home

What About The Spending Power?

Bill Moyers' interview of Bruce Fein and impeachment proponent John Nichols is illustrative of how the impeachment movement gives short shrift to the most effective tool for checking an out of control President - the Spending Power. Nichols in particular is so hot for saying the word impeachment that he utterly ignores the most effective check on Executive Power the Founders intended and provided. Look at this exchange:

BRUCE FEIN: . . . [W]e do find this peculiarity that Congress is giving up powers voluntarily. Because there's nothing right now, Bill, that would prevent Congress from the immediate shutting down all of George Bush's and Dick Cheney's illegal programs. Simply saying there's no money to collect foreign intelligence-

BILL MOYERS: The power of the purse-

BRUCE FEIN: --the power of the purse. That is an absolute power. And yet Congress shies from it. It was utilized during the Vietnam War, you may recall, in 1973. Congress said there's no money to go and extend the war into Laos and Cambodia. And even President Nixon said okay. This was a president who at one time said, "If I do it, it's legal." So that it we do find Congress yielding the power to the executive branch. It's the very puzzle that the founding fathers would have been stunned at. They worried most over the legislative branch in, you know, usurping powers of the other branches. And--

BILL MOYERS: Well, what you just said indicts the Congress more than you're indicting George Bush and Dick Cheney.

BRUCE FEIN: In some sense, yes, because the founding fathers expected an executive to try to overreach and expected the executive would be hampered and curtailed by the legislative branch. And you're right. They have basically renounced-- walked away from their responsibility to oversee and check. It's not an option. It's an obligation when they take that oath to faithfully uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. . . .

Absolutely correct. And guess what. This is the most serious threat to the checks and balances of the Constitution. This is what we should be screaming about. This is what we should be demanding from the Congress. And guess what, if exercised by a Democratic Congress, without the support of Republicans, it will be effective. It will stop the excesses. Stop the Iraq Debacle.

But what do impeachment proponents care more about? This:

JOHN NICHOLS: The hearings are important. There's no question at that. And we should be at that stage. Remember, Thomas Jefferson and others, the founders, suggested that impeachment was an organic process. That information would come out. The people would be horrified. They would tell their representatives in Congress, "You must act upon this." Well, the interesting thing is we are well down the track in the organic process. The people are saying it's time. We need some accountability.

BILL MOYERS: But Nancy Pelosi doesn't agree.

JOHN NICHOLS: Nancy Pelosi is wrong. Nancy Pelosi is disregarding her oath of office. She should change course now. And more importantly, members of her caucus and responsible Republicans should step up. It is not enough--

This is unmitigated balderdash. Nancy Pelosi is "disregarding her oath of office" because she disagrees with John Nichols on impeachment? Nonsense.

And does John Nicols think Nancy Pelosi is not disregarding her oath of office by not using the Spending Power to check the excesses of President Bush? A power that she can use without dreaming of Republican cooperation? Nichols does not say. He has impeachment fever and any steps that are not about impeachment do not interest him.

In an interesting moment discussing "remedy," Bruce Fein says:

BRUCE FEIN: I think that if impeachment proceedings began and the president and the vice-president sat back and said, "We understand now. We both understand. We renounce this claim. No military commissions. We're going to comply with the law," the impeachment proceedings ought to stop and they should. It's not trying to be punitive and recriminate against the officials but you've got to get it right. And it's that what I hope would happen. I've said if the president now renouncing the power and said, "It was wrong and I now respect and honor the separation and the genius of the founding fathers," that's great. And all of the purpose of impeachment would have been accomplished. They could stay in office and we'd have the greatest precedent with regards to executive authority and the separation of powers and checks and balances. This is not an effort to try to blacken the names of the president and vice-president. And nothing would gratify me more than having them stand up and say, "Yeah, I've thought about this now. My mind is concentrated wonderfully," as Sam Johnson would say. The prospect of impeachment, I've been convinced.

How many impeachment proponents agree with that? Oh by the way, why do we care if Bush and Cheney mouth those words? Does anyone really think that is what the Founders had in mind as a system of checks and balances? Of course not. Fein got it right the first time -- the ultimate tool for checking the authority of the Executive is the Spending Power.

Why not instead of wasting time on an impeachment that will never happen, we instead apply ourselves to pressuring the Congress to use the power the Founders intended as the principal check on the Executive? Why not concentrate on reviving that check? Oh by the way, with the added benefit of actually STOPPING Bush's abuses and follies?

The fact is that what Nichols and those like him propose would be the worst type of precedent - a precedent that the only way to check a President is to impeach him. I have been fearful of just this type of thinking for a while. In December, I wrote:

The Separation of Powers, Not Impeachment, The Principal Bulwark Against Presidential Abuse

by Big Tent Democrat

Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 09:00:44 PM PDT

In Unitary Moonbat's Impeachment History diary and thread, both too little and too much is said. The too little is about the POLITICS of the impeachment process. The too much is the selling of impeachment as the bulwark against Presidential abuse of power:

Henry's objections were numerous, but one of them was that Madison had created a president who could too easily become an absolute monarch or a tyrant. . . . Madison's reply was essentially what was quoted above. He believed it was impossible for a president to behave as Henry feared one might, because Congress held the power to impeach the executive and remove him from office if necessary . . .

But this is simply not a correct reading of the Federalist Papers or the Constitution. I'll explain why . . .

Let us start with Madison in Federalist 51:

In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent, is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted, that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others.

. . . It is equally evident that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal.

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department, the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defence must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to controul the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controuls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to controul the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to controul itself. A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary controul on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

. . . [I]t is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self defence. In republican government the legislative authority, necessarily, predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is, to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them by different modes of election, and different principles of action, as little connected with each other, as the nature of their common functions, and their common dependence on the society, will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified.

. . . There are moreover two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view.

First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people, is submitted to the administration of a single government; and usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people, is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each, subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will controul each other; at the same time that each will be controuled by itself.

Second. It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers; but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. . . .

Nowhere in Federalist 51 does Madision speak of impeachment as the bulwark against the abuse of Executive power.

Indeed, let us consider the area where Presidential power has traditionally been treated as at its zenith, the Commander in Chief power during wartime. During the FISA debate, I wrote a series of posts detailing the argument and court decisions that eviscerated the ridiculous arguments of the Bush Administration regarding the idea of a "unitary executive." In particular I relied on Hamilton and the Steel Seizure Cases. Here is an example:

A Little Bit of Monarchy


by Armando

Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 01:07:10 AM EST

[The Government's position] cannot be mandated by any reasonable view of the separation of powers, as this view only serves to condense power into a single branch of government. We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens. Youngstown Steel and Tube, 343 U.S. at 587. Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in times of conflict with other Nations or enemy organizations, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

In Federalist 26 Alexander Hamilton wrote:

In England, for a long time after the Norman Conquest, the authority of the monarch was almost unlimited. Inroads were gradually made upon the prerogative, in favor of liberty, first by the barons, and afterwards by the people, till the greatest part of its most formidable pretensions became extinct. But it was not till the revolution in 1688, which elevated the Prince of Orange to the throne of Great Britain, that English liberty was completely triumphant. As incident to the undefined power of making war, an acknowledged prerogative of the crown, Charles II had, by his own authority, kept on foot in time of peace a body of 5,000 regular troops. And this number James II increased to 30,000; who were paid out of his civil list. At the revolution, to abolish the exercise of so dangerous an authority, it became an article of the Bill of Rights then framed, that ``the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, UNLESS WITH THE CONSENT OF PARLIAMENT, was against law.'' In that kingdom, when the pulse of liberty was at its highest pitch, no security against the danger of standing armies was thought requisite, beyond a prohibition of their being raised or kept up by the mere authority of the executive magistrate. The patriots, who effected that memorable revolution, were too temperate, too wellinformed, to think of any restraint on the legislative discretion. They were aware that a certain number of troops for guards and garrisons were indispensable; that no precise bounds could be set to the national exigencies; that a power equal to every possible contingency must exist somewhere in the government: and that when they referred the exercise of that power to the judgment of the legislature, they had arrived at the ultimate point of precaution which was reconcilable with the safety of the community.

Article 1, Section 8 of the the United States Constitution states, in part, that the Congress will have the power:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress . . .

Despite the clear and unmistakable words of Hamilton; despite the clear and unmistakable grant of authority to the Congress regarding the raising of military forces, the promulgation of Rules for the governing and regulation of the military, and for the declaration of war, and despite the ringing statements of the Supreme Court in Hamdi, some Conservatives and Republicans insist that the President, when acting in his capacity as Commander in Chief, has plenary power, unchecked and unfettered. . .

To now argue that it is impeachment that is the bulwark against the abuse of Executive Power is to hand the Right a gift, for that is the argument they make. They argue that Congress and the Courts can only resort to the most dramatic of remedies against Presidential wartime power - the power of the purse, the power of impeachment. It is wrong to argue this line in order to foward the preferred course on impeachment.

Liberals and Democrats must resist this impulse for two reasons -- (1) it is simply incorrect, and (2) it is extremely dangerous. In arguing in this fashion, the Liberal strips the Congress and the Supreme Court of the powers granted it to separate the immense powers of the federal government and allows for the abdication of the responsible role of an overseeing Legislature and a reviewing Court.

So by all means, argue your views on impeachment but let us not throw over the separation of powers in the bargain. It is inaccurate and dangerous to do so.

A few weeks ago, I wrote:

advocates for impeachment will downplay the other powers to check the Executive precisely because it undermines their argument for impeachment. I could even accept the disningenuousness inherent in this advocacy if there was even a slim chance of removal from offfice. But there is none.

So, in order to feel pure and superior, some impeachment advocates will ostensibly argue against other means of checking the Executive. It is very hard to see how this is anything but a vanity game at this point.

I think John Nichols proved my point in his discussion with Bill Moyers.

< Indiana Allows Increased Pollution of Lake Michigan | Let Them Eat Cake >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Our invertebrate Congress (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by robrecht on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 07:59:37 AM EST
    Most of the program was not about Iraq, but Nichols realizes that there is a whole system of checks and balances short of impeachment that should be employed regarding Iraq:

    "If we had a president who was seeking to inspire us to take seriously the issues that are in play and to bring all the government together, he'd be consulting with Congress. He'd be working with Congress. And, frankly, Congress, through the system of checks and balances, would be preventing him from doing insane things like invading Iraq."

