home

More Discussing Impeachment

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 12:32:16 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Scott Lemieux:

Another upshot of this is that debates about impeachment are purely about the politics -- obviously there's no chance of 2/3 of the Senate voting to convict anyone. And here I also agree with Ezra that here McArdle is considerably more persuasive. It's hard to see how serious impeachment proceedings (as opposed to stepping up use of Congress' oversight powers in general) would strengthen the Democrats' political position.

And Ezra:

Incidentally, I actually agree that impeachment proceedings would be a Bad Idea . . .

But this part of Ezra's post really interests me:

The Democrats were elected on one of the clearest agendas in modern times: Drawing down the Iraq War, passing anti-corruption legislation, and instituting a series of popular, if small, pieces of economic populism (increase in the minimum wage, Medicare bargaining, etc). Bush has stymied every one. . .

On Iraq, it is the Democrats who can stymie Bush, if they will use their Constitutional authority. Will no one join me in urging the Congress to stymie Bush on Iraq?

< Monday Open Thread | Cheney at 13% >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    More Discussing Impeachment | 83 comments (83 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The Mandate (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by kaleidescope on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:35:12 PM EST
    I join you.  And while they're at it, cut off funding for the Executive Office of the President and any funding for any staff or even office supplies for the office of the Vice President, the Fourth Branch, or whatever it's called.

    We don't need congress for that.... (none / 0) (#80)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 09:32:36 AM EST
    just stop paying taxes like these folks.

    They are doing something concrete, risking their very lives...as opposed to crossing their fingers for a complicit congress to get off their arse.

    Parent

    I'm all for not paying taxes (none / 0) (#81)
    by Peaches on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:16:29 PM EST
    But that .50 caliber machine gun freaks the hell out of me.

    Better yet, we should all be doing what these folks are advocating.


    "I want to leave my country," says Kirk Sale, "without leaving my home."

    Me too. I don't want to vote for Hilary. Enough with the Empire already.

    Parent

    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by robrecht on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:57:58 PM EST
    "Will no one join me in urging the Congress to stymie Bush on Iraq?"

    I've already written my Senators and Congressmen numerous times in support of defunding.

    Oh Boy! (1.00 / 3) (#17)
    by talex on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 02:42:34 PM EST
    " Will no one join me in urging the Congress to stymie Bush on Iraq?"

    And can Armando please explain how he is going to defund without harming the troops?

    Let's say we defund today!!! OK? Not a penny more from here on forward. Now with the money allocated for Iraq up to September already being spent just where do the troops get money from here on forward?

    Law forbids DOD money being transfered around so where do the troops get money if we defund now or even 2 months from now?

    To pass a new bill to withdraw would only get vetoed. To not pass a bill means there is no more money.

    Kind of between rock and a hard spot, yes?

    Armando? Where? Where will the money come from if we defund?

    Parent

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:01:44 PM EST
    Armando? Where? Where will the money come from if we defund?
    That is exactly the point.

    Parent
    So As Usual (1.00 / 2) (#50)
    by talex on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:04:34 PM EST
    You just don't get it.

    If you defund you choke off all money. So...

    Where will the money come from to bring the troops home??

    Get it?

    Where will the money come from to bring the troops home??

    From nowhere is the answer because you defunded.

    And if there is no money what do you expect them to do?

    You really are being a dim bulb on this. You advocate for defunding but you lack the details of how to pull it off.

    So again if you cutoff funding today where is the money to bring the troops home?

    If you can't answer that then defunding is not a practical solution.

    Of course you will once again duck answering that as you do at dkos because you can't answer it.

    But you know what is sad? What is sad is you say you support the troops and want to bring them home. But your solution - defunding - has no way of bringing them home. So how much can you really support them if you are not serious?

    Parent

    Good Lord (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:12:46 PM EST
    Funding for combat is completely separate from funding for redeployment.  The military funds everything by the mission, lives by the mission, dies by the mission.  Combat and redeployment are two completely different objectives!

    Parent
    Tell me you aren't serious. (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by jr on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:17:38 PM EST
    You must be kidding.

    I mean, you don't seriously think Congress can't direct the appropriations for redeployment and simultaneously end funding for combat patrol missions, do you?

    This isn't particularly difficult to understand: they can fund a withdrawal without funding combat operations.

    Parent

    Kind of between rock and a hard spot, yes Talex? (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:18:51 PM EST
    Defunding Iraq: Misperceptions, Disinformation And Lies
    The TROOPS are funded by regular appropriations. DOD budget. Emergency supplemental funding has nothing to do with "funding the troops".
    ...
    Defunding the occupation of Iraq and withdrawing or redeploying the troops does not hurt the troops. It helps them to stay alive.
    ...
    Emergency supplemental funding is only for the occupation. When Bush says differently, or when the Democratic Leadership says differently, or when a troll here says differently.... it is a lie.

    The "war" has been funded with emergency supplemental funding for years. There is plenty of money for withdrawing in regular budget without the emergency supplemental the Democrats recently passed.

