prospect of impeachment ?????? Really ?

christiefan915 said:
Congressional approval based on the phony intel they were fed.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess the CIA and French, German, British, Russian, etc. intelligence agencys were just have a bad streak....we all know, now, the NIE of Oct. 2002 wasn't too accurate, but it was what it was....get over it....

You know what an NIE is don't you? and it would be helpful it you were familiar with the one in 2002 before you shoot off you mouth.

NIEs are produced by the National Intelligence Council and express the coordinated judgments of the United States Intelligence Community, the group of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I'm all in favor of Congress asserting authority when it comes to military action. As an institution, Congress has delegated its authority for far too long. Talking impeachment is pretty ludicrous, particularly because it ain't gonna happen, but at least its something.
 
Well, consider the source..

Nadler (D) (N.Y.), Capuano (D) (Mass.), Kucinich (D) (Ohio), Maxine Waters (D) (Calif.), Sheila Jackson Lee (D) (Texas), Barbara Lee (D) (Calif.) and others......:)
 
Ice Dancer said:
I was asking with the wrong question-or are you? The point in question is not the duration of the NFZ but the initial commitment. Clintons violation was in exceeding the 60 day limitation imposed by the WPA.

Apparently the initial commitment was legal?
Click to expand...

Anyone?
 
If you're referring to our air attacks in Bosnia...that was a UN sanctioned action....
So if you believe that the UN can vote among themselves to be the police of the world and take military action against any sovereign nation that they choose to....it was "legal"....
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
If you're referring to our air attacks in Bosnia...that was a UN sanctioned action....
So if you believe that the UN and vote among themselves to be the police of the world and take military action against any sovereign nation that they choose to....it was "legal"....
Click to expand...

My question is: Did Clinton act legally with the NFZ(s) in Iraq and Bosnia within the limitations/allowances afforded by the War Power Act of 1973?

The link provided by the noobi only illuminated that Clinton had broken the law in Bosnia because he exceeded the 60 day time frame allowed by Congress in his actions, not that he broke the law with the NFZ.
 
usaloyal2theend said:
Uhhhh.... to attack you, natch. Shitsie's got it bad for you bravo. Every single solitary thing you post, she takes exception to.
Click to expand...
Gee....you notice that....I get it from ALL the knuckleheads....I've never been labeled a Nazi and bigot and racist so much in my life.....and all for stating what is obviously the truth.
I've certainly found out that stating a simple, undeniable fact, even a government statistic can get you in a heap of shit with the pinheads....
 
bravo said:
The US Navy was attacked in March and Reagan retaliated in April....what "position" do you think I should have taken?
\
What is your point?
-------
On 23 March 1986, US aircraft from the three carriers crossed the "Line of Death" and began operating in the Gulf. On 24 March at 06:00, USS Ticonderoga (CG-47), accompanied by two destroyers, USS Scott (DDG-995) and USS Caron (DD-970), moved south of the "Line", covered by fighter aircraft. A Libyan missile installation near Surt (Sirte) launched two Soviet-made SA-5 "Gammon" surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) at 07:52, toward F-14A Tomcats of America's VF-102. Two hours later, two MiG-25s took off from Benina air base with orders to intercept and shoot down some of the US fighters.[ Before the Libyan aircraft could get close enough, a US E-2C Hawkeye detected them and alerted two F-14s from VF-33, which intercepted the MiGs at 20,000 feet (6,100 m). The Libyans began aggressive head-on maneuvering in an effort to get into firing positions on the two F-14s; this was a clear sign of hostile intentions
Click to expand...

My point is that reagan did the same thing as Obama, but your worship of the man compels you to ignore that and limit your criticism to Dems.

"The 1986 United States bombing of Libya, code-named Operation El Dorado Canyon, comprised the joint United States Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps air-strikes against Libya on April 15, 1986. The attack was carried out in response to the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing...

After several days of diplomatic talks with European and Arab partners, President Ronald Reagan ordered a strike on Libya on April 14. Eighteen F-111F strike aircraft of the 48th Tactical Fighter Wing, flying from RAF Lakenheath supported by four EF-111A Ravens of the 20th Tactical Fighter Wing, from RAF Upper Heyford in England, in conjunction with fifteen A-6, A-7, F/A-18 attack aircraft and EA-6B Prowler Electronic Warfare Aircraft from the aircraft carriers USS Saratoga, USS America and USS Coral Sea on station in the Gulf of Sidra, struck five targets at 02:00 on April 15, with the stated objective that their destruction would send a message and reduce Libya's ability to support and train terrorists. Reagan warned that "if necessary, [they] shall do it again."[6]
 
bravo said:
Gee....you notice that....I get it from ALL the knuckleheads....I've never been labeled a Nazi and bigot and racist so much in my life.....and all for stating what is obviously the truth.
I've certainly found out that stating a simple, undeniable fact, even a government statistic can get you in a heap of shit with the pinheads....
Click to expand...

