Attack on Libya imminent?

Kucinich says Obama is committing 'impeachable offense'

By: CNN Political Producer Alexander Mooney

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...says-obama-is-committing-impeachable-offense/



(CNN) – Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the seven-term liberal Democrat from Ohio who has twice run for the White House, says President Obama committed an "impeachable offense" in deciding to authorize U.S. airstrikes over Libya Saturday without the consent of Congress.

"President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have Congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said," Kucinich told the web site Raw Story on Monday. "It's not even disputable, this isn't even a close question."

"Such an action - that involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy - is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone," the Cleveland-area congressman added.

In a press conference Friday, Obama appeared to suggest U.S. forces would play a limited role in bombing campaigns over Libya: "We will provide the unique capabilities that we can bring to bear to stop the violence against civilians, including enabling our European allies and Arab partners to effectively enforce a no-fly zone," he said

But the U.S. military launched its first airstrikes on Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's air defenses over the weekend, Obama announced Saturday, saying he had authorized "limited military action in Libya" and that "that action has now begun."

That development outraged Kucinich, who first raised the prospect of impeachment on a Saturday conference call with liberal democrats, according to Politico.

Speaking to Raw Story, Kucinich said he does not necessarily think the president should be impeached, but is convinced he has committed an offense which would justify that most-serious punishment.

"I'm raising the question as to whether or not it's an impeachable offense. It would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense," he said. "Now, it doesn't necessarily follow that simply because a president has committed an impeachable offense, that the process should start to impeach and remove him."

In a statement on his website Friday, Kucinich made clear he thinks Obama has violated Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war.

"Both houses of Congress must weigh in. This is not for the President alone, or for a few high ranking Members of Congress to decide," Kucinich said in the statement on his website.

On Monday, Kucinich sent a fundraising email to supporters in which he criticized the Obama administration's decision to pursue military action in Libya.

"We are bombing Libya right now. Congress did not approve this action, according to the Constitution," Kucinich said in the email. "Such an action lacks legality in the United States and the President should have to answer to that. I mean this isn't anything that is a small matter. It's a very grave matter, actually. Stand up. Contribute."

Kucinich unsuccessfully sought to initiate Articles of Impeachment against President Bush in 2008 over the Iraq War. Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi halted the effort.

 

I watched the interview. He said (paraphrased):

"It's one thing to discuss what is an impeachable offense. It's a whole other thing to actually initiate the impeachment process. Impeachment is a very traumatic experience and the country is going through a very tough time."

It seemed to me he wasn't so bothered by it. Which is surprising. I'd think that an impeachable offense would be taken way more seriously, right?

* Please note that as per ATW's rules, I should not comment since I don't live in America, even though 99% of people here watched the same video I did. I'm not sure if this is an impeachable offense.

 

The answer to your question is, the US' mission is not to pursue democracy. It's to protect US interests and develop itself. The quest for democratic governance in the Middle East, while useful and appreciated, is universally understood to be incidental to the US' self-interest in one way or another.

Case in point, when it was beneficial to support dictators, the US supported dictators. When it wasn't beneficial anymore, the US didn't support it anymore. It's completely arbitrary and kept under the notion of "they are either democratic or making great strides towards democracy." The correlation between the US being critical of political corruption and shakiness of US interests is too high to ignore, though many here will point out that it doesn't imply causation.

So if you've been asking yourself this question as a means to measure the success of the current president or the democrats, then I'd say it's not the best measure, because it's not consistently aligned with your interests.

 

91-0304 on a better day.

Spoiler

 

what did the democrats stop for six years, the surge.

people comparing this to iraq need to let it go, iraq was a failure because of poor planning and because it was a mission that we shouldn't have been involved in. along with numerous other problems.

 

Probably should be taken more seriously, but he knows any effort to impeach would go nowhere anyway. Honestly, Presidents have been riding rough-shod over this provision of the Constitution for a couple of decades now. And Congress has been letting them. They've allowed complications like the priority of international treaties and "peacekeeping" to castrate their exclusive right to wage war. They should go ahead and change the document to fit the new reality.