    War And Occupation Funding: More Cooking The Books By Bush And Pentagon?
    "Since 9/11, Congress has passed at least one emergency bill to cover war costs, making supplemental spending the method of choice for the majority of funding for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror," Alexander added. "Of the $510 billion spent thus far, $331.8 billion (about 65 percent) has come from supplemental spending legislation. If the so-called "bridge fund" included in the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill is included, the total rises to $401.8 billion. That means nearly 80 percent of all funding for these wars was the result of emergency and supplemental spending, not regular budgetary means.
    "

    Parent
    A fine line (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by roy on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:11:44 PM EST
    So you think the regular funding will leave the troops with enough resources to withdraw more-or-less safely, but not enough to conduct the war?  Sounds like a tricky balancing act.  Keep in mind, too, that unless we abandon all our equipment (thus arming whatever sect can claim it), it's going to take at least several weeks to withdraw.  Not all the troops can stay in fortified bases until they come home; supplies will still have to be shuffled around, and they'll still be attacked by insurgents, so the troops have to keep some capacity to fight.  To keep those bases and supply convoys safe, they'll have to continue making some patrols, meaning more combat.

    Certainly cheaper than what they're doing now, but not cheap.

    And what happens if Bush just orders everyone to stay in Iraq, continue launching attacks, and spend the money from the regular budget faster than the withdraw plan allows?  Your diary lists some incidents where congress limited the president's ability to do that sort of thing, but afaik none of those were attempted in the face of a president as defiant as Bush.

    Parent

    It's going to take 10 months to (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:15:02 PM EST
    redeploy per General Batiste live blogging at DK.  Redeployment is a separate mission from combat and will be funded separately as such.  It is the mission and the objective that is funded.

    Parent
    Doesn't that step on the C in C job? (none / 0) (#63)
    by roy on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:21:30 PM EST
    If I've understood BTD's arguments (which is a very big if), there's a big constitutional question as to whether Congress can allocate funds in that much detail without violating separation of powers.

    But if you're right, then it makes quite a bit of sense, and if Bush orders a continued war the courts should hand him his ass in plenty of time to get the troops started home.

    Parent

    I'm sure that such an allocation (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:32:33 PM EST
    deal could be negotiated with the White House if they will.  Our soldiers are protected under the Food and Forage Act though and there is no reason that they would be stranded and left in harms way with no way to fend for themselves in Iraq or any place unless the President himself abandoned them!

    Parent
    The pieces start to fit together (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by roy on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:52:41 PM EST
    Re-reading one of BTD's bits on that Food and Forage Act and other budget magic, it looks like I misunderstood his argument.  I think I've come 'round to your way of thinking.

    That just leaves the question of what happens if Bush refuses to order the withdrawal, even as withdrawal is the only option for which funding is available.  Hopefully it won't come to that.

    Parent

    There will also be (none / 0) (#78)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 07:12:40 PM EST
    even more funds available for withdrawal than just regular budget.

    In his post The Perfect vs. The Useless back in March BTD summarized his defunding proposal with, in part, this explanation:

    First, announce NOW that the Democratic Congress will NOT fund the Iraq Debacle after a date certain. You pick the date. Whatever works politically. If October 2007 is the date Dems can agree to, then let it be then. If March 2008, then let that be the date; Second, spend the year reminding the President and the American People every day that Democrats will not fund the war past the date certain; Third, do NOT fund the Iraq Debacle PAST the date certain.

    Some argue we will never have the votes for this. That McConnell will filibuster, that Bush will veto. To them I say I KNOW. But filbustering and vetoing does not fund the Iraq Debacle. Let me repeat, to end the war in Iraq, the Democratic Congress does not have to pass a single bill; they need only NOT pass bills that fund the Iraq Debacle.

    But but but, defund the whole government? Defund the whole military? What if Bush does not pull out the troops? First, no, not defund the government, defund the Iraq Debacle. If the Republicans choose to shut down government in order to force the continuation of the Iraq Debacle, do not give in. Fight the political fight. We'll win. Second, defund the military? See answer to number one. Third, well, if you tell the American People what is coming for a year, and that Bush is on notice, that i t will be Bush abandoning the troops in Iraq, we can win that politcal battle too.

    What this does is set a hard date certain by which the withdrawal is complete (e.g. March 2008) AND INCLUDES a commitment by Congress to fund, presumably with the LAST supplemental, up to that date and not beyond, while AT THE SAME TIME telling Bush he has until that date to complete withdrawal. Thus handing the ball to him, and putting the responsibility for the safety of the troops on him.

    How anyone can fail to comprehend how it works is beyond me, except intentionally.

    His post in March continues with:

    Some argue we will never have the votes for this. That McConnell will filibuster, that Bush will veto [THE LAST SUPPLEMENTAL]. To them I say I KNOW. But filbustering and vetoing does not fund the Iraq Debacle. Let me repeat, to end the war in Iraq, the Democratic Congress does not have to pass a single bill; they need only NOT pass bills that fund the Iraq Debacle.

    But but but, defund the whole government? Defund the whole military? What if Bush does not pull out the troops? First, no, not defund the government, defund the Iraq Debacle. If the Republicans choose to shut down government in order to force the continuation of the Iraq Debacle, do not give in. Fight the political fight. We'll win. Second, defund the military? See answer to number one. Third, well, if you tell the American People what is coming for a year, and that Bush is on notice, that it will be Bush abandoning the troops in Iraq, we can win that politcal battle too.

