His reasoning is odd, at best... He said impeachment should be reserved for "grave breaches" of presidential authority. What could be more grave a breach than lying to the nation, world to get us into a disastrous war? Under the Obama standard apparently nothing qualifies as impeachment worthy.

==Associated Press - June 28, 2007 12:14 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) - US Senator Barack Obama (ber-AHK' oh-BAH'-muh) says he doesn't favor impeachment proceedings for President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Obama made that comment today in response to a question asked at a meeting in Washington with his Illinois constituents.

The Illinois Democrat says he's distressed by the Bush administration's ethical standards and secrecy. But the presidential hopeful says impeachment should be reserved for "grave" breaches of the president's authority.

Both Obama and US Senator Dick Durbin say having to deal with month after month of impeachment hearings wouldn't be in the best interest of America.==

http://www.wandtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6723196

This alone disqualifies him in my book.

Geeeeeeeeeeeeez Louise!

Cheney/Bush are utter failures to adhere to the oathes of office.
And they've broken various domestic and international laws and violated all mores other than those of privateers and robber barons.

Maybe from the elevated postion he's on the world down here near sea level looks very different.

then try looking into Edwards views on this. Even though Obama is sometimes brilliant he has left me too scratching my head more than once and that is not a good sign.

it would be futile or counterproductive to even try are very different from thinking that Bush and Cheney have not done anything that rises to the level of impeachable offenses.

I am just finishing up Al Gore's latest book and I believe he probably has changed his mind on impeachment. I bet he to would go for it.

All I know is Obama just lost any chance I would vote for him in the primary and that is ashame.

do anything remotely like a decent job once in office. Hell, it'd take him the first 4 (and I presume ONLY) years to figure out what's wrong.

What is more grave than waging an unneccessary war and LYING about it...getting thousands killed in the process. Not to mention what Bush has recently done.

Why would it only make Republicans stronger?

And why would it be a Godsend to the GOP in 2008?

I forget the distinction between impeachment and removal. Impeachment is doable since we only need a majority in the House. It would send a message to Bush and Cheney and forever further blemish their places in history. Removal from office, though, is impossible. We would need 67 votes in the senate to achieve that and we simply do not have the votes.

The reason I think doing either would not be wise politically is it would divert attention from the debacle in Iraq, would generate some sympathy for them as they claim they are victims of a "witch hunt", and would look petty since we would not have the votes to actually remove them from office. Impeachment of Clinton was a great gift to him. It caused his approval ratings to rise into the stratosphere and helped Democrats actually gain ground in off year elections in 1998, a rare occurrence. *, Cheney, and the GOP are on a sinking ship. Let's not throw them a life preserver.

would bring their crimes out into the light, and then you impeach, and then you would have the VOTES

Impeachment or lose their SEATS. :evilgrin:

Thanks for clearing that up for me lazer47. :hi:

I'm a Kucinich supporter anyway, but if I were on the fence, I'd most certainly withhold voting for someone as blind as Obama! urgh!

That's the whole goddamn problem. Cowards worry about votes. Leaders do what is right.

Does that no longer matter to anyone?

I keep hearing excuse after excuse. All perhaps very good and valid. But what about doing the right thing? Is the American public so stupid that they won't get it?

Once the crimes are revealed will not most Americans, regardless of party, realize what's been taken away from them, and then support impeachment and prosecution?

That is, he's for the full process going forward. :shrug:

Feel free to correct me if I'm in error lazer47?

Investigate ,,indictment,, impeachment,, imprison

They should stand up for what is right and follow their hearts and souls. Ah... maybe that's the problem...


Welcome to DU! :hi:

AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!!!!!!!! The people we elected in November are rolling over on EVERYTHING. The war funding, cutting off executive funding for a vice-president who came out and said HE IS NOT PART OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, stem cell research, you name it.
Enough, I say. A war begun with lies, a war horribly mismanaged, Katrina, warrantless wiretaps, the US attorney scandal, ETC!!!
What the F*CK does it take for impeachment?? Never mind, I know...a blow job.:mad:

That actually changes my opinion. :toast: Even if we do not succeed in removing him for office just bringing all their crimes to light--where the CMSM could no longer hide them--would make the effort worthwhile.

I'd call it the LEAST we should do.

If these monsters shouldn't be impeached them just write Impeachment out of our laws completely.

...what would he consider 'Grave', ferchrissake?

Let's see, stealing elections doesn't qualify?
Abrogating treaties doesn't qualify?
Launching an illegal war for oil doesn't qualify?
The list is endless.

If Obama does not see the crimes of the Bushistas as 'Grave', he is an idiot.

Of all the STUPID things Obama could say and I'd forgive, NOT supporting immediate Impeachment of either Gonzo, Dick or Chimpy is NOT one of them.

