Blumenauer Responds to Town Hall
US Representative Earl Blumenauer has posted a response on his website to the heated town hall meeting he hosted a week ago. In his response, Blumenauer defended his record opposing the Bush administration:
After last Sunday’s Town Hall I spent several hours thinking about the challenges to my assessments and searching for any new ideas, evidence or approaches to the critical issues of peace and accountability. Because so many people had asked for this meeting, the format was organized to give them the opportunity to speak to me directly. I wanted to be sure I heard from as many people as possible.And yes, it was emotional for me. These are emotional topics; everybody in that room feels strongly about them. Having just put my daughter on a plane to spend the next 2 1/2 years as a Peace Corps volunteer in Mozambique, I felt a little apprehensive about what is happening in that country and was starting to miss her already. I was also preparing to go to a memorial service for a dear friend later that afternoon. It’s never pleasant to have people insult you, but after a lifetime of public service I’ve learned to listen, to think, and to try not to take the insults personally.
This was the third opportunity for people in my district to speak out on these issues in the past week. I had a telephone Town Hall that involved almost 5,000 people and also entertained people's questions with an online conference.
Yet after hearing from hundreds and hundreds of people, I found that the fundamentals had not changed. I am still unalterably opposed to this administration, their war policies, and the way they conduct themselves. Nobody in Oregon has been more opposed to this administration and that will continue. Nobody in any of these meetings has worked harder or longer to get the Bush administration out of office and I will continue that fight every day that I am in Congress, opposing Bush’s disastrous war policies, his destructive attitudes towards children’s’ health, and his continued attacks on the environment. I am not going to let up, nor will I stop looking for new ways to protect my constituents, our state, and our country from their actions.
Blumenauer also offers his thoughts on impeachment, a topic which dominated the town hall, arguing that impeaching the President would only hurt progressive causes:
If I thought for one minute that simply trying to impeach George Bush would change our nation’s course, I would do it in a heartbeat, even if it was a long shot. But impeachment is not going to happen at this point. We may have a Democratic majority in Congress, but we still don’t have a progressive majority. Like it or not, it all comes down to the numbers – and right now, the numbers are simply not there.Every member of the House of Representatives understands that Republicans in the Senate continue to ally themselves with the White House. They also know that Senator Joe Lieberman, who returned to the Senate as an Independent, is not only sympathetic to President Bush, but ran on a pro-Bush platform. What most people at Sunday’s Town Hall see as impeachable offenses, Joe Lieberman believes to be true and just – and he holds the balance of power in the Senate. If impeachment proceedings drive him into the Republican fold, the Senate will revert to Republican leadership, headed directly by Vice President Cheney and controlled by President Bush. This shift would, among other things, immediately shut down Senator Patrick Leahy’s investigations into abuses at the Department of Justice and the White House.
I agree that Democrats need to be more forceful in their response to this administration and I am keenly interested in finding effective ways to bring about peace and hold the Bush administration accountable. We gain nothing by avoiding direct confrontation; we need to continue aggressive oversight hearings, pushing and enforcing subpoenas that can lay the groundwork for further action. Nothing is off the table.
I know that the frustrations I heard are widely shared by Oregonians; I encounter them every week as I come home for meetings in our community. However, I also hear that impeachment is not the only issue of importance; Oregonians also want us to push back on the Bush administration’s failure to take on global warming, its attacks on the environment, its illegal domestic spying, and its mindless opposition to children’s healthcare. I also care about these issues and continue to work on them every day.
Read the rest. Are you convinced by Blumenauer's response?
Discuss.
|
Oct. 01, 2007
Posted in in the news 2007. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
12:15 p.m.
Oct 1, '07
Either Earl doesn't know how the Senate works or he is lying to CYA with the above statement.
Organization of majority leadership and the committee assignments is/was one of the first order of business the new Senate undertook with organizing resolutions back in January which remain in effect until the 111th Congress. To undo those it would require new organizing resolutions which would require a 60 vote majority and one in which the VP has no vote whatsoever (even in case of a tie since organizational resolutions are not legislation).
In short, Lieberman can do nothing to change the balance or the organization for the Senate for the remainder of the 110th Congress. Earl is either grossly misinformed or blowing smoke.
Oct 1, '07
A stupid mistake. He really should know better. Publishing on this blog he should know that will be caught immediately. It's been a topic of discussion on the blogosphere since the election.
Spine, Earl... give us some spine, in actions, not just words.
1:35 p.m.
Oct 1, '07
Wow lestatdelc. That a interesting tidbit of info you dug up. I didn't know that. So count me as grossly misinformed as the Congressman in that regard.
However in practice, a Lieberman flip would accomplish much of the same result. As the Senate chair of the following committees: Armed Services, Environment and Public Works, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, he wields enormous influence over the exact policies that progressives have the most problem with.
Oct 1, '07
Short answer for now:
Rep. Blumenauer seems to oppose impeachment because the Senate would not convict ("not enough votes").
But even bringing up the topic and making the Republicans (and Lieberman) vote to stand with Bush would have immense political value with the majority of Americans, both Republican and Democratic and others, who oppose this war and this adminstration's power grab.
So I remain unconvinced.
Oct 1, '07
The place to cast blame for the Senate's inability to move is not with a House representative, even if he misstates something (I'm no expert on House and Senate organizing rules to know whether he did).
The thing to focus on is electing more Democrats to the US Senate and to the Oregon House, in order to increase those majorities enough to get moving on more of the disasters Republicans have created or issues they've let fester for years.
My experience with Earl is that he is earnest and well-informed on issues he takes a strong position on. He's one of the guys fighting the good fight. It is just that the fight isn't over yet. He and Sen. Ron Wyden need more people on their side in their respective houses.
Oct 1, '07
@William Neuhauser:
Electing more Democrats to the US Senate come 2008 will do nothing to curb the excessive powers that the Bush Administration has claimed, and that will, if unchallenged, be inherited by the next President, be they Democratic or Republican or any other party.
As others have said, it's not about Bush or Cheney personally. It's about the unholy precedent they've set for future presidents - signing statements, extra-legal interment camps, outright torture, pre-emptive war... the list goes on and on.
I strongly suspect that is the real reason Congress is doing nothing to curb the dictatorial powers that reside in the Executive Branch of our government: they're salivating and chomping at the bit to try them out after 2008, and perhaps fooling themselves by thinking that in THEIR hands it'll all be OK because THEIR intentions are good...
2:46 p.m.
Oct 1, '07
In a word: No.
You don't make a decision in the US House to Impeach or not to Impeach based on the expected behavior of the Senate. You determine if there's reason the believe that the Executive has committed "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," and proceed from that standpoint.
Additionally, the hearings themselves will (or would have) likely bring up new information that was likely obscured by the Administration during regular "investigations" and "hearings."
Incredibly disappointed by Blumenauer in this, almost as disappointed in him as I was when he voted for DOMA (which it took 7 years for him to apologize for).
2:47 p.m.
Oct 1, '07
I strongly suspect that is the real reason Congress is doing nothing to curb the dictatorial powers that reside in the Executive Branch of our government: they're salivating and chomping at the bit to try them out after 2008, and perhaps fooling themselves by thinking that in THEIR hands it'll all be OK because THEIR intentions are good...
All the more reason to elect an Independent candidate to the US Senate
Oct 1, '07
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 aides were confronted at his closed door conference with Pelosi that a September date was set.
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.
Color me red, for irate. [photos...]
2:59 p.m.
Oct 1, '07
Lestatdelc, can you elaborate on how a Lieberman switch to caucus with the Republicans would differ from what happened when Jim Jeffords of Vermont became an (I) and started caucusing with the Dems, which did as I recall change control of the Senate? I'm not saying it wouldn't differ, just that I don't understand it.
For Earl to convince me with this he'd have to convince me that the kind of really aggressive oversight hearings he's talking about would a) occur and b) result in appropriately thorough reports, properly publicized. I have a lot of respect for Patrick Leahy, but Earl has dodged the issue of Pelosi and Reid trying to limit committee chairs in oversight aggressiveness.
And I still want the question of whether findings of such hearings reflect violations of oaths of office to protect and defend the Constitution that could form the basement of impeachment articles to be addressed directly.
Daniel Ellsberg recently published an interesting article/ speech on the nature of the constitutional crisis we face.
Oct 1, '07
@Sal Peralta:
I don't know how electing one person to the US Senate would alleviate the powerlust amongst the current Congressional leadership.
I especially don't know how splitting the progressive vote to prevent the Democratic nominee from ever reaching the US Senate in the first place would be a positive step at all.
I'd rather try to make the Democratic party more progressive, than to try to create and validate an entirely new third party from scratch. It's the easiest path to the type of future I'd prefer. I know others may disagree, but that's where I stand. The old choice about "75% of somethin' rather than 100% of nothin'" comes to mind.
3:51 p.m.
Oct 1, '07
The difference is, as the link up-thread lays out, that when the 107th Congress was convened on January 3, 2001, Al Gore was still the Vice President and would be for another two-and-a-half weeks. Therefore, because of the Senate's 50-50 tie, Democrats had nominal control of the chamber when the organizing resolution came to a vote. With Dick Cheney soon to come in, however, Democrats allowed Republicans to control the Senate in return for a provision on the organizing resolution that allowed for a reorganization of the chamber if any member should switch parties, which Jeffords did five months later. There was no such clause in the current Senate's organizing resolution.
In short, the organizing resolutions passed in the 107th Congress had unique language in it which specifically allowed for a reshuffling of the organization of the Senate if there was a change in party balances. That language was not in the organizing resolutions for the 110th.
5:24 p.m.
Oct 1, '07
Wow, talk about eating your own children. This group and the impeach now crowd that attacked Blumenauer at his meeting sure know how to be counter-productive. I believe that a good case can be made for impeachment in the House, but could you at least be civil to Earl who is one of the best proponents of progressive values in the Congress. You are treating him like you would treat a Cheney visit to Portland.
As far as control of the Senate is concerned, lestatdelc is technically correct as I understand it, but it could lead to a constitutional crisis since this reading is one that would be challenged and the outcome is not as clear as he makes out.
5:40 p.m.
Oct 1, '07
No it wouldn't. The Constitution is very clear that the Senate makes its own organizational rules.
(emphasis mine)
5:44 p.m.
Oct 1, '07
I have never known Earl to be deceptive in any way through out his long and successful years representing the people of Oregon. Further, I have never been in a group that has reached consensus on impeachment and I'm in large and small groups of voters 2 to 3 times per week and often on the weekends. The contentious nature of comments lately does not keep the Democratic Party "whole." Each and every time we divide ourselves, candidates such as John Frohmayer rear their heads and split votes. It's tempting to attack but more useful to encourage and suggest.
Oct 1, '07
@Sal Peralta:
I don't know how electing one person to the US Senate would alleviate the powerlust amongst the current Congressional leadership.
Sal is right in supporting BrianM "I strongly suspect that is the real reason Congress is doing nothing to curb the dictatorial powers that reside in the Executive Branch of our government: they're salivating and chomping at the bit to try them out after 2008, and perhaps fooling themselves by thinking that in THEIR hands it'll all be OK because THEIR intentions are good..."
One senator or one representative won't have much effect, but if Oregon chooses Steve Novick, who is obviously not in the DLC/DSCC pocket, we and he could set an example for others to follow. Just as a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step, cleaning house in Congress begins with electing one honest and independently minded candidate.
Despite decades of evidence contradicting their theoretical roles as representatives of the people, the leaders of both major parties are concerned primarily with their own power and not the people. As the vote in October 2002 to give Bush a blank check to go to war proved for most politicians in Congress their oath to the Constitution was meaningless. Their failure to call for impeachment despite blatant evidence of high crimes proves their oath to the Constitution remains meaningless. As other votes in Congress repeatedly demonstrate, their daily mouthings of the words of the Pledge of Allegiance are blatant hypocrisy.
6:46 p.m.
Oct 1, '07
Paulie,
I am in sympathy with your last sentence in particular.
Nonetheless I also think we are in the midst of a genuine constitutional crisis, but that the Democratic leadership is acting as if nothing is seriously different from the kind of politics of the Clinton era.
It is a mistake to demonize Earl B. He has taken a number of positions that get out in front of the leadership, e.g. going back to refusing to vote for the Patriot Act because of the way it was brought to Congress (I heard him speak quite eloquently about the impossibility of anyone apart from the compilers having read it when they voted), to recently signing the pledge not to vote for further war funding and refusing to engage in the bait & switch over the MoveOn ad headline. I imagine that he calculates quite closely about his relationships with the leadership. I wish he'd be a bit more open about that aspect of his considerations.
