Hunter: Obama could be impeached if he strikes Syria without authorization

[David__77]

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) on Tuesday said President Obama could be impeached if he goes ahead with a military strike on Syria if Congress doesn’t approve his war resolution.

“I think he’s breaking the law if he strikes without congressional approval,” Hunter told The Washington Times. “And if he proceeds without Congress providing that authority, it should be considered an impeachable offense.”

...

Hunter visited the border between Syria and Jordan last week and said he’s leaning against military intervention. He served in the Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan and now has the rank of major in the Marine Reserves.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/320035-hunter-says-obama-could-be-impeached-if-he-strikes-without-congressional-support#ixzz2dzWc3sXM

[Newsjock]

1. Tomorrow's headline: 'Hunter: Obama could be impeached if he doesn't strike Syria'

That's how those folks roll.

[Hydra]

2. I'll believe it when i see it

They impeach for blowjobs, not for unitary(illegal) executive actions. Those powers they want reserved for the next repub in the WH.

[MotherPetrie]

4. wasn't it for lying under oath?

[Hydra]

6. Supposedly

But when was the last time someone in upper tier Gov't got nailed for that? Clapper seems to be doing well for having point blanked Congress on a direct question.

[MotherPetrie]

7. I have nothing but contmpt for Clapper and those who did not hold him to any account for his lies

I also think Clinton debased himself and his office and brought his impeachment on himself.

[msanthrope]

20. About a blow job. Ken Starr couldn't get a DC grand jury to true bill on such a ridiculous

premise, but he found enough clowns in Congress to do so.

[MotherPetrie]

22. Lying is lying.

[msanthrope]

23. Actually, under the law, it is not. nt

[MotherPetrie]

24. Call it whatever you want. Doesn't change what he did.

[msanthrope]

29. Got a blowjob? Quel dommage!! nt

[DevonRex]

3. Are you promoting this idea?

[David__77]

8. I'm promoting news of it being mentioned.

That's very different than promoting it...

[DevonRex]

16. Except when you promoted it on August 28th:

Star Member David__77 (15,240 posts)
28. Attacking Syria would be worse.
Certainly an impeachable offense, and giving aid and comfort to al Qaeda.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023552966#post28

And even called it treason. Because that's what "giving aid and comfort to the enemy is."

[David__77]

18. I think launching a war for al Qaeda without authorizationwould be an impeachable offense.

I do agree with that. In my OP, I was not advocating that. No doubt the right-wingers would have some other spin.

The good news is that I do not think that the president will do this. Congress will say no and he will back down.

[Adrahil]

39. FFS, we're not talking about a "War for al-Qaeda"

You oppose a strike? Fine. But can we not resort to ridiculous hyperbole?

[David__77]

45. It's completely accurate.

It would be a regime change operation, not just by chance but by design, and the most significant force waiting to swoop in once the army is crippled would be none other than al Qaeda.

You don't bomb Lon Nol to the benefit of the Khmer Rouge.
You don't bomb the Shah to the benefit of Khomeini.
You don't bomb Marcos to the benefit of the communists.

The humanitarian bombers appear think the countries exist in a vacuum, which is exactly why things never "go as planned."

[DevonRex]

17. And here you said Obama is fighting on behalf of the heirs of Osama bin Laden:

Star Member David__77 (15,243 posts)
145. You have to fight right-wing manifestations head-on.

Let's defeat them politically. Not mainly on this board, but with colleagues, friends, and neighbors. Everyone should be concerned and aware of the threat of the Obama administration possibly going to war on behalf of the heirs of Osama bin Laden.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023525258#post145

Are you going to ask for his birth certificate next?

[David__77]

19. That IS a real threat. Thank you for reposting.

The birth stuff is nonsense. A war against Syria would be a war for al Qaeda - no doubt about it. It would open the door to the genocidal terrorists being held back only by the Syrian army. A negotiated, peaceful political solution is the only way.

[Adrahil]

41. A negotiated peaceful settlement?

Pass whatever you're smoking. That ain't gonna happen. Welcome to the real world where some people aren't rational actors.

[eridani]

14. Please Mr Fox, whatever you do, don't throw me into that briar patch!

Great way to give us Congress in 2014 and the White House in 2016. I'm betting that all the antiwar Dems will use impeachment as a chance to review the Bush war crimes.

[zipplewrath]

25. This place may blow up

It will be interesting to see how many DU'ers will react if he goes ahead over congressional disapproval and attacks anyway. If the impeachment drums start beating over it, there may be more than a few here that will be pounding them. The BOG may not be able to ban them fast enough.

[DevonRex]

30. Hey zip.

How have you been? I wish I knew what else they have in those classified briefings. To be a fly on the wall.

I'm really, really good at seeing the entire foreign policy picture. The domino effect. But knowing which domino is going to fall first is the important thing. And at which intersections intervention could happen.

In the Admin's view a domino is ready to fall that will start a sequence that will be bad for us and the Syrian people and our allies.

My best informed guess (I've been studying this until I'm blind) is that it benefits Russia, Syria with Assad in charge along with an agreement with the AQ rebel forces, and Iran.

The CW have driven so much of the population out of Syria that a vacuum is left for extremists. The AQ rebels, even though they are few in number, have begun assassinating FSA leaders.

The Obama Administration wants to stop the use of CW so that no more of the population will be killed or forced to flee. They don't want Syria to be turned into a ghost land ripe for extremists to populate under the protection of Assad and Putin.