    Our invertebrate Congress was indicted as much as President Bush in the program.

    robrecht hit it on the head. . . (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by the rainnn on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 10:21:28 AM EST
    i did watch the whole segment, and i do
    agree that the dialogue places a fair measure
    of responsibility on the shoulders of the
    legislative branch, as well. . .  now, we will
    all see how they react to our phone calls, letters,
    faxes and e-mails. . .

    i generally agree with the vast majority
    of what BTD writes, but i need to offer some
    rather gentle dissent here -- he wrote:

    ". . .why do we care if Bush and Cheney mouth those words? Does anyone really think that is what the Founders had in mind as a system of checks and balances? Of course not. Fein got it right the first time -- the ultimate tool for checking the authority of the Executive is the Spending Power. . ."

    i do. and, i care.  and i think they did.

    like quite a bit of the latter part of his
    post, i think BTD overstates his otherwise
    very valid point so much, that he undercuts
    it, at the same time. . .

    i did not hear mr. nichols push only impeachent.

    i think he pushed ACTION -- and my latest
    nightly nolo video makes this point plain,
    by distilling the whole interview to 1:55 of
    condensed rhetoric -- with archival footage,
    and a soundtrack, to boot
    . . . .

    do take a look.

    so -- i think your point is valid BTD, i just
    don't think demonizing any otpion behooves any
    of us. . .  we need to let them ALL play out.

    just my $0.02. . .

    p e a c e

    Parent

    Forget my demonization (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 10:32:42 AM EST
    Tell me what impeaschment hearings accomplish if you do not remove them?

    Bush and Cheney hold to their views. They are not removed. Is the precedent not now that it is illegitimate for the Congress to check the asserted power by using the Spending Power?

    Or think of it this way, suppose Bush and Cheney stick to their guns but the Congress does not fund all of the impeachable activity.

    Does THAT not vindicate the principle?

    In other words, how is a failed attempt at impeachment a better precedent than a successful exercise of the Congressional Spending Power?

    No doubt this will be labelled demonization by you, to me it is stating what I believe to be true.

    Parent

    if the two-thirds vote in the senate needed. . . (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by the rainnn on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 11:34:25 AM EST
    does not exist, then i do
    not follow your point. . .

    your no-spending measure must be
    veto-proof, right?

    that said -- i apologize for my
    rhetorical flourish -- you are
    "demonizing" no one. . .  fair?

    i do think BRINGING an impeachment sends
    a message.  conversely, i think cutting off funding
    opens a very easy counter-punch -- a sharp
    uppercut, to the jaw of congress, actually -- that
    this congress is "leaving the troops
    out there to die
    ", by de-fundining the war
    effort.  trust me that rove will spin this
    one like a gyro-scope -- my personal opinion is
    that it is much more difficult to spin the
    impeachment call as being a "you're treat-
    ing the troops badly
    " vote. . .

    i am not arguing for ANY-one's absolutist
    approach, i'm just pointing out that i see more
    "minuses" in the de-funding, than i see in an
    impeachment proceeding.

    but to be candid, i like. . .

    i n d i c t m e n t.

    an indictment for inherent contempt
    of congress, naming the entire white house
    .

    harriet mier and sara taylor being exhibits
    "a" and "b" for this propostition; and when
    the bob duncan subpoena yeilds no compliance
    on july 17, 2007
    -- add an indictment for
    conspiracy to obstruct the lawful complaince
    with subpoenas to the charges -- the cheney
    bush administration is forcing -- without the
    benefit of any lawful authority -- private
    parties (RNC; harriet miers; sara taylor) to
    to ignore their duty to comply with the law.

    for "the law is entitled to every man's evidence. . ."

    now, if you don't like that line of
    attack, let's just get personal, and. . .
    indict dick cheney, personally, solo -- move
    to cut off the criminal-brain from the oxygen-
    supply -- but, we may have to do it
    in a state-forum. . .

    just another [perhaps whimsical] thought.

    you've done great work here, BTD -- i
    just see more than any one approach. . .
    that's all. . .

    p e a c e
     

    Parent

    Doing Nothing (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 11:42:22 AM EST
    Does not require 2/3 of the senate.

    Not voting for war funds is all it takes, no veto proof bill is required.

    Parent

    On one discrete point (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 11:50:06 AM EST
    My Not funding option is not predicated on passage of legislation.

    I've written on it at length here.

    Parent

    okay -- fair LEGAL point -- what about the kabuki? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by the rainnn on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:09:26 PM EST
    that is -- BTD, how will your non-legislative
    [now i've caught up on your back-papers,
    reading your writings on de-funding!], erh,
    "no votes required"  
    de-funding play on the kabuki-theatre stage
    of the largely-absurd, known as. . . politics?

    don't you see that congress generally, and
    democrats, specifically, will be wide open to
    the charge that they are the only
    out-of-control-emperors/monarchists, here?

    doesn't that seem plain?

    all that rove need do is point to the 2002 war
    authorization -- and say, truthfully(!) -- that
    congress is trying to end this war, a war it
    declared, WITHOUT AN UP OR DOWN VOTE.

    that, my friend, is a loser on every kabuki
    stage i can imagine. . .  not that it should
    work
    -- but that, from hard prior experiences,
    we know rove will make it work for them -- and, in
    a monstrously divisive wedge-issue way.  we
    will once again be labeled traitors, when in
    fact, it is precisely the other way 'round.

    such are my thoughts -- i think more light
    is needed, here -- but i also like the heat.

    so i say "bring it!"

    bring it all -- the inherent contempt, the
    impeachment, the defunding -- BUT WITH AN UP-
    or DOWN-VOTE, to avoid the above problem. . .

    bring it all!

    and, bring our troops home. . .

    p e a c e
     

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#40)
    by robrecht on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 01:01:08 PM EST
    I agree that a vote to de-authorize, verbalizing the importance of responsible redeployment would be helpful in taking the high ground politically.  

    I suppose it might also be attractive to legislators who want to critique the premises of the previous vote to authorize, CYA, etc.  But it starts to get complicated very quickly and each attached nuance might risk consensus.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 10:43:45 AM EST
     
    Tell me what impeaschment hearings accomplish if you do not remove them?

    And, as they say, whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

    Parent

    Citing an aphorism (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by kovie on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 01:24:00 PM EST
    does not constitute an argument. The Iraq war and occupation has not "killed" the US or Iraq--they both still exist. Has it made either stronger? Has it made Bush and his administration stronger? Did failing to convict Clinton make Gingrich and congressional Repubs stronger?

    The "let's give it a shot and see what happens" approach is precisely the kind of irresponsible and unthinking approach that got us into Iraq and caused us no end of trouble. When you don't know how something this big is likely to end, or that it is likely to end well, the wise thing to do is not do it.

    And in case you don't know, I support impeachment, in principle--as does BTD--but only if it would lead to conviction. At present, it would not, which would be worse than not impeaching at all, and which is why I don't support it NOW.

    Parent

    WTF (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 01:58:02 PM EST
    Sorry for being unclear.

    How about ths:

    Whatever doesn't remove a president will make his party stronger.

    Parent

    Oh, sorry (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by kovie on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:04:34 PM EST
    I misunderstood. Yes, non-conviction makes Bush stronger, not weaker. And it makes Dems and the republic weaker, not stronger.

    This is a gun that should never be fired unless one, it is absolutely warranted, and two, the chances of it hitting the mark are quite high. The first is clearly true, but not the second, at present. It is, really, the true "nuclear option".

    Parent

    wait -- i still think you're. . . (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by the rainnn on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:10:44 PM EST
    . . .going off half-cocked.

    kovie said:

    ". . .but only if it would lead to conviction. At present, it would not, which would be worse than not impeaching at all, and which is why I don't support it NOW. . ."

    forgive me for being pedantic, but i seem
    to recall there were no convictions in several
    impeachments, but they did focus attention.

    so, i do not think proposing impeachment is irresponsible. . .

    but, i do think equating it to the war-making
    [non-] deliberative process -- is less than
    persuasive -- there is only a very-scant bit
    analogy, there. . .

    as to de-funding, there are other abuses and
    uspurpations to address, as well -- and while
    very important, the de-funding is not mutually
    exclusive in any manner with a broader attempt
    to drive the president and mr. cheney back under
    the rule of law.

    whew.

    Parent

    I never said that de-funding and impeachment (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by kovie on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 05:34:17 PM EST
    were mutually exclusive. I just said that right now, defunding is much more viable than impeachment--which it clearly is. I also wrote elsewhere in this diary that defunding could actually strengthen the political case for impeachment, because it would most likely cause Bush to try to continue the occupation via unconstitutional or illegal means.

    As for impeachment giving more "exposure" to the administration's crimes and malfeasance, do you really think that they public isn't more than aware of all this by now, or how else would you explain Mr. 26%? Do you really believe that the MSM will cover impeachment fairly, and not as a partisan witch hunt by Dems? Do you really think that raising the impeachment flag will somehow magically grant congress special powers that it doesn't presently have that the courts and Bush will suddenly begin to respect, that they don't now and wouldn't otherwise?

    All that declaring formal impeachment hearings right now would accomplish would be to give the administration and GOP an opportunity to cast Dems as out on a witch hunt--which the MSM will clearly help them with--while setting the bar for holding them accountable impossibly high, and most likely force Repubs who are currently moving away from Bush to move back to him, in order to placate their base. And if, as is almost certain to happen, Bush or Cheney are acquitted by the senate, we will be worse off than we are now, not better off.

    Impeachment is not a publicity stunt or PR move, or something to be taken lightly. It is a weapon of last resort, to be fired only when one, it is absolutely warranted (which of course it is), two, the formal evidence for it is overwhelming (which it is not yet, due to administration stonewalling), and three, it is very likely to lead to conviction (which it definitely is not at present). To use it without these three conditions being true is irresponsible, stupid and dangerous. It's not something to be taken lightly, and if you're serious about impeachment, you need to be serious about the process that needs to precede it, which has not yet reached the stage where impeachment is formally warranted.

    Initiating impeachment proceedings now would actually be the stupidist thing that Dems could do now, short of abandoning oversight entirely, which they show zero signs of doing. Instead, they need to continue to pursue aggressive oversight and work to defund the war, both of which are far more likely to lead to actual impeachment--if anything is.

    Parent

    kovie -- strictly speaking. . . (none / 0) (#148)
    by the rainnn on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 06:47:51 PM EST
    i wasn't speaking to you about
    the exclusivity thing -- that
    was for BTD. . .  however, you said:

    ". . .I just said that right now, defunding is much more viable than impeachment--which it clearly is. . ."

