I wish Dennis Kucinich wouldn't do these things

[Armstead]

I don't know what to make of Cong. Kucinich. On most issues I agree with him, and believe he makes more sense than most DC politicians.

But there are times when Kooch screws the pooch.

In bringing up the subject of impeachment about the Libyan situation, he bit off way more than he can (or should) chew.

His opposition to the bombing of Lybia is not really the problem. Many agree with him, including some other Democratic politicians. Reasonable people can disagree, etc.

It is also consistent. He was one of the most effective leaders in the attempt to stop the War in Iraq.

But raising it to the level of an impeachable offense at this point? That's over the top and counterproductive to his cause, IMO. Also doesn't do much for his reputation.




(Personally I don't know what to make of wehat is happening in Lybia.Really mixed feelings.)

[dennis4868]

1. It's Ironic....

I was worried that Darryl Issa would push for Obama's impeachment but felt comfortable that Kucinich would be there to fight off Issa....now it is Kucinich calling for impeachment....I think the tea baggers and crazy left are forming an alliance to destroy Obama and insure a repub is in the WH in a couple of years....

[NorthCarolina]

3. ...

Yeah, that's it. :rofl:

[dennis4868]

6. Kucinich....

will probably be irrelevant in a couple od years and out of congress because of redistricting....his days of mouthing off are numbered!

[Wilms]

53. CNN is tired of him "mouthing off" too.

Listen to him spout off shit like no one else would DARE.

What CNN doesn't want you to see again!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFabLp-Jcbg

[Fire1]

55. Probably why he's making the most of it. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

4. If that happens, Lord hear our prayers,

cause that would be the only thing to save us, period.

[dennis4868]

7. I read that he has....

one of the lowest % in congress in getting bills passed that he endorses....not a very effective congressman....he talks more than he acts.

[vaberella]

33. Kucinich is definitely more of a - than a +. n/t

[Tatiana]

2. Disappointed in him. The call for impeachment doesn't help us at all.

It only empowers the Republicans because now they can point and say, "See, even a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT thinks Obama should be impeached!"

It validates the Republican nonsense. Which, incidentally is one of my biggest beefs with Obama when he talks of "entitlements" and "shared sacrifice."

None of us should be validating or legitimizing the barbaric Republican ideals.

[tekisui]

15. To be fair, he didn't call for his impeachment or say he should be impeached.

He said the war is not constitutional, and it could be an impeachable offense.

[RufusTFirefly]

20. That's right. Thank you. He didn't call for the president's impeachment

But, of course, admitting that would rain on this particular thread's parade.

Carry on.

[vaberella]

25. "An impeachable offense" in relation to the President's decision means what to you?!

I read English. He is basically stating that what the President did could lead to an impeachment. Even though he's wrong.

[vaberella]

31. "it could be..." You're completely and uttterly wrong!

He never said "could" be. NEVER! He stated very clearly that it "appears to BE an impeachable offense." <---That means it is, not that it could be, or might be....but a definitive statement saying it is. Then he started by raising a question on it, as though to softens the impact of the following statements. Obviously that question was lost in the interview and it shows how he was quick to open his mouth because people are following his suggestion that Obama might be impeached over it.

You may need to read his statements again!

Relevant parts and Link:

"President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have Congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said," Kucinich told Raw Story. "It's not even disputable, this isn't even a close question. Such an action -- that involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy -- is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone."

"And I'm raising the question as to whether or not it's an impeachable offense. It would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense," Kucinich said. "Now, it doesn't necessarily follow that simply because a president has committed an impeachable offense, that the process should start to impeach and remove him. That's a whole separate question. But we have to clearly understand what this Constitution is about."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=634729&mesg_id=634729

[tekisui]

40. Appears to be. Anyway, he never called for his impeachment or say

that he should be impeached.

[MH1]

44. so why'd he even bring it up?

"well technically he didn't say ..."

oh bullshit. sheesh. what a stupid dick.

[tekisui]

46. He probably brought it up because he thinks it is a constitutional

violation. It likely is, but is no different than every president since WWII. Doesn't even mean it should happen. For what it's worth,I agree with Kucinich's assessment but don't think it was necessary for him to mention it.

[elocs]

5. Kucinich is just being Kucinich. His specialty is waxing righteously indignant.

In fact, that is pretty much his claim to fame. I don't know of any law or major bill that Kucinich was the major sponsor or responsible in getting passed.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. Looks like he's started veering off into Ralph Nader territory.

Very disappointing -- I can't imagine what good he thinks he's doing by saying something like that, no matter how strongly (or justifiably) he might oppose the US involvement in Libya.

[pnwmom]

30. Which is why he could never be President.

He's a complainer, not a do-er.

[SnakeEyes]

36. This is why he should be president

he's consistent and one of the few politicians that believes in doing things the right way and following the proper processes and only using the military when vitally necessary.

[Arctic Dave]

8. So you want him to be more like Obama, keep quiet and don't make a stand?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. Not at all. If he opposes the Libya operation, he's perfectly justified

in saying so and explaining why. But to claim Obama is subject to impeachment on account of it is stupid; it just plays into the hands of the right wing and does not accomplish anything useful.

[Arctic Dave]

13. Well we wouldn't want to do that.

Let's sweep all this under the rug and sing songs of praise.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. I am suggesting that a sane, rational

explanation of why the Libya operation is a bad idea would be much more effective and persuasive than claiming Obama should or could be impeached for it (by the way, whether you agree with it or not, the UN resolution and consequent US military action is not illegal. It may be a bad idea, but it isn't illegal and it's not an impeachable offense. A president has 60 days under the War Powers Act to get Congressional approval. It's only been 3 days).

[Arctic Dave]

22. WPA also says WE have to be in danger. Not interfering in other countries.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. I don't recall Kucinich complaining about the Bosnia/Kosovo operation.

He might have; I just don't remember. But that was similar in a lot of ways -- a UN/NATO operation to prevent ethnic cleansing by Milosevic and his ilk -- in which the US was also not in danger. That was also controversial, and the right wingers mostly opposed it, probably because Clinton was president and they were trying to impeach him anyhow.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Armstead]

56. Didn't say that.....But there's a way and there's a way.

I'd have been surprised if he didn't oppose it. But to kick it up so many notches to impeachable is jumping the shark.

[treestar]

61. I think you've just illustrated how "making a stand" is in itself ineffective

Any one of us can get up on a soapbox and "make a stand." Doesn't mean shit if nothing gets done. And none of Dennis' ideas have been implemented.

[Arctic Dave]

63. So, by not making a stand is being effective?

Obama is being effective as shit then.

As for his ideas not being implemented that means, that every crappy piece of legislation has been obama's goal all along.

[treestar]

65. Obama got elected POTUS and got some laws passed

that make progress towards our goals.

Dennis has proposed laws that go nowhere.

[vaberella]

10. "Kooch screws the pooch" -- For a long time I couldn't get past this line.

:rofl:

Alright in all seriousness. I personally disagree with the step into Libya. It's not really mixed feelings---I know for sure I don't like the idea. I don't because I feel a lot more can go wrong than can be good in going in. And I support the many arguments on both ends---I lean more against going. The only thing I can not abide though is the amount of distorting information that goes on by people who are against. I may be against---but I definitely stick to the facts of the matter---which really doesn't stand on our side of the situation.

That being said. I felt Kucinich went over the line as well. I was never a fan of his. However I felt this was over the line on many different fronts. Rather than reading Greenwald and running on his article that Obama's actions are impeachable--he should have asked Obama questions in an open letter about his decision. Going as far as to support Greenwald's statements--is over the top. There is nothing against a question--but screaming those words impeachment is dangerous.

