John Dean: " Refocusing the Impeachment Movement ..... "

[seafan]

Refocusing the Impeachment Movement on Administration Officials Below the President and Vice-President

By John Dean
December 15, 2006

.....

Impeachment is a political process, and not only are the votes to remove either Bush or Cheney lacking, but it also would not be very good politics to do to them what was done to President Clinton.
....(Senate Republicans who have no problem with torture, or with removing the right to habeas corpus, and who refused to exercise any oversight whatsoever of Bush or Cheney, are hardly going to remove these men for actions in which they too are complicit.)
....The drive to impeach Bush and Cheney should, however, refocus its effort and energy into another undertaking - one that not only might succeed, but if it did, it would greatly benefit the nation and the well-being of all Americans.


....

Lowering the aim of an impeachment effort to focus on those who have aided and abetted, or directly engaged in, the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, would have all the positives, and none of the negatives, of going after Bush and Cheney. ...... to rid the government of those who have participated, along with Bush and Cheney, in abuses and misuses of power; indeed, many among them have actually encouraged Bush and Cheney to undertake the offensive activities.
Many of these men (and a few women) are young enough that it is very likely that they will return to other posts in future Republican Administrations, and based on their experience in the Bush/Cheney Administration, they can be expected to make the offensive conduct of this presidency the baseline for the next president they serve. Impeachment, however, would prevent that from happening.

....

It will be recalled that Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution states: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." (Emphasis added.) After any civil officer has been impeached, under the rules of the Senate, it requires only a simple majority vote to add the disqualification from holding future office.
...... Given the number of officials within the Bush Administration who may have been engaged in Constitutional high crimes or misdemeanors, and the nature of the impeachment process, there is no shortage of civil officers worthy of consideration. Where there is clear prima facie evidence of such constitutional misconduct, impeachment action should be commenced.


....

If the movement to impeach Bush and Cheney, an outcome which simply is not going to happen, were to turn its attention to many of the other civil officers who have been involved in high crimes and misdemeanors, it might be very different. With strong prima facie evidence, the House Judiciary Committee at a minimum would have good reason to at least begin the process, and that in itself could send a powerful message..... There would be no better way to do it than to commence impeachment proceedings against any on a potentially very long list of civil officers of the Bush Administration who should be removed from government, and disqualified from future opportunities to misuse government powers.

(emphasis added)

[scarletwoman]

1. Fascinating idea! I like it ! Start with Gonzales and Rumsfeld.

k & r -- thanks for posting this!

sw

[aquart]

4. It would prevent another Rumsfeld.

Don't let these extremists get their hands on our government again.

[femrap]

10. Dean said to go after the 'young' repugnants

so they can never serve in government again...so that leaves Rummy out. Plus it shows that criminal behavior will not go unpunished.

How about Rove? And all of those on in the WHIG?

[Jackpine Radical]

25. Rove doesn't have a Constitutional office, does he?

[Minnesota_Lib]

49. According to the following passage from Dean's article, he probably would be impeachable.

The Constitution's Impeachment Clause applies to all "civil officers of the United States" - not to mention the president, vice president and federal judges. It is not clear who, precisely, is among those considered "civil officers," but the group certainly includes a president's cabinet and sub-cabinet, as well as the senior department officials and the White House staff (those who are issued commissions by the president and serve the President and Vice President).

I could be wrong, but that is my layman's interpretation.

.

[mzmolly]

56. Wow,

fascinating.

[ooglymoogly]

71. perhaps that should read "i'm ready for my closeup mr de nile" nt

[femrap]

62. You're right...I guess I want his ass out of

politics and in jail so bad, I'll look at any possibility.

So how do we go about getting those people in WHIG? Is there no law that says 'it's a crime to market a war based on lies?' Taxpayers pay their salaries and we have no recourse?

[electropop]

50. We need to make them all pay - young, old, or in the Oval Office.

If there are no consequences for criminal acts, there will be no reason not to commit them (for those who lack morals, such as Republicans).

I would be OK with starting at the bottom and working up. They would turn on each other in a most entertaining way, tearing each other apart and each pointing fingers at their bosses. The sheer volume of testimony will make it impossible not to deal with the ringleaders.

[femrap]

63. And maybe that is Dean's strategy....

move up the ladder until the little fish tattle on the big ones.

I agree with you 100%...I just don't see how the United States can even begin to salvage its reputation until we get rid of those that lied us into this war.

I honestly don't see how * lives with himself...the amount of blood he has on his hands. Maybe he is the anti-christ...if there is such an entity.

[Imagevision]

79. 3months back the Italians subpeoned Rummy and Gonzo-boy and still pending...

It's probably why Bush dumped Rummy...

[SharonRB]

2. I love it

I love John Dean. He's smart and knows what he's talking about. Too bad Rummy can't be impeached, since tomorrow is his last day in office. But he could be indicted and sent to jail.

We could start with Condi, Gonzalez and a host of others.

[meldroc]

33. Oh, but Rumsfeld can be impeached.

Granted, there are bigger fish to fry now that Rummy's gone, but he can still be impeached. The Belknap precedent showed that even after a resignation, impeachment proceedings can still be done, since the consequences of impeachment, aside from removal from office, are disqualification from holding any other public office in the United States, and the benefit of making an example out of the SOB, metaphorically putting his head on a pike outside the Capitol as a warning to other SOBs to keep their noses clean.

Personally, I think we should go after Rove, Gonzales and Rice.

[SharonRB]

34. Those three work for me!

And if we can still get Rummy, all the better, but I'd just as soon see him indicted, convicted and frog marched off to jail. I'd love to take him to Geneva and put him on trial for war crimes.

[SharonRB]

39. Oops -- I meant The Hague -- not Geneva!

[beth9999]

88. If we're looking to make an impact...

... how about impeaching the Repug Supreme Court judges? If we don't get rid of them, they're going to be around for the next twenty years. They're far more dangerous than Rice, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, etc.

[babylonsister]

3. Dean has learned from history; the bad pennies, such as Cheney

and Rummy, don't go away. I think if the underling block(head)s are removed, the really bad guys will topple.

[Gregorian]

5. Thank you John Dean.

Brilliant man. I heed any advice he gives. After all, who would know the rules better than he?

I like this idea. I'm not sure how many it affects. Condi, and who else.

Also, I might argue that under the circumstances of revelations in the House of Representatives, Republicans may be much more inclined to vote in favor of removal, in the Senate. After all, criminal acts when revealed to the greater public would most certainly have an effect on even the staunchest of Republican Senators. But I suppose I am overestimating those Republican Senators. Dean is probably correct in his assumption.

Interesting article.


Also, what makes this an interesting process is that it leaves the two lame ducks in office. We will stop the war in Iraq without removal of Cheney or Bush. So let them stay, and it serves two purposes. It keeps their successors from becoming better suited runners in the '08 election; It gives the Republican party a black eye. There would be no scapegoat and handwashing.

[longship]

6. Recommended and kicked for John Dean.

Sage advice, DUers.

[AtomicKitten]

7. Dean declared a long time ago they are Worse than Watergate.

[seafan]

8. This is pure genius from Dean. Dismantle the criminal support structure, and the top will collapse.

I would like to see AG Gonzales, Rice, David Addington, Susan Ralston, and Rove on this docket, for starters.

