Kucinich Introduces 35 Articles of Impeachment

[noun]

He's been speaking for a couple of hours now (just started with 21) and he's still going (http://c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS) if you want to hear it.

[Anti-Bunny]

Yeah, good luck with that. Hasn't he tried this before?

[arctangent]

Maybe it'll stick this time.

Har.

[noun]

Yeah, good luck with that. Hasn't he tried this before?

He tried with Cheney. This time he's going for Bush.

[Dave Markell]

It's so late in the game that this has zero chance of success.

[Athryn]

McClellan is going to be testifying before the Judiciary committee sometime this month as well.

[Anti-Bunny]

I've been listening and he seems to be doing an admirable job. It's too bad that no one cares, there are definitely more important bills (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=45008) to approve!

[Jasper]

I'm glad there is at least one congressman with the balls to at least attempt to hold Bush accountable, and do what's just. I'm so damn sick of the toothless democrats.

[Hugin]

If this actually goes anywhere and energizes/unifies the Republican base for the GE, I will be hella pissed.

[magnet]

If this actually goes anywhere and energizes/unifies the Republican base for the GE, I will be hella pissed.

I think Democrats spend way too much time worrying about their effects on the Republican base.

[Andrew Mayer]

If this actually goes anywhere and energizes/unifies the Republican base for the GE, I will be hella pissed.

Good news! There's fewer Republicans every day!

[Jonathan Blow]

I think Democrats spend way too much time worrying about their effects on the Republican base.

QFT. "We're the party that tries not to upset the other party!"

[Bob Cherub]

Whew with all the things going on in the world, I'm glad the Democrats choose to spend their time with this!

[Tankero]

How dare they pursue what would've been and should've been more than just a few crimes against humanity and treason? HOW DARE THEY, ALL OF THEM, ACTING AS A COHESIVE GROUP (because it's all of them, in perfectly harmonized chorus, doing this) ATTACK ONE OF THE LAST GREAT AMERICANS?!

[Jonathan Blow]

Hmm, I am not seeing any mention of this on any mainstream media sites.

Hopefully in the morning they will have something.

[Lum]

Here you go, from Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0608/Kucinich_offers_impeachment_articles_against_Bush. html).

[AaronSofaer]

Those comments are priceless.

[Jasper]

If this actually goes anywhere and energizes/unifies the Republican base for the GE, I will be hella pissed.
That's exactly the sort of toothless Democrat strategy I'm talking about -- afraid to do anything, and always pandering to the GOP.

Bill Clinton got elected because of his 18 Charisma, not "Triangulation", as subsequent Democratic attempts to duplicate his success and skin-deep progressive policies have shown.

[Jasper]

Whew with all the things going on in the world, I'm glad the Democrats choose to spend their time with this!
Come now Bob, that was pretty tame. Try harder, we expect so much more from you!

[Ben Sones]

Whew with all the things going on in the world, I'm glad the Democrats choose to spend their time with this!

Some of the things going on the in the world are the reason for this.

[Hugin]

That's exactly the sort of toothless Democrat strategy I'm talking about -- afraid to do anything, and always pandering to the GOP.

No, not always. There are many, many times and many, many fights I wish the Democrats had gone to the mat for, just on principle even if they'd lost.

A few months before an a Presidential election that could potentially gain us the White House, realign the Congressional map and definitively bury neoconservatism for 20 or 30 years, is not a normal time. The current incarnation of the Republican party is doing a great job of dying, and I don't want to wake its carcass up for a few more spasmodic twitches just because the party didn't have the discipline not to kick it a few times on the way out.

Once we have the White House and filibuster proof majorities in both houses, by all means, drop the hammer. Or back when it would have taken real bravery to fight the war and all the utter Constitution gutting in the face of the post 9-11 political climate, by all means, take the principled stand. Especially back when impeaching Bush and co might have prevented at least some of his damage the administration has done.

But now? 5 minutes before he leaves office and the damage is already done? It's just strategically stupid. Even if it worked, which it won't, there's even the chance it'll give the voters a bit of catharsis they need to emotionally de-link McCain from Bush (i.e., if you "slay" Bush, it becomes harder to use his continued presence as a cudgel to bludgeon McCain with).

It's a crappy, vengeance-based bit of political emotionalism, and vengeance based politics are never a good idea.

[Fooey]

The Republicans would be absolutely giddy if they could get this nonsense to the floor for a full debate. It's the Democrats' leaders who are stopping it; it sure as hell isn't the Republicans.

[Linoleum]

Once we have the White House and filibuster proof majorities in both houses, by all means, drop the hammer. Or back when it would have taken real bravery to fight the war and all the utter Constitution gutting in the face of the post 9-11 political climate, by all means, take the principled stand. Especially back when impeaching Bush and co might have prevented at least some of his damage the administration has done.

Drop the hammer? I really don't think you're suggesting what I think you're suggesting. If so, the line "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" is never more apt.

The Bush Administration is history in another seven months. And after January 20, 2009, that's where it should stay.

[forgeforsaken]

It's a crappy, vengeance-based bit of political emotionalism, and vengeance based politics are never a good idea.

Nah, I don't think that's it. Look at who introduced them. Kucinich did the same with Cheney about a year ago I think. I'm pretty sure it's the DoJ report and the McClellan book that has lead to Dennis doing this.

[Cosmic Hippo]

The only reason I'd want this going nowhere now is so there can be a war crimes tribunal after they're out of office with nobody to pardon them. But I know that won't happen either.

