Rep. Kucinich reads articles of impeachment. Is there any point?

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

But they didn’t violate any criminal statutes in so doing, so apparently their moral culpability must be minor.

That’s exactly right. If horrible things happen as a result of someone’s unintended consequence, things that weren’t intended, moral culpability is lessened. The farther away we get from foreseeable consequences, the less moral culpability exists. If I cut down a tree, and the next week a storm blows an adjoining tree into my neighbors house, killing his six-year-old twins, and it’s clear that if the tree I cut down would have stopped the other from falling in that way… am I morally culpable in those deaths?

Guess the moral culpability of the killers and rapists is pretty minimal too, since they got to commit their acts in an environment where there were no statutes to rein them in.

You guess wrongly. Again: it’s about intent.

That was an ad hoc response to an unusual situation.

Perhaps so, but I am confident that the ordinary course of nuclear launch authorization doesn’t just involve the President saying “go” and it happening. Other people are involved.

Maybe we haven’t. But it was discussed on this board in detail in May 2003 after Barton Gellman’s groundbreaking reporting was published, and a few times in the following year, and periodically after that. If you want me to link you to a for-instance or two, I’d be happy to. Or you can open a new thread about whether the Bush Administration really went to war over WMDs.

From your citation:

Even the sharpest skeptics do not rule out that the hunt may eventually find evidence of banned weapons.

So … in 2003, “even the sharpest skeptics” were not convinced that banned weapons were totally absent.

Now, with the benefit of hindsight, you piously insist that Bush knew, or should have known, they simply didn’t exist. But in 2003, even a source you yourself offer acknowledges that there was some consensus that something would be found.

Anyway, this news is five years old. Whose heads rolled because the sites weren’t secured? If WMDs had been there, they would have been sold to terrorists, or used by Sunni insurgents, years ago. But Bush wasn’t even upset about this.

Draw your own conclusions.

And you know Bush wasn’t upset about this … how? Bush is known to be fiercely loyal. He must have been upset by the Katrina reponse, but he never publicly criticized his FEMA director or the agency. Why do you assume Bush wasn’t upset? And not just assume, but use his alleged calm as the linchpin to your argument that he knew all along that there were no WMDs (a fact which “even the sharpest skeptics” didn’t know in 2003)?

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

Let me review some old bidding:

On April 9 of this year, ABC News published the following story:

Two days later, ABC asked Bush about it:
If one finds Wilkerson (correct spelling this time) to be credible, then Bush and Cheney are, at a minimum, guilty of failure to properly oversee the program of torture that they set in motion - a failure that led to two dozen deaths of captives.

YMMV as to whether that’s an impeachable offense. But if someone says it isn’t worth taking up Congress’ time to debate that issue, then I’m afraid I don’t understand, nor do I want to, where that person is coming from. This is damned serious stuff.

The problem I have with that report is that it’s cloaked in non-specifics. The advisers were members of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee. And later it says that at the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Weaselly - because nowhere does it connect the dots: it doesn’t claim that any of those people were there. If pressed, the reporter can piously say, “I never said that. I said the committee included X, and I said that the meeting included members of the committee.” The juxtaposition is damning, but the actual accusation is missing.

Look at how carefully the language is parsed. Where is the actual sentence that definitively claims… anything?

In my view, the key to a legitimate impeachment is a legitimate accusation. Smoke and mirrors don’t cut it for an impeachment proceeding.

[Bricker]

@E-Sabbath

Hiya, Elvis! I was worried you were all upset. Now settle down.

Okay, Bricker, we’ve got some stuff here. RTFirefly has a pretty good lead pointing to the administration. What can we do with that?

If my previous statement is being seen as “ignore it,” then that’s not the impression I want to give. I have no heartburn at all with Congress investigating; my comments in this thread are related to the sustainability of impeachment proceedings – that being the subject of the thread.

There’s CERTAINLY enough there for Congress to say, “We want to know more.” And they should investigate. And if the administration uses executive privilege as a shield, then Congress should go to the courts to settle the issue. What’s so hard about that?