    John Freelund's tactic is the perfect one to use to win the political battle:    
    Pin Bush and Gates Down

          "Are you Mr. President, and Mr. Secretary, prepared to leave troops in Iraq without adequate supplies?"

        Watch them squirm, watch them dance. They will not be able to say "yes." This is what the media and the Democrats should have been asking, over and over again, to frame this debate properly.

    It is a simple, direct and effective plan, understandable by anyone. It requires only the Democratic will to do it.

    They have the power to do it.

    Parent

    AND (none / 0) (#79)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 07:31:44 PM EST
    REGULAR BUDGET is much higher than normal now:
    "Since 9/11, Congress has passed at least one emergency bill to cover war costs, making supplemental spending the method of choice for the majority of funding for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror," Alexander added. "Of the $510 billion spent thus far, $331.8 billion (about 65 percent) has come from supplemental spending legislation. If the so-called "bridge fund" included in the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill is included, the total rises to $401.8 billion. That means nearly 80 percent of all funding for these wars was the result of emergency and supplemental spending, not regular budgetary means."

    The total funds requested by the Defense Department for emergency spending is $163.4 billion, including $70 billion already provided as part of DOD's regular fiscal year appropriations plus a new supplemental request of $93.4 billion.

    "If enacted, DOD's funding would increase by 40 percent above the previous year and would more than double from the FY2004 funding level," the Congressional Research Service (CRS) report says.

    Link

    Parent
    Do you ever read anything that is (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:53:09 PM EST
    replied to you when you ask this same question in these threads over and over and over and over again?

    Parent
    Tracy (1.00 / 3) (#53)
    by talex on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:09:59 PM EST
    What replies?

    No one has answered that question once in any sensible way. You certainly have not answered it here now or before. Why not? Because you have no answer. There is no answer other than you cutoff the troops when you cutoff all funding.

    You know - it's kind of like if I cutoff your source of income today, tomorrow there would be no money for you to do anything. Does that make sense to you?

    Parent

    Good God you fruitcake (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:16:56 PM EST
    You have asked this same question so many damned times it is pathetic.  Read Edger's diary.  It covers the whole darned thing very well.  If you want to argue the FACTS then argue the facts, please stop showing up here every day acting like you are in first defunding grade.

    Parent
    I count two right above this post (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by jr on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:22:45 PM EST
    One from me, one from Militarytracy, both pointing out that you can cut off funding for combat operations while still funding a withdrawal.  It's pretty easy, too--they just have to include a single line in the appropriations bill to the effect of "No funds herein appropriated may be used for combat operations, nor for any purpose not directly related to the redeployment of US forces to locations outside of Iraq."

    Please try to understand this, because Tracy is right that this oft-repeated complaint of yours is getting absurd.

    Parent

    Well You See (2.00 / 3) (#75)
    by talex on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 05:13:14 PM EST
    we have been down this path before. You see everyone here, including Armando, says there is no bill needed whatsoever - that you just cutoff funding and the war is ended. Like andgarden suggest.

    But then when I then bring up that there would be no money to maintain the troops and quickly bring them home I get your type of answer from everyone here - that there is a bill needed and it would only fund bringing them home.

    Well which is it? It can't be both ways.

    But let's go with reality here which is your response - that a withdrawal bill is needed because in reality it would be - you are right about that.

    Here is the problem. The bill needs to be signed by Bush. Or he could veto it also.

    Now go back to the first bill we sent him that he vetoed. Roughly that bill funded the war up to a certain date which was defined by timelines. Essentially it was a defunding bill because it called for the orderly withdrawal of the troops.

    Bush vetoed that bill.

    Now what do you think he is going to do when you send him the bill you just described? Right! He will veto it just like he did the last one.

    So where does that leave you? Square one with Bush demanding money just like he did last time - refusing to bring the troops home and blaming us if the troops run out of money. We did that already and can't win that game of chicken at this point.

    People like Jim Webb, former Secretary of the Navy, and Joe Sestak, former Vice Admiral and who later worked in the office of the Chief of Naval Operations both have extensive knowledge of how monies are allocated in the military. They have both said that without supplemental funding the troops would run out of money.

    So you have two choices. You provide supplemental funding as we did last time. Or you send Bush a bill as you just described and it gets vetoed like the first bill did. Those are the facts.

    Now the only way to overcome Bush's veto on a bill that would only fund a withdrawal is to have 67 votes in the Senate that would override that veto and the the war is ended.

    So anyone that is buying into the fallacy that you can just cutoff funding without harming the troops is just plain wrong as both Webb and Sestak have said.

    And anyone who thinks you just send up a withdrawal bill for Bush to sign and thinks he will sign it has not paid attention to how he operates.

    Don't buy into the defunding fallacy because in doing so you are supporting something that has no chance of bringing the troops home.

    Please try to understand this, because Tracy is wrong and this oft-repeated defunding claim of people here is getting absurd.

    Anyone who wants to debate what I just wrote I'll be around tomorrow and that includes Armando who has already heard this argument and has never been able to respond.

    This is not ultimately about being right or wrong. This is about getting people to support something that is realistic and abandoning what is not realistic. This is about supporting a realistic and practical way to bring the troops home. Defunding will not do that.

    If you want to bring them home then support a strategy that will.


