• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Impeach the President or Respect the Office?

Econ101

Well-known member
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 12, 2006; Page A06

Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.

Politics Trivia
When did the U.S. Senate first meet?

December 14, 1789
November 27, 1790
December 6, 1790
January 16, 1791

Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.

* Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
* Wonkette: The D.C. Gossip
* Athene Biz


Full List of Blogs (151 links) »

Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web

Save & Share

* Tag This Article


Saving options
1. Save to description:
Headline (required)
Byline
2. Save to notes (255 character max):
Blurb
3. Tag This Article

Some House Democrats, including ranking Judiciary Committee member John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, have called for impeachment hearings into allegations that Bush misled the nation about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction and that he violated federal law by approving warrantless wiretaps on Americans. In an interview with The Washington Post last week, Pelosi said a Democratic-controlled House would launch investigations of the administration on energy policy and other matters. She said impeachment would not be a goal of the investigations, but she added: "You never know where it leads to."

GOP activists seized on the remarks to warn potential donors of Bush's possible peril if Democrats pick up the 15 net House seats they need to become the majority. The National Republican Congressional Committee republished The Post's Sunday article in a letter to supporters and donors that stated: "The threat of the Democrats taking the majority in the House this November is very real."

Some Democratic activists criticized Pelosi, saying she made the party appear extreme while drawing attention away from more useful issues such as gasoline prices and Republican lobbying scandals.

Daly said Pelosi never considered impeachment a priority. Republicans "are in such desperate shape," he said, "we don't want to give them anything to grab on to." He said Conyers agrees with Pelosi's thinking.


Some think that impeaching the president and respecting the office of the president are two ideas that are opposite ends of the spectrum and mutually exclusive.

From the short time I have been interested in U.S. politics I have seen the office of the president being disrespected more by the holders of the office than by those who should respect it---the rest of us.

I think this started in my mind with Nixon. Nixon could have and should have been impeached. If not for the pardon of Gerald Ford, I think he would have been. He abused the powers of the office for his own benefit and to the detriment of democracy. He isn't the only one. Ford's pardon doomed Ford for the next election and brought in Jimmy Carter. It seems the American people's tolerance for the tolerance the republican party (and democratic party) gives its own members is just not kosher with the average American voter. Why should it be?

The next episode of a dubious nature was Reagan's back door dealing for the hostages. In return for the hostages that doomed Carter's presidency, Reagan did his military deal with Iran. Arms for hostages.

I think I can be more forgiving to Reagan because he did get the hostages back, albeit in a dirty way. The lives of the hostages, in my opinion, excused this action which in many ways could hardly be construed as an impeachable offense. Dirty, yes, but the ends could have arguably justified the means.

The next effort at impeachment came with Bill Clinton. The impeachable offense was his lying about his affair with Monica. He pulled a dirty lawyer language as the excuse. The act with Monica was not an impeachable offense, although the voters sure had the right to impose their moral standards on the office of the presidency at the booth. The act of lying was impeachable. He also showed his true colors of outright allegiance to Tyson Foods and their support by pardoning Archie Schaffer.

Next comes George Bush. His NSA wiretaps and going around the balance of power check of the court review in my opinion is impeachable. President Bush has followed a long line of politicians who misuse the power of the federal government for themselves. Bush's excuse of terrorism is just that--a scare tactic and an excuse. The same could be said for the abuse of intelligence information and the lack of oversight of the Congress of the executive branch.

To me, looking at the office of the president, the presidents themselves have denigrated the office. Why should we respect it if it is just going to be used to abuse the power of the United States of America?

We need and deserve leaders who believe in democracy and the enforcement of law even when it comes to them and their colleagues. No more pardons so the truth is hidden that that the executive branch is just for sale. The rest of the world sees this happening in America. That may be the reason they have such low respect for the president, whomever and whatever party he may be from.

We need to respect the office of the president, but to do that, we need to ensure that it remains respectable.

We have a history of choosing leaders who are not doing that.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
No impeachment should be even talked about- unless evidence is produced that some of the illegal activites were for a personal/administration gain...As far as I have seen so far- they were all done with the intent of helping to protect America- and under the belief he had the powers under the Wartime Act...So far I don't think they've shown damage to any individuals or nonterrorists that would warrant impeachment...

There is precedence of this being done many times before-- FDR probably did it more than anyone while preparing for WWII when he couldn't get Congressional support- a lot of under the table and behind the Congress backs deals to provide aide to the allies- American servicemen even being committed, but under the guise of operating for other allied countries...
Even Reagan pulled some stunts with the Iran/Contra affair - but he had good people that covered his butt better than any of the others....
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
No impeachment should be even talked about- unless evidence is produced that some of the illegal activites were for a personal/administration gain...As far as I have seen so far- they were all done with the intent (whether good or bad) of helping to protect America...So far I don't think they've shown damage to any individuals or nonterrorists that would warrant impeachment...

There is precedence of this being done many times before-- FDR probably did it more than anyone while preparing for WWII when he couldn't get Congressional support- a lot of under the table and behind the Congress backs deals to provide aide to the allies- American servicemen even being committed, but under the guise of operating for other allied countries...
Even Reagan pulled some stunts with the Iran/Contra affair - but he had good people that covered his butt better than any of the others....

I would agree with you OT. The problem with the NSA wiretapping is that there was no record of extra wiretaps over and above those needed for national security. I am not talking about foreign to domestic wire taps, I am talking plain old domestic wire taps. That is the reason Congress passed a law that said they HAD to go through a court. We have already had that judge resign from that job because the process was not followed. That leads to the possibility of illegal wiretaps on U.S. citizens without court oversight. The Bush administration wants it to be about international calls to muddy the water. The argument is not about those type of calls, but on domestic spying on U.S. citizens for the possibility of using that information for political gain, not national security. Kind of like the Nixon deal. Same excuse.

Published on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 by Agence France Presse
US Judge Resigns Over Bush's Domestic Spying Authorization: Report


A federal judge on a court that oversees intelligence cases has resigned to protest President George W. Bush's authorization of a domestic spying program, The Washington Post said.


Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.

George W. Bush
April 20, 2004 in Buffalo, New York
US District Judge James Robertson resigned late Monday from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) on which he served for 11 years and which he believes may have been tainted by Bush's 2002 authorization, two associates familiar with his decision told the daily.

The resignation is the latest fallout of Bush's weekend public admission that he authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) -- the country's super-secret electronic surveillance arm -- to eavesdrop on international telephone calls and electronic mail of US citizens suspected of having links with terrorist organizations including Al-Qaeda.

Bush's statement on the weekend that the secret program did not require FISA court orders -- according to his reading of the Patriot Act passed after the September 11 attacks, has angered civil rights groups and lawmakers, some of whom have called for a congressional investigation.

The New York Times first revealed last week the secret NSA program that officials said has likely involved eavesdropping on thousands of people in the United States. Bush said he expected the Justice Department to investigate the leak of such sensitive information.

On Wednesday, The New York Times quoted US officials as saying that "a very small fraction" of those wiretaps and e-mail intercepts were of communications between people in the United States and were caused by technical glitches.

The revelation is likely to add fuel to the firestorm over the NSA spying program.

Robertson's associates said the judge - one of 11 on the FISA court -- in recent conversations said he was concerned that the information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have been used to obtain FISA warrants.

"They just don't know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants -- to kind of cleanse the information," said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the FISA warrants.

In a separate story, The New York Times Wednesday quoted congressional officials as saying that the White House's oral briefings to lawmakers on the secret NSA spying program may not have fulfilled a legal requirement that such reports be in written form.

Bush, on revealing his secret order to the NSA, said US lawmakers had been briefed regularly of the spying activity.

Congressional officials consulted by the Times said no more than 14 members of Congress have been briefed orally of the program since it began, but that no aides and note-taking were allowed during the meetings.

Consequently, the daily said, the lawmakers who attended the briefings have provided starkly different versions of what they were told at the sessions, which were almost invariably led by Vice President Dick Cheney and NSA director Michael Hayden.

In 2004 and 2005, Bush repeatedly argued that the controversial Patriot Act package of anti-terrorism laws safeguards civil liberties because US authorities still need a warrant to tap telephones in the United States.

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order," he said on April 20, 2004 in Buffalo, New York.

"Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so," he added.

On April 19, 2004, Bush said the Patriot Act enabled law-enforcement officials to use "roving wiretaps," which are not fixed to a particular telephone, against terrorism, as they had been against organized crime.

"You see, what that meant is if you got a wiretap by court order -- and by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example," he said in Hershey, Pennsylvania.

"A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order," he said July 14, 2004 in Fond Du L
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
There has been years of precedence of illegal domestic wiretapping under Jay Edgar Hoover and none of the Presidents he was serving was impeached....Altho some of those wiretaps were on some of the Presidents also :shock: ...Part of this was during a time period when the technology/ability existed, but no law against or allowing existed....But most were just done flat out illegally....

Definitely a grey issue- because of the fact it includes a domestic line of a US citizen (who may or not be a terrorist) tied to a foreign one with a terrorist connection-- but I know it has been done for many many years by the NSA, including during the time of Clinton, all using the argument that once it was connected to a foreign line it fell under legal justification... I've seen some of the information that was gathered from those wiretaps during that time period...Probably best that now we are getting some clear rulings on it...I think Congress could best serve the country by forgetting impeachment- but instead work on the wiretap laws to streamline and speed up the legal attainment process, while keeping a judicial oversight with some more administrative judges with the necessary security clearances that could handle the sensitive info involved with the warrants...

Personally I believe, like I feel GW believes, that we are in a World War- but since there is no one country involved there has been no formal declaration of war, which creates many of these grey areas...
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Personally I believe, like I feel GW believes, that we are in a World War...
I think you're right about the World War and the President, OT. I think every decision he makes is based on his deep convictions that we are involved in a World War.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
I have no doubt we need domestic wiretapping for some instances. The question is one of oversight so our government doesn't abuse its power.

Can you imagine the abuse of power by the corporate world that seems to pull the strings already?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Econ101 said:
I have no doubt we need domestic wiretapping for some instances. The question is one of oversight so our government doesn't abuse its power.

Can you imagine the abuse of power by the corporate world that seems to pull the strings already?

They're already doing it Econ...Corporate espionage is a big business and many retired surveillance, intelligance, and law enforcement folks can make big retirement money teaching the workings of such espionage and counter espionage to them....

Remember the first thing I think is taught at business school anymore- do anything for the almighty dollar....Alls fair as long as there is enough to be made to counter the risk involved...... :( :cry: :mad:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Econ101 said:
I have no doubt we need domestic wiretapping for some instances. The question is one of oversight so our government doesn't abuse its power.

Can you imagine the abuse of power by the corporate world that seems to pull the strings already?

They're already doing it Econ...Corporate espionage is a big business and many retired surveillance, intelligance, and law enforcement folks can make big retirement money teaching the workings of such espionage and counter espionage to them....

Remember the first thing I think is taught at business school anymore- do anything for the almighty dollar....Alls fair as long as there is enough to be made to counter the risk involved...... :( :cry: :mad:

And if they are using government resources to do this for their friends in business, it is the road to fascism. We seem to be well on our way there.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
President Bush does believe we are in a world war, I don't doubt it one bit. His actions have kept us from being attacked for over 5 years now.
He needs to be remembered for this.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
President Bush does believe we are in a world war, I don't doubt it one bit. His actions have kept us from being attacked for over 5 years now.
He needs to be remembered for this.

What, he didn't believe we were in a war with terrorism before 911?

It is a constant war and one every president must face. We don't need to wait until we are attacked again for the next president to get this kind of epiphany.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
President Bush does believe we are in a world war, I don't doubt it one bit. His actions have kept us from being attacked for over 5 years now.
He needs to be remembered for this.

Bush believes we're in a world war and only has 140,000 troops on the ground? :roll: If he believed that, he'd have our troops from other countries on the ground over there, not guarding the Fulda Gap in Germany, or supporting the South Koreans. In spite of the advice of professional soldiers, he believed we could run a quick, cheap little war in Iraq. He was wrong and the American military and Iraqi citizens are paying the price for his arrogrance. People are dying today because he can't admit a mistake. He knows we can't win a militarily; all he's doing now is playing CYA while our nation's blood and money are squandered in the desert. :mad:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Bush believes he has triggered and now must lead the Third Awakening for this country. So, with that in mind....he's going for broke...literally!!!

( Before any of you ask....Google The Second Awakening and catch up on your history)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
kolanuraven said:
Bush believes he has triggered and now must lead the Third Awakening for this country. So, with that in mind....he's going for broke...literally!!!

( Before any of you ask....Google The Second Awakening and catch up on your history)

I hadn't heard that one- but I know GW scares some of the right wing conservative and some Christian conservative groups....As much as 2 years ago I was reading articles written by some of these right wingers that feared both GW and Putin were going to get the Legislatures/Parliaments to wave the term limits so that both could stay in office- or declare emergencies to stay in power.... About then Putin cracked down on several of the Democratic freedoms in Russia- at the same time the Bush administration and Republican controlled Congress was passing all the Homeland Security/Patriot Act and terrorist laws that greatly extended Federal powers against citizens and that were very upsetting to these same folks...

Some of these right wing groups almost seem relieved now that the Democrats took back control of Congress, because of that- even tho they don't support their way of thinking...They'd rather have nothing happening than what they feared.....

And now it appears Putin is making several moves to further close freedom of press and censor anyone (assassinate ?) that speaks out against the government...

Makes you think......
 
Top