Democrat warns Bush: If Iran attacked impeachment will begin

[Steeplerot]

Bloggers pressed Kucinich about the impeachment issue. While agreeing that the administration should ultimately be held accountable under international law, Kucinich opposed immediate impeachment proceedings. "We must keep the focus on our troops, Kucinich said. "The minute impeachment is on the table, this President will accelerate the war even more."

But he added, "if Bush attacks Iran, all bets are off." Later he added, "We need to safeguard our Constitution." If the President takes steps towards another war, Kucinich warned, Congress could make "an active effort" toward impeachment.

"The President is clearly trying to provoke Iran," he said, adding that the Bush administration is "treading on the thinnest ice it has ever been on."

Last week, in a press release sent out after Bush's speech on his "new strategy," Kucinich said that Congress should not "follow the President's path of war."

"Congress needs to take a stand against the President and take the necessary steps to bring our troops home," Kucinich stated. "We need to begin talks with Iran and Syria -- and not blame them for our misguided war in Iraq. Diplomacy is the only way to avoid a widening war. If we follow the President's path of war, we will get...more war."

On Friday, the presidential candidate also discussed a petition for redress signed by 1,000 active-duty members of the US armed forces, which he will presented to Washington on Tuesday.

"We are not supporting our troops by sending them off to a war based on lies," Kucinich said, also criticizing the Bush administration for failing to properly armor and supply solders in Iraq. "Support for the troops is listening to what they have to say."
Link

Well there it is: Democratic Party throws down the gauntlet. Will Bush listen for once?

Didn't Nixon go nuts on drawing up plans to use the big one on Vietnam when he was busted?

Never turn your back on a cornered chimp.

 

[Stunt]

Attacking Iran would be a huge mistake...
That being said...I would disagree with those types of comments though; there is no benefit in making threats.

That man makes the Democratic party look horrible.

edit: spelling...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Stunt
[ ... ]
That being said...I would disagree with those types of comments though; there is no benefit in making treats. ...

No benefit in making treats?!? I beg to differ. There's nothing better on a cold winter day than a plate of fresh-baked cookies, or maybe a slice of hot apple pie.

 

[RichardE]

That was an idiotic move. They more or less gave him permission. "You can attack Iran, but we will impeach you".

 

[Bowfinger]

In all seriousness, whether they threaten Bush in advance or not, I hope Congress will see no choice but to remove him from office if he tries to launch any major offensives against Iran. We all know how effective BushCo is at war. Been there, done that, got the body bags and the trillion dollar bill to prove it.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: RichardE
That was an idiotic move. They more or less gave him permission. "You can attack Iran, but we will impeach you".

That's permission?

:roll:

But, if Iran *is* attacked, we'll have much bigger worries than impeachment. Like, oh, putting food on our table and putting $10/gal gas in our cars.

 

[Lemon law]

I think Kucinich is raising a very good point---if GWB or Israel as a US proxy does decide on a war with Iran---the opening salvo's are likely to be low yield bunker busting nukes to take
out the Uranium enrichment plants---that have been placed deep underground.

If such an incident happened the probable effect would be that no oil moves through the Persian gulf--which in a matter of weeks would cause many economies--including ours to grind to a halt. If GWB is perceived as being the author of such a brainfart---the only available currency of Iranian appeasement might well be the immediate impeachment of GWB and Cheney.

And I see no constitutional barrier to having impeachment and conviction being all over and done in a single day.

Kucinich is no inside leader and more of a maverick---but what he said needs to be the bi-partisan policy of the House and Senate.---when you have a contagion like GWB&co., an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

 

[ProfJohn]

This is Kucinich we are talking about here. He is a far left radical.

Despite attempts to give him legitimacy with the ?presidential candidate? line.

When it comes to the big picture Kucinich is speaking for a VERY small part of the Democrat party.

An attempt to impeach Bush based on an attack on Iraq would be a political disaster.

