Condoleezza Rice appeared today before Joe Biden’s Foreign Relations committee. There are 23 members of the Foreign Relations committee, or nearly a quarter of the full Senate. Joe Biden summarized what happened in the hearing as he brought it to a close. It’s too early for a transcript to be available, so I will do my best to paraphrase what he said.
Biden said something like this. “Madame Secretary I think something very profound happened here today. There are 23 members of this committee, and all of them, with one or two notable exceptions, displayed outright hostility, from skepticism, to deep skepticism, to outright hostility to the President’s plan. And I think, if the President cannot win over the Senate, that he will proceed at extreme personal poitical risk.”
My ears perked up when Biden said that. I waited to see if he would elaborate on that warning. But he didn’t. He went on to say that we were setting ourselves up for a very bad situation and that if we could not convince the American people the whole thing is lost. He argued that increasing our commitment would further erode our combat readiness and could even undermine the next President’s flexibility. He told Rice to tell the President that he needed to do more work and he needed to bring in the Senate because they are not buying this plan.
Biden seemed to be sending a clear message. Rice’s testimony had not satisfied the Senate. It was not a partisan point. Bush’s plan has been rejected by the Senate. He essentially told her to go back and try again. And then there was that warning.
This is what I have been saying since early December. The Bush administration has fundamentally miscalculated. They thought they could rely on the Republicans to stand strong behind their policies as they had through their first six years. But they were profoundly wrong. The Baker-Hamilton report was not just some suggestion. It was a mandate. The moment they decided to ignore it I knew that they would have almost no support in the Senate and a cratering of support in the House. And it was my opinion, and it still is, that this would lead to a constitutional crisis. Biden is warning the President that the Senate does not have his back. He does not mean that the Democrats are out to get him. He means that his foreign policy is not supported by the Senate. He must recognize this fact and take some serious measures to address it.
There will soon be oversight investigations and the President is so badly weakened that he cannot look to a substantial bloc in Congress to defend him. It is no longer in the Republican’s interests to defend him.
What is needed is a plan for handling this consitutional crisis.
I see SusanHu also has something about this on the rec list over at dKos. link
what possible personal political risk could bush possibly have?
he cant run again
there isnt enought time to investigate, impeach, remove etc him from office
bush himself has no risk
but kudos to biden for coming off as having a bigger penis than he usually seems to have.
Bill Clinton was impeached and had a trial in under three months. Those three months included the recess for the elections, and the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays.
Based on that schedule, Bush could be removed by April. I never understand the timing issue.
What is needed is not time, but the will of Republican Senators to remove him.
Did you watch the hearing?
no i missed the hearing…read the diary thread comments…im watching whatever hearing is on now….and im making cookies.
is the problem the republicans or the democrats on timing?
i dont think ameircans will support an impeachment, not that that stopped the republicans impeaching clinton…but i just dont see the democrats pushing the idea of impeachment….maybe thats smart till they get some investigations going….but it seems like a different time to me than when clinton was impeached….
whoa somebody just said this is the dumbest plan he ever heard of in his life…..and whats up with biden? is someone progressive advising him now? i should call the office and say something nice to eric since im always calling to complain.
My honest answer to you anna is that it really doesn’t matter what the public supports or doesn’t support. All that matters is whether the Congress can bring Bush to reality in a very short order of time. If they cannot, they will be forced to remove him and obviously his real brain, Cheney.
That is what Biden was hinting at. He also told them not to even think of attacking Iran.
He also has to protect his < shudder > legacy, such as it is.
Beyond that the credibility of the government requires that this administration is consequenced. It comes down to whether or not congress has the political will to address blatant illegalities, such as repeatedly lying to congress. If they can’t do that, we might as well set the Constitution on fire. This is not a bad government making poor choices. This is a criminal enterprise that has turned the democratic process on its ear. For this President not to be impeached is a miscarriage of justice.
That was a beautiful thing. I especially enjoyed hagel’s comments. Biden’s warning on Iran was also particularly interesting, especuially onsidering A) the president’s rhetoric last night, and B) the incident in iraq at the Iranian embassy reported this morning.
I’ve been forwarding your impeachment series to my dad. He agrees that Bush may not finish his term.
It would be easier (I suppose) if we had a “no confidence” procedure like other parliaments, but we don’t. Thus, it’s impeachment, and I am 100% for it if necessary. And it’s damn necessary.
Even more quickly than trial and impeachment, Congress could limit disaster by exercising a more obscure constitutional power, its authority over war making — at the very least, its authority with respect to initiating (quaintly, “declaring”) war on a new country. What Congress has delegated to the Executive it can reclaim.
I would expect an explicit withdrawal of authorization for an expanded war to have some effect. Joining this to an explicit statement of the illegality of orders to expand the war and of the responsibility of all officers to refuse illegal orders would have a more certain effect.
Don’t worry Boo. Once the missiles fly over Iran the rally round the flag impulse will bring the Senate in line.
Yes that half snark, but half fearing the worst, too.
Did you hear Biden threaten a constitutional crisis if Iran is attacked?
Iraq is bad enough without raiding Iranian consulates.
With the public’s visceral reaction to the new Bush Way Forward, a crisis (in the form of impeachment I am guessing) can be done in short order.
Bush is plummeting so fast, Republicans are running in all directions in an effort to not get any of Bush’s intestines on them when he hits the very solid ground of reality.
Ya know?
I’m not even a lawyer, let alone a Constitutional scholar, but gotta disagree that there is a constitutional crisis. Just because the Congress really, REALLY disagrees with the President doesn’t empower them to do much, does it?
They can cut funding, but the military budget is large enough to fiddle around that for quite a while.
Bad policy is not impeachable, nor continued stupidity (and perhaps not even then). How much of the lying has been under oath?
Additional War is not preventable, if the POTUS decides it is to be done (at least not for 90 days). Where is the constitutional crisis?
The crisis only comes when Congress tries to do what needs to be done: to disempower the executive branch. Probably under the same rational for the expanded powers of a wartime President, but applied to a wartime congress. But until then, where is the constitutional conflict? Please elaborate.
If you mean ‘nation imperilling’ conflict, you maybe right, but I don’t yet see what two elements of the Constitution are in conflict.
There is a simple mistake that you are making and it seems almost everyone makes it.
You are thinking of the cause or grounds for impeachment and you are assuming that the grounds are related to the war in Iraq. It’s not the grounds that are related, but the will.
There is no point in having an impeachment investigation if it will just end in an acquittal. The only way it could possibly end in a conviction is if the Republicans decide that the country cannot afford to go on under Bush and Cheney’s leadership.
That is what is unfolding before our eyes. They are not there yet and they will try mightily to get Bush and Cheney to come to their senses. But, if they do not, that is when they will begin thinking about the radical step of removing them.
It is only at that point, which may not be far off, that Reid and Pelosi will unleash Waxman and Conyers and go for the kill. The grounds can be any of several things. Fucking tax evasion for all I care.
That is it exactly.
According to my sources from the previous campaign, Pelosi took impeachment off the table and was just going to practice oversight.
The strategy is to practice oversight in such a way to get the Republicans move towards impeachment in an effort to save their own ass.
Impeachment must be a party saving move for the Republican Party for it to work.
Yes.
The problem Bush and Cheney have is totally different from the problem Bill Clinton had. No one was suggesting that Clinton was so deeply incompetent and compromised and lacking in leadership that he mere presence in office was a danger to the country. The question with Clinton was what to do to punish someone that obstructed justice and gave misleading testimony under oath.
For Democrats, a censure was sufficient.
In this situation, it isn’t (yet) a concrete event or crime that is focusing the minds of Republicans. It is actually a crisis of faith in the ability of Bush and Cheney to govern. What do you do when your administration has collapsed but they have two years to go?
It’s a paralyzing situation that calls out for some real behind the scenes leadership.
OK, but where is the Constitutional Crisis? Is that a characteristic of Impeachment proceedings? I don’t think so..
Congress isn’t empowered?
Constitutionally, Congress holds (but has delegated) war making authority. What it has delegated, it can take back.
Powers of Congress, Article I:
“To declare war…and make rules concerning captures on land and water….
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces….”
——
By the way, Article II explicitly grants the President the power to
“…require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices…”
Yes, a tremendously powerful office. The President can even require opinions in writing from executive officials (who must be approved by the Senate, of course, and must faithfully execute the law).
If they had any guts at all, they would page through John Dean’s explanation of why the authorization Bush claimed is not the authorization congress gave. He never had the authority to attack without UN authorization. Congress is just playing politics rather than adhering to their own laws and mandate.
I disagree. As Jerry Ford said…
.
Securing America’s Interests in Iraq:
● The Remaining Options
● The Administration’s Plan for Iraq
MSNBC video – Sen. Chuck Hagel, who called it “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.”
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."She normally has that deer in the headlights look about here. Now she can’t even look anyone in the eye.
She is possibly the most incompetent Secretary of State in US history, but I do recognise that she has been given a huge pile-o-shit to tote around.
WHen she talks, her voice quavers. She is seemingly unable to settle on a vocal tone which conveys confidence, certainty and clarity. She always sounds like she has just been bitch-slapped hard, and is getting ready to cry. “Ohhaahahahahah
Why can’t she talk like an adult?
