Sen. Hagel [R] suggests impeachment as an option

[Ivan Seeking]

... 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/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.

 

[Astronuc]

then there are … ways to deal with that

Wow! That is pretty serious.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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]

I'll second that!

 

[Art]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Astronuc]

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/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.

 

[drankin]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[drankin]

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.

 

[BobG]

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.

It works the other way around for the pork. The pork was tossed into make it very hard for reluctant Congressmen to vote against the bill - i.e. some of the votes for the bill were bought. The bill wasn't run through as a way to fund a bunch of special interest pork.

None the less, I agree with your overall point. A more straight forward way of addressing the issue would be to rescind the authorization for force in Iraq. Theoretically, that would force Bush to withdraw within about six months.

In practice, it would create an interesting situation - if it had a chance of passing. Could Bush veto the bill to rescind authorization? Would there finally be a showdown on the President as CIC - Congress with authority to declare war issue?

A second way of dealing with the issue would be to set a fixed amount of funding for withdrawal with no additional forthcoming funds. Bush could use the money to withdraw troops or continue fighting until the money runs out, forcing another showdown further down the road. The most likely scenario would be a showdown when the money runs out. Whichever side is most willing to leave unsupplied troops in the field with no way home 'wins' the fight.

The current bill is fairly close to the second, but made a lot of compromises in order to pass. It's not as good as the first method and not even as good as the second, but it's as good as you get when you have to try and assemble a majority in Congress.

Bush can juggle things to keep the troops supplied in the field as long as he knows the money's coming eventually.

For one thing, military can't just quit when their paychecks stop coming. Government budget battles used to make military credit unions a near unanimous choice for military members - being designed for a military customer base and knowing the money would come eventually, the military credit unions just pretended the money did come and credited members' accounts even when budget battles postponed paychecks. Military members that used civilian banks were stuck between a rock and a hard place whenever budget battles delayed paychecks. It's been a long time (over 25 years, at least) since military paychecks have been stopped for budget battles, but civil service employees still get sent home without pay every decade or so because a particularly ferocious budget battle. Typically, the budget does get passed with a clause to pay civil service employees for the lost time, so, provided employees at least kept a little in the bank for hard times, a government shutdown turns into a paid vacation.

Having military forces fighting in Iraq with no paychecks would be huge symbolism for somebody. I'm not sure who would win. Would one of the sides win or would there be total disgust for both sides?

 

[Art]

Good analysis Bob So what do you think will happen?

 

[Astronuc]

Someone pointed out that Bush never before in his 6+ years of office vetoed a spending/appropriations bill because of the pork - but then it was Republican pork organized by Tom Delay, Dennis Hastert et al.

I do agree that troops should not be held hostage or used a pawns. That is reprehensible.

In fact, I wish appropriations bill were simply that rather than the smorgasboard at the pig trough that they have become.

On the other hand, how much of the appropriations goes to the troops, and how much goes elsewhere?

Unfortunately, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is funded on supplemental spending and is not considered part of the federal budget.

 

[BobG]

Good analysis Bob So what do you think will happen?

Congress won't be able to hold supporters of a deadline together. I don't think it's a guarantee they'll even send a hard deadline to the President for a veto. The final bill will turn the deadlines into 'goals'. Goals can be ignored when the conditions to achieve those goals aren't met.

The only question mark is whether Congress holds together long enough to get a symbolic veto before settling for 'goals' instead of deadlines.

The advantage of getting goals accepted will be to increase the perception that the Iraq effort is failing - there's something concrete that the administration failed to achieve. It steps up the pressure for more change next election (notice the 'deadlines' all fall during the height of election season). It will be a lot easier for the next President to withdraw troops quickly.

The 'disadvantage', at least politically for the Democrats, is if the administration is able to show some real progress in Iraq that makes the goals look realistic, even if the administration doesn't meet those goals quite on time. Remember "Peace is at hand!" in the 1972 election.

There's hope and risk for both sides, so it makes for a realistic compromise.

Edit: Most polls seem to run in the high 50's for setting a deadline, so I think that increases the odds of at least forcing Bush to veto the bill. If it gets down to a choice of deadline or no funding, I think things get a lot dicier for Congress, which is why I just don't see a showdown getting too far.