Stand Tall For America

Blog

Posted by Senator Ron Wyden on Wednesday, August 22, 2007

U.S. Must Stop Refereeing Iraq’s Civil War

During August recess, most members of Congress head to their home states to touch base with constituents. I'm fresh off of three, open to all, Iraq town meetings down the I-5 corridor in Oregon, and I'm sure hoping that my colleagues are hearing and listening to similar voices of anger and frustration about the war in Iraq. If so, maybe we can finally find the additional votes we need in the Senate to force the President to withdraw our troops in a safe and speedy manner.

The administration report on the surge is due in September – a critical opportunity and perilous decision point for those of us who want to end this war—so I tried to warn Oregonians at these meetings about the danger of allowing the Bush administration to bog us down in a debate over whether their military surge tactics are showing marginal progress in one province or another. At the outset of the surge, Congress was told that the purpose of the surge was to produce adequate space for political reconciliation in Iraq. By every objective measure, that hasn't happened. In fact, the Sunnis and Shiites are farther apart today than before the outset of the surge. The surge has failed, Congress has to hold the President accountable, and the proper way to do that is to vote for a speedy, humane withdrawal.

No one can make a convincing case that we're supporting our troops by asking them to police a deadly civil war, and I'm fighting to get my colleagues to acknowledge and act on that reality. I hope that many of my colleagues who have so far resisted are also meeting with their own constituents and holding their own town halls to discuss the war in Iraq. I hold open town meetings in every county in Oregon each year, but after over 450 of those meetings as a Senator, I have never before witnessed the level of intensity and emotion that I encountered at my recent Iraq-focused meetings. Over 700 people attended these forums, about 150 of them spoke, and many more submitted written comments. The almost unanimous thread in what I heard is that people have had enough.

People are sickened by the horrendous loss of life and untold cost of this war. They are sickened by America's loss of standing in the world. They are sickened and fearful of the continued erosion of civil liberties, as recently evidenced by the newly passed FISA law (which I voted against and will fight in September to overturn). They are despondent over the countless needs right here in America – veterans' benefits, education, transportation, among many others—that aren't being met because of the trillion dollar price tag of the war. And many are hopeful there will be a measure of justice meted out to those most responsible for leading us into this quagmire.

While I am proud to have been one of the 23 U.S. Senators who voted against the war in 2002, one of only 14 to vote against continued war funding because it lacked a timetable for withdrawal, and on the losing end of numerous other votes to end this conflict (the Feingold, Kerry, and Levin amendments, for example), voting the right way isn't the only way I try to bring an end to this war. Rarely a day goes by where I and my staff don't work to convince my colleagues to bring our troops home. A few people understandably asked why the President was so much more visible than elected officials like me who oppose the war, and I had to admit that the President has a built-in advantage because of the enormous entourage of media who report his every move. I have spoken publicly in opposition to the war now several hundred times, many times with reporters and cameras present, but reporters aren't going to produce story after story saying, "Wyden Continues to Oppose War." They see no "news value" in it. It's frustrating, but I still get up every morning looking for ways to help end this war.

A lot of people who came to the town halls support the immediate impeachment of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. Some want it to happen because they think it will tie them up and prevent them from doing anything else that is destructive to the world and our nation. Some want it to happen because they think it will create enough leverage to get us out of Iraq.

I said many times that the Constitution provides that the impeachment process must originate in the House of Representatives, and if the House moves to impeach, I will sit objectively as one of 100 jurors. But I question this impeachment strategy for several reasons, including the obvious lack of votes in the Senate to accomplish the goal, and the obligation of the Congress to stay focused on what the general public wants most at this moment in time: bringing an end to the war, enacting affordable health care for all, and passing legislation producing a new, sustainable energy policy.

Some people understandably asserted that the war is illegal and want Congress to pursue impeachment on that basis. While we would need an impeachment trial to ultimately determine whether the war was illegal, I know this: had 28 more Senators voted with me in 2002, this war would, on its face, be illegal.

One episode from the town meetings which made me scratch my head, but also illustrates the level of frustration out there, came when I answered that if the House impeached the President or Vice-President, or if a censure resolution was considered, I would insist on due process such as a formal presentation of the evidence and a full opportunity for the accused to present evidence and present their case. I finished by saying that we should extend the same due process to President Bush that was extended to President Clinton, and that it shouldn't matter whether you are Independent, Democrat or Republican when it comes to due process. A significant chorus of "no" came from the audience, including cries of "he doesn't deserve it!" When passionate liberals argue in opposition to due process, you know that good and decent people have long ago exceeded their boiling point.

Almost everyone who spoke brought a unique and personal vantage point to the conflict, but I want to highlight a few who really stood out. There was a woman in Portland—whose son and husband are serving in Iraq – who has lost all confidence in the government that is solely responsible for their service. There was the veteran in Medford who has experienced enormous road blocks and lengthy waits to be seen for health problems, including mental health issues. And there was the religious leader in Eugene who talked about the role our government ought to be playing in bringing together peace-loving people of different faiths in troubled regions like Iraq. I wish every Senator could have heard these Oregonians and the other speakers at our meetings.

Finally, there was one gentleman who bravely stood up before a passionately anti-war crowd and made a case for the war and for staying in Iraq. While I strongly disagreed with him, I thought he made a valid point when he challenged me to admit that Iraq will likely be in turmoil if we withdraw. Where I disagree with the speaker, however, is that staying longer in Iraq won't change the outcome, but will result in even more Americans and innocent Iraqis killed, more jihadists recruited and trained to kill Americans, and more money wasted while Americans suffer.

The best news from these town meetings: Oregonians don't see government as a spectator sport, and Oregonians are going to keep pushing for a more sensible and humane foreign policy.

Comments (42)

• Posted by Mary Geddry on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  Again and again we hear how the quagmire in Iraq cannot be solved militarily. During Vietnam nary a single battle was lost by US forces and yet the peace could not be won. Iraq is exactly the same with superior air power and ground forces our troops win each and every battle but cannot and will not ever be able to secure the peace because peace is not within the purview of the infantry. Iraq will only be solved politically and diplomatically.

  Stubborn insistance on maintaining an occupying force diminishes the US influence diplomatically as well, with Maliki due to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

  How then, Senator, can you justify your vote to fund the war?

• Posted by Hans Michael on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  I am still unimpressed with your “strategy” to bring Gonzales, Cheney and Bush to justice.

  You note that impeachment begins in the House, yet you won’t even call on your own congressman to sign onto impeachment hearings. You claim that your aim would be to sit as an “objective” juror and yet you’ve already prejudged the outcome citing an “obvious lack of votes in the Senate.”

  Finally, pursuing impeachment isn’t a “strategy.” It’s the “duty” of everyone who has pledged to uphold and defend the Constitution. Please do your duty, represent your constituents and call on the House to begin impeachment hearings.

• Posted by Voter on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  I’m at least as more concerned what you are going to do to stop an attack on Iran - as we are hearing now perhaps within 6 months. In that light your arguments about due process are even more academic and diversionary.  You don’t talk about how the specifics and degree of what constitutes due process is determined by the nature of the offenses and the degree to which they are crimes against humanity and the integrity of our whole system of government. Due process is largely a criminal law concept linked closely to our moral sense of justice when we the penalties are deprival of property, life, and liberty. With impeachment, we are only talking about revoking the privilege of serving in political office, a privilege that was granted solely pursuant to agreeing by oath to faithfully defend and uphold the constitutional principles on which our country is founded.

• Posted by Roland on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  Hans- brilliant post.

  It is so frustrating to me when I hear Democratic elected officials -public servants, who have taken a sworn oath to protect our Constitution- act like it is a) unwise or b) impossible to pursue impeachment.

  On the first point, what is unwise is to let this great American experiment in representative government with CHECKS AND BALANCES be trampled upon with such a furor that the precedent will be the destruction of the republic. 

  By letting the presidential abuses of power and high crimes go unpunished, you are allowing people -even if a minority- claim that it is a legitimate position to take in a debate or conversation that the “unitary executive” has sweeping powers unheard of before now.

  By allowing that to be an acceptable parameter of or vantage point in the great debate that is American democracy, you inherently, inescapably, and inexcuseably skew the terms of that debate to a place that is so dangerous that I worry it will mean the end of the republic.

  I am not sure whether I believe the United States will fall in a fell swoop or continue to decline over a longer period of time, but I am sure taht leaving these abuses unaddressed and unrectified means the eventual destruction of our Framer’s experiment in democracy.  And what makes my heart ache is that it will be a destruction from within.

• Posted by Roland on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  Oh-

  and as for the “its impossible” or “it starts in the house” line re: impeachment, give me a break.

  You need to have conversations with your fellow public servants, rouse up the passion and political courage that is so needed but obviously lacking in many of electeds on our side of the aisle today.

  Talk with your colleagues in the senate to lay groundwork.

  Talk with Nancy Pelosi.  Talk with the Oregon delegation.

  Share with them why this is necessary.  Why it is a GOOD idea.  Why it is a) probably a political winner, and b) more importantly a constitutional obligation.

  Politics is a lot more than institutions or their processess.  It is striking deals, articulating positions and the language do describe them, building coalitions, and LEADING.

  Please - I know you cannot start the process of impeachment LITERALLY, but you can bestow so much legitimacy if you break from the timid Democratic leadership in DC right now. 

  Stand strong.  Speak loudly and smartly.  Have some spine.  Represent the will of your consitutents.  Do your Constitutional duty. Save the Republic!

• Posted by DAN GRADY on Thursday, August 23, 2007

• Posted by Ross Williams on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  What is needed is not impeachment. What is needed is a commitment from the candidates for President and the congress to investigate and prosecute war crimes committed by this administration. That is the only way to restore America’s standing in the world and the only way to really bring the miscreants to justice. Give them full due process and then hang them (literally or figuratively) if they are found guilty of torture and other crimes against humanity.

  Several hundred thousand Iraqi’s have lost their lives as a result of an illegal war of aggression against their country. Punishing them politically through impeachment and removal from office is thin soup given the war crimes they have committed.

• Posted by Anti-Iraq War Protester on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  Get a grip guys. I’ve been against the Iraq war from day one and believe we need to get the heck out of Iraq now (not in a month, not in 6 months, but now).  But calling for Wyden to call on the Oregon House delegation to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush would not help anything. It would be a needless distraction from the important work of rounding up more Senate votes to get us out of Iraq.  That is what Wyden is spending his time doing. An impeachment debate would allow senators like Gordon Smith to distract people with debating the impeachment action rather than the most important action of getting our troops out now. Focus your time and energy on holding people like Gordon Smith’s feet to the fire rather than people like Wyden who are already against the war.

• Posted by Kari Chisholm on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  Mary Geddry wrote, How then, Senator, can you justify your vote to fund the war?

  Mary, can you tell us which vote you’re talking about?  On the most recent supplemental funding bill for Iraq, Senator Wyden was one of 13 votes AGAINST funding the war.

• Posted by Donald on Thursday, August 23, 2007

• Posted by Kari Chisholm on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  Um, make that one of 14.  Senator Wyden, plus 13.

• Posted by anonymous on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  Let’s be clear, Sen. Wyden has not pledged any direct and significant action here.  He has only used that conflict management technique of saying “I hear you”, which makes no commitment to actually do anything that isn’t politically easy. 

  In that regard, although Sen. Wyden gets some points for votes he has been offered the chance to cast, and notwithstanding the fact they are politically easy given his constituency, he hasn’t actually committed to do much more than Smith that involves ignore the consequences to his political career and actually leading the opposition. 

  That has nothing to do with rounding up votes. That is about making it politically untenable out here in the country for any elected official to vote to continuing the war, and therefore that there is no need to round up votes. Hence the relevance of the question about Iran.

• Posted by Denise on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  Senator,

  It makes me scratch my head when I read that as a US Senator you feel powerless to exercise your constitutional DUTY to impeach this president for violations of the US Constitution and US laws.  Impeachment is not a strategy, it is a consequence defined by our constitutional system.  It is the recourse we have to stop the abuse of power demonstrated by this administration.

  I have proudly voted for you because I believe that you are a leader.  I implore you read the suggestions in this thread and to use your leadership skills to move forward on impeachment.  The behavior of the minority party in the Senate has shown that there will be no progress on any issue, including withdrawal from Iraq.

• Posted by Nora Smith on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  Senator Wyden, congress should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. The senate can still do its work and the house can still impeach. It is up to leadership to determine how long to spend on this isn’t it? I believe we must protect the constitution and start with impeaching the lawless attorney general at a minimum. We can do this AND work to stop the Iraq war by just NOT funding it!

• Posted by Tom Civiletti on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  Why impeachment now is important:

  - The subversion of the US Constitution and international treaties by the Bush administration is pervasive and ongoing.  Without rebuke, it stands as precedent for all administrations that follow.  In essence, we are at the transition point between republic and empire - an empire that will not last long, in my opinion, before the US degenerates into a third rate dictatorship.

  - This administration has no intention of ending the occupation of Iraq.  Impeachment of the vice president and president may be the only method available to build the political pressure needed to force change in their policy.

  - This administration is preparing to attack Iran.  This would, in my opinion, lead to a protracted war between the US and Islam - the Holy War that the Neo-cons have sought all along, and a war that the US cannot win.

• Posted by DAN GRADY on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

  Fear not Impeachment as a deterant to the Iraqi War Withdrawl Effort in Congress, these issues should not be separted and put as counter points to each other because the Republicans would predictably do so, it should be seen as a universally accepted task by a super majority of the electorate.

  If your opponent wants to beat himself with the same wrong effort over and over again are you going to help him help himself before you win?

  Let the Republicans attempt to paint Democrats as whatever they wish, the clouds have cleared on this mess, and the electorate has seen enough not to be swayed by the same old “dog & pony show” again!

  So Democrats; reach down and check that package, stand up on both legs and lets kick some Republican Butt!!

  Happy Thoughts;

  Dan Grady

  P.S.; I think this blog has a thing for “69,” bless them.

• Posted by Ben Hubbird on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  Anonymous said:
  

  Wyden gets some points for votes he has been offered the chance to cast, and notwithstanding the fact <b>they are politically easy given his constituency<b>

  Given his constituency? You mean the same constituency as Gordon Smith?

  Let’s not forget that our Senior Senator has made the right call a lot more often than just about every other Senator, including those from California, New York, and Massachusetts, who have much more liberal constituencies than he.

• Posted by Darrel Plant on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  Senator, your impression may be that people support an “immediate impeachment” of Gonzales, Cheney, and Bush, and that may be true for some.

  But there are a lot of people who simply want the discussion to begin. Senators and Congressment were talking about the potential impeachment of Richard Nixon months before the House voted to authorize the Judiciary committee to even consider impeachment. They got the ball rolling.

  Mark Hatfield said after Nixon fired Archibald Cox that an impeachment movement would be “like a flash flood sweeping down over the pasture land.” Edmund Muskie urged the House to begin impeachment proceedings according to TIME magazine.

  It’s been obvious for years that the Bush administration went to war on false pretenses. It’s been obvious for years that they have used any potential excuse to push any decision on the war out another few months until they don’t have to deal with it any more themselves.

  Waiting until things are so bad in Iraq that it’s obvious to even the most intractable war supporter is not a leadership strategy. The way to build support for getting out of Iraq (if that’s actually what you want to do, which wasn’t particularly obvious at the Portland meeting) or for impeachment is to start leading your colleagues by publicly advocating that strategy, not just voting the right way when you’re asked to.

• Posted by George Seldes on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  I think the moment for impeachment has passed; it should have been done long ago, but the Democrats sat on their hands.

  Now, the issue is not impeachment, but preserving evidence and making preparations for war crimes trials against the Bush junta.  Americans should read the words of Justice Jackson at Nuremburg.

  One thing that I hope Senator Wyden will ask CRO to look into is the Constitutional validity of a blanket pardon, such as Ford gave Nixon.  I’ve always been troubled by that; I object to the whole notion of a pardon for unspecified, uncharged crimes, and I don’t think it comports with what the Founders meant when they gave the President the power to pardon.  I think Scalia would have to agree that the pardon power was used to pardon people who had been convicted of crimes, not to make people immune to all legal process.

  With this bunch, you can expect Bush to issue huge numbers of general pardons in hopes of preventing any investigations into the many, many crimes against humanity and against the laws of war that this pack of gangsters have committed.

  We need, now, a sense of the Congress resolution that
  (a) No pardon is effective for unspecified acts or where the person has not been charged and convicted of the crime being pardoned.

  (b) That is, constitutionally, any person may be indicted, tried, and convicted for any crimes they may have committed, notwithstanding any preemptive pardons.

  If we have a government of laws and not men, then there is no room in the constitutional system for a lame-duck president to issue blanket pardons to his gangsters.

• Posted by Chris Andersen on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  Doing ones duty does not preclude one from thinking strategically about just how to do it. Just because you have a duty to something does not mean you rush in to a fight you know you will lose.

  I support impeaching Bush and Cheney, but I fully understand why it may not be strategically feasible to do so.

• Posted by Andrew Baron on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  I’m sure that those who pull the president’s strings would love nothing more than to see an impeachment proceding here in the last 2 years of his presidency.  That way, while every American is focused on whether or not President Bush leaves office with an asterisk next to his name, Cheney and Rice and whoever else make the real decisions regarding the war proceed as normal, behind closed doors and with a distracted American public.  While it might make us all feel better about ourselves and our ablity to affect change, it’s not at all clear to me that impeaching the president now would result in any real change on the ground, either for Iraqi citizens or for American troops.  And harshly criticizing one of the few Senators in this country who voted against the war from the start, then voted again to stop funding for it, is just silly.  This war is a disgusting crime, and I’m as sickened by it as anyone I know.  But I’m originally from Utah, where Mr. Burns from the Simpsons would be considered liberal, and one of the few bright spots throughout this war has been the consistent, ingtelligent opposition put forward by Ron Wyden and Earl Blumenhauer, both of whom I’m proud to have representing me in congress.

• Posted by Jeff Alworth on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  This is a pretty cool post.  I know that a lot of people on the thread immediately went into attack mode, but stop and consider for a moment that (unlike with some senators) you were given the opportunity to go into attack mode.  I thought this was a pretty honest and transparent post.

  My two cents on withdrawal and impeachment.  Withdrawing is neither the catastrophe or panacea some folks imagine.  It’s going to take months to get out of Iraq at a minimum, which means there will be a transition period--not an immediate drop-off into the chasm of chaos.  During the withdrawal, it will be more important than at any point since the invasion to work with the international community and especially with regional partners to bring some support for political change.  There has been an assumption that the US is either the problem or the solution; the situation, however, isn’t binary.  We’re a big part of the problem now, and we could be a part of the solution by leaving--but only with help.

  On impeachment, I would first like to hear those elected officials who think Bush broke the law speak out.  The question of impeachment involves the mechanism of the response.  But before we get to that point, leaders of conscience should speak out and say that they feel he has committed abuses of power.  That alone is an enormously powerful act. 

  Thanks, Senator, for offering your candid thoughts and opening up the floor for more discussion.

• Posted by Steve Bucknum on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  As a Crook Co. Democrat, perhaps I am more conservative than the average Democrat - the east side rubs off on me.  I started out like a lot of people thinking what the Democratic leadership in Washington DC has said, that an impeachment at this time would be more negative than positive, as it would stop all action in Washington and interfere with getting other important work done.

  But I’ve changed my mind.  Upon further reflection, nothing else is really getting done anyway.  Are we going to get reformed health care before 1/09?  No.  Are we going to get the votes to stop this war?  Maybe not, but I can hope.

  I now support impeachment.  The Constitution was designed exactly for this to be used as part of the balance of powers.  Impeachment is the ONLY tool that will not only deal with the war, but all of the abuses of Executive power.

  But, Senator Wyden, while you lean towards not supporting an impeachment, the point is that you are in the Senate.  It’s not your call as to whether the impeachment is brought to the Senate for trial.

  So, I call upon my Congressman, Greg Walden, to vote for the impeachment of both Bush and Cheney.

• Posted by Jeff Alworth on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  This is a pretty cool post.  I know that a lot of people on the thread immediately went into attack mode, but stop and consider for a moment that (unlike with some senators) you were given the opportunity to go into attack mode.  I thought this was a pretty honest and transparent post.

  My two cents on withdrawal and impeachment.  Withdrawing is neither the catastrophe or panacea some folks imagine.  It’s going to take months to get out of Iraq at a minimum, which means there will be a transition period--not an immediate drop-off into the chasm of chaos.  During the withdrawal, it will be more important than at any point since the invasion to work with the international community and especially with regional partners to bring some support for political change.  There has been an assumption that the US is either the problem or the solution; the situation, however, isn’t binary.  We’re a big part of the problem now, and we could be a part of the solution by leaving--but only with help.

  On impeachment, I would first like to hear those elected officials who think Bush broke the law speak out.  The question of impeachment involves the mechanism of the response.  But before we get to that point, leaders of conscience should speak out and say that they feel he has committed abuses of power.  That alone is an enormously powerful act. 

  Thanks, Senator, for offering your candid thoughts and opening up the floor for more discussion.

• Posted by genop on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  Dear Senator; I agree we have pressing needs as a Country which require immediate attention, but the public needs to know who of our elected officials will vote in solidarity with this Administration. Transparency is the key here. Please encourage your colleagues in the House to bring impeachment articles against one of the triad, preferably Cheney or Gonzales. Limit the effort but at least bring the vote. We need to expose the “true believers” to the light of democracy. Respectfully, A Constituent.

• Posted by Anon on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  Sen. Wyden,

  I’m sure you’d be surprised to learn that Brit Hume of all people agrees with you.  Brit Hume, circa 1993, that is:

  http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/
  is_n21_v45/ai_14688123
  <blockqutoe>
  The making of a quagmire - Bill Clinton’s foreign policy concerning Somalia
  National Review, Nov 1, 1993 by Brit Hume

  ...

  During the closing weeks of the Bush Administration, Acting Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger quietly flew to New York to confer with UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali. Eagleburger had to make two trips before Boutros-Ghali got the message, which was that the 28,000 U.S. troops Mr. Bush was sending to Somalia would be there only as long as it took to get relief supplies flowing to starving Somalis. The Secretary General had a more ambitious mission in mind. He wanted the U.S., as one senior Bush aide recalls, “to stick around until the UN had the whole thing stabilized.” Mr. Bush, however, was keen to have the U.S. forces out by inauguration day. While Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell had warned him that might be impossible, Mr. Bush was very clear about keeping the mission focused and brief. “The point is,” said the Bush aide, “we knew what we were not going to do.”

  However, Mr. Bush agreed with General Powell that the amount of force used should be not merely adequate, but overwhelming. That, he believed, made for short missions with success guaranteed and casualties minimized. It is a lesson that Mr. Clinton only now seems to be learning. The day after the debacle in Mogadishu, he said ruefully, “None of this happened when we had 28,000 people there.”

  Mr. Bush also believed in defining missions clearly, and narrowly. Nobody in the Bush Administration had forgotten the 1983 Marine-barracks bombing in Beirut, after which the Reagan Administration had difficulty explaining what the Marines had been doing there. Thus Mr. Bush’s determination during the Gulf War to go only as far as the UN resolutions authorized. Mr. Bush had also tried to keep the focus of his earlier Panama invasion narrow, insisting that catching Manuel Noriega was secondary to liberating the country. But the Noriega manhunt turned out to be enough of a cliffhanger that Mr. Bush and General Powell considered it proof of the danger of having U.S. forces play sheriff, the very thing that Mr. Clinton’s shrunken U.S. force in Somalia ended up doing in trying to capture the elusive General Aidid.

  ...

  Mr. Bush’s humanitarian mission had been transformed, with little high-level discussion and almost no public debate. Indeed, inside the Clinton Administration the issue was handled by a sub-Cabinet group called the “Deputies’ Committee.” A senior Clinton official now acknowledges, “Hard questions were not asked.” In late August, Defense Secretary Aspin took a stab at explaining the mission. The U.S., he said, would stay on until several things occurred: the violence was curbed, most of the warlords gave up their weapons, and the country had a police force able to keep order. This was a long way from the original mission, but, Mr. Aspin insisted, necessary to keep the country from back-sliding into the chaos that produced the starvation in the first place.

  By now, though, disillusionment with UN peacekeeping and “nation-building” had set in. In his speech to the UN General Assembly September 27, Mr. Clinton laid down four criteria he said should apply before the UN agreed to a peacekeeping mission: a clear threat to international peace, clear objectives, a clear end in sight, and clear knowledge of the cost. “If the American people are to say yes to UN peacekeeping,” he said, “the UN must know when to say no.” Asked afterward if the Somalia mission met the four criteria, a top White House official briefing reporters on background ducked the question. Finally he was asked if the criteria had been drafted with Somalia in mind. “Well,” he said, “you try to learn from everything you do.” Later that day, the President told reporters the UN would now shift its emphasis toward a political solution to the violence in Mogadishu. That, however, did not prevent the UN from involving the U.S. Army Rangers in the disastrous failed raid in Mogadishu only six days later. That left the Administration in a terrible muddle. An immediate pullout would have been the height of ignominy, especially with US. hostages being held. Indeed, Mr. Clinton thought it necessary to dispatch more troops and armor. But with the new emphasis supposedly on a political settlement, it wasn’t clear what U.S. forces were supposed to do, beyond protecting one another. There was much talk of “de-personalizing” the conflict with Aidid, even of negotiating with him. Yet officials couldn’t rule out another try to capture him. The policy appeared more confused than ever, and Mr. Clinton’s protestations that all was well with relief operations throughout most of Somalia seemed only to underscore that the original mission had long since been accomplished.
  

  Mr. Hume is chief White House correspondent for ABC News.

  </blockqoute>

  Brit Hume apparently used to not be an idiot.

  I invite everyone to read this whole article if you’d like a complete indictment of 43’s Iraq policy penned by Brit Hume himself.

• Posted by Oregonian37 on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  I agree that the discussion and investigation of whether impeachment is called for (I agree that it is) at least needs to happen.  It doesn’t MATTER if there are not enough Senate votes to impeach Bush/Cheney.  It’s the process that needs to be started.  I also agree that our leaders better be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.  If we KNOW that the administration would use impeachment to divert attention from getting out of Iraq, then don’t LET it.  It almost doesn’t matter whether Bush/Cheney is impeached, but for the future purpose of curtailing an imperial presidency, the process at LEAST needs to be started.  We have a whole group of candidates that have no reason to believe that they would be hindered in doing whatever they want to do, as the president.  We HAVE to give them reason to to believe that they will be held accountable, period.

• Posted by Oregonian37 on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  I do agree that the process of whether or not impeachment is called for (I do agree that it is, but the rule of law needs to be honored if we are to save it).  It doesn’t MATTER whether or not there are enough Senate votes to convict.  It almost doesn’t matter whether or not there are enough House members to indict.  What matters is the process itself needs to be started.  I would hope that our leaders can walk and chew gum at the same time.  If we KNOW that the White House would use impeachment to divert attention from getting out of Iraq, then don’t LET them.  This administration is so transparent in its tactics that we have to stop being afraid of them.
  We have a whole group of presidential candidates that have no reason to think that they will be held accountable for anything that they do.  We have to GIVE them reason to know that they are answerable to the rule of law in this country.  Whether Bush/Cheney are actually impeached and removed from office isn’t even the larger issue here.  Reminding the Executive branch, no matter WHO is leading it, that it is not above the law of this land, is the point.

• Posted by Robert Canfield on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  Senator,

  Not everyone is in favor of impeachment proceedings against President Bush. I am against such an effort. As you have pointed out, there is a lack of votes in Congress.

  Instead of pursuing impeachment, if you and your fellow Democrats were indeed serious about ending the war in Iraq, you would be working to stop funding it. But there aren’t enough Congressional votes to de-fund the war, either.

  Even if a Democrat wins the Presidential election in 2008, I seriously doubt anything would change. Even you have admitted that “Iraq will likely be in turmoil if we withdraw.”

  What are you prepared to do, Senator, in the event of U.S. withdrawal, to protect those Iraqis who have supported the U.S. effort? What are you prepared to do, Senator, to minimize the most likely revenge killings that are sure to occur after the U.S. leaves Iraq? What are you prepared to do, Senator, to prevent the “turmoil”, as you put it, from spreading to Iraq’s neighbors? How many revenge killings, Senator, will you tolerate?  Thousands? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?

  I’ve heard you and other politicians urge U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. I haven’t heard a word from you or any other Senator about what’s next. What’s your plan for the Middle East, post-withdrawal? What’s your plan to combat the Islamic terrorists who surely wish us mortal harm?

  If your only plan is U.S. troop withdrawal, and that’s as far as your thinking goes. . . I’d be extremely disappointed.

• Posted by Bill R. on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  Bush says his war will continue as long as he is president. Congress is unwilling or unable to bring it to an end. At least the Democrats Congress should hold their ground and hold the Bush-dog Democrats to some accountability when they support this Republican war of occupation. I regret that Sen. Wyden has been subjected to some abuse at town hall meetings. The one who needs to be confronted now is Rep. Brian Baird who has drunk the kool-aide and is actively agitating to keep the troops in Iraq. His town hall meeting is in Vancouver, Aug. 27. So maybe he can hear what his consituents really think of his betrayal.

• Posted by Tyrannocaster on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  So these are more important than impeachment: “bringing an end to the war, enacting affordable health care for all, and passing legislation producing a new, sustainable energy policy.”

  Okay. But With W’s vetoes, signing statements, and Dems constantly capitulating, nothing gets done now. Every single one of those goals has been stonewalled by this administration; why not get nothing done and have an impeachment at the same time?

• Posted by Flora on Thursday, August 23, 2007

• Posted by Bill Bodden on Thursday, August 23, 2007

  Of course, the House has the task of starting impeachment, but Russ Feingold showed that the Senate can step up and censure the White House.  If I recall correctly, only two senators joined Feingold.  Senator Wyden wasn’t one of them.  Why not?

• Posted by Val on Friday, August 24, 2007

  Senator Wyden,

  Many elected officials are using the August recess time to do town halls but you took the town hall to the next level and once again chose the road less traveled.  Many other politicians who,unlike you, voted to get us into this war in the first place are doing everything they can to avoid discussing it.  However you decided to have town halls around the state specifically to discuss one one of the most difficult and intractable problems that our country is facing. 

  You could have screened the crowd or gone to areas of the state where there would not have been such strong demonstrations of emotion, you could have talked about the great work that you are doing with bringing together bi-partisan support for a national health care solution; you could have talked about your fair flat tax proposal; you could have talked about your work with sustainable energy developement; you could have talked about how much help and leadership you provided to in getting local Democrats elected in Oregon; the fact is that you could have talked about many of the things that you accomplished this session and pre-picked an easy crowd that threw softball questions but you didn’t.  You chose to address the issue that your constituants are most agonized over; you chose to listen to the frustration anger and pain that we all feel because our country is participating in an unjust war and our sons and daughters are dying; you went to the places where you knew you would listen to people that needed to be heard; you chose the more difficult path but you responded to the needs of your constituents. 

  I want to thank you again for being one of the few Senators who had the sense to vote against the war, for voting against the last supplimental funding bill and also for having the courage to openly talk about what your Republican colleagues are trying to brush under the rug.  That is what I call true leadership and honest representation of your constituants.  It is why we elected you and why we will continue to elect you every time you run.

• Posted by Hans Michael on Friday, August 24, 2007

• Posted by Bruce Miller on Friday, August 24, 2007

  ” ... the obligation of the Congress to stay focused on what the general public wants most at this moment in time: bringing an end to the war ...”

  If Congress impeaches, convicts and removes the criminals Bush and Cheney, this war will come to an end pretty damn quick. On the other hand, if they are not impeached and removed it is completely obvious they will drag the war on until January 2009, when they will hand the mess over to the next president.

• Posted by Jerry B on Friday, August 24, 2007

  The hypocrisy of what Wyden and his fellow Democrats in Congress say and do is that they will vote against continued funding for the war and against legalizing domestic spying - after they have made sure that such legislation will pass.

  The Democrats could have prevented both the funding of the occupation and the wiretapping legislation, but instead they sent it to the floors of both houses and voted against it, knowing that it would pass with a handfull of Democrats voting in favor of it.

  I’m a single issue voter now, fire the Democrats in Congress who have betrayed us.

  I liked Wyden and Blumenauer, but they’ve sold out the Democrats.  Sure they voted against the occupation of Iraq and domestic spying - but that was after the voted for it.

  Congressmen like Wyden think we have no choice but to support them, even if they are now just slightly (spinelessly) to the left of Bush.  They need to learn that they are wrong somehow.  The ballot box is the only thing that they will pay attention to.

  Send the Democrats who betray us a message: You are fired.  That is the only message they can hear.

• Posted by Bill R. on Friday, August 24, 2007

  This last election a lot of Democrats worked hard to win the Congress. There is one word to characterize this majority in Congress, with rare exception. (i.e. Russ Feingold). That word is “weak.” The American electorate doesn’t respect weakness, and neither does anyone else for that matter. Senator Wyden and others seem surprised at what they are finding in their constituents. They shouldn’t be. What they see are loyal Democrats who don’t respect their cowardice. They will go back to D.C. and get slapped around by Bush the Repugs and take it. They will try to act nice and civil and think that’s what they are supposed to do, and we will all continue to be nauseated by the whole lot.

• Posted by Holly Hartmann on Sunday, August 26, 2007

  You say that it’s better that you focus on “...what the general public wants most at this moment in time: bringing an end to the war, enacting affordable health care for all, and passing legislation producing a new, sustainable energy policy.”

  This member of the general public thinks that your first obligation is that you defend the Constitution… whether it’s convenient or not at this moment in time. Impeachment is a process that does not require sufficient votes in the Senate before it begins! Rather, impeachment forces the Executive Branch to produce documents and testimony—hard evidence—that will inform the Senate vote in ways that are not even possible now.

  Trust the Constitutional process. You can support the process, by saying that if the House approves articles of impeachment, you would look forward to seeing and reviewing the evidence.

• Posted by Cynthia Ramon on Wednesday, August 29, 2007

  Dear Senator Wyden,
  Perhaps if you listened to what your constituents are really saying not what you want to do, you would know that what they want is their country back. The rule of law is king as a great patriot once said. How can any business get done if we have a mad would be dictator who congress keeps empowering and giving money to. Fear is a bad way to rule and if our opposition is based on fear, what hope do we have. Why if you you oppose these thugs don’t you do so at all costs. The constitution provides you with the tools to stop them so please use the measures including power of the purse to stop them from both destroying our system and reeking havoc on the world for corporate gain. Please at least stop your bipartisan postering with Smith.

• Posted by Marc Tringali on Wednesday, August 29, 2007

  Dear Senator Wyden,

  I too, along with Jerry B and others, feel your primary role in the Senate right now is to ensure bad legislation never sees the light of day let alone a vote. Despite your voting record, somehow the recent FISA bill was passed.  Before that the Military Commission Act, before that renewed funding for the slaughter house previously know as Iraq, before that there was Justice Roberts and Justice Alito . And now, the President wants another $50 billion and I’m sure he’ll get every penny the same way all the other bills were opposed and then passed.  How does a President with historically low approval ratings get everthing he wants?

  We are a cynical public. Your constiuents are tired of the lies, the excuses, the death, the waste, the spying, the torture, the erosion of our civil rights and liberties--all on your watch. Are you really serious that criminals can not be impeached?  If you are saying that our nation’s representives are looking the other way, then I ask all of you to either admit that laws don’t apply to Congress and the Adminsitration or just resign. Otherwise please table all other business and represent your constituents and protect the Constitution. 

  Sorry Senator, but I can’t cut you any slack.  Nearly every poster above gets it. Why can’t the Senate? 

  P.S: Oh, and please spare us the bipartisan posturing with Gordon Smith.  He’s pandering for votes from disgusted conservatives and you are his enabler.

• Posted by An Independent Citizen on Thursday, August 30, 2007

  THANK YOU, Senator Wyden, for this excellent recap of your August town hall meetings, and to those who attended those meetings and made the many wonderful comments above in this forum that Ron Wyden has helpfully provided for that purpose.

  Senator Wyden, I too wish your Senate colleagues had your willingness to hear and listen to your constituents.  Inexcusably, that seems to be an increasingly rare phenomenon these days, except for those like Senator Feingold, you, and a handful of others who make the effort to provide and attend such open public forums.  I read an account this month of the rigamorale that Senator Evan Bayh put a group of his constituents through for a meeting with him in Indiana (which they had been requesting for two years) that was absolutely appalling - constituents as criminal suspects, in effect - and all stage-managed by staffers to keep the Senator’s hands clean of the public-phobic police state tactics employed.

  I want to spell out and emphasize a little the actual PROCESS of impeachment hearings for those who fear [as Senator Wyden seems to - unless he’s just covering for the party leadership’s preferred course of action] that they must, from beginning to end, necessarily DISTRACT from the other business of Congress (like ending the American occupation of Iraq, or passing good legislation that Bush might miraculously sign).

  To begin, the House Judiciary Committee under John Conyers would request permission to open an INQUIRY INTO impeachment of one or more individuals.  This request, if proposed and passed in committee, goes to the whole House for a vote by simple majority.  If presented and passed in the whole House, the Judiciary Committee is then authorized to open AN INQUIRY INTO possible grounds for impeachment.  Note: At this point, NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS WILL HAVE VOTED TO “IMPEACH.” This is simply an INVESTIGATORY PHASE of the process, but one with broad, inherent Constitutional powers to compel testimony and unearth evidence from the Executive Branch. 

  As such, how exactly does that investigatory stage of the impeachment process taking place in one committee interfere with legislative business any more than do the daily, ongoing regular oversight investigations of the committees in Congress???  No one is pre-judging, and though constituents may SEEM to be impatiently asking for Congress to pre-judge, Congress does NOT need to pre-judge on impeachment in order to proceed with an impeachment inquiry phase, and should simply state that loud and clear, and constantly, to those who will criticize for partisan political reasons (which of course will include our corporate-profit-beholden media).

  Only AFTER such an inquiry is concluded (at some point months in the future after leads have been explored and exhausted), regarding whatever subject matters the committee chose to pursue, will the necessity and wisdom, OR LACK THEREOF, for Articles of Impeachment be presented to Congress and the nation.  IF such a need and duty exists, the House Judiciary Committee will draft appropriate articles of impeachment, based on the evidence they developed, and ONLY THEN will “impeachment” be presented for a vote to the committee, and if passed, to the House as a whole.  So by the time any Member of Congress is actually asked to vote on “impeachment” per se, THE EVIDENCE WILL BE KNOWN AND DOCUMENTED by the Congress itself, and that is what they will be basing their votes on when finally asked to cast them.

  Only after all that takes place will the Senate become involved, PROVIDED that the evidence isn’t already so damning and overwhelming that resignations take place instead (a not unlikely scenario); should such resignations in fact occur the numbers of votes in the Senate will become an absolutely moot question, because those facing impeachment will ‘voluntarily’ remove themselves from public office before risking a Senate trial and conviction.

  But either way, JUSTICE WILL BE DONE in the name of our Constitution and the American people, regardless of future votes, simply by opening and conducting the House impeachment inquiry itself, if a careful, thorough, effective, prioritized, FAIR investigation is performed by the House Judiciary Committee, in good faith. 

  That’s all we’re asking of our representatives, and those who are blocking that process - like John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi who are bobbing and weaving like mad to avoid their duty, apparently in bad faith - damn well know it, and know better than to claim we are naive and foolish to demand that our public servants actually serve the public interest (instead of petty political party agendas dictated by corrupt party leadership).

  P.S. On FISA.  Senator Wyden - WHY did Harry Reid make sure the Republican bill got through (and with almost no debate)?  Do you know?  If not, why weren’t you (and other senators) informed about Reid’s back-room deals?  If so, did you (privately) object to Reid’s choices?  Why did no Senator use the power of their (public) objection to (at least temporarily) stop that bill - whether cleared with Reid or not???  It was our Constitution itself on the line, after all.  Will we be “safe” without liberty?

  You have tremendous blocking ability in the Senate (just as Conyers does as Chair of the House Judiciary Committee), as does every other individual senator.  But the only blocking that Democrats seem to be doing is the sort that dismantles our Constitution, or prevents its restoration.  THAT is the behavior that the American people have recognized for what it is, and are now infuriated to behold in those who claim and pretend by their words to represent OUR interests, while their actions simultaneously put the ugly lie to those pretty words.

  P.P.S. As to those pretending to care for the people of Iraq, so as to prolong our occupation of their country:  THE IRAQI PEOPLE WANT US OUT!  By margins of 4 out of 5 people surveyed.  Who will suffer the consequences of the promised (but far overblown) chaos and murder after our departure?  The American people? Or the Iraqi people?  So who should we listen to, when concerns about the well-being of Iraqis are raised?  Americans, or Iraqis?  What’s behind the need to ignore the stated wishes of the very people we pretend to be ‘safe-guarding’ by not leaving Iraq?  Ulterior motives, perhaps, revolving around all that Iraqi ‘black gold’ we just can’t quite seem to admit we have no right to, as we piously proclaim that we have only the health and welfare of the powerless in Iraq in mind....?  Iraqis want us out; Americans want us out; that’s good enough for me.

Write a Comment

Name:
Email:
Comment:
	Remember my name and email address
	Please enter the word you see in the image:

Please note: This site is published by Wyden for Senate, but copyright to and responsibility for all blog posts and blog comments are owned by their respective authors. Obviously, the posts and comments here are the views of their authors, and not of anyone else. While we're strong believers in free speech, we reserve the right to delete comment spam or other offensive material.