Biden: Impeachment if Bush bombs Iran; Is meeting with Constitutional law experts

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: Seacoastonline

By Adam Leech
November 29, 2007

PORTSMOUTH — Presidential hopeful Delaware Sen. Joe Biden stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval.

Biden spoke in front of a crowd of approximately 100 at a candidate forum held Thursday at Seacoast Media Group. The forum focused on the Iraq war and foreign policy. When an audience member expressed fear of a war with Iran, Biden said he does not typically engage in threats, but had no qualms about issuing a direct warning to the Oval Office.

"The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach," said Biden, whose words were followed by a raucous applause from the local audience. Biden said he is in the process of meeting with constitutional law experts to prepare a legal memorandum saying as much and intends to send it to the president.

When local resident Joel Carp asked Biden why not impeach now, given what has already been done, Biden said it was a valid point, but might not be constitutionally valid and potentially counterproductive. A case for impeachment must have clear evidence, Biden said, and blame should be directed at the right parties. "If you're going to impeach George Bush, you better impeach (Vice President Dick) Cheney first," said Biden, again drawing applause.

Biden said the best deterrent to prevent pre-emptive military action in Iran is to make it clear, even if it is at the end of his final term, action will be taken against Bush to ensure "his legacy will be marred for all time."...

Read more: http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071129/NEWS/71129018

[sabra]

1. transcript here:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/30/489166.aspx#comments

QUESTIONER: “I have a great fear that say you’re elected as the nominee of the party. Next August sometime during the summer, Dick Cheney and George are going to bomb Iran."

BIDEN: "Legitimate concern."

QUESTIONER: "What can you do about it?”

BIDEN: “I am not one, who if you’ve observed me for some time, I am not one who’s engaged in excessive populist rhetoric. I’m not one that pits the rich against the poor. I’m not one who’s gone out there and made false threats against presidents about, and god love him he’s a great guy, I’m not Dennis Kucinich saying impeach everybody now. But let me tell you, I have written an extensive legal memorandum with the help of a group of legal scholars who are sort of a stable of people, the best-known constitutional scholars in America, because for 17 years I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

"I asked them to put together me a draft, which I’m now literally riding between towns editing, that I want to make clear and submit to the Untied States Senate pointing out the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran. And I want to make it clear, I want it on the record, and I want to make it clear, if he does, as chairman of the foreign relations committee and former chair of the judiciary committee, I will move to impeach him."

(APPLAUSE)

...

SECOND QUESTIONER: " ... I say this not to fan flames, and not to sound like a raving lunatic. You did mention something about impeachment, if George Bush does something regarding Iran. I say this as a strategic or tactical question. Do you think it would be useful now to forward an impeachment motion as a signal to the world that we're headed in the right direction?"

BIDEN: "It’s a valid statement to make. It is not as clear constitutionally that articles of impeachment would lie absent his action, which is crystal clear if he acted without congressional authority in Iran. It is arguable constitutionally whether some of the action he has taken thus far amount to high crimes and misdemeanors that could be in fact proven.

"So it makes it difficult. But beyond that, it is counterproductive. Let me make it clear what the impeachment case I made is. I think the best deterrent is for the president to know, even at the end of his term, we would move and move to follow through with that so his legacy would be marred for all time if he acted in what was clearly, clearly an impeachable offense. In the absence of that, what happens is, and you’re gonna think I’m joking about this. I’m not. If you’re gonna impeach George Bush you better impeach Cheney first. Not a joke. Not a joke."

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Thanks, sabra! nt

[ooglymoogly]

33. Our first priority as a country on its last legs as a democracy has to

be above all impeachment of Boooshcabal. It is far more important than any other issue.

[Demeter]

50. Impeachment Is a House Function, Not Senate

How exactly does Biden propose to overcome this little sticking point?

[FatDave]

56. Wondering the same thing here. (nt)

[frogcycle]

62. He can call on the house to bring articles

kind of like a prosecutor asking a grand jury for an indictment so he can get going with a trial

might not be binding, but maybe that public call would force Pelosi's hand

[WheelWalker]

63. I believe the term "move" is not being used in the parliamentary sense of

"placing a matter before an assembly for discussion and vote." I believe the word "move" is used in this situation to indicate "force applied against the inertia of rest."

When a word is capable of more than one meaning, why choose a meaning which is absurd within the context?

[kestrel91316]

2. My bet is, Congress will GIVE him approval to bomb Iran.

He will set it up like 9/11, with another "terra attack", so they will have too much pressure and just go along to get along.

[springhill]

81. That is my worry also.............

I think there are enough democrats who side with those who want more war. It has looked that way so far anyway.

[sabra]

3. One problem - we bomb Iran, and there might be other things more important

going on... like WWIII

[Kurovski]

8. Impeach now.

Why not? Bush believes in pre-emption. It's all the rage.

[Vincardog]

11. Second that IMPEACH THEM ALL NOW

[mlevans]

19. Bingo!

Pre-emptive impeachment even has a nice ring to it.

[Mnemosyne]

101. I will fourth that Kurovski, IMPEACH NOW, the dick first! n/t

[roguevalley]

26. my take on this is it would be like poking a hornets nest with a stick

countries that are borderline would fall, such as Pakistan and hardliners would turn around and stab the nearest available victim, such as Syria v Lebanon. Russia would have to stand by Iran and we would catch hell up the wazoo. I would appreciate Biden even more if he would do it now.

[seemslikeadream]

5. Spend 7 million I'm sure you could find something

to impeach bush and cheney

[LakeSamish706]

6. Me thinks it will be a little to late by then....

"Presidential hopeful Delaware Sen. Joe Biden stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval."

Why wait till then, do it now?

[aggiesal]

34. Heard an interview on Wed. on the Randi Rhodes show, ...

I can't remember the name of the person being interviewed, but he basically
said that:

The Dems have already made assurances to the Bush Administration that they
will not move to impeach either King George or Queen Dick.

And that they would move to close any court case that might implicate any
criminal activity by this administration, because it would then force them
to impeach.

That is why both houses are trying to pass a new FISA bill that will give
the telecom's retroactive immunity for breaking the privacy laws.
There are cases that are suing AT&T and other telecoms. Once the new FISA
bill passes with the retroactive immunity included, these law suits go away.

But if they don't pass a FISA bill with retroactive immunity in it (Sen. Dodd
has already stated that he will filibuster any FISA bill with retroactive\
immunity included); Then once a court rules that what this administration, with
the aid of the telecom's, did was illegal, then the house would be obligated to
impeach (if Pelosi lets it), and the senate would have to try.

I was pulling my hair out, what little left I have.

I don't expect anything, anytime soon.

[truedelphi]

76. At this point, you and I must have matching hair styles. n/t

[DeeDeeNY]

102. That was one scary interview

It was Jonathan Turley - professor of constitutional law at George Washington University. He tells it like it is. Very depressing.

:banghead:

[acmavm]

7. I could be wrong but if he bombs Iran, won't it be a little late for

that shit? We need those evil bastards gone BEFORE they can do something that drastic and horrific.

[DaLittle Kitty]

69. Biden Talks Tough Then Bails Out!

Alito and Roberts are two recent notable examples. Why not move to impeach now Senator Biden? My understanding is that there exists more than adequate violation re:high crimes and misdemeanors sufficient to impeach Bush, Cheney et al.

Let's DO IT NOW Senator Biden. Head off the Iran decision at the pass. :hi:

[lovuian]

9. I'll give Biden a cupie doll for this one but if we go to war with Iran

and many soldiers die then Impeaching a President seems a bit mute



Biden was such a war hawk and beat the war drums back earlier

times change

[RantinRavin]

10. Unfortunately for the Senator

The Senate has no power to start impeachment proceedings. That power lies in the House of Representatives.

[gateley]

17. He understands that - he teaches constitutional law -- here's what he said:

"I asked them to put together me a draft, which I’m now literally riding between towns editing, that I want to make clear and submit to the Untied States Senate pointing out the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran. And I want to make it clear, I want it on the record, and I want to make it clear, if he does, as chairman of the foreign relations committee and former chair of the judiciary committee, I will move to impeach him."

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[Sweet Pea]

28. You didn't address the previous comment

*HOW* can Biden "...move to impeach" Bush when he has absolutely no capability or constitutional authority to do so? So his group of "legal scholars" is putting together a "draft". A draft of what? A constitutional amendment that would allow the Senate to begin impeachment proceedings?

Might as well fold it up and use it as a coaster for all the good a "draft" from a senator's desk will be in "moving to impeach" the President.

Bluster. Trying to score points. Too bad he forgot the constitution. This makes him look exceedingly bad.

[gateley]

31. I addressed the previous comment with this quote:

" as chairman of the foreign relations committee and former chair of the judiciary committee, I will move to impeach him."

I take that to mean he would use his expertise, experience and understanding of the situation in order to make a STRONG plea to Congress to do their J.O.B. If you want the specific, step by step *HOW* - you'd have to ask him. I don't presume to speak for my candidate. Again, it's my impression that he would use his current position to present the case to Congress.

Bluster? Biden always delivers what he says he will.

And as opposed to looking bad, I think it reflects well on him that he's willing to address this issue when most others aren't.

PS -- I just find it amusing that DUers are presuming to know more about the Constitution than a sitting member of the Senate who also TEACHES Constitutional Law at the college level. I hardly think he "forgets" the Constituion. :shrug:

[WheelWalker]

60. I believe your interpretation is the correct one. "When a statement is

capable of more than one interpretation, and one of those interpretations is on its face impossible within the context, it would further understanding and communication to choose an alternate interpretation that admits possibility within the context." - Yodananda Samadhi

[TankLV]

71. BULLSHIT! Most of us here know a LOT more than the congress persons - that's evident by the

comments by many here.

I resent the implication that you consider a congress person more knowledgeable just because of their status as congress persons.

That's not only wrong, but highly ignorant on your part...

I'd say the average DU'r here know a TON of a lot more than Bidden or anyone else, including ME.

The only thing that separates us is the overwhelming LACK OF WILL to of our representatives to do WHAT'S RIGHT AND DEMANDED!

[gateley]

79. Well how about his credentials teaching Constitutional Law? Are the "average"

DUers qualified to do that?

[Donnachaidh]

97. So Biden is basically promising a strong phot-op if Bush bombs Iran

A "strong plea" is NOT impeaching anyone. A "strong plea" can and will be ignored, especially if that maniac does bomb Iran. And Biden knows this. Talk about planning your face time in advance! :rofl:

Blowhole Joe doing what he does best -- running his mouth. He'd have more fans if he ACTUALLY learned a new skill and actually did start the impeachment plea before people get killed. Same old same old from Biden. :grr:

[donkeyotay]

12. Last I saw, uniting behind the president in time of war was all the rage

Waiting until he's done it is too late.

[YoungDUer]

13. That is a HORRIBLE idea

Once a full-blown war with Iran starts, war fever will make any impeachment advocate look like a traitor. If you're going to do it, do it now. By the way, Biden. It starts in the House.

[Ian David]

40. Once we attack Iran, we have between 13 minutes to 24 hours to live.

Bush has been going out of his way to piss-off the Chinese and the Russians, not to mention all the countries downwind from Iran.

If we attack Iran, there will very likely be a nuclear strike against The United States from China, Russia, or Pakistan.

