Hagel: Some Might Seek Bush Impeachment

GOP Senator Says Impeachment Possible If President Pushes Ahead With Iraq Strategy

(CBS/AP)  A prominent member of the Republican party said President Bush's go-it-alone approach on Iraq amounts to flouting Congress and the public, so angering lawmakers that some consider impeachment an option over his war policy.

Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the war, stopped short of calling for Mr. Bush's impeachment. But he made clear Sunday that some lawmakers viewed that as an option should Mr. Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war.

"Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed — if a president really believes that, then there are — what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that," said Hagel, who is considering a run for president in the 2008 elections. Mr. Bush cannot run because of term limits.

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

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

Meanwhile, the Senate plans to begin debate Monday on a war spending bill that would set a nonbinding goal of March 31, 2008, for the removal of combat troops. One of the Senate's Republican leaders said he believes his party has enough votes to block the measure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[buttons321]

Accountability is a word that this administration does not acknowledge - maybe the impeachment word will make them all pause. What I want to know is how is the firing of the US attorneys, including the Az attorney, and those two poor border patrol officers in Az related? Corruption can only beget the same: Awfully co-incidental. Another question - does Texas want Bush back?

[jdweymouth]

%u2014The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

-Amendment 12 of the United States Constitution

[jdweymouth]

%u2014The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.- But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.-

[jdweymouth]

Here's amendment 12 of the constitution. I revises sligtly what Article 2, section 1 says about the election of the President, and Vice President. You will find out that the people electing the president is neither found in Article 2, nor amendment 12.

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;%u2014The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

[jdweymouth]

Re: "The United States Code and the Uniform Code of Military Justice have a remedy for that and it's not impeachment, it's death! So we can hold the trial in the Senate and set up the firing squad at Guantanomo if that's what the people want from their elected representatives. I'm not advocating that necessarily but it is on the table."

The constitution is higher than these things. And if you want to, as another liberal put it, want to give Bush "a taste of his own medicine", then I say this: those people in Guantanamo Bay are not American citizens; they're foreign nationals, and the constitution does not extend protection to them if they're in the United States levying war against them. According to the Hague Conventions they can be shot, actually. So, no, we can't draw Bush up in front of a military tribunal, and have him shot: he required impeachment to remove him from office, and being a U.S. citizen, he is entitled to full protection of the constitution. Read the document you are so indignant about Bush supposedly viloating: you obviously don't know it, so I suggest you learn it, and until then I'm arguing with an ignorant child.

[jdweymouth]

Re: "What an interesting civics lesson..the people don't elect the President? Who does, 5 justices on the Supreme Court?" -Posted by realpatriot1

The electoral college elects the president. The people vote, but the electoral college is the ody that actually elects the president.

Re: "The Constitution doesn't require a President to do something illegal to be impeached, even Jerry Ford acknowledged that. What did Clinton do to start the ball rolling? Oh, I remember, claiming executive privilege and obstructing justice!" -Posted by realpatriot1

Yes it does require illegal activities: "The president, Vice President, and other Civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes, and Misdemeanors. -Article II, Section 4 So yes, the constitution does require illegal activities before impeachment, and removal from office.

Re: "What would you consider evidence of a crime? How about lying to go to war. That's treason! So is outing a CIA network!"

You have no evidence that he did any of this. And if he did, it's not treason. Treason is defined in Article III as: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against the United States, or in adhering to their enemies, giving the aid and comfort". -Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1

[realpatriot1]

jdweymouth,

What an interesting civics lesson..the people don't elect the President? Who does, 5 justices on the Supreme Court?

The Constitution doesn't require a President to do something illegal to be impeached, even Jerry Ford acknowledged that. What did Clinton do to start the ball rolling? Oh, I remember, claiming executive privilege and obstructing justice!

What would you consider evidence of a crime? How about lying to go to war. That's treason! So is outing a CIA network!

The United States Code and the Uniform Code of Military Justice have a remedy for that and it's not impeachment, it's death! So we can hold the trial in the Senate and set up the firing squad at Guantanomo if that's what the people want from their elected representatives. I'm not advocating that necessarily but it is on the table.

[toldyouso21]

Sen. Chuck Hagel: Proof for Liberals that members of "the other side of the aisle" do indeed have moral backbone.
Posted by pakaal at 06:30 PM : Mar 26, 2007

That would be ONE Republican center with a moral backbone--look how many stood by Gonzales, just because he was one of the "President's men"

The Democrats hamstrung themselves with Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table" B.S.

Time to put it back on the table--old girl, these times seem to warrant it.

[toldyouso21]

"A special prosecutor. That's right %u2014 another special prosecutor. And while it may be a bit premature to talk about that possibility %u2014 maybe Fine and Jarrett in the end will find it was all just negligence or gross incompetence without any nefarious intent %u2014 it is not beyond the scope of comprehension. After all, it is a crime to deceive Congress. It is a crime to try to obstruct a criminal investigation. And it is a crime to threaten a prosecutor. "

a crime to deceive Congress? Hmmmmm....Bush and the downing street memo.....hmmmmmm bush and the yellow cake and the CIA memo Bush received 2 weeks before telling him the yellow cake story was bogus (but Bush read it anyway--blamed it on a speech writer who forgot to take it out--but...repeated it a few more times as did Powell)

Deceive Congress? Uhmmmmm GEOOOOOORGE! You are wanted out in the woodshed......

[toldyouso21]

Presidents can be impeached for high crimes (such as treason) or misdeamenors--which can include refusing to listen to the will of the people as represented by Congress, they can be impeached for ineptitude, creasting division in the country, for subverting the Constitution or any treaty America is a party to (torture, Geneva Convention, etc) flouting the law (FISA, violation of 11th Amendment) abuse of Power (executive privilege, making the DOJ answer to and serve the right---Congress can vote to impeach if they feel the President's leadership undermines the trust and confidence of the American people.

