Kennedy Sidesteps Impeachment Endorsement

[Barrett808]

Kennedy Sidesteps Impeachment Endorsement
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., appearing with law professors who want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush over the Iraqi prisoner abuse, declined to endorse the idea himself. Instead, Kennedy opted for a political plug.

The best way to solve things "is to elect John Kerry," said Kennedy, appearing beside two Harvard professors at a news conference upstairs from his Senate office.

The professors presented a letter signed by more than 400 legal scholars urging members of the House and Senate to consider impeaching the president and any high level administration officials who approved the Iraqi prisoner abuses.

Kennedy said the administration must be held accountable for the abuses and any policies that condoned them, and no one — including the president — should be immune to answering questions about the abuse. But asked by reporters about impeachment, Kennedy referred the question to the professors, Henry J. Steiner and Christine Desan.

Among those signing the letter were former O.J. Simpson defender Alan Dershowitz and the Rev. Robert F. Drinan, a former Massachusetts congressman who teaches at Georgetown University.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040616/ap_on_go_co/kennedy_impeachment&cid=512&ncid=1480

[lovedems]

1. I have often wondered what impeachment proceedings would do this

close to the election. It could really backfire on democrats because it could *appear* as if they are going to take the WH one way or another. It has the potential to turn alot of voters off.

I wish we could impeach the bastard and send his cabinet back under the rocks they crawled out from under. *Sigh*, it just seem possible with the election only 5 months away.

[Dhalgren]

25. With the Repubs in control of both houses

there is no way it could be spun as a "Democratic" agenda. It would have to be Republicans who put forward impeachment - and, of course, that ain't gonna happen.

[lovedems]

28. I know and it is sad.

A republican controlled congress impeaches you for a BJ and pats you on the back for war crimes.

They have time to investigate a Presidents personal life but are to busy to investigate war profiteering.

A republican controlled congress willl *never* cease to amaze me.

I am shooting for the moon this Novemeber. I am not only hoping for a Kerry win in the WH, I am hoping democrats take control of *at least* one branch of congress.

[Catfight]

2. I would rather see Bush charged with treason for outing Valerie

Plame. I find that the worse thing he ever did, besides send many American men and women to die for a lie. He should still have impeachment proceedings against him, along with a trial for treason.

[boxster]

3. Impeachment really isn't realistic before the election.

It would be a waste of time and a waste of resources. No way is a Republican Congress going to impeach Bush for this. No chance.

The best way to get rid of Bush is to not elect him again this time.

[Spinzonner]

4. True

Unless something really outrageous that hasnt been heard about crops up.

But using it as a framework for all the crimes of the administration is useful, so long as it doesnt get too strident or hysterical.

[dweller]

5. the *moron

was NOT ELECTED last time.

impeach him, try him for treason, send him to the ICC,

whatever.it.takes.
dp

[AndyTiedye]

13. Impeachment YES!

It would have to be a bipartisan effort, of course.
It can't happen any other way, and it needs to happen.

Our country needs to begin the process of redeeming itself.
Bush and Cheney should be impeached, and then turned over
to the ICC for prosecution.

The world needs to see us root out the evil that has
taken over our government.

[Grins]

6. I disagree...

It would be a waste of time and a waste of resources.
Time, costs, and resources are never an issue in criminal conduct. It's the cost of "justice" You just suck it up. $70M was pocket change for these guys when they went after Clinton.

No way is a Republican Congress going to impeach Bush for this. No chance.
You're absolutely correct. But that doesn't mean you can't raise the issue, an issue that has several benefits:

1. It keeps the focus on Bush defending himself from yet another charge. Less time for him to be slandering Kerry. Press will be on him without mercy, worse than Gore's "lies". Just as Clinton had to do, Chimpy will have to spend a LOT of time with lawyers. (Sigh....all those campaign dollars just sitting there defending instead of attacking. Won't those big corporate contributors be ever-so proud of their boy!)

2. It keeps repukes running for re-election in Washington (away from their states and districts) and on-camera as they try to distance themselves from Bush. They are already trying to distance themselves, and this will make it worse for them and for Bush.

