Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Top Dem rejects calls for Obama impeachment over Libya

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 08:59 AM
Original message
Top Dem rejects calls for Obama impeachment over Libya
Edited on Tue Mar-22-11 09:04 AM by ProSense

Top Dem rejects calls for Obama impeachment over Libya

By Jordan Fabian

A key Senate Democrat on Tuesday tamped down the suggestion by some in his own party that President Obama could be impeached for launching military strikes on Libya.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), a supporter of the U.S. mission in Libya and the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that if Obama's actions on Libya are impeachable, then so are the acts of every other president since World War II who launched military operations without a formal declaration of war.

"I think we ought to focus on what the issues are here," Levin said during an interview on the liberal Bill Press Show. "And that one-day kind of a story is not where we ought to be (focusing)."

<...>

"I raised the question in a private phone conversation with other Democrats as to whether or not if a president takes us into a war without consulting -- without following the constitution, would that be an impeachable offense. I did raise that question," Kucinich said on Fox Business network on Monday. "The process of impeachment is a separate thing. I raised the question to challenge what I see is an overreach of executive authority."

more


President Obama acted under the U.N. Charter and fulfilled the War Powers Act requirements: Consulted with Congress, notified Congress within 48 hours and now has 60 days to submit a report.

On edit: It was ridiculous for Kucinich to even invoke impeachment in this instance. He could have started a debate without going there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
2. K & R
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
3. I'm disgusted by Kuchinich. Good info Prosense.
Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
4. "He could have started a debate without going there." -- This is what's important.
It seems to me people are not grasping what the problem with Greenwald or Kucinich is. It's the usage of "impeachment" in the first place. Yes. There is a reason to start a debate. A debate should always be started on decisions a President makes. However, to use the word "impeachment" is extremely dangerous language and especially by one of his own party like Kucinich is out of control. Kucinich is a fool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kablooie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. Absolutely! I disagree with the war decision too but to declare Impeachment is a cheap GOP ploy.
It's as if anytime you disagree with what the president does you immediately scream 'impeach!'.

It's childish and unproductive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Another thing that annoyed me...
Was when he says something along the lines of, but we don't have to start proceedings immediately...?! Then I'm like are you doing this to get out of the war, or out of spite in some way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. according to today's WP....
he's doing it for fundraising purposes....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Yeah, it seems a few articles are saying that.
CNN and NYT are reporting the same thing. I wonder if he hurt his campaign a bit by doing that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
5. Even worse than Kucinich: This guy:
"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." -- Barack Obama, 2007

Wow. That seems pretty clear. Guess he must have said that while he was still willing to wear comfortable shoes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Again,
the Libya no-fly zone in a U.N. action (see the OP). The President did not "unilaterally authorize a military attack."

Do you understand what "unilaterally" means?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Maybe you need to inform this guy, too.
Jim Webb, U.S. Senator, Democrat, from Virginia

"We have not put this issue in front of the American people in any meaningful way," said the Virginia Democrat, a former Navy Secretary who serves on the Armed Services Committee. "The president is in Rio, the Congress is out of session."

"This isn't the way that our system is supposed to work," he added.

Source

or this guy...

Jerrold Nadler, U.S. Representative, Democrat, from New York

"The President has an obligation under the Constitution to seek the approval of Congress for any use of military force unless there is an imminent threat to the United States or its allies. Congress and the nation must have the opportunity to consider what is being proposed, what the potential implications of that action would be, and whether we, as a nation, wish to undertake the full consequences of that action. The Constitution, rightly, does not allow a single person to commit the nation to war, even where there is a good reason to do so. Where there is no imminent threat that does not allow for prior consideration, we must follow that process."

Source

There seem to be some key lawmakers out there who lack your impressive grasp of Constitutional law. Perhaps you can tutor them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Well,
Levin doesn't agree.

"There seem to be some key lawmakers out there who lack your impressive grasp of Constitutional law."

Could be.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. "...unilaterally authorize a military attack..."
"Wow. That seems pretty clear."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tledford Donating Member (633 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
9. No shit, Sherlock.
"<...>so are the acts of every other president since World War II who launched military operations without a formal declaration of war."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
12. Nobody "called for" the impeachment of Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Yeah, but don't let something as trivial as the truth spoil a juicy story. n/t
Edited on Tue Mar-22-11 01:05 PM by RufusTFirefly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. No kidding! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. I'm still outraged by that Al Gore fella
Claims he invented the Internet, does he? What a lying egomaniac!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Calling for it and implying that Obama did an "impeachable offense"
Is not far from the same thing. And by going further to expand that proceedings don't need to be made immediately shows a clear message. You're aiming at semantics, but the language was put out there. If he said something along the lines of "I think this calls for a full study on the extension of powers for the President in times of war.." That's one thing. But to "invoke" which is what I believe the OP stated or even say---"be an impeachable offense" people will naturally read that as him calling for impeachment----along with the other liberal Dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. How ridiculous - Kucinich himself said that he is not starting procedures...
...toward impeachment, but answering a question about the Constitution that was put to him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. You are arguing semantics. He said the magic word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ReggieVeggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
20. "He could have started a debate without going there."
It seems that some people are very reticent to debate anything, especially if they don't like the subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
24. DK spoke foolishly imo. I'm glad that Sen. Levin spoke up
thanks for posting this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Oct 26th 2014, 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC