things started getting fairly nasty

I was there the whole two hours and all I can say is "huh?" It was an angry, fed up, and frustrated room to be sure but people were generally respectful, certainly not "nasty." The mood and boisterousness of the crowd seemed to stay at about the same level throughout, with the exception of the 9/11 "truth" folks.

However, he never said he was against [impeachment]

He also never said he was for it. Several people spoke in favor of impeachment from the standpoint of defending the constitution (and balance of powers) and setting a good example both at home and abroad. The point was made, and applauded, that it would be better to try and not succeed than not to try at all.

allow Bush et al. due process, which drew boo's

It mostly drew comments like "but not for everybody else," in reference to the Senator's 2005 vote to suspend habeus corpus for Guantanamo detainees.

I encourage you to move outside of liberal comfort zones and engage the community at large

This is an odd critique, given all the grassroots activist organizations mentioned by people who got up and spoke.

volume is no real substitute for substance.

Sure but in fact, the people who signed up to ask questions seemed to me to offer substance. YMMV.

There is no doubt that the Senator encountered a room full of upset and frustrated constituents. To his credit, he stood there right in front of us and listened to what we had to say. I just hope that his closing remarks about the founding fathers and democratic discourse were more than just platitudes and that he will take some of what people had to say to heart.

I was there too, and first of all, I have to say that I gained a lot of respect for Wyden for his commitment to these "Community Conversation" forums, as the idea of his counterpart, Smith, doing them is just laughable. And Wyden took lots of heat from the crowd, even though he has for the most part been an ally in trying to end this war.

Lestatdelc, I can't independently confirm the facts (or, rather, I'm not going to) but Wyden's comments conflict with yours own his conduct before the war began, as he said that he spoke out formally (i.e. in the Congressional Record) about how both premises for the war were false, namely: 1) any association between Saddam and Al Qaeda/9-11 and 2) the presence of nuclear weapons (WMD) in Iraq.

Adrian, good to hear from you, I met you at the Mitch McConnel protest (I was the young guy who showed up on the bike and took a while to join the efforts because I thought it was limited to vets but ultimately did anyway). As for today, I left after a bit over an hour, but my impression was that Wyden is indeed decided against impeachment, his mind is made up, and he was explaining why. Specifically, he believes that it'll take too damn long and the Dems won't be able to accomplish their legislative goals (one being healthcare reform, I can't remember the second that he mentioned). Of course, the fallacy here is that there's no way in hell the Dems will get anything done that Bush and the Repubs don't want done, as they are more than happy to filibuster or, that failing, veto anything the Dems squeak through Congress that they/he don't approve of. So, I see that as a lost cause.

Second, he said that they frankly don't have the votes, and again, this is a fallacious argument because it is well-documented that before Nixon's impeachment, the tide was against the idea UNTIL the impeachment process took place, which essentially means that the facts were exposed, and when all of the criminal activity was exposed to public consumption, the Republicans lined up in droves to drag Nixon out of the White House. For him to say that they can't impeach because they don't have the votes is like saying that someone can't be sentenced because no jury will convict, but BEFORE the trial. Of course they don't have the votes now, the facts have not been laid out, all we are basing our judgment on is speculation of impeachable offenses (well-grounded as they may be), not actual evidence of them as would be produced by an impeachment trial. It is worth noting that impeachment is a process, a trial, not an actual conviction.

Anyway, I came away feeling most of all like Wyden (and the rest of the Dems) wants to avoid impeachment because, as someone mentioned was stated on KPOJ this morning, the greatest risk is that it would imperil the great likelihood of the Dems winning the Presidency next year (I don't believe that political calculus one bit but they evidently do) while maintaining or even increasing the majority in Congress. I, rather, tend to believe that, as was stated, to ignore the perpetration of illegal activities by the President (and underlings) is a dereliction of duty, as they are sworn to uphold the Constitution, which compels them to defend it.

Finally, I have to believe that our best option is to work on our Reps, like Blumenauer and DeFazio, who I hope are more inclined to see the logic of the argument for impeachment (as a means of ending the war in Iraq, let alone a multitude of other offenses against our country).

Ron Wyden is confident he'll never have to deal with impeachment in the Senate, and in many ways, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because of his lack of leadership in exercising his Constitutional duty to provide checks and balances, our only hope is that the People will lead. They didn't come today with torches and pitchforks. Instead they were armed with the truth and pugnacity. There were catcalls from the crowd to be sure. I was sitting in the front row, close enough to be spat upon as the senator narrowly missed stepping on my toes. So i didn't mind if i stepped on his toes as i shouted out:

<b>"You need to call your congressman, Senator"</b>

Does anybody else wonder whether the opinions of Oregon voters concerning Iraq (or impeachment) actually matter to Wyden or to any of the rest of the Oregon delegation?

Or is Al Gore correct when he writes in his new book that voter opinions are mostly irrelevant now that both parties have learned how to use cleverly targeted television commercials to manufacture sufficient voter support to win any election, regardless of the candidate or issues?

Gore's opinions are unpleasant, but the more I think about them the more I am convinced he is correct.

So, what happens if we impeach Bush? Hooray--then what? We are stuck with Cheney and a country that is already divided becomes even more so.

Bipartisanship on the Hill has literally killed political discourse to the point where we have stopped discussing legislation and now are more concerned if one side of the aisle has enough votes to filibuster and deny the other side of the aisle a political victory.

I was there at the Community Discussion today and I was disgusted by the lack of respect that was shown, by a group of older adults, to not only the Senator but the democratic process as a whole. Sure, be pissed off. I certainly am and hearing from the mother whose child is currently serving in Iraq or watching Lew Fredrick tear up when describing his friends being sent into the combat zone, sent chills down my spine.

But, please tell me how screaming cowardly from the back of the room to "Impeach" and "9/11 was an inside job" helps solve anything. You might as well stand in front of a mirror for two hours yelling because you will have the same effect.

If you want change, get involved. Not by shouting unanimous comments from the back or anonymously on blogs; but, take a stand for what you believe in and educate others so that we can take back the White House in '08 and have a true majority in the House where substantial legislation can get passed that will have a real affect on many people's lives both here in America and abroad.

Senator Wyden spoke intelligently today. He made the point that political capital is a finite resource. The audience at the town hall meeting made it abundantly clear that they want the Democrats to blow it all on impeachment.

Do the actions of Bush/Cheney/Gonzalez merit impeachment? Absolutely. Does that make it a good idea? Absolutely not. Let's be real progressives and concentrate on using our newfound legislative advantage to improve the lives of ordinary Americans. Impeachment will only stand in the way of our ability to do that.

"Let's be real progressives and concentrate on using our newfound legislative advantage to improve the lives of ordinary Americans" per Jake.

That'll never happen so long as Bush is in office. If the Dems can ever get past a filibuster, he'll veto it.

Nothing will be accomplished towards that end (improving the lives of ordinary Americans), not withdrawing from Iraq, not reforming healthcare, investing in our infrastructure, NOTHING, until Bush is gone.

And even after that, they'll need to be close enough in the Senate to overcome a filibuster.

The audience at the town hall meeting made it abundantly clear that they want the Democrats to blow it all on impeachment.

Indeed. Wyden tried so hard to take impeachment off the table at the town hall. We were all instructed to limit our questions/comments to Iraq, a place that Wyden feels politically safe, where he's accumulated a very long list of failed amendments.

Do the actions of Bush/Cheney/Gonzalez merit impeachment? Absolutely. Does that make it a good idea? Absolutely not.

When impeachment is merited, its an imperative, not a merely an option.

Let's be real progressives and concentrate on using our newfound legislative advantage to improve the lives of ordinary Americans.

You and i have completely different ideas on what it means to be progressive. The first public comment yesterday came from Joe Walsh, a US Navy veteran. His question was pointed (at the senator especially): "Do you have any idea how angry so many of us are at the Democrats?!" Joe's question touched not only on the new majority (D) party, continuing to fund the fiasco but also Congress's criminal lack of oversight in not holding the Bush administration to account. Joe is among the many veterans who currently are protesting outside the local offices of Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), who inexplicably is willing to give Bush, Cheney & Co. a pass on all their criminal, unconstitutional misdeeds.

I was speaker #3, right after my friend Joe Walsh ("The lone vet") who asked the question, "Do you know how angry we are at the democrats?" That got a reaction from the crow for sure. Joe has the passion.

As I introduced my self as a Vietnam veteran (Joe is one also) I asked how many vets were in the room? Quite a number of hands went up. The Senator asked them to stand up over the applause of the crowd which none of them did. I came back with the rejoinder, "They don't have to stand up, they already did."

My question related to whether Sen. Wyden thought the invasion/occupation was in violation of the Constitution, specifically Article 6. I whipped out my pocket Constitution edition copy ala, Sen. Byrd, just because I like to read from it instead of relying on memory. He went on to answer that he argued this on the floor during the debate. Well that's nice but what has he done about it since then? If it was in violation of the Constitution then it still is and his first duty is to uphold his oath of office.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.[

It seems there are too many members of the House and Senate that put politics and party above their sworn obligation. They don't seem to realize they can "multi task". Did the Congress come to a screeching halt during Watergate? During Monicagate? No. Committees met, floor debate continued and bills were passed.

Yes I know that the Senate is the "jury", so what? If he thought it was unconstitutional in 2003, has he changed his mind?

Jake- Senator Wyden spoke intelligently today. He made the point that political capital is a finite resource.

The available "cannon fodder units" are finite also. As are those available for classification as "collateral damage", although this administration is doing the best it can to to use them up. And this is one of the major reason for the Senator and others to stand up and stop this "obscenity of violence" and the murderers occupying the White House.

I encourage you to move outside of liberal comfort zones and engage the community at large.

Mighty bold statement. Do you have any idea what others are doing in the community at large? And just what is a "liberal comfort zone"? My zone is waking up each morning and asking myself, "what can I do today to stop the war/occupation?" Have I got a school to visit and teach the students about my experiences? Will I be handing out copies of the pocket Constitution on a street corner and explaining Article VI? Have I written a letter to the editor or my elected representative. Maybe I should go just go and pull weeds at the Peace Memorial Park as a stress reliever. Has my printer finished the job for my literature for Veterans For Peace Chapter 72's booth at the various street fairs we will be manning? Or maybe prepare for my workshop for this teach in.

PEOPLE OF COLOR AGAINST THE WAR Iraq Summer Teach-In

August 18th, 2007 10 - 3 pm St. Andrews Church, NE 8th and Alberta

Free Event. Lunch Provided.

War disproportionately affects people of color and poor communities. War is built upon and reinforces racism in our communities. Young people are coerced into fighting this war, stripped from our communities. The war increases poverty - taking billions away from human needs to fight the war.

