Thread: Kucinich, 8 Democrats: Obama ‘Impeachable’ on Libya

Dems Rip Obama on Libya, Bring Up 'Impeachable Offense'

Tuesday, 22 Mar 2011 01:16 PM
By Jim Meyers and Dan Weil

Nine liberal Democrats have found something they agree with Republicans on: President Barack Obama’s authorization of military strikes on Libya without congressional consent is unconstitutional.

Those Democrats join GOP critics, including Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and tea party favorite Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. And Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio even suggested that Obama’s action could be an “impeachable offense.â€

Ralph Nader: Impeach Obama for Libya, Crimes

Monday, 21 Mar 2011 08:57 PM

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader is calling for President Barack Obama's impeachment, saying he is responsible for war crimes in the Middle East, The Hill reports.

In an interview with the anti-war group Democracy Now!, Nader said Obama was as much a war criminal as former President George W. Bush.

"Why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes; and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached," Nader said.

"[Bush officials] were considered war criminals by many people. Now, Barack Obama is committing the same crimes," the former presidential candidate said. "In fact, worse ones in Afghanistan. Innocents are being slaughtered, we are creating more enemies, he is violating international law."

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Ralp ... ode=BE81-1

Confusion in Libya Assault Plan: NATO, Obama, UN Asking ‘Who’s in Charge?’

Monday, 21 Mar 2011 07:08 PM
By Newsmax Wires

Confusion reigned Monday among U.N. and NATO nations about who’s in charge of the multi-country attack against Libya, even as an international coalition continued air strikes against Moammar Gadhafi's forces.

President Barack Obama’s White House hasn’t definitively addressed that essential issue about an operation that has cost the United States well more than $100 million, and is increasingly rapidly. Other questions looming:

Are the United States and its allies attacking Libya to save the country’s citizens from slaughter at the hands of their leader Gadhafi, as the U.N. resolution endorsing the enforcement of the no-fly zone called for, or are they ultimately trying to push him out of power? That oust-Gadhafi question resonates with echoes of previous statements from both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the ruthless dictator must go. And how do those messages mesh with a top admiral’s statement that Gadhafi could remain in power?
How, and when, will the United States hand off leadership of the military attack to other countries?
What is the potential for this to become a U.S. police action and/or extended involvement like that in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday that the United States anticipates giving control of the military campaign soon to a coalition, probably headed by either the French and the British or NATO. That campaign, which the U.N. resolution approved Thursday night, opened on Saturday with U.S. and British naval vessels launching 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles, which cost an at least a half-million dollars apiece (some estimates range as high as $1.2 million), at Libyan military installations. The allied attack, dubbed “Operation Odyssey Dawn,â€

Obama should have obtained Congress’ approval on Libya
March 22, 2011

IN HIS remarks last Friday announcing the new military campaign against Libyan ruler Moammar Khadafy, President Obama stressed that the United States would not be acting unilaterally. “In response to a call for action by the Libyan people and the Arab League,’’ he said, “the UN Security Council passed a strong resolution. . . with an explicit commitment to pursue all necessary measures to stop the killing’’ of civilians.

The Security Council’s vote confers undeniable legitimacy to “Operation Odyssey Dawn.’’ So does the Arab League request that preceded it.

But while Obama was appropriately mindful of obtaining international approval, he should have followed legal procedures at home and obtained the approval of the US Congress. While few doubt that, in a national emergency, the president can order troops into action, any sustained engagement must be approved by Congress. This isn’t a technicality: It’s embedded in the US Constitution.

In the American system, both political branches have a role to play in war-making. Congress is expected to check and balance the chief executive’s military authority, both by passing judgment on the exercise of that authority and through its power of the purse. That is why the 112th Congress should even now go ahead with debating, and taking a stand on, US action in Libya.

Like many Americans, Obama was scathing in his criticism of George W. Bush’s stewardship of the war in Iraq. But not even Bush’s most strident foes could claim that he acted without congressional approval: Legislation endorsing military operations against Saddam Hussein was approved by the House and Senate in October 2002, months before the invasion actually began. In 1991, the first President Bush likewise sought a congressional resolution before using military force to expel Iraq from Kuwait.

These moves served the necessary political purpose of ensuring broad support for the troops, and at least postponing a lot of second-guessing of the president’s decisions. Senators and representatives cannot be mere bystanders when the United States involves itself in military operations abroad.

Of course, the commander-in-chief can act without congressional permission to address an actual or imminent threat to the nation. But “history has shown us time and again,’’ insisted Senator Barack Obama in response to a Globe survey back when he campaigned for the White House in 2007, “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 US military involvement against Khadafy intensifies, it is good to have the sanction of the international community. The sanction of Congress, however, is indispensable.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/edito ... _on_libya/

Can't find that the White House survey from 07'