Joe Biden on Iran: I'd Impeach Bush

[Wayward Episcopalian]

In front of 350 people at Dartmouth College in NH on Tuesday, Senator Biden was asked if he would vote to impeach the President if Bush moves to invade Iran. The Senator said yes.
http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2007022801010

"Speaking about foreign policy in Iran, Biden declared his
intention to impeach the president if he started an unjustified
war with Iran.

"The president has virtually no credibility at home or around
the world," Biden said. "People have overwhelming doubt about
his motives."

[AX10]

1. I do not see any other choice is Bush goes after Iran.

What other options are there? Ideas? Anyone...

[Phredicles]

2. Good, but why wait for that?

It's not like he hasn't done anything impeachable otherwise...

[Wayward Episcopalian]

4. Votes

There aren't the votes in Congress right now to successfully convict the President, and the electorate would be ticked off - remember how they reacted in '98? They'd do the same this time around. If they wanted W impeached only two years after voting for him again, we'd have seen an even larger wave in November.

But I think enough Republicans would be ticked off over Iran that you could at least get the movement going and make it worth a shot.

[BonnieJW]

5. That's because

Clinton was a good president. He was popular and it was obvious the pubs had been after him from day 1. Also, he lied about a blow job. That's why we impeach a popular president? We spend millions in tax dollars for a blow job? Congress is halted for months for a blow job? THAT's why citizens were ticked off. If * was impeached, there would be singing in the streets.

[pat_k]

9. You are omniscient?

Unless you are, like the rest of us, you cannot know how many in the Senate will, or will not, be willing to stand with war criminals and defend the indefensible until they are forced to declare themselves. We may see them force Bush and Cheney out overnight to escape having to go on the record in support of men who have so outraged the nation. ("For the good of the Party"; to keep the White House in Republican hands; to show the nation they have the strength to stand up to Bush -- strength the Democratic leadership has so far failed to demonstrate.)

And even a Member is sure it will be a "charge of the light brigade" they are duty-bound to act. We charge them with defending the Constitution. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them to fight against precisely this kind of attack from within.

The Congressional oath is not an oath to win; it is an oath to fight -- to "support and defend."

The Congressional oath is an individual oath.

Each and every Member who is refusing to demand impeachment now is complicit in the subversion of our Constitution and the war crimes being committed by these lawless men. (Just as every Member of the Senate, except Sen. Barbara Boxer, who joined the objection to the illegitimate Ohio electors, is complicit in the theft of the 2004 Presidential election.)

They each have a choice. The right side of history or the wrong side. Impeachment or Impotence. Duty or Complicity. Courage or Cowardice. Concern about an unknown outcome, "win or lose" has no place in the choice they face.

It should be a no-brainer for any Member with an ounce of conviction or morality.

Tragically, the irrational rationalizations that pervade the beltway are blinding them to the reality that is staring them in the face.

[Wayward Episcopalian]

11. Re: Omniscient

Do you snap about omniscience whenever someone hazards a guess or makes a prediction? If so, I'm assuming you've never once made a prediction in your life. And that's a pretty impressive track record - most people make a guess at least every once in a while. But you, wow, you must be in a league of your own if you get to cast the first "omniscient" stone like that.

There is a place for pragmatism in this world. Fight for everything, when nothing. Pick your battles, win something. Maybe you prefer walking away empty-handed, but me... not so much.

[pat_k]

13. Declaring to know how things will unfold. . .

. . .is something that I painstakingly avoid. I cannot say that I have never been guilty of it, but I try to purge my thinking of such self-defeating and limiting notions.

Jumping into the unknown is what life is all about.

I describe possible risks of action, benefits of action, risks of inaction, benefits of inaction. I make the case for my assertions. I make the case for possible outcomes.

I am not singling you out. You echo the immobilizing "Can't win, so don't fight" rationalization that has plagued Democrats for decades. I challenge that rationalization when ever I see it. It is perhaps the most insidious of all the rationalizations for inaction and a key reason that the Democratic Party is perceived as weak -- because they repeatedly refuse to fight the good fights, win or lose.

I certainly do assert some absolutes. For example, this one: When principle demands action, outcome expectations have no place in the decision to act.

I also subscribe to the following view:

Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.
-Helen Keller

[Wayward Episcopalian]

16. Fighting

I believe in fighting, I guess I just aim at different targets. I'd certainly censure Bush. I'd put controls on the Iraq funding. I'd sue him over the signing statements (which I desperately want to impeach him for). I'd do everything in my power to stop him from invading Iran, just as I would have fought Iraq. I fight, I just don't aim at impeachment.

