Ron Paul believes Libya intervention an ‘impeachable’ offense

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bearice, Mar 23, 2011.

Is Libya intervention an ‘impeachable’ offense?

  1. Yes

    40 vote(s)
    64.5%
  2. No

    22 vote(s)
    35.5%
  1. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    They have practicably unlimited "resources" (money) now and things only continue to get worse. If money were the cure for everything we wouldn't have any problems.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9069323583494421392#
     
    #101     Mar 25, 2011
  2. Ricter

    Ricter

    Not a fair comment.
     
    #102     Mar 25, 2011
  3. toc

    toc

    'So he has "no spine for decision making" but has made a decision (which you don't like); have I summed up your two paragraphs here? '

    Obama made this decision after pressure from French, British and Hillary Clinton. His bypassing the Congress is an act of crime especially when the country that he attacked was not showing any hostility towards the US.

    O will not be re-elected to the WH. Not a strong leader anyways. :D :cool:
     
    #103     Mar 25, 2011
  4. Ricter

    Ricter

    Let's face it, if he had decided to not participate you'd be criticizing him for being a spineless coward and not acting on a clear humanitarian crisis. Recognize that this is a DIYDDIYD situation, and had Congress made the decision they'd be in the same predicament.
     
    #104     Mar 25, 2011
  5. Yannis

    Yannis

    Biden: Impeach President for Unauthorized Attack
    3/27/11 NewsMax.com


    "Vice President Joe Biden has a very clear idea of what should happen to a president who orders U.S. military forces to launch an attack on a foreign country without congressional authorization: impeachment.

    With some voices saying President Barack Obama should face impeachment for attacking Moammar Gadhafi’s forces in Libya, a videotape has surfaced from the 2007 campaign trail showing Biden threatening to impeach President George W. Bush if he attacked Iran without the approval of Congress.

    “I have written an extensive legal memorandum with the help of a group of legal scholars who are sort of a stable of people, the best-known constitutional scholars in America, because for 17 years I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee,” Biden said in an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on “Hardball.”

    "I asked them to put together [for] me a draft, which I'm now literally riding between towns editing, that I want to make clear and submit to the United States Senate pointing out the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran.

    “And I want to make it clear, I want it on the record … if he does, as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and former chair of the Judiciary Committee, I will move to impeach him."

    He went on to say: “I think the best deterrent is for the president to know, even at the end of his term, we would move and move to follow through with that so his legacy would be marred for all time if he acted in what was clearly, clearly an impeachable offense.

    “In the absence of that, what happens is, and you're going to think I'm joking about this — I'm not. If you're going to impeach George Bush you better impeach Cheney first. Not a joke.” "
     
    #105     Mar 28, 2011
  6. Obama in 2002: "Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States"

    (CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama, as an Illinois state senator in 2002, said that using military force to topple a murderous dictator amounted to a “dumb war” and should be opposed.

    “But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history,” said Sen. Obama.

    The “dumb war” Obama was criticizing was the planned invasion of Iraq and the murderous dictator was its leader, Saddam Hussein. Obama, speaking at an anti-war rally in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002 said that while Saddam was a brutal tyrant, that was not enough to justify using military force to remove him from power.

    “Now, let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein,” said Obama in his speech. “He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.”

    "... After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again," said Obama. "I don't oppose all wars. ... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

    Obama argued that deposing Saddam militarily was not necessary, because Iraq posed no “direct threat” to the United States. Obama also cited Iraq’s weakened economy and the fact that it was still possible to contain Saddam’s aggression, repudiating the Bush administration’s rationale that Saddam posed too great a threat to American interests and his own people to be left in power.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obam...-dictator-dumb
     
    #106     Mar 31, 2011