Congressman Blumenauer:

Don't waste your time on impeachment. The best way to bring troops home from Iraq is to fight any appropriations bill that continues to fund our ongoing occupation. If it means shutting down the government to counter a Bush veto, then swallow hard and do it, if it's that important to your constituents.

Those baying for impeachment should be compared to those who bayed for impeachment of Clinton in 1998.

How do you compare the impeachment of Clinton... a man that lied about being sucked off by his intern to Bush starting an illegal war, using signing statements saying that he will not enforce the law, breaking and/ or wantonly weakening the US Constitution?

Also, without even an attempt at impeachment, even if it does not go through the Senate to throw Bush out of office, what do you think that would mean to future Presidents that wish to break the law and their oath of office??

I scratch my head in dismay that so many Americans, Urban included that are willing to throw out their rights and sense of justice on a whim. What has happened to this country that so many vocal people are so blind to the long term implications of NOT seeking Impeachment?

Waste of time??? WTF? When is justice a waste of time? Is the Constitution a waste of time? Please pick up a history book and do some serious reading.

From the Oregonian article: "Some went even further, calling for Bush to be tried for treason. One Southeast Portland resident said the president "should be executed -- in public." A number in the audience applauded."

Did Blumenauer rebuke this comment at the meeting? It's disturbing, to say the least, that people in the audience applauded the concept of a public execution of the President. This speaks volumes about the true heart of the peace movement.

Thanks, Kevin. Glad to hear you're part of the "my way or the highway," "Amerikkka: love it or leave it" etc. crowd.

Such tolerance for honest differences of opinion. So liberal of you.

Although a previous supporter (and fair to say "fan") of Blumenauer, he lost me when he stopped telling the truth. This "forum" was promised a month ago and confirmed to many. Blumenauer thought he could renege and nobody would care. (I mean who else are you going to vote for in May, and then the General?)

It wasn't until Blumenauer's aids were confronted at his closed door conference with Pelosi that the September date was set. There was no dialogue at this event. Blumenauer was simply goaded into an hour of listening to most of the constituents who signed up two speak their 2-minutes worth. The overwhelming majority of comments supported pushing forward with impeachment.

Blumenauer responded by saying we should look for good news soon on the lawless military contractors and the Iraqi refugee crisis. When he rose without saying ANYTHING about impeachment, the crowd became raucous. He then blurted something about his previous statements, blah, blah.

I had asked him about his statement earlier this month on KPOJ.

And one of the things that concerned me was the notion that it wasn't quote "on the table" at this moment. Somebody at some point said the phrase quote "off the table" - I wanted to clarify it...

I called him out for pretending not to know who started the "rumor" that impeachment's off the table. I reminded him of this story (from the Washington Post):

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said. [Friday, May 12, 2006]

Blumenauer isn't telling us the truth on impeachment. His recent statements that impeachment should now be on the table (coordinated after the August break with other chastised congressmen) along with his hollow call for "investigations" is just a stalling tactic. He has promised Pelosi he won't support impeachment. In exchange he's already gotten a new office with a splendid view of the Capitol dome. He's not running for the Senate because he's holding out for that long awaited Committee chairmanship.

Make me a liar, Earl. Do your duty and hold Bush, Cheney & Co. accountable.

I would ask Earl to get some spine. Impeachment has only a symbolic meaning since there is no chance of it winning a trial in the Senate. Earl needs some rhetorical "fire in the belly." I would say there is no chance of winning over the Bush-dog Democrats to really cut off spending. But at least get in someone's face about it and make sure everyone knows its a Republican war.

Why, when I see the response to my first comment, am I reminded of the worst of right-wing blogs and right-wing talk radio with their thoughtless invective and pointless crusades?

Don't listen to the ranters, Earl. Keep up the good work. George Bush is just a bad President, not the devil incarnate. Work to defeat his policies, not personally destroy him. That's the Republican way, not the Democratic way.

We only have a year to impeach this administration; we have waited almost too long, the time to have started impeachment proceedings would have been back in January. If we're going to do it, all I can say is we'd better get busy. Personally, I'd rather see GW and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Ashcroft and Rice tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity in an international court (with this supreme court, a treason charge will never get off the ground) and sentenced accordingly. And, since Rumsfeld and Ashcroft are no longer in the cabinet, why can't we start those proceedings NOW~?!

[email protected] Portland, OR.

      OPEN LETTER TO Representative Blumenauer

This Sunday you will hold a town hall meeting and I will speak, however it will not be possible for me to get in all the issues I have with the Democratic Party. I will deliver a copy of this letter to your staff on Sunday, September 23.

There are two main issues I have and they are Betrayal and Hope.

                 Betrayal

Let me start with the 06 elections, when we won the House and Nancy Pelosi was going to be our new Speaker. I celebrated with champagne, I remember saying to my wife, “We have won a great victory, things will be better now.” In the coming days it was icing on the cake when we won the Senate. This occupation would come to an end and our nightmare would be over. That was almost a year ago, nine months since the dems assumed power, and our nightmare is worse than ever. We have increased our number of troops and slaughtered more civilians, and every day more and more destruction increases, not coming to an end as I so foolishly thought.

People have taken time away from their families, lost jobs, and upset their lives to go to Washington DC to tell our representatives that we want this insanity to stop. Our democratic Representatives have arrested, tased, or just threw them out of the halls of Congress.

One chairmen, Representative Ike Skelton called Code Pink, a bunch of “Ass-Holes” when he was caught with an open mike, who did he say this to, Rep. Hunter---one of the most corrupt republicans in the House.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh1JfeSMlRU

We have all seen and heard about Sen. Kerry watching as a student was removed by four members of the police force and tasered----for taking too long when asking a question and being insistent about getting some answers to important questions about the 04 election.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1312

When Speaker Pelosi was here in Portland on September 12, you had the public barred from the forum on Global Warming, (by invitation only) and sent part of your staff to join security to form a line of human shields to insure that the press conference was controlled. Five of us wanted to ask one question, why did Speaker Pelosi take impeachment off the table? These are tactics that Cheney and Bush used during their appearances. Some people holding press credentials were also denied into the press conference. These and other troubling events beg the question why should we believe anything you say. It is your actions that tell the story, not what you say you are doing. If I worked for you, and you told me to go out and stop angry constituents from coming into the press conference, I would have told you to go to hell! Oops, I guess I should not send you a resume in the future----will have to live with that one. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7869474360244231172

                   Hope

My hope lies with the American people and not politicians. Every district in this great land is being besieged by constituents who want these two men brought to justice. Impeachment is out of the closet and into the light of day. Even you, after ten weeks of protest, are using the word in connection with the Cheney/Bush administration. We have called, petitioned, begged for years, and finally started protesting outside your office for over two months. We want you to know it is not enough to talk about how good it is going to be, we want you to lead the parade. You are in a safe liberal district and we will support you if you are bold, but we will look for someone to challenge you in 2010 in the democratic primary. You look good in 2008, but if Cheney and his dummy walk, so will you. Bringing these two criminals to justice overshadows everything else in our great republic. I bristle when I hear a politician say, “ But impeachment would stop all the good work we are doing.” I ask you, what good work, everything of importance is stopped cold in the Senate---nothing of substance is getting past the republicans who want this occupation to continue into the next president’s term of office. You and other democrats must step out in front of this movement or be buried by it, it is that simple. My hope is with the people who give up their time and come to your office week after week on Thursdays to ask one simple question, “Has Representative Blumenauer called for the impeachment of the two criminals yet?”

So far you have said NO---Maybe----no----Maybe!

Joe Walsh---Lone Vet Portland, OR.

I respect Earl for standing his ground on this, and I personally agree with him. My question to those of you who feel betrayed: Why aren't you running someone against him in the primary? If this is truly the most pressing issue of our time ("justice", "accountability", and "defending the Constitution"), how can you set that aside and not go after Earl? Why would you allow him to run unopposed for another term if, in your view, he gets a failing grade on such a basic principle of democracy?

The lack of a movement to replace Earl raises for me the question as to whether you're all really serious about your "principled" reason for impeachment. If it's all about principle, and not about your hatred of this president's policies, then I'm not sure how you can let Earl get away with this.

Replacing Earl won't bring us closer to impeachment (although a credible challenger over the next eight months might make him rethink his position). But if impeachment is the moral and intellectual imperative that those arguing for it assert, then the failure to impeach must make that representative unfit to hold office.

Why should he continue to hold office if he can't see the "truth" that so many of you see?

A distinction needs to be drawn between the act of Impeaching Bush and investigating possible grounds for beginning Impeachment proceedings in the House.

Kevin's absolutely right, except that I wouldn't call it "investigating possible grounds for impeachment" so much as "performing Congress's role." I've been saying for some time that this Democratic Congress needs to do what the Constitution envisions all Congresses will do: act as a check on the President's powers.

Where are the investigations of the Administration's use of its spying authority? Where are the investigations of this Administration's execution of the laws (versus simply ignoring portions they don't like)? Where are the investigations of this Administration's politicization of various agencies and departments? Yes, they've held sporadic hearings, mostly in response to investigative media stories of a particular issue (the DOJ firings were the most prominent). But where is the sustained, weeks-long investigation of some of these issues, backed by subpoenas and threats from Congress to withhold funding for agencies that fail to provide all necessary material?

If, in the course of such action Congress were to come across evidence of impeachable offenses, by all means move forward with it. But this idea that impeachment should occur now, before Congress has exercised any of its routine powers of oversight, is unwarranted and unwise. This President can be reigned in substantially if Congress just starts doing its job.

TJ: I trust you're smart enough to recognize the rhetorical, optical, and real differences between "investigative hearings on X" and "impeachment hearings."

For a US Congressman to sit and let people threaten the life of the President of the USA is unconscionable! A woman said that Pres Bush should be executed for treason. I hope the Secret Service contact her. It doesnt' matter if you like the President or not, he's THE PRESIDENT!!! This rabid group of nasty haters should be in therapy or on meds. They need to get a life and Blumenauer should get some cojones or a conscience.

A woman said that Pres Bush should be executed for treason.

Kit, i take it you couldn't be bothered to attend the forum, since it wasn't a woman who called for Bush's execution, it was some other guy (who would at least give Bush the due process of a trial on grounds of treason).

The Big 0 editor claimed "A number in the audience applauded" this stance. Perhaps he should have put a "number" to this number, because most in the audience (i'll guess 97% who reacted audibly) registered disapproval.

This rabid group of nasty haters should be in therapy or on meds. They need to get a life

Umm... Nevermind... Ok...

While people are dumping on Blumenauer they should not overlook on of the the primary anti-impeachment villains - Nancy Pelosi. She appears to have borrowed heavily from Britain's Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, and is running the house with an iron fist. I was surprised, but probably shouldn't have been, when she took Jim McDermott (D-WA) to task for omitting "under God" when he led the Pledge of Allegiance in the House. And, I was disappointed in McDermott that he knuckled under to Pelosi.

To repeat a point I made in earlier threads, read the first half of Walter Karp's "Liberty Under Siege" for how the Democratic oligarchs undermined and stabbed Jimmy Carter in the back. Consider Pelosi's recent actions and it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that she will be as vicious to a President Obama or President Edwards if they should be elected instead of the DLC's candidate as the bonhommous Tip O'Neill was to Carter.

Oh Gawwwd Kit. If I had a dime for every time I've heard people fantasize about stringing Bush up by his toenails or his teeny weeny balls, or dangling him out of an airplane without a parachute, I'd be rich. And if the Secret Service actually took that normal, human psychological venting seriously, we'd be living under Stalin in 1934 sharing cell blocks in Siberia.

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that this administration's crimes could not end on death row. People in this country have been executed for far less heinous crimes against humanity, and war criminals like Adolf Eichmann have indeed been publicly executed in the last century (and, as an ethnic Jew and Gypsy, I don't disagree with that). But clearly we're not talking about calling out the lynch mob, we're talking about a fair trial via impeachment (which I don't think would happen with this supreme court) or in an international court, which I think would be more just.

Meanwhile, Earl needs to get a spine. Ditto the entire Democratic House and Senate. But, unfortunately, the species of subhuman waste known as politicians have mutated into spineless passive-aggressive, avoidant creatures - unless their own power is at stake, and then they're all teeth. Good luck, America.

This isn't about Bush. It's about the presidency and the checks and balances in the US Constitution that limit the power of any single branch of government. This administration has violated these principles, and in so doing has set the foundation for future presidents to do the same. If the House Dems fail to have the spine to stand up for the United States Constitution, then the very nature of our constitutional democracy is in serious trouble.

If House Dems don't do it now, they certainly won't do it when a Dem president decides to exercise the excessive powers that the Bush presidency has put in place. Breaking up the checks and balances will become status quo. This is why Earl disappoints!

The Emperor and all of his Earls are wearing no clothes, and people are beginning to notice.

Peace in the Middle East and impeachment of those who commit crimes against humanity there are NOT separate matters any more than the "wars" in Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine are separate matters.

Blumenauer is not "a fucking coward", as one townhall speaker claimed. On the contrary, it takes a lot of guts to take a stand on impeachment that places him in opposition to 80% of his own party members.

Blumenauer not only supported the vicious attacks on Lebanon and Gaza last year, he refused to vote for a ceasefire. This took a lot of guts, too, since most Americans are in favor of even-handed treatment of Israel and its enemies.

Blumenauer refused to pledge to oppose the $100 billion "supplemental" in March and April of this year and voted FOR it twice. Pretty gutsy considering his liberal constituency begged him not to.

Blumenauer signed the "Declaration of Peace" last year, except he didn't. He refused to support the most important part of it in his "signing statement", the part that would have defunded the occupation of Iraq. That took guts, too, since he was negotiating with the "peace community" and risked being revealed as a closet hawk.

Here are my predictions:

Blumenauer will refuse to filibuster any new war appropriations bill, the only way to actually defund the occupation of Iraq. He also will refuse to vote against the ever more bloated Pentagon budget when it next comes up. He will continue to say that the time for impeachment is still not ripe. And his worshippers will still treat him like the Ghandian Second Coming.

This isn't about Bush. It's about the presidency and the checks and balances in the US Constitution. . . . If the House Dems fail to have the spine to stand up for the United States Constitution, then the very nature of our constitutional democracy is in serious trouble.

I would argue that Bush is acting EXACTLY how the founding fathers expected him to act. He is working to maximize the power of the executive branch. What the founding fathers failed to foresee (how do you like them alliterative apples) is that another branch of government (mostly Congress, but partially the courts) would voluntarily relinquish their own power. The very basis of our consitutional democracy is that each branch will maximize power, and since power is a zero-sum game, they will keep one another in check.

So based on this, it's not Bush who is failing, it's Congress. But is the answer to move towards impeachment? Obviously for some it is. But I don't think impeachment is the appropriate answer to a power-maximizing president. I think congressional oversight, backed by the power of the purse, is all that is needed to restore the balance. Them founding fathers were wicked smart, and they did not envision impeachment as a tool for anything outside of "bribery, treason, high crimes, and misdemeanors."

They'll never get Bush and Co. on impeachment, so I kind of figure impeachment efforts are a waste of time. People are going to spend hours and hours rambling on and accomplishing nothing. Bush is a doofus, an incompetent, that's all, and he's on his way out. Efforts will be more constructively expended on getting somebody in office that has a far better sense of judgment than Bush has.

I think I agree with Miles, that the way to solve this problem with the war, is for Congress to do its job and cut the money off if we really think our absence from that part of the world is going to improve things.

Bush is stupid-smart. He's so stupid that he can break laws, call it executive privilege performed in the best interest of the country, and actually believe that he did so in the best interests of the country. That trait is going to let him ease out of any tight spot that impeachment proceedings might pose.

Look at Nixon....he was impeachable, right? More easily than Bush would be. And what happens? He resigns. Whatever he was found guilty of, he got pardoned. Some accountability.

Pics of Blumenauer's event.

They'll never get Bush and Co. on impeachment, so I kind of figure impeachment efforts are a waste of time.

People who support an investigation into grounds for impeachment are like a prosecutor calling a hearing before a grand jury which means concern that the law has been violated. People opposed to such an investigation in view of available evidence of possible high crimes and misdemeanors apparently don't give a damn about the Constitution and the law, unless they are seeking vengeance against some poor schmuck who has committed some minor crime.

I think I agree with Miles, that the way to solve this problem with the war, is for Congress to do its job and cut the money off if we really think our absence from that part of the world is going to improve things.

If the people we elect to Congress don't have the guts and integrity to live up to their oaths to defend the Constitution they are not likely to have the stamina to do what is necessary to get the troops out of Iraq.

"If the people we elect to Congress don't have the guts and integrity to live up to their oaths to defend the Constitution they are not likely to have the stamina to do what is necessary to get the troops out of Iraq. "

Democrats were justly proud of the number of veterans (Sen. Webb, Cong. Walz and Sestak, among others) elected in 2006.

Veterans know the logistics of ending a conflict and bringing troops home. The question now is whether those veterans are to be allowed to use their experience and expertise, or whether they should just shut up and listen to the "defund the war yesterday" crowd.

I want the Iraq War to end more intelligently than it started. That takes thought and hard work, not just shouting at town hall meetings held by Democrats who can't wave a magic wand.

Is it the fault of the Democrats that the Republicans are obstructionist?

If Moveon.org has one message and retired generals like Wes Clark have another message, I'll trust Gen. Clark. And if that makes me "not a progressive" or "not sufficiently anti-war", then I never liked labels anyway.

I think there very well could be a calculation going on about which would be worse:

A)cutting off all war funding, not being able to bring the troops home any more efficiently than from Saigon in the 1970s, (leaving all that equipment behind because there wasn't time or logistical support to bring it home) and possibly losing the 2008 elections if things turned out badly or B) a more logisitically intelligent but gradual approach which could show the Democrats actually know how to get things done and not just pontificate. Not all of that may show on the surface, as it takes hard work and not just rhetoric.

If there were people at the fiery town hall meeting who are veterans, members of military families, people who have been politically active for years and are just fed up, that is one thing.

But my experience includes instances when people who had never before been to such meetings (or came to party meetings with the same outrage) yelled their demands, and then never showed up again to do any positive campaign work.

I have known Earl, Ron, Darlene, Peter, David for decades, and am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt over people who go to town hall meetings of Democrats and make them miserable but don't expend that same energy they being publicly angry at Republicans.

If some people don't like my attitude, tough luck. They won't get my support by yelling at people I admire who got elected to office and have actually done some good things. If you don't like my attitude, channel that anger into Steve's campaign, or Jeff's campaign, or whoever. Or get involved in the crusade for better treatment of vets and military families. But realize yelling at a meeting generates more heat than light ( or problem solving).

I want these guys under oath and specifically questioned about bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors. More importantly I want to see the thugs respond and come out into the day light, like some of them do here on line. We will call it the mirror which will show us our blemished democracy. Not a cure, but we are better off seeing than pretending that this is not happening. Tell the evildoers that I an not afraid!

There have been many reasoned arguments about getting the troops out of Iraq. The case for getting out of Iraq is not limited to people who are justifiably frustrated and are venting their anger at their representatives.

I want these guys under oath and specifically questioned about bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors. More importantly I want to see the thugs respond and come out into the day light, like some of them do here on line. We will call it the mirror which will show us our blemished democracy. Not a cure, but we are better off seeing than pretending that this is not happening. Tell the evildoers that I am not afraid!

<hr/>