Dems Threaten "No Confidence" Vote On Rumsfeld...

[rodeodance]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/08/25/dems-threaten-no-confide_n_28040.html

... Dems Threaten "No Confidence" Vote On Rumsfeld...

Wall Street Journal | Posted August 25, 2006 10:18 PM
READ MORE: George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein, Iraq
rumsfeld.jpg

AP

Campaign strategists seek intraparty consensus by focusing on accountability rather than Iraq troop withdrawals. A “no-confidence” vote in Pentagon chief, which Democratic lawmakers might offer on defense spending legislation, could embarrass Bush while appealing to Republicans who defend ousting Saddam but criticize war’s execution.

One House Republican predicts leaders would heed White House urgings to block a vote. But a Republican consultant says some incumbents may embrace idea for distance from war setbacks.

[Radical Activist]

1. And the public doesn't give a rats

ass. Do they really think the average person against the war in Iraq isn't going to see this for the pointless do-nothing grandstanding that it is? Half-assed measures and statements don't motivate people.

[Sparkly]

2. "motivate people"

Who do you think they're trying to "motivate," and what are they trying to motivate them to do?

I think some statements are worth making on principle. This is one of them.

[Radical Activist]

4. The statement worth making is one

against the person making the decisions at the top. Hopefully we're trying to motivate people to get rid of Bush and the Republicans, not just fire Rumsfeld to be replaced by someone who will continue the same policies.

[Sparkly]

6. It is a statement about the top.

"No confidence" in Bush's SoD is also criticism of Bush for appointing and maintaining him. It's criticism of their policies and the disastrous results they've had. It's a call for Bush to fire Rummy.

All of which -- given the public view of the war in Iraq -- can remind people of Rummy's failures, Bush's insistence on keeping him, and Democrats taking the people's side. That in turn could help distinguish the parties for this year's elections. And it'll take getting a majority back to start going after the rest of the regime.

[PresidentWar]

14. I guess this is the best we can expect right now

..considering we can't get enough of the Congressional Democrats to seriously initiate an Impeachment process on this asshole.

What does Bush have to do in order to get some legal action against him? Eat a live baby on TV?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackBeck]

11. Who's talking about the Geneva Convention?

And besides, a vast majority of those we have in custody in prisons throughout the world are not terrorists. They're innocent persons swept-up during the Bush's administration's zeal to try and look like they're doing something to make us safer after 9/11.

[OwnedByFerrets]

10. What he said.

90% (just a number, not an exact science) of the Democrats in Washinton are worthless. I am so sick of their "posturing". I know they cant DO anything, but at least start acting(and speaking) like you care about the fucking future of this country. rant off

[Sherman A1]

3. Seems to be

Window Dressing to me....

[Sparkly]

5. Democrats can't fire him. nt

[Disturbed]

7. Stop the threats and do something.

Rumsfailed could be Impeached. Dems should start those proceedings ASAP. If 90% of the Dem Reps got behind that it would display that they are serious about getting rid of a self confessed War Criminal.

Rumsfeld Shouldn't be Fired, He Should be Indicted
by Matthew Rothschild

“Secretary Rumsfeld has publicly admitted that . . . he ordered an Iraqi national held in Camp Cropper, a high security detention center in Iraq, to be kept off the prison’s rolls and not presented to the International Committee of the Red Cross,” the report noted. The Geneva Conventions require countries to grant the Red Cross access to all detainees. “

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0418-24.htm

Recently it has been found out that even more detainees were "ghost detainees". The fact that Rumsfeld has not been charged speaks volumes. If Congress wishes to garner any respect they should move forward with Impeachment Declaration of Rumsfeld.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jai4WKC08]

12. Charlie Rangel proposed impeachment

I'm thinking it was in Dec 04, or thereabouts. After the election, if I recall correctly.

Of course, with a Republican House it got nowhere. I don't know how many Dems would have supported it because it never came up for a vote.

There's really not much anyone can DO until/unless we retake Congress in November.

[Sherman A1]

13. Agreed

Talk is cheap.... and without any real position to do anything about him, what's the point?

[OzarkDem]

16. That's ok

Whatever it takes to focus the public on the Iraq failure.

[OzarkDem]

15. Don't just threaten, do it

US is sick of the Iraq War. Bush is trying to divert attention from its failure. Going after Rumsfeld is good strategy. Bush won't replace him and he's the poster child for Iraq failure.

[Imagevision]

17. Bush had no plan to exit Iraq simply because he expected to own it

afterwards. Install a government and rule it from a distance like we always do

[Vidar]

18. We are not a parlimentary system. What does "no confidence"

vote mean outside of that context?

[TheVirginian]

19. There is no force and effect. Its simply X number of Reps declaring

by vote that they have no confidence in the SecDef. It is exactly the same as a "Sense of the Senate" resolution (e.g., "It is the sense of the Senate that Lance Armstrong should be commended for winning a seventh Tour de France.")

[Vidar]

20. Thanks. That's what I suspected.