Obama says he doesn't favor impeachment of Bush, Cheney

http://www.wqad.com/Global/story.asp?S=6723196&nav=1sW7

WASHINGTON (AP) - US Senator Barack Obama says he doesn't favor impeachment proceedings for President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Obama made that comment today in response to a question asked at a meeting in Washington with his Illinois constituents.

The Illinois Democrat says he's distressed by the Bush administration's ethical standards and secrecy. But the presidential hopeful says impeachment should be reserved for "grave" breaches of the president's authority.

Both Obama and US Senator Dick Durbin say having to deal with month after month of impeachment hearings wouldn't be in the best interest of America.

And Obama says there's a better way for unhappy Americans to deal with elected officials. He says they can "vote the bums out."



:banghead: so what exactly does Obama consider "grave breaches"?? Omg I feel ill .... :puke:

What are we to do in the meantime?

This sucks.

Does he feel the same way about Gonzo?

THEY'RE NOT UP FOR RE-ELECTION!!!!

Obama had best be careful. Illinois politics sure isn't a Sunday picnic, but at the national level it's a 24/7 world series!

in 2000 and 2004! How did that turn out for us, Obama?

Despite the specific provisions in the constitution of the United States?

Obama is taking the Bush administration position.

I assume he was responding to a question but I really wish he'd had a better answer.

Impeachment is as much a political process as a legal one.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

of this issue during this summer recess. :shrug:

Bummer galore! :(

I sent my money to Kucinich last night instead. With this latest statement by Obama I'm sure I did the right thing.
I'm finding that Kucinich is not only saying the things I believe, he's doing something about them. That's what I'm looking for in a President.

And this type of comment by Obama should be a wake-up call to everyone. We need to show these "hill types" that there's a REAL population out here and WE'RE ABOUT TO EXPLODE!!

:kick:

Every bit helps.

I don't like the M$M picking my candidates for me.

...either to Mr. Gore, or the first candidate who explicitly does call for impeachment(s).

Till then, I -- and my wallet -- are on the fence.

for Congress, I support impeachment, impeachment, impeachment

If Bush and Cheney walk to home base this is more that the bottom of the 9th, they have sent a precedent for a
monarch to rule in this country.

if the issue came before him as a senator, he would vote to impeach and try.

he knows that Senators don't vote to impeach and try.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS. . . .

sorry, monkey. It seems that your familiarity with this quaint document is not quite there.

votes to impeach (try).

The Senate hears the trial and votes to convict or acquit.

My familiarity with the constitution is just fine, thank you.

My moral theology courses taught me that restitution for theft requires the return of the thing stolen, and not a substitute, to the person from whom it was stolen, and not a surrogate.

Hence my support for Gore.

"With a year and a half to go in his term and with no consensus in the nation as a whole to support such a proposition, any realistic analysis of that as a policy option would lead one to question the allocation of time and resources," Gore said during an interview with PBS.

When asked if impeaching Bush would be a good use of time, Gore replied, "I don't think it is. I don't think it would be successful."

Obama is a US Senator who could actually vote to remove bush/chaney if the evidence warrented.

he also says that he is not running, but he gave a good speech on Martin Luther King day last year, which clearly outlined
the what is wrong with Bushco.

He is sick to death about what they have done to this country, and all the laws they have broken, and the way they have made a mockery out of our system of government. He said earlier that he didn't think that was a good use of the congress' time, but he has since spoken about the lawlessness, and the impeachable offenses.

:kick:

He simply said it would not be successful. If Joe votes no then what?:shrug:

he's a candidate.

Time to pull out your wallet and get down off the fence. :)

Check his website for the full text of the bill, HR333 introduced into the House of Representitives

http://kucinich.us/

then, because he sponsored HR333 to impeach Cheney (first).

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery

H.RES.333 : Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 4/24/2007) Cosponsors (7)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 5/4/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

H.R.808 : To establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 2/5/2007) Cosponsors (66)
Committees: House Oversight and Government Reform; House Foreign Affairs; House Judiciary; House Education and Labor
Latest Major Action: 5/18/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.