WE WILL EDUCATE AND STRATEGIZE TO END THE WAR ON TERROR : STOP ATTACKS ABROAD AND IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

The Teach-In is a community space for us to learn more about how we feel the impact of the War in our lives, our families and our resources.There will be space to share stories of your experiences. Workshops will go more in-depth on how we can support our troops, what youth can do to combat militarization and how people of faith are standing against this war. Finally, we will focus on developing strategies to resist in our communities and how we build power to fight this Endless War.

Or am I ready for the weekly impeachment protest at Blumenauer's office (noon till 2PM every Thursday. Be there or be square). Or maybe its just talking with my nephew who got back from Afghanistan, as one combat vet to another, so I can have a better understanding of WTF is going on from the perspective of a present day soldier.

Am I comfortable in that "zone"? You betcha. Because if I wasn't doing all of that, my soul would rise up and smite me. My dreams would be very uncomfortable. My dereliction of duty to my fellow "brothers in arms" would weigh me down with guilt. I could not look at myself in the mirror.

40 years ago I swore an oath to "...that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;...". I don't remember being released from that oath. Maybe in some obscure piece of the US code that oath was negated with my discharge. In my "comfort zone" I still feel I am bound by it.

If only our elected representatives felt the same.

Stumptown scribe speaks for me. I was also at the town hall. I was actually afraid a riot was going to break out. The last time I saw such incivility was when Chris Hedges was literally bumrushed off the stage in Rockford, IL, where he was giving an anti-war commencement address. Do not become what you hate, Oregon. Your words were violent even if your actions weren't.

BOHICA, thank you for your post. i'm grateful that there are people like you doing what you're doing to end the war effort.

i did not attend the town hall meeting yesterday, but did attend one of senator wyden's town hall meetings held in my county last year. it sounds like the two events were very similar, in terms of audience participation and reaction.

(the difference being that the town hall meeting i attended was not set up to talk about the iraq war, but rather sen. wyden's healthcare reform legislation).

i remember coming away from the meeting feeling frustrated and befuddled by the crowd. i know that many of them felt frustrated and angry at senator wyden for not responding to the call for impeachment or the call to end the war - both of which i am of course in favor of.

but i thought it very unrealistic of people to expect senator wyden to tell them what they wanted to hear in that venue. it seemed to me that all it would take was one right-wing fundamentalist whackjob with a cellphone camera catching senator wyden on video saying he supported impeachment (or whatever strong inflammatory words people wanted from him) and the video would be on you-tube and then fox news within 24 hours and wyden would then get to spend the next however many weeks fighting a media mess a la kerry's bad joke about ending up in iraq.

like the poster above who expressed concern that wyden said he trusts the bush administration. well, what else can he say? he doesn't know that you aren't a political enemy, recording his answer in an attempt to use it against him.

i'm just saying. these town hall meetings that senator wyden does are a good thing - you don't see other senators going in front of their constituents in an unstructured Q&A format. and don't be unrealistic in your expectation of what you're going to hear from him at these meetings. i don't blame the guy for wanting to keep his job (don't most of us?) and he's going to be less effective if he spends his time cleaning up the political mess resulting from a mis-step at one of these meetings.

he's not going to tell us what we want to hear because the political risk is too great. and i for one do not hold that against him. it's the pragmatic way to approach it, i think.

Closing the Italics tag

darrel, i'm not saying he does or doesn't trust the administration. i'm saying that is a question that, coming from a complete stranger, could be a loaded gun politically, in the hands of the right-wing noise machine.

if we on the left had a noise-machine to rival the right's, then it would be politically dangerous to answer the way he did. but we don't, and there it is.

what i'm saying is: don't read too much into his answer as being indicative of what he really feels/thinks/believes. the answer he gave is one that is calculated to be the least dangerous to him. and again, i don't hold that against him.

it's the reality of the world we live in. he has to have his guard up at all times. he lets it down more than most, or any other senator, by even having these town hall meetings at all.

Uh, folks... Not to get in the way of the lynchmob here, but Wyden's been pretty consistently against the war

Anybody who thinks this discussion is akin to a lynching or that yesterday's town hall was particularly nasty or filled with conduct uncalled for will need to develop a thicker hide if they are going to survive this political season of discontent.

I don't know if Wyden is simply out of touch with his constituents on the topic of impeachment or maybe he thought his anti-war cred would have been enough to get a pass on his reluctance to hold Bush, Cheney & Co. to account.

I was there, front and center, for the "Community Conversation." Wyden needs to be given credit for taking the heat. Add that with the light of justice emanating not from mobs with torches and pitchforks but rather from citizens speaking truth to authority and who knows... our "senior" senator may eventually grow a spine on this issue.

David Sarasohn has a pretty good take on the whole mess. I know Jessica and she is a pistol.

Wyden is a pretty good Senator. They pretty much all get corrupted by the power (similar to our own legislature in Oregon). He has hung in about as well as you can ask. However there are times that the issues are clearly larger than political considerations (hopefully that would always be the case, but I would love to win the lottery this week also) and impeachment and the war are two such issues.

One thing that doesn't seem to come up in political circles much is the conduct of the war. I read the recent article in The Nation where 50 vets told about how the war was being conducted. I was literally sick to my stomach when I was done reading. Every American should read it. Where are our political leaders condemning this?

he's not going to tell us what we want to hear because the political risk is too great.

I don't want him to tell me what I want to hear, I want him to hear what his constituents have to say, and pay attention to it. This attitude that the concerns and desires of constituents are all well and good but that the Senator knows better and that politics trumps it all is incredibly condescending. More than one speaker yesterday said they felt that this country is in a crisis (the war, an executive branch accountable to nobody, mistaken funding priorities), to loud applause each time.

