Captain's Quarters -

Haggle by name, haggle by nature?

Present Democratic politicians really disgust me. Interesting how the next elections are going to play for Democrats though.

another of these narcissistically delusional politicians that think they have a chance at being president. would someone in his immediate family please bitch slap him into consciousness.

I sat through the long, interview yesterday, listening to George Stephanopolous (sp?) throw softball questions and let Sen. Hagel pontificate at boring and irrelevant length.

I can't for the life of me figure out how this dour, unsmiling, dullard gets elected by the people of Nebraska. The idea of his running for the Presidency is fanciful in the extreme.

/Mr Lynn

For reasons known only to himself Hagel called the Surge the worst strategic blunder in the history of the United States. With only 1/5 of the total U.S. troops to be deployed having been deployed in Baghdad the Surge is yielding very positive results.

If the Surge continues to prove successful Chuck Hagel's political career will be finished. He is more heavily invested in defeat than any other American politician but doesn't have the courage to call for immediate withdrawal.

Of course the very idea that he is considering throwing his hat into the ring proves he is delusional.

A handful of them would rather initiate an unconstitutional impeachment adventure, which would leave Dick Cheney in charge...

Er, no it wouldn't, because Bush has zero chance of actually being convicted by the Senate in any impeachment trial. The votes just aren't there.

We have entered a new phase of political conflict over the war that is like the era of Reconstruction during the Andrew Johnson administration. Once again Congress is attempting to usurp the power of the Presidency and assert Congressional Supremacy beyond the powers enumerated in Article I. Whether it is the war or appointments, the Democrats aided by a few petulant Republicans want to strip the President of his powers for narrow political advantage.

Hagel, like the Democratic majority, has forgotten the power is in the office and not by the man. Power usurped by Congress will not be easily returned to the office when a Democrat is in the White House facing a Republican Congress. Republicans, like Hagel and Spector, go along with this usurpation of power because they are much more comfortable in the minority where they can whine and complain about the course of events.

Like Democrats need a actual reason?

They'll just fabricate one and the media will run with it. C'mon, we all know how this racket works by now.

I would have any respect for Congress if they actually *did* read the Constitution and did their jobs. They have neglected entirely their duties and responsibilities handed to them and then go on to try and blame the Executive for things wholly given over to the Congress. They, instead, spend on things to enrich lobbyists, reward friends and to enrich themselves, first, and this has been going on for more than a decade. When Congress Authorizes the Use of Force it is the full and complete responsibility of Congress to ensure that the Armed Forces are properly scoped and sized for that venture, to supply troops with combat arms, equipment, munitions and stores, to build arsenals and shipyards and other facilities to produce necessary war supplies, to ensure that Veterans Hospitals are properly staffed and equipped and funded, and, finally, to ensure that the economy is committed to the fight in the way that only Congress can do as it is given that full and entire responsibility during wartime.

It is not the glamorous job of making foreign policy or deciding on troop movements or what the proper tempo events should be. That is why a Commander in Chief power is given to the President: so that rapid decisions can be made. The Congress is the supply clerk, procurer and administrative overseer on expenditures. They have done none of those willingly and forthrightly in this conflict they have signed the Nation up to.

If the Congress wants a bit more visibility in this new 'long war' they can, indeed, use its powers and put forth a way to involve the People without Conscription, nor draft, nor making the population into their servants. But that requires that they actually think about their jobs and the situation of the Nation and the world, and then address them with the actual powers they are given, not the ones they wish to abscond with from the Executive, Judiciary and the States.

Until the US is no longer in a Peace Time economy and all pork is stripped from the budget totally and completely, can anyone really say that there are problems going on with the fighting and conduct of the war. Because we are *not* at war as a Nation. We are at war within the Nation to continue to *have* a Nation.

That is the goal of the enemies of Nations: to remove their legitimacy and reduce them to subject states, at best, and as mere territories in an Empire at worse. Apparently that is what those that oppose war have forgotten: they no longer wish to have a Nation of any kind, anywhere, and now state their prefernce for being a subject of an Empire. They have lost the dream of freedom and liberty, because they are unwilling to pay any price for it.

That is the abyss that Congress wishes to step into.

And take us all with it.

Well said ajacksonian, damned well said!