Nonetheless, exactly because he is quite thoughtful and able to go beyond the superficial, it is a bit disappointing that he is not more vocal about the systematic nature of the assault on the constitution and the need to keep current administration claims from becoming an acceptable interpretation.
If he genuinely thinks the fears and anger that people are expressing are misplaced, he should say why. What I see is not that, but a debate on tactics. If he accepts that the situation is serious, I wish he would advance alternatives that meet the seriousness of the situation.
But attacking him as if he were Pelosi or Reid because they aren't available in Portland is a mistake.
Oct 1, '07
I second John Calhoun's remark.
We would be better off telling Earl "we've got your back" and support your efforts to make progress on these issues and use our anger to build public pressure on the folks that are the real stumbling blocks.
Earl and Ron Wyden, etc. are not the ones voting to muzzle MoveOn or to widen the Iraq occupation into a war with Iran.
9:18 p.m.
Oct 1, '07
East Bank Thom:
As a staff member for Earl, let me help shed some light on your “claims” of truth.
1.) We never “reneged” on our plan to have a Town Hall Meeting. When you are trying to schedule a Member of Congress who lives in Oregon and work in DC, things can be hectic. We were also working with leaders of Portland Peace Group to help publicize Earl’s signing of the Oregon Declaration of Peace. I thought it would make sense to do these at the same time and so our timeline was bumped back. It was also posted on various websites before we hosted the Speaker Pelosi event.
2.) You may not like Earl’s position, but he has been quite clear in telling people where he stands. He always posts his comments on his website and we try and respond to all constituents who write or call in (we might occasionally miss one or two, but we try hard not too).
3.) Office locations in Washington, DC are decided by seniority and lottery. It has nothing to do with who the Speaker is. We did get a new office this Congress, because many Members with more seniority than Earl either retired or lost their re-elections in 2006.
4.) Most Committee Chairs are also decided by seniority.
5.) He has never promised the Speaker or anyone else that he wouldn’t support impeachment, nor has he ever said it was “off the table”. He just doesn’t believe that it is the best way to achieve the goal that we all want, rolling back the disastrous policies of George Bush and his apologists in the US Congress.
Disagree with that decision, tell him why you think he is wrong, but please don’t just make wild assumptions and post them. If you have questions about something call me. I’d be more than happy to tell you the truth.
Oct 1, '07
1.) We never “reneged” on our plan to have a Town Hall Meeting. When you are trying to schedule a Member of Congress who lives in Oregon and work in DC, things can be hectic.
You tell 'em Willie!
Some years ago my member of Congress scheduled a town hall meeting at a local high school-let's say 7pm. We arrive and about 10 min. after scheduled start time, a staffer announces the plane has been delayed, could we all come back in an hour?
Surprising how many of us went away and did come back in an hour. That's a real example of loyalty!
Oct 2, '07
@Willie Smith:
I can't state this any clearer: it does no good at all to work to "rolling back the disastrous policies of George Bush and his apologists in the US Congress" when one or several of those policies includes ignoring the laws passed by Congress, either by signing statements or simply by appointing toadies and incompetents to positions of power over those policies... or any of the other ways with which we now have more of king, than an elected official bound by the same Constitution as the rest of the citizens.
And as long as Earl and the rest of Congress, Republican or Democratic or independent, continue to pretend that passing "laws" that don't apply to the White House is more important than telling the President and the world what we will and won't allow through the means the Constitution laid out for all y'all... then there will be people like myself and others working to replace the current Congress, regardless of how honest and forthright they are or how much they "care".
Sorry, but that's the message I heard over and over again at the Town Hall at the Hollywood Theater, and I hear over and over again on the blogs. How else can the people convince Rep. Blumenauer and his peers?
Oct 2, '07
As a staff member for Earl, let me help shed some light on your “claims” of truth.
Willie, when you guys speak from the congressman's office, you speak for the office. So i will stand by my "wild assumption" that Earl Blumenauer lied to me when he didn't follow through with his promise (repeated through his staffers) to hold a forum in August. [LT, the difference between this and your anecdote of "come back in an hour" is one month and 66 more dead troops
When you are trying to schedule a Member of Congress who lives in Oregon and work in DC, things can be hectic.
Incompetence is no excuse, Willie.
We were also working with leaders of Portland Peace Group to help publicize Earl’s signing of the Oregon Declaration of Peace. I thought it would make sense to do these at the same time
Indeed, Wyden also tried to take the pressure of his misguided stance on impeachment by waving the flag of his anti-war cred. It didn't work for him either.
It was also posted on various websites before we hosted the Speaker Pelosi event.
Don't know/care what "various" sites you're talking about. Joe in your office said "Keep looking to the Congressman's website" ... "Homepage?" i asked. "Yeah," he said (on more than one occasion).
he has been quite clear in telling people where he stands.
I disagree. Watch the end of the "accountability" forum [video here...] and see Earl try to get up and go without saying ANYTHING about impeachment.
we try and respond to all constituents who write or call in
Even as you ignore the constituents who have been protesting outside your office (729 NE Oregon St.) for 10 weeks (Thursdays, noon to 2pm)... Yep, we see you going out the back door, Willie...
Office locations in Washington, DC are decided by seniority and lottery. It has nothing to do with who the Speaker is.
Then congratulations. But don't try and tell me that Blumenauer's reluctance to pursue impeachment is unrelated to Speaker Pelosi. It comes of as phony as Earl saying on the radio he didn't know who first took impeachment "off the table."
I’d be more than happy to tell you the truth.
Somebody in Blumenauer's office needs to. Because the Congressman isn't when he claims:
This claim quite frankly pisses me off. Personally, i have only recently left the cheap seats of the peanut gallery which is this blogosphere and taken to the streets to hold Bush, Cheney & Co accountable. Blumenauer comes off like Giuliani who idiotically claimed to have spent as much or more time at ground zero as the first responders. (Turn's out he actually spent more time at baseball games...) Tell it to John Bradach, Earl, whose nephew, Marine Cpl. Travis Bradach-Nall was killed in Iraq. Travis volunteered to stay on an extra three months to clear land mines. He was killed in a mine explosion the very day Bush said "Bring 'em on.." Tell John, who was at the forum, that you're working harder than him to get Bush out of office... Tell John, who spends hours every week trying to get you to do your sworn duty and uphold the Constitution... Tell, John... tell us all that Bush hasn't committed any impeachable offense.
And then have your spokesman tell us that you're telling the truth.
8:25 a.m.
Oct 2, '07
Thom-
You lose a lot of credibility with me when you continue to call people "liars" when there was no intent to deceive. Changing the date of a town hall meeting, doesn't seem to constitute a "lie" to me....but to each their own.
The only thing that upsets me is when you say we "ignore" you. I have come outside and talked with the people in your group (including you!) most weeks. You come into the office almost every week. You have someone who films these interactions almost every week.
We clearly are not ignoring you, I think we just don't agree with you.
I appreciate John Bradach's passion (and have spoken with him many times) and all of those who are doing what they think is right and we'll always meet and listen to people, even if we don't agree.
In 2000 and 2004 (when I didn't even work for Earl), I saw Earl and his team working every night and weekend along with thousands of Oregonians to help elect Al Gore and John Kerry.
I hope that you personally will spend as much time helping the Democratic nominee for president in 2008
Oct 2, '07
@Willie Smith:
You said:
I hope that you personally will spend as much time helping the Democratic nominee for president in 2008.
But if I don't like the powers the current Republican president has, powers that appear to me to far exceed any Constitutional powers granted to the Executive, like ignoring subpoenas from Congressional "investigations", ignoring or changing the meaning of laws passed by Congress, or otherwise defying the rule of law... why on earth would I trust a Democratic nominee with those same powers?
The way to earn back my trust, and I believe the trust of the majority of Americans, is to stand up for the rule of law. I, and, it appears, others, are waiting. But if the Democratic leadership forces us to wait until 2009... that's too long and your time will be up.
Thanks for participating in this discussion. Could you pass along that message to the man we elected to represent us?
Oct 2, '07
Willie --
Thanks for participating in this discussion. My take on what is pissing people like EBT off is that Blumenauer is trying to walk a carefully constructed political line, rather than coming out on one side or the other. His stated reasons for opposing impeachment are 1) It's not going to happen because we don't have a progressive majority, 2) He thinks it would cause Lieberman to jump ship, turning Senate control over to the GOP (and what's your response to Lestatdelc's post above that debunks that?), and 3) There are other important issues to work on.
But Blumenauer hasn't said whether or not he believes Bush has committed impeachable offenses. Personally, I don't think he has, I think he's just used every executive tool available to him and he's been given a free pass by a Congress that doesn't care about protecting its own prerogatives. But others make reasonable arguments that Bush HAS committed impeachable offenses. Seems to me that Blumenauer owes his constituents a clear explanation as to which side of the line he is on. His above statement sidesteps the substance of the issue.
Oct 2, '07
Here is an alternative interpretation of the organizing resolution, courtesy of Rick Hasen.
http://electionlawblog.org/archives/007891.html
Keep up the good fight, Earl. And Willie, thanks for chiming in.
Oct 2, '07
But Blumenauer hasn't said whether or not he believes Bush has committed impeachable offenses. Personally, I don't think he has, I think he's just used every executive tool available to him and he's been given a free pass by a Congress that doesn't care about protecting its own prerogatives.
If ordering the U.S. Armed Forces to wage an illegal war on Iraq that has evolved into a crime against humanity (hundreds of thousands of people killed and maimed and millions turned into refugees) is not an impeachable offense, then it is beyond my comprehension to think of what might qualify.
Oct 2, '07
All the different positions by Rep. Blumenauer do not make any sense--they are all bogus. The only concept that allows all the pieces to fall into place is that the leadership of the Democratic Party has decided that under no circumstances will they take this mess away from Bush and the Republican Party. They have decided to use this madness in Iraq as a political tool to win seats in the Congress and maybe even the White House.
I fear there will be no cutting off the funds, and no impeachment of either Cheney or Bush, and that may mean the destruction of the Democratic Party. We protest outside Rep. Blumenauer’s office because crimes, monstrous crimes, have been committed. We, the United States of America, have gone from invading a country without just cause, to occupation, and now to genocide. If Cheney and Bush are allowed to walk away in January of 09, enjoying their war profits and living the life of privilege, then I will resign as a democrat and become an independent.
After forty years of voting for dems, I will not support, in any way, a candidate who has not come out and clearly called for the impeachment of Cheney and/or Bush. I have voted for Blumenauer in the past, but he has lost me. His staff can stay in denial, but the facts speak for themselves. Crimes have been committed and Rep. Blumenauer looks the other way because it is in HIS best interest to do so.
The Democratic Party of Oregon, and the Multnomah Democratic Party have called for impeachment and/or investigations to begin. Earl’s constituents have asked, pleaded, and now demand he fulfill his obligation to his oath of office to the constitution and lead the call for impeachment.
KPOJ RADIO POLL IS NOW RUNNING OVER 90% FOR IMPEACHMENT. (10/02/07)
Maybe I should start a pledge campaign to say:
I-------------, will not support any candidate who refuses to call for the impeachment of Cheney and/or Bush.
Joe Walsh---Lone Vet Portland
Oct 2, '07
then I will resign as a democrat and become an independent.
Perhaps this should read "resign as a Democrat and become a democratic republican and independent."
Oct 2, '07
I just finished listening to Nancy "Impeachment is off the table" Pelosi and Democratic and Republican representatives in the House make pious statements about the courage of Aung San Suu Kyi and the monks in Burma striving and risking their freedom and lives to return Burma to a democracy. What hypocrisy. Clearly, Nancy Pelosi is no Aung San Suu Kyi and the representatives in the House are in no way comparable to Burma's principled and courageous monks.
Oct 3, '07
Lies, damn lies and exaggeration...
You lose a lot of credibility with me when you continue to call people "liars" when there was no intent to deceive.
That's pretty slick, Willie... We want your boss to hold Bush accountable and you want to argue the definition of "liar." Save me your unrighteous indignation. Let's just say you're exaggerating now.
I have come outside and talked with the people in your group (including you!) most weeks.
Most? Surely you jest... and by jest i mean exaggerate. (Check the videos)
You come into the office almost every week.
Since the present action began, i've called three times and dropped in the office 4 of the 11 weeks. You do the math.
Changing the date of a town hall meeting, doesn't seem to constitute a "lie" to me...
