Hagel Muses About Impeachment

Last night I was invited to a reception at the Italian Ambassador's stunningly gorgeous residence put together by the Ploughshares Fund to support global nuclear disarmament. On hand were Chuck Hagel and Michael Douglas (yes, the actor Michael Douglas is a nuclear disarmament activist -- who knew?) talking about important issues. But Hagel also got a question about the dubious-but-persistent rumors that George W. Bush is plotting an unauthorized strike against Iran.

Hagel started his answer by specifically noting that the last time he mused about impeachment it got him in a lot of trouble, so he probably shouldn't muse about impeachment, but then proceeded to do just that, suggesting, I guess, that that might be considered an impeachable offense (which actually strikes me as a dubious contention on his part, but I appreciate the sentiment). But really his substantive remarks were more interesting. Hagel said, and I think he's correct, that we're witnessing a confluence of events in the United States and around the world has opened up the possibility of a new big push for disarmament in a unique way and we really ought to take advantage of it. He also said that in his opinion this is the most important issue we face, which really carries the implication that you should vote for Barack Obama since he agrees with Hagel about disarmament, but of course he didn't quite come out and say that.

[You can see much the same written up like a proper news article in the HuffPo]

Comments

I propose a debate between Chuck Hagel and Joe Lieberman.

Posted by Leo | May 21, 2008 10:22 AM

He also said that in his opinion this is the most important issue we face, which really carries the implication that you should vote for Barack Obama

How can I vote for Obama when he hangs out with nefarious and dangerous characters like Rev. Wright and, um, The Decemberists?

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/f67b448f-a956-4406-8aba-a870c567a019

Posted by mark f | May 21, 2008 10:23 AM

Actually, impeachment is regularly cited even (to certain extent, especially) by conservative scholars, who recognize it and the spending power as the chief means that Congress has to check the president's use of force. The Congress's power to declare war has not traditionally served to stop presidents from deploying force. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is a term of art and historically has not been taken to be limited to things that violate the law. In this sense, an impeachable offense is in the eyes of the House--one can't say that the unauthorized use of force against Iran, though it would be legal (measured by historic practice and the majority of mainstream legal opinion) would not be impeachable.

Posted by Bill | May 21, 2008 10:27 AM

Did you ask Michael Douglas to say "America is advanced citizenship!" and then giggle like a schoolgirl?

Embarrassing admission: I would have.

Posted by nitpicker | May 21, 2008 10:29 AM

"yes, the actor Michael Douglas is a nuclear disarmament activist -- who knew?"

I knew. He's also a prolific contributor to progressive political campaigns as well as anti-nuke causes.

Posted by KathyF | May 21, 2008 10:30 AM

(yes, the actor Michael Douglas is a nuclear disarmament activist -- who knew?)

Seabrook... China Syndrome.... No Nukes....

I tell ya, these kids today!

Posted by Jim | May 21, 2008 10:36 AM

I'm not surprised to learn that Michael Douglas is on the side of the good guys: his father Kirk was politically active, helping to break the blacklist, among other things.

Posted by Levi Stahl | May 21, 2008 10:37 AM

Michael Douglas like to play right wing douchebags because, well, he looks the part, but he's not actually one of them.

Posted by Rob Mac | May 21, 2008 10:43 AM

Lying about a blow job and being a creep around women = impeachment

starting ill considered and ruinous wars--not so much

Posted by steve duncan | May 21, 2008 10:43 AM

"An article in today's Jerusalem Post about the president's position on Iran that quotes unnamed sources — quoting unnamed sources — is not worth the paper it's written on," White House press secretary Dana Perino said in a statement.
----------
Is this a sneaky way of suggesting that the Post story is not true, but NOT actually coming out and saying it?

You know --kinda like the line the White House put out in 2003 after the Kay Report: "We never actually SAID Iraq was an Imminent Threat".

Oh --and Bush didn't say "Mushroom Cloud" in 2002. Evidently he said "a Cloud of Mushrooms".

Posted by Don Williams | May 21, 2008 10:54 AM

Wasn't the Congressional vote to declare the Iranian military a terrorist organization defacto authorization to strike Iran?

I recall as much being asserted at the time of the vote.

Posted by Don | May 21, 2008 11:00 AM

Although I do realize that the Jerusalem Post is not the most trustworthy source -- Richard Perle used to be the editor back when it was owned by Conrad Black (yes, the Conrad Black sentenced to time in the pen over that Hollinger indictment --
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/12/10/conradsentence.html )

Richard has such INTERESTING patrons.

Posted by Don Williams | May 21, 2008 11:03 AM

Makes me wonder if Israel is scared that Bush will attack Iran for "their benefit" without consulting them, and that he will leave them with a complete and total mess (since he's so good at that). This could be a preemptive maneuver by Israel.

Posted by LFC | May 21, 2008 11:20 AM

Why did the Ploughshares Fund put together a gorgeous residence for the Italian ambassador? Seems kinda strange . . .

Posted by SqueakyRat | May 21, 2008 11:21 AM

If we can't impeach a President for starting an unauthorized, unpopular war at the end of his 2nd term, what use is it? At the end of the day, politics is just about fiat. And I say there are few better reasons to impeach.

