Why Impeachment Is Good Electoral Strategy
By Nicole Belle Saturday Jun 14, 2008 9:00pmLeave it to the corporate media to COMPLETELY ignore Dennis Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment against George Bush this Sunday. Sure, I don't think Kucinich will get the support of most of Congress (with the exception of Robert Wexler), but isn't it even worth discussing?
I disagree with Ian's post this morning on impeachment, and specifically the first reason against going through with it:
When the House of Representatives voted to send Dennis Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush to the Judiciary Committee yesterday, it was understood that the vote in reality killed the bill. And it is understandable why the House will not actually take up the Articles no matter how legitimate the case against Bush may be. First, they do not want to distract from the presidential election and redefine the debate when it already favors the Democrats. Second, if successful, then Cheney is President. If you impeached both Bush and Cheney and made Pelosi President, then it would look like a powergrab by the Democrats. However, having the Judiciary Committee hold the hearings might at least document the criminality of the Bush Administration in a coherent manner.
I'm actually pretty convinced impeaching George Bush is a great electoral strategy for the Democrats.
There are two basic reasons Democratic leadership puts forward against impeaching George Bush and/or Dick Cheney. Speaker Pelosi's public reasoning is that she would rather focus on other issues more important to average Americans:
"The question of impeachment is something that would divide the country," Pelosi said this morning during a wide-ranging discussion in the ornate Speaker's office. Her top priorities are ending the war in Iraq, expanding health care, creating jobs and preserving the environment. "I know what our success can be on those issues. I don't know what our success can be on impeaching the president."
The implicit reason is that Bush has been a huge electoral aid for Democrats. Largely running against Bush, they were able to capture both houses of Congress in 2006 and they hope to repeat the feat with the White House in 2008 - not to mention pick up a great many House and Senate seats in the process. Eliminating Bush, or doing anything that could cause citizens to rally around him, would take out that advantage.
She's wrong.
Never mind my belief that holding those in power accountable is just about the most important issue there is. Impeaching President Bush will actually help Democrats accomplish their electoral goals.
It's no secret that the Democrat's top strategy to win the White House this year is to label John McCain as 4 more years of Bush. Outside groups like MoveOn.org are going all out with their Bush-McCain challenge, spending millions on organizing and ads. Barack Obama himself is touting how often McCain votes with Bush. (95% of the time last year!) This is the attack, and it looks like it's starting to stick.
Login or Register to post comments.
Impeach Bush. The world will thank us for it!
Sometimes in life you don't act expeditiously, you don't act strategically and you don't act in your own self-interest. You act in the right way and the right way is to impeach the simian warmonger and his courtiers. It is an ethical decision.
get er done
Just do it already.
The fear of Impeaching Bush because Cheney will end up as president is unfounded. Because Cheney is the acting president right now. He is always hiding in the shrub while Bush speaks at conferences.
The fear of Democrats will be acting like a power grabbing opportunist is unfounded, because the way the Republican had act when they had majority of the house. I don't think anyone will think that of the Democrats, if anything the public views of them are anything but power grabbing opportunist. The Republican did a pretty good job at describing the Democrats as a do nothing party.
When Nancy Pelosi gives these lame excuse then you know that she got something she is afraid of confronting with the public. We already know she is implicated in the wiretapping of the public and observing the method of torture that got her seal of approval.
You have to know that you have to impeach both and throw in Scalia while you are at it. They do not abide by the constitution and are traitors to our democracy.
What of the best arguments for impeaching the Bush administration is that if impeachment does not take place it would then send a signal to other criminal future administrations that they would have nothing to fear since Congress, like the present incompetent Congress, would not hold them accountable for their misdeeds.
Under the present congress there are simply not enough votes to impeach . That will change if Bush is stupid enough to attack Iran . Rather than see that happen, I'd prefer that Obama wins and war crimes trials against Bushco begin immediately thereafter . Making sure they go to jail is much more important than an impeachment footnote .
Why get my hopes up? We all have been waiting for three friggin years!
Maybe the Democrats have lost faith in the American people during these last eight years. I'm sure it stunned them (I know it still boggles my mind) that at least half our country voted for Bush a second time despite all the obvious damage he and his administration did to this country and parts of the world. And if that's possible then it's also possible those people are still out there waiting for any excuse to keep the White House Republican.
We impeach for blowjobs. Not for war profiteering, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Hey, Pelosi. Why do you think congress's approval rating is as low as Bush's? Do ya think maybe its because you guys aren't doing the job your were elected to do which was to impeach the Chimp?
Impeachment would show America that Democrats have a backbone.
Their excuse are just excuses, there are no reasons.
Her top priorities are ending the war in Iraq, expanding health care, creating jobs and preserving the environment. “I know what our success can be on those issues. I don’t know what our success can be on impeaching the president.”
I KNOW what here successes have been on those.
Nil, nada, nothing, not a thing has been done so using them as justification is a bunch of bologna and I can't believe people are falling for it. Sounds like Dem kool-aid to me.
I agree that impeachment is a great election strategy...just the thought of it is exciting enough to stimulate us to an election, and if it actually happens we will get a huuuge election ;-}
Impeach, or at the very least just banish the little bugger to Europe, where he's been living large while the midsection of America is drowning... how many Katrina's does it take to make a president impeachable? Never mind the illegal war, lies, torture, and treasonous outing of a CIA operative...
IMHO, the issue is whether or not the oath of office each Member of Congress takes to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." means anything. If it does, then they have no choice but to proceed with the Articles of Impeachment against Cheney (they were filed first). Neither he nor Bush has any defense against the charges, BTW, and both should go to trial in the Senate. But first, after Cheney is convicted and removed from office, they should approve a Vice President that they wouldn't mind seeing become President for a few months. Then, continuing to honor their oaths of office, they should try, convict and remove Bush from office, and install the vice president they just approved as president to serve out the remainder of Bush's term. If they start now, they can finish in time to make Bush's August vacation permanent.
iraqhusseinconcilable @ 8:
I think The Bush Crime Family believes that an Impeachment move will help McCain win. So I believe they will attack Iran right before the election to try to force the Dems hand. If McCain wins there will be no investigations into BushCo so it will be worth the risk.
Annie @ 13:
The house can pass the bills but the senate can't. Might just as well go ahead and impeach and show that you are interested in the rule of law.
As George Wallace said, the Democrats and the Republicans are just as alike as Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee, and that's why Bush will never be impeached.
Just think, Iowa is under water, and do we hear anything from the Commander and Chief? Nooo, he is to busy hob-nobbing, drinking tea with Quenn Elizabeth, while Iowans are swamped. Not one mention, not one word. I think I'm going to puke!
Oh I wish....
I'm sick to my stomach after reading how bush is being "honored" on his last trip through europe.
Castles, gardens with the pope, white asparagus in germany...... this man deserves one more trip to europe. To the Hague, for war crimes.
pelosi is pretty fucking stupid.
P.D. @ 20:
Tea laced with bourbon.
I would think that misleading the country and the Congress about Iraq being an imminent threat when such was known to not be the fact, with the result being that the war was started, with 4000 troops killed, $500B squandered and additional tail costs, and not finishing the job in Afghanistan against the people who attacked us would be impeachable. But I guess that doesn't rise to marital infidelity.
It was Pelosi who said impeachment was off the table. There's a problem in Washington, and it isn't confined to just the neocons.
The sooner, the better.
As much as I would love to see Bush impeached, it only matters if he is convicted and sent to jail. The Dems don't have the votes in the Senate to do that, so, impeachment is a waste of time.
Frankly, I think it will be MUCH more interesting to have them all arrested in March 2009 for war crimes...
The main reason to impeach:
checks and balances.
