• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Why doesn't the House of Representatives draw up impeachment articles against Obama?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Republicans aren't who Obama needs to worry about. They are going to vote (R) in the next election anyway.


He is pissing off his base.

Good point. Anger/demoralize the base and they may not show up in numbers needed.

Moreso about pissing off the independant/swing voter types. They may actually vote for a different party.

Fern
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
26,109
12,312
136
Wow, all of the sudden RepubliCons care about the Constitution and war powers.

Could it be who's in the Whitehouse?
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Wow, all of the sudden RepubliCons care about the Constitution and war powers.

Could it be who's in the Whitehouse?

Well, to be fair, Bush did have 17 UN resolutions authoring the use of force, as well as congressional approval, where as Obama had neither. And apparantly he didn't even have a plan within his own administration as to what the heck their goal was.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Great video. I wonder what Biden's response is going to be.
Make two videos praising Obama, then a third saying that two out of three Bidens agree that Obama is the Messiah?

Seriously, we shouldn't be joking about anything that would lead to Biden being President. Some things are simply too grave to make light.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Sunday news shows should be interesting.

I'm not prescient, but it feels ripe for Jon Stewart to highlight not only the GOPers who flipped on Libya once the bombs starting flying, but he might also hit Obama's unilateral actions given both Biden and Obama's past statements on the matter. That's his bread n butter.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Well, to be fair, Bush did have 17 UN resolutions authoring the use of force, as well as congressional approval, where as Obama had neither. And apparantly he didn't even have a plan within his own administration as to what the heck their goal was.

Didn't Bush wait a year? I was reading some bullshit about Nancy Pelosi saying how she's so glad Obama waited and planned this out for a month before taking action... Nancy Pelosi is championing a war. Fuck that stupid wise and beautiful woman and fuck every Northern Californian that votes for her dumbass. Fucking retards.


Here's Hilary's Opinion. "the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action – including any kind of strategic bombing – against Iran without congressional authorization." -Hillary Clinton
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ClintonQA/

You mean her opinion before she got to be part of the team that pulls the trigger? IMO she gets to shoulder much of the blame for us going into Libya. She never should have gone in front of the UN and demanded Ghaddafi has to go. Fucking dumb wise and beautiful woman.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Just remember, if Obama gets Impeached, we get Biden.
But Pelosi isn't in the chain of command any more. :D

Biden is a simpleton. Just about anyone could run circles around him. He's got to be hung like a horse because he steps on his dick with regularity.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Here's Hilary's Opinion. "the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action – including any kind of strategic bombing – against Iran without congressional authorization." -Hillary Clinton
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ClintonQA/
Dude, you're on a roll!

I agree with all these people that going first to Congress - as Bush did - and making your case is the proper way to commit to war. But I think that it's important to realize that the speed and power of modern war may often make that impossible to do, or rather, impossible to do with any expectancy of success. A good action taken too late is often worse than a poor action taken in time, which is why we have the War Powers Act. I think Libya is arguably the kind of situation this is designed for; indeed, just dragging it through the UN probably doomed it to failure. There is certainly a valid point to be made that this action is not precisely legal given the wording of the War Powers Act, but at its core this is an applicable application. Certainly assisting our allies is a core US interest, and the UK has been such a strong ally, and paid such a price, that in my opinion our duty to honor their steadfastness requires a similar response, and one within a useful time frame. Call it perhaps not following the letter of the law, but certainly honestly following the intent of the law.

The President has an enormously difficult job and is privy to a great deal of information to help him make decisions, much of which we'll never see. I think we have an obligation to give him the benefit of the doubt, to assume that he is acting in what he perceives is the country's best interests rather than enriching Halliburton or satisfying George Soros when he takes the country to war. I do not believe that any President lightly takes the responsibility of the lives he knows will be lost by such actions. If the President takes what seem to be stupid actions, call him on it. If clear evidence emerges that the President is NOT acting in the country's best interests, then certainly we need to take action. But until then, give him the benefit of the doubt. This is NOT my natural inclination with Obama, but it's really not that difficult with a little effort.

/soapbox