Biden discusses impeachment in an interview. I like his answer.

From Newsweek:

You once called Slobodan Milosevic a war criminal to his face. You also told Dick Cheney that, were he not a constitutional officer, the president should fire him. So when it comes to the mistakes made in Iraq, why should impeachment of President Bush be off the table?
It shouldn’t be. But impeachment like everything else is a matter of priorities and responsibility. In order to move on impeachment now, we would be put in a position at a very, very delicate time in our nation’s history, of having necessarily to take our eye off the ball on a host of other things that will have longer-lasting impact on the security of this country. As a practical matter, it sucks all the oxygen out of the air. We would effectively be paralyzed for the next six months or longer. … The alternative, and it’s taken me time to think through, I think we should be acquiring and accumulating all the data that is appropriate for possibly bringing criminal charges against members of this administration at a later date.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20186211/site/newsweek/page/2/

No wonder why I support him - I've been saying the same thing for years.

And why should we believe that the same Congress that gave bush the power to spy on us is actually going to investigate and hold him accountable?

Sorry, Joe, I was born in Missouri. You're going to have to show me.

And it is up to the Judiciary committee to investigate, and last time I checked, they were doing
a *few* investigations . . .

I am not holding my breath waiting for the judiciary committee to investigate. Conyers dropped the ball with his committee. It would be nice to know that the Senate will come through, but I am certainly prepared to learn that they won't.

I hope to God there's someone in the Democratic Party with a spine 'cause it sure ain't you. But it doesn't look too promising.

Wouldn't you?

Actually I would like to see both, but of the two choices - I prefer to see him in handcuffs.

Prosecutions of this magnitude require others to implicate him in crimes. The prosecutor squeezes the low level people to compel them to turn on their superiors in the criminal enterprise. This is called working up the food chain. It doesn't work when Libby gets his sentence commuted to no jail time, which everyone knows will become a full pardon at the end of Junior's term. At that time Junior will pardon any other of his cronies with a cloud hanging over him or her.

If he pardons Cheney, Gonzo and whomever else, how could he be convicted of anything?

These people will be rewarded with golden parachutes by corporate American and the MIA.

Dream on!

have not officially been accused of anything (yet)?

Nixon was given a blanket for pardon without being charged with any crimes.

pardoned can then be COMPELLED to cough it up. Because they're protected by this big, fat pardon, and nothing they say can be held against them. Which, as I had read and heard, was believed to be one of the main reasons why bush did NOT pardon scooter libby. libby would have been free and clear to sing like a nightengale to any prosecutor who subpoenaed him to come in and answer questions.

That's my understanding too, but I am no legal expert.

I've long given up hope that * or his gang will answer for anything they've done.

You have to keep fighting no matter what.

We're merely reacting to the smoke and mirrors set up by Rove and his minions. To me fighting means more than bending over and assuming the position, which is exactly what Democrats have done.

Junior will pardon all of those he can at the end of his term, just like his old man.

Did the Libby commutation teach Joe anything?

Impeachment here is required.

Paralyzing Washington for the rest of Junior's term is a good thing.

He can't create any more messes this way.

he'd issue the same pardons just before the vote.

we'd have to take him by surprise.

That's the way I understand it to be.

I'd even argue the case that it would be retroactive to include overturning Libby's commutation.

The Constitution clearly makes the exception for impeachment. Pardons don't apply.

right up until the final vote is cast.

If he had any reasonable fear that he would actually be removed, he'd issue the pardons just beforehand.

When the House impeaches, he still has all the powers of the presidency. It requires a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to remove him, at which point he loses those powers.

The constitutional limit on pardons and impeachments means that he can't pardon an impeachment. But he could still pardon any crimes right up until the Senate votes to remove him.

And he would do that.

My interpretation is that his pardoning powers are limited if he is impeached and convicted. Especially if he intends on pardoning his co-conspirators. The guys who wrote the Constitution understood this stuff.

if he's convicted, of course he has no pardon power - he's no longer President.

But, in the months between being impeached and being convicted, he has that full power. And, in the exceedingly unlikely event that he had reason to fear being convicted, he could issue those pardons just before the vote on conviction occurred. He could issue them WHILE the vote is occurring if he thought he'd lose.

There's no way to "surprise" him by convicting him. He'll know well ahead of time whether the votes are there to convict or not.

You've been consuming waaaaaay too much right-wing propaganda.

The Constitution itself limits his pardoning powers.

Don't you understand that the founding fathers would never have stood for what you are describing? It would have been a capital crime to them, and they would have hanged anyone who tried what you are suggesting, together with all of their "pardoned" accomplices.

You have to be kidding me with this line of reasoning, but I'm afraid you are serious. What a pathetic shame.

the pardon power IS absolute.

Find me one quote from the constitution or a supreme court decision that would prevent a President from issuing pardons the day before his conviction vote occurs in the senate. You can't.

There are no limits on the Presidential pardon - it's as close to an absolute power as you're ever going to find.

From the Constitution: ..."and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

This meant, according to the guys who wrote it, that if a president did what you are suggesting, then he could be impeached for it, and the attempted pardons would not be honored. Get it?

I'm not making this up, it's in their own words:

snip>

Comments in the state ratifying conventions also suggest that those who adopted the Constitution viewed impeachment as a remedy for usurpation or abuse of power or serious breach of trust. Thus, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina stated that the impeachment power of the House reaches "those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust."60 Edmund Randolph said in the Virgina convention that the President may be impeached if he "misbehaves."61 He later cited the example of the President's receipt of presents or emoluments from a foreign power in violation of the constitutional prohibition of Article I, section 9. 62 In the same convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded:


f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds tp believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...63

In reply to the suggestion that the President could summon the Senators of only a few states to ratify a treaty, Madison said,


Were the President to commit any thing so atrocious... he would be impeached and convicted, as a majority of the states would be affected by his misdemeanor.64
Edmund Randolph referred to the checks upon the President:


It has too often happened that powers delegated for the purpose of promoting the happiness of a community have been perverted to the advancement of the personal emoluments of the agents of the people; but the powers of the President are too well guarded and checked to warrant this illibeal aspersion.65

snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_3.htm

it means that if, for example, a federal judge were impeached, the President couldn't pardon him - for the impeachment. He could still pardon any criminal charges against him.

by your argument, Bill Clinton could not have issued any pardons, because he was impeached.

You're very badly misreading the constitution.

You should look them up. Their take on this is just like I said. It's their interpretation, not mine. I repeat:

"In the same convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded:

f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds tp believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...63 "



Now, where does the Constitution say that the president can do what you claim he can do? I honestly cannot find it.

If a president is impeached for pardoning his own criminal conspirators, and the criminal conspiracy is addressed in the articles, then any of those pardons, in that particular case of impeachment, do not comport with the provision of the constitution which limits his power to give out pardons.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Clinton was never impeached for giving pardons.

for giving pardons.

You're just wrong. Plain wrong. Very wrong.

The constitution says:

"...and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

It does NOT mean that if he's impeached, he can't pardon anyone. It means he can't pardon people wh've been impeached.

That's the ONLY limitation on the power.

In your upside-down world, what if he's impeached but not convicted? Are his pardons legal?

Quoting Madison et. al. doesn't mean anything in this argument - I'm not saying he'd be RIGHT to do so. I'm saying he CAN do so, according to the clear text of the constitution.

You're badly misreading what that clause means.

"In the same convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded:

If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds tp believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...63"

Those are not MY words, it's Mason and Madison! Did you even bother to try and read the link I gave you?

And the Constitution says what it says. His pardoning powers ARE limited by the phrase "except in Cases of Impeachment."

Mason and Madison understood it fine, and I understand it fine too. You seem to be the one here with the comprehension problem.

I guess you expect me to take the wisdom of someone who calls themself MonkeyFunk over the plain statements of the Founders.

Yeah, right.

MonkeyFunk says: "Quoting Madison et. al. doesn't mean anything in this argument...

LOL

Madison was saying if the President did that, it would be grounds or impeaching him. He didn't say the pardons would be illegal.

The constitution does NOT say that an impeached President can't pardon anyone. Your quotes really DON'T mean anything in this discussion because a) the text of the constitution is what matters here, not quotes from the founders and b) the quote you provide doesn't even say what you think it says.

MANY people agree that commuting Libby sentence is grounds for impeachment. I'm with that crowd. If an article were drawn up and he were convicted on it, I think ol' Scooter would be in jeopardy of having to serve out his sentence.

And I'm not reading anything wrong at all, I don't have to. The text of the Constitution is plain enough. It does limit his power in the case of impeachment. Right?

the quotes don't matter. But... they say that IF a president pardoned people who helped him commit crimes, he could be impeached for it. It doesn't say those pardons aren't valid.

Stop throwing lots of shit up in the air. The question is very simple:

Do you believe "and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment" means that an impeached President can't pardon anyone? Yes or no.

You think they were such stupid idiots that they used the phrase "exept in cases of impeachment" when what they really meant to say was "except for people that have been impeached."

Dumb asses.

but it's not the founders.

The text of the constitution is all that matters. It does NOT say that if a President is impeached, he cannot pardon anyone.

The clause you refer to means that a president can't pardon an impeachment.

Only neither the Constitution nor the founders say anything like that. Why is that, I wonder? Cause you are WRONG!

do you believe a President who has been impeached cannot issue pardons? Yes or no.

Any other reading is a whole lot of nonsense to me.

the constitution says no such thing.

And how would this affect Bush anyway? If he were to be impeached, nobody is proposing that he be impeached for pardoning anybody. He could still pardon anybody he wanted.

The president cannot pardon to overturn impeachment. That is what the constitution says.

An impeached president may still pardon. Clinton pardoned a bunch of people after his impeachment, and (though I don't have a list here) I'm sure Andrew Johnson did, too.

You clearly are so blinded by what you *want* to be the case (what most of us would like to be the case), that you refuse to look at the facts. And when presented with the fact that an impeached president still has the power of pardon (and has used so in the past), you resort to insult.

Your behavior is childish bullying at the fifth-grade level; which pretty well matches your demonstrated understanding of our constitution and governmental procedures; not to mention your understanding of things that happened less than a decade ago.



Just because you want something to be so, that doesn't make it so. There is no Mr. Roarke in Washington, D.C., no dwarf at the airport heralding your arrival. There are merely a bunch of moneyed old interests set on maintaining the status quo. You don't overcome them by shouting and pouting and holding your breath, you beat them by dealing with REALITY.

At least I have the sources that support what I'm saying. How bout you. Got a link or something?

What president was ever impeached for pardoning someone?

Refresh my poor memory for me.