It is an accepted fact that the President controls the military as has done so for many many years. ALL the precedence says that Bush can make the decision on his own without going to congress. For the Democrats to all of a sudden decide to change the rules would be a purely political move and it would be easily show to be that by the Republicans.

I am sure we can find tons of Clinton era quotes backing up the idea that the President controls where and when the military is used. Already posted one such quote today.

BTW: I am not calling on Bush to attack Iran, I am pointing out the absurdity of what Kucinich said.

 

[conjur]

Yeah, Kucinich is such a left-wing radical. He makes Chavez look like Cheney.



Good grief.


:roll:

 

[BlancoNino]

"If Iran attacked..."

If Iran attacked who?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This is Kucinich we are talking about here. He is a far left radical.

Despite attempts to give him legitimacy with the ?presidential candidate? line.

When it comes to the big picture Kucinich is speaking for a VERY small part of the Democrat party.

An attempt to impeach Bush based on an attack on Iraq would be a political disaster.

It is an accepted fact that the President controls the military as has done so for many many years. ALL the precedence says that Bush can make the decision on his own without going to congress. For the Democrats to all of a sudden decide to change the rules would be a purely political move and it would be easily show to be that by the Republicans.

I am sure we can find tons of Clinton era quotes backing up the idea that the President controls where and when the military is used. Already posted one such quote today.

BTW: I am not calling on Bush to attack Iran, I am pointing out the absurdity of what Kucinich said.

You're thinking about the rules too much and forgetting that this is politics. I see no reason Congress could actually impeach the President over an attack on Iran, but I DO think they could make an effort with other things...and maybe that threat is useful as a way to keep the President from doing something that he might be otherwise entitled to do.

 

[TheRyuu]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This is Kucinich we are talking about here. He is a far left radical.

Despite attempts to give him legitimacy with the ?presidential candidate? line.

When it comes to the big picture Kucinich is speaking for a VERY small part of the Democrat party.

An attempt to impeach Bush based on an attack on Iraq would be a political disaster.

It is an accepted fact that the President controls the military as has done so for many many years. ALL the precedence says that Bush can make the decision on his own without going to congress. For the Democrats to all of a sudden decide to change the rules would be a purely political move and it would be easily show to be that by the Republicans.

I am sure we can find tons of Clinton era quotes backing up the idea that the President controls where and when the military is used. Already posted one such quote today.

BTW: I am not calling on Bush to attack Iran, I am pointing out the absurdity of what Kucinich said.

Yea, but the constitution says this:
-The President is the Commander in Chief.
-Congress can declare war (and pull out the troops?)

So who really has the power of the military?
No war since, I believe, the Korean war has been formally declared.

So, technically, are we really at war?

If Congress didn't check on Bush then who the hell will.

And just because something is "generally accepted" doesn't mean that it's the right thing. The president, IMHO, should have to go to congress (checks and balances/balance of power) to make such military actions unless we were somehow attacked first (like in a worst case, nuclear attack).

 

[blackangst1]

LOL @ Kucinich

Anyhow. Why cant people realize in order to start impeachment proceedings you have to commit an impeachable offense?

LOL @ all of you who think this would be...

edit: since the argument of whether or not GWB has actually commited "high crimes or misdemeaners" has been an endless discussion, keep this in mind: it takes a simple majority in the House to draft the article of impeachment, and a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict. Aint no way the Senate has 2/3 in favor of impeachment. This whole argument is hot air.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: conjur
Yeah, Kucinich is such a left-wing radical. He makes Chavez look like Cheney.



Good grief.


:roll:

Kucinich is a radical within the Democratic Party.
Not to the extent of your comparison...but when he speaks, few are listening let alone following

He was Michael Moore's perferred candidate.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, right, ProfJohn.

Whatever delusions exist in the Whitehouse and on the rightwing, the electorate wants out of Iraq, and won't tolerate an exit thru Iran... the whole notion is so arrogant and foolhardy as to boggle the imagination.

The rights and responsibilities of any elected office are intimately interwined, with the responsibility of not doing anything recklessly stupid being paramount. Bush already has one strike against him in this regard, Iraq, and a second, greater blunder will result in the end of his presidency, Cheney along with him, or an attempted takeover of the govt by the rightwing, take your pick.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This is Kucinich we are talking about here. He is a far left radical.

Despite attempts to give him legitimacy with the ?presidential candidate? line.

When it comes to the big picture Kucinich is speaking for a VERY small part of the Democrat party.

An attempt to impeach Bush based on an attack on Iraq would be a political disaster.

It is an accepted fact that the President controls the military as has done so for many many years. ALL the precedence says that Bush can make the decision on his own without going to congress. For the Democrats to all of a sudden decide to change the rules would be a purely political move and it would be easily show to be that by the Republicans.

I am sure we can find tons of Clinton era quotes backing up the idea that the President controls where and when the military is used. Already posted one such quote today.

BTW: I am not calling on Bush to attack Iran, I am pointing out the absurdity of what Kucinich said.

Just as president can do what ever he wishes with the military congress can use impeachment however they wish.

Congress need not give a reason or have a valid reason for impeachment.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This is Kucinich we are talking about here. He is a far left radical.

Despite attempts to give him legitimacy with the ?presidential candidate? line.

When it comes to the big picture Kucinich is speaking for a VERY small part of the Democrat party.

An attempt to impeach Bush based on an attack on Iraq would be a political disaster.

It is an accepted fact that the President controls the military as has done so for many many years. ALL the precedence says that Bush can make the decision on his own without going to congress. For the Democrats to all of a sudden decide to change the rules would be a purely political move and it would be easily show to be that by the Republicans.

I am sure we can find tons of Clinton era quotes backing up the idea that the President controls where and when the military is used. Already posted one such quote today.

BTW: I am not calling on Bush to attack Iran, I am pointing out the absurdity of what Kucinich said.

Just as president can do what ever he wishes with the military congress can use impeachment however they wish.

Congress need not give a reason or have a valid reason for impeachment.

Uh....wrong again.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This is Kucinich we are talking about here. He is a far left radical.

Despite attempts to give him legitimacy with the ?presidential candidate? line.

When it comes to the big picture Kucinich is speaking for a VERY small part of the Democrat party.

An attempt to impeach Bush based on an attack on Iraq would be a political disaster.

It is an accepted fact that the President controls the military as has done so for many many years. ALL the precedence says that Bush can make the decision on his own without going to congress. For the Democrats to all of a sudden decide to change the rules would be a purely political move and it would be easily show to be that by the Republicans.

I am sure we can find tons of Clinton era quotes backing up the idea that the President controls where and when the military is used. Already posted one such quote today.

BTW: I am not calling on Bush to attack Iran, I am pointing out the absurdity of what Kucinich said.

Just as president can do what ever he wishes with the military congress can use impeachment however they wish.

Congress need not give a reason or have a valid reason for impeachment.

Uh....wrong again.

Wow that is a great argument.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5--"The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment."

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6--"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present."

Congress has the solo power over impeachments. Neither the president or the courts can stop impeachment if they think the reasoning is invalid.

 

[Lemon law]

To those who contend---An attempt to impeach Bush based on an attack on Iraq would be a political disaster.

Gee just a mere political disaster-----------THE POINT BEING THAT ATTACKING IRAN WOULD BE A CRISIS OF UNPRECEDENTED MAGNITUDE. THE GREATEST SINGLE
SINGLE STUPIDITY IN US HISTORY AND PERHAPS WORLD HISTORY. AND ALMOST CERTAIN TO IGNITE A WORLD WAR.

and someone is worried about a mere political disaster?

GIVEN THAT OUR COMMANDER AND THIEF HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTIONS AND IS WILLING TO USE THEM ON OUR NEIGHBORS OVER MERE FANTASIES---is it now wise to tell him in no uncertain terms---DON'T EVEN THINK IT!---the advance answer is NO.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This is Kucinich we are talking about here. He is a far left radical.

Despite attempts to give him legitimacy with the ?presidential candidate? line.

When it comes to the big picture Kucinich is speaking for a VERY small part of the Democrat party.

An attempt to impeach Bush based on an attack on Iraq would be a political disaster.

It is an accepted fact that the President controls the military as has done so for many many years. ALL the precedence says that Bush can make the decision on his own without going to congress. For the Democrats to all of a sudden decide to change the rules would be a purely political move and it would be easily show to be that by the Republicans.

I am sure we can find tons of Clinton era quotes backing up the idea that the President controls where and when the military is used. Already posted one such quote today.

BTW: I am not calling on Bush to attack Iran, I am pointing out the absurdity of what Kucinich said.

Just as president can do what ever he wishes with the military congress can use impeachment however they wish.

Congress need not give a reason or have a valid reason for impeachment.

Uh....wrong again.

Wow that is a great argument.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5--"The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment."

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6--"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present."

Congress has the solo power over impeachments. Neither the president or the courts can stop impeachment if they think the reasoning is invalid.

Pretty sloppy interpratation IMHO, and the way you presented it is misleading. You forgot artcle 2 section 4 also:

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution states:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Although the president *can* be impeached for any reason, he can only be removed from office for those reasons. Nothing Bush has done would fall under high crime or misdemeanor. Also, as you stated, the Senate would TRY the impeachment, and NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY has ever been found guilty. Several Supreme court judges have been, but never a president. Could it happen? Well, anything is possible. But the although the Dems have a majority in the Senate, they certainly dont have 2/3's required for conviction.

Plus, when you add in the fact that the Senate gave GWB permission to use force without actually declaring war, he has an open ticket. It might be a nice talking point or idea to impeach and convict, but realistically it isnt gonna happen.

My point for saying you are wrong is, the Senate doesnt impeach. The House does.

 

[Jhhnn]

Congress has the sole power to define "high crimes and misdemeanors", there being no other frame of reference, no legal definition other than one they'd provide...

It seems obvious enough that widening the war to include Iran w/o congressional approval would fall into that category.
Unless you're among the fundie fringe seeking armageddon...

I'd much rather see Bush serve out his term as lame duck than any of the alternatives. Two more years of Neocon policy idiocy will make it imperative for his successor to radically shift domestic and foreign policy in much more constructive directions.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Topic Title: Democrat warns Bush: If Iran attacked impeachment will begin

Ahmadinejad loves the support of the American people. He knows you?ll protect his nuclear-genocidal ambitions for him. :thumbsup:

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Topic Title: Democrat warns Bush: If Iran attacked impeachment will begin

Ahmadinejad loves the support of the American people. He knows you?ll protect his nuclear-genocidal ambitions for him. :thumbsup:

Grow up or get a clue? Take your pick.

 

[smack Down]

The house passing articles of impeachment and the senate convicting on said articles of impeachment is all that is need to remove the president from office. There is no other check to decided if the impeachment is valid.

Weather or not the senate would convict is debatable but if bush attacked Iran with out a really good reason I wouldn't be surprised if enough republicans jumped shipped and voted to convict.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: smack Down
The house passing articles of impeachment and the senate convicting on said articles of impeachment is all that is need to remove the president from office. There is no other check to decided if the impeachment is valid.

Weather or not the senate would convict is debatable but if bush attacked Iran with out a really good reason I wouldn't be surprised if enough republicans jumped shipped and voted to convict.

Even *if* the Senate would convict, they would need to establish that sending troops to Iran is considered a high crime or misdemeanor in order to remove from office. Pretty much aint gonna happen.

Also, Im sure youre familiar with the War Powers Resolution? It was under that resolution Bush Sr and Bush Jr went to Iraq, and under that resolution Clinton sent troops to Kosovo. GWB *can* commit troops to Iran under this resolution with or without Congressional approval. It's been done before.

edit: spelling