Kucinich: Impeach Obama over Libya strike
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.
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
Slow learner.
cntrlfrk on March 20, 2011 at 12:34 PM
I hate to agree with leftist scum about anything but they have a point.
single stack on March 20, 2011 at 12:36 PM
hahahahahaha…seriously though, where are the mass protests?
Lance Murdock on March 20, 2011 at 12:37 PM
Kucinich and LaTourette are both from Ohio and from different parties. The stupid is thick in your politicians Buckeyes.
darwin-t on March 20, 2011 at 12:37 PM
The plot thickens!
jeanie on March 20, 2011 at 12:45 PM
And where are you from moron? Every state has dumbasses. If you want to see one in your state, go look in the mirror.
WoosterOh on March 20, 2011 at 12:45 PM
Ah, LaTourette’s Syndrome.
“IMPEACH EVERYBODY. CAUSE I’M SHORT!!!”
warbaby on March 20, 2011 at 12:47 PM
Doesn’t Dennis want to be a Muslim freedom fighter too? He would look dashing in a silk keffeya.
BL@KBIRD on March 20, 2011 at 12:47 PM
calm down genius, I was talking about your politicians. touchy little guy this am
darwin-t on March 20, 2011 at 12:48 PM
At least the Who’s who list of kooks are consistent.
esnap on March 20, 2011 at 12:48 PM
lol at least he’s consistent.
WisCon on March 20, 2011 at 12:48 PM
When you’ve lost Kucinich and Jackson-Lee…you know you did the right thing.
JetBoy on March 20, 2011 at 12:49 PM
Okay, let’s do it!
Kensington on March 20, 2011 at 12:49 PM
Yep, If we based all of our domestic, Intl and economic policy on the opposite of these morons, we’d be in high cotton.
esnap on March 20, 2011 at 12:52 PM
I want to see the look on the Dane who announced they awarded Obama the Nobel Peace Prize and then looked up when the room gasped.
Marcus on March 20, 2011 at 12:54 PM
It’s not impeachable – well, anything is “impeachable” I suppose – but it doesn’t meet the “high crimes and misdemeanors” thing …
As CINC – Obama is within his rights to make this strike. Internationally – I have a bit of a problem with the fact that we went to the UN for a “No Fly Zone” and, after receiving it – we immediately started attacking his ground forces! LOL.
That’s a bit like going to a judge for a “restraining order” against your spouse and then using that as justification to go to her house and smack her in the face!
Does not compute and, mark my words – the deception on the part of the Western powers won’t end well in this.
I guess this kind of vindicates Bush huh? I mean – HE DID have a NO FLY ZONE in place over Iraq before he started attacking Iraqi ground troops! LOL
The whole thing is “jacked up” in my opinion.
Anyway – I love the fact that Obama is now under extreme attack from his own lefty looney wing! This should be FUN to watch!
HondaV65 on March 20, 2011 at 12:57 PM
Nope. No vindication. As the narrative is developing, we’ll see that Bush went to war “for oil” while Obama is going to war for “human rights.” It’s gonna be a “good war,” war for all the right reasons. Obama will be the great liberator. You know, like Ronald Reagan. They’re practically twins.
Rational Thought on March 20, 2011 at 1:00 PM
Well, they’ve got a point. Bush had months of debate in the Senate, a vote passing an authorization for the use of military force, and a bunch of UN resolutions, and he still was threatened by liberals with impeachment. Obama, like Clinton, just pulls these foreign military excursions out of his nether regions with no national interest and no specific goal in mind, and the left thinks they smell like roses. He ought to be impeached for leftist hypocrisy if nothing else, but then that applies to almost all leftists.
Socratease on March 20, 2011 at 1:00 PM
Cindy Sheehan must be unavailable.
Bishop on March 20, 2011 at 1:01 PM
Bush named the Iraq invasion Operation O.I.L. so that’s one reason why people didn’t trust him.
Rand Paul may force a declaration of war vote in senate.
Spathi on March 20, 2011 at 1:02 PM
Go to Libya then douche bag.
WoosterOh on March 20, 2011 at 12:36 PM
This seems like a better place for this comment (from another thread, aimed at “A Cap”)
Tony737 on March 20, 2011 at 1:02 PM
When you’ve lost Kucinich and Jackson-Lee…you know you did the right thing. – Jet
Yeah man, Go Bammie! ( ‘Bout time ya did something right!) I just hope he doesn screw it up.
Tony737 on March 20, 2011 at 1:06 PM
Barack Obama, 2002
Change the names and add the Japanese disaster this will distract us from, and you could recycle his entire anti-war shtick from 8 years ago.
Socratease on March 20, 2011 at 1:11 PM
Kucinich supports a president when he’s acting anti-constitutionally, then cannot support him when he’s acting constitutionally? Mr. Obama has the authority as CINC, to commit the armed forces into these situations and Congress has the authority to fund the operation or not >60 days. Although I do not agree with the how of this operation, I do believe it is within his authority to do it.
ted c on March 20, 2011 at 1:14 PM
Impeach Obama over Libya strike…..well the impeach idea is a starter, just find better grounds…….
t on March 20, 2011 at 1:25 PM
Heh, she’s still cooking hot dogs on the campfire in Crawford I think.
Tim Zank on March 20, 2011 at 1:28 PM
Well the only reason that they want to impeach is because he is Black.
Dennis Kucinich is hate black people and is racist.
/Left when the players are changed now not so much.
tjexcite on March 20, 2011 at 1:38 PM
Based on the War Powers Resolution of 1973, I thought he only had that authority if the U.S. has been attacked or when there is imminent danger of attack. Does imminent danger to Libyan rebels qualify?
flyfisher on March 20, 2011 at 1:44 PM
Plenty of grounds can be found. But guts on the other hand…
flyfisher on March 20, 2011 at 1:45 PM
Obama better hope his Libyan thing lasts days, not weeks (or months or, worst possible scenario, the summer 2012) or he’s going to be s___ out of luck with being a great one-term president.
Dusty on March 20, 2011 at 1:49 PM
Thousands of crickets with little D’s painted on their backs were released at the White House gates this morning!
profitsbeard on March 20, 2011 at 1:53 PM
[flyfisher on March 20, 2011 at 1:44 PM]
Well, that’s the argument Kuchinich, Inc, is making. I don’t think it flies, in the context of the War Powers Act, much less with the quite debatable rationale that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, a long dormant argument that was the basis for Nixon’s vetoing of it in the first place.
Dusty on March 20, 2011 at 1:55 PM
From Glenn Grenwald:
“I will simply never understand the view that the Constitution allows the President unilaterally to commit the nation to prolonged military conflict in another country — especially in non-emergency matters having little to do with self-defense — but just consider what candidate Barack Obama said about this matter when — during the campaign — he responded in writing to a series of questions regarding executive power from Charlie Savage, then of The Boston Globe:
Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
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.
(emphasis original)
flyfisher on March 20, 2011 at 1:55 PM
I read on msnbc.com that Kucinich will be attending today’s code pink /ANSWER march in Washington DC that is expected to have 750,000 people full of “Obama = Hitler” and “NO BLOOD FOR OIL” signs.
/s
angryed on March 20, 2011 at 1:58 PM
What high crimes and misdemeanors did he commit?
clement on March 20, 2011 at 2:00 PM
I will admit, however, that Kuchinich’s argument will gain some weight when the 48 hours passes and Obama still hasn’t submitted his reasoning for the action, in writing, to both the Speaker and the President pro tempore.
That will be more interesting to me, the failure to follow the rules, the constant tardiness in his actions.
It almost makes me wonder if he went through school handing in everything late, if he was always in the professor’s office days before grades were due out, groveling for more time or ways to get the passing grade:
Dusty on March 20, 2011 at 2:05 PM
The War Power Act is indeed controversial, but I still think the Constitution demands he go to Congress. The Founders did not contemplate a system where the president could wage unilateral war, particularly when the U.S. is not under attack. Then again, I’m a lowly tax attorney, not a brilliant constitutional scholar like our undocumented president. I take solace knowing that former federal prosecutorAndrew McCarthy agrees with me .
flyfisher on March 20, 2011 at 2:06 PM
[flyfisher on March 20, 2011 at 2:06 PM]
I agree with you, and McCarthy, and I’m not any kind of attorney. That’s why I think it is especially incumbent on Obama to get his report in, on time and written very persuasively. I believe, however, that he won’t, which is why I added my comment (at 2:05).
Dusty on March 20, 2011 at 2:14 PM
Dusty,
Yep, he will be late.
flyfisher on March 20, 2011 at 2:20 PM