Will Joe Biden Keep His Promise to Impeach Obama?

24 Mar 2011 07:18 #1 by outdoor338
Biden: I Will Make it My Business to Impeach President Who Goes to War Without Congressional Approval

'The President does not have the 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.' -Senator Barack Obama, December 20, 2007

http://visiontoamerica.org/story/biden- ... roval.html

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

24 Mar 2011 10:23 #2 by outdoor338
Is this another lib broken promise to America?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

24 Mar 2011 10:25 #3 by JMC
I think he'd have a conflict of interest.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

24 Mar 2011 10:38 #4 by Nmysys

I think he'd have a conflict of interest.


He would, but it doesn't deny that things said while attacking Bush, such as this, shows that when it applies to when the Liberals are in Power, no longer apply. The double standard reveals the hypocrisy. I don't deny that the Republicans have been hypocritical, as well.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

24 Mar 2011 10:56 #5 by ScienceChic
Not necessarily a broken liberal promise, merely a broken politician promise (and even then not really, cuz we haven't officially declared war on Libya). It's easy to make such righteous statements when not in charge...

History shows that many presidents have taken overt and covert military action all over the world without due process; not surprised about Obama doing it too. The bigger question is, should we be interfering? And how will the people of Libya respond if we liberate them, instead of letting them do it for themselves? Are we setting ourselves up, yet again, for charges of interference only for self-interest, and for the Libyans to move through the natural progression of gratitude to resentment at our interference (and occupation, cuz you know it'll happen)?

http://www.alternet.org/world/150309/li ... entionism/
Libya No-Fly Zone: The Problems With Interventionism
Hopefully, the UN-sanctioned intervention in Libya's civil war will achieve its stated goals. Unfortunately, history doesn't provide much cause for optimism.
March 20, 2011

Under the circumstances, doing nothing would not only be profoundly irresponsible, it would also violate our core belief in the imperative of respecting essential human rights. Yet, having studied our history, we also know that the potential for unintended consequences -- for a bad situation to be turned into something worse -- are real, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, or due to wishful thinking.

Books have been written about the challenges of humanitarian intervention, but here's a very quick-and-dirty summary of three of the most daunting.

1) Mission creep
You can go through the history of multilateral interventions -- from Korea through Somalia (but not in Rwanda so soon after getting humiliated in Mogadishu) -- and what you'll find in virtually every case is not a single Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force, but a series of them authorizing ever-greater military involvement in the conflict. This reality cannot be ignored.

2) Insufficient resources
In the case of military interventions, under-funding can lead to disastrous results, with the most obvious example being the horrific failure of UNAMIR leading up to and during the Rwanda genocide.

3) Politicization
That an intervention be widely perceived as legitimate is not just some abstract academic issue. It is an almost surreal inconsistency that the West is intervening against a despot in Libya even as its closest allies in the region intervene to support another in neighboring Bahrain.


http://www.alternet.org/world/150344/in ... hem_bombs/
Instead of Bombing Dictators in Libya and Around the World, Stop Selling Them Bombs
If the bitter lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan has taught us anything, it's that wars of liberation exact a deadly toll on those they purportedly liberate.
March 23, 2011

While much of the media presents an unquestioning, sanitized version of the war -- cable news hosts more focused on interviewing retired generals about America’s fancy killing machines than the actual, bloody facts on the ground -- the truth is that wars, even liberal-minded “humanitarian” ones, entail destroying people and places. Though cloaked in altruism that would be more believable were we dealing with monasteries, not nation-states, the war in Libya is no different. And innocents pay the price.


If protecting civilians from evil dictators was the goal, though -- as opposed to, say, safeguarding natural resources and the investments of major oil companies -- there’s an easier, safer way than aerial bombardment for the U.S. and its allies to consider: simply stop arming and propping up evil dictators.


