Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Impeach Obama?

There is a small coterie on the Left who I have to give credit for being consistent, expecially Dennis Kucinich, in that they are calling for the impeachment of President Obama for the same grounds that they called for the impeachment of President Bush.  Then there are the members of the Democratic press corps, also called the Main Stream Media, and MSNBC in particular who are bending over backwards to support this President in his use of force.  Sure, Bush went to Congress and obtained a Joint Resolution for the Use of Foce in Iraq, but it wasn't an actual, you know, declaration of war.  In technical terms, this is called pole vaulting over mouse turds.
But it is kind of fun watching the hypcrites of the Left who used to say that any criticism of Obama  could only be because of racism. You might notice how that dull sword has been sheathed for now.  It's also refreshing to note that Obama seems to be carrying George Bush's foreign policy forward, even if he won't admit it.
But is the President's actions really an impeachable offense?  Jack Goldsmith, writing in Slate argues that the President's actions are completely constitutional.  In addition to the examples that he cited, it is also ironic that I think Thomas Jefferson did not declare war on the Barbary pirates, now home to the quasi nation of Libya either. 
But what about the requirement that the Congress is the only one that can actually declare war?  True, but it has lost a lot of its meaning over the years as Mr. Goldsmith says.  In fact, for Congress to declare war is an extremely significant action which implies the full weight of the country behind the destruction of an opponent.  At the moment, we are using less than our full capability.  But if Congress actually did declare war, would that license the use of nukes?
I am a traditionalist when it comes to the Constitution, but I appreciate that there have changes. For instance the Commerce clause being used to restrict growing wheat for personal use was never contemplated by the Founders, but it is the law of the land.  In the same way, we have to acknowledge that through unopposed use of force without Congressional declaration of war is the norm, and it fits within the President's dual role of Commander in Chief and the primary director of foreign affairs. 
Obama has made a lot of mistakes in how he got into this, and his handling has not been any better, but it is his call.  And to those who still object to the fact that Libya never posed a threat to us, I will agree with you.  But neither did Rwanda, and I am still ashamed that we stood by and did nothing when three quarters of a million people were literally butchered.  There is no good answer, and in questions involving foreign policy, the default position has to be to support the President.

And I do.


David said...

So did anyone ever actually say that any criticism of Obama could only be because of racism? I've heard this claim before, but I have never seen any quote to show that it's true.

Steve said...

Try this one:

Of course, you could also just Google "opposition to Obama is racist" and you could find a ton more.

David Crisp said...

There is a big difference between saying that there are elements of racism in criticisms of Obama (which I think is unquestionably true) and saying that any criticism of him could only be because of racism (which is ridiculous). The link you provide provides no examples that I can see of the latter.

By the way, I think Article 1 of the Constitution makes it pretty clear that no declaration of war is needed to go after pirates.

Steve said...

Why do you say that there are elements of racism? Is this your desire or your projection??
Can any black person ever be criticized for the job they do without it being about race?
Maybe, people are just criticizing the white half.

David Crisp said...

I think it's racist to depict Obama as the son of apes. I think it's racist to depict him as an witch doctor. I think it's racist to depict him growing watermelons at the White House. I think that when a national spokesman for the Tea Party Express writes a "satirical" letter in which black people reject Emancipation, that's racist. I think there is an undercurrent of racism in the "birther" movement. I think there were elements of racism in objections to letting Obama address the nation's schoolchildren.

Is it possible to criticize the job performance of black people without being a racist? Of course it is. I have done it myself. And I can't claim to know what is in the hearts of Obama's critics.

But when people say and display the kinds of things mentioned here, they are either racists or they are so blind to America's history of racism that they might as well be racists.

Steve said...

So your point would be that they are either knowing or subconscious racists who complain about Obama and his policies.

Now, what was your original point? Oh yeah: "So did anyone ever actually say that any criticism of Obama could only be because of racism?"

I think you just did.

David Crisp said...

I find it impossible to believe that you in good faith could have misread my comment the way you did. I must assume you are acting in bad faith. Good-bye.

Steve said...

"But when people say and display the kinds of things mentioned here, they are either racists or they are so blind to America's history of racism that they might as well be racists."

Tell me how I misread this.