The abuses of the bush aministration has been a test. A test to see how much the executive branch can get away with unchecked corruption and incompetance. Without a system of accountability (aside from voting the bums out) the other two branches being the supposed protectors of our costitutional government will be largely an illusion.
There will be more dangerous situations, and presidents, in the future. By refusing to impeach THIS president, we are surely giving others a green light.
Unfortunately your House won't even let a discussion be held and Pelosi's "taking it off the table" ages ago meant there will be no making Bush accept responsibility for his actions ever. Unfortunatley again, your Democratic held House and Senate have done nothing to try to end your war and that is what they ran on and got elected for. Even Obama has voted almost identical to Clinton yet there again is no responsibility for his actions while Clinton was crucified for her vote. When it comes right down to it, nothing but a majority House and Senate will do any good to get democratic ideas and plans through because the Republicans have been able to stymie most things Democrats have tried to do. Getting a majoirty in the House and Senate would also stop any crazy McCain appointments to the Supreme Court. So in all reality isn't the real problem going to be the number of democrats in your House and Senate that will enable anything to get done no matter who wins the Presidency?
P.D. @ 20:
What would happen if one of these countries he visits decides to arrest Bush and Cheney for war crimes?
This page, as it appears to me now, has an ad for the book by Vincent Bugliosi who has prosecuted 20 some murder cases. His thesis is that there is an overwhelming case for the prosecution of George Bush for murder.
Here is the Democracy Now interview with Bugliosi.
Impeachment is limited to removal from office.
Bush should be impeached and prosecuted.
We have a criminal government. We elect more Democrats, they do nothing.
We need campaign finance reform passed by grassroots progressive congresspeople in order to excise the corporations from Congress. With the corporations oncologically removed, we can then break up the corporate media empires and regain popular control of the airwaves.
Until that happens we have the present situation - efforts like Kucinich's will be CENSORED by the corporate media.
Impeaching Bush is not a campaign strategy, it's a necessity of a society that observes the Rule of Law. I don't believe we will manage to do it, but I think it would be the best thing for our country, both hermenuetically and to take a first step towards restoring our national reputation in the world.
If we do not impeach Bush and Cheney, then I believe we must vigorously prosecute them after they leave office. That is, if we can extract Bush from the compound in Paraguay to which he shall flee.
It certainly would, on one side would be those who believe that George Bush has violated in the worst way, his oath to uphold the Constitution.
On the other side would be those that don't.
Look, stop with this impeachment nonsense.
1. It's not going to happen. We lack the votes (not to mention the party discipline) to get impeachment through congress.
2. Related to #1, when the Democrats try to do something repeatedly and fail, it makes us look ineffective. We could introduce legislation for flying pigs and unicorns in congress all we want, but it's not realistic. If we keep pushing for those impossible things that are destined to fail rather than focusing on constructive, feasible goals, voters are going to go to the polls for people who can achieve actual results.
3. No matter how much Bush actually deserves it, if the Democrats impeach him, it's going to look like they're seeking revenge for what the Republicans did to Clinton. And retributive punishment based on party lines does not seem to be compatible with Obama's message of hope, unity, bipartisanship, etc, etc. Impeachment will hurt Obama's chances of winning this November.
nancy pelosi does not have the authority to take impeachment "off the table".
if it can be proven she is complicit in covering for those guilty of treason, she, too, can be tried for treason.
can madame pelosi be so certain her foundation will be firmly grounded when the tidal wave hits?
paranoia @ 5:
I believe this is the main problem. Bush has compromised enough of the Democratic leaders to make himself immune from impeachment.
Jane Harmon,who was read into the wire tapping "program," actually said, "I didn't know this was against the FISA (illegal, that is)." Now, they're all afraid of looking like fools, which they are.
P.D. @ 20:
Impeachment won't change that much...he'll still get all the queens, teabags, and nobbing he's been getting...
...you can puke now.
;-}
http://counterpunch.org/ramakrishnan06132008.html
blabster @ 33:
Look, stop with this cynical defeatist nonsense.
No point in trying then, might as well just give up.
As ineffective as not trying at all? Look, so the attempt fails - at least history records that someone tried to do something, rather than rolling over and acquiescing to the rape of our nation by neocons.
Or they MIGHT look like Constitutionally minded Rule of Law politicians, that is if the entire media weren't controlled and run by corporate conservatives. So what you're saying is, don't try to do the right thing, because you might look bad doing it?
Or maybe flipping over the rock of corruption and exposing all the worms and beetles of the Bush administration will make McCain look like an even bigger stooge than he is.
Defeatism is the weapon of hopelessness. You want to communicate Obama's "message of hope"? Then try doing something that looks hard, not taking the easy path and giving in without a fight.
Try doing the RIGHT thing, regardless of the challenges. That's hopeful. That's courageous. Cynicism is a confident cowardice.
blabster @ 33:
I suggest that you read my comment at #7 to understand why impeachment against this impeachment certainly should take place. It would not appear to offer much of a deterrent to future criminal administrations, since another administration could justify their actions by saying that if the Bush cabal could get away with war crimes, then our administration should be able to also.
Lots of things divide people, but you still have to stand up for what's right.
We should have impeached Reagan. Letting that pack of crooks walk on Iran-Contra just served to embolden the next generation of conservative hoodlums.
George Bush = Augusto Pinochet???!!!!
P.D. @ 9:
3?? I've been waiting since 2002!
If the Democrats in Congress want their popularity numbers to rise, they have to stop bowing to the will of the DLC and the Blue Dogs. Impeaching Bush would galvanize people, not turn them away! NOT impeaching him is what has disappointed so many - me included.
Impeachment is for blow jobs.
I'm encouraged by the well thought out posts here about the need to impeach Bush. Kucinich is doing a patriotic and courageous job. He has really done his homework like no one else in Congress. He is someone to be proud of whether on the right or left for his standing up for the constitution against a president who has violated it repeatedly and committed outrageous war crimes as almost everyone in the whole world knows. I was encouraged by the 24 Republicans who voted with all the Democrats to send it to the Judiciary Committee, where it is now up to John Conyers to review and study before it is sent back to the House to be voted on. AP and Reuter's initial bias in reporting impeachment is "off the table" is a corporate media outrage that keeps the country from having hope. Kucinich says he'll come back with 60 more articles if no action is taken by July 9th.
i think they all are a bunch of crooks and are afraid if someone gets sent to the gray bars hotel that they may be next! and rightly so the whole dam bunch need a little bread and water diet time!
There are dozens of reasons to impeach both of these war criminals. The only argument dems can come up with against it is that they wont succeed and that will turn off voters. Let me agree with you Mdm. Pelosi, you will be turning off voters. You will be turning off the 20% of the public who are already lost to you forever. It's the other 80% of the population you need to care about. An 80 - 20 split is pretty damn good if you ask me.
What these do nothing wimpocrats are doing is showing the country and the world that there really is no difference between the two parties. When push comes to shove, they are all ruling class elites who would rather protect the most dispicable of their bretheren than uphold the constitution. This is just yet more proof that this is not a country of laws, but of money and influence. Steal thousands of dollars and you go to jail for a very long time. Steal billions of dollars and they make you president.
Nancy and Harry don't dare piss off the guys that have been wire tapping them for 7 years, and they have bluntly been told that. They basically have negociated our country away to the terrorists in chief. That makes the Dems. accomplices to the crimes of this regime. They share the blood of millions on their hands.
What do Democrats think they can do without Impeachment? They can't get a report, testimony, or any other information and if they do pass anything, it'll be signed off, vetoed or simply ignored. They are powerless, useless and wasting our time and money unless they start Impeachment hearings.
Just the hearings would bring out details and document actions that can't be done otherwise. The hearings are the goal.
Oh Really! "Demoos don't want to impeach because as America gets worse,the Demooos will get more seats elected".Baloney!