"Any president who says 'I don't care' or 'I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else' or 'I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed' (Sen. Hagel)

But just how many Presidents have done just that innumerable times while in office? Lincoln and Jefferson didn't check Bill Clinton's polls. Is that not a measure of the reason for their office?

Neither Mr. Hagel, the Democrats, the polls, or NBC have been chosen to elucidate the will of the American people. Our republic is not constituted in that manner. Hagel is merely a fool trying to be a demagogue, with little or no concern for the law.

For some time the American people have allowed the US Senate to harbour a larger than normal population of fools. So if we are thinking of twisting the Constitution, I would fire back. Let's oust Mr. Hagel and many of the fools of his ilk. Such men and women in the US Senate have no business governing in the name of the United States. They do not do our business.

Mr. Hagel would invoke the name of the people to destroy the office of the President. He should check the poll numbers for Congress. He should know that sword can cut both ways.

I will never, ever, EVER vote for Hagel for anything! If my choice is between Hagel and Hillary! or Hagel and Obama, then I'll feel that the Republicans would DESERVE to continue their wandering in the political wilderness. Fair warning, GOP: Don't give me a lousy candidate like Hagel!

As General W. T. Sherman said Vox populi, vox humbug.

Chuck Hagel's real problem is that the President has the unmitigated gall to disagree with Chuck Hagel. Even worse, the President is allowing himself to be publically seen to be (gasp!) IGNORING Chuck Hagel! This is utterly intolerable in any decent world! This is blasphemy! OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!!

Lewis Carroll would understand perfectly.

ajacksonian,

You nailed it.... Nicely stated...

The good people of Nebraska need to rid themselves of this national embarrassment.

This is why Congress has an overall approval rating of 28%; feed friends & contributers billlions of our tax dollars, while building themselves up; putting self ahead of country; refusal to apply the law to themselves.

Honestly, if recall petitions aren't being circulated in Nebraska, something is seriously wrong there.

Funny, I don't remember any of your ilk defending Bill Clinton against the abuse of Congress's power when he was impeached for... hmm... which high crime and misdemeanor was that? While I agree that Hagel made a ridiculous statement, let's not pretend that most of you here aren't perfectly happy ignoring the Constitution when doing so gets you what you want.

Jacksonian,

Thanks for another great comment!

Your "call sign" makes one realize how far the Dhimmocrats have fallen from their roots...Prior to becoming the first Democratic President, wasn’t Gen Jackson the epitome of "BOLDNESS" when he took Pensacola...and held New Orleans?

The only thing more loathsome than a whining, groveling, slack-jawed Dhimm…are the Repubs who are enabling them.

Fritz,

I am sure clues are available somewhere near you.
And as I am sure you are aware, Clinton was impeached for committing perjury during the course of a legal proceeding, of which Clinton was the defendant. This occured while Clinton was serving in an office for which he had sworn to defend the Constitution. Clinton's perjury was intended to protect himself from liability and to deny rights to a citizen.

That the Chief Executive would commit perjury while in office was considered by many to be a high crime and misdemeanor.

Sheesh Fritz,

If Bush lies under oath, then the comparison makes sense.

rcb

Loren -

I hope you'll stand behind Congress's right to impeach if and when "many" decide that George W. Bush's myriad questionable actions as Chief Executive fall under the category of high crimes and misdemeanors, or perhaps even bribery or treason.

You may disagree with their decision, but not with their right to reach it and act accordingly.

That's all I'm saying.

"...He warned that George Bush could face impeachment unless he adopted a policy on Iraq more to the liking of Congress..."
That's not what he said. He was discussing an executive who does not feel he is accountable to anyone...and a possible way of making him accountable.
Question...If your position is based on spin, hyperbole, half-truths, and strawmen...what good is your argument? Perhaps you should consider this in future blogs.

Jay:

Short of committing an actual crime, like say lying under oath in a civil trial where you are the defendant, the President is only accountable to the voters. They elect him and they have a chance to hold him accountable again if he chooses to run for re-election. Since we have a imposed term limits on a the Presidency once the voters decide to let him carry on there is no more oversight. At that point Congress can engage in the struggle of co-equals to change the President’s policies.

Impeachment over political differences is not what checks and balances is all about. Your post shows me that wherever your political views place you on the spectrum you do not have a basic understanding of the US Constitution.

What astonishes me is the HUGE EGO of this man. What makes him think any Republican anywhere wants him to be President? If this is the best Republican that Nebraska can elect to Congress, it makes you wonder how bad the Democrats are that run against him. This man is NOT a conservative. Why don't the Republicans kick him out of the party? It is not like he is helping their cause any in Congress. Maybe we can trade him for Lieberman. Seemss like a good Idea to me.

I only heard the audio of Hagel being interviewed, as I was in the kitchen when he was on. I assumed from what I heard that it was typical interview of a generic dhimmicrat BDS sufferer. when I walked by and noticed it was Hagel I guess the scales fell from my eyes. Hagel is not only a fool, a lout and a traitor. he is even worse: indistinguishable from a democrat Senator.

Ed,

I concur that a President cannot be impeached on policy, and I don't think Hagel is saying that. That's a strawman.

I think he's saying that a President who ignores the law, ignores Congressional oversight, is liable for impeachment, and should be.

Ignoring the directive of Congress on what has been authorized for war, ignoring the funding directives, is a violation of the Constitution. Violating the instructions of the Congress - with things like signing instructions which are widely believed to be highly unconstitutional, are violations of law, and of the Constitution. It doesn't take a specific law to validate this - the base precepts of the Constittution stipulate the President is bound by the limits of authority granted him by the Congress when providing funding. The argument would go before the Supreme Court, notably one stacked with and by Republicans, so the President MIGHT win, but as the Bolin Amendment and Iran-Contra proved, that is unlikely at best, even with lap-dogs like Thomas and Scalia voting whatever way they're told most of the time - even they (well maybe not Thomas - but Scalai) know that Constitutionally, the Congress authorizes war, and the Congress provides funding, and any attempt to subvert the Constitution is certainly grounds for impeachment.

jerry...
the state of the union is a constitutional requirement...and is therefore under oath...even if an oath is not sworn before actually making the speech. therefore any of the myriad documented lies bush told during those speeches qualifies as perjury. outing a covert cia agent, ordering illegal wire-taps, or more recently the FBI illegally obtaining private records could all qualify as high crimes and/or misdemeanors. note that hagel said, "...about Iraq or anything else...'
your post shows me that wherever your political views place you on the spectrum you do not have a basic understanding of the us constitution.

Penigma:

It is better to be vaguely right then precisely wrong and as usual you are precisely wrong. Congress can only put restrictions on Presidential action that are consistent with their enumerated powers. They cannot pass a "Tenure in Office Act" that would interfere with his ability to remove political appointees nor can they pass laws or restrict funding that prohibit his authority to execute Presidential powers that are explicitly stated in Article II. Congressional authority to place restictions on Presidential actions is also governed by the Constitution. They just don't get to pass a law and make it stick. It has to be Constitutional as well.

Jay:

The State of the Union address may be Constitutional required but it is not testimony under oath. I don't know where you got that one. A President can never be guilty of unauthorized release of classified information because he is the ultimate source of classification authority under EO 12958 as amended. Besides, the leak came from Richard Armatige and not the White House. I won’t bother with the rest because you are obviously living in the fever swamps of KOS land.

Jay,

It would be helpfull if you demonstrated that any of your claims were true, rather than just asserting that they were.

Just what were these "documented lies" during the state of the union? And please don't give us the old "16 words" garbage. Bush has been proven right by the 9/11 commission and at least one commission in Great Britain.

Nobody outed a covert agent, because she wasn't covert. Even Plame was forced to admit that she had no idea if she was covert or not in her recent, under oath, testimony before congress. Additionally, Bush didn't out her, Armitage did, and he was no Bush ally. Additionally, Aldritch Ames originally outed Plame about 10 years ago.

What illegal wiretaps? Do you mean the ones that the constitution, as affirmed by the Supreme Court allow the president to make?

Can a Senator be impeached for being an insufferable and absolutely worthless blowhard?

Impeach Hagel.

Can a Senator be impeached for undermining the Commander in Chief during a time of war, all for crass and cynical political gain?

Impeach each and every Democrat Senator. And afterwards, drop them into a leaky boat on the ocean, along with barrels of chum.

I'd watch that on Pay Per View. How long would it take for the sharks to choke down Ted Kennedy? Would that be cruelty to animals?

the state of the union is one of the few explicitly enumerated duties of the president...which he takes an oath to "faithfully execute".
i'm not going to waste my time re-arguing
these issues...few people on these partisan blogs are willing to step back and think for themselves and therefore the conversation rarely goes anywhere...my point is simply that there are plenty of avenues for a congress, willing to undertake it's role of oversight in a sober and serious manner, to pursue.

Hagel looks and sounds like a raging alcoholic. His satements last summer regarding the Hezbollah war was particularly despicable. As for ruynning for President , Hagel shouldn't waste his time. Republicans won't back him and the Democrats don't like traitors. Perhaps that is why he can't make up his mind which side he's on. I ain't holding my breath that the GOP Leadership (an oxymoron, IMO) will do anything though. They're too well-practiced in making nice. Hagel goes on giving the liberal Democrats juicy sound bites to use against the President and the Republicans. By now talking about impeaching the President, and continuing to push what amounts to a huge amnesty for millions of illegal aliens to flood the Nebraska job market with legalized cheap foreign labor, it seems clear that it may be pretty hard for Hagel to get re-elected in Nebraska next year. If the Nebraska Republicans are too chicken to but up a good conservative Republican candidate to run against Hagel in the primary election, Hagel will probably get beat by any moderate/conservative Democrat that runs for Senator there.

"there are plenty of avenues for a congress willing to undertake it's role of oversight in a sober and serious manner"

Maybe if we possessed a sober and serious majority party, that would be possible.

Presently, the majority party is blowing a .20 BAC and acting like cartoon characters. If we animated C-SPAN and portrayed Nancy Pelosi as Daffy Duck on botox, would anyone notice the difference?

"therefore the conversation rarely goes anywhere"

Translation - No one agrees with my suggestions, such as impeaching the President for remarks made during the SOTU address (which no one has yet proven to be false).

nodonkey has just proven my point...no thoughtful, open minded discussion of the issue...just partisan bloviating.

Jay:

Debating with you is a non-starter. The SOU speech only became a speech in the 20th Century. Prior to that it was delivered to Congress and entered into the record. The first SOU was 200 words long. The Constitution specifies neither content nor length. The President can meet the requirement by sending as little as “Dear Congress, The state of the Union is peachy.” The Constitution says nothing about the SOU as testimony under oath. If entering something into the record made it “testimony under oath” and subject to perjury then most of Congress would be headed to jail. The reversal of Ollie North’s conviction on charges of lying to Congress while giving an unsworn statement to Congress by the SCOTUS underlines the fact that unsworn testimony is not subject to perjury charges.

Jerry and NoDonk,

You're falling for a Troll tactic. Debating someone who believes what this Troll believes about SOU addresses....well, when the village idiot says the Easter Bunny stole his brain, do you try to explain to him that there is no Easter Bunny?

jerry,
yes...he could send a letter that states what you say...but he didn't. he got up and said..."we know"...when he did not "know" and in fact he had real reason to doubt what he was saying. but i'm not a constitutional scholar...let's assume i'm wrong and you are right. that means when the white house said on 3/22 that there is no reason for rove to be under oath because "...anybody who testifies before congress, anybody that talks before congress, is under an obligation to tell the truth, and if they don't, they're liable to legal punishment." they were lying...

Two points:

1. My feeling is that Chuck Hagel made this idiot statement solely to get back in the good graces of the MSM after he made SUCH an ass of himself by dragging them out to the wilds of Nebraska to see him make an important announcement that he's considering making another important announcement. What's the best way to get in the good graces of the MSM? Criticize Bush!

2. It's obvious (and unsurprising) from the comments of jay k. and penigma that liberals just don't quite understand the Constitution.

I've thought about this, and it really seems to me that, to be a liberal, one has to have serious problems with mental cognition. Liberals don't understand "checks and balances", they don't understand the free market, they don't understand military policy... The list goes on. They don't even understand definitions of common words like "lie" and "sex". How can you debate and discuss issues with people whose mental processes are so different (read: defective)? It's like trying to discuss orbital mechanics with somebody who's CERTAIN that the sun, planets and stars go round the earth in celestial spheres, or epidemeology with somebody who's CERTAIN that disease is caused by miasmas or evil spirits.

the deep-rooted hypocrisy in docjim55's post makes the personal attacks seem comical.

Jay:

This is my last comment. The reason that the White House was willing to let them go up an give unsworn testimony is because they could not be put legal jeopardy. Why do you thing Congress rejected the deal?

"nodonkey has just proven my point...no thoughtful, open minded discussion of the issue."

jay k - What issue? The Democrats are grasping at straws here.

If impeachment were warranted, the grounds would not be a source for speculation, conjecture or whimsy. The grounds would be apparent to all.

The Democrats are (once again) trying to manufacture an issue out of whole cloth, in order to (once again) criminalize political disagreements.

Don't ask me to take seriously, yet another inane, morally and intellectually bankrupt gesture on the part of the absolutely worthless Democrat Party.

Nor do I take seriously whatever clown Hagel was babbling about before Ms. Rodham's lickspittle, on Sunday morning.

"nodonkey has just proven my point...no thoughtful, open minded discussion of the issue."

jay k - What issue? The Democrats are grasping at straws here.

If impeachment were warranted, the grounds would not be a source for speculation, conjecture or whimsy. The grounds would be apparent to all.

The Democrats are (once again) trying to manufacture an issue out of whole cloth, in order to (once again) criminalize political disagreements.

Don't ask me to take seriously, yet another inane, morally and intellectually bankrupt gesture on the part of the absolutely worthless Democrat Party.

Nor do I take seriously whatever clown Hagel was babbling about before Ms. Rodham's lickspittle, on Sunday morning.

Hagel is cut from the same cloth as McCain and Specter: RINO, Media Whore variant.

What he doesn't get, and will never understand, is that the media fawns on him only so long as he's stabbing his own party and his party's president in the back. In the strictly (and thankfully) hypothetical scenario where he'd be the Republican Party's nominee for president in 2008, no doubt he'd be stunned at just how quickly his media chums would turn on him and tear him to pieces.

jerry,
but that's not what they said...which brings us back to accountability.

Ed, All:

With all do respect to the posters here, I think some perspective is warranted, as there seems to be some confusion in regards to grounds for impeachment.

The fact of the matter is that impeachment is a purely *political* solution. While the Constitution's language clearly states criminal acts can lead to impeachment, by and large congress determines what constitutes acts worthy of impeachment. Just as the President has absolute discretion to pardon anyone he sees fit, so Congress has absolute discretion to determine the grounds for impeachment.

The cost to congress, of course, is political: impeach the President, or any other impeachable official, for less than adequate reasons, and the majority party in congress could find themselves in the minority come next election. That's why impeachment is rare--it's the ultimate solution with ultimate political consequences.

What Hagel said may be all bluff and bluster, but don't pretend that congress has no authority to impeach save for what many of you think should be "good" reasons. Congress has the authority to impeach at all times and for any reason they see fit.

Gaius:

I am going to defend Hagel from the dreaded RINO charge. Hagel's opposition to the war is in the tradition of interwar Conservative midwestern Republican isolationists who formed the backbone of the America First movement. Hagel has been pretty outspoken in the post Cold War years about US involvement. He make talk like a "I love the UN" lefty but all he is really doing is putting up a fig leaf to turn our backs on the rest of the world. If he were a true RINO he would actually beiieve the BS he espouses.

Exactly Publius Jr., Thank You, Thank You, Thank You!

At the level of relations between co-equal branches of the Federal Government, all of the legalistic hairsplitting is just so much superfluous effluvia. The President has the practical power to do whatever he see's fit to do, to just about anybody, subject ONLY to the Congresses willingness to impeach him. He/She is perfectly able to invade a State of the United States and threaten to hang its leaders from the nearest tree and then tell the Supreme Court to take its writ and stuff it. I would refer anyone to the history of the Jackson administration if they find that notion hard to digest.

Anybody who thinks George W. Bush is going to get impeached for anything, is in serious need of a brain transplant. Democrats are dumb, but even they aren't that dumb!

Publius,

When the Trolls were whining for impeachment BEFORE the mid-terms...I said they could impeach Bush for spitting on the sidewalk...GO AHEAD AND DO IT.

They didn't, of course...all talk. I was hoping the Dhimmi surrender monkeys would at least have the stones to impeach Bush...looks like they won't have the votes again next year either...too bad.

Dr J. did you have to see my "Easter Bunny" and raise me one "evil spirit"...lol?

".....or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Isn't this a perfect example of the "devil being in details?"

From Wikipedia: "......Misdemeanors usually don't result in the loss of civil rights, but may result in loss of privileges, such as professional licences, public offices, or public employment. ...... One prominent example of this is found in the [[United States Constitution]], which provides that the President may be [[impeached]] by Congress for "high crimes and misdemeanors" and removed from office accordingly. The definition of a "high" misdemeanor is left to the judgment of Congress.

And who controls Congress? By the time the debate over the original intent of these words was over, the damage in the forum of public opinion would likely have produced more destructive results than any legal consequences could have achieved.

Complete definition of Misdemeanor in Wikipedia

Swabjockey,

Easter Bunny, evil spirit, global warming, Joe Wilson's tale about Niger... Make-believe that children and liberals believe in.

Now, as for jay k., who wrote (March 26, 2007 12:40 PM):

the deep-rooted hypocrisy in docjim55's post makes the personal attacks seem comical. [emphasis mine - dj505]

To borrow from Inigo Montoya: You use the word "hypocrisy". I do not think it means what you think it means!

hypocrisy: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

I'm not sure where you got "hypocrisy" in my post. Disdain? Yes. Scorn? Certainly. Sarcasm? Most definitely. But hypocrisy?

Clearly, you don't know what the word means... or (like a good liberal) you've got a special definition that normal people don't use.

So, many thanks for proving my original point!

----------

(1) http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hypocrisy

The argument over whether the Congress can impeach a president or other high official absent proof (or at least a damned good suspicion) of a positive crime is interesting. Yes, I suppose the Congress COULD do it. And the president COULD order the Army to round up that sorry group of wardheelers and ship 'em to Guantanamo.

I hope we can all agree that these are roads that we don't want the United States to travel.

docjim,
you said..."What's the best way to get in the good graces of the MSM? Criticize Bush!"... but the msm is predominately conservative.

you said..."liberals just don't quite understand the Constitution."...but it's the conservatives who are, more often than not, on the wrong side of the constitution. today i only have to point to the right of privacy, and the same sex amendment.

you said..."Liberals don't understand "checks and balances"...but it's the conservatives who have been absent when it comes to providing balances for the last 6 years. you have, on the other hand, been writing checks like drunken awol nat'l guard airmen.

you said..."they don't understand the free market"...everytime i read this from a conservative i keep hearing dick cheney say enron was not really a problem and it was simply the free-market at work.

you said..."don't understand military policy" and yet the conservative's military policy has exhausted the military.

and as you say..."the list goes on."

you said..."they don't even understand definitions of common words like "lie" and "sex"...refer to Ted Haggard and Mark Foley and Newt Gingrich.

you said..."How can you debate and discuss issues with people whose mental processes are so different (read: defective)? It's like trying to discuss orbital mechanics with somebody who's CERTAIN that the sun, planets and stars go round the earth in celestial spheres, or epidemeology with somebody who's CERTAIN that disease is caused by miasmas or evil spirits."...and yet the conservatives deny global warming and promote creationism.

you said..."I've thought about this, and it really seems to me that, to be a liberal, one has to have serious problems with mental cognition."...right...

but the msm is predominately conservative.

Of course...that's why 76% of them vote Democrat....because of their conservatism.

Liberalism: the art of standing on your head and telling the rest of the world its upside down.

Wake up and smell the celery, troll.

Doc J...now see what you've done? Feed the Trolls at your own risk. How 'bout that old Sonny/Cher song "The Troll Goes On"...? You asked for it.

swabbie

p.s. If he spit...and they impeached, I guarantee nobody would round up the critters. I wouldn't follow that "order".

jay k.,

Obviously, we don't agree on much. And, again, it's clear that we don't agree on the definition of "hypocrisy" as you have yet to indicate where I exhibited it in my original post. Or, to be fair, I'm sure that you THINK you've caught me out as a hypocrite, which (AGAIN) demonstrates that you don't know what the word means, or that you have your own special, liberal definition.

Once again, thanks for proving my point. Over and over and over...

Swabjockey,

Yeah, one of these days I'll learn.

As for not following the "order", I think that the vast majority of the Armed Forces would be right there with you.

Which is the #1 reason that the American armed forces are the greatest in the world, and I thank God for them every night.

johnnymozart can make wild claims about the msm voting record which cannot be substantiated...or you can look at FACTS:

"the Sunday shows -- Meet the Press, ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday -- have consistently given Republicans and conservatives an edge over their Democratic and progressive counterparts in the last two years, the period of the 109th Congress. And, as our analysis shows, the recent shift in power in Washington has yielded mixed results, at best. Despite previous network claims that a conservative advantage existed on the Sunday shows simply because Republicans controlled Congress and the White House, only one show, ABC's This Week, has been roughly balanced between both sides overall since the congressional majority switched hands in the 2006 midterm elections."

y'all just have a hard time with facts. but i'm sure you'll find some creative personal attack to respond with. i'm off to the pub for a cold one. y'all have a nice evening.

here docjim...before i leave let me help you by being very concise,
you feign to understand the constitution but it is clear you don't.
you feign to understand checks and balances but it is clear you don't.
you feign to understand a free-market but it is clear you don't.
you feign to understand military policy but it is clear you don't.
you feign to understand mental cognition but it is clear you don't.
if you are still unclear on the definition see also phoniness, sanctimony.

It's a smart move to focus on Hagel and his words, as a diversion from the fact that there appear to be some real grounds for impeachment. One "high crime" would be misrepresenting the intelligence involving WMDs. Another "high crime" would be approving the firing of federal attorneys to stop or cripple additional prosecutions of corruption. Still another "high crime" would be blocking investigation of illegal wiretapping by the FBI. These are all legitimate grounds for impeaching a President. And, mind you, there are many more. So it is a diversion to make fun of Hagel while ignoring the other very real grounds that may, indeed, become grounds for the impeachment of President Bush. I might add that sending our men and women to be killed to protect the oil interests, as they will be when the new Iraqi law is passed, is not something to be snide or joke about. It dishonors our troops. I dislike that intensely and urge you to mind your words in that regard.

OCPatriot:

I am going to address your charges like lawyer, which I am not.

On the charge of "misreprenting" intelligence on WMD...not guilty. Being wrong is not an impeachable offense in our system of government. The intelligence on WMD was not just an American IC consensus, it was believed by all the world's intelligence services. Remember it was George Tenet, who was a holdover from the Clinton Administration that called it a slam dunk.

On the charge of firing prosecutors…not even valid. As I have droned on the SCOTUS ruled in Myers vs United States in 1926 that President’s authority to arbitrarily fires appointees is absolute. As far anybody knows, the only two who removed for anything vaguely resembling corruption were two prosecutors who showed lack of interest in investigating Democrats for vote fraud in Seattle or corruption in Mexico. I know much has been made of the bad rating the Fitzgerald got but (a) he didn’t fire him even though he put Jeri Ryan’s ex behind bars and (b) screwed up a major counterterrorism case. He retained his job despite those failures because he was investigating the administration. Heah, its not like Bush fired a prosecutor that was investigating him or his friends like Bill Clinton did.

The FBI charge is unresolved so how do you know that nobody will prosecuted or disciplined?

I am sure your other high crimes fall into similar categories. I suppose you would have been advocating the impeachment of Abe Lincoln for his “high crimes.” In my experience people who argue that Bush should be impeached for his action in prosecuting the war would have been Copperheads in 1861. In others words stop being so self righteous because you would have supported slavery during the Civil War.

Jay K wrote:
One "high crime" would be misrepresenting the intelligence involving WMDs.

Are we back to the 16 words again? British Intelligence says....Bush is declaring what British intelligence states. Unless British intelligence didn't state that then its not a lie. And sought uranium from Africa, not Niger. Because as the british intel states, IRaq also sought Uranium from the Congo, which just happens to also be in Africa. Hence, no lie there either. And even if you say that Wilson refuted the claims about the purchase of uranium from niger (which he didn't), he didn't even address or seek to investigate the second claim of british intel. So he refuted nothing.

And Mr. Wilson was against us going into Iraq because he fully expected Iraq to use chemical weapons on our troops. He said this on Bill Moyers show. I guess he too was spreading lies about WMD's.

But you can go back even further. How about before Bush assumed the presidency. Remember the Iraqi Liberation act. Remember the no fly zones? Remember the heavy duty sanctions imposed by the UN? remember all the UN Sanctions violated by Iraq? Remember Operation Desert Fox?
EVERYONE OF THOSE WAS PREDICATED ON THE NOTION THAT IRAQ HAD WMD'S! AND EVERY ONE TOOK PLACE BEFORE BUSH TOOK OFFICE!
Unless Bush was somehow able to travel back in time and plant suggestions in peoples minds before he took office, then the notion that Iraq had WMD's was not one created by Bush.

Or are you going to say Clinton and Gore lied? And the UN lied. And the inspectors lied.

Then if that's the case, who's worse, Bush who liberated the country from Iraq or Clinton and the UN who not only sanctioned the hell out of an innocent country, but then to add insult to injury (in the case of the UN) profited from Iraqi misery by gaming the Oil for food program to get cheap blackmarket oil.

Jerry:

I believe you are mistaken about the Myers ruling (Myers v. United States [1926]).

Myers did not give the President absolute authority to fire anybody he sees fit; indeed, the SCOTUS qualified their decision on three points. First, that the Civil Service Act, which shielded lower Executive Branch personnel from "plenary" presidential control, did not go against Article II; second, that officers with "quasi-judicial" authority might be insulated against presidential influence or control; and third, that Congress could possibly keep the President from discharging administrators in particular cases.

Whatever the issue here, my point is that the Myers ruling does not grant the President unlimited power to discharge anyone and everyone in the Executive branch, so I'd be careful with underpinning your argument with it.

I love Hagel because he drives the wing-nuts crazy! He should just switch parties and increase our majority by one more. Wonder if that would make the wingers nuttier than they already are. This Bush admin is more fun than a barrel full of monkeys.

Publius:

I never said all, I said appointees by which I meant political appointees (Schedule C) and that includes US Attorneys. I never said that he has the power to arbitrarily fire regular civil service, excepted service which covers law enforcement and intelligence personnel or limited term civil service appointments like Schedules A and B appointments.

jay k.,

Now we're getting somewhere! (I realize that your brain is fuzzy, so I think its a decent thing to help you out)

You originally claimed that I am a hypocrite. As I've demonstrated with your unwitting help, you don't know what the word means. You tried to change the subject by ranting about how bad / stupid conservatives are, but at last you've started to use words that actually mean what you think they mean. I will even go the extra mile and admit to being sanctimonious. Oh, and condescending. Jeering... Pompous... Scornful...

But let's dig a bit deeper, shall we? As I wrote before, we obviously don't agree on very much. However, because I don't agree with you, that doesn't necessarily make me "wrong", and it certainly doesn't make me a "phony".

If I may summarize your arguments, they boil down to shouting, "Yeah? Well, YOU'RE WRONG! YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT! YOU'RE WRONG!!!"

You just keep proving my original point, i.e. that liberals like yourself have real problems with mental cognition.

But let me throw you a bone: based on what I've written, please take your meds and try to demonstrate one or more of the following:

1. Where I have been a hypocrite;

2. Where I don't understand the Constitution, "checks and balances", etc.;

3. Where I've demonstrated "phoniness".

Please note that simply disagreeing with you doesn't qualify as proof.

I'm especially interested in seeing how you try to prove (2), as I haven't written anything about what my understanding of those terms actually is. Thus, how could you possibly know that I don't understand them?

Good luck.

docjim,

jak k is pulling the classic liberal line, with a twist.
Liberals usually declare that they, and they alone, understand ... well just about anything.
They usually declare that anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot.

jay k, is taking the first part as a given, but he's twisted the second part into a claim that anyone who disagrees with him is a hypocrite.

I especially love the part where he claims that a proposed ammendment to the constitution is an unconstitutional act.

All Jay k has managed to do is demonstrate that he has no tolerance for people who's views differ from his. And that he is incapable of coherent argument. He has to result to ridiculous name calling in order to try and silence the opposition.

In that, he is truely, a typical liberal.

Mark and DocJ.

The Easter Bunny, I tell you...that's who took his brain.