Not so fast. I think the impeachment talk is to underscore that Obama's move was unconstitutional. I don't at all think he's going to be impeached. It does say a lot about his respect for the constitution though. A lot of the criticism over this new war activity is that it should have been done sooner, if the objective was to save peoples' lives over there. Since the action wasn't taken immediately, and obviously a lot of negotiation went on with the UN, he clearly had enough time to ask congress (the Senate, Democratic Party controlled, his own party) for authorization to use force. To contrast Bush/Iraq with Obama/Libya, it was argued that Bush's action was in violation of international law but legal as far as our laws are concerned because there was congressional authority; the opposite is true for Obama (internationally legal, not legal according to US law)
Iraq had a history of conflict with the US, too. Now, Obama looks to be steering NATO into what is a civil war.
I think the last 60 years of US history shows that, for better or worse, the president has the power to bomb whoever the fuck he wants whenever the fuck he wants. barfo
The impeachment talk is a direct result of Obama's own opinion in 2007 on how the President uses the military. We already know Barack's opinion on this ... in 2007, at least, he said this was unconstitutional.
Not really. The financial cost of the Iraq war per the CBO when all is said and done should be around $1.9 trillion dollars. I doubt you will see $100m for the Libya cost. There is a difference between saying "water is bad, you can drown in it" and saying "water is good in the right amounts, otherwise you die of thirst". He got crucified because he committed too much money and lives for a very small direct impact on making the country better - which is world apart from the Libya operations. I had no problems with the war in Afghanistan - it was pretty clear what it was and why. The war in Iraq was much more questionable - and the real problem was not just that there was a war - but that we committed to it without a real clear way of saying when "enough is enough" and there is no reason to go further. This country would have been much, much better if Bush was to convince Iraq to open the doors for proper WMD inspections by committing much less costs and lives by going to an intensive bombing campaign instead of a full-on war. If there is something we learned from Sarajevo it is that a good, intensive air campaign can achieve everything we wanted in these wars at a much lower cost of lives and money. Unfortunately, Bush never bothered to pay attention to this.
Maybe shooter has a racist posting history (I don't know, at all), but how is this statement, racist?
Shooter - you well know that there has been no declaration of war since Korea -- not for Vietnam, not for Grenada, not for Kosovo, not for Kuwait, Iraq or Afghanistan. And no, this is not a war. Your post is disingenuous on many levels.
“I want to point out that I’m in pretty good company raising this question. Because Joe Biden, when he was a candidate in December 2007, said that if President Bush had gone ahead to attack Iran without congressional authorization, that he would move to impeach him. President Obama said the president doesn’t 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…My reading of the Constitution is consistent with the people who are now president and vice president.” -- Dennis Kucinich
Actually, I think we didn't declare war in Korea. I think the last time we declared war it was on the Japanese. barfo
Yeah, because 100,000 and 100 are pretty much the same number of deaths. He discussed it with them 24 hours before he did it, as has been reported in all major media.
No "declaration" of war--but plenty of wars, as you point out. The point is not what you call it--the point is what it really is, which is why Kucinich and other members of Obama's own party are so upset about this.
Pretty neat how we're going to set up a no fly zone over a nation that has its air force destroyed. That's a head scratcher.
The 100 deaths in Libya are a direct result of Mr. Obama's bombing campaign. The 100,000 or so deaths in Iraq were mainly due to suicide bombers. Discussed, perhaps. Got their approval, no.
They might not have fighter jets, but they do have things that can fly. Pretty sure I saw some footage of helicopters. barfo
Oh, come on, you can do better than that. The 100,000 were due to suicides. They gave their lives voluntarily to welcome us to Iraq. barfo