If we (or Israel) attack Iran, then Pakistan will either launch their nukes at Israel, or else the clamor to do so will be so extreme, that Musharif will be overthrown by someone who IS willing to nuke Israel.

Another scenario that could play out is that attacking Iran causes such an uproar in the Muslim world that Musharif is over-thrown, and India launches a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Pakistan (Do a Google search on the Stargate: SG-1 Episode about the Rand Protectorate if you wonder how that could be rationalized).

This has been the Republican plan all along.

They think they can get to Heaven without dying if they take enough of us with them.

[MindMatter]

73. That's not the likely scenario

Bush simply doesn't have the manpower to wage a major invasion. All he can do is send in some cruise missiles, some bombers and maybe a few special ops forces. That's just the reality of how this regime has devastated our forces.

Another factor is that the public will not be in a rally-around-the-President mood. I honestly believe that the public has finally caught on to these criminals, and even the press is starting to speak up.

So it really is a whole different set of circumstances. I think Biden is playing it right. He is forcing Bush to consider the risk-reward ratio of an Iran invasion on a personal level. All his life, everybody else has paid the price for the coke-heads irresponsibility. This time he could pay a big personal price.

[AntiFascist]

95. I hope you're right, but a lot may depend on the media...

Biden really needs to get more face time on this issue. Once Wolfie fires up his Situation Room and gets a few retired generals in talking war strategy, this could become Monday night football Gulf War I all over again.

[AndyA]

14. So this is what it's going to take? Another war?

HELLO! What about Bush's *FIRST* ILLEGAL WAR?

You know, the one based on lies? The one that has cost American taxpayers billions of dollars in no-bid contracts? The one that has wasted a fortune lining the coffers of Bush's cronies? The one that has already killed almost 4,000 troops, injured tens of thousands, and killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens?

What about THAT WAR, Joe? Iran is enough to get you to move toward impeachment, but all the other illegal acts isn't enough?

Better late than never, I guess. (That's probably what Bushco thought after the 9/11 attacks...should have done something, but we'll do it now...) :eyes:

Normally, I like Biden pretty well but this just hit me the wrong way. I am so sick of people saying if so and so happens, then we'll do so and so. Why not just do it based on things that have already happened? It's not like there isn't an entire NOVEL of illegal activities to choose from.

(End of rant)

[MissDeeds]

66. I was going to post the same thing

In order for the dimwits in DC to act, Bush has to bomb two countries that never attacked us back to the stone age. Apparently one is okay, but two is crossing some sort of line. Thank God we still have standards. :sarcasm:

[mike_c]

15. too little, too late....

Just one more war.... That's our final line in the sand! Just one more illegal war!

[The Stranger]

16. Better keep our powder dry.

[gateley]

18. Why is everybody beating up on Biden? He's compiling information. He's addressing

the question. He's not saying "It's off the table."

It seems to me he's making strides toward this end, and yet he's being criticized for too little too late.

What about the other candidates? Where are their statements regarding this? Have they begun an investigation as he has?

Give the man credit for what he IS doing in this regard.

[mlevans]

20. I have to agree with that. Credit where credit's due.

[YoungDUer]

23. He supported the war, the bankruptcy bill, PATRIOT

I mean how much does it take bfore we say, "Let's stop giving these people another chance and ask them to do the damn right thing for once?"

[frogcycle]

64. And I see this as pre-emptive

I agree that saying you'll do it only after bush pushes the button is "too little too late' -

- BUT -

He is driving to get a memorandum written and delivered to the WH - and you can bet he'll see to it that copies go to the military chain of command -

he could be putting them on notice that any such order from the CinC is illegal, and they had damned well better refuse it

You can say various things about Biden, but dumb and unpatriotic are not among them

Cynics can accuse him of grandstanding (and can also go to hell); I believe he is hearing even more than we are about the winds of war

His comment that "you'd better do cheney first" should perk up some ears across Capital Hill. One could take that as an invitation - or even a request.

Aside from the fact that he was already the most qualified for the job, if he manages to freeze booshes finger poised above the button, he should be made pres by acclamation

[TankLV]

72. Biden is also LATE to the party - extremely LATE!

He has been luckewarm at best ont he issues...

Seems he's only jumping on the bandwagon now because that's what his audience wants to hear NOW...

Too little, muich too late, Joe...

[Steely_Dan]

I Was Just About...

to write exactly what you wrote. I couldn't understand why everyone here was dumping on Biden. Other than DK, he is the only candidate who is talking impeachment. Sure, Bush should have been impeached a long time ago... It didn't happen. At least Mr. Biden is researching the issue and drawing up the paperwork. Sure, he's not in the House...but this is a powerful man in government. Believe me, the House will listen to him. At least he is making the effort.

-Paige

Oh...this whole voting for the war. Yeah, he did. He has stated over and over that he regrets that vote. He trusted Bush to use diplomacy...war being the last resort. He's not along. Nearly every candidate did the same thing.

-Paige

[Alexander]

21. And what happens if Bush gets Congressional approval?

If the Democratic Congress can't keep a waterboarding Rudy flunkie out of the AG's office, how do they expect to vote against a war with Iran?

[gateley]

25. That's the question, isn't it. I couldn't even fathom that happening, but then

I couldn't fathom the Kyl-Liberman bill passing, either.

I hang on to the hope that Congress will read the outrage from their constituents and not risk losing their support with a vote to authorize.

Sad that I'm thinking it's the politics that might get them to vote the right way -- rather than just believing in them as good people and fellow citizens.

Can you believe this is our country, Alexander? What the fuck???

[Alexander]

27. The fact that Biden is threatening impeachment is definitely a plus...

My only questions are what took him so long, and why not impeach the bastards regardless?

You and I have had differences about Biden, and I make no secret of the fact that I'm not supporting him for president, but I would like him in a foreign policy role in the next administration. It's clear he has nearly unparalleled expertise in that field.

[gateley]

30. I know we're diametrically opposed when it comes to Biden, but that's okay.

You offer great insight on OTHER matters! :7

Impeachment is not Biden's responsibility technically, but my praise of him in this instance is that he's actually taking steps toward gathering the ammo, and will use his position as Chairman to get it rolling if need be.

I hope he remains just where he is if he doesn't get the nom (if he gets the nom, I think it's all over for the Reps) -- I think with his experience he shouldn't be "under" a President with less hands-on knowledge. That might not be comfortable for either the Prez or for Biden if he were the SOS.
I can't imagine him doing a Colin Powell and walking the party line if there was something to which he was strongly opposed. As we all know, Biden says what he thinks.

[Mnemosyne]

103. HR 1955 stunned me. WTF?!

Now known as S 1959, iirc.

Bizarro world too long.

[boricua79]

22. how about Impeaching him now

Plenty of stuff already (it's been discussed ad nauseum on DU already).

I'm glad Biden suddenly has grown a pair (balls or ovaries, take your pick), but this sounds like candidate grandstanding.

[superkia]

24. So Biden supports impeachment for attacking Iran but he...

doesn't support it for the current illegal war? Is it because he sounded just like Bush when he spoke about the Iraq war until late and he was a part in pushing that Iraq war, just go look back at he was saying before, he sounded just like Bush, Cheney and Clinton. I guess he wants some votes in the primaries because he will do something if something happens instead of something that has already happened? Thats a true leader there, go Biden?

[Think82]

37. The president had a general authorization for force in Iraq. He does not with Iran.

It doesn't matter that the Iraq war is a debacle and is being waged immorally. Impeachment occurs when the President violates constitutional authority.

[superkia]

38. I was only pointing out that we should be cautious of praising...

him on an action that hasn't even taken place when he was a part of the first illegal war.

[Think82]

41. "Part of?"

I would hardly call Biden part of the iraq debacle. If you look at what he said in the 6 months betw. authorization and the war itself, it is clear that Biden, along with Dick Lugar, tried to limit the President's authority, and believed that the diplomatic options had not been exhausted, as there were inspectors IN THE COUNTRY as a result of the threat of force. Bush ignored that the inspectors were in the country and proceeded to invade, dismantle Iraq's infrastructure, and set up a neo-con utopia which, of course, was a miserable failure and helped spur on the insurgency.

Biden believed Bush would act in accordance with the resolution, which Bush overstepped by a long margin. Then, the Republican-controlled congress would agree to any post-invasion measures that Bush called for (except Mccain) which made a bad problem worse.

Moreover, Biden was the first to call for the federalization of Iraq, which is now THE ONLY responsible solution to the war.

[superkia]

43. Remember, there was no evidence for war, even Kucinich...

pointed this out back then and they ignored him and went ahead...why? He was beating the war drums just like the rest, trying to turn 9/11 into Saddam. Read the facts, he was a large part.

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) > August 4, 2002 "This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."

August 4, 2002 "I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain."

August 4, 2002 "We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability." >

August 4, 2002 "First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one."


You can interpret it however you like, I will do the same.

[DutchLiberal]

45. Yes, the same Bush-like warmongering that Edwards uttered. Why are both candidates popular at DU?

You all complain about Bush and the "illegal" Iraq War, yet you will endorse and vote for the people who enabled him?

[Think82]

54. None of those statements are at odds with the intelligence. And none of thosemean Bush should invade

That's my interpretation. You can read into those statements how you like.

We are voting in the year 2008.

[Steely_Dan]

84. Excellent Points, Think n/t

[TankLV]

74. exactly...

[HuffleClaw]

29. they'll simply frame the attack as 'supporting israel'

and claim by attacking they've prevented another holocaust

[radfringe]

32. KEY PHRASE...

...if he bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval.


everyone who thinks congress will refuse to approve, please raise your hand..

[Martin Eden]

47. My hand is in the air.

The Democratic Congress will not approve it.

[rockybelt]

35. How much

evidence does he thinks he needs for chrissake! They're knee deep in evidence now.

I agree that darth should be impeached first and impeached now! The evidence regarding the shooter is abundant and crystal clear.
IMPEACH NOW!!!!

[SKKY]

36. So, we've now decided to let the Rebublicans "slide" on Iraq?

Un-fucking-believable!!! I don't know who I'm more pissed at right now- Bush and his "crew" or this group of worthless fucking stooges we elected to office. Does Pelosi have everyone's balls in a safe, and only she decides when to take them out???

[Ian David]

39. And what if Bush coaxes Israel into attacking Iran on our behalf?

From the start, Israel was against attacking Iraq and FOR attacking Iran after 9/11.

In this case, "better late than never" does not apply, and is suicidal.

And all part of Bush's plan to Emmanentize The Eschaton.

[pat_k]

42. He would move to "disarm" the outlaws after they "shoot"?

Does he actually think we would somehow be relieved to hear this?

His latest statements make it clear that he believes Bush and Cheney are deluded enough to unilaterally order bombs to be dropped on Iran, and yet he refuses to demand immediate impeachment and removal.

The truth is that Biden has long been well aware that their fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive poses a clear and present danger to the existence of our constitutional democracy. His most public and unequivocal rejection of their destructive insanity came when he http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=121297">questioned Alito.

As far as consulting "Constitutional experts" -- you don't need a law degree, or even a high school degree, to know that the kind of absolute power Bush and Cheney claim is NEVER freely given to a leader; it is only taken by deception or force. I don't believe for a second that any legitimate Constitutional expert buys the "unitary" lunacy. (And http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3663478&mesg_id=3663652">either does Rep. Jane Harman). When Biden claims to be "consulting" he is telling that he doesn't know enough to judge. That's just crap. It's a transparent attempt to evade duty.

And if there are any "scholars" out there claiming there is some question, then they are either fascist minions or it's a case of the Emporer's New Clothes -- a case in which the "authorities" and "sophisticated" refuse to believe their own eyes. If we are to preserve our constitutional democracy, ordinary Americans must trust THEIR eyes and call Biden, and every other Member of the House and Senate, on their excuses for dereliction.

From http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3773595&mesg_id=3773925">a response to another thread on Biden's statements:

It's Judgment Day

The facts are known. Bush and Cheney have offered their intolerable "defense." There is nothing to investigate. Nothing to debate. All that remains is to say "NO!"

"Drowning torture" ("waterboarding" to the propagandists) is absolutely and unequivocally forbidden under U.S. Federal Law. It is as clearly forbidden as "The Rack" and "Thumbscrews." Bush and Cheney refuse to acknowledge that subjecting any person drowning torture is immoral, inhumane, and prohibited in ALL circumstances. They refuse to acknowledge that arbitrarily seizing and indefinitely committing any person to U.S. custody is prohibited in all circumstances.

Our treatment of the people who are in the custody of the state and the processes by which they are committed to state custody are central to our identity and moral authority as a nation. Their refusal to acknowledge these laws, in and of itself, is intolerable. . .

We "hire" Members of Congress to do three things: 1) put our will into law; 2) keep watch on the people we "hire" to execute and apply the law; and 3) "fire" the "bad apples." Lawmaking is perhaps the least critical of the legislative functions. If corrupt government officials are allowed to corrupt the existing body of law, making new law is meaningless.

The legislative enforcement function -- impeachment and removal of bad apples -- is as central to the integrity of our government as the criminal justice system is to the integrity of civil society. If the Attorney General publicly and proudly pledged to keep the prosecution of a mass murderer "off the table" we would be shocked. His job is clear; pledging not to do it is lunacy.

Pelosi's job is just as clear. Her pledge to keep the impeachment of Bush "off the table" is more appalling because the stakes are so much higher.

The bottom line is that each and every Member of the House and Senate faces an inescapable choice: Duty or Complicity. There is no finessing. Pelosi's pledge doesn't let them off the hook. There is no legitimate excuse for refusing to publicly demand impeachment and removal.

[Peace Patriot]

59. Wow, Pat_k! Thanks for that post! What a wonderful statement of the case!

I'm bookmarking it right now for future use.

Biden fully supported the war on Iraq--as did most of our so-called party leaders. That's why they can't impeach Bush and Cheney for their hideous war and related crimes. THEY are as culpable as Bush and Cheney.

And you only have to look at their even more enthusiastic vote for electronic voting run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount or testing controls--the so-called "Help America Vote Act" ($3.9 billion e-voting boondoggle to fast-track these election theft machines all over the country)--a vote that occurred in the same month as the Iraq War Resolution (October 2002), and is closely related to it--to know what this party political establishment did to enable Bush/Cheney's war and to shove this heinous war down the throats of the American people, 56% of whom opposed it at the beginning (Feb. '03), and a whopping 70% of whom oppose it now.

Biden is as full of hot air as Dodd--who engineered this non-transparent, fraudulent election system, with his good buds Tom Delay and Bob Ney--although he is not quite the slimebag Dodd is, spouting leftist views, and prepping to be Diebolded into the VP slot.

[pat_k]

110. People love tales of redemption. The "sinner" who sees the light.

Yes, their failures and transgressions are many, but I try to stay away from speculation about motives. Whatever the reasons -- whether they are driven by their irrational fear of looking "partisan," a tragic belief that they must enter into corrupt bargains to hold power and "do good," or simply have their heads too deeply stuck in the beltway sphincter -- any "sinner" can see the light, confess, and become a champion. Anyone can break the bonds of complicity by standing up and saying "I have been horribly wrong. I am committed to doing everything in my power to repair the damage I have done."

And if one of the Party leaders did so they could open floodgates of hope and action "out here" that would sweep up their colleagues. By taking the hero's role in one of the most compelling narratives there is -- betrayal and redemption -- they would almost certainly capture the hearts of Americans who continue to defend "off the table," and could even gain the support of a significant number of the "lost souls" who have tried to stick with Bush despite their anger at him for destroying their party.

Nothing Bush and Cheney have done is more willfully or blatantly evil than torture. Prosecution for war crimes is the prosecution they fear most. Their own futile attempts to find cover -- the public statements, executive orders, and signing statements -- condemn them. There is nothing more subversive than the fascist fantasy of unitary authoritarian power they invoke to "defend" their actions.

Of all the ways our so-called "leaders" have betrayed us, none is as great as the failure of Members of Congress to say NO! to torture by impeaching -- the ONLY form of objection that means anything.

When we boil it down to the simplest case --torture and their claim to absolute power -- the depths to which we have fallen is clear. The Democratic Congress is surrendering the nation to war criminals without a fight. They are declaring their powerlessness. They are sowing hopelessness and apathy when they could be inspiring Americans to take up and use the power that has always been theirs. If that isn't hitting bottom, I don't know what is.

Our "leaders" remain in deep denial. It's a tragedy -- and an opportunity. When you've hit bottom, the wall of denial tends to break down. We have been watching our "friends" in Congress go further and further down the wrong path for decades. Their complicity in torture brings all their transgressions into sharp relief. The magnitude of our current crisis is perhaps the best shot we have at successfully intervening.

I use language that typically applies to medical conditions because I think it helps to focus our attention where it needs to be -- on identifying and treating the "symptoms" rather than speculating on causes. Medical treatments are rarely grounded in a true understanding of cause. We can speculate about the origin of impeachophobia (or the closely related "illnesses" like partisanophobia or filibusterophobia). We can label them corrupt, stupid, whatever. We can tell each other how things should be, but in the end we must deal with their behavior, not their motives.

The "illness" or syndrome that has been so pervasive within the Democratic establishment isn't new. When they are called on to stand and fight for the things they claim to value most their dysfunctional reaction is remarkably predictable. Action is suddenly unthinkable. People we consider reasonable blather "reasons" (rationalizations) they can't defend, but stubbornly refuse to let go of. Whatever the specific circumstances, the irrational assumptions behind their "reasons" are basically the same -- "Can't win." "Mustn't 'waste' energy on a futile battle." "Mustn't overreach." "We would look partisan." "It would be too divisive." "They'll call us names." "The backlash beast will get us." "We'll look too angry; too prosecutorial." "We mustn't appear unreasonable." "It's a bad time, we'll stand up when. . ." "I'll quit tomorrow."

We've been hearing the same "reasons" for http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/24">for decades.

Who knows why action is unthinkable for them (I doubt they know themselves), but the "reasons" they invoke are nothing but a means to keep the unthinkable at bay. Challenge the empty and automatic excuses and you short-circuit their escape. They probably keep going back to the same bogus excuses because they've worked before. It's a self-reinforcing pattern of thought. The "certain" terrible things are avoided because they refuse to act. They don't fight and so never test their faith that defeat is certain.

When we simply watch and listen to them the treatment that suggests itself is to directly and persistently confront the "reasons" they offer and the irrational assumptions behind those "reasons." A few simple truths and moral principles provide all the ammo we need.

A growing number of people are doing it. They are taking Members of Congress and staffers on face-to-face. They are asking pointed questions and forcing them to acknowledge simple truths and moral principles that directly contradict their "reasons." They are learning how to become more effective citizen lobbyists.

It's a shift in approach that could make all the difference. To date, for the most part, we have seen impeachment advocates "making the case" in one-way dialog. The "cases" and calls for action have been sliding off the knee-jerk rationalizations like water off a ducks back. And they will probably continue to do so until enough of us start to directly confront the rationalizations wherever we find them -- whether we hear them from a neighbor, see them on a forum, or hear them coming out of Halls of Congress.

Basically, we need to learn to trust the truth and trust our fellow Americans. It's not complex. The case doesn't need to be "made" because it truly is self-evident. Our job is to tear down the irrational beliefs that have been blinding so many to the action that must follow from what they already know.

As we challenge irrational fears of political damage by pointing out the enormous potential moral and political benefits, even those who are just "out for themselves" may see the "wisdom" of "seeing the light." The beltway has become a world where "message" is the be all and end all. Perhaps we can shame them into acting if we get in there and make it clear that their "message" on impeachment sounds like a bunch of asinine, cowardly, and immoral excuses. (And not just to us -- every day we are hearing insiders like Howard Fineman label them cowards.)

And when people tell us we are "attacking our own" we just need to point out that it's tough love -- an intervention. That we are seeking to save them from making a fatal mistake.

Despite the establishment's relentless efforts to suppress the will to impeach by obscuring and euphemizing the crisis we face as a nation, they haven't managed to blind the public to the facts. Earlier this month 70% said they believe the Bush administration is abusing power (ARG, http://americanresearchgroup.com/">12-Nov-O7). Even back in January 58% said they "personally wish that Bush's presidency was over" (Newsweek, http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-27-2007/0004514285&EDATE=">27-Jan-2007).

If we can begin to get through the wall of denial, we may find that even the most hardened cynic can be motivated to "see the light" by these kind of numbers.

None of this means that we should tolerate continued failure. If they fail us this time when things are so black and white they make it crystal clear that it is time to cut them off. That it is time to find powerful Primary Challengers who know the meaning of an oath. Whether or not we make impeachment a reality before the 110th Congress adjourns, we win. Either we wake them up and make them our champions, or they've handed us the ammo that primary challengers can use -- their own idiotic words -- to defeat them.

Sorry about the length. All I set out to say is that you are right, they are complicit, but that doesn't mean they can't impeach. Ironically, the more complicit the more powerful the political benefits of "redemption" are likely to be. (e.g., Pelosi would be unstoppable if she "saw the light," denounced all their wrong-headed "conventional wisdom," and became a true champion. The same goes for Hillary. Or Obama if he denounced the false god of bipartisanship, accused, and demanded removal. Or even Biden if he denounced his latest idiocy and said "It's Judgment Day. Today.")

[DutchLiberal]

44. Why give him the opportunity? Geez... Impeach now already!!!

One more candidate you can't vote for.

[Martin Eden]

46. "his legacy will be marred for all time."...

It already is Joe, it already is.

Bush/Cheney will go down as the most disastrous administration in our history, even if they don't go down via impeachment.

[Martin Eden]

48. Doesn't impeachment have to be initiated in the House?

I could be wrong.

[deacon]

49. k + r

[Infinite Hope]

51. Actually, it would be legal...

Clinton used the same method to bomb in Iraq, the Balkans, etc. So while I agree with Biden's sentiment, the grounds for impeachment will have to come from the numerous other illegal actions of the administration, not the bombing of Iran.

[terryg11]

52. why not impeach now?

Bush didn't have the power to unilaterally attack Iraq did he? Did Biden support Kucinich's effort to impeach Bush and Cheney or is he doing this now to try and move up in the polls?

[Jacobin]

53. After the house burns down, I WILL call the fire department!!!

That's our Joe.

:eyes:

[TankLV]

75. Perfect analogy...perfect...

Joe has been PAINFULLY absent all along, and now he suddenly has found "religion"...

Sorry, Joe, your miserable record speaks VOLUMES...

I don't believe you for a second - just like all the other times you've disppointed us by your "rationalizing" and capitulation with WAR CRIMINALS...

[Steely_Dan]

86. Where are you getting this???

[lonestarnot]

55. So impeachment will be on the table if Humpty Dumpty falls off and busts all over the place. hmmmmf

[lvx35]

57. Good move. Thanks Joe!

An impeachment started by Biden would be strong indeed given his standing. This is a good move to show Bush Dems are serious. Its also evidence of how Biden is taking seriously the issues that are important to us. Way to go Joe!

[jeff30997]

58. Yep!

Impeach the baboon.Period.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

61. What? The Dems never do anything against Bush! Isn't that precisely the problem we're having?

The Dems do NOT confront Bush and deny him what he asks for. To the contrary, they give him anything he wants.

[Puckster]

65. After he bombs Iran?!

Don't we have enough to impeach him BEFORE he bombs another country?

[burrowowl]

67. But wouldn't it be a bit LATE!?

[orleans]

77. yes, it would be a bit late. we get to that point and all these dipshits

in congress should be FIRED for turning a blind eye

[Wapsie B]

68. First of all it's the House that would impeach.

Secondly why the hell is anyone going to wait until * bombs Iran?

[Cha]

70. The Loved ones of

the bombed Iranians thank him. Wouldn't a "Before" be better for lots of innocent human beings?

[jillan]

78. This actually scares me that he is talking so strongly about Iran.

On 9/10/01, Biden predicted that our biggest threat would come from the belly of a plane.

At a debate one month ago Biden predicted that Pakistan would be a bigger problem than Iran.

Now he is threatening this.....

Biden has been right too many times before, and now he is threatening this administration - and getting legal advice about it.


This is one time when I pray he is worried for nothing.

[KingOfLostSouls]

82. EXACTLY

what I just posted in another thread


something is up. the whole Iran thing has been quiet this shopping season. its all about spinning gay generals or venezuela or chinese toys. its been about trying to save face on Iraq.


for biden to come out swinging, this is right now, not a media cycle issue going on. he's going israeli heads of state calling him up asking for advice on middle east summits.

this is biden talking about something going on behind close doors that we're probably all not aware of, something that as chairman of the foreign relations committee, he's gotten wind of.

call me paranoid, but biden's a calm and collected individual, not the wild eyed lunatic kucinich comes off as sometimes about "IMPEACHMENT IMPEACHMENT IMPEACHMENT!!!"

somethings up.

[jillan]

87. The people that post 'impeach now' just don't get it.

They don't know enough about Biden to know that this is not political talk....

this is a warning to this administration. What really scares the shit out of me is that he is getting legal counsel.

Don't let the others get to you. Just chalk it up to people that don't understand.

[pat_k]

112. You don't "warn" squatters. You demand their eviction.

You initiate eviction proceedings.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/22">Like squatters, Bush and Cheney are laying claim to unconstitutional power through openly hostile possession. (With the emphasis on "open.")

Biden's job is to defend our "property" -- our nation, our Constitution. Failure to accuse and demand the removal of Bush and Cheney is dereliction of that duty.

Anything less than a demand for immediate impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate is a statement that there is some question about the fact that they have turned the USA into a War Criminal nation that spies on it's own citizens.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3084238&mesg_id=3084780">There is no question. Any suggestion to the contrary does nothing but give Bush and Cheney cover and license to violate our our most treasured principles.

Crimes are being committed before their eyes. Every Member of the House and Senate who "reserves judgment" or declares their intent to keep impeachment "off the table" is an accomplice after the fact.

[PatSeg]

108. I think the Biden's threat is meant to scare the bejeezus

out of Bush, to deter him from bombing Iran. He is letting Bush know that he is acquiring all necessary info to use against him if he dares to make a move.

I don't see this as particularly political - it is a public dialog with Bush, one that can't be ignored.

[Truth2Tell]

80. Who the hell is this guy?

And what has he done with Joe Biden?

[calteacherguy]

83. I'm certainly very happy to kick and recommend that!

I'd have no problem with a Biden Presidency.

[Baby Snooks]

85. Forget Biden...

He will support impeachment if Bush bombs Iran? Impeachment would prevent Bush from bombing Iran. Biden has a big X next to his name on my list.

He joins Clinton and Obama as truly gutless wonders. Kucinich and Paul just doesn't do it for me. Paul has said no. Who might say yes is almost as scary now. Edwards I have never even considered. So who's left?

[Steely_Dan]

88. So...

You give no credit at all for what he said he would do? I mean, would you rather it just be Kucinich that is pounding the impeachment table? I would think this would be wonderful news...a powerful Senator is threatening impeachment. Who else beside DK has done that? I give Biden big kudos for this. I believe he is a straight shooter and will do what he says he will do.

-Paige

[gateley]

91. Regardless of how people interpret Biden's response to the question, this has

garnered much more press than Impeachment has received previously, and I think that's a positive.

[Baby Snooks]

92. Wonderful news?

"I would think this would be wonderful news...a powerful Senator is threatening impeachment."

Threatening impeachment IF Bush does something? Bush hasn't done enough already? What if Bush attacks Iran the morning of the inauguration in January of 2009? How are you going to impeach him then since he will have left office by the time the media got the release and broadcast it.

What a legacy that would be. And what a parting gift to the new president.

Worse, what if all the worse fears of some really come to pass? He attacks Iran, we are nuked by Russia. He declares martial law. And the military takes over. And he declares himself an "interim president" during the escalating war with Russia.

Or what if he just nukes a city by himself. Some say he is capable of doing just that. And that there are some in the military who would assist him. And then we have Crystallnacht. Smash the mosques and arrest the Muslims. Then go after someone else. Ship them all off to concentration camps. Until he can "restore" order.

People in Germany never thought what happened could happen. Until it happened.

My personal feeling, apart from the fears, is that both candidates in both parties will have been "selected" rather than "elected."

Impeachment should have been the first thing on the table. All of this is moot. Congress has decided the will of the people means nothing.

[eridani]

89. What about impeachment to PREVENT that? n/t

[syberlion]

90. Spoiled Brat

Here's the crux of the matter, If congress moves forward with impeachment, then there will be such a cry about complicity. Just like when the spoiled brat of a kid gets so out of hand that he or she gets into serious enough trouble the police show up on the doorstep and haul away the parents for allowing the behavior in the first place!

So, you bring up impeachment and questions are raised about who voted and supported what for whom and who pointed whose finger where. We are looking at the Savings and Loan scandal all over again. How? Well does anyone remember back when Jerry Brown held up a memo basically saying from the national party offices, "hey, the savings and loan thing can hurt incumbents on both sides, let's not use that this time around..." I remember seeing that during one of the primary debates and am still floored to this day.

Problem is, there is enough blame to go around and short of every cushy lifer, all of a sudden getting a backbone or quietly slinking away in the night (which by the way has been happening on the repug side of the house and senate, retiring, resigning, etc...) you're not going to see anything happen because there are no true leaders and those in power aren't leading, they're maintaining the status quo, with a very weak arthritic nod to the people.

And we the people are like the crazies hovering over Terry Shivo's body pointing and saying, "See! See! there are signs of coherency!" Harsh words to read, I know. It's tough especially when you hear your own mother, one who voted Reagan for Governor, Nixon for President, and on and on... to hear HER say, "I made a mistake and I am too old to fight what's happening to my country."

What Biden exemplifies is what is wrong with the current governing body. No guts, no glory. All talk and no action. It's been too long where every politician has come out and been great singers and dancers, but when it's time to strike the set and get ready for the grunt work, they are nowhere to be found.

Like parents who have a kid and act like nothing's changed in their lives. They continue to go out and have fun and drag the kid along to places inappropriate for children. If anyone complains, THEY are the ones made to feel bad for complaining. Like being told it's unpatriotic not to support the war...

So, where does this leave us? What now? If I had the answers I wouldn't be postulating on my computer this late at night. I'd be doing something so that I could fall asleep at night, knowing I've made a difference. I suspect it will have to get worse before it gets better. There are not enough couch (and computer) potatoes uncomfortable enough to get up off their collective butts to stand en'mass in their capitol cities demanding a change. No, still too many channels to surf, too much content on line to read, still not uncomfortable and when they are, the gates will already be locked behind them.

Thank you for the rant.

[KingOfLostSouls]

93. Ok, I just wanna ask all the geniuses one simple question

where you going to dig up the 2/3rds majority in the senate to get impeachment right now?


seriously, all the biden bashing/kooch praising is a lil ridiculous when you don't realize impeachment isn't just a simple majority vote in the house, its a 2/3rds majority in the senate to convict. otherwise, its just another "non-binding" resolution.

when we can dig up the 2/3rds necessary to convict, then start jumping for joy. otherwise, its just blowing smoke and not being constructive to the larger argument.

[stimbox]

106. you dig up the 2/3rds when you present irrefutable evidence, not before. n/t

[Hekate]

94. Don't toy with our feelings, Joe. We're on edge here. nt

[tomp]

96. impeach bush and leave cheney?

"his legacy will be marred for all time"... you mean it's not already?

i don't like the way this man's mind works. impeach now. cheney first.

[BR_Parkway]

98. Bush invaded Iraq because they "might have WMD" - why can't you

impeach him because he "might bomb Iran"? seems like a more credible threat to me than Saddam

[Vinca]

99. AFTER will be one bomb too late. nt

[Mnemosyne]

100. I like him more everyday. After Dennis, of course! n/t

[0007]

104. I never knew DU had no many constitutional scholars

Runny nose and macho hormones

[pat_k]

111. you don't need a law degree, or even a high school degree, to know. . .

From http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3084238&mesg_id=3084780">Response #42 above.

. . .
As far as consulting "Constitutional experts" -- you don't need a law degree, or even a high school degree, to know that the kind of absolute power Bush and Cheney claim is NEVER freely given to a leader; it is only taken by deception or force. I don't believe for a second that any legitimate Constitutional expert buys the "unitary" lunacy. (And either does http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3663478&mesg_id=3663652">Rep. Jane Harman). When Biden claims to be "consulting" he is telling that he doesn't know enough to judge. That's just crap. It's a transparent attempt to evade duty.

And if there are any "scholars" out there claiming there is some question, then they are either fascist minions or it's a case of the Emporer's New Clothes -- a case in which the "authorities" and "sophisticated" refuse to believe their own eyes. If we are to preserve our constitutional democracy, ordinary Americans must trust THEIR eyes and call Biden, and every other Member of the House and Senate, on their excuses for dereliction. . .

[0007]

113. Touche`

[tbyg52]

105. >>A case for impeachment must have clear evidence

Uh, yeah, and as far as I know, it's already there.......??????

[windoe]

107. Why not impeach now?

Crimes so far committed apparently are not enough? Day by day tyrrannical laws are being passed, MSM is attempting to change the discourse of the country against free speech, we are about to lose it, and impeachment is being delayed?

[stimbox]

109. Do it now Joe! Why wait. n/t

[wordpix]

114. on target with Jonathan Turley's point that Dems won't impeach, a deal was made

However, should a NEW impeachable offense like bombing Iraq crop up, all deals are off