[motocicleta]

9. genius

k n r

[Connie_Corleone]

11. K & R

[leveymg]

12. Start with all the lawyers who authored the torture memos, move on to

the State Dept. and White House officials who embraced Chalabi and the INC and Niger Yellowcake forgeries and the whole public fraud that led up to the invasion of Iraq. Then, bring in the Justice Dept, NSA and private contractors who designed and ran warrantless domestic spying. Disbar them and their companies from ever doing business with the government again.

Place every single one of them under oath under the spotlight with cameras rolling in Congressional hearing rooms. For those who have no reasonable defense, Impeachment. As the neocons and chicken hawks were fond of saying, Let God sort out the bodies, afterwards.

[blondeatlast]

13. We can prevent the likes of Condi, Alberto Gonzales, Rumsfeild, and Cheney from

getting our precious children into another mess like this if we do this.

Excellent--and who better to offer this advice? Through conscienceor to save his own skin, John Dean took the brave move to tell what he knew about Watergate (I believe it was the former reason).

Let's kill the weeds before they can grow. Bravo, Mr. Dean, bravo. You may not have gotten the seat of power you wanted, but you are a true patriot who put your nation first. :patriot:

[Aviation Pro]

14. There is a very strong precedent for this in aviation....

...Frank Lorenzo who caused more destruction to the aviation industry than can be recounted here (read "Hard Landing" by Thomas Petzinger), is permenantly barred from having anything to do with the industry. By the way, that doesn't prevent him from enjoying the perks of his golden parachute such as flying first-class on any airline (however he does have to pack his own lunch as he has enjoyed the special, golden in-flight meals given to him by several flight attendants. Suffice to say, he has spent considerable time inspecting cabin lavatories).

[DemReadingDU]

15. Yes!

K&R

[The Doctor.]

16. "To do to them what they did to Clinton"?

I'm sorry, but that's absolute bullshit.

Clinton lied about a blow job and the Republicans recruited the media to try to 'create' a movement to impeach. They couldn't.

This asshole usurped the Constitution he swore to uphold. Impeachment should be a foregone conclusion.

Nothing would be 'done' to them. It would be nothing but justice and the preservation of democracy.

This I swear; If Bush is not impeached, I will be sure to leave the country as this Democracy will have evidently failed.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. Buy your ticket then, I'm afraid.

There is no possibility whatsoever of Bush being impeached. As Dean pointed out, the Republicans are hardly going to break ranks to impeach him for things they were complicit in, especially given that anyone who did go into a Republican primary with the label of "traitor" hanging around their neck in that way would be sure to lose, and that admitting that Bush was impeach-worthy would be an admission of failure that would be electorally suicidal.

If you think there's any possibility of impeachment in the next two years, you give the Republicans' morals far more credit, and their grasp of political strategy far less, than they deserve.

[Bjorn Against]

58. There is a possibility of impeachment, although I don't think there is a possibility of conviction

At least not conviction in the Senate, which requires a 2/3 majority vote. I don't think there are seventeen Republicans who would vote for impeachment, and I don't think Lieberman would either. It really does not matter how overwhelming the evidence is, because just look at how many bad bills Republicans have voted for despite overwhelming evidence they were wrong.

That however does not mean we should not pursue impeachment, because once Bush leaves office all that evidence that was accumulated against him in the hearings could be used against him in criminal court.

I don't think Bush will be forcibly removed from office, but I do think there is a good chance he will face some serious consequences for his crimes.

[SutaUvaca]

20. Ditto!

Dr. Eldritch is right.
Are we worrying about the upset to our nation and it's guvmint processes because we undertake to impeach the top scoundrels?
Are we worrying about OUR country's political upset while Bushfuck and cohorts have given nothing but blood and shit to look forward to at every dawn for Iraqis and others??
Impeach the whole damn lot of them, and starting at the top with outright arrests would be a fine process IMO.

[GOTV]

31. Do you know what impeachment means?

Exactly how does impeachment solve anything?

Or do you mean conviction?

[ClintonTyree]

32. I agree 100%....

if our Congresscritters will draft articles of impeachment against a President that did nothing worse than lie about consenting sex between two adults, if they deemed THAT a "Constitutional crisis", then they SHOULD BE pounding down the door to impeach the little, boorish asshole that lied this country into a war of choice and has gutted the Constitution in order to concentrate his power. There shouldn't even be a QUESTION about it. I'll be sorely disappointed if articles of impeachment aren't drawn up against the simian simpleton currently occupying the White House. Clinton DID NOT deserve impeachment, Bush unquestioningly DOES! :grr: Impeachment should be the first step in Bush's atonement for his evils, followed by a trip to the Hague where he can be tried for his war crimes.

I'm with you, Dr_eldritch. Canada is looking mighty fine to me lately. I only live an hour and a half away as it is, but every time I cross that border into Canada I feel a sense of freedom and pride that I haven't felt about America in quite some time. Sanity abounds in Canada and at my age I'm seriously considering the move for the sake of my own peace of mind. I'm getting too old for America's shit.

[The Doctor.]

36. I live close to Canada too.

And I'm dead serious about leaving. If the Dems don't fix the gargantuan mess, or at least take the appropriate steps to do so, then the Republic is lost.

I'll start off in Canada, brush up on my French and German, then take the family to Switzerland or something... unless I get comfortable in Canada that is.

[Norquist Nemesis]

18. De-Bushification!

The Congress should go over the resume of every nominee from now through the next 50 years. If they worked in/for the Bush Admin, toss 'em.

[KoKo]

19. Problem is....there are so many who've committed the High Crimes...how

would the House have enough people power to investigate them all? And, the investigations would stop once the Bush/Cheney gang is out of office in '08 (we hope). Is two years long enough when congress is going to be busy trying to undo some of the worst of Bush/Cheney policies?

Can investigations produce enough evidence to pursue these people after they are out of the WH so that they could be tried in Civil Court? Who would do this...would it be up to organizations like the ACLU to bring them to trial based on investigations done in Congress?

When one looks at the the lawyers for Bush, the WHIG group, the Justice Dept. under Asscroft and Gonzales, the lawyers who wrote the "Doctrine of Unitary President" the Neo-Cons who roamed the halls of the White House, the Rove Gang and the Lobbyists like Abramoff and others who involved their own folks in Military Contracts, etc...etc...etc... HOW WOULD THERE BE ENOUGH TIME AND PEOPLE POWER TO GO AFTER THEM ALL?

That said, what Dean says is true:

"The purpose was not simply to harass, to persecute, to wantonly degrade, or take vengeance upon a single individual; but it was that other officials through all time might profit by his punishment, might be warned by his political ostracism, by the ever-lasting stigma fixed upon his name by the most august tribunal on earth, to avoid the dangers upon which he wrecked, and withstand the temptations under which he fell; to teach them that if they should fall under like temptations they will fall, like Lucifer, never to rise again."

[pberq]

21. Kick & Nominated! - John Dean is a genius

[IWantAChange]

22. Remember Nixon? What IF Rummy and Cheney had been pursued then?

The concept Mr Dean presents is fascinating in that it could prevent the development of future neocons who could do further damage to our nation.

[mzmolly]

57. Agreed.

I had no idea this was an option, and that all we need is a simple majority?!