The house can impeach on a no confidence vote and if the Senate agrees, he can be removed. Immunity laws can be repealed or struck down. also, Cheney could be tried and impeach as can any Supreme Court Justice who fails to uphold the Constitution and decides to play partisan unstead of upholding the law. There is a very good reason, Snow, Bush and Cheney have not rebutted what Hagel said---especially since rebuttals or attacks are their middle name--they know that more than enough not only exists to impeach them, but also to try them for war crimes--maybe that is why bush is so interested in places with no extradition to America--like Paraguay.

[toldyouso21]

The wiretap was directed against people who are not American citizens, and the constitution doesn't protect those who are not Americans. Anyway, warrants were obtained in courts for wire surveillance, though they were obtained secretly in order to not alert potential guilty people.
Posted by jdweymouth at 07:40 AM : Mar 27, 2007


LIAR. The warrants were not obtained prior to the wire taps and in many cases were not obtained at all. Bush circumvented FISA and in fact, last year asked that in addition to a law granting him and others domestic amnesty for war crimes, he also be retroactively be granted immunity from prosecution for the illegal wire taps. But like I said, laws can be repealed, even that one.

[toldyouso21]

That's not ground for impeachment. It would be a violation of the constitution. Neither the people, nor the congress elect the president. The president is checked by the Congress by the power of impeachment, but the constitution requires that the president do something illegal first: there is no evidence of illegal activity. Of course we don't want an imperial presidency, but neither do we want a congress who will impeach a president every time he does something they dislike.
Posted by jdweymouth at 02:06 AM : Mar 27, 2007


Illegal wiretaps were illegal and retroactive amnesty can be repealed. In addition, under oath or not, Congress is not to be lied to and can see redress in the courts

[toldyouso21]

The 5th amendment should not apply to her case ... she is not asked to be a witness against herself.


Actually she is. If she was instrumental in lying or manipulating data for political reasons, she would implicate herself and the whitehouse as soon as she opened her mouth or she would have to lie and risk it being repudiated. (you never know the emails others made hard copy of, before the clean uo/purge jobs)

My guess is, the WH wanted her to lie and she chose to not speak rather than become a Scooter Libby and rely on a Pardon. Either way, something stinks to high heaven. I bet there are crimes galore in this mess.

[toldyouso21]

There are no grounds for impeachment. The constitution states that the president can only be impeached for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes, and misdemeanors". Bush is not guilty of any of this. You can't impeach a president because he is pushing forward alone to do what is right. Hagel needs to have some lessons in constitutional law.
Posted by jdweymouth at 11:28 PM : Mar 26, 2007


In 2005, prior to removing our name from the Geneva Conventions, Bush broke the 11th Amendment ratified in 1797. That amendment states we must honor all international treaties, conventions, resolutions. agreements and laws we are signatory to and that neither Congress, the Supreme Court or the executive branch can supercede or have jurisdiction on any breach of international law and must submit to the international court.

In May of 2005, Bush stated that if any American was held in the Hague on war crimes, he would use any mean necessary to free them including fighter jets. Bush is sworn to uphold the Constitution not violate it. His statement was in direct violation of the 11th amendment. There are more examples, but that one is enough for grounds for impeachment. It would not be talked about if it was not plausible--and note...the White house has "no comment on that" I guess they don't.

[toldyouso21]

Idon't think george is having a good day today.

First, you have the liason to Gonzales and the White House refusing to testify lest she incriminate herself--guess she knows she is not as good a liar as Al, ***, Karl or George. Makes it look like there must be lots to hide and she knows where the bodies are buried, but does not want to be the narc or the fall guy.

Then you have the news that the administration's chief spin and lie miester might be really ill, leaving pretty, stuttering lil' Dana to handle all the scandals.

Now the Senate have, in defiance with the House gave Bush a money package with strings attached. Bush says he will veto it--which must mean that he is very good at putting troops in harms way, but does not care about leaving them without support if it means he has to compromise. Who does not care about the troops, Mr. President? The ball and to care or not to care is determined by who supports them and who (for their own pride's sake) leaves them high and dry. the money is there...will you even try to set a few deadlines or keep thinking it is your way or the highway?

Be careful, rumours have it that the American people may be in the mood to kick quite a bit of Asphalt!

[inventagod]

Bu$h has effectively declared war on Iran today. The Navy is parading their firepower up and down the coast, with flagrant displays of power and taunting the Irani military. One 'mis-step' and World War III will occur right in front of our eyes. Does ANYONE trust Dubya to do the right thing? Gee, what is his track record?

[realpatriot1]

jdweymouth,

the right to protection from self incrimination only applys if she can't answer a question without implicating herself in a crime. You conservatives have repeatedly been vomiting up the talking points that there is no crime and it's just a fishing expedition.

If there's no fish, there's nothing to worry about. She can even talk about other people's crimes without the 5th amendment coming into play.
Apparently, ya'll can't manage to say anymore that there is no crime;that would be ilogical.

Don't forget, the Republicans in Congress have questions and an oversight responsibility too.

[rharrin1]

Sen. Chuck Hagel: Proof for Liberals that members of "the other side of the aisle" do indeed have moral backbone.

Posted by pakaal at 06:30 PM : Mar 26, 2007

Why doesn't hagel lead the impeachment?

[abbe7]

A first step ...

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/House_strips_Bush_of_US_Attorneys_0327.html

[david1737]

Neo-Cons:

Read it and weap!