Should Joe Biden initiate impeachment hearings?

Amerika

If you consider Joe Biden an honorable man, do you think he should initiate impeachment proceedings against President Barack Obama for launching an attack on Libya without Congressional approval?

See what he has firmly believed should happen when a POTUS launches an attack against a country without Congressional approval:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA

(Or should we tag the dynamic duo in charge now as the Hypocrite-In-Chief and the Vice-Hypocrite-In-Chief?)

Denerick

I see what you did there. You don't think Biden actually will follow through on his previously stated convictions!

This was all an elaborate deception!

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

This was all an elaborate deception!

By whom? Barack Obama, Joe Biden or me simply pointing out obvious hypocrisies of our current leadership?

And what do you think Joe Biden should do?

metrovelvet

Amerika wrote: »

By whom? Barack Obama, Joe Biden or me simply pointing out obvious hypocrisies of our current leadership?

And what do you think Joe Biden should do?

If Obama gets impeached does Biden become pres?

Amerika

metrovelvet wrote: »

If Obama gets impeached does Biden become pres?

As is my understanding… Being impeached is the process, not the outcome. Two US Presidents were impeached, and both were acquitted. Only with a conviction of an impeachable offense would the President be removed from office. Under normal circumstances, if a president leaves office, the vice president ascends to the Presidency (as in Gerald Ford ascending to the Presidency with Richard Nixon’s resignation). But I guess it would depend on Biden’s involvement in the “offense” if impeachment hearings were to actually take place.

But I don’t think it will, or should, ever get to trial. (I also didn’t think Bill Clinton should have been impeached, and I believe giving Nixon a pardon was the correct thing to do.) Impeachment should only be reserved for the highest of offenses (but that is just me). Also, the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, and the US Senate has the sole power to try impeachments.

The point I am trying to make is the team of Barack Obama and Joe Biden had no executive experience when they ran for the two highest offices in the country. The people elected them into office based for the most part solely on their ideals, promises and convictions.

So, should they not do what they promised they would do - in order to get elected? Or are they just hypocrites of the highest order?

Memnoch

I really hate when I take your bait Amerika but here goes.

I think Obama has done his best to live up to the spirit of what he promised, though I'm far from satisfied with quite a few of his decisions, but that's democracy, you've never going to get a leader you 100% agree with.

I'm very much on the fence on Libya, I can see why they did what they did.

The difference between Libya and Iraq is this:

In one there is broad international support and an unambiguous UN resolution backing their action. In the other, war was pushed through via lies and deceit in defiance of the international community and in a completely unilateral manner.

In one the effort itself is truly international in nature with full involvement of the international community and was requested by the Arab league itself, while the other was an unprovoked war of aggression.

The scale of the two conflicts is vastly different.

In semantics and typical Fox news Shtyle, you might be right on the letter of the subject, i.e. that they criticised the idea of going to war without congressional approval. But in doing so, you ignore both the spirit and their context and once these are taken into account there is no disparity, on THIS issue.

I'm still not happy about the number of drone missiles killing civilians in Pakistan though. :mad:

Amerika

I completely disagree with your statements, but merely for arguments sake, let’s say you are correct… that “In one there is broad international support and an unambiguous UN resolution backing their action. In the other, war was pushed through via lies and deceit in defiance of the international community and in a completely unilateral manner.” And “In one the effort itself is truly international in nature with full involvement of the international community and was requested by the Arab league itself, while the other was an unprovoked war of aggression.”

Then it should have been a “slam dunk” for Obama to get Congressional approval for the attack on Libya. Why didn’t they seek it when they were so adamant (while trying to get elected) about getting Congressional approval before launching military agression when we were not attacked or at imminent risk?

And in that clip of Joe Biden, he was pretty adamant. No "spirit" can be implied.

Memnoch

Fair point. I'm not sure why he didn't seek it.

Maybe he thought the republicans would fillibuster since their base never seems to give a crap about whether something has broad international support or not.

Or Maybe because all the republicans seem to care about is blocking Obama. And maybe the way things were with the rebels in Libya he felt it was too important to let it slide. (not saying I agree, just saying why I think he might have done it.) Am I mistaken or is the ONLY thing they seem to have compromised on is to keep Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy rather than just the middle class?

Why do you think he did it? Leaving aside the issue of hypocrisy for a moment.

Also, it's still a far cry from the actions of (to use inflammatory language: war criminal) Bush - in my opinion - (to whom I assume you are making the comparison.)

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

Fair point. I'm not sure why he didn't seek it.

Others are asking the same question:
http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=A0oG7l.YJYpN81UAlpdXNyoA?ei=UTF-8&p=msnbc%20kucinich%20impeach%20obama&fr2=tab-web&fr=yfp-t-351

Maybe he thought the republicans would fillibuster since their base never seems to give a crap about whether something has broad international support or not.

Or Maybe because all the republicans seem to care about is blocking Obama. And maybe the way things were with the rebels in Libya he felt it was too important to let it slide. (not saying I agree, just saying why I think he might have done it.) Am I mistaken or is the ONLY thing they seem to have compromised on is to keep Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy rather than just the middle class?

Think about what you are, and have said in the past. Aren’t the Republicans warmongers. Wouldn’t they not be salivating at the prospect to get into another conflict so their friends in private military production companies could get richer? The republicans would probably have signed on. The democrats on the other hand.............................

Why do you think he did it? Leaving aside the issue of hypocrisy for a moment.

Personally, I think he does what he wants to, and doesn't want to be bothered with formal procedures. And if you have the majority of the media turing a blind eye and giving you complete passes for questionable actions.... why not!

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

Others are asking the same question:
http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=A0oG7l.YJYpN81UAlpdXNyoA?ei=UTF-8&p=msnbc%20kucinich%20impeach%20obama&fr2=tab-web&fr=yfp-t-351

It's a fair question. I'd love to know the real basis for the decision, though I suspect we never will.

Think about what you are, and have said in the past. Aren’t the Republicans warmongers. Wouldn’t they not be salivating at the prospect to get into another conflict so their friends in private military production companies could get richer? The republicans would probably have signed on. The democrats on the other hand.............................

What I am? Whoa there nelly. I'm just speculating, that's true and a fair enough point. I honestly don't know why he made the decision that he did, but as I said, I still don't think it compares to Iraq.

Personally, I think he does what he wants to, and doesn't want to be bothered with formal procedures. And if you have the majority of the media turing a blind eye and giving you complete passes for questionable actions.... why not!

This paragraph is where your argument stops seeming reasonable to me and falls into Fox news conspiracy mode. Next we'll be talking about his birth certificate again.

P.S. One theory I have is that on the issue of security Obama doesn't want to seem weak or leave that as an issue for republicans to hammer him on, especially after the treaty with Russia. Hence the missiles in Pakistan, and I guess, Libya.

metrovelvet

Amerika wrote: »

I completely disagree with your statements, but merely for arguments sake, let’s say you are correct… that “In one there is broad international support and an unambiguous UN resolution backing their action. In the other, war was pushed through via lies and deceit in defiance of the international community and in a completely unilateral manner.” And “In one the effort itself is truly international in nature with full involvement of the international community and was requested by the Arab league itself, while the other was an unprovoked war of aggression.”

Then it should have been a “slam dunk” for Obama to get Congressional approval for the attack on Libya. Why didn’t they seek it when they were so adamant (while trying to get elected) about getting Congressional approval before launching military agression when we were not attacked or at imminent risk?

And in that clip of Joe Biden, he was pretty adamant. No "spirit" can be implied.

That he sought UN approval [very late in the day too] before he sought Congressional approval doesnt sit well with me.

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

This paragraph is where your argument stops seeming reasonable to me and falls into Fox news conspiracy mode.

No, not really... just ask youself, where is the anti-war establishment? Where are the questions, the debate, the outrage over his actions? What are his plans? All's good I guess since it's a democrat.

P.S. One theory I have is that on the issue of security Obama doesn't want to seem weak or leave that as an issue for republicans to hammer him on, especially after the treaty with Russia. Hence the missiles in Pakistan, and I guess, Libya.

As good a theory as mine I guess.

metrovelvet

Amerika wrote: »

No, not really... just ask youself, where is the anti-war establishment? Where are the questions, the debate, the outrage over his actions? What are his plans? All's good I guess since it's a democrat.


As good a theory as mine I guess.

There are some very vocal democrats [see democratic underground..Michael Moore is twittering away inbetween eating donuts] outraged but I still dont see the birkenstock wearers out with the placards.

War is only evil when a republican is president.

Manic Moran

In one there is broad international support and an unambiguous UN resolution backing their action. In the other, war was pushed through via lies and deceit in defiance of the international community and in a completely unilateral manner

Irrelevant. Obama could have received the sanction of the Spoobles from the Planet Kuzbain for all the relevance it has in domestic US law. International treaties and organisations do not override domestic US law, this has been settled by the Supreme Court.

Now, whether or not Obama's actions are actually illegal under US law is another argument entirely, I've not looked into it, and I make no statement on the matter for now. But 'international support' is a red herring on the matter.

NTM

metrovelvet

Manic Moran wrote: »

Irrelevant. Obama could have received the sanction of the Spoobles from the Planet Kuzbain for all the relevance it has in domestic US law. International treaties and organisations do not override domestic US law, this has been settled by the Supreme Court.

Now, whether or not Obamas's actions are actually illegal under US law is another argument entirely, I've not looked into it, and I make no statement on the matter for now. But 'international support' is a red herring on the matter.

NTM

I think they are working with technicalities. For one thing, its not technically a war since we are supposedly not taking sides, it's a police action to protect the citizens. Furthermore, I believe [am open to correction] there is a sixty day loophole where the commander on chief, you know, in case he is in Rio during Carnival, does not need Congress's consent.

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

What I am? Whoa there nelly.

I meant to type "Think about what you are saying, and have said in the past."

My bad!

FISMA

Memnoch wrote: »

I'm very much on the fence on Libya, I can see why they did what they did.
The difference between Libya and Iraq is this:..

The difference between Libya and Iraq, imho, is this: Libya is more important to the EU than the US.

This time it is up to the EU to take the lead.

Amerika

FISMA wrote: »

The difference between Libya and Iraq, imho, is this: Libya is more important to the EU than the US.

This time it is up to the EU to take the lead.

Don't hold your breath.