It isn't vengeance. Bush and Cheney are criminals. Literally.

[Hugin]

Drop the hammer? I really don't think you're suggesting what I think you're suggesting. If so, the line "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" is never more apt.

The Bush Administration is history in another seven months. And after January 20, 2009, that's where it should stay.

By drop the hammer I mean implement sane, progressive policy and fix (as best they can) the horrible messes the Bush administration made, stop it with the secret prisons and torture and illegal wiretapping and all that. I doubt I'm philosophically capable of supporting "dropping the hammer" in the Republican sense.

[Anti-Bunny]

Progressive and sane? In the same sentance?

[noun]

The Bush Administration is history in another seven months. And after January 20, 2009, that's where it should stay.

This kind of comment infuriates me the most. "Hey, there's only a few months left to go, how much more damage can he do?" Given that he's threatening Iran again, the answer is: considerable and permanent.

If Congress chooses to find him innocent, that's fine, but ignoring the impeachable offenses just because they are inconvenient is just as criminal. If nothing else, you don't want the next guy to think "shit, if Bush got away with THAT what can I get away with?" Kudos to Kucinich for being the only member of Congress with the balls to go through with this.

[Linoleum]

By drop the hammer I mean implement sane, progressive policy and fix (as best they can) the horrible messes the Bush administration made, stop it with the secret prisons and torture and illegal wiretapping and all that. I doubt I'm philosophically capable of supporting "dropping the hammer" in the Republican sense.

Thanks for clarifying. By that definition, I can support "dropping the hammer" although it isn't the terminology I'd use. I thought you meant something like this:

The only reason I'd want this going nowhere now is so there can be a war crimes tribunal after they're out of office with nobody to pardon them. But I know that won't happen either.

It isn't vengeance. Bush and Cheney are criminals. Literally.

No. No, no, no. A thousand times no. If it wasn't bad enough to impeach and prosecute them while they were in office, once they are gone you let it go.

Does one really need to point out the end result of effectively criminalizing policy differences and prosecuting members of the executive branch and extended apparatus following a power transition?

[Jonathan Blow]

If the policy is actually a crime, then yeah, it should be criminalized. Otherwise what is to deter future leaders from future crimes?

[WarrenM]

I agree. If all they have to do is fend off impeachment for 4 years while commiting crimes and walk away free men at the end, what's to stop them from doing that?

[Linoleum]

If the policy is actually a crime, then yeah, it should be criminalized. Otherwise what is to deter future leaders from future crimes?

Again, if it wasn't enough to cause ejection from office, (see: Nixon, who had the good sense to resign) going after it after the fact is the greater of two evils.

History is pretty clear about where things go when you start down that road.

I agree. If all they have to do is fend off impeachment for 4 years while commiting crimes and walk away free men at the end, what's to stop them from doing that?

The American public and the system we already have in place? Politically, the GOP is already paying for the sins of the Bush Administration.

[extarbags]

No. No, no, no. A thousand times no. If it wasn't bad enough to impeach and prosecute them while they were in office, once they are gone you let it go.


Does this position extend to leaders of other countries as well?

[Linoleum]

Does this position extend to leaders of other countries as well?

Irrelevant, talking about internal American politics and government here. That we do too much foreign meddling is a tangent, and an additional corruptive element of our political system, but not the crux of the matter.

[noun]

Again, if it wasn't enough to cause ejection from office, (see: Nixon, who had the good sense to resign) going after it after the fact is the greater of two evils.

And again, I'm nostalgic for a Nixon and his petty crimes. Is that the problem? The scale of Bush's crimes against our country and the world are so vast no one can grasp them?

[Hugin]

If the policy is actually a crime, then yeah, it should be criminalized. Otherwise what is to deter future leaders from future crimes?

Losing the executive branch, the legislative branch, state races around the country, and having their entire political philosophy discredited for decades?

[Tankero]

Oh well, boohoo.

[Sol Invictus]

We've seen leaders of other countries prosecuted for War Crimes after partaking in wars that ended the lives of thousands of innocents. Why not Bush and Cheney?

[Fooey]

Because they didn't commit any war crimes, dummy.

[Lum]

This kind of comment infuriates me the most. "Hey, there's only a few months left to go, how much more damage can he do?" Given that he's threatening Iran again, the answer is: considerable and permanent.

An 'October surprise' invasion of Iran would *enrage* Congress. At that point, yes, you can expect immediate impeachment hearings, because it is putting the national security at risk over partisan politics (among other problems, the military is so overstretched that they probably can't invade Iran successfully).

An 'October surprise' airstrike on Iran is more probable. Bear in mind that Clinton literally did the exact same thing, hitting Sudan and Afghanistan with cruise missiles during the worst of the impeachment crisis. Turns out the Afghanistan strike was totally justified (and sadly ineffective). The Sudan strike? Not so much. But in either case, only the most myopic Clintonista could argue that there were no political implications. Of course there were, and they were essentially negative - the perception was that Clinton was bombing people to distract from a scandal.

And as there were actual good reasons to hit Afghanistan (and believed at the time Sudan as well), so today are there reasons to hit Iran. Whether or not you agree we should use military force against Iran's nuclear program, and the aforementioned reasons are particularly good ones, there is an arguable case - and one Israel is making very, very shrilly (probably because they realize an Obama administration would be a far harder sell for support).

