Is John Dean Lost in the Fog of Watergate?

[puebloknot]

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

"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. ...

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. "

I wonder how John Dean would have felt about leaving Nixon in place as president "for the good of the country," while he was impeached as a lower-level civil servant for Nixon's crimes, never to be able to hold public office again, while the Criminal in Chief was allowed to retain his position of power, in spite of provable crimes against the state.

In fact, John Dean did pay a price for being in a high-level position in the Nixon Administration. He now says what we are dealing with is "worse than Watergate," and he sure as hell ought to know.

To impeach Bush/Cheney for their many, many crimes against the Constitution, against humanity, in no way is in the same league with "what was done to Clinton."

To use a slightly crude comparison, that's like Martin Luther King saying "We can't hold the KKK leaders legally accountable, even though we have proof of their crimes, because it might look like revenge for all those black men who were strung up and left to die at the end of a rope!"

In a sense we're already following Dean's prescription with regard to the Abu Gharib scandal. "Grunts" like Lindy England take the fall, although the orders to sanction torture were issued at the top.

If there is a will to uphold the Constitution, there is already enough documented evidence to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney immediately, when the Congress convenes in January. Formal proceedings are needed, of course, but all the cries for in-depth *investigations* which may last until 2008 and past are nonsense.

Many "Good Germans" looked the other way as their nation fell into fascism in the 1930s. I've had some respect for John Dean, but I don't respect this idea. He is resistant to the whole idea of impeachment of Bush/Cheney, and I have to wonder what informs that opinion. Methinks he protests too much. He protests that we don't have the votes to convict in the Senate. That is a "flat-Earth" sort of argument, not consonant with the political shakeup we saw on November 7. A Republican senator has just stated on the Senate floor that he can't support the war any longer, that, indeed, it may be *criminal*! I think we'll see more defections when the heat is turned up in January.

If Nancy Pelosi, and the citizens of this country, are not willing to hold accountable the criminal administration which has taken over, then they are complicit in their crimes, and we have indeed lost our democratic republic. If we are at all concerned about our children's future, we should consider their having to deal with the kind of censure in the world that German and Japanese people have borne over the last 60 years. I grew up hearing about the character deficiencies of these people: that they were followers; that they were taught to follow orders and did it gladly; that they did not think for themselves and stand up to evil. Sound familiar? Seem familiar?

Where, in our Constitution, in any of our laws, is the statute that allows We the People to agree to allowing a power-mad administration, guilty of crimes against America and the world, to continue in place without making ourselves accessories to the crime? We have the power to hold them accountable. We must use it! Impeachment is the Constitutional remedy for this situation!

In addition, there is the matter of these people being held accountable to the whole world for their crimes. If the citizens of other countries see that America's own citizens are willing to do their duty in removing this rogue administration, given that we are the most powerful country on the face of the globe, might there not be more support for international legal action, beyond our own impeachment process?

Judy Barrett
Citizen, United States of America

[chknltl]

1. Yes...I agree and another thing:

If the citizens of Iran are behind their president would it not follow that the rest of the world, including America will feel that the peoples of Iran are complicit in any criminal activities that Iran does??? Didn't the world feel that way about Germany in WWII? Of course there are folks in Iran who do NOT support their own government, of course there were Germans who did NOT support their government but what does/did the rest of the world think of them. Right...They do/did NOT count!

So a great deal of the peoples on this planet see Bushco as a serious threat to the rest of the world...rightly so. Do you suppose those peoples will see ALL AMERICANS as anything other than complicit in bushcos crimes if we DON'T impeach his regime? I argue that the rest of the world will hold us accountable as well, regardless of your or my personal feelings about bushco. We claim to be a Democracy...if we are so aware that bushco is the problem then impeachment is the only way for us to let the world know that we are willing to police that problem in-house.

I said in another post that I am tired of being viewed the bully. I want to see America as a country to take pride in...not the naive pride of yesteryears but a real honest pride in knowing that America is a country which stands behind it's principals. I want to take pride in an America which is not so big as to admit to its mistakes and is willing to make amends for those mistakes. I want to live in a country which stands behind it's own laws not one which picks and chooses who the laws apply to and who need not worry about breaking those same laws. I want to take pride in a country that can lead the world again and do so with a clean conscious. I want to live in an America which is not fearful of prosecuting those who betrayed us. We CAN be that country.

We must bring these criminals to justice...ALL OF THEM.

[puebloknot]

17. ...an America which is not fearful of prosecuting those who betrayed us.

Congressman Kucinich spoke of the fear that pervaded the halls of Congress after 9/11, during the anthrax threats.

I have asked myself if I have a right to ask those elected (and sometimes respected) officials in Congress to put their lives on the line by speaking out, given the fate of Paul Wellstone. My response, to myself, is that my father swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States when he signed up as a soldier, following Pearl Harbor. He did what his country asked of him by risking personal safety for a broader cause.

It's the job of Congress to put aside fear and peer into the dark corners. We should expect no less of them!

(Mods: I'm not advocating a conspiracy theory here, merely saying that the questions surrounding Wellstone's death had an impact on the consciousness of every Congressperson serving at that time, and now.)

I've been trying to find a scene in "All Quiet on the Western Front" (or it may be another of Remarque's books) in which a young German couple are finding a few minutes of peace together while he is on leave from the front, and the girl saying that they will never be free of the stigma of being German for the rest of their lives.

I'm afraid that no matter what we do to clean up this mess, our young people are going to face that kind of stigma in their own lives. As long as we remain militarily and economically powerful, the world defers to Americans, but that's very different from real respect.

For the obscene amount we are spending on war, we could create a peaceful world. We could at least make the effort.

[tomp]

46. "It's the job of Congress to put aside fear...

...and peer into the dark corners. We should expect no less of them. "

absolutely right! Why did daschle and leahy not pursue the anthrax terrorists? was it cowardice? yes, i think so. anyone have a better explanation? we are talking about the life and death of democracy. anyone not willing to engage in the battle should step aside.

[ooglymoogly]

57. take a look at this unbelievable document

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/FEMA.html

[chknltl]

34. K and R

[calimary]

48. Utterly and completely true! We MUST bring ALL of these criminals

to justice. The signal it sends if we don't is clear - if you can slither away and chill for awhile, you CAN come back and try it again.

