Sen. Hagel [R] suggests impeachment as an option


by Ivan Seeking
Tags: hagel, impeachment, option, suggests
Ivan Seeking
Ivan Seeking is offline
#1
Mar26-07, 03:35 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,493
... Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the war, stopped short of calling for Bush's impeachment.

But he made clear that some lawmakers viewed that as an option should Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war.

Any president who says 'I don't care' or 'I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else' or 'I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed' if a president really believes that, then there are ways to deal with that," Hagel said on ABC's "This Week." [continued]
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...lines-politics

This is another headline that about knocked me out of my chair. I don't know if he's serious or just applying pressure to the WH. I don't see how this would benefit his own political ambitions... at the least it is a very risky thing for a Republican to say.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
SensaBubble: It's a bubble, but not as we know it (w/ video)
The hemihelix: Scientists discover a new shape using rubber bands (w/ video)
Microbes provide insights into evolution of human language
Astronuc
Astronuc is offline
#2
Mar26-07, 03:37 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,637
then there are ways to deal with that
Wow! That is pretty serious.
Ivan Seeking
Ivan Seeking is offline
#3
Mar26-07, 03:57 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,493
No, this is pretty serious.

"You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment," Hagel told the magazine.

Astronuc
Astronuc is offline
#4
Mar26-07, 05:09 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,637

Sen. Hagel [R] suggests impeachment as an option


I'll second that!
Art
Art is offline
#5
Mar26-07, 05:28 PM
P: 1,510
It will never happen unfortunately. Even if they started now by the time they got a case prepared his term would be over anyway.
turbo
turbo is online now
#6
Mar26-07, 06:08 PM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,367
Quote Quote by Art View Post
It will never happen unfortunately. Even if they started now by the time they got a case prepared his term would be over anyway.
It should happen anyway. He should leave in disgrace, and without the pensions, SS protection, and other perks that ex-presidents suck up for life. He should also be left at risk for extradition for war crimes, along with Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and Gonzales.
Art
Art is offline
#7
Mar26-07, 06:23 PM
P: 1,510
Quote Quote by turbo-1 View Post
......... He should also be left at risk for extradition for war crimes, along with Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and Gonzales.
Be nice to see his pal Yo Blair in the dock alongside him


Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust'
By Owen Bennett-Jones
BBC World Service

The British government was advised against publicly criticising a report estimating that 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the war, the BBC has learnt.
Iraqi Health Ministry figures put the toll at less than 10% of the total in the survey, published in the Lancet.

But the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was "robust".

Another expert agreed the method was "tried and tested".
cont'd
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6495753.stm

But unfortunately I guess that's where vetos on the UN security council come in handy.
denverdoc
denverdoc is offline
#8
Mar26-07, 08:48 PM
P: 1,351
Reagan was also a good example of a leader who should have been impeached, but by that time he was still the babbling idiot he always was, and so no way to detect a difference, BESIDES very much believed in. Bush is alive, but again this is brain fx relative to baseline, so hard to know stupid vs dementia, or worse, both. His crimes IMO go way beyond either Reagan or Nixon, or even Clinton. There is rich international law to support such a move, and curiously the same battles he has sought relief from and pressed forward an immunity clause therefrom.
Astronuc
Astronuc is offline
#9
Mar31-07, 09:17 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,637
Senate Democrats Test Bush's Authority
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=9237374
by Steve Inskeep and David Greene

Morning Edition, March 30, 2007 · Democrats in the Senate are turning up the heat on the White House. The full Senate passed a military spending bill that would include a timetable for pulling troops from Iraq. Subpoenas are in the works for White House aides to testify on the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
Well it's about time that Congress exercised some 'checks and balances'.

We do not need, nor can we afford, a unitary executive who is motivated by self-interest and who unilaterally works against the interest of the country of which he or she is supposed to be serving.
Art
Art is offline
#10
Mar31-07, 02:40 PM
P: 1,510
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
Senate Democrats Test Bush's Authority
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=9237374
by Steve Inskeep and David Greene



Well it's about time that Congress exercised some 'checks and balances'.

