Bush/Cheney deserve impeachment to restore accountability to the people, not just as "punishment".

But the math doesn't work on impeachment of Bush or Cheney until more Republicans are replaced, but that is over a year a way, and too late. The House and Senate Republicans have demonstrated they will vote by party affiliation. (Gonzales is another matter, and he should be prevented from ever holding an office of the public trust again so he doesn't pop up in some future Republican administration in 20 years.)

What we should consider is a sort of American "truth and reconciliation" after Bush is gone. We need to roll back the transgressions. We need ask: how can we pull back the secrecy veil and learn who did what ... and to whom? And what do we do to prevent this from happening again (a new president rescinding previous executive orders doesn't prevent a future president from doing it again)?

WARING: This is going to get ugly.

TA's commentary is not only bullshit and dismissive, but fundamentally wrong. Impeachment is not just politically sound, but ethically, principally and legally as well.

As I have said numerous times in these threads, it is a Constitutional imperative to hold this administration to account for its actions. TA talks out of multiple sides of his mouth. He castigates those who want accountability of this out-of-control administration on justified moral outrage as if holding moral and ethical principles at the core of our social contract has no business in governance. From his bit over on his blog:

I don't care for anyone's morality being shoved down my throat, and I really dislike stupid politics that attacks our best friends in Congress.

This is some bemusing bullshit on his part.

But to fund the change here in Oregon through cigarettes? I find that morally, and personally, repugnant.

That is from his completely schizophrenic article front and center yesterday evening here at BlueOregon about opposing funding children's healthcare on moral grounds that the revenue comes from smoking (never mind that is part of the point, to diminish the single largest source of healthcare problems i.e. smoking).

So when it comes to the justified moral and ethical outrage against the criminality of this administrations actions and holding said actions to account through the Constitutional mechanism of impeachment, is is suddenly beyond the pale because it is morality based outrage?

Sorry, but that is rank hypocrisy on his part.

He derisively dismisses Constitutional principles as a form Jefforsonian idolatry, then ignores that there is a legal case to be made. What next, the "la la la I can't hear you" argument?

So what is the enterprise of our society or our government if violations of ethics, principles and the law are not legitimate reasons to impeach in TA's eyes?

What exactly IS an impeachable offense in TA's world?

If Bush had conspired to kill a person for illegitimate and fraudulent reasons, say someone he hated personally and then lied about why he had this guy killed by fraudulently claiming he was threatening to rape Laura would that be an impeachable offense?

But somehow doing the same when it involves killing hundreds of thousands of people and destroying a country (not too mention killing over 3,700 of our own troops) and maiming hundreds of thousands more isn't?

To underscore this, he then goes on and claims it is politically a nonstarter. An position which as I pointed out yesterday is total malarky. From a purely political point of view, NOT holding this administration to account is actually hemorrhaging political capital on the Democratic side (witness the slide in Congressional approval ratings for both Democrats and the GOP members). Actually taking action to hold this overwhelmingly unpopular administration to account will gain Democrats political capital and muscle.

From a purely electoral position, impeachment would be a political albatross for the REPUBLICANS, not the Democrats. The move for impeachment in say late fall early winter impeachment comes up and gets into the Senate.

You're Gordon Smith, do you defend Bush/Cheney and hand your seat over to the Democratic nominee because you are wrapping your arms around an administration that is at approval ratings in the same area as Nixon's was the week before he resigned?

Or do you vote for impeachment to try and solidify your moderate image with swing voter suburban voters and piss off your dwindling base?

Furthermore, impeachment would earn Wyden and the caucus the political muscle to not just address the egregious actions of this administration, but actually put them in a position to address the substantive legislative issues on the agenda which Wyden wants to accomplish, healthcare reform, etc.

Sorry, but TA's "argument" is a total bust on every level.

T.A. seems not to have read my piece.

I know Ron Wyden opposed the war. I went there intending to praise him for that stand and ask him an entirely different question than the one I ended up asking because time at the mics ran out.

I settled on asking whether he trusted the administration because I figured the answer would be short (like, "no") and encourage him to actively support impeachment because we can't afford to have an administration in place for the next 15 months if it can't be trusted. Instead, for whatever reason, he used the "trust but verify" line.

This administration requires a little tougher control than that implies. Every move they make needs to be examined for loopholes ahead of time. Trust but verify isn't a philosophy that is suspicious, it's one that assumes "trust" and "verifies" that nothing untoward is taking place after the fact.

Maybe he didn't mean to imply that was the way he was going to approach the rest of the Bush years, but his words about waiting for the Petraeus report during the meeting certainly seemed as if it was in line with his thinking.

I fail to understand how I'm shoving my morality down anyone's throat simply by criticizing a statement by Ron Wyden. I thought that was my right as an American citizen, a lifelong Oregonian, and a constituent of Senator Wyden. Don't we usually hear this stuff about throat-shoving from people on FOX News? Are they writing for Blue Oregon now?

Democratic Party. Love it or leave it.

< blockquote >Posted by: Becky | Aug 16, 2007 1:19:27 PM

I think (and hope) that he is refraining from saying things that will embarrass the President and result in having his access blocked.

That is precisely the bullshit way of thinking and operating which has cowed the media and rendered the Democrats eunuchs. A more pathetic statement in politics is hard to come by.