Let me refresh your memory, Willie. In early August (after the third week of regular Thursday protests at 729 NE Oregon St.), your office began telling various interested parties that the congressman would hold a forum on impeachment at the end of the month before returning back to DC. This event was confirmed to me as late as August 23. I was told to just check your website for details (and that's what i passed along to others.) When another week went by with no word, i called the office and was told by Sage that no forum was planned... not that it had been postponed. The following day, i spoke in person with Joe. He too confirmed there wouldn't be any forum before the end of the August break (and again, there was no mention of postponement). I told him the congressman ought to at least post something on his website and Joe agreed that was a good idea and promised to pass it on (which i assume he did). The deadline for an August forum passed with no explanation or clarification on blumenauer.house.gov. You made me look like a liar... When you speak from the congressman's office, you speak for the congressman.
So we go from exaggeration to miscommunication to outright deception. After returning to the new DC office that he won in a lottery, the congressman posted a statement indicating that impeachment should no longer be considered by Congress to be "off the table." The following week he clarified this statement on KPOJ and made the following outrageous statement.
I say "outrageous" because we are led to believe that Blumenauer has no idea who started this rumor in the first place that impeachment had be taken off the table. That "somebody" who took impeachment off the table was the soon to be Madame Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. She said this in 2003 to her Democratic caucus members during their weekly closed meeting. The key figure in the House continuing to keep impeachment off the table is Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Willie, you claimed up-thread: "Most Committee Chairs are also decided by seniority." That's not the whole truth, is it now. Nancy Pelosi has a great deal to say what role Earl Blumenauer will play in the next Congress (assuming her reluctance to hold Bush accountable doesn't result in the House reverting back to Republican control).
Oct 3, '07
If ordering the U.S. Armed Forces to wage an illegal war on Iraq that has evolved into a crime against humanity. . . is not an impeachable offense, then it is beyond my comprehension to think of what might qualify.
Well, Bill, I feel like we've been over this ground before on other threads, but it starts with disagreement that this was an "illegal" war. Ill-advised and wrong, sure, but illegal? Congress voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq, so there is no War Powers issue there. I know that a lot of progressives think it should be illegal to do what he did, but it's not. The president, as commander in chief, is within his rights to launch a preemptive war against another country that he deems a threat to our security.
I also think it's possible to disagree fundamentally and completely with the president's war policies without jumping to the conclusion that he's acting in an extra-constitutional manner. Sometimes I feel like my pro-impeachment friends argue so vigorously for it because they don't want to believe that we live in a country where a strong-willed president can use the levers of the office to do something to which the majority are fundamentally opposed. But he can, which is why I'll make a gratuitous attack on Nader and his supporters, who bear equal responsibility for this war by voting principle over pragmatism. There is a time for each, and 2000 was a time for pragmatism.
I'll say again that there is a simple solution far short of impeachment: Congress needs to start acting like an equal branch of government. When they do that, they'll find the president's assumed powers evaporate in an instant. Our system of government is beautiful because it is a finely tuned, zero-sum balance of power. The only way Bush got the power he has is that Congress willingly gave it up. When we demand they take it back, they will.
Oct 3, '07
2003
Wrong election cycle. My mistake. Pelosi took impeachment off the table May 12, 2006.
Whew! It feels good to admit when you're wrong. Hillary? Kari? No?
Oct 3, '07
Miles: It's you reactionaries who keep ignoring the fact that "we've been over this ground before on other threads".
(1.) The principles of the War Crimes Act of 1996, the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Tribunal all have been violated. The War Crimes Act requires the death penalty for breaches that result in the death of civilians. You should at least read about this before you display your ignorance.
(2.) Bruce Fein, the Republican Conservative who helped initiate impeachment against Clinton, has made a significant case that Bush/Cheney are far more criminal in their undertakings than Clinton ever was, primarily because of their serial abuses of power, which he and many true conservatives consider to be the most important high crime.
(3.) Blumenauer and his staff are serial disinformers in addition to being apologists for crimes against humanity. Earl claims, for example, that his original vote for unending Bush slaughter and torture in 2001 was only for Afghanistan (bad enough, since the people of Afghanistan were not responsible for al Qaeda), although Barbara Lee knew that it authorized Bush to use military force against "anyone associated" with 9/11, i.e., anyone Bush chooses. Earl is a triangulator in the Hillary mode, and he will carefully peruse the latest polls in determining whether or not morality should count. He and the Democrats can stop the occupation of Iraq NOW if they either keep the appropriations bill from emerging from committee (see: Obey and/or Kucinich) or if they filibuster an appropriations bill. Want to bet about whether they will do this?
(4.) The overwhelming majority of DEMOCRATS want impeachment yesterday. How do you call yourselves Democratic if you ignore the demands of the great majority of your own constituency?
(5.) Gore WON, for Christ's sake. When will you right wing Democrats stop blaming Nader for your continuous support for Republican-lite candidates and join with your brothers and sisters in the Republican Party, already? Remember: it was the 12% of you who defected to Bush, and not the 2% of us who voted for Nader who cost you the election, although it must be said that Gore (and Kerry) should have won in a lark against the feeble-minded. No doubt you now will support Hillary and then look for someone else to blame.
Oct 4, '07
The principles of the War Crimes Act of 1996, the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Tribunal all have been violated.
So where's the UN resolution condemning the US for taking this illegal action? While other countries have correctly criticized the US for its actions in Iraq, none has taken the official step of trying to enforce the "laws" that you cite. Which says to me they know full well that they won't stick.
[Earl] and the Democrats can stop the occupation of Iraq NOW if they either keep the appropriations bill from emerging from committee. . . or if they filibuster an appropriations bill.
Thus exactly proving my point that impeachment isn't necessary to stop the Bush Adminisration.
The overwhelming majority of DEMOCRATS want impeachment yesterday. How do you call yourselves Democratic if you ignore the demands of the great majority of your own constituency?
Just because the majority want something doesn't make it right. How do you call yourself a progressive if you don't understand that fundamental principle?
Remember: it was the 12% of you who defected to Bush, and not the 2% of us who voted for Nader who cost you the election
Actually, it was both. Why can't you take some responsibility and simply accept that your vote for Nader caused the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? As did every asshole who voted for Bush. I love how every Nader voter likes to blame Gore, because he just didn't come through for you. Sorry, but it's the other way around: You didn't come through for your country.
Peace out, Harry.
2:12 p.m.
Oct 4, '07
Miles,
You may believe that the constitution gives the president the right to launch a preemptive war on his sole authority as commander-in-chief "against another country that he deems a threat to our national security." You are mistaken. But let's return to that in a moment.
Regardless of that constitutional interpretation, the international law of war, under the most fundamental of its conventions, including the war-making sections of the U.N. Charter, to which the U.S. is signatory and which have constitutional force in the U.S. under constitutional provisions regarding treaties, defines war based on mere perception of "threat to national security" as illegal aggression.
International permits preemptive war and defines it as not aggression if it is conducted under imminent threat of imminent. For example, the June 1967 air raids in which Israel destroyed the air forces of Egypt and Syria could be justified as such preemption because of the movement of the bulk of the Egyptian and Syrian armies from their normal stations to massed attack formations on the Israeli border.
The U.S. faced no such imminent danger from Iraq. It faced a nebulous danger of possible attack at some indeterminate future time. On ostensible Iraqi development of weapons of mass destruction, even the most pessimistic and disingenuous "intelligence" and war-mongering news reporting at the time conceded they were years from coming into existence. The U.S. attack on Iraq was at best a preventive attack. It certainly was not preemptive in any way that justified the aggression.
That is, as you aptly put it, an attack based on the standard of "a threat to our national security." This is incredibly broad. If that is the standard, Iran, Venezuela, Pakistan (because we might elect Barack Obama who has spoken of attacking Pakistan beyond just "taking out" Osama bin Laden) and number of other countries are justified right now in attacking the U.S., because we threaten their national security.
And indeed, any other country in the world would be justified in attacking the U.S. right now, because our interpretation of "preemption" and a number of other related claims to impunity, if taken seriously, essentially amount to the U.S. saying it is bound by laws against aggression and other other fundamental collective security and human rights laws only if it chooses to be. That makes the U.S. a threat to every country's national security. It is fundamentally a doctrine of imperial might makes right.
Or leave the U.S. out of it. Do India and Pakistan each have a right to start a war with the other, since each clearly threatens the national security of the other? Does Iran have the right to attack Israel because Israel openly debates and repeatedly has stated willingness and under certain conditions intent to attack Iran?
The reason the answer is no is that the standard is not vague "threat to national security" but tight "imminent threat of attack." Without that imminence, it is aggression, and the U.S. commmitted aggression against Iraq in violation of international law and our own treaty obligations.
The U.N. has not passed a resolution against the attack because the U.S. has a veto in the relevant body, the Security Council. On the other hand, that same body repeatedly refused U.S. pressure to sanction the attack under its original international legal pretext, which was Hussein's ostensible non-compliance with previous U.N. resolutions -- not preemption, N.B. Then Secretary of State Powell's embarrassing confabulations were presented to the Security Council in a failed effort to get the Council's backing for the attack under Article VII of the U.N. Charter.
The war powers resolution passed by Congress likewise was tied to the U.N. resolutions, at least loosely, and tied quite explicitly to a promise by Bush that he would give the U.N. weapons inspectors then working in Iraq time to carry out their work. Bush violated that promise and acted without U.N. sanction, not because Hussein was not complying, nor because the prostrate Iraq posed any sort of immediate threat.
Rather, Bush violated the promise because it was becoming increasingly clear that as Hussein did did comply, the inspectors were finding nothing because there was nothing to find -- as the U.S. searches when the country was under U.S. control showed conclusively. Bush attacked by calling Hussein's failure to turn over something he did not have a refusal. It was as if you attacked me because I "refused" your demand to release the tooth fairy from captivity for the well-being of the children of the world.
So, to return to the U.S. constitution. 1) Congress presumably can declare a war of aggression, but not without violating our treaty obligations and international law. 2) If Congress passes a "war powers resolution" giving the president discretion to conduct military operations, and also has ratified treaties governing when wars are and are not legal, making them the supreme law of the land, presumtively such a resolution must be intended to grant that discretion subject to U.S. obligations under international law, the very first of which is not to commit aggression but to fight wars only in self-defense or in the face of imminent threat of attack. 3) The president does not have constitutional authority in his own right to cause the United States to commit illegal wars of aggression in violation of our solemn treaty obligations. 4) In the case of this specific war powers resolution, it was couched in terms of giving the U.N. inspections process time to work. In my view the president violated those terms, manifestly so at the time, though with considerable suppport from bellicose sections of Congress and the major media such as the war-mongering Washington Post.
At minimum, that possible violation deserves investigation. The probability that the administration cooked the intelligence, through pressure on the CIA under threat of by-passing it through an alternative and possible illegal intelligence operation within the Defense Department led by Donald Feith also deserves investigation. Bringing the country to a war of aggression in violation of our international obligations to my mind in itself would be a high crime or misdemeanor. Doing so under false pretenses, including pressing Congress to pass a war powers resolution under false pretenses, would constitute an even greater one.
Finally, the fact that a minimally plausible rationalization for an act can be concocted does not in itself show good faith. Nor does it mean that an act conducted under such a rationale is not a high crime or a high misdemeanor, subject to investigation for possible impeachment, actual impeachment, trial pursuant to impeachment, or conviction. (I feel it necessary to distinguish the several steps that opponents here of even starting the process often conflate.) Nothing you have said appears to me to go further than saying that Bush put forward words more complicated than "nyah, nyah, I'm going to do what I want and you can't stop me," though the underlying meaning of the more complicated words wasn't much greater.
2:15 p.m.
Oct 4, '07
Oops, I meant "imminent threat of attack" -- misedited previous phrasing "threat of imminent attack" to get "imminent threat of imminent" -- another fine day at the Department of Redundancy Department.
Oct 4, '07
I think the tactics many take to get the point across about impeachment scare the people who ride the fence away from us. There has to be a way for the fence sitters to show their belief without being in the faces of others.
We talked about the environment for years and few cared a little was done until An Inconvenient Truth came out. Now things are happening. Super Size came out and McDonald's dropped the Super Size Menu and school cafeterias have changed including taking soft drinks out.
We won't get a movie but that got people talking in a normal way whereas all of the protest and marches did little. Buttons, bumper stickers and wristbands are the way to show your belief and open dialogue. And it works.
Even if we can't get him before his term runs out, we have to continue so he loses his government benefit.
Peachy http://inapeach.com
Oct 4, '07
"your vote for Nader caused the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis". Your bubble needs to be blown, Miles.As awful as it is for you to hear this: hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, many of them children, died during the Clinton/Gore years, from bombing and sanctions. Members of Congress ask President Clinton to End the Economic Sanctions against Iraq FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 1, 2000 CONTACTS: Erik Gustafson (202) 543-6176
February 1, 2000 (Washington DC) - Today a letter, initiated by Representatives Tom Campbell (R-CA) and John Conyers (D-MI), was sent to the president calling for the lifting of economic sanctions that have been in place against Iraq since 1991. Signed by 69 Representatives, the letter calls into question the Administration's current policy toward Iraq:
"More than nine years of the most comprehensive economic embargo imposed in modern history has failed to remove Saddam Hussein from power or even ensured his compliance with his international obligations, while the economy and people of Iraq continue to suffer."
Expressing urgency over a situation where UN humanitarian efforts have failed to prevent a tragic rise in infant mortality in Iraq, the letter calls on President Clinton to "de-link economic sanctions from the military sanctions" as a solution.
"What has the Clinton Administration's insistence on economic sanctions accomplished? An estimated one million civilians are dead; Saddam Hussein remains in power; and efforts to renew UN inspections remain deadlocked." Erik Gustafson, EPIC's Director and a Gulf War veteran, continued, "If the Administration is serious about ending the tragic suffering of the Iraqi people and renewing arms control in Iraq, then it will heed the wisdom of the letter and 'de-link economic sanctions from the military sanctions."
Last week, Howard Schneider of the Washington Post reported, "Humanitarian officials [in Iraq] said the situation for Iraqis is one of society barely coping… resources are stretched too thin to address problems like child nutrition, infant mortality and water-borne diseases that all skyrocketed in the years following the war." Between 1991 and 1998, UNICEF estimates that half a million children died as a result of the economic sanctions.
The letter to the President was signed by the following Representatives (alphabetized by state): Earl Hilliard (D-AL), Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Tom Campbell (R-CA), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Sam Farr (D-CA), Bob Filner (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Ed Royce (R-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA), M. Thompson (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Mark Udall (D-CO), John Lewis (D-GA), Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Danny Davis (D-IL), Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL), David Phelps (D-IL), Bobby Rush (D-IL), William Jefferson (D-LA), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), John Olver (D-MA), John Tierney (D-MA), Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Albert Wynn (D-MD), James Barcia (D-MI), David Bonior (D-MI), John Conyers (D-MI), Dale Kildee (D-MI), Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI), Lynn Rivers (D-MI), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Bart Stupak (D-MI), Bill Luther (D-MN), David Minge (D-MN), James Oberstar (D-MN), Collin Peterson (D-MN), Bruce Vento (D-MN), Bill Clay (D-MO), Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Eva Clayton (D-NC), Melvin Watt (D-NC), Donald Payne (D-NJ), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), John LaFalce (D-NY), Gregory Meeks (D-NY), Major Owens (D-NY), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), David Wu (D-OR), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Ted Strickland (D-OH), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Bob Clement (D-TN), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Ron Paul (R-TX), Brian Baird (D-WA), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Jack Metcalf (R-WA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Paul Ryan (R-WI), Nick Rahall (D-WV), Rick Boucher (D-VA), Bernard Sanders (I-VT).
Oct 4, '07
Your bubble needs to be blown, Miles.As awful as it is for you to hear this: hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, many of them children, died during the Clinton/Gore years, from bombing and sanctions.
But you can't seriously be arguing that things are no worse now, after Bush's war, than they were before, are you? If you think so, I guess I understand why you voted for Bush (a.k.a Nader).
Oct 5, '07
Chris -- I greatly appreciated your post, and readily acknowledge that you know more about the intracacies of this than I do. I was sloppy in my original post when I spoke of "preemptive war", because international law does prohibit that unless under "imminent threat of attack", as you describe.
But I have some questions for you. According to Wikipedia (not an original source, but usually fairly balanced), there is legitimate debate about the legality of the Iraq war. You obviously come down on one side, and I may agree with you if I spent more time studying it. But there is some ambiguity about whether the original UN resolutions were enough to justify the latter invasion.
More to the point, however, let's assume you're right. So what? The only body that can rule on the legality of the war is the UN Security Council, and the US (and Britain) have vetoes, so they won't ever do that. There will never be a definitive ruling that the war is illegal, so it's not something that can be used in an impeachment trial.
As for war crimes, no country has asked the ICC to look at the legality of the war, and the ICC has said that all known war crimes are being addressed by national authorities. So there's nothing there that can be used as a basis for impeachment or subsequent conviction.
You claim that Bush cooked the intelligence used to justify the war, but you're jumping to a conclusion that hasn't been proven. There is no evidence that Bush deliberately cooked the intelligence. Instead, there is evidence that he cherry-picked the intelligence and acted erroneously based on the cherries, which is a completely different thing. Impeachment is justified in the first instance, but not in the second. (After all, should we impeach presidents when they make the wrong policy call or do their jobs poorly?)
So getting back to the legality of the war, I've heard nothing so far that is definitive. Should Congress investigate the issue? Sure, I have no problem with that. As I said on another post, however, they shouldn't be called "impeachment" hearings, they should be just regular old Congressional investigatory hearings. That's important because I feel pretty strongly that the gauntlet of impeachment should only be thrown down when we have a reasonably strong chance of pushing it all the way through. Otherwise, it becomes yet another political tool to be abused for the wrong reasons. This approach will irritate those who support impeachment as a way to "get back" at Bush for all the horrible things he has done. But is should be adequate for those who believe impeachment should be reserved for bribery, treason, high crimes, and misdemeanors.
Oct 5, '07
This isn’t rocket science Crimes have been committed They need to be investigated its that simple. My cousin shot himself in the head in Baghdad in 2005 in his trailer He was in a war that was waged based on lies and cooked information He was a high ranking US Military official, training the Iraqi police force
His death bed note said "Death before Dishonor" He was working with "contractors” & his commanding officer was that General Petraeus guy. He got nowhere with Petraeus. He was disgusted, it was fruitless, (sound familiar to anyone) He was the highest ranking officer to die in Iraq (he was, but now I’m not sure in that recently there is so many dieing over there) Here is a news story on my cousin http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2440&print=true Get this He killed himself out of disgust for this immoral war. Geeee morals what’s that ?