We do not need, nor can we afford, a unitary executive who is motivated by self-interest and who unilaterally works against the interest of the country of which he or she is supposed to be serving.
I'm curious. What happens when Bush vetos the bill? Will congress back down and present a new spending bill without the offending timetable? What happens if congress refuses to budge? Can the president exercise a line item veto? And does the president have access to emergency bridging funds?
Ivan Seeking
Ivan Seeking is offline
#11
Mar31-07, 02:50 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,493
The talking heads are saying the the military could shuffle funds to cover things until July.

The Presidential line item veto was deemed to be unconstitutional. It would require a Constitutional Ammendment in order to make it legal.

It's a showdown at the DC Corral. Though, I tend to think this is really about making the war strictly a Republican liability. Later the dems can claim that they tried to get us out, but the Reps blocked the effort.
Gokul43201
Gokul43201 is offline
#12
Mar31-07, 02:55 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Gokul43201's Avatar
P: 11,154
Quote Quote by Art View Post
I'm curious. What happens when Bush vetos the bill? Will congress back down and present a new spending bill without the offending timetable?
They will be forced to back down some. It takes a 2/3 majority to override the veto, and the dems do not have that kind of support at the moment.
Ivan Seeking
Ivan Seeking is offline
#13
Mar31-07, 02:58 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,493
Quote Quote by Gokul43201 View Post
They will be forced to back down some. It takes a 2/3 majority to override the veto, and the dems do not have that kind of support at the moment.

...and they won't have the support, and they have known that all along.
turbo
turbo is online now
#14
Mar31-07, 03:04 PM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,367
Quote Quote by Gokul43201 View Post
They will be forced to back down some. It takes a 2/3 majority to override the veto, and the dems do not have that kind of support at the moment.
They do not have the majority needed for an override, BUT I have heard it suggested that the Democrats in both houses should offer bills giving Bush an open-ended carte-blanche for the war, including increasing troop levels if he wishes. Then every Democrat would vote against the bill to ensure that it would not pass and so would every Republican who doesn't want that vote thrown in their fact in the next election cycle. How would it look for Bush if a super-majority of Congress voted against allowing him to exercise the same degree of authority that he has claimed until now? It's time for a serious move toward impeachment, if only to clip the wings of the next gutless chicken hawk to hold the office.
Art
Art is offline
#15
Mar31-07, 03:05 PM
P: 1,510
Quote Quote by Gokul43201 View Post
They will be forced to back down some. It takes a 2/3 majority to override the veto, and the dems do not have that kind of support at the moment.
I appreciate congress can't force the bill through as it stands but can they stonewall and refuse to submit any other alternative bill or is there emergency legislation that kicks in in such an event?
It just seems hard to imagine that the law would allow a situation whereby the entire US military could grind to a halt.
Ivan Seeking
Ivan Seeking is offline
#16
Mar31-07, 03:08 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,493
The could enact a temp continuing resolution for funding, but there is no emergency funding aside from what the military can shuffle.
Astronuc
Astronuc is offline
#17
Mar31-07, 03:29 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,637
Quote Quote by Art View Post
It just seems hard to imagine that the law would allow a situation whereby the entire US military could grind to a halt.
Appropriations are handled by Congress as defined in the US Constitution. It does not take into account a specific situation, such as war.

In theory, the US military would not invade a country without a declaration of war, and that is the responsibility on Congress - again from the Constitution, Section 8 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...rs_of_Congress ) - although there does seem to be some dispute on whether or not a 'declaration of war' is necessary. Unfortunately, with time and changes in the nuance of language, it seems the wording of the Constitution is now somewhat ambiguous or vague.
drankin
drankin is offline
#18
Mar31-07, 04:00 PM
drankin's Avatar
P: 175
Here is the question, IMO. Do we want to stop funds for the troops in Iraq? Obviously the dems are trying to use the desire for the pro-war folks to fund the war as a way to strong arm their own agenda as well as fund a bunch of special interest pork.

If this is stonewalled, how long until the troops begin to really suffer from lack of funds? Ammo, food, protective gear, fuel, medical equipment... This is where modern politics no longer allows us to complete any military action that we participate.

I think the dems need to use a political angle that doesn't affect the conditions of our troops who are down there risking their lives.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
They said it - Impeachment!!! Current Events 26
The Logic that Suggests all Serious Physicists Believe in God General Discussion 52
Messed up my TI-89 somehow, don't want to reset, any suggests for {}?? Calculators 4
Past sea-level suggests troubling future Earth 8
Study suggests life sprang from clay: CNN Biology 2