Before tonight's address by the President, there have been statements by pundits and politicos, that the President's use of the US military in Libya, without the consent of Congress, is an impeachable offense. Notably, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have made public pronouncements in favor of impeachment . . . but are they right?

I don't really like the guy, but I'm going to give our president wide latitude as Commander-in-chief.

I am no fan of the guy either and perhaps he could have handled it better but, no impeachment.

__________________
"Life is tough...it's even tougher if you're stupid." John Wayne


Dave
Pawleys Island, SC

'79 300CD

Im thinking the patriots in libya see it differently.

If he had come to their aid earlier they might have been happier!

I don't know what the correct action is in Libya, but I know having the president wait till the UN told him what to do is pretty spineless. I expect my president to be surrounded by the best and the brightest, and thus know how to act without waiting for the UN.

Also, everyone said Obama was the Communication president, in response to Bush being somewhat tight lipped. If this is true, why is it that its been 2 weeks and I, the American Voter, has no flip'n clue what the "End Game" solution to Lybia is. Are we there to support the protesters? (if so what does that mean?) are we there to oust Muammar? are we there for secure the French oil supply?

Please Obama.... COMMUNICATE!

Is sending in troops where there is no threat to the nation impeachable? IDK, but I know hes a popular president, and thus cannot be impeached.

__________________

This could be Joe Biden's secret plan to take over . . .

December 2007 Hardball w/ Chris Mathews

Didn't even thing about Biden becoming president... someone pass that info on to Ron Paul... that'll change his mind!

__________________

this

Ron Paul. Which Ron Paul? The one who was for it and now changed his mind? THIS Ron Paul? Sorry, if you are going to flip flop, perhaps call me when you have made a final decision. I can't take someone like that seriously.

As to whether Dennis is right or not, the question is whether Obama in fact DID commit US forces WITHOUT congressional approval and whether he had the right or not. According to the brief writeup by Wiki about the 1973 War Powers Act and assuming it is correct, Obama has 48 hrs to inform Congress and has to be out of it in 60 days unless he gets congressional approval. So, assuming he has informed Congress, he has 60 days to finish the mission and 30 more to get his tail out of Labia. So, has 60 days passed? Perhaps Obama is hoping that he can either get approval or be out in 60 days. If so, fair enough.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

I think I am more concerned by the White House statement that the President is guided neither by "precedent nor consistency".
That was my complaint, and now its his official position.
I am baffled.
Impeachable?
Not yet, but it ain't over.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Not until 60 days is up and he doesn't start removing in 30 days. I think that is his gamble that he is trying.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

This ^^^^


Someone needs to give Ronny a heads up.There are a million things that the executive branch is doing that are worse than this.

Lets start with Obama's nomination of GE's Immelt's for Competitiveness Chief. GE doesn't pay a cent to the government.

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html&OQ=_rQ3D4&OP=43b86d77Q2FQ23pHxQ23Q2AQ7D0rzQ7DQ7DvAQ23AQ20@@Q23Q208Q23AZQ23xQ3BrW-HrrQ23H0Q7D-Q7DR,Q23AZvYE4Q26vRS

__________________
-Typos courtesy of my mobile phone.

The rest of the 'precedent or consistency' statement, which was not made by the President but by his Press Sec., is that the decisions are made according to a well spelled out standard.

"We make them based on how we can best advance our interest's in the region."

He then goes on to say that the Sec of Def. and the Sec. of State have said this several times over the past few days and he wonders why anyone is still confused about this.

The entire press briefing is online at WhiteHouse.gov if you wish to read it for yourself.

What's Ronny got to do with anything. He changed his mind, remember? Yesterday, he was against, today, not so. Tomorrow, he will be for it. He just needs to wet his finger and stick it up to see which way the wind blows.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

In strict reading of the Constitution and WPA, maybe.

But precedence is on President Obama's side. And his getting away with it this time will strengthen the presidency for future adventures without congressional approval.

It's a done deal.

Was it a good idea? (as I steal the thread). In my opinion, yes. But not for any of the reasons Obama and his cabinet have given. It is about oil and that reason is sufficient in itself. I just wish Obama had gone through the appropriate channels.