Finally, someone gets it

[madame_zora]

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.
---------

“We have clearly a situation where the president has lost the confidence of the American people in his war effort,” Hagel 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.”

“This is not a monarchy,” he added, referring to the possibility that some lawmakers may seek impeachment. “There are ways to deal with it. And I would hope the president understands that.”


Hagel: Bush impeachment an option - Politics - MSNBC.com



So when is enough enough? Even if we entered this war on faulty evidence, we've since discovered that error, and Saddam is dead. There go our only reasons for being there, not to play hall-monitor for their civil war, that's been going on for longer than we've been a nation.

Whatever the actual reasons my be for bush to want us to continue sacrificing the lives of our men and women, clearly the American people don't agree. Clinton was impeached for something that caused the death of NO ONE, it's time to look at our options here.

 

[B_JQblonde]

[Chuckle.Your grasp of the law is stunning! ]

Yeah. that's the ticket . Bog the country down on another waste- of -time impeachement to add to the massive waste of time investigatins the DEms are running. Such progressives, those Dems, leading our country in new directions with bold ideas!!!
GRRRRRRRRR.

Gotta get then right wingers back for Clinton.

Man what a DEEP thinker you are!!!

 

[dong20]

Chuckle.

Yeah. that's the ticket . Bog the country down on another waste- of -time impeachement to add to the massive waste of time investigatins the DEms are running. Such progressives, those Dems, leading our country in new directions with bold ideas!!!
GRRRRRRRRR.

Gotta get then right wingers back for Clinton.

Man what a DEEP thinker you are!!!

Clinton was impeached not because he had a blow job but because he lied about it. If Bush were to be impeached for Iraq it would not be for going to war but for lying about why.

It's about character not political alignment.

 

[hkwes]

God, this is a confusing time for me. I'm a liberal who thinks it was a dumb idea to start the war, but almost as bad to pull out at the moment. That puts me at odds with the majority of Americans, including democrats, and Congress. I think... I think I might be on Bush's side on this topic! Oh God.

 

[madame_zora]

Clinton was impeached not because he had a blow job but because he lied about it. If Bush were to be impeached for Iraq it would not be for going to war but for lying about why.

It's about character not political alignment.

Hahaha, who but a moron expects a man to tell the truth about cheating on his wife? The mistake he made is he should have taken the 5th, and told everybody to fuck off.

I won't get into this with you, but if you believe that had ANYTHING at all to do with why he was impeached, clearly you do not understand American politics.

 

[Lex]

Knowledge is power, but ignorance is bliss, eh?

 

[B_JQblonde]

dear Chuck"

Interesting the grasp of US civics you have.

This is what you said..

"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 Congress does, I am going to proceed' -- if a president really believes that, then there are … ways to deal with that," said Hagel on ABC's "This Week."

REALLY, Chuck? You can impeach a President because he ignores what the people of the United States are saying about Iraq?

You can impeach a President because he disagrees with COngress on how the war is being prosecuted?/

Seriously, Chuck, you need to bone up on your civics.

Why , the next think you know, some airhead know-nothing liberals will be spouting this dopey horseshit on a message board !!

 

[dong20]

Hahaha, who but a moron expects a man to tell the truth about cheating on his wife? The mistake he made is he should have taken the 5th, and told everybody to fuck off.

My comment was about the value (or not) of truth in political office not about a marital infidelity. As far as taking the 5th, well it amounts to the same thing doesn't it? But I agree it would have been a better strategy even a moron like myself knows that.

I won't get into this with you, but if you believe that had ANYTHING at all to do with why he was impeached, clearly you do not understand American politics.

Then why mention it? He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice (officially) The true catalyst being set in motion some years before, the BJ just adding some spice and a cover of moral indignation to a certain SP's (and others) personal crusades.

American politics is a snake pit, much like that of most other nations, what's not to understand. I already said it wasn't really about the BJ but I wasn't minded to waste time on JQb.

But, in the end it still comes down to character. Anyway he got off didn't he...

 

[madame_zora]

But, in the end it still comes down to character. Anyway he got off didn't he...