H.R.1234 : To end the United States occupation of Iraq immediately.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 2/28/2007) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: House Armed Services; House Foreign Affairs
Latest Major Action: 2/28/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.


http://kucinich.us/issues

1. Universal Health Care
2. International Cooperation: US out of Iraq, UN in
3. Jobs and Withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO
4. Repeal of the "Patriot Act"
5. Guaranteed Quality Education, Pre-K Through College
6. Full Social Security Benefits at Age 65
7. Right-to-Choose, Privacy and Civil Rights
8. Balance Between Workers and Corporations
9. Environmental Renewal and Clean Energy
10. Restored Rural Communities and Family Farms

Wonder what he considers "grave" breaches ~ I'd say sending thousands of troops to unnecessary deaths under false pretenses was pretty damned "grave." Let's just embolden the next gang of thugs, since this gang will go unaccountable!

This is very disappointing. I might have to change my stance on Gore/Obama.

Everyone is looking to win it big in 2008. They don't want this still hanging around, or be used against them.

I so loathe that term. Kucinich has articles of impeachment against cheney, which is really the order you need to do it in anyway, drawn right now.

Kucinich ~ our man with balls! :patriot:

I call it all integrity.

he is the man! :)

Doesn't help make a candidate "electable."

DLC supporters are attempting to swiftboat him with the "he's not electable" meme. Don't fall for that BS. He's electable if enough of us vote for him!

joins the everyone but Hillary camp.

And there ain't no getting around it!

10 demerits to Barack.

excellent smilie Swampie!

:hi:

indefinite and illegal detentions not grave? or grave enough?
extraordinary rendition not grave? or grave enough?

isn't grave enough for the senator..I'd have to say this is a definite.."What the fuck was I thinking" moment for the man from Illinois.

“I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC,” said Obama . . .

http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html

Dont make baseless statements on this board here.

:rofl:

Sheeptramp scratches another candidate off her list

comment from Obama just lost him 2 votes. My other half feels the same.

No guts, no glory!

crimes (the shooting event), the "fixing" of intel to start a war,

MY GAWD, OBAMA, are you so in love with your image that you forget, ignore. set aside, or cannot see the truth of what our country faces today?

Shame on you, Barack. You are a major disapointment. One question. Are your Hillary problems and you growing Rezko issues the reason why you take such a stance?

they've installed on the Democratic side. He sounded great at convention but the more I listen to him, the more doubts I have.

Even if he came out solidly in favor of same-sex marriage, I would be obligated to vote against him. If he is willing to let the Junta get away with their crimes, then he is guilty of aiding and abetting and MUST NOT BE ALLOWED to hold an office of public trust.

How many years did this man spend in college?

Uh HELLO?

Just what exactly does one have to do while serving as President in THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE for an offense to be considered "grave" by Mr Obama?

I give it the hell up!

me too! :wtf: does Obama consider GRAVE BREACHES? Fucking bush and cheney holding a gun to somebody's head? They don't need to..they've got the corporatemediawhores sucking them off.

man what a joke!

"impeachment should be reserved for "grave" breaches of the president's authority."

He has got to be kidding. Where the hell has he been?

Apparently, digging his own "grave!" :rofl:

as he is cheered on by his adoring fans like a rock star! :puke:

One does, indeed, wonder what he would consider a grave breach of the president's authority.

Period.

I know who will say yes.

Either he's too busy campaigning to pay attention, he's ignorant, or worse, he's accepting of the crimes of the Bush administration as "unethical" but not "grave" enough to warrant impeachment in order to restore the Constitution.

because of his position on this issue, Obama does not deserve, nor is fit for, the Presidency.

I'm enough of a realist to acknowledge that, in politics, there often must be compromises; however, when it comes to the Constitution, I am an idealist, and accept no compromise.

OK, so let's see where we're at:

Hillary: will continue the war. Don't need another president who can't/won't admit a mistake. Won't vote for her.

Obama: doesn't consider the crimes of Bushco "grave" enough to warrant intervention (i.e. impeachment) to protect the Constitution. Won't vote for him.

Edwards: I'm not clear where he stands on ending the war or impeachment- I don't recall seeing a clear, unambiguous statement from him on either issue.

Gore: Not running. Can't vote for him (yet, anyway)

Kucinich: Would end the war. Introduced articles of impeachment. Currently the front runner for my primary vote.

Senator Obama, I realize you are no longer in a position, in your life, to SEE what is right before you,...and I forgive you for that.

However, I am NOT going to enable your blindness.

You are going to have to do some REAL WORK on looking reality straight in the face. Otherwise, you are going to enable some pretty sadistic shit that's been taking place in this country and you will not be able to look at yourself for doing that.

searching...

Sen. Leahy, " condemning the President for secretly and systematically violating the law."

Sen. Obama you are playing it safe with that statement and that is not progress or progressive.

Bad move by him.

"RECKLESS DISRESPECT FOR THE RULE OF LAW" in that he feels the chimp hasn't done anything "grave".

if he's got any relatives in the US Military. Or if he knows anyone who came from the 9th Ward.

don't expect anyone else too.

and obama sure don't give a ship about the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have died and suffered in this war... they don't have a lobby.

you see...we the american public are just so freaking stupid and childish...that we would never understand the need to punish people for their crimes against the country....however if you take bread out of a convenience store during a widespread flood to feed your kids...you need to go to jail for life....

I forgot this...

:sarcasm:

I can understand a canidate saying that it may not be politically feasible to impeach right now, but at the very least, candidates should understand that what this administration has done and is continuing to do is in fact worthy of impeachment.

I mean, between the wiretapping, the torture...the general disdain for our constitution--what exactly is more "grave" than that? :shrug:

I keep hoping Gore runs more and more everyday.

Cowardly piece of quivering & enabling Jell-O. It's what i expect of Democratic Nominee. Probably do his own list of crimes if he became President, like most of the others.

:grr:

I'm sick & tired of all these statements, from anyone, that the actions of the criminals in this administration don't rise to the level of "high crimes & misdemeanors".
WTF would hit that mark for them????

I don't even want you as VP. The only way my wife and I will vote for you is if our fellow dem's are stupid enough to nominate you.

Torture, murder, stealing, and lying not grave enough for you? Pandering asshole!

suspension of habeas corpus, corrupt justice department, war profiteering, propaganda war on its own citizens, again TORTURE, billions and billions of disappeared US dollars, funding the enemy, funding terrorists in general, ignoring/silencing/firing/smearing/threatening/outing anyone who doesn't goose-step along through all of this, rewarding failure and corruption...

That's just of the top of my head. That probably isn't the half of it.

BUT HEY -- THEY DIDN'T SHOOT ANY BABIES IN THE HEAD

OH WAIT -- THEY DID

..I am VERY disappointed in the Junior Senator from my home state.

Of course, once they poll and find out how stupid this position is, he'll "re-position" himself...

I REALLY wish my guy (both of them) would get in the race...

perhaps he feels that Nixon should have been left alone.

Many feel that impeachment proceedings would, at the very least, lead to a pullout of Iraq. Think of the boost in the economy when we're not spending $100s billions in a failing war. This would not be good for the country?

Richard M. Nixon?"

http://watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles.shtml

Article I: Obstruction of justice

"On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities."

Article II: Abuse of power

"Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies."

Article III: Contempt of Congress

"In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives."

I didn't see anything about torturing other human beings in there. I guess what Nixon did was cool too, eh?

before I make a decision on this. Paraphrasing concerns me at times.

And the guy was a law professor!

:(

How is he different than the other Senators/congressmen?

He's trying to minimize Bush's crimes and I find that revolting.

for president. fuck this wimpy ass shit. the bushies need to be gone.

I won't have to worry about voting for him in the general election cause he won't be there.

The non-bums were supposed to *do* something about the bums who were left!

Does Mr. Obama not understand checks and balances????!!!!?????

Like maybe breaking the law? Sheesh, how many times has he done that. He caughts get doing it and that still doesn't stop him. Everyone knows he is a lawbreaker and that is not enought for impeachment? He flaunts the constitution he is supposed to uphold and that is not impeachable? What the hell does he have to do? Personally kill someone?

Very sad news! I do not think he should have said this in the way he did - maybe he could have thought this through more for what could they have done that are more serious "grave breaches" then they have already done??:wow:

before he flip-flopped.