Even more so, it's extremely counterproductive in the political climate we're in. There are way too many people who hate Obama as it is in Congress. He's opening the door for some dangerous power struggles here which in the end will hurt us than anyone else. By making Obama appear as a bad President and basically thrusting him into the same camp as Nixon he's painting Obama as a criminal. By doing that---in a society that has fluctuating feelings on Obama and basically turned the house not only from being run by Dems but going extreme Right---he's helping along more people to turn more extreme Right.

His decision is dangerous for Dems overall. People may scream consistency---consistency can hurt us and a moderation on tone needs to be enacted. In effect, yea he "screwed the pooch" and is turning out to be the idiot in the end since Obama did NOT do anything unconstitutional it seems.

[Armstead]

57. "Screw the Pooch" ....from the movie (and book) The Right Stuff

A phrase the original astronauts used to describe someone who botched a mission.

Wish I could take credit (or blame) for it but...I did come up with the rhyme

[JoePhilly]

12. No, no, we should definitely impeach the first black President for doing

the same thing that the last 6 or so white Presidents did.

After all, we have not declared war officially since world war II.

[vaberella]

17. He didn't do anything like 6 or so White presidents did...he did it the right way. n/t

[JoePhilly]

18. I agree with you.

He worked this with the UN, he met with the Congressional leadership, and he's been telling the American people exactly what the mission is.

It ticks me off that some on the left automatically knee jerk their latest outrage on something like this, or anything else Obama does.

In about a week, there will be a new outrage.

[vaberella]

24. You're 100% right. I can't wait to hear what it is. n/t

[Solomon]

76. "In about a week there will be a new outrage"

Are you kidding? You mean tomorrow. Actually, this afternoon!

I'm sure he will do something today, like going to the bathroom during this time of crisis.

[elleng]

29. Yes, he did it the right way.

And haven't had a 'declaration of war' since when? Korea?

[uponit7771]

70. AMEN!!! Both points very cogent

[Kucinich Feingold]

19. K&R

[doc03]

21. Whatever it takes to get on camera n/t

[elleng]

23. I tend to agree about Kuch, Armstead.

As to what to make of what's happening in Libya, I suggest checking out CNN, ONLY because General Clark is consulting them for about a month on the subject, and he provides the very best analysis on the subject (or any other) imo.

[vaberella]

27. Did Clark also suggest that this might be an impeachable decision by the President? n/t

[elleng]

28. I doubt it as he's not an attorney or a member of Congress,

and he well knows his areas of expertise.

[vaberella]

32. So why suggest Clark in regards to what Kucinich said....

Or are you looking at it in the point of view of "mixed feelings"?! Just asking for clarity. Also what has Clark been saying in regards to this move---is he supportive?

[elleng]

37. I suggested Clark for an understanding of what's going on in Libya.

As to what he's been saying:

http://securingamerica.com/node/3404

Also:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x592604

http://live.washingtonpost.com/outlook-general-wesley-clark-libya.html

[vaberella]

41. Ah, thanks for clearing that up. Thanks a lot elleng! ^_^ n/t

[elleng]

48. You're welcome, vaberella. Gotta keep people up w Wes' thoughts.

[ReggieVeggie]

34. calling him "Kooch" probably doesn't help

Is what Obama did an impeachable offense or not? And, again, it's not like he said "Obama should be impeached." He said Obama could be impeached.

[Armstead]

58. Just mentioning the "I" word is bad enough -- especially in this political climate

And just so's ya know...I have defended Mr. Kucinich many times here in the past.

[ReggieVeggie]

64. I know you have

But you seem to thing that broaching a subject is necessarily a bad thing. I thought this was a free country and that no one was afraid of frank, wide-open discussion. By your logic, no one should ever mention anything if it might upset the realpolitik of the time. Let's not bring up Obama's dismal record while he's running for re-election!

[SnakeEyes]

35. I agree, I wish he wouldn't be consistent

When the president has a D behind his name :eyes:

[SnakeEyes]

38. Candidate Obama once said:

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

[babylonsister]

39. Do you know the definition of

u·ni·lat·er·al
   /ˌyunəˈlætərəl/ Show Spelled Show IPA
–adjective
1.
relating to, occurring on, or involving one side only: unilateral development; a unilateral approach.
2.
undertaken or done by or on behalf of one side, party, or faction only; not mutual: a unilateral decision; unilateral disarmament.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x634722

Obama: It's an international effort in Libya

[polichick]

49. Please see #45

[MH1]

50. also, my understanding was that he did consult with senior members of Congress

such as the Foreign Relations committee. It wasn't exactly a secret that this was coming up in the UN and what our vote would be.

Did Kucinich yip and yipe about "better consult congress" before the UN vote?

[SnakeEyes]

52. Consulting Congress is the minimum ONLY

when there is an imminent threat to the US. That is not the case here. This is an act of war against a nation that is not a threat to us. So the minimum requirement is higher... a joint resolution is needed.

[karynnj]

73. Serbia, Bosnia, Pannama, Grenada etc

No congressional votes - it is rare to have them. The one before Afghanistan was really the US standing together against terrorism. The one before the Iraq war happened mostly because Democrats, including insisted in summer 2002 that Bush needed to go both to the UN and to Congress.

[karynnj]

72. and the Armed Services and intelligence committees and leaders on both sides

[polichick]

42. That was then, this is now - as is true for so many things...

...he said before becoming prez.

[vaberella]

43. This is NOT a unilateral effort. Although you seem to be doing a good job of ignoring that fact. nt

[polichick]

45. Regarding war powers, the word "unilateral" does not refer to other countries, but to Congress.

[SnakeEyes]

51. Unilateral, in this context, does not refer to other countries but rather Congress

Whether other countries are involved or not is irrelevant when it comes to the American laws regarding the President's use of the military and congressional approval.

[FrenchieCat]

47. Well, at least this guarantees DK a flurry of Television appearances!

The media loves him for this, for now!

Message you DK!
What would we do without you as an attack dog?
Playing chess or something, are you? So Sly! ;)

[Change Happens]

54. Is he and Nader the true loony left?

[Armstead]

62. I'm in the loony left -- But I have my limits and both Nader and DK take it too far

In my opinion

[Change Happens]

68. Same here...I agree with you 100%, and

Senator Sanders is one of my heros, my kind of progressive :)

[Keith Bee]

59. Me too

K&R

[mmonk]

60. Not over the top Constitution wise. Just over the top given the US of today.

Interns and such get you impeached in the new era.

[geek tragedy]

66. Can you name the last President who didn't bomb

a foreign country without explicit authorization from Congress?

[karynnj]

74. Great question

Sadly, it might be GWB. The drones against Pakistan might be covered by the Afghanistan authorization which is broadly written against terrorism. You could argue that the attack on Iraq did not meet the conditions in the IWR, but for years many liberal Democrats have argued that as it was Bush who had the authority to determine if they were met - arguing otherwise now is hard to do. Many people (in the population at large) do not even remember that the authorization was 5 months before the invasion - at a point where it was more clear that it was not justified.

[zulchzulu]

67. Someone needs to primary his stupid ass in a year or so

He's a self-absorbed, feckless, accomplishment-free professional blowhole politician. Name ONE bill he has authored that was passed. He needs to retire and allow a real progressive to actually accomplish something.

He should sell free-range olives and get the fuck out of the way.

[cali]

69. rec. excellent OP, Armstead.

[karynnj]

71. Well - CNN is for what is likely the first time treating him as an important

Democratic politician. This reinforces your view on his impeachment call.

There are many precedents for doing exactly what Obama did - from Reagan's bombing of Libya to Clinton's actions in Bosnia, Serbia and Iraq. All without going to Congress ahead of time. That said, I wish that this had been debated in Congress and voted on. The problem might have been that the administration really was privately - as well as publicly - against the no fly zone until late last week - meaning that the international efforts (which took about 3 weeks) and the American ones could not have done in parallel.

[Enthusiast]

75. There are better reasons

to call for Obama's impeachment.