Man....I wouldnt want to be a Commander in Chief and have to tell a young war widow...

"I meant well, but I was either "uninformed or incompetent" and as a result, your husband died and your young child will never know his/her father."

In the case of the Iraq War, many people didn't have access to the whole story. Those who did knew that Bush was misleading people.

As for directing you to the classes I think are best? It turns out that my opinions were quite simply wrong. Now you're ending up taking 6 years to get your BA in business.
We've arrived back at the Bush conundrum: he either lied or is quite incompetent.
I've already covered this:

All the intel was not correct, nor was all of it incorrect.

Have you made decisions when you have have imperfect information? When you knew it was imperfect? When you did not know it was imperfect?

At what point in your decision making do you decide you have done enough research? If you had to research an issue to "perfection" would you ever be able to make a decision?

Have you ever had research that supported a certain action but made a decision based on another reason?

I would not want that either, who would?. Many Commanders in Chief have been faced with having to tell a "young war widow...", history shows that in hindsight, many lives could have been saved with better information and or better judgment. Are you suggesting there is a problem with the reliance on what turned out to be imperfect intel that has cost lives that has been unique to the Bush Administration and no other Administration?

So some of intelligence was correct, and the intel was cherry picked. Yes, that's the conclusion that most people have now come to.
George W. Bush was filtering his decision making process through his neo-conservative and anti-Iraq bias, which meant that he ignored the intelligence that contradicted his plans.
This is highly dependent on the weight of the decisions I must make. If I was given the responsibility of deciding whether or not the US should go to war, you had better believe that I'd spend day and night for as long as was possible to decide.
No.

I agree.

Faulty conclusion. Or, perhaps there is a difference between "ignoring" intel and not giving it the same weight as other intel. It is very possible that he looked at all of the intel, carefully considered all of it, and still came to the conclusion to go to war.

Does it also depend on the consequences of time available? Did you see the movie Crimson Tide? What would you have done? Given we know how the movie turned out, its easy, but actually think about it.

Are you married? There have been many times when I have done tons of research, go with my wife to make a decision on something and she says something like "it doesn't feel right", and I change my view, even though the intel and data I had suggested otherwise, her "data" (gut) did not agree. Would that make me a lier?

He looked at all of the intel, carefully considered all of it, and then only presented the evidence that supported what he wanted to do to Congress and the American people.
Bush had a year and a half.
"It doesn't feel right" is probably fine when you're picking out furniture but doesn't fly when you're the president.

The dead US troops and Iraqis have no voice...ace. They cannot speak of what has been done to them...There are no more posts about WMD in this forum, even any "perhaps", there were WMD, posts.

Now, this will stop, too:
PERHAPS.....Not !

....due to multiple, official determinations to the contrary, and the fact that the president himself has stopped making this link, since 8/21/06.

ace, it's not at all as you make it out to be..it was a co-ordinated, well planned propaganda "OP".."to fix the facts around the policy":
..the policy to invade and occupy Iraq, and remove Saddam and his government. They knew they did not have justification that rose to a level that would be acceptable to the American people....a level, Worth Dying For, as the troops were expected to risk, in the falsely justified, "unnecessary war"!
...and just who is this Jeffrey Goldberg who John McCain was quoting in his promotion of Bush as "the decider"?

Give it all a "serious", read, ace....because hundreds of thousands have died as result of this, including 4080 American troops, and you still cling to this justification for invading and occupying Iraq, even now:
Here are the relevant Bush and Cheney quotes, ace....can you single out the one(s) where either official "make it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence", or come up with a relevant quote that I might have missed?:

One nice thing about finding ("cherry picking) editorial pieces is I can often find people better able to communicate points that I agree with than I can. From yesterdays WSJ editorial page, accept it for what it is or reject it - just know there are many with the view shared here.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1212...gn2008_mostpop

Seems like an odd argument to be making considering the wars approval rating is at or lower then Bush's. Which is what? Low 30's, high 20's? When does the number agreeing with this view no longer become "many?"

Will, I'm not sure leaving Iraq willy nilly will lead to stability. Surely there needs to be a transitional plan in place (exit strategy) instead of just up and leaving. The last time the Brits just up and left all there colonies/occupations, well, we saw the chaos that came out of that.

Whether or not you agree with the war, simply pulling out is not really a good option in my opinion. There needs to be an exit game plan.

It's about removing a cause of instability, not creating stability. That's up to Iraqis.

ace, your editorial's arguments are supported by......???? .....compared to the linked support for every point in my last post.

Can you refute, with facts, anything in my last post?

I responded to what you posted, in your post directly before your most recent one:
....and you ignored my question...... the list of Bush and Cheney quotes is in the lower portion of my last post....waiting for you. Feel free to cite your own quotes of occasions where either Bush or Cheney, "make it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence", when it came to assertions that "Saddam had relations with al Zarqawi"....

If you believe this, it should be a simple exercise to point out when and where, before September 15, 2006....Bush "make[s] it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence", when it came to assertions that "Saddam had relations with al Zarqawi"....

Bush's false statements about this are my prime example of him lying us into war, and keeping us there, all of these years. You claim that it was only "on occasion" that Bush said unqualified things like the last time he said it, (August 21, 2006),and that....
Show us the occasion, or occasions, where Bush qualified this:

In between these two dates, ace...February 6, 2003, and August 21, 2006.... if Bush qualified these assertions as "based on circumstantial evidence", point me to where and what he said.....

Host....you dont get it.

Bush was not lying....he just changed his view because his "wife" said it didnt fell right:
The only unresolved issue here is who is the wife (Cheney) and who is the hubby (Bush)....or it vice versa?

I think we all know Bush is the catcher.

War approval rating? I don't know anyone who ever wanted to be in a war. It is very easy for people to get discouraged, when people are discouraged and want a war over - that does not mean either surrender or not completing what was started. When you talk ratings, I guess it all depends on how the question is asked.

You can not help it can you? You should seek professional help.

It is not very creative cutting and pasting words out of context to try to make someone seem foolish, it is more a reflection on you than the person you try to mock.

If you don't get the historical context of the Iraqi war relative to other wars and how decisions were made and how strategy and goals changed, you may want to get help with that too. I understand people disagreeing on our preemptive attack, occupation, strategy, goals, use of intel, selling the war, etc., but to pretend all of our current problems with this war is Bush's fault is beyond realistic in my view. But you and others are welcome to your view.

I am not interested in refuting anything in your last post. I don't even know what your point is, other than you think Bush lied. O.k. let's assume he lied to you, DC, Democratic members of Congress, McClellan, and some members of the media. So what? What are you folks going to do? Let's focus on that for a few days.

I disagree, I don't think it's been all that "easy for people to get discouraged." I think the approval of the war was artificially high for quite a while. I think the reason it took so long for the public opinion to drop was, for the most part, the vast majority of people have little to no personal investment in this war. Unless you have a family member or close friend serving (or obviously yourself) you're really not asked to make any changes in your life due to the war. The public, in general, has even been shielded from the displeasure of seeing flag draped coffins returning from the wars. We've borrowed a large amount of money to keep the war going so no one being asked to pony up and pay for it. I think it's been easy to not to get discouraged when your total sacrifice and investment is a $3 yellow ribbon magnet for the back of your car.

Tully...I think its fair to say that some will never accept the fact that Bush lied to the American people, with the complicity of Congress who did not have access to the same intel, and much of the media.

That number has diminished significantly to only the hard core supporters who place ideology over truth.

Most others who initially supported the war have changed their opinion not only as a result of the failure of the Bush occupation strategy that has kept us mired in the midst of an unending sectarian conflict at the cost of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, but also because more facts continue to expose the immoral decisionmaking process by the Bush administration that brought us to this point.