I have written Earl about this war And about illegal spying on citizens, and other violations by this administration
Either you act like Petraeus did to my cousin Ted, or you do what is ethical and just.
Its one or the other.
I have been sticking up for Earl for years on Indy Media and other places as I also do for Ralph Nader.... But I draw my line now, due to his stubborn refusal to know right form wrong He is pretty much almost irritated by us wanting Impeachment
I stand by my cousins words "I will not be sullied any more" This man Bush deserves nothing but a trial. It makes no difference if it is popular, or worth it, or if it will stick and he be removed
As Bonnie Tinker said at the town hall meeting, "the time for Justice is always now"
My cousin Ted thought so John Bradach’s nephew thought so And with the sincerity that Joe Walsh (The Lone Vet) has asked numerous times so courageously, "How many more must die before you wake up and do something?" Apparently it could be millions (or more)
For this rocket science program has The Blumenauer clan touting that they care. But if they did they would be out wearing a red shirt. I have been there 10 weeks in a row, it is in sacrifice of my lunch hour I do this to bring Justice to the table at Earls office, in hopes that guys just like my cousin Ted and John's nephew, and the Iraq refugees I just recently met can have a little peace and a chance to live another day. I need my representative to represent me.
It’s amazing my cousin a Col. shot himself to keep his honor. Yet Earl and Willie all sit around and pretend they care but their hands are tied. I wish my cousin had his hands tied that fateful day
I wish Earl (Willie) could see the difference between crimes worthy of Impeachment vs. rocket science spin. So many are dead. So many are dieing. And I read out here bickering over fine print law, and justification to do what ever they want (fill in blank) at their own whim n peril, with no remorse Its plain and its simple - Our country is murdering the Iraqi population.
If your against this reckless administration trashing the constitution and international law then come on out and put your BLOOD red "Impeach" shirt on and stand for justice and honesty
OR....
bicker and hem n haw over sally said, she said, and/or fine print rules of Congress and Executive law. But like my cousin Ted, who was a professor at West Point said, “This is wrong I will die before I listen to Petraeus and Bush for one more day” (my words)
BANG! One shot to his head. Ya got really love this frickin war and the men who keep it going I can see why these Representative (rocket scientists) don’t get it Its so hard to know right form wrong.
Ya know the suicide rate is escalating over there? And the horror stories from Refugee’s and Veterans are Horrific (actually mind numbing) Those torture pictures alone scarred me for life, yet Bush uses back room signage statements (more fine print) to use rendition and sick torture methods, scrapping Geneva, and habeas corpus and as much as spits on the constitution
Oh "we don’t want to start a circus by bringing up Impeachment"….noooooo! I would rather be at a circus than this blood bath….. millions are now dead!
One side for Peace Justice, and Impeachment
One side for Law Breaking and Blood, Death, Murder, and Suicide Provocateurs (who all for war profiteering/greed/oil/power)
Pick your sides, no need to bring your rocket scientific stuff …..its either, your on one side or the other.
That said to help clarify the right n wrong part, read this short clip Ted wrote before he died, notice the part to Petraeus his “cdrs” Sounds to me like Move On was “Right On”!
(quote)
Thanks for telling me it was a good day until I briefed you. [Redacted name]—You are only interested in your career and provide no support to your staff—no msn [mission] support and you don’t care. I cannot support a msn that leads to corruption, human right abuses and liars. I am sullied—no more. I didn’t volunteer to support corrupt, money grubbing contractors, nor work for commanders only interested in themselves. I came to serve honorably and feel dishonored. I trust no Iraqi. I cannot live this way. All my love to my family, my wife and my precious children. I love you and trust you only. Death before being dishonored any more. Trust is essential—I don’t know who trust anymore. [sic] Why serve when you cannot accomplish the mission, when you no longer believe in the cause, when your every effort and breath to succeed meets with lies, lack of support, and selfishness? No more. Reevaluate yourselves, cdrs [commanders]. You are not what you think you are and I know it. COL Ted Westhusing Life needs trust. Trust is no more for me here in Iraq.
Oct 5, '07
Miles said to No Dem: "But you can't seriously be arguing that things are no worse now, after Bush's war, than they were before, are you? If you think so, I guess I understand why you voted for Bush (a.k.a Nader)."
(1.) If Clinton's policies caused a million-plus Iraqi deaths and Bush's policies caused a million-plus Iraqi deaths, then both of them need to be tried, convicted and sent to prison. War crimes and crimes against humanity are the same regardless of partisan loyalty.
(2.) Your assumption that those of us who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore had Nader not run is in error. Our vote for Nader was therefore not a vote for Bush. I knew what and who Gore was because I paid attention during the campaign. Apparently you've forgotten or never knew that he ran as a corporatist hawk who was rattling the sabers for regime change in Iraq. I would not have voted for such a man, and neither would anyone else I knew who supported Nader.
(3.) Your "legal" arguments against impeachment ignore the arguments of Bruce Fein, Elizabeth De La Vega, Elizabeth Holtzman, and Ramsey Clark, among others. They also ignore the War Crimes Act of 1996 and the Constitutional requirements of our being signatory to the Geneva Conventions. If you see no high crimes in any of this, your belief must be based on allegiance to some fundamentalist doctrine that requires you to reject reason and rational thought.
Oct 7, '07
Right On! You can say that again Harry K!
Oct 16, '07
Gee I mention my cousin kills himself over this ungodly war and I kill the conversation.
It disgusts me that this Petraeus guy can keep feeding bull crap to America citizens , which furthers the war and his personal agendas .... while people die all around him, in this case in Iraq by the millions....
When you have your top ranking men "X" themselves out due to the dishonorable war they are in hopelessly stuck in .... you got problems!
HELLO!?
So Earl & Willie ... keep up the good fight? The men on the front lines are not all song birds for Bush some are killing them selves over this circus in Iraq and trying to end it by any means available.
Since we can't seem to do it (end the war/ Impeach) back here in the states with our "our-hands-are-tied-congress" what other choice is there
I wish my cousin (Ted Westhusing) could be here today to tell you congressmen "how dishonorable it is over there" from his top ranking first handed boots on the ground words of his own.
For a clue as to what he might tell you, he wrote "Death before Dishonor" then did himself in
<hr/>