We. Simply. Must. Impeach. Starting from THE VERY TOP. Because of the gravity of the offenses, the sheer magnitude of the crimes - high crimes AND misdemeanors in every sense of the word - not to mention the VOLUME of said offenses, I remain convinced that we DO have to IMPEACH these bastards, starting FROM THE TOP, and working our way down. I do agree with him insofar as it IS important to nail the people lower down the food chain so they can never come back and try to do this shit again. I mean, cheney and rummy were once underlings, too, who vowed to come back and "fix" things. Wouldn't it have been a thing of beauty and mercy if their longterm schemes and "problem-solving" wish-lists had been nipped in the bud a long time ago? But it can't be restricted solely to them. As rummy himself said to Richard Clarke in the minutes after 9/11 - "Go massive. Sweep it all up." I think that needs to happen here, too. STARTING FROM THE VERY TOP.

Also, keep this in mind: If you've read anything of the "mea culpas" written and spoken lately by various henchmen of the PNAC - the next of vermin that thought up this whole nightmare and pushed it from the start - you'll notice something important. People like richard perle and ken "cakewalk" adelman are all busy insisting that this is indeed a calamity of the worst order. They're even saying if they knew now what they didn't know then, they wouldn't have pushed this. What they're ALSO saying, on which I've seen NO emphasis placed in the mainstream media, is the excuses they're making about how this was all handled with incompetence. adelman himself even says "we didn't know it would be THIS incompetent." If you go back and study the apologist crap they're spinning now, the indications are CLEAR that they think the policy is still sound. It's merely the execution that went wrong. Which means they still stand by the original policy, and see no reason why it should be abandoned. It wasn't the strategy itself. That was and still is fine. It was the way it was carried out, and the people who did so. Which means when this is all "over," and we're onto the next presidency, it really won't be over, AT ALL.

These snakes will simply slither back under their rocks at their nice comfy think tanks and other institutions and ideological fellowships, out of range, OUT OF SIGHT/OUT OF MIND, AND PLOT AGAIN. Their focus this time will be on how to do it completely "right" next time. They got so close. If it weren't for the nincompoops they put in power to carry out their strategies and game plans, everything woulda been just dandy. And their policies would have been verified, and vindicated. And WE would be the ones greeting THEM with flowers and sweets. It was merely the execution that was bad. NOT the plan itself. So what they're gonna do next is find the next ball-carrier, anoint him or her as the next Great White Hope, and bide their time until conditions look good to strike again. And everybody's forgotten, and the next season of "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars" gets rolling, and we've all moved on. AND THEY CAN STRIKE AGAIN. THIS TIME, FOR GOOD, they'll hope.

I GUARANTEE YOU THIS. THEY WILL BE BACK TO TRY IT AGAIN, AND SEE IT THROUGH NEXT TIME, AND BE SURE IT'S "DONE RIGHT." Because none of them has yet to concede that THEIR part of it was wrong from the beginning.

I tell ya, just because things might be starting to look up at the moment DOESN'T MEAN THIS PROBLEM HAS BEEN SOLVED. Remember what "Mad-Eye Moody," the Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher in the later "Harry Potter" books, told Harry and his classmates: "CONSTANT VIGILANCE!!!!!" That watch-word could never be better suited to now, and the situation in which we find ourselves at the moment.

Yes, Dean is correct insofar as the people farther down the food chain need to be nailed for this, in such a strong, punitive fashion that they will never dare try this shit again, and others who might want to follow in their footsteps will see what happens when you do. But it can't stop there, with the lead guys allowed to get away scot-free. All THAT does is to motivate somebody else in the future to aspire toward being one of those lead guys who's so big, so powerful, so intimidating, and so in control of the game that it's useless even to try going after them and bringing them down. If you just get big enough and powerful enough and rich enough and well-connected enough, you can get away with anything. And THAT'S what we have to turn on its ear and publicly repudiate, ONCE AND FOR ALL. It needs to be a morality play with a VERY clear lesson, not a mushy one with a bunch of hidey holes and back doors and secret tunnels and escape hatches in it.

[puebloknot]

51. John Dean *very astutely* says...

...in "Conservatives without a Conscience" that the authoritarian personality (that's what the Repugs are made up of, for the most part -- followers) does not just go away when slapped down. They regroup and come back EVERY TIME!

His comment from the Nixon era that "a cancer is growing on the presidency" is so appropriate now. That's why it puzzles me that he advocates cutting away only part of the tumor, and allowing the rest to remain.

[puebloknot]

54. The morality play meme is such a good one.

Dean points out that authoritarian followers only understand black and white. Nuance is wasted on them.

Which is why we can't reach across the aisle and engage in feel good partisanship. The Dems need to set a standard (the Dems that *have* a standard) and lead the country, instead of taking tea with traitors.

[MaggieSwanson]

2. Impeachment = Accountability

Impeachment is the method that the framers of the Constitution gave us to hold presidents like the current one accountable for their actions.

I say it is unconstitutional (not to mention unconscionable)not to use it!

[puebloknot]

19. Exactly!

Impeachment was never meant to be used a a "finger in the political wind" mechanism. While it is political in nature, the accusation of impeachable acts must be made, without trying to play Cassandra with regard to the outcome in the Senate.

"Let's not go after the Enron gang because they're too powerful and we'll never be able to bring them to justice."

How's that for a good, strong moral stance?

[omega minimo]

3. K&R bookmarked -- Best of DU 2006 --

:applause:


The U.S. is well on its way to being a land of smug, vote-counting, No Brainer, Flat Earth Good Germans. On Nov. 7, Americans proved that there is still a chance to draw this country back from the precipice............................ slim, but its there.

Is it scary? Yeah. Is it chancey? Yeah. Is it provided for and called for by the Constitution? Yeah. Has this current administration subverted the Constitution and will it continue to, if it is not held accountable for doing so? Maybe the craziness is too hard to think through and people would rather count votes...

Dean: "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. ..."

OP: "He protests that we don't have the votes to convict in the Senate. That is a "flat-Earth" sort of argument, not consonant with the political shakeup we saw on November 7. A Republican senator has just stated on the Senate floor that he can't support the war any longer, that, indeed, it may be *criminal*! I think we'll see more defections when the heat is turned up in January."

So why is Dean spewing this line? We see a lot of it lately, even from Democrats. It doesn't really seem to be backed up, merely soothsaying and innuendo. The insertion of the disingenuous meme that this is "what was done to President Clinton" and that what matters most is "good politics," in the midst of a Constitutional crisis is irrational and irresponsible.

"If Nancy Pelosi, and the citizens of this country, are not willing to hold accountable the criminal administration which has taken over, then they are complicit in their crimes, and we have indeed lost our democratic republic. If we are at all concerned about our children's future, we should consider their having to deal with the kind of censure in the world that German and Japanese people have borne over the last 60 years."

