I pretend to no absolute objectivity, but dismissing ALL the comments as purely partisan rhetoric is misrepresentation.

Okay, I grant Clinton faced no formal impeachment charges for military operations, but facing impeachment investigations for practically EVERYTHING ELSE illustrates my point. Not that I had his trial in mind (nor have any desire to rehash it,) but the House appointed a special prosecutor to investigate a real estate deal and found nothing, so was that the end of it? No; it simply went to investigating a consensual sexual relationship, then another when that investigation again found nothing criminal, then a third when that one ended the same way, before finally indicting Clinton for perjury allegedly committed in the final investigation.

So a 1994 investigation of early '80s events indicted Clinton for a 1998 event during the fourth and final investigation—and could not even convict him of that. The most he was ever found guilty of was misleading testimony, but perjury has a much higher standard of proof: Concealing the truth under oath is VERY different from knowingly and intentionally swearing falsehoods. That did not prevent Republicans spending FIVE YEARS trying every way they could find to impeach him, even if the only politician brought down was their own House Speaker AND his successor.

Congrats for respecting the Constitution; I wish all Republicans did, particularly those on the House floor suggesting or even urging impeachment over Benghazi, drones and anything else that comes to their minds. Obama left no one hanging in Benghazi; he just sent no more US personnel when news arrived of terrorism that had ALREADY killed our Benghazi consular staff. Blame for those deaths lies with the terrorists, and House Republicans who refused embassy security funding for TWO YEARS despite the president and Secy. of State begging them not to allow something like Benghazi. For a Republican Representative to respond to Benghazi by declaring embassy security a nonpriority but impeaching the president a valid response is hypocritically exploitive—yet typical.

There are not just some partisan extremists chanting in front of the White House, nor even a congressional loose cannon like Kucinich (I will not count McKinney since Democrats had the grace to expel her from the party; pity Republicans will not do the same with paranoid radicals.) One cannot simultaneously praise ones GOP Representative for pledges to block anything and everything Obama AND deny s/he has done just that. "It never happened and I am proud it did"?

I agree it is not impeachable, but apparently Kucinich and the House GOP majority both lack even 1/5th of a brain (a sadly plausible charge:)
https://www.google.no/search?q=impeachment+syria+obama&oq=impeachment+syria+obama&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.4017j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Unless we decode a foreign communique like "Attack the US at dawn" need for preemptive strikes is always speculative and thus subjective, therefore including them in defensive combat makes the term "defensive" practically meaningless. Remember, the WPRs whole goal was prevent things like the Gulf of Tonkin as casus belli. The WPR is fine policy but, as you say, not legally worth the paper on which it is written, hence multiple presidents violated it multiple times with impunity. Reagan even did so in Libya just as Obama, but without criticism from Congressional Republicans OR DEMOCRATS, and certainly no suggestions of impeachment.

Right; Congressional Republicans do not oppose anything and everything Obama attempts solely because HE attempts it, yet nobly do EXACTLY that.

Last word is yours if you like, because this is clearly going nowhere fast.