I'll admit that this no confidence vote is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but not much better. Abu should be impeached. And the sooner the better.

code word: offer - as in make him an offer he can't refuse.

What's the rush? Why not just wait until, say, December 2008? God forbid this Congress should ever take a stand on anything.

Glad to hear the DNC is "rushing" to "consider" something. At this pace, they might "consider" the Voters' 2006 election mandate and reconsider rubber stamping the President's illegal occupation in Iraq. One thing worse than A President-GOP that incites voter wrath for change, is the DNC decision to call "more of the same" a change.

America needs new leaders. Congress is being reckless: It continues to approrpriate money for illegal activity. Congress could zero-out the budget lines for the occupation; and the President has no pwer to put money there. Let the President veto. Congress wouldn't have this "problem" of being "criticized" that they are on "recess" if the Congress cancelled recess and stayed in DC to do what the public voted them in Nov2006 to do: End this illegal war and occupation.

The DNC said they would bring change; and that when they got in off they'll show the President. Sure, whatever: This President has shown them -- even when confronting illgeal activity, even the GOP and DNC can jointly agree to remain complicit with illegal activity. Utter recklessness.

Maybe the DNC will "consider" whether they want to continue supporting the President's illegal activity; or side with the Constitution. "No time to consider. _ [high priority] _ because we have important illegal activity to make excuses ignore . . ." Not impressed with the President, the GOP, or trhe spineless DNC. They're reckless and refuse to do what can be done: Zero-out the funding for illegal activity; but they choose to continue rubber stamping. Like the GOP, "Whatever you want Mr. President." Contemptiable American arrogance and reckless defiance of the public's will.

SOLUTIONS

1. A new constittuion to compel Congress to act, not continue additional funding for unlawful things: War crimes, illegal occupation, rendition, prisoner abuse, illegal surveillance, use of illegally capatured information to abuse prisoners;

2. Removee discretion of American legal community to ignore war crimes by their peers in the legal community; and compel some meaningful _Federal_ level oversight of the American legal community;

3. State prosecution of the President outside the impeachment process. [Ref Law Prof Jonathan Turley, Georgetown University];

4. War crimes prosecutions of White House, EOP, DOJ, and outside counsel in re rendition, prisoner abuse, illegal memoranda condoning Geneva violations, and NSA illegal surveillance;

5. Prosecute Members of Congress when they continue funding illegal violations of Geneva, laws of war: Rendition, prisoner abuse, unlawful detention centers; illegal/unconstitutional acts depriving prisoners of war their Geneva protections.

6. Force legal counsel -- the people working for you, the clients -- to choose betweeen this President or the Constitution;

7. More visible DC disciplinary board disbarment investigations against DoJ, WH, and EOP Staff counsel on issues of rendition, war crimes, illegal memoranda, and attorney violations of standards of conduct;

8. statel-level prosecutions of Federal employees who deprive the States of their constitutional gurantee to have a "republican" form of Government: An enforcement, not rubber stamping mechanism.

Let's all understand that this is being announced today to provide cover for Reid and the Democrat’s abject abdication of any leadership whatsoever on Iraq. No one should be buying this crap as anything but a peace offering. It's CYA all the way. Unfortunately, it's just a skimpy little loin cloth, which doesn't cover half of their exposed, pathetic posteriors.

"Conviction requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate."

And not more than a handful of Rethuglicans will vote to convict, and Lieberman and other phony Dems will vote to acquit. So why bother?

Security Code: Wood, as in impeachment is hot talk.

Oh, look-that crazy anonymous guy is back--the one who thinks that there's some kind of mechanism in the legal system for overseeing government lawyers, and that lawyers in general have fallen down on their oversight responsibilities.

Good luck with that new constitution, anonymous crazy guy.

What's the rush? Why not have a nice long vacation along with the Iraqi parliamentarians. Our troops can hold down the fort until everyone gets back from their rest and relaxation. Maybe Wolfie will treat everyone to an ice cream with his $400k bonus!

Open letter to Speaker Pelosi:

Nancy,
I've been playing the lottery for decades now and, by using the logic implicit in recent House and Senate decisions, I'm able to now predict, using your patented best-case-scenario-type reasoning, imminent success. Not only that, but I'm going to hit it really big. Just wait until you see me on television with that outlandishly large, stopgap funding-sized phony check. When they ask me what I'm going to do with all the money, do you know what I'm going to say? I'll stand ramrod-stiff, chest puffed out, eyes straight into the camera's lens and proudly declare, "I'm going to buy some politicians."

How much does one of your Representatives go for?

By mid June if Cheney has his way we will be in the middle of the upcoming conflict with Iran and all of this will be a moot point.

BED. This will no doubt have the same effect as the "no confidence" vote on the war.

The U.S. Constitution
1787-2007
Rest in Peace

Just some more non-binding bullshit from Reid and the ineffectives. The only thing that is binding for Reid is failure.

If "no-confidence" votes were held weekly, I could understand the disdain with which most of you hold this decision - but they aren't. Not weekly, not monthly, not yearly - not for a very long time.

No, it's not impeachment, but given where the investigation is, given that there is a boatload of material that has not been disclosed to the committees, given that hearings are ongoing, it may get there, if Bush does not accept Gonzales' resignation. And even then, this will not put an end to matters at all.

"No-confidence" is the step one takes while continuing to press for the truth that will allow for legal consequences for what appear to be flagrantly illegal actions on the part of the AG and the DOJ.

Gonzales is the figurehead in this - he is the yes-man who was placed as AG because he could help on a number of fronts. Impeaching him would be utterly satisfying, but this goes so far beyond him that I would rather see a deliberate effort to get to the people who are really behind all of this, than to prematurely embark on an impeachment proceeding that will suck all the energy and will for exposing once and for all what is clearly a much bigger and broader and deeper tangle of criminality.

Thank goodness only two "code" words so far in this thread. I quite literally stop reading when I come to one of those bandwidth-wasting cutesyisms.

First, a vote of no-confidence.

Bush's DOJ is going to be paralyzed for the rest of his term unless he gets Abu to resign.

With the new law that doesn't allow interim USA's for longer than 90 days (I believe), no new deputy attorney generals without Senate confirmation; no new assistant deputy attorney generals without Senate confirmation; no funding for going after bogus "fraud" cases.

Yep, the jig is up!

Goddamn it! Force the GOP racketeers and their democratic henchmen to publicly endorse Gonzalez with an impeachment vote. Brand them with it. Throw it back in their face at every opportunity. Ceaselessly, remorselessly call the man what he is- utterly corrupt, an enemy of the Republic, aided and abetted by those who seek its overthrow. Those who equivocate, who tremble before their own squalid calculations of challenging this bad man and his political overlords are contemptible cowards, unworthy of the Constitution of their inheritance.

.
Um... I'm not eager to defend the (so-called) Congressional leadership today, but...

This is encouraging.

I believe that this announcement means they HAVE the votes in the Senate for this resolution. That means at least 60 votes (otherwise the opposition could kill it with a cloture vote). If they have 60 votes, then maybe they'll have 62 or 63. Then it gets interesting, doesn't it? (We would only need 67 votes for conviction, if the House were to impeach.)

So let's see how this plays out.

If the Senate gets 60-something votes of "no confidence", then it's the House's turn. They could consider going ahead with impeachment, knowing there might be a real chance of a conviction in the Senate. I think that would force the President's hand, and Gonzo would be gonzo.

Unfortunately, I think that means the President would use a recess appointment to fill the position later this summer, at which point we might not like what we get. But that would just be one more reason to get the real impeachments started (after this little warm up).

Feeling a bit more optimistic now...

-- ARG

One reason to bother is to have the trial. As things stand now the WH flips the bird to congressioal efforts.

Political theatre. Pure & simple . . .

The answer lies in electing people who will actually put the duties of their office an what's right for the country ahead of their personal power positions and re-electability.

No one in Congress is capitulating. This is a methodical tightening of the noose.

What are your thoughts on this idea:

Let the iraq war funding go through.

Everyday that the Senate is in session hold a straight 'Yes/No' vote to end the war.

Everyday.

When funding time comes up, support the troops. Unhinge the two.

My thought is that come September '08, some Republican Senators will have a VERY difficult time explaning why the voted a simple 'NO' more than 100 times to end the war.

Eventually, you will get the majority vote to end the war. When Bush vetos, keep voting in the Senate on it. Never let up.

Yeah, good one "Mark F." How does that approach serve you in your day to day life? Didn't you forget to complete the picture by telling us what your security code was and how it relates to something that you were thinking at that time?

Josh, they wish!

Docudump:
Set 1, 5-22-07
page AOG000001673-75

From: Tim Griffin [rnailt~:~rif f inr
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 3:34 AM
To: Roehrkasse, Brian
Cc: Goodling, Monica
Subject: FW: article
This is wrong in so many ways. Lots of incorrect info

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/JoshMarshall/011807.html

White House boots federal prosecutors, replaces them with cronies
On Tuesday of this week Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) went to the Senate floor to sound the alarm about a series of suspicious de facto firings of U.S. attorneys (USAS) across the country in recent weeks and months.
USAs, of course, serve at the president's will. Legally and constitutionally, he can fire them whenever he chooses. In practice, however, a sitting president seldom, if ever, without cause, cashiers serving USAs whom he himself has
appointed. I've counted as many as seven USAs who appear to have been forced out. And Feinstein said that the administration has told her that
between five and 10 USAs have been asked to tender their resignations.

Well, hell, they'd better do SOMETHING, these Democrats. They buckled and handed Bush his money for the bloody romp in Iraq to continue.
It's truly insane that we have to contend with all of these damned ninnies. Imagine that there is any discussion at all about this shady, bumbling excuse for a lawyer holding the chief spot at Justice. Of course, he's brighter than the boss...
Honest to God, it's just crazy!
If it weren't for the blogoshphere, there'd be no hope...

"Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled:

It is the sense of the Senate that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has misled the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the American people in congressional testimony regarding the firing of certain U.S. Attorneys and other matters, has failed to exercise appropriate oversight and engaged in mismanagement of Department of Justice employees and functions, has used Department of Justice resources and employees for improper partisan purposes, has wrongfully besmirched the reputations of honorable and effective U.S. Attorneys, has obstructed and delayed congressional investigations of the foregoing matters, and as a result no longer holds the confidence of the Senate, the House of Representatives, or the American people."

Get some guts, Congress.

"Our Democratic leadership is taking one on the chin today so we can win in the long run."

Michael Stevens, I'm not following the logic. I can see you're very hopeful, but I don't understand how acting like a bunch of spineless buffoons gets us the White House in '08. When I hear that dimwitted nitwit, Tony Harris on CNN chuckle and say, "Let's put this in simple terms: the Democrats caved," I've gotta say that I hate to agree with him, but he's right on the money. What part of giving up the fight and giving Bush everything he wants is good for the Democrats? How does that translate into a majority of votes in '08?

Michael Stevens, I agree completely. Relax TheraP and enjoy watching the WH meltdown.

The interesting aspect is all the little stories that will all be related. I wonder if there were any Regent grads working for the DC Madam? LOL

DNC INACTION AS A STRATEGY ISN'T CHANGE, BUT MORE OF WHAT THE GOP DID TO INSPIRE _DEMANDS FOR_ CHANGE

This misses the point: "Regarding war funding, the Democratic leadership had two bad choices: Be blamed for the inevitable loss in Iraq by "hamstringing" Bush's war plans, AND then be blamed for every loss we take between now and the election. (There will be one hell of a lot of losses between now and then.) ". Consider:

1. RNC and this President -- not the DNC -- were the ones who lied about the war;

2. The President lied about the WMD, AlQueda link with Iraq, not the DNC;

This isn't a DNC issue, but one for the President and GOP -- despite their Nov2006 "loss" to fully embrace: They are not in harmony with either the law or the American public.

As to the war funding itself: It's absurd to suggest the DNC is in a "losing" situation when it is the GOP and President who are losing the war. Nobody forced the President into this war; and this was a war of choice. To argue the opposite -- that the DNC ending what is folly -- suggests we've never left the Twilight Zone.

Regardless whether Bush argues Iraqis are or are not better off, Americans are not: They face higher chances of being targeted for _additional_ reasons above and beyond the reasons behind 9-11.

Huh?: "Our Democratic leadership is taking one on the chin today so we can win in the long run." The "long run" was supposed to be, what . . . the "next" election -- there's always a "next election." DNC "taking it on the chin" means the Constitution is still being taken where it need not be taken: The fireplace.
This makes no sense from the GOP: "By making Bush veto the (publicly popular) Benchmark bill, the Democratic party will not be attached to the inevitable loss in Iraq. Instead, the Republicans will be even more firmly chained to the inevitable loss" From the perspective of the DNC this may be a _belief_, but the Congress isn't acting as if it were true; rather, they're acting as if the GOP is going to prevail, and the DNC needs to "minimize" it's losses. The DNC is acting like this is a do-over for the 2006 election as if to say, "We didn't really mean to win, we hope you don't hurt us next time."

This makes no sense in light of the "mandate" of the US Nov2006 vote result, change: "I'm glad Bush wasn't smart enough to sign the Benchmark bill. Because that bill could easily have lost us the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. " Change means doing less of what is failing -- no planning, no goals, and no monitoring; but doing more of what hasn't been done: Criteria to evaluate progress; communication from the troops to the President; and resources to lawfully do the job. Whether the President botched the original plan, or failed to consider the backlash is meaningless. The fact that the President "isn't smart enough to defend the Constitution" or issue a credible "signing statement" apparently doesn't seem to be a problem for those who like to avoid consequences for war crimes, prisoner abuse, FISA violations and other illegal activity. This country celebrates this President's stupidity.
The longer this war continues -- despite the DNC having the options to end it -- attaches the problem with the DNC, not just the GOP. The GOP may have started the war on a false pretense; but it is the DNC -- not just the GOP -- that is allowing it to _continue_.

This may be true, but where is the DNC going to show a good reason for people to vote _more_ for the DNC than the GOP: "With 60 Senators, a democratic president could appoint any Supreme Court justice they liked. And the next Democratic President is likely to make at least two, but perhaps three or more Supreme Court appointments." The longer the DNC does nothing, the more people are going to _not vote_; this isn't a zero-sum game of, "If the President really bothces it, then the votes go for the DNC." No, if the DNC _refuse to stop what the President is botching_, the DNC and GOP are _both_ going to lose support: This may mean that the net loss of support for the GOP and DNC results in no change in the current deadlocked, toady, rubber stamping Senate. Who can point to an overwhelming DNC success that the GOP is going to shift support in _GOP controlled States_ and support the DNC? It may happen, but it's not obvious.

This sounds like complete non-sense and cheerleading we heard prior to Nov2006, but have gotten nothing by way of follow-up/actions from the DNC: "The Democratic leadership is playing both of these games 10 moves ahead. They are not selling us out, they are just playing to win. And thank god, they're not willing to trade a small win today for a massive loss in the fall of '08." The problem is the DNC -- despite its bungling oversight and refusal to end funding for what it could end -- has not done what it's been sent to DC To do. The DNC may be "playing to win," but so is the GOP. Regardless what the DNC is or isn't willing to do "today" for a win in "2008", the GOP rejects this approach, and continues with illegal activity, despite the DNC having the power to impeach. This isn't about 2008, but about the Constitution in 2007.