Are the Congress Dems being cagey? Saying one thing -- "off the table" -- while beginning committee proceedings that will lead to impeachment; knowing that sensible Americans will be so outraged by their apparent abandonment and complicity that they will slam impeachment back on the table anyway? Build that groundswell by turning their backs and playing at "strategery" -- allowing aware Americans to be accused of temper tantrums they have induced with their passive aggressive mindgames? We can only hope.

"Where, in our Constitution, in any of our laws, is the statute that allows We the People to agree to allowing a power-mad administration, guilty of crimes against America and the world, to continue in place without making ourselves accessories to the crime? We have the power to hold them accountable. We must use it! Impeachment is the Constitutional remedy for this situation!"

As someone said in another thread "Bush is why impeachment was invented." And as Elizabeth De La Vega says, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell must be held accountable, to start.

So Dean is on to something. Impeach the complicit underlings too. They just all happen to be the ones in the Oval Office bubble.

As your OP suggests, if we do not do this, we are in the complicit underling bubble as well.

[puebloknot]

20. Re Pelosi's "off the table" remark

Many have suggested that maybe that was just a political ploy to keep things level until Dems can take over the Congress.

I've seen Ms. Pelosi making that statement on television, and there was *nothing* in her demeanor to suggest that she was anything but serious.

I don't see her as someone who could carry off that kind of purposeful subterfuge. And I don't want Dems playing petty political games. I want to see them actually stand up for what's right and good. And whenever they do so, they get the kibble from pressing the right lever!

Leading from a fear-based stance is what's gotten us into so much trouble. America is looking for strong leadership, and I think that even some of the Repugs (except for the fanatical RW religious types, who will go to their graves as true believers in whatever is latest under their noses to believe in) will begin to defect when they see that if the country goes down, and their party is seen to have taken it down, they'll jump ship and say they knew it all along, that their "off the cuff" comments were just "what they do" as politicians. No harm, no foul, right?

I think it's elementary that the underlings will be gone once the Prez and VP are taken down. The opposite, John Dean's idea, will leave the White House to just select some more underlings who are equally morally and politically bankrupt -- even carrying criminal activities in their backgrounds, in some cases (such as the Gates appointment).

Leaving Cheney and Bush in place says it's all right to mess with elections, we don't mind having a Prez appointed by the Supreme Court (against everything *they* certainly know about election law). It says we don't take seriously that little matter of torture when the Prez assures us that "America doesn't torture."

Mr. Dean, pick a lane!

[Mz Pip]

4. If this administration

is not held accountable then what does any administration have to do to be held acountable? The Republicans went on and on about how no one was above the law during the Clinton administration and I believe will look for any conceivable wrong doing to go down the Impeachment path again for the next Democratic President.

Meanwhile they are assured that they will not be held to that standard, or any standard when they occupy the White House again. They do what they want because the seem to sense that the Democrats don't have the will or the stomach to start Impeachment hearings.

Shame on us. How low do we allow them to go before we do something about it?

Mz Pip
:dem:

[puebloknot]

21. A wretched double standard! It's time for it to go! nt

[autorank]

5. Proud # 5 KR - Why not do both, 7 x's 24...for the sake of the country

I agree with your question, how would Dean have felt if the focus had been on subordinates
and Nixon had remained in power. There are no other options now. We have Commander Goofy
running the ship of state aground and his sycophant crew saying YES every time he looks.

They all need to go and those who broke the law need to be prosecuted.

It is not a matter of political expediency, it's a matter of political survival. We can't let this go
by for much longer without losing our credibility as a political entity.

Michael Collins
Citizen of the Cybernet

[puebloknot]

18. Hey, Michael Collins!

I clicked on your Michael Collins link in your sig line and found a lot of *great* articles.

Sorry, they can't use you to sing "If I only had a Brain" in the Wizard of Oz. You're much too brainy! :)

[Gregorian]

6. We go there when we get there.

As far as I'm concerned, Dean has brought to light a fairly unknown detail of constitutional law. And he has mentioned the obvious, which is we don't have 2/3rds of the Senate.

As it stands, impeachment AND conviction are just a pipe dream. I think there is some psychology involved. If we approach this with teeth bared, it will be misconstrued as malice. Not justice. But once the investigations reveal just what happened behind the scenes, we may very well have the votes to convict.

He also addresses my first concern, long ago, which is whether Congress has the time to juggle impeachment and the many things on their New Agenda for America. I've heard impeachment can be a slam dunk. Who knows?

[blondeatlast]

7. And the OP conveniently omits the rest of Dean's argument--that by going after the junior

Neocons, we can prevent a similar fate for our children.

As the parent of young boy, I'm very happy to endorse Dean's idea.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[puebloknot]

13. Thanks for the research help!

My post was based on my concern over how many people jumped on the Dean article which was posted on the front page, with what I see as not-necessarily-well-thought-out responses. (Is that a way of calling people uninformed? If so, let it stand!) You have added "meat" to my stance!

There were a lot of underlings convicted at Nuremburg. We didn't get to try Hitler because he took the easy way out by way of a bullet in the head. Had he stayed alive, do we think he would have been given a pass, while his henchmen took the rap?

And yes, our situation *is* as serious as the one in Germany. We're in the stage now before Hitler invaded Poland, where there hadn't yet been knocks on the door in the night and a wholesale rounding up of people -- especially Jews. People were still wining and dining and assuming that a nation as educated as Germany would never let a tyrant take over their country.

I think we're *just* that asleep in America!

[puebloknot]

12. First, do you *really* think...

...anyone is going to go after the "junior Neocons" if they don't bother with the head of the beast?

Second, your young boy will have a better chance for a normal life if we remove the cancer that is growing on the presidency (to paraphrase John Dean).

[puebloknot]

11. If Congress can't juggle impeachment...

...and the new things on their 100 hour agenda, they need to scrap those things until we get our country back.

A raised minimum wage (which is important; I'm not superficial enough to say it isn't) will have little meaning if we are living in a society where we are being stopped on the streets and asked for our papers at the whim of a cop, or where *how* we spend that extra money is being tracked electronically, along with our medical history and our political activities.

What you suggest is what happened in Germany. Shrug of shoulders; "who knows"?

We have to be firm in our resolve to remove these people, starting at the top and *including* all their underlings, rather than waiting for a John Conyers or a Henry Waxman to do it all. They need to hear that there is strong support for impeachment from all of us citizens!

We can't just "trust them" to do the right thing.

[blondeatlast]

8. Congratulations, my friend--you've learned well from KKKarl Rove.

You took a short two paragraphs of a much longer piece and failed to link to the source.

Dean makes a much stronger argument than what you present.
Since it was posted on the home page a few days ago (making this a dupe, btw) I won't bother to link to it. You know where it is.

