Sen. Hagel [R] suggests impeachment as an option

  1. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,520
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-impeach26mar26,1,804986.story?coll=la-headlines-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.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Astronuc

    Staff: Mentor

    Wow! That is pretty serious.
     
  4. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,520
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No, this is pretty serious. :biggrin:

     
  5. Astronuc

    Staff: Mentor

    I'll second that!
     
  6. It will never happen unfortunately. Even if they started now by the time they got a case prepared his term would be over anyway.
     
  7. turbo

    turbo 7,366
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  8. Be nice to see his pal Yo Blair in the dock alongside him :approve:


    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. :frown:
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2007
  9. 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.
     
  10. Astronuc

    Staff: Mentor

    Senate Democrats Test Bush's Authority
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=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.
     
  11. 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?
     
  12. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,520
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2007
  13. Gokul43201

    Gokul43201 11,141
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  14. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,520
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member


    ...and they won't have the support, and they have known that all along.
     
  15. turbo

    turbo 7,366
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  16. 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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2007
  17. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,520
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The could enact a temp continuing resolution for funding, but there is no emergency funding aside from what the military can shuffle.
     
  18. Astronuc

    Staff: Mentor

    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/Articl...es_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_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.
     
  19. 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.
     
  20. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,520
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Special interest pork? As compared to the bridge to nowhere, I find that amusing. And we all know that this has nothing to do with so called pork. It is about setting limits. And as always, Bush insists on none.

    The so called political angle is called checks and balances.
     
  21. I'm talking about this bill. I don't support the bridge to nowhere and I'm not defending anyone. I just don't like the idea of our guys out there running out of bullets because the jerks in the Washington don't have a sense of priorities.

    The war and whether we should be there and how long should not be mixed in with actually providing for the boys who are out there catching bullets and IED shrapnel.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Similar discussions for: Sen. Hagel [R] suggests impeachment as an option
Loading...