The Case For Impeachment 'Is Even More Truthful Today' . . . .

. . . . Says Former Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham



From ThinkProgress.org:

Former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham (D-FL) was one of 23 Senators to have voted against the Iraq war resolution in October 2002. “With sadness,” he told his colleagues, “I predict we will live to regret this day, Oct. 10, 2002, the day we stood by and we allowed these terrorist organizations to continue growing in the shadows.”

Just four months after Bush launched the Iraq war, Graham floated the idea of impeachment. “Clearly, if the standard is now what the House of Representatives did in the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the actions of this president [are] much more serious in terms of dereliction of duty,” he said. In an interview this week with ThinkProgress, Graham said he stood by his 2003 statement:

How many Americans would say that it is a greater dereliction of duty as President of the United States to have a consensual sexual affair or to take the country to war under manipulated, fabricated, and largely untruthful representations which the President knew or should have known. I think the answer to that question is clear.

Graham added that it’s unlikely Bush would be impeached, explaining that he learned the word impeachment is an “incendiary word” that Americans shy away from. “Americans don’t like impeachment because it connotes the kind of instability that so many other countries around the world have known.” But he added that his original remark regarding impeachment “was a truthful statement at the time and it’s even more truthful today.”

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

Right before the Senate vote on the Iraq resolution, the mild-mannered Graham sounded the alarms in unusually stark language. “If you believe that the American people are not going to be at additional threat,” he said, “then, frankly, my friends — to use a blunt term — blood is going to be on your hands.”

Asked to reflect on that statement today, Graham said, “There are 3,500 fewer American servicemen alive today in the world since the day I made that statement. There are tens of thousands of civilians who’ve lost their lives. The United States is at dramatically greater risk of terrorism… So I’m afraid that the blood has flown fuller, deeper, and redder that I thought it was going to.”

Graham also ridiculed Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s (I-CT) calls for taking “aggressive military action” against Iran:

I don’t know where we’re going to get the troops to take aggressive offensive action against Iran. Iran’s a country that’s approximately 2.5 times the population of Iraq. It has a GDP that’s twice that of Iraq. It is a much more significant force in the world. And we see how bogged down we are in Iraq, how in the world are we going to even consider using massive military force against Iran?

'Impeachment' is an incendiary word that Americans shy away from because of the way that Republicans used it against Clinton - as a device to stop legislation by Democrats from going forward and becoming law.

Before the midterm elections, polls indicated that the majority of Americans favored impeaching Bush. I haven't seen any polling on that question since the elections, but Bush's approval ratings haven't improved - they've sunk to Nixon's lowest numbers. I think it's a safe bet to conclude that even more people support impeachment.

The only thing preventing impeachment is Congress. The question then becomes, "Why?" Are they lazy? Are they being blackmailed by information culled from one of the many secret surveillance programs that Bush-Cheney are operating outside of the law and judicial oversight?

Could it also be that a deal was made last year? That if the Democrats prevailed in the midterm elections and became the majority in the House, Republicans and Democrats would agree to a woman (Pelosi) becoming the first woman Speaker if Democrats dropped all plans to impeach Bush and Cheney? Because if both the President and Vice President were impeached, the Speaker of the House (Pelosi) would be next in line to become President. And that if a woman is to ever become President of the United States, it must be through a direct vote of the people.

What else could explain Pelosi's announcement ("taking impeachment off the table") before the midterm elections?



If I'm right, we traded letting Nancy Pelosi become the first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives for allowing the most corrupt, thieving, murderous administration in the history of the nation remain in power, so that they could continue their assault on the Constitution, on civil liberties, rendition, torture, promote their preemptive war policies (for oil and other profiteering), attack Iran and expand the hostilities in the Middle East and around the world.

I can't think of any other reasons to explain all that this Democratic Congress has failed to do. How many times must Rove and Gonzales and Rice (and Bush, Cheney, Secret Service) ignore subpoenas, refuse to appear or produce documents before you go to court to compel compliance? How can anyone explain a Democratic Congress allowing the Bush administration's failure during Hurricane Katrina to go uninvestigated?