[omega minimo]

9. Information helps. Snarkiness undermines the naysayers (info free) position

whatever that is. :hi:

[puebloknot]

15. My daughter and I just saw U.S. v. John Lennon

People were crying and singing "All we are saying is give peace a chance," right along with John.

One thing I came away with is his comment that he really just wanted to be a rock and roll musician, not a political icon. But when living in the kind of political environment he found himself in, he could *not* not say anything.

What people need to see is that we don't have to be "big" people to make a difference. A lot of little people stitched together can make a *huge* personna!

We the People need to trust no one! Not even someone of the stature of John Dean. We need to think for ourselves.

I have respect for John Dean. I'm just cheeky enough to say I don't agree with his stance in this case. I don't believe that the personal trauma he suffered because of Watergate necessarily makes him the fount of all wisdom.

All I am saying is "Give your own brain a chance"! :)

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

23. "...we don't have to be "big" people to make a difference..."

Exactly right:

<snip>

"Jefferson's Manual" is an interpretive guide to parliamentary procedure, and is included (along with the Constitution) in the bound volumes of the Rules of the House of Representatives. It is ratified by each congress (including the current one), and has been updated continuously through the history of our democracy. The section covering impeachment lists the acceptable vehicles for bringing impeachment motions to the floor of the House.

Before the House Judiciary Committee can put together the Articles of Impeachment, someone must initiate the impeachment procedure. Most often, this occurs when members of the House pass a resolution. Another method outlined in the manual, however, is for individual citizens to submit a memorial for impeachment.

http://impeachforpeace.org/ImpeachNow.html

Ordinary citizens could and should make certain the impeachment issue along with accountability for war crimes never goes away.

Bill C. Davis wrote this excellent piece on the impeachment question back in May:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0502-28.htm

[omega minimo]

28. In that spirit

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2890292


"What people need to see is that we don't have to be "big" people to make a difference. A lot of little people stitched together can make a *huge* personna!" Sounds like the United States!

"Give your own brain a chance"! Sounds like Democracy!


Thanks for a great thread, puebloknot.

[puebloknot]

29. I recommended that thread, and marked it! nt

[autorank]

16. Well, I know something about "naysayers"...

The author of the OP is not one of them.

I like theh post Watergate Dean a great deal but he's not speaking ex cathedra here. He's throwing out an idea. He also made an exceptional case for impeachment in a short book he wrote a couple of years ago, very compelling. I see his thinking as a series of suggestions.

One problem with impeachment or the new Dean strategy is a collision of the logical/rational and the practical: "He's committed war crimes and crimes against the United States and conspired with others to do so" versus "We'll never get this crowd to vote for impeachment." Those propositions are both true right now. The accusations of crimes will be true for ever. The proposition that we'll never get him impeached will be true forever if we fail to exert the pressure to start the process. These are high crimes and misdemeanors. He's no better than your or I and he deserves to be treated as any citizen would for such crimes, including a factoring in of the magnitude.

Here are references to impeachment in Deans "Worse than Watergate"

1-8 of 8 pages with references to impeachment: http://tinyurl.com/yguzzh

Return to book
1. on Page 85:
"... But Nixon was facing the ultimate remedy of Congress should he refuse - impeachment and removal. But this, too, is a political remedy. ..."
2. on Page 154:
"... "39 During the Nixon impeachment debates, a remarkably bipartisan House Judiciary Committee realized the implications of its actions for future presidents. At one point, after ..."
3. on Page 155:
"... have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them, in this case I ask whether an impeachment for a misdemeanor would lie. ..."
4. from Back Matter:
"... Chapter Notes 237 40. Elizabeth Holtzman, "Debate on Articles of Impeachment," Hearings of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 93rd Congress, 2nd Session (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1974), 494. ..."
5. from Index:
"... and Firestone scandal, 159; and GAO, 78-83; and Gulf of Tonkin, 152; and Halliburton, 52-53; and impeachment, 85; and Iraq war, 135, 140-56, 191, 235nn26 & 28; and leaks, 66-67; and 9/11 investigation , 111-12; and Patriot ..."
6. from Index:
"... Al, 215n13 Hussein, Saddam, 99-100, 130-31, 135, 139-41, 213n13, 234n13 See also Iraq image-making, 7, 64, 71-75, 94-95, 142-43, 170 impeachment, x, 85, 154-55 Indonesia, 43 intelligence, xiii, 14, 109, 130, 171; British, 140, 145, 204; ..."
7. from Index:
"... list of, 156, 169, 176; and environmental policy, 161; and executive privilege, 84-85; and groupthink, 240n16; ill will toward, 192-93; impeachment of, 85, 154; and Kissinger, ..."
8. from Front Matter:
"... by raising these matters in my regular FindLaw column. For one such column, in which I discussed the potential of impeachment if the Bush administration ..."

Return to book

I just grabbed these off Amazone in book search in case anyone's got the book. It's quite an argument but not nearly as good as Vincent Bugliosi's in "Betrayed"

One way or the other, now or later, justice will come to pass but we need to start now and begin with the truth.

NAMASTE

[puebloknot]

22. Thanks. I have the book and will spend some time...

...with your references.

When I decided to write this article, I was tempted to start it with "Who am I to question John Dean?" And then I thought, no, that's what's wrong. We the Sheeple are too lazy or too lacking in respect for our own ability to think (which I think is the main problem), and I don't want to appear too deferential to John Dean.

I do respect him enough to read his ideas. You're right that there are certain undeniable realities as we begin this fight for impeachment. There were also "undeniable realities" when those guys decided to dump a bunch of tea into Boston Harbor, early in our history. They didn't have television back then, so what were they going to do with their evening?

(Hey, maybe we could dump a bunch of televisions into Boston Harbor!!! They're not bringin' us no bad news about Bushco, anyway!But I digress!)

I heard Vincent Bugliosi say "History will show we should have been in the streets," right after Selection 2000, but before 9/11. I've got Bugliosi's book, too. Now you've ruined my plans for conspicuous consumerism during the holiday season. I'll just stay out of the malls, build a fire (in the fireplace, but other thoughts do sometimes come to mind :)) read the books again, and this time more thoroughly.

[omega minimo]

24. Indeed she is not. My (maybe too) oblique comment

was in reply to someone's snarky comment at the OP-- an info-free, non-stated argument, with a "so there" thrown in just for fun.

The OP has said it so much more charmingly:

"One thing I *have* learned is that when people start sniping at someone's point of view, and do not back it up with facts or a strong opinion of their own, based on something other than name-calling, they're just kind of bathing in the group energy without contributing in a mature way."