[DinahMoeHum]

23. IOW, Dean says impeach not just to remove, but BLACKLIST

these folks from future government employment at any level, so they can't keep doing their shit again and again and again in future administrations

:think:

[freebrew]

24. It didn't work last time,

Poindexter, Rumsfeld, North, all of the Iran-Contra asswipes still have power in gov't.
Still have power over others even if they were to be 'Black-Listed' does that stop them
from holding others to their will? They must not only be removed from gov't, they need to
be purged of all of their assets, it's the money, stupid...

And I agree with the poster above, there is no comparison to Clinton.
This a$$hole is worse than Nixon, tenfold. He is a criminal and traitor that needs to be brought to justice.
However that is done.

[Gman]

40. None of the above were impeached

and none were barred from holding offices of trust again. They were all criminally tried, or at least tried to try them BEFORE THEY DIED, and they were pardoned.

[AntiFascist]

94. Dean is ignoring the central problem in all of this...

the alleged crimes are being swept under the rug, just as they were in Iran-Contra. Unless some prominent force in the media brings this to the public attention, any impeachment proceeding will be weak.

[planetc]

26. Respectfully disagree

I respectfully disagree. Because other officers of the Bush administration have committed impeachable offenses, this in no way excuses the two officers who selected those subordinates, instructed them, and rewarded or punished them for their performance.
The structure of American government gives the executive branch, through its elected head, the President, enormous power for good or ill, but the source of that power, and the final responsibility for the way it is exercised, resides with the people of the United States.
The President, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and every employee of the federal government are servants of the people. If our servants abuse the trust that should characterize that relationship, the people must hold them to account, or be open to the charge of dereliction of their duty as the source of power exercised by the government.
If lower appointees of the Bush administration have committed impeachable offenses, then the charges should be brought. But the fact that subordinates have also abused the power entrusted to them in no way excuses the men who gave them that power, and their instructions.
The argument that impeachment of the President and Vice President is not politically feasible is cowardly in the extreme. If our congressional leaders refuse to bring articles of impeachment on the grounds that they don't have to votes to convict, then they assent to the vile distortion of our public life that says your loyalty to your party is more important than your loyalty to your country. Either our Congress is loyal to the Constitution of this country and its people, or it's not. If Republican Congress members continue to vote with their party against the Constitution and the American people, they ought to be impeached themselves for dereliction of duty.
Impeachment of the chief officers of this administration is the duty of all members of the Congress. There exists some evidence that a strong majority of the country favor impeachment if the crimes warrant it, and as far as I can see, there are multiple impeachable offenses *in the public record.*
And lastly, an impeachment would not overturn the 2004 election if the election was stolen in the first place. Since the current administration cannot prove it wasn't stolen, and since there exists compelling evidence that it was, it is derelict in its duty to enforce the spirit of the intent of the Constitution that created a Republic. The administration's disdain for the people is matched only by its disdain for the people's Congress.
If we do not impeach every member of this administration who has committed impeachable offenses, starting at the top, we have willingly forfeited our own country, and the chaos will certainly overtake us. We already have important national business, like greenhouse gas control and universal health care, being taken up by states in the absence of a responsive and responsible federal government.
The country has been acting as though it were hypnotized by some foreign invasion of the highest offices of its own government. The means to remove those interlopers is clearly spelled out in the document that governs the people and the government itself. If we abandon the Constitution, we will deserve whatever fate befalls us.

[Fovea]

30. DING DING DING!!!! Give PlanetC a big ceegar.

You do not protect the constitution by subverting it. Either there is such a thing as impeachment, a tool to avoid revolutions, insurrections, and assasinations so common to other third world nations, or there is not.

The rule of law is the only difference between us and the bananna republics we have created and or supported through their nightmarish depredations. Ok, that and militant consumerism. But trust me, consumerism is no basis for a system of government.

Only impeachment, followed by a complete top down cleaning of the corporatists, neocons, and holyroller-pederasts from this government will suffice. All other roads lead to civil war, probably before 2020.

We can either rebuild America with the stolen wealth of this criminal class war, or we can watch it fall, crash, and burn to the tune Rush Limbaugh's theme music.

Colligiality died in during the Clinton Impeachment. We cannot restore it without painful and harsh correction.

[GOTV]

35. Strawman alert!

> You do not protect the constitution by subverting it.

No one, including, Dean claimed that we can protect the constitution by subverting it.

How about we don't subvert the constitution AND we take the most effective actions to protect our nation even if that DOESN'T include impeachment.

> Either there is such a thing as impeachment, ... or there is not.

There is such a thing. So rest easy.

> Only impeachment, followed by a complete top down cleaning ...

The cleaning would do us good but an impeachment now would probably not get us any cleaner since there would not be a conviction. Disagree? Name the 67 Senators that would convict.

We're either right or we are wrong.
America will either triumph or will totally self destruct.
Things are either black or they're white.
If we don't impeach we are worse than Satan.

We can do this all day.

[Fovea]

46. Thanks for the inanity.

First, if impeachment is a thousand pound hammer, it might as well not exist.
If we cannot use it under these circumstances, then either it is not capable of working as the framers intended, or it is, and we are
too craven to employ it.

Which is it? Is the constitution broken, or are we lacking in the will to self govern? If it is the latter, then Bush is right and we deserve, indeed, *need* to be wiretapped, held without habeas corpus, and lead like beasts to whatever fate pleases our masters.

John Dean is not wrong in that the approach needs take the body of the rotten fish to the garbage can too. But we can't leave the head on the counter top to rot and invite the health inspectors in to eat off the floor.

Still sound like a false dichotomy? It doesn't to me.


The 67 Senators who would convict would gleefully do so in a bill of impeachment that starts with the first point being lying to congress about the war, PATRIOT, and FISA.

That absolves them of complicity, and instead marks them as either cowards or dullards. Far better that than criminals, which the Hague might be willing to view them as after WW4. There is a multi generational Bush family strategy that involves getting people entrapped in the illegal or unsavory, and blackmailing them or breaking them with it. You watch, Rove is next. Like oil company partners, Bush has very changeable loyalties. Folks like Frist know this too. Trent Lott will have the Republican whipped into line somewhere just right of the middle. If you can convince Trent Lott that Bush is a traitor, you got the Senate. I wonder how anyone could convince Trent of that?

You just need give the Republican Senators an out-- a way to absolve themselves of responsibility (at least the ones who didn't know Abramoff) for political criminality if not for outright criminal acts. Then you will have your 67 Senators. They talk big now, but they know their party is over, in both senses of the word party.

And lastly, don't ever tell me what I should, or should not worry my pretty head about. It is just not prudent.

[planetc]

48. There is no way we can triumph, and we have already self-destructed.

I hope you don't mind my replying to your reply to another poster, but I didn't say, or imply, that "America will triumph or will totally self-destruct." There is no possible triumph left to us at the moment, and we have already, for all practical purposes, self-destructed. The voting public does not have control of the most important office in the country, and hasn't had control of it since 2000. The entire Congress has ignored the unconstitutional inauguration of Mr. Bush in 2000, and again in 2004. The origins of the 9/11 massacre remain uninvestigated while we are responsible for the deaths of over 600,000 Iraqis who had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. Our elected Congress has neglected to protect us from an increasingly serious series of affronts to the Constitution and the rule of law. We have consented by our silence to the commission of war crimes by our own government.

It will be no triumph for us simply to remove the people responsible for those Iraqi deaths, and the other deaths they are also responsible for. All that will accomplish is to begin the process of instructing our elected representatives in what we expect of them in the future. Nothing we can do now will bring the dead to life, or remove the scars from those we've tortured.

To impeach those in the Bush administration who so richly deserve it will be the bare beginning of all that we must do to slowly begin to regain our self-respect. It will be the first free breath we've drawn in a long time, but no triumph.

[Richardo]

45. It's not 'cowardly'. It's reality. In the extreme.

At least here on planet earth.

[mzmolly]

55. No one is suggesting that anyone be excused.

Welcome :hi:

[Time for change]

27. There are a number of things that I don't like about this

With all due respect to John Dean, and I do respect him, what I don't like about this is:

1. I think that comparing a potential impeachment of Bush and Cheney to the impeachment of Clinton by saying "it also would not be very good politics to do to them what was done to President Clinton" is very misleading. Impeaching Bush and Cheney would not be comparable to the impeachment of Clinton in any way. One was a witch hunt and the other would be an effort to preserve our constitution.

2. I don't believe that we set a good example when we pursue lower level criminals for the crimes that the big fish are mostly responsible for. That's what was done regarding the torture at Abu Ghraib. It's not fair to prosecute those carrying out the orders, while those who gave the orders are left alone.

3. He notes that we shouldn't go after impeachment of Bush and Cheney because the votes aren't there. To me, that's a lot like a prosecutor deciding not to prosecute an alleged murderer, regardless of the strength of the evidence, because polls show that most people don't believe that the alleged murderer is guilty. That kind of reasoning is not used by prosecutors deciding on whom to prosecute, and it shouldn't be used on deciding for or against the very serious issue of impeachment of a President. Rather, the strength of the evidence and the seriousnes of the crime should be the deciding factor.

[KoKo]

38. I think he means going after those who "enabled" Bush/Cheney and pushed

their "evil cause." In a way he may mean the Neo-Cons who have been involved and the lawyers from the Federalist Society who pushed the "Unitary President" theory. Those that came in with Asscroft and now enable and support Gonzales, too.

If Rumsfeld and others who came back into power could be finally held accountable that would be a good thing, too. There are so many in high level positions who should never be able to "reappear" (after a period of grace or a Dem Reign) and begin their dirty work all over again in another administration. Even a Dem President might be tempted to accept some of these people.

I think what Dean is saying is different from going after "low level staffer" he means the folks who shared power with Bush/Cheney...the ones that most Americans aren't even aware of.

[Minnesota_Lib]

51. Self-deleted

Responded to sub-thread instead of to OP.

[ooglymoogly]

28. john dean is a good man and perhaps many me included would say he is a great man

i would follow him into court on any legal issue feeling comfortable that i was with the best...we have to take his well seasoned and wise advice on the not enough votes issue. imho the first thing the congress needs to do even before taking office is to find a way to retract the criminal granting in total darkness b*shes unfettered right to declare marshal law which in this case would mean dictatorship. b$sh, the cia and neocons are being backed into a corner and we all know b*sh is totally mad. he has a finger on the "nu-kua-lur" button. first the congress must begin quickly undoing the damage of the last congress and limit his power to a place consistent with the constitution and democracy. as things stand right now smirky is the most dangerous idiot on the planet.

[GOTV]

29. Good reading for the whole "Impeach Bush Now!" crowd. n/t

[Red1]

37. Never Happen, Unless

there are enough honest men and women in Congress to
fight off both the libs and rightys that were involved
in the criminal activity of the shrub agendas.

[Gman]

41. OMG! Way too much common sense here for the impeach or bust crowd

Dean nails it here because it will be a safeguard for the future that will assure the Poindexters of this administration do not ever soil the US government again.

[eppur_se_muova]

42. REfocus ... or BROADEN the focus ?

Going after Bu**sh**'s other enablers shouldn't in any way rule out going after Bu**sh** and Darth Fudd. Ousting Gonzales may even facilitate the investigations.

[AikidoSoul]

43. A GREAT strategic idea. This is brilliant! I love Dean!

Take out the followers, the ass-kissers, the sycophants, the fawning swine who desacrate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Go Dean! :wow:

[SemperEadem]

44. A good idea, for sure

Impeaching Bush and not Cheney means Cheney then becomes president and that's the last thing I want to see happen. Doing to Cheney what was done to Agnew would be the best bet, but then again, would someone worse be tapped for VP? Last time around, the country lucked out, relatively speaking, with Ford. The thugs weren't as obsessed with 'activism' and obvious with their lust for power as they are now.

I think culling the underlings and putting them to the mat in a way that they can never get up is the best way to make sure they can't rise again in the future to do even more damage to this country.

[Independent_Liberal]

47. Dean brings up some good points.

However, what he said about this:

Impeachment is a political process, and not only are the votes to remove either Bush or Cheney lacking, but it also would not be very good politics to do to them what was done to President Clinton.
....(Senate Republicans who have no problem with torture, or with removing the right to habeas corpus, and who refused to exercise any oversight whatsoever of Bush or Cheney, are hardly going to remove these men for actions in which they too are complicit.)
....The drive to impeach Bush and Cheney should, however, refocus its effort and energy into another undertaking - one that not only might succeed, but if it did, it would greatly benefit the nation and the well-being of all Americans.

In response to that and what somebody else mentioned above (about the Repubs being complicit), the Dems just having a 51-49 margin means that we not only have the ability to investigate people in the executive branch, but ALSO in the House, Senate and judicial branch as well. That means we'll be able to find many, many guilty parties in all three branches of the government. Once all the investigations get underway and find all Congress people and Federal Judges who conspired in these various unlawful acts and acts of fraud, treason and bribery, once we find the extent of the involvement of all Republican Congress people caught up in the Abramoff, Cunningham, DeLay, Ney, Wilkes, MZM, etc. corruption and bribery scandals (many of these find their way to the White House and other government agencies including defense and intelligence), once we get witnesses to go under oath and testify in public about all the allegations of wrongdoing (this could include many whistleblowers like Sibel Edmonds and Russell Tice and former administration officials/staff members), and once it's pointed out to everyone how the Republicans were hiding so much stuff from the public, we can go about prosecuting the many co-conspirators involved in all these crimes. Federal Judges can be impeached. Congress people and Senators can't be impeached, but they can be censured, expelled from Congress and indicted. The thing you can do with the Republican Senators is give them this plea agreement and say, "If you want to stay in the Senate past 2008 and avoid jail time as well, you can vote with us on this impeachment." Once it's pointed out to them what happened to their buddies in 2006 and what the Dems would be able to do with a super-majority under a Democratic president after 2008, they'll realize they won't be able to handle the consequences so they'll want to go ahead and give the Dems this temporary super-majority to convict BushCo on impeachment.

If you'd like to hear another take, read this post from pat_k:

Turning accusations of "partisan coup" against them is simple. . .
Posted by pat_k in General Discussion
Fri Nov 24th 2006, 08:59 PM
The Dems just need to make sure the public knows that it is up to Bush and Cheney to "spare the nation" from the disruption of impeachment by doing the following:

Cheney resigns, Bush nominates new VP.

The VP must be confirmed by both the House and Senate. Since we elected these folks, if they object to a nominee, that objection reflects our will.

Bush resigns, new VP is sworn in as President.

New President nominates a VP.

Once again, the VP he/she nominates must be confirmed by both the House and Senate, and therefore meets with our approval (through the people who represent us).

The Democratic members of the Congress fighting for impeachment need to sincerely express their fervent hope that Bush and Cheney do this. They need to be clear that they want things to play out this way because they do not want the nation to have ANY Question about whether or not their motivation is partisan.

Of course, if Bush and Cheney choose to be forcibly removed through impeachment, then the succession We the People have established in the 25th amendment will govern, and the Democratic Speaker will take the office of the Presidency. Since this succession is in accordance with the laws we established, it is also a reflection of our will.

Pointing out the choices that are available to the criminals in the WH could be a very effective way to speed up the whole process. It shifts the accusations that "they are subjecting the nation to a long painful process" to Bush and Cheney.

Republicans are likely to be VERY motivated to pressure Bush and Cheney to take the resignation "exit strategy."

Republicans may not be willing to defend the indefensible for long. When Bush nullified McCain's anti-torture amendment (which passed with over 90 votes) he slapped them in the face. They would be hard pressed to defend Bush for abusing signing statements nullify the overwhelming will of the people in order to keep torture "on the table." Warner, Graham, McCain, and Collins (may have been others I'm not recalling) came out against the "War Criminals Protection Act." The "compromise" they got was not much of one, it just shifted the responsibility for actually approving torture to Bush (as opposed to approving it themselves and becoming War Criminals). Specter dismissed the WH defense of the criminal surveillance program as absurd. There are some other "rational" Republicans (Snowe, Hagel, and Lugar).

Repubs will certainly try the "Un-Patriotic to attack the President in War time" bit (the only "attack" on impeachment we have heard out of them) but that doesn't go far if Repubs aren't willing to defend against the indefensible charges (which they aren't even doing now).

Bush and Cheney are an albatross that many Republicans would be happy to get rid of.

An as long as Democratic leaders accuse in strong and clear language (no more hiding truth in euphemism) "debates" about the charges will be the nightly fare on every news-entertainment show. Debates about:
Whether or not Bush and Cheney's claim to have a "get out of jail free" card (unitary authoritarian executive) are absurd;

Whether or not Bush and Cheney confess to high crimes every time they invoke the "unitary" fig leaf;

Whether or not Bush and Co abused power to terrorize the nation into a criminal war of aggression. (No amount of "stretching" can support the notion that Iraq had the capability to drop a nuclear bomb anywhere within the United States -- not in 45 minutes; not in a year; not in 5 years.);

Whether or not forcing through the War Criminals Protection Act demonstrates consciousness of guilt.

Whether or not they should be turned over to the Hague, given that SCOTUS declared them to be War Criminals in Hamdam.
When the Democratic leadership gets serious about impeachment, Repubs may have Bush and Cheney out within a week.

[Minnesota_Lib]

52. Kick and approve of Mr. Deans' wisdom.

[NJCher]

53. let's impeach bush/cheny AND their staffs, associates, etc.

What's the matter with doing both?

First, I don't necessarily agree with Dean's premise--that the required Republicans will not vote. They just might, once investigations and the truth get rolling. In fact, if only half of what we suspect about this evil duo bush and cheney are true, that should be sufficient to get the needed republicans running for cover: the cover that they are not "bush republicans."

Furthermore, we don't make decisions about what to do based on what others might or might not do. We must simply do what is right, what is called for by our Constitution. If we bring articles of impeachment and the Republicans fail to vote, then that monkey is on their back. We did what we had to do. That is what is required of us.

Second, Dean's proposal is an excellent strategy. Of course these people need to be punished so they cannot reappear in our government 5, 10, 15 or 20 years from now. Had this been done with Rumsfeld, et al, we wouldn't be facing near the incompetence and evil that we are at present.

If we don't think enough of our government to bring the biggest criminals since Hitler or Idi Amin to justice, then we don't deserve a democracy. There is no higher priority at this time: simply none.



Cher

[mzmolly]

54. BRAVA! Recommended, bookmarked, read with delight.

In addition, it is likely that the impeachment process of any official in a position below that of the president or vice president, would be treated the same as the impeachment of federal judges. The work is done in both the House and Senate by special subcommittees, so it does not consume the attention of the full bodies until the final votes.

This is so interesting. Dems need to hire him as a consultant. I have a hunch, Nancy Pelosi is thinking in this direction. It's brilliant, effective (in the short and long term) and just.

[progressoid]

59. I'd be tickled if they go after ANYONE at this point. It seems our party is OK with letting the

criminals retire with a ceremony and the medal of freedom for God's sake.

[focusfan]

60. I wish he could be removed from Office.

but I don't think he will be.

[Independent_Liberal]

64. Read my post above #47 nt.

[Up2Late]

61. I agree completely! Here's why.

Unfortunately, it looks like Bush has way too many ways that he has or could have, insulated himself from impeachment. In other words, he could easily place the blame on his advisor's for most of these crimes, and for most of them, placing the blame there would be justified. So it would probably take at least two years of investigating (and impeaching along the way) everyone else, just to get to him. Cheney not so much, he guilty as hell, but that brings us to the second point.

2) What's the point? I mean, if we impeach and remove Bush or Cheney (there probably isn't still time to remove both before the 2008 Election) we are still stuck with one of them and they would most likely be replaced by another member of the Bush Cabal. AND, neither one of them will be running for anything (except for the long arm of the International Law) ever again, so let's make sure we don't have a President Condi Rice or Alberto Gonzales or whoever hasn't already quit, there are dozens to pick from.

[chknltl]

65. No, I disagree with Dean on this one

I find myself reluctant to side with Dean on this. Would the world have been a better place if we ONLY went after osama bin laden's henchmen? See the comparison here? The more of the upper echelon "terrorists" we bring down AS WELL AS obl the harder it will be for that group to function. There will always be an endless supply of troops. There will always be a potential for leadership within those ranks yet if we absolutely remove ALL of the leadership then it becomes a great deal harder for them to regroup.

So I think it will be great to take out the up and coming criminal repugs but let's not loose sight of the leader or his minders, they must ALL go, they must ALL be brought to task for their crimes. This is our country ...these are our laws...they were not written so that some folks can pick and choose who is above those laws and who is not. The world needs to know that we stand behind our own laws...I for one am ashamed to say I am an American...I am sick of being painted a hypocrite...I voted for change damn it!!!

[puebloknot]

67. I disagree with Dean, also. I've just posted an OP...

...at this link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3018412&mesg_id=3018412

If we, as Americans, decide it's inconvenient to hold to account, under our own Constitution, a whole cadre of criminals, *including*, and *most of all*, those at the top, we are lost. We have no defense against the justifiable criticism we are facing from the world community, already!

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

69. Agreed. We can rationalize...

...not holding Bush and Cheney accountable because it's going to be messy or not good for the country, but the bottom line is where there is no accountability there is no respect for the rule of law. This will establish precedent and send exactly the wrong message to future criminals who find their way into positions of power.

If memory serves, I seem to recall these same kind of rationalizations offered for Dem leadership not challenging the '00 and '04 stolen presidential elections, not filibustering outrageous judicial appointments, not challenging the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act of '06, etc.

The case for our being purposefully misled into an illegal war by the highest levels of the Bush administration is a slam dunk. If this alone doesn't justify removal from office nothing does.

[puebloknot]

72. Yes! This administration started out with "Grand Theft Nation"...

...and things have gone downhill from there. Dems have, like sheep, signed on to everything put in front of them -- sometimes in the dead of night -- without bothering to read the bills, or hold appropriate debate.

As you clearly point out, the ducks are all in a row for impeachment, post haste, if there is just the will to do it.

Thanks for weighing in!

[seafan]

66. Mike Malloy is talking about Dean's essay right now.

http://www.novamradio.com/stream.php

[CompassionateLib]

68. Let's focus on building, not destroying

If we go on an impeachment warpath all we are going to do is continue the current, partisan Washington unproductive hostile environment. There will be no agenda, no dealing with the mess in Iraq. Just endless attacks both ways and gamesmanship. No one will cooperate and nothing will get done. And there's no way to tell how the voters will react in 08, it's just a risky game.

Let's be bigger than the Republicans and push a constructive agenda instead. Then the voters will clearly have a choice over the partisan Republican corruption of the last 12 years. And it would be so much better for the country.

[puebloknot]

73. "No one will cooperate and nothing will get done."

We don't know that.

Impeachment is not a warpath. It's a constitutionally-established way of dealing with the kind of rogue administration we now have.

I don't mind that people hold certain personal views that they want to apply in their own lives -- turning the other cheek; being peace -- but under the separation of church (religion) and state, I don't want those things to become a substitute for the rule of law.

This country was founded on a "risky game." Playing it safe is what we've been seeing from the Dems for the last six years. That prescription speaks for itself.

[CompassionateLib]

77. Yes, we do

If you actually believe Congress going after multiple impeachments will not shut down Washington for anything productive, you are truly clueless.

Iraq is a mess and we should focus on getting out of there rather than pointing fingers on how we got in. Clinton kept bombing Hussein's "WMD faclities." Kerry, Hillary, Biden, Ted Kennedy and many others said he had them, should we go around impeaching them too? Where does it end? And how does the Democratic party, the progressive cause or the United States benefit from no one, including Democrats, taking responsiblity for their own actions but going around impeaching each other?

I am saying we have real issues. Getting out of Iraq, the environment, education, helping the disadvantaged, ending racism, and on and on. Republicans are like cock roaches. Say we get 100 of them impeached, there are plenty more to take their place. Why sacrifice any chance of doing anything real in a dubious quest to "get" Republicans? This has to end. We have to stop playing their game.

[puebloknot]

81. I agree that there is plenty of responsibility to go around...

...but not all the characters you've mentioned occupy the White House right now; nor do any of them have the power, as Bush currently does (or he's taken it -- let's put it that way) to broaden this illegal war.

If we compassionately conclude that Republicans are like cockroaches, what are the Dems who support them? They aren't exactly acting like pest exterminators. And they won't unless we push then into doing their sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution.

I realize it feels like a stretch to think there might be thoughtful Republicans who are tired of this game, too, and might support removing Bush, et al., if they get a feeling there's a really strong movement to do so, and they can feel safe coming out against this regime, but this dividing the country into good and evil, blue and red, Repub and Dem is hardly working.

I would love to think we can get to the items you've included in your list of needed actions. I just don't think we can expect much movement on any of those things until we clean house and get rid of the Republicans who are currently in the White House -- to include all their underlings.

I assure you I am not clueless, and if I were, I'd certainly be able to tell you that I'm in good company with a *lot* of thoughtful and intelligent people who feel as I do. I'm going to chalk your less-than-compassionate comment up to the frustration you probably feel about what is happening to the country.

I am not clueless, but the clues I have leave me in anxiety about what can be done effectively to change course, and quickly. I want all those things on your laundry list, too. I just don't think giving up impeachment is going to bring them into being. To the contrary, we aren't going to stop this war as long as we kowtow to GW.

Peace! 'Tis the season!

[CompassionateLib]

83. Well put

I think we're getting closer, well put and Peace to you as well my friend.

Just to clarify, I agree we do not want to "support" Republicans, I'm just saying as you are agreeing there is a lot of blame to go around in Iraq and it's specifically the impeachment warpath that I'm railing against. We need to focus on getting out and we are going to have to work with Republicans to do that. I believe most Republicans want a way out too.

And also to be clear, I was not saying you "are" clueless, I said "if" you think we can go on the impeachment warpath and accomplish anything "then" you would be clueless.

Can we accomplish anything anyway? I dont' know, but I sure would like to try. And I am not at all happy with the endless hate speach coming from our side of the isle too. It seems to me that Democrats given the choice of helping an old lady across the street or tripping a Republican would choose the latter. Sure, the Republicans are the same, but none of this is helping the American people or furthering our cause.

Believe me, I feel the anger towards Republicans. Their church through government owns Terry Scheivo's body and I'd like to floor them too, but in the end it gets us nowhere. My priority is advancing my ideology not my political party and this choke hold the parties have on each other's neck isn't doing that.

[puebloknot]

84. Well, again, impeachment is not a "warpath." It's a legal process.

I protest against anyone advancing their personal ideology unless it comports with the rule of law. Impeachment is a constitutional process!

[CompassionateLib]

85. Uh oh...

...I really hate to shatter the world of an idealist, but it's a political process. We've had two impeachments in this country, neither was based on the rule of law. Believe it or not the first, Andrew Johnson, was MORE political than the Clinton one. Clinton lied about his personal life, which is obviously no reason to remove him as President, but at least he did that. Andrew Johnson did nothing illegal, but he was ineffective, disliked and worst from from Tennessee, not a good place to be from immediately after the civil war.

The reason I call it the warpath is not because of the process itself though. Democrats would be impeaching Republicans for doing the same things they did rather than the parties collectively accepting responsiblity for royally screwing up in Iraq and moving on and figuring how to get out without just inspiring the terrorists by cutting and running. And it would also be an excuse to do nothing. It's easier to try to nail Republicans then actually solve anything. And if they follow the impeachment path they don't need to try.

I also think it's suicide. Six years of blasting the pathetic loser Bush has gotten us a razor thin majority. The country is sick of this. And we will not be facing George Bush next time, it's hard to imagine the Republicans putting up a worse candidate.

And I have seen nothing illegal in the administration. Pathetic, sad, arrogant, slanted, skewed, rationalizations? Sure. But by rule of law that's not illegal. They said what the French, Russians and UN said. They said what we said. Let's move on (and GET OUT OF IRAQ!!!!!).

BTW, by "we" I mean Democrat politicians, not me. I oppose using our military for anything but defense. I want to bring the troops home. From Iraq, the Middle East, Europe, the pacific. We should have troops ultimately on US soil and the oceans.

[puebloknot]

86. I frankly think the reason "impeachment is off the table" is because...

...too many Dems would get caught in the same net if they start trawling for impeachable offenses. I'd say we're on the same page there. However...I doubt seriously we're going to be able to get programs for the improvement of our society through as long as Bush can veto whatever he wishes.

But...you have seen nothing illegal in the administration!!!! What about that judge that told Bush that his wiretapping scheme is illegal? I suppose you could say that nothing has been illegal because they've passed retroactive laws to protect their asses, knowing full well that if they ever have to face a court of law, they're dead in the water.

