Former Reagan aide says Congress must start impeachment inquiry

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

A constitutional lawyer who served in Ronald Reagan's administration says President Bush's "apparently criminal" authorization of a warrantless wiretapping program is grounds for the House to begin an impeachment inquiry.

By not beginning such an investigation, impeachment will become a "virtual dead letter," Bruce Fein, former deputy attorney general under Regan, said in a essay published in Slate.

Fein has emerged as a fierce critic of Bush's administration and has previously called for the president and Vice President Dick Cheney to be impeached.

"The House does not require, nor should it await, proof beyond a reasonable doubt of misconduct," Fein wrote in the essay published Friday. "To wait for such proof subverts the whole purpose of an impeachment inquiry."

Ample grounds for an impeachment inquiry lie in the president's shady justifications for his "Terrorist Surveillance Program," which Fein says subverted the checks on law enforcement powers inherent in the Constitution and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"The president's apparently criminal spying continued until at least January 2007 -- or for more than five years [after 9/11] -- when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales declared that FISA warrants, whose nature remains classified, would replace the TSP," Fein writes. "(The attorney general maintained, however, that Bush continued to be crowned with Article II powers to ignore the warrant requirement and to do so secretly whenever he wished.)"

An impeachment inquiry should demand the president's legal justifications of the program, Fein writes, although he maintains that such an inquiry would not necessarily end with the president's ouster from office. He noted Abraham Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus protections during the Civil War as an instance in which the national interest justified suspension of civil liberties.

Lincoln "rhetorically asked whether a republic must inescapably be too strong for the liberties of its people or too weak to maintain its existence," Fein writes. "The [House Judiciary] committee should similarly explore whether in the aftermath of 9/11, Bush was confronting such a dilemma."

Fein previously urged the Senate to censure Bush over the spy program.

In his latest essay, Fein says impeachment hearings are necessary for Congress to prevent its oversight muscles from atrophying:

"If what Bush has said and done falls short of warranting an impeachment inquiry, then impeachment of the president has become a virtual dead letter."

http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Former_Reagan_aide_says_Congress_must_0903.html

[SoCalBronco]

I'm not a huge fan of the whole concept of impeachment (as it is currently constructed, i.e. to deal with exclusively criminal conduct), because it is often applied inconsistently and is too politicized. The self righteous indignation strains credulity in light of the inherent hypocrisy involved. See e.g. GOP impeachment effort of President Clinton in the late 90s on grounds of alleged perjury and other alleged acts when numerous GOP officials have lied on a number of topics without investigation or punishment, Democrat impeachment effort of President Nixon for alleged obstruction of justice, alleged abuse of power etc. when numerous extraordinarily criminal abuses in addition to extremely reckless disregard for national security went unchecked in the previous two administrations (JFK, LBJ), when the same party was in power and aware of all this crap. (Note: Even putting aside this "unclean hands"/estoppel of the accuser issue, I would not have supported the impeachment of President Nixon in particular on the obstruction of justice charge, on the actual merits themselves, i.e. evidence). This inherent hypocrisy makes it difficult to look at impeachment in the abstract (in other word, solely looking at the actions in question and determining whether, as the finder of fact, that various statutes etc. were violated), since it is, by its very nature, a comparative analysis (i.e. high crimes and misdemeanors). Therefore, it is difficult for me to accept the proposition that criminal conduct, by itself, is enough, when it has been applied so inconsistently. Unfortunately, the Courts have compounded this problem of partisanship by refusing to get involved, hiding behind the political question doctrine, and basically leaving a number of unanswered and problematic questions re: the whole impeachment inquiry in the hands of the partisan Congress, which is the entity to blame for this entire problem. See Nixon v. United States 506 U.S. 224 (1993) (This actually did not involve President Nixon ofcourse, but rather a U.S. District Judge by the same last name). Ofcourse, there is at least one obvious and quite powerful counterargument to my view: that being, that if we were to compare conduct against other conduct, it would result in a race to the bottom, whereby we would be incentivizing criminal (and other types of bad) conduct by raising the standard of the review significantly such that the accused President could simply say "wait a minute, look at what X did, thats really bad, you didnt do anything, so STFU now". I don't think this is so, because the primary forum for adjudication of these criminal issues still remains, that is, the courts, specifically, the criminal courts. There is no special protection from this and Congress could not change that even if it wanted to. See Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, of the Constitution. Nor is there a bar from bringing criminal actions against such officials while they are in office. For example, Vice President Agnew was indicted on tax evasion charges among others, while in office.

Nonetheless, I don't sit here and advocate no method for removal. I would reserve impeachment, (despite the text to the contrary) for abuses relating to such gross mistakes in policy decisions that were, given the evidence at the time, were well beyond the outer bounds of reasonable disagreement. Remember, we have to be very careful there...very careful...you do not want to make a President hesitant to act, you dont want to paralyze him or her out of fear, there must be wide latitude to do things that require sacrifice and are unpopular but that the President thinks is the best thing to do (this rationale is why, for example, we have the constitutional rule that someone cannot sue a president in civil court on the grounds of policy choices that hurt them...i.e. some farmer suing the president because the president decided to cut price supports, and now the farmer incurred losses), but what I am talking about is the situation where, a horrible choice is made that has a substantially huge negative effect, and the extreme weight of the evidence that was present at the time of the decision, or reasonably obtainable, was to the contrary. Anything remotely close is fine, the Pres often has to decide between conflicting evidence on a decision...but you don't go with the 10 and ignore the 90 when there is a whole lot on the line. That is fine...I am ok with that....because you want to incentivize proper reflection and study before making momentous decisions...that is ok for Congress, but NOT the criminal stuff, Congress has shown they cannot be anything but partisan with the criminal area.

Applied here, regarding wiretaps, that is a criminal issue, but for some of those other things, for example, the allegation of intentionally cooking the books re: evidence for war, ignoring all the stuff to the contrary, relying on very flimsy stuff, etc. that is something I would support, assuming it would be fully proven etc. under high standards of evidence. That is fine to investigate, IMO, even though it is technically a policy matter, not a matter of legality, but I would be ok with that. The same for blitzing Iran, if they choose to do so, that would have massive consequences, and that would be fine, under my analysis to do something about, assuming the elements are satisfied, even though that as well is technically not a matter of criminal conduct (which is what impeachment, as it is currently constructed, under the text, is supposed to be strictly limited to).

I gotta tell you though, as a moderate Republican, if there were this circumstance (impeachment proceedings), in forming my decision (just personally), it wouldnt be in a political vacuum. It would take alot for me to accept Nancy Pelosi ascending to the office (assuming impeachment proceedings would be held for both principals, Bush and Cheney). I don't believe she is fit or qualified to hold this office, I don't believe someone on the far left fringe of politics should be holding it either. It would be hard for me to accept that and thats part of the equation (to clarify, just my equation, of whether I personally would support the removal, not of the method of analysis, thats different ofcourse, but just in forming my opinion on whether to support/not support conviction/removal...its something I would think about, albeit if the elements were so strongly satisfied, I would prolly still support removal). If the Democrats, however, replaced, her with say a moderate, Blue Dog Democrat...who could inspire my confidence in terms of experience on key things, such as foreign affairs, security/intelligence, moderation on domestic stuff...someone like Congresswoman Jane Harman of California (who served a long time as the ranking member of the Intelligence Cmte. before Pelosi chose Silvestre Reyes instead to be chairman when they took the majority because of personal disputes with Harman, and is well known for her intellect and bipartisanship) or any number of other Democrats, I gotta tell you, impeachment would be alot more palatable to me, personally, and I hate the idea of turning the office over in midstream to the other party, but I could be for it, assuming the various elements listed above were proven (A side benefit of Harman or anyone else from the Democrats in the House, taking over, would be to avoid the spectre of a Hillary Clinton presidency, which is something I would definitely like to avoid...the Dems are likely to take it either way, this way at least, it would be a more appealing Democrat).

JMO.

[BroncoBuff]

I've really neglected this WARRP Room lately ... gotta get back here .... anyway:


SoCal's legal analysis is right on point ... but getting too legal puts the inquirer in danger of missing the bigger and far more relevant political points. You seem to fully grasp the predominantly political nature of the dynamic, but then start using case precedent and statutory construction. You're correct to do so, of course, but it seems too high-brow for the mud and muck of Capital Hill.

I disagree with your Nixon analysis, SoCal. His firing of the AG who refused to fire the special prosecutor Archibald Cox is practically the definition of "obstruction of justice." But we agree on Clinton ... as I've posted here, there is a big difference between perjury in a civil deposition (btw SoCal, it's not 'alleged' perjury, Bill basically copped to it, at the very least when he settled with Paula Jones he did), and perjury in front of a federal criminal grand jury (Scooter Libby). I don't know about you, SoCal, but I have never EVER heard of a criminal prosecution for perjury at a civil deposition. It's the same oath at a deposition, but I've never heard of a criminal prosecution for perjury in a civil trial either. Mark Furman was charged with criminal perjury for his O.J. testimony, but that was in a capital murder case - and he was testifying for the prosecution, which is worse (though the O.J. case is a bad example.) Even then, I recall reading in the Daily Journal that there were just a "handful" of perjury charges ever in criminal cases - in the annals of the LASC. All cops, as I recall.


The issue here in my view is the standard to BEGIN an impeachment process, not the burden to carry an impeachment trial. If Fein is correct, and an impeachment proceeding is merely 'investigative' in nature, at least in the House, a point you seem to agree with SoCal, then I suspect we'd have impeachment inquiries going on constantly, against all presidents and officials that fall under it. Some Congressmen would spend ALL their time on partisan fishing expeditions, hiring investigators and perhaps even lobbyists (GAD!) to assist them in digging up old records, etc ... hoping to find enough smoke to convince the House to recommend Impeachment to the Senate. This would be a terrible waste of time and resources, and I cannot believe that the Founder's intent was to make every congressman a private detective. Besides, such a reading would promote - I believe - an underground of evidence-manufacturing and entrapment, as in the Dan Rather false Bush National Guard papers. It is DEFINITELY TRUE that "checks and balances" are grotesquely lacking these past 7 years, but making Congressmen muckraking private ***** would be ridiculous. And it would foster an even more hostile, bitter partisan political climate. The GOP used their party-in-power-in-Congress with a Dem president to force an impeachment trial. It was reprehensible behavior (the married Newt Gingrich banging his assistant in his office at the time...), but that does not mean Democrats should use their party-in-power-in-Congress power to do the same thing.

It's time to take the high road imo ... not easy, but in this situation necessary. The Committess should charge FULL SPEED AHEAD on investigations, but there appears very little in the nature of "high crimes and misdemeanors" to go on, so far. The torture question was resolved, when the Dems folded and passed the retro-active legalization of "enhanced" interrogation. The falsified evidence is also reprehensible - and Cheney is quite simple Satan. I'm serious. But have they lied to Congress? Can we prove it??

The closest thing we have for "high crimes" is the wiretapping. I'm afraid to
say, in light of my thusfar "be nice" post here, that there seems to be sufficient evidence to take up an impeachment investigation in the House. The administration intentionally - with known paper trails - skirted, ignored, and mocked the FISA courts, while Bush lied to the American people, "a wiretape requires a Court Order." He knew when he said that - and this HAS BEEN PROVEN - he knew they were wiretapping without a court order. Even worse, the FISA Court Rules permit wiretapping first - then within 72 hours, applying for an order. If that is too high a burden, then their intent appears criminal to me. It's like telling a little kid: "You can eat all 10 chocolate bars but just 8 of the 10 cookies." After the kid eats all 10 bars and all 10 cookies, he shouldn't be believed when he says, "you said I could eat all 10." The FISA Court is the same ... they give Justice and CIA/NSA a thousand feet of rope, but the president demands 1010. Not asking for a warrant within 72 hours AFTER the tap is plenty, for me at least, to find a 'specific intent' mens rea.

But just because you CAN impeach, doesn't mean you SHOULD impeach. The wiretapping is all out in the oipen now, and aparently there has been some conciliation on both sides. Impeachment 14 months out of election would be a colossal waste of resources. Let's instead, step back from the abyss.


BTW, SoCal ... I think it's wrong to look at Pelosi, and use your dislike of her as grounds to eschew impeachment. Now THAT'S political of you ... of course not everything is an antiseptic legal inquiry, but the politics of the guy/gal waiting in the wings should have no bearing on whether to initiate impeachment.

[SoCalBronco]

I've really neglected this WARRP Room lately ... gotta get back here .... anyway:


SoCal's legal analysis is right on point ... but getting too legal puts the inquirer in danger of missing the bigger and far more relevant political points. You seem to fully grasp the predominantly political nature of the dynamic, but then start using case precedent and statutory construction. You're correct to do so, of course, but it seems too high-brow for the mud and muck of Capital Hill.

I disagree with your Nixon analysis, SoCal. His firing of the AG who refused to fire the special prosecutor Archibald Cox is practically the definition of "obstruction of justice."

I disagree. The President was fully within his right there. We did not have an independent counsel statute back then, where a guy is not acting as a member of the executive branch. It cannot be an obstruction if you are vested with the power to do so....the POTUS has the executive power. There are some cases on limtations on removal, i.e. who Congress can require by statute to have the power, besides the president, to remove an exec. officer, but I dont think any legislation like that was around back then. It would be different if the POTUS ignored the Court or Congressional request for information (in the latter scenario, I will assume that not only did congress request something, but after a court battle, they won as well). In any case, I was not referring to the Saturday Night Massacre anyway when I said I would not support impeachment on the particular ground of obstruction of justice even on the merits, I was referring to actual evidence, namely the alleged smoking gun tape (i.e. Nixon telling L. Patrick Gray to hold off on investigating etc), and whether it was dispositive of the issue (which I think it was not...it was contradicted by the July 6th tape, but thats a matter for another day).


But we agree on Clinton ... as I've posted here, there is a big difference between perjury in a civil deposition (btw SoCal, it's not 'alleged' perjury, Bill basically copped to it, at the very least when he settled with Paula Jones he did), and perjury in front of a federal criminal grand jury (Scooter Libby). I don't know about you, SoCal, but I have never EVER heard of a criminal prosecution for perjury at a civil deposition. It's the same oath at a deposition, but I've never heard of a criminal prosecution for perjury in a civil trial either. Mark Furman was charged with criminal perjury for his O.J. testimony, but that was in a capital murder case - and he was testifying for the prosecution, which is worse (though the O.J. case is a bad example.) Even then, I recall reading in the Daily Journal that there were just a "handful" of perjury charges ever in criminal cases - in the annals of the LASC. All cops, as I recall.

Just because prosecutions for perjury at civil depositions are very rare doesnt really mean a whole lot, IMO, its still an oath, you still broke it, the whole rationale is to incentivize truth-telling, since after all, we are trying to get at the truth in either type of trial. It is no matter anyway, the GOP waived their right to go after Clinton, as I noted, due to the hypocrisy of the matter, Pres Clinton should not have been subjected to that just as the Dems waived their "claims" against Nixon, under the theory of unclean hands. Where was Sam Ervin and Archibald Cox when LBJ turned off the Bobby Baker investigation when he became President? He was pissing blood as VP in fear that he would go to prison and that JFK would replace him with Gov. Terry Sanford. What about the numerous digusting abuses of power of JFK? Same for the GOP and Clinton. You are out of luck, Dan Burton. Sorry, this is waiver. There is precedent for this type of thing in the law of equity with unclean hands etc. The entire process is a joke now. We need to leave it up to the courts and the D.A.'s/US Attorneys to handle the criminal matters.


