Constitutionally, Is Impeachment An Option Or A Required Remedy?

[babylonsister]

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1169

Burt Hall: Constitutionally, Is Impeachment An Option Or A Required Remedy?

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Burt Hall

If a remedy is constitutionally required, the facts below dictate that House impeachment hearings begin soon. Speaker Pelosi is taking calls on impeachment -- pro or con -- at 202/225-0100.

The President and Vice President have committed high crimes in their conduct of national security. The high crimes constitute grave breaches of Commander-in-Chief authority, and apply equally to 9/11 and Iraq. Investigating these crimes can end the war in Iraq, cause the President and Vice President to resign, and change the direction of our country.

snip//

In the case of Iraq, the situation is far simpler -- if you set aside overstating, as absolute fact, intelligence estimates known to be inherently uncertain. For months, international inspectors on the ground were getting cooperation from the Iraqi government, had found no illegal weapons of any sort, and were questioning U.S. intelligence. The President invaded anyway, forcing the inspectors to leave. The invasion violated the congressional authorization requiring that no "further diplomatic or other peaceful means" be available. This was a grave breach of presidential authority and a lie to the American people about war as a last resort.

What happened with regard to 9/11 and Iraq are grounds for dismissal in any arena, private or public. More than half of our states and nearly 100 cities and towns have activities aimed at impeaching the President and Vice President. These numbers are growing daily and include veterans groups and a number of Congressional members. The American people want the Bush administration held to account.

Muslims around the world will not permit President Bush to win his mistaken war in Iraq. We are stalemated there and in Congress here, and our military and their families are paying the price. And, there is no chance of negotiating an acceptable course correction with the President. It would mean a presidential loss of face -- something he will not accept voluntarily. The only recourse left is impeachment.

Impeachment proceedings, whether they succeed or not, will disclose Bush's inept national security credentials, help break the congressional gridlock, and make it much easier to end the war. Not applying remedies designed to prevent high crimes, such as those discussed here, would seem to violate an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. It would mean that those in oversight positions are no better than the persons who committed the crimes.

It really is within our grasp to begin repairing our democracy and put the country back on track.

[proud patriot]

1. Required Remedy IMO

[baldguy]

2. Is bringing charges against a murderer an option or a requirement?

If the police have evidence & a confession, can they just let a suspect remain free?

[tom_paine]

4. Well said

n/t

[rocktivity]

3. I say it's required because impeachable things have been done

and it's Congress' job to investigate impeachable things whether it results in impeachment or not. Besides, at the very least, any investigation and hearings would be on public record: though the final impeachment vote against Clinton failed, look at all of the political mileage the Rethugs have gotten out of it! What's wrong with doing something on the grounds that you're SUPPOSED to do it?

:headbang:
rocknation

[baldguy]

5. If Pelosi & Reid DON'T start impeachment, they just might as well go home.

The President is not a king - but if Congress doesn't do it's duty by impeaching & removing him there's nobody left to stop him acting like one.