    "viable" in what way?

    how would you feel about defending
    against the rovian counter-punches?

    me? i feel better about an impeachment,
    largely because it formally challenges
    every front on which cheney-bush is mis-
    using, or violating the law and the con-
    stitution.  whether he is convicted is not
    as important as that we set the precedent
    and do it.  that is my view.  yours differs.

    that's cool.

    there isn't any need for a lot of invective,
    or at least i don't think so. . .

    p e a c e

    Parent

    Viable means doable or possible (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by kovie on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:00:22 AM EST
    which defunding clearly is, since Dems don't need any Repub votes, and which impeachment isn't, because it does, and they just aren't there right now. And by impeachment I mean one that leads to conviction, not merely the process itself or even house impeachment (which actually is possible).

    Now, I wouldn't dispute that defunding comes with its own political perils, but that has nothing to do with viability, but rather advisability, which is something different. However, no one's talking about immediately cutting off funds. All of the serious ideas I've seen call for a withdrawal to begin 120 days from enactment and funds for the occupation to end by the spring of '08. Rove can spin this all he wants, but I strongly believe that the public won't be swayed.

    Plus, if you're convinced that defunding will backfire politically, what makes you think that impeachment won't? The GOP is sure to launch an all-out "partisan witch hunt" campaign that the media will almost certainly latch onto, and the Dems will find themselves scrambling to come up with the goods before this smear campaign started to take its toll. That will only detract from their efforts. And, of course, the administration will continue to stonewall and delay.

    I'm fine with respectfully disagreeing on impeachment, defunding and any other issue. In fact, I insist on it, since it's all too easy to get into a pointless flame war over these issues today. One of the reasons I started posting here recently was because it's almost impossible to have a discussion on impeachment on DailyKos these days if you're not a diehard "impeachment now" supporter without being piled on by purity trolls who insist on having their ponies and eating them too.

    Cheers.

    Parent

    i do not disagree with the now aspect (none / 0) (#45)
    by conchita on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 01:40:40 PM EST
    however, i have been putting a fair amount of energy into it now so that it will happen later.  it looks to me like the contempt proceedings that congress will have to undertake could very well be setting the stage.  i agree with booman that it when it becomes a battle between branches of government, republicans will vote to impeach.

    Parent
    I'm inclined to agree (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by kovie on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:00:31 PM EST
    Whether or not it intends to or would ever try to impeach, congress has to first push this ongoing showdown with the administration into open constitutional confrontation and crisis. We're not quite there yet, but we appear to be approaching that moment rapidly.

    Congress has at least three recourses to the present stonewalling, criminal, civil and inherent contempt. Each has its pros and cons, but they are all political, legal and constitutional guns pointed at the administration, while the administration has none that it can point at congress. It is in defensive mode at this point, and any defensive move it makes, however effective in the near term, hurts it in the long term. E.g. if it directs the DC USA to not enforce these subpoenas and contempt citations, it will open itself up to charges of obstruction of justice. And that USA will be replaced by a court-appointed USA in the fall, as per S.214.

    Plus, as you say, every act of administration defiance will only make congressional Repubs increasingly nervous. If Dems can provoke enough defiance, or the right kind of defiance, they may well find Repubs approaching them about impeachment. Which is why I support Dems apparent strategy of continuing to confront and provoke the administration into defying congress. Libby, Taylor and Miers are just the latest and more egregious examples. There will be more, and they will be even more egregious. It's a smart strategy, and, realistically, the only one likely to succeed given Dems' thin majority.

    Parent

    Recently, suggesting the use of the spending power (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 08:32:46 AM EST
    instead of impeachment has mostly gotten me smug, self-satisfied responses from people who claim that W will just print the money himself, or something. The Impeachment Show® has a powerful draw.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by kovie on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:09:59 PM EST
    there are all sorts of ways for Bush to continue the occupation even if congress cuts off funds--all of them hugely illegal. And which, if he tried, would set him up for impeachment. So, when you think about it, all the impeachment people should really be behind the defunding option, as it would not only end the occupation, but likely set Bush up for impeachment. But if you want a pony now, then I guess that promises of future ponies just won't cut it...

    Parent
    Oh, and thanks for pointing (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 08:37:34 AM EST
    to your December diary. It reminds me of a time, not too long ago, when the inmates weren't in majority control over there.  

    Parent
    do something (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by selise on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 08:40:56 AM EST
    i don't know which would be the best way to constrain the actions of the presidency. power of the purse, impeachment hearings or something else

    i do know i'm pissed off at congress for doing none of the them.

    i want the iraq war to end. i don't want an attack on iran. and h.con.r.21 and s.a.2073 were completely irresponsible. i'm coming to the conclusion that congress doesn't want to stop or prevent war - even if they thought they could.

    If it were possible, I'd favor (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 10:19:25 AM EST
    impeachment, Bush and Cheney's abuse of power certainly warrrants it. But starting down that road and failing would be even worse as far as precedents go.

    The power of the purse, recognized since the Magna Carta, is the route to take.

    As far as I can tell, there is no reason not to hold abuse of power hearings, which would have the same effect as impeachment hearings would right now, without the obvious drawback of failing and setting bad precedent in stone. Who knows what smoking gun it might turn up. I think  Leahy, Waxman and Conyers are on the right road, where everyone is failing is failure to use the power of the purse.

    The only bright side I can see to the "organic process" is a few members of the GOP might decide that investigations and the power of the purse is the better option rather than facing an angry electorate.  I am not entirely opposed to getting the impeachment chatter up among the ordinary citizens, provided the screams for investigations and cutting off the money supply are as loud or louder.

    I have the flu, so my brain is not functioning, but off hand, it seems to me, Fein's "if they would just admit they  were wrong" is wrong headed. The level of abuse of power Bush and Cheny have acheived go beyond the slap on the wrist. Fein also argues that had President Clinton just admitted it, Fein would not have felt impeachment warranted it. To me this illustrates the flaws in his thinking. Impeachment is a serious matter. You don't do it for trivial reasons or every scheming Tom Delay or Newt will use it reflexively. And if it is serious enough to start, then by all means blacken the name of the offending President.  For an obviously smart man, Fein is simply wrong here.



    The failure on the power of the purse (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 10:28:29 AM EST
    is also our failing. The base's failing. Progressive activists' failing.

    No one talks about it.

    It is simply ridiculous, imo, for someone like Nichols to talk as he does when he says not a word about the Spending Power.

    This goes for the entire Left imo.

    Parent

    Progressive activists' failing? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 10:51:51 AM EST
    Is it a 'giving up' in the face of the frustration of seeing no results... seeing the Democratic leadership so far unmoved by calls for it?

    Parent
    Don't sell yourself short (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 10:58:11 AM EST
    You are talking about it. You are starting conversations daily on it.

    Keep cross posting at Mydd and anywhere else you can.



    Parent

    How about pamphlets dropped from (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:46:11 PM EST
    helicopters?  Got to spread this information more widely.  Don't think the netroots is the answer, as DK has such a wide usership but isn't getting the message.  

    Parent
    Ironically (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by kovie on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:14:09 PM EST
    the defunding option only makes the impeachment option more viable, for the reasons I described above. It would almost certainly force Bush to commit blatanly impeachable actions that would likely result in serious congressional reactions, including quite possibly impeachment proceedings. Defunding is like killing 2 birds with one stone, or at least one, with the possibility of two.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by robrecht on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:20:57 PM EST
    In my opinion this is the most responsible potential link of impeachment to Iraq.  General Odom's position, essentially, with apologies to whoever may have articulated it earlier.

    There are many other potentially impeachable offenses, however, and it is a sham that our Congress has not exercised better and more effective oversight.  Someone should be addressing these issues as well.

    Parent

    showdown (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Sumner on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 11:50:44 AM EST
    There is a notion that the president believes his usurpations are a fait accompli and that he is chomping at the bit for a showdown in the courts over his instructions for omertà to Harriet Miers:

    In short, the Bush White House is not bluffing with this act of defiance. Rather, the White House truly wants to test, and attempt to expand, presidential power. Bush's White House is ready, willing, and able to play hardball. Indeed, the White House may actually be trying to bait the House Judiciary Committee and the House of Representatives into voting to deem Ms. Miers in contempt of congress.

    The Bill Moyers' interview of Bruce Fein and John Nichols over our immediate Constitutional crisis is illustrative of how urgent the crisis has become.

    If Bush actually desires a showdown in the courts due to hubris rather than feint or blustery, he may believe as many are saying, that the matter would be tied up in the courts for years, well beyond his remaining year and months in office. He may believe that he can count on his planted shills to vote for him without fail.

    However Bush v. Gore shows us that the court can act promptly to expedite hearings in matters of national exigency. There is plenty of foundation already having been been laid down that there is truly a Constitutional crisis at hand.

    Justices Alito and Roberts will be expected to recuse themselves in the case where Bush has been accused of constant dysfunctional choices and his manipulation of toady courts and a toady congress.

    Of course, Justices Alito and Roberts may not recuse themselves, claiming that that is their legal prerogative. That then becomes the grounds to impeach them.

    Wild Goose Chase (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:02:15 PM EST
    of course, Justices Alito and Roberts may not recuse themselves, claiming that that is their legal prerogative. That then becomes the grounds to impeach them.

    As much as I would relish that outcome you are only dreaming.

    Did Scalia get impeached for not recusing himself in the Cheney Energy Task Force SC appeal, for duck hunting with Cheney?

    Parent

    different organism (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Sumner on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:48:49 PM EST
    Except that they are actual vestiges from an ongoing criminal conspiracy. And by very definition, because in fact they are simply shills for that criminal conspiracy, they cannot help but refuse to recuse.

    If they are simply shills, (as asserted), we will have to remove them somehow, eventually.

    That is classic third order and fourth order thinking.

    Otherwise, the nation must resign itself to carte blanche outcome oriented opinions.

    a metaphor here.

    Parent

    Hope Springs Eternal (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:57:40 PM EST
    The Republican operatives, Roberts and Alito among them, are playing by different rules. That is the different organism. The liberal part of the SC would recuse themselves to avoid any hint of impartiality. Different organisms.

    Digby explains it very well.

    Parent

    Couldn't disagree more, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:03:36 PM EST
    Nichols claim that Pelosi is ignoring her oath is based on her statement that impeachment is off the table.  She hasn't the right to take it off the table, and violates her oath by claiming that authority.  Nichols is right in his assessment.

    And both Fein and Nichols are correct that the reason we need to impeach is because the precedent needs to be set that the over-reaching by the right (that took form under Nixon, was advanced under Reagan, and is beyond belief under Bush) must be shown to be unconstitutional.  Nothing but impeachment will establish that at this point.

