The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Kucinich retreats from impeachment of Obama over Libya attacks

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default Kucinich retreats from impeachment of Obama over Libya attacks

    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.

  2. #2
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Perry View Post
    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
    Stan b & Elvis

  3. #3
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Royse City, TX
    Posts
    5,136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    Soooooo.....Kucinich has "FLIP FLOPPED????"

    Cut a deal did he??


    RK
    That's OK. His name isn't Newt.
    M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
    M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
    M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
    Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
    Freeway JYD

    Mike Whitworth

  4. #4
    Senior Member BrianW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Athol, North Idaho
    Posts
    885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    Soooooo.....Kucinich has "FLIP FLOPPED????"

    Cut a deal did he??


    RK
    DK 'proved himself by having the courage to change his mind"!
    Soon to be a video by battlefield 315.
    "It's not that government is inherently stupid, although that's a debatable question."
    Rand Paul CPAC speech 2011

    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791
    ________________________________________
    Proud partner of (HR) WR SR Brian's 44Magnum Monster
    co-owned by HR Rianne's 2nd Chance Hurricane Rebel

  5. #5
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,824

    Default

    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/wo...ines&emc=tha22

    Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates acknowledged Sunday that the unrest in Libya did not pose an immediate threat to the United States. Even so, he and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton 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.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,824

    Default

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/op...nes&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.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    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/wo...ines&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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,824

    Default

    Roger, I don't think anything in my post implied that the Iraq situation was more justifiable than the Libyan situation.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  9. #9
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Perry View Post
    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.
    Could you explain how the Iraq war excuses the "Kinetic Military Excercise" in Libya??

    Thanks,

    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •