Ending the Iraq Occupation vs Impeachment: Which do you choose?

[Vyan]

There is a dramatic and growing split between rank and file Democrats (particularly those of an activist bent such as those on DKos or DU) and Democratic politicians in Washington who have basically placed Impeachment "Off the Table." Many Democrats have been frustrated and even outraged by this - but have they truly listened to the reasons why?

From the Blogger Conference Call

Nancy Pelosi: I made a decision a few years ago, or at least one year ago, that impeachment was something that we could not be successful with and that would take up the time we needed to do some positive things to establish a record of our priorities and their short-comings,

Pelosi statement here alludes to a point of mine, which bears repeating.

Impeachment and Removal, though frankly necessary, is not yet a possibility except as a pointless exercise in vainglory. Just as failed subpoenas have further emboldened the rampant lawlessness of this Presidency, a failed Impeachment Vote or even a failure to Remove in the Senate would make Bush nigh unto a God. All powerful. Unstoppable.

Senator Feingold, who at one point stood virtually alone on the issue of Censure, has also tamped down Impeachment Expectations in his own DKos Diary

I believe that the President and Vice President may well have committed impeachable offenses. But with so many important issues facing this country and so much work to be done, I am concerned about the great deal of time multiple impeachment trials would take away from the Congress working on the problems of the country. The time it would take for the House to consider articles of impeachment, and for the Senate to conduct multiple trials, would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for Congress to do what it was elected to do – end the war and address some of the other terrible mistakes this Administration has made over the past six and a half years.

As could be expected Feingold's position was not well received.

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold wrote a diary on this site recently...a smoke screen for why he was being a wimp and not taking the will of the people with him when he had to vote on the get-out-of-Iraq bill. He wanted HIS cake and to eat it, too.

Some have pointed out that Feingold stood shoulder to shoulder with Republicans intent on Impeaching Bill Clinton.

At issue was a motion by Senator Robert Byrd (D - W.V.) to dismiss all charges against the President. The vote was 44 to 56. 44 Democrats voted yes. 55 Republicans and one Democrat voted no.

55 Republicans. And one Democrat. Just one. Russ Feingold.

Regardless of whether you feel that Feingold is either gutless or some form of hypocrite, it should be noted that he does have a point when he essentially says there are bigger fish to fry than Bush.

There is for example, The War Occupation.

This week the Senate staged a dramatic All-Nighter in an attempt to break a Republican Filibuster over an Iraq Redeployment Timetable. Despite several hints that Republicans such as Pete Dominici, George Voinovich, John Warner, Olympia Snowe, Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar just might be willing to finally budge and break with the President on Iraq - only Senators Snowe, Hagel, Susan Collins and Gordon Smith actually did by voting to end the Filibuster against Levin-Reed.

(It should also be noted that the only Democrat voting against ending the Filibuster - was Harry Reid for procedural reasons so that he could bring the measure up again in the future. And of course, Lieberman.)

Even if these 8 Republican Senators, including Collins and Smith, have all made it to the fence and just might bolt this upcoming September - it's still not quite enough to have the Veto Proof Super-Majority they need to override the President on Iraq - but it's close.

Four Republicans jumped the Shark, after the August recess and Reid's tabling of the measure until September - even more are likely, but what remains to be seen is whether it will be enough?

Getting our soldiers out of the shooting gallery that Iraq has become, while stepping up efforts to renew diplomacy between the various tribal factions, not through the ineffectual Iraqi Parliament but rather through the means of a Diplomatic Summit with all concerned parties, including Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia who seem to be provider the bulk of foreign fighters needs to be our primary focus.

The delicate issues of Shia revenge for the brutal rule of Saddam, the impending Sunni Genocide and how these issues affect Iran (which is largely Shia) and the Saudis (who are largely Sunni) need to be address in a regional context, yet President Bush (or rather Darth Cheney) won't even allow the State Dept to engage with all the major players in the region.

Meanwhile the Iraqi parliament inches ever closer to voting for Withdrawal Authority on it's own.

One way or another, in the next two months there will be a showdown and his War will very likely begin to come to a close.

But what if, instead, the Senate was in the midsts of a heated Impeachment Trial?

How likely would it be that Senate Democrats would be able to peel off the three or four more votes they need for a successful veto override and begin to ramp down our involvement in Iraq, if they were embroiled in a pitched battle over removing President Bush?

And more importantly, how close would the effort to remove Bush be to succeeding?

At this point in time, not very likely.

Although many of us, including Senator Feingold, might agree that there have been many activities for which either Bush or Cheney could possibly be Impeached - we have yet to find and reveal a truly smoking gun that leads directly to the President and Vice President as deliberately subverting their constitutional obligations in the way that the Nixon Tapes did 30 years ago and led to approval of