I hope the Republicans IMPEACH Obama!

[TheIceMan]

How many of you geniuses know that Bush killed an American in Yemen with a drone in 2002?

Liar.

"The New York Times said another U.S. citizen, Kamal Derwish, had been killed by a drone strike in Yemen on Nov. 3, 2002, when George W. Bush was president. Derwish was a recruiter who put together an al-Qaeda sleeper cell in Lackawanna, N.Y., according to an Oct. 12, 2003, New York Times news story. The U.S. said he was not the intended target and did not acknowledge killing him, but a Yemeni official identified him as one of six men who died in the attack, the story said."

There's a huge difference between "targeting an al-Qaeda group and accidentally killing a US citizen who is a known al-Qaeda operative" and "targeting a child who has never done a damn thing wrong in his life other than being the son of a priest of a guy who was in al-Qaeda." If all you have to do is be a son of person who knows an an enemy of the US then pretty much anyone can be killed without trial. Just by the ass hole in DC putting you on his kill list and saying I don't like you.

The missile that killed the 16 year old was targeting Ibrahim al-Banna.

I guess no children at all were killed in the Iraq war. Republicans keep pointing out this one case out and for sure it was bad, but what of the hundreds of THOUSANDS of children who have died due to dysentery and general lack of proper living conditions after their country was turned into a litter box?

Civilian casualties are DRAMATICLY lessened now that we switched our tactics. We have more bang for the buck with the results as well.

Winning has changed a lot since we changed tactics. We're just losing.

 

[RKMBrown]

How many of you geniuses know that Bush killed an American in Yemen with a drone in 2002?

Liar.

"The New York Times said another U.S. citizen, Kamal Derwish, had been killed by a drone strike in Yemen on Nov. 3, 2002, when George W. Bush was president. Derwish was a recruiter who put together an al-Qaeda sleeper cell in Lackawanna, N.Y., according to an Oct. 12, 2003, New York Times news story. The U.S. said he was not the intended target and did not acknowledge killing him, but a Yemeni official identified him as one of six men who died in the attack, the story said."

There's a huge difference between "targeting an al-Qaeda group and accidentally killing a US citizen who is a known al-Qaeda operative" and "targeting a child who has never done a damn thing wrong in his life other than being the son of a priest of a guy who was in al-Qaeda." If all you have to do is be a son of person who knows an an enemy of the US then pretty much anyone can be killed without trial. Just by the ass hole in DC putting you on his kill list and saying I don't like you.

The missile that killed the 16 year old was targeting Ibrahim al-Banna.

Lies. Banna wasn't even there.

 

[TheIceMan]

i LOVE hearing how it's still Bush fault.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

How many of you geniuses know that Bush killed an American in Yemen with a drone in 2002?

Liar.

"The New York Times said another U.S. citizen, Kamal Derwish, had been killed by a drone strike in Yemen on Nov. 3, 2002, when George W. Bush was president. Derwish was a recruiter who put together an al-Qaeda sleeper cell in Lackawanna, N.Y., according to an Oct. 12, 2003, New York Times news story. The U.S. said he was not the intended target and did not acknowledge killing him, but a Yemeni official identified him as one of six men who died in the attack, the story said."

There's a huge difference between "targeting an al-Qaeda group and accidentally killing a US citizen who is a known al-Qaeda operative" and "targeting a child who has never done a damn thing wrong in his life other than being the son of a priest of a guy who was in al-Qaeda." If all you have to do is be a son of person who knows an an enemy of the US then pretty much anyone can be killed without trial. Just by the ass hole in DC putting you on his kill list and saying I don't like you.

The missile that killed the 16 year old was targeting Ibrahim al-Banna.

I guess no children at all were killed in the Iraq war. Republicans keep pointing out this one case out and for sure it was bad, but what of the hundreds of THOUSANDS of children who have died due to dysentery and general lack of proper living conditions after their country was turned into a litter box?

Civilian casualties are DRAMATICLY lessened now that we switched our tactics. We have more bang for the buck with the results as well.

Winning has changed a lot since we changed tactics. We're just losing.

Not sure what this means. Pouring a trillion dollars plus into Afghanistan and Iraq had no payoff and a very high humanitarian cost; not to mention the fact that we made ourselves even more of a target from people who mean us harm.

As far as I'm concerned, I would rather we just stayed out of other folk's affairs, but I'll take air strikes and drones over boots on the ground any day.

 

[rightwinger]

I would doubt if the Republicans have the votes to bring up impeachment charges. No doubt, TeaTards would vote for impeachment but regular Republicans realize they can't take the political backlash

What about the political backlash of the democrats supporting the summary execution of U.S. Citizens?

You mean citizens that have taken up arms against our country?

Yeah cause a minor child who had never harmed a person in his life was guilty of taking up arms, this because Obama said so. That about sum up your excuse for murder?

The minor child was associating with terrorists, he was not the target but was in the company of targets

Not true, he was on Obama's list of approved kill targets. He was the target. Further, his only association was blood.

Repeating lies does not make them true

The kid was hanging out with a known terrorist when they missile hit. It is what happens when you use terrorists to babysit your kid

 

[Dana7360]

The only problem with Impeachment --- what if Obama doesn't leave office after he's convicted?

What crime would he be convicted of?

You do need to keep in mind that two thirds of the senate has to vote to convict.

Good luck with that.

You will fail just as you failed with Clinton.

 

[TheIceMan]

How many of you geniuses know that Bush killed an American in Yemen with a drone in 2002?

Liar.

"The New York Times said another U.S. citizen, Kamal Derwish, had been killed by a drone strike in Yemen on Nov. 3, 2002, when George W. Bush was president. Derwish was a recruiter who put together an al-Qaeda sleeper cell in Lackawanna, N.Y., according to an Oct. 12, 2003, New York Times news story. The U.S. said he was not the intended target and did not acknowledge killing him, but a Yemeni official identified him as one of six men who died in the attack, the story said."

There's a huge difference between "targeting an al-Qaeda group and accidentally killing a US citizen who is a known al-Qaeda operative" and "targeting a child who has never done a damn thing wrong in his life other than being the son of a priest of a guy who was in al-Qaeda." If all you have to do is be a son of person who knows an an enemy of the US then pretty much anyone can be killed without trial. Just by the ass hole in DC putting you on his kill list and saying I don't like you.

The missile that killed the 16 year old was targeting Ibrahim al-Banna.

I guess no children at all were killed in the Iraq war. Republicans keep pointing out this one case out and for sure it was bad, but what of the hundreds of THOUSANDS of children who have died due to dysentery and general lack of proper living conditions after their country was turned into a litter box?

Civilian casualties are DRAMATICLY lessened now that we switched our tactics. We have more bang for the buck with the results as well.

Winning has changed a lot since we changed tactics. We're just losing.

Not sure what this means. Pouring a trillion dollars plus into Afghanistan and Iraq had no payoff and a very high humanitarian cost; not to mention the fact that we made ourselves even more of a target from people who mean us harm.

As far as I'm concerned, I would rather we just stayed out of other folk's affairs, but I'll take air strikes and drones over boots on the ground any day.

I agree. Wither we go in there WWII style and kick ass, or get out. We've wasted an entire generation of people doing nothing.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

i LOVE hearing how it's still Bush fault.

When I bring up Bush with regards to the war on terror, it is more for the purpose of lending scale to an otherwise enigmatic and challenging war. What else can we compare Obama's handling of terrorism to?

This type of warfare is new, Obama benefitted enormously from the lessons of the Bush administration.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Liar.

"The New York Times said another U.S. citizen, Kamal Derwish, had been killed by a drone strike in Yemen on Nov. 3, 2002, when George W. Bush was president. Derwish was a recruiter who put together an al-Qaeda sleeper cell in Lackawanna, N.Y., according to an Oct. 12, 2003, New York Times news story. The U.S. said he was not the intended target and did not acknowledge killing him, but a Yemeni official identified him as one of six men who died in the attack, the story said."

There's a huge difference between "targeting an al-Qaeda group and accidentally killing a US citizen who is a known al-Qaeda operative" and "targeting a child who has never done a damn thing wrong in his life other than being the son of a priest of a guy who was in al-Qaeda." If all you have to do is be a son of person who knows an an enemy of the US then pretty much anyone can be killed without trial. Just by the ass hole in DC putting you on his kill list and saying I don't like you.

The missile that killed the 16 year old was targeting Ibrahim al-Banna.

I guess no children at all were killed in the Iraq war. Republicans keep pointing out this one case out and for sure it was bad, but what of the hundreds of THOUSANDS of children who have died due to dysentery and general lack of proper living conditions after their country was turned into a litter box?

Civilian casualties are DRAMATICLY lessened now that we switched our tactics. We have more bang for the buck with the results as well.

Winning has changed a lot since we changed tactics. We're just losing.

Not sure what this means. Pouring a trillion dollars plus into Afghanistan and Iraq had no payoff and a very high humanitarian cost; not to mention the fact that we made ourselves even more of a target from people who mean us harm.

As far as I'm concerned, I would rather we just stayed out of other folk's affairs, but I'll take air strikes and drones over boots on the ground any day.

I agree. Wither we go in there WWII style and kick ass, or get out. We've wasted an entire generation of people doing nothing.

While most Libs are ready to second guess Bush and his response, most people forget that AMERICA was out for blood and ready for a fight; everyone want's to blame Bush now, but what was he supposed to do?

Obama had a very concise vision of how to get bin laden, but it was born out of the earlier work done by the prior administration.

 

[TheIceMan]

i LOVE hearing how it's still Bush fault.

When I bring up Bush with regards to the war on terror, it is more for the purpose of lending scale to an otherwise enigmatic and challenging war. What else can we compare Obama's handling of terrorism to?

This type of warfare is new, Obama benefitted enormously from the lessons of the Bush administration.

I have no problem with destroying terrorism. The only good ones I ever saw had a little blue hole in their foreheads.

I disagree tht Obama benifitted from Bush. Obama didn't learn a damn thing.

We don't need to handle "terrorism". We were terrorists once. Ask the Brits. We need to get out of someone else's religious war. This is a proxy war between the shia and the sunni. It's none of our business.

Having said that, if we ARE going t wage war, then we need to kick ass and get it done. We've lost more troops to political correctness than the enemy.

 

[TheIceMan]

The missile that killed the 16 year old was targeting Ibrahim al-Banna.

I guess no children at all were killed in the Iraq war. Republicans keep pointing out this one case out and for sure it was bad, but what of the hundreds of THOUSANDS of children who have died due to dysentery and general lack of proper living conditions after their country was turned into a litter box?

Civilian casualties are DRAMATICLY lessened now that we switched our tactics. We have more bang for the buck with the results as well.

Winning has changed a lot since we changed tactics. We're just losing.

Not sure what this means. Pouring a trillion dollars plus into Afghanistan and Iraq had no payoff and a very high humanitarian cost; not to mention the fact that we made ourselves even more of a target from people who mean us harm.

As far as I'm concerned, I would rather we just stayed out of other folk's affairs, but I'll take air strikes and drones over boots on the ground any day.

I agree. Wither we go in there WWII style and kick ass, or get out. We've wasted an entire generation of people doing nothing.

While most Libs are ready to second guess Bush and his response, most people forget that AMERICA was out for blood and ready for a fight; everyone want's to blame Bush now, but what was he supposed to do?

Obama had a very concise vision of how to get bin laden, but it was born out of the earlier work done by the prior administration.

Exactly.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

i LOVE hearing how it's still Bush fault.

When I bring up Bush with regards to the war on terror, it is more for the purpose of lending scale to an otherwise enigmatic and challenging war. What else can we compare Obama's handling of terrorism to?

This type of warfare is new, Obama benefitted enormously from the lessons of the Bush administration.

I have no problem with destroying terrorism. The only good ones I ever saw had a little blue hole in their foreheads.

I disagree tht Obama benifitted from Bush. Obama didn't learn a damn thing.

We don't need to handle "terrorism". We were terrorists once. Ask the Brits. We need to get out of someone else's religious war. This is a proxy war between the shia and the sunni. It's none of our business.

Having said that, if we ARE going t wage war, then we need to kick ass and get it done. We've lost more troops to political correctness than the enemy.

I disagree, we lost more troops to hasty decisions and idealistic pie-in-the-sky, moral outrage.

Who are we at war with that we can invade? No one; we're fighting an enemy that has no borders, no flag and no honor.

 

[Faun]

Prior to the elections last week I thought that was a bad idea.

No more

AS SOON as he uses that damn pen to do congresses job IMPEACH HIS ASS

In the words of Obama: "Elections have consequences"

You DO realize that issuing lawful Executive Orders is not impeachable, right?

Unilateral amnesty isn't lawful. That's just what obola said numerous times himself. Now he doesn't care. He'll break laws just to punish those pesky Americans.

Can you demonstrate Obama is seeking "unilateral amnesty?" Seems to me you're pushing a strawman.

 

[Faun]

The only problem with Impeachment --- what if Obama doesn't leave office after he's convicted?

Forget impeachment. What if Obama doesn't leave office after January 20th, 2009???

You'd better start preparing for that now!

 

[TheIceMan]

i LOVE hearing how it's still Bush fault.

When I bring up Bush with regards to the war on terror, it is more for the purpose of lending scale to an otherwise enigmatic and challenging war. What else can we compare Obama's handling of terrorism to?

This type of warfare is new, Obama benefitted enormously from the lessons of the Bush administration.

I have no problem with destroying terrorism. The only good ones I ever saw had a little blue hole in their foreheads.

I disagree tht Obama benifitted from Bush. Obama didn't learn a damn thing.

We don't need to handle "terrorism". We were terrorists once. Ask the Brits. We need to get out of someone else's religious war. This is a proxy war between the shia and the sunni. It's none of our business.

Having said that, if we ARE going t wage war, then we need to kick ass and get it done. We've lost more troops to political correctness than the enemy.

I disagree, we lost more troops to hasty decisions and idealistic pie-in-the-sky, moral outrage.

Who are we at war with that we can invade? No one; we're fighting an enemy that has no borders, no flag and no honor.

How are we disagreeing?

We've got our asses in the middle of someone else's religious war. Two sects from the same religion. Our moral outrage is based on OUR beliefs, not theirs. And our moral outrage is based on our Judeo-Christian beliefs. Morals are soceital, not inherent.

Honor? They want to win. If we aren't going to exploit their lack of rules and use them against them, then we need to come home.

Still not seeing where we disagree.

 

[RKMBrown]

What about the political backlash of the democrats supporting the summary execution of U.S. Citizens?

You mean citizens that have taken up arms against our country?

Yeah cause a minor child who had never harmed a person in his life was guilty of taking up arms, this because Obama said so. That about sum up your excuse for murder?

The minor child was associating with terrorists, he was not the target but was in the company of targets

Not true, he was on Obama's list of approved kill targets. He was the target. Further, his only association was blood.

Repeating lies does not make them true

The kid was hanging out with a known terrorist when they missile hit. It is what happens when you use terrorists to babysit your kid

Make up your mind. Was he a terrorist or a kid eating lunch with a known terrorist? Is that what it takes to give a U.S. Citizen a death sentence now? Lunch? Obama put the boy on his kill list because he ate lunch with a terrorist?

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Make up your mind. Was he a terrorist or a kid eating lunch with a known terrorist? Is that what it takes to give a U.S. Citizen a death sentence now? Lunch? Obama put the boy on his kill list because he ate lunch with a terrorist?

RKMBrown, do you seriously believe that no civilian casualties should be expected in the war on terror?

 

[TheIceMan]

Waging war has always been waged against civilians. They provide the support. We can start with the War of Independence. Who did Tarelton wage war against? The US Civil War? The US decimated the Shenandoah Valley, not to mention Sherman's march. We firebombed Dresden and nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Viable military targets?

Civilians die. Who is ISIS waging war against? I don't see them out on any battlefield. They're killing women and children because they can't fight back.

And this isn't directed at you, MC. It's directed at whoever made that dorky-ass comment you responded to.

 

[BullKurtz]

I get the legal argument about giving a president the right to murder an American he deems a terrorist. Or in fact, detain without habeus corpus an American charged with terrorism. Or rendition in some abandoned warehouse in New Jersey. However, the Constitution isn't a suicide pact and in times of emergency measures must be used that trample former rights. This al-Awlaki asshole was clearly no longer an "American" regardless of what his passport said....he incensed the shooter at Ft. Hood and others....so he got paid what he'd earned from a drone.

 

[Hossfly]

Is not doing what Republicans want now grounds for impeachment?

No, it's arrogantly doing what HE wants, pissing into the face of Mainstream America, that will get him into such trouble.

"Grounds? We don't got to show you no stinking grounds."

Mere detail, to be hashed-out in the backrooms, once it becomes necessary.

Whatever kind of gooey shit that will stick to the walls, once thrown.

Whatever it takes to fire Obumble, quite probably.

In the absence of a functioning Congress, Obama is filling the void

If Congress does not like it, they can pass their own immigration bill

When are you lefties going to realize that Obama can't make or pass laws on his own?
If he can then we'll insist the next Republican president enact a law to sterilize all leftwingers so they can't breed.

He isn't passing any laws.
Do you think Obama isn't verifying whether his EOs are within the scope of his presidential powers ?
The EO will be carefully crafted. Republicans will not like it, but there is not much they can do about it

You might just want to tune in to C-Span and C-Span II to understand what the GOP is going to do instead of listening to rumors from left wing blogs.