"I asked the question as to whether that was an impeachable offense; that’s different than actually calling for an impeachment or inducing a resolution, which I am not intending to do," Kucinich told Fox Business Network on Thursday. "I am speaking to the limits of executive power.”I blame Rupert Murdock. On the other hand, I hat tip The Instapundit
On the other hand, the Representative may be missing something. They say the third time is the charm.
Regards — Cliff
10 comments:
Are you of the opinion that Obama did not comply with the War Powers Resolution or that the WPR is unconstitutional?
I'm not sure what you would have to justify impeachment? Please be direct in your response?
The hypocrisy on this is so deep these days that you need a front-end loader just to get through the morning paper. Dubya belonged in The Hague on war crimes trial for that bogus "mass destruction" lie and targeted assassinations of his foreign political enemies, as well as impeached for subverting the US Constitution for going to war without Congressional say-so. Obama is no less the perpetrator of similar subversion, and the fact that Congresspeople don't have the nerve to say so points to a tremendous erosion in statesmanship over the past decades.
This is all so wrong it's amazing we can see it clearly. (And, no, the fact that other presidents have done this is NOT a valid excuse). I very much like Lord Acton's quote on this, to the effect that "there is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it".
And, to be clear, righties pointing fingers at Kucinich right now are the exact thought behind my use of the word "hypocrisy" in the preceding comment. We heard none of them even questioning Dubya's debacles, let alone doing anything about them, and that is far worse than Kucinich merely failing to follow through.
Re Jack, I am of the opinion that President Obama just barely made it in under the wire re the War Powers Act. I am of the opinion that the War Powers Act is the way Congress acts because it is unwilling to assert its duty under the US Constitution. While I like the fiction of the War Power Act, because it is somewhat of a restraint on the Executive Branch, I expect that if it ever got to the US SUpreme Court it would die.
As for Kad's point, President George W Bush DID go to the US Congress. He is not a fool. He just plays one on television. As for the WMD issue, given the way it is now described by the US Congress and applied by the US Justice Department, the threshold for what is a WMD is pretty low. I grant you that none of the classic definition were found, but your average IED would cause Eric Holder to scream WDM. So far, no hypocrisy.
As for me point fingers at Rep Dennis Kucinich, I am just having fun with the fact that he put in the Bill of Impeachment on President Bush and Vice President Cheney, but when he had a chance to get in a third swing, he stepped out of the box.
Regards — Cliff
No, not "no hypocrisy", but, rather "profound hypocrisy from both the right and their past administration, as well as the left and their present one". Crying "terrorist" in a crowded geopolitical theater is the worst of it. It has now two successive administrations subverting the Constitution based on semantics, and trashing our Bill of Rights with impunity. I'm disgusted by the lot of them, and the least I will say for Kucinich is that he breathed the word before he did what every partisan hack does, and no one else has gone anywhere close to that. It's not "fun" you're poking, but the sharp stick of blind partisanship.
WDM?
What Dubya meant? IEDs? You have a good sense of humor.
Re Joe
I HATE the current definitions of WMD. Back when I was young WMD was the same as nuclear and thermonuclear weapons (the A-Bomb and the H-Bomb). Then, as we did disarmament with the Soviet Union they sold us that WMD included Chemical and Biological weapons, which grew to include radiological. Now it is almost anything.
Check out this page at Wikipedia. I will grant you that above this definition the definition for military is more narrow, but I think that the danger is that the broader definition comes to dominate the situation. I don't like it, but it is what it is.
Regards — Cliff
Pardon, I mistook your criticism of the Congress for something else.
As for this war or any other, not profoundly justified, I guess I have to rue. As long as we opt to live in grotesque, spoiled consumption of mostly useless crap, and forego living as the Amish do, then we can't criticize those that kill on our behalf to satiate our materialistic lusts.
This is an oil war.
Keith Olbermann has some thoughts in line with Cliff's.
We all know “the five second rule.” Drop food on the floor and if you pick it up before that span of time elapses, and it’ll still be “good.” There is also a life-and-death version of this: the five-day rule, by which we have surrendered to any U.S. President the right to kill people in our name, provided he only does it for a couple of days.
I’m not defending this policy, I am simply stating that at some point in the last 60 years it has been established. And from the Bay of Pigs, to Reagan’s Trophy War in Granada, to President Clinton’s bombing of Iraq, to President Clinton’s bombing of Sudan, to President Clinton’s bombing of Libya — “the horse of undeclared war” has pretty much left the barn.
Nevertheless. After that Imperial period of a few days, a President – this one included – is required to either call it off, or justify why it must continue, or maybe even follow the Constitution and get approval from Congress by explaining the threat to this country that rationalizes the continuing action. Especially when we now have American pilots bailing out over hostile territory.
You can watch the video, here.
Pardon, I mistook your criticism of a timid Congress.
Keith Olbermann is sounding like Cliff. Maybe that's why MSNBC gave him the boot?
We all know “the five second rule.” Drop food on the floor and if you pick it up before that span of time elapses, and it’ll still be “good.” There is also a life-and-death version of this: the five-day rule, by which we have surrendered to any U.S. President the right to kill people in our name, provided he only does it for a couple of days.
I’m not defending this policy, I am simply stating that at some point in the last 60 years it has been established. And from the Bay of Pigs, to Reagan’s Trophy War in Granada, to President Clinton’s bombing of Iraq, to President Clinton’s bombing of Sudan, to President Clinton’s bombing of Libya — “the horse of undeclared war” has pretty much left the barn.
Nevertheless. After that Imperial period of a few days, a President – this one included – is required to either call it off, or justify why it must continue, or maybe even follow the Constitution and get approval from Congress by explaining the threat to this country that rationalizes the continuing action. Especially when we now have American pilots bailing out over hostile territory.
You can watch the video, here.
Ollie,Ollie in come free!
"Quite frankly, it's unparalleled in my entire experience in the military going all the way back to the 1960s," North complained. "Every president has gone to the Congress to get a resolution to support whatever it is he wanted to do. And [Obama] doesn't ask the Congress because he doesn't know what he wants to do."
Dude?
This was said on FOX News. Where, one can surmise, they either forget or choose to ignore the most glaring ironies.
Post a Comment