PDA

View Full Version : Kucinich retreats from impeachment of Obama over Libya attacks



Roger Perry
03-25-2011, 11:07 AM
Maverick Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich is backing away from his “impeach Barack Obama” statements after it has become apparent that his fellow Democrats and the leadership of his party has no desire to back him.
So far, the only other member of Congress to back Kucinich is Texas Republican Ron Paul who is as much of an outsider to his party as Kucinich is to Democrats.
“You’re not going to get much support for impeachment when the two people pushing it are the leading whack jobs for each of their parties.” “They lack the credibility to lead such an effort.”

Polls show little public enthusiasm for impeachment.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/39950

Sorry RK looks like the Republicans are going to have to win an election if they are going to get Obama out of office.;-)

road kill
03-25-2011, 11:12 AM
Maverick Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich is backing away from his “impeach Barack Obama” statements after it has become apparent that his fellow Democrats and the leadership of his party has no desire to back him.
So far, the only other member of Congress to back Kucinich is Texas Republican Ron Paul who is as much of an outsider to his party as Kucinich is to Democrats.
“You’re not going to get much support for impeachment when the two people pushing it are the leading whack jobs for each of their parties.” “They lack the credibility to lead such an effort.”

Polls show little public enthusiasm for impeachment.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/39950

Sorry RK looks like the Republicans are going to have to win an election if they are going to get Obama out of office.;-)


Soooooo.....Kucinich has "FLIP FLOPPED????"

Cut a deal did he??


RK

M&K's Retrievers
03-25-2011, 11:27 AM
Soooooo.....Kucinich has "FLIP FLOPPED????"

Cut a deal did he??


RK

That's OK. His name isn't Newt.

BrianW
03-25-2011, 11:53 AM
Soooooo.....Kucinich has "FLIP FLOPPED????"

Cut a deal did he??


RK

DK 'proved himself by having the courage to change his mind"! :rolleyes:
Soon to be a video by battlefield 315. :D :razz:

Gerry Clinchy
03-28-2011, 11:48 AM
Gates & Hillary have admitted that the Libya situation was NOT "an immediate threat" to the U.S.

Gates and Clinton Unite to Defend Libya Intervention, and Say It May Last Awhile

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/world/africa/28policy.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha22


Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/robert_m_gates/index.html?inline=nyt-per) acknowledged Sunday that the unrest in Libya (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) did not pose an immediate threat to the United States. Even so, he and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per) said the Obama administration was justified in taking military action to avert a massacre there that could have altered the course of the popular revolts roiling the Arab world.




Both officials acknowledged that the operation could drag on for months or even into next year.




On the key question of whether Libya constituted the kind of vital national interest that would normally justify military intervention, Mr. Gates offered a blunt denial — one that hinted at the debate among Mr. Obama’s advisers about whether to push for a no-fly zone.

“No, I don’t think it’s a vital interest for the United States, but we clearly have interests there, and it’s a part of a region which is a vital interest for the United States,” Mr. Gates said on “This Week” on ABC.


To my simple mind, the US & Euro interest in stability in the Mideast is all tied to the oil source.

I don't think that there is legitimate justification to act militarily on countries because their cultures are different from ours ... no matter how reprehensible they seem to us. That is "imperialism".

We didn't go to war in WWII to stop the halocast ... though some might argue that would have been sufficient reason. We went to war when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, and when Hitler subsequently declared war on the U.S.

Going to war over humanitarian reasons sounds a little bit like the reasons for the Crusades.



When Mr. Gates repeated that answer on the NBC program “Meet the Press,” Mrs. Clinton jumped in to clarify that the United States was obliged to act after allies like Britain and France, for whom Libya is a vital national interest, had requested that the international community respond.


We didn't go to war when Britain was being blitzed by Germany, and France was occupied?



“Let’s be fair here,” she said. “They didn’t attack us, but what they were doing and Qaddafi’s history and the potential for the disruption and instability was very much in our interests, as Bob said, and seen by our European friends and our Arab friends as very vital to their interests.”


She forgot to mention oil.



Mr. Gates said his remarks were not intended to derail the push for a no-fly zone, as many in Washington believed at the time, but to debunk arguments that it would be a surgical operation.


What neither mention is that we still really have no clue who these "rebels" really are.

Gerry Clinchy
03-28-2011, 12:13 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/opinion/28douthat.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

NY Times editorial



President Obama’s most pressing task tonight will be to explain why his secretary of defense is wrong — and why, appearances to the contrary, the potential payoff from our Libyan war more than justifies the risks.

Roger Perry
03-28-2011, 12:32 PM
Gates & Hillary have admitted that the Libya situation was NOT "an immediate threat" to the U.S.

Gates and Clinton Unite to Defend Libya Intervention, and Say It May Last Awhile

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/world/africa/28policy.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha22







To my simple mind, the US & Euro interest in stability in the Mideast is all tied to the oil source.

I don't think that there is legitimate justification to act militarily on countries because their cultures are different from ours ... no matter how reprehensible they seem to us. That is "imperialism".

We didn't go to war in WWII to stop the halocast ... though some might argue that would have been sufficient reason. We went to war when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, and when Hitler subsequently declared war on the U.S.

Going to war over humanitarian reasons sounds a little bit like the reasons for the Crusades.



We didn't go to war when Britain was being blitzed by Germany, and France was occupied?



She forgot to mention oil.



What neither mention is that we still really have no clue who these "rebels" really are.

Could you please explaine how Iraq was a threat to the United States????? Do you think they were going to declare war on the United States???? Maybe their Air Force and Navy were going to attack us.:rolleyes:

Gerry Clinchy
03-28-2011, 12:46 PM
Roger, I don't think anything in my post implied that the Iraq situation was more justifiable than the Libyan situation.

road kill
03-28-2011, 01:06 PM
Could you please explaine how Iraq was a threat to the United States????? Do you think they were going to declare war on the United States???? Maybe their Air Force and Navy were going to attack us.:rolleyes:

Could you explain how the Iraq war excuses the "Kinetic Military Excercise" in Libya??

Thanks,

RK

Roger Perry
03-28-2011, 01:57 PM
Roger, I don't think anything in my post implied that the Iraq situation was more justifiable than the Libyan situation.

The humanitarian part. After no wmd's were found in Iraq the reasoning shifted to Saddam's attack on his own people much like Gadafi is doing now.

huntinman
03-28-2011, 02:01 PM
The humanitarian part. After no wmd's were found in Iraq the reasoning shifted to Saddam's attack on his own people much like Gadafi is doing now.

You would enjoy life a lot more if you would quit dwelling on the past. Move on.

twall
03-28-2011, 06:52 PM
The humanitarian part.

Hmmmm....when did we become so outraged to quit overlooking humanitarian atrocities? Why not attack North Korea? Kim Jung Il better hope the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't come after him!

Tom

Gerry Clinchy
03-28-2011, 07:21 PM
Could you please explaine how Iraq was a threat to the United States????? Do you think they were going to declare war on the United States???? Maybe their Air Force and Navy were going to attack us


The humanitarian part. After no wmd's were found in Iraq the reasoning shifted to Saddam's attack on his own people much like Gadafi is doing now.

My post did not make any reference to a comparison between Iraq & Libya; or that one was more justifiable than the other. That would be another discussion.