Haha, he should have claimed he didn't- kinda like how he didn't inhale?:biggrin1:

Oh, you meant got off of the impeachment.:wink:

Yes, what bothers me (and what I must assume is most American's opinions, since he DID "get off") is that infidelity is NOT an impeachable offense, and Starr was completely out of line asking him about it in the first place. It was a tawdry, disgusting line of questioning he should have been slapped for, not answered at all. Just because he had leave to investigate Whitewater did not mean he was at leave to question his morality when he came up empty-handed. That's all that was going on, and everybody knows it.

bush's list of lies is lengthy, and HAS afftected the lives of thousands of our dead soldiers, and many more thousands of their families. Any personal opinions about the war from any nation, including ours, will eventually be overshadowed by the will of the American people, who do NOT wish to be used as cannon fodder to make some crazed psychopath rich. I've been saying it since we invaded Iraq- history will remember bush for exactly what he is. What we have at our helm is a man who thinks he's accountable to no one, but he apparently doesn't realise he's a public servant. He has ceased serving and begun ruling, and that doesn't fit with a representative republic!

edit-JFK was not impeached for a well-known liason with Marilyn Monroe, nor were any of our other presidents who had affairs, nor any other public servant, to my knowledge. This was a new and special invention for Clinton, one of desperation, and it degraded our whole nation.

 

[Lex]

...JFK was not impeached for a well-known liason with Marilyn Monroe, nor were any of our other presidents who had affairs, nor any other public servant, to my knowledge. This was a new and special invention for Clinton, one of desperation, and it degraded our whole nation.

His affairs were the ONLY thing they could nail him on. So when all else failed they went after his cock.

God love Teflon Bill. Nothing sticks on him--had we not had term limits, he would have been the next FDR.

 

[dong20]

Haha, he should have claimed he didn't- kinda like how he didn't inhale?:biggrin1:

Oh, you meant got off of the impeachment.:wink:

I edited that in, glad you got it....:smile:

Yes, what bothers me (and what I must assume is most American's opinions, since he DID "get off") is that infidelity is NOT an impeachable offense, and Starr was completely out of line asking him about it in the first place. It was a tawdry, disgusting line of questioning he should have been slapped for, not answered at all. Just because he had leave to investigate Whitewater did not mean he was at leave to question his morality when he came up empty-handed. That's all that was going on, and everybody knows it.

I agree. Starr was out of line. It was a source of wry amusement for me how he could get away with such a blatantly personal attack on the public dime. Gringrich was also tragically misguided in his half-assed, overertly vocal and polarising support for impeachment given his own record on the ethics front; like having an affair at the same time he was berating Clinton. He must have known it would come back and bite him. But then it did didn't it?

Actually, on the popularity front, as an outsider I rather liked Clinton and a majority of the US public was opposed to his impeachment, he had his highest approval rating just after the impeachment didn't he? Go figure.

bush's list of lies is lengthy, and HAS afftected the lives of thousands of our dead soldiers, and many more thousands of their families. Any personal opinions about the war from any nation, including ours, will eventually be overshadowed by the will of the American people, who do NOT wish to be used as cannon fodder to make some crazed psychopath rich. I've been saying it since we invaded Iraq- history will remember bush for exactly what he is. What we have at our helm is a man who thinks he's accountable to no one, but he apparently doesn't realise he's a public servant. He has ceased serving and begun ruling, and that doesn't fit with a representative republic!

I agree it's hard to know where to start with Bush. I just can't see an impeachment succeeding though. But then never say never. History will render a judgment but what that will be.....?

edit-JFK was not impeached for a well-known liason with Marilyn Monroe, nor were any of our other presidents who had affairs, nor any other public servant, to my knowledge. This was a new and special invention for Clinton, one of desperation, and it degraded our whole nation.

Indeed. Though in this case Bush's infidelity runs deeper, he has betrayed his nation.

 

[B_big dirigible]

God, this is a confusing time for me. I'm a liberal who thinks it was a dumb idea to start the war, but almost as bad to pull out at the moment. That puts me at odds with the majority of Americans, including democrats, and Congress. I think... I think I might be on Bush's side on this topic! Oh God.

You're in good company, in a philosophic sense. Consider George Orwell, as good a Communist as there ever was; but unlike nearly all his fellow travelers, he wouldn't let his Party loyalty lead him to forgive Stalin's monstrous crimes. So he was still a Communist, but not a Stalinist - a rare bird, like a Democrat who isn't a dedicated Clintonist. Examine what's good and what's bad in each party, and you might end up a violently uncompromising Independent.

Your secret knowledge of what the majority of Americans think inspires some skepticism, though. In American Congressional politics, I think most of us vote for the man, not the party (unlike standard practice in some parliamentary systems). If so, then the link between votes and plank endorsements is tenuous indeed - not that party propagandists won't try to make us think otherwise.

 

[B_big dirigible]

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.

Don't fall for this malarky. Hagel is grandstanding, trying to sound like the tough guy, but he figures that's safe, because he knows that he will never be called on to deliver. And he won't be called on to deliver because everybody in Washington knows he can't deliver. And they know that from their US history.

The precedent dooming this Congressional attempt to dominate another branch was established a while ago, when the Democratic-Republicans tried to impeach Justice Samuel Chase. The strategy was to weaken the Federalists, and, as a bonus, to extend Congressional influence over the Supreme Court.

Federalist John Adams started the nasty habit, practiced gleefully by outgoing presidents down to this day, of sticking their successors with all sorts of unpleasant last-minute appointments, programs, promises, expensive commitments, and gratuitous appeasements. On just about his last day in office, Adams appointed a flock of Federalists as judges, including his Secretary of State, John Marshall, as the fourth Chief Justice.

The Democratic-Republicans tried to eliminate this leftover Federalist influence by impeaching a Federalist judge - that is, removing him from office. They realized they hadn't the strength to touch John Marshall, or even Bushrod Washington. But they thought they might be able to get rid of Chase.

The idea was to replace Chase with "a better man" - that was code for someone they wanted, rather than someone they were stuck with. That was about it. They dressed it up somewhat, but it was all pretty frivolous; the last of the eight charges was that "said Samuel Chase did, in a district court of Maryland, address the grand jury for the purpose of delivering an intemperate and inflammatory political harangue, with the intent to incite the good people of Maryland against the state government and Constitution ..." It didn't fool anybody, as the state government of Maryland was Democratic-Republican. Chase wasn't tageted for delivering a harangue, but for delivering a harangue against Democratic-Republicans. The whole thing was obviously just a good old partisan power grab.

The impeachment failed, dragging down a few prosecutorial careers with it. That pretty much established the precedent. We don't know exactly what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are, but we know a few things they aren't. Policy conflicts aren't. Wild accusations aren't. Even accusations which might not be so wild aren't. A few things that aren't have been added since. The Clinton impeachment trial gave us the precedent that lies by a President, even lies delivered under oath, are not impeachable offenses. This precedent was the price we all paid so that the Democrats could save the political career of a man who didn't deserve to be saved.

Bush can deflect all this mere noise with ease, and the congressional Democrats know it full well. But they can still talk up a storm. And evidently they plan to do just that. But it's just hot air, designed to keep names in the papers.

 

[madame_zora]

I edited that in, glad you got it....:smile:

Yeah, that was pretty good. I liked him enough to suck his dick myself, but not enough to call him blameless.

I agree. Starr was out of line. It was a source of wry amusement for me how he could get away with such a blatantly personal attack on the public dime. Gringrich was also tragically misguided in his half-assed, overertly vocal and polarising support for impeachment given his own record on the ethics front; like having an affair at the same time he was berating Clinton. He must have known it would come back and bite him. But then it did didn't it?

But it was 3rd page news. I'd LOVE to have every single motherfucker who was in attendance at that hearing testify under oath as to their sexual habits- HAHA@ all of them and their sanctimonious asses. It sure is easier to judge someone else's sins than it is your own, but we aren't supposed to be judging sins- just legal issues. Clinton was impeached for being a "sinner", make no mistake. Once America understood that (we're pretty fucking slow), the ruling was laid aside.

Actually, on the popularity front, as an outsider I rather liked Clinton and a majority of the US public was opposed to his impeachment, he had his highest approval rating just after the impeachment didn't he? Go figure.

Sure, we sat back on our fat asses and looked at our bank books and decided all was forgiven. Kind of hard to be mad at the guy when we were all prospering so well.:wink:

I agree it's hard to know where to start with Bush. I just can't see an impeachment succeeding though. But then never say never. History will render a judgment but what that will be.....?

Honestly, you could have knocked me over with a feather when Saddam was actually hanged. I NEVER saw that coming- perhaps I am more naive than I care to admit. One world leader calling for the death of another- terrifying. Not to mention, it was a leader WE had set in place. I think there will still be repercussions for that, but we'll see.

Historians are generally not easily led simpletons, like the public masses are. While the average person will make judgements based on emotions, and the things that affect them personally, those who come along twenty years later have none of those distractions, and can more clearly see the longer range effects of said policies. I think the horrible economy, the introduction of creationism into schools, the lack of effort on ecology issues, the number of frauds committed by admin. officials, and everything else in this "use it up and make.money.now." adminsitration will paint a picture of a man determined to lead us back into the dark ages for the purpose of personal profit, and a people willing to follow. Lunatic and maniac come to mind as descriptors.

Indeed. Though in this case Bush's infidelity runs deeper, he has betrayed his nation.

I hope my fellow Americans are capable of grasping that concept. I have my doubts.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

We haven't invaded Iran yet. This should be very interesting.

 

[madame_zora]

Don't fall for this malarky. Hagel is grandstanding, trying to sound like the tough guy, but he figures that's safe, because he knows that he will never be called on to deliver. And he won't be called on to deliver because everybody in Washington knows he can't deliver. And they know that from their US history.

Big Dirge, it's a good thing you're so pretty.:biggrin1:

Why is it you so often reach into ancient history to make your points? While I am certainly impressed with your knowledge, you seem to fail to realise that we are in the age of television. We are in the age of a US president thinking he can tell the congress as well as the American people he was hired to represent to just go fuck off- what does that have to do with Adams? Nothing, really.

There's really nothing you can say to defend an adminsitration so garbled with liars, hypocrites, thieves, felons, perverts and extremists- you really don't want me to make a list of even the prosecuted offenders, let alone the ones not YET taken to task. In Ohio alone was have Taft (now a felon over the Noe scandal- misappropriation of funds) and Blackwell- both of the official overseers to the election. How much do you want to bet me personally that one or both of them will be charged at some point with election fraud? Yes, I believe that I have some "insider information" whether or not that makes me sound loony, but things are rotten in Denmark here. Of course, if they can just keep shoving the dates back in the Ohio Supreme Court, bush my not have to face the charges that the fucking election was RIGGED while he's still in office. The whole thing sucks.

Let me ask you a "what if". IF it was PROVEN that the election was rigged, would that change your opinion on everything else that has followed?

 

[kalipygian]

God, this is a confusing time for me. I'm a liberal who thinks it was a dumb idea to start the war, but almost as bad to pull out at the moment. That puts me at odds with the majority of Americans, including democrats, and Congress. I think... I think I might be on Bush's side on this topic! Oh God.

I appreciate your position, that occurred to me after the election. There are some occasions where perseverance eventually accomplishes a goal. People who give consideration to all aspects of something and not jump to judgement should be respected. I have nevertheless continued my peacenik activism, I am glad I don't have to personally decide. I don't think soldiers should be forced to remain or fight against their own judgement. It remains that Bush is extremely incompetent, and has failed at every venture, no way I can respect his judgement, or motives, and would never defer anything to him to decide if I had any choice. He has gotten us and the Iraki people into probably a no-win situation through lies and underhanded manipulation. I don't think he deserves another chance to screw up other people's lives, wish we had a parlaimentary system, we would be rid of him and Nancy Pelosi would be Prime Minister.

Liberal means free, that is, free to think for yourself.

 

[madame_zora]

I was just talking to our long-lost Texassgirl tonight, and we pretty much decided that we really couldn't have expected anything different from bush. He failed at every business venture he tried before he took office (and I do mean "took"), so why did anyone ever expect him to be brilliant at the hardest job in the country? We got exactly what we deserved, because we refused to look at the mountains of evidence. Here's hoping we learned something, at the price of so much blood.

 

[kalipygian]

Big Dirge, it's a good thing you're so pretty.:biggrin1:

Why is it you so often reach into ancient history to make your points? While I am certainly impressed with your knowledge, you seem to fail to realise that we are in the age of television. We are in the age of a US president thinking he can tell the congress as well as the American people he was hired to represent to just go fuck off- what does that have to do with Adams? Nothing, really.

There's really nothing you can say to defend an adminsitration so garbled with liars, hypocrites, thieves, felons, perverts and extremists- you really don't want me to make a list of even the prosecuted offenders, let alone the ones not YET taken to task. In Ohio alone was have Taft (now a felon over the Noe scandal- misappropriation of funds) and Blackwell- both of the official overseers to the election. How much do you want to bet me personally that one or both of them will be charged at some point with election fraud? Yes, I believe that I have some "insider information" whether or not that makes me sound loony, but things are rotten in Denmark here. Of course, if they can just keep shoving the dates back in the Ohio Supreme Court, bush my not have to face the charges that the fucking election was RIGGED while he's still in office. The whole thing sucks.

Let me ask you a "what if". IF it was PROVEN that the election was rigged, would that change your opinion on everything else that has followed?

I have never considered him legitimitaly in office, just pretending. I am disappointed that the people have gone along with this pretence.

 

[Principessa]

I have never considered him legitimitaly in office, just pretending. I am disappointed that the people have gone along with this pretence.

I quite agree with you Kalipygian! As an educated American who votes I have always had a problem with 'that man.' Normally I can find the good in anybody but I stopped trying with him years ago.