Should Obama be impeached

1. You're entire paragraph was just an entire run-on sentence with pretty much no punctuation. You also misspelled the world "using". Also, I didn't say you used an incorrect argument. I said you attacked a straw man. You're arguments for him not being impeached we're completely irrelevant to mine. 2. I used the examples of Richard Nixon's near impeachment and Andrew Johnson's and Bill Clinton's impeachment to get some background and history on this issue. These will help us determine if Obama' s mistakes are impeachable or not and they clearly are. Moreover, I don't have any idea what "gun law" you're talking about. You didn't provide a source or anything else on it. It would be like me referring to the Benghazi consulate attack as "the attack". Nevertheless, this "gun law" is still irrelevant to my case. 3. It was a joke. Sorry it was so offensive to you. However, I do think it's pretty king like of him to spend $100 million on a trip to Africa [1] and spend over $1 million for a golf weekend at a yacht club with Tiger Woods [2] but still deny tours of the White House to people because of the supposed lack of money [3]. I did it as a joke because I know he's not a king but he certainly acts like one. 4. This is not a real objection to my argument. His first point is unsound. How would a so called "Bloodbath" be prevented by the failure to release emails critical to the attack [4], tell the American people why he said the attacks were spawned by a protest (Despite the fact that the Obama administration knew it was a terrorist attack) [5] [6], preventing at least one would-be Benghazi whistle-blower from taking legal steps to reveal classified information in Congressional testimony [2 from my last round], and dispersing witnesses of the attack around the country and changing their names in an effort to hide the truth about what happened [3 from my last round]? His other part about us knowing "jack" is wrong. There are many things we know about the Benghazi attacks, as I have shown in this round and my previous round, but we want to be able to answer some residual questions not answered by the Obama administration during the Benghazi Congressional investigation. But, in the process of not answering questions, the administration has obstructed justice, and impeachable offense. My original point from round two still stands. 5. I do not know if this point is directed at Operation Fast and Furious or the NSA phone tapping. Either way, his objection of no investigation is false. There was one for Fast and Furious [7]. As for the NSA tapping, there was no investigation; however, there is plenty of evidence about it. At least enough to conclude that it wasn't a Senator or dirty agent and that Obama is partially responsible for it [8] [9].6. If it's not worth saying, why do you say it? Sure, there are generals and commanders, but Obama still makes individual kill decisions, despite the fact that the military made an aggressive push to wrest back control over final targeting calls from the commander in chief [10]. He made the decision to kill these American citizens without trial. Onto your final remarks:"1. No investigation"False. There was an investigation into the Benghazi attack [11], Obama' s drone warfare [12], Fast and Furious [7]. As for the NSA, there is enough evidence for there to be one [9]."2. No evidence"False. I have provided a substantial amount of evidence in my arguments. "3. Apparently everyone know exactly what happened and who is responsible."Rendered moot by my previous arguments. My Arguments:I have one more additional argument for President Obama' s impeachment. President Obama is:Guilty of violating the War Powers Act of 1973. Obama lied to the American people when he said that there were no US troops on the ground in Libya and then later said they were only “logistical troops” . Obama violated the War Powers Act of 1973 by conducting a war against Libya without Congressional authorization [13].Conclusion:My opponent has ignored most of my evidence and written if off with statements like: "It could have been this, so this is wrong". He has not provided sources at all. My evidence still stands and my points still stand. My opponent has also made, by my count, 24 spelling and grammar mistakes in his arguments. My arguments still stand. Vote Pro. I await my opponent's final response.Sources:1. http://rt.com...2. http://www.weeklystandard.com...3. http://www.whitehouse.gov...4. http://theconservativetreehouse.com...5. http://larouchepac.com...6. http://www.reuters.com...7. http://en.wikipedia.org...8. http://www.carbonated.tv...9. http://gizmodo.com...10. http://www.thedailybeast.com...11. http://en.wikipedia.org...12. http://www.nbcnews.com...13. http://conservativepapers.com... This source is a good one and I recommend a read. I do not support all 161 articles of impeachment they raise, but, there are some good ones in here.