You know I know that Bush has something on Pelosie and Reid. Pelosie was put in charge to cover-up for Bush. Bush is smarter than you think--He has the goods on the Demos--going back to Clinton era. Pure and Simple--Blackmail.If Bush ever was impeached--Pelosie/Clinton would hang along with him.I bet alot has to do with 911.
Bunker busting Bombs--now who funded them and for what purpose?
I was in my early 20s when the Watergate hearings were televised. The entire country watched our constitution in action as Congress investigated the role of the President and his staff in the Watergate break-in. I believe that the Watergate hearings showed us the best of our government and our country - no one is above the law and even the President will be held accountable for his actions. We need to start impeachment proceedings so that people all over the world will see that we are a country that doesn't give lip service to our constitution - we abide with our constitution.
You write: "Impeaching President Bush will actually help Democrats accomplish their electoral goals." How, please explain? Elaborate on your claim so that your position might be understood.
You people attacking Nancy Pelosi are idiots. Nancy Pelosi is one of the best friends we have in congress on everything: gay rights, abortion rights, ending the war in Iraq, environmental issues, minority issues, separation of church and state, gun control, Social Security, veterans' rights, and anything else you can name. She is an absolute dream of a Speaker of the House for all progressives.
As soon as the Democrats start the impeachment process, all progress on everything else will come to an absolute halt for at least six months. That means there will be no work towards getting out of Iraq, no aid to people at home or abroad, no steps to alleviate the energy crisis....NOTHING. All debate time and media coverage will be dedicated to impeachment. If you think Iraq war coverage is low now, wait until impeachment hearings start. Even the HOPE of pursuing productive legislative goals will die the moment impeachment hearings begin.
We simply cannot go back in time to stop Bush from ever reaching the Oval Office, but Democrats can be proactive in the House and Senate to fix his mistakes and to counter his destructive actions. Impeachment is not the answer to all of our problems with Bush.
Well, we could let the bushies slide until after the election then have all of them brought up on criminal charges of crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, this will not happen either and will encourage the electorate to vote again someday for "Dirty Harry" prez that will do the same stupid unnecessary war for his own vanity. A Nuremberg trial against Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gonzalez, Wolfiwitz, Rumsfeld and all the rest of the enablers would surely chill some ambitions for unnecessary wars for political gain. But they are well insulated by wealth and power and a docile electorate.
Obama/Kucinich = OK '08
Forget all the reasons for not impeaching Bush and Cheney. Those reasons, however legimate, are of little import when compared to the damage that will be done by not impeaching them. By allowing the crimes of Bush and Cheney to go unchallenged to the end of their terms, as a matter of deliberate decision and policy, dangerous precedents are established which grant bestow a measure acceptance and legitimacy upon all of their crimes. this will make it all the more difficult for all future Congresses to impeach any future criminal and despotic presidents.
Not impeaching these two thugs will also weaken the rule of law, which has been one of their strategic goals, and will diminish the legislative and judicial branches of government, OUR government, of which all the politicians and judges are just so much hired help.
If matters of appearance are an issue, re the succession of Nancy Pelosi to president, impeach her, too. she has been derelict , negligent and complicit in upholding her duty to the Constitution. She has betrayed her trust to the American People by wrongfully refusing to execute the duties of her office, and in doing so must share equal blame for every crime that Bush and Cheney have committed since she decided against doing her job. she is as deserving of being removed from her office and from congress as Bush and cheney are deserving of being removed from their positions. Let her impeachment be conducted concurrently with impeachments of Bush and Cheney, and when it succeeds, place a Repulican in the Speaker's position , who will immediately fi;ll the vacant position of president, finishing out Bush's term. Then, when the Speakers seat is immediately vacated, refill it with a deserving Democrat (and to my mind, Dennis Kucinich is the only person in the House who comes close to deserving that position). End of image problems.
Not impeaching Bush and Cheney allows those two criminals to succeed at their strategy of destroying from within the government of the United States of America. These two men, and their cabinets and appointees are traitors and enemies of the Constitution. They have spared no enrgy or effort since rising to office to do all in their ability to destroy this country. They have attemped the illegal overthrow of our government, which derives its every authority soley and exclusively from the Sovereign Will of the People, attempting thereby to destroy our democratic and free way of life. Their goal, as determined by their every successful act in that regard, has been to replace our Constitutionally ordained government with a totalitarian police state, in which We the Citizens become we the subjects. Their warfare against our precious Consitution has been single-minded and relentless since the first day they took office. These men, and all their accomplices, do not belong in office, they belong in maximum security federal prisons with all the others who have betrayed this nation, like Pollard and Hansen and others. Impeachment is the first step toward putting them where they belong. It is the first step, conducted by the hired help on behalf of We the People, to regaining ownership and control of our Government.
Lastly impeachment is needed because their is no other process available in which the nation could conduct a debate and an inquiry into several questions that desperately need to be answered: What are we doing as a nation? Where are we headed? How did we get headed in that direction? And, just what are we going to do about it? We need the process of impeachment, regardless whether the process succeeds or fails, in order to conduct the act of searching our national soul, as foreseen and intended as a necessary act by the Founders for such times and circumstances as these. Upon receipt of evidence of treason, bribery, high crimes and other misdemeanors, they didn't leave it as an option, by saying "may" or "can" impeach, they said "shall" impeach. That is the same as saying "must". We are compelled to do so by our laws, and part of the intent of that law is that in carrying out the process, we formally examine ourselves.
It must happen.
It is better to impeach Bush now than wait...consider this if the dems don"t do it, the republicans might to give McCain an edge. He can than say see I am different than Bush and for change. He can also say if the democrats couldn't impeach and stand up for the American people than how will they be able to defend Americans if they can't do it in their own backyard. It's a gamble any way you slice it, but I would rather the democrats get it rolling.
How can we even be debating whether Bush and his cronies are deserving of impeachment? It's like shooting fish in a barrel to find impeachable offenses.
As for Speakler Pelosi, we might as well go ahead and throw her in the docket too. Can't a reasonable case be made that she is aiding and abetting? Further, if all these criminals are charged en masse, we might be eligible for the quantity discount, and I'm always looking for the proverbial good deal...
What, exactly, am I missing?
Alkaline @ 51:
You mean progress like the Democrats caving on FISA and granting Bush more illegal warrantless surveillance powers.
FISA was the only Democratic victory but winning wasn't good enough.
Here Glenn Greenwald asks what have the Democrats done differently than the Republicans would have had they kept the majority.
The answer: NOTHING. They are worthless.
Impeachment is the opiate of the activists
Impeachment of Bush/Cheney (I will assume that no one thinks it a good idea to impeach just Bush, and thereby make Cheney the president) makes no sense in terms of achieving either of the two ends served by impeachment.
The purpose of impeachment of this president and VP that seems most in the minds of those who urge it, is the removal of the impediment to criminal prosecution presented by their official immunity. They have committed crimes, this line of reasoning goes, all criminals should be punished, with official criminals arguably most in need of criminal penalties, therefore we need to take this necessary preliminary step to the criminal prosecution of BushCo of removing the official immunity that protects them from prosecution until they are out of office.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that the modern presidency has accreted far more powerful defenses against criminal prosecution than the official immunity provided by the Constitution. Presidents today control the prosecutors, and, through control of security classification and the deference given to claims of executive privilege, they control the evidence of official wrong-doing. As a theoretical point, it should be obvious that the Founders did not intend that the president have either sort of control, and that these are two of the metastatic growths of the imperial presidency, because with either sort of control, the official immunity that the Constitution actually does confer would be completely unnecessary. As a practical matter, control of the evidence and control of the prosecutors means that Congress could not have an impeachment case together until long after BushCo's official immunity ends 1/20/09 anyway. And at that point, the far more important control of the evidence and prosecutors will be in different, presumably Democratic, hands anyway. Purely from the standpoint of BushCo doing any time for their crimes, impeachment would not speed things up at all, and could actually have the perverse effect of allowing their attys, armed with a much greater understanding of the evidence than will be available to anyone outside of BushCo until 1/20/09, to so manipulate the rather blind Congressional investigation that it slobbers use immunity all over key evidence, hampering its later use in prosecutions.