Our country has suffered a coup, and I don't know how we're going to come back from that. Impeachment might be only a last-ditch attempt to hold the *worst* offenders responsisble, but it's a great deal better than just "moving on"!

[CompassionateLib]

87. I agree...

...Bush crossed the line of the law with the wiretapping,

But, in no way an impeachable offense. I worked across the street from the World Trade center and came out of the World Trade center subway station every morning. I would have been there that morning if I hadn't changed jobs. And I was in the area still. That day was surreal. I never watch shows recapping it becuase it's burned in my brain, I will never forget and re-watching the events does nothing for me.

As much as I hate the Bush presidency, I do see it as his job to push the law to protect us and I just didn't feel that my being restricted from calling Yemen and talking about terrism without getting someone's attention is a severe threat to my freedom. Particularly not to the point that the threat of being blown up is a threat to my life. If he was, as was never really clear, tapping domestic calls w/o a warrant it had to be stopped.

Under the reality, I saw that one as the process working right. He pushed the law to stop terrorism and protect the american people. He was reigned in by the courts. Congress debated and passed new laws. No one got their way entirely. That's the way it should work.

[puebloknot]

89. Book Recommendation:

"Defying Hitler."

Your defense of Bush harks back to the way the Good Germans in the '30s enabled Hitler.

We're in the stage now where we can have still wine and dine and enjoy life. That's where they were, before 9/1/39.

Frog in a pot.

That should do for a while!

[CompassionateLib]

91. Can I try some of that?

Sounds like killer stuff, dude.

Sure, first you allow tapping calls to foreign terrorist countries, next thing they're beating down your door and taking your stash, man. And what pisses me off most is IT'S YOUR STASH!!!! They think that stuff grows like a weed? OK, it is a weed, but you know what I'm saying. And I know what you're saying. Thanks man!

[puebloknot]

95. There's someone in the White House who would get your references, Dude! nt

[CompassionateLib]

96. I heard...

...putting aluminum foil on your head really does prevent George Bush from reading your thoughts.

That's particulary important for someone like you who's onto them. They have to be watching you like a hawk. Are you sweeping your house for bugs? I would turn the radio on before you talk to anyone. Talking in the shower works too. I would think about that stuff, you're really in danger.

You may want to read some history too. Bush is a hopelessly bad President, but to compare him to Nazi Germany is an insult to the millions murdered by Hitler and the millions more terrorized by him. And frankly if you really believed they were the same you would never have said what you did. In Nazi Germany you would be gone now.

So I would either go the foil route or get real. Merry Christmas!

[puebloknot]

99. For a "Compassionate Lib" kind of guy...

...you are acting out a great deal of hostility toward me. And although I have many issues with Republicans, I would never refer to them, as you have done, as being "like cockroaches." That's what they were doing in Rwanda during the holocaust there.

There are many good historians who are pointing out the parallels between Nazi Germany and what is going on in America now. I have carefully pointed out that we are not at Kristallnacht stage in America. The structure, however, is firmly in place for continuing loss of our civil rights. The "tinfoil" argument is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Most responses to my comments have been respectful, if not fully in agreement with my views.

I'm blocking you so you can find another target for your compassion.

Yes! Merry Christmas!

[CompassionateLib]

102. You are "respectfully" comparing..

... the US in 2006 to Nazi Germany in 1939. OK. Let's go with that.

BTW, my compassion as explanation is that I want us to get our own house in order. I want to work with Republicans and I'm tired of this Nazi calling and impeachment nonsense. I'm tired of the partisan bickering and incriminations.

And yes, they are every bit as bad, but you will NEVER get anywhere as long as you just keep telling them to stop what they are doing. I believe if we went back to the positive liberal attitudes we used to have and stop calling them Nazis then we would get nowhere with the religous right, but we would have a big impact on the Republican Moderates (the religous nuts call RINOs). Maybe we can make them stop being RINOs by giving them another alternative and then they won't be Republican in name. Calling them Nazi's isn't going to do that.

BTW, I am going to have to concede your point I shouldn't have compared them to cockroaches. OK, I'm not big on Republicans either.

[bobbolink]

90. Someone breaks into your home, steals everything of value and

busts up the rest of it, and you say, "Forget the past--just rebuild"?

Would you really do that?

Or, would you want the cops to search for the perp, arrest and imprison the criminal?

[CompassionateLib]

97. I would...

...search for the perp, arrest and imprison the criminal. What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

In DC, we have two parties who blundered their way into a war. To you this is an opportunity to "get" Bush and the Republicans. I am a progressive first and a Democrat only to further my ideology. The moralistic Republicans are obviously no option for me, the Democrats are.

But you are a partisan. You care not what your party did or even the blatant, perverted double standard of impeaching Republicans for doing the same thing your party did. I personally care more about the environment, balancing the budget and improving the economy then getting Republicans in a hypocritical witchhunt.

In the end, your way we accomplish nothing. We shut down Washington, the voters fail to see the distinction between the two rabid dogs trying to tear each other apart, and the Republicans block removal from office of anyone anyway.

My way at least we have a chance to do something for our country.

[bobbolink]

98. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!! "You're a partisan" BWHAHAHAHA!

Try reading what I actually said.

I"M for my country, first and foremost. I said very clearly that country trumps party.

GET IT--COUNTRY TRUMPS PARTY!

I'm totally amazed at the lack of understanding of how Congress works. "Shut down Washington.." Are you aware that Congress works by committee? While the appropriate committees are working on investigation and impeachment, the other committees are working on budget, economy, ending the occupation, getting Universal Health Care and housing homeless people, reversing NAFTA and CAFTA, and all those other necessary things. REally, that is how Congress works. ALL THOSE COMMITTEES WILL BE DOING THEIR OWN THING, NOT FOCUSING ON IMPEACHMENT.

I repeat.... All those things will be going on simultaneously, because there are committees designated for each of those issues.

So, I could snark right back at you in your same style, and say, *YOU* are partisan, and care only about promoting your party, and don't give a shit that the country will be, once again, letting the criminals go free as they did during Raygun's years, to come back stronger and hold us hostage to their crime syndicate once again.

You like that accusation?

Neither did I.

ONe of the most learned and thoughtful people on this forum, H2OMan has written extensively on this, and the dangers of repeating the Iran/Contra fiasco. Rather than beating me up, I suggest you use your time and energy to read his words, and understand what we are all wanting to do, and how protective we feel about this country, which is now in a fragile and precarious state.

Or, you can badger me and I can give it up for lost.

[CompassionateLib]

101. It's not about division of labor

If we go on an impeachment tear, I am saying that nothing will be done because those impeachments will make it impossible for anyone to work together. I am not saying they are physically not able to get anything done, I am saying they will not mentally be able to get anything done. Republicans are not going to debate bills in one committee while Democrats parade a line of Republicans through impeachment procedings. And when they get power back, they'll return the favor.

And YOU are partisan becuase you want to "get" Republicans and are not about your own party doing the same thing. Or were you planning to impeach Democrats too? Hillary Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, John Edwards all said Hussein had WMDs. Some are out of office, are you planning to impeach the rest? I dont' think so, they are D, not R. D's make mistakes. R's are criminals. Even if they do the same thing. That is partisan.

The rest was rant which didn't make much sense.

