Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: "If Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached." - Ralph Nader

Posted 8 years ago on Jan. 7, 2012, 9:03 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Liberal democrat and congressman Dennis Kucinich calls out Obama for the war in Libya.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pVo7-gOkqo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b-VaxqZuvo

Here's an article with Ralph Nader on the unconstitutional actions by Obama and his administration against Libya,

"Why don’t we say what’s on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached."

http://www.salon.com/2011/03/21/ralph_nader_obama_impeachment/

Another good article on the topic.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html

And yes, the republicans suck... and McCain would have been a war monger president too and definitely worse... This does not change the fact that we could have had a better democrat for president in 2008, like Dennis Kucinich (check out HR 2990)... and that Obama does not deserve to be elected for a second term. He should step down at the end of this term and let a REAL democrat run for office.

132 Comments

132 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

You're still falling for this left/right or dem/repub bullshit.

There is no difference at all. Their rhetoric pre-election means absolutely nothing post-election.

Puppets for their paymasters in personhood corporate underwear.

The whole show is an absolute farcical nightmare, and the rest of the World is Watching and Waiting for Americans to Wake up and Do something about these corrupt bought puppets you have. All of Them.

No exceptions.

[-] 4 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Oh for sure. I just added the stuff at the end because whenever I criticize Obama, people come at me like I think Newt Gingrich should be God. But I firmly believe that Dennis Kucinich should have been president in 2008. He's one of the FEW that actually does their job for the people.

But just look at Obama's administration, it's full of Wall Street hacks. His newest campaign guy is a damn Wall Street lobbyist. The remaining Obama supporters need to wake up and smell the scam.

The truth is C.R.E.A.M.

Cash Rules Everything Around Me.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

It's scary shit, Man. When congress (small C because they aren't representing the people) invests in your war machine, as if they want peace? No, really, I mean. You people will be getting more false flag ops very soon to justify more war.

The poor will be signing up for military service just so they can eat and get health care.

Can't believe how bad things have gotten so quickly.

[-] 1 points by dantes443322 (148) 8 years ago

Builder, please stop using the meme of the 'poor and stupid' go to war. It's outdated, and I know many in service that they didn't have to go, but glad they went. They matured beyond belief.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

No doubt at all that many commissioned officers take their role in the military very seriously. I'm talking about making life so tough on the middle and lower classes of people that there is no alternative but to become a foot-soldier for the war machine.

Now, can you name me a conflict the the US has been a part of that has primarily been to protect the people of America. Disregard the second world war, of course.

[-] 1 points by dantes443322 (148) 8 years ago

Why were we involved in WWI and WWII? Neither of those protected the US, but it protected our ideals.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Then please name those ideals.

Why are you, as a nation, constantly at war? Why are your secret services constantly undermining other nation's admins, with the advance goals of installing your own puppet figures?

And, more succinctly, why is this kind of thing still happening while your own country slowly subsides into third world status?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 8 years ago

I agree with everything you guys are saying except for the idea that the military just sends poor people to die. I come from a fairly wealthy area, now I will admit that not everyone does military service but 4% of seniors from my school last year went into the armed forces most of them were from wealthy families. I also am considering military as a career option.

[-] 3 points by hucklebuckle (19) 8 years ago

Good luck with that. If you think your rights are diminishing now, just wait until you join the service. You'll soon see how ironic joining the military is when it comes to "fighting for freedom." and other such propaganda that is spewed when people encourage you to enlist.

https://www.google.com/search?q=us+military+suicide+rates+2011&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 8 years ago

Well I everyone knows that when you join the military you give up rights. It's part of the sacrifice people give to defend this nation. That's why they are our nation's finest.

[-] 4 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 8 years ago

Defend this nation? I don't see too much defending going on here. What I see is offense and imperialistic nation building. And WASTING WASTING WASTING WASTING WASTING taxpayers' fucking money. The border patrol does more 'defending' than the military dirt-bags. I work harder as a civilian than I ever did in the military. Because as a civilian I am able to offer new ideas to improve efficiency and productivity in my workplace. The military doesn't want new ideas, it's either their way or no way.

The military is fucking wasteful and it's a disgrace. They waste so much time reiterating the same shit over and over in commanders calls and standing around in formation. They waste so much money on contractors, and materials and resources. There are warehouses full of billions of dollars worth of materials just sitting there, wasting space and rotting--only to be destroyed, thrown away and replaced with brand new units that will just sit there and expire into obsolescence until the next new technology emerges to supersede them.

If we really want to defend this nation, then we need to invest in GIVING our citizens the best education possible. Not in GIVING our citizens a pixelated uniform and another mundane job, and perhaps sending them overseas to defend America. How in the hell does one defend their country if they're in another country playing the role of policemen, pillagers, and looters? Oh so we can fabricate fictitious threats and kill unarmed foreign civilians on their own soil. And take their resources and cash crops to make a very small percentage in this country wealthier.

You don't see any German, Japanese, or Korean military bases in the USA? Do you?

Pretty soon it won't just be foreigners dying on their own soil. It will be our own unarmed American citizens assassinated by stealth drones and satellite guided missiles on OUR OWN SOIL.

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 8 years ago

What part of the military did you serve under?

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 8 years ago

Air Force - 1C6X1

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 8 years ago

What did you do?

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 8 years ago

It sounds more interesting and complex than it really is.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/airforceenlistedjobs/a/afjob1c6x1.htm

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 8 years ago

That does sound very interesting but I'll take your word on it. I assume you watch monitors 8 hrs a day or something of that nature.