[tomndebb]

@Clothahump

No. Insane is calling the President of the USA a criminal simply because you don’t like him, and you know that he hasn’t committed a crime. Well, maybe insane is a little harsh. Liar might be more accurate. Or a fool.

You are way out of line, here. If you need to hurl personal insults, take it to the Pit.

[ /Moderating ]

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

That’s exactly right. If horrible things happen as a result of someone’s unintended consequence, things that weren’t intended, moral culpability is lessened.

I feel like I’m arguing with a Catholic or something.

Seriously, just because I don’t intend a consequence, doesn’t mean I’m not morally culpable for it. If I push a safe out of a third-story window, I may not intend for it to land on anyone, but if it does, then damned straight I’m morally culpable. Even if the sidewalk below doesn’t see much foot traffic and, the vast majority of the time, there wouldn’t be anyone there for it to land on.

The farther away we get from foreseeable consequences, the less moral culpability exists.

In the case of Iraq, foreseeability was pretty easy. I’m far from the only one who could see a pretty good chance of violence and chaos resulting from our invasion.

If I cut down a tree, and the next week a storm blows an adjoining tree into my neighbors house, killing his six-year-old twins, and it’s clear that if the tree I cut down would have stopped the other from falling in that way… am I morally culpable in those deaths?

If you knew the adjoining tree was rotting at the base, but the tree you cut down was strong enough to stop its fall? Absolutely.

You guess wrongly. Again: it’s about intent.

It wasn’t a guess: you’ve been writing about the strong connection between the letter of the statute and moral culpability. Now you seem to be making intent the key, but that’s a definite change in tack. And still poor moral philosophy. I think your brief mention of foreseeability is more on target: if one doesn’t bother to try to foresee the consequences of one’s nontrivial actions, lack of bad intent doesn’t let one off the hook, morally speaking.

Not everything can be foreseen, and not everything can be guarded against. But the greater the apparent scale and risk of our actions, the greater our duty to suss out the potential consequences.

[quPerhaps so, but I am confident that the ordinary course of nuclear launch authorization doesn’t just involve the President saying “go” and it happening. Other people are involved.

So … in 2003, “even the sharpest skeptics” were not convinced that banned weapons were totally absent.

You’re absolutely right. I was one of those skeptics (how sharp? that’s for others to say), and I certainly believed Saddam had something in the way of bio/chem weapons.

But there’s a big difference between ‘not totally absent’ and a genuine threat beyond that represented by, say, easily-obtainable conventional explosives.

Now, with the benefit of hindsight, you piously insist that Bush knew, or should have known, they simply didn’t exist.

No, I don’t.

But in 2003, even a source you yourself offer acknowledges that there was some consensus that something would be found.

As I did at the time. But even during the run-up to war, the evidence seemed clear to me that whatever Saddam had was unlikely to represent a threat to us, even if Saddam really was in league with bin Laden, which seemed equally improbable.

Why do you assume Bush wasn’t upset? And not just assume, but use his alleged calm as the linchpin to your argument that he knew all along that there were no WMDs (a fact which “even the sharpest skeptics” didn’t know in 2003)?

I didn’t make that argument, and it wasn’t the linchpin of the argument I made, but rather icing on the cake.

Look, if Bush invaded Iraq to prevent WMDs from falling into the hands of terrorists - if these WMDs had existed, the war plan, as carried out, would have likely caused the very thing we went to war to prevent. If heads didn’t roll, then it still condones the result, regardless of the famous Bush loyalty.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

The problem I have with that report is that it’s cloaked in non-specifics. The advisers were members of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee. And later it says that at the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Weaselly - because nowhere does it connect the dots: it doesn’t claim that any of those people were there. If pressed, the reporter can piously say, “I never said that. I said the committee included X, and I said that the meeting included members of the committee.” The juxtaposition is damning, but the actual accusation is missing.