But if we're talking about impeachment purely as a means of getting the incompetent/malfeasant incumbents out, and having Congressional Democrats take control of the administration to get competenr leadership in, then impeachment is even more clearly not the best tool for the job. We're not getting BushCo out with impeachment without at least 17 Republican Senators turning on their party leader. There is no conceivable way that they will do this and vote for conviction on impeachment unless we assemble a smoking gun criminal case, which, as discussed above, is not going to happen until after 1/20/09. But the Congressional leadership could take over control of any part of the present activities of the executive, or the whole, with a simple majority, or even merely the majority of the majority, by denying reauthorization of that activity except under whatever control it desired to impose. Congress is the master, the president merely a servant, if the Congress is willing to use the power of the purse. But it isn't. It has refused to take control of even the smallest portion of the govt, not even Nancy Nord's hopelessly incompetent Consumer Product Safety Commission.
We're not going to impeach and convict a president in this country for "mere" incompetence and malice in the discharge of his office as long as the conventional wisdom continues to make him an uncrowned monarch and elected dictator. We have too much reverence for the office, and too little respect for Congress, to allow that. It would be allowing a mere debating society, which is how we view Congress, to bring down the sovereign, which is how we view our president. But if we did cut the office down to size, and the president were no more than what the Constitution says he is, it would be completely uneccessary to impeach a president for incompetence, or because the country no longer agreed with his policies. The president would merely execute the laws of Congress, and his personal policy preferences would have no more influence than his ability to persuade a majority in Congress of their soundness. An incompetent president, someone like Dubya, would be, like Harding, too insignificant to bother impeaching.
ShotoJamf @ 56:
...a vowel between or after the 'm' and 'f'?
The problem is, by not impeaching they send the message that the country will have to endure 4 more years of Bush policies regardless of who wins in November. They have long ago crossed the line where complacency becomes complicity.
Perhaps someone erred when looking up the meaning of opposition in the dictionary, and read opposum instead. A timid marsupial that deals with stressful situations by curling up into a ball.
Soooo, Maybe the Republicans will help us Impeach Bush.
No laughing.
This would help them distance themselves from dinkledoofus, and give Mslame a way to say he is different. Ask your Republican Congreecritter if they will support Kucinich's articles of impeachment. It can't hurt.
Kucinich for Supreme Court
Alkaline @ 51:
Really? Idiots? If we're idiots, I guess that leaves "fucking moron" for you. Impeachment proceedings SHOULD have started the day after the 2006 elected Representatives took office. Who was it who put on the brakes? Oh, yeah...your hero.
In case you hadn't noticed, nothing much is being done anyhow, courtesy of Senate Republicans and Harry's ineffectual "leadership" in the Senate.
Pelosi and Reid are BOTH pathetic non-starters more willing to please the Right Wing than to stand up and be counted as Americans who believe in the country and what it is supposed to stand for. They are the worst sort of enablers in allowing this prick of a President to laugh at you and me as he gets away with ripping MY country to shreds. Better to have TRIED impeachment and letting the Republicans block the process so the public can see them doing it rather than to sit back and do nothing.
Whatever the political reasons for or ag'in- it is the fracking LAW.
you gotta impeach Chenney ever before impeaching Bush.
impeaching Bush first then letting Chenney take up the mantly of power makes my spine shiver.
If anything was to be done, it should of been done in 2006/early 07.
in all seriousness, now in mid 08 what's the point? Better off ensuring Barack to win in November now... then bring Bush and Chenney to justice afterwards
Maybe it would be a good idea -- politically and strategically speaking -- if we could expect the media to fairly report on said impeachment. Unfortunately, we cannot. As much as the bastard deserves it, as much as I'd like to see it happen personally, I shudder to think of how the MSM would spin impeachment to the American people and it could very well lose us the election if the MSM spins it wrong.
Alkaline @ 51:
If Nancy Pelosi is such a "dream for all progressives" then I have to wonder why she hasn't signed on to HR 676, the bill for single payer health care. I have to wonder why she sat in on the torture discussions. I have to wonder why she hasn't stopped the funding for the occupation.
Nancy Pelosi is one of the richest members of the House. She will go down in history as the Speaker of the House who blocked the impeachment of a criminal administration. Congress' approval ratings are at an historic low, less than 20%. Not much to be proud of since Nancy became Speaker of the House.
Alkaline @ 51:
This is such bullshit. Now I"M ready to puke. This congress has done NOTHING on any of those topics you mention. I repeat. NOTHING!
And what HAVE they done? Passed a pork barrel farm bill. Allowed a shootdown of the windfall profits tax on the oil companies. Funded the war. Allowed Cheney to override California's EPA standards. Need I go on?
For the life of me I cannot think of ONE SINGLE LAW they have passed that would be considered progressive. What has your goddess done for gay rights? For abortion rights? Gun control? Alkaline you are so full of shit I cannot understand what the fuck makes you even capable of operating a keyboard.
If the Dems want to LOSE my vote in November, then they should keep impeachment off the table. I've fucking had it with these crooks. Obama is riding the crest of some popularity wave that will crash down hard on progressives within six months of his potential election. He's a fucking fraud.
And BTW, the articles of impeachment for Dick Cheney were introduced LAST YEAR. He would be impeached first, so we will NOT have to deal with him as president. It's so fucking clear, but Pelosi is so concerned with her image because SHE would be in charge. She is AFRAID. Afraid of the republicans, afraid of the MSM, and afraid of the prospect of having to clean up the mess. She should be arrested along with all the other criminals that infest our government.
And yes, I say fuck. A LOT.
Alice Hussein Chomsky Nader@30 wrote 'Impeachment is limited to removal from office.'
And disqualification from holding any office of trust, profit, or honor of the US.
Stop Cheney from serving in McCain's cabinet and stop Bush from getting re-elected to another office.'
Bob@35: Harman is a fool and an accomplice.
A Dkos poster noted the conflict of interest. Harman and Pelosi were part of the Gang of Eight that was briefed on the torture, spying, and rendition programs. Reps Jane, Nancy, Porter Goss, Tom Delay and Senators Pat Roberts, Jay Rockefeller, Tom Daschle, and Bill Frist approved of the programs listed among the 35 articles of impeachment.
The administration says Congress was briefed "at least a dozen times" in the four years since the wiretap program started...The eight are prohibited from saying anything about the briefing to anyone, including other intelligence panel members.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/23/AR200512...
Congress shall impeach and demand Pelosi, Harman, Rockefeller, and Roberts recuse themselves. Demand real oversight and checks and balances. Drive Democratic money changers out of Congress; Harman has $400 million and doesn't need our money.
The CIA told the Pres. that Iraq was not an imminent threat with WMD and ties to Al Qaeda. Yet Bush told the country the exact opposite. The CIA also removed the BS yellowcake niger claim [based on a forgery on stolen letterhead 'signed' by outdated Niger officials and lacking the proper Ministry authorization] from a speech, while Bush said it anyway. When asked how this lie reappeared in a President's speech, Condoleeza Rice said 'we have to write these things down'!
Impeach these liars and vote out their accomplices before more innocent Americans and Iraqis are killed and wounded in Iraq while Al Qaeda gets stronger in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
US: 4,088 dead, 30,000 wounded, 250,000 with PTSD and Brain damage.
Iraqi: 1,200,000 dead, millions more wounded, 2,000,000 refugees, 2,500,000 displaced
Support the Troops and bring Impeachment On!