[-] 0 points by dantes443322 (148) 8 years ago

Dude, did TacoBell not give you time off for beach week??? Tell me, what job would you pay someone else to do?

"You don't see any German, Japanese, Korean, or military bases in the USA? Do you?"

Can you summarize where you were going with that?

[-] 4 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 8 years ago

Thanks for pointing out that typo, it's fixed.

...and what the fuck are you talking about in your first two statements? TacoBell? Beach week? You must watch way too much television. I don't even live anywhere near a tacobell, nor would I want to have anything to do with that disgusting, so called 'food'.

And what would I pay people to do if I actually had/ or cared about ink stained rectangles of paper and molded circles of metal? Why, I'd have us:

~ Desalinizing massive quantities of H2O and further treating the water to make it both potable and palatable.

~ Planting all sorts of natural vegetation, fruit bearing trees, and irrigating as much unused land as possible. Or building vertical farms http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-rise-of-vertical-farms

~ Actually curing diseases, as opposed to marketing "medicines" that create more health problems than they claim to solve.

~ Actually educating people, as opposed to charging them ridiculous amounts of money for a half-assed indoctrination and alumni status.

~ Pursuing research and development in the endless possibilities of nano technologies

~ Pursuing research and development of free and renewable energies which would inevitably lead to the development of more efficient transportation systems of people, and resources.

~ Eventually mine asteroids for metals and terraform other planets

these are just a few things off the top of my head, I could probably go on forever. I'd do all these thing without the intent of making a profit for myself, because the implications and effects of these good deeds are all the profit I'll ever need.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Great comment. I'd like to see the "entire" list since you ended on

"Eventually mine asteroids for metals and terraform other planets"

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 8 years ago

Thanks, I'll try to add some more ideas after work. You should add some too, I know you'd be able to come up with some good ideas as well. What would you hire people to do, or what kind of projects would you work on if you found the billions or maybe even trillions of dollars that magically disappear from the American people every year?

maybe even create a new topic if you have time.

[-] 1 points by dantes443322 (148) 8 years ago

~ Actually curing diseases, as opposed to marketing "medicines" that create more health problems than they claim to solve.

What disease? And don't get me wrong, the ideas are great. But until technology catches up it is a pipe dream.

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 8 years ago

Well, medicine is not a field I'm well versed in. So I cannot honestly think of any examples off the top of my head. I was thinking more along the lines of researching more natural alternatives.

I have a sneaky suspicion that most doctors are in bed with the big pharmaceutical companies. This means doctors make a lot of money by pushing expensive, name-brand products onto patients that do not necessarily need them.

People need to be very cautious when watching the idiot-box and seeing commercials that end in, "Ask your doctor if this product is right for you." Because chances are, that the product is not right for you--but your doctor would probably like to convince you that it's something you need.

I would suggest cutting the cable/satellite television subscription entirely, and not wasting money to pay for the privilege of being bombarded with advertisements all day.

[-] 1 points by dantes443322 (148) 8 years ago

I have a sneaky suspicion that most doctors are in bed with the big pharmaceutical companies. This means doctors make a lot of money by pushing expensive, name-brand products onto patients that do not necessarily need them. \ Sorry, Doctors don't make a lot of money nowadays.

Used to, but their compensation is a oke now.

Now they ust get paid throgh Medicare/Medicaid.

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 8 years ago

Yeah...that's why they take bribes from more profitable pharmaceutical companies to suggest certain (usually unnecessary) prescriptions for their patients. They need to pay off the bills from 8+ years of college somehow...

Oh...but they don't outright admit to taking bribes...They use more crafty words like incentives, bonuses, or stimuli.

[-] 1 points by Scout (729) 8 years ago

" That's why they are our nation's finest. " Bullshit :-

you mean like this

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/video-of-us-marines-urinating-on-taliban-dead-causes-uproar/article2299893/

and this

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370758/Shocking-video-shows-U-S-troops-cheering-airstrike-blows-Afghan-civilians.html

???

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 8 years ago

Thanks for posting those links. It seems these fools find great joy in killing their fellow human beings. Just look at the evil, shit eating grins plastered upon their faces.

[-] 1 points by Scout (729) 8 years ago

and dont think its only soldiers that engage in this brutality ! Take a look at what happens inside America !

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8451.htm

[-] 3 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 8 years ago

You are right. There is no difference. It is all a show for the public to watch. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".

[-] 2 points by Scout (729) 8 years ago

" The whole show is an absolute farcical nightmare, and the rest of the World is Watching and Waiting for Americans to Wake up and Do something about these corrupt bought puppets you have. All of Them. "

yes indeed !! VOTE FOR RON PAUL

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Eeeerm. NO.

Ronnie seems like what you'd get if you crossed Shrub junior with J Paul Getty.

[-] 2 points by Scout (729) 8 years ago

well there is nobody else who has the courage to take the necessary steps

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Well, if you know the steps he(Ron) is willing to take, can you itemise those steps for those of us who are not familiar with Ron's conceptual flow?

[-] 2 points by Wallgreed (-26) 8 years ago

Got that right, both parties are hosing all of us. When the economy was good no one paid attention to them and now that the economy is bad, we can see clearly what they are doing.

[-] 1 points by dantes443322 (148) 8 years ago

Builder, what do you think of the Tea Party? I am tea-party+. I'll admit that right now. But it seems the majority on both sides are waiting for status quo. But it still seems OWS/TP has the right goals in mind. Basic goals mind ya, but it's a start.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

I'm Australian, so I'm more interested in your admin's foreign policy, and how it affects my country.

That said, the slow destruction of the once great US of A is heartbreaking to watch.

