Skip to comments.Ex-UN ambassador: Obama unqualified to lead
Posted on 03/27/2011 8:49:46 AM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
DES MOINES, Iowa - Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton said Saturday that President Barack Obama isn't qualified to lead the country.
Bolton was among the featured speakers at a conference of conservative Republicans in Iowa. Bolton was nominated for the ambassadorship in 2005 by President George W. Bush.
Bolton told the crowd that Mr. Obama doesn't care enough about national security issues and doesn't view the world as a threatening place. Bolton also says the U.S. could have made a big difference in Libya, but Mr. Obama couldn't make up his mind on which steps to take.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Captain obvious alert.....
I didn’t know John Bolton was a Birther.
While printed by some media sources the lead headline is; in so many words or less...”Bolton proclaims, Obama unqualed to lead.” When CBS/AP picked up the story they changed the headline to -OVERLY emphasize- “CONSERVATIVE” “EX” UN Ambassador; to make Bolton sound like a hack like they are and belittle his opinion as he is an ‘EX’ UN Ambassador.
I think he had jumped the gun a little. I admire this man very much and I hope he continues exposing Typhoid Barry for what he is because he seems to be a sought-after public speaker and TV guest, which is important in getting conservative messages out.
LOL! Good stuff!
John we love and trust you, but we all know he dork isn’t qualified to lead..
Hey... it’s a slow start at the gate. Maybe if tea partiers put carrots up the GOP will get a good run right out the gate and the The House Judiciary Committee will announce and act already?
The House Judiciary Committee decides whether or not to proceed with impeachment. If they do...
The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee will propose a Resolution calling for the Judiciary Committee to begin a formal inquiry into the issue of impeachment.
Based on their inquiry, the Judiciary Committee will send another Resolution to the full House stating that impeachment is warranted and why (the Articles of Impeachment), or that impeachment is not called for.
The Full House (probably operating under special floor rules set by the House Rules Committee) will debate and vote on each Article of Impeachment.
Should any one of the Articles of Impeachment be approved by a simple majority vote, the President will be “impeached.” However, being impeached is sort of like being indicted of a crime. There still has to be a trial, which is where the US Senate comes in.
In the Senate
The Articles of Impeachment are received from the House.
The Senate formulates rules and procedures for holding a trial.
A trial will be held. The President will be represented by his lawyers. A select group of House members will serve as “prosecutors.” The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (currently John G. Roberts) will preside with all 100 Senators acting as the jury.
The Senate will meet in private session to debate a verdict.
The Senate, in open session, will vote on a verdict. A 2/3 vote of the Senate will result in a conviction.
The Senate will vote to remove the President from office.
The Senate may also vote (by a simple majority) to prohibit the President from holding any public office in the future.
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” According to Constitutional Lawyers, “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” are (1) real criminality — breaking a law; (2) abuses of power; (3) “violation of public trust” as defined by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. In 1970, then Representative Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” An excellent definition, Mr. Former President. In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:
Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office.
Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.
Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.
He ain't sayin' it for us!
Obama and “wife” are certainly guilty of all three of those bounds.
Exactly. Gates and Bolton’s statements are pretty serious cue words in the politico world. AT THE VERY LEAST: As we talk Hillary is throwing lamps because Obama effed up and makes her look bad and the big DNC donors have got to be looking to get some one to challenge Obama. Lord knows no GOPer without a tea party forcing their hand and giving them a backbone; will speak up.
He said "unqualified" not "ineligible".
Posted: just because
Bolton is crazy smart.
I hope he finds a job in Sarah’s administration.
-Aiding and abetting terrorists by giving them Miranda Rights.
-Aiding and Abetting known defined terrorists group (s) under the guised name of muslim brotherhood,Hamas (with direct ties to the Imam that wanted a mosque on ground zero)
-Implementing politics in a DOJ case of the NBP’s.
-Promoting a RADICAL MILITANT group (NBP’s) on the official WH web site.Nor conforming to FOIA and abusing their powers by seeing WHO is making the requests for political personal reasons.
-Refusing document requests from Issa.
-Appointing two radical, progressive members to the Civil Rights Committee of the USA in recess appointments; to cease an on going investigation that could implement him, his administration and his AG.
-Firing Walpin when Walpin was investigating a case that could implement him and his administration.
-Inciting riots in WI, Having SEIU influence his powers of the Presidency because of personal gain in large monetary campaign donations.
-Inciting riots leading to war in Cairo and Libya.
Derelict of Duty as CIC in changing ROE’s of US Military.
-Abusing the power of the Presidency by campaigning at a memorial service.
-Derelict of Duty in promoting overseas monetary personal funding in return for monetary political favors.Abusing the power of the Presidency by said influence in Petrabas Brazilian oil deals; benefiting George Soros monetarily all while ordering our troops in harms way;yet denying we are in any act of war or any ‘boots are on the ground’ while marines deploy from NC.
-Derelict of Duty in ceasing drilling of oil that would benefit and protect the USA in national security and economic affairs.
-Derelict of Duty in campaigning and not governing.Serving personal interests in campaigning, vacationing and golfing before the dire interests of the USA
LOL thanks that was a much needed laugh.
When the horse was asked, “Is Obama qualified to be President?”
he replied, “Nayyyyyyyyyyy.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.