No, meathead. The same constitutional questions were asked when reagan bombed Libya yet you've totally ignored that.
 
The only simple, undeniable fact that I have ever really seen from bravs is that he has carried water for the GOP for so long now that he confuses it with objectivity...
 
@oncler- Iraq2 and Libya are NOT the same situation. The NFZ of Iraq instituted in 1993 by Clinton is the same thing. So, do you know if Clinton acted legally in that action?
 
Ice Dancer said:
@oncler- Iraq2 and Libya are NOT the same situation. The NFZ of Iraq instituted in 1993 by Clinton is the same thing. So, do you know if Clinton acted legally in that action?
Click to expand...

I'm kidding about them being identical. As a proud member of the liberal-hypocrisy police, Yurt has been trying to equate them, and asserting that the situations are so similar that it is hackified to support Libya if you opposed Bush's war.

Personally, I have only supported one military action that I can remember in my lifetime, and that was under a Republican Prez....
 
usaloyal2theend said:
Well if you just use apple's way and cutely and coyly turn every topic into sex through innuendo and quiet, yet unseen salivating, then it's perfectly f-i-n-e!

Now hand him a paper towel!
Click to expand...

I didn't make any sexual innuendo regarding ID's post. I just asked if she was OK.

I think you just incriminated yourself, Loyal. Thinking naughty thoughts, are you? :nono:
 
christiefan915 said:
My point is that reagan did the same thing as Obama, but your worship of the man compels you to ignore that and limit your criticism to Dems.-----------Posted by christiefan915

"The 1986 United States bombing of Libya, code-named Operation El Dorado Canyon, comprised the joint United States Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps air-strikes against Libya on April 15, 1986. The attack was carried out in response to the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing...

After several days of diplomatic talks with European and Arab partners, President Ronald Reagan ordered a strike on Libya on April 14. Eighteen F-111F strike aircraft of the 48th Tactical Fighter Wing, flying from RAF Lakenheath supported by four EF-111A Ravens of the 20th Tactical Fighter Wing, from RAF Upper Heyford in England, in conjunction with fifteen A-6, A-7, F/A-18 attack aircraft and EA-6B Prowler Electronic Warfare Aircraft from the aircraft carriers USS Saratoga, USS America and USS Coral Sea on station in the Gulf of Sidra, struck five targets at 02:00 on April 15, with the stated objective that their destruction would send a message and reduce Libya's ability to support and train terrorists. Reagan warned that "if necessary, [they] shall do it again."[6]
Click to expand...

My point is that reagan did the same thing as Obama, but your worship of the man compels you to ignore that and limit your criticism to Dems.


The point is, YOU HAVE NO POINT.....the issue is not WHAT people do, ITS WHY....

Its never what people do, ITS THE REASON THEY DO SOMETHING that makes the action legal or illegal, sane or insane, logical or illogical, right or wrong...

Two guys can shoot their wives, so what? If one is murder and one is self defense that is what makes the difference between identical actions....

You're not usually that stupid, ....having a bad day?...Run out of meds?...Not enough sleep?
================
Here is a little history for you

On March 24, 1986, Libya launched six SA-5 missiles against the U.S. Sixth Fleet, which was conducting maneuvers nearby in the Mediterranean. The attacks failed, and in subsequent strikes and counterstrikes, the Americans sunk two Libyan vessels.

On April 5, 1986, a bomb exploded in Berlin's La Belle discotheque, killing a U.S. soldier and a Turkish civilian, and injuring some 200 others, including 63 U.S. soldiers.

Ten days later, late in the evening of April 15, the United States prepared for air strikes against Libyan ground targets in five areas: the Aziziya barracks, known as a command and control post for terrorist activities; the military facilities at the Tripoli international airport; the Side Bilal base, said to be a facility for training terrorists in underwater sabotage; the Jamahariya military barracks in Benghazi, another terrorist command post; and the Benina air base southeast of Benghazi.

You might prefer to ignore what happened 12 days before the discotheque bombing, I don't...
1...Libya attacked the Navy Fleet in the Med....
2...Libya bombed the discotheque
3...Reagan approved air strikes in Libya....

These are the historical facts...
Now explain to us how Obama actions and Reagans are the same....they're hardly similar.


Now you Onceler...got something to add ? Stick to what I say in my post...one issue at a time so I can school you.
Am I historical wrong? did I mis-state a fact...go to it.
​
 
Last edited:
The US Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war in article I, section 8.

The War Powers Act states that the "President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations."

Obama is in violation of both.
 
Rtber said:
The US Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war in article I, section 8.

The War Powers Act states that the "President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations."

Obama is in violation of both.
Click to expand...

How is he in violation with the WPA?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top