It's going to take some kind of financial miracle to solve your debt crisis, and for all intents and purposes, it appears that your financiers don't care at all about which party is in power. They are busy looting the last of the money, and abandoning the sinking ship.

[-] 3 points by dantes443322 (148) 8 years ago

Figured you were Aussie. Right now, we are in a sh*t situation. Left and Right will not come together. The Right see's through racial politics (despite what you may hear) and the Left will cover up Obama killing puppies saying it's animal control. It, and the american citizens are sick beyond brainwashed now.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

We need more like you.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Thanks. It's a shame there is so little I can do from Australia, except for spread the truth, and offer support.

Keep up the pressure, particularly on the media. Expose their lies as many times as you can.

[-] 4 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 8 years ago

Both Bush and Obama should not be impeached... They should be sent to jail.

[-] 4 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

Obama is not unique. He is the leader of the Democratic Party, not some aberation. Institutionally the Democratic Party is a far bigger danger to social movements than is the Republican Party precisely because of all the illusions that progressives foster about the Democratic Party. It is nothing more than one of the two factions of the one party of the 1% and in many respects it is the far more dangerous faction because it is the faction that repeatedly and successfully hoodwinks the people into believing that it is a party of the people whereas, the truth is, it is historically where every mass movement since the Populists in the 19th century have gone to die.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

NADER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is the turkey who lied there was no difference between bush and Gore.
His lie & his running in 2000 gave us the Iraq war + the stupidest man to ever inhabit the White House.

If you say Gore would have invaded Iraq, you are a bigger liar than Nader and stupider than bush. This is the turkey who lied !

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

Who cares who said it? I don't like Nader either and agree with your criticisms.

But mark my words, Obama will have to be careful about travel destinations for the rest of life, just like Bush. Aggressive war is aggressive war, a war crime.

Sending U.S. forces to support a mythical R2P (Responsibility to Protect) on behalf of foreign powers and without congressional approval? Of course he should be impeached.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 4 years ago

Its been 15 years since leftists supported the fascists instead of Nader the man, and look at the results lol.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by nichole (525) 8 years ago

It's the office and its powers, individuals have little or nothing to do with what is coming out of Washington. Any individual who enters the beltway has completely forsaken their agency, and we are mistaken to place the blame solely upon them.

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 8 years ago

Supporting a third party, (Rocky), will help shape the issues. Or not?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 8 years ago

The only war crime is denouncing war. In the American empire the only war crimes are committed by those who denounce the leadership for committing war crimes.

The empire of the United States of America can do no wrong. Those who disagree can go fuck themselves. Or speak out enough and the government will find ways to fuck them.

Emperor George the Second has been followed by Emperor Barack the First.

[-] 1 points by OccupyLink (529) 8 years ago

Stupid. Neither Bush nor Obama should have been impeached. They did not give themselves huge bonuses like the banking bastards.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Yeah but who helps the banking bastards? Who then gives money to which campaigns? Who has a Wall Street Lobbyist for their 2012 campaign? Remember the bailouts? Who supported those? Obama.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

Please, oh please, try to separate different issues.

Yes, Obama is too friendly to bankers.

NO, that had nothing to do with the bailouts, which were not simply to benefit the banks, but prevent another Great Depression. If those banks hadn't been bailed out, everyone, not just banks, would be in FAR worse shape than we are today. Without stopping the hemorrhaging, our entire economy would have completely collapsed.

The bank bailouts are not the issue. (And they have mostly been paid back). The issue is what forced the government to have to do it in the first place, and what will insure that it will have to again in the future. The issue is lack of real regulation.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Lulz this is OWS... you're not going to convince anyone that the bailouts were a good idea.

remember the whole "Banks got bailed out, we got sold out" thing?

The government bailed out a fraudulent financial system that is stealing people's pensions, 401K's, and even their homes.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

You would be surprised to learn how many in OWS actually understand basic first year economics.

If the banks hadn't gotten bailed out, what the f*ck do you think would have happened to EVERYONE'S pensions and 401Ks? How do you think those things are funded?

We all recognize that the banking system is corrupt, is a "fraudulent financial system". The issue isn't that it is a financial system per se: the issue is the fraud. the financial system has to be rescued or we would be seeing 30-40% unemployment now. That the system was collapsing due to fraud is another issue and has to be dealt with. But throwing out, or rather completely abandoning, the baby with the bath water is the worst thing one can do.

We have to eliminate the fraud and corruption. It will be hard work. But conflating the issues, as you are doing, doesn't help.

[-] 2 points by OccupyLink (529) 8 years ago

Exactly. It was the banks who wrecked pensions. The government did bail them out, but had to. The correct way forward is to jail all the banking executives. That way, future bank leaders would think twice before plundering the pensions again.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

So you're suggesting that OWS should support the bailouts? The bailouts were just another level of their scam. Next thing you know trillions of dollars came out of nowhere. The bailouts were driven by fear not fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1dkZShYP78

Here's another good one from the early bailout days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YimTs6Q_xD0

Sorry, guy. You won't convince a die hard Kucinich fan and OWS supporter that the bailouts were a good idea.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

OWS does not object to the bailouts themselves. It is the systemic conditions that made them necessary and the subsequent abandonment of those effected by the meltdown that OWS opposes.

Don't project your ignorance of basic economics onto OWS.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

What ignorance? Are you suggesting you are more intelligent than Dennis Kucinich? I shared specific videos of why the bailouts weren't necessary and all you can say is that I'm ignorant? Why don't you explain how what's said in these videos is wrong? How about you explain how the trillions of dollars aren't part of a scam?