The way the (to me circular and ridiculous, pointless) slapfights over "Tastes Great! Less Filling! Impeachment! Investigations! Egg! Chicken!!" have appeared, the "count the votes, stupid" contingent doesn't have much to say beyond that (+ the 'Tude). So There! I'd be interested if there's more to it than that, but the main message seemed to be that people were -- how you say -- (the OP put it politely in another post here) "uninformed" -- both about the current crisis and relevant history............

We don't get a "Do Over" this time. And one of the challenges is just how far the U.S. has sunk into a state of "Good Germans." Some people really don't want to face how bad it is, how bad Bushco. is, how badly even their own little cocoon is threatened, so they will hide their heads in the sand.

This is beautifully put, autorank:

"One problem with impeachment or the new Dean strategy is a collision of the logical/rational and the practical: "He's committed war crimes and crimes against the United States and conspired with others to do so" versus "We'll never get this crowd to vote for impeachment." Those propositions are both true right now. The accusations of crimes will be true for ever. The proposition that we'll never get him impeached will be true forever if we fail to exert the pressure to start the process. These are high crimes and misdemeanors. He's no better than your or I and he deserves to be treated as any citizen would for such crimes, including a factoring in of the magnitude."



And whether we are "logical/rational, practical," fierce in our last chance to preserve this Constitution, idealistic in thinking even some Republicans might wake up and find the Integrity Fairy visited during the night, open to the unexpected or certain of our "stategery"-based negative self-fulfilling prophecies, it comes down to:

"The proposition that we'll never get him impeached will be true forever if we fail to exert the pressure to start the process."

Wow. Sounds so obvious.

"These are high crimes and misdemeanors."

Yup. You say that like it matters :sarcasm:

"He's no better than you or I and he deserves to be treated as any citizen would for such crimes, including a factoring in of the magnitude."

Uh huh. Bushco. too. (Underlings!)



The reason that some sort of actual information or rationale beyond snarky "count the votes, nuff said" would be welcome from the "naysayers" is that would remove the unfortunate impression that they are the sort who think the Constitution and their Inalienable Rights will always somehow be there and they don't have to do a damn thing to prevent their disappearance, even as big billboard announcements of that very thing are being paraded in front of their eyes........................

[autorank]

33. My sincere apology for the misread...and you're right about this being our shot, we

can't blow it. I'm hoping that there's a broad attack, like understandinglife was saying, oppose them 7 x's 24.

The impeachment naysayers are like the election fraud naysayers in one very important respect: they're out of touch with the public will and determination. The determination was expressed in the election and the 30 something seat change. When they have Brownback as a candidate they take seriously for 2008, we can anticipate a win by technical knock out before they get to Labor Day (things could change, I realize). The public has been consistent about wanting impeachment based on certain conditions, e.g., we were lied to about Iraq. The public has also been consistent about it's doubts on 2004 and the election process in general, by every growing numbers.

Yet those who doubt impeachment as "practical" say it's not "practical" yet fail to note the public support just like those who say don't seem like "sore losers" or lets just add toilet paper to touch screens and they'll look like a voting machine miss the public willingness to have a cyber Boston Tea Party.

Of all those who have said it, Al Gore said it best on January 16, 2006 in Constitution Hall, Washington DC:

Al Gore: America's Constitution is in Grave Danger

A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. Indeed, they recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution - our system of checks and balances - was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."

An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution - an all-powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free. In the words of James Madison, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet, "On Common Sense" ignited the American Revolution, succinctly described America's alternative. Here, he said, we intended to make certain that "the law is king."

Lets send them packing in a hurry to their pre-purchased hide aways in Dubai and Paraguay. In this case, we don't need to fix our personnel problems, we need to transfer them.

[puebloknot]

14. That article posted on the home page...

...ended up becoming what felt to me to be a "pied piper" following of a man *I* have come to respect. I just don't agree with his thesis regarding impeachment, and I took the chance of being the lonely little petunia in an onion patch (or the other way around, if you prefer to see it that way)by posting a separate disagreement with Dean.

If I've committed a faux pas, I'm sure the mods will let me know. I am kind of new here, and have been watching activity to learn what is acceptable and not.

One thing I *have* learned is that when people start sniping at someone's point of view, and do not back it up with facts or a strong opinion of their own, based on something other than name-calling, they're just kind of bathing in the group energy without contributing in a mature way.

[elperromagico]

25. What the Republicans did in '98 defined impeachment

as nothing more than a political hack job.

That is the problem: not that Bush has done nothing to merit impeachment, not that impeaching him would be the wrong thing to do, but rather that there is no way to do it right now that won't be perceived as pure partisan politics.

We can't just impeach Bush to make a point. And impeaching him right now, when the likelihood of convicting him in the Senate is slim-to-none, is exactly that. It is making a point - a point that will not produce any net change and will likely not be understood by most Americans.

[puebloknot]

30. What the Republicans did in '98 *defiled* impeachment!

It does not follow that because they made a joke of the rule of law, our following the law would be seen by the nation and the world as just more of the same.

Though I sometimes worry about whether my fellow Americans are tuned in to what's happening in their world, I give them credit for the ability to discern between a blow job and murder, torture, spying on our citizens.

[omega minimo]

47. Yes, they tried that. Requiring those who know better to call Bullshit, eh?

"What the Republicans did in '98 defined impeachment as nothing more than a political hack job."

They didn't "redefine" impeachment. They practiced slimeball perception management. Doesn't mean anyone has to fall for it. And it doesn't mean that WE base what we think or do on whether we think OTHER people are falling for that bullshit. Right? :kick:

"That is the problem: not that Bush has done nothing to merit impeachment, not that impeaching him would be the wrong thing to do, but rather that there is no way to do it right now that won't be perceived as pure partisan politics."

That's why informing and educating others is more important than arguing over bullshit strategery.


"We can't just impeach Bush to make a point. And impeaching him right now, when the likelihood of convicting him in the Senate is slim-to-none, is exactly that. It is making a point - a point that will not produce any net change and will likely not be understood by most Americans."

It is more than "making a point" and that will be understood. That's also why the educational function of open Congressional hearings (televised!) is often mentioned. People learn about a process they may not understand, a process that was pissed on by the Republicans bogus impeachment of Clinton-- and they will learn the truth about the laws that have been broken, the public trust violated.

As for "net change." Wait and see. The willingness of people to make the argument you made and pretend to be able to predict that-- doesn't make any sense to me. But you have actually stated it more clearly than any I've come across on DU so thank you for that.

Unfortunately, the logic still appears to hinge on a lot of false and/or unpredictable assumptions, plus a cut and dry outlook on "net change" that ignores the function of the Process.

One of those questionable assumptions is that we should think and act based on what Republican mind game traps have been set up and how many people we think have been suckered. Isn't that just playing for their side? That's what I call "strategery." It's cynical, it's negative and it's the opposite of what this tug of war is about-- the system created for governance in the Constitution.

[elperromagico]

50. I'll make this very plain:

I'm not interested in impeachment unless we can convict. My every opinion on the issue of impeachment hinges on that.

Some of you seem to think that, if we can only get those articles of impeachment through the House, everything will change. Suddenly, sixteen Republicans in the Senate -- assuming that every Democrat is in favor of conviction -- will say, "You know what? Bush doesn't deserve to be in office" and vote in favor of conviction.

We could likely pull off impeachment in the House without a single Republican vote. But conviction in the Senate rests entirely on the votes of Republicans -- Republicans who have slavishly supported this President ever since he came into office. If Republicans haven't been uncomfortable with Bush's lies and rank incompetence yet, what is going to change their minds now?

Even if you can convict Bush, you're stuck with Cheney. Is the plan to impeach and remove him at the same time? Suppose, for a second, that you can get sixteen Republicans to vote to convict Bush. How many of those are going to vote to convict Cheney, knowing that Nancy Pelosi -- the Nancy Pelosi they've spent the better part of this year demonizing -- is going to be President? A Republican who would vote to make a Democrat president might as well start packing his bags.

I do not trust Senate Republicans to "do the right thing." They have stood by this President on wiretapping, on torture, on detainment, on illegal war... the list is a long one. To think that they will suddenly have a change of heart because a series of hearings tell them something they already know strikes me as the height of foolhardiness.

[omega minimo]

58. "Everything will change" no matter what we do. That's reality.

It "strikes me as the height of foolhardiness" to pretend to be able to predict outcomes that are unknown.

Your logic of predicting negative outcomes, based on false assumptions, working backwards to argue that the process is futile...

"Unfortunately, the logic still appears to hinge on a lot of false and/or unpredictable assumptions, plus a cut and dry outlook on "net change" that ignores the function of the Process."

"To think that they will suddenly have a change of heart because a series of hearings tell them something they already know strikes me as the height of foolhardiness."

How cynical do we have to be to go along with that sort of strategery?










And while considering trading in false assumptions for Change Happens, consider what will be revealed that we (and the venal, hypocritical insane, Axis of Evil Republicans) don't already know....


Have you seen the Lapham piece?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2934188

[elperromagico]

59. "How cynical do we have to be to go along with that sort of strategery?"

How naive do you have to be to believe that Republicans are suddenly going to have a change of heart? They have not stood up to this President in any substantial way in the last five years.

Am I cynical when it comes to Republicans? You're damned right I am. I have no reason not to be.

If the Republicans truly cared about the welfare of this country -- as opposed to caring only about the advancement of their party and its causes -- they would have stood up to this president long ago. They would have stood up when he was pushing for torture. They would have stood up when his illegal wiretapping was uncovered. They would have stood up time and time again and held this president in check. Sure, some have made token resistance; in the end, though, they always give this president what he wants.

Yet you expect them to suddenly turn around and vote to kick Bush out of office. It runs completely contrary to both human and political nature.

What is "net change"? I'll give you my definition. It's getting both Bush and Cheney out of office. Leave one in office and nothing changes.

I would honestly like to know what you think would happen if we proceeded with impeachment. It seems you think it would be the political equivalent of a revival meeting; all those heathens on the red side of the aisle are going to "get religion" and go apeshit for impeachment -- Hallelujahs all around. I don't see that happening. I base that view on what I've seen the Republicans do for the last five years. What do you base your view on? Is it the power of positive thinking or is there some shred of reality at its core?

Let me ask you straight: How do we get nearly 1/3rd of the Republicans in the Senate to vote to convict? If you have a substantial answer to that, I'll perk my ears up. Until then all you have are circular arguments that start nowhere, end nowhere, and have no basis in known reality.

[omega minimo]

60. Keep telling you, I don't agree with your assumptions, including all the ones

you repeat here.

They're your circular arguments, not mine.

[Montauk6]

26. Another way of looking at the problem (perhaps too simplistic)

Picture a co-op.

The board of 2005 (let's assume the board somehow has powers of eviction for the sake of the example, legal beagles, SHH!) vote to kick out a shareholder because he plays his Vivaldi too loud, in violation of house rules, to the consternation and outrage of the other non-board shareholders.

2006, a new board is elected, because the shareholders have had enough of the draconian nonsense from the previous board. Meanwhile another shareholder who was very friendly with the old board has been bringing in uninsured "contractors" to do major renovations (at all hours of the morning) that compromise the old building's structure, storing garbage in the halls, having parties where at least 5 times the cops have been called because someone heard gunshots and farm animals.

Now, should the new board decide to leave it alone because they don't want to be perceived as playing tit-for-tat? As wacked out as this scenario (and I tried to wack it out as much as possible), this is how I view the hesitation to go forth with impeachment proceedings.

The bottom line is, whatever the consequence and the level of whining, what this Administration has done is a textbook example of why the impeachment clause exists. It so happens that it follows an Administration where the impeachment clause was turned onto its head.

Plus, I really have confidence that the average voter can discern the difference between lying about a blowjob and lying about a war. So, the possible fear of a backfire effect making Dubya a political martyr just doesn't wash.

[elperromagico]

27. Get 67 ayes in the Senate and we'll see.

If the Bush ship continues to sink, the ice on the GOP side may start to melt. But, after six years of Bush, I'm starting to wonder how much it would take to convince the GOP that Dubya needs to go.

[puebloknot]

42. When *their* son or daughter is killed in Iraq. When they get sick...

...lose everything because they have no medical insurance. When a hurricane hits *their* town.

Even then...true believers are hard to sway.

[puebloknot]

31. We're on the same page.

"Plus, I really have confidence that the average voter can discern the difference between lying about a blowjob and lying about a war."

Before reading yours, I just posted the same sentiment! :)

[Independent_Liberal]

32. Judy, this is beautiful!

Splendid job! I couldn't agree with you more.

:patriot:

[puebloknot]

37. Thanks for your support! It means a lot! (Before this scrolls off.) nt

[intaglio]

35. Ok accepted that Bush is guilty of impeachable offenses but ...

The Democratic leadership faces a problem that the loud minority that support B*sh will scream that it is a tit-for-tat action as "revenge" for the Clinton debacle. In addition they have no guarantee that the can push a guilty verdict through Congress.

