Hagel: Some see impeachment as option

Source: Associated Press

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

<snip>

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

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


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=Atas0wvwPbg7eb_hlaJakk_MWM0F

Stop flapping your gums for face time Hagel. Put up or STFU. :sarcasm:

Works for me, Chuck, get it on!

The Senate Tuesday voted nearly unanimously to curb the authority of the attorney general with respect to the appointment of U.S. attorneys.

The Patriot Act reauthorization last year allowed the attorney general to bypass the Senate confirmation process for U.S. attorneys by filling vacancies for an indefinite time.

Under the bill (S. 214), which passed 94–2 with only Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Kit Bond (R-Mo.) opposed, the attorney general can still name an interim U.S. attorney for up to 120 days. However, after that time the president must sent a permanent nominee to the Senate for confirmation. If that does not happen, a district court would then have the authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senate-overwhelmingly-approves-u.s.-attorneys-bill-2007-03-20.html

he's probably standing on some sort of weird principle there, or he's just protecting his "perfect" conservative voting record, since he probably knew it was going to pass with flying colors. But he is spot-on that the main reason to impeach Chimpy (or threaten to) is that he's a fucking runaway train, ignoring both Congress and the will of the people with impunity.

Talking loud and saying nothing. These men are fake moderates, trotted out to appease the moderate sheep, to attempt to fake some sense of a conscience within the Repuke party. MANY people are stupid enough to repeatedly buy it even though these lying assholes' actions and votes never quite square with this maverick reputation they have bestowed on themselves. Really getting to be a tired gimmick.

their own party seems to despise all three--hard to believe it's a concerted effort to fool people. I think that all three continually walk a fine line between what they know is right in their conscience, and what their party wants from them. And they fail, time and time again, to satisfy anyone--probably including themselves. Their rhetoric goes one way, their vote another. So they incur the wrath of the GOP rank and file with their words, and they incur the wrath of Dems with their votes. But I think this is the most we can expect out of them in this neocon climate, unfortunately.

Source: Reuters

Hagel says Bush too dismissive of Congress on Iraq
25 Mar 2007 18:17:27 GMT

WASHINGTON, March 25 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush
should stop being dismissive of opposition in Congress to the
Iraq war and it is time that lawmakers set boundaries for U.S.
involvement, a Republican senator said on Sunday.

"I think Congress is going to play a role now like we've not
played before," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, a critic of Bush's Iraq
policy from his own Republican Party.

-snip-

When the Senate considers its version of the war-spending
bill this week, Hagel said he planned to propose a measure
with Sen. James Webb, a Virginia Democrat, that would have
the "force of law in the future involvement of our military"
in Iraq, focused on deployment, redeployment, training, and
equipment.

-snip-

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

Read more: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N25262999.htm

He's trying to have it both ways. What a worthless POS.

having Sen Hagel, A Republican saying this is great... it gets more people realizing it's an option.

B&sh should be GONE, he's a criminal, and a repub senator actually mentioned there being other ways to handle him - excellent!
www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- top 08 stickers & shirts and anti-B&sh stuff

I try and keep it short and to the point, any talk of impeachment is great.

God bless you Vidar

On one hand, the repugs will want to distance themselves far from * for '08. But on the other hand, should * actually get impeached, wouldn't they fear that it would hurt the repugs' chance to win in '08.

Either way, I am FOR impeachment and hope it moves forward full speed.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues

They aren't about to stop their bloody massacre.

a piece of paper, that his ground enough. Then there is the infinite list of corruption and indifference to the solvency of our country and the world. The oil industry or any world wide monopoly must be restrained, and held accountable or it will surely as it is now seek it's own progress and survival.

Then we'd have ALL the GOP demanding impeachment.

:eyes:

following a post about someone other than Laura giving the stubby shrub a blowjob!!1

HUGH and SERIES!!!1111

:evilgrin:

Chimpy to go. Make it happen, Charles!

Hagel

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Hagel_There_are_ways_to_deal_0325.html

Hagel added, "This is not a monarchy."

"And you think that would be appropriate in this case?" Stephanopoulos asked.

Hagel hedged a little bit, "I didn't say that. I didn't call for it. I didn't predict it. What I was saying, I was laying out options here. No president can dictate to this country, nor should he. This is a constitutional form of government. We have three equal branches of government. No president is bigger than the other two. There are three co-equal branches of government. Article 1 of the Constitution is not the presidency. It's the Congress."

and also this comment.

So what I was pointing out, George, is that there are ways to deal with this and I would hope the president understands that," Hagel said. "I mean, his comments this weekend, yesterday in his radio address were astounding to me. Saying to the Congress in effect, you don't belong in this. I'm in charge of Iraq."


this comment shows the Congress that they better reign this bush head in.

that" (refusing to listen to Congress) doesn't necessarily translate into "impeach him" in my book - but maybe he actually said this phrase earlier and was referring to it?

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

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1602765,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

It's been a 4-year war.