Senator Ron Wyden may have a more impressive job title than I do but that doesn't mean he understands the world any better than I do or that he has any better grasp on the constitution or on morality than any other person in that hall yesterday. One way that the Senator is diffferent from me is the impact he could have should he choose to be a leader on these issues. I think what many people were saying yesterday is that just voting the right way when the chance comes along, or sitting as a juror should an impeachment trial happen his way, is not enough. Oregonians have led before, we could again.

darrel, as far as danger goes, the right-wing noise machine can make a huge mess for politicians who say anything that they can grab onto and twist to their advantage.

i'd much rather senator wyden pick his battles wisely, and not open himself up to a political scandal because it makes me, a lefty, feel personally better about him.

theres a middle ground between senator wyden being bluntly honest and the meetings being a sham.

i'm just saying, take them for what they're worth, and understand that anything senator wyden says needs to be translated through the lens of political survival.

don't get me wrong, i would like to see more leadership from wyden on this as well. but - i came away from the one town hall meeting i attended with a better opinion of him than i had when i went in. he's not the dream senator, but we could do a lot worse, even within the democratic party.

In my view, impeachment proceedings would serve only to energize the Republicans and would make it much more difficult to accomplish anything...

Stephanie, that was well addressed at the forum. Bringing up amendments which fail to pass or passing legislation which is either vetoed or ignored by this criminal administration cannot be pointed to as accomplishments.

As for energizing the GOP or alienating the rest of the country, one fellow laid this dawg to rest. We won't have to wait for history to judge us. If we progressives stand up and condemn Bush's abuses by bringing about impeachment, we will be known as the ones who "defended the Constitution."

darrel, i'm going to say this one more time and then drop it.

just because he SAID he trusts them to you, a complete stranger whom he has no idea whether is friend or foe, doesn't mean he really does.

it just means that he is not going to answer in the negative, no matter what he truly thinks or believes, because the risk of having it come back to bite him in the arse in the form of the right-wing noise machine.

and if that's a lie, then it's a lie i can live with. it's about picking one's battles.

Unless you impeach Cheney, as well. What, have you not been paying attention to people who have been making the case for this for a couple of years now or something? etcetera

Well said,Darrel.

On Wyden and the war: He was for it before he was against it. And like all senators and almost all representatives in Congress he went along with Israel's war crimes in southern Lebanon which is now littered with tens of thousands of unexploded cluster bombs.

motivating a small minority to excoriate one of the staunchest anti-war senators

Jeff, don't let a "small minority" blind you to what the majority was saying. Most of those who took to the mic yesterday and defied the "rules" by addressing impeachment didn't question Wyden's war record. (We were all given a two page list of his votes.) They did however take the senator to task for not only his stance on impeachment, but his obfuscation as well.

Wyden admitted that "they are way over the line," yet won't support the constitutional checks and balance required by the oath he took. How can he (under pressure) maintain that the Iraq war is illegal and yet not push to bring the criminals to justice? Oh, he sought cover, and this blog even bought the line he had an "open mind" when it comes to impeachment. Maybe he's just clever by half, believing it will never reach the Senate. Certainly, he isn't helping.

Call you congressman, Senator Wyden!

Personally, I would much rather have my Senator addressing the crisis in health care rather than wasting time on impeachment (something that he can't initiate as a member of the Senate...nor is it going to happen). Wyden can also fight and vote against the war, but...I hate to say it...we won't be pulling out of Iraq until Bush has left office.

we won't be pulling out of Iraq until Bush has left office.

Then let's hasten his departure. And if you want us to stop wasting our time on impeachment, then jump on board and let's git'er done. Wyden can't initiate impeachment, and neither can i. But he can advocate for it (or he could shirk his duty). Gonzo has got to go. Cheney has got to go. Bush has got to go. Go to jail, directly to jail. Do not pass K-Street.

My representative is Blumenauer, not Walden. Blumenauer is preventing impeachment. I'm talking to him, but he isn't listening. I'll be at his office tomorrow and every Thursday (noon to 2pm) until he does. [729 NE Oregon St.]

what do you expect a Senator to do

I expect a Senator to do his duty. Wyden should have had Gonzales locked up weeks ago. Is he even calling for Gonzo's impeachment? That would be a fantastic baby-step in the right direction. Oh, ya. And i expect Wyden to call his congressman!

How about someone make the legal, as opposed the moral and political, case for impeaching Cheney? What high crimes and misdemeanors has he committed, given that he has almost zero actual authority? Giving bad advice, even manipulating the President, isn't a crime.

Cheney (and Bush) deserves impeachment. Its a crime they were ever elected. But the people guilty of that crime are the voters on the Supreme Court.

I have to worry that elections next year will bring any change when our representatives will not respect and honor the will of those they represent. What part of the last 7 years am I supposed to be all right with? If you are not familiar with the magnitude of the crimes this administration has comitted do your research. This isn't about health care or whatever you all think is worth giving these folks a pass in exchange for, this is a rescue of America and those ideas which form the basic framework on which we thrive. Too many of my fine Democatic friends believe that this will all blow over if they don't pay attention. I can't see any reason to think that is so.

I think a lot of Democrat activists want senators like Mark Hatfield and George McGovern (Hatfield-McGovern Amendment that would have ended the Vietnam War) and Frank Church and John Sherman Cooper (Church-Cooper Amendment would have withdrawn U.S. forces from Camboida and North Vietnam), as well as Wayne Morse of Oregon who opposed TOnkin Gulf. These great Senators, all of them military veterans, not only said they opposed Vietnam, they put it in writing (legislation) and took it to the Senate Floor to be voted on.

