An incredibly interesting Bill Moyers Journal

[Arlos]

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

He has 2 guests on discussing the issue of the impeachability of Bush & Cheney. One's a liberal, the other's a hard right conservative that is a Washington Times columnist and who wrote up the first article of Impeachment against Clinton.

I saw this on PBS the other night, and it was fascinating. Despite my long-term support for impeaching both Bush and Cheney, I was shocked to learn that 45% are now in support of impeaching Bush, and 54% in favor of impeaching Cheney.

One of the most interesting points raised was about Bush's recent claim of executive privilege in not allowing, say, Harriet Meyers to testify. Think back to the 1970s. Despite all that was going on with Watergate, Nixon never even dreamed of trying to claim that Howard Dean was immune to having to testify before Congress, and Dean had occupied the same position in the Nixon White House as Meyers did in the Bush one....

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

I'm guessing a large percentage of those who support impeachment don't really understand what it is. What might really surprise you Arlos is the number of conservatives that are in those percentages that favor impeachment over the issue of illegal immigration.

The biggest difference between Watergate and the firing of the US attorneys is that with Watergate there was a known crime. The president firing US attorneys is not a crime, it's part of the job. The congressional inquiry in this case is an attempt by congress to assert it's self into a position of oversight of the internal administrative actions of the executive branch, which contradicts the separation of powers.

The laundry list of charges in the public venue seems to grow daily and yet no official legal charges are ever made (impeachment). You could of course say where there is smoke there is fire, unless of course it's a game of smoke and mirrors.

[Arlos]

Well, sure, dismissing the lawyers is not a crime, though if you read a lot of places, getting rid of US attourneys bsaed solely on their politcal leanings regardless of job performance... That's something no one ele has done, ever. Congress is also (rightly) pissed off because the administration used a loophole in the Patriot act to directly appoint the new group without them having to undergo a confirmation hearing, which normally would be required. Still, no, firing them at whim isn't a crime, but doing so and then lying about your true motives certainly could be considered to be one, especially if you consider Clinton saying he didn't have sex to be one.

In all seriousness though, watch the video. None of those 3 is a neophyte in the ways of government, so they certainly wouldn't be falling into the trap you mention. Indeed, they barely mention the lawyers issue, as I remember right. One of the top items on THEIR list is Bush flouting the FISA law with the warrantless wiretapping.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

Wrong. Every President has hired and fired his own Lawyers, primarily based on political leanings. Everything else is just pure nasty partisan propaganda.

They are political appointee's who serve at the pleasure of the President and he can fire them for any reason, or none at all, if he chooses.

It's not a surprise Moyers has people on like this. At least he's better than Olbermann who solely brings on people to parrot the far left blog and media matters views.

It's the same rhetoric as 'He lied about the war' with it's partisan nasty tone. It is without merit and solely for malice.

[Evermore]

bush's whole presidency is a crime.

[Lyion]

So was Carters. So was Reagans. So was Clintons. Hey, I see a trend here.

Silly.

[Arlos]

Didn't I just say that the lawyers matter was *NOT* what they were discussing, at least not as a primary issue? You going off about it is a red herring. Watch the fucking video. Bill Moyers is one of the most respected journalists out there, period. He's been at this for a very very long time, and really DOES attempt to cover all sides in his reporting. Hell, he was extremely skeptical of the whole notion throughout the show, and both guests were definitely from opposite ends of the political spectrum, but were together on this one issue.

-Arlos

[Shneider]

The preface to the journal was highly amusing.

Recent events like President Bush's pardoning of Scooter Libby.

Nice attempt at spin, but when did this happen? See commutation.

Retaliated against Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame, through chief of staff Scooter Libby, for questioning the administration's evidence of weapons of mass destruction as justification for invading Iraq.

Wrong again: Try Richard Armitage

And, frankly, Congress, through the system of checks and balances, would be preventing him from doing insane things like invading Iraq.

Yes, the Bush Admin Cabal completely subverted the constitution... err... Woops?

The following is the complete text of the House Joint Resolution authorizing the President of the United States to use U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq.

HJ 114 RH

Union Calendar No. 451

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

[Report No. 107-721] To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 2, 2002

Mr. HASTERT (for himself and Mr. Gephardt) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

October 7, 2002

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

[Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert the part printed in italic]

[Strike out the preamble and insert the part printed in italic]

[For text and preamble of introduced joint resolution, see copy of joint resolution as introduced on October 2, 2002]

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- 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.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution. Union Calendar No. 451

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

[Report No. 107-721]

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Be thankful that men like Moussaoui and Padilla had their civil rights violated.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

[numatu]

Bill Moyers is one of the most respected journalists out there, period.

Most respected among registered Democrats perhaps. Most independents and republicans would agree Moyers has been one of the more extreme left wing biased reporters around during his long tenure. I would clump him in the same partisan journalist mold as a Bill O'Reilly or a Keith Olbermann, except without purposely trying hard to do anything entertaining. Also he's publicly funded for being biased also, which is an extra tidbit.

[Lyion]

Sorry, Arlos. Moyers ain't universally respected. He's more polite than some shrills, but he is still a partisan guy without any respect from the non Dems/Progressives.

[Yamori]

The biggest difference between Watergate and the firing of the US attorneys is that with Watergate there was a known crime. The president firing US attorneys is not a crime, it's part of the job. The congressional inquiry in this case is an attempt by congress to assert it's self into a position of oversight of the internal administrative actions of the executive branch, which contradicts the separation of powers.

The firing wasn't a crime, but perjury and destruction of evidence certainly are.

[Lyion]

Yet investigating a non crime in a fishing expedition for perjury is fine, in your mind?

This whole setup is so stupid, it boggles the mind.

[Yamori]

Yet investigating a non crime in a fishing expedition for perjury is fine, in your mind?

This whole setup is so stupid, it boggles the mind.

I'm just stating the legal basis they have for doing it. They DO have the authority to hold the investigations ect because justice dpt. and white house figures perjured under oath about it all. And afterwards the obvious destruction of evidence and contempt of congress adds up to more legally sound repercussions for some people.

How'd you feel about the Clinton impeachment hearings, out of curiousity?

[Kramer]

i imagine there might be a short list of presidents who have not done anything to be impeached..... a very short list..... maybe.

[Lyion]

How'd you feel about the Clinton impeachment hearings, out of curiousity?

An equally stupid waste of time, and similar to what Congress is doing now. Payback for prior idiocy is no excuse, but I guess is to be expected in todays political arena.

[Lyion]

Hey, a great example of how 'good' Moyers is...

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/26/v ... over-rove/