Impeach Obama If He Strikes Syria

[Soggy in NOLA]

If Congress passes a binding resolution to not attack Syria, and Obama still attacks (which I doubt he would), he has a serious problem on his hands.

 

[Unkotare]

He wouldn't be impeached for that. Other matters maybe, but not that.

Obama's drone wars and the normalisation of extrajudicial murder | Michael Boyle | Comment is free | theguardian.com


The Extrajudicial Assassinations of American Citizens: Its Official and its ?Legal? | Global Research

 

[georgephillip]

Some believe Clinton's impeachment prevented him from "reforming" Social Security.
The collapse of Lehman Brothers may have prevented Bush from making a similar attempt..

No it didn't. President Bush tried but was completely shut down by Congress and the media.

So do you think Obama stands a better chance than Bush absent an impeachment distraction like Clinton's?

 

[Unkotare]

Clinton's impeachment wasn't a "distraction." He broke the law.

 

[georgephillip]

Clinton's impeachment wasn't a "distraction." He broke the law.

Agreed.
Clinton broke the law and deserved his impeachment which also distracted him from Social Security "reform."

 

[Camp]

Clinton's impeachment wasn't a "distraction." He broke the law.

Agreed.
Clinton broke the law and deserved his impeachment which also distracted him from Social Security "reform."

It distracted him from lobbing missiles at Bin Laden built facilities in Africa and al Qaeda training camps in Afganistan. He tried it during the impeachment and Repub's decided not to leave "politic's at the waters edge". They claimed "wag the dog" and threatened "investigations". Intelligence agencies were greatly concerned these investigations would end up devulging methods and sources and the Clinton administration wanted no more investigations of any kind. Further attempts to go after Bin Laden and al Qaeda were halted. 9/11 followed.

 

[Desperado]

Damn straight if he attacks after the congress said no, impeach the bastard.
If he had attacked straight away, it would be one thing. After trying to get approval from congress and failing, but he still attacks..... No excuses, put him on trial.

 

[regent]

Impeachment is a political process not a legal one. The House can impeach anytime, no law need be broken.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Clinton's impeachment wasn't a "distraction." He broke the law.

Agreed.
Clinton broke the law and deserved his impeachment which also distracted him from Social Security "reform."

Incorrect.

Clinton broke no law, his acquittal in the Senate is proof of that.

That the charges against Clinton warranted impeachment is debatable; but again, the fact that Clinton’s enemies failed to win conviction in the Senate is strong evidence in support of the argument that the Clinton impeachment was motivated by partisanism, not fact.

And we see the same partisan motivation with regard to the right’s advocacy of ‘impeaching’ Obama.

 

[regent]

"And to the REPUBLIC for which she stands"

Does that ring a bell?

-Geaux

Meaningless, where in the Constitution does it say the United States is a Republic, or where in the Constitution or Court case does it define a republic?

And where is it written in Declaration of Independence and or our Constitution that it's a democracy?

-Geaux

It is not, in fact, when they wrote the Constitution democracy was not a word used by nice people. The Constitution guarantees a republican form of government to the states but does not define republican form, nor does the Constitution guarantee a republican form of government to the nation. The Court has also refused to define a republican form of government. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Perhaps the founders used the more commonly used definition of republic, "not a monarchy."

 

[georgephillip]

Clinton's impeachment wasn't a "distraction." He broke the law.

Agreed.
Clinton broke the law and deserved his impeachment which also distracted him from Social Security "reform."

It distracted him from lobbing missiles at Bin Laden built facilities in Africa and al Qaeda training camps in Afganistan. He tried it during the impeachment and Repub's decided not to leave "politic's at the waters edge". They claimed "wag the dog" and threatened "investigations". Intelligence agencies were greatly concerned these investigations would end up devulging methods and sources and the Clinton administration wanted no more investigations of any kind. Further attempts to go after Bin Laden and al Qaeda were halted. 9/11 followed.

I've come to the conclusion it is suicidal to continue "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth. Both parties depend on 1% of voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements. The 1% depend on eternal war to maintain their lifestyles. Neither political party will turn its back on war except as a tool to club the other for votes; look at all the conservatives urging Obama to back off in Syria and ask yourself if most of them would offer the same advice to McCain or Romney. Democrats would be screaming from their roof-tops if McCain or Romney wanted to lob missiles at Assad. IMHO, we need to FLUSH hundreds of incumbents (Rs and Ds alike) from DC in 2014 and replace them with third party candidates who aren't indebted to defense contractors and Wall Street.

 

[regent]

Agreed.
Clinton broke the law and deserved his impeachment which also distracted him from Social Security "reform."

It distracted him from lobbing missiles at Bin Laden built facilities in Africa and al Qaeda training camps in Afganistan. He tried it during the impeachment and Repub's decided not to leave "politic's at the waters edge". They claimed "wag the dog" and threatened "investigations". Intelligence agencies were greatly concerned these investigations would end up devulging methods and sources and the Clinton administration wanted no more investigations of any kind. Further attempts to go after Bin Laden and al Qaeda were halted. 9/11 followed.

I've come to the conclusion it is suicidal to continue "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth. Both parties depend on 1% of voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements. The 1% depend on eternal war to maintain their lifestyles. Neither political party will turn its back on war except as a tool to club the other for votes; look at all the conservatives urging Obama to back off in Syria and ask yourself if most of them would offer the same advice to McCain or Romney. Democrats would be screaming from their roof-tops if McCain or Romney wanted to lob missiles at Assad. IMHO, we need to FLUSH hundreds of incumbents (Rs and Ds alike) from DC in 2014 and replace them with third party candidates who aren't indebted to defense contractors and Wall Street.

The question then becomes where would these third party candidates get their money to run for office? Takes a bundle.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Nobody would dare impeach or imprison the man who gives them free stuff. Never, ever.

Very true, it's amazing that W isn't in jail right now.

No its not.politicians ESPECIALLY presidents,get away with crimes and mass murder all the time.has a president EVER gone to jail before? no.Presidents can get away with anything.everybody knows that.Obama will get off scott free just like Bush did.

 

[georgephillip]

Impeachment is a political process not a legal one. The House can impeach anytime, no law need be broken.

"The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to 'The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States' who may be impeached and removed only for 'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors'.[9] "

How are you defining "political?"

Impeachment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The T]

Agreed.
Clinton broke the law and deserved his impeachment which also distracted him from Social Security "reform."

It distracted him from lobbing missiles at Bin Laden built facilities in Africa and al Qaeda training camps in Afganistan. He tried it during the impeachment and Repub's decided not to leave "politic's at the waters edge". They claimed "wag the dog" and threatened "investigations". Intelligence agencies were greatly concerned these investigations would end up devulging methods and sources and the Clinton administration wanted no more investigations of any kind. Further attempts to go after Bin Laden and al Qaeda were halted. 9/11 followed.

I've come to the conclusion it is suicidal to continue "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth. Both parties depend on 1% of voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements. The 1% depend on eternal war to maintain their lifestyles. Neither political party will turn its back on war except as a tool to club the other for votes; look at all the conservatives urging Obama to back off in Syria and ask yourself if most of them would offer the same advice to McCain or Romney. Democrats would be screaming from their roof-tops if McCain or Romney wanted to lob missiles at Assad. IMHO, we need to FLUSH hundreds of incumbents (Rs and Ds alike) from DC in 2014 and replace them with third party candidates who aren't indebted to defense contractors and Wall Street.

I too am disgusted with BOTH parties that are in it for their own self-aggrandizement...And why BOTH parties try to skewer TEA partiers, and the very citizens they pretend to represent. ENOUGH!

 

[georgephillip]

It distracted him from lobbing missiles at Bin Laden built facilities in Africa and al Qaeda training camps in Afganistan. He tried it during the impeachment and Repub's decided not to leave "politic's at the waters edge". They claimed "wag the dog" and threatened "investigations". Intelligence agencies were greatly concerned these investigations would end up devulging methods and sources and the Clinton administration wanted no more investigations of any kind. Further attempts to go after Bin Laden and al Qaeda were halted. 9/11 followed.

I've come to the conclusion it is suicidal to continue "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth. Both parties depend on 1% of voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements. The 1% depend on eternal war to maintain their lifestyles. Neither political party will turn its back on war except as a tool to club the other for votes; look at all the conservatives urging Obama to back off in Syria and ask yourself if most of them would offer the same advice to McCain or Romney. Democrats would be screaming from their roof-tops if McCain or Romney wanted to lob missiles at Assad. IMHO, we need to FLUSH hundreds of incumbents (Rs and Ds alike) from DC in 2014 and replace them with third party candidates who aren't indebted to defense contractors and Wall Street.

The question then becomes where would these third party candidates get their money to run for office? Takes a bundle.

My ballots always offer a variety of third party candidates for House and Senate seats; I don't know what percentage of ballots nationwide offer the same choice; however, for those that do, it would be relatively simple and inexpensive (at least the first time) for millions of US voters to select their Representatives and Senators from third party candidates instead of continuing to "choose" between Democrat OR Republican.

 

[georgephillip]

Nobody would dare impeach or imprison the man who gives them free stuff. Never, ever.

Very true, it's amazing that W isn't in jail right now.

No its not.politicians ESPECIALLY presidents,get away with crimes and mass murder all the time.has a president EVER gone to jail before? no.Presidents can get away with anything.everybody knows that.Obama will get off scott free just like Bush did.

If Obama succeeds where Bubba and Dubya failed to "reform" Social Security for Wall Street's benefit, look for him to receive a billion dollar retirement bonu$ from his friends in Very High Places.

 

[regent]

Impeachment is a political process not a legal one. The House can impeach anytime, no law need be broken.

"The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to 'The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States' who may be impeached and removed only for 'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors'.[9] "

How are you defining "political?"

Impeachment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is political because politicians do it all. The Chief Justice sits in the impeachment of the president with no duties, just sits, otherwise it's all political. What are high crimes? Yet the word crime brings up the idea of laws being broken, and a legal trial, filled with lawyers, and so on. but it's all politicians with political motives. Someday America may have to impeach and remove a president, but for now it's politics. There is no judicial review by the Court other than it was all done within the confines of the Constitution, remember the Senate has "sole power."

 

[Unkotare]

Clinton's impeachment wasn't a "distraction." He broke the law.

Agreed.
Clinton broke the law and deserved his impeachment which also distracted him from Social Security "reform."

Incorrect.

Clinton broke no law, his acquittal in the Senate is proof of that.

Clinton did break the law. Perjury is illegal. So is obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, and intimidating witnesses. Clinton broke the law.

 

[georgephillip]

"Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998..."

"The trial in the United States Senate began soon after the seating of the 106th Congress, in which the Republicans began with 55 Senators. A two-thirds majority (67 Senators) was required to remove Clinton from office. Fifty Senators voted to remove Clinton on the obstruction of justice charge and 45 voted to remove him on the perjury charge; no Democrat voted guilty on either charge."

Proving yet again Republicans AND Democrats have outlived their usefulness to this Republic.

Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia