Congressman Kucinich suggests impeachable offense?

If there are any two members of Congress that typically do not always side with their own party, it is Republican Congressman Ron Paul and Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich. You know, they actually do what they're elected to do and set policy for the American people, instead of acting like rubber-stamps for their own party.

At the height of the United States participating in the air assault on Libya following the United Nations resolution for a no-fly zone, Congressman Kucinich suggests President Obama's decision to go into Libya is an impeachable offense because the President did not get formal Congressional approval.

Kucinich also introduced impeachment proceedings against President Bush in 2007 after the mismanagement of the War in Iraq, but it was turned down by Speaker Pelosi. Now any impeachment against President Obama is probably unlikely, however there is admiration for the liberal Congressman Kucinich, because, unlike the rest of the left who keeps cheer leading the President on just about everything he does, this particular situation, Kucinich claims "He didn't have Congressional authorization, has gone against the Constitution, and involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way."

An argument could be made that President Obama as Commander in Chief does not need Congressional approval to take military action into another country if there is an immediate danger. Kucinich says otherwise. Libya simply does not pose as an immediate danger to the United States.

Insofar, Congressman Kucinich does point out the grave reality that the no-fly zone could cost U.S. tax payers between $400 to $800 million. Iraq and Afghanistan combined has cost trillions of dollars. Furthermore, Kucinich insists the United States does not have the time or the will to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the Middle East for the third time, while the United States continues to go broke.

Now, Kucinich is anticipating on introducing a resolution to defunding military operations in Libya.

No question that Moammar Gaddafi is slaughtering his own people as we speak and a resolution by the United Nations to try and stop his despicable actions was necessary. However is it necessary for the United States to continue to take action in the Middle East every time there is an uproar? After all, other countries in the Middle East like Lebanon and countries in Africa including Liberia and the Ivory Coast have engaged themselves in civil wars and action from the United States was limited, if any.

I think the bigger problem is going to be the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood after the chaos in Libya is finally over...