Wyden has opposed the war, but with Wyden there has always been the feeling among Democrat activists that he is way too cautious.

Below is an excerpt from McGovern's floor speech before the senate voted on the McG-Hat. Amend. I think this is what we would like to hear from Wyden and others. Oh, by the way, McGovern's SD is far more conservative than OR and he still won re-election in 1974.

McGovern's speech

Minutes before the voting began, McGovern appealed for support with the strongest and most emotional language he had ever used regarding the war:

"Every senator in this chamber is partly responsible for sending 50,000 young Americans to an early grave. This chamber reeks of blood. Every Senator here is partly responsible for that human wreckage at Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval and all across our land - young men without legs, or arms, or genitals, or faces or hopes.”

"There are not very many of these blasted and broken boys who think this war is a glorious adventure. Do not talk to them about bugging out, or national honor or courage. It does not take any courage at all for a congressman, or a senator, or a president to wrap himself in the flag and say we are staying in Vietnam, because it is not our blood that is being shed. But we are responsible for those young men and their lives and their hopes.”

"And if we do not end this damnable war those young men will some day curse us for our pitiful willingness to let the Executive carry the burden that the Constitution places on us."

"So before we vote, let us ponder the admonition of Edmund Burke, the great parliamentarian of an earlier day: "A contentious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood."

According to historian Robert Mann, McGovern's brief, passionate speech shocked his Senate colleagues. As McGovern took his seat, most senators sat in stunned silence. "You could have heard a pin drop," recalled John Holum, McGovern's principal staff advisor on Vietnam. As the Senate prepared to begin voting on the amendment, one senator approached McGovern and indignantly told him that he had been personally offended by the speech. McGovern replied, "That's what I meant to do."[1]

Want me to put up article's II and II on what high crimes and misdemeanors he has committed?

No. I get it. Its entirely a political indictment based on actions unrelated to his actual office. You could draw up a similar list against any politician.

Impeachment isn't a legal remedy, it's a political one.

I think that is only partially true. It is both. I think you can make a pretty good case that Bush should be impeached and turned over to the Hague as a war criminal. But Cheney had no real authority as vice-President. You are essentially impeaching him for his political positions. Or more to the point, because he is a scary nutcase who shouldn't be allowed to become president.

Impeachment is going nowhere. Nowhere. Support for impeachment outside of a narrow slice of the liberal end of the political spectrum is non-existent. And it would absolutely tear this country apart.

Between 30% and 40% of Americans support impeachment at this point, depending on the polls. And that's BEFORE the case for impeachment has been made in high-profile House hearings. If there's heavy media coverage of the impeachment question over the course of one or two months of hearings and evidence presented before the House, I bet support passes 50%.

One contradiction among those arguing for impeachment is this: You argue on the one hand that Democrats don't have any choice but to impeach given the actions of the Bush Administration. Then, when asked to specify the illegal activities that Bush et al have done, the response is that impeachment is a political act, not a criminal one.

If impeachment is a political act, then the political impact of impeachment must be taken into consideration. That is what Wyden, Blumenauer, and others are doing. And I suspect they're not just looking at the political impact on their own reelections or that of Democrats, but the negative impact that impeachment would have on our entire democracy. It would legitimize impeachment as a form of political opposition. That's what Republicans did to Clinton, and it would be just as wrong for us to do it to Bush.

Impeachment should never be used simply to overturn an electoral result with which we disagree. Bush was reelected in 2004, after the war started, after we knew that there were no WMDs, after we knew what his Administration was capable of. The issues people point to above that "justify" impeachment are policy disputes. Impeachment should only be used when 1) actual crimes have been committed, or 2) there are no other political mechanisms to balance the President's power. You want to stop the war? Defund it. You want to stop warrantless wiretapping. Outlaw it. You don't like Bush's imperial presidency? Congress has the power to reign him in.

What's that you say? Bush will just veto those congressional actions? Here's a good rule of thumb: If you don't have enough support to override a veto, you don't have enough support to impeach.

well, and i hesitate to wade into this, but if we don't have the votes to de-fund the war, how can we have the votes to impeach?

One contradiction among those arguing for impeachment is...

This is the worst kind of straw man "argument." It's ridiculous on its face and the person posting it had to know it. Here goes anyways...

Ascribing any single point of reasoning to all "those arguing for impeachment" and then hand picking a different argument and attributing to the same people is, well, like a said above, ridiculous on its face.

Place me in the camp of those saying impeachment is madated by the Constitution to rectify specific abuses of power. Among the charges leveled against Bush, Cheney & Co are spying on Americans in contravention of the Fourth Amendment and obstructing justice by politicizing the Justice Department and attempting to manipulate federal attorneys to both pursue enemies of the administration as well as quash investigation of their friends.

That some casual consumers of political news aren't aware of these abuses speaks either to willful ignorance or just plain apathy. They've had their chance to be informed. All i would ask is that you get out of the way if you can't lend a hand.

Come senators, congressmen Please heed the call Don't stand in the doorway Don't block up the hall For he that gets hurt Will be he who has stalled There's a battle outside And it is ragin'. It'll soon shake your windows And rattle your walls For the times they are a-changin'

What impeachment would do is legitimize impeachment as a tool to use when the Constitution is under direct threat from those sworn to uphold it.

Can you name something that Bush is doing that Congress doesn't have the authority to stop? You even made my case by pointing out that defunding the war doesn't take a vote -- they just don't include it. Can you really argue for impeachment if the Democrats haven't first used every tool available? Do you really view impeachment as a first resort?

EBT writes: Place me in the camp of those saying impeachment is madated by the Constitution to rectify specific abuses of power.

NO! Checks and balances are mandated in the Constitution to rectify abuse of power. The Democratic Congress isn't even using all the checks and balances available, so I cannot fathom why impeachment is on the table. Impeachment is a nuclear bomb that destroys the enemy and hundreds of thousands of innocents along with him.

Among the charges leveled against Bush, Cheney & Co are spying on Americans in contravention of the Fourth Amendment and obstructing justice by politicizing the Justice Department and attempting to manipulate federal attorneys to both pursue enemies of the administration as well as quash investigation of their friends.

Regarding the spying charge, it's not fact that Bush's warrantless wiretapping would be held unconstitutional. You and I would agree that it should be, but the courts have been mixed on this. Besides, you can't really be arguing that simply taking an action that is later overturned by the courts is an impeachable offense. Every president makes policy decisions that are overturned as illegal. Plus, Congress just gave him the FISA authority he wanted, so impeachment charges based on that seem. . .specious.

Regarding the politicization of DOJ, I'm not aware of any proof that the Administration did anything illegal.

1 - We're getting a snow job on impeachment. Did the impeachment and trial - which did not lead to conviction - of Bill Clinton damage Republicans' chances of winning the presidency in 2000? I think not. Al Gore hardly ever mentioned Clinton, and this after two terms of economic prosperity. Now we have a nation is disarray and Shrub's poll numbers in the toilet. Just how would impeachment of Shrub or Darth Cheney hurt the Democrats? IT WOULD NOT.

2- Ron Wyden has done many great things in Congress, but he has never taken risks on foreign policy issues. I used to attend his town halls in the early '80s, when he was third district Representative, and question him on Reagan administration policy in Central America. He refused to distance himself from it, repeating over and over that we were dealing with communists there. Well, it was exposed by the work of Robert Parry and others - and later confirmed by UN study - that the US was supporting death squads allied with the super-wealthy families that owned most of the land there. In Nicauragua, we used money from illegal arms sales to Iran to fund the Contra murderers. We illegally mined Managua Harbor and spit in the eye of the World Court when they held us to account. The "communists" Wyden feared turned out to be anyone tired of being treated like slaves.

On Israel-Palestine, Wyden has never bucked the AIPAC orthodoxy [orthodoxy in the US, but fantasy to the rest of the world].

So, opposing the Iraq invasion authorization was hanging out pretty far for Ron.

Most politicians and the people who support them have rendered the Pledge of Allegiance into an act of national hypocrisy. Worse than that is the hypocrisy attached to the oath politicians take to defend the Constitution and the people who let them get away with it.

Yesterday's Wyden Town 1Hall and the reports I have of the two DeFazio Town Halls this week in Corvallis and Eugene demonstate that our elected representatives need to realize they "are not in Kansas anymore, Toto".

Things have changed in America's (and particularly Oregon's) attitude, since the Democrats purportedly took over Congress, in January. We expected and still expect truth and justice to prevail, and the Constitional remedy to be executed.

Keep telling them at the Town Halls, and join the weekly 10-2 pm gathering in front of Earl's office, 729 NE Oregon, across from the State Office Building in Portland with your signs, smiles and persistence.

That's this Thursday, and every Thursday.

Impeach Bush and Cheney, now! I will take Gonzales, too, but only as part of a tri-fecta.

Oregon's four Democrats in the House can have a unique oppurtunity to have a real and catalytic impact, if they will come back from August Break, together, with Articles of Impeachment focusing on the prescursor events to the Iraq war and following State Democratic Party Resolution 2007-777, which passed the DPO State Central Committee, over six months ago, on March 10, 2007:

RESOLUTION NO. 2007 – 777

A RESOLUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OREGON

WHEREAS, the Democratic Party of the State of Oregon passed a resolution calling for impeachment proceedings against the current Bush Administration on the 16th day of July, 2005, as Resolution No. 2005-0009, which Resolution is attached and incorporated herein, and

Whereas, Congress, under the control of the Republicans, took no action to investigate the potential for impeachment arising out of the events preceding the invasion of Iraq by the United States of America; and

Whereas, the bipartisan commissions which looked into the attacks of September 11, 2001 (“the 9/11 Commission”) and the War in Iraq (“the Iraq Study Group”) each declined to extend their respective inquiries into the precursor events and responsibility for the Iraq War; and

Whereas, Congress under the control of the Democrats has yet to begin effective inquiry into possible impeachment; and

Whereas, the President and Vice President have each been fully and directly engaged in the policies and actions of their Administration;

Whereas, many Members of the House of Representatives, of both parties, debating the Iraq War and the February 16, 2007 Resolution against the Bush Administration’s “troop surge”, argued facts which, if true, constitute high crimes and misdemeanors in office, by both the President and Vice President, (in particular, that critical intelligence presented to Congress and the United Nations was manipulated and falsified, not erroneous); and

Whereas, the cost of the War in Iraq is approaching $400 Billion, and

Whereas, the President and Vice President have demonstrated complete unwillingness to heed the November 2006 vote of the American people, or the advice of the Iraq Study Group Report issued that same month, with regard to continued prosecution of the Iraq War; and

Whereas, Marine Corporal Travis Bradach-Nall and the other members of the military from Oregon who have died in Iraq since the invasion, and the over 3190 American soldiers, marines sailors and coast guards who have died in Iraq, are all still dead; and

Whereas, all of their friends and members of their families have been irreparably harmed and are continuously hurting from their loss, and

Whereas, absent some process to effectively assess and enforce responsibility and accountability for the Bush Administration’s acts, omissions and misrepresentations to justify and launch the War in Iraq, the number of dead, and of injured family members will only increase, exponentially:

NOW, THEREFORE, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OREGON RESOLVES, AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The Democratic Party of the State of Oregon supports immediate investigative hearings before appropriate Congressional committees into the Bush Administration’s misrepresentations to Congress the American people and the United Nations, which induced the Act of Congress (PL 107-243, October 16, 2002), regarding the use of force against Iraq; and

Section 2. The Democratic Party of the State of Oregon supports the commencement of impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors in the processes and propaganda which preceded the invasion of Iraq by the United States of America.

ADOPTED by the Democratic Party of Oregon on this 10th day of March, 2007.

Resolution submitted by JOHN F. BRADACH, SR, DPO STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE DELEGATE FROM MULTNOMAH COUNTY

Wow, this was a lot of reading to catch up on. Thanks to Kari for using my post as a discussion point. I'll take this opportunity to respond where I see necessary.

To clarify, I wasn't trying to rail against anyone for speaking out, and I certainly wasn't trying to cast doubt on their commitment to civic engagement. I also am not giving any personal opinion on impeachment.

Additionally, some people hinted at ignorance on my part in relation to my involvement or knowledge of the whole situation. This is the type of attitude that breaks us apart and distracts from finding some sort of solution. I was easily one of the youngest people at the event (I'm of college age) and I find it perplexing that the idea of compromise is not very prevalent. Progression requires taking steps, and compromises are steps.

When things break down into dismissal, name calling, knee jerk reactions, nitpicking, etc I see people who otherwise agree on the policy become separated over the process, and when I speak out it is because of concern, not criticism. My only goal is to help this whole process of safely removing all our troops from Iraq move to success as soon as possible.

"compromises"

This has been illuminating. I didn't specifically respond to Adrian's post since it a) didn't correspond to my experience at Wyden's town hall, and b) it seemed to divert from the thrust of the thread.

I'm glad for this new thread. It's my impression that for pro-impeachment folks, this is one of those issues like abortion or the death penalty where there's little room for compromise. What about those who don't want the House to seek impeachment... is this a strongly held conviction? (Really, just askin')

[correction: i see on John Bradach's post that the protest at Blumenauer's office goes from 10-2 TODAY and every Thursday, 729 N.E. Oregon Street, Portland . Anyone seeing Wyden in Eugene, noon, Lillis Business Complex, Rm 182 should tell him to call his congressman!]

"compromises"

This has been illuminating. I didn't specifically respond to Adrian's post since it a) didn't correspond to my experience at Wyden's town hall, and b) it seemed to divert from the thrust of the thread.

I'm glad for this new thread. It's my impression that for pro-impeachment folks, this is one of those issues like abortion or the death penalty where there's little room for compromise. What about those who don't want the House to seek impeachment... is this a strongly held conviction? (Really, just askin')

[correction: i see on John Bradach's post that the protest at Blumenauer's office goes from 10-2 TODAY and every Thursday, 729 N.E. Oregon Street, Portland . Anyone seeing Wyden in Eugene, noon, Lillis Business Complex, Rm 182 should tell him to call his congressman!]

12-2 pm today is the correct time in front of Earl's office at 729 NE Multnomah.

My stubby fingers sometimes get it wrong. Sorry.

I am sure having people there beginning at 10 a.m. wouldn't hurt anything. I know that LoneVet Joe has taken to visiting the site on Wednesdays at noon at well.

I did hear from a couple of people on DeFazio Town Halls in Corvallis and Salem, where the scene and Representatives reaction was similar to Wyden's.

Peace and Impeach.

We'll just start calling you "Big John" then. [and by NE "Multnomah" you mean "NE Oregon" ;-) ...]

I met ol' Joe last week with the Veterans for Peace and was so encouraged to hear him address Wyden: "Do you have any idea how angry so many of us are at the Democrats?!" I mean to tell him how proud it makes me feel. Not of Joe necessarily (like he needs my props). Joe makes me proud to be an Oregonian. Noon on Oregon street (just 3 blocks south of Multnomah) between NE 7th and 9th Ave.

Instead of arguing about the right way to proceed (which, IMHO, is impeachment if for no other reason than the precedent set by NOT impeaching...), a list of reasons for denying impeachment should be formed. More of a question than anything else, but I'm curious as to the real reasons for keeping impeachment off the table. Also, what if impeachment proceedings were brought and, somehow, it was found that Bush and/or Cheney were not guilty of an impeachable offense? Wouldn't that do more damage than not having brought proceedings at all?

Arguing about which side is right is not the answer. Instead of furthering the debate to a point of resolution, we're resorting to the soundbite debate format that is slowly eroding intellectual debate around the country. Websites such as this are excellent outlets for beginning a cogent debate, and it is up to us to take it a step further and leave behind the partisan politics that got us into this national crisis to begin with.

Darrel, I think I made it clear I'm not one for making assumptions. No I don't know your background or anyone elses and don't profess to, but I do come from a family that has its roots in activism so I'm not a complete ignoramus.

Dismissing college students/young people as ignorant and pompous doesn't seem like the greatest way to get them involved. My demographic is one that could be greatly useful to this whole movement, as today's youth are statistically more liberal that older generations. There are so many of my peers I run into who are 100% against the war, but need people to encourage them to take the extra step of making a phone call, writing a letter, attending a protest, etc. For many of the people their involvement stems from the Vietnam War era, when they were about my age. This war is going to have the same profound effect on my generation, but unfortunately (and largely due to the lack of a draft) many of my age don't realize it.

