As Commander In Chief, there are certain war-type actions that any president can take, so one would have to be more specific. Mind you, I think all too many times such actions have been possibly abused by numerous presidents, but we also have to blame Congress, which could stop some of these actions if they have the guts to do it, which is rare, btw.
I agree here.
One of the main points I agree with in the video I posted was Ron Paul's assertion the American people
have become accustomed to war action taken by presidents without congressional approval -- over several decades, and from both parties. There is a precedence, but that doesn't make it right action.
The main objection at the time of that video was that Clinton's
Operation Desert Fox, which was a bombing campaign that had just begun, was unjustified and wrong.
Ron Paul also mentioned the bombing of Afghanistan and the Sudan as prior bombing campaigns that qualify in the same objection -- but for me, then and now, it appeared Desert Fox was a bombing campaign done for the purpose of distracting attention of the American people.
We were told at the time that we were bombing because Hussein had kicked out the weapons inspectors. Richard Butler, the head of the team of weapons inspectors tells a different story,
that he pulled his team of inspectors out because he was advised to do so by the American Ambassador,
because of, and in advance of, the bombing.
It's wikipedia, but it does reference the book his quote is taken from. This is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998)
"The claim that UNSCOM weapons inspectors were expelled by Iraq has been repeated frequently. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, in his February 5, 2003 speech before the U.N. Security Council, called for action against Iraq and stated falsely that "Saddam Hussein forced out the last inspectors in 1998".[17] The claim has appeared repeatedly in the news media.[18] However, according to UNSCOM inspector Richard Butler himself, it was U.S. Ambassador Peter Burleigh, acting on instructions from Washington, who suggested Butler pull his team from Iraq in order to protect them from the forthcoming U.S. and British air strikes: "I received a telephone call from US Ambassador Peter Burleigh inviting me for a private conversation at the US mission... Burleigh informed me that on instructions from Washington it would be 'prudent to take measures to ensure the safety and security of UNSCOM staff presently in Iraq.' ... I told him that I would act on this advice and remove my staff from Iraq."[19]"
Secondly, we cannot logically impeach & convict a sitting president just on the basis of what you or Paul think might have happened in regards to supposed affairs. The same is true with what the bodyguards may or may not have said as this would need a legal investigation with charges and evidence presented.
I never even hinted about impeaching a president for anything related to his affairs. In fact, in my posts on this thread I have gone to considerable effort to be clear that I don't care a bit about his affairs -- and I only qualified a comment I made, in order to be more precise. That is, I don't care who he sleeps with -- but I do consider rape and sexual assault to be different than consensual sex, and in those cases, I would care.
Without going into a long post about it, mostly I think the American people were lied to in a big way about Waco, a siege which resulted in the tragic deaths of many people, including about 24 children. Military force was used against Americans. Tanks ripping down the building around people and throwing in CS gas was only part of it. I've included a documentary about it in a post on the Dead Clinton Associates thread. It is quite informative, and features people directly associated with the investigation, not just people that looked into it later on down the road.
Here's a pretty good reflection of what I think happened, and partially why I think no Clinton should be in office:
http://www.islandone.org/Politics/Waco.McCurry.html
It's one thing to not like or trust a president, and I've been there many times let me tell ya, but impeachment needs a higher level of confirmation or it's just "politics as usual", and that's not good for this country, imo.
I agree that impeachment should be done sparingly, and should not be done without just cause. There are going to be plenty of things any leader does that we don't like, and not liking actions is not just cause for impeachment. I think Bill Clinton should have been removed from office for what happened in Waco and the fiasco of the aftermath, the massive amounts of evidence that was destroyed/not preserved, etc. -- and for other bombing campaigns. Far too much to discuss in depth here.
BTW, do you think Reagan should have been impeached? Just asking.
Hmmn. No. I don't think so, but I wouldn't argue very heavily against it if it might set a precedence for reigning in some of the use of the military outside of constitutional authority. I was not in the camp of people thinking he should have been impeached at the time. I was a Republican then, but am no longer...so I may have been more biased in my perception of what occurred than I'd like to think. But I can see why someone might think so. I'm assuming you're talking about Iran-Contra.
If I was going to compare and choose who I think should have been impeached between Regean and Clinton, I definitely think Clinton should, without a doubt. I don't spend a lot of time on thinking about what "should" have happened with either one, and only am concerned because of the risk of a Clinton possibly being in office. At this point there's not much chance Regean is going to be wielding any power that he might abuse. I am concerned about extremem abuse of power with the Clintons, especially going in with military might to "save" people and ending up with lots of tragic, senseless death -- like Waco and Libya.