He is doing a damned good job as far as I can see and demonstrating a strong spine, a good heart, and a quick mind.

Name one substantive strong position on anything that Wyden and the Democratic has gotten through the 110th Congress. Are we going to hang our hats on folding min. wage into a "must pass" military budget authorization bill? The scramble before the recess to make legal the illegal wiretapping programs by re-writing the laws to make the illegal violation of the 4th amendment legal? The capitulation on CAFTA, the FISA bill... what? Some strong spine. I WANT to trust Wyden, I WANT to trust our caucus. I WANT them being strong, but I don't see any sign of it occurring.

Ugh:

Posted by: Becky | Aug 16, 2007 1:19:27 PM I think (and hope) that he is refraining from saying things that will embarrass the President and result in having his access blocked.

That is precisely the bullshit way of thinking and operating which has cowed the media and rendered the Democrats eunuchs. A more pathetic statement in politics is hard to come by.

He is doing a damned good job as far as I can see and demonstrating a strong spine, a good heart, and a quick mind.

Name one substantive strong position on anything that Wyden and the Democratic have gotten through the 110th Congress. Are we going to hang our hats on folding min. wage into a "must pass" military budget authorization bill? The scramble before the recess to make legal the illegal wiretapping programs by re-writing the laws to make the illegal violation of the 4th amendment legal?

The capitulation on CAFTA, the FISA bill... what?

Why no filibuster on the Military Commisons Act of 2006?

Some strong spine.

I WANT to trust Wyden, I WANT to trust our caucus. I WANT them being strong, but I don't see any sign of it occurring.

I think (and hope) that he is refraining from saying things that will embarrass the President and result in having his access blocked.

That's fine if you actually think that access to the president will get you somewhere, i.e. if you trust them to do the right thing given time and pressure. That's the kind of trust I'm talking about.

But that gets back to my question of whether the administration can be trusted to respond in a positive manner to anything Wyden does. You think it's possible. Wyden apparently believes the same thing.

My own viewpoint is that they have not proven trustworthy and that if Sen. Wyden truly believes that they can't be trusted he needs to begin to at the very least start to work to constrain the damage the administration can do over the next 15 months. I don't think he can advocate for that and simultaneously say he can work with the administration.

Man. What T.A. said. Word.

Whenever I read circular-firing squad attacks like this (usually on the same handful of sites, commondreams, democraticunderound, etc) I always end up asking myself the same question. Who are these people? And how the hell can they be so self-delusional?

I've decided that it simply must have something to do with the political bifurcation of America. Liberals and conservatives used to be far more mixed in their neighborhoods. Now it's possible to live your entire life without ever seeing someone in person who disagrees with you, except on T.V.

That makes it possible to -in your own mind- reduce the opposition to a crude political cartoon, and dramatically underestimate the appeal their ideology has to the public at large. It also allows for extremist expectations in representation, where seeing even the slightest deviation from the litmus test of party orthodoxy causes people to viciously attack the country's best political leaders.

This pains me greatly, because by and large I agree with the moral stances of progressive protesters. In a fair and just world, Bush wouldn't have the support he does from the Republican party, and it would be possible to not only impeach him, but convict him.

The problem is, that this isn't a fair or just world. And you can do much harm to the cause of good by pretending it is. Nor will telling people to (or making in-your-face demonstrations) "wake up" voters change that; they're often a lot less nice than you think.

Whenever I read circular-firing squad attacks like this

What's sort of funny is that you say you see a circular firing squad but you don't realize that you're filling your place on one arc of the circle. And you're the one who's shooting.

I directed my criticism at Sen. Wyden. He's a big boy, he can take it from the likes of me. I haven't accused you or any of Wyden's supporters of ramming your morality down my throat, or jamming your rationales into some other of my orifices. I haven't questioned anyone's motives.

I did criticize Kari's use of "lynchmob", "shrieking" and "screaming" and Jeff's categorization of my argument as "crap". I did suggest that it was condescending of Adrian to assume that people at the meeting needed to get out of their "liberal comfort zone" without having any idea who she was talking to. I did corect some factual errors people made.

If you feel that is evidence of a circular firing squad, that's fine, but if anyone in this conversation is throwing invective at other commenters it sure isn't me.

The capitulation on CAFTA, the FISA bill... what?

For the record, every single Democrat in Congress from Oregon - Wyden, Wu, Blumnauer, DeFazio, and Hooley - voted against the FISA bill.

Gordon Smith and Greg Walden voted for it. Say what you want about the Democratic leadership in D.C., but let's give credit where it's due.

Posted by: Miles | Aug 16, 2007 2:06:07 PM If you can prove that Bush was engaged in a conspiracy to manufacture intelligence about Iraq with the intent of using that intelligence to start a war, you have an impeachable offense. But while I hear speculation about that, I've never seen any hard evidence. Have you? Simply assuming that such a conspiracy took place is not enough. [It's also worth pointing out that disagreeing with the intelligence he was receiving is not impeachable. That's the president's right, as leader of the executive branch. It's why elections are so important.]

Manufacturing intelligence is not the hurdle to clear. Was knowingly false information given as to Saddam's WMDs? Yes. We know that for a fact. Cheney himself said we know he had a reconstituted nuclear capability. That is factually false and Cheney knew it was false when he said it publicly.