Posted by mpowell | May 21, 2008 11:24 AM

Was Catherine Zeta-Jones there? Did you score her digits?

Posted by Jon H | May 21, 2008 11:26 AM

mpowell: "If we can't impeach a President for starting an unauthorized, unpopular war at the end of his 2nd term, what use is it?"

Silly, silly mpowell, you should know you can ony impeach a president if he offends the sensibilities of Tim Russert, Cokie Roberts, David Broder and Sally Quinn. Wars do not offend their sensibilities.

Posted by Andruw | May 21, 2008 11:56 AM

On the impeachment point, Joe Biden made similar remarks to a similar question at an event at the Center for American Progress yesterday, for what it's worth.

Posted by mc_masterchef | May 21, 2008 12:01 PM

How does one convince non-state actors who embrace terrorism and violence as a means to an end to disarm? It's basically taking away the only leverage that they have to be heard. To me it makes the whole idea of "disarmament" a non-starter - unless we are going to shift our focus from non-state actors and decide that a certain level of terrorism isn't so bad afterall.

Posted by ethel-to-tilly | May 21, 2008 12:19 PM

The American Conservative recently put up an interesting column from a former CIA officer, Philip Giraldi. Titled "War With Iran Might Be Closer Than You Think ". See
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/05/09/war-with-iran-might-be-closer-than-you-think/

"There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants. The camp that will be targeted is one of several located near Tehran. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was the only senior official urging delay in taking any offensive action"

CAUTION: Philip Giraldi is former CIA, which gives him some contacts. But I also sense that he picked up a refined taste for black propaganda along the way. Which is an endearing trait to find in a liberal actually.

Served as deputy chief of base in Turkey, I believe. Which did nothing to pull him away from the Dark Side of the Force.

A lovely man. Just ask Marc Grossman.

Posted by Don Williams | May 21, 2008 12:28 PM

ethel - I think we're talking nuclear disarmament here. Non-state actors lack the capacity to build their own nukes, and will for many years to come - the theory's simple, but the engineering's not the sort of thing that can be done in your basement, let alone a cave.

So if nation-states disarm, there'd be nowhere for terrorists to get hold of nukes. They'd still have access to conventional weapons, plus bio/chem weapons. But bio/chem weapons have never been demonstrated to be more effective at mass killing than conventional kaboomery is, so nukes are really the main issue.

Barring that, another 9/11 is really as bad as it's likely to get. But nuclear terrorism would be many times worse.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | May 21, 2008 12:41 PM

I propose a debate between Chuck Hagel and Joe Lieberman.

Posted by Leo | May 21, 2008 10:22 AM

I think Unity 08 is running them on a ticket together.

Posted by Another Chris | May 21, 2008 12:45 PM

All I can say is Hegal for Dem VP.

Posted by leo (from Chicago) | May 21, 2008 12:52 PM

John Yoo of all people has also been musing about impeachment:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/yoo_impeach_bush_why_not.php

Posted by Crust | May 21, 2008 1:05 PM

I hope all this bombing Iran stuff is more crying wolf. How long ago did Sy Hersh first say that the bombing of Iran was imminent? If I remember correctly it was almost 3 years ago.

Posted by Gus | May 21, 2008 1:08 PM

an unauthorized strike against Iran ... might be considered an impeachable offense

I would love to think so. Iraq was Czechoslovakia. Iran is Poland.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 21, 2008 1:37 PM

I hope all this bombing Iran stuff is more crying wolf. How long ago did Sy Hersh first say that the bombing of Iran was imminent? If I remember correctly it was almost 3 years ago.

Yeah they've been crying wolf for a while now. I would be very surprised if a) Hillary is the Democratic nominee or b) Iran is attacked. Even if they don't invade, an attack on Iran would make Iraq look like a tea party. This from someone who would like the major powers to forcibly remove the Burmese junta for incompetence. People who believe either a) or b) are possible are either kool-aid drinkers or bat-shit crazy.

Posted by Peter K. | May 21, 2008 2:40 PM

As usual, Peter K is wrong (on Iran, anyway - Clinton can only be the candidate if the DNC caves in - which, while not impossible, seems unlikely.)

Attacking Iran is not the same thing as actually DEFEATING Iran.

One would think Iraq would give these idiots a clue that nothing stops the neocons and war profiteers from starting wars they can't finish.

Apparently not.

Matt, of course, can't talk about the Iran war at all except obliquely.

Trust me - the Iran war is a done deal within the next six months. If it isn't, I already have a deal with Arnold Evans to apologize for being wrong.

Meanwhile, I agree - the only important thing from that event is: was Catherine there, and how did she look? How was the CLEAVAGE, Matt? Did you stare? You know you did.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 21, 2008 6:24 PM

It is not surprising that Mr. Yglesias likes Chuck Hagel, one of the Senates' leading Israel bashers.

Posted by SLC | May 22, 2008 12:53 PM

SqueakyRat:

Why did the Ploughshares Fund put together a gorgeous residence for the Italian ambassador? Seems kinda strange . . .

Silly, you didn't read the sentence well enough. They put together her stunningly gorgeous residence to support global nuclear disarmament! Isn't it obvious now?

It probably would have been clearer with a few "qua's" thrown in.

Posted by Sean Peters | May 22, 2008 9:55 PM