The issue here in my view is the standard to BEGIN an impeachment process, not the burden to carry an impeachment trial. If Fein is correct, and an impeachment proceeding is merely 'investigative' in nature, at least in the House, a point you seem to agree with SoCal, then I suspect we'd have impeachment inquiries going on constantly, against all presidents and officials that fall under it. Some Congressmen would spend ALL their time on partisan fishing expeditions, hiring investigators and perhaps even lobbyists (GAD!) to assist them in digging up old records, etc ... hoping to find enough smoke to convince the House to recommend Impeachment to the Senate. This would be a terrible waste of time and resources, and I cannot believe that the Founder's intent was to make every congressman a private detective. Besides, such a reading would promote - I believe - an underground of evidence-manufacturing and entrapment, as in the Dan Rather false Bush National Guard papers. It is DEFINITELY TRUE that "checks and balances" are grotesquely lacking these past 7 years, but making Congressmen muckraking private ***** would be ridiculous. And it would foster an even more hostile, bitter partisan political climate. The GOP used their party-in-power-in-Congress with a Dem president to force an impeachment trial. It was reprehensible behavior (the married Newt Gingrich banging his assistant in his office at the time...), but that does not mean Democrats should use their party-in-power-in-Congress power to do the same thing.

My approach would avoid all the muckracking etc., we are taking criminal stuff out of the process (and there is still redress for criminal wrongs there), impeachment comes into play only when you have a situation of a grave problem of huge, huge importance brought about by a serious misjudgment in policy choice, against the large weight of evidence, outside the outermost bounds of reasonable disagreement etc. This is beneficial to YOU because as you note below, outside of the wiretapping, you are finding a hard time finding something to fit into the "crimes/misdemeanors" thing...you should not have to be pigeonholed into that, in part because Congress no longer has the credibility to go into that area, and also because it is unfair to limit removal to purely criminal matters. If allegations are true re: Bush and all the things they did to get to Iraq etc., that should be enough even though it is technically not a legal matter, just a policy matter.

It's time to take the high road imo ... not easy, but in this situation necessary. The Committess should charge FULL SPEED AHEAD on investigations, but there appears very little in the nature of "high crimes and misdemeanors" to go on, so far. The torture question was resolved, when the Dems folded and passed the retro-active legalization of "enhanced" interrogation. The falsified evidence is also reprehensible - and Cheney is quite simple Satan. I'm serious. But have they lied to Congress? Can we prove it??

The closest thing we have for "high crimes" is the wiretapping. I'm afraid to
say, in light of my thusfar "be nice" post here, that there seems to be sufficient evidence to take up an impeachment investigation in the House. The administration intentionally - with known paper trails - skirted, ignored, and mocked the FISA courts, while Bush lied to the American people, "a wiretape requires a Court Order." He knew when he said that - and this HAS BEEN PROVEN - he knew they were wiretapping without a court order. Even worse, the FISA Court Rules permit wiretapping first - then within 72 hours, applying for an order. If that is too high a burden, then their intent appears criminal to me. It's like telling a little kid: "You can eat all 10 chocolate bars but just 8 of the 10 cookies." After the kid eats all 10 bars and all 10 cookies, he shouldn't be believed when he says, "you said I could eat all 10." The FISA Court is the same ... they give Justice and CIA/NSA a thousand feet of rope, but the president demands 1010. Not asking for a warrant within 72 hours AFTER the tap is plenty, for me at least, to find a 'specific intent' mens rea.

But just because you CAN impeach, doesn't mean you SHOULD impeach. The wiretapping is all out in the oipen now, and aparently there has been some conciliation on both sides. Impeachment 14 months out of election would be a colossal waste of resources. Let's instead, step back from the abyss.


BTW, SoCal ... I think it's wrong to look at Pelosi, and use your dislike of her as grounds to eschew impeachment. Now THAT'S political of you ... of course not everything is an antiseptic legal inquiry, but the politics of the guy/gal waiting in the wings should have no bearing on whether to initiate impeachment.


