.

Iblis on March 20, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Consulting with Congress is not enough. Congress must be given the opportunity to vote on preemptive Acts of War.

Impeachment hearings should be instituted, if for no other reason than, as Bruce Fein would put it, to give Obama a chance to reconsider the constitutionality of his actions.

JohnGalt23 on March 20, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Reagan – Grenada, Libyan strike
Bush senior – Panama
Clinton – Somalia, Sudan strike, Afghan strike
Bush junior – Yemen drone strikes, Pakistan drone strikes

So who do we impeach and who gets a pass here?

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 2:23 PM

MikeknaJ on March 20, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Yes, I have the same problem from time to time. I always thought it was because I left it idle for too long.

Cindy Munford on March 20, 2011 at 2:24 PM

He did not ask for a vote from Congress, as, in his mind, a UN consensus trumps whatever his country’s elected representatives think.

kingsjester on March 20, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Operation Odyssey Dawn?

Ummmm… only one guy survived that trip… and being at the beginning of it… ahhhh… not good in so many ways it is hard to count.

ajacksonian on March 20, 2011 at 2:28 PM

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 2:23 PM

I thought that Bush Sr. invaded Somalia and Billy Jeff actually actually inherited that mess.

ted c on March 20, 2011 at 2:29 PM

I thought that Bush Sr. invaded Somalia and Billy Jeff actually actually inherited that mess.

ted c on March 20, 2011 at 2:29 PM

You are correct about that. I had forgotten.

Do you know if Bush Senior got congressional approval?

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 2:31 PM

We’d get a clarification from this source to determine whether this applies to the current situation, but he’s traveling through South America at the moment and isn’t terribly engaged on this issue.

The audacity of arrogance.

George Bush announced that he was invading Iraq 18 months ahead of time. And liberals went bonkers because Congress called their near-unanimous approval an “authorization of force” rather than a “declaration of war.”

But now Barack Hussein Obama has declared war on a country… and not bothered to comment on it, or to consult with Congress AT ALL, before during or after the attack — how in the Hell is that OK?

logis on March 20, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Some give weak examples of air strikes by previous Presidents, but was the goal overthrowing or killing the leader of the country?

cntrlfrk on March 20, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Operation Odyssey Dawn. Similar to Red Dawn.

*rubs hands together in anticipation*

Bishop on March 20, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Do you know if Bush Senior got congressional approval?

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 2:31 PM

No, I believe that he cited the War Powers Act as authorization for it.

ted c on March 20, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Remember all the hoops and hurdles and UN inspections and on and on that Bush went through before the Iraq invasion? Or Clinton in Yugoslavia?

None of that happened with Obama.
But that is okay with the left.

albill on March 20, 2011 at 2:41 PM

We need a War Czar!

SouthernGent on March 20, 2011 at 2:41 PM

So who do we impeach and who gets a pass here?

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 2:23 PM

I agree, I don’t think he should be impeached for this.

But, since it was Obama himself who declared such actions unconstitutional, it sure would be nice to see someone in the media read this quote back to him just so we could watch him tie himself in knots explaining why it’s OK when he does it. Someone could at least point out his hypocrisy to him and make him squirm a little.

By the way, has there ever been a president who has been mugged by reality more than Obama? Almost everything he spouted off about during the campaign he has had to directly contradict as president. If only we had a media to call him on it.

JohnInCA on March 20, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Some give weak examples of air strikes by previous Presidents, but was the goal overthrowing or killing the leader of the country?

cntrlfrk on March 20, 2011 at 2:36 PM

They are claiming that isn’t the goal in Libya and it seems to me that an act of war is an act of war.

Reagan did overthrow the government in Grenada as did Bush in Panama. I guess Clinton is OK though.

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Aw,come on guys. You know he’s king of the world,,,he don’t need no stinkin approval.

retiredeagle on March 20, 2011 at 2:43 PM

While President Bush consulted with and reported to Congress during the course of the Persian Gulf War, he disagreed with the contention that Congress has the constitutional authority to take part in decision-making regarding initiation of U.S. military action abroad. Although he sought and obtained congressional passage of the Persian Gulf Resolution, there are indications that Bush believed that, as President and Commander-in-Chief, he had ample constitutional authority to act unilaterally in initiating military operations against Irag. It has been reported that, in the presence of journalists, Bush expressed the opinion that he possessed the power to undertake military action, regardless of the presence or absence of a congressional joint resolution authorizing the military undertaking. According to the reports, Bush pushed for adoption of the Persian Gulf Resolution to secure the political support of Congress, not to obtain legal authority he would lack in the absence of a congressional joint resolution.

During the remainder of his Presidency, Bush continued to adhere to and act in accord with the belief that the President has full authority to initiate U.S. military action abroad, and to do so without congressional interference.

http://www.proconservative.net/WarAmericaP6l.shtml

ted c on March 20, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Another unauthorized, unconstitutional move by the Won. It’s not like he didn’t have time to bring this up to Congress since he waited a month before taking any action at all.

Kissmygrits on March 20, 2011 at 2:45 PM

But, since it was Obama himself who declared such actions unconstitutional, it sure would be nice to see someone in the media read this quote back to him just so we could watch him tie himself in knots explaining why it’s OK when he does it. Someone could at least point out his hypocrisy to him and make him squirm a little.

The groveling sycophant media is NEVER going to hold him accountable and most of the leftists will give him a pass as well. It is beneath contempt but that is what we are dealing with. Hopefully we will have some Republicans who will make that point.

By the way, has there ever been a president who has been mugged by reality more than Obama? Almost everything he spouted off about during the campaign he has had to directly contradict as president. If only we had a media to call him on it.

JohnInCA on March 20, 2011 at 2:43 PM

I don’t think he likes being president. He wants the perks, but not all that hard work and decisions that have to be made.

We have a Community Organizer In Chief.

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Ed, you don’t see any distinction between Operation El Dorado Canyon and Obama’s Libyan campaign? Aren’t you essentially arguing that a president can unilaterally decide to go to war for any reason whatsoever? Do you not put any restriction on presidential authority?

flyfisher on March 20, 2011 at 2:47 PM

He is going in with the UN approval, that has to be better than just one countries (ours) approval…no? Besides, in regard to the congressional consultation or actual vote, he can always just “Deem it passed”.

Koa on March 20, 2011 at 2:48 PM

“Reagan consulted Congressional leadership before ordering the attack, an act of war by any definition.”

True, but when you say “an act of war by any definition” what you really mean is “casus belli” since any war act is an “act of war, including the aggressive act, the responding defensive act and all the acts during the war.

I make this point to clarify the fact that Reagan’s action was a defensive act of war in response to Libya’s aggressive act of war in carrying out the bombing.

Dusty on March 20, 2011 at 2:50 PM

The president has the authority to commit forces. Whether he does that by his constitutional authority or by UN resolution, that’s his decision to decide and he’ll end up paying for. I do not believe that the UN could, nor should, require the US to commit forces if the Congress is dead-set against it. The president is lonely if he plots a path with those facts. UN or not, the US taxpayer funds and staffs the US military. If Obama is going to justify the use of the US military, by UN resolution alone, then he’s going to have to go find him another country’s military to use, because its not going to be ours. Maybe China’s would be more favorable, but I doubt it.

ted c on March 20, 2011 at 2:53 PM

Seriously, who’s going to take him to the woodshed? His fawning feckless media? Peeloosi? Harry?

Rovin on March 20, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Exactomundo Ted c @2:21

cmsinaz on March 20, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Where is the imminent threat to our nation?

cmsinaz on March 20, 2011 at 3:01 PM

We shouldn’t ever come up with “rationale” to attempt to circumvent the Constitution. Ever.

KMC1 on March 20, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Impeach Oba-Hitler! Man, this is fun!