As darrelplant posted yesterday, Officers of the United States can be impeached for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to criminal acts. That case is stated very specifically in any of the number of books that came out on impeachment last year (and in previous years) as well as the section in the February 1974 House Judiciary report on impeachment titled "The Criminality Issue". As the report points out, nobody passes laws to specifically govern the use of power of people like presidents and attorney generals. Impeachment isn't even a punishment. It's an act of the representatives of the people retaking power from someone who has abused their authority and has shown that they cannot be trusted with the power that comes with that authority.

Cheney asserted unequivocally that there were WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda in order to push the Iraq war. That in itself is an impeachable offense.

It doesn't even matter whether he believed it or not (not that I think he did). He helped to involve the nation in a war based on false information. Now, if he lied about that information, that's malfeasance and abuse of his position as vice president to promulgate false information with the authority of his office (abuse of power). If he did not know that the information was false, that's incompetence, which is another ground for impeachment.

No, you stand up and give a solemn speech about how the Democrats are using impeachment as a political tool to get what they want, since they haven't been successful through the regular political process. You talk about how dangerous and irresponsible it is to impeach the commander-in-chief during wartime. You talk about the importance of bipartisanship, of how we'll only solve the Iraq quagmire and pressing domestic issues by working together to a common solution. And you coast to reelection.

Bah... what blather. He either votes for it or he doesn't. His floor speech will mean next to nothing, and his using said speech you hypothesis is what, defending not voting to impeach, or defended why he voted to impeach?

If You think Smith defending Bush is a winner for him electorally? I have a bridge in New York I can sell you. Smith from December 2006 until election Day 2008 will be putting as much distance as he can afford to in order to get re-elected. Look at what his tortured defense of his and Cheney/Rove's actions on the Klamath fish-kill are producing. We have the Register Guard basically saying Smith is a liar, and that is nothing compared to defending Bush were the full airing that an impeachment hearings would bring.

What do you think happens to Smith's numbers if he is forced to publicly defend Cheney/Bush and not vote to impeach if it came to a vote?

Already the majority in the country want Cheney impeached and that is before we even have a single hearing on it. You think defending impeaching Mr. 19% approval is a winner for him?

Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 16, 2007 2:37:10 PM The capitulation on CAFTA, the FISA bill... what? For the record, every single Democrat in Congress from Oregon - Wyden, Wu, Blumnauer, DeFazio, and Hooley - voted against the FISA bill.

There was no reason for Reid to have even brought the FISA bill to the floor. It should never have even gotten to a vote.

Posted by: PeachIm | Aug 16, 2007 2:43:47 PM In other words, the Democrats are just reversing the last election because they didn't like the outcome and now they have the votes?

No. It's an act of the representatives of the people retaking power from someone who has abused their authority and has shown that they cannot be trusted with the power that comes with that authority.

I think anyone who thinks the polls will defend against that is naive. I am willing to bet most of the people here arguing against impeachment would tell a pollster they support it. "Do you support impeaching the President?" Yes. "Do you think the Democrats in congress should impeach the President?" No.

Start with Gonzo, then Cheney...and THEN Bush. Problem solved.

Posted by: PeachIm | Aug 16, 2007 3:07:27 PM

You can call it anything you want. Its not an election, which is the way the American people expect to choose a President.

Funny, Gerald Ford was president and never elected yet I didn't hear there was a backlash against Congress for removing Agnew and Nixon.

I can hear the message now: "Send the Democrats in congress a message: We, the people, get to choose the President, not them."

History rpoves that isn't liekly.

And Gordon Smith: "I voted against impeachment because I think its up to the people to change the administration if they don't like its policies, not a partisan congress."

Agian, history proves that talking point doesn't hold, and as I explain below, that scenario isn't even likely were covnictiosn to occur (which isn't likely).

Do you think congress should make the Democratic Speaker of the House President by impeaching the President and Vice-President?

Impeaching first Gonzales then Cheney before you turn to Bush is what I am talking about. By the time consideration of removing Bush comes Smith will have had to make his choice, defend Gonzales or vote to impeach, Defend Cheney or vote to impeach. He either permanently wraps himself in Bush or he pisses of the GOP core voter. It is a lose/lose proposition for him. Then Cheney, same thing. At that point The House can nominate a token GOP as vice-president and the entire Pelosi voting in herself as President canard is moot. Though a "Pelosi '07" bumper sticker is a great idea. (grin)

Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 16, 2007 3:16:19 PM Start with Gonzo, then Cheney...and THEN Bush. Problem solved.

Exactly. Long before you get to Bush Smith will have screwed himself. Not just Smith, but torn apart the GOP and put Coleman, Collins and a raft of others in the same disastrous choice politically.

darrelplant What's sort of funny is that you say you see a circular firing squad but you don't realize that you're filling your place on one arc of the circle. And you're the one who's shooting.

No, I'm watching you and the DLC in that circular firing squad both go out of your way to publicly declare how absolutely awful Democrats are. And, I wonder, how either of you can imagine that that is good for your own goals. Since, at least as far as you are concerned, they're mine too.

Consider me to be the guy standing outside the circle on your side, tapping you on the shoulder, saying "Are you sure that's a good idea?"