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org
http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com
As most relatively alert folks have noticed, the country is
alreadydivided. I have a large number of acquaintances now who once were friends because they are convinced that I hate America because I do not approve of the current administration in Washington. My deal on that is that if Ur mother is continually being robbed and rapedby the same man, it's neither logical nor humane to block confinement and prosecution of the robber/rapist.Obviously there are more than enough reasons to impeach Bush and Cheney, but it is also possible to impeach some of the people on the Supreme Court, who put him in the White House, over the expressed will of a majority of Americans who voted for Al Gore to be their President.
There is a law that expressly forbids a judge from ruling in a case in which he may have a direct interest. I believe that this law actually extends to Supreme Court judges, but I may be wrong. They may be above the law. I don’t know, but I would hope not.
It seems that Judge Scalia has a son who worked for the law firm that was representing the Bush family interests in this matter. Also Judge Thomas’ wife worked at the Heritage Foundation, vetting applicants for jobs in a then possible, Bush administration.
In both cases, there was a strong conflict of interest for these individuals. Under the circumstances, they were required to recuse themselves from the case, but they did not.
This in itself should be sufficient grounds for impeachment.
As for Alito and Roberts, their legitimacy on the court is tied to the legitimacy of the Bush Administration. If the legitimacy of the Bush Presidency were brought into question, in both cases, their status as Bush appointees would undermine their legitimacy as well.
joeedugan @ 41:
Just wait for the next batch of criminal to take office, with each passing of neglect of duty it gets easier and easier to rob the country. Those that control the media, the forth branch of govt have the most say on what goes in the office. I think we will have to deal with the corporation, particularly the military contract corporation. We can impeach the president and the congressman, but it all comes down to who owns them.
This is insanity. The 'mainstream' Democrats are complete whimps.
Impeachment would remove this country from the nightmare of Bush and Cheney.
Heres the thing: They probably wouldnt get it through the Senate anyway, so it would be one more way to get the Repubs in office including MCCAIN that support everything that Bush as done.
The Democratic 'leadership' has been anything but leaders since they have took control.
Cowards.
If the current Democratic Party wasn't infested with DINO's , impeachment would have been achieved. We must get rid if the DINO's when they come up for reelection.
The Republicans could win the next election if they simply impeached the bastard themselves.
Paul @ 54:
THANK YOU, thank you and MERCI !!! Paul for saying what millions, hundreds of millions on this planet KNOW TO BE THE TRUTH. Please disseminate your comments on other sites, for your approach is the most reasonable and logical I have read anywhere.
Yes, IT MUST HAPPEN.
Impeachment of George W Bush is good because it is the right thing to do. These people really need to do their jobs and they know it.
done with all of them! worked my butt off to get kerry in only too see it stolen once again (guessing it will be the same in 08). why not?
1. impeachment... is off the table is a blank check to power grab. why not? not accountability!
2. moral validation... "if bush did anything wrong they would have impeached him, like that evil clinton!"
3. accountability... well if we get them then they get us too. wink wink nudge nudge!
the dem's refusal to take action makes them just as @#*%ing guilty as the repugnent's and as such i refuse to vote for any of them too. as long as they refuse to take action they are enabling the repubnent's to rape and burn this nation to the ground. well maybe that is the right way to go after all and with any 12 step mind set. we need to hit bottom real hard to see the error of our ways so... bring on the mcsame and those 4 guys on horse back too. the humor there being i can see the repugnent's (the ones not taken up in the rapture) impeaching nancy and co. for questioning their power and maybe defaming the name of regan in the confines of their bedroom. you no they have been bugged as have we (for your's and mine safety.. and to support the troops of course). my wife is writing in our dog's name and i am thinking of doing the same.
how hard is it to move to canada again?
Impeach them both now, let the two crims languish in a cell until after the election, then let the trials begin.
When, exactly, did political spin overtake the notion of, "right and wrong"? Everyone talks it, but there is no accountability. Everyone makes big flowering honey pot speeches while they spray the beehives with toxic corporate chemicals.
No one ever considered that greed, the addiction to money and power, is the primary source of war, and therefore, the foremost mental illness of humanity! Corporate CEO's make more in a week than an honest working man, without whose efforts, the CEO would have no product to sell. Still, spin, lies, pay to play politics, and no accountability!
Those big flowering speeches won't produce a damn thing without that little bee. After all, he does the work.
Even if they don't eventually get impeached, shouldn't we, at least, begin hearings? That's all Dennis is asking for. I wouldn't mind tieing them both up with hearings and supoenas so that it'd be harder for them to plan an "October Surprise" and cancel the elections.
hopefully, we can vote out the members of congress who don't think they need to do thier job when it gets difficult.
never has a greater case been made for impeachment then the one made by george w. bush.
he should be in jail.
History will not and should not look kindly on Pelosi et al.
The Inky, usually a conservative paper, came out with a reasonably good on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand piece on Kucinich's impeachment proposal. They're not completely enthusiastic about it, but they don't think it's such a bad idea.
I am quite sure they are protesting and rioting across Europe, just like every where else the shrub sprouts. The "liberal" media stop covering it long ago.
Pelosi is a failure; what has she accomplished focusing on the issues, by refusing to impeach from day 1? Nothing everything is blocked by a lack of a majority. The world sees our hypocracy; we impeach for sex but not for war. We had a chance to redeem ourselves with the world, and Pelosi refused to even consider it.
PLEASE DON'T IMPEACH BUSH... It would leave Cheney in complete charge.
Tarro @ 17:
There could still be an investigation. Any investigation would be started by the Congress, not by any president-elect. Regardless of who wins the White House, the Democrats will still control Congress, and McCain is smart enough not to intercede illegally into any congressional investigations regarding impeachment. If he did, his could be next.
The dems are spineless. You don't shirk responsibility because it's difficult or because you don't gain something for it. It's a responsibility and a duty.
Cowards and Lite Republicans.
I think it is obvious that one of Nancy's most significant accomplishments as House Speaker has been protecting George Bush. I wish I could make a sarcasm icon or something but this is no joke. Most all politicians are corrupt and we all know this; and all of them can be bought. When the dollar tanks completely we have to kick out all the politicians, and impose term limits - no exceptions.
There's no president or vice president in US history more deserving impeachment, removal and prosecution. Ultimately, it might even require troops and tanks to physically remove this pair.
It will take years to investigate and prosecute the major crimes committed by this president and vice president, who are surely corrupt enough to try and pardon themselves.
In hindsight, a major mistake President Clinton made was his decision not to pursue investigations into the Iran / Contra crimes. President Bush halted the investigations by pardoning all the targets after losing his re-election in 1992 and President Clinton let the bygones be.
America can't afford that mistake a second time. President Obama is going to have to devote a substantial amount of energy and effort to see that these crimes are not left to stand unpunished.
Trying to accomplish it now while Bush and Cheney have the most power they will ever have, seems impossible and fruitless and may even help to innoculate them.
Impeachment proceedings should have begun on Nov. 9th, 2006. Practically speaking, it's now too late. War crimes proceedings should begin immediately after the current administration departs. One of the very first orders of business of the new Dem House & Senate should be replacing Pelosi, Reid, Conyers and Leahy. They're losers.
Unfortunately, I don't know who they can replace them with! There are very few politicians of conscience left.
Clinton's impeachment cost millions, preoccupied Congress and probably lead to Bush's election. Clinton's administration is scarred forever, and is still the fodder of Repub ridicule, public laughter and scorn.
The Bush administration just continues it's arrogant crimes without any true accountability. This alone is enough to put impeachment ON the table. At least they could show that there are grounds for action.