    Parent

    Interesting question (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jr on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:33:41 PM EST
    You're correct that the last time they tried to use the appropriations bill as a cudgel the Congressional Dems blinked first.  And that's a black mark on the Democratic majority's record.  They need to do the same thing again and, this time, not fold, because they are guaranteed to win the fight if they simply wait.  I don't think Reid and Durbin thought there were 51 Senators who'd stand by their bill last time, but I think they might now (or, rather, that there isn't an alternative bill which would attract 50%+1 of Senators).

    The point of using the spending power is that the spending bill cannot be vetoed repeatedly, because the options facing the President would be a.) accept the funds as appropriated by Congress and end the war, or b.) veto the spending bill and run out of funds and end the war.

    Bush has to take what Congress gives him where appropriations are concerned.  The House and Senate could pass joint resolutions calling for withdrawal to their hearts' content without giving the President a moment of pause, but once they start using the appropriations bill as leverage, he's powerless to stop them.

    The advantage of a spending-based strategy over a resolution-based strategy is that a resolution would have to be veto-proof, whereas a spending bill need only have a simple majority in each house to keep getting sent to Bush's desk.  It's the path of least resistance.

    Parent

    I think I just got your premise, and I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jr on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:50:18 PM EST
    It seems like you're basing your hypothetical appropriations failure on the notion that Bush will continue to veto appropriations bills past the point where the last bill runs out.  I don't have a lot of respect for Bush, but I don't think he's so stupid as to go down in infamy as the most powerful leader in history to simply abandon troops in the field.  He can either take what Congress appropriates, or he can use our troops as hostages to demand that Congress appropriate what he wants them to without regard to Congressional powers endowed by the Constitution.  I just don't see Bush abandoning--what is it now, sixteen brigades?--in the middle of the desert without any appropriations to keep them going.  He has no option but to accept the appropriations bills Congress passes and trying to blame Reid when he writes his post-presidency memoirs.  Anything else would make him worse than Nero in the eyes of history--he's dumb, but he ain't that dumb.

    Parent
    Talex (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 05:01:16 PM EST
    I do respect your new approach in commenting here.

    Obviously we disagree anbd I do thinik Edger raises some issues for you to respnd to but I would not be at all averse to lifting the commenting limit on you IF you can maintain this approach.

    Do you think you can? I know you disagree with my earlier reproaches but, still, do you think you can?

    Parent

    You Can lift the limit if you like (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by talex on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 05:50:34 PM EST
    As for Edger - I have no idea what he posts. I quit reading his posts for one simple reason. He troll rates every comment I make even when it is positive or in agreement. It is not the troll rating that bothers me because frankly I think troll rating is for the weak and I could care less about the occasional nut-job who goes around troll rating people here or at dkos. It is that I just don't want to waste my time with someone who has the mentality to troll rate everything another person says.

    I once told him what I wrote is not worthy of troll rating. He told me he troll rates me because he disagrees with me! Nowhere on the internet is that a valid reason for troll rating. I'm surprised he is able to get away with it here.

    For a few days he stopped troll rating me. I told him because he hadn't I would read and respond to his posts. I responded and he troll rated me again for no good reason. Enough! No more Edgar for me. If a person cannot act like an adult then I won't have anything to do with them. My time is more valuable and there are plenty of other people to correspond with.

    As for what he has to say if anyone wants to repost it I'd be glad to read it. But I'm done with Edgar. No second chances - he can act as he wants and is allowed to do.

    Parent

    Ratings are meaningless here (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 06:04:04 PM EST
    They really can mean agreement or disagreement.

    This is not a self moderating community.

    It is top down moderation.

    Parent

    What I don't understand about impeachment (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by joejoejoe on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 02:07:09 PM EST
    What prevents the 111th Congress from investigating abuses of the past few years and holding the Bush administration accountable for any criminal activity?

    The Iraq War is costing hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives today. It needs to be addressed TODAY.

    You can investigate and prosecute the Bush administration for any criminal activity with much less difficulty starting in January 2009.

    Impeachment isn't the only accountability and can be pursued in '09.

    It needs to be addressed TODAY. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 02:10:06 PM EST
    Exactly.

    Parent
    Revenues equal costs (none / 0) (#30)
    by Peaches on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:29:50 PM EST
    The Iraq War is costing hundreds of billions of dollars...

    The costs of the American people, both current and future taxpayers, are the profits and gains of the military industrial complex/corporatocracy that pays for the election campaigns of the democrats and the republicans.

    The Politicians of both parties are beholden to the money-interests not the people's interest and the money interests are making a profit off of the war at the people's expense.

    The pseudo-argument between those that favor impeachment and those that favor defunding (neither scenario a plausible option in our current political framework) misses the whole point. Throw em all out. Not by elections. Get in your car, tractor, truck or what ever and start the march on Washington. Its not a democracy until the citizens control it and the elites operate according to the citizens will or suffer the ire of a radical and mobilized citizenry.

    We are not even close to that. So we have a war in Iraq, because the elites want one. And they want one in Iran. It won't be long.