If Congress did proper oversight, all investigations of everything that Bush-Cheney have been up to these last six+years lead to misfeasance, malfeasance, corruption and impeachment. Why wouldn't the Democrats (who are not stupid and just as politically motivated as Republicans) jump at these opportunities to score points at Republicans' expense?

Something is preventing the Democrats. What?

It Takes Your Breath Away

Joe Lieberman To Deliver The Democratic Response To Bush's Saturday Radio Address

I know just how Lewis Black feels:

What the hell is Harry Reid thinking?

Lieberman will urge accountability for `neglect' of the wounded. It's about time we got some of that 'accountability' from the Democratic leadership. To be chosen to respond to a presidential address is an honor reserved for those party loyalists whose profile the party wishes to elevate.

Joe Lieberman is no longer a Democrat and just this week threatened again to leave the Democratic Caucus. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gave the chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which oversees FEMA, to Lieberman who is now a registered Independent and shouldn't be chairing any committees. No sooner had Lieberman taken over as Chair did he retreat on a campaign promise to investigate and hold hearings on the Bush administration's response to hurricane Katrina.

The Hartford Courant reports:

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman plans to deliver the Democrats' radio response to President Bush today, urging that the president and Congress "hold the Pentagon and Army chain of command accountable for the neglect of our soldiers at Walter Reed" Army Medical Center.

A Washington Post report recently about the neglect and poor conditions faced by wounded service members who had served in Iraq has prompted a call for investigations and a shakeup among top personnel. On Friday, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey resigned, a day after Harvey fired Army Major Gen. George W. Weightman, who was in charge of the facility.

Congress has moved quickly to investigate the reports of problems. On Monday, the House Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, on which Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4th District, is the top Republican, plans to hold a hearing at the hospital. Witnesses will include Weightman as well as soldiers and their families.

Lieberman, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, plans to say in his brief talk today, scheduled to air shortly after 11 a.m., that the reports in the Post "have uncovered completely unacceptable living conditions and inadequate services."

He listed some points: "Soldiers with brain injuries have gone weeks without being able to get doctors' appointments. There is not enough staff with the right skills to treat and care for the severely injured troops. And rooms where some soldiers lived were found to be moldy and infested with rodents."

He talked about how the White House and Congress "have an urgent obligation now to fix the neglect at Walter Reed and the longer term issues that affect our wounded veterans."

Among his solutions: Bringing the buildings up to standards that make them reliably clean, safe and comfortable, and making sure no injured soldier has to spend an inordinate amount of time waiting to learn if he or she will be reassigned or discharged from the Army as disabled.

"We must prevent this from ever happening again," he said.

Just when I think that Democrats couldn't be more spineless . . .

Joe Lieberman Continues Down Path to Breaking With The Democratic Caucus

Transcript of Chris Wallace' complete interview with Joe Lieberman on Fox News Sunday:

WALLACE: Senator, welcome back to "FOX News Sunday".

LIEBERMAN: Good to be with you, Chris. Thank you.

WALLACE: Let's start with the State of the Union. During the speech, I couldn't help but notice that there were a number of times when you were the only one on the Democratic side of the aisle - and here's one example of that - to applaud the president's ideas while the rest of them sat on their hands.

Your hometown newspaper, the Hartford Courant, actually counted and saw that there were 13 separate occasions when you applauded the president's ideas and your fellow Connecticut senator, Chris Dodd, did not.

Question, do you ever question whether you should continue to maintain your support for the Democratic majority in the Senate?

LIEBERMAN: Well, I made a decision last year after the Democratic primary that I wasn't going to let it end there, and I went on to run as an Independent, and thanks to the people of Connecticut of all parties, I was elected.

So I consider myself today an Independent-Democrat, and I'm staying in the Democratic Party because I believe in the historic principles and commitments of the party to be both progressive here at home and muscular, strong and principled in the world.

I'm a Harry Truman, JFK, Scoop Jackson and Bill Clinton Democrat.

WALLACE: But as you saw, what a lonely figure you were, does that shake your feelings about that?

LIEBERMAN: Here's what it says to me. First off, I think that standing and sitting stuff at the State of the Union speech is a silliness and it demeans the process.

But the second point is this. There was a large message from the election last year, and it wasn't just about Iraq. It was about too much partisanship in Washington. The president said afterward he got it. Leaders of both parties said afterward they got it.

And yet we seem to be sliding back into the partisanship. The people understandably want us to work together to get something done for them. And you know, I stood a few times when very few or no one else on my side did because I happened to agree with what the president was saying. Why shouldn't I do that? That's my responsibility.

WALLACE: But let me give you an example of that. The president endorsed your idea, speaking of bipartisanship, for a bipartisan panel that would advise the president on the war on terror. He raised that in the state of the union.

LIEBERMAN: Yes.

WALLACE: As soon as he did, Senate Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi said nope, there's a bipartisan structure, it's called the committee system.

LIEBERMAN: Yes. Well, I was really disappointed with the reaction of Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to the president's offer or invitation to have essentially a bipartisan war council, and it's a war on terror council.

You know, I talked with the president about this, and he said to me at one point in December when I met with him before - John McCain and I were going over to Iraq. He said to me you know, it's obvious that we're not going to be able to have the broad bipartisan consensus I hoped we would have on Iraq, but we need to build that consensus on the larger war against the Islamist terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, because this is going to go on for a generation.

The president said do you have any ideas how to do it, and I said why don't we convene a group of senators and congressmen, chairmen and ranking members, with the administration regularly to talk about the war on terrorism.

The president said he wants to get this group together first to talk about an increase in the size of the Army and the Marines. So I hope he does it. I believe if he does, Democrats will come.

Here's the problem, Chris. When the president makes an offer like this, Democrats think back to what they believe, and with some justification, are the times when the White House has been partisan with Democrats. We've got to start thinking less about yesterday, more about today and tomorrow.

And again, remember two things. The public told us last year they want results here, not partisanship. Second, the Islamist terrorists who we are fighting don't distinguish between Americans based on party affiliation. They hate us all. They want to kill us all. And therefore we ought to pull together to defeat them.

WALLACE: Well, you say pull together. In the State of the Union, the president said - in effect, pleaded with Congress - give my plan, the new troop surge, a chance to work, as he put it.

The next day the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted a resolution of disapproval. If that passes, and it seems almost certain that either this week or next week it will pass, do you think it will have any practical effect on the war effort?

LIEBERMAN: Well, it certainly - and here's my gripe with that resolution. I mean, obviously, I disagree with it. First off, I think the plan that the president has offered with the advice of a lot of people is the best hope we have of stabilizing the situation in Iraq and succeeding so the Iraqis can take over their own country.

And we've got a new commander, General David Petraeus, confirmed unanimously on Friday by the U.S. Senate, which is about to now go ahead, it appears, and adopt a resolution that will condemn the mission that we have just confirmed General Petraeus unanimously to carry out which he said he needs in order to succeed in Iraq.

WALLACE: But my question - do you think passing this resolution will have a practical effect on the war effort?

LIEBERMAN: In the most literal sense, this resolution will not have a practical effect because it's non-binding, and the president has said he will go forward with what he believes as commander in chief will help us succeed in Iraq.

But I fear, as was discussed by General Petraeus this week, by Senator Lugar, by the retired chief of the Army, General Jack Keane in testimony before the Armed Services Committee - I fear that while this resolution is nonbinding and, therefore, will not affect the implementation of the plan, it will do two things that can be harmful, which is that it will discourage our troops, who we're asking to carry out this new plan, and it will encourage the enemy, because as General Petraeus said to our committee, war is a test of wills, and you don't want your enemy to be given any hope.

WALLACE: You have signed on to a resolution being written by Senator McCain which would set benchmarks for the Iraqis to keep their promises on both the political and military front. If they fail, if you pass this resolution and if the Iraqis fail to meet their targets, what would you do about it?

LIEBERMAN: Well, we'll face that reality when it comes. I mean, this is why I've said, and I believe the president is right to have said to our colleagues, the legislative trains seem to be heading down the track on these resolutions, and I believe they're going to have a collision that's going to hurt our country.

Why don't we step back? The resolution doesn't do anything but express an opinion. Let's give this plan a chance. Let's give it a chance to work. And if, God forbid, it doesn't work to succeed in Iraq, then there will be plenty of time for the resolutions, for the troop caps, for the cuts in funding for support of our troops.