[bobbolink]

103. Yes, of course... I'm "partisan" and vindictive.

This is too silly, and you are obviously not wanting to think clearly.

I'm ever so glad to know just how "compassionate" you are. Sounds so familiar........

I want to impeach Dems. Yes, you got it. You found me out.

I"m just evil. I should be impeached.

Have fun with your little witchhunt of fellow dems.

bye now...

[CompassionateLib]

104. Let's back up

I am not saying you want to impeach Democrats. I'm saying you want to impeach Republicans for doing the same thing many of our your own Democrats did and you ONLY want to impeach Republicans, not Democrats. That is what I am saying is partisan. I am tired of partisanship on our side too. Yes, the Republicans are just as bad but my telling them to go first in lowering the endless partisan Washington hate will go nowhere. Someone needs to go first.

I hate this war and am not big on Republicans, but I can see that a list of Democrats were up to their elbows in getting us into this war too. I want to focus on getting out and doing other things like balancing the budget, protecting the environment, growing jobs, etc... So I am saying, going after Republicans now is a hypocritical partisan witch hunt.

If an old woman and a Republican were teetering off a cliff, the Democrats today would not only not try to save the old woman but would be glad to push her off if it meant getting to push the Republican too. Progressive ideals would be to try to save both. Where have we gone wrong? I feel the anger towards Republicans when I see the Iraq quagmire and them rationalizing their ownership of Terry Scheivo's body, but we have to start choosing the positive over the endless gotcha Washington hate.

And in the end, it's about leading the country. We don't have to destroy Republicans to win and set this country back on a progressive course. We just need to lead better and campaigns to get Republicans not only doesn't accomplish that, it makes it impossible.

[chaska]

70. Well, let's see...

Condi - Impeach an African-Ameircan woman with an election looming - unlikely

Gonzales - Impeach a Hispanic with an election looming - unlikely

Rummy - What's the point? He's gone, too old for a repeat performance, others are already after his ass. - unlikely

Cheney - unlikely to be impeached, very unlikely to be convicted - remember that 2/3 majority?

Bush - see above

Rove has possibilities. I'd like to see this one explored.

But who else?

I'd love to see the whole bunch tarred and feathered, and not a few hanged, but it ain't looking good.

[mrJJ]

74. King Bubble Boy and Court

The judicial case is reasonably clear at first glance: both Bush and Cheney regularly flaunt their breaking of established law, such as the FISA statute. They knowingly presented false evidence to the United States Congress as it was debating the authorization to use force against Iraq. They authorized the breaking of U.S. law in detainee interrogations, most notably at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. They claim discretion to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus. All of these acts, and others, stem from a theory of law embraced by this administration known as the unitary executive. The theory holds that the executive branch, under the Constitution, is free to act without restraints which the legislative and judicial branches may seek to impose. It's worth noting that there is little in either U.S. or UK precedent that would establish the unitary executive theory as valid.

The "Unitary Executive" theory is really just another name for the ancient "King With Advisors" form of government, widely used around the world for thousands of years in human history. The basic idea is that the King has the final authority and makes all the final decisions. He may consult with his advisors, but he is free to disregard their advice. He may look at the law, but he is not required to follow it. The role of the people is to go along quietly with whatever the King wants to do.

THE ESSENTIAL PROBLEM FOR US is that this Theory denies the authority of Congress, the Supreme Court, or anything else to interfere with the President's performance of his functions, however he chooses. Thus Congress and the Supreme Court become merely Advisors, with no authority over the President.

That is Dictatorship, the very thing the American Revolution was fought to eliminate. Thus we see that the Unitary Executive Theory is a deviant theory, inherently anti-American, and has no place anywhere in our system of goverment.

[calimary]

75. Yes, but that's only half of it.

I went into some detail here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3018412#3019706

[index555]

76. Impeach!,Hang them! ,Firing Squad!

This will make things better how?
All a "Witch Hunt" like the one proposed will do is alienate voters even further.
The further polarization of this country will serve absolutely no purpose except to convince the average voter that ALL politicians are just a bunch of vicious lunatics that want to prosecute anybody that disagrees with them.
This is the beginning of the same type of self-righteous arrogance (ignoring half of the populations opinion "because they are stupid/ignorant/naieve,etc.")that got the republicans where they are today(rapidly losing power).
Persuing this course is nothing but petty politics at it's worst.

[woodsgirl]

78. #18

I agree with you. If anybody saw the Kuchinic hearings about
Iraqi deaths..it looks like there were over 650,000. I think
the survivors and all the displaced Iraquis and all the
families and friends of vets would sleep better at night
knowing these criminals are AT LEAST impeached. They should
have to go to the Hague. ...The media people who were hating
all democrats and loving a war should lose their jobs.Prior to
impeachment, John Conyers should be able to present evidence
of fixed elections. Then and only then would we have
credibility in the world. All Bush appointees should go!
Samuel Alito is nuts. Votes for corporations 80% of the time.
Please.The fact that Clinton was wrongly impeached has nothing
to do with this hostile takeover of our country. When you let
things slide and slide..one day you wake up and realize you
are lost.You are depressed and useless. That's how they
getcha'.

[chknltl]

82. Simple answer:

Do you fight to put out a few brushfires and give a pass to the fire starter to continue setting fires? Those who burn in bush's brushfires hold YOU and I accountable. This is supposed to be a DEMOCRACY therefore bush's crimes are OUR crimes in the eyes of much of our world! So it is up to you...do you wish to be held complicit? I do not wish to continue sharing in that shame, nor am I happy that we paint an even larger target on ourselves by condoning bush's crimes. The world could care less about our arguments here in the DU so irregardless of how any of us feel about bush, if we do not impeach him we will have condoned his crimes in their eyes.
The world IS watching...the ball IS in OUR court, OUR future in that world is dependant on our actions more than our words at this point. The latest polls of the people favor impeachment...we have our chance to rescue America...that chance was not here prior to November, do you recall all the dispair rampant here in the DU over the last 6 years? There are no guarentees that we will get another chance.... I BELIEVE in a better America, I believe that WE THE PEOPLE can make it happen.
Hope has been kept alive!
c

[bobbolink]

93. very good analogy! I used home break-in, but this is very good.

Democrats don't need to be the "soft on crime" party.

[puebloknot]

100. Well put!

We are citizens of the planet, and cannot afford narrow, self-serving behavior in the world.

Many people outside the U.S. express sympathy for us as individual Americans, acknowledging that we are suffering from the coup that has taken place here......IN AMERICA!

There has always been an understanding that individual German citizens, for example, did not just mindlessly sell out to Hitler on a wholesale basis. They did what we are doing -- go along to get along, hoping their nightmare would end.

Impeachment is our best tool for reining in Bushco. It's very much preferable to letting things deteriorate to a point where there is no other choice than hitting the streets, with the violence that could and probably would accompany such desperation.

[Imagevision]

80. Refocusing on Condi Rice, there's lots on tape with that doesn't look good...

She must be the worst NSA we've ever had and although she has beeen talking with many world leaders lately? -- like Trump say; "what does she get done, what does she accomplish?"

[McCamy Taylor]

92. "The Case for the Impeachment of Al Gonzales"

I listed these a while ago. He needs to be the first to go, because he is the most guilty, since he knows better, being the man is supposed to enforce the law that he is all the time breaking.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor