Promising to impeach Bush will lead to gains.

[V. Kid]

It's a simple as that.

Why?

Because if the Democrats say why he needs to be impeached, because he lied about Iraq, and lead the war poorly, and therefore is unfit to govern, it will force those who disagree, mainly Republicans, to defend him. The more they're tied to him, the more unpopular they'll be. The more unpopular they'll be, the more likely they'll loose. Now of course the Republicans will steal a few lines out of the Lieberman playbook, and claim that the Democratic Party is being "narrowly partisan".

But look-y here.

The fact of the matter is this: Bush is politically toxic. As we know the main reason, other than possible voting related "shenanigans", that endangered Republican incumbents will survive is because of their personal appeal to their constituents, and their ability to run away from Bush as fast as possible. Now of course this strategy won't work very well if certain Democrats, unfortunately most of them, argue that the President shouldn't face Impeachment hearings. And, umm, thus defend him. But if they leave the possibility for impeachment open, at the least, then they'll force their opponents to defend him and put them on the wrong side of an unpopular issue (the war!) and tie them to a symbol of that issue (Bush!). The Republicans, and other Bush defenders, will be relegated to whining like babies will the grown ups talk about the real issues.

One of the reasons the Republicans are so successful is because they create divisive hot-button issues that place the Democrats on the wrong side of public opinion. With the Iraq war going the way it is, this is a chance for the Democratic Party to make big gains. It focuses political attention on the "culture of corruption" and "abuse of power" allegations, nay observations, that the Democratic Party is making with good reason against the Republicans and Bush. And with ballot measures like increasing minimum wage on various states, that favour the Democrats, I think they're starting to learn how to play the game better. Adopting this strategy would confirm that they are learning how to play the game better.

[ERF]

1. Do you have a link to the actual legal case for impeachment?

Wanting to impeach and President and having the legal grounds to do so are obviously two different things.

Anyone who pays attention clearly knows that he is a criminal in the moral sense, but what are the specific laws on which we would try him for high crimes and misdemeanors? He lied, but not necessarily under oath. The Guppies are fast working to fix that little old espionage law he broke. Do you have a link to help me out on this?

[man4allcats]

3. Re: "Do you have a link to the actual legal case for impeachment?"

Google "Legal case for impeachment of George W. Bush" (no quotes). I didn't have time to sift through all the results (about 1,550,000), but you should be able to find enough ammunition without too much trouble.

[IChing]

4. Yes, but the fall elections are critical for subpoena powers

Conyers would be in-charge and he knows the score as do we.


http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5054&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1061

[V. Kid]

5. Unfortunatley, or maybe fortunatley, I'm not a lawyer...

...but I'd say that the Downing Street Memo would be a good indication of previous knowledge of "saying one thing" and "doing another", ie: the Bush Administration was saying that they wanted a peaceful solution to the WMD "crisis", but knew full well that they intended to invade Iraq. I'm not sure the exact legal precedents for bringing up charges, but I'm sure someone more well versed on that could think about the consequences.

I think this all leads back to the old cliche about Bill Clinton's impeachment being based on his lie. If Bill Clinton could be legally brought up on charges because he lied about a oral sex, then surely George W. Bush can be brought up on charges because he lied about a war. I don't know, hopefully there are some DU lawyers around here, because if impeachment itself isn't the right word (although I'd like it to be since it's so powerful), then investigations that could lead to impeachment could be the series of right words.

The reason I bring this up now is because I think the Connecticut Primary is somewhat of a microcosm of the wider political climate in the country as it relates to Bush and the Iraq war. There was a strong, well financed, well backed incumbent, toting a strongly pro-War record, and was actually somewhat harder to pin to Bush on other issues, than the average Republican. And yet, he still managed to be defeated. Granted that electorate was more liberal than the average electorate, but still, the Democratic Party's candidates in other races will be better positioned than Lamont was in taking on Lieberman, so I still think the comparison stands.

[ERF]

7. What I am fairly sure of is that "lying" itself is not

a grounds for impeachment. Bush didn't lie under oath, Clinton did. Why he did and for what reasons and the subject of that lie is what made the impeachment absurd.

Thus lying itself, and of that I am certain, is not the crime.

My guess is that there are probably some things hidden out there that would require subpoena power. Which, as the original post rightly said is the primary focus at the moment.

[IChing]

9. he lied under oath giving the State of the Union which is

applicable.

Also the Ricco Act is applicable.

He has broken more laws than Nixon ever did
believe me.

[ERF]

13. Is he State of Union considered "under oath" really?

I certainly believe you that he broke laws, don't worry. I just want to know the exact legal basis so that it can be solid and not simply sound like a desire for vengeance.

[alvarezadams]

10. One case can be made

for "conspiring to wage war". This is not part of the US code but of international law as per Nuremburg and therefore has a special dispensation.

And by all lights he is guilty as sin.

[w4rma]

11. Conyers Report on Potential Bush Crimes

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/conyers-report/

[man4allcats]

2. Damn! A strategist!

Don't take this the wrong way, but you could be our Karl Rove!

[V. Kid]

6. Cheers...

...I just think the Democrats need to start fighting fire with fire, read Sun Tzu, and all that jazz.

[man4allcats]

8. Re: Sun Tzu

Thanks for the tip. I will check it out. B-)

[V. Kid]

12. Shhh...

...I need to read it too, I just know some of the quotes from it. Including the one about war being an extention of politics, and something about enemies needing to be studied.

[V. Kid]

14. Bump...