If Congress chooses to find him innocent, that's fine, but ignoring the impeachable offenses just because they are inconvenient is just as criminal. If nothing else, you don't want the next guy to think "shit, if Bush got away with THAT what can I get away with?" Kudos to Kucinich for being the only member of Congress with the balls to go through with this.

It's not balls so much as (a) playing to the empty gallery a la Gingrich and (b) playing to an enraged and surrealist base who wants purges and blood a la this thread. A Bush impeachement would be suicidal for the Democrats given that they are set to have veto/filibuster-proof majorities in both houses in 6 months, at which point investigations into the previous administration are far more likely to be effective.

[Lum]

We've seen leaders of other countries prosecuted for War Crimes after partaking in wars that ended the lives of thousands of innocents. Why not Bush and Cheney?

Yeah, that Kissinger trial was a humdinger. Good thing we had those trials of Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay to lay the groundwork.

[Gabe Lewis]

In "The Truth With Jokes" Al Franken wrote a letter to his grandchildren in the year 2020.

He writes that at the end of the fictional 2008 election, the day before the inauguration his colleagues in congress enacted a "quickie" impeachment of GWB his justification for which landed him on the cover of Newsweek: "Why Not?"

Funny bastard.

[extarbags]

Irrelevant, talking about internal American politics and government here. That we do too much foreign meddling is a tangent, and an additional corruptive element of our political system, but not the crux of the matter.

It's not irrelevant at all. Should Hussein have been held responsible for his war crimes? Milosevic? Taylor? Or should they be free to go, after their regimes have crumbled? I suspect the answer is no, and what's more, I suspect that you would be similarly uncharitable to the notion that regular, non-governmental murderers (NGM's) shouldn't be punished after they stop murdering people. Why is the administration of the US presidency the sole exception?

[Linoleum]

It's not irrelevant at all. Should Hussein have been held responsible for his war crimes? Milosevic? Taylor? Or should they be free to go, after their regimes have crumbled? I suspect the answer is no, and what's more, I suspect that you would be similarly uncharitable to the notion that regular, non-governmental murderers (NGM's) shouldn't be punished after they stop murdering people. Why is the administration of the US presidency the sole exception?

You're still blending external interference with internal processes. It's not making an exception, they aren't comparable situations. External forces decided there were crimes and situations that required external intervention. That's not what we are talking about here.

[NoWayJose]

Let's impeach congress for authorizing the use of force and for continuing to fund the illegal war even after Bush's malfeasance was revealed. Why isn't Kucinich demanding the resignation of his colleagues? What's so special about Bush and Cheney?

[TheTrunkDr]

It's not irrelevant at all. Should Hussein have been held responsible for his war crimes? Milosevic? Taylor? Or should they be free to go, after their regimes have crumbled? I suspect the answer is no, and what's more, I suspect that you would be similarly uncharitable to the notion that regular, non-governmental murderers (NGM's) shouldn't be punished after they stop murdering people. Why is the administration of the US presidency the sole exception?
Seriously, the perpetrators of a crime should be punished even if they've since been rendered unable to repeat those crimes.

Who cares if they're removed from power, they've still done what they've done and are being permitted to get away with it. All that does is invite more damage from future criminals to do the same. The US as whole really needs to start holding it's leaders accountable for what they do, even after they've left office.

[Kraaze]

Does one really need to point out the end result of effectively criminalizing policy differences and prosecuting members of the executive branch and extended apparatus following a power transition?

Apparently so. I tried making the point in a different thread and lot of folks didn't swallow it.

[WarrenM]

So all we're talking about here are policy differences? You're serious?

[Kraaze]

Seriously, the perpetrators of a crime should be punished even if they've since been rendered unable to repeat those crimes.


I can agree with that if we are arguing about very concrete no-gray-area felony crimes. If we are talking about leadership initiatives that some personally didn't like, such as invading another nation, then I can't agree. That's too much like holding leaders accountable after the fact for not pandering to the majority, or the upset, or daring to take risks. That's just stupid.

[Pogue Mahone]

If I understand your postings correctly, it does seem that Kraaze and Linoleum have decided for themselves that no crimes were committed, therefore the issue would fall to poor policy decisions and impeachment is, of course, unnecessary. I am not with those who cry for impeachment and blood from this administration, but I think it's worthwhile to consider the question of how this war was entered into. There's an interesting article here (http://www.slate.com/id/2193283/) about the quality of intelligence available to the President during the days leading up to the Iraq invasion, but we're still no closer to understanding if this all comes down to bad intelligence or manufactured intelligence, and that's the critical question in my opinion. As I mentioned in the other thread, if it's a case of bad intelligence leading the Bush administration into an unnecessary war then that's one thing. But if this was dreamed up by policy makers jumping at an opportunity, whether dreaming of endless oil or revenge on Hussein, that's entirely different.

[JeffL]

What complicates things is the fact that all of the intelligence reports that were supplied to the President - including the notes from those who had doubts - were also supplied to Congress before the vote to authorize the use of force. Two bipartisan committees who've investigated this concluded this data, that which was presented to Congress, was not manipulated. Congress knew all that the President knew when they voted to approve the use of force in Iraq.

What WAS manipulated was the story presented to the public to drum up support.

But Congress had all of the information the President had, and when Dean says oh, no, the information was modified or corrupted, he is simply "misspeaking." Documented several places, and he himself backtracked.

A good summary of a lot of things found in a lot of places:

http://www.factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html


Personally, I think that the President is ultimately accountable for this mess, the lives lost, the families destroyed, all based on a faulty pretense. But I doubt Congress has any heart for an impeachment in which they would have to answer "Why, when presented with the exact intelligence reports the President had, did you vote to authorize war?" I think most in Congress would like this to simply go away without a deep digging.

[Linoleum]

If I understand your postings correctly, it does seem that Kraaze and Linoleum have decided for themselves that no crimes were committed, therefore the issue would fall to poor policy decisions and impeachment is, of course, unnecessary. I am not with those who cry for impeachment and blood from this administration, but I think it's worthwhile to consider the question of how this war was entered into.

Nope, wrong. I wasn't speaking anything in regards to impeachment or going after the Bush Administration while it is still the executive of the United States Government.

What I am speaking to is the notion of "Well, we can't/won't impeach them now, but once we control both branches, we'll go after them later". Sorry, that's too fucking late.

Why is it too fucking late? Browse some P&R from a couple years ago. There were past and current posters seriously concerned that the Bush regime would orchestrate circumstances for el-Presidente for life. That we were sliding head-long into facism and tyranny and democracy would be destroyed.

It was absurd at the time. But it took the mid-term 2006 elections to banish it back to the tin-foil fringes. It was absurd because we have a system of government and history of orderly transition of power. I won't deny that the Bush Administration set us on, or in many cases merely further down a variety of slippery slopes. But it was still a long way from that point.

Now. Cross the Rubicon and raise the stakes for losing power, and you quickly end up with notions that previously would have been absurd quickly becoming inescapable.

[Pogue Mahone]

Nope, wrong.

Very well; then I misunderstood where you were coming from, and apologize for the confusion. My post above is not concerned with exploring the impeach now/impeach later question, in itself it doesn't interest me. I was effectively just continuing the discussion Kraaze and I had had in another thread, and as such is probably not proper to continue in this one.

[Jonathan Blow]

Still seeing shockingly little MSM coverage of this. There was a Reuters article but I'm not really seeing it be picked up anywhere.

[TheTrunkDr]

Nope, wrong. I wasn't speaking anything in regards to impeachment or going after the Bush Administration while it is still the executive of the United States Government.

What I am speaking to is the notion of "Well, we can't/won't impeach them now, but once we control both branches, we'll go after them later". Sorry, that's too fucking late.
I can understand where you're coming from but the issue with this is that the converse can happen. One party can be in control of both branches, run up a shit storm then the executive leaves office with no repercussions and leave the incoming government with no means to go after them.

An incoming government should absolutely be able to investigate the goings on of the previous administration and be able to prosecute should evidence be found that supports such an action.

[noun]

Still seeing shockingly little MSM coverage of this. There was a Reuters article but I'm not really seeing it be picked up anywhere.

That's the liberal media for you.

[Hugin]

Still seeing shockingly little MSM coverage of this. There was a Reuters article but I'm not really seeing it be picked up anywhere.

There's little coverage because it's a nonstory at this stage. Kucinich is a fringe Congressman, and this isn't going anywhere, he doesn't have anything resembling enough backing from the party, and there isn't the political will for it coming from the public either. Yes, Bush is unpopular, but the national mood is "kick out the bums", not "impeach".

[Matthew Gallant]

There's little coverage because it's a nonstory at this stage. Kucinich is a fringe Congressman, and this isn't going anywhere, he doesn't have anything resembling enough backing from the party, and there isn't the political will for it coming from the public either. Yes, Bush is unpopular, but the national mood is "kick out the bums", not "impeach".
It's still news. They do stories all the time about the hijinks of dumb criminals and cute animals, they can do a story on the hijinks of a hot be-wifed lepra-sentative and how the rest of the House confounds the magical advantage that his bottomless pockets confer.

[Kraaze]

If I understand your postings correctly, it does seem that Kraaze and Linoleum have decided for themselves that no crimes were committed, therefore the issue would fall to poor policy decisions and impeachment is, of course, unnecessary. I am not with those who cry for impeachment and blood from this administration, but I think it's worthwhile to consider the question of how this war was entered into. There's an interesting article here (http://www.slate.com/id/2193283/) about the quality of intelligence available to the President during the days leading up to the Iraq invasion, but we're still no closer to understanding if this all comes down to bad intelligence or manufactured intelligence, and that's the critical question in my opinion. As I mentioned in the other thread, if it's a case of bad intelligence leading the Bush administration into an unnecessary war then that's one thing. But if this was dreamed up by policy makers jumping at an opportunity, whether dreaming of endless oil or revenge on Hussein, that's entirely different.

I haven't personally decided that no crime exists, but in this country we don't initiate legal proceedings against someone just because we can't conclusively prove that they haven't ever done anything wrong. There needs to be a reasonable suspicion of a real crime.

I haven't heard a plausible enough sounding charge against Bush to warrant impeachment. I have heard all kinds of bad charges that basically amount to wanting to impeach a guy for not being a good leader or not leading in a popular way or for being dishonest.

As much as I personally disagree with some of the things this administration hasn't done, I don't consider it a crime to go to war in Iraq. Full stop. Even if it can be proven that the president lied about the motives and reasons and facts motivating that decision. For whatever reason the guy we elected thought it a good idea and important to do it and did it. Our bad for electing an idiot but no crime occurred.

[noun]

Here's the list of the 35 articles in question, courtesy of Daily KOS:

#1: Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq

#2 Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression

#3 Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War

#4 Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States

#5 Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression

#6 Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114

#7: Invading Iraq without a declaration of war.

#8: Invading Iraq in violation of the U.N. charter and international law.

#9: Failing to provide troops with body armor and vehicle armor.

#10: Falsifying accounts of US troops deaths and injuries for political purposes

#11: Establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq

#12: Initiating a war against Iraq for control of that nation’s natural resources.

#13: Secret task force for directing national energy policy

#14: Misprision of a felony, misuse and exposure of classified information and cover up (Plame outing)

#15: Providing immunity from prosecution for criminal conduct for contractors in Iraq

#16: Reckless misspending and wasted US tax dollar with Iraq contractors

#17: Illegal detention – detaining indefinitely, and without charge, American citizens and foreign captives (suspension of habeus)

#18: Torture – secretly authorizing and encouraging use of torture, as matter of official policy

#19 Rendition

#20 Imprisoning Children Bush is guilty of impeachable offence arcticle 20, imprisoning children. Has personal and acting through agents has held at least 2,500 children in violation of Geneva convention and the rights of children in armed conflict signed by the US in 2002.

#21 Misleading Congress about threats from Iran

#22. HAS ESTABLISHED A BODY OF SECRET LAWS THROUGH THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL. THE YOO MEMORANDUM WAS DECLASSIFIED YEARS AFTER IT SERVED AS LAW UNDER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

#23 Violated Posse Comitatus Act ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS FOR THE USE OF THE MILITARY IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CONGRESS SO THAT THE MILTARY CANNOT BECOME A NATIONAL POLICE FORCE.

#24 Spying on citizens violating 4th Amendment

#25 Directing telecoms to collect databases on US citizens.

#26 Announcing intent to violate laws w/signing statements, and then violating those laws.

#27 Failing to comply with congressional subpoenas, and instructing others to do so.

#28 tampering with free and fair election. Corruption with the administration of justice, False allegations of voter fraud in selected districts, immediately preceding elections. Undermining process.

#29: Conspiracy to violate voting rights act of 1965, Ohio Sec of State 2004-06

#30: Misleading congress and american people in an attemtp to destroy medicare.

#31 Katrina and the failures of gross negligence of the administration.

#32: Misleading congress and the American people. Systematically undermining global climate change. Article 2, Section 3: Personally and through subordinates including the VP, for not protecting property of people vis a vis global climate change thru deception. Failure to ratify Kyoto. Editing reports - 294 edits by a lobbyist to add data which called into question the facts by muddying them. Or diminishing scientific findings.

#33: Repeatedly ignored and failed to respond to high level intelligence warnings of planned terrorist attacks in U.S. prior to 9/11.
Clark warned the president in daily briefings of the threat. Clark was unable to conviene a cabinet level position. Tenet met with the president 40 times to warn of threat. Still no meetings of top officials.

#34: Obstruction into the investigation of 9/11

#35: endangering the health of 9/11 first responders

[Matthew Gallant]

I have heard all kinds of bad charges that basically amount to wanting to impeach a guy for not being a good leader or not leading in a popular way or for being dishonest.
Those are impeachable offenses.

You can get sent to jail or otherwise punished in the military for being a bad leader also.

For whatever reason the guy we elected thought it a good idea and important to do it and did it. Our bad for electing an idiot but no crime occurred.
That slope is slipperier than that one trap in Tomb of Horrors. The president is allowed to pursue any very bad idea he wants, because we voted for it? No thank you, Kraaz-e.

Also:

I haven't personally decided that no crime exists
...
no crime occurred.

Swiss-cheese brain ahoy!

[Jason McCullough]

The Republicans would be absolutely giddy if they could get this nonsense to the floor for a full debate. It's the Democrats' leaders who are stopping it; it sure as hell isn't the Republicans.

They also thought immigration was going to win for them in 2006. I don't think Bush's crimes being aired 24-7 for months would help.

Not that I think it's a good use of political capital.

What complicates things is the fact that all of the intelligence reports that were supplied to the President - including the notes from those who had doubts - were also supplied to Congress before the vote to authorize the use of force. Two bipartisan committees who've investigated this concluded this data, that which was presented to Congress, was not manipulated. Congress knew all that the President knew when they voted to approve the use of force in Iraq.

He gave Congress the total load of bullshit intelligence he managed to browbeat and manipulate out of the CIA over the objections of the actual line workers. The "no political manipulation of intelligence" stuff on that page you mentioned is a terrible joke; Tenet + Powell isn't "consensus". That the Democrats rolled over on the relevant intelligence committees doesn't change that.

[wahoo]

I wholly endorse Kucinich's impeachment proceedings.

"
#16: Reckless misspending and wasted US tax dollar with Iraq contractors"

This as reason for impeachment is manna from heaven for limited government folks! I say let's impeach folks who endorse programs that the GAO has previously reported as wasteful or full of misspending!

"#30: Misleading congress and american people in an attemtp to destroy medicare."

This is also a keeper. I can only assume this refers to the President's huge expansion of Medicare. i missed his attempt to destroy it.

"
#13: Secret task force for directing national energy policy"
Another awesome charge, that I hope carries over for the future.

"
#31 Katrina and the failures of gross negligence of the administration."

YES! We should absolutely blame politicians for the weather! This frigging rocks.