Posted by: PeachIm | Aug 16, 2007 4:23:08 PM But isn't the far more likely scenario that Cheney is impeached and found not guilty by the Senate?

No. I don't think in such a scenario, if it made to the Senate, that Cheney would not get convicted. And if he did, it would take people like SMith voting to not convict which kills Smith in distancing himself from Bush and kills his fake-moderate schtick.

As for Gonzalez, be careful what you wish for. Its perfectly possible the Republicans will all vote to impeach him but not Cheney and Bush.

If the GOP moves with the Dems to impeach and convict Gonzales, then all hell breaks loose. Gonzales is the finger in the damn that is the lynch-pin for keeping Bush out of jail, let alne simply removal from office.

Thus demonstrating their objective, thoughtful, balanced natures in contrast to those partisan democrats.

The bloodbath within the GOP over impeachment of the AG or the VP alone would shred the GOP base eight-ways from Sunday.

No, I'm watching you and the DLC in that circular firing squad both go out of your way to publicly declare how absolutely awful Democrats are.

So your criticism of me isn't criticism of a Democrat? Hmmm. I'll have to check my voter registration again.

I didn't realize I was in a fight with the DLC. Do they even know who I am? I thought I was more along the lines of a gnat avoiding the tail of an elephant dressed up as a donkey.

Or are you saying that Senator Wyden is a member of the DLC?

And Steve, I'd like to add that "standing outside the circle on your side, tapping you on the shoulder" isn't a particularly safe position to take up if people are shooting at me. Why don't you go tap on the other side of the circle for a while?

Tap on the other side? Hmmm.... Do you really think the DLC and the Blue Dogs will listen to me?

I mean, let's be fair. If you were attacking the DLC, I probably wouldn't even mention this whole idea that attacking your friends isn't very smart, since I'm not always convinced that the DLC are our friends. But look, my friend, that gun you got pointed isn't going across, you're shooting at Ron Wyden, who's facing almost exactly the same way you are.

And hell, compared to the neo-nazi GOP (yes, yes, Kari, I know that's bad rhetoric - but what else do you call torturers?) even Lieberman isn't the worst. If he wasn't caucusing with us, Senator Wyden wouldn't even be in a position to even consider doing what you're asking of him.

I dunno. I just think, as they say, that honey attracts a lot more flies than vinegar. Think about that next time before ignoring Republicans to get in the fact of a guy who agrees with you more than just about any other elected representative.

Posted by: trishka | Aug 16, 2007 4:38:10 PM so, those of you who think the numbers for impeachment could be reached in the senate, who are the sixty?

Actually it takes 2/3rds, or 67 votes to convict.

In Clinton's trial, the perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for conviction and 55 against. The obstruction of justice charge was defeated with 50 for conviction and 50 against.

The 60 vote threshold is for cloture on a bill (i.e. ending debate) not conviction in an impeachment trial or overriding a veto.

Think about that next time before ignoring Republicans to get in the fact of a guy who agrees with you more than just about any other elected representative.

Who got in anyone's face? I shook Wyden's hand, passed him my business card, and spoke to him very calmly. I was too shocked by his answer to really react at the time. Are you really paying so little attention that you think was "in his face" yelling at him?

If you think the DLC and the Blue Dogs aren't going to listen to you, why would you expect Republicans to listen to me? That just doesn't make any sense. And it's not as if I haven't ever criticized Republicans. I helped push a story about Gordon Smith calling John Kerry a socialist in 2004 by pointing out to WW that the Oregonian had missed that little item although it had shown up in another paper ("If it Matters to Oregonians, it's in the LA Times").

So spare me the sanctimony about how the angry bloggers bringing down the tone of the conversation and not understanding the realities of the "real world". Ron Wyden was just a few years older than I am when he was elected to the Senate. Of course things don't happen overnight. Nobody's expecting that. But people like Wyden need to start the ball rolling at some point.

You people seem to have a real problem with anyone speaking out of turn. Is re-education camp open this late in the summer?

If you guys think Ron Wyden has to worry about a guy with an English major, some research skill, a computer, and taste for sarcasm, then I wonder how you think he's up to the task of fighting the Bush administration. I think he's stronger than that, myself. But I don't think he should be saying or implying that he trusts the administration. I don't think he should be trusting the Bush administration whether he says it or not. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't.

And keep up the "McGovernik" stuff, LT. I'm sure all the guys from the '72 Scoop Jackson camp who are now the neo-cons who got us into Iraq (Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz) love that stuff too!

Those of you who are so impatient and angry,

I don't know what's impatient about suggesting that Wyden and the Democrats need to be more active about ending the war. It's been going on for four years and five months.

Here's an angry man:

Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968

What is your evidence, Darrel, that they haven't been active? From where I stand, Ron Wyden was against the war from the start. If it was up to him, we would have never been there.

You seem to confuse being outvoted with being lazy. Let me assure you, that isn't true.

jesus, i'm gonna have to start being careful if people are going to start reading TCC. i've been inconsistent there about posting (to say the least) and in trying to change that, i'm posting a bit more first-drafty stuff (what Anne Lamott calls "shitty first drafts" and i certainly fall into that school of thought). but one thing is true: my opinion of Wyden has changed a lot in the past few years. he's gone from being regularly disappointing (voting for the frikkin Trident sub back in the 80s) to who he now is. let's save our anger for Gordo, not Ron.

oh, Darrel - no i didn't read your piece. i've never been to your site. someone at BO put us together, and that's the first i've seen of your piece. and i can't get to your site, either. maybe it's a bad link? but i want to read it. so i can see if we're "divergent" or simply complementary.