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

I happen to like Kucinich bout a whole lot of things, but on this, he is wrong. No non-aligned economist agrees with him, either. When it comes to economics, I go to economists, not politicians. And Kucinich, as far as I know, is not OWS. He is a politician.

Wall Street and the banks were like arsonists, They intentionally played with fire and set a house on fire. That fire HAD to be put out, not to save the arsonists, but the other people trapped inside, and to keep the fire from spreading to neighboring houses.

That was the right thing to do.

The problem - and this is what OWS rightly objects to - is that the house didn't belong to the arsonists and they got to walk away unscathed, while the people still living there were abandoned to clean up the damage by themselves. And the arsonists were allowed to keep their matches.

It is easy to declare that the bankers were criminals and should have been left to burn. If that was all there was to it, I would agree. But the people who were their victims would have burned alongside them, and that would have unacceptable.

You ignorance is your lack of understanding of that basic economic reality: the bailout saved US from the worst of the fire as well as the scumbags.

(And, by the way, the reporting on that 7 trillion dollars was wrong. Not the original report, but the subsequent way the media ran with the story. It was very dramatic and made good headlines and good political theatre, but not one thin dime was lost in the process.)

[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 8 years ago

Don't be distracted. That's why nothing ever changes for the better.

"WAKE UP PEOPLE!” - JOIN THE REVOLUTION There is a better way to fight back. Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( http://www.revolution2.osixs.org ) – “entirely”

How else can I say this? "We Are Free!" http://WeAreFree.osixs.org "Spread the News"

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

Libya was a civil war that erupted after a dictator began massacring thousands of his own people. It was NOT a war America waged against Libya, but military support we gave protesters (who were kinda like us in OWS) who wanted an end to their oppression and were being slaughtered in the streets for protesting.. America, and about a dozen other countries helped the PEOPLE of Libya DEFEND THEMSELVES.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

That's a flat out NATO lie. We also had spec op troops on the ground.

Also absolute grounds for Obama's impeachment. America's military is not at the beck and call of foreign interests.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

You're full of shit.

[-] 1 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 8 years ago

Oooooooh, my poor little TROLL! Papa Troll is going to kick your butt over that terrible, terrible "ad hominem" you just uttered... LOL

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

Why are you here? Hit the road liar.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

I would say the same of you.

I am here to support OWS. I am NOT here to support efforts to distort events for the sake of ideology, whether militaristic or isolationist.

America signed a treaty called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and is bound by that treaty. That puts it at the beck and call of certain, specific foreign interests. Unless the US withdraws, by order of Congress, from that treaty, it is obligated to honor it.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Sorry but Obama did not have constitutional authority or the right to wage war against Libya. He's not distorting anything, it's a fact.

Targeting Libya's leader for assassination and bombing them is a war. You called it a Civil war in Libya. Well guess what, we joined the war. It was a war.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

The war powers act gives the administration 60 days to act prior to congressional approval.

Yes, Obama went a few days over (literally a couple of days) before getting approval from the Senate. Prior to that, he consulted with booth the Senate and house leadership and received a green light to go ahead.

There is some question of whether the war powers act applies AT ALL to refueling planes and sending drones. The law is not at all clear about it. So stating that Obama did anything remotely impeachable, as the OP does, is incorrect.

Did Obama manipulate the flexibility and vagueness of the law as it now stands? I believe he did. But that's a far cry from breaking the law.

And I, for one, am glad he acted. I am glad he stopped tanks from massacring tens of thousands of people. I'm glad he heard the pleas of protesters. I'm glad he quickly limited the US role to refueling missions and crone strikes. I'm glad, when he faced a congress that would have condemned him either for taking action or for not doing so, he chose action.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

We were not attacked by Libya. Libya posed no threat to us. The war powers resolution does not apply to Libya for the act of war we waged against them. Which is why if you look it up online it even says Obama did not abide by it.

From ZenDog's link:
"the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Obama did not get authorization from congress and we were not attacked either.

Obama should be impeached just like Bush should have been impeached. Say no to war mongers or it's Next Stop Iran and many more! Obama is an indefinite war president just like Bush. The war in Afghanistan is the new war in Iraq. How long can it last? At least 4 more years with Obama.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

Sorry, no.

Obama was in consultation with congressional leaders throughout, from the beginning. They gave their approval to go ahead. No ground troops were ever involved. He had 60 days from start of action to get congressional approval for war if indeed war had broken out. By that time, he shifted operations primarily refueling NATO planes,

I have ZERO problem with his coming to the aid of protesters. I have ZERO problem with his taking advantage of gray areas of the law. WE SAVED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVES. That's quite different than our invasion of Iraq. And that's good enough for me.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Obama did not seek congressional approval. I've provided links to everything I've said in my post above. You have not.

The situation in Libya will probably work out as great as when our country supported the Mujahideen and the Afghan Arabs. I hope it turns out well, but from what I've read, so far it's not off to a good start. According to the African Union, the rebels have rounded up blacks and hold them in makeshift prisons for being black. They've slaughtered people in the cities in large numbers. There's been countless bodies found that have all been executed by the rebels. It just seems like Gaddafi is getting replaced with another Gaddafi.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

For the thousanth time, Obama consulted with congressional leadership prior to the 60 day deadline for requesting formal approval. That meets the constitutional standard for the first 60 days of action. Learn what the damned law is before you insist it was broken. Do you even know the history of that law, why it was written, what its purpose is? Clearly not.

It is very possible that Quaddaffi is being replaced by another Quaddaffi. There is a generation of resentment about past abuse among the populace. It is a deeply tribal country, and revenge is, tragically, a way of life there.