If you follow through on the logic of Bush/Rice/enablers’ new prime talking point, that we cannot afford to “lose” in Iraq because the consequences will be “worse than Vietnam”, it leads inexorably to a single conclusion: Bush and Cheney must be impeached. I believe the neocon propagandists are right for once in their dire warnings about the chaos, regional collapse, and terrorism growth that will result from US failure.
What they carefully avoid saying is that there is absolutely no prospect that the US’s alleged goals — a free and democratic nation, stability, regional peace — can be approached. Iraq was stable and nonthreatening to the US and Europe under Saddam whatever his other grevious faults. The US deposed and killed him. That is why Iraq, and probably soon the region, is out of all control today. Americans may still not be ready to accept this obvious reality, but the rest of the world already has. The US and its “coalition partners” is soley responsible for the quagmire that has eaten Iraq.
What they also carefully avoid saying is that no conceivable military action short of nuking Iraq (and then by necessity most of the rest of the region) can possibly change that outcome. They say we must not, under any circumstances, allow the US to be humiliated. It already is. Worse, it’s distrusted by allies and foes alike. It has no credibility and no leverage to negotiate face-saving solutions.
The least-catastrophic resolution of the dilemma is precisely a huge dose of belated American humility. It is America, not the Iraqis, that has to pay for its fraudulent and reckless adventure. The current fashion for “apologies” will not be nearly enough. Nothing short of the prosecution and conviction of Bush and Cheney can demonstrate to the world — and to the millions of angry prototerrorists just waiting for their time to come — that we finally understand what we’ve wrought and are sorry and ashamed and ready to make what reparations we can under whatever international jurisdiction is willing to step in.
Without impeachment, we will continue to persuade the oppressed of the world that terrorism is the only way to get a place at the table; and to persuade the comfortable of the world that there is any percentage in throwing good lives and fortune after bad to back a new desperation move by the US leadership that created the catastrophe in the first place.
I think that politically, everything now depends on Congress. If it comes out strongly against escalation, using all the powers the Constitution gives it, Bush will plunge blindly ahead anyway because that’s the only thing he knows how to do. At that point Congress and the American people will be faced with the stark choice laid out by Chalmers Johnson in the current Harper’s magazine: are we to be a democratic republic or an empire? No nation can be both. I can’t see any path to choosing the former short of impeachment. Bush and a Republican Congress (and too many craven Dems) have made an airtight case that survival of the American republic requires regime change here and now. It is an unavoidable step if we truly wish to protect our national interest and advance our homeland security.
I don’t know if prosecution is necessary. Resignation certainly is necessary. And no fricking pardons.
Where was this broadcast? I checked both of the C-SPAN channels today, and didn’t find it. Will it be re-broadcast, and if so, does anyone know when and where? Thanks.
It was on C-SPAN3
Here is a link to streaming video on the C-SPAN video archive for Jan 11 2007 (Real-player file). This is 3 hours 21 minutes.
There is another link to video, served by the Senate FRC website. The FRC site including the prepared statements is here.
Hurry, I suspect the C-SPAN archive is ephemeral. I had to scroll through seven of nine web pages to find this Jan 11 2007 meeting; the ninth and last page had videos from Jan 8 2007. At this pace, the video archive from Jan 11 might “go offline” in a matter of a week.
the last time I recall Biden chairing the FR comittee back in 03, he was saying to Colin Powell that he (paraphrasing)’trusts the President [is sincere] in his assessment of the the threat of Sadam Hussein’
he would then vote to authorize use of force. .
I recall vividly my utter frustration, if not contempt, when he said those words, and now look where we are.
Biden was good today, but dammit, his political (incorrect) instincts are precisely the problem that gets this country into messes like this
Bush is intentionally provoking a clash with congress. Just like Iran and Syria, he sees the democratic controlled congress as evil and is going to fight them. He wants a showdown and biden basically told Rice that they will not back down and will go after him if he proceeds with his madness.
Regarding “Rice’s Catastrophic Appearance” (before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, 10AM Jan 11 2007):
I watched and taped part of the Rice hearing. For those interested, I have transcribed some of the Senator’s Q&A, and posted the transcripts at:
http:/boborojoview.blogspot.com
I transcribed back-and-forth testimony, not their prepared remarks. Some of the Senator’s web sites now have links to their prepared remarks (opening speeches).
Scathing is one word to describe what transpired. Biden called it “historic” at the close and a few other times.
Ah crap. Corrected URL
http://boborojoview.blogspot.com
repeat 100 times: preview is my friend!