Republicans everywhere hope the impeachment question will divide Democrats. Some Democrats are becoming overwhelmed by their own sense of infallibility about impeachment and about the consequences of the war in Iraq. Democrats who become intoxicated with a "holier-than-thou" attitude ignore the complexities involved in taking back our country in 2008. We are in for a very tough election in 2008, make no mistake about it, there will be no cakewalk.

Some of these posts are stunning in their flip of the finger toward an Oregon Democratic Senator.

The moment Cheney is impeached, a replacement will be named. There is no possible way through impeachment to end up with a President Pelosi. This is a non-starter.

Those who are comparing this to Watergate need to rewind the tape. Support for Nixon's removal built because of John Dean, because of 18 minute gaps, because of cash payoffs in dark parking lots, and of course the killer were the White House tapes.

There is nothing NEW that will come out. There is no NEW support that will be gained on the pro-impeachment side.

The impeachment chorus have not even won over one of the more liberal members of the Senate and one of the most liberal members of the House, Blumenauer. You will get

Politically reality check, folks: impeachment wouldn't gain even 150 votes in the House. You are wasting time and energy.

If you guys think Ron Wyden has to worry about a guy with an English major, some research skill, a computer, and taste for sarcasm

Is there any chance that his "trust but verify" quip was sarcasm-in-kind?

"Is there any chance that his "trust but verify" quip was sarcasm-in-kind?"

Almost none, I would say. He's used it too many times before, as darrel documented in a followup post. In the cases I saw documented, they were not jovial rejoinders at a town hall; they appear to be statements from the floor or prepared comments for publishing.

The obvious example that validates "trust but verify" is his apparent reliance on the White House report, which we're still wrongly calling the Petraeus report. Anyone who thinks it's going to be an honest and serious attempt to judge progress is really, really kidding themselves.

It is LUDICROUS to suggest that because someone is otherwise a good to great representative, that they must be immune from any public censure. I think even the Senator would agree that his constituency has the right to hold him accountable--and find him wanting--on any subject, as long as the criticism is fair.

I got told in no uncertain terms that Wyden does NOT trust the President on Iraq, Iran and civil liberties. I must surmise then that even if the White House Report on Iraq is presented positively, he will not trust that assessment. I hope so.

What is your evidence, Darrel, that they haven't been active? From where I stand, Ron Wyden was against the war from the start.

Are you sure you want to open that can of worms, Steve? Because every time I have to do some research to bolster my point is going to mean picking at Wyden's record. I think some people might prefer that it would be enough for me to state my opinion that I don't think Wyden's been active enough in opposing the war, and you could disagree with me about how active he actually has been, but if you really want to challenge my opinion, I'll do some research.

Wyden doesn't have his news releases from 2002 online, but his 2003 news releases with Iraq in the title consist solely of items related to wasteful spending on Iraq reconstruction projects. So far as I can tell, there's nothing there in something like 130 news releases expressing opposition to the war. He "SPEAKS OUT AGAINST ENERGY BILL" and he "urges BPA to Stop Rate Increase for Power Customers by Settling NW Utility Lawsuits" -- both good things -- but nothing in that first year calling for an end to the war.

2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 will have to wait for another day.

Or, take a look at the timeline he distributed at the meeting Tuesday. What's the first item on there about directly ending the war? April 8, 2006. Three years after the war began. Prior to that, he'd voted to prohibit excessive deployments, examine the Iraq intelligence, reqire the president to submit reports on his plans, investigate contracts (again), and call for 2006 to be the Year of Iraqi Sovereignty (and to set a timetable, although not mandating any dates), and not to establish permanent bases.

He didn't introduce any of the items he voted on in those first three years. He didn't co-sponsor any of the amendments he voted on in 2003, 2004 or 2005. There's a hell of a big gap in the items between June 23, 2004 and November 10, 2005. Seventeen months with nothing. And that's Wyden's own timeline.

So yeah, I think a more active opposition to the war may have been called for, particularly since the senator -- as a member of the intelligence committee who voted against the Iraq AUMF -- presumably knew that there was no credible evidence that Iraq had been a threat to the United States.

Lazy's your term. My description was naive.

oh, Darrel - no i didn't read your piece. i've never been to your site. someone at BO put us together, and that's the first i've seen of your piece. and i can't get to your site, either.

t.a. It seems that Dreamhost decided to blow a digital switch -- good timing. Google has a cached version.

Is there any chance that his "trust but verify" quip was sarcasm-in-kind?

Kari, I've never spoken to or met Wyden before (I assume he doesn't know me). I had a serious question. Why would he have interpreted it as sarcasm? Does he usually treat constituents he doesn't know with sarcastic remarks? He responded with a phrase he's used numerous times in the past that appears in news stories and his own press releases. He followed Reagan's stolen Russian proverb with an explanation of how he was my guy in Washington to verify that the administration wasn't getting out of line. I didn't introduce myself or say the seven or eight words in my question in a funny voice; he seemed sincere in his reply. There was no "in-kind" sarcasm in that exchange. As I said in my piece, I'm nothing if not polite.

