Go home and get out of traffic (and maybe read while you're at it)
Coming to work this morning on the interstate, I drove under an overpass on which stood two people with signs, one facing each direction of traffic. Their signs read "IMPEACH OBAMA." I read something the other day that similarly called for Congress to impeach him over the proposition of military strikes on Syria - keeping in mind that the act of "impeaching" does not necessarily remove a president. It simply describes the investigative and hearings process. Clinton was impeached over Lewinsky, but not removed. The distinction is important for my next remark.
"They should impeach Obama!" NO, THEY SHOULDN'T. He proposed a military action, and threw it at Congress for a vote. That's what should happen. If Congress votes against it and he takes action anyway, then we can talk about whether President Blackenstein can be impeached (thank you Bill Maher for the name). Because you know that's the reason these people are screaming for his removal, considering many of them are the same ones who were either curiously silent on any reprimand to Bush for mounting a full-scale war involving troops on Iraq without express Congressional approval of that action, or actively cheering him on. I say "many" because there are some Obama supporters calling for impeachment too - these are people who had such unrealistic hopes when voting that they expected him to be perfect (and didn't realize he was never "liberal" by American standards to begin with; he was just less nutball-conservative than the Teabaggers) AND apparently slept through Civics class and have no concept of how federal checks and balances are intended to work.
Admittedly I'm just armchair-quarterbacking here, but since somebody asked my opinion the other day, I thought about it. My guess at this point, without seeing how Congress actually votes or what Obama will do with that, is that, based on available information, Obama is trying for a win-win for his own image. That is, he talks big about striking and helping the Syrian people battle their tyrannical government, then lobs the ball to Congress. Either way Congress votes, so long as he follows its directive, he's not the one on the hook for action or inaction - if it says no, he can lament publicly that he tried, but was constrained by a democracy that he has to obey. If it votes "yes" then that majority are the ones who can be blamed if it goes badly. My guess is the former - because knowing how the House Republicans will vote against anything he proposes, and both chambers are needed to agree on an action (I briefly thought that maybe only the Senate had to vote on war, but I can't find it in the Constitution, so it's both houses so far as I remember), if he says "GO!" they're not going to let him.
Literacy is your friend.
"They should impeach Obama!" NO, THEY SHOULDN'T. He proposed a military action, and threw it at Congress for a vote. That's what should happen. If Congress votes against it and he takes action anyway, then we can talk about whether President Blackenstein can be impeached (thank you Bill Maher for the name). Because you know that's the reason these people are screaming for his removal, considering many of them are the same ones who were either curiously silent on any reprimand to Bush for mounting a full-scale war involving troops on Iraq without express Congressional approval of that action, or actively cheering him on. I say "many" because there are some Obama supporters calling for impeachment too - these are people who had such unrealistic hopes when voting that they expected him to be perfect (and didn't realize he was never "liberal" by American standards to begin with; he was just less nutball-conservative than the Teabaggers) AND apparently slept through Civics class and have no concept of how federal checks and balances are intended to work.
Admittedly I'm just armchair-quarterbacking here, but since somebody asked my opinion the other day, I thought about it. My guess at this point, without seeing how Congress actually votes or what Obama will do with that, is that, based on available information, Obama is trying for a win-win for his own image. That is, he talks big about striking and helping the Syrian people battle their tyrannical government, then lobs the ball to Congress. Either way Congress votes, so long as he follows its directive, he's not the one on the hook for action or inaction - if it says no, he can lament publicly that he tried, but was constrained by a democracy that he has to obey. If it votes "yes" then that majority are the ones who can be blamed if it goes badly. My guess is the former - because knowing how the House Republicans will vote against anything he proposes, and both chambers are needed to agree on an action (I briefly thought that maybe only the Senate had to vote on war, but I can't find it in the Constitution, so it's both houses so far as I remember), if he says "GO!" they're not going to let him.
Literacy is your friend.