Most recently, the phase II Senate Intel Committee report that was released yesterday on how Bush used (and abused) the intel.

While it concurred with the general consensus that the intel on WMDs was faulty, it strongly rebuked Bush on several key points....

Bush/Cheney/Rice repeatedly played the post 9/11 al Queda-Saddam boogyman card and misled (lied to) the American people on that supposed connection despite the lack of intel to support that contention.

Bush withheld dissenting opinions from numerous intel agencies on Saddam's lack of WMD capabilities, and

Bush/Cheney/Rice attempted to sell (mislead, lie to) the American people on how quick and easy an invasion and occupation would be despite sigificant intel to the contrary...they were warned nearly a year earlier by the CIA and DIA that a US invasion would face serious resistance from "the Baathists, the jihadists and Arab nationalists who oppose any U.S. occupation of Iraq" and chose to intentionally and deliberately withhold that intel for fear that it might undermine their case for war.

From the Senate Intel Committee:
A moral leader does not act in that manner.

it is more than passing strange that ideology requires some conservatives to deny that there were problems--to say the least--with the fabrication of a case for invading iraq. there are some basic problems of credibility of the state itself which are at play here, problems which run beyond the particularities of the bush administration--problems that have in the end to do with the status of rules of ethics and law as transcending the persons and interests of those who hold power at any given time. given the role played by flag-waving and affirmations of Faith in "amurica" for conservative worldviews, you'd think that this sort of breach of at least good faith and at worst law (or actions which reveal the absence of law on the basis of which an administration could be brought down or to heel) would be Problems that the right would take seriously.

it seems to me that what this all points to is the strange conflation of the particular political interests of conservatives with the notion of america as a whole--there is no distinction---this seems to me rooted in the space occupied by identity politics in conservative ideology. i don't see anything comparable amongst those who support the democrats, and even less amongst folk who operate to the left of the democrats---it seems to me that amongst this population (which is not a single group) there's alot more willingness to engage in critiques of those who hold power in such situations----nothing at all parallel to the refusal to criticise happened amongst democrats during the clinton period for example.

populist conservatism in the states is a very strange beast.

Getting back...

Ace, there was no threat from Iraq to the US or our allies. While Saddam did offer to pay suicide bombers, that was more an act of a desperate man who was no longer relevant in Middle Eastern geopolitics. He hasn't been a threat to anyone since I was 9 years old. A combination of a spectacular failure in Desert Storm and years of sanctions made Iraq into a minor military player. Yes, he was a shitty leader of the highest degree, but there are real threats out there to the US and invading Iraq has weakened us for them. We invaded a non-threat and are now weaker against real threats.

We got into Iraq based on what was said by Administration officials. Cheney, Bush, Rice, Rummy, etc. all presented the same case: Iraq absolutely has weapons of mass destruction (bio, chem and nukes) and links to al Qaeda, and as such they were a danger before 9/11 and are still a clear and present danger. Instead of presenting a case based solely on the intelligence they were provided (a case that would have casted doubt over the actual danger from Iraq, presenting us with all the information in order to make an informed decision), they only presented a small fraction of the evidence they were provided and actually prevented other intelligence from being released to Congress or the American people. A lie of omission is still a lie, and lying to Congress in order to start a war is an impeachable offense.

I agree. I posted this elsewhere and a flame war flashed up rather quickly. But I think there are some that will just never admit, regardless of evidence, that this was a really stupid idea sold to the US tax payer with "cherry picked" information. Now McCullen's joined an ever growing list of insiders to come forward to confirm what many have been saying for a long time. I can't think of the who said it but didn't someone from within the White house talk about "rolling out a new product" and the timing? Didn't he say this months and months ago? I know I heard or read this somewhere, probably could go find it but really it wouldn't matter. Those who want to continue to believe this was the "right" thing to do and or we need to continue for whatever reason will still believe that regardless of what evidence comes out. I can remember watching a press conference with Bush himself where he admitted there were no WMD's. I was a very active member of another board at the time and even after the GOP POTUS clearly stated there were no WMD's many, many neo-cons and cons. wouldn't accept it. You know if the President of your own party tells you something you might want to consider the possibility you've been wrong about this issue all along. Nope! Even after Bush stated it as fact the issue was a hot topic of debate, complete with satellite photo's and unsupported stories of truck convoy's transporting mass amounts of WMD's to Syria in the dark of night. What night? Why didn't our massive satellite surveillance see this massive chemical exodus? Where are these WMD's now? No one knows. But it must have happened because they were there, they must have went somewhere... somehow, right?

I, like many around here, was completely with the President when he said we need to get the guys responsible for 9/11. I remember watching CNN and seeing a poll that showed Bush had something like a 95% approval rating and that 95% of people approved of going after Al Queda. I remember thinking "who the hell are the other 5% and what the hell are they thinking?" I supported, completely the military action in Afghanistan. I took very seriously the security concerns raised regarding Iraq, Saddam and the WMD's. But when Hans Blixer basically came back empty handed I thought "well that's good news, now we can stay focused on Afghanistan." When Bush and Co. continued with the sell job on Iraq I had many serious concerns. Remember LP's? Remember that sound the stereo used make when the needle would slide across the LP's surface?- that's sound that went off in my head.

On almost every point the Bush Administration has been wrong.

WMD's? Nope.

Link to 9-11? Nope.

Greeted as liberators? By some.

By the masses? Not really.

We're not going to need a large force, it'll be over with quickly. How long we been there now?

We'll not only stabilize Iraq, but the region as a whole will follow. Ever heard of an insurgency? How's that Middle East stabilization coming?

It'll basically pay for itself. Anyone know the current amount we've borrowed for this debacle?

Might last 6 days or 6 weeks, but I don't see it going on for 6 months. Hmm, might want to add years to that statement... and a zero.

Gas prices will drop. Fill up your tank lately?

I honestly can't think of anything that's turned out the way they said it would. I guess we knocked out the Iraqi Army quickly with "Shock and Awe." After that? Basically Bush and Co. have denied at all cost any of it's failures and short falls. Wasn't it Rumsfeld who said "it's been a catastrophic success?" What the hell does that mean? And any one who disagreed with the "plan" was basically fired and silenced. What was the General's name who stated were going to need at least 300K troops to do this? And what's he doing now?

Now we're there and we have to stay because if we leave Iraq will spin out of control. Not to mention the "surge" has worked and is working. Wasn't the surge supposed to lead to political gains? So the "surge" has been a success because of what political gains? None that I've heard of, all I keep hearing is there's less violence. Yeah, as long as we stay in large numbers and commit a ton of borrowed cash every day there will likely will be less violence. But do you really think this is the pathway to political gains in a region where the two major groups have been battling each other for centuries?


Sorry I don't see it and I don't trust the current Administration at all. I don't trust what they say about it and I don't trust their ability to manage the situation. A situation they created. The neo-cons got us in this mess and they have no idea how to get us out of it. Now we need to make some really hard choices. Personally I believe we're left with only bad options at this point. Leaving's going to likely be a mess. Staying may well sink our military and economy even farther. I'm willing to listen to anybody with any reasonable thoughts on how we deal with these issues.

So, Mr. McCullen's written a book confirming what many of us said all along. Great where were you with this info. several years ago when it could have made a difference? Sadly it likely wouldn't have mattered. If he'd spoke up then he'd likely be the same place the good General and his 300K troop advice currently are, sitting at home watching CNN and thinking "I fucking tried to tell them."

ace: for what it's worth, i wasn't really referencing you in my post--if i had meant to do so, i would have done it directly. no need for passive-aggressive stuff here.

yours is a curious alternative position--you seem to want to dissolve the rule violations as you acknowledge that "something" happened---in a way, you're more forthcoming than others, who won't go down the list of problems and try to explain them away. i disagree with the operation, but i understand (i think) the logic behind your position. the adjami piece does the same thing.

i just dont buy it.

It was Andrew Card, the WH Chief of Staff at the time and the "marketing strategy" was to use Bush's first 9/11 anniversary speech for the occasion:
IMO, nothing is more immoral that using the national tragedy of 9/11 to try to "sell" a war against someone who had nothing to do with it.

Wow, that long ago? I'm a little surprised by that.

But really, Scott's book, Richard Clarke's book and any number of statements and/or memos.. it doesn't matter and probably won't. The President could walk out to the Rose Garden tomorrow and announce to the press "this was the biggest, dumbest mistake in American history." There would still be people who wouldn't believe it. I can hear it now. You could just remove Scott's name from the current "talking points" and insert Bush. You'd end up with "This isn't the Bush I know."

I think Rockefeller had it right when he said, on the release of the latest Senate Intel report:
I would add the same about McClellan's book, Clark's book, and discussions here and political forums everywhere, in Congress, and on the campaign trail:

Its about transparency and holding our government accountable, and making sure these mistakes (and misrepresentations) never happen again.

So does anybody simply think they are all idiots and not scoundrels? There are checks and balances to prevent those mistakes. It's hardly the first time.

Those are impeachable offenses at the least.

Maybe but the numbers don't add up. As long as the GOP sticks with the POTUS et el, circle the wagons so to speak, there's nothing the Dems can do. Even if they wanted to, which I suspect some do not. It much like the war and removing troops. The Dems control congress but not by enough to really make a major difference.

I wonder about after they're out of office. Are there crimes they can be held accountable for after the fact?

The next president can absolutely order his Attorney General to investigate if Bush and any WH (or administration) officials or staff violated any federal criminal statutes that could be subject to prosecution...particularly in light of the efforts by the WH to stall numerous oversight investigations for the last year and a half.

It is more a political issue rather than a legal issue that Obama would have to face, if elected.

What Obama said he would do:

Sure and I'm not totally opposed to that. But in all seriousness I think we have so many issues we need to work on I'm not sure how much energy and effort I want to see going into this endeavor.

Long and short- Justice dept. investigation, fine. Endless congressional hearings beating this into the ground, NO.

From Senator Clinton, June 7, 2008, profound words that have application beyond her original intent -

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/p...nton-text.html

There is nothing to be gained from impeachment proceedings or further investigations regarding what lead us to war in Iraq. Effort should be spent on ending the war and accomplishing our goals within Iraq.

Tully...IMO, there are two separate and distinct endeavors.

I strongly believe that Obama should proceed on a legal track with regard to Bush's expansive claim of executive privilege (claiming that it applies not only to conversations or documents between the president and a suboordinate, but to conversations/documents between two suborinates w/o the direct involvement of the president.

I also believe we need further review (either judicicial or congressional) over potential violations of US international treaty obligations (particularly regarding treatment of non-combatants)

These both has serious implications beyond Bush.

I think it is also important to separate Congressional oversight hearings from possbile crimininal investigations by the incoming DoJ.

Oversight hearings serve a diferent purpose...not to determine criminal violations, but to determine a need for new/additional legislation as a result of potential (non-criminal) abuses by the outgoing admin.

IMO, this applies to the issue of usingn intel to suit a political agenda at the expense of full disclosure of relevant conflicting intel, several "open government" issues, government contracting issues, issues of interference by political apppointees in the scientific studies of government agencies, etc.

The most important "change" that Obama can implement, IMO, is to assure the American people that it will not be "business as usual". The government will be more transparent, open and accountable and the concept of checks and balances and separation of powers will be honored (that means no "signing statements" that change the intent of law, no unilateral interepretation of "executive powers," no expansive claims of executive privilege, no attempts to block any valid FOIA requests, no politicizing of govt scientific studies, etc.....)

Well it might be nice to investigate to ensure we learn from our mistakes. Plus I personally believe there are folks who should be held accountable for this mess. Some for their actions and some for their inactions.


Those are good points. My fear is oversight hearings could plunge into massive political games and partisan BS.

Every moment waisted waiting keeps us from preventing ongoing and future crimes and unethical behavior.

We been down this road many time in our history. Heck, even when there was real evidence of wrong doing, i.e. Nixon - the nation did absolutely nothing.

So, in this case, you certainly will never get a consensus on any wrong doing by the Executive Branch and any actions taken by Democratic Party leaders will be perceived by at least half of the nation as partisan - so I ask you one simple question: What would be gained?

This is a pretty good point. I will just observe, though, that Nixon's approval rating November 1973 was three points higher than Bush's right now. That takes something. You've got to be bad at being President to poll lower than Nixon at the height of Watergate.

I'm way too young to remember this, but student activism was rather massive during the Nixon Administration. Between Vietnam and Watergate, people were actually pissed. Why do you think the legislative branch actually had the balls to impeach him?
Half the nation? More like 25%, if that. It's not 2004, you know.

What will be gained? How about a year of freedom for innocent men, women and children? How about unconstitutional wiretaps? How about a year's worth of Iraq War money? How about Kyoto? How about letting Adam and Steve get hitched? I could write books on the things Bush not only has done wrong, but continues to do wrong in office, to the detriment of the American people (you included).

Background thread on Bush's "interview" in the Plame leak investigation:

"If Rove is Indicted, Will Media Mention Bush's Criminal Defense Attorney Jim Sharp?"

The potential is still here for an "express" double impeachment, reinstatement of Libby's prison sentence, since a co-conspirator in a criminal cover up, cannot validly issue a sentence commutation for a sentence associated with the same criminal matter..... but, only a potential for it to happen....at least for now:

....and this, just in.....

Really if Bush is impeached that will nullify Libby's commutation? Can he be impeached after leaving office?

Tully, here is what McClellan wrote about the commutation...it's too hard to transfer links in articles since they shut off html coding here at TFP, but there are plenty of linked pages about this, in this piece:

The commutation of Libby's sentence, for it to be valid, has to be "pure"...unrelated to any other motive on the part of the president....I think the best we can hope for is to make it untenable for Bush to issue a pardon to Libby for his four count conviction, on Bush's last day in office:

The special prosecutor had the support of the Supreme Court, and the Judicial Committee had the support of enough Republicans to approve the articles of impeachment. Most important they had a case. I don't know what the "case" is for impeaching Bush. Even if you think he "lied", which the latest Senate Intel Committee investigation did not conclude, he did not do it under oath. Bush is not in contempt of Congress, he has not obstructed justice, so what are his crimes?

Approval ratings are different than what people will perceive as partisan. Approval ratings also change based on events. Right now Democrats have Bush were they want him, if they make him out to be a victim or whatever, the mood of the nation could change fast. I think the rhetoric being used is better than Democrats actually doing something from a political point of view.

I am betting things won't change much under the next Democratic Party administration. Just my opinion. People can always find some "wrong" with any administration and write books about it. Heck, people can already write books about Obama's "wrongs" and he hasn't taken the oath of office yet. Hannity on Fox has already made a cottage industry on Obama's "wrongs", just wait until he J-walks - impeachment talk will follow shortly thereafter.

I just think it is time for both sides to give it a rest.

Yeah, Ford once stated impeachable offenses are "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

That was in 1970, years before being a member of the E. branch.

to my mind, there are several problems that i think the top members of the bush administration should be held accountable for--of them, i find the false case for war with iraq almost as outrageous as this sort of thing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...mo.humanrights

and this:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...sa.humanrights

i see this kind of thing as far more serious than the outling of valerie plame or the confirmation of the obvious by scott mclelland.

and i don't see the argument that ace is making above--which amounts to "pshaw..everyone does this" as extending anywhere near these situations.
or the more immediate ones in this thread.

basically, the americans are either a country bound by law or they aren't. if they aren't, then why should anyone else be?

and if the united states administration can authorize the systematic violation of international agreements concerning treatment of detainees, bans on torture--you know, basic human rights---and there are no consequences, what does that say to the rest of the world? either the americans under george w bush define themselves as a menace, or the americans under george w bush erase 75 years of international treaties/law regarding basic human rights.

personally, i would prefer to see elements of the bush administration suffer legal consequences for these actions. guarantees of basic human rights are more important that the imperlial delusions of the neo-cons.

I'll just list the bigger ones, for the sake of time:
1) Bush bypassed informed consent knowingly by presenting at best partisan and biased information and withholding information when presenting the case for the invasion of Iraq to Congress. (this also includes breaking the UN charter, which is a legal US treaty).
2) Bush threatened and was responsible for an attack on a sovereign nation, including civilian targets.
3) Bush ordered illegal kidnappings.
4) Bush ordered that Valery Plame's name be released.
5) Bush ordered the Attorney General to bypass judicial orders which should have lead to the release of detainees.
6) Bush ordered secret wiretapping and information gathering on US citizens, bypassing FISA.
Democrats are weak, and not impeaching Bush reinforces that view.
As soon as Bush gives breaking the law and behaving unethically a rest, I'll rest.

As for Obama's wrongs, that's a hell of a red herring.

With an Obama win and Democratic increases in both the House and Senate, Obama can quite easily make a case for having a "mandate for change" and frame that mandate on two tracks.

The primary track would be a different policy approach to the occupation in Iraq, the economy, health care, energy, etc.

The secondary track would be a commitment to a more open and accountable executive branch, including a strong case to continue to support Congressional oversight of the "excesses" of the previous administration in selected areas (executive privilege, US responsibilities under international treaties, destroying WH e-mails, politicization of the DoJ, interference with government science reports, etc) in order to determine if the "checks and balances" have been ignored and/or abused and the best corrective actions to put the ship of state back on course.

The only way it wont work is if he lets the Republicans frame the issue that we need to focus solely on the future and forget the excesses of the past 8 years and anything else is a partisan "fishing expedition."

The issue of impeachment is DOA....the issue of criminal prosecution of members of the Bush admin post Jan 09 is an open question.

ace....a couple of questions.... you say you think independently, arriving at independent conclusions....so why do you sound so similar to these two guys, Broder and (George F.) Will?

....and do you wear boxers or briefs? I cannot imagine stuffing a "set" as big as the one a person who wrote your last post, yet who subscribed to "the thinking" below, must be endowed with...into a pair of briefs!





ace, I've seen you post quotes from Hamilton, before....how has he got it wrong, in this case? Why do Will, Broder, and Coulter, though they thought that a president who "publicly lied", about comparatively trivial, private personal matters, shoud be impeached or resign....and why do you, for that matter, object to the same ground rules when the misleading statements are as serious as the justifications for invasion and occupation, or the outing of a CIA operative for political payback purposes?

host...i agree that there may be grounds for impeachment, particularly on the issues of warrantless wiretaps, the unlawful release of national security information (Plame affair) and the abrogation of US treaty obligations (torture of non-combatants)...but not on the decisions or actions that brought about the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

From a practical perspective...it just aint gonna happen.

One only need look at the manner in which the WH has effectively stalled the Contempt of Congress citations on WH staff. That issue will not work its way through the federal courts until after the Bush admin is out. An impeacment inquiry would suffer the same fate...at the first request for WH testimony or documents, Bush would call out his lawyers and stall with legal maneuvers for 9 months.

I just dont see how the public is served. I would much rather see a focus on corrective actions as a priority rather than delayed punitive actions through the impeachment process. That sill leaves the door open to criminal prosecution after Jan 09.

... a different Will.

That isn't the point. The point is that republicans and their pundits marched in lockstep over the issue of Clinton misleading "the American people", about his role in a trivial, private sexual tryst. They not only maintained that it rose to a level serious enough for impeachment....and neither Will, nor Broder, nor Coulter, as my citations show....limited arguments for impeachment or resigntaion in disgrace, to lying under oath in a civil deposition proceeding. they actually pursued impeachment because of it.

No, they all maintained that "public lies"....the president losing his credibility, were enough. But, now, in the circumstances of the list of serious accusations of a loss of presidential credibility, closely related to, and during a time of war....where are these same people with their concerns?

ace summed it up in his last post, it has to be a demonstrable felony now, for impeachment to be considered, and Broder's response last friday is a poster for ace's argument....

host..I agree with you here as well.

The most baffling aspect of the discussion from our members on the right here and in the right wing media is how any true conservative can simply ignore the alleged and potential wrongdoings as a result of the the numerous questionable policies and practices of the Bush admin over the last 8 years.

Many of those actions probably do not reach the level of impeachable offenses, but certainly they are worthy of further congressional and judicial review to determine any potential criminality as well as the adverse impact on the system of checks and balances.

To simply say.."its time to move on" is a slap in the face of the Constitution.

Quoting George F. Will, displayed in my last post:
I can' think of more closely matching circumstance, dc_dux, to what you describe in your question about today's conservatives, and what George F. Will observed about the reaction of Clinton's cabinet....and what to do about it.....then, and now!

The Democrats (Obama and a larger Dem majority in Congress) must find the right balance between "moving on" and reviewing the past 8 years (and recommending corrective action where appropriate) so those abuses of executive power and benign neglect of the checks and balances are not repeated.

It wont be an easy balancing act as is evident from the discussion here.

As Glenn Greenwald so tirelessly reminds us, David Broder and George F. Will are two highly regarded, senior members of the beltway pundit class. We know that a closer to the truth description is that they are two highly partisan columinists who simply "make shit up". They have no consistency or strong principle in their opinions...but they influence the direction of events....they argued for impeachment, ten years ago, and there was impeachment, on much less actually important justification and implication than there are today. Today, they help keep a lid on "impeachment talk"....relegating it to the fringe.

It is they who are on the fringe, in a reality based political universe, but they have the microphone, as they did in 1998.

actually i have host to remind me...

personally why dc may find it to be a slap in the face of the Constitution, I don't find it as such. Sure if you'd like to fish about, by all means, but I'm not interested in spinning wheels to appease the Constitution. If it was not supposed to happen, then one of the other branches should have stopped it.

I'd like more energy and time devoted to getting the economy back on track, settling the gas crisis, the mortgage crisis, and the rest.

The best way to take that microphone back, IMO, is through a deliberative process that can be justified to the American people as in the interest of the Constitution and not partisanship.

I dont believe a fast-track impeachment inquiry in an election year would be perceived by the public as fitting that criteria.

I agree that the Republican Congress that was in the majority for six years should have done more to examine the practices of the executive branch in order to "appease the Constitution" (I would prefer to characterize it as respecting the system of checks and balances/separation of powers). They clearly abrogated that responsibility. And in the last 1-1/2 years, the WH has effectively stalled every attempt at such oversight by the 110th Congress.

There is no reason why Obama and a Dem Congress cant muti-task and do both....per my post #144.

I think if it were framed and presented to the American people correctly, it would receive widespread support.

Great minds think alike?!?

I did not support the Clinton impeachment. In fact after that embarrassing episode in our history I change my party affiliation from Republican to Libertarian prior to Bush and then I changed back again. The nation was not served by impeaching Clinton. Heck, the nation was not served by the Andrew Johnson impeachment either.

I know there is a lot of emotion and some feel the need to get even for whatever wrong they think Bush is guilty of - I just think it will be a waste of time and energy - nothing more, nothing less. Those who want to punish Bush or send a message with further investigations, hearings, impeachment, trials, etc., will be in a position of power soon and can make it all happen. We will actually be able to see if any good comes from it.

So far Bush has pretty much done everything he wanted to do, and has not had to answer to anyone. In my mind Congress failed if we conclude Bush is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Every step of the way Democrats have been saying he was dishonest and a lier, from the moment he "stole" the election. If they believed what they said, they should have done more at the time it was happening.

My mind is made up and won't be changed, I am focused on the future.

No. My point is impeachment, further investigations, hearings, etc. will not reveal a greater truth for anyone. Those who believe Bush is a criminal and is guilty already know it and those who don't think he is won't be moved by more data. It is a waste of time at this point. How many more ways can they investigate the lead up to war?

Or is it just a matter of giving "everyone" a turn to publicly say how outraged they are and how vial Bush is? If that is the game, and Obama wants to continue it, it seem contrary to his desire to change Washington. But, if you recall even Bush was going to "change" Washington. Washington is not going to change. So, Bush will go through the Democratic Party ringer, and Obama will get his turn with the Republicans. You can say you heard it hear first.

Agreed. The checks and balances are supposed to be in my opinion to check and balance DURING not post. There is sometimes where there is some after the fact, but at least be done during the term of the administration.

Now part of that is done after the fact via the Judicial branch, in finding law unconstitutional, but I don't see "finding lies" from the executive branch a worthwhile endeavor just so that it can be ruled that Bush was a moron, liar, etc. I think that is making the Judicial branch more "politicized" in doing so.

How can Congress complete the job during his administration if the (or any future) president cites some nebulous expansion of executive privileges and blocks every attempt to require WH (and other) staff to testify under oath? We're now in a holding patter while several Contempt of Congress charges await judicial action..that probably wont be resolve until after the election. What should Congress do if the federal judiciary rules in its favor?....abandon the hearings or proceed as necessary to take corrective action by proposing new legislation?

Congressional oversight is not concerned solely with "finding lies" but with finding areas in which the Executive branch may (or may not) have acted lawfully, but violated administrative procedures outside the intent of Congress and in which new laws may be needed OR where the issue of law is unsettled (ie , warrantless wiretaps, torture).

We have seen several actions by Congress as a result of these oversight hearings:

* FISA reform to prevent any future wiretapping of Americans w/o a warrant. (proposed)
* New laws regarding torture and treatment of non-combatants (proposed/failed)
* FOIA reform legislation as a result of WH directive that denied most FOIA requests(enacted)
* Possible expansion of the Hatch Act as a result of "political acts" that violated administrative rules and procedures (proposed)
* New FBI procedures regarding use of national security letters as a result of WH ignoring intent of Congress by issuing signing statement (pending)
* Greater contracting oversight and control as a result of abuses in Iraq reconstruction contracts(proposed)
* Revisions to Presidential Records Act as a result of WH destruction of e-mails (pending)

I think its fair to say that none of these would likely have occurred if not for the change in leadership of Congress.

Some of these issues (and many others) are still under review pending responses from the WH and the Executive branch to provide documentation of actions by the administration. This is a proper role for Congress. Should they stop now, w/o those necessary WH docs? The Democratic Congress is making up for six years of the Republicans virtually abrogating this responsibility. I think they deserve more than 1-1/2 years to complete the job if necessary, particularly given the lack of cooperation by the WH and their Republican colleagues during that 1-1/2 years.

IMO, Congress's role as overseer of the Executive Branch (while not clearly delineated in the Constitution) is equally important as the role of enacting legislation and adopting a federal budget.

It is not to punish an administration....it is to make the Executive Branch more open and accountable to the American people.

Cynthetiq and ace give carte blanche to the administration's strategy of simply stonewalling all investigation and attempted oversight with bogus, blanket claims of executive immunity, until they run out the clock.

In this way of responding to official misconduct, if a change in congressional control does not change to the opposition party sooner than before the congressional election immediately preceding the end of a president's tenure, the two year time limit will encourage all future executives to withhold cooperation with attempts at legislative branch oversight, and instead, refuse all cooperation, claim blanket executive immunity, and attempt to run out the clock.

It is all in the interest of "moving on".....moving on....to what? To the next Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq invasion, secret executive order, signing statement, blanket claim of presidential immunity, or deliberate destruction of inter-office white house message files?

Do you think undercover operatives at the CIA have no curiousity, and no effect on their commitment to their jobs, concerning what McClellan wrote about Bush admitting to deliberately declassiying details of Plame's CIA employment, for political purposes?

Why....why do you want to "move forward" with nothing resolved? Should we "move forward", by dropping the long delayed NIST commitment to report on the reason for the collapse of the 47 stories tall, WTC 7 building?

Should Pat Tillman's mom be told to "GFH", in response to her demands that those who covered up the circumstances of here son's death, be held accountable? How about all of the families of US soldiers KIA in Iraq, should they pursue a determination as to the validity of Scott McClellan's "unnecessary war" statement....or do your views.....you with nothing lost, no empty seat at your dinner table..... your wish to "move on"....do you prevail?

dc_dux, isn't the list of "reforms" that you posted, a list of responses unique to the actions of an administration with no regard for the law? They've dreamed up all of these unprecedented acts and procedures that caused congress to respond with your list of remedies. Isn't the obvious solution, in response to a rogue administration that uses signing statements in place of vetoes, and twists FISA, FOIA, etc....etc.... to draw up articles of impeachment, and keep removing scoundrel executives from office until an executive is seated who will act as others have, before this list of reforms was found to be necessary to implement?

Or, could they simply refuse to appropriate funds for the continued operation of the law breaking branch, unless it agrees to conform, and then does?

Nixon wasn't impeached. I wouldn't mind if Bush was, though.

"President Cheney" has a nice ring to it.

I said they had the balls to impeach him (or the fortitude to proceed with impeachment, which forced Nixon to resign). I didn't say they impeached him.

Cheney'd get some trim and get impeached faster than Clinton can say "Is". :expressionless:

I think some may have forgotten how the Watergate investigation played out.

The Senate spent nearly a year (from May 73 to March 74) investigating Watergate and the WH involvement in a select oversight committee (the Ervin Committee). The House impeachment inquiry didnt start until the spring of 74 as the Senate select committee was completing its work.

The Dems in Congress today recognize how slowly and deliberately an impeachment process must proceed.

IMO, they started the right way...with oversight hearings...and they recognized the impracticality of moving to a House impeachment inquiry before Bush/Cheney leave office.

They could conceivably started a House impeachment inquiry this year (after spending 07 in oversight hearings investigating possible areas of inquiry), in which case the impeachment process would have occurred in the midst of this year's election campaign....a nightmare scenario that would only have politicized it and divided the country even more.

Which is why they should continue after Bush/Cheney leave office and, if appropriate, recommend to the Pres that he appoint a special prosecutor within the DoJ to explore criminal charges.

Kucinich brought articles against Cheney a year ago and is brining them for Bush as I type. Imagine if it took 10 months to impeach Cheney.... he'd be gone by now.

Kucinich's charges against Cheney were a reach WITHOUT having oversight hearings first.

You dont start an impeachment inquiry on speculation....you gather compelling evidence of potential wrong doing first through oversight investigations/hearings.....or as in the case of Watergate, with a special prosecutor and a Senate select oversight committee that took a year to investigate.

I understand why many wanted to fast track the process...but in the long run that would only set a precedent for similar actions by future Congresses.

Impeachment should be a deliberative process...and that takes time!

...and had we begun impeachment proceedings when we should (January 2001), we would have avoided the Iraq war. We may have even prevented 9/11. Had we started it in 2004, we could have prevented multitudes of people from being kidnapped and tortured, we could have prevented FISA-bypassing wiretaps, we could have prevented disenfranchisement of (possibly) hundreds of thousands of voters, and we could have prevented all of the deaths connected with the Iraq War since late 2004. At this point, it would be strictly punishment because we failed to act when it would have actually made a difference, but I'm fine with punishment. Shit, I'd be happy with punishment. President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Dr. Rice, and other high ranking Bush Administration officials should be investigated without interference and prosecuted based on the crimes which they have committed if for no other reason but to make future Bush's think twice before leading the US down this dark road again.

Cirumstances would have been much different if the Dems won the majority in Congress in 04 instead of 06. That would have provided the time to do it thoroughly and judiciously.

On this, I agree

Which is why I want to see Obama, if elected, follow through on his comment on how he might proceed:
One of the most recent surveys on impeachment that I am aware of, from Nov 07, justifies further investigation and possible criminal charges after Bush/Cheney leave office, if appropriate.
I think we know who here are in that minority of 30-36% who believe Bush/Cheney have not abused the powers of their respective offices.

Obama can make a strong case that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that Bush/Cheney should not be above the law if further investigations find that they may have engaged in illegal actions....and that it should proceed at a judicial level, without the politics of impeachment.

I agree with this. Good insight and analysis DC. I think it's much wiser to wait and gather the facts/evidence rather than hastily rush into things. Also, instead of making it a witch hunt and mockery of the system, show some class and dignity in handling the situation. Be above the fracas though I realize it will get ugly. The good thing about waiting is that once the Bush Administration is out, there will be less pressure for the current politicos to defend him as much in my opinion.

I also don't know if Obama or McCain should be the ones initiating it. I feel an "outside" party would be better, like an "independent" investigation.

Yeah, it turns out in politics everything is political. I think waiting then gathering facts is the way to here as well. It's really not politically possible right now. If Obama does win the election I think the best way to go is for him to appoint a special prosecutor, and attack dog. Then he can turn him lose and defer all question to him/her and stay (or at least appear to stay) above it. All this talk about if we did this at this point, or had we started back then- it's not going to get us any where and it doesn't make it anymore politically practical now. Reminds me of a clip Jon Stewart showed a while back. It was a bunch of pundits stating "well, if this happens" and "If that happens" etc... the last one was some guy saying "yeah, and if my aunt had an male appendage she'd be my uncle."

thanks dc. very informative to show that Congress is in fact doing something regarding action towards checks and balances. It seems to me that the system is working as intended.

Should they forget about it since they can't get documents? No, of course not, in due time I believe, but couldn't they get the SCOTUS to compel the executive branch to comply?

First, I don't think Bush did anything illegal. Second, the issues in question have already been investigated. Third, I don't think any new investigations will uncover new information. Fourth, I don't think the administration has been unreasonably stonewalling any investigations. Fifth, I don't think claims of executive privilege are bogus - it is a serious Constitutional issue requiring careful thought and diligence. And, I would hope Obama protects executive privilege as have many Presidents have in the past.

I don't give Bush or any President "carte blanche" to stonewall or to do whatever they want.

Denial: it ain't just a river in Egypt.

Yes, host, that's what I want the POTUS to do, run out the clock. Please give me a fucking break.

Bait, after bait, after bait. It's tiresome. You ask one question that someone answers and you respond with 15 more and extra links. This by far is your one of your shortest reponses, but still making assumptions that I'm giving someone a pass.

No host, it's not a pass. As I've said before my local community board and local politics affect my quality of life a bit more than the POTUS does. See the more I keep looking at the things that you post the more I tune it out becuase you know what, it doesn't really change all that much. Read what you've posted in the above quotes. The names change, the time changes, the issues not so much. They still exist, history has shown that it's not the US that suffers such things, but it's in all countries and all times.

It doesn't mean that I give it a pass, it means I've got more to do with living life than sitting behind a keyboard being pissed off at the world and the sitting president.

again, you'll believe what you want to believe.

Okay, so you've shaken your fist at the TV, you've voted, you've contacted your representatives and told them you don't like what's happening and expect them to take action.

you've mailed letters...

other people have attended rallies, and protests...

things don't change...

now what?

I still have to pay my mortgages, go to work, enjoy life... and what rage against the machine?

sorry, I'm more interested in making a living, saving my money and investments, and taking my marbles to play somewhere that's of my comfort and choosing.

anything that detracts from that is a waste of my time.

the bush administration in collusion with the american "free press" generated what amounts to a climate of hysteria in the wake of 9/11/2001 which they extended and used as a cover for putting into motion an invasion of iraq that followed point for point the rationale offered by the project for a new american century group in 1997. in this context, the administration selectively interpreted/distorted/fabricated infotainment that rationalized the action. in this context, congress approved the actions because, for whatever reason, at the assumption that the administration was acting in good faith apparently overruled better judgment. there is no question about the outline of this scenario, and it is what it is regardless of whether you might approve of the invasion of iraq for reasons that have nothing to do with the rationale that was floated for it.

at the very least, the war in iraq represents a breakdown in independent thinking, a breakdown of oversight, a breakdown of fact-checking--problems which i think would not have happened as they did outside the hysterical context generated in the early phases of the bush-war on ghosts. there is abundant documentation, readily available, which shows every step of the message-and-distort approach to infotainment, the building of a tendentious set of interpretations based on this massaged-to-distorted infotainment.

the problems are obvious: at one level, what the war in iraq opens onto is a breakdown of the dominant american political and ideological system as a whole, one for which the entirety of the dominant order is responsible in general--but within this, it is the administration which is responsible in particular.

was this illegal?
shouldn't that be determined by a process?
it hardly seems worth the effort to type this--but this is a messageboard without any standing of make determinations as to what is or is not illegal--so for the most part "illegal" means i dont like it and "legal" means i like it.

but i would think that anyone in their right mind would be disturbed by how the situations which resulted in the launching of the fiasco in iraq unfolded--that it would give you pause--that preventing something like this from happening again would be a priority--it is altogether too easy to generate a climate of hysteria in the states, given the primacy of television as an opinion co-ordinating mechanism. it is SO easy that i would think folk who claim to like the american system as a whole would be bothered by it.

there is obviously a symbolic dimension to calls for impeachment of george w bush for misleading the public and congress (and the international community)
--there is a criminal (metaphor) degree of irresponsibility in using the information that they used, a criminal (metaphor) level of incompetence in the assembly and evaluation of intelligence--and this if you assume the administration acted in good faith. seems to me that in ANY other situation, the right would be calling for the heads of whomever acted with this degree of incompetence and would be complaining about whatever structure protected them--but not here, but not now.

why is that?

Cynthetiq....if it were only that simple.

Here is the problem Congress faces...I will lay out the actions to date:

*Congress issues subpoenas to WH staff to testify.

* WH asserts a never before interpretation of executive priviliege to claim that documents and conversations between two EOP staff (or EOP staff and other Exec Dept officials) that does not involve the Pres, are covered.

* the full House adopts of Resolution of Contempt of Congress against WH officials and formally requests that the AG direct the US Attorney for DC to bring the matter before a grand jury as required by law.

* the AG refuses to act based on a legal argument presented to him by the WH counsel that...get this....enforcing the law requiring that the Contempt of Congress charges be presented to a Grand Jury would violate WH claims of executive privilege

* to make that clear...the AG wont let the courts decide if executive privilege in these case apply because doing so would violate executive privilege.

* so.....Congress is left with taking a civil complaint to the US District Court for DC...where it now rests.

Congress is exploring a request to fast track it to the SCOTUS but the WH and the District Court of DC have expressed opposition to such a move...and there we are.

It would be comical if it wasnt so serious.

thanks again for the breakdowns. The AG should be somehow outside of this in some way. I never did understand how the AG was part of the executive branch since it's an appointed and confirmed position.

Not really, it sounds like some sort of Private Practice/Boston Legal episode wherein there's wrangling, blocks, counters, etc. Of course I'm of the opinion that life is always more interesting and imaginative than fiction ever seems to be.

all the more reason for Congress and the next President to not simply "let it rest" and "move on."

There is far too much at stake (with the exec privilege issue as well as other issues still under Congressional review - eg, destruction of millions of e-mails, just to name one "minor" issue) in terms of precedent of expanded powers of the Executive branch....and it will certainly be more interesting and imaginative than any fiction!

IMO, the Dept of Justice (and the AG) is appropriately in the Executive Branch.

What is inappropriate is how under the Bush administration, the AGs (Ashcroft, Gonzales, Mukasey) have each acted (on more than one occasion) more as an attorney representing the interests of the WH rather than "enforcing the law and defending the interests of the United States according to the law..." as is its mandate.

I guess that's why I'm confused as to the inappropriate portion. So the AG is the check and balance to the judicial?
But wasn't that the same with Clinton adminstration AG issues?

There is a three way checks and balances...each have their role...Congress makes the law, the AG (Exec Branch) enforces the law, the Judiciary interprets the law.

Under Bush, there are numerous examples of the AG interpreting the law (warrentless wiretaps, use of torture, claims of executive privilege...based on legal arguments crafted by WH attorneys.)

As to Clinton, do you have specific examples of how the AG served the interest of Clinton as opposed to enforcing the law or acting in the interest of the county?

Got it, that's much more plain english. So the AG did not wish to enforce the law, but couldn't some other attorney do so as well? or is the AG above all attorneys like a commander and chief?

No I don't it was a question more than statement. I seem to recall the same politics during the Clinton impeachment where the AG didn't want to turn over documents or something along those lines.

On some occasions (wiretaps, torture) as I noted above, the Bush AG has interpreted the law (not his role) and on other occasions, as chief law enforcement officer of the federal government, has directed attorneys in his department NOT to act or only to act in a manner that supported his (and the WH) interpretation of the law.

The WH has attempted to cooperate with Congress, the issue of Executive Privilege is a real issue and may need resolution by the Supreme Court. If the intent is to truly get information, Congress should take advantage of the offers made by the WH, they always have their right reserved to take a more agressive approach in the future. The letter below illustrates how Congress has been unyielding in their alleged search for truth.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070628-2.html

The offers made by the WH were to have these (and other) WH officials testify in closed session, without a transcript and not under oath.

Bullshit!

It is the role of the DoJ and the AG to enforce the law..and that includes filing charges of Contempt of Congress before a federal grand jury when those persons subpoenaed to testify do not comply.

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

US Code - Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers

and let the Judiciary determine if executive privilege applies.

In the course of an investigation testimony under oath is not the normal initial request. Normally an investigation will start with simply talking to the parties or taking an informal statement from the people involved. Congress chose not to take that course, they instead made the choice of being confrontational. Not wise in my opinion.

When Congress conducts legislative hearings to seek input on crafting new legislation, they generally do not require testifying under oath.

When Congress conducts oversight hearings to review the performance of the Exec Branch in carrying out existing legislation, they ALWAYS require testifying under oath, starting with the initial meetings with Congressional staff prior to the hearings.

Missed the point. Perhaps, they could have simply took the WH's offer got as much information as possible. Then they could...

When I am conducting an investigation, I start being as non-confrontational as possible. I get the easy information first and in a progressive manner ask more and more pointed questions. You don't give up your right to request testimony under oath, or your right to subpoena information.

The approach used by Congress kinda tells me that they were not really on a search for information and truth. Anyone who has ever been involved in investigations would agree that there is a logical and systematic approach to getting information on the record. The approach used by Congress has not been consistent with that.

ace, as I understand what you are suggestion....

Congress has been confrontational and the WH has been cooperative and not obstructionist.

Nope..that just wont fly in light of the facts....Congress has acted in the manner in which it nearly always has acted in the performance of its oversight function.

But hey, you have your opinion.

How do you explain the fact that they did not take the WH's offer? They had nothing to loose.

I think the WH's position has been to protect executive privilege. As they protect executive privilege, they offered a compromise. So I see the WH as being more cooperative than Congress at this point.

Executive privilege is about the separation of powers, or protecting the distinctness of the branches. I don't see how answering these questions would have done any harm to that (unless the answers to the questions would not reflect favorably on the president and vice president, in which case they would be using executive privilege as their own personal 5th Amendment).

I think the WH offered to have their people answer questions. Congress wants to make a side show out of their alleged quest for truth. Using Constitutional power for that purpose is an abuse of power or a mockery of the true role of Congress, don't you agree?

I use hyperbole a bit, but it seems there are not many here who are willing to even consider the fact that Congress's quest for truth might be just a bit more for political purposes rather than for getting at the "truth".

Don't downplay the importance of truth. Just because you liken it to a "side show" does not make this an abuse of power or a mockery of anything. The reality is that Bush had not been forthcoming about his failures at all as a president and many people, including members of congress, believed that an investigation would be able to uncover what the circumstantial facts suggested: truth.

personally, i think that such reluctance as you might impute to congress follows from two main facts: the close split between parties and the fact that congress approved the bullshit case for war that the administration advanced, legitimated the action and so is entirely implicated in whatever the results of an investigation might be---as an institution. the first one is obvious; the second cuts both ways--you might think that congress would be VERY interested in investigating how and why it was duped as a way of exculpating itself--but this bizarre partisan thing on the part of the republicans and the closeness of the numbers between parties perhaps disables that as well.

what's amazing to me is that there is no particular legitimation problem that has followed from this for the system as a whole.

my cynical conclusion is that the bush administration has demonstrated that impunity will get you far in america, that almost nothing can happen that will create any real problems for the state itself, that legitimation is not an issue---these are indicators of the soft authoritarian system we live under, while we wander about imagining ourselves to be politically free.

compare even on the issue of fuel prices the total passive inaction in the states as over against what is happening in spain, france, south korea.
which system is more free?

Korea.

During NixOn's reign, we had crises with the Pentagon Papers and Watergate. These were genuine legitimation crises, which were resolved within the framework of the state. Compare this to the Iraq situation.

I think the differences come from the Clinton-Lewinsky-Starr farce. (I don't care if he lied, it was still a fucking farce.) This has created a legitimation problem for legitimation problems -- as it was probably intended to. Another difference would be the absence of alternative models of legitimation. Back in the '70s, there was discussion of more or less radical alternatives to the status quo. The system were under pressure to resolve the NixOn Problem within the parameters of the U.S. politi al system. There's the succession of Alfred E. Neuman prezidents to blame as well. but i have to get back to work.

this is partly a large-scale ideological matter--a function of the collapse of a viable alternative political project (the left) and a bizarre fossilization of history at the same time--the fossilization seems to me of a piece with the reduction of a sense of the present to an accumulation of things and the past as a collection of film footage, brought to you with a 50s police-show voice-over on the "history" channel--so there are no alternatives which we create as we move through the present, but only repetitions. we don't create anything, really: we find what already exists. and as the dominant order is coterminous with what exists, it is necessarily legitimate.

we have the illusion of immediacy from a vantagepoint of stuffed chairs and sofas.
we imagine that the fact we can purchase consumer goods as a political meaning.

we operate in a strange suspended present--i dont know why classic rock radio seems emblematic of all this to me, but it does--the eternal 1976, the year i graduated high school, late for the party, always and inevitably late for the party. the period that followed the american defeat in vietnam seems to have been one of wholesale repression--of the defeat, of the sense of crisis that surrounded watergate--and an immobilization of superficial images of both--repetition of footage of functionaries climbing aboard helicopters leaving phnom penh substituting for those of functionaries leaving saigon--the early-to-mid 1970s hang in the air like a swamp--they never left, we are all still there, it is juxtaposed with the present, an aspect of it--so the political crisis that vietnam entailed is simultaneously repressed and preserved as film stock, as an atmosphere---"rebellion" imputed to the movements in opposition to vietnam is channelled into a question of which sports utility vehicle enables you best to express your individuality, and which athletic shoe product will best enable you to purchase an entire way of life. so maybe there's a sense in which "we" have "already done" political crisis and a sense in which iraq is a rerun of vietnam except without the draft--the forbidden lightening rod around which neo-con "strategizing" has danced, the line they cannot cross, their explanation for everything that happened during the vietnam period--well that and allowing uncontrolled press access to battle areas.

this is what fading empires are like: trapped in an image of their own past, the present slides by them as if it were a giant repetition--nothing happens because they cannot see anything happening--people sit around waiting for something to happen, but it can't happen. at the system level, the configuration of power is changing, but we can't see it because the information we have access to is structured such that it is more important symmetry be maintain with the fossilized past than it is coherent accounts be generated of the present.

so we drift like some sad, bloated, fading king who mistakes himself for a courtier.

You ask what I think?

I think you have convinced yourself (but few others outside the Bush faithful) that the WH position (no transcripts, no oath) was reasonable and that Congress was motivated by partisan politics and showmanship rather than seeking the truth regarding questionable actions by the administration.

Congress even offered to keep the hearings closed (no "showmanship") as long as transcripts were permitted and the WH staff testified under oath....and the WH staff could invoke executive privilege on a question-by-question basis.

IMO, that was a reasonable compromise considering that this Congress has requested nothing more from the current WH than any recent Congress in responsible pursuit of its oversight responsibility of previous administrations.

Sure...I would consider that Congress's quest for the truth is "a bit" for political purposes (but far less, not more, of a motivator than for seeking the truth)...the same as I consider the fact that the previous Congress abrogated its oversight responsibilities for political purposes and the current WH has attempted to control the Congressional oversight process for political purposes.

Which one is also attempting to seek the truth in the interest of an open and accountable Executive Branch?

the current Congress asking hard questions about WH actions and policies in fulfillment of its oversight role

the previous Congress that did not take the time to conduct more than cursory superficial oversight hearings regarding WH actions and policies but instead gave the WH a blank check to do what it wanted...no questions asked

the current administration that will not permit its staff to testify under oath and answer any questions and not just those that might fall under claims of executive privilege

'nuf said.

The problem is that they have no viable explanation for what happened in Vietnam.

As for the control of the press issue, this, too is part of the blindness of fading empires. The current restrictions on the press are an outgrowth of denial and disavowal of the military's failures in Vietnam. It's always someone else's fault: hippies, SDS, black panthers, Muhammed Ali but also the draft, tv, Walter Cronkite, the press in general... So many stabs in the back.

Even if the generals had had everything they wanted and nothing but showers of rose petals at home, they still would have lost. This is because they didn't understand what they were fighting against, which was basically the people of Vietnam. There was no military solution except killing everyone in the whole country -- something that Lt. Calley (a la Kurtz) tried on a small scale.

Post #140
Post #153
Is it reasonable to consider the quotes in yellow, to be sentiments in favor of "moving on"....focusing on other things than the misconduct of the current administration?

Post #156
Is it reasonable to consider the quotes in yellow, an argument for "running out the clock", or justification for a "running out the clock" strategy of a group intending to avoid investigation leading to prosecution, via impeachment or in a criminal court?

In other words, doesn't it follow, if investigation of a president and his administration were to end, as a matter of protocol, and procedure, when the term in office of said president ended, that attempting to stonewall investigation by refusing to testify, respond to letters of inquiry or letters demanding documents, "running out the clock" would be the resulting defense
of the president and his administration?

Post #157
Post #158
Making allowance for my own bias, to the extent that it is possible to do so, I do not understand how the opinions of ace and Cynthetiq could lead to anything other than a strategy by the executive branch, to "run out the clock", in response to congressional committee investigations begun when the opposition party had it's first opportunity to chair such committees and then authorize investigations that were blocked for the prior six year period.....

Post #171
Cynthetiq.... I just want to be sure that you think my impression of your opinion was "Bait, after bait, after bait.".... because, after reviewing your comments and my response, I think what I wrote were the conclusions, on the matter..... of a reasonable person, considering your comments, by this standard:
Isn't the opposite of what was advocated in the posts of ace and Cynthetiq, and thus, three precedents....these recent investigations?:

1) The Legislative branch may investigate he executive branch
2) The Executive can pardon criminals
3) The Judicial can determine whether a law is or is not constitutional.

Each of these three instances describes a check and balance well after what was to be checked was established. Pardons can come decades after a conviction. Investigations can happen years after a supposed crime has been committed by a member of the Executive branch. The Supreme Court can rule centuries after laws are passed as to whether a law is constitutional or not.

Don't worry, I don't intend to lecture anyone about separation of powers. Just pointing out examples.

If it helps you sleep at night to believe that I want them to "move on" then so be it host. If that's what warms your cockles in your world, then by all means.

But remember in MY WORLD I have already stated that anything that detracts from adding value to my life, is a waste of my time.

Since you prefer citations, here's a simple lithmus test for me:

Since you seem to read that as a pass, well let me continue more about it:

Thanks will, there's something a bit more gracious when someone is trying to become more educated.

Yes, those are true, but here people are demanding that things be CHECKED NOW, or BALANCED NOW. So while the Patriot Act may be the worst thing to happen to civil rights, I'm confident that in the future the rights of the future Americans will be secured by the SCOTUS overturning that act. See, just like you said, checks and balances.

See what you've stated isn't that scary monster that host sees hiding in the White House closet on Jan 20, 2009 wherein POTUS Bush refuses to leave the White House. No, the checks and balances happen as they need to and I'm confident in the system that has been working for 232 years now.

Some of you seem to think that if it's not happening right now, it's no good.

IMO, the checks and balances through Congressional oversight that were absolutely necessary after six years of Republican neglect should continue now and into the future through its completion, regardless of the fact that the affected parties (the current president and senior staff) are leaving office in seven months. And if further checks by the Judicial branch are necessary as a result of findings from the Congressional oversight, that should proceed as well...after the change of administration.

Thats not to say that Congress and the country cant "move on" at the same time and also focus on the issues of greater concern (although not more important in the grand scheme of open and accountable government) to most citizens.

I don't disagree with that. I just don't wish to see Congress mired down with doing nothing but that and no other work gets done.

Again, I've not stated free pass, but some of the "true believers" here seem to think that.

I've stated I've got my own things to be concerned about in my version of "pusuit of happiness" which directly impact me now and everyday.

Thats cool.

I would just humbly suggest that the "true believers" speaking out and fighting to prevent abuses of power and the restoration of a more open and accountable government deserve recognition for their commitment to the larger issues at stake.