I got told in no uncertain terms that Wyden does NOT trust the President on Iraq, Iran and civil liberties.

Um, then doesn't that seem to support the idea that he was responding to Darrel's sarcasm with sarcasm of his own?

Aha, just read your comment, Darrel. I'll take your word for it that you didn't intend to sound sarcastic.

Of course, that's how I originally read it in your text... after all, in the context of multi-hour meeting about how untrustworthy the Bushies are, when someone asks, "Do you trust 'em?" that might likely come off as sarcasm.

Aha, just read your comment, Darrel. I'll take your word for it that you didn't intend to sound sarcastic.

Let me get this straight, Kari.

Your contention is that Wyden was being sarcastic when he was telling me that he was my representative in Washington and that he was protecting my interests? That he didn't really mean what he was saying?

That he was, in effect, telling me that he was not my representative in Washington and that he was not protecting my interests.

Frankly, I liked him better when he was just wrongly trusting the Bush administration. You make it sound like he actively despises the people who elected him senator.

"Um, then doesn't that seem to support the idea that he was responding to Darrel's sarcasm with sarcasm of his own?"

Um, no--it supports the idea that his staff wanted to minimize any fallout from Wyden having repeated the "trust but verify" phrase for the umpteenth time. And doesn't his support of the White House Report as an honest tool for evaluating the war support the idea that he was serious?

Your contention is that Wyden was being sarcastic when he was telling me that he was my representative in Washington and that he was protecting my interests? That he didn't really mean what he was saying?

No, that's exactly NOT what I was saying. I was saying that I think Ron might have tried to be funny. Badly.

But then, I wasn't there. I'll step away now.

"can someone who is in favor of impeachment please give me the names of 16 republicans who we could reasonably expect to abandon their party and vote for impeachment?"

I'll give you 22:

Jeff Sessions of Alabama Saxby Chambliss of Georgia Pat Roberts of Kansas Mitch McConnell of Kentucky Susan Collins of Maine Norm Coleman of Minnesota John Sununu of New Hampshire Pete Domenici of New Mexico Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma Gordon Smith of Oregon Lindsey Graham of South Carolina Lamar Alexander of Tennessee John Cornyn of Texas Michael Enzi of Wyoming

They're all up for re-election in 2008. They like their jobs. Voting no on conviction would imperil those jobs.

If you think a couple are so hard headed they'll stick with President 25%, substitute Senators like Snowe, Warner, Hagel and Voinovich.

Actually it takes 2/3rds, or 67 votes to convict

It only takes a majority in the House to begin impeachment proceedings in the Judiciary committee. Those proceedings would normally include impeachment hearings which would publicly make the case for impeachment.

It only takes a majority of House Judiciary committee members to pass articles of impeachment to the full House after hearings. By that time in the process in 1974 -- five months after the House had first approved consideration of impeachment and two months after the hearings had begun -- enough evidence had been presented that passage of the articles from the House was assured (although never voted on because Nixon resigned). Senate passage was still uncertain.

Here's what TIME reported the week the House first formally considered whether to think about impeaching Nixon in February 1974:

"At the moment," says one G.O.P. leader, "there are not more than one or two Republicans on that [House Judiciary] committee who are inclined to support an impeachment resolution." One or two are not enough. It is generally agreed that at least six of the 17 Republicans on the committee must endorse the resolution before the Democrats dare risk sending it to the floor. Otherwise, unless one or more charges are clear-cut and proved, the Democrats would leave themselves open to the accusation of partisanship. In that case, not enough Republicans would support impeachment in the final vote —though the Democrats could force it through by simple majority—to convince the American people that the Democrats were not simply voting to oust a Republican nemesis. And if a badly divided House sent charges against the President to the Senate, the leadership there might not be able to get the necessary support—two-thirds of the members present at the time of voting—to find Nixon guilty. As matters now stand, Republican leaders feel that no more than 44 Senators would favor conviction on the weight of the evidence available thus far.

What's pointless is arguing that you need to know the results of a jury decision before you present evidence at a trial. That's what happens through an impeachment hearing and trial. You may prefer to know the outcome -- who doesn't like a sure thing? -- but to say that it's mandatory is before any evidence is publicly presented in a manner expressly designed to build a case for impeachment is antithetical to the whole process of American law. Why bother having a trial?

And yes, a VP has to be approved by the Senate, just like Ford was.

whoops, I cut some names off, it seems. That's only 15, but I know there are 22 GOP up in 2008. A few will be retirements, however.

My skepticism about getting to 67 votes in the Senate to impeach Bush/Cheney isn't just that they aren't there now, but that this crop of Republicans has no demonstrated pattern of choosing to protect the constitution over protecting their party -- they've had lots of chances to stand up before now. The impeachable offenses aren't hidden somewhere to be exposed in the House impeachment and Senate trial. It boggles the mind to think that at least a third of Senate Republicans would suddenly change their stripes.

trishka, it's like any other executive branch appointment. The president gets to pick who they want and the senate votes on whether to confirm them or not.

There's not a lot of legacy to it. The procedure was only put in place several years after the Kennedy assassination. It hasn't been used except for Agnew's replacement by Ford.

If Cheney was impeached after, say, November 22, a good case could be made that no VP would need to be confirmed. Johnson made it without a VP through the end of 1963 and all of 1964 while running the country, spinning up the Vietnam War, and campaigning for re-election. Humphrey wasn't sworn in until January 1965, fourteen months after Johnson had to assume the presidency. The war president's not up for re-election.

not that markos is the be-all and end-all authority, but he's a pretty sharp guy on this stuff. i'm just not seeing that many republicans with their seats in that much jeopardy that it would call for them to break with party on the issue of impeachment.

That's an analysis minus the issue of impeachment. I'm saying that after actual hearings put the actual abuses on display in that format, you will see a shift of public opinion and a rejiggering of the political calculus. Why am I saying that? Because that's exactly what happened in 1974. The story that brought down Nixon was a joke to mainstream America in 1972 and much of 1973. Once the hearings started, that changed.

My skepticism about getting to 67 votes in the Senate to impeach Bush/Cheney isn't just that they aren't there now, but that this crop of Republicans has no demonstrated pattern of choosing to protect the constitution over protecting their party

It's not a matter of protecting the Constitution. It's protecting their jobs. Gordon Smith didn't start squealing about Iraq until after the 2006 elections made him realize he might have to back off from his unconditional support for Bush's war project. He knew that he was going to have to start establishing a paper trail of "opposition" that extended back more than a couple of months before the 2008 election if he was going to win.

"largely because the abuses ARE known, both to the senators and to the public."

I really am not at all sure that's true. I don't think the majority of the American public grasps that the White House was told in no uncertain terms that there was no evidence of a nuclear program, yet that's exactly what Cheney claimed. I don't think they grasp that the President admitted he flouted FISA and said he would do it again if necessary. I think they DO get that Gonzo's a liar, though, and you can imagine 17 GOP Senators turning on him, can't you? I can.

Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 17, 2007 10:07:20 AM It only takes a majority in the House to begin impeachment proceedings in the Judiciary committee.

Never said otherwise. I was simply correcting trishka's earlier question about who the 60 in the Senate are who would vote to convict, since the threshold for conviction is 67, not 60. I am well aware that it takes just a simply majority to pass articles of impeachment out of the House to the Senate. Same with creating a committee to hold hearings on impeachment. Simple majority in the House, which the Speaker could call fro at any time if she wanted to.

What's pointless is arguing that you need to know the results of a jury decision before you present evidence at a trial. That's what happens through an impeachment hearing and trial. You may prefer to know the outcome -- who doesn't like a sure thing? -- but to say that it's mandatory is before any evidence is publicly presented in a manner expressly designed to build a case for impeachment is antithetical to the whole process of American law. Why bother having a trial? And yes, a VP has to be approved by the Senate, just like Ford was.

Don't disagree with any of that. In fact I have been arguing the same side of the issue as you have for quite some time now. Your posting yesterday with the link the the 1974 report about the "criminality issue" is crucial for people to read and understand. If anyone has not done so, particularly any staffers in our elected official offices who may be reading this, I strongly urge that they get up to speed on it. Wu, who is my rep and who I have supported, really seems to be out of touch if he things that impeachment is only for "high criminality against the state".

Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 17, 2007 11:00:19 AM not that markos is the be-all and end-all authority, but he's a pretty sharp guy on this stuff. i'm just not seeing that many republicans with their seats in that much jeopardy that it would call for them to break with party on the issue of impeachment. That's an analysis minus the issue of impeachment. I'm saying that after actual hearings put the actual abuses on display in that format, you will see a shift of public opinion and a rejiggering of the political calculus. Why am I saying that? Because that's exactly what happened in 1974. The story that brought down Nixon was a joke to mainstream America in 1972 and much of 1973. Once the hearings started, that changed.

Exactly. And from a pure political/ electoral view, defending Mr. 19% Dick "Go Fuck Yourself" Cheney is an electoral third-rail. This forces any and all GOP members (particularly those seeking re-election) to make the lose/lose choice of defending Bush/Cheeny and getting killed at the polls or voting to impeach and pissing off their base. It is a lose/lose for them and win/win for us.

triska, I don't see how any of those things would forestall Bush's impeachment.

The GOP leadership would likely have some say in any choice for VP. I don't think Sen. Brownback or Sen. McCain would be particularly happy to have their campaigns derailed by having any of the other presidential candidates slotted into the VP seat and they would actually get to vote. There are four sitting Democratic senators in the running for the White House right now, as well, and I can't see them or their supporters confirming any of the GOP candidates as VP.

Bush can be impeached without a VP in place. And yes, that would lead to the potential of a President Pelosi, and yes that might mean Bush wouldn't be convicted in the Senate, but it wouldn't stop hearings from taking place. Hearings on Bush and Cheney could take place simultaneously, just like their "talk" with the 9/11 Commission did. If he was convicted and removed from office, and Pelosi took charge, it wouldn't make any difference to the electoral camp because it's pretty late in the season even right now for someone to jump in, and I suspect she'd be pretty busy.

lestatdelc, I know where you've been standing, I quoted that line from a post by trishka not realizing that it was originally from one of your posts.

if supporting mr. 19% approval cheney is such a terrible third rail for republican senators, why have they all gone along with everything the bush administration has put in front of them to date?