"32: Misleading congress and the American people. Systematically undermining global climate change. Article 2, Section 3: Personally and through subordinates including the VP, for not protecting property of people vis a vis global climate change thru deception. Failure to ratify Kyoto."

Err...does the President ratify treaties? I believe the Constitution says NAY. Can we get a redo? Anyway, I fully support this impeachment accoutn as well.

[awdougherty]

"
#31 Katrina and the failures of gross negligence of the administration."

YES! We should absolutely blame politicians for the weather! This frigging rocks.


Are you serious on this one? That has to be one of the most obtuse perspectives I've ever encountered.

[wahoo]

Are you serious on this one? That has to be one of the most obtuse perspectives I've ever encountered.


I have given these charges the consideration and weight they deserve. The Congressman is arguing a counterfactual that the Administration should have done much better. Sure there were failures at the federal level. Just like there were big failures at the state/local level as well. But to claim that these failures rise to a level of impeachment is mindboggingly dumb.

[Jasper]

Surprisingly, I've got to agree with Lino on this. Waiting until after the elections smacks of partisan politics and vengeance, and just won't go over well. The damning evidence is available or subpoena-able now, and six months is still plenty of chance for Bush et al to do something crazy with respect to Iran.

In general I just don't agree with the whole "oh it's too late, there'll be a better time later!" rationalization, as somehow, it's always too late, nobody is ever held accountable, and justice is always off the table. Such lack of backbone is precisely what got us to this point -- the Democrats adopted the same "tactic" when they let the Iraq War, Patriot Act, etc. get rolling in the first place. By the same logic, Democrats should never have gone after Nixon -- whose crimes were far less than Bush's.

Seriously, does anyone here actually think that if justice is delayed until Bush is out of office, anything will come of it? What stops the young Rumsfelds and Cheneys from lurking on the fringe and coming back in 10-30 years to pull the same shit again?

Looking further ahead, if a big stink is never made over this issue, what are the odds the Patriot Act and other Big Brother laws will actually be repealed? The Democrats as a whole have shown no particular dislike of them, and will be reluctant to review their involvement in creating them. It'll be so much easier to sweep everything under the rug, including much more than just Bush's culpability. If these skeletons aren't exhumed now, they will swiftly become embedded in the status quo.

[Jasper]

"
#31 Katrina and the failures of gross negligence of the administration."

YES! We should absolutely blame politicians for the weather! This frigging rocks.
Best strawman I've seen all month. Bravo.

[awdougherty]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, wahoo, on the idea that Katrina translates into impeachable offenses (since there is soooooooooo much blame to go around on the federal/state/local level), but your initial comment didn't cover that angle at all so I was taken aback a bit. They can absolutely be blamed for their response, they can be blamed for their lack of preparation.

[Kraaze]

Those are impeachable offenses.

You can get sent to jail or otherwise punished in the military for being a bad leader also.


We'll have to fundamentally disagree on that then. Punishing someone for trying and failing is just not a good idea. It just makes subsequent office holders afraid to try.


That slope is slipperier than that one trap in Tomb of Horrors. The president is allowed to pursue any very bad idea he wants, because we voted for it? No thank you, Kraaz-e.


Bonus points for the good Tomb of Horrors reference, but basically yes the president is allowed to pursue any idea if he thinks it's a good one and has a clear mandate from the voters to pursue it. If you want to meddle with that, you are admitting our democracy has failed.


Also:
...
Swiss-cheese brain ahoy!

The quotes were of course in differing contexts, but thank you for playing a childish quote arranging game.

[extarbags]

I wholly endorse Kucinich's impeachment proceedings.

"
#16: Reckless misspending and wasted US tax dollar with Iraq contractors"

This as reason for impeachment is manna from heaven for limited government folks! I say let's impeach folks who endorse programs that the GAO has previously reported as wasteful or full of misspending!

"#30: Misleading congress and american people in an attemtp to destroy medicare."

This is also a keeper. I can only assume this refers to the President's huge expansion of Medicare. i missed his attempt to destroy it.

"
#13: Secret task force for directing national energy policy"
Another awesome charge, that I hope carries over for the future.

"
#31 Katrina and the failures of gross negligence of the administration."

YES! We should absolutely blame politicians for the weather! This frigging rocks.

Christ, did you take a class on making yourself look like a colossal asshole?

[extarbags]

Bonus points for the good Tomb of Horrors reference, but basically yes the president is allowed to pursue any idea if he thinks it's a good one and has a clear mandate from the voters to pursue it. If you want to meddle with that, you are admitting our democracy has failed.


Are you fucking retarded, or just angling for a sweet job at the George W. Bush Presidential Library? This isn't even in the same damned galaxy as the actual way our government is supposed to work.

[Ben Sones]

We'll have to fundamentally disagree on that then. Punishing someone for trying and failing is just not a good idea. It just makes subsequent office holders afraid to try.

If impeachment proceedings make future presidents afraid to try some of the shit that Bush has gotten away with, then I say "mission accomplished."

[Jasper]

Bonus points for the good Tomb of Horrors reference, but basically yes the president is allowed to pursue any idea if he thinks it's a good one and has a clear mandate from the voters to pursue it. If you want to meddle with that, you are admitting our democracy has failed.
Most of what Bush is being taken to task for did not have a clear mandate from voters. Torture, false pretenses for war, apparently outing Plame for political benefit, illegal expansion of domestic surveillance, police state shenanigans, etc.