    Sorry bucko.  I think you missed the point on this one.

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:05:45 PM EST
    None of what I said above negates what you say about the spending power.  The Dem congress is woefully shirking their duty on that front.

    Oh boy, another helping of the same balderdash (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by yourstruly on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:54:02 PM EST
    First of all, it requires no genius to see whether you are talking impeachment or defunding the war, the same numbers game is in effect.

    Secondly, every anti-impeachment position I've read here follows a short-sighted line of reasoning, and completely disregards the words of Jefferson in the Moyers special about how investigations would leave the people "horrified", and demanding blood.  

    Is there a single one of you arguing this anti-impeachment nonsense, willing to step forward and say without reservation, that if the full depth and breadth of the criminality of this admin is revealed to the American public by vigorous and rigorous investigations, that they won't do as they did in the case of Nixon, and demand in even larger numbers, that impeachment take place?

    You guys act like this is some static, immutable situation, like the outrage investigations will cultivate and grow, can't or won't change the political environment in which its contemplated and done in. Sure, the most criminal pres in history will not provide the impetus for them to find the 17 votes, or to take the Goldwater walk.  Yep, that's so believable, I just can't come up with an argument to counter it.  

    Thirdly, the idea that defunding alone will stop all the lawlessness and criminality is equally short-sighted. SO what they defund the war, will torture then be stopped?  How about the illegal wiretaps or signing statements that allow in his mind, him to ignore ANY LAW CONGRESS PASSES?  No, they won't, nor will it ANY of the other criminal activity that is known or unknown.

    Fourth and foremost, to not impeach gives him license to engage in more criminal activities, that could well have as much or greater impact on the world WE live in, than any previous to it.  For example, he's already issued the necessary paperwork (exec order) to install himself as dictator in the event we suffer another "event"--- the one in Chertoff's gut.  How about the great potential for an assault on Iran, possibly with bunker-busting nukes, letting that ugly genie out of the bottle again? Hell, let your imagination run amok--- it's already clear "nothing is off the table" with our above the law, unitary executive.

    The idea of defunding him on the Iraq war alone is like telling your child at the zoo, that the big cat has been declawed, so it's safe to play with them--- completely forgetting about the teeth they eat with.

    Just one factual point (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:03:10 PM EST
    The math for NOT funding is much different, requiring only 218 votes in the House and NO votes in the Senate.

    Removal requires 67 in the Senate.

    OTher than that, thands for commenting.

    Parent

    I understand that of course (1.00 / 1) (#142)
    by yourstruly on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 06:17:53 PM EST
    and your point is valid, as long as it's confined to just getting a bill on Bush's desk. The point was that the same hurdles exist no matter which issue you are confronting, impeachment or defunding, in terms of the votes required to take Bush out of the game.

    I see the likelihood of achieving the votes needed for impeachment, being far easier to get after investigations for that impeachment, than getting the same number of votes required to override a veto of an Iraq "defunding" bill, that Bush will surely provide.

    Both require the same 67 votes, don't they?

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 06:20:40 PM EST
    You don't understand.

    With due respect.

    That is not my point at all.

    Parent

    Don't you love it (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 09:30:41 PM EST
    when people mouth off to you having obviously never read a thing you've written?

    Parent
    then explain it, including a rebuttal to what you (1.00 / 1) (#166)
    by yourstruly on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:18:36 AM EST
    appear to be dodging here--- that the same number of votes are required to secure impeachment, as are needed to override a pres veto, that will surely be attached to ANY "defunding" bill.

    Republicans will be much more willing to support impeachment after the criminal Bush has been branded as such, than they ever will "defunding" in the absence of it.

    As I asserted in my initial post--- the idea that the repubs in large numbers will stand behind a pres whose criminality has been firmly established, is simply not as believable or probable, as the idea that they will do the opposite as they did with Nixon.  

    On the otherhand, finding enough of them to change course, and become a bunch of the same "cut and runners" they've labeled others as these many years now, is extremely unlikely without something to coerce them with.

    Where pray tell will that come from, and what form will it take?  Even with 70% of americans wanting us gone, the repubs still offer toothless solutions in defiance of the people, and obstruct those with teeth, no doubt at least in part, to avoid that "cut and runner" label.

    Parent

    NO votes (none / 0) (#167)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:29:37 AM EST
    are needed to NOT introduce and pass another emergency supplemental bill funding the Iraq occupation.

    It's not rocket science.

    Parent

    yours truly (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by TexDem on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 10:08:36 PM EST
    218 votes against funding = funding bill fails to pass. With no bill passed there is nothing to send to the Senate, therefore nothing is required of the Senate.

    Also nothing for the Chimp to veto.

    It does require a few profiles in courage and those do seem to be missing.

    And BTW BTD, why can't we pursue both non-funding/defunding and Impeachment on parallel tracks? I don't see them as being mutually exclusive. We don't want these "powers" to stand do we?

    Parent

    Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:04:39 PM EST
    First of all, it requires no genius to see whether you are talking impeachment or defunding the war, the same numbers game is in effect.

    It is a simple majority versus a supermajority.

    Is there a single one of you arguing this anti-impeachment nonsense, willing to step forward and say without reservation, that if the full depth and breadth of the criminality of this admin is revealed to the American public by vigorous and rigorous investigations, that they won't do as they did in the case of Nixon, and demand in even larger numbers, that impeachment take place?

    So how are you going to get your proof? In less than 16 months.
    Now is a very different mix than Nixon's.  It will have to go to the SC and that will not happen before the next election. Even if a miricle happens they will rule for the unitary executive 5-4.

    You obviously have a poor sense of time and no patience. What is your imaginary timeline for all this to happen. Is it practical when you think about it. No.

    Let them have the rope and they will be out in 16 months. We will have a huge majority because we took the high road.

    proof of what? (3.00 / 4) (#98)
    by yourstruly on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:15:10 PM EST
    his violations of FISA are well documented
    for starters.

    if you're one of those asking "crimes, what crimes?", please run along.

    "crimes" aren't needed for an impeachment anyway

    Parent

    Run Along? (3.66 / 3) (#106)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:29:51 PM EST
    Sure boss, or should I call you daddy or are you one of those.

    And when you get the chance to lay out the timeline get back to me pops.

    Are you working for the GOP?

    Parent

    what timeline? (3.00 / 2) (#129)
    by yourstruly on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 05:19:56 PM EST
    sorry, but your imitation of Ben Stiller is getting tiresome already

    take your dodgeball elsewhere, or answer the direct and simple questions asked.

    Parent

    Impeachment Timeline (none / 0) (#132)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 05:26:08 PM EST
    the "anti-impeachniks" rule here eh? (3.66 / 3) (#112)
    by yourstruly on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:41:43 PM EST
    Apparently one has control of the delete button, and really doesn't want to debate the merits of their balderdash.

    Hardly unsurprising, given the weakness of this pov.

    I am the one in control (none / 0) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:44:37 PM EST
    and I did not delete anything in this thread.

    I don't know what was deleted. Perhaps Jeralyn deleted on language grounds.

    We have a no profanity rule here.

    But I do not know. I did not see the offending comment.

    Parent

    my mistake and apology (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by yourstruly on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:49:01 PM EST
    It got blown WAY up the page in an explosion of posts evidently

    Parent
    No problem (none / 0) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:50:28 PM EST
    For the record, when I delete a comment, I tell you and why.

    Parent
    Rating will do that. (none / 0) (#123)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:51:01 PM EST
    Just change the settings (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by TexDem on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 10:12:10 PM EST
    to disregard ratings and that won't happen.

    Parent
    The default setting (none / 0) (#176)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:24:08 PM EST
    sorts comments by highest rating. It can be confusing if someone doesn't change it.

    Parent
    I think he just doesn't see his comments (none / 0) (#118)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:47:30 PM EST
    where they were because ratings have rearranged the thread. I don't think any were deleted.

    Parent
    Question about defunding precedents (none / 0) (#2)
    by robrecht on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 08:10:32 AM EST
    Can you explain more about how defunding was accomplished in Vietnam and why?

    If it was a bill that required and received Nixon's signature, that may be why many precedent conscious and unimaginative lawmakers and media think that it needs to be done that way this time.  

    What about other precedents for defunding?  

    I presume this been discussed previously so perhaps you could post a link to what you consider some of the better sources.

    Thanks.

    Precedents... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 08:53:37 AM EST
    The Democrats' real problem appears to be political rather than constitutional: They have convinced themselves that they cannot cut off funds without being accused of failing to keep faith with U.S. troops in Iraq.

    But this is a false dilemma. Congress can force Bush's hand without being vulnerable to the charge of stranding U.S. troops simply by setting a date beyond which no funds can be used for U.S. military presence in Iraq. As long as the date provides a reasonable time for those troops to be "redeployed" from Iraq, the burden falls on the executive branch to adjust its policy to the congressional requirement by taking them out of the war zone.

    In 1970 the McGovern-Hatfield amendment was introduced that "would have cut off all funding for any U.S. combat activities in Vietnam after December 31, 1971".

    Though it was defeated, it's importance lies in the fact that that had it passed no one at the time would have argued that it was an unconstitutional excercise of power by Congress.

    The Republican attack on the McGovern-Hatfield amendment and its sponsors was even more vicious than the Bush-Rove accusation of "cut and run" against the 2006 Democratic proposals for a timetable for withdrawal. But no one suggested during the debates that the amendment was unconstitutional, despite the fact that Congress had given blanket approval in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution to "all necessary steps, including the use of armed force" to assist South Vietnam.

    The fact that Congressional opponents of the war could not muster sufficient votes to pass those amendments has led some observers to conclude that such a legislative timetable for withdrawal should not be tried today. That view ignores the enormous differences between the situation faced by Congressional doves in 1970-72 and their present-day counterparts.

    The big difference between then and now is that there would be no problem passing a similar plan now, as shown by the ability of the Congress to pass the supplemental bill that was vetoed by Bush earlier this year.

    As far as I know, and I am not a Constitutional lawyer or scholar, McGovern-Hatfield is a historical precedent of the validity of Congress using spending power authority to set a date certain for withdrawal.

    Fuller discussion of it at TomPaine here.

    Parent

    Worth noting (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 06:13:16 PM EST
    Not a lawyer?  This guy is.  

       At this point in Bush's Presidency three things matter above all others. They motivate this final round of constitutional hardball: The first is keeping secret what the President and his advisers have done. The second is running out the clock to prevent any significant dismantling of his policies until his term ends. The third is doing whatever he can proactively to ensure that later governments do not hold him or his associates accountable for any acts of constitutional hardball or other illegalities practiced during his term in office.