Those were the key Principals. The assistant secretaries aren’t Principals. And this wasn’t something they were going to leave to the heads of HHS and EPA to decide.

Look at how carefully the language is parsed. Where is the actual sentence that definitively claims… anything?

“Yes, I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.” - GWB

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

Those were the key Principals. The assistant secretaries aren’t Principals. And this wasn’t something they were going to leave to the heads of HHS and EPA to decide.

“Yes, I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.” - GWB

Approved the meeting? Approved their results? Approved the summary they provided him?

If you believe this sentence, devoid of any specifics, establishes Bush’s criminal liability, you are quite mistaken.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

Approved the meeting? Approved their results? Approved the summary they provided him?

If you believe this sentence, devoid of any specifics, establishes Bush’s criminal liability, you are quite mistaken.

President Bush says he knew his top national security advisers discussed and approved specific details about how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to an exclusive interview with ABC News Friday [April 11].

In the absence of any Administration protests that ABC twisted Bush’s words, I would assume ABC News has a recording that backs up this preceding paragraph.

Yeah, it would be nice if they’d just share the transcripts. But c’mon: aren’t we being just a little too lawyerly here?

Not to mention, I have no idea about Bush’s criminal liability. That’s your standard. I have no idea what statutes are in place to attach specific criminal penalties to violations of the Eighth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions. And you know what? I don’t care. I don’t think it’s at all important. It’s still the same level of seriousness either way: authorizing torture, and lethally failing to supervise its practice, is a ‘high crime’ or it’s not, and I don’t see how its being an ordinary crime makes much difference.

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

In the absence of any Administration protests that ABC twisted Bush’s words, I would assume ABC News has a recording that backs up this preceding paragraph.

Yeah, it would be nice if they’d just share the transcripts. But c’mon: aren’t we being just a little too lawyerly here?

ABC quoted Bush’s general statement, and are inferring that this means a complete understanding and acceptance of the meeting context.

Not to mention, I have no idea about Bush’s criminal liability. That’s your standard. I have no idea what statutes are in place to attach specific criminal penalties to violations of the Eighth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions. And you know what? I don’t care. I don’t think it’s at all important. It’s still the same level of seriousness either way: authorizing torture, and lethally failing to supervise its practice, is a ‘high crime’ or it’s not, and I don’t see how its being an ordinary crime makes much difference.

That’s what you say. But haven’t we already gone over this ground in the preceding posts? For impeachment to have any political traction, it must allege a criminal act. YOU, personally, may declaim at length about how this is a “high crime,” but the reality is there’s no impeachment without an ACTUAL crime.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

ABC quoted Bush’s general statement, and are inferring that this means a complete understanding and acceptance of the meeting context.

How do you know?

That’s what you say. But haven’t we already gone over this ground in the preceding posts? For impeachment to have any political traction, it must allege a criminal act. YOU, personally, may declaim at length about how this is a “high crime,” but the reality is there’s no impeachment without an ACTUAL crime.

The reality is that there have been two impeachment proceedings in the past century that got far along enough to tell. You may consider that definitive. I regard inferring a pattern from two data points to be absurd.

[elucidator]

@RTFirefly

…But c’mon: aren’t we being just a little too lawyerly here?..

So, how long you plan on being in town here, stranger?

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

How do you know?

Because they ran the quote.

The reality is that there have been two impeachment proceedings in the past century that got far along enough to tell. You may consider that definitive. I regard inferring a pattern from two data points to be absurd.

OK. At what point in time will you concede that it ain’t gonna happen here? Jan 19th? Jan 1st? When?

[BrainGlutton]

@Bricker

That’s what you say. But haven’t we already gone over this ground in the preceding posts? For impeachment to have any political traction, it must allege a criminal act. YOU, personally, may declaim at length about how this is a “high crime,” but the reality is there’s no impeachment without an ACTUAL crime.

There was in Andrew Johnson’s case, and the Senate failed to convict/remove him by only one vote.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

Because they ran the quote.

What quote? The quote where Bush said he was talking about something else entirely?

Produce the quote that makes your point.

OK. At what point in time will you concede that it ain’t gonna happen here? Jan 19th? Jan 1st? When?

If it matters to you badly enough to look,

the answer, my friend, is posted in this thread,
the answer is posted in this thread.

I’d suggest page 1.

[Bricker]

@BrainGlutton

There was in Andrew Johnson’s case, and the Senate failed to convict/remove him by only one vote.

Violation of the Tenure in Office Act.

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

What quote? The quote where Bush said he was talking about something else entirely?

Produce the quote that makes your point.

Bush said: “Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people. And yes, I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.”

That’s what he said.

From that, ABC reported: “President Bush says he knew his top national security advisers discussed and approved specific details about how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to an exclusive interview with ABC News Friday.”

But we don’t know WHAT specific details were approved. Youo cannot accuse anyone, much less the President, of criminal activity unless you can allege some specific criminal activity. That quote doesn’t reach it.

If it matters to you badly enough to look,

the answer, my friend, is posted in this thread,
the answer is posted in this thread.

I’d suggest page 1.

This?

[quote=RTFirefly]

@RTFirefly

Whatever.

Few have noticed, and few are going to notice, that Kucinich is actually doing anything about impeachment. The Dem leadership will not take up the issue. In terms of concrete results in the here and now, this will not matter at all. And it may or may not make a difference down the road.

So let’s sum up, then. While insisting that I’m wrong about the fact that they’re not going to impeach because “2 is not a valid sample size” you nonetheless concede that they’re not going to impeach?

Bottom line: no impeachment. Seems we all agree.

[gonzomax]

Kucinich is making it clear that some Democrats read the 2006 election differently than Pelosi . Some see it as a mandate to change politics as it is presently being carried out. Some make calculations about what battles they can win. Others see it as waging a good fight whatever happens. If the votes are not there,it should be clear that a lot of people want change and the Dems did not deliver it. In some ways they did not even try. Kucinich is trying.

[Saint_Cad]

@RTFirefly

And I thought it was about all the dead Iraqis, all the people tortured at Bagram and Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, all the illegal wiretapping of Americans, stuff like that.

Silly me.

And don’t forget perjury.
Oh wait . . . wrong president.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

Bush said: “Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people. And yes, I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.”

That’s what he said.

From that, ABC reported: “President Bush says he knew his top national security advisers discussed and approved specific details about how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to an exclusive interview with ABC News Friday.”

But we don’t know WHAT specific details were approved. Youo cannot accuse anyone, much less the President, of criminal activity unless you can allege some specific criminal activity. That quote doesn’t reach it.

So you’re accusing ABC News of reporting facts that they had no substantiation for.

O-kay. So much for the idea of citations.

A simpler explanation is that the interview consisted of questions and answers. And the ‘money quote’ may have been in a question.

If a prosecutor asks aa defendant, “Did you kill Bob Doe?” and the defendant says “Yes,” what are you, as defense attorney, going to say - that the defendant just said ‘Yes,’ and how can you convict him on that?

I call bullshit.

So let’s sum up, then. While insisting that I’m wrong about the fact that they’re not going to impeach because “2 is not a valid sample size” you nonetheless concede that they’re not going to impeach?

For six pages, I’ve been arguing, not that it would happen, but that the present circumstances are those under which it should happen, despite the reality that it won’t. And better to have Dennis the Menace standing up and making that point on the floor of the House, than to have nobody doing so.

I thought that was pretty clear.

Bottom line: no impeachment. Seems we all agree.

Yeppers. I certainly wasn’t arguing to the contrary.

[RTFirefly]

@Saint Cad

And don’t forget perjury.
Oh wait . . . wrong president.

Yep, that’s the GOP position, alright: hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, people tortured to death in U.S. custody…not a big deal compared to lying about a blowjob.

And the GOP is supposedly the party of moral values.