They also don't want Russia to keep arming countries like Syria and Iran with CW or, in the case of Iran, even worse. In fact, it would probably be a Russian nuclear facility in Iran, rather like Cuba. (You might want to research recent Russian ventures in Cuba and Vietnam.)

That's just the very beginning of the scenario. Most people just talk about Syria. But it's
Russia. United States
Syria. United Kingdom
Iran. Israel
Terrorists. Saudi Arabia
North Korea. South Korea
China Japan

etc, etc.

[zipplewrath]

31. What a nonsequiture

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the reaction around here if Obama moves forward over congress' objection and then gets impeached. But we already kinda knew where you'd be. Nice work though studying so hard to reach the conclusion you knew you'd come to in the first place.

[DevonRex]

32. I haven't come to a conclusion at all.

I've just figured out some of the stakes and why the Admin is doing what they're doing.

And why other actors in this mess are doing what they're doing.

But it doesn't mean I know the next right move myself.

[zipplewrath]

33. Okay

Still not sure what that has to do with the thread.

And as you suggested originally, there's probably vastly more you don't know than you do, and you have no idea what is driving the decisions of this administration. You do know this though, there's not a single pacifist in the room when these decisions are being made.

[DevonRex]

36. Total pacifist? Of course not.

None would be in their positions if they were. They have been reluctant in the past to use force.

As to what my post had to do with the thread, well, it was simply pointing out that there are more facets to this than most people think about. The President's next move may depend on a more complex situation than has been presented so far. Or talked about publicly so far.

It seems obvious to me that any talk of impeachment would depend on the facts available at some unknown point in the future after President Obama has completed some unknown action for some unknown reason. (After which of course we in the BOG would supposedly do horrendous things to sweet people who only stopped in to give us their best wishes.)

One thing we know is that simply talking tough has increased defections from the Syrian Army. So the idea that the President may override Congress has already had value in itself. Something to think about.

[zipplewrath]

37. Who has been reluctant?

I struggle to think of a situation in which this administration has been "reluctant" to use force. Surely not in Afghanistan where it tripled the amount of troops and still hasn't found a way out. Surely not in Iraq where they struggled mightily, right up until the end, to be allowed to stay. Surely not Libya. Not Pakistan. Not Yemen. Not Somalia. Heck, even in Syria they have already been leveraging the indigenous assets to use force. They forcibly fed Gitmo prisoners. Surely not when they sent troops on a kill mission for Osama. Not when they were deciding to kill American citizens without trial.

Really, where is this evidence of any restraint at all? It would seem it is their first "go to" strategy, only to be avoided when it is too messy or difficult.

[Samantha]

5. I thought from the very beginning that was why he changed his position and took it to Congress

Yes, I know other Presidents have done similar things without Congressional approval, but I do think, as a lot of people do, the Republicans are just lying in wait for ANYTHING that would seem legitimate to use as a tool to commence impeachment against President Obama. They are talking about it now, and they have NOTHING. So if anything happens would could be used as grounds for an impeachment proceeding, they will pounce.

Sam

[MFM008]

9. come on

these morons want to impeach him for putting his feet on the desk.

gop = zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[joshcryer]

10. If that happens at least we might get to see the evidence.

I mean, at the impeachment hearings Obama's council can just release all the direct evidence that Obama had on the situation. No Congress person can be held liable for what they say on the Congressional floor.

[David__77]

11. I seriously doubt that would happen.

But I suppose it cannot be ruled out, in the case that congress says no, intervention proceeds, and goes poorly (or perhaps only slightly poorly).

[joshcryer]

12. Yeah, you're right.

Just wishful thinking. The Senate would never sign off on his impeachment.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

13. See what pardoning Bush gets you with these people?

[pampango]

15. A big reason for republicans in the House to vote No.

If Obama goes ahead with a strike, as he has reserved the right to do, the chance to impeach him will be too good for them to pass up.

Their impeachment dream may yet come true. As a member of the tea party caucus, Hunter will likely go from 'leaning No' to a definite 'No' when the time comes.

[Capt. Obvious]

21. Duncan Hunter served in the Marines in Iraq & Afghanistan????

Oh, his kid.

[former9thward]

35. His kid?

He served in those countries not his kid.

[Capt. Obvious]

38. Duncan Hunter - former Presidential candidate did not serve in Iraq and Afghanistan or the Marines

His son did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_hunter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_D._Hunter

I didn't even realize Duncan (dad) wasn't in congress anymore

[former9thward]

43. His son is the subject of the OP

I never heard of his father.

[Eddie Haskell]

26. And he should be.

[1-Old-Man]

34. I've got to agree

No matter who the President is, no matter which Party, if the Congress says No, then the answer is no. And if a President thinks he can step out on his own and use our military as he sees fit, contrary to the authority we pass on to him via our Representatives, then he should be removed from office immediately.

[BeyondGeography]

27. Hope springs eternal

[Enrique]

28. no credibility

if they impeach him, whatever reason they give, everyone knows the real reason: because they can, they have the numbers.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

40. They can impeach him if Bo piddles on the rug...(nt)

[CK_John]

42. He is just looking for cover, the plan is to impeach no matter what, they have the votes.

[geek tragedy]

44. Sure, just like if Obama would face backlash if he burned a bag of kittens on live TV.

Not gonna happen, just an excuse for impeachment fantasies.