Post: #1

The word “impeach” followed by “Obama” is enough to make liberals roll their eyes and conservatives squirm. Images of tea party rednecks waving handmade signs “Impeach Obama Now!” have seemingly made all discussion of impeaching Obama mere blog fodder for red meat conservative sites and tinfoil hat forums. This is not one of those pandering articles.

Nor is it idle talk or wishful thinking from someone fantasizing about his persona vendetta against the president. There is currently a resolution in Congress that would condemn Obama for “impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.” The central complaint is that the president committed our troops to an act of military aggression in Libya without an act of war, authorization, or even consultation with Congress after 60 days, as stipulated by the War Powers Act.

This is not a dead issue, either (unlike Moammar Gaddhafi). When confronted, the president flatly denied that he was under any obligation to seek Congressional approval for his Libya action. This is in no way equivalent to how President George W. Bush handled the military invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, which he received Congressional authorization from both Democrats and Republicans to lead. Yet such equivocation is par for the course from such mendacious outlets as Slate and MSNBC, which betrayed their blind partisanship with an Orwellian pivot on an anti-war dime following the election of Barack Obama.

But reinforcing the conclusion that Obama does not even believe he needs Congressional authorization to wage war in principle is the recent testimony of his CIA Director Leon Panetta. The CIA director, who was not an intelligence expert by specialty before being appointed to recent security positions, provided a statement to Senate Armed Services Committee member Jeff Sessions that implied the president may use military force abroad without a declaration of war and without Congressional approval. Panetta’s remark was made in the context of a potential U.S.-led military campaign against Syria and carries implications for a looming armed conflict with Iran.

“You know, our goal would be to seek international permission,” Panetta said. “And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from Congress.”

This specific remark, both brazen and profound in import, prompted Congressman Walter Jones to introduce House Concurrent Resolution 107, which would condemn President Obama for committing the “impeachable” offense of illegally committing American troops to military engagement. This is more than campaign electioneering from a Congressman in a safe district. Our entire system of checks and balances and divided powers are at stake, not to mention our national sovereignty. Foreign policy analyst Bruce Ackerman rightly points out that Obama has done more to push this administration in the direction of an “imperial presidency” than George W. Bush ever did.

read more here

Post: #2

two weeks before elections ????
A LITTLE f*cking LATE AREN'T WE

Post: #3

Why do it with Clinton, then skip Bush 2 times and now do it with Obama?

Post: #4

Disturbed nli  Wrote:

The word “impeach” followed by “Obama” is enough to make liberals roll their eyes and conservatives squirm. Images of tea party rednecks waving handmade signs “Impeach Obama Now!” have seemingly made all discussion of impeaching Obama mere blog fodder for red meat conservative sites and tinfoil hat forums. This is not one of those pandering articles.

Nor is it idle talk or wishful thinking from someone fantasizing about his persona vendetta against the president. There is currently a resolution in Congress that would condemn Obama for “impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.” The central complaint is that the president committed our troops to an act of military aggression in Libya without an act of war, authorization, or even consultation with Congress after 60 days, as stipulated by the War Powers Act.

This is not a dead issue, either (unlike Moammar Gaddhafi). When confronted, the president flatly denied that he was under any obligation to seek Congressional approval for his Libya action. This is in no way equivalent to how President George W. Bush handled the military invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, which he received Congressional authorization from both Democrats and Republicans to lead. Yet such equivocation is par for the course from such mendacious outlets as Slate and MSNBC, which betrayed their blind partisanship with an Orwellian pivot on an anti-war dime following the election of Barack Obama.

But reinforcing the conclusion that Obama does not even believe he needs Congressional authorization to wage war in principle is the recent testimony of his CIA Director Leon Panetta. The CIA director, who was not an intelligence expert by specialty before being appointed to recent security positions, provided a statement to Senate Armed Services Committee member Jeff Sessions that implied the president may use military force abroad without a declaration of war and without Congressional approval. Panetta’s remark was made in the context of a potential U.S.-led military campaign against Syria and carries implications for a looming armed conflict with Iran.

“You know, our goal would be to seek international permission,” Panetta said. “And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from Congress.”

This specific remark, both brazen and profound in import, prompted Congressman Walter Jones to introduce House Concurrent Resolution 107, which would condemn President Obama for committing the “impeachable” offense of illegally committing American troops to military engagement. This is more than campaign electioneering from a Congressman in a safe district. Our entire system of checks and balances and divided powers are at stake, not to mention our national sovereignty. Foreign policy analyst Bruce Ackerman rightly points out that Obama has done more to push this administration in the direction of an “imperial presidency” than George W. Bush ever did.

read more here

Post: #5

bbkingdom  Wrote:

Why do it with Clinton, then skip Bush 2 times and now do it with Obama?

Yeah it's over.

As the Dragon and Bear patiently wait in the sidelines.

That's how I see it but who knows?

vv

Post: #6

Tonight, from Inside "The Bubble". More make-believe fairy tale bullshit, heading your way.

Next up, BULLSHIT MOUNTAIN.

Post: #7

Pi  Wrote:

Tonight, from Inside "The Bubble". More make-believe fairy tale bullshit, heading your way.

Next up, BULLSHIT MOUNTAIN.

Post: #8

Disturbed nli  Wrote:

The word “impeach” followed by “Obama” is enough to make liberals roll their eyes and conservatives squirm. Images of tea party rednecks waving handmade signs “Impeach Obama Now!” have seemingly made all discussion of impeaching Obama mere blog fodder for red meat conservative sites and tinfoil hat forums. This is not one of those pandering articles.

Nor is it idle talk or wishful thinking from someone fantasizing about his persona vendetta against the president. There is currently a resolution in Congress that would condemn Obama for “impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.” The central complaint is that the president committed our troops to an act of military aggression in Libya without an act of war, authorization, or even consultation with Congress after 60 days, as stipulated by the War Powers Act.

This is not a dead issue, either (unlike Moammar Gaddhafi). When confronted, the president flatly denied that he was under any obligation to seek Congressional approval for his Libya action. This is in no way equivalent to how President George W. Bush handled the military invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, which he received Congressional authorization from both Democrats and Republicans to lead. Yet such equivocation is par for the course from such mendacious outlets as Slate and MSNBC, which betrayed their blind partisanship with an Orwellian pivot on an anti-war dime following the election of Barack Obama.

But reinforcing the conclusion that Obama does not even believe he needs Congressional authorization to wage war in principle is the recent testimony of his CIA Director Leon Panetta. The CIA director, who was not an intelligence expert by specialty before being appointed to recent security positions, provided a statement to Senate Armed Services Committee member Jeff Sessions that implied the president may use military force abroad without a declaration of war and without Congressional approval. Panetta’s remark was made in the context of a potential U.S.-led military campaign against Syria and carries implications for a looming armed conflict with Iran.

“You know, our goal would be to seek international permission,” Panetta said. “And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from Congress.”

This specific remark, both brazen and profound in import, prompted Congressman Walter Jones to introduce House Concurrent Resolution 107, which would condemn President Obama for committing the “impeachable” offense of illegally committing American troops to military engagement. This is more than campaign electioneering from a Congressman in a safe district. Our entire system of checks and balances and divided powers are at stake, not to mention our national sovereignty. Foreign policy analyst Bruce Ackerman rightly points out that Obama has done more to push this administration in the direction of an “imperial presidency” than George W. Bush ever did.

read more here

Post: #9

The Evil AC  Wrote:

two weeks before elections ????
A LITTLE f*cking LATE AREN'T WE

Yeah, about 3 1/2 years too late..

Better yet, the guy should never have been elected in the first damn place

Post: #10

This is the best news Iv heard all year. 5 stars.

Post: #11

The central complaint is that the president committed our troops to an act of military aggression in Libya without an act of war, authorization, or even consultation with Congress after 60 days, as stipulated by the War Powers Act.

That is a central issue. And one that is being addressed.

Post: #12

LoP Guest  Wrote:

The central complaint is that the president committed our troops to an act of military aggression in Libya without an act of war, authorization, or even consultation with Congress after 60 days, as stipulated by the War Powers Act.

That is a central issue. And one that is being addressed.

Lybia: Costing what Iraqs cost in 2 weeks.
Solution: bring back the party who started Iraq.

Post: #13

The Evil AC  Wrote:

two weeks before elections ????
A LITTLE f*cking LATE AREN'T WE

A voice of Rep reason.

Pi  Wrote:

Tonight, from Inside "The Bubble". More make-believe fairy tale bullshit, heading your way.

Next up, BULLSHIT MOUNTAIN.

+ 1

Post: #14

bbkingdom  Wrote:

LoP Guest  Wrote:

The central complaint is that the president committed our troops to an act of military aggression in Libya without an act of war, authorization, or even consultation with Congress after 60 days, as stipulated by the War Powers Act.

That is a central issue. And one that is being addressed.

Lybia: Costing what Iraqs cost in 2 weeks.
Solution: bring back the party who started Iraq.

That is being worked on as well.

Patience.

Stopping WW3 is on the table first.

Post: #15

Wouldn't you like to know what took them so long?