I want to say a word about what John McCain and I and others are doing. We're saying the Biden resolution, the Biden-Hagel, the Warner-Nelson resolution - these are resolutions that don't have any effect, but we worry that there's a risk that they will encourage the enemy and discourage our troops.

John McCain and I are trying to put together a common ground resolution that can bring people in both parties together to say what we all apparently believe - maximizing the chances of success in Iraq are critical to everybody, because America has a lot on the line there. All my colleagues agree with that.

Secondly, we need to give General Petraeus and our troops everything they need to succeed. And third, the Iraqis have to step up. And we're going to list in this resolution what we expect them to do. And you know, if it doesn't happen, we'll face that reality then. But it's going to be an awful one.

WALLACE: Let's look ahead to 2008. Are there any Democrats who appear to be running at this point that you could support for president?

LIEBERMAN: Are there any Democrats who don't appear to be running at this point? Look, I've had a very political couple of years in Connecticut, and I'm stepping back for a while to concentrate on being the best senator I can be for my state and my country.

I'm also an Independent-Democrat now, and I'm going to do what most Independents and a lot of Democrats and Republicans in America do, which is to take a look at all the candidates and then in the end, regardless of party, decide who I think will be best for the future of our country.

So I'm open to supporting a Democrat, Republican or even an Independent, if there's a strong one. Stay tuned.

WALLACE: But looking at the three frontrunners - Clinton, Obama, Edwards - all of them in varying degrees expressing their opposition to the war and wanting to end our involvement there - could you support any presidential candidate who you didn't feel was committed to victory in Iraq?

LIEBERMAN: Well, you make a decision based on a whole range of issues. But obviously, the positions that some candidates have taken in Iraq troubles me. Obviously, I will be looking at what positions they take in the larger war against Islamist terrorism.

Here's where I am and maybe why it's - I am genuinely an Independent. I agree more often than not with Democrats on domestic policy. I agree more often than not with Republicans on foreign and defense policy. I'm an Independent.

WALLACE: And we've got less than a minute left.

LIEBERMAN: Yes.

WALLACE: Joe Lieberman grew up in John Bailey's Connecticut, Democratic vice presidential nominee. You're saying you might vote Republican in 2008.

LIEBERMAN: I am, because we have so much on the line both in terms of the Islamist terrorists, who are an enemy as brutal as the fascists and communists we faced in the last century, and we have great challenges here at home to make our economy continue to produce good jobs, to deal with our crises in health care, education, immigration, energy.

I want to choose the person that I believe is best for the future of our country. What I'm saying is what I said last year and what I think the voters said in November. Party is important, but more important is the national interest. And that's the basis that I will decide who to support for president.

WALLACE: Senator Lieberman, thank you. Thanks for coming in.

LIEBERMAN: Thanks, Chris.

WALLACE: Please come back. Always a pleasure.

LIEBERMAN: I will.

Filed under: video, Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace, Joe Lieberman, The Constant American, Constant American, Technorati Tag, Technorati Tags, tags, categories

Is Joe Lieberman Laying the Foundation to Break with the Democratic Caucus . . . .

. . . . And give control of the Senate to the Republicans?

Joe Lieberman questions Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Peter Pace, during the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Bush's plan to escalate the war in Iraq:



Lieberman doesn't exactly question these men, but rather asks leading questions that are supportive of Bush's rhetoric about the planned increase of troops to Iraq and dismissive of some Democrats' proposals for the war in Iraq. Lieberman skates along the edge of acceptable party etiquette when talking about policies coming from members of his own party -- but then Lieberman is no longer a Democrat, and owes them no loyalty. The loyalty he shows to Bush, however, is palpable.

If Democrats introduce legislation to stop Bush from escalating the war in Iraq, will Joe bolt from the Democratic Caucus and hand control over the Senate to the Republicans? It's not like this wasn't predictable.


Filed under: escalation, surge, video, Joint Chiefs Chairman, Peter Pace, war in Iraq, Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, Senate Armed Services Committee, reasons not to vote for Republicans, Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senate, Democrats, Democratic Caucus, Republicans, The Constant American, Constant American, Technorati Tag, Technorati Tags, tags, categories