To make impeachment viable conditions have to be met:
1) That a high crime is or has been committed that is highly visible;
2) That a significant number of Republican Congress members express outrage and act on that outrage;
3) That impeachment will be rapid whilst visibly fair;


The quickest route to meeting these conditions is going after the bottom feeders and waiting for one of them to squeal. Once you have removed the first brick from the wall removing the others becomes easier and easier until the whole ugly edifice comes crashing down. The corrupt heart of the Executive will be exposed and the cleansing can begin. It does not matter whether Cheney is left as president - remember that Cheney needed Bush because no-one wanted him as President and Bush needed Cheney because he needed the support of the business community. If Cheney steps down then another blockage will have been removed from the course of justice (unless, horrible thought, Jeb is appointed).

[chknltl]

36. The rest of the world is watching.

Our place in that world is dependent upon our actions in this matter.
I am ashamed of what America has become...we could have been so much more. We are the last remaining superpower and bushco has turned us into a rogue nation to be loathed and feared by the world. I believe we need to fix that and soon. I voted for change, I believe that this last election is a mandate for change. I believe the world sees that we have it in our hands to accomplish that change starting in January. The world is aware of bushcos crimes... I am sick of being labeled complicit... If we do not seek to bring ALL of the crooks to task for their crimes against the world then we deserve to be labeled complicit. Our Founding Fathers gave us this precious Democracy and they gave us the ability to defend it through Impeachment. If WE THE PEOPLE has ever meant anything to us then NOW is the time to prove it to the world! Citizens of America: For the first time in 6 years, THE BALL IS IN OUR COURT.

[puebloknot]

39. Are we sharing a brain?

Every time I write and post, then get around to reading your latest message, I find my thoughts there!

Cheers!

Judy

[puebloknot]

38. Who ever promised you a rose garden?

First, the loud minority saw a change in their world view on November 7. Now, we must adjust our own to fit the new reality which exists NOW! It may not last, but it's here for our use now.

If Bush's compliant followers scream "tit-for-tat" and "revenge," what do we do? Do we just go away with our tails between our legs, or do we use our heads for something other than a wind tunnel? If they say that, is it true? Is it true?

1) A high crime has been committed, and is highly visible (remember those polls showing 51% of Americans want impeachment -- and they were taken some time ago?) Many more than one crime have been committed. Don't think so? Read John Conyers' report.

2) We don't have to quiver in light of possible Republican outrage. Remember, we won the House and Senate on November 7. Even if we lost the Senate through Lieberman's being promoted upward, we still have the House. We need to be concerned with letting a significant number of *Democratic* Congress members know that we'll express outrage and act on that outrage if they let us down.

No, there is no guarantee of conviction in the Senate. We didn't know if we would win the Second World War when my father enlisted. He and the other members of the Greatest Generation didn't have the luxury of dithering online about how it would look.

3) Given the amount of material already compiled by John Conyers, it would seem that impeachment could go forward quickly, if there is the will to do so. Too many people keep harking back to the Clinton impeachment, which was visibly *unfair*. Just because that was a show trial does not mean that impeaching for numerous crimes against humanity and against our Constitution will be seen in that light. What we need is to go forward with integrity and belief in the truth of the matter, not act like teenagers in a beauty contest, worrying about what somebody(ies) who have not attained real adulthood are going to say about us.

There are already some bottom feeders that are in jail, or who are sweating blood that they may be. If they have squealed, we don't know it yet. Maybe they have. But people are dying while we debate all these clever strategies.

We need to begin impeachment proceedings immediately, when the new Congress is seated, for one reason (although many others could be brought to the table): It is the moral, the legal, the Constitutional thing to do.

[Larry Ogg]

40. Excellent post Judy! I hope that the voters will not let the new Congress do nothing…

I think enough of the American people woke up, saw the light and spoke in November. But the question going around is, “Is Nancy Pelosi and the congress going to listen”? I hear a lot of members here at DU saying wait till January, wait a few months, and even going along with letting these Nazi fascist finish out there term. I guess they don’t think they can do any more damage to this country or the rest of the world over the next two years. Maybe I’m a little cynical after the 2000 election coup d'état ware the signature of only one Senator was needed to allow the recount in Florida. The right thing obviously wasn’t done and we probably wouldn’t be ware we are today. But all those who swore an oath to protect the constitution violated there oath by handing the Country over to a bunch of elite monsters who should of been serving life sentences or been on death row, except it seems, maybe they are above the law. None the less most of the one’s who could have made the difference sold out the Country and amazingly got reelected. Now it seems as though the American people are asking them to follow the remedy given by the Constitution, “Impeachment”… Well pardon me if I don’t hold my breath… I wish I could say I’m curious as to what the voters are going to do when nothing happens, but I know the answer to that, I’m cynical not senile. Until the voters lose faith in the one’s that got us in this mess, and the one’s who do nothing about it, the only changes will be for the worst… I really hope I’m wrong and I hope that the voters will not let the new Congress do nothing…

[puebloknot]

41. Hi. Thanks for joining in.

I deal with skepticism and depression over the state of the country all the time.

Sharing my thoughts with others is a help. We can only influence our own sphere of like-minded people. Until the time, that is, when our only choice is to hit the streets in protest. I hope it will never come to that. Our best hedge against having to take that kind of action (or just give in to the "inevitable," and live in a fascist state) is staying active in pushing our elected officials in the right direction.

Let's keep hope alive!

[Larry Ogg]

44. Be glad my friend, as it’s is the articulate and common cense articles and post like yours

that help fan the fires in the people that might otherwise give in, you are helping too make this hope a reality… For that I am thankful.

[baldguy]

43. Will the Dems be BRAVE enough and PATRIOTIC enough to bring up impeachment?

Not so far.

[Senator]

45. He's in the Fog of the Beltway

Great post.

You should repost it over at the FindLaw Message Boards. It's might even be seen by Dean there.

In fact everyone should pop over there and post him the riot act.

(What do I mean by "everyone?" -- everybody.wav)

--

[puebloknot]

53. A lawyer friend just e-mailed me that I should post this at Findlaw.

I have to go buy a Christmas tree right now. It's like having a giant, great-smelling bouquet in the house for a couple of weeks. Makes me kind of forget about all this crap for a time -- and, it's useful in helping me remember that faux Christians don't own this lovely symbol of the winter season, just as they don't own our country! Fa La La La La, La La, La La!

But later, I'll check out Findlaw.

All y'all ** come on over and help me out, now, when I do that.

**Deep Southern for *EVERYBODY*!

[Seabiscuit]

49. I think you're missing Dean's point:

In the same paragraph, he says:

""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. ..."

The point is, we don't have the votes to remove Bush or Cheney, and he doesn't want to see the Democrats do what the Republicans did to Clinton - they went after Clinton knowing they didn't have the votes in the Senate to convict (the vote ended up 50-50 on stricly partisan/party lines) and they alienated not just us democrats, but also the entire country by appearing to be what they were - petty, partisan back-biters who misused a constitutional process for stricly partisan purposes.

