The Iraq War is becoming—not just a theater of military battle, but a theater of the poltical absurd.
GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who has been mentioned as a Presidential candidate is quoted to suggest that impeachment of President Bush might be a consideration.He said Bush has no regard for the will of the people.
"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 Esquire magazine for its April edition.
On Monday, the U.S. Senate will take up legislation that deals with timetables in Iraq and war funding.The House passed legislation on Friday which calls for a 2008 deadline associated with funding and President Bush has promised to veto that legislation.
The House has been able to pass anti-war resolutions that have died in the Senate.There is little belief that the Senate measure will be passed due to GOP strong support in that Congressional body for Bush’s War endeavors, despite Hagel .Meanwhile, President Bush has complained that the military needs the money to fight the war and to combat terror.
Taking matters to the absurd, depending upon one’s political opinions regarding the Iraq War, yesterday, in Florida, Vice President Cheney again said that some in Congress were undermining the troops.He cited a world wide global war with Iraq becoming the epicenter.He also quoted Osama bin Laden claiming pitting the war as an us versus them religious environment.
On CNN on Sunday, Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut who caucuses with the Democrats said that he preferred that all discussion over the war be taken off the table for months and then be assessed to see if the surge is working.Then, Lieberman, continuing the absurd, but, being honest as is his trademark, praised those who wanted to cut off all funding of the war stating that at least they stood for their convictions.
Hagel did not state what acts of high crimes or misdemeanors President Bush has committed which has been the standard for impeachment.
The US Constitution *includes* International Laws and Treaties to which the United States is a signatory. There's the basis for impeachment: Violation of International law and Treaties. Or misleading Congress to instigate an invasion. And many other articles which are the subject of several books if anyone with an intellect wants to explore.
The reason my Senator in California has declined to impeach Cheney and Bush on my urging, is that "it would be devisive and not be uniting".
Given the obdurate refusal of Bush to respond to the representive government of his country, there is AMPLE merit for impeachment proceedings.
Written by Kelly Burch
on 3/27/2007
It really doesn't matter who Congress was aiming at; it has the same affect. Petraus said as much. Just today it seems that Times printed an article claiming sexual assault of some of our women soldiers when they knew the information was false. One of the women was never in Iraq. The story was not corrected for 2 weeks. There is no limit to what some will say to try to take down this President.
Written by Sharon
on 3/26/2007
Lying under oath in an investigation has sent many to jail. Don't forget that a judge felt that his actions were serious enough to take away his license to practice in Arkansas. The Democrats are continuing to "fish" for a reason to impeach. If they had one they would go forward. I seem to remember that Clinton has called his impeachment "a badge of honor". Guess it is all in the way you look at it.
Written by Sharon
on 3/26/2007
Eva, I think you meant Clinton...Nixon was never impeached.
And as to the nonsense about confirming Petraeus then not giving him a chance....that's a red herring. Bush changed commanders in mid-stream in a desperate, scapegoating, transparent attempt to reset the clock and give himself more time on an Iraq war that is already lost (don't believe it? just wait). Petraeus is just an unfortunate pawn: Congress's rejection of Bush's "give me more time" plea is aimed at Bush, not Petraeus. Bush is simply trying to run out the clock and hand off his colossal mistake of invading Iraq to the next president, which is increasingly likely to be a Democrat, so Bush won't have to take 100% of the blame in the history books. Congress knows this, and they won't play along anymore. Good for them. Nothing to do with Petraeus. I feel sorry for him: what a terrible, destined-to-fail assignment for a good soldier.
Written by Gregg
on 3/25/2007
you wrote: '...Hagel did not state what acts of high crimes or misdemeanors President Bush has committed which has been the standard for impeachment.,,"
No, that USED to be the standard for impeachment. But the GOP lowered the bar to ankle level to try to impeach Clinton. Now they have to live with the new, lower standards...and it may yet turn out to be the all-time, biggest backfire in a season of pretty big backfires.
Written by Gregg
on 3/25/2007
Go Hagel! Even though I'm a Democrat, I would vote for him as President, except that he is anti choice.
Written by Walter
on 3/25/2007
Lieberman is correct. It is the height of hypocricy to unanimously confirm a general and then tell him his plan cannot work so we, the Congress, will end this war. This country should be giving General Petaus their full support. The Democrats are invested in our defeat and in denial about what that would really mean. As for Hagel, he is saying whatever will get him TV time. He has no chance of getting the Republican nomination. As for impeachment, if taking full advantage of the executive powers granted him as President is high crimes and misdeameanors then GWB would have a lot of company for impeachment.
Written by Sharon
on 3/25/2007
Not so absurd. Many citizens are now calling for impeachment...a simple google of this topic would show reasons why. Whether they are right or wrong, is up to depate in the political process. When a president disregards both the public he's elected to serve and the congress that was elected as a balance of power, then this becomes a serious constitutional issue.
I might add, Nixon was impeached for less (with a higher approval rating at the time)
It is absurd that you didn't do your homework before your report.
To
Buzz Right Back on this article