actually, I think some Democrats brought up the unconstitutionality too - not sure anyone actually credible "threatened impeachment" with any seriousness
When I was in school I read a piece in Foreign Policy Quarterly about the difference between 'Old Europe' and 'New Europe' as divided by the Iraq War. Support for the war was significantly higher in Eastern Europe with the author postulating that due to Eastern Europe suffering under oppressive dictatorships much more recently than Western Europe they are more predisposed to support the overthrow of other dictatorships.
The other thing is just because your policy is successful (which often breed popularity on its own) that doesn't mean you implemented the policy legally. Obama didn't follow the war powers act based on everything I've read. We should take things like that seriously, even if it doesn't result in impeachment proceedings in Congress.
They did. And you have found the real reason it went no further. Because there were too many people allied with Obama that wouldn't have let it go further even though, clearly, he was wrong to have pursued the fighting without Congressional approval. Bush got the approval for his military actions and, even so, was pilloried by this president for being a warmonger (or things to that effect). Hypocrisy? Yep!
Bush guessed wrong, Obama guessed right. Such things do matter. Of course, Roosevelt probably would have been impeached if some of his enemies had gotten wind of his pre-war chicanery such as selling war materiel to the Brits and joint staff work that clearly defied the neutrality act. Over dramatic anguish and hand wringing, you bet.
Self-serving twaddle. If Bush had guessed right and still didn't follow the law he'd still be wrong. What you're trying to do is say that Obama, with all the luxury of time, overwhelming power on his side, and being correct in the final judgment, STILL couldn't manage to follow the law. Shouldn't that tell you something about the kind of leader he is? Really?
Really? Gosh! Imagine that! Not that bad? I'll bet you're wrong on that one. Think the extremists won't be out to get total control? Bet you're wrong on that one too.
So we'll put you down for "As long as it's a Democrat, we don't care whether he breaks the law or not"?
Given my involvement in the antiwar movement since you were in diapers, even you can't twist reality that far. Then again, your side thinks "Nazis are socialists 'cause it says 'socialist' in their name," so common sense is out of the question...
Orrrrr. You could just say that Obama's wrong in breaking a law that exists for a very good reason and quit trying to change the subject.
Antiwar movement? Or, rather, anti-establishment movement? That's the real issue here, isn't it? Now that your side has a president to your liking, it doesn't matter what issues he ignores or laws he breaks. Am I right? No, wait. Don't bother typing up an answer. Just think about it. I think everyone here really knows the answer.
Actually I think he should be in prison. Of course at this point, I think that many in Congress as well as the executive branch deserve that.
Obama may have violated the war powers act, but the Act itself is quite controversial. In fact, it became law only after Congress overrode Nixon's veto in 1973. In this case, it appears that Obama decided to interpret a very controversial law in a way favorable to him, which it seems Bush did when it came to torture...oh that's right we can't talk about Bush. What was that about "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it"? oh that's right, that was some dirty furriner...
You mean don't type an answer that runs counter to the script you've already written. Wouldn't want to threaten your preset worldview.
Therein lies the irony. Most of us will readily ream Bush for what he's done wrong. It's often the Left (not all) that refuses to criticize Obama no matter what.
We can talk about Bush all you'd like. I don't recall many supporting everything he did while he was President. In fact, I'd say there were quite a few more "supporters" of Bush who called him on the crap he pulled then the "supporters" of Obama calling him on the crap he pulls.
Again with the Bush dodge? And "May have"? You're kidding, right? In a fine tradition of Democratic presidents, the War Powers Act was intended to make sure that Congress was kept in the loop when a president got this country into a fight without the approval of the people. There's even provision for emergencies built right in. I'm waiting for you to defend Obama on the grounds that Libya was some kind of national emergency for us. If you'll remember your history lessons, it was Lyndon Johnson (D) lying about the situation in Vietnam that escalated U.S. involvement in what had been for us a relatively minor conflict and pushed Congress into passage of the War Powers Act. Nixon got us out of Vietnam 10+ years and 58+ thousand dead later, so he wasn't exactly in favor of fighting it to the bitter end, as shown by his actions. As I said, the law exists for a darned good reason. Nixon's argument was based on the Constitutionality of the WPA which is something that Obama and his selected set of lawyers has chosen to ignore in their disregard for it. At least Nixon obeyed the law and the Constitution. You ignored that in your dismissal of him - another "fail" in your attempt to compare presidents, IMO.
See, I understand the problem; I really do. Libya is turning out to be the war you guys thought Gulf War II was going to be, and it burns your butts that you got fooled in '02 and '03. You swallowed the whole "brave Iraqis willing to overthrow Saddam" slop that you were fed, never considering that the average Iraqi was thinking "Yeah, okay, so Saddam had my cousin shot in '98, but he hasn't bothered the family since, and I've got a nice little family business going here, and if the Americans bomb us, it'll be '91 all over again, and we'll be living in the street because they blew the roof off the house or, worse, we were all buried in the rubble and died. Better the enemy you know..." You were expecting a PlayStation war like Gulf War I...lots of kewl 'splosions, minimal American casualties, lots of Dead Bad Guys, everything over in a few weeks. You were suckered. You're still seething, but you'd rather choke on your own bile than admit you guessed wrong. It's going to affect your worldview going forward for a long, long time.
Actually (Hi, Forbin! ), that's exactly what happened. It was the postwar "occupation" that Bush and Company fucked up and, aside from maybe Dayton, you'd be hard pressed to find anybody here who thought that part of the conflict was planned for and handled properly.
They should have followed the original idea for occupation and had well over 500,000 troops in country. And they should have never disbanded the Iraqi Army and left those soldiers with no way to make money. We basically started the insurgency against us after that.....