3. While you are correct that no repuke congress will impeach, a whole passel of 'em will have to be in Washington and in their districts trying to say a crime is not a crime. How will they defend Plame, the prisoner scandal, torture, an inept intelligence community, lies about WMD, lies about Al-Quaeda, ties to the Saudi's, failure to know about Pakistan delivering nukes to Libya, republicans breaking into Senator's data files, editing professional research papers, etc. Keep the volume up and they won't be able to anything else. Ther only thing they will be able to say is, "..but,...but, what about gay marriage?", or abortion, or prayer in school, non-existant flag burning, take your pick. Non issues. Let their hard core "Christian" fundamentalists try to defend torture, or outing intelligence officers. (God, I'd love to see it!)

A republican congress will not impeach a republican *resident - and that, dear citizen, is why we need a democrat in the White House, and a democrat majority in the Senate!!! Pound that message home!!!

I understand your thoughts, but there are some advantages here.

[AndyTiedye]

14. The Stench May Get Too Bad Even for Republicans

> no repuke congress will impeach

the stuff coming out keeps getting worse and worse, and it keeps
climbing closer and closer to to the top of the misadministration.

At some point, Repubs may start talking impeachment even if we don't.

[Tellurian]

18. Fiddle dee dee..

Time and money are not a consideration when it comes to the safety of the country. Elections are no longer a foolproof method of shedding an inept corrupt administration.

High crimes and Misdemeanors cry out for justice and must be reconciled once and for all.

[Massacure]

7. Impeachment would be better if Bush wins the election

Then you put the pressure on Cheney for the Halliburtin (sp?) deals. I'm not sure who becomes president after the President and Vice-President are removed.

[AlGore-08.com]

12. F.Y.I. the Speaker of the House is next in line after the VP

Here's the order of succession - - there's not a Dem on there until you get to the Secretary of Transporation:

1. Vice President of the United States - Dick Cheney
2. Speaker of the House - Dennis Hastert
3. President pro Tempore of the Senate - Ted Stevens
4. Secretary of State - Colin Powell
5. Secretary of the Treasury - Paul O'Neill
6. Secretary of Defense - Donald Rumsfeld
7. Attorney General - John Ashcroft
8. Secretary of the Interior - Gale Norton
9. Secretary of Agriculture - Ann Veneman
10. Secretary of Commerce - Don Evans
11. Secretary of Labor - Elaine Chao
12. Secretary of Health & Human Services - Tommy Thompson
13. Secretary of Housing & Urban Development - Mel Martinez
14. Secretary of Transportation - Norman Mineta
15. Secretary of Energy - Spencer Abraham
16. Secretary of Education - Rod Paige
17. Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs - Anthony Principi

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. If Bush wins the election, impeachment would be highly unlikely

He would probably be able to keep a majority in the House, and they are not likely to impeach a President of their own party.

[stellanoir]

8. yes he has earned impeachment a thousand times over

but with a Repug Congress it'll never happen and if it did. . .we'd be left with "Dipstick-Roboheart" Cheney who would pardon him anyway.

Get rid of the BBV machines and send him back to Crawford and then to the Hague.

I know. . .wishful thinking. . .

[4_Legs_Good]

9. Kucinich said, on DN! a few months ago, that impeacment would be the...

stupidest thing that could be done, politically, at this point. It tends to generate sympathy for the "embattled president".

I agree actually. Let's get him out the old fashioned way and deal with criminal charges afterwards.

david

[Eloriel]

19. Kucinich is wrong

It generates sympathy for an "embattled President" when that man is being witch-hunted. When the crimes are REAL, and horrifyingly damaging to the U.S. domestically and internationally, there'd only be sympathy fromt he die-hard religious and neocon nutjobs.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

20. Agreed. Justice is the only way to bring the US back into good standing

with the rest of the world that reviles the current administration.

Abu Ghraib and the illegal war must be repented for in the international community. Domestically, we are a country of superstitious crazies who will be polarized for decades to come.

But the damage done to world peace and civilisation in general must be accounted for, not swept under the rug.

The only way to reconcile with the people of other nations is to punish the guilty and demonstrate that rule of law and Geneva Conventions matter.

Lynndie England, Bush*, Cheney, and Rumsfeld need to share a cellblock.

[koopie57]

10. I think I would rather

wait and see if we can get democratic control of congress and then go for the whole pile of shit and sit back and enjoy ourselves. Get rid of the tax cuts for the wealthy and let them pay for it too. Hey, maybe put a one percent tax on the wealthy to pay for the cost of getting all these criminals behind bars. And another percent to save social security and another percent to cover aid for veterans and another to fund this filthy war and another to pay for housing these criminals in one of our finer prisons, maybe abu graib would do fine. And then put a notice in the local paper that these prisoners will be escaping one night and to keep an eye out for sinisters terrorists types and then let the cell doors open.

I think * is making mistake after mistake cuz he certainly seems to believe he is god. I want him to run and I want him to debate cuz he is almost surely going to look nuts to many people. I think people need to see what happens with this idol worship stuff and too many god references.

[SmokingJacket]

11. First elect Kerry, then Indict Bush

Being indicted after he loses would be the best, I think. Americans aren't ready to impeach -- I think a lot of people would feel sorry for the poor ignorant creep -- but once all the crap comes out and has time to truly sink in... then indictment can happen.

[Larkspur]

16. The wouldn't feel sorry for Bush if he knew who exposed Phlame

an act of treason.

Of course, both Cheney and Bush should be impeached. Cheney had to know who outed Phlame.

[riverwalker]

17. Dershowitz signed the letter?

Alan "headbag" Dershowitz, the Torture King? Did he sign it with the blood of one his victims? (And they are HIS victims.) His drum banging for torture in the weeks following 9/11 and pre-war are DIRECTLY responsible for Abu Graib, and that stench will follow him forever.
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney06092004.html

[dusty64]

21. Simply removing them

from office is NO longer enough. This cabal seems to always have a way of rearing their ugly heads again. They need to be put away where they can not hurt anyone again.

[CWebster]

22. electing Kerry is cover for not holding these criminals accoutable

But then, since Kerry was complicit, it sort of negates any enthusiasm in the established party who chose at the time, not to be branded as "unpatriotic" over the truth. The truth that was obvious to most of the world.

[dand]

23. This un-elected war criminal and his cabinet

should be tried in the Hague.

[silverpatronus]

24. why is everybody skirting this issue or plain-out running from it?

they need to say it loud...the president has lied to congress, and both he and members of his administration presented fraudulent claims on several matters of domestic and foreign importance. clinton was impeached by the house for lying about a blowjob. WHERE IS THE NOISE ON THIS?!

[Whoa_Nelly]

29. I agree, silverpatronus

They went after Clinton for lying under oath. Bush has been deceptive from day one, and continues to rack up the lies. Clinton lied about having sex outside of marriage; no one died. Bush lied and thousands have died, millions have lost jobs, and the corporations are being given the green light to continue in their business corruption with little or no consequences.

Where's the guarantee that BushCo Junta won't find a way to steal the election again? He can, and should, be impeached. He also can, and should be, held accountable for each and every one of his crimes.

on edit:
Every day there is more news of corruption, lying, and scrambling to cover people's asses while the insane nightmare of the past three-plus years continues. Our nation has become a house of cards with almost nothing to shore it up. What has happened to our nation? When will enough be enough to bring the outrage to an effective outcry that will stop the strange bedfellows from a devisiveness that is eroding the checks and balances of our democracy?

...and, what's up with Ted Kennedy? Has he become completely spineless?

[Stuckinthebush]

26. It is too late to consider impeachment

even if it was possible with a Republican controlled congress. The election is right around the corner and Bush will be thrown out the old fashioned way.

[Barrett808]

27. At this point, I say vote out then prosecute

Let Iraq and the half-dozen investigations close in on them until October. Just let them try an October Surprise. Like every other disastrous decision made by these mobsters, it will backfire on them.