If Congress won't impeach in 2007, then non-Congressional actors need to prosecute the President ousted the impeachment process. The Congress' decision to do nothing is not a mandate to the world that it sit with starry eyed wonder over "what might happen" in 2008. They have their own timetables regardless 2008. As the DNC chooses to do nothing, I get the sense that the same non-sense thinking driving the public support for the GOP -- based on non-sense, deluded thinking -- is also permeating the DNC ranks to justify celebrating _doing nothing_ about the self-evident abuse of power. We need not seriously consider giving _more_ power to those who refuse to assert what little power they have, but America most certainly entertain the notion as if it were a serious notion. More convoluted thinking.

Today, with the dems caving and handing Bush a blank check to continue on his merry way in Iraq, I'm too disheartened to give a damn about Rovian machinations and the DOJ. Just let me lie here and bleed a while. Maybe I'll feel better tomorrow. And then again, maybe not.

"Why not impeach? There is certainly enough real, hard evidence by now. This is meaningless.

"Posted by:
Date: May 24, 2007 01:57 PM"

Christ, when will you people get it?

1. THERE AREN'T AT PRESENT SUFFICIENT VOTES TO IMPEACH!

2. IMPEACHMENT BEGINS IN THE HOUSE, NOT IN THE SENATE!

Thus the Democrat bashing based upon their not doing that which cannot yet be done is beyond tiresome. It is stupid.

"Why is impeachment off the table?"

Don't ya just love demands of the gov't, and votes based upon the results, from US citizens who haven't a clue how the gov't is to work?

Pay attention: Third in line for the Presidency is the Speaker of the House. The Speaker of the House is Pelosi. Is it over your head that the LAST person to be "for" impeachment should be Pelosi?

Or do you want to deal in addition with charges of partisanship?

Otherwise: Impeachment is not off the table for all members of the House.

"Posted by: Spencer's Mom
Date: May 24, 2007 02:39 PM"

"Goddamn it! Force the GOP racketeers and their democratic henchmen to publicly endorse Gonzalez with an impeachment vote. Brand them with it. Throw it back in their face at every opportunity. Ceaselessly, remorselessly call the man what he is- utterly corrupt, an enemy of the Republic, aided and abetted by those who seek its overthrow. Those who equivocate, who tremble before their own squalid calculations of challenging this bad man and his political overlords are contemptible cowards, unworthy of the Constitution of their inheritance.

"Posted by: JW
Date: May 24, 2007 03:24 PM"

If attacking the Democrats' character as you demand is successful, it will be because their character is exactly that you allege. Is that what you voted for?

'Course, you could instead deal with reality -- there aren't yet sufficient votes for impeachment -- instead of being a jerk.

"Political theatre. Pure & simple . . .

"The answer lies in electing people who will actually put the duties of their office an what's right for the country ahead of their personal power positions and re-electability.

"Posted by: Wahoo
Date: May 24, 2007 03:42 PM"

The answer is for assh*les such as you learning how the system operates, and how democratic politics -- which is two or more persons -- works.

Thankfully, unlike you, Congress knows what it is doing.

""Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled:

"It is the sense of the Senate that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has misled the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the American people in congressional testimony regarding the firing of certain U.S. Attorneys and other matters, has failed to exercise appropriate oversight and engaged in mismanagement of Department of Justice employees and functions, has used Department of Justice resources and employees for improper partisan purposes, has wrongfully besmirched the reputations of honorable and effective U.S. Attorneys, has obstructed and delayed congressional investigations of the foregoing matters, and as a result no longer holds the confidence of the Senate, the House of Representatives, or the American people."

"Get some guts, Congress.

"Posted by: anonymous
Date: May 24, 2007 05:07 PM"

Do you want the resolution to pass? Or to posture and grandstand as tough guy?

There's sufficient time down the road to make such charges -- should there eventually be sufficient votes to impeach.

why wait?