Congress upset over Bush's attitude, GOP brings up the I word

[Pro Street]

Senate to debate war spending bill - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate planned to begin debate Monday on a war spending bill that would set a nonbinding goal of March 31, 2008, for the removal of combat troops from Iraq.

That comes after the House narrowly passed a bill Friday that would pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year but would require that combat troops come home from Iraq before September 2008 -- or earlier if the Iraqi government did not meet certain requirements.

With his go-it-alone approach on Iraq, President Bush is flouting Congress and the public, so angering lawmakers that some consider impeachment an option over his war policy, a senator from Bush's own party said Sunday.

Meanwhile, the Senate's No. 2 Republican leader harshly criticized House Democrats for setting an "artificial date" for withdrawing troops from Iraq and said he believes Republicans have enough votes to prevent passage of a similar bill in the Senate.

"We need to put that kind of decision in the hands of our commanders who are there on the ground with the men and women," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi. "For Congress to impose an artificial date of any kind is totally irresponsible."

GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Senate 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 -- what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that," said Hagel, who is considering a 2008 presidential run.

The White House had no immediate reaction Sunday to Hagel's comments.

On Sunday, Hagel said he was bothered by Bush's apparent disregard of congressional sentiment on Iraq, such as his decision to send additional troops. He said lawmakers now stood ready to stand up to the president when necessary.

In the April edition of Esquire magazine, Hagel described Bush as someone who doesn't believe he's accountable to anyone. "He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends on how this goes," Hagel told the magazine.

In his weekly address Saturday, Bush accused Democrats of partisanship in the House vote and said it would cut the number of troops below a level that U.S. military commanders say they need. Vice President Dick Cheney also accused Democrats of undermining U.S. troops in Iraq and of sending a message to terrorists that America will retreat in the face danger.

"We have clearly a situation where the president has lost the confidence of the American people in his war effort," Hagel said. "It is now time, going into the fifth year of that effort, for the Congress to step forward and be part of setting some boundaries and some conditions as to our involvement."

"This is not a monarchy," he added, referring to the possibility that some lawmakers may seek impeachment. "There are ways to deal with it. And I would hope the president understands that."

Lott said setting withdrawal dates is a futile and potentially dangerous exercise because Bush has made clear he will veto any such legislation.

"There are members in the Senate in both parties that are not comfortable with how things have gone in Iraq," Lott said. "But they understand that artificial timetables, even as goals, are a problem. ...We will try to take out the arbitrary dates."

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, said the Senate bill seeks to heed the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group by setting a goal of withdrawing some troops while leaving others behind to train the Iraqi army for border patrol and other missions.

"That, combined with a very aggressive, diplomatic effort in the region is what we're going to need to have," he said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, said she believed that setting a timetable was appropriate but declined to predict whether it would garner enough Senate votes to pass.

"People of this country have spoken overwhelmingly. It's been constant now," Feinstein said. "They want us out. It is time for the Senate to weigh in. I hope we will have the votes."

Hagel spoke on ABC's "This Week," Feinstein and Lott appeared on "Fox News Sunday," and Nelson was on CNN's "Late Edition."

I don't see what Congress could Impeach him on right now, because there's no crime in being a ignorant, partisan, and stubborn. However, that being said I'm sure the more Bush tries to block Congress the more they will look over every past and current move.

But what surprised me is that the I-word came from Republicans.

[SoFlaJDM]

bill nelson... my nigra

[Roonie]

A president is impeachable when he tries to subvert the constitution!

[SoFlaJDM]

ibhighcrimessemantics

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Roonie

A president is impeachable when he tries to subvert the constitution!

Congress has been assisting him though. What will the trial be like ?

GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Senate 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 -- what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that," said Hagel, who is considering a 2008 presidential run.

You passed the Iraq War Authorization. You funded the war. Let him fight it or cut the funding today.

[Roonie]

"Our Constitution specifies that our President may be impeached and if convicted, removed from office for treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

In keeping with his unconstitutional and wrongfully assumed powers, President Bush has wire tapped and invaded the privacy of citizens without a warrant, arrested people and delivered them to hostile foreign authorities to be tortured, condoned and authorized torture in violation of the Geneva Convention, incarcerated foreign nationals and Americans without due process, denied those arrested counsel and the right to a speedy trial, and invaded a foreign nation for false and fabricated reasons. To justify these wrongful and illegal actions, President Bush states that he has a duty to protect the lives and property of the American people. Apparently, President Bush does not understand that prior to 9/11, the laws in force then were more than sufficient to allow him to protect our lives and property. Furthermore, the steps he has taken have not enhanced our safety and security, but instead, the opposite is the case and they have also served to make this Nation a pariah among nations. The bitter irony here is that Americans have been forced to pay a tremendous price for the destructive and wrongful actions of George Bush. We have lost our freedom, our right to privacy, our civil and inalienable rights, the right to live free of a dictatorial and oppressive government, and the very essence of what it means to be American.
It should be clear that there is nothing Presidential about George Bush and he has assumed dictatorial powers over this Nation and over other nations that do not measure up to his standards.."

quoted from a political science teacher.......

I thought this was relevant here. Brings up the question.... if he is not impeachable because of these criteria then who exactly does get impeached?

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Congress has been assisting him though. What will the trial be like ?




You passed the Iraq War Authorization. You funded the war. Let him fight it or cut the funding today.

they have the right to end the war. They're ending it in 2008. you asked them to fund or end it, they're ending it.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Roonie

"Our Constitution specifies that our President may be impeached and if convicted, removed from office for treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

In keeping with his unconstitutional and wrongfully assumed powers, President Bush has wire tapped and invaded the privacy of citizens without a warrant, arrested people and delivered them to hostile foreign authorities to be tortured, condoned and authorized torture in violation of the Geneva Convention, incarcerated foreign nationals and Americans without due process, denied those arrested counsel and the right to a speedy trial, and invaded a foreign nation for false and fabricated reasons. To justify these wrongful and illegal actions, President Bush states that he has a duty to protect the lives and property of the American people. Apparently, President Bush does not understand that prior to 9/11, the laws in force then were more than sufficient to allow him to protect our lives and property. Furthermore, the steps he has taken have not enhanced our safety and security, but instead, the opposite is the case and they have also served to make this Nation a pariah among nations. The bitter irony here is that Americans have been forced to pay a tremendous price for the destructive and wrongful actions of George Bush. We have lost our freedom, our right to privacy, our civil and inalienable rights, the right to live free of a dictatorial and oppressive government, and the very essence of what it means to be American.
It should be clear that there is nothing Presidential about George Bush and he has assumed dictatorial powers over this Nation and over other nations that do not measure up to his standards.."

quoted from a political science teacher.......

I thought this was relevant here. Brings up the question.... if he is not impeachable because of these criteria then who exactly does get impeached?

The problem is that people passed the patriot act, he didnt just push it on us per say.

The only way to get him impeached is to get him to testify under oath. What we would have to do is get him to testify under oath regarding the intelligence on Iraq. He would rather lie and go to jail, to be pardoned later, than tell the truth about what they did with this intelligence.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Roonie

"Our Constitution specifies that our President may be impeached and if convicted, removed from office for treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

In keeping with his unconstitutional and wrongfully assumed powers, President Bush has wire tapped and invaded the privacy of citizens without a warrant, arrested people and delivered them to hostile foreign authorities to be tortured, condoned and authorized torture in violation of the Geneva Convention, incarcerated foreign nationals and Americans without due process, denied those arrested counsel and the right to a speedy trial, and invaded a foreign nation for false and fabricated reasons. To justify these wrongful and illegal actions, President Bush states that he has a duty to protect the lives and property of the American people. Apparently, President Bush does not understand that prior to 9/11, the laws in force then were more than sufficient to allow him to protect our lives and property. Furthermore, the steps he has taken have not enhanced our safety and security, but instead, the opposite is the case and they have also served to make this Nation a pariah among nations. The bitter irony here is that Americans have been forced to pay a tremendous price for the destructive and wrongful actions of George Bush. We have lost our freedom, our right to privacy, our civil and inalienable rights, the right to live free of a dictatorial and oppressive government, and the very essence of what it means to be American.
It should be clear that there is nothing Presidential about George Bush and he has assumed dictatorial powers over this Nation and over other nations that do not measure up to his standards.."

quoted from a political science teacher.......

I thought this was relevant here. Brings up the question.... if he is not impeachable because of these criteria then who exactly does get impeached?

wow I'm glad I don't go to that school

[RMNIXON]

Oh the "I" word.....

Hagel is just trying to put distance between himself and Bush. Not hard to understand why:

On March 7, 2007, Senator Hagel's office announced he would make an appearance in his home state to "discuss his future plans." It is speculated that this could entail an announcement of a 2008 Presidential campaign, though it could also involve a 2008 Senatorial re-election campaign or an announcement that he plans to leave the political sphere after his current term in the Senate expires.

On March 12, 2007, Hagel announced that he will make a decision on his future later this year, and in the meantime will continue to work on other issues important to the country.


Chuck Hagel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Could he be running as an anti-Iraq war Republican? That would put him apart from the rest real fast and the media would go ga ga!

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Oh the "I" word.....

Hagel is just trying to put distance between himself and Bush. Not hard to understand why:

On March 7, 2007, Senator Hagel's office announced he would make an appearance in his home state to "discuss his future plans." It is speculated that this could entail an announcement of a 2008 Presidential campaign, though it could also involve a 2008 Senatorial re-election campaign or an announcement that he plans to leave the political sphere after his current term in the Senate expires.

On March 12, 2007, Hagel announced that he will make a decision on his future later this year, and in the meantime will continue to work on other issues important to the country.


Chuck Hagel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Could he be running as an anti-Iraq war Republican? That would put him apart from the rest real fast and the media would go ga ga!

No, why would a Republican run under the anti-war stance?

could it be that the vast majority opposes the war? Could it be that the vast majority is unhappy with the direction the country has been heading? Could it be that Bush's approval ratings have been at 30% for several years?


I think the fact that one of the most conservative GOP members is talking Impeachment, plus several others apparently, might be a cause of concern.

Maybe the GOP will finally clean house.

[RMNIXON]

Unhappy is not grounds for Impeachment.


But, yes I do think he might take a chance and go against the current GOP candidates who are supportive of the Presidents policies in Iraq in general. It would shake things up.

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Maybe the GOP will finally clean house.

We can only hope........

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Unhappy is not grounds for Impeachment.


But, yes I do think he might take a chance and go against the current GOP candidates who are supportive of the Presidents policies in Iraq in general. It would shake things up.

domestic wiretappings, the huge possibility he passed along false intelligence to promote the war on Iraq


those are two off the top of my head that justifies an investigation.

[Thorgrim]

Abuse of power, without a crime, is understood to be grouds for impeachment

He said he'd ignore Congress not only on their Iraq policies but their subpoenas about Rove, also there are many times he failed to inform Congress what he was doing, you throw in everything he's done, it fits the general profile of a president who has defied Congress more than any other...that crosses over to abuse of power:

Bribery and treason are among the least ambiguous reasons meriting impeachment, but the ocean of wrongdoing encompassed by the Constitution's stipulation of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is vast. Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category, but one act that is definitely not grounds for impeachment is partisan discord. Several impeachment cases have confused political animosity with genuine crimes. Since Congress, the vortex of partisanship, is responsible for indicting, trying, and convicting public officials, it is necessary for the legislative branch to temporarily cast aside its factional nature and adopt a judicial role.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764613.html

You have Republicans saying its an option on the table, thats a big key its not for partisanship

[Pro Street]

Hagel said it best:

"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"


In other words, if Bush is shown to ignore the power of Congress, such as to ignore subpoenas, then Congress has the power to deal with it.

[motivez]

Idiot? Ignorant? Ignoramus?

STOP THE SUSPENSE HAGEL, what I word

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by motivez

Idiot? Ignorant? Ignoramus?

STOP THE SUSPENSE HAGEL, what I word

they're all fitting