The day Obama says, "We must look forward, not back. We must progress into the future, not wallow in the past. We must come together in unity as one nation, not practice the politics of divisiveness. We must concentrate our energy on the challenges of today and tomorrow, not waste our talents on the past." is the day I call him a worthless piece of shit.
Will it happen? Odds are probably better than not. But then, what the heck. Let's give all the murderers, rapists, child molesters, drug dealers, thieves and robbers a do-over too and let them all out of prison with our "forward-thinking forgiveness". Because sure as hell, if this White House gets away with its crimes a near future Caligula in the White House knows he has license to unleash death upon the earth. And damn every worthless shell of a politician who cheers it on.
TO nancy pelosi,
Non-feasance FAILURE TO PERFORM AN ACT THAT IS EITHER AN OFFICIAL DUTY OR A LEGAL REQUIREMENT.(Am. Heritage dic.) and you my dear are a text book example of someone who should be removed from the position of power which you are apparently impotent in your abilities for such inaction.
There is no political will in Washington to impeach this President, and like any other mafia operation...EVERYONE involved with it, directly or indirectly, has been infected.
The Democrats do not need an impeachment to win. The economy and the war are doing that job for them.
Those sitting in their living room waiting to be hand delivered empowering data by Corporate infotainment get the news they ask for.
When we allowed the public airwaves to be owned by private interests we sold out any chance of a reliable source of a visible viable public interest forum on our airwaves.
The interesting thing is if impeachment starts now it'll be forever hanging over the war criminal's head like Damocles sword, since he'll be out of office before the Senate can try him. That way no deals can be cut that might try to save him face.
But we also need to impeach dick chainey and nancy pelosi.
And what about criminal charges against booshco, can Congress press them?
Rob Kall over @ OPEDNEWS has it just right. There is no rule requiring reporting to the Senate house findings in a fixed time frame therefore you open hearings and just go on investigating the sordid mess we have on our hands.
Why Hasn't Senator Leahy had a ongoing hearing into the anthrax case, I mean open every Judiciary hearing with a report updating progress on this most pressing investigation?
Impeachment means no pardons for anyone connected to hearings, thank you Dennis for not failing to mention a cast of hundreds who have been stripped of their executive privilege and unlike Libby, are now exposed to the full extent of the law's punishment with-out a get out of jail free card.
As some candy-assed cowboy once said "bring it on" if they have done nothing wrong they have nothing to hide,right?
I hope they finally get to the TRUTH about PAT TILLMAN"S murder in article ten of the infamous "35",that could take a week by itself.
Pelosi: I know what our success can be on those issues. I don’t know what our success can be on impeaching the president.”
She just doesn't get it. The country has been run by crooks for eight years, they have disregarded Constitutional rights, They have imprisoned the innocent, they have run runshod over US citizens' rights, They have engaged in scandal after scandal, they have run our economy into the ground, we are currently paying Close to $5 a gallon for gas and it will reach $7 by summer's end. All the while Halliburton and it's execs just get richer. And Pelosi will not initiate impeachment proceedings. SHE JUST DOESN'T GET IT. Until that happens and the crooks are incarcerated, the world will not be right. If they skate, the stage will be set for more to come and it will mark the end of our nation as we knew it, as it was designed by the founders.
What we really need to do is prove the administration was complicit in 9/11. This will all come out some day.
It's too late. If they impeach and convict with 7 months to go, it fuels the Right Wing chant that Bush was railroaded without due deliberation.
Worse, if an impeachment resolution reaches the Senate before the election, it puts Obama in a horrible position.
The thing to do, IMHO, is for Obama and the next Congress to cooperate by holding hearings and releasing, drip by drip, the inner workings of the Bush White House (not to mention the records of the Bush I White House). Spend two or three years reminding Americans, on a monthly basis, just what kind of man they were idolizing and voting for.
(final thought on my post 104)
One really good thing is that Bush is relatively young and will be hale and hearty as the mass of the nation's contempt accumulates on his manly shoulders.
Indict Nancy for obstruction of justice! This is NOT a political issue. The cretins in this administration are truly criminals.
The American people would demand impeachment if they ever got the "FACTS" on what the Bush family crime syndicate has been doing for the last eight years.
And they wonder how the republican's (who offer 90% of the country nothing but misery) were able to win elections for 12 consecutive years? Its because people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have all the political intuition of a three legged bloudhound with a hearing impairment and stuffy nose.
i think "timmeh" russert up and died just to give cover to his fellow assholes so they could continue talking about crap that doesn't matter. even dead he annoys the crap out of me.
Do The Right Thing. Impeach.
So now this woman is actually giving reasons (excuses?) for ignoring the law!
To think, somewhere in America, a poor kid is being sentenced 2 to 5 for stealing a couple of hundred bucks out of desperation, or for having a few marijuana cigarettes! F. U. Nancy-comlpicit!!!!
This is Republican B/S there isn't enough time. The Impeachment of Johnson took less than two months to complete start to finish. These arguments sound like we couldn't ever try Jeffery Daimler because we could never complete an investigation of everyone he harmed. As to the argument we can't withstand the interruption to our regular business, I guess some said the same at Johnson's trial but we're still here.
Here's a better idea: Forget impeaching bush, we've only got a few months to go.
What we should do it prepare to indict Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rice, Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Wolfowitz, Scalia, and Thomas for crimes against humanity once Obama gets elected president and the democrats take both houses with over 2/3 majority next fall.
Congress is to busy sucking the cocks of AIPAC, and filling their pockets with money, to give a shit about our country.
It would be nice to wall the whole bunch of them.
displaced @ 111:
I have a feeling that bush will give himself & all of his cronies immunity before he hopefully leaves office-
I had an e-mail from Wexler this morning. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel is attacking him on the Impeachment. He's asking for letters to their editor.
letters@sun-sentinel.com.
Che's Lounge @ 68:
You are certainly right. The [alleged] agent of hope and change is a fraud. He has not backed Kucinich and has left him twisting in the wind. Obama's adviser was James Johnson, who helped bankrupt the health care system in this country, such as UnitedHealth. Obama loves to play both sides against the middle in order to do anything to get votes. In December of 2007, he told a woman in Iowa that "I am not a nuclear-energy proponent." But last month in heavily Hispanic Miami, he told an audience there that nuclear power in places like Mexico and Latin America should remain an option. Last week, Obama told members of AIPAC that Jerusalem should always be the capital of Israel. When leaders in Palestine protested Obama's remarks, Obama backpedaled, saying that he "did not rule out Palestinian sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem."
Fans of Obama should keep in mind that their idol is bought and paid for by Wall Street and will do and say anything in order to continue receiving their backing and support.
I wonder if President Bush can try to pardon everybody, including himself, even if no crime has even been charged (yet).
Can a president issue a pardon of somebody without specifying what their crime is?
I don't think a president can just grant blanket immunity for unspecified or undiscovered crimes, but it doesn't mean this president wouldn't try.
We will be lucky to be rid of this president by next January. Our country is on fire. And it's sinking. The next president and congress has a tremendous mess to clean up. If it's McCain, we're dead.
prairiedog @ 112:
Heh, I saw the AIPAC acronym while reading quickly and thought it said NAMBLA... /snark
It is so sad that the dems are more interested in gaining office than maintaining the lagitamacy of the office itself.
This is just wrong. Impeachment is right for simple justice sake - Sometimes you have take risks and some times you have to be willing to sufferer potential unplesentries to "DO THE RIGHT THING".
We need to do this for it's own reason - Fuck politics, if you don't have the authority granted by the constitution because YOU have let the dam thing be SHREDDED then you are just a freakin' tyrant - Governing with out consent or legal basis.
"Never mind my belief that holding those in power accountable is just about the most important issue there is. Impeaching President Bush will actually help Democrats accomplish their electoral goals."
The dems SUCK SHIT. They have become the very worst element of our culture.
If all the dems want is to be elected at any cost - Aren't they as bad as the republican coup plotters that brought us BUSH??
"Never mind my belief that holding those in power accountable is just about the most important issue there is. Impeaching President Bush will actually help Democrats accomplish their electoral goals."
There is a big divide in the Democratic Party between those who want justice and the rule of law and those who want convienence and the rule of politics. Most of the lefty blogostars opted early for the later. kos, digby, duncan back, jane hamster all followed the pelosi lead and have done nothing to support impeachment. Instead of worrying about the horse race, they would have done better to every day demand impeachment. Moveon is in the same boat. Nobody wanted to make the top 3 or 4 candidates come out for impeachment. But they aren't involved in politics to overthrow the system but to put themselves inside it. If a half dozen large lefty blog sites had been unrelenting in calling for the impeachment hearings, I beleieve that chainy, at least, would have been investigated but instead of going for the jugular they wanted to nibble the administrations ear.
I disagree with impeachment simply because of what happened when Nixon was impeached. Did or did not Gerald Ford PARDON Nixon?YES HE DID pardon Nixon.Impeaching Bush, either singly or along with Cheney would take the main focus off the ball( the ball being the November election). As mush as I deplore Nancy Pelosi, she is right about impeachment E.I.not on the table
Wayne A. Schneider @ 16:
exactly!!!!
But then they have to be arrested and sent to The Hague to be tried and convicted, but not sentenced!!
We sentence them here and throw them in the klink forever.
This was all ready voted down on Friday.
"Why Impeachment Is Good Electoral Strategy"
I forgot to mention that suggesting impeachment as an "electoral strategy" isn't very bright.
bigironal @ 121:
Hell with that. There are 300 million reasons to impeach Bush. There are only two to not impeach Bush: Cowardice and political advantage.
Neither of which I want running my political system. Bush broke the law and deserves to pay the price for it and there's no way Obama's going to Pardon him.
There's a way Republicans can stand for change. They can impeach this bastard and remove him from office themselves. It would be the best possible thing that the Republicans could do for their 'brand'.
paranoia @ 5:
Which is why I believe the American People should be treating Nancy Pelosi (and John Conyers) as mere "rocks in the stream". We should NOT be accepting as Gospel her "impeachment is off the table" B.S.
What I believe we SHOULD be doing is taking the case for impeachment against Bush and Cheney to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Those of us who were adults in the early 70's will no doubt remember the course of events when crimes were committed within the Nixon Administration.
THE SENATE set up a Committee to Investigate the charges. Here's a little refresher for those too young to remember and I guess it's a "walk down memory lane" for us boomers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYeRHJifnKE&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QcF0RHt_6Q&feature=related
I'd like to see the impeachment issue dumped in the laps of Sen. Patrick Leahy, Sen. Russ Feingold, Sen. Ted Kennedy and perhaps even Sen. Feinstein (although I think her chuminess with Pelosi would prevent her from doing the right thing) and the other Democrats who are currently sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
BTW, here's a clip of that committee in action last week when a Republican member stopped the testimony of two different individuals two days in a row. This is the kind of obstruction and criminality we're up against here:
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&It...
I have a sneaking feeling this Senate Committee might be ready to start an investigation of Bush/Cheney starting with testimony from McClellan.
Any comments?
bigironal @ 121:
The "ball" is not the November election. The ball is this country and the criminals who are plotting their next move. What do you think is going on right now in Dick Cheney's lair while you're sitting there with your eyes glazed over thinking about November? All these cries of "wait, wait, we'll get'em in the fall!" overlook the hundreds of dirty little paws feverishly scratching the litter box to cover up their stinking lies. Even more importantly, they overlook the conniving and the lengths to which the neo-cons will go to make the last few months count for as much as possible. These people are capable of ANYTHING. Impeach the SOB's if only to freeze them in their tracks.
I would like to see some comment on Ari Fleisher's editorial in the Washington Post.
From E&P: ". . . But Fleischer’s case is misleading and weak. Consider just one assertion: "In the lead-up to the war in Iraq, no matter what position the president took, the press took the opposite.""
Yes if we could have Bush out even ONE DAY earlier through impeachment it would mean so much for the possibility of this nations continuity with its past.
Traditions like constitutional democracy and the rule of law will seem quite quaint indeed if these lawless bastards are left un-molested to continue the same agenda of international looting and murder.
If not for America and Americans, do it for the world! All of humanity support this action - The global population would benefit for generations!
Impeach with out delay! This administration is UNCONSTITUTED.
liberAL @ 104:
paranoia @ 5:
Which is why I believe the American People should be treating Nancy Pelosi (and John Conyers) as mere "rocks in the stream". We should NOT be accepting as Gospel her "impeachment is off the table" B.S.
What I believe we SHOULD be doing is taking the case for impeachment against Bush and Cheney to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Those of us who were adults in the early 70's will no doubt remember the course of events when crimes were committed within the Nixon Administration.
THE SENATE set up a Committee to Investigate the charges. Here's a little refresher for those too young to remember and I guess it's a "walk down memory lane" for us boomers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYeRHJifnKE&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QcF0RHt_6Q&feature=related
I'd like to see the impeachment issue dumped in the laps of Sen. Patrick Leahy, Sen. Russ Feingold, Sen. Ted Kennedy and perhaps even Sen. Feinstein (although I think her chuminess with Pelosi would prevent her from doing the right thing) and the other Democrats who are currently sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
BTW, here's a clip of that committee in action last week when a Republican member stopped the testimony of two different individuals two days in a row. This is the kind of obstruction and criminality we're up against here:
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&It...
I have a sneaking feeling this Senate Committee might be ready to start an investigation of Bush/Cheney starting with testimony from McClellan.
Any comments?
Che's Lounge@70
afraid of the prospect of having to clean up the mess.
but Pelosi's 2006 campaign promise was "it would take a woman to clean up the House"?
Barack Obama is a fraud who knows the law as ex-editor of the Harvard Law Review, but refuses to enforce it.
1. "I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority," he told USA Today
-how many graves must be dug for Obama to impeach?
-the defin. of "intentional breach" is:
"anytime you hear the US govt. talk about wiretaps, it requires, a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It is important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act Constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect the homeland because we value the Constitution"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfbRcedmqvY
and then spying without such court orders as required by the 4th Amendment and FISA law.
or "we do not torture" while torturing and murdering innocent prisoners vs. the 8th Amendment of cruel and unusual punishment and the Geneva Conventions.
or continuing to imprison and stage show tribunals despite the 3rd Supreme Court ruling affirming the habeas corpus rights of prisoners.
2."I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction. We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus."
-Barack Obama believes that $23 billion stolen in Iraq has made Washington function?
the Trillion dollar war racket is none of the people's business?
Obama is a Democratic clown in the DC circus where suckers are born every minute.
Voters, step right up, step right up everyone's a winner.
Abbybwood@127 right track.
Demand the Senate Judiciary to set up a committee to investigate.
Tell them to ask McClellan to id the Congress members who were briefed on the criminal spying, torture, and rendition (Pelosi, Harman, Rockefeller, Roberts) but who were prohibited from telling even their peers on the Intel Committee.
Force these members to recuse themselves.
Free Dems on House Judiciary from the compromised direction of Pelosi... and hold hearings for real oversight.
Phone Fax
Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) [Chair] 202-224-4242 202-224-3479
Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) 202-224-4543 202-224-2417
Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) 202-224-5042 202-224-0139
Herb Kohl (D-WI) 202-224-5653 202-224-9787
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) 202-224-3841 202-228-3954
Russell D. Feingold (D-WI) 202-224-5323 202-224-2725
Charles Schumer (D-NY) 202-224-6542 202-228-3027
Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) 202-224-2152 202-228-0400
Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) 202-224-4524 202-224-1651
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) 202-224-2921 202-228-6362
Without impeachment we send a message to the electorate and the world in general that this country is not really governed by laws but is an collection of personalities that can arbitrarally change the lwas to fit the current whim of an administration even over the will of the people.
This has been done and without impeachment we are tacitly approving these events. Pelosi is rapidly proving to be one of the weakest Speakers in modern history.
why waste the impeachment card on george bush ???
let's wait until 2009, when we got 67 votes to remove in the Senate
and instead of impeaching george bush, we can impeach and remove the four supreme court justices who failed to uphold habeas corpus
see how that works ???
we're playin for bigger stakes here
we get a chance to knock conservatives right out of 21st century politics
E in Md @ 126:
Ruthless People @ 11:
Screw impeachment right now....I'd rather help make sure all those spineless, pathetic Democrats who caved in and "took impeachment off the table", or ignored it, or didn't want to bother, get voted out of office. Those types are just as guilty of treason as Bush/Cheney, because they TOO did not live up to their oath of office.
Then, after we have run them out of D.C. and have new blood in their places, let the war crimes begin.
Anyone afraid to vote out Pelosi and Reid and the like (Dems) who refused to do what their constituents requested en masse are just as bad as they are as well. How many chances are we going to give the "lifers" in D.C. ? Vote them out and make it clear we will only elect those who listen - Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, whatever.
And ONCE AGAIN, impose term limits for Congress. Two terms and you're outta there. No lifers, and no lifelong health care....unless it is granted to the entire population.
I'm as much for impeachment as anyone else -- but impeachment right now would require some Republican votes. Anybody think that ANY Republican would vote for impeachment? Right before elections? Why would they?
NO!! This would ruin Barack's campaign. It would look like the old dirty politics that he is speaking against. This is a terrible idea. And as others have mentioned, there aren't the votes in Congress for it anyway. The time for this discussion was 3 years ago, we missed that boat!
Impeach, convict, and remove Bush and Cheney. Then put them and Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolowitz, Condoleeza Rice, Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, Dana Perrino, Tony Snow, and Ari Fleischer all on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Let justice be served in Baghdad Square!
Impeaching will bring even GREATER wins for the Democratic Party.
If they don't impeach, many Democrat lose and our majority in the House will be slim. Who wants that again?
brandon@138 You and Barack are no different that the partisan politicians Scott McClellan says are in DC today. Motivated by partisanship and it's all one big 24/7 campaign. This includes selling a war that murders people, outing a NOC CIA agent who worked to stop the spread of WMD...
Forget the millions of lives ruined and continual murders because this would "ruin Barack's campaign."?
Rather than stop the criminals, crimes, and bloody cycle you want Barack Obama to continue shipping Americans and taxpayer-borrowed dollars to Iraq? It worked for Bush in 2004 right, why not for Obama in 2008? When will Obama put the American credit card where his mouth is and stop funding Iraq? Watch what Obama does not what he says or said. Like Kerry, Obama was against the war before he voted for it.
Amazing how you pre-judge votes in Congress before hearings are held and the public gets wind of what happened. A year ago you would have told Obama it is a "terrible idea" to run for Pres. because there are not enough votes for him. Stop the Nope, start the Hope.
A majority favor impeaching Cheney, a plurality favor impeaching Bush.
Stop giving outlaws a free pass, it only encourages them. See Ford's pardon of Nixon and Clinton letting Reagan's Iran-Contra go by. Today we suffer under an administration guided by ex-members of that Ford admin. (Cheney, Rumsfeld) and Iran-Contra criminals who are now media jerks like Ollie North and Gordon Liddy.
FYI America was a Constitutional democracy with laws. Learn them and help take back our country from fascist dictators.
http://www.pubrecord.org/docs/vega/kucinich-bush-articles-of-impeachment...
http://www.pubrecord.org/docs/vega/kucinich-bush-articles-of-impeachment...
When you're finished with Bush and Cheney you have to impeach Pelosi too. She's deen aiding and abetting them since she made speaker.
Doing something like impeachment because "it's the right thing to do" does not guarantee victory of justice. You have to pick your battles wisely and advance in the spots where "the enemy" is weakest.
Does anybody really think we can successfully impeach both Bush and Cheney? At the same time? Right now before a presidential election in four months?
Yes, they should both be removed from office, investigated and prosecuted along with many other major criminals in their administration but Pelosi knows it'll fail, and in failing I think it might result in inoculating them through pardons and whatnot.
Until they're out of office and out of power, they shouldn't even be charged with anything for which they can pardon themselves before leaving.
But once they're out of office and out of power, every major thing MUST be investigated and prosecuted without their stonewalling and interference because these last 7 years can't stand unrefuted.
I've been wrong before but I think that trying to impeach Bush and Cheney would be a waste of time and effort, and though I applaud Kucinich I would be disappointed in Pelosi if she'd tilted at this windmill.
Mia Kulper@143: I would be disappointed in Pelosi if she’d tilted at this windmill.
Though Nancy is Speaker of the House she cannot dictate that Congress ignore the "shall impeach" directive of the Constitution. Sadly the Dems decided "if you can't beat them, join them" and now imitate Republicans by falling lock-step behind their leader right or wrong.
Why do you trust the judgment of Pelosi a craven politician? Her motive for avoiding impeachment is selfish preservation. She fears losing her power when hearings publicize the fact that Pelosi, as a Gang of Eight member, was briefed and approved of the offenses and crimes listed among the impeachment articles.
Please explain how hearings that would reveal Bush giving a get-out-of-jail free card to Libby-who was directed by Cheney to engage in conduct Bush Sr. described as that of "the most insidious of traitors" would "result in inoculating them through pardons"? as if Bush doesn't have a pardon lined up for Libby already.
Why postpone prosecution of criminals who are in the act of committing violations until after they are through?
You'd tell the police to wait until after a pyromaniac is done burning forests or a whacko is done with his murder spree before enforcing the law?
-Since 2000 America has lost an area of forest to fires equal to the size of Idaho. Our resident Pyro Bush says "it doesn't feel hotter to me" while he censors and suppresses climate science.
Drink Obama kool-aid and ' "Moveon".org, nothing to see here people...just move on.' at our country's peril.
Impeachment isn't prosecution.
Yes, impeachment is political "prosecution" not a criminal prosecution as it leads to removal from office and disqualification from holding office.
Not only prohibited criminal acts qualify for impeachment, but also the dispensary offenses of acts that can be committed only by officials who wield the powers of Federal office.
Semantics aside Mia Kulper@145, hearings or impeachment would disable those damaging America and deter such abuses in the future. You enable abusers by not supporting hearings.
The "no votes" reason is a prejudgment that disregards process and disrespects the ability and right of Reps. and their constituents to change their minds when presented with new info at hearings.
Your reason of impracticality implicitly endorses the very unconstitutional and impeachable acts of this Executive that have made it impractical to pursue impeachment. These include secrecy, deception, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and refusal to honor Congressional subpoenas.
Hearings will show the game is rigged. The players and fans will correct the game by restoring the rules.
You'd have to be smoking crack to believe for one moment that Republicans are going to vote to remove both Bush and Cheney from office, and install Nancy Pelosi as president. Right before a presidential election. LOL. You call me an "Obama kool-aid drinker" yet you don't seem to have the slightest grip on reality.
They're not going to be removed from office.
They should be prosecuted after they're out of office and out of power.
M. Kupler@147
There is an 11% to 18% approval of Congress and many Republicans are as is holding on to their seats by a thread.
What happens when hearings torpedo the sinking Executive and Republican brand?
It is conceivable that Republicans would pressure Bush and Cheney to resign for the good of the party and its future. It already happened when Spiro Agnew resigned during Nixon's controversy.
Login or Register to post comments.