That's what Dean's warning about - let's not make the same mistake, which could result in our appearing just as petty and partisan, despite the fact that ours is a good cause.

The House and Senate Democrats during Watergate understood this problem and made certain they had enough Republican backing in the Senate to convict before voting to Impeach in the House.

[puebloknot]

52. I understood his point, but *my* point is...

...that we should make a record, through impeachment, because it the right thing to do. Failure to accuse because we're sure in advance that we can't convict in the Senate is too cynical for my taste.

We have to stop worrying about looking too partisan, stop playing the same tired game, and set a standard that I feel the American people will be happy, relieved to follow.

Everyone in Washington is afraid to "viva" first!

[Seabiscuit]

62. Making a record through comittee investigations is the right thing to do

first, as was done by the Senate Judiciary Committee during Watergate prior to the impeachment investigation.

If those investigations lead to the kinds of conclusions that would necessarily lead to an impeachment investigation, then by all means, do it (and I think we all know they will). But until the votes are there in the Senate to convict (and they may be in a year) we'd be risking seeing Bush/Cheney ACQUITTED of the charges, which would set a bad precedent for any future criminal charges against him, both in our courts and in the Hague.

[puebloknot]

63. Thanks for your response.

I've said it over and over in my posts: Calling for impeachment is not some eyes-glazed-over demand for instant gratification.

I, and others I know who are calling for impeachment NOW are doing the demanding now that the kind of procedure you've outlined be done when the new Congress is seated. John Conyers has already compiled a whole laundry list of impeachable offenses, but that took place down in the basement, and that information has to be brought to light in official committee hearings.

I'm just tired of people agonizing over the idea that we have to start from scratch and try to prove that there is anything the Bushies have done that isn't kosher. And that could take so much time that we might just as well scrap the whole idea.

That argument reminds me of a case I heard of where a young teacher was accused of molesting a little boy in her first-grade class. She had to leave her own newborn, was jailed while the trial went on, was convicted. Later a juror was interview who admitted that she was tired of being sequestered, it was Eastertime, she wanted to see her husband and kids, so she voted guilty to make it unanimous so she could get the heck out of there. She said she knew in her heart (and based on evidence) that the teacher was innocent, and the victim of gossip.

We the People have a duty to stick with the *process* of removing these criminals from power. Impeachment is needed to demonstrate to the country and the world that America stands for justice.

Again, if we have any integrity left at all, we can't refuse to file charges based on what we *already* know are impeachable offenses, and which simply need the stamp of an official inquiry after January 4, 2007, because we "don't have the votes."

If we don't get the votes, if the Senate won't convict, the official record will at least show the crimes this administration is accused of. The world really is watching, and they know this drill. Showing some spine will at least demonstrate that we Americans haven't gone soft on democracy.

The big question in my mind is whether the Senate Judiciary Committee under John Conyers is going to go forward with investigations, or whether, instead, those hearings will take a back burner to the laundry list of things Pelosi, et al. want to do to show the country they're "doing something."

It will be such a comfort to a lot of citizens to have a little more money in their pockets (emphasis on "little," and not enough to keep up with inflation) while living at the pleasure of a fascist state, with no rights.

I do understand that in attempting to knock down the Patriot Act and the Military Commission Act -- just in the investigtions pertaining thereto -- there may arise enough pressure to take down this presidency.

The Hague? One can only fantasize!

Thanks for joining in!

[omega minimo]

55. "what was done to Clinton" was bogus impeachment on absurd charges

The votes weren't there for that reason. It was a bullshit pantomime played out for the cameras and history books to save face for the bra$$illion Ken Starr Republican witch hunt.

The votes were there for Nixon because the case was legitimate.

The current administration's impeachable Constitutional offenses are off the charts.

THAT'S the point.

Your post is another example of fighting the Republican's fight (against holding Bush accountable) for them.

[Seabiscuit]

61. I think Dean understands all that perfectly well, as do I.

Neither of us is "fighting the Republican's fight".

The point is, until we know we can count on enough Republican votes in the Senate to convict, impeachment would be an exercise in futility and would not have the public's full support. It's a lot worse to lose a legitimate impeachment battle than to lose a frivolous one. Too much is at stake this time around.

None of which is to say that we won't get those Republican votes in favor of impeachment before Bush/Cheney's terms are up. I just don't see them there yet.

[omega minimo]

65. "Frivolous"?

:wow:

[Seabiscuit]

67. By "frivolous" I was referring to the Repukes' attempt to impeach Clinton.

[ooglymoogly]

56. i agree with most of j. deans logic, however

and i am sure better minds have pondered this. because of this idiot our honor and good will as a stable country standing guard over a brilliant constitution has been squandered and literally destroyed. we may get some of it back if we begin...and i say begin imp*achment proceeding...in very slow motion...bouncing it back and forth in slow play between the house and senate, all the while exposing the crimes this idiot has committed until his fake presidency & vp, the stench of which becomes untenable politically even for the stout noses of the pigs, i mean pugs. the pugs have over the years of raygun, b*sh 1 and 2 through secret signing statements and late night passages, been preparing for martial law when it becomes clear that the gop is in danger of falling off a cliff into the the garbage dump of history, giving the clearly neocon home*land s. incredible and unbelievable powers that idiot can implement at the stroke of a pen for even the flimsiest reasons...overriding the constitution, the congress, disbanding elections, taking over the treasury,the senate and much,much more. coopting the military, nat guard etc. http://www.wealth4freedom.com/FEMA.html wouldn't being under articles of imp*achment cut off the hand that holds this incredibly dangerous pen. does anyone doubt that idiot would use this power when backed into a corner. thats pretty much how hitler did it. this all becomes moot of course if it takes two thirds of congress to serve articles of imp*achment, or is it just two thirds to imp*ach but then dean would have a handle on this...oh well just thinking on the keyboard...never mind

[understandinglife]

64. Bring the 'Nuremberg chalice' to Bush and the neoconsters' lips ...

Recommended.

[puebloknot]

68. Borrowing a phrase or two from you, UL

"Never Forget: George W. Bush willfully violated National Security to cover-up his willful ...
... ... launch of a war of aggression and illegal occupation of Iraq .... and, he personally authorized rendition, torture, denial of habeas corpus,, ... and he violated your Constitutional rights, ... and, he willfully provided nuke-making instructions to terrorists -- and, if you doubt it, just check 'the google' ...."

Let's get the accountability show on the road on January 4, 2007!

[DemReadingDU]

66. Interesting discussion, another kick!

This administration must be held accountable, for Americans, and for the world.