        If the NSA program and the Torture Memos were examples of the second round of constitutional hardball, the Libby commutation and Harriet Meiers' refusal to testify before Congress are examples of the third round. Although his Presidency now seems to be a failure, Bush's third round of constitutional hardball may be every bit as important as the first two. That is because if Bush is never held accountable for what he did in office, future presidents will be greatly tempted to adopt features of his practices. If they temper his innovations and his excesses only slightly, they will still seem quite admirable and restrained in comparison to Bush. As a result, if Congress and the public do not decisively reject Bush's policies and practices, some particularly unsavory features of his Presidency will survive in future Administrations. If that happens, Bush's previous acts of constitutional hardball will have paid off after all. He may not have created a new and lasting constitutional regime, but he will have introduced long-lasting weaknesses and elements of decay into our constitutional system.

    --Jack Balkin, Balkinization



    Parent
    Tell that to Carl Levin (none / 0) (#48)
    by kovie on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 01:48:39 PM EST
    Who can't seem to stop telling everyone withing earshot about how he'll NEVER not "support the troops" by defunding the occupation. So long as he and other leading Dems continue to peddle this cowardly Rovian/Luntzian/Lieberesque crap, there will be no support for this approach in the senate, and Pelosi would have to do this by herself in the house, where she is sure to run into a lot of resistance from her caucus as well. So I'm guessing that this one is "off the table" as well.

    It's pretty clear to me that whatever approach congress ends up taking to end the occupation and/or check the administration on its other outrageous policies, it will require a fair amount of GOP support to give the weak-kneed members of the Dem caucus the political cover they seek to actually do anything that has teeth. That support does not exist yet, but I suspect that it will fairly soon as Repubs realize how much they imperil themselves by continuing to side with Bush.

    Which is why I support Reid and Pelosi's current approach of forcing Repubs to choose between Bush and political survival (and god bless Vitter, who just made the Repubs' position that much harder to sustain). They're going to break fairly soon, because the politics will require it. The signs are all over the map, however they just voted on the war. Graham can keep on hyperventilating about how Al Qaida ponies are going to swim across the Atlantic and kill us all in our sleep, but a lot of his fellow Repubs are going to break with that nonsense fairly soon.

    Which should finally give Levin & Co. all the political cover they need to actually do something to end the occupation. Assuming, of course, that the recent 97-0 Iran amendment isn't first used to justify an attack on it. What a shameful roll call.

    Parent

    Talk is cheap (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by TexDem on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 10:16:54 PM EST
    when they start voting against the Prez then I'll believe them, otherwise it's all just hot air coming from the GOP side.

    Parent
    Between Bush and political survival? (none / 0) (#145)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 06:26:19 PM EST
    Repubs who break with Bush and the GOP are getting primary challenges from the right.

    Parent
    Which they will either win, politically weakened (none / 0) (#146)
    by kovie on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 06:31:35 PM EST
    or lose, to someone even less likely to fend off a Dem challenger. Either way, it helps Dems pick up their seats. There are around 10 such seats up in '08 and we have a good chance of picking up at least half of them. E.g. Coleman, Smith, Collins, Sununu, Dole, Warner--if he retires, possibly Voinovich, maybe Alexander or McConnell. None of these can be considered "safe" for the GOP at this point.

    Parent
    Perhaps true (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 06:36:34 PM EST
    But it also goes to why there will not be a veto proof majority or enough votes for impeachment.

    Right now the dems can stop funding the occupation without the repubs. They cannot impeach or overcome vetoes without repubs.

    Parent

    Point well taken (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by kovie on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:51:14 AM EST
    But several things to consider.

    First, many of these primary challenges are probably intended more to keep the incumbent in line than to be serious challenges. I seriously doubt that Collins, Warner (if he runs), Voinovich or McConnell are going to face a serious primary challenge. Rove just doesn't have the kind of clout that he used to have to be able to round of serious challengers--the support and money just aren't there anymore.

    Second, many of these incumbents are in the more "moderate" wing of their party (which, of course, is a very relative thing in today's GOP) who cannot get reelected with only the support of the GOP base and just enough independants and swing voters, and would need a significant percentage of the latter to have a chance at getting reelected. And the latter would likely view a vote against impeachment negatively. So they're going to have to think long and hard whose support they need more--the base in the primary, or the center in the general. Tough choice there.

    And third, if impeachment ever happens, it'll almost certainly happen after the primaries, at which point many of these endangered Repubs will be freer to vote against Bush. Not saying that they will, but it will be politically easier--and probably wiser. But wisdom isn't exactly the GOP's strong suit these days.

    Impeachment shouldn't be fundamentally driven by such political considerations, but rather by how solid a case Dems can make for it. Well, both should of course be considered, but the legal one should prevail over the political. We're not Repubs, after all.

    In the end, though, I have a hard time seeing 18 Repubs voting to convict (assuming all 49 Dems + Sanders vote to convict). 8, 10, even 12, maybe, but I doubt 18. So even if Dems build a solid enough case, they will still have to ask themselves if they can get those 18, and if not, if it still makes sense, both constitutionally and politically, to go ahead with it.

    Parent

    I would think that (none / 0) (#164)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:05:55 AM EST
    these primary challenges are probably more intended to serve as warning to any other republican contemplating breaking with Bush.

    It would be the first time they've blackmailed their own party members to keep them in line.

    In February 2006 Karl Rove threatened to blacklist Judiciary Committee Senators if they opposed Bush on NSA warrantless surveillance.

    Parent

    It's not blackmail, per se (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by kovie on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:54:09 PM EST
    and of course it "wouldn't" ;-) be the first time they've done this. But in the end it would just put Repub incumbents in an even harder position. Go against Bush and you could lose the base and nomination. Side with Bush and you WILL lose the center and likely the election. What an awful (for them, not us) place to be.

    Either way, Dems have to keep applying increasing pressure that forces these Repubs to make such tough, really impossible decisions. It most likely still won't be enough to convict, but it would put these Repubs in an awfully tough place.

    Parent

    errr... ::wouldn't be::: (none / 0) (#165)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:08:05 AM EST
    More precedents and info (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 09:17:45 AM EST
    Senator Russ Feingold, Fact Sheet

    On numerous occasions, Congress has exercised its constitutional authority to limit the President's ability to escalate existing military engagements. Here are just a few examples:

    • Cambodia - In late December 1970, Congress passes the Supplemental Foreign Assistance Appropriations Act prohibiting the use of funds to finance the introduction of United States ground combat troops into Cambodia or to provide U.S. advisors to or for Cambodian military forces in Cambodia.

    • Vietnam - In late June 1973, Congress passes the second Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY1973. This legislation contains language cutting off funds for combat activities in Vietnam after August 15, 1973.

    • Somalia - In November 1993, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act includes a provision that prohibits funding after March 31, 1994 for military operations in Somalia, except for a limited number of military personnel to protect American diplomatic personnel and American citizens, unless further authorized by Congress.
    • Bosnia - In 1998, Congress passes the Defense Authorization Bill, with a provision that prohibits funding for Bosnia after June 30, 1998, unless the President makes certain assurances.


    Parent
    Thank you, Edger (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by robrecht on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 11:36:40 AM EST
    I agree that Vietnam is not a good comparison, which is why I'm interested the other precedents.  Has anyone looked into these (and others) in more detail?

    Parent
    Yes. They worked. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 11:56:39 AM EST
    in viet-nam. . . (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by the rainnn on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:12:23 PM EST
    the de-funding was pursuant to a
    vote of congress -- the president
    vetoed -- but a vote was what mattered.

    as i've written above, i think we need
    a vote to insulate the effort from some
    of the more obvious potential counter-
    punches, out of kkkarl rove's shop. . .

    Parent

    What BTD's proposal (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:22:24 PM EST
    consists of is setting a hard date certain by which the withdrawal is to be completed (e.g. March 2008) AND INCLUDES a commitment by Congress to fund, with the LAST supplemental (which requires a vote and will pass, as have previous supplementals), up to that date and not beyond, while AT THE SAME TIME telling Bush he has until that date to complete withdrawal. Thus handing the ball to him, and putting the responsibility for the safety of the troops on him.

    The last supplemental passed would have no conditions attached to it. A concurrent announcement would be made that it IS the last. Bush cannot veto it without putting himself on the political  defensive. If he does veto it, it will be obvious to all that he is playing politics with the lives of the troops and vetoing it ONLY because he has been told it is the last one, and he will be putting the troops at risk.

    Parent

    Bush leaving the troops in Iraq (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:27:45 PM EST
    after the last supplemental expired would  become, as far as I know, an impeachable high crime.

    Parent
    Edger (none / 0) (#27)
    by robrecht on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:14:38 PM EST
    I'm a little over my head here so forgive me if this is impertient or inaccurate, but didn't all of these measures work becuase they were signed by the President at the time?

    Parent
    That's irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:21:10 PM EST
    no funding, no program. If that weren't the case, then why would W even go through the charade of asking for a supplemental?

    Parent
    Why irrelevant? (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by robrecht on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:29:57 PM EST
    I support responsible defunding as proposed by BTD and many others here and elsewhere.

    But I don't think the question about comparable precedents is irrelevant.  If there are none, then we know that we are supporting something unprecedented.  If there are, then the job should be much easier from a legal and political perspective.

    Parent

    That's the whole point. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:24:36 PM EST
    See here, and see andgardens reply to you.

    Parent
    See my response to andgarden ... (3.00 / 2) (#46)
    by robrecht on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 01:45:43 PM EST
    ... if you want to understand my point here.

    Parent
    i was wondering when this post would appear (none / 0) (#15)
    by conchita on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 11:04:55 AM EST
    fein's words brought btd to mind immediately.  

    imho, i don't see the two as mutually exclusive.  why not pursue both strategies to stopping the war and curtailing the executive branch abuses of power?  i am all for using the power of the purse but i don't see support behind it at this stage.  the repugs have used the corporate press to defeat it with the "can't abandon the troops" meme and they seem to have succeeded.  i'm ready to try plan b - impeachment.  i agree with fein about prededent and i think it is critical that congress take action/s.  

    i also think the american public needs impeachment - we need to again feel involved in our government and in that process become empowered again as citizens.  if impeachment does not succeed in removing bush/cheney from office, i believe it will have been worth undertaking because making it a topic of national discourse will awaken this country and conducting the process of investigations will educate those who do not follow events as closely as we do.  it seems to me that actually undertaking impeachment will capture the attention of the american public in a way that the u.s. attorney investigations and refused subpoenas has not (yet).  and no, i am not being so frivolous as to suggest we use impeachment as a "marketing tool".  and i do recognize that we cannot naively expect the media to do their jobs and not buy into the partisan witchhunt meme.  but i do not think this, nor the possibility that we will not convict, is sufficient reason not to undertake impeachment proceedings.  i also disagree with those who say that impeachment will distract from more important things like ending the occupation and forestalling a war with iran.  it is not identical, but it is similar reasoning to the impeachment will distract from the primaries argument.  i believe you do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, and i believe this congress has an obligation to impeach an executive that considers itself above the law and has clearly committed high crimes and misdemeanors.  it all goes to precedent.  as fein said, we do not want any president to have the powers that this administration has taken on with the help of a complicit legislative branch.  congress has no choice - it must impeach.

    I'd love to see impeachment too (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 11:15:47 AM EST
    if I thought it had a chance of having any practical effect. But not only would there not be enough votes for it in Congress for to have any teeth, it would also probably take longer than Bush and Cheney will be in office for the House to pass a bill of impeachment that would not result in a Senate trial and therefore would impose no consequences.

    I'm afraid I don't understand what point anyone sees in taking the time to do that.

    Parent

    I don't care if it fails (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:25:17 PM EST
    (well, yes I do - but that's another topic)

    The action needs to be taken because it's the right thing to do.  Not taking it implies consent.  Taking it and failing shows the other side for who they are.  At least we can drag them out into the open.

    Parent

    There are Other (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:41:55 PM EST
    Things that are the right thing to do, like shooting a horse that has hurt its leg. The question is whether or not you are up to the task.

    Take it further baba durag to something that will really work.
    If you want to do the right thing in this case you will be looking at a life prison sentence or a death sentence.

    My guess is that you will not make any personal sacrifices to do the right thing that will actualy work in this case, nor have you calculated the potential disaster for the rest of us that is sure to happen if we start an impeachment process.

    I don't blame you for taking the only effective method off the table for removing the president. I do blame you for putting something on the table that can change America into a theocracy and is guaranteed to fail.

    Losing 08 is not worth cutting off your nose for.

    Parent

    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:11:51 PM EST
    But this is really offensive behavior.

    I will, and have done, make personal sacrifices to do the right thing.  I have done the calculations.  I'm not taking any effective methods off the table (I'm advocating using one you want to take off).  I've put nothing on the table that can change America into a theocracy, nor is "guaranteed" to fail.

    All that is your opinion, from your imagination.

    Smearing me for not agreeing with you is in the worst traditions.

    Parent

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#127)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 05:09:55 PM EST
    You missed my point. There is only one option to remove the president and that is not something I would ever advocate for. I do not believe in violent solutions.

    Parent
    Impeachment is about removal from office (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:18:49 PM EST
    It's only the first step.  THEN you prosecute for crimes and put 'em in jail.  Gotta impeach first to do that though.

    Parent
    This makes no sense (3.00 / 2) (#80)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:49:34 PM EST
    Defunding to end the war.

    Impeachment to defend the constitution.

    If we haven't the courage to face down the enemies of our central tenets as a country then the wingnuts have already defeated you.

    Parent

    Really? (3.00 / 4) (#85)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:55:17 PM EST
    Well if the sure to fail impeachment gets underway, you have sold your birthright for an empty bowl.

    Not too smart, but principal up the wazoo, although your shortsightedness outweighs your principal in this case.

    Anyone that says that our strength will improve after a failed impeachment attempt is working for Karl Rove.

    Parent

    You would carry more weight (1.00 / 1) (#86)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:56:59 PM EST
    If you kept the personal slurs out of your argument.

    Were you around during Nixon's impeachment efforts?

    Parent

    There were the votes for Nixon's impeachment. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:04:04 PM EST
    That is why he resigned.

    There are not and will not be the votes for Bush's impeachment.

    Parent

    In the end there were (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:05:32 PM EST
    But it was a slog to get there.  It will be now too.

    Parent
    Never get there. (none / 0) (#104)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:21:22 PM EST
    The senate will not remove him. There would be no senate trial even if the House passed an impeachment bill.

    If the votes in the senate were there we'd have a veto proof majority, the occupation would be over by now, and the impeachment process would be so well advanced that Bush and Cheney would probably have both resigned by now.

    It's not rocket science.

    Parent

    You assume much (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:27:36 PM EST
    Lots of fence sitters in there.  During a trial many new voices from home would be heard by the Senators.  It's a situation in flux, and people will respond in ways that we don't know now.

    Taking risk is the essence of leadership.

    Parent

    Have You Noticed (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:37:16 PM EST
    Any defections yet? So you think that the Republicans do not know what Bush and the GOP have accomplished toward their dream of permanant Republican control?
    During a trial many new voices from home would be heard by the Senators
    . Just like they did with Delay, Abramof et al.

    No one here would argue that these guys are criminals. The thing that is surprising is that you think that they have some principal and are not all connected like the Aspens.

    That they will ever do the right thing unless they are faced with the certainty of a jail cell is laughable.

    Parent

    DeLay, Abramoff, et all are gone, aren't they (3.00 / 2) (#111)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:41:22 PM EST
    And a Republican prosecutor took down Libby.

    Parent
    Edger (1.00 / 1) (#121)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:50:16 PM EST
    You're behaving like an ass.  Grow up.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#119)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:47:37 PM EST
    But the GOP defended them tooth and nail and none moved out of lockstep. Fitzgerald is an independend, apolitical if you ask me, a true lawman.

    Parent
    Fitzgerald (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:56:02 PM EST
    is a registered Republican.  There are more like him across the aisle.  They only need to see that they won't be destroyed if they move against the P/VP.

    Parent
    Taking risk is the essence of leadership. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:33:41 PM EST
    Yep. Stop funding the occupation. Stop the dying.

    Then worry about trying to get enough votes for an impeachment process that will still take longer than Cheney and Bush's remaining time in office.

    But forget about ever getting the Blue Dogs and the Republican Senators to go for impeachment. Won't happen as long as the occupation continues.

    Parent

    Heard it (3.00 / 2) (#109)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:37:48 PM EST
    How about displaying some leadership and doing the right thing on the ratings.  Disagreement is fine, ratings abuse isn't.

    Parent
    I guess you're not the stand up guy you pretend (1.00 / 1) (#113)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:43:49 PM EST
    This is false (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 05:58:15 PM EST
    Impeachment never came up in the end.  Republicans convinced him to leave for the good of their party.  Just exactly what can happen here.  Because Bush is killing their party right now.

    Parent
    No Slurs Intended (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:08:49 PM EST
    Should read [Impeachment is] not too smart, but principal up the wazoo, although your shortsightedness outweighs your principal in this case.

    I do think you are shortsighted on this though.

    Parent

    I'm looking long (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:13:51 PM EST
    The Constitution needs defending.  For the long term.

    Parent
    How Long? (none / 0) (#117)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:45:57 PM EST
    In 16 months we will regain control at this rate if we continue with oversight.  Don't you think that that election is the most crucial one we have had for decades. The GOP can taste a win which essentially allow them to rewrite the constitution.

    Two SC seats will be available.

    Parent

    Congress' approval is dropping (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:53:01 PM EST
    Because they aren't standing against this administration.  So will avoiding this confrontation hurt or help?

    I know what your opinion is, but I'm not sure you're right.

    Parent

    Yes, well.... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:38:46 PM EST
    Defunding and ending the occupation needs to be taken because it's the right thing to do.  Not taking it implies consent.

    People are dying there.

    Parent

    No argument here (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:47:00 PM EST
    Impeachment needs to be undertaken too is all I'm saying.

    Parent
    I'm with you. (none / 0) (#79)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:48:23 PM EST
    AFTER the occupation is ended.

    Parent
    Edger (none / 0) (#100)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:16:03 PM EST
    I'm not sure what all the troll rating is about, but I don't see anything in what I've said that warrants it.  Perhaps you misunderstood my meaning?

    Parent
    It's just complete disagreement. (1.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:17:16 PM EST
    Then disagree (3.00 / 2) (#103)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:21:06 PM EST
    That doesn't make me a troll.

    And do you really disagree?  I'm advocating ending the war by defunding, and defending the Constitution against future power grabbers.

    Parent

    Sorry (1.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:39:37 PM EST
    I'm not here to submit to you my methods of disagreement with your comments for you editorial approval.

    Nor do I have any patience with you putting words in  my mouth. Your last comment is a troll post.

    Parent

    Wrong (1.00 / 1) (#115)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:45:34 PM EST
    You're judgement is poor.

    Parent
    Childish, Edger (1.00 / 1) (#126)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:59:39 PM EST
    Beneath contempt.

    Parent
    Thank you for demonstrating (1.00 / 1) (#128)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 05:18:13 PM EST
    No one put words in your mouth (1.00 / 1) (#138)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 05:56:14 PM EST
    You're a little thin skinned today, Edger.

    Parent
    Endless fun (1.00 / 1) (#144)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 06:23:54 PM EST
    tweaking you

    Parent
    Hilarious. (none / 0) (#149)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 06:49:19 PM EST
    Considering you're doing all the work, admitting you're a troll at the same time. Keep up the good work.

    Parent
    You're so cuuute (1.00 / 1) (#161)
    by baba durag on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:18:29 AM EST
    when you're self-righteous.

    Parent
    It's the investigations leading up to (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by TexDem on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 10:22:18 PM EST
    Impeachment that count. With the investigations comes ammo that may support the withdrawal/defunding position.

    Parent
    Too Weak (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 11:21:58 AM EST
    Conchita-
    congress has no choice - it must impeach.

    Because there is no possibility in succeding and the attempt will substantially weaken the Dem's chance of winning in 08. Think of the timing. The supreme court will have to be involved because the WH is not going to give up any evidence. By that time elections will have come and gone, the press all the time smashing the dems for wasting time and money during wartime on a vicdictive fools errand. Americans do not like impotent wasteful gestures. The press and the GOP will have a field day.

    Yes all of us would love to see this administration behind bars but you need enough senators to accomplish that.

    If the senate cannot even accomplish defunding a war that 70+% of Americans are against how are they going to impeach a president. It will blow up in our faces like an exploding cigar. It is so potentially damaging for us that it could be right out of Rove's playbook.

    Parent

    just wondering (none / 0) (#34)
    by conchita on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:36:24 PM EST
    squeaky, in reading this, i find myself wondering if you watched the show?  i am in the middle of cooking so can't fully respond at this moment, but will later.

    Parent
    No I Haven't (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:37:33 PM EST
    But on your recommendation I will.

    Parent
    OK I Saw (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:32:25 PM EST
    Most of it. Moyers mentioned once that the blowback would be terrible. It did not sink in. These guys are talking out of their butts as if the impeachment process is not politics pure and simple but some kind of American ideal that has no consequences.

    They talked about a Democratic controlled congress, totally avoiding the math.

    From my point of view Fein and Nichols may as well be Republican operatives.

    Parent

    and what of the consequences of doing nothing? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by conchita on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:08:01 PM EST
    i agree with sumner, we have reached a critical point.  i believe impeachment is and should be imminent.  it has surprised even me how much support there is for it out there.  i have received action email from nearly every progressive group but pfaw urging impeachment.  barbara boxer spoke out on wednesday saying it should be on the table.  it is just a matter of time before it is.  i just hope the dems are thinking strategically.

    Parent
    On the Table or Not (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:17:19 PM EST
    The actuality of carrying out an impeachment procedure is foolish.  We do not have the time nor the votes. BTD has pointed out that we are 17 votes shy for a supermajority, and that those votes are republican. I doubt that all the Democrats will vote in favor. My guess is that we are 20 or more votes shy.

    Following through blindly, emotionally, without thinking hard about how impeachment will play out is not going to help us in 15 months. Two more wingnut christianists on the SC will be the end of America as we know it. The entire constitution will get a rewrite.

    It is not worth impeaching unless their removal is a certainty.

    Parent

    It looked that way when we went after Nixon too (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:52:45 PM EST
    It was a nail biter at the time.

    You can't predict how things will unfold.  You have to make the effort because it's right.  People will follow genuine leadership.

    Parent

    Nail Biter (none / 0) (#131)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 05:21:41 PM EST
    The 92nd congress had 55 dems and 44 Repugs, 1 independent and 1 Conservative.
    They also had the press and the tapes (minus a few minutes).

    The mix is very different now. Our majority in the senate is quite tenuous if that.

    Do you think that Americans care about being spied on (FISA) during a period where the press is silent and supporting a war? Take a look at the poll results.

    9/11 changed things.

    Parent

    20 or more votes shy? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:22:04 PM EST
    There are 44 Blue Dogs.

    Parent
    OK (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:29:57 PM EST
    How's this:

    20 or more votes shy of a supermajority.

    Parent

    squeaky, have to say i am surprised by the (none / 0) (#159)
    by conchita on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 12:28:00 AM EST
    intensity of your anti-impeachment perspective.  however, it might explain why talex did not bother you as much as he did others.  he has the same vote fixation issue and his arguments against impeachment are in line with yours.  from a comment on a dkos diary about the moyer's show the other night:

    ...they never answered what if we impeach and do not convict. That's a very important question.

    IMO a no conviction practically validates what Bush and Cheney are doing. And do we want to have validation as our end result?

    The second question that they did touch on a bit was what happens politically if there is blow-back on the Dems for a failed impeachment? Their answer to that implicit question was that the Dems should not worry about that. Really?

    I wished that Moyers would have asked them if the Dems lost in '08 as a result of a failed impeachment would 8 more years of Repubs ripping our country apart with polices that were for all intents and purposes just validated in a failed impeachment be worth it?

    The answer to that has to be a big NO. Our country cannot stand 8 more years of Iraq, of Iran, of no health care, of lost jobs, of global warming, etc.

     

    he was more appreciative of the show though and he didn't think nichols was a gop operative.  honestly, i really am very surprised that you and others see only a potentail downside to impeachment.  i remain convinced that it could serve to galvinize the country.  what happens next with the subpoenas will be very telling.

    Parent

    Sounds like they are from their biographies. (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:37:41 PM EST
    Yes, that's funny (none / 0) (#64)
    by robrecht on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:51:26 PM EST
    I appreciated much of what Fein, an ivory tower Republican, had to say but hated his remark that Bush's crimes were (only) a little bit more worrisome than those of Clinton.

    Parent
    The Numbers (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    May be even worse than we think. Bill Nelson just parted company from his dem colleagues in the Senate Appropriations Committee vote to
    "to strike language in the Financial Services Appropriations bill that would have barred funding for [Vice President Dick] Cheney's office until he complies with an executive order Democrats argue compels him to provide information on classified data."

    If we can't count on him to vote against 13%er shoot em in the face Deadeye, do you think we can count on him to vote on impeaching the Chimp?

    THat is a deficit of 18 votes and there may be more dems that join the repugs against impeachment.

    With oversight going full tilt, and the exec giving the finger to Congress, we are sure to garner overwhelming support for the 08 elections. The public does not like it when the WH does not play fair and will view the stonewalling as an admission of wrongdoing. No one wants a King.

    Why f*ck it up now with the empty gesture of impeachment?
    We are on a roll.

    Parent

    this argument reminds me of the (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by conchita on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 01:13:56 PM EST
    politics vs principle argument that grew out of the supplemental appropriations vote.  for me it is a matter of principle not politics, or better it is time for principle and politics to work hand in hand.  what will inspire people to vote for more dems who will not stand up for them?  if we do not put pressure on the dems currently in office to stand up for us and the constitution then we will just end up a larger group of moderates or worse.  

    nelson, landrieu, and pryor can almost be counted on to vote conservatively.  it was a nice surprise to see them vote in line with the dems more recently.  for me this is not about the votes.  it is about doing what is right for this country and not being driven by elections.  if john kerry had stood up for himself in 2004 i believe that it would have been harder for the repugs to game the election without being caught.  i am tired of people playing it safe in order to be elected or to avoid the corporate media.  either we stand up for ourselves or we acquiesce to the status quo.  like a battered wife, we say well he didn't hit me that hard this time and have hope that the beatings will stop.  i can't go along with this just to get people elected who become beholden to interests other than good governance.

    Parent

    Ben Nelson defected (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:55:47 PM EST
    Not Bill Nelson.

    think progress

    Parent

    Because Impeachment w/o Removal = worse (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:20:24 PM EST
    Impeachment without removal sets a precedent that the Bush Cheney abuses of power are not an impeachable offenses.

    Congress has lots of arrows, if it cares to use them and if they can walk and chew gum at the same time.

    What you want is exposure of the abuse of power and investigative hearings will accomplish that and perhaps turn up a smoking gun. If a smoking gun turns up you might get enough votes for removal and impeachment proceedings might start. If not, its worse than a mere waste of time, it sets the wrong precedent as did Ford's pardon.  Use the power of the purse, investigate until you back them into a corner first.

    And during investigative hearings, don't let Senators (Biden, Kennedy et al) who haven't prosecuted a case in 20 years make speeches. Hire competent counsel for the investigatons. In the mean time use the power of the purse.  

     

    Parent

    not so sure about this (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by conchita on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:47:15 PM EST
    i am concerned that if we do not impeach it too sets precedent by implicitly allowing it.  i strongly believe that if the process is begun it will build momentum and create a megaphone effect and galvinize the country.  if we just sit back and wait for the next election and continue to engage in the skirmishes it will sustain a context of normalcy to the power grab.  like our that quaint document the constitution, our civil rights will become a thing we remember from the past.  we are at a pivotal moment in history and i don't see any way out of it.

    about "Impeachment without removal sets a precedent that the Bush Cheney abuses of power are not an impeachable offenses" - does this mean that because clinton was not removed from office that it is okay to lie under oath?  the constitution is clear about what is impeachable.  i am not a lawyer but i don't see not succeeding as changing the constitution.  i also find it interesting that fein did not raise this as a concern.


    Parent

    look several moves ahead... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Sumner on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 01:32:15 PM EST
    Bush will keep on committing further outrages. That is what he does. He will continue to pour gasoline upon the fire. Better to be preparing for it now.

    Parent
    He will. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 01:36:21 PM EST
    All of which will be to continue his hegemony in the Middle East. All of which will be stopped dead in their tracks by Congress (the Democrats) stopping funding for the Iraq occupation.

    Parent
    DO BOTH! (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:54:27 PM EST
    Defund to stop the war.

    Impeach to defend the Constitution.

    Both need to be done.

    Parent

    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\caution\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (none / 0) (#47)
    by Sumner on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 01:48:11 PM EST
    he's got nukes.

    Parent
    What is your point? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:25:52 PM EST
    der kriegspiel (none / 0) (#60)
    by Sumner on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:43:07 PM EST
    Reagan found a way to fund his adventures. Bush can deliver a strike[s] without our troops. Such use would plunge the world into dire chaos and make the upcoming elections improbable.

    But maybe that stuff about his megalomania is only name-calling. Perhaps he is truly bush-league. Then not to worry.

    Parent

    Pretty hard to pump oil (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:46:45 PM EST
    out of a radioactive desert, I think,

    Parent
    sorta like... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Sumner on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:02:57 PM EST
    our depleted uranium use there now or "The Hills Have Eyes"

    Parent
    It think we're getting into fantasyland here. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:26:47 PM EST
    Let's go back to your asserion that: "Bush can deliver a strike[s] without our troops."

    If so, they aren't needed there. No point in leaving them there to die for nothing. Stop funding the occupation that is keeping them there and bring them home.

    Parent

    wrong genre (none / 0) (#81)
    by Sumner on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:51:40 PM EST
    not unlike like squeaky's allusion to wild geese, where perhaps a better metaphor is plague

    not fantasy, but rather, one should imagine horror

    Edger, you are among the smartest here. Maybe the defunding thing will work out

    Parent

    I hope so. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:12:22 PM EST
    But it will only work if enough people push the Democrats hard enough.

    I use to howl for impeachment, until I realized that
    1) there are not the votes for it,
    2) it would take longer than Cheney and Bush's remaining time in office,
    3) it would have no practical effect since the Senate would not remove them,
    and 4) it would be a distraction taking time and energy away from pushing the Democrats to end the occupation.

    This is how I see the situation now:

    If the Democrats will stand up NOW and announce that they will no longer fund the occupation and that there will be no more emergency supplementals introduced when the current one runs out [or after an agreed upon date certain - e.g March 2008], the situation will become one of NO votes needed to NOT pass a bill.

    Now that doesn't answer the question of why or whether the Dems will ever drum up the guts to actually do it, of course.

    WHY wouldn't they do it?

    The never will if they are not pushed hard to do it. By people who are themselves truly supportive of ending the occupation, not just making nice noises to bamboozle people for political gain.

    And if the Dems are not pushed to do it... if people shrug off the mounting death tolls and don't push them... if the Dems are confident that they will have your vote next year regardless... they have no reason to end the occupation.

    Anyone who says they want the occupation ended but will not push the dems to do it, anyone who stands with their finger in the wind waiting for the politically guaranteed opportunity to come along, in my opinion doesn't really give a damn whether it ends or not. They just want to win elections, regardless of the cost in lives.

    They are counting on getting your vote by default, beacause they know that people are afraid that if they DON'T vote Democratic EVEN if the Democrats will not end the occupation the will end up with the rethugs back in power.

    Remember all the fearmongering that Bushco did? The Democrats are now using it against you.

    BUT, if they are elected next year in spite of that fact that they continue the occupation... WHAT DIFFERENCE is there between them and the rethugs?

    What difference? NONE. It won't be any different from electing rethugs.

    In other words by electing the Democrats next year out of fear of the rethugs, even if the Democrats won't end the occupation, EFFECTIVELY the country will have re-elected rethugs (called democrats).

    Cheerful prospect, hmmm?

    Think it through. Don't vote out of fear. You have the power and the dems know you have the power. So they fearmonger.

    The only hope you reading this have, the only hope any of us have, is to threaten the Democrats with loss of support if they will not use the power they have to stop funding the Iraq occupation and force a withdrawal.

    It's the only way to change the paradigm.


    Parent

    to be sure (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Sumner on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:45:52 PM EST
    The signal-to-noise ratio coming from the M$M is no real metric, but the energy signature measured in the blogs about these issues betrays a firestorm of indignation over machinations within this government.

    Another obstacle to tackle with impeachment remains that "Article I, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that the Chief Justice shall preside over impeachment trials of the President".

    That is the reason for my earlier characterization of issues dealing with the pending Harriet Miers' tight-lipped testimony.


    Parent

    Did you see John Deans article re that? (none / 0) (#130)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 05:21:04 PM EST
    yes (none / 0) (#134)
    by Sumner on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 05:35:28 PM EST
    I left a link here, if anyone is interested

    Parent
    Oh, right. (none / 0) (#135)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 05:37:33 PM EST
    I thought that was where you got that quote from.

    Parent
    "doesn't really give a damn" (none / 0) (#99)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:15:37 PM EST
    is something I mean only rhetorically, not in a real sense of not caring for the lives of the troops. Except in the case of wingnut Bush supporters,  neocons, and warmongers.

    Parent
    If impeachment occurs organically ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:50:54 PM EST
    ... then why argue for it? It will occur organically.

    Wouldn't the advocacy (none / 0) (#68)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:10:11 PM EST
    be part of the organic process?

    Parent
    Quick question because I've searched but (none / 0) (#74)
    by bronte17 on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:30:54 PM EST
    cannot find anything over at dkos... have you written on John Yoo and Douglas Feith and their path toward institutionalizing unlimited presidential power?  I know you have.

    Yoo:

    "In the exercise of his plenary power to use military force, the President's decisions are for him alone and are unreviewable."

    You know what they have done. And, I don't believe that this country has even begun to see the consequences of the foundations laid down for the imperial presidency.

    I am an impeachnik. But, I want to wrap my mind around your approach and try to understand where you are going with this and how to use it.

    And I am not advocating what you say here:

    ...in order to feel pure and superior, some impeachment advocates will ostensibly argue against other means of checking the Executive. It is very hard to see how this is anything but a vanity game at this point....

    Fein is pretentious and these words make me roll my eyes:

    ...if......the president and the vice-president sat back and said, "We understand now. We both understand. We renounce this claim. No military commissions. We're going to comply with the law," the impeachment proceedings ought to stop and they should. It's not trying to be punitive and recriminate against the officials but you've got to get it right. And it's that what I hope would happen.

    Gawd, as if.

    I want criminal charges brought against this administration.  It is imperative that this administration's violations not be rewarded nor permitted to taint the office of the presidency.  

    This isn't a blow job.  Too many in this administration did lie under oath, amongst other things, and the issues pertaining to those lies are of a magnitude far greater than the blue dress and its stain.

    Only 16 More Months (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:48:23 PM EST
    And they are out. The evil deeds will be put on the record by Waxman et al. The Republicans will have such a taint on them that not only will they lose the presidential election but we will have a strong majority in both houses. We will also be able to regain balance in the SC.

    Patience.

    Parent

    How much taint do we see (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by baba durag on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:01:36 PM EST
    from Iran-Contra?  Not impeaching over that enabled all the bad players to come back and occupy high offices in the executive with nary a peep from anyone.

    You gotta put 'em on display.  Only a trial will do that.

    (And, Clinton was aquitted on his impeachment, but got quite a taint anyway.  That's what made Bush even possible.)

    Parent

    Sigh... the only way out of Iraq (none / 0) (#155)
    by bronte17 on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 11:53:19 PM EST
    is through impeachment.

    You will see.

    Parent

    Foolish. (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 12:04:28 AM EST
    Without possibility of removal impeachment will hand Bush more power than he has now, castrate Congress, and backfire catastrophically on the Democrats.

    Parent
    Listen very carefully, this administration (none / 0) (#170)
    by bronte17 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:02:53 PM EST
    has a mile-wide path of obfuscation and usurpation of power.  With all due respect, your words are resorting to the similar FEAR tactics used by this administration.  The broken branch of Congress cannot sweep this under the rug. Or, if they do, they do so at the peril of our system of governance.

    One very VERY small example from one reading early this morning:

    While "original classifications" declined by 10%, "derivative classifications" increased by 45%. As a result, total classification activity grew from 14.2 million classification actions in 2005 to 20.5 million classification actions in 2006.

    Meanwhile, the financial costs of protecting classified information in government and industry grew to a new record high of $9.5 billion in
    2006.

    Significantly, ISOO reviewers reported a "high error rate" in the documents that they examined for compliance with classification procedures.

    The finding underscores the need for additional oversight.

    "ISOO found a high percentage of documents with an unknown basis for classification, as these documents failed to indicate the authority or basis for classification, thereby calling into question the propriety of their classification."

    A copy of the 2006 Information Security Oversight Office Report to the President is here. [NOTE: pdf file]

    Once again, the Office of the Vice President declined to cooperate with ISOO last year and to provide data on its classification and declassification activity. It last reported to ISOO in 2002.


    Parent
    No argument with any of that. (none / 0) (#172)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:13:45 PM EST
    Listen very carefully. And drop the condescension.

    It's irrelevant to the political situation.

    Without possibility of removal impeachment will hand Bush more power than he has now, castrate Congress, and backfire catastrophically on the Democrats.

    It would simply look like a pointless partisan witchhunt.

    Parent

    You presume the American people are (none / 0) (#173)
    by bronte17 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:30:41 PM EST
    happy with this occupation and that they would not become very agitated when proceedings and information began to spill forth on the incriminating evidence of wrongdoing by this administration.

    You presume "defunding" will actually pull the US out of Iraq and out of those bases.

    BTW, sorry if that sounded condescending.  Didn't intend for it to sound like that.

    Parent

    No. (none / 0) (#174)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:38:36 PM EST
    You presume to know what I presume. The vast majority of very UNhappy with the occupation.

    Didn't intend for it to sound like that. That's ok - I read my own comments and find them unintentionally sounding condescending sometimes too. And sometimes they are intentionally condescending - to the wingnuts. But they deserve it. ;-)


    Parent

    I've written on Yoo (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:04:01 PM EST
    too many times to count.

    Mostly at daily kos.

    Parent

    Yes, many times. But I cannot find (none / 0) (#158)
    by bronte17 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 12:20:00 AM EST
    what I want to find.  It's like looking through a haystack.  You are a prolific writer.

    I'm particularly looking at Yoo's fascination with presidential "plenary power to use military force."

    Parent

    Is It (none / 0) (#160)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 12:50:19 AM EST
    Somewhere here?

    Parent
    LOL Hey! You googled that (none / 0) (#171)
    by bronte17 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:05:45 PM EST
    instead of using the dkos search engine.

    Thank you very much for that link.  I appreciate it.

    Parent

    Yes (4.00 / 1) (#175)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:06:43 PM EST
    My experience with searching dkos, this blog and others is that it gets me nowhere slow.

    Either a regular google search or google blog search type in site:dkos or site:talkleft plus your keywords and viola!

    Here are a whole bunch of google search tips via robot wisdom


    Parent

    As long as we're quoting (none / 0) (#136)
    by mattd on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 05:45:25 PM EST
    Kagro X, this week on Daily Kos:

    …I wanted to take a moment to remind you of this:

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the Democratic-controlled U.S. Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war and suggested President George W. Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.

    I've shown it to you before, but let me highlight that again:

    President George W. Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.

    Not just veto. Defy.

    Now, what call did the "administration" have in February to use that kind of language? Veto? Sure. But defy? Really?

    Let's be honest. In all likelihood, most Washington players probably didn't take notice of that language, or didn't give it any real credence if they did. After all, that's insane, right? To just defy legislation?

    But what do you think the Washington Wise Men would have told you about the prospects of pardoning Scooter Libby? What do you think they would have told you about the prospects of the "administration" defying Congressional subpoenas?

    "That'd be crazy," they'd have said, right? "No president would risk that kind of affront to Congress and the American people."

    And yet, here we are.

    So here's a question: Now that we have been told the president is willing to trample the Constitution and defy legislation that pro-actively withdraws troops from Iraq, what theoretical hurdle stands in the way of his trampling it and defying even passive defunding?

    Again, BTD, I have no doubts that your theory is right - defunding should stop the war.  I just wish I had your faith that it will.



    Umm (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 06:16:54 PM EST
    When Condi Rice can print money, that quote will have relevance.

    Parent
    You quote KargoX approvingly (none / 0) (#137)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 05:48:49 PM EST
    and assail BTD for having FAITH?

    Parent
    Not sure about matt there, but I would NEVER (none / 0) (#156)
    by bronte17 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 12:02:29 AM EST
    assail A.  Nope.  That doesn't mean I can't come over here and ask him things. Because I want to understand where he comes from on this and where it's going.  I just don't agree right now.

    As for Kagro, he wrote about Constitutional Hardball and Jack Balkin's thoughts on that bush administration hardball:

    At this point in Bush's Presidency three things matter above all others. They motivate this final round of constitutional hardball: The first is keeping secret what the President and his advisers have done. The second is running out the clock to prevent any significant dismantling of his policies until his term ends. The third is doing whatever he can proactively to ensure that later governments do not hold him or his associates accountable for any acts of constitutional hardball or other illegalities practiced during his term in office.


    Parent