Mirrors the thinking of Pelosi and Durbin.
What a clubby group we have in the 110th Congress.
Posted by Christopher at June 28, 2007 04:43 PMThis is very disappointing news. If the Democratic Party votes to impeach, will Obama vote with his Party?
Posted by mo2 at June 28, 2007 04:44 PMWake me up when we have the votes to impeach. In this Conrgress? please.
Posted by Sandra at June 28, 2007 04:47 PMLet's talk about your judgement Steve. Where does Obama say they've done nothing to merit impeachment? I bet you a million bucks you can't show me that direct quote.
Posted by Mike at June 28, 2007 04:48 PMThe Democratic leaders are being realistic.
Judgement other than that needs to be questioned.
Posted by jj at June 28, 2007 04:49 PMWhatever Obama does in case of eventual impeachment proceedings, he certainly won't be a leader.
Posted by NealB at June 28, 2007 04:50 PMWhy are you surprised? On a personal level, Obama may support it -- no matter what he claims. But, on a professional level, heck no he doesn't support it. Obama is the outsider who fought his way into and in some ways to the top of the Chicago Machine. He is not a radical. He is not a revolutionary. About the only thing revolutionary about the guy is his skin color in relation to him really having a good shot at winning the presidency, which if you think about it is very, very radical, practically reason by itself to vote for the guy. But on other issues, he is no radical and not even that far left. He's an establishment politician. You think somebody who went to Harvard and works for the Chicago Machine is really going to be any different? That said, he may not be that bad a candidate anyway, despite the lack of leftist credentials.
Posted by Brian Bell at June 28, 2007 05:11 PMJudgement other than that needs to be questioned.
Judgement other than that needs to be applauded.
Posted by phidipides at June 28, 2007 05:55 PM"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority," Sure you do Obama...like lying to your wife about an affair. I'm not sure whether this is another typically "safe" response by Obama or a roundabout shot at The Hillary. If Obama doesn't think what Dick and George have done equate with Bill's transgression...well, I won't worry so much from now on when National Media refer to him as Osama...err, Obama. And speaking of grave breeches...how about the graves of 3500+ American GI's killed in a war Osama, err, Obama voted against because he "knew" it wasn't warranted. I call B.S. on Obama.
Posted by T2 at June 28, 2007 05:59 PMWell, this really shows what a mainstream candidate Obama is.
JJ is completely off base here. There's a big difference between saying that impeachment is not a good reason for political reasons---the time involved, the lack of votes, etc.---and saying that there is nothing to warrant impeachment. The first position is the realist position, which I believe is what Pelosi and Durbin think. What Obama said goes much farther, and is almost Liebermanesque in its cravenness.
Obama should drop out of the race now and avoid embarrassing himself any more. He wasn't ready for prime time this cycle, and the damage he'll sustain from looking like an idiot this time around is going to stick with him for years
Posted by Marky at June 28, 2007 06:21 PMSorry, jj. This is the argument I would expect to have heard against prosecuting the murderers of Schwerner, Chapman, and Cheney, or against prosecuting the Birmingham church bombers.
Hey, you can't get a conviction, so why bother?
Sometimes you prosecute, just because.
Posted by Davis X. Machina at June 28, 2007 06:36 PMWell, check Obama off the list of candidates. If you see no reason for impeachment, then there is something wrong in your viewpoint of the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law, or you are just plain stupid. Either way, you don't deserve to plant your butt in the oval office by merely making such a ludicrous statement. That comment sounds like something a troll would say.
Posted by Judith at June 28, 2007 06:49 PMI recently set Pelosi a reminder that her constituents in San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley all passed resolutions in the 06 elections calling for impeachment, and asking her to act on the will of the people.
I don't have any illusions that 'madame Speaker' will deign to grow a backbone, but I hope that there's a teeny tiny bit of doubt in her politican's brain that her seat isn't as safe as she may think, as well as the rest of the Vichy Dems.
Posted by cheSF at June 28, 2007 06:49 PMYou have John Dean who has written an entire book entitled 'Worse Than Watergate' and he's in a position to know what is an egregious and unlawful use of power. Now we have the two leading democratic candidates saying that they won't call for impeachment. This tells me that they are trying to cover their own backsides and are willing to excuse any abuse lest they be caught in similar situations.
I feel like Diogenes who throughout his life "searched with a lantern in the daylight for an honest man." Sadly, he went to his gave unfulfilled.
Posted by Cordier at June 28, 2007 07:02 PMImpeachment would uncover skeletons the Democrats that voted for the war probably wish to remain buried.
Posted by skeptic at June 28, 2007 07:15 PMWe need to continue calling for criminal prosecution of all members of this administration. When they are out of office ,their immunity will be greatly reduced.
The professional politicians,of both parties ,will say things like "We need to look to the future."
But obviously ,maintaining accountability IS looking to the future.
Cheney replaced our constitution with a dictatorship. Not impeachable?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmu5daHO7ZQ&mode=related&search=
Posted by garuda at June 28, 2007 07:31 PMI have no problem with Obama's statement.
And I think his judgement is just fine.
If Obama doesn't think what Dick and George have done equate with Bill's transgression...well, I won't worry so much from now on when National Media refer to him as Osama...err, Obama.
There's a big fallacy in your argument. I'm sure you know what it is.
Bush & Cheney will be out of office in January 2009. The country will survive until then.
Posted by snark at June 28, 2007 07:37 PM
Crikey. And I just finished a blog post calling (again) for impeachment, referencing Article 3 of the Nixon articles, which was for refusing to honor subpoenas from the House Judiciary Committee.
I appreciate Obama wouldn't want impeachment to become a political tit-for-tat after what they did to Clinton, but come on, man! Get a clue.
This isn't politics, this is defending the Constitution and the rule of law.
Posted by biggerbox at June 28, 2007 08:25 PMImpeachment needs to happen. It's the legislative branch's job to make sure that checks and balances take place on the executive branch. If they don't defend the constitution, they are not doing their job.
I guess that doesn't matter to some citizens.
Besides, all the House does is make the charge to investigate. Crap, nothing is going to be accomplished in the House for the next year and half anyway, might as well be full blown investigations into the executive branch.
And so what if bu$h and 'the Dick' are out of office before it goes to trial in the Senate. At least the American people knew the House was doing their job.
Remember we are talking about the constitution here. The one that the White House has shit on from day one.
It appears some would like to have their heads buried in the sand for the remainder of bu$h's term. Let life go on, do their jobs, status quo, life is good, can't be bothered, we're too busy. While the criminals are getting away, we are all witnesses, and refuse to say or do anything.
I guess that reflects our society as a whole.
And exactly what the bu$h cabal wanted to happen in the first place!
Firedoglake readers and the Next Hurrah readers have been commenting all afternoon on the subpoenas, on Waxman's sudden deal with Fred Fielding, and the "showdown" between Congress and the White House. I think a number of lawyers are in the mix and this is the first time I have seen people who know the law begin to gravitate toward impeachment (beginning with Gonzales) because they see roadblocks in the path of criminal prosecution. I think the change is striking.
The gist of the argument seems to be: Republicans are playing for time while the Dept of Justice dithers. The defenders of executive privilege are depending on Federal Courts and the Supremes to tilt their way if DOJ has to reluctantly agree to issuing contempt of Congress citations for refusing to agree to subpoena, but nobody really expects Gonzales to do this. The special DOJ investigator who is looking into Attorney-gate (the one Iglesias has his hopes pinned on) is apparently the same guy who the President appointed and just issued an opinion in support of Fred Fielding's position on whether to have White House documents released to Waxman. SO the legal eagles suspect this key player will ultimately find a reason to support the unitary executive in other ways (and stifle a DOJ housecleaning by the Dems). For all these reasons, a great many eagles seem to be coming around to impeachment, and in a hurry, of Gonzales. Some suspect Waxman, Leahy,Schumer and Conyers already have enough on record (but as yet undisclosed) to furnish evidence for an "impeachment investigation", but perhaps not enough for a criminal trial. What they do not have is time to go to Federal and Supreme Courts and get results inside a year. Those are my impressions of what is being batted around.
Posted by gtash at June 28, 2007 09:08 PMThe fucking shine is rapidly tarnishing on this guy.
Posted by angryspittle at June 28, 2007 09:33 PMEven an unsuccessful impeachment would demonstrate faithfulness to the Constitution and rule of law. A Democratic impeachment defeat at the hands of 33 craven Republican ideologues in the face of overwhelming incriminating evidence would be a moral and political victory generating a highly attractive return on investment. Of course, that would require Democratic leadership placing the national interest before many of the same obligations and patrons they have in common with Republicans.
This mess didn't begin with Bush/Cheney & Co. and won't end with them. That said, no reason we shouldn't limber up for the main event by practicing on them.
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at June 28, 2007 09:51 PMWell, that was easy! I will not be voting for Barack Obama. Never. Never, ever, ever. Not ever!
Posted by Mitch Guthman at June 28, 2007 09:51 PMThere's a big fallacy in your argument. I'm sure you know what it is.
What? What is the fallacy? Fairies fly from out his ass? We didn't clap for Tinkerbell?
I know! We are supposed to stand with right arm erected at 90 degrees from center! Pelosi, Sieg Heil! That is much better. Just go along. No thought. Just go along.
Posted by phidipides at June 28, 2007 10:09 PMObama is just another traitorous imperial corporate oil-nazi like Bush and Cheney.
Obama has said that he wants to bomb Iran.
Obama has said that he wants to keep "force protection" in Iraq.
What's the difference between the Bush crime family, corporate Republicans and corporate Democrats? They all seem to be cut from the same imperial cloth...
Posted by james k. sayre at June 28, 2007 10:23 PM"...you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority,"
I think we've reserved impeachment about long enough; impeachment, like a full-bodied wine, has been in the bottle long enough, and 2007 is a very good year to impeach the culprits.
Senator Obama's statement is a gaffe as far as I am concerned, an example of thoughtless immaturity, and more particularly, political immaturity. You would never take from his statement that he grasps the gravity of the situation that the nation presently faces.
There have been crimes resulting in death, including treason, unlawful surveillance of Americans, obstruction of justice, rebuffing subpoenas and lawful congressional oversight, and the ongoing subordination of justice to politics.
It doesn't get any graver than this, baby.
Posted by Copeland at June 28, 2007 11:14 PMso it's "all options on the table" for the neocon enemy du jour Iran while all options are off the table for dealing with the murderous criminal assclowns destroying THIS country.
nice.
just what we need: another milquetoast dem without the stones to do or even support the right thing. fuck him.
no wonder this country is in such miserable shape, all the demoRats too have been just dumbed down. what a morass of stupidity and ignorance that party has become, not a new idea in anyone's head.
what i wouldn't give to get some great Liberals in the senate and house like back in the 60s and 70s
Posted by michael72 at June 28, 2007 11:36 PMhow is it that lying about a blow job is impeachable and their atrocities aren't..it's a wierd world we live in...very wierd
Posted by dennis at June 29, 2007 02:42 AMPvt. Keepout, your response has been my belief from the beginning.
It's not whether or not you have the votes to impeach, it is your duty to begin impeach proceedings. It is not your decision, because the Constitution of the United States demands you impeach. These people have taken oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and they have FAILED.
What would the Republicans do if in the same situation? They would impeach.
Posted by Judith at June 29, 2007 03:44 AMCopeland, and don't forget, outing a CIA operative. Even Bush Senior thinks this is an act of treason.
Posted by Judith at June 29, 2007 03:49 AMOff topic, but relevant I believe, in at least 5 counts--and that's for yesterday alone--to perhaps look at impeachment with the seriousness it demands.
According to this morning’s edition of El País.es , yesterday 5 more US soldiers died and 7 were injured by a car bomb detonated in Baghdad,
Also via the same source, the latest brings to 82 US troops killed thus far during June.
If this alone is not enough to erase from the face of earth the shenanigans carried out by any renowned spoiled brat I don’t know what would. Yet, not surprisingly by now I believe that I’m cured of bloody bombshells of this inane sort—though, am I?
PAZ
I hate to admit it but Tiki and Coyote were right on Obama. He is a loser.
Posted by JohnT at June 29, 2007 04:55 AMwell, he (Obama) just lost my vote.
Posted by John B. at June 29, 2007 05:42 AM3,571 and climbing. We will reach 4,000 long before Christmas at this rate.
Posted by Judith at June 29, 2007 05:45 AMBush and Cheney HAVEN'T committed "grave breaches" of executive authority??!! Good Christ!! How many laws do they have to admit violating? How many more specious, baseless constitutional arguments aggrandizing executive power do they have to make?
I guess the stage is set for Edwards to call for the impeachment of Cheney and remain mired at 10%.
Posted by euzoius at June 29, 2007 05:52 AMWhat? What is the fallacy? Fairies fly from out his ass? We didn't clap for Tinkerbell?
Don't get so hysterical. It's like a daycare that's run out of blankeys around here lately.
T2 wrote;
If Obama doesn't think what Dick and George have done equate with Bill's transgression...
Obama never suggested such a thing. So for T2 to attribute such a belief to Obama is fallacious.
But continue with your hysterics. II suppose it's much easier than actually thinking.
Posted by snark at June 29, 2007 06:30 AMAlong with Obama finding nothing impeachable when it comes to Bush, he is a warmonger who has said that surgical missile strikes against Iran is just fine with him.
As Obama told the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, “The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures (to stop its nuclear program), including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action? Launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in given the ongoing war in Iraq. On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if “violent Islamic extremists” were to “take over."
So, it looks like to me that Obama has no problem with declaring criminal wars of aggression.
Posted by Judith at June 29, 2007 07:00 AMDon't get so hysterical. It's like a daycare that's run out of blankeys around here lately.
I believe the daycare on the Titanic was located on the lower levels wasn't it? Right, no reason for hysterics.
Posted by Seven of Six at June 29, 2007 07:03 AM
Right, no reason for hysterics.
Glad you agree.
Posted by snark at June 29, 2007 07:12 AMGlad you agree.
snark, you know I really don't.
I stand by my earlier statement:
It appears some would like to have their heads buried in the sand for the remainder of bu$h's term. Let life go on, do their jobs, status quo, life is good, can't be bothered, we're too busy. While the criminals are getting away, we are all witnesses, and refuse to say or do anything.
I guess that reflects our society as a whole.
And exactly what the bu$h cabal wanted to happen in the first place!
Posted by Seven of Six at June 29, 2007 07:37 AM
another disgusting political schmuck
none of the candidates deserves my vote. the comment only reinforces my opinion that these quasi dictators love what bushit and shooter have done. it gives them a chance to do the same and they are wet with excitement at the prospect
human garbage
I fucking told you so.
Posted by God Of War at June 29, 2007 08:09 AMIt's Peach season, folks. Let's have a big, deep dish impeachment cobbler for the 4th!!! Yuuuuum, just what the Founding Fathers ordered.
Posted by Kax at June 29, 2007 08:43 AMObama is now an official member of the Bush&Co club. He has put on their official symbol of investiture--Blinders. He is now just another docile, domestic Donkey who responds to the whip and carrots of his driver who is leading him down the road to Perdition. With his blinders on, he is unable to see that the road he is going down is flanked with authortarian crooks and is descending to the valley of tyranny.
Posted by Nobody at June 29, 2007 09:57 AMMy letter to the Obama campaign:
Greetings
Until yesterday, I was seriously interested in Mr. Obama's candidacy for Democratic nominee for President of the United States.
But yesterday, Mr. Obama stated publicly his opinion that the conduct of the current Administration has not constituted sufficient grounds for impeachment.
This despite the fact that Mr. Bush as on two occasions admitted to felonies (overseas black-site detention, warantless wiretaps outside FISA authority) in televised speeches. This despite the corruption of the Justice Department. This despite the Abramoff scandals that if fully investigated will lead to the White House. This despite a host of other high crimes and misdemeanors. This despite the current Administration's apparent lust for a new air war against Iran.
Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and Mr. Gonzales have all committed grave violations of their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The nation cannot afford to once again allow the highest officials in the land to thumb their noses at the law, as this administration has been doing consistently throughout the last six years.
Because of Mr. Obama's statement, I cannot support his candidacy. Period.
We must restore the rule of law. I no longer believe that Barack Obama is comitted to this fundamental goal.
Hillary's looking better to me now.
Posted by bartcopfan at June 29, 2007 11:45 AMAnd nice letter, joel.
Posted by bartcopfan at June 29, 2007 11:46 AMFurthermore, no matter what Obama says now on the campaign trail, the truth is out. Remember that folks. No, Hillary doesn't look good now or ever. Don't forget, they are best friends with George and Barbara Bush. That should tell you everything you need to know about Hillary. As my Mother always says, "you are judged by the company you keep."
Posted by Judith at June 29, 2007 02:01 PMFunny how one statement can taint a political career.
Posted by Judith at June 29, 2007 02:04 PMFunny how one statement can taint a political career.
I'd say it's more pathetic than funny.
Posted by snark at June 29, 2007 02:28 PMJudging by the slow response of the blogs, I'm not sure how much of a taint there is, really. 'Sides - Murtha was out on your list only a month ago, wasn't he, Judith? Now he's in again? Not one for holding a grudge, I guess. I'd say this won't taint anything for very long.
Sometimes it seems like everyone's just running toward the next shiny thing, either a good quote or a bad quote - it's just goofy!
Posted by iamcoyote at June 29, 2007 02:36 PMIf there's a lawbreaker, and the lawkeeper doesn't hold him accountable, where's the rule of law? In the toidie.
Posted by Sharon at June 29, 2007 03:06 PMSometimes it seems like everyone's just running toward the next shiny thing, either a good quote or a bad quote - it's just goofy!
I keep hearing voices that say, "move towards the light".
Posted by Seven of Six at June 29, 2007 04:50 PMYikes! SoS, the light's bad! Run away! Run away!
Posted by iamcoyote at June 29, 2007 05:02 PMFunny how one statement can taint a political career
I agree. It's not so much what is being said as it is the timing: right after another act in Cheney's long-running "I'm above the law" charade. Obama ought to know better. Coming just as Leahy and Waxman start hauling the WH into court for contempt of Congress on ignoring subpoenas makes it even worse. Something is rotten.
Posted by steve at June 29, 2007 06:57 PM"Sides - Murtha was out on your list only a month ago, wasn't he, Judith? Now he's in again?"
Iamcoyote, if he was not on my list a month ago, I don't remember it. What is your point?
Posted by Judith at June 29, 2007 08:21 PMJudith, you were hating Murtha after he voted for the funding bill, I believe, and now he's on the good side again. My point is that every time some politician, even Republican, says they're against the war, (or the issue of the day) he's suddenly everyone's best friend, then the next day, they say something no one likes and he's the devil. And every time I (or snark) point out the silliness of it, we're nazis or clapping for tinkerbell. We point out "fallacies" and we're trying to stifle everyone's freedom to say they hate the dems, those nazis! snark's right, it's 'puke-esque, because that's exactly how Coulter reacted when Elizabeth Edwards said "can't we have a discussion without the personal attacks."
It's just sad that a year ago we were all working together to get dems elected and suddenly everyone has splintered because some of us don't hate dems enough. Especially when the really bad guys are sitting back laughing at the predictability of it. Don't you wonder why the trolls don't come here anymore? They don't have to - we're all trolls now! It's just dumb, I think. And it gets us even further away from getting this occupation over, not closer.
Posted by iamcoyote at June 29, 2007 08:49 PMIamcoyote, I honestly don't remember singling out Murtha, because I admire the fact that he was one of the first to call out Bush on this Occupation. That being said, I probably have been guilty of disliking a Democrat one week and being upset with them the next week.
The people who post here come for discussion, and in some cases, to vent. As in any group, not everyone agrees all the time. However, I don't believe that anyone here thinks you or Snark are "trying to stifle everyone's freedom to say they hate (if that's the right word) the Dems." I know I don't. Frustrations are running high, and perhaps we all are a little thinned skinned these days.
I think that each and everyone of us were overcome with elation when the Democrats took back Congress. Perhaps we felt that the nightmare we had been living would finally begin to end. The frustration and fear is that we may have been wrong, and if we are wrong, then what? We also expected more leadership from the Democrats in Congress and for things to move forward more quickly. The approval numbers of Congress tells me that others are also frustrated.
Many times it is not what is being said, but the tone of what is being said. In other cases, it is honest disagreements.
I'm rambling on and not making a lot of sense. Here is my last thought. Things are serious. I agree, we must not allow our differences of opinions to splinter us.
P.S. I though Steve had killed all the trolls with his computer.