In the wake of Obama’s new war in Libya there’s some vague talk in Congress about impeaching him – and that talk is coming from the Democrats, not the Republicans!
On the Democratic side, nine liberal House members “strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during a Democratic Caucus conference call Saturday, two Democratic congressmen who took part told Politico.
“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” a Democrat lawmaker said.
One of the nine Democrats, Rep. Kucinich, has publicly issued the strongest criticism of Obama. “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 in an interview on Monday.
“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.”
That doesn’t mean Obama should in fact be impeached and removed from office, Kucinich said. “That’s a whole separate question. But we have to clearly understand what this Constitution is about.”
One could easily sink themselves in the morass of conflicting laws and legal precedents, and of conflicting clauses and articles in our Constitution, that surround any POTUS sending American forces into a foreign armed conflict under the auspices of a United Nations or NATO agreement, request, or demand to do so. Finding one’s way back out of that morass would prove a lengthy and difficult process.
Rep. Kucinich’s statement does, however, bring up another question and it is much simpler – If he truly believes that President Obama’s actions were in violation of the Constitution and, hence, constitute an impeachable offense, why isn’t he talking about about impeaching Obama and removing him from office?
Fish, cut bait – or get your useless ass out of the boat, you filthy, pathetic, intellectually or morally defunct gnome!
An American is forced to wonder at Kucinich’s statement that the question of the crime should be separate from the application of the law. A few rationales for this schism immediately present themselves:
- Politics – It’s somehow different when the POTUS in question is of the same party as the Congressional complainant and it’s the start of 2012 election season.
- Race – “Race Savviness” once again requires that the bar for required, acceptable, and/or appropriate behavior be lowered because the subject in question is identified as Black.
- Racial Politics – It’d be foolish and self-destructive for the Democrats to anger or alienate the Black Vote, their largest and most dependable bloc, and being seen or portrayed as attacking the First Black President would most certainly do that.
- Street Cred – Kucinich doesn’t believe the arguments he”s made in the first place and is just trying to maintain his anti-war “cred” with the Far Left by mouthing these statements.
I would personally guess that it’s a disgusting amalgamation of all four rationales that causes Kucinich to raise the specter of Obama’s war in Libya being an impeachable offense but claiming that the question of whether Obama should be impeached is a separate matter.
In any event, it was a grossly pathetic display by Kucinich and one that will cost him dearly, though for all the wrong reasons and none of the right ones.