I don't think it has ever happened.

Talk about comprehension problems.

And I won't get into an argument. You're claiming an impeached president cannot pardon. You are wrong. This is a fact. No matter how much you insult me, the fact will not change.

Bye, now.

Said wall actually got an A in American Civics.

You're the one who started with the insults. Bad memory, reading comprehension.

All I did was ask you to refresh my bad memory.

Pulease.

for pardoning anybody.

why do you keep changing the subject?

Our source is the US constitution. A president can issue pardons right up until he leaves office, whether it's because his term ends, or because he's impeached and convicted.

Your "source" does NOT say that a President cannot issue pardons once he's impeached. You've made that up entirely out of whole cloth.

I guess because you're not talking about it, then it doesn't count. Sort of like the founding fathers I guess.

And the way I understand it to work, leaving office is no bar to impeachment. That's what the folks I'm talking about say.

I don't know where you get your notions about this from.

person of any stature who proposes impeaching Bush for pardoning anybody.

I give you credit for being tenacious in your wrongness.

I don't think I am making this up.

The Libby Commutation: Coincidence, or Conspiracy?
by Thom Hartmann

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/05/2299/
From the fourth comment:
Even the Supreme Court recommended impeachment for cases like this. As written in Ex Parte Grossman (1925):
...
If it be said that the President, by successive pardons of constantly recurring contempts in particular litigation, might deprive a court of power to enforce its orders in a recalcitrant neighborhood, it is enough to observe that such a course is so improbable as to furnish but little basis for argument. Exceptional cases like this, if to be imagined at all, would suggest a resort to impeachment, rather than to a narrow and strained construction of the general powers of the President.
- http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0267_0087_ZO.html

And further down, georgia July 5th, 2007 2:19 pm:
Alexander Hamilton couldn’t have imagined anyone acting like Bush. From Federalis #74:
He is also to be authorized to grant “reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.” Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed. The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel. As the sense of responsibility is always strongest, in proportion as it is undivided, it may be inferred that a single man would be most ready to attend to the force of those motives which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance. The reflection that the fate of a fellow-creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution; the dread of being accused of weakness or connivance, would beget equal circumspection, though of a different kind.
- http://thomas.loc.gov/home/fedpapers/fed_74.html




Jonathan Turley on the Libby Pardon:

http://delong.typepad.com/egregious_moderation/2007/07/jonathan-turley.html


Nice video here of KO's special comment on the Libby pardon:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/03/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-you-ceased-to-be-the-president-of-the-united-states/

:eyes:

I guess you're wrong there

Prez to face criminal charges. It may not happen until after his term because that is when people
may be ready to talk.

Washington is already paralyzed.
They can't get anything done. Immigration, the war.
I don't see how they could get enough votes for impeachment.

don't get me wrong. I am all for impeaching this asshole.
I am a realist. They can't get a 2/3 majority vote on anything.

If nothing else could get done, perhaps that would be a good thing.

Right now, we wouldn't have funded the illegal occupation and we wouldn't have expanded bush's powers.

selloutitude, but since then it's become abundantly clear these Vichy-dwelling losers absolutely will not impeach, ever, not even if a notarized document signed by Bush and Cheney surfaces authorizing bin Laden to attack on Sept. 11.

No new legislation, means a slow down in campaign donations.

That just can't be tolerated.

The Constitution is just a piece of paper, right?

when they can't get anything done?

I don't think it has anything to do with fundraising. If anything, it would help the dems in fundraising.

Conviction in the Senate is the problem.

Does MBNA want Junior impeached?

And how much money do similar PAC's donate to the various members of Congress?

The decline in corporate PAC money is unlikely to be offset by an increase from party activists.

but they have to be realists. Impeachment right now, though psychologically satisfying would detract from more urgent issues and the votes AREN'T there. It would be dismissed as "political theater" by the republicans and viewed as another Democratic failure by the media. Meanwhile, the many investigations that are ongoing are important as they will expose this administration's many failures and lies to the American people. If done right, the neo-cons will be subdued once again for possible decades. We need to fight "smart". Being right isn't enough.

The Libby trial was dismissed as political theater.

Impeachment is a process that involves hearings, followed by a trial in the Senate. The votes aren't there, will they be there if it is determined that Bush committed numerous crimes?

Will Americans accept the Republican party acting in a partisan way if Bush is guilty?


There are Democrats advocating for impeachment hearings against Gonzales.

No votes, distracting, BS!

Edited typo.

prosecutor. His trial did not disrupt or distract congress from investigative hearings. The majority of the American people do NOT accept the Republican party right now, and Gonzales is not the president. During Watergate, they started at the bottom and worked their way up. Nixon resigned once HIS party deserted him.

rather than face impeachment.

Name one repug that would tell bsh to resign.
Hagel - No -
Smith - maybe

Then who?
The repugs have a hard enough time telling him his plan for Iraq sucks.

if the impeachment went forward.

I don't know if there is anyone in the republican party today who'd have the guts under any circumstance.

I think he would be one of the ones to ask him to resign.

but he isn't as powerful a figure as Goldwater was. Who knows what the republicans are plotting behind closed doors. You know they can't stand the chimp and surely resent him bringing the party down. Many of them have long careers in congress and plan on being in DC long after Bush is gone. They'd better get their act together if they want to salvage what little, if any credibility they have left with their constituency.

That is why the same "centrists" & DLC type "strategists" who supported the war, supported Lieberman (I), opposed the Alito filibuster, opposed investigating stolen elections, etc, etc. etc, are comming up with the exact same excuses now as they did then.

They pretend like not fighting Republicans will help us, but they cant point to single example of how going along with or caving in to Bush (Who also thinks impeachment would be a bad idea)has ever helped us accomplish a damn thing.

Going along with Bush has never helped DEMS, but these people keep saying it does help us- hoping we will swallow it again so that they can continue to avoid a fight.

If anything got too close to the truth of 9/11, it would be the END of the entire BFEE and you know it!

Will he still have authority to pardon, once he leaves office?

upthread before reading your post :-)

(btw, thanks for posting pirhana, recommended)

==Q: What about Rudy Giuliani? Couldn’t he put more states in play than any other Republican?

Biden: No. Giuliani’s signature position on national security is the place he’s most vulnerable, based on how little he actually knows about foreign policy.==

Giuliani knows squat about foreign policy!

it really eases my feelings about congress.

I hope that they have a plan for this starting 1/21/09.

Senator Biden, of course, is being too polite

Think of all the other choices/precedents the "Decider/Ignorer" has provided for us now:

Disappearing
Rendering
Torture
Incursions into sovereign states (think Paraguay) (if the dickhead is actually looking for refuge there)
Seizure of assets

We'd get our measure of justice and then some

Of course, I'd have all of these options repealed (right AFTER we get done with these assholes)

Just a thought .....

which ran last night. It was a second look at impeachment with the same two guest, Fein and Nichols. The two explain quite clearly why impeachment is necessary to restore balance of power.

It is for that reason that it will never happen.

and I think it is possible. I don't think voters are as gullible this time and they are getting more of their information from the Internet. They would be a great team.

I would like to see Obama in the VP slot. Great apprenticeship, and he will be formidable in the future.

I know what you mean about Richardson, but I can't quite put my finger on it. I figured it was because he isn't a very good politician and he's a poor speaker. Hillary has done very well in the debates and I think she'd be a good president, but I don't think she'd be the best choice. Every word is so scripted and calculated. You rarely see a real person there, but it wasn't always that way. She used to be much more forthright and open. The energy is gone, as is her appeal.

However, at this point it seems like Clinton's to lose. And she is extremely disciplined. She also has the shrewdest political consultant in the world on her team. They will be tough to beat.

I think it is possible that Richardson could get the VP nod though. I don't think it will be Obabma because he has shown a propensity to blunder and Team Clinton will be unwilling to gamble on the rookie.

As I consider the candidates, I look at honesty. He seems to be telling it like it is, unlike some of them.

This is what attracted me to Biden a few years ago. He didn't talk in political sound bites and what he said reflected his experience and knowledge. His candor tends to get him in trouble now and then, but I'd rather have someone who can talk without a script even if it means making an occasional mistake.

I keep getting beat up by alot of the others.

It's so interesting to me to see who everyone supports.

:hi:

and sometimes scary. Hopefully we aren't going to go the old route of litmus tests like - "who would you most like to have a beer with?" I can have a beer with a lot of likable people, but I don't want them to run the country. We need to really get serious this time and make informed decisions. That means "hair plugs" don't count!!!

I've got your back!

p.s. actually I wouldn't mind having a beer with Joe Biden, but that's beside the point, not reason for my decision.

was about policy. Sometimes, these very important issues can get heated. Anyway, I hope we're still friends and all ...

I have not 100% committed to anyone. I like Biden. I just don't see him getting much traction. And I do have some disagreements with him on foreign policy, although in the big picture, they aren't fatal differences. I am certainly glad he is in the race, and regretted he wasn't able to make it to YKos (his internet director did a diary on Kos explaining that Biden was on his book tour, and that's why he couldn't come).


Edit: on this impeachment question, I just haven't figured things out on how I feel about it myself, so I don't have any substantive comment on this topic.

We may all be Kerrycrats, but we are still independently thinking individuals. :hi:

Because I'm really, really angry, and it would make me feeeeeeel better...

That was sarcasm, BTW.

I'll trust him if he honestly thinks waiting will work. But the idea of taking up Congress's time is bogus. At least it is to me if they're passing laws like this last FISA bill. We'd have been better off had Congress done nothing. But then, that's probably idealistic. The repubs know they're cornered.

If we can't do it, and we have to wait. Then wait. But if we can do it now. There is zero reason to wait. Bush is only going to escalate the death and destruction, otherwise.

that is appropriate for possibly bringing criminal charges against members of this administration at a later date." later date...after W leaves office? He couldn't pardon anyone then, could he? And he can't pardon anyone before there is a charge to pardon them of,can he? Sounds good to me.

:kick:

...on a host of other things. Like cutting off funding for Bush's war effort. And continuing the investigation over obstruction of justice in Plamegate and the attorney firings. And stopping Bush's attempt to revise FISA to expand warrantless surveillance. And...

...oh...

...never mind.

:shrug:

impeachment hearings. Yet another diversion while he continues to destroy our democracy. You know that Rove already has a playbook full of one-liners for impeachment.

Unlike John Kerry, Joe Biden speaks clearly and directly. Until now, I haven't heard anyone explain why impeachment isn't a viable option at this time. I went to the Newsweek and read the entire article and all his answers were on the money. He clearly is the best choice. As he said there is "no margin for error" with the next president.

There was an article in Newsweek last year by Ron Goldstein which summed it up pretty well:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11115989/site/newsweek/

I loathe the title of it.
Always a Bridesmaid....?:puke:

Thanks for the above link.

eventually become the bride. Poor analogy though.

Biden suggests bringing criminal charges against Bush admin.

Who the hell is going to charge Bush with a crime when he leaves office?


Oh, and on edit: How about that crazy American solution for diving up Iraq.

Linking to a thread from a group of Biden-bashers does not impress me at all.

this is hot air, nothing more. BS!

If the Dems want to hold Bush accountable, they need to do it while he is in office. Why isn't Biden making a case for that?

step-by-step through investigations, within the system. It may seem painfully slow, but it has to be done legally and correctly. I understand our impatience, but acting on our emotions will not solve the many serious problems we face. Our emotions propel us into action, but those emotions have to be tempered by reason and intellect.

Seriously, from FISA to torture to Iraq, how are they holding him accountable?

Glenn Greenwald: Democrats' responsibility for Bush radicalism

It is the process and we won't win them all, but the house of cards WILL fall if we keep picking away at the base. Every "little guy" leads to others. Not all Dems are on board. Some will play it safe and don't deserve our support, but I'm not going to throw them all out. Right wingers would just love that!

It is so partisan in DC, there is no way Impeachment is going to pass with all the
Jeff Session tantrums on the Senate floor.

Best example - Look at FISA!

Feingold realizes that, which is why he has come up with a motion to Censure.
Fyi - Biden has already publicly come out and supported this.

Don't get me wrong - I would LOVE to see this whole administration
Impeached and behind bars. Being realistic, I don't think they would have the votes.

My hope is that Leahy and others are collecting data. After this administration is
gone, people will talk. Look at Colin Powell.
If the Dems were smart, they would be working on this behind the scenes.

I'm quite sure they are. They are not going let bygones be bygones and the American people won't either.

Sorry, but I am not for tearing down Democrats, especially one that is not running and has been as hard working than most just to promote Biden. That doesn't help Biden at all.

If you think the media will not his or other 08 candidates words against them or take things they say out of context, then they are in for a rude awakening.

On edit: I would vote for Biden, but I would slam others just to promote him.

I don't think you meant that, right? Maybe another edit is in order :-). And by the way, 100% agree with your comments on Kerry. Biden is more folksy at times, and in that sense maybe more approachable, but they are both serious thinkers and very knowledgeable. IMHO they are similar much more than they are different. Not the best way to put it, but I am sure you know what I mean.

Two of the best. Two statesman that have spent their time in the Senate
getting things done to make this country a better place.


And I have to add Leahy. Any Senator that has the Grateful Dead at
their fundraiser is okay with me :)

AT times he makes me think of the Cheshire (right spelling? ALice in Wonderland) Cat, not sure why :-)

He looks like a sweet grandfather, but he can tear a person to shreds with that smile still on his face. He is the real deal and I loved watching him make Gonzo squirm. Priceless!

and they're big Leahy supporters. He is also a Batman fan and will have a cameo in the upcoming Batman movie. The money he receives will be donated to the children's library in Montpelier. He is a remarkable human being.

This reminds me of a question I've had in my mind for quite a while. You know what else they have in common, besides being smart, experienced Dem Senators with law backgrounds? They are all Roman Catholics.

I'm not a Catholic, but I've had Catholic friends who were all very public-service oriented. What is it about Catholics that leads them in that direction? These three seem very dedicated to the public good and don't mind taking the heat for some of their decisions and opinions. Do you think their faith has anything to do with that?

I think it could have something to do with the way they were raised to some degree. Catholics do have a tradition of administering to the poor and disadvantaged. It is a rather board perception, but I think it could carry some validity.

Can you imagine what a wonderful difference it would have been for the last few years had Kerry been elected instead of :puke: and Biden had been his SOS. We surely would not be in the mess we are in in Iraq.

and it is heartbreaking.

:cry:

It's fine that people like their candidates but if you want to promote your candidate, Talk up the good without putting down others.

I know some Democrats speaking ways aren't for everyone, but putting down ones that are working hard to hold this criminal administration accountable, and ones that are not running doesn't help the candidate that is running.

Plus the "my candidate _______ unlike ______" only reinforces the media spin that about that person they are putting down.

Why not talk them both up with out putting the other down is all I am saying.

and I am in complete agreement. I just thought you meant to write "would not" slam others, instead of "would", that's all.

Thanks for picking that up. :hi:

I voted for him and thought he'd be a good president. I still admire and respect him, but he has a tendency to lose people when he speaks. I was just pointing out that Biden connects better with most people. I was only comparing the two campaigns, not the ability or integrity of both men.

I see what you mean. Every politician's speaking style is different. Hopefully the 08 nominee will have party support, meaning countering the smears, twisting of words, and spin this time unlike the last 2 elections.

Sorry for misreading your post. :hi:

Everyone is getting really sensitive these days and I can totally relate. John Kerry really grew on me in the months before the 2004 election, but there were times when I'd talk back to the TV, "No John no. You're losing people!" So many candidates try to cram every issue into a short interview and it sounds too much like they're rattling off a well memorized recipe. They need to engage the listener first, then people will listen.