Because they weren't up for re-election, and there was no precedent for them losing in 2006, and no massively covered set of hearings? You have six GOP Senators from last year who are no longer on Capitol Hill, and 22 more coming up next year. Several are not considering retirement because they want more time with their families...they are worried about losing, or serving in a severely ugly situation for Republicans in 2009.

Make some substitutions in your question: "If Republicans didn't realize Nixon was a warmonger in a failed war where opinion had turned against him, why would they vote for impeachment?"

"like, the republican senators are going to look up from their bovine grazing and say "wait a minute, they're CROOKS! these are CROOKS we've been supporting all this time.""

Yeah, I don't think you're getting it. It has little to do with realizing that the administration is crooked, and much to do with realizing that the crooked administration threatens to cost them their parking spot at National Airport, and those cool golf trips to Scotland.

I fully expect Republicans to stand closely by the President...right until it becomes clear that doing so is toxic to them. Although I don't put any stock in the artificial timeline set up by the "Petraeus" report, their mere return from a month's worth of angry town halls may have a softening effect. (If you don't believe Republican voters would slam Republican politicians over Iraq, think immigration.)

trishka, there are a lot of Republicans (and even a good number of Democrats) who still think Nixon was railroaded out of office. Dick Cheney for instance. Trent Lott was a member of the House Judiciary committee who voted against all three of the impeachment articles. Nixon won something like 65% of the popular vote in the general election just about a year before the impeachment proceedings got under way. Democratic politicians rushed to embrace the guy whose attorney general and re-election campaign chief went to prison, whose VP had to resign, whose staff went to jail, and who was forced to resign himself because they were scared of that wacky George McGovern. Who knows what horrors he might have unleashed on the nation?!!

So you're right, W is no Nixon. But the Republicans in 1974 didn't think Nixon did anything wrong then and they still don't. That's why they support Bush the way they do. The buckled when they came to the point wher ethey had to put their own careers ahead their loyalty to Nixon. Sure none of them want to see Nancy Pelosi in the White House, but if she was there they could sit and attack her all day long. If the alternative starts to look like they'd lose really, really big in 2008, then they'll put their own hides ahead of Bush's.

It is time to get real about this--how many of you Blue Oregonians know a registered Republican? Or someone registered outside a major party?

When I read comments like this and people saying that people need to get out of their "liberal comfort zone" I wonder how much right-wing mythology you folks have bought into.

Even in Multnomah County a quarter of the voters in 2004 voted for George W. Bush. Just under half of the registered voters in the county at the time were Democrats. About 20% were registered Republicans. Another 24% or so were registered independent.

If one out of every five voters in the county -- the most Democratic county in the state by far -- is a Republican and one out of every four voters in the county voted for Bush, if you know ten random people who vote from around the county then you are likely to know a couple who voted for Bush and are Republicans. Neighbors, co-workers, etc. This idea that Democrats live in some sort of hermetic dome encapsulated in the hometown of Lars Larsen, where Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have had devoted radio audiences for years is just bizarre.

That's just Multnomah County. The odds are even higher in the rest of the state.

Oh, and what about people's families? One of the quintessential stories of the '60s was the "generation gap" wasn't it? Long screaming matches over the dining room table over the Vietnam War and Nixon? Are all those parents dead already? Did all the kids from that generation turn into hippies? (The answer is "no"). You don't think people have siblings or uncles or cousins or some other family member whose politics don't agree with yours? There's a long tradition of jokes about households where spouses cancel out their votes, and I've known at least a couple of those couples personally.

47% of the voters in the state voted for Bush in 2004. If you've got family in the rest of the state, there's an awfully good chance (if they voted) that some of them voted Republican. And if you've got family who voted in the rest of the country, since he presumably won the election with more than 50%, the odds are even higher.

Why is it that the "clear thinkers" (just FYI, that's an example of sarcasm -- where words are used in an ironic manner to imply the opposite of their actual meaning) always think it's Democrats who live in a bubble and not the other way around?

I don't support Mr. Feelgood's comments at all. I was convinced that Wyden's health care plan is a reasonable step, one that gives millions of people what they need in an equitable fashion. And he's certainly not stupid. He is very intelligent, thoughtful and strongly ethical.

I've made my differences clear in no short measure here, but I have to strenuously disagree with some of the other characterizations of him.

Hey folks... this is a thread on Iraq, not on health care. Please stay on topic. There are plenty of other threads on health care -- and if none of 'em turn you on, post a guest column.

I'm a progressive Democrat and the more I hear the screams for impeachment by two or three people on Blue Oregon, I get sickened by it. I tend to agree with LT about impeachment that our energy is better spent on getting things done like ending the war, electing more Democrats in Congress and a Democrat in the White House.

No matter how you look at it, the impeachment of Cheney and Bush is likely to cause a constitutional crisis despite how easy those who advocate impeachment make it sound.

As I have said before, I believe no matter how much impeachment is suppose to be a constitutional check, it seen as a political one.

I would however support the ousting of the Gonzo the Clown (Jeff Merkely sent an email earlier today if anyone didn't recieve it) which would essentially cut the Bush Administration off at the legs and force them to go through the confirmation process for a new AG.