Why AREN'T Liberals Clamoring For Obama's Impeachment?

It’s been 66 days since President Barack Obama authorized military action against Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. However, last Friday marked an important date, signaling Congress most authorize the military action or U.S. forces will be required to withdraw in accordance with the War Powers Resolution.

But that date passed with little fanfare, especially from a Democratic Party in Congress that was very vocal about former President George W. Bush’s incursion into Iraq. On Laura Ingraham’s Thursday radio show, Washington Post columnist George Will emphasized that despite the law not being popular in this and previous administrations, it is still the law of the land.

“Even if you think the War Powers Resolution, which requires certain reporting duties of the executive and sets a limit on American intervention, absent of congressional approval – even if you think the War Powers Resolution is an unwise law – it is a law,” Will said. “And this president like all presidents since it was enacted in 1974 have disliked it and have only acted as they said, ‘consistent with it.’”

And Will explained that even Bush had obeyed this law and he speculated that had this been George W. Bush leading an incursion into Libya instead of Obama, there would be liberals trotting out the idea impeachment for Bush.

What remains one of the more fascinating aspects of the liberal  mind, is the fact that they are STILL calling for George W. Bush to be impeached. Not that they ever note even one impeachable offense, mind you, but keep nagging and whining and sobbing over fantasy's such as Bush's imaginary involvement in September 11th.

Oh yeah, before I forget; Laura Ingraham's mere broaching of the subject resulted in one liberal chatterbox...Ed Schultz of PMS-NBC... to call her a slut.

Simply impossible for them to discuss ANYTHING on an adult level, isn't it? If you dare to disagree you are a racist, troglodyte who is better off dead.