    Parent

    Are you sure the Dems will join you though? (none / 0) (#1)
    by ctrenta on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 12:55:23 PM EST

    As far as I know, a lot of them approved the recent Iraq Supplemental bill (80-14 in the Senate and 280-142 in the House). I'd like to know how the Dems are going to stop the war by ending the purse when a good number of them suport it? Let's say the Dems and a majority of Republicans do cut off funding for the war in Iraq, isn't it likely that Bush and Cheney will break the laws in order to keep it funding?

    Here's what David Swanson of After Downing Street said about it and why impeachment may be a better route:

    In addition, should Congress actually cut off the funding and end the war, it is very likely that Bush and Cheney would misappropriate funds from the Pentagon to keep the occupation going. They did so in order to secretly begin the war, and they have never been held accountable for it. So, removing them from office is not only needed in order to give Congress the nerve to end the war, but is also needed if the war is ever to actually end. Impeachment would drive the war debate in the right direction, because impeachment would be for offenses either directly connected to the war or offenses

    I know you've often said that the Dems don't have enough votes to remove Bush and/or Cheney from office, but according to a respected impeachment expert David Lindorff, a trial in the Senate is not necessary. Check this out in one of his latest:

       I'm getting sick and tired of hearing Democrats afraid of impeachment claim that it can't be done because the Senate, where Democrats hold a precarious one-seat edge, would never vote to convict and remove, which would require 67 votes.

    Let's get something straight:

    Impeachment is not about conviction and removal in the Senate. Impeachment is a stand-alone action of the House of Representatives, and requires a simple majority.

    Under the Constitution, there is no obligation for the Senate to even hold a trial after someone is impeached. It is an option, which is up to the will of the Senate.

    When the Founding Fathers drew up the impeachment clause, they envisioned it as its own punishment.  Trial and removal were seen as a wholly separate process, in addition to impeachment.

    Under the Constitution, after investigating the high crimes and misdemeanors of a president or other federal officer in an impeachment panel composed of the members of the House Judiciary Committee, which would then approve articles of impeachment, the House would vote on whether to impeach the executive.

    If they concluded that Bush or Cheney, in this case, had abused their power, or had damaged the nation, or committed treason or bribery, they could then vote to impeach.

    At that point the president and/or vice president would stand impeached.

    For all time, they would be known as defilers of the Constitution--or perhaps as traitors, depending upon the nature of the articles approved by a House majority.

    Their nefarious actions--the lying to Congress and American people, the violation of international laws, the violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments, the subversion of elections, the obstruction of justice, the criminal negligence, the war crimes, the usurping of the power of the Congress and the Courts--would all stand publicly condemned by the People's Body.

    Whether they resigned, went on to a Senate trial, or just ran out their remaining terms of office, Bush and Cheney would leave Washington with a big red "I" emblazoned on their chests to the day they died. Nixon wore that scarlet letter even though he never even had his case go as far as a House vote. His rotting corpse still wears that bright letter of shame.

    So forget that red herring about a Senate trial being a non-starter.

    Who cares about a Senate trial! For myself, I think that once we got those impeachment hearings going, and once the crimes of this administration started being aired on live television for all to see, and without the mediation of reporters and spin doctors, a Senate trial and conviction would be extremely likely, but whether I'm right or not really doesn't matter.

    And he's right. It doesn't matter now.

    a trial is not a forum (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Stewieeeee on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 02:16:40 PM EST
    by which one endeavors to reframe a set of issues.  

    i think that Lindorff has it backwards.  the crimes are substantiated BEFORE going to trial.  you indict, bring charges, and give the person charged with the crime a chance to plead guilty or innocent.

    what i see lindorff trying to do is setup a situation that actually is supposed to be avoided as far as jurisprudence is concerned.  to set up a public forum by which salacious details would be made known via the media, which, in any other trial would be grounds for a mistrial and move to change venues.

    the crimes should already be there for all to see.  then you gather the evidence.  and THEN you go to trial.

    while i agree the media spin-doctors have hidden much of the truth from the american public, a trial is not the correct forum by which one would correct that wrong.


    Parent

    What say you on.... (none / 0) (#2)
    by magster on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    1) Conyers throwing out the "i" word yesterday?

    (I myself think that we have to have impeachment "on the table" to have any credibility on the executive privilege showdown).

    2) Gen. Odom calling for impeachment if Bush does not cooperate with a drawdown (assuming Salazar does not derail getting to that point)?

    Odom advocates working to (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:22:18 PM EST
    defund the Iraq occupation, as priority.

    Impeachment he supports only as a club to use if Bush leaves troops in Iraq without funding.

    Parent

    Frustrating, isn't it BTD? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:14:04 PM EST
    Part of the continual educating process...

    Bush and Rove would much rather have people wasting time debating and trying to pass a censure motion or waste time trying to garner support in Congress for impeachment. It would be nice to see, but it is not going to happen.

    And unfortunately, since there is no way in hell that there will ever be enough votes in Congress for impeachment, Bush and Rove would love to have and will encourage the country debating it's merits and pressing for it, while he continues the occupation of Iraq and quite possibly attacks Iran.

    Defunding and ending the Iraq occupation and stopping the death has to take precedence over either censure or impeachment.

