Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has panned President Obama's decision to participate in Saturday's missile attack on Libya, going so far as to question whether the strikes should be considered an "impeachable offense."

In a lengthy statement dated March 18 and re-printed in full on his website, Kucinich notes:

While the action is billed as protecting the civilians of Libya, a no-fly-zone begins with an attack on the air defenses of Libya and Qaddafi forces. It is an act of war. The president made statements which attempt to minimize U.S. action, but U.S. planes may drop U.S. bombs and U.S. missiles may be involved in striking another sovereign nation. War from the air is still war.

As Politico is reporting, Kucinich raised the prospect of impeachment during a Saturday conference call, and is just one member of a group of liberal House Democrats questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya. The congressman mainly objected to the fact that Congress was not consulted before the air strikes, Raw Story reports. In an interview, he told the site, "And I'm raising the question as to whether or not it's an impeachable offense. It would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/2 ... 38502.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lol...just asked if this was an impeachable offense in the other thread right now. I'm wonderin' about this as well? I like and respect President Obama, but the Constitution is the Constitution...

∞∞∞ wrote:Lol...just asked if this was an impeachable offense in the other thread right now. I'm wonderin' about this as well? I like and respect President Obama, but the Constitution is the Constitution...

The President is Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. He can send a limited amount of troops anywhere in the World for a brief period without Congressional authorization (around 3 month iirc). This power was much more broad before Vietnam and has been shorn up since then.

Also, Dennis Kucinich is a nutcase.

War criminal.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:Lol...just asked if this was an impeachable offense in the other thread right now. I'm wonderin' about this as well? I like and respect President Obama, but the Constitution is the Constitution...

The President is Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. He can send a limited amount of troops anywhere in the World for a brief period without Congressional authorization (around 3 month iirc). This power was much more broad before Vietnam and has been shorn up since then.

Also, Dennis Kucinich is a nutcase.

Had Bush done it you would be screaming bloody hell about this.

clenz wrote: Had Bush done it you would be screaming bloody hell about this.

Bullshit. I always supported Afghanistan and still do.

I was always against the Iraq invasion, you are right there. What I wanted us to do was maintain the UN mission of enforcing the no fly zones and ensuring Iraq does no reconstitute its WMD arsenal. That's a similar mission in Libya now... enforcing a no fly zone with minimal military presence or risk.

If we send in ~150,000 troops into Libya I'll be screaming bloody hell about it. Count on it.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:Lol...just asked if this was an impeachable offense in the other thread right now. I'm wonderin' about this as well? I like and respect President Obama, but the Constitution is the Constitution...

The President is Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. He can send a limited amount of troops anywhere in the World for a brief period without Congressional authorization (around 3 month iirc). This power was much more broad before Vietnam and has been shorn up since then.

Also, Dennis Kucinich is a nutcase.

OMG! I agree with Jellybelly about something!

Skjellyfetti wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:Lol...just asked if this was an impeachable offense in the other thread right now. I'm wonderin' about this as well? I like and respect President Obama, but the Constitution is the Constitution...

The President is Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. He can send a limited amount of troops anywhere in the World for a brief period without Congressional authorization (around 3 month iirc). This power was much more broad before Vietnam and has been shorn up since then.

Also, Dennis Kucinich is a nutcase.

While I agree with you your man Barry can't make up his mind (big surprise!). From a 2007 interview:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/200 ... A/ObamaQA/

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

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. (emphasis mine)

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Big surprise!

A Congressman in the legislative branch wants more power for the legislative branch. As President... he believes in more power for the Excecutive Branch.

SHOCKING.

Who do you suppose said this in 2007:

"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."


http://www.boston.com/news/politics/200 ... A/ObamaQA/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jeez you guys could even justify killing babies.

Wait a minute...

Bronco wrote:Who do you suppose said this in 2007:

Who do you suppose posted this two posts before yours?

Did drudge just put this on his site or something?

clenz wrote: Had Bush done it you would be screaming bloody hell about this.

I know I would have been...

The only think I can think of when someone mentions this guy is how there is no justice in the world when a dweeb like that gets a wife like this:

JohnStOnge wrote:The only think I can think of when someone mentions this guy is how there is no justice in the world when a dweeb like that gets a wife like this:

There's something worng with her and you'd bail (just like me) after the second date (or at least RIGHT after coitus).

In fact she's probably asexual.

Dennis is right TEN TIMES OVER!!!

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Bronco wrote:Who do you suppose said this in 2007:

Who do you suppose posted this two posts before yours?

Did drudge just put this on his site or something?

Sorry...missed it
Not on Drudge but on Dem underground

They're really pissed at O'Bomber over there

JohnStOnge wrote:The only think I can think of when someone mentions this guy is how there is no justice in the world when a dweeb like that gets a wife like this:

It's capitalism at its finest. I think Tupac Shakur summarized it eloquently when he said, "Make money. Get pussy."

Bronco wrote: Not on Drudge but on Dem underground

Yeah, it is.


Figures that within the hour... we have two posts in this thread and a new thread on the article started by T-man.

Y'all are robotic Drudge Report copy and pasters. It's like clockwork.

The fact that it came from Drudge doesn't make it any less truthful.

CID1990 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:The only think I can think of when someone mentions this guy is how there is no justice in the world when a dweeb like that gets a wife like this:

There's something worng with her and you'd bail (just like me) after the second date (or at least RIGHT after coitus).

In fact she's probably asexual.

Either that or she has a stanky kitty.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Big surprise!

A Congressman in the legislative branch wants more power for the legislative branch. As President... he believes in more power for the Excecutive Branch.

SHOCKING.

I'm not aware of any congressman in the executive or judicial branch.

Anyway, so much for principle or the constitution.

CitadelGrad wrote:The fact that it came from Drudge doesn't make it any less truthful.

Didn't say it did.

Just found it pretty fucking hilarious that 3 Conks blew their load posting it as fast as possible as soon as it went up.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Big surprise!

A Congressman in the legislative branch wants more power for the legislative branch. As President... he believes in more power for the Excecutive Branch.

SHOCKING.

I'm not aware of any congressman in the executive or judicial branch.

Obama was in the legislative branch when he made the comments. Didn't say anything about judicial branch.

KYjelly is flipping around like bacon in a hot pan.