 

Dems didn't stop any surge for 6 years. Bush & Cheney both downplayed the need for more troops and cut a guy loose when he said more were needed because he didn't tow the line. The Bush administration did everything they could to downplay the seriousness of how things were in order to lull people here into thinking we weren't at war. THEN they decided the surge was necessary and many Dems opposed.

Almost as much as the invasion itself, THIS is what ticks me off the most about the Iraq disaster. But like you said, we need to look forward now and learn from the mistakes.

 

yeah, but that was my point to basso, it still passed in a dem controlled congress. now he wants to go revisionist and say dems held up operations in iraq. the neocons really think people are stupid

 

A War We Don't Need

Why is America intervening in a Libyan civil war?

David Harsanyi | March 23, 2011

Contrary to pithy bumper-sticker truisms, war is occasionally the answer. But can anyone explain why it's the answer now? At the moment, at least, polls insist that Americans are generally supportive of the United States' intervening in the civil war now raging in Libya, so someone must have an ironclad case.

President Barack Obama pins his rationale for intervention on a "humanitarian threat." A noble cause, no doubt. It's too bad that the folks in old Darfur missed out on those laser-guided missiles American and French fighter jets deploy to help avert massacre and man-made hunger. Maybe the victims didn't say please. Maybe the city dwellers of Pyongyang will be more convincing.

But this mission is creeping. Only days after suggesting the goal wasn't to remove Moammar Gadhafi, the White House now says the objective is regime change and a democratic system. If the past decade has taught us anything, it's that democracy projects tend to be expensive, open-ended investments. So when we're invested without there being any perceivable threat to the United States and without our having had a debate or congressional deliberation on the topic—by a president who sprang to national prominence voicing exactly those grievances—it seems that we'd be more outraged or inquisitive or, at least, cautious.

When queried about military interventionism (thanks to Gene Healy at The Washington Examiner for the tip) before the 2008 election, in fact, Obama explained, "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."

No, he didn't affix the phrase "unless we see humanitarian threats" or "except if the French and British find some good reason."

Then again, maybe one of the problems is we now place too much stock in world opinion when making decisions. Democrats were so intensely focused on the lack of international support in Iraq that perhaps Obama confuses global approval with our interests. What's worse than letting your "allies" or the United Nations decide whether you can go to war? It's letting them tell you that you should go to war.

And when is that, exactly? The president hasn't said. Yemeni forces have fired on protesters. Syrian forces have shot down protesters. Security forces in Tunisia have killed protesters. Why no help for those freedom fighters? What happens when Saudi Arabia royals are forced to use violence to hold power? Or when Iran cracks down on another popular uprising? An argument can be made that stopping the Iranian autocracy would be more consequential to stability and peace than removing Gadhafi—even if he is a few dirham short of a dinar.

Do we even know that the insurgency we propel to victory will be successful in liberalizing Libya? Foreign policy is infested with black swans. When The New York Times asked Paul Sullivan, a Libya expert at Georgetown University, what we should expect, he answered: "It is a very important question that is terribly near impossible to answer. It could be a very big surprise when Gadhafi leaves and we find out who we are really dealing with." Comforting, no?

Is Libya more vital to our national interest than Iran or North Korea or the Kurds of Turkey? After recent experiences with conflict and social engineering, how can anyone believe we can effectively institute democracy in the Middle East? And how can so many Americans be so sure we're doing the right thing?

 

I see a number of blogs claiming this, but can't find any WH quotes that say it. The best I can find is that Obama hopes that the rebels can push Gaddafi out or that Gaddafi is a continuing threat as long as he is in power. If that's all they're going on, that's weaksauce.

 

In addition that can be the WH policy doesn't have to be the intent of the no-fly zone. There was a no-fly zone over Iraq and the WH policy for several administrations was regime change, yet that wasn't the goal of the no-fly zones.

 

Seems Newt has the basso flip flop syndrome

Newt Attacks Obama For Bombing Libya Weeks After Demanding Obama Bomb Libya

 

Well, one isn't a giant disaster fabricated on a pack of lies thus far.

 

It's all been a pack of lies.