I am confused.Take for example Tunisia. How is the pro-democracy movement there anti-semitic?
AEL, * Lebanon Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah expressed solidarity with the protesters on the grounds that "protests will push out regime that has maintained peace with Israel."FROM WIKIPEDIA.This is just an example, hope this wets your whistle.jim
Well, our Central Bank gave the Libyan Central Bank a loan. Ain't that grand. Give money to the sonsabitches we're bombing. "Release: Why Did the Fed Bail Out the Bank of Libya?March 31, 2011How do Gadhafi’s Bankers Avoid U.S. Sanctions? WASHINGTON, March 31 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today questioned why the Federal Reserve provided more than $26 billion in credit to an Arab intermediary for the Central Bank of Libya.The total includes at least $3.2 billion in loans that the Fed was forced to make public today in addition to earlier revelations under a Sanders provision in the Wall Street reform law.Sanders also asked why the Libyan-owned bank and two of its branches in New York, N.Y., were exempted from sanctions that the United States this month slapped on other Libyan businesses to pressure Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s government."http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=ECE720E4-D5D6-4EFF-937C-DCADA784C3F9
"So, is your glass half-full or half-empty?"How bout I just get refill on my beer and call it done.
Well, well, well....now that the Man behind the Curtain has been exposed...'THE ROVING EYEExposed: The US-Saudi Libya dealBy Pepe EscobarYou invade Bahrain. We take out Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. This, in short, is the essence of a deal struck between the Barack Obama administration and the House of Saud. Two diplomatic sources at the United Nations independently confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement in their neighbor in exchange for a "yes" vote by the Arab League for a no-fly zone over Libya - the main rationale that led to United Nations Security Council resolution 1973.'http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD02Ak01.htmlThis is an impeachable offense. Plain and simple.
Bahrain? The Fed Res? Nothing to see here folks, just move along.
BRL, maybe the fed was just helping the Libyans attain the Libyan dream of home ownership.
Okay BRL, why is diplomatic horsetrading an impeachable offense? I don't see it yet.You can argue that its stupid with a fair degree of accuracy, but I don't see any violation of the constitution.
The cartoon seems to have been written by someone in the Beltway Kool Kids Klub, one of these guys who shares the notion that we are the Sun of the geopolitical solar system, and that nothing that happens in the world happens unless we say it does.To take the points in order:1. If a rebellion removes a dictator and replaces him with a form of government that involves more people, it is by definition "more democratic".2. As far as I can tell the Egyptian and Tunisian rebellions were notable free of significant anti-Semitic and anti-Christian incidents. The incoming power groups ARE anti-Israeli. That isn't the same as anti-Semitic, and everyone outside the Israeli government can see that. The Egyptians, in particular, seem to have gone out of their way to protect the Coptic minority. There's not enough Jews or Christians in Libya, Yemen, or Bahrain to make a difference.3. Likewise, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt seems to have gotten in very late to the party, and there is no real Islamist power base in Tunisia.4. So the bottom line here is that these rebellions might be very bad news for Israel, indeed; it is unlikely that a government in Egypt that represents the actual beliefs of Egyptians will be as fawning to Israel as Mubarak was. But that's Israel's problem, not ours. And the rulers of these countries will need hard currency and the benign neutrality of the Great Powers as much as the despots did, so I suspect that little will change.The notion that these rebellions are some sort of wonderful democratic springtime is nonsense, of course. The Arab countries are WAY too fucked up for that. But neither are they particularly problems, either, unless we insist on poking our snoot into their business.And Pluto has the crux of the biscuit re: whatever this US/Saudi deal is. Was it impeachable when we gave Stalin trucks so he could kill Nazis?When you bring in stuff like this you sound VERY tinfoil-hat, BRL. As Pluto points out, it's one thing to call bullshit on Presidential skulduggery. It's quite another to talk about impeachment for stuff like diplomatic doubledealing and blowjobs. Just sayin'.
Chief,Good analysis.I 'd suggest we can't impeach for Obomba's actions, but we should call bullshit once again on his peace prize.He can street hustle America and get over on us, but screwing the Nobel Committee is serious stuff.jim
"And the rulers of these countries will need hard currency"... What "hard currency"? The time for the tin foil hats is long since past. (do i need to point out the significance of Bahrain?)
You can argue that its stupid with a fair degree of accuracy, but I don't see any violation of the constitution.Constitutional Reason for War - Imminent Threat. unConstitutional Reason for War - Overt Aggression to prop up another nation.The overwhelming majority of war in this nation's history has been unConstitutional.
BRL- could you help us with a specific citation from the Constitution?
BRL- could you help us with a specific citation from the Constitution?Uh, that's not how the Constitution works. There are no provisions IN the Constitution for Aggressive War. Therefore they are, by the very definition, unConstitutional.
BRL,I must agree that few, if any , of US wars meet the Just War theory of christian thought which is a bed rock of our laws. Indirectly of course.The big disconnect is when War became Defense.All logic went out the window.But in argument- how can we justify the Civil War? Wasn't that an aggressive war? Whatever the argument the CW is totally accepted by all as legit. Wasn't WW1 non defensive?We didn't impeach Wilson, or later Truman/Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon/Reagan/41/43- so why pick on Obama? Just sayin',jim
BRL, My education on the constitution is only what was commonly available in high school many decades ago, but this comment blew me away:"Uh, that's not how the Constitution works. There are no provisions IN the Constitution for Aggressive War. Therefore they are, by the very definition, unConstitutional."I'm going to have to ask you to produce your sources on this one as it contradicts pretty much everything I've ever learned about the constitution.A close reading of the document has nothing to say about aggressive warfare (whatever that is). In short, the constitution only specifies that Congress has the right to declare war (which they've abdicated in the AUMF) and the President is the C in C (which he hasn't abdicated yet).
Pluto-Didn't they teach you in school that unless the Founding Fathers specifically put something in the Constitution, the clearly did not want it done? That's why cell phones are unconstitutional. The FF made no provision for them.