Your attempt to conflate thinking Bush is a criminal who should be held accountable with "democracy failing" is just weak.

[wahoo]

Christ, did you take a class on making yourself look like a colossal asshole?

I am absolutely making fun of the frivolous charges here. For example, it would have been like Republican's offering the Clinton NTL health care plan cmte as a reason for impeachment. Sure, there can and should be lawsuits about this. But as for impeachment? Sorry.

The misspent funds in Iraq is just dumb. What's the difference between funds mispsent in Iraq or Africa or the EITC? Every year there are billions of dollars that simply disappear and can't be found. Shold the president be impeached? Furthermore, Congress has the power of the purse and allocated money for IRAQ!

Finally, the President has supported Medicare and I have not idea where that came from! Bush enacted the biggest expansion of Medicare since its creation! Where was the effort to destroy it? And isn't that a valid policy goal anyway? Should a President have free reign to destroy policies he doesn't think works?

The Katrina is a biting commentary as well, b/c it was a pretty colossal failure. It doesn't rise to the level of impeachment.

The Kyoto treatment is just dumb theatre. It's an embarrassment to anyone who wants to take this seriously.


This whole thread is a bit chilling in the number of folks who want to destroy a large part of the american democracy, which is the peaceful transition of power.

I'd more respect for Kucinich if he just stuck to the more serious charges dealing with Iraq. Instead, this is absurd political posturing which should embarrass its supporters. Not enough action for Kyoto is grounds for impeachment?

[wahoo]

Most of what Bush is being taken to task for did not have a clear mandate from voters. Torture, false pretenses for war, apparently outing Plame for political benefit, illegal expansion of domestic surveillance, police state shenanigans, etc.



Not much stuff has a clear mandate from voters. the US is a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. Officials are elected with the understanding that they can act against the express will of the people on certain issues. The check to that behavior are popular elections.



Bush is among one of the worst presidents this country has had. But destroying the American political system as a result of his administration is a mistake.

[Kraaze]

Most of what Bush is being taken to task for did not have a clear mandate from voters. Torture, false pretenses for war, apparently outing Plame for political benefit, illegal expansion of domestic surveillance, police state shenanigans, etc.


The war had a mandate, the other stuff not. I wasn't trying to argue otherwise.


Your attempt to conflate thinking Bush is a criminal who should be held accountable with "democracy failing" is just weak.

I'm not conflating the two, you are oversimplifying my argument and taking it out of context. I said impeaching a president for an action that was good intentioned and had the support of voters would be an admission that our democracy has failed. That's got nothing to do with the torture topic, the surveillance topic, etc. I was just speaking on the topic of impeaching the president for the Iraq war, which a lot of people seem to think a good idea and I think horrible.

I'm finding it amusing how emotional people are getting on this topic, and how normally cool heads suddenly aren't pausing to read posts in detail before rushing to respond. Apparently the mob is hungry for blood.

[Kraaze]

Bush is among one of the worst presidents this country has had. But destroying the American political system as a result of his administration is a mistake.

Exactly.

[Matthew Gallant]

We'll have to fundamentally disagree on that then. Punishing someone for trying and failing is just not a good idea. It just makes subsequent office holders afraid to try.
You're right, we wouldn't spook away any namby-pambies from running for office. They make such good leaders.

Anyway, are you implying that the Bush administration displayed effort to promote the nation's interests and the problem was they didn't do a good job? I think the argument here is that they displayed a gross disregard for the nation's interests.

[Kraaze]

You're right, we wouldn't spook away any namby-pambies from running for office. They make such good leaders.

So you are okay with scaring away cautious calculated risk takers so that we can vote on more people who forge on ahead and damn the bad consequences.

You want us to rig the system to encourage more Bush types?

[noun]

We'll have to fundamentally disagree on that then. Punishing someone for trying and failing is just not a good idea. It just makes subsequent office holders afraid to try.

Interesting. So what's your take on corporate bailouts and incompetent, corrupt CEOs earning huge bonuses when they get fired? I'm guessing you fully support it, since the logic is the same.

[Matthew Gallant]

So you are okay with scaring away cautious calculated risk takers so that we can vote on more people who forge on ahead and damn the bad consequences.
You realize that your solution for this is to keep everything as is, but take away the bad consequences.

[Linoleum]

#32: Misleading congress and the American people. Systematically undermining global climate change. Article 2, Section 3: Personally and through subordinates including the VP, for not protecting property of people vis a vis global climate change thru deception. Failure to ratify Kyoto. Editing reports - 294 edits by a lobbyist to add data which called into question the facts by muddying them. Or diminishing scientific findings.

Is he going to impeach all of his Senate colleagues too?

There was also a wire services typo error, it's actually 36:

#36: Mrs. Kucinich did not a get a pony.

[Rimbo]

Well, I guess that answers my question of, "What would you impeach him for?" about 35 times over.

[Anaxagoras]

God. Kucinich is, and always has been, such an idiot.

[MikeSofaer]

I think pardoning Scooter Libby is one of the worst abuses of power he's committed, but K doesn't seem to think it registers.

[JeffL]

He gave Congress the total load of bullshit intelligence he managed to browbeat and manipulate out of the CIA over the objections of the actual line workers. The "no political manipulation of intelligence" stuff on that page you mentioned is a terrible joke; Tenet + Powell isn't "consensus". That the Democrats rolled over on the relevant intelligence committees doesn't change that.

So, you think the two bipartisan committees were also complicit in all of this? That the Democrats on those committees lied or were part of the conspiracy? In other words, even though two bipartisan intelligence committees had access to all of the information, interviewed all of those involved, offered the analysts they interviewed anonymity for their testimony, etc. and found that the intelligence that was presented to Congress was not manipulated (just faulty) - you know better?

Look - I think it is horrific that we're enmeshed in Iraq and we're there on faulty intelligence. I also think Bush and company lied to the public. I've lost two people that I know in Iraq - one, the younger brother of a friend for years, the other, the son of a family who is extremely close to us. I was at the funeral of the latter. I am no Bush fan at all. But that doesn't mean I can just ignore what seems to be the best data on the intelligence piece and the findings of those committees because it doesn't match what I want it to be.

[Jason McCullough]

The intelligence committees have lots of republicans and are stacked with hawks and conservative democrats; they were looking to cover their ass. It's doesn't take a "conspiracy" for them to not dig too deep into how the CIA produced the crap it did - hey look, the CIA blew it, guess we can stop looking.

Brian Rucker has been following this more closely, but off the top of my head some things they've avoided looking into: that Curveball asset, feith's office of special plans, the stovepiping. It's political as hell.

See here (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/phase_ii_what_was_missing.php) for example - it makes Bush look pretty bad, but due to scope it misses all the really nasty stuff. The short version is that the executive branch kicked the agencies until they produced what they wanted, and that still wasn't good enough, so they lied about that.

[wildpokerman]

Here's a link to the proof that the US government knew that Iraq didn't have WMDs long before Bush took office:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Oh wait that's actually proof that the last president claimed to have knowledge that Iraq had WMDs. He also happened to be a Democrat.

He also happened to bomb Iraq at the same time that congress was examining whether or not the president committed perjury.

So it appears that the Democrats are just as stupid or evil as the Neocons. I personally vote evil. Also when I say Democrat I mean the Clintons.

Also just to rant on a bit more if Obama pays one cent towards Hillary's debt I'm done donating to him.

[Kraaze]

You realize that your solution for this is to keep everything as is, but take away the bad consequences.

No, my solution for this is to keep everything as it is and not use misuse the impeachment powers of congress for shitty reasons.

[Kraaze]

Interesting. So what's your take on corporate bailouts and incompetent, corrupt CEOs earning huge bonuses when they get fired? I'm guessing you fully support it, since the logic is the same.

Not sure how you think the two topics are related. Is someone suggesting giving Bush a cash buyout or a medal?

If you want an equivalent corporate scenario to illustrate my position, it would be in favor of showing an incompetent CEO to the door gently but firmly sans golden parachute. Instead of starting a class action shareholder lawsuit against the board to forcibly throw the current leadership out on their rumps a few months before they would been fired anyway. Oh and do note such shareholder lawsuits are almost invariably highly damaging to the company so sued.

[Hugin]

Also just to rant on a bit more if Obama pays one cent towards Hillary's debt I'm done donating to him.

Then go sit with the "If I can't vote for Clinton I'll vote for McCain" people, because you're being just as foolish.

Political rivals and competing intra-party factions make deals. If it's not debt relief it's incorporating elements of the other side's platform into yours, or giving them plum jobs. That's the way politics works, it isn't dirty or unethical or anything else, without such interconnected webs of compromises and horse trades and favors, you don't have a party, you just have a loose collection of people who happen to agree with each other on some issues.

At the end of the day, Clinton is still going to be in the Democratic party, she doesn't disappear into a puff of smoke just because she conceded, and neither do her supporters and allies. Helping vanquished opponents pay off campaign debts is hardly a new thing. And guess what? For years Obama has been raising money for other Democrats, people you don't necessarily know and might not necessarily like. If you call yourself an Obama supporter, then support whatever measures are required to clean up the loose ends from the Primary, and that includes helping retire at least some of Clinton's debts.

You're like the people who get it into their heads that in some hideous miscarriage of justice, the money they pay in taxes magically goes directly to whatever government program they happen to hate or think is useless, and not to the hundreds of programs and services they support or take for granted.

[Malcolm Tucker]

Obama can't legally pay off more than $2300 of Hillary's debt. When they talk about him 'helping' her pay off her debt they mean using his website, volunteers etc to raise money for her. All the money you sent Obama will stay in his warchest, it won't go to paying Hillary's debt.

EDIT: I guess $2300 is more than one cent, but still.

[Andrew Mayer]

You're like the people who get it into their heads that in some hideous miscarriage of justice, the money they pay in taxes magically goes directly to whatever government program they happen to hate or think is useless, and not to the hundreds of programs and services they support or take for granted.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/3566/clock/pbf.jpg
We have to protect our Purity of Essence, Mandrake!

[Unicorn McGriddle]

If you want an equivalent corporate scenario to illustrate my position, it would be in favor of showing an incompetent CEO to the door gently but firmly sans golden parachute.

"Retired presidents now receive a pension based on the salary of the current administration's cabinet secretaries (Executive Level I), which is $191,300 as of 2008. [The relevant legislation] also provides former presidents with travel funds and mailing privileges." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Salary)

[Kraaze]

"Retired presidents now receive a pension based on the salary of the current administration's cabinet secretaries (Executive Level I), which is $191,300 as of 2008. [The relevant legislation] also provides former presidents with travel funds and mailing privileges." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Salary)

That's not golden parachute level stuff. But it ain't a bad pension for eight years of work.