(I haven't had the chance to get caught up on all the threads posted since last Friday, but I noticed some complaints about a lack of libs responses to this conflict - here's some stories for ya).
http://www.alternet.org/world/150331/fi ... t_worth_it
First Day of Libya Strikes Cost More Than $100 Million -- Is It Worth It?
Every time a Tomahawk cruise missile blows up a building in Libya (and everyone inside it), war-profiteer Raytheon makes $1.5 million.
March 22, 2011

http://www.alternet.org/world/150334/st ... _libya_now
Stop the Bombing Libya NOW
We should refuse to be complicit in the killing of more civilians in a conflict in which we don’t belong.
March 22, 2011

"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

24 Mar 2011 11:10 #6 by PrintSmith

outdoor338 wrote: Biden: I Will Make it My Business to Impeach President Who Goes to War Without Congressional Approval

'The President does not have the 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.' -Senator Barack Obama, December 20, 2007

http://visiontoamerica.org/story/biden- ... roval.html

That was then, this is now and they were only talking about someone who belonged to the opposition party, not members of their own party. Besides, if it was good enough for Truman, Reagan, and Clinton, why that settles the matter entirely, doesn't it? Who cares what was said before one occupies their current position, it wasn't that THE President didn't have the power under the Constitution, it was THAT President that didn't have the power under the Constitution. The Constitution is a fungible document after all, isn't it? It doesn't mean what it actually says, it means what any given set of people who happen to be in power says it means - right?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

24 Mar 2011 11:16 #7 by Residenttroll returns

outdoor338 wrote: Biden: I Will Make it My Business to Impeach President Who Goes to War Without Congressional Approval

'The President does not have the 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.' -Senator Barack Obama, December 20, 2007

http://visiontoamerica.org/story/biden- ... roval.html


Joe Biden has foot in mouth disease...who is surprise?

Obomba needs the ratings.....bombs bomb bombs

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

24 Mar 2011 11:28 #8 by Blazer Bob
There is really nothing to see here. Almost every pol will say whatever he thinks will get him elected.

All we can do is ignore what they say and watch what they do. With almost no exaggeration I can say, for every pol that consistently flies with his convictions I will show you a pig with wings.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

24 Mar 2011 11:38 #9 by LadyJazzer
This all sounds so strangely familiar....somehow.....

Bush says he will fire anyone who breaks law
President will fire anyone who committed crime in CIA leak


WASHINGTON — President Bush said Monday that he would fire anyone in his administration who had leaked the identity of a CIA officer — if the leak broke the law.

Time reporter Matthew Cooper has said Karl Rove, Bush's deputy chief of staff and closest political adviser, was the first person to disclose to him that an administration critic's wife worked for the CIA. She was subsequently identified as Valerie Plame.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... htm?csp=34

Report: Bush White House Aides Broke Law During 2006 Campaign
By Elspeth Reeve Jan 25, 2011


Federal law known as the Hatch Act prohibits staffers with salaries paid by taxpayers from engaging in partisan political activity on the public's dime. White House aides to George W. Bush broke these laws, Politicos's Josh Gerstein reports. Not only was the entire White House Office of Political Affairs staffed engaged in helping Republican candidates during the 2006 midterm elections, the Office of Special Counsel finds, but the OPA staffers actually thought the electioneering was part of their official duties.The aides tracked how much cash came in at fundraisers for national and local GOP events. Seven Cabinet secretaries claimed to be traveling on official business when they were actually taking trips for political work.


http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics ... ign/21380/


Fox legal analyst: Bush should have been indicted

Fox News' senior judicial analyst made some surprising remarks Saturday that may go against the grain at his conservative network.

In a interview with Ralph Nader on C-SPAN's Book TV to promote his book Lies the Government Told You, Judge Andrew Napolitano said that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney should have been indicted for "torturing, for spying, for arresting without warrant."

The judge believes that it is a fallacy to say that the US treats suspects as innocent until proven guilty. "The government acts as if a defendant is guilty merely on the basis of an accusation," said Napolitano.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/07/12/f ... -indicted/


Dang, I knew it was out there somewhere.... I guess I'm still waiting for the Righties to actually come up with something that's an "impeachable offense." Obviously, there were multiples in the last administration, but he got a free pass.... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm :Whistle

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

24 Mar 2011 11:40 #10 by archer
It always surprises me when people get outraged over broken political promises.....what rock have they been living under? Political promises are broken every day, by every politician, by every party.....it's how business is done these days. That doesn't make it right, just makes it business as usual. What is outrageous is people in one party making a big deal out of it only when it's the OTHER party that broke a promise. I personally would not give you a nickle for any promise made by a politician....republican, democrat, or other.

In a tiny defense of politicians....both left and right.....reality has a way of making most election promises moot...I think the tea party is finding that out now.....they made a lot of promises about what they would do and are finding out it isn't so easy to deliver on those promises once in office. The Democrats faced the same thing when they were swept into office....best intentions and all that.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.176 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
sponsors
© My Mountain Town (new)
Google+