There was a chance, early on in what started as a Libyan version of teh Arab Spring, that all this could have been avoided. But Ghaddaffi. chose to start killing his people. The result was civil war. And in the wake of civil war, a power vacuum filled by tribal leaders. How the f*ck do you lay that at the feet of Obama?

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

Perfidious Albion.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

Name calling won't make your erroneous statements any more true.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

I see that you added that paragraph about NATO and our being "bound" by treaty to be at its "beck and call". That'll be news for most Americans -- which you are not one of.

NATO does not transcend our national sovereignty or Constitution, idiot.

If you are a foreigner please leave. This forum is about OWS discovering its path into the future. If you are not a foreigner then you are an unAmerican, anti-Patriotic, anti-American-way-of-life, anti-Constitution POS.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

You seem to be trying very hard to make a point. Too bad that whatever it is, is unclear.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

Who said anything about transcending sovereignty? Being bound by treaty is being bound by treaty. Congress ratified the treaty and the executive signed it. And since nothing in the constitution was violated by our actions, nothing was transcended but your selfishness.

Our support allowed NATO to save thousands of lives. They were the lives of people who wanted greater freedom, greater equity. They were the lives of people like us; like OWS.

But I suppose you would rather we acted like we did about Darfour, standing idly by, watching genocide unfold. Clearly that was more ethical as far as you're concerned.

And you have the gall to call ME names!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Obama did not have constitutional authority to wage war. Did you even watch any of the videos in my post?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

DOn't need to. No ground troops were sent. The air campaign turned to a refueling support role role close to 60 from the start of any action on our part, the congress was briefed at every turn and consented at every turn.

The constitution was not violated.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

It was. Check out the links. You're ignoring facts and just saying, "I don't need facts because I said it's not unconstitutional." But it is. Watch the video. OWS supporter and the guy who's been fighting against wall street in congress even supports the claim with facts.

Also Obama violated the War Powers Resolution as well. In fact if you google The War Powers Resolution it's stated in the wikipedia page that Obama violated it with the war against Libya.

So whether you want to go by a different standard, Obama broke the rules in both cases. I honestly don't agree with the war powers resolution because if we were attacked, congress would have no problem declaring war on the actual country that attacked us, well hopefully.. Congress is pretty petty most of the time.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

I looked at all the links and there is not a single ting, other than unsupported accusations in them. Kucinich's anger is not, by itself, a valid constitutional argument.

Admittedly, Obama took advantage of vagaries in the law. He didn't break it outright. He did so to save lives, not cost them.

Because he saved likely tens of thousands of lives, I say:

HURRAY!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Links? And not the Obama videos where he pats himself on the back. I've read some good articles but I've also read about how a ton of innocent people have died because of NATO bombings which like usual aren't always accurate and are excessive. I've also read a lot of the Libyan rebels are murderers who slaughter blacks and execute those who oppose them in anyway. Like the many al qaeda forces in the rebels as well. In all honesty, to me, it just seems like they replaced Gaddafi with another form of a Gaddafi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzEr12CyE_0&feature=watch_response_rev

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cslPrRLaQDI&feature=related

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

The links I referred to were to ones in the OP. They do not provide evidence of constitutional wrongdoing, only OPINION about it. You insisted I look at them for evidence, for "facts". They provided none. Opinion is not fact.

You've been reading some real bullshit.

During the rebellion, Ghaddaffi flew in Black African mercenaries to kill Libyans. There has been just a wee bit of resentment against them for coming into their country as paid murderers. Dozens were killed. Some, tragically, were innocent day laborers. It is one of the many crimes and tragedies that happen as a result of war. It is awful. And it has NOTHING to do with the constitutionality or lack of it of Obama's actions.

I have seen no credible reports of "tons" of innocent people having been killed by NATO bombs. A few dozen, yes. And even in their aftermath, the rebels asked that the air support continue.

There is indeed some evidence that Al Quaida has set up a few people their in the wake of the insurgency. There were NONE amongst the rebels themselves. It was a debunked lie that Ghaddaffi himself made up in order to justify his murdering his own people. Interesting that you choose to believe Ghaddaffi, a known international terrorist and murderer of his own citizens to the president. That indicates to me nothing other than a predisposition on your part of animus toward Obama, not a desire to uncover any truth.

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 8 years ago

0bama has sent about 100 ground troops into uganda. anything to say about that?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

Don't know about. It's a different issue. I have an allergic reaction to conflating issues.

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 8 years ago

another way of saying you won't comment because 0bama is clearly doing something wrong in uganda. how many people know about 0bama sending armed troops into uganda?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

No, it's saying that it's a different issue. This thread is about whether or not Obama should be impeached for violating the Constitution and the War Powers Act in Libya. Sending 100 troops to Uganda has nothing to do with that.

It's a different issue. I have an allergic reaction to conflating issues.

Congress passed the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act in 2010, authorizing US deployment of troops to several African countries. There is no violation of law in Obama's sending those troops. The troops are there with Uganda's permission. You are conflating issues.

I have an allergic reaction to conflating issues.

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 8 years ago

100 armed troops sent into uganda by 0bama and no interest?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

It's a different issue.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

I don't think you are merely an apologist for great evil, I believe you are evil. I'm surprised you didn't make the trip to Libya to murder, torture and sodomize.

The hideous thing about Darfour is that the same dark power stage managed both sides -- the raping and pillaging, and the charity outreach.

You humanitarian interventionists and R2Pers forget that aggressive war is aggressive war. If power shifts the aggressors will hang.