Mason on March 20, 2011 at 3:04 PM

The president has the authority to commit forces. Whether he does that by his constitutional authority or by UN resolution, that’s his decision to decide and he’ll end up paying for. I do not believe that the UN could, nor should, require the US to commit forces if the Congress is dead-set against it. The president is lonely if he plots a path with those facts. UN or not, the US taxpayer funds and staffs the US military. If Obama is going to justify the use of the US military, by UN resolution alone, then he’s going to have to go find him another country’s military to use, because its not going to be ours. Maybe China’s would be more favorable, but I doubt it.

ted c on March 20, 2011 at 2:53 PM

I will quote from the Andrew McCarthy piece I linked above:

On Thursday evening, the U.N. Security Council voted 10–0 (with five abstentions, including China, Russia, and Germany) to authorize the use of military force (i.e., “all necessary measures”) against Libya. Ostensibly, the resolution is designed to protect the Libyan people. But not to mince words, it is a license for war against the regime of Moammar Qaddafi. It would kick hostilities off with a no-fly zone over Libya. As a practical matter, American armed forces must do the heavy lifting if the strategy is to have a prayer, and indications are that President Obama intends to oblige.

There is a catch: The Security Council is powerless to “authorize” the U.S. military to do a damned thing. The validity of American combat operations is a matter of American law, and that means Congress must authorize them.

Our Constitution vests Congress with the power to declare war. That authority cannot be delegated to an international tribunal that lacks political accountability to the American people. The decision to go to war is the most significant one a body politic can make. Thus the Framers designed our system to make certain that the responsible officials are answerable to the people whose lives are at stake and who are expected to foot the bills.

Contrary to the insistence of many on the right and the left, this has never meant that military operations may not be launched in the absence of a declaration of war. Indeed, although the United States has engaged in many wars and lesser conflicts, war has been formally declared only five times. Still, the circumstances for departing from this formality are narrowly defined.

I don’t care who has done what in the past, the humanitarian situation in Libya simply does not fall within the list of narrow exceptions. McCarthy’s whole piece is worth your time.

flyfisher on March 20, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Slightly OT, but this thread reminded me of the disastrous reign of “Dennis the Menace” as the mayor of Cleveland.

(Yes I’m both dating myself and admitting to coming from the mistake on the lake.)

beancounter on March 20, 2011 at 3:12 PM

wow. the Code Pinkos have really dropped the ball on this.

Where are they, anyway??

dissent555 on March 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM

So are we all Paultards now?

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 3:14 PM

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 3:14 PM

That’s right. Objecting to this particular adventure is equivalent to advocating for complete isolation.

MJBrutus on March 20, 2011 at 3:16 PM

This is the same strategy as was used at first in Afghanistan. The big choice now is whether we will stick around to help clean up or split in a few weeks. As Obama will in all likelihood split, there probably won’t be any long term damage to his re-election chances, unless it is to reinforce the belief that he is not really dependable, being after all only a faculty lounge kind of leader.

Fred 2 on March 20, 2011 at 3:17 PM

I don’t care who has done what in the past, the humanitarian situation in Libya simply does not fall within the list of narrow exceptions. McCarthy’s whole piece is worth your time.

[flyfisher on March 20, 2011 at 3:04 PM]

What narrow list of exceptions?

Dusty on March 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Cut the funds he is using to wage this war and recall the Navy from Libyan Waters NOW. Quadiffi deserves and ask for this attack but, the United States has certain rules and Laws that even the President has to follow. In 1973 the War Powers Act was passed but the Constitutionality of it is very questionable because it Contradicts what is written in the Constitution Article I, Section 8.

old war horse on March 20, 2011 at 3:21 PM

What narrow list of exceptions?

Dusty on March 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM

The one’s discussed in McCarthy’s article.

flyfisher on March 20, 2011 at 3:22 PM

flyfisher says

I don’t care who has done what in the past, the humanitarian situation in Libya simply does not fall within the list of narrow exceptions.

This is 100% correct. It is completely illegal for Obama to unilaterally order U.S. forces to attack Libya. Libya is not threatening the U.S., and in fact has, in some matters, cooperated with the U.S. in recent years. There is a civil war in Libya, and it is none of our business.

Henry Bowman on March 20, 2011 at 3:23 PM

I don’t care who has done what in the past, the humanitarian situation in Libya simply does not fall within the list of narrow exceptions. McCarthy’s whole piece is worth your time.

flyfisher on March 20, 2011 at 3:04 PM

thanks. i’ll check it out. tc

ted c on March 20, 2011 at 3:23 PM

I don’t care who has done what in the past, the humanitarian situation in Libya simply does not fall within the list of narrow exceptions.

flyfisher on March 20, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Exactly correct.

The fact that Valerie Jarrett (who is effectively the real president at this time) decided yesterday that bombing Libya will improve Soetoro’s poll numbers, doesn’t magically make it legal.

Rebar on March 20, 2011 at 3:24 PM

I don’t think he likes being president. He wants the perks, but not all that hard work and decisions that have to be made.

We have a Community Organizer In Chief.

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM

That’s what affirmativeaction is alllllllll about.

SouthernGent on March 20, 2011 at 3:28 PM

On Jefferson’s inauguration as president in 1801, Yusuf Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli, demanded $225,000 from the new administration. (In 1800, Federal revenues totaled a little over $10 million.) Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, in May 1801, the Pasha declared war on the U.S., not through any formal written documents but in the customary Barbary manner of cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Algiers and Tunis did not follow their ally in Tripoli.

In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli “and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

ted c on March 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM

[flyfisher on March 20, 2011 at 3:22 PM]

I think you are mixing ‘reasons for acting’ with ‘reasons for the step by step process for proceeding’ with this.

McCarthy, as far as I can tell is not making the argument against acting because of the reasons. He is arguing that the step by step procedure for acting is not in keeping with our laws or custom for acting. There is no “list” of which humanitarian issues is excluded in McCarthy’s article.

Now you may be right that by proceeding as McCarthy deems our law and custom demands would not let the reasons for acting pass muster with Congress, but that is yet another argument.

Dusty on March 20, 2011 at 3:33 PM

That’s right. Objecting to this particular adventure is equivalent to advocating for complete isolation.

MJBrutus on March 20, 2011 at 3:16 PM

You want to impeach the president for what many of them have done. Object to the Libyan attack if you want but impeaching the Loser In Chief for this is silly.

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 3:35 PM

Dusty on March 20, 2011 at 3:33 PM

From my read, I gathered that McCarthy was saying that the President ought to get Congressional approval prior to acting except for certain narrow cases. In those cases he should seek Congressional approval soon after.

I’ve read a lot of credible arguments on both sides recently about what is required under our Constitution and have a lot to research and figure out. But I definitely think that the President should seek Congressional approval as son as practicable.

MJBrutus on March 20, 2011 at 3:39 PM

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 3:35 PM

I most certainly do not and never so much as hinted at that. Can you show me where you thought I said anything of the sort?

MJBrutus on March 20, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Where is the imminent threat to our nation?

cmsinaz on March 20, 2011 at 3:01 PM

You’re not allowed to ask questions.

artist on March 20, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Dusty on March 20, 2011 at 3:33 PM
From my read, I gathered that McCarthy was saying that the President ought to get Congressional approval prior to acting except for certain narrow cases. In those cases he should seek Congressional approval soon after.

I’ve read a lot of credible arguments on both sides recently about what is required under our Constitution and have a lot to research and figure out. But I definitely think that the President should seek Congressional approval as son as practicable.

MJBrutus on March 20, 2011 at 3:39 PM

This.

flyfisher on March 20, 2011 at 3:43 PM

Slight O/T:

Libya to give weapons to one million people: (Reuters) – Libya’s government has begun distributing arms to more than one million people and will complete the operation within hours, the state news agency reported on Sunday.

