Meant to also say that I believe that the
EITF set forth the full “it’s all about the oil” agenda.

I have always been convinced that the EITF laid out the plans for the Iraq war and all the other military base plantings in Africa and South America, etc. and that’s why they had to keep it secret. I’d love it to have the records open with an impeachment trail of
Cheney.

A shame that Scarecrow is not an editorial writer for the WaPo or the NY Times.

Well done, again.

AMEN AND AMEN!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..&eurl=

Kim

RevDeb @
88

Jane S. @ 84

#71-Rayne, I’m assuming Connecticut has no “recall” options for its voters like California. I feel very unsatisfied just saying “I told you so” to Lieberman supporters. My mother-in-law, a life long Democrat, took the Cokie Roberts approach to Lieberman telling me what a good man he was during the primary. And then she was horrified when he ran as an independent. But “I told you so” just isn’t working for me.

Senate is a federal office. There is no recall procedure for any senator in any state. CA recalled it’s Governor.

CT blew it big time. So are any of the CT papers doing mea culpas? I doubt it.

Only the Senate can expel one of its own members. But the Democrats can certainly act as a party to remove Joe from his Chairmanships.

My understanding is that the Democrats have control of thos Chairmanships throughout the next two years, and the Republicans cannot strip them from them. Joe was allowed to retain his Chairmanship by the good graces of “caucusing with the Democrats” and supporting their positions.

He clearly is acting more like a Republican Chair. Thus his position (and votes) is subverting the Democrats position.

By removing him from these Committees the Democrats would force him into the overt Republican party, but because the Committee composition and Chairmanship status were established at the opening of this session the Republicans can’t take over the Committee Chairmanship.

Joe would have to ask the Republicans to give up a seat to stay on the Committee. Someone else (a Republican) would have to drop off.

The Democrats could ADD a member to fill Joe’s Committee spot and appoint their own Chair…one more likely to forward investigations, ask critical questions and vote with his fellow party members.

All in all the Democrats GAIN by tossing Joe…and the Republicans LOSE!

I think if the members of Joe’s own state called for this (perhaps going through their other Senator) then the Democrats might act.

My understanding of the organizing rules of the Senate this time around is that they named names of the committee chairs. Thus, even if JoeLIE flipped the D’s would maintain their chairs. BUT, that includes JoeLIE. He would still retain the chairmanship of Homeland Security. Hence, nothing would change.

I could be wrong.

I need education here. I don’t know enough about this whole subject of removal of a Senator. We’ve seen various issues brought up.

Lieberman and the absence of recall.

Domenici’s name now being tossed out wrt the USA firings. [I can hear it now, everybody does it…yadda yadda….]

Could some percentage of the CT voters/populace for example petition the US Senate to take up the removal of Lieberman?

Would investigation into Domenici’s alleged involvement lead to removal?

I can see the can of worms, yes, but is there no way to address the issue of removal of a Senator? New amendment anyone?

Generally the Senate or House will only remove a member for conviction of criminal activities..although they can also do it for ethical violations. But expelling a member is like an impeachment…it requires a two-thirds majority. And it’s unlikely that without some egregious criminal act Lieb would be expelled by the Republicans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..r_censured

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Sorry for being pedantic about this, but it’s useless to talk about “impeachment” unless you also focus on “conviction”, because impeaching Cheney, Bush, Gonzales or anyone else does not remove them office. Only “Conviction”, which requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate, removes them from office.

Thus Scarecrow’s appeal to Republicans. We need at least 17 Republican senators to vote to remove anybody from office. That means persuading 17 Republicans to take their political life in their hands with the wingnut base. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but it is the task at hand.

By the way, senators and members of the house of representatives are not “Civil Officers of the United States”. They are not subject to impeachment. They may be expelled, however, again on a two-thirds vote of the applicable House:

“Article I, Section 5.

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”

What this also means is that it would be difficult to recall a Senator or Representative who is currently sitting with recall legislation not on the books prior to the first session of the new Congress on January 3, 2007.

Jane S. @ 84

#71-Rayne, I’m assuming Connecticut has no “recall” options for its voters like California. I feel very unsatisfied just saying “I told you so” to Lieberman supporters. My mother-in-law, a life long Democrat, took the Cokie Roberts approach to Lieberman telling me what a good man he was during the primary. And then she was horrified when he ran as an independent. But “I told you so” just isn’t working for me.

Senate is a federal office. There is no recall procedure for any senator in any state. CA recalled it’s Governor.

CT blew it big time. So are any of the CT papers doing mea culpas? I doubt it.

Only the Senate can expel one of its own members. But the Democrats can certainly act as a party to remove Joe from his Chairmanships.

My understanding is that the Democrats have control of thos Chairmanships throughout the next two years, and the Republicans cannot strip them from them. Joe was allowed to retain his Chairmanship by the good graces of “caucusing with the Democrats” and supporting their positions.

He clearly is acting more like a Republican Chair. Thus his position (and votes) is subverting the Democrats position.

By removing him from these Committees the Democrats would force him into the overt Republican party, but because the Committee composition and Chairmanship status were established at the opening of this session the Republicans can’t take over the Committee Chairmanship.

Joe would have to ask the Republicans to give up a seat to stay on the Committee. Someone else (a Republican) would have to drop off.

The Democrats could ADD a member to fill Joe’s Committee spot and appoint their own Chair…one more likely to forward investigations, ask critical questions and vote with his fellow party members.

All in all the Democrats GAIN by tossing Joe…and the Republicans LOSE!

I think if the members of Joe’s own state called for this (perhaps going through their other Senator) then the Democrats might act.

Only slightly off-topic: Just read on DU that KO is going to be interviewing Valerie.

DU link: http://www.democraticundergrou…..215;320359

On behalf of People For the American Way and Political Clout Productions, we are proud to invite you to be present for an historic first, as an extraordinary public servant, Valerie Plame, is interviewed by a champion of the First Amendment, Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC’s “Countdown.”

On Saturday, March 17 at 7:00 p.m. at the Tishman Auditorium, 66 West 12th St. in New York City, Valerie Plame will make the first public appearance since the beginning of the Scooter Libby trial to discuss her life, her career, and the personal battle she and her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson are fighting against the most powerful officials in the nation. It is a battle they are waging largely alone, a battle the Congress of the United States would not join, a battle that the news media shied away from, a battle few have the courage to fight.

It’s appropriate that her first public interview will be conducted by Keith Olbermann, a journalist who himself has demonstrated great courage and a profound sense of public duty. The MSNBC Countdown host challenged the abuses of power as few others did when a single party controlled the White House and Congress. In his “Special Comments,” Olbermann has had the courage to speak truth to power.

It should be a remarkable evening as these two defenders of the First Amendment sit down together in the Tishman Auditorium on March 17 at 7:00 p.m. The Tishman is a small auditorium and tickets are limited. This private invitation is being sent to PFAW supporters before we offer seats to the general public.

Does this mean that the Wilsons have gotten permission from the CIA to discuss her classified status? Can anypne check with the CIA’s Public Information Office if they have finally declassified her status?

Or will she be speaking in generalities about the effects of leaking classified information and outing covert officers and prgrams of the Counter-Proliferation Program…i.e. stuff that is public information already?

It seems that the CIA SHOULD act by revealing at least the basic facts of Plame’s activities…e.g. that she had travelled abroad on CIA business within the five years of her “outing” (without specifying when and where) and was still working on covert operations (without specifying WHAT).

This seems to be essential as internal terrorists like Victoria Toensing seem intent on gutting the Intelligence Agents Identity Protection Act…making t essentially unenforceable UNLESS one reveals the actual covert programs that are involved in open court. The CIA MUST act to protect their sources, agents and officers…and their silence is harming the Agency.

Essentially Toensing, who claims she “wrote the Act” (bulldada, actually…and she misreads it throughout), would leave the Act a “peper tiger” without any capacity to prosecute anyone.

Our intelligence agents deserve better.

There are none. And not only the Congress. In AMERICA. By this time, 100% of Republicans are either greedy (about 1% of them) or dumber than doornails. Period.