I'm not using my dislike AS A GROUNDS TO ESCHEW IMPEACHMENT. It is something in the back of my mind, its not a bar, as I noted, if in the analysis I put forward, the elements were strongly proved, I would still prolly favor removal, but that is just my personal view there, NOT how the analysis would work. I am uncomfortable with the idea of her as President. It is not a ground to eschew it, it is a consideration when I am thinking about the yes/no question re removal (not the question you just mentioned above....whether to initiate), however. If you were a Congressman in 1974 weighing the question and no VP had been yet appointed (after agnew resigned), Carl Albert (Speaker) would be next in line...Albert was a drunk and emotionally unstable, you cannot tell me this is not at least a consideration for you. Another example, suppose instead of Ford (who was a terrible choice strategically, but Nixon didnt have much choice, Dems wouldnt confirm a hard right winger and Nixon's personal favorite, former Democrat Texas Gov. John Connally, wouldnt get GOP votes) Nixon nominated and somehow got through George Wallace...you have a friggin extremist bigot...can you not tell me that has no bearing? It does. All I am saying is I wish you guys had something more palateable sitting there...Jane Harman would be really solid, it would make alot more of us on the other side alot more willing to go along with it. I would still go along with it anyway if the elements were strongly satisfied, as I said. But again, just to clarify, thats (Pelosi) not part of the step by step analysis i proposed, just a practical thing in people's minds that you need to realistically consider (or your party rather) when you embark on this thing, if you want to satisfy your goals.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

My approach would avoid all the muckracking etc., we are taking criminal stuff out of the process (and there is still redress for criminal wrongs there), impeachment comes into play only when you have a situation of a grave problem of huge, huge importance brought about by a serious misjudgment in policy choice, against the large weight of evidence, outside the outermost bounds of reasonable disagreement etc. This is beneficial to YOU because as you note below, outside of the wiretapping, you are finding a hard time finding something to fit into the "crimes/misdemeanors" thing...you should not have to be pigeonholed into that, in part because Congress no longer has the credibility to go into that area, and also because it is unfair to limit removal to purely criminal matters. If allegations are true re: Bush and all the things they did to get to Iraq etc., that should be enough even though it is technically not a legal matter, just a policy matter.

Bingo. :thumbsup:

If not, then, as the author put it, "impeachment of the president has become a virtual dead letter."

[Rohirrim]

The question one should also ask when considering the impeachment of Bush is this: Can the country withstand his blundering for another 500 days? How about a pre-emptive impeachment? ;D

As far as Nixon goes, he sent his minions to break into the offices of the DNC to steal information that would assist him in winning an election. He also sent his minions to break into the offices of Daniel Ellsberg to steal information on him. At that period of time, a couple of thugs also beat Ellsberg pretty severely, a crime that was never prosecuted. Nixon later covered up these crimes in collusion with others. When Lincoln suspended habeas corpus it was for the good of the union. What Nixon did was for his own, personal benefit. Bush's mis-interpretation of law seems to be the product of an idiot in the AGs office. Once again, Bush's malfeasance seems to be more a product of ignorance than of intent. That seems to be his theme.

[Garcia Bronco]

Interesting...I never knew that Lincoln violated the Constitution like that. Only Congress is supposed to be able to suspend Habeas Corpus. And Lincoln used it to arrest protestors. WOW.

Did President Lincoln suspend the U.S. Constitution?

Answer: No

Did President Lincoln suspend Habeas Corpus?

Answer: Yes, in 1861 and 1862

Was Habeas Corpus ever restored?

Answer: Yes, in 1866.



Here's the story:

As the Civil War started, in the very beginning of Lincoln's presidential term, a group of "Peace Democrats" proposed a peaceful resolution to the developing Civil War by offering a truce with the South, and forming a constitutional convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to protect States' rights. The proposal was ignored by the Unionists of the North and not taken seriously by the South. However, the Peace Democrats, also called copperheads by their enemies, publicly criticized Lincoln's belief that violating the U.S. Constitution was required to save it as a whole. With Congress not in session until July, Lincoln assumed all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus. In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law.

Among the 13,000 people arrested under martial law was a Maryland Secessionist, John Merryman. Immediately, Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding the military to bring Merryman before him. The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress. President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney's ruling.

Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal.

[Rohirrim]

Yep. Lincoln should have been impeached.

[Garcia Bronco]

Yep. Lincoln should have been impeached.

He really should have, but they went after Andrew Johnson instead.

[defenseman]

Nobody is going to be impeached anytime soon. GW's presidency is up soon enough. WJC benefited in the same manner..dman

[baja]

Nobody is going to be impeached anytime soon. GW's presidency is up soon enough. WJC benefited in the same manner..dman

If only the world were as simple as you consistently portray it.

[Rohirrim]

500 days is not "soon enough." God knows what this bonehead could pull in his remaining time in office.

[defenseman]

If only the world were as simple as you consistently portray it.

with respect to the subject under discussion. It is quite simple, they aren't going to do a damn thing. Just like when the senate voted down the impeachment of WJC, he was on his way out, they didn't want to stir the pot. In addition, the "surge"? What do you "truly" believe will be the outcome this september, pull the plug OR continue on into next spring at the minumum? It'll be continue on, it's in the best interest of both parties, simple as that....dman

[TailgateNut]

with respect to the subject under discussion. It is quite simple, they aren't going to do a damn thing. Just like when the senate voted down the impeachment of WJC, he was on his way out, they didn't want to stir the pot. In addition, the "surge"? What do you "truly" believe will be the outcome this september, pull the plug OR continue on into next spring at the minumum? It'll be continue on, it's in the best interest of both parties, simple as that....dman


Of course it'll be "continue on", that's all this Arrogant Bonehead knows. He'd march our armies into quicksand right past the sign that states "CAUTION QUICKSAND AHEAD". He needs to be smacked upside the head with a 2x4, to knock some damn sense into his head.

IMO, impeachment is way to gentle for him! He should pay for his deeds!

[defenseman]

Of course it'll be "continue on", that's all this Arrogant Bonehead knows. He'd march our armies into quicksand right past the sign that states "CAUTION QUICKSAND AHEAD". He needs to be smacked upside the head with a 2x4, to knock some damn sense into his head.

IMO, impeachment is way to gentle for him! He should pay for his deeds!

And if the politcal / insurgent/ terrorists problems are pretty much manageable over the next 9 months, and continue to improve in a positive way, what then? What do you do IF the light at the end of the tunnel, in iraq, is bright and approaching much quicker than we thought it would? Pray for defeat? Embrace a victory so to speak? .....In any case, it'll be an interesting election next fall if the corner is turned on iraq and we are headed into the home stretch with a stable government and all factors improving. Many a politician who hitched his or her wagon to defeat will most assuredly be changing their tune. However by then, it will be too late for them. But, that's a bit down the road possibly, time will tell....dman

*Impeachment? Don't think so..

[TailgateNut]

And if the politcal / insurgent/ terrorists problems are pretty much manageable over the next 9 months, and continue to improve in a positive way, what then? What do you do IF the light at the end of the tunnel, in iraq, is bright and approaching much quicker than we thought it would? Pray for defeat? Embrace a victory so to speak? .....In any case, it'll be an interesting election next fall if the corner is turned on iraq and we are headed into the home stretch with a stable government and all factors improving. Many a politician who hitched his or her wagon to defeat will most assuredly be changing their tune. However by then, it will be too late for them. But, that's a bit down the road possibly, time will tell....dman

*Impeachment? Don't think so..


The next nine months? He continues to ask for more time. If anyone, and I mean ANYONE in the civilian sector were to continue to extend his deadlines as often and request additional funding as GWB has, THEY WOULD NOT BE EMPLOYED! PERIOD!
He lied to get us there.
He lied about the purpose!
He lied about the "Mission being Accomplished"
He has continually lied about the progress.
He is a habitual LIAR!


Even if I take off my slightly tinted glasses, He IS A COMPLETE FAILURE, no if's, and's, or but's about it. ****can him already and the sun will shine a few million candlepowers brighter the next morning!

BTW: I do agree with your assessment re: impeachment! It's to damn good for him!