    Educating and pushing and advocating for funding and ending the Iraq occupation and stopping the death has to take precedence over advocating for either censure or impeachment.

    errr.. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:16:02 PM EST
    pushing and advocating for DEfunding and ending

    Parent
    OK but.... (none / 0) (#5)
    by ctrenta on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:19:43 PM EST

    how would you respond to this:

    As far as I know, a lot of them approved the recent Iraq Supplemental bill (80-14 in the Senate and 280-142 in the House). I'd like to know how the Dems are going to stop the war by ending the purse when a good number of them suport it? Let's say the Dems and a majority of Republicans do cut off funding for the war in Iraq, isn't it likely that Bush and Cheney will break the laws in order to keep it funding?

    You say we don't have enough votes to remove Bush and Cheney but how can you prove there's enough votes to stop the purse? It goes both ways, IMO.

    Parent

    First, understand (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:32:13 PM EST
    Defunding and ending the Iraq occupation and stopping the death has to take precedence over either censure or impeachment.

    I'd love to see impeachment, but I will spend zero effort or time advocating for it. It is 'nice to have' stuff, for now. Peoples lives are more important to me than a 'feel good' censure motion or a hopeless impeachment movement.

    If the window can be moved far enough to force an end to the Iraq occupation, the 'nice to have' stuff will follow naturally.

    The Democrats cannot get ENOUGH votes to viably pursue impeachment.

    They do not need ANY votes in Congress to cut off funding for the occupation of Iraq - but they refuse to do it (so far).

    NO votes are needed to NOT introduce or pass another emergency supplemental.

    The Democratic Leadership apparently is afraid of not funding the Iraq occupation either because they are afraid of being attacked by Bush and the GOP for not funding the troops, or because they want to continue the occupation.

    The continuous whine that "we don't have the votes" is also part of the big lie.

    If the Democrats stand up NOW and announce that they will no longer fund the occupation and that there will be no more emergency supplementals introduced when the current one runs out [or after an agreed upon date certain - e.g March 2008], the situation will become one of NO votes needed to NOT pass a bill. The ball will be in Bush's court.

    The Democrats have absolute power in this debate. What good is it and why should voters let them retain it next year if they are too weak kneed to use it to end the Debacle? If they will not, then by default they proclaim their complicity with Bush.

    The argument that 'defunding endangers the troops' is utter bullsh*t and is completely and irrefutably debunked. Let the rethugs try to accuse Democrats of it. Democrats will win that political argument, but ONLY if they have the cohones to do what they know is the right thing.

    As John Freelund wrote on May 27 at TPMCafe:

    Pin Bush and Gates Down

    At the next presidential press conference, I'd suggest question 1-5 be the following:

    "Are you Mr. President, and Mr. Secretary, prepared to leave troops in Iraq without adequate supplies?"

    Watch them squirm, watch them dance. They will not be able to say "yes." This is what the media and the Democrats should have been asking, over and over again, to frame this debate properly.



    Parent
    OK.... and there's the problem! (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by ctrenta on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:50:46 PM EST
    In the 2006 elections, a majority of voters went to the polls to end the war, and where are the Democrats? We went to the polls to vote in a party of opposition, not a party of accomodation, which is exactly how this latest funding bill went.

    If the Democrats stand up NOW and announce that they will no longer fund the occupation and that there will be no more emergency supplementals introduced when the current one runs out [or after an agreed upon date certain - e.g March 2008], the situation will become one of NO votes needed to NOT pass a bill.
     

    OK, I like that..... BUT THEY WON'T DO IT!

    It just goes to show the Dems are too afraid of how they're going to be perceived or how they're going to be atacked for standing up for what's right, that nothing substantial will get done re: ending the war. The point ism the Dems shold stop worrying about how they vote will ruin their standing in the party, or how it will affect their chances for re-election. Elections or hoding their jobs is the least they should be concerned about, ESPECIALLY when peoples' lives are at stake. No one should have to fight a war, and in rare times like these, our Congress men nd women should throw out the idea of how people will perceive them (or attack them) and do the right thing, end the war.

    But will they? Not after the latest bill they supported.


    Parent

    Yes, that is the problem. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:54:59 PM EST
    And it is a problem that is being compounded by people wasting time and energy hopelessly pushing for an impeachment that can have no teeth, rather than pushing the Democrats to do what I described above.

    Parent
    So the new DEM majority is making a difference. (none / 0) (#9)
    by lilybart on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:47:48 PM EST
    Everyone has been hard on the DEMS because they have not been able to stop Bush's war.

    But it is clear that this is Bush's War and we have done what we can to stop it. It is very clear to me that the pressure on the administration is cracking them and this is all we can do without REP senators on the bus.

    Keep pushing the Dems to defund. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 02:03:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Ah, (none / 0) (#18)
    by HeadScratcher on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 02:44:40 PM EST
    Echo, echo, echo, echo, echo, echo, echo, echo.

    BTD is right (man that was hard for me to type). Defunding is the only way. You want impeachment hearings? Fine, months of wasted dollars and lives to accomplish absolutely nothing other than to make yourself feel better. If the biggest issue is the war then stop the war!

    Otherwise you are all wasting your time (except for enjoyment) have these conversations.

    BTW, what about the rest of the Democratic Agenda? Health care, higher wages, etc...

    Health care, higher wages? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 02:52:07 PM EST
    It's a radical idea I know, but how about no longer funding the Iraq occupation to the tune of nearly a hundred billion a year and using the money for those things instead?