Damn, I think I'm not an Edwards supporter and would be for Kucinich if he stood half a chance. :shrug:

Stupid shit like this proves he isn't ready yet. He'll keep on stepping on his weenie and wind up an also-ran.

I'm so bummed out! :(

If you're gonna be the Boss, you have to take responsibility. Still, I figured he's new, cut him some slack.

But when he writes off crimes against humanity as not being impeachable...Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, what kind of asshole is this guy? I prefer to think he's just inexperienced. Either way, my Primary vote will go elsewhere.

I don't like it either but he would kill his chances to get into the white house and fix things if he came out for impeachment. That is why Hillary and Edwards won't either. He knows him supporting it would do nothing to make it happen and would only hurt the Democrats in 2008.

The Dems' numbers are way down, because the public percieves them as being too wimpy. A Dem who came out swinging could really galvanize support.

...their support for impeachment didn't hurt them. In Dennis K's case, it helped him out a bit.

Dennis Kucinich has had a looooooooooong career in public service and has done so while (mostly) sticking to his guns. That seat is his for as long as he wants it.

An admirable guy, even if you don't agree with him.

Oh that is sooooooooooo DLC of you! :sarcasm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHjFxJVeCQs

Because that's the real reason impeachment is going nowhere. All of our leading candidates are going to trot out something high-minded like "grave breaches," to say that impeachment isn't on the table, just as all of them would jump on impeachment if the public were clamoring for it.

They're politicians, ya know?

He could have found a zillion ways to come out against impeachment without using such ludicrous reasoning.

:eyes:

...review of the Constitution and the rule of law as it has been practiced, no matter how imperfectly, since the birth of this country.

Torture, spying on the people illegally, lying us into a war of aggression....

But still, impeachment is off the table. Why, someone might think we're impeaching somebody for silly reasons, like the Repubs did to Clinton. This shows us that Mr. Obama has very little confidence in the basic intelligence and moral integrity of the American people. Lead, Mr. Obama, don't be a sheepish follower.

then Cheney or Bush... (Now I understand why his numbers are going south) - too bad I thought he had the balls!

Can you imagine a prosecutor running for re-election and saying he will not prosecute known criminals because it is not politically expedient?

Impeachment is not an option. It is a sacred duty.

If the democrats do not impeach, they should not be re-elected.

Obama may get his grave breaches a little quicker than he expected,
if a Contempt of Congress is taken one or two steps further. Of course
the Supreme Court will protect Cheneybush, so the invesitgating
committees will have to get creative. But: if they can maneuver
Cheneybush into a situation where they are blatantly acting illegaly
by refusing to comply, Obama will have to find another argument or change
his tune altogether. I do not say this with any kind of put-down on
Obama. In 1974, it took a while for a number of Senators to join the
chorus of voices calling for either Nixon's resignation or conviction.
When Barry Goldwater joined them, it was clear that Nixon's options
were dwindling. Cheneybush is in better shape since they own the Supreme
Court. I'm not a jurist, so I don't know what kind of legal acrobatics
Conyers and Waxman might have at their disposal, but I sure as hell hope
(and believe) they will not just get the note from 1600 telling them to
get lost and then throw up their hands and say, "oh, well."

When making his case for the Clinton Impeachment!

The statement Hyde made ("NO one is above the Rule of Law, NOT even a President") Have hand bills made and wallpaper every room in Congress with them. Even, the Rest Rooms, and make the print large enough to read it from 10 paces back!

Democrats need to hold onto Congress AND win the presidency in 2008. The last thing we need is a long, drawn out ultra partisan process in a case where the average American is more concerned about skyrocketing gas prices and high health care costs.

Lets win the presidency first and retain our hold on Congress. Bush/Cheney can be sued when they are out of office.

No way this Senate or Congress is going to come close realistically to even try. As if we even have 60 votes on our side in the senate. :popcorn:

Who cares about what is right and wrong. Just let's stay in power. What a crock!

They were going to do this to Gore had Clinton been found Guilty by the Senate!!

Then Gingrich was set to be installed as a President Pro-Tem!

If they did this Pelosi would be in!

at this point in time would be silly. They would consume everything. We need to be concentrating on getting out of Iraq and other serious problems. None of the Democratic candidates are going to be advocating impeachment and this includes Gore if he decides to jump in the race. Idiot Son will be judged the most pathetic president in the history of the United States with or without being impeached.

...in that the crimes of the Bushistas would be front page news for many days. The American people would finally get to hear at least SOME of what the MSM has been keeping quiet.

Even if we do not succeed the fact that *, Cheney, and PNAC's crimes would finally be exposed to the general public alone makes impeachment worthwhile. The CMSM would have no choice but to cover the truth unveiled during impeachment hearings.

But that is the whole idea behind Cheneybush playing hide and seek
with the evidence. They are trying to run out the clock. I agree that
impeachment isn't yet something that will fly, but I am all for making
every effort to get the evidence out there that will be sufficient for
an impeachment to be worthwhile. THEN the decision can be made whether
or not to procede, but it is VITAL that the effort to acquire as much
incriminating evidence as possible be made.

THEN it can be decided whether to use it in an impeachment proceeding,
just for material in the campaign to drown out Son of Swiftboaters, or
both.

The only thing that would be unacceptable, to me, at least would be to
abandon the effort to acquire the truth. Seeing 80% of the current
administration resign in disgrace would work for me, as well, and would
stick in the mind of the voters as much or more than removal from office.
Watching Bush and Cheney trying to keep a straight face as the new Democratic
president gives an inaugural speech basically saying that, "the stink and
the shame of the two men on this platform next to me will no longer infect
this land" wouldn't break my heart.

I’m assuming legal scholars have reviewed the current situation and built a LEGAL case for impeachment if one exists. If someone knows of such a case can you please post it here. It should be taken forward to the Democratic leadership. Thanks.

The Constitution defines the process, and although there is a "trial" in the senate, it's not the same as a trial in the courtroom. "High crimes and misdemeanors" can mean anything Congress wants it to mean, unless/until the SCOTUS says otherwise.

People seem to get caught up in the legalities when, outside of the Constitutionally defined process for impeachment, there are none. IIRC, Clinton was never "convicted" in a literal sense, in a court of law, of perjury- the Congress merely used the fact that he lied about his sex life under oath as justification for impeachment.

I am appalled at the cowardice shown by Obama and all but a very few Senators and Representatives.

If he doesn't have the courage to defend the Constitution as a Senator, then why should we expect him to defend the Constitution as President?

and using it to line Cheney's "undisclosed penguin nest" in order to absorb Crashcart's steaming toxic excrement isn't freaking

GRAVE ENOUGH?!?!

:mad: :grr: :puke: :eyes: :crazy: :wtf: :argh: :wow: :nuke: :banghead:

As I stated in the related GD thread, the only way * is getting impeached is if we dig up enough dirt to get enough Senate Republicans to turn on him. Until that happens Impeachment is a waste of time and no high-minded rant about "duities" and "what is right" is going to change that.

Regards,

Fellow Realist

Talk about "duty" and whatnot is all find and dandy. But it's meaningless if you can't get results. I care about results, not rhetoric.

Only when Bush, Cheney, and the neocons crimes are exposed to the public can we generate support for impeachment. It still may not work. However, just forcing the CMSM to finally reveal the truth about their crimes would make impeachment worthwhile.

I'm going to petition that censure at least be brought upon both Bush and Cheney before they try to escape in 2009.

I'd like to know because I don't think we are living in the same world.

-Hoot

I'm for impeachment of BOTH Bush and Cheney, but there is actually a silver lining in Bush staying in power dragging the Republican Party down into the skids for a decade or more.

Without enough votes to seal their fate shut, it could backfire. Even Conyers has backed away from impeachment for the time being.

The subpoenas regarding the FISA/warrantless wiretapping case are now in motion. These could be VERY damaging to the Bush/Cheney cabal.

These could be the "grave" breaches that could be taken into account.

Something could easily come out from the subpoenas that convinces a lot of people to impeach and remove.

impeached, but until we have the votes there's really no chance. Also, remember that the republicans have to run with
President "total fuck up" still in office, and that's a big plus for our side. The voters won't let them get far enough away from the bush/cheney dirt.

Impeachment will bring a bush sympathy backlash against us.

there's boxing the compass... see?

The votes aren't there and no viable presidential candidate is going to spend their candidacy spearheading an impeachment effort that is guaranteed to fail.

They had the votes to impeach Clinton. We don't have the votes to impeach Bush.

:sarcasm:

The only word in quotes is "grave". To me, that's a big red flag. We know how the AP likes to take Obama out of context and we know how certain people like to jump all over it before confirming it.

on pay-per-view for $19.95 per... nah, they'd even get away with that.

Never mind.

TC

Anyone knows, you get rid of Cheney, Bush ain't sh*T!

with his impeachment is off the table diatribe...

Part of the problem is that if a US Senator publicly says a president/VP should be impeached, they have a moral and political obligation to lead the effort. Therein lies the problem. Does any presidential candidate want to lead a failed impeachment attempt? I think not.

Obama's wording was poor, but I don't think he committed any particularly 'grave' offense.

The chief problem with Obama is his reasoning. If he doesn't think what * and Cheney did are "grave" enough to warrant impeachment then nothing could meet Obama's standard for impeachment. We might as well amend impeachment out of the Constitution using Obama's thinking.