[defenseman]

The next nine months? He continues to ask for more time. If anyone, and I mean ANYONE in the civilian sector were to continue to extend his deadlines as often and request additional funding as GWB has, THEY WOULD NOT BE EMPLOYED! PERIOD!
He lied to get us there.
He lied about the purpose!
He lied about the "Mission being Accomplished"
He has continually lied about the progress.
He is a habitual LIAR!


Even if I take off my slightly tinted glasses, He IS A COMPLETE FAILURE, no if's, and's, or but's about it. ****can him already and the sun will shine a few million candlepowers brighter the next morning!

BTW: I do agree with your assessment re: impeachment! It's to damn good for him!

So, win or lose, take him down does that sum it up?....dman

[TailgateNut]

So, win or lose, take him down does that sum it up?....dman


You finally get it!

Kick his ass all the way down Pennsylvania avenue! I'll buy the first round that day!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

with respect to the subject under discussion. It is quite simple, they aren't going to do a damn thing. Just like when the senate voted down the impeachment of WJC, he was on his way out, they didn't want to stir the pot. In addition, the "surge"? What do you "truly" believe will be the outcome this september, pull the plug OR continue on into next spring at the minumum? It'll be continue on, it's in the best interest of both parties, simple as that....dmanYou should really try and keep up with what's happening out there. The GAO just said they doubt Iraq security can last and an independent study says the Iraqis can't take over security for at least a year and a half or longer. Democrats are drafting new legislation to get troops out of there immediately after the Petraeus (Bush's boy) report. But what does anyone expect when the insurgents make up the security forces?

As far as impeaching Bush, I doubt anyone on the other side has the balls to get it done though it needs to be.

[defenseman]

You finally get it!

Kick his ass all the way down Pennsylvania avenue! I'll buy the first round that day!

Answers a few questions. I do empathize to a degree, however, nobody is going to be impeached anytime soon. None of them have the cahones to do it...dman

[defenseman]

You should really try and keep up with what's happening out there. The GAO just said they doubt Iraq security can last and an independent study says the Iraqis can't take over security for at least a year and a half or longer. Democrats are drafting new legislation to get troops out of there immediately after the Petraeus (Bush's boy) report. But what does anyone expect when the insurgents make up the security forces?

As far as impeaching Bush, I doubt anyone on the other side has the balls to get it done though it needs to be.

Agree with you on impeachment. The pubs backed off on WJC, the dems will never get to the starting block with Bush.

Is the italicized a "paraphrase", or is some pertinent data missing? ..dman

[TailgateNut]

Answers a few questions. I do empathize to a degree, however, nobody is going to be impeached anytime soon. None of them have the cahones to do it...dman


That's also why none of the SOB's who are calling my house for donations are getting one red cent!
I make it very clear to the ball-less bastards that it will be a cold day in hell before they get their slimy hands on my money if they don't represent my wishes.
We are still in Iraq, the borders are still open, and the Dumbass is still in the WH!

[Crushaholic]

I thought Cheney was the "evil one" and Bush is just a puppet. If Bush is removed from office, guess who's next in line. Think of Bush as a "buffer" between Cheney and THE BUTTON. ;)

[defenseman]

That's also why none of the SOB's who are calling my house for donations are getting one red cent!
I make it very clear to the ball-less bastards that it will be a cold day in hell before they get their slimy hands on my money if they don't represent my wishes.
We are still in Iraq, the borders are still open, and the Dumbass is still in the WH!

Interesting. Haven't recieved any phone calls at all requesting donations...dman

[TailgateNut]

Interesting. Haven't recieved any phone calls at all requesting donations...dman

Have you ever donated substantial amounts?

[Bronco Bob]

Interesting. Haven't recieved any phone calls at all requesting donations...dman

Bill Clinton called me in 2006 asking me to donate to the Democrats.
(I think it was actually a recording, it was a message on my answering machine.)

[defenseman]

Have you ever donated substantial amounts?

Substantial to me at the time, yes...but, only once...dman

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/wolf-pelosi-table.jpg