You are obviously here as a spokesman for an organized point of view, not as a truth seeker. Please go away. OWS is a wide tent but all, imo, must share a belief that society/the economy can be rebuilt to respond to human needs not corporate greed and criminality. NATO is criminal.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

Responding to human needs is EXACTLY what we did regarding Libya.

I think you have your head so far up your ideological ass that you can no longer understand context. The sheer numbers of murders were perpetrated far more by one side than on the other; and that was the side putting down the rebellion. By helping support , mostly indirectly, those who wanted to rid themselves of their oppressor, we helped minimize the number of victims.

The hideous thing about Darfour was not the "dark power stage", but the killing itself.

Turning one's back on that is what I consider evil. Objecting to help is what I consider being an apologist for evil.

My point of view is my own. If it appears "organized", as you put it, it is only because compassion, thankfully, is still a widely shared one.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

I strongly suspect you are a paid advocate for a cause or organization. Obviously that is not against the law or the forum rules, but it is sad to see anyone paid to lie. Go ahead and have the last word if you want, I won't respond to you again.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

Your suspicions are entirely unfounded. I represent and advocate my own views alone. I am not in touch with any organization at all, unless you count this forum itself as an organization.

You might come to the erroneous conclusion that I am part of an organization simply because my thoughts are consistent and organized. Too bad you find that threatening.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

So we joined one side of the WAR.

Semantics games won't work here. When you bomb a nation and target it's leader for assassination... IT'S WAR. And yes Gaddafi was a maniac. But we aren't the world police. Should we have gone to war with China over what happened in Tibet? People in our country used to burn witches. Countries will solve these problems over time. Sadly some are still more "in the past" than others. Our country worked out civil rights over time.

Look up more about the Libyan rebels and specifically their leader. Like how they slaughtered blacks for being black and torture, rape, and murder.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/29/501364/main20099014.shtml

This is an hour long presentation brought about in congress and the guy shares facts and sources with everything he says.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G0pUEU603Q&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=42&feature=plpp_video

Here is Dennis Kucinich talking about the Al Qaeda flag flying over the courthouse in Benghazi Libya.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSUnluGSOdM&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=43&feature=plpp_video

This is an link to an article about an interview with the rebel leader.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

So they are nothing like OWS.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

We supported, in a relatively minor way (compared to Europe) a popular insurrection against a leader that was murdering protesters by the thousands. Those initial protesters were very much like OWS. Certainly, that changed, but the first protesters and the first victims of Ghaddaffi's goons were more like us than not.

Those protesters did not have one leader. In fact, before there was a civil war, there were simple protests. It became violent as a result of the slaughter or protesters. As the insurrection evolved, there were many people involved from many factions and many tribes. There was no one, single leader.

Yes, dozens of innocent blacks were wrongly killed. Black Africans were being imported by the thousands as mercenaries by Gaddaffi, and many were mistaken to be them. It was a tragedy and a crime, but US actions had nothing to do with it, and did not contribute to it in any way.

There are real questions about what the long term results of the Libyans uprising will be. It was always a more a collection of competing tribes than a country, and that has not changed. But America's supporting role in the NATO action was to protect civilian lives against a brutal mass murderer who was in the process of killing his own people by the thousands. The people of Libya (and our allies in Europe) begged us to help. We did. We did so with restraint. Many accused us at the time of not doing enough. And If we hadn't helped, Obama would be no doubt now be accused of turning his back on a righteous cause, on a downtrodden people.

It seems, when it come to this president, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, and this criticism of him doesn't pass the smell test.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

I'm sure our support to the Libyan rebels will turn out as great as our support for the Afghan Arabs and the Mujahideen did in the 80's.

I like how you tried to justify why they killed a ton of black people. Wow.... the nerve of some people who don't want to admit they're wrong about something.

Considering we aren't the world police, I don't think he would have faced any criticism for doing nothing to a country that posed ZERO threat to us. But hey, who knows what kind of crap Fox News might say.

Once again I will repeat this, We aren't the world police. Should we have gone to war with China over what happened in Tibet? People in our country used to burn witches. Countries will solve these problems over time. Sadly some are still more "in the past" than others. Our country worked out civil rights over time and so can any nation. It just takes time.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

We were able to help the people of of Libya, so we helped them. We did not take the lead in doing so, but we contributed. I'm glad we did.

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 8 years ago

But we have no place intervening. Not every battle is our battle. We cannot go around policing the world no matter how much we want to. We do not have the resources nor the manpower to do it. America will always be ready to fight when absolutely necessary and when we fight we will win and crush our enemies for the greater good. Like I said earlier we must pick and chose our battles. Others could have handled Libya just fine.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

I am proud of our participation. We had the resources to do it and we were begged to do it.

I don't favor war any more than most of the other people in this forum. But I object to the characterization of what we did in Libya as a war on that country, and one that was unjustified. I object to the notion that our involvement, which deployed not a single US soldier on the ground, (in fact NATO was really pissed that we refused to be more directly involved) is in any way equivalent or comparable to our invasion of Iraq. It is inaccurate and mendacious. And it shows a complete lack of ability of understanding context.

[-] 1 points by America921 (161) 8 years ago

The problem was it was not in the budget, which I think there should be an emergency military fund ready at all times. We were fighting two wars at the time and really could not afford a third. In the end Libya is free and it all ended up fine.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

The budget is an extremely malleable document. It refers to projected expenditures, not simply authorized ones.

What's more, we did not fight a third war. Our involvement was extremely limited and was for an extremely short period of time. Frankly, in relation to other things, like oil subsidies, it wasn't all that expensive.

