Ralph Nader: Obama ‘Should Be Impeached’ For ‘Committing War Crimes’

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

“Barack Obama is committing the same crimes [as Bush and Cheney], in fact worse ones in Afghanistan. Innocents are being slaughtered, we’re creating more enemies, he’s violating international law, he’s not constitutionally authorized to do what he’s doing, he’s using State secrets, he’s engaging in illegal surveillance, the CIA is running wild without any kind of circumsribed legal standards or disclosure . . . 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.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ralph-nader-obama-should-be-impeached-for-committing-war-crimes/

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Obama is like a terrorist

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Obama is like a terrorist

No not really...

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Kucinich: Libya action 'impeachable'

By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | 3/21/11 3:01 PM EDT

President Barack Obama should be impeached for approving air strikes against Libya, Rep. Dennis Kucinich said in an interview Monday.

“President Obama moved forward without Congress approving,” the liberal Ohio Democrat told Raw Story. “He didn’t have congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that’s got to be said.” Several other members of Congress have also chastised the Obama administration for not doing enough to sell the intervention to Congress, let alone to the American people.

Kucinich went a bit further in his Monday remarks than he did over the weekend when, as POLITICO reported, he questioned why the U.S. strikes weren’t impeachable offenses while on a Democratic Caucus conference call.

Obama’s decision “would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense,” though he conceded in the interview that he’s unsure whether Congress would move ahead on a trial. Kucinich wanted to impeach former President George W. Bush and former Vice President ####### Cheney for their roles in leading the United States into war in Iraq and for their oversight of the conduct of the war, but was blocked by Democratic leadership.

“Now, it doesn’t necessarily follow that simply because a president has committed an impeachable offense, that the process should start to impeach and remove him,” he said. “That’s a whole separate question. But we have to clearly understand what this Constitution is about.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51668.html#ixzz1HO16wY00

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Something needs to be done.

Our country wasn't in grave danger, so there was no legitimate reason for the attack to be authorized.

Congressional approval is necessary in things like this, so it will be interesting to see if anyone truly has the balls to do anyting here.

Criticize Bush all you want, but at least he got congressional approval to do his #######.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

I would agree with Nader on this one if he dropped the word "war"--as his very deep involvement in ACORN involved committing felonies!

[JohnSmith2007 353]

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Bush wasn't impeached for invading Iraq.

Clinton wasn't impeached for invading Kosovo.

Ronald Reagan wasn't impeached for Nicaragua, Grenada, The Iran Contra Affair or the

Neither Johnson nor Nixon were impeached for Vietnam.

If you can't be impeached for starting a massive, multi-year war - it seems unlikely that it will happen for a few airstrikes.

[slim 1,525]

I wonder if he'll get the Peace Prize this year?

[Captain Hammer 113]

I did read yesterday that Obama has fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel prize winners combined.

As fishdude rightly points out, this kind of action has historically not required the permission of congress. I don't like that he did it, but impeachable? Hardly.

If people think it should be an impeachable offense, then we need to petition our representatives and work to make it a requirement that the President get congress's approval for any military action. But for now, the precedent is firmly established.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well the (general) argumemt over this topic so far seems to center around the idea that if people were calling angrily for Bush to be impeached for Iraq, that the people who supported Bush deserve to get payback by making similarly vociferous calls for Obama to be impeached over these airstrikes. It all about partisan reciprocity.

Edited March 23, 2011 by fishdude

[Captain Hammer 113]

Well the (general) argumemt over this topic so far seems to center around the idea that if people were calling angrily for Bush to be impeached for Iraq, that the people who supported Bush deserve to get payback by making similarly vociferous calls for Obama to be impeached over these airstrikes. It all about partisan reciprocity.

I might be mis-remembering, but if I remember correctly the calls for impeachment were over the perception that the Bush administration lied to congress in order to get the authorization.

So it's not quite fair, since Obama hasn't said anything at all to congress, and therefore hasn't lied about it yet.

Honestly though, I'm a little surprised that the right are taking this track at all. Up until this point, the strategy has been to paint him as a weak liberal unable to defend the country. Trying to paint him as a cowboy warmonger might invite comparisons to, say, that other famous cowboy President who hailed from the great state of California.

Criticizing Obama on these strikes might cause another problem for the right. Back when Bush invaded Iraq, liberals were raked over the coals for criticizing the President during a time of war. It was a super-effective strategy. The Democrats could very well throw this back in their faces if the criticism gets too strong.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's much the same argument in the UK - that certain intelligence was exaggerated against the wishes and recommendations of senior officials in the intelligence agencies in an attempt to legitimise the a policy that was pre-determined and would have happened regardless of whether weapons inspectors found WMD or not. What has come to light since then are revelations that this is exactly what happened, but that the political establishment has gone to great lengths to disperse the blame.

Edited March 23, 2011 by fishdude

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Obama will not be impeached. It is true that he is doing the very same things Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and Bush did. The precedent has been set for a very long time. The difference here is we have a president that campaigned on the platform of ending wars, not using force unless we are threatend and was given a Peace Prize on those merits that has just done the same thing as all the other presidents.