Thom: Interesting comparison, as from my view at least the strength of conviction held is the same intensity. However, pro-abortion folks are willing to take away choice step by step (ie: ban on partial birth, restrict contraceptives, etc.)

(PS: Can people please stop assuming I'm attacking them, if my comments don't apply to you it's because they weren't intended to, and it forces everything to go off topic)

Uh huh, and we'll soon send a record-setting $30,000,000,000.00 over the next decade to Israel for further militarization and to balance the military "aid" we're sending to the Saudi fascists. Why? Because the U.S. is notorious for our "investments in peace" around the world. The whole global capitalist system is rotten and will soon make common life so ugly and inequitable there will be nothing to live for except to work. Wake up folks, people in DC like Wyden don't give a shit about Oregon or your concerns. Forget impeachment, let's talk secession from this evil empire.

as from my view at least the strength of conviction held is the same intensity.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm just getting back from the Veteran's for Peace protest in front of Rep. Blumenauer's office. For those who don't know, the thrust of their action is to get Earl on board with impeachment. Last week there were 30 folks, this week 40. Should this ball really get rolling (and i expect it to) it would be interesting to see the intensity of the counter-protests: "Please, DON'T Impeach Bush!"

I'm sure having your post put up as the representative view from Wyden's town hall must have its downside, including making your opinions the subject of ridicule and rebuke (as well as support).

If i might leave this thread noting a few of my observations... Where were the students? the young men and women, the 20 somethings? And what impressed you as "nasty" and "uncalled for" struck me as invigorating and requisite for a healthy democracy. Yes, a few cat calls punctuated the event... a little hot spice for the melting pot.

"using the Bill O'Rielly [sic] code of conduct is not conducive to progress [...] I encourage you to move outside of liberal comfort zones" I am not surprised how some reacted to this. With time, you might agree.

Here's the link to the military aid news story.

When it comes to impeaching the president, we must refer to the last two time-consuming scandals of our recent history. I refer to the Watergate and Whitewater investigations. The Watergate hearings began in February of 1973, which was immediately after Nixon took office for his second term. Over two years of testimony and evidence were gathered at the hearings. Articles of impeachment were being drawn up at the same time Nixon resigned. The entire process took over two years. The Whitewater hearings commenced July 1995. It took over three years of evidence gathering before the leaders of the House determined there was enough evidence to warrant articles of impeachment. A certain level of the evidentiary proof is required before one can seek articles of impeachment.

Based on recent history, a new Congress and a new President would be in office before there would be enough evidence gathered to seek impeachment. The overt secrecy and unwillingness to cooperate with Congress by this administration in all probability would extend the time period.

I agree with the feeling that both been gone from the administration would be to the benefit of the country. However, we must let whatever processes are at work continue and get on with winning the 2008 election.

By attempting to hold white war criminals accountable, resources that could be used to elect me in '08 will be used for "law and order", a concept that should only apply to Blacks and other minorities.

Impeachment is an old-fashioned concept, like democracy or human rights. We should have a Constitutional Convention (after the next election so it doesn't interfere with our present agenda), and then we should rid ourselves of these concepts.

I argued before the last election that we had to wait until after the election before discussing impeachment, and I'm just being consistent when I say that we have to wait until after the next election. We don't have time for impeachment, because we have to continue to propose non-binding resolutions and hold all-night hearings for partial withdrawals of troops from Iraq.

It's true that any one of my arguments against impeachment is stupid and short-sighted, but, taken together, they add up to one terrific smoke screen.

I support the troops and the war of terror.

Too bad Congressman (D)Brian Baird didn't show up at the Town Hall.

It appears that this Democrat who has actually spent real time with the troops(recently) would have a different opinion than the many who simply read whatever the jouralists, and their editors, decide to print.

Joey,

Thank you for sharing your guess.

I'll bet you dollars to donuts that you've never even made it to the Green Zone.

He has, in fact, personally spoken with troops that have been outside of the Green Zone continually.

Thus, I'll take Baird's opinion over yours.

No Joey,

I'm saying you are flat out wrong. If you read anything I said as supporting your view, then you are spending way to much time patting yourself on the back.

Baird is actually taking political risk to speak his mind honestly. You, on the other hand, are just feeding the pigeons.

I now understand, Joe the blogger is all knowing while Baird is gullible. Right.

You win Joe, as always, you are the absolute purveyor of truth & wisdom.

Atually Joe, for you to be wrong, I don't have to show anything. "Fully secured areas in Iraq"? Really Joey!

There aren't even fully secured portions of Los Angeles.

Now get back to your echo chamber and marvel at the sound of your own voice.

Barney,

Your timeline for impeachment would let administrations do whatever they pleased in the last two years of their term without fear of serious repercussion. I do not think the republic can withstand that.

Now, I admit that the crimes of the Shrubbery have been going on since [before?] inauguration day in 2001, but nothing was doable while the Republicans controlled congress. Impeachment has few simple rules written into the Constitution. Beyond them, Congress can fit the procedure to the situation.

I wonder if Brian Baird talked with these folks:

More Iraqis Said to Flee Since Troop Increase

Thus, I'll take Baird's opinion over yours.

Dan, i wonder what these politicians' opinion is now.

U.S. lawmakers' plane fired upon while leaving Iraq

Baird may want to "wait until spring" to reevaluate Bush's continued policy of quagmire. Or we could impeach Bush, Cheney & Co. and implement immediately a sound plan to end our part in the occupation.