Two obvious questions: 1)Will these million people even know how to use a weapon? and 2) Could they turn the weapons on Kadaffi?

Rovin on March 20, 2011 at 3:43 PM

It’s the Obama Magic 8-Ball issue once again.

“Should I help to enforce a no fly zone”?
… Ask again later Obama: “Okay, lobster for lunch”

“Should I listen to Hillary”?
…. Ask again later Obama: “Dammit”

“Should I play a round of golf”?
…..Yes Obama: “phew!”

“Should I help to enforce a no fly zone”?
…..Maybe Obama: “dang”

“Should I go to Rio even though I am placing troops in harm’s way”?
……Yes Obama: “Yay!”

“Should I help to enforce a no fly zone”?
……Yes OBama: “Ok, then… Deploy”

Key West Reader on March 20, 2011 at 3:43 PM

The Democrats are terrified that the Republicans will impeach Obama over the fact that he is ineligible to be president. Kucinich is trying to cause clutter. Obama probably instructed him to do this. The Democrats don’t want to be put in a position of having to vote so obviously against the Constitution. Obama is guaranteed to not run for a second term or easily lose just by attempting to impeach him for ineligibility.

Buddahpundit on March 20, 2011 at 3:49 PM

Odyssey Dawn

Sounds like a stripper

darwin-t on March 20, 2011 at 3:51 PM

I most certainly do not and never so much as hinted at that. Can you show me where you thought I said anything of the sort?

MJBrutus on March 20, 2011 at 3:41 PM

You might want to take a look at the title of the thread.

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 3:54 PM

[MJBrutus on March 20, 2011 at 3:39 PM]

I agree wholehearted with both your take on McCarthy’s article and your judgment on it. The War Powers Act, whatever it’s Constitutional question-ability, is reasonable in this situation.

This is mostly my reason for pushing, via my comments (no less than 3 three time so far), for the recognition that Obama needs to submit, in writing, to the Speaker and President pro tempore within 48 hours.

There are procedures, even when their are exceptions. People, particularly our useless senselesss MBM, ought to be inquiring about it every 15 minutes until Obama delivers it.

Dusty on March 20, 2011 at 3:55 PM

Can Obama act without congressional approval?

Maybe Obama wasn’t “present” that day in “constitutional scholar school” when the war powers act or the right of Congress to declare war was being discussed?

Meanwhile in Rio, queried by the press, Obama mutters, “Hey, guys, we’re buying feijoada here.”

tpitman on March 20, 2011 at 3:56 PM

DK is a nut, but I have to give him props for being consistent, unlike the 99.99999999999% of his nutter compatriots who are utter hypocrites.

Midas on March 20, 2011 at 3:59 PM

I must admit, i find myself having an odd respect for anyone so true to his beliefs that he doesnt allow party politics to interfere in his actions. I can accept that sort of wackiness as a belief structure, no matter how loony. Its the scum garbage that has opposite responses to the same actions depending on which party is guilty of said action that makes me sick.

In fact, it is the double standard mentality in the media that has truly destroyed their credibility. I think we all could have tolerated a slightly biased news corp if they were at least consistent, but thats what makes a liberal, a liberal i guess. Liberals are only for left wing policies for certain people…..and rarely themselves.

It just goes to show you, a liberal who is honest about what they believe, always looks like a nut.

alecj on March 20, 2011 at 3:59 PM

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 3:54 PM

And I did nothing to agree with the lunatic Donks who said that, did I.

This is far from the first time that I’ve seen you lead with an insult or attribute idiotic notions to people who happen to have an honest disagreement with you. Trust me, it isn’t a positive personality trait.

MJBrutus on March 20, 2011 at 3:59 PM

It’s certainly amusing in a small manner to see Obama get hoist with his own petard, but Kucinich is just as silly as ever in suggesting that impeachment proceedings should start over that action. 

How bout the name of this operation.
Operation Odyssey Dawn. (Operation O.D.)
Operation ODyssey Dawn. (Operation OD.D.)

DSchoen on March 20, 2011 at 4:03 PM

So are we all Paultards now?

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Hardly. But we sure as hell have the right to point out the stunning hypocrisy of the left — AND the current commander in chief — on these kinds of issues. If Obama were still a senator, he would be decrying this military strike with every ounce of his evil, lefty little heart. He has said unequivocally that presidents do not have this authority without Congressional approval. And that he did this mostly to burnish his falling poll numbers — that this is a wag the dog military campaign in which the president is killing people to win re-election — makes the hypocrisy even more despicable. It isn’t Paulian to point that out. It’s honest. And it needs to be said. Frequently.

Rational Thought on March 20, 2011 at 4:05 PM

You want to impeach the president for what many of them have done. Object to the Libyan attack if you want but impeaching the Loser In Chief for this is silly.

[sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 3:35 PM]

I’m not sure of the back and forth between you two, but I’m of the opinion (and I am unanimous on this) that the impeachment bar is close to be hurdled if the Vacationer-in-Chief doesn’t get his report to Congress within 48 hours of commencement of military action. I’m fed up with Obama’s discharging of his responsibilities in a manner that would make a Mayor for a Day 7 year-old hang his head in shame.

Dusty on March 20, 2011 at 4:05 PM

This is far from the first time that I’ve seen you lead with an insult or attribute idiotic notions to people who happen to have an honest disagreement with you. Trust me, it isn’t a positive personality trait.

MJBrutus on March 20, 2011 at 3:59 PM

I wasn’t addressing you at all. You made the comment to me in this thread… the thread about impeachment.

As to idiotic notions you have those in plenty.

Ron Paul voted for impeachment of Cheney and supported impeachment investigations of Bush.

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 4:07 PM

From flyfisher’s link:

In his remarks Friday, committing to what he promised would be a limited military engagement (with no ground forces, basically just air power), the president never even hinted that he might seek Congress’s imprimatur. To the contrary, he asserted that the “use of force” was “authorized” by the “strong resolution” of the “U.N. Security Council,” which was acting “in response to a call for action by the Libyan people and the Arab League.”

As McCarthy correctly points out, whether American armed forces are sent to fight is a matter of American law, not the purview of an international body. During his candidacy, Obama called himself a “citizen of the world”. He apparently believes that “the world”, rather than the American people and their elected representatives, is the entity to which he answers.

Bigfoot on March 20, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Racist.

Ronnie on March 20, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Why would the Left be outraged by this? It’s the complete opposite of the kind of military action we opposed in Iraq. Here there’s an imminent threat to both the stability of the region and the citizens of the Libyan nation, and we have broad international support.

crr6 on March 19, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Del Dolemonte on March 20, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Del I was just getting ready to post this:

But for some reason, Soetoro can just go off on Libya because he woke up in a bad mood, and that’s just ducky for the left.

Rebar on March 20, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Apparently not.

crr6 on March 20, 2011 at 12:47 PM

LOL, less than 24 hours ago you were telling us the Left would be perfectly ducky with this.

Cue outraged Left in 3, 2, 1….

(crickets)

wccawa on March 19, 2011 at 4:07 PM

Why would the Left be outraged by this? It’s the complete opposite of the kind of military action we opposed in Iraq. Here there’s an imminent threat to both the stability of the region and the citizens of the Libyan nation, and we have broad international support.

crr6 on March 19, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Del Dolemonte on March 20, 2011 at 3:34 PM

CWforFreedom on March 20, 2011 at 4:10 PM

I’m not sure of the back and forth between you two, but I’m of the opinion (and I am unanimous on this) that the impeachment bar is close to be hurdled if the Vacationer-in-Chief doesn’t get his report to Congress within 48 hours of commencement of military action.

Dusty on March 20, 2011 at 4:05 PM

I thought Congress was briefed before the attack? Other presidents have maintained the right to attack including Bush.

Hardly. But we sure as hell have the right to point out the stunning hypocrisy of the left — AND the current commander in chief — on these kinds of issues. If Obama were still a senator, he would be decrying this military strike with every ounce of his evil, lefty little heart. He has said unequivocally that presidents do not have this authority without Congressional approval. And that he did this mostly to burnish his falling poll numbers — that this is a wag the dog military campaign in which the president is killing people to win re-election — makes the hypocrisy even more despicable. It isn’t Paulian to point that out. It’s honest. And it needs to be said. Frequently.

Rational Thought on March 20, 2011 at 4:05 PM

I have said it is absolutely right to point out the hypocrisy but to suggest actual impeachment for what we supported under Republican presidents is wrong.

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 4:10 PM

All Barack Obama Statements Come With an Expiration Date. All Of Them.

If Barack Obama could eat his words, his ars w/b as big as Michelle’s.

Schadenfreude on March 20, 2011 at 4:11 PM

G0 Dennis!

profitsbeard on March 20, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Hopefully he’ll mount a third party challenge in 2012. Get his money from Soros, and get the endorsement of the fringe-left black race-victims, Jackson-Lee and Lee.

Jaibones on March 20, 2011 at 4:13 PM

We’d get a clarification from this source to determine whether this applies to the current situation, but he’s traveling through South America at the moment and isn’t terribly engaged on this issue.

The carnival is over in Rio.

The clowns arrived too late.

Schadenfreude on March 20, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Why would the would be president of China care what the Congress has to say?

Schadenfreude on March 20, 2011 at 4:17 PM

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 4:07 PM

OK, fair enough. FWIW I don’t think that Ron Paul had any case for impeachment. In fact, I think the Republicans had no business impeaching Clinton (he committed offenses but they did not come close to justifying impeachment).

MJBrutus on March 20, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Did CRR ever post the Declaration of War?

CWforFreedom on March 20, 2011 at 4:22 PM

I have said it is absolutely right to point out the hypocrisy but to suggest actual impeachment for what we supported under Republican presidents is wrong.

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 4:10 PM

I agree. Crying for impeachment is silly. But I want to see the GOP and their pundits press this guy hard and consistently on his hypocrisy here. You can’t pull this kind of 180 and get away with it — especially when it was done NOT for the people of Libya, NOT for the cause of human rights, but for his own damn re-election prospects. And he sends American pilots into a war zone from his vacation spot, in between ice cream cones with Moochelle and a swim break with his kids. What an awful, awful man. He needs to be made to own his awfulness.

Rational Thought on March 20, 2011 at 4:23 PM

I agree. Crying for impeachment is silly. But I want to see the GOP and their pundits press this guy hard and consistently on his hypocrisy here. You can’t pull this kind of 180 and get away with it — especially when it was done NOT for the people of Libya, NOT for the cause of human rights, but for his own damn re-election prospects. And he sends American pilots into a war zone from his vacation spot, in between ice cream cones with Moochelle and a swim break with his kids. What an awful, awful man. He needs to be made to own his awfulness.

Rational Thought on March 20, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Absolutely.

It will be through Rush, Beck, and Palin that any return fire comes about his dilettante foreign policy.

Thinking cold… in some ways this very much helps the eventual hope of getting rid of this incompetent buffoon. The left is beginning to see that he is not much different than Bush and even if they stay silent, they will not be that thrilled to actively campaign for the reelection of Bush The Third.

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 4:27 PM

tpitman on March 20, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Oh he was “present”

Barack Obama’s Q&A
By Charlie Savage
Globe Staff / December 20, 2007

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

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.

History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

DSchoen on March 20, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Hey whatever it takes.

I wish incompetence was an impeachable offense… not really though. Impeachment is too hard on the nation. I wish he would voluntarily resign, he doesn’t seem to like his job much. But the perks are good.

petunia on March 20, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 2