We can afford a hell of a lot more, and in many more areas, than you are led to believe. If we stopped subsidizing the wealthy and their corporations, If we invested much more now to create jobs (especially green ones that would help the economy as well as the planet) and broadened the tax base with a fully employed populace, we could afford to do even more, especially for the benefit of our own people.

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 8 years ago

If we cut spending and remove all tax loop holes we would have enough money to buy China. Of course that is a hyperbole but I see your point.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

These four men REQUIRE that you vote for Obama

John Roberts
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Samuel Alito

If you don’t believe them,
…………ask Newt or John McCain about Citizens United

[-] 1 points by Joeboy32 (72) 8 years ago

The entire U.S. Government should be impeached.

[-] 0 points by OurTimes2011 (377) from Arlington, VA 8 years ago

Nader? Nader? Please. That moron caused the crisis by refusing to stand down in 2000. Gore would have won. No 9/11. No financial crisis. The truth is that Nader worked for Bush.

Egomaniac and idiot.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Yeah it's all Nader's fault! Fuck people who run for president that aren't democrat or republican. It's all their fault. Nice spin there, guy.

"NADER CAUSED 9/11 AND THE FINANCIAL CRISIS" - OurTimes2011

Wow that is crazy.

[-] 0 points by OurTimes2011 (377) from Arlington, VA 8 years ago

I did not say nader caused 9/11. Planes flying into buildings caused 9/11. bush was an incompetent/criminal moron who either did not see 9/11 coming, despite copious evidence, or he looked the other way so that the public would ignore his theft of the 2000 election.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

Yes, but damn it Ralph, who's going to bell the cat?!!! And How?!!!

That's the question you never could answer, and I'm tired of the left being right but not having any actual goddamned Plan!!!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Impeach Obama is a great start to the plan.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

HOW?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

People telling their congressmen in person, on the phone, and with letters. Rally people together. People need to start doing their job and pay attention to government on a local level. Your congressmen are supposed to work for you. A congressmen in my state recently killed a bill he proposed because no one liked it and made a point about it. Too bad no one gets riled up about real issues though. The bill that was killed was about allowing robo calls to cell phones. It's not an easy process.

What are your thoughts on making change happen?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

Pressure from both inside and outside they system. Nothing else can overcome this level of entrenched corruption. We need to continue protests, occupations, sit ins, standing with the disenfranchised, and we need to participate in elections to push the Democrats to the left. The one tactic will reinforce the other until we have an overwealming consensus for change.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 8 years ago

idiot

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 8 years ago

Obama ordered the assination of two United States citizens without trial. Grant it one of them was considered a terrorist and linked to Al Qaeda and both were in a war zone traveling with terrorists. But there is no excuse for those actions. Though technically one of those could be ruled out because of Military courts and treason. But the other was a 16 year old boy. Obama should be tried for treason, at the least murder, for his crimes.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Yes I agree. War crimes and unconstitutional activity = treason. Barack is an everyday average George W Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CqsZoSB4Is

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by AlwaysIntoSomething (42) 6 years ago

Have no fear, another election in a year.

I'm sure whichever side wins will see things magically changing as their corporate poser of choice reigns dollars and cocaine upon bankers from above.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

I would point out a few things:

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.”

this illustrates a huge difference between repeliKans and the President, in that repeliKans would simply have launched missile strikes regardless of what any other nations thought. The statement above demonstrates an international consensus.

Second - there is the gridlock in Congress - and the President has something like 60 days after a conflict -war - has started before formally notifying Congress.

Given the grid lock in Congress, it is unlikely that waiting for their approval would have done the people of Misrata a whole lot of good.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

So the United Nations trumps our constitution? The UN also supported sanctions on Iraq that killed 500,000 innocent children in the 1990's. I don't give a lot of respect to the UN.

Based on the facts about the Libyan rebels, I'm sure the support of the Libyan rebels will turn out as great as the support for the Mujahideen and the Afghan Arabs in the 80's.

Here is Dennis Kucinich in congress talking about al qaeda and the rebels

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b-VaxqZuvo

Look up more about the Libyan rebels. Like how they slaughtered blacks for being black and torture people, rape, and murder.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/29/501364/main20099014.shtml

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

So the United Nations trumps our constitution?

no, that is not what I said

Based on the facts about the Libyan rebels, I'm sure the support of the Libyan rebels will turn out as great as the support for the Mujahideen and the Afghan Arabs in the 80's.

And there are those who would say similar things about us, given some of the acts of vandalism that took place on the west coast during some of the big protests.

I'm sure some of the Libyan rebels did to some of the blacks in Libya the same thing that you are doing to them, or that has been done to us - and that is to paint the whole on the basis of a small portion.

Some of the blacks in Libya - in uniform - were African mercenaries.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

My whole point was "the actions are unconstitutional." You come back with "but he talked with the UN and the Arab league." Does that somehow change constitutional authority or is there a part of the constitution that says if the UN says it's cool, then it's cool?

Also OWS is not supported with drone strikes and the CIA. We do not slaughter black people and we are not comparable to what took place in Libya and the Libyan rebels.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

My whole point was "the actions are unconstitutional."

I believe he had 60 days to notify Congress and seek their approval - given the circumstances,

  • the dire situation presented to the people of Misrata by Gadhaffi forces;

  • the limited duration of the conflict itself

  • our highly limited role in that conflict after the first 7-10 days

  • and the gridlock in Congress

I don't believe the President abused his authority in the least.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Have you read this before? He did not have the authority in the least.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Maybe if the rebels had less ties to Al Qaeda, congress would have been more willing to help.

OIL. OIL. OIL. GADDAFI CURRENCY. OIL. OIL. IT WAS AN OPENING TO TAKE OUT SOMEONE THEY DON'T LIKE.

"You think we would have done anything if their main export was broccoli?"

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

Yes I have - I have a copy staring me in the face on my desk.

Under Article I Section 8 it establishes, among other things, that

  • The Congress shall have the power.

    • ...

    • To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water:

.

The War Powers Resolution:

  • The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

see also:

  • Wiki on War Powers and Declaration of War

    • Although the constitutionality of the act has never been tested, it is usually followed, most notably during the Grenada Conflict, the Panamanian Conflict, the Somalia Conflict, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War. The only exception was President Clinton's use of U.S. troops in the 78-day NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War.[citation needed] In all other cases, the President asserted the constitutional authority to commit troops without the necessity of Congressional approval, but in each case the President received Congressional authorization that satisfied the provisions of the War Powers Act.

    • On March 21, 2011, a number of lawmakers expressed concern that the decision of President Barack Obama to order the U.S. military to join in attacks of Libyan air defenses and government forces exceeded his constitutional authority because the decision was made to authorize the attack without Congressional permission.[14]

.

Given the law, historical precedent, and the state of affairs when the President provided our assistance to the NATO Mission in Libya, I conclude that no one can reasonably conclude the President abused his authority.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

"The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." - your link

The war is unconstitutional and goes AGAINST the War Powers Resolution as Libya did not attack us.

Also this was in the damn wiki page you linked as well.

"The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and again by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for attack on Libya, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action."

So you fail.

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

Do I?

Or did the action by Clinton establish a precedent?

And I can see no justification for holding the people of Misrata hostage to the gridlock of Congress.

At the end of WWII we said

  • never again.

then came Somalia

Rwanda

Kosovo

I'm not in the least bit reluctant to say I support our role over Libya. The President was handed a set of options, and I think he chose the best among them.

[-] 1 points by jinzhao (68) 8 years ago

Libya used to be the most developed country in Africa.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Sorry but you failed. He did not abide by the War Powers Resolution. He did not have constitutional authority. Saying "but Clinton did it," doesn't change what this argument was about. WHICH WAS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY. You tried to mention how it was okay because of the War Powers Resolution, which Obama did not even follow. So you failed. He violated all sorts of rules and laws of our country and the process of war. Same reasoning the Bush admin used for Iraq too. Operation Iraqi freedom. Saddam killed a lot of his people. George W Obama.

Now it's Iran and WMD's. Hmmm sounds familiar.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

that is horse shit. In courts of law, great weight is placed on the principle of precedence.

When Clinton did it, he set precedent. Congress didn't spank him because both parties want to preserve the ability of the President to act, and act quickly, if the need arises, and do so free from Congressional constraint.

You are reaching - getting desperate?

The bushite reasoning for entrance into Iraq was WMD. No one was going to stand up and say Saddam kills his own people and we have to get rid of him - not within the admin. They concocted the WMD lie and sold it to the international community.

Completely different scenario here. The people of Libya rose up - regardless of whether McCain's International Repelican Institute was behind it or not. Gaddhafi was about to over run Misrata, and engage in systematic, wholesale slaughter of the population of that city and others where the resistance to his regime was strong.

There is no dispute about that.

Libya and Iraq are two completely different cases, and as such clearly illustrate the difference between the current President, who absolutely deserves the support of the American people, and the previous

regime of fascism.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

In fact, the precedent was set by Reagan in Grenada. Bush the First followed up with Panama.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Then what was operation Iraqi freedom? I must have just made that up? Sorry but they talked about Saddam killing his own people all the time during the Bush era after they didn't find any WMD's. They had to come up with an excuse for staying there.

Sorry but you failed the argument you were trying to make.

You have now presented a new argument... Which is, in summation, "well sure he didn't abide by the laws, but it was the right thing to do."

I can handle that as a response from you. Before your response was trying to justify it with laws, which it did not abide by.

But it still doesn't change the facts that the rebels have ties to Al Qaeda and rape, murder, and specifically targeted blacks for slaughter.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

they talked about Saddam killing his own people all the time

they talked about a lot of things - and bush himself appeared an an aircraft carrier beneath a sign that read Mission Accomplished. So what? That does not change the fact that the public was sold on the Iraq invasion on the basis of WMD - and alleged ties to al qaida. Neither of which proved true. As far as excuses for staying there - Colin Powell said it: "If you break it, you own it." The specter of civil war became a real and serious threat, due to missteps by the admin.

We could have walked away - but that would have been highly irresponsible, to say nothing of the pnac plan for a 50 year occupation . . .

And I never said he didn't abide by the law - what I implied was that he operated within a gray area of that law - one that Clinton demonstrated is acceptable.

I'm sure the rebels do have their problems - that does not change the fact that had nothing been done Gaddhafi would have engaged in mass atrocity - as I have said, and which is indisputable.

You should be grateful we aren't still there, attempting to provide solutions while corps like Haliburton rob the Libyan people.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

So Obama put a stop to Halliburton is what you're saying? Oh wait. No. Halliburton subsidiaries are still profiting under the Obama administration and the wars.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

you will grasp at anything won't you.

At least I'm glad to see you've finally given up on your other non-issues.

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

I hadn't heard that Kucinich was even in the race. In any case, I do believe the President has done a fair job, given the Congress he has to work with, and I do plan on voting for him again.

But I'm trying to pull up the politico article now.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

He's not in the race. I was talking about 2008. If Obama wasn't running again there would be a race for the democratic nominee and that would open the door to the people having a chance to vote for a real democrat... instead of a war mongering George W Obama.