I wasn't declaring to know how things would unfold. I was making a prediction. You know the difference between the two, I'm sure.

[pat_k]

18. None of the targets you describe would even make them blink.

The Constitution, U.S. Code, International Law, overwhelming will of the American people, being caught abusing power to terrorize the nation into war with the most monument bomb threat of all time "mushroom clouds over our cities in 45 minutes" -- Bush and Cheney have proven that they have absolutely no qualms about ignoring them all as they advance the interests of their tiny faction by any means necessary.

The only way to stop them is to take the massive power of the American Presidency out of their hands.

Censuring, suing . . . such actions are akin to wagging a finger at a drunk driver weaving all over the road, a threat to everyone in their path. The only way to protect the public is to go after the driver and try to pull them over as fast as possible and take the keys. And the only way to defend the Constitution against Bush and Cheney -- who are clearly drunk with power -- is to impeach.

[Virginia Dare]

3. Well, there is your line in the sand...n/t

[pat_k]

8. Bush and Cheney could care less -- once the bombs are dropped, the deed is done. . .

. . .they chalk up yet another violation of our will and our Constitution to advance the lunatic agenda of their tiny faction.

Threat of future action is meaningless. All that matters to Bush, Cheney, and Co. is what they have gotten away with, and what they are allowed to get away with.

Biden is sending a clear message: "We will do nothing to stop you."

[Wayward Episcopalian]

12. Message

He's hardly sending a clear message that he'll do nothing to stop them. He didn't say, "We'll only act AFTER you bomb." The question was about impeachment. He answered the question. The netroots love to talk about impeachment, so I passed THAT answer along. But when asked what he'll do in the meantime, he doesn't say, "Absolutey nothing." One can have both a Plan A and a Plan B if A fails, you know.

[pat_k]

14. Unless impeaching now is "Plan A" he'll be steamrolled. (nt)

[Wayward Episcopalian]

17. My point was that

You can fight the invasion in the first place as Plan A, and make impeachment Plan B if A fails.

[pat_k]

19. How?

The Constitution, U.S. Code, International Law, overwhelming will of the American people, being caught abusing power to terrorize the nation into war with the most monumental bomb threat of all time "mushroom clouds over our cities in 45 minutes" -- Bush and Cheney have proven that they have absolutely no qualms about ignoring them all as they advance the interests of their tiny faction by any means necessary.

How can you possibly "fight" such lawless recklessness?

Anything short of impeachment is no more effective than wagging a finger at a drunk driver weaving all over the road, a threat to everyone in their path. In the case of the drunk driver, the only way to protect the public is to go after them, pull them over as fast as possible, and take the keys. And the only way to defend the Constitution against Bush and Cheney -- who are clearly drunk with power -- is to impeach and do everything in your power to take the massive power of the American presidency out of their hands.

[pat_k]

6. Years of subverting the Constitution not enough for ya Joe??

Ridiculous. Bush and Cheney are running CIA prisons overseas where abductess are held in secret and tortured, they're willfully violating Geneva at Guantanamo, and have been committing those war crimes for years -- confirmed by their own stacked Supreme Court. They declare Bush unitary authoritarian executive as they gather evermore Un-American and Unconstitutional power to themselves.

They are goading Congress, "We've just erased more of the Constitution. Stop us if you dare." They have been betting on the cowardice to legitimize their claims by failing to act.

So far they are winning that bet.

Threats of future action meaning nothing to them. All that matters is what they have already gotten away with -- and what they will be allowed to get away with. Once the bombs are dropped, the deed is done. There is no going back. They chalk up another "win" for their fascist faction.

[solara]

7. I dunno, I guess there will be plenty of time and certainly enough votes to impeach

AFTER BushCo ignites World War III

:sarcasm:

[pat_k]

15. And, Pelosi better be ready for the blame they'll be shoveling her way. . .

The Mighty Wurlitzer will be running overtime to pin the blame on her as the one person with the power to stop WWIII, but who refused to act, and even silenced any Member of the House who dared utter the word "Impeachment."

[kenny blankenship]

10. I'd be interested to know on what grounds he would impeach

Violating the IWR ? (The Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002)

Umm, he's already violated that a zillion times over, and if he says Iran has to be struck for interfering in Iraq he won't be guilty of anything more than he already is.

Sounds like more wind from Biden.

Now there are lots of good grounds for impeachment lying around for easy picking. If you don't use these reasons when they are already so abundant that it's impossible to think of a more impeachable President in U.S. history, you can't convince me that you are serious about any future reasons.