    Naaah. It'll never fly. Makes too much sense, I guess. :-)

    Parent

    So what happens (none / 0) (#21)
    by buhdydharma on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:13:13 PM EST
    When they refuse to honor the subpoenas?

    Who will? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:14:16 PM EST
    Which subpoena? Explain what you mean.

    Parent
    But let's consider all possible (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:25:12 PM EST
    permutations.

    If SARA TAYLOR defies the subpoena, then she will be cited for contempt and the courts will issue such an order forthwith. She has no argument to defend herself with as she readily acknowledges.

    If the WH decides to invoke executive privilege in the mannner it must, by seeking a court order quashing the subpoena of Ms. Taylor, then it will be up to the court to decide the validity of such claim. Obviously, Fred Fielding will have to say more than he has.

    If the court rules against the WH, the WH will not defy the court. There is not one example of the Bush Administration, or any administration, defying a court order.

    It is silly to argue your position form that standpoint.

    Even Kagro and Meteor Blades have realized the untenable nature of the argument you present.

    Now they argue that the argument for impeachment  and "inherent contempt" is based on stopping the "running out the clock strategy" of the WH.

    I can think of a more effective strategy if you really believe it is the WH running out the clock. Don't fund those branches of government defying the Congress' information requests.

    If it is the OVP, no funding for the OVP until they comply.

    If it is the office of the US Attorney, then don't fund Gonzales until he complies. If it is "Rove's shop", do not fund Rove's shop.

    How about that strategy?

    I predict you and Kagro and Meteor Blades won't like it, because it is not about impeachment.

    Parent

    I like it fine! (none / 0) (#31)
    by buhdydharma on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:31:02 PM EST
    I guess you don't see impeachment as a second front?

    Parent
    I do see it as a second front (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:36:52 PM EST
    Like Gallipoli was for the British in WWI.

    Parent
    So pressuring from two directions is bad strategy? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by buhdydharma on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:44:18 PM EST
    Obviously we want to avoid Gallipoli.

    But you don't think having to fight on two fronts weakens them, in both credibility and resources?

    By pressuring them on the legal issues, and the ensuing publicity, they are weakened and less able to present a credible face on the war. Plus the polls are showing the public in favor of it.

    That makes an impression on the Repub Senators up for re-election. Which has to influence the votes on the war/support for Bush. It is another way to force the 'to declare'

    They know if they stop the war the outcry will die down.

    Parent

    Sometimes (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:51:54 PM EST
    Sometimes the two front pincer movement divides your forces in such a way that it weakens both fronts and sometimes, can end in disaster.

    I do not expect disasters, but I do expect that impeachment will weaken the defunding movement.

    Parent

    Hiw can we work together to avoid that? (none / 0) (#46)
    by buhdydharma on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:59:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Take on defunding first (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:03:44 PM EST
    Saving actual lives and getting us out of this horrible immoral war packs a very powerful blow to the very last thing Bush holds over our heads and gains a lot in credibility for the Democratic party.  Impeachment would be much easier to accomplish from that point on I believe.

    Parent
    Well until this recent (none / 0) (#52)
    by buhdydharma on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:09:18 PM EST
    'surprise' thrust by Harry, defund was going to be static until Sept.

    I needed something to fill the time!

    And I DO thik the second front is critical. We really aren't that far (in Congresstime) from putting some serious hurt on Dick. Leahy calling Fitz has to make them nervous!

    See my diary at Dkos later, if you are interested.

    Again it is my contention that ALL pressure helps with ending the war.

    Parent

    Btw (none / 0) (#48)
    by buhdydharma on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:03:32 PM EST
    I have been lamenting that you are not still at Dkos and we could REALLY work the pincers!

    Parent
    Ok once last thought before (none / 0) (#69)
    by buhdydharma on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:35:20 PM EST
    I go take a shot at Dick at Dkos.

    If the Congressional Dems have to choose between Impeach or Defund, which do you think they will pick?

    I say defunding.

    Making THEM declare....and forcing that choice is valuable as well, imo.

    Good talking to you again!

    I'll try to get over more often.

    Parent

    Jackson and the Cherokee? (none / 0) (#65)
    by jr on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:25:21 PM EST
    Wasn't that an administration ignoring a court order? IANAL(Y)

    Parent
    Let's go with Harriet Miers (none / 0) (#24)
    by buhdydharma on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:21:29 PM EST
    for example.

    And then all the ones to come from the ongoing investigations.

    Which, of course don't yet include FISA violations or the fall out from rendition that is in the Italian Courts now.

    They have indicated they are going to invoke Privilege on everything.

    Parent

    The House Counsel (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:23:30 PM EST
    gets a court to enforce it.

    Parent
    ah.......so, (none / 0) (#28)
    by buhdydharma on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:27:29 PM EST
    nothing for a couple of years while it works its way to the Supremes, then.

    We might as well stop investigating then.

    Parent

    Quite the reverse (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:32:42 PM EST
    NOt seeking to compel complaince is what will allow the noncompliance.

    As always, the most unrealistic plan is the one that most favors the GOP and Bush.

    You and Kagor and the daily kos impeachnik contingent won;t to do everything except what has a chance of working.

    You prefer to tilt at windmills rather than fight the fight that must be fought.

    I repsect your ideals, I do not respect your political and policy thnking in the least.

    You want thing to be as you wish them to be, no matter that they will never be that, and ignore the effective tools at the disposal of the Democratic Congress.

    You are not the species I call impeachniks, who simply do not only NOT think, but are vile and falsely slanderous in their accusations.

    Cindy Sheehan appears to have adopted that approach.

    It gains no respect from me.

    Parent

    And if only Iraq were defunded (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:08:41 PM EST
    Sheehan would have no fangs.

    Parent
    Sheehan just turned herself into (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by buhdydharma on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:10:09 PM EST
    a joke.

    Sad.

    Parent

    She is and she isn't (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:28:25 PM EST
    she's raising a stink with this.  She still has a face and still can to an extent as long as our Congress appears so inactive and asleep, and sadly she and Code Pink agree on like everything.  I can never figure out what Code Pink or Sheehan really wants.  I'm supposed to hate myself because I was born in America, I'm supposed to end all War even though the other guy doesn't want to and will gladly dispatch me as soon as able to the savior of my American choice, I'm supposed to save everyone without even finding out if they want to be saved and I'm supposed to hate and distrust and boycott and picket anyone that isn't well Code Pink or Code Pink Approved.  It's like a cult lead by very well educated trustfund baby girls.

    Parent
    I overstated a bit (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by buhdydharma on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:32:42 PM EST
    She just lost Daily Kos.

    If she can keep going from other angles, more power to her!

    Parent

    I'm empathetic to her efforts (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:36:02 PM EST
    I feel very frustrated too.  As BarbinMD pointed out though her diary at DK today was by DK definition a troll diary.

    Parent
    see my second front comment (none / 0) (#34)
    by buhdydharma on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:34:53 PM EST
    let's meet there to stop the mulithread stuff.

    Parent
    what evidence do you have (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:34:13 PM EST
    that it would take that long.

    The House has many tools at its disposal: Subpoenas and court action at the outset, and defunding at the margins. No need for defeatism.

    Parent

    Repubs control the courst (none / 0) (#36)
    by buhdydharma on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:36:28 PM EST
    why wouldn't they drag it out?

    Parent
    Wait up (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:38:03 PM EST
    NOT every judge is a Wingnut YET.

    Imagine if Reggie Walton was assigned the matter.

    Parent

    Did Scooter get a speedy trial or not? (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:38:18 PM EST
    Come on, why jump to the most extreme solution when precedent shows that other methods have worked in the past? See BTD's post from yesterday.

    Parent
    Because we are working up the food chain (none / 0) (#41)
    by buhdydharma on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:48:34 PM EST
    They stopped one thrust with Scooter, but the more they are pressed the more they will stall and play out the clock

    Parent
    Are you reading minds now? (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:53:16 PM EST
    I know that some people make this argument because they want to get to the impeachment show®. I don't think you think this way, but right now you're sounding like it.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by buhdydharma on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:58:37 PM EST
    No not reading minds!

    Trying to think ahead....and stay ahead....in the strategy dept.

    It is the worst case scenario....which is usually the most likely one with Bushco.

    We have to be prepared for their strategies.

    It is ONE of the reasons to push impeachment, so the public is more accepting of it if we need to wave the big stick at them.

    Without that ultimate threat looming, they don't have to work as hard. And of course I think we will need the big stick.

    These guys only respond to power and it is our greatest power.

    Parent

    The last part is where you're so wrong (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:02:14 PM EST
    Impeachment is a non-threat. We'd never have the votes to convict the White House decorator, let alone the President.

    No, the trump card is the power of the purse.

    Parent

    Guaranteed conviction (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by buhdydharma on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:11:04 PM EST
    Isn't needed to apply pressure.

    Parent
    Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:12:11 PM EST
    Acquittal is vindication.

    Parent
    What does vindication do for them (none / 0) (#60)
    by buhdydharma on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:16:46 PM EST
    3 months before the end of their term?

    Parent
    What does acquittal do for us? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:45:58 PM EST


    Parent
    margins suck! (none / 0) (#74)
    by buhdydharma on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 05:07:05 PM EST
    Come over to my dkos diary if you want to go on!

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:27:20 PM EST
    I suggest a motion to compel compliance with the subpoena.

    How long do you imagine that will take? 2 months?

    Ho0w long will getting the political will for "inherent contempt" or impeachment will take?

    Nothing easier for running out the clock for BushCo than Democrats wasting time with unrealistic nonsense.

    Parent

    So all the investigations (none / 0) (#29)
    by buhdydharma on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:29:36 PM EST
    turn out to be unrealistic nonsense. Until they are resolved in a couple of years by the Roberts Court.

    And Bushco skates?

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:35:25 PM EST
    the unrealistic nonsense are the idea of launching impeaching hearings and calling for inherent contempt when, in the former, there is no chance of removal, and in the latter, there are other methods which have PROVEN to be effective in the past.

    You want to skip to the most radical and most, well it has zero chance but, unikely of remedies.

    It is a disservice to the idea of the separation of powers.

    At daily kos it is most common to either ignore these facts or, in some cases, simply be dishonest about them.

    That is not tolerated here. You can espouse any view you wish. But bad facts will be called.

    Parent

    More Discussing Impeachment | 83 comments (83 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment