Hagel Has Lost It
Chuck Hagel has now begun coyly referring to the possibility that President Bush could be impeached for his handling of the Iraq war.
He's obviously lost it. As everyone knows, the Constitution requires "high crimes and misdemeanors" for impeaching the President. And though it may be news to the sanctimonious senator from Nebraska, not listening to Chuck Hagel -- or the other defeatists in Congress -- anything but a crime or misdemeanor. In fact, it's good common sense.
He's obviously lost it. As everyone knows, the Constitution requires "high crimes and misdemeanors" for impeaching the President. And though it may be news to the sanctimonious senator from Nebraska, not listening to Chuck Hagel -- or the other defeatists in Congress -- anything but a crime or misdemeanor. In fact, it's good common sense.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:11 PM
5 Comments:
An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office.
- Gerald Ford, 1970.
Carol,
You're right on this one. A president can be impeached for taking a bribe (a crime), even if that bribe is small and the legislation or special favor fairly inconsequential.
Ironically, a president can take us into a stupid, immoral, and wrong war; and mishandle the war leaving us with great destruction, death, and debt - and yet none of that is illegal or impeachable.
Not quite sane woman pointing out what is obvious only to her,
If Bush had taken us into a stupid, immoral and wrong war, and I believe one has to be stupid, immoral and wrong to believe such a thing, none of that constitutes a crime. Thus, we would have only the vote at election time to rid ourselves of him, or in this case, the end of his term.
OSO,
You'd have a better point if you could state whatever rule or statute supports Ford's opinion. Him saying so, doesn't make it so. Oh gee! Did I just disagree with a Republican? Fancy that!
This may be an aside, but...
When America invaded Iraq in 2003, it did the following:
1) It physically moved its military forces into territory recognised by America and the international community as Iraq.
2) It engaged Iraqi military forces and completely defeated them.
3) It occupied all major cities with its troops.
4) It deposed the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, and removed the government or Iraq. America also set up its own Iraqi government over time.
My question is... is this "War"? Do the actions of America against Iraq in 2003 constitute the definition of war?
And if so... why did congress not declare war?
If you look at the authorisation that Congress gave Bush to use military force, the wording doesn't allow for a complete invasion.
Bush's decision to invade Iraq was unconstitutional because it required a formal declaration of war from Congress.
And that, to me, is a high crime.
Where is the reasonable Salient of old?
"If you look at the authorisation that Congress gave Bush to use military force, the wording doesn't allow for a complete invasion."
I have the authorization in front of me. Here is a direct quote:
"...The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. ..."
Did you see the "as he determines to be necessary" part, Salient?
Point out to me, specifically, what wording in the authorization forbids what action taken by the President and/or the military.
Post a Comment
<< Home