I should be a campaign adviser. I can sense how people react and I wanted to slap some sense into some of them during the debates. My first rule would be answer THE question being asked. Don't backtrack to a previous issue. It annoys the crap out of people and is perceived as too self important. Biden did that during the MSNBC debate and I groaned out loud. I am familiar with Biden, so it did not affect my support of him, but for many people, they are just getting acquainted. First impressions really do mean a lot.

As for the "smears", etc., I think people are better informed this time around and hopefully won't fall for the tired old campaign tricks and focus the issues.

reply posted above. :hi:

Impeaching Bush while he's in office is a distraction during a "a very, very delicate time in our nation’s history," but bringing criminal charges against him during the next president's term will not be.

When he says "bringing criminal charges against members of this administration at a later date," is he talking about after the Iraq war is over?

impeachment would have to be fought in COngress, and cathartic as it may be I think that it would indeed paralyze the Congress, while criminal charges would involve the court system. IMHO this is a major difference. I am not sure whether I agree with Biden on this one or not, I am just saying...

I'd much rather have Congress debating impeachment than passing more legislation to fund the was and gut the Constitution.

I am MAD AS HELL about the FISA bill, I am 100% with you here. But that's NOT ALL they are doing. They could do much better, definitely, but they are trying. AT least some of them...

...taking "our eye off the ball"?? :crazy:

Methinks Crazy Uncle Joe is living up to his name.

NGU.

possibly bringing criminal charges against members of this administration at a later date."

That's what he said.

So what is your arguement?

You think that a congress that can't even impeach Gonzo is going to be able to
impeach the idiot-in-chief? Methinks you should look in the mirror before you call
Biden crazy.

is called Iraq. And Congress IS trying to do something about it and not just wait for 09 and let the situation get even worse in the meantime. Not exactly satisifed with the results so far, obvisouly, but I agree that it is a ball they should take their eyes off.

PS: Biden is not crazy

...while they're in office. Ergo, the only way we'll EVER get out of Iraq is to remove them from office. So you see what I mean? IMPEACHMENT is the mother of all balls.

NGU.

:eyes:

:puke:

NGU.

I'm not in the crowd of those who think that we can do it by just cutting off funding because I believe that Bush will just tap into Pentagon discretionary spending and fund the war while further depriving our troops of things that they should have.

That said there are some strategies that they could pursue to keep the pressure on the White House but they are not doing that.

will reveal and document the corruption and incompetence of six years. The work they are doing is time consuming and tedious, but also very necessary to insure that this never happens again. The dems don't have the votes to impeach, but they can investigate persistently and relentlessly, while Bush and Cheney sit in their fortress waiting for the next shoe to fall. Their corrupt reign will NOT be forgotten and the more dirt that is dug up, the better. Bush was right. History WILL judge him and lets make sure that no stone is left unturned.

If you can't protect my freedoms, then everything else means nothing!

http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=279820&

And I'll ask you the same quesiton I keep asking on this thread, that no one seems to be able to answer -

Do you really think a Congress that can't even impeach Gonzo is going to be able to
impeach the Prez?

Russ Feingold has realized that. That's why he is proposing Censure.

At least Biden wants something done.

Why did we bother to vote for them?

It was mostly the new members that voted that way.

I was so impressed with Claire McCaskill. I was thinking she
would be the next woman to run for Prez. Ugh!!!!
Wonder what Michael J Fox thinks of her now?

At least all of the Dem candidates voted no.

I would love to see bsh impeached, Cheney even more so.
But I think it's time to face reality. I don't see it happening.
I have this discussion with my brother who lives in another state - all of the time.
He can't accept it. It is insane. If ever there was anyone that should be impeached - it's bsh.

Censure is a great start.
Criminal charges is another. We have to hope that after 2009 people will come out and tell the truth.
Just like Colin Powell did. Altho, I will never forgive Colin Powell.

But that said, we do need to keep putting pressure on our elected officials to impeach.
We cannot let them get complacent. imo.

In my opinion, the Democrats and Republicans at that time were every bit as corrupt as they are now. But the American people didn't let up until they heard them. Don't you remember how happy everyone was when the bastard resigned. I'd say we've done it before, we can do it again.

and the republicans put the pressure on Nixon to resign "or else". I don't see that happening today. These republicans are a different breed and don't have the sense to even protect their own positions, let alone the constitution. There are similarities, but there are also vast differences. Perhaps if the dems had had power at the beginning of Bush's 2nd term, things would have proceeded differently.

We don't need no stinkin' reality!!!! Oh yeah............yes we do. In my fantasy world, Bush is sitting before a congressional hearing with beads of sweat forming on his forehead, while Waxman or Leahy go for the jugular. Bush's eyes are blinking a mile-a-minute, as he stutters and shrinks in his chair. Exposed for all the world to see - a little, pathetic man finally brought to his knees. BUT back to the real world, where we start at the bottom and work our way up to the top, one step, one witness at a time.

how Feingold's motion/bill/whatever will go in terms of votes , dicussion, leadership support, etc. Pass - no way :-(.

in the public eye. The American people have a very short attention span.

Perhaps some are concerned more about a 30 second ad from the Bushbots over a democratic experiment that is almost 300 years young.

I wish my perferred candidate took a stronger stand on impeachment frankly. I would also HIGHLY SUGGEST that people get their hands on a copy of John Nichols "The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism".

http://www.thenewpress.com/index.php?option=com_title&task=view_title&metaproductid=1637

Watch this:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

It would not take 6 months to impeach Cheney and Bush...more like a month if done correctly...future Americans as well as the ghosts of the Founding Fathers would adore us for it.

:kick:

Well worth a kick

His foreign policy expertise is not in dispute, and carries increasing urgency given the ongoing failure in Baghdad and the likely chance that Petreaus will betray us in his assessment roundup in a few weeks.

In the Trigis-Euphrates Valley comes a confluence of dark options. Petreaus strikes me as infinitely more intelligent than any of his predecessors in that role, but he has been asked to preside over a thankless task and is working for a nincompoop. There can't be a "victory." And the people in charge of a dimplomatic resolution -- namely Condoleezza Rice as Sec. of State, if that isn't too presumptious on my part -- ought to be front-and-center in the problem-solving when in fact they are not even suited up to play. Full weeks go by now without anyone seeing Dr. Rice's name in a news story. Evidently she's out shopping on an especially extended spree or fileted on a hammock in an opium den in Bangkok. In any event, she's not in the office.

Biden's promotion of the partition plan is not, by his own concession, an Edenic solution to the grievous mess Bush has made in Iraq. But it's a strating point, it suggests initiative, it demonstrates know-how, and comes with a built-in respect for the history and complexity of the region.

In other words, it's presidential. I'm sick of Bush's failed team and his miersable landscape of death and abandonment. An Edwards supporter, I will take any Democrat we have over any Republican they throw at us. And international relations is a very high priority.

And foreign policy is the arena of accomplishment with Joe Biden.

He must have balls.

Way back in 5th of 6th grade or so, I came to understand that there were certain, very specific, integral components of reproduction.

So I figure, hey, if Biden's got kids... etc.

How ya doin'?

We're less than a month til Labor Day and things are a little slow on the political news front. Probably the pace will pick up more after Labor Day Weekend.

I feel badly for David Petreaus. He is a career military man who has been asked to manage an unmanageable task, and the people he works for are consumed by a meager, and craven, political drive that has nothing to do with public service or the truth. Likely he's under pressure to play by the Bush administration's script, but his instincts as a human and as a soldier are likely tugging at him the other way.

I think that will be the headline story that sets the fall campaign in motion.

some people seem to need more time to reach a similar anatomically-based conclusion, while some may argue that surgery took place since, but I sincerely doubt it :-). As for Petreaus, I remember listening to a report about him on NPR a few years back, way before he was in the current position. The name stuck in my mind because everything in that presentation was glowing. I hardly remember any details, but he sounded like a really exceptional person, highly intelligent, varied interests, unusual background, etc. I started feeling sorry for him the moment he was nominated. We'll see how he behaves and what he says one month from now... I hope for everybody's sake he will not prostitute himself too much.

others to see how it pans out.

The cost in lives has already been so high...

Thanks for the light touch, guys.:bounce:

Biden was a "pussy" when I said I was supporting him. Though a very intelligent guy, he didn't give me any reason for his comment. I've seen this sort of mentality before directed at various candidates. I find it rather puzzling and disturbing.

see that bush bastard impeached...I'd rather get health insurance for all, lower the deficit, save the environment for out children, stop m war with Iran and restore our image around the world etc,etc, etc. The Rethugs would be so angry and resentful...and down right hostel nothing would ever get accomplished for years to come until we have a veto/filibuster proof majority. The hatred between parties will be so great no one will ever cross party lines. Suppose we don't get that super majority...then what?
We'll never get a thing passed for the next four or eight years! Maybe congress will be so stymied the public could be so disgusted they might vote us out in four years. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face. We can't want to brand george with impeachment rather than improve this country and all the important and necessary changes Dems want and need to make. Right?

God, I hope a lot of people agree with this philosophy or our country is going to hell in a hand basket...along with bush et al. Saving thousands of lives by not bringing "freedom" to other countries is much too important to risk. I don't have time to go on with the myriad reasons it's important to have cooperation in congress and get rid of this bastard and his type of thinkers/followers once and for all. Besides he'll be impeached in the minds of the public and the history books anyway and we'll be looked upon with favor for all eternity.

We have every right to be angry but it is vital that we aren't irrational and mindlessly vindictive. Those are republican tactics and they're good at it. We have to be careful that we don't become what we oppose. We can be angry yet rational, determined, deliberate, and persistent at the same time. When they come at us with slurs and sound bites, we can fight back relentlessly with truth and reason. We will prevail if we don't give in to their bully tactics.

"The Rethugs would be so angry and resentful...and down right hostel nothing would ever get accomplished for years to come until we have a veto/filibuster proof majority"

LOL- you are describing what they did and continued to do even after THEY impeached OUR guy and subsequently won 3 history defining elections in a row. LOL!

Newsflash- Republicans are going to do everything they can to beat us at our game whether we fight them back or play nicey-poo. Why we all have not learned that by now is beyond me.

Fact is, people are just making excuses because they know that the DLC & "centrists" types will refuse to get behind it- everyone knows they havent the heart, guts or street-smarts to fight Bush.

when we get the White House back, I can clearly see our "leaders" deciding to let bygones be bygones for the same bullshit reasons they don't want to pursue IMPEACHMENT now: Oh, it'd be divisive. Oh, it'd preoccupy everybody and we wouldn't get anything else done. Oh, it'd take too long. Oh, we've got too much else of great consequence to focus on and this would just be a waste of time.

I wouldn't trust them, really. They're going to say it's time to move on, and these bastards will be allowed to get away with it. This needs to be done NOW. Especially while everyone still remembers. And I fear that someone like Biden, who tries so hard to be as even-handed as possible, would be one of the first to jump on the "oh, c'mon - we've won. We've got other things to do. That's all in the past! Let's just move on" bandwagon.

Sorry. I've seen too much of the "we'll get to it later's" turn into "we'll get to it never."

that things will happen the way you describe them. The one difference I think I already pointed out in some otehr post is that criminal charges are handled by the court system, not by COngress, and therefore would be less disruptive at least in terms of time spent dealing with this in the COngress.

That after everyone in this administration has gone home - or to Dubai - wherever...

People are going to start to talk.
Books are going to be written.
The Sunday talk shows won't know who to have on first.

Just look at Colin Powell, and Ashcroft.

You can't stop the truth. It always manages to come out.

It seems to me, especially in light of our capitulating Congress, that effectively paralyzing Washington for the next six months would be an excellent thing. Keeping Bush-Cheney-Gonzalez-Rice's eyes off the ball and instead focused on defending their past actions in a Senate trial would be the best thing for this nation. Instead...well, what are our children to think? Lying us into war, spending us into bankriptcy, spying on us illegally, ignoring laws through signing statements, torturing those it declares unlawful combatants -- our children watch as none are held accountable thwarting our Constitution and values.

Not impeaching Cheney and Bush sends a signal to future presidents that they can willfully violate the law and Constitution with impunity.

Biden is wrong on impeachment like he was wrong about IWR and invading Iraq. Now we know why Biden is in single digits in the Prez race.

and is doing better than single digits?

n/t

...as well right?

Right?

"I think we should be acquiring and accumulating all the data that is appropriate for possibly bringing criminal charges against members of this administration at a later date."

That's what it sounds like to me. And I think he means literally what he says, "members" and staff of this administration, but I'll bet you not Bush himself. I don't think he believes that the party or the nation would be helped either by pursuing impeachment now or by pursuing a former US President after he leaves office. That's just my take on how the club up there works. As a practical matter, even a patriotic one, I think Biden is correct that the distraction of doing impeachment with 17 months to go in a term would just be too much. This nation could face all manner of crises even still, before January '09. Russia, China, Iran, Iraq,,,,,. This is too critical a time to have the congress and administration consumed and distracted over impeachment proceedings. If you think Iraq was handled badly, think how much worse it could have been if everyone's attention had been distracted, instead of focussed on it.

But it would take conviction, guts and street smarts though, so I guess that one is out as well.

What is our official excuse for not having an organized effort to demand his resignation?


It doesnt require votes, it doesnt take time away from the floor of congress, and the majoritiy of Americans would agree with it.

with you on impeaching Bush and his cronies right now would be a bad idea because of the time it takes and the level of distraction it would have. Biden is right on that.
But I also think that if Biden gets elected in '08 that we're gonna see Cheney, Rumsfeld, AND Bush indited on criminal charges. People right now I understand are pissed off cuz we're not impeaching but we need to gather as much evidence as possible to get these guys and it takes time. I honestly believe they will pay!!!!
Biden is one of the few who would do it and do it right.

to pick the next President from the current Dem field, he'd be my guy.

He just doesn't "fit" the current public mood, I fear.

They are always looking for a "star" and often stray from the issues. After listening to Joe Biden's speech to the IAFF (twice), I felt that he could reach the average American if given the opportunity. Unfortunately, most people only hear about the gaffes over and over again, much like the Howard Dean so called scream. That was so irresponsible and unprofessional, but that's our mainstream media! Some even admitted later that it was wrong, but they would probably do it again if given the chance.

"If I had the power" - I recently decided that I do. That is why I'm spending an excessive amount of time online these days, trying to spread the word.

Rather than impeachment being a side issue -- it's the primary responsibility of elected officials to uphold the Constitution --

:kick:

He was never impeached. His resignation was the result of extensive investigations and hearings, and loss of republican congressional support.

Nixon was smarter than Bsh.

Never thought there would be a time when I would use Nixon and smart in the same sentence.

Nixon WAS smart. You can be smart and a horrible person, you can be smart and crazy like a bat, etc.

Nixon really was a very smart guy, but intelligence doesn't necessarily translate into integrity. His arrogance overrode his intelligence when he taped all his oval office conversations. Now that was REALLY stupid. I'm having a Mr. Rogers moment - Smart people can do dumb things sometimes. But then dumb people are likely to do dumb things most of the time and we have the Bush presidency!

:dem:

Because he knew that Communism wasn't monolithic, something that he proved when he played Russia and China against each other. He knew that the entire world wouldn't fall under the USSR's control just because South Vietnam fell. That said, he had no conscience and decided that it was politically convenient to keep the Communism monster alive and to keep fighting in Vietnam.

Containment during the Cold War should have been about containing the USSR, not containing Communism. Just like the "War on Terror" or the "War against Radical Islam" should really be the War on Al Qaeda.

And Nixon committed plenty of abuses of power that were exposed yet he was never impeached for them or tried and convicted for them when we has out of office.

Neither were Woodrow Wilson or John Adams or any of the other Presidents that abused their power. The idea that the President gets to break the law so long as they are "protecting us" and only get a slap on the wrist if they get caught isn't a new precedent, it's almost as old as this country. Presidents get impeached for political reasons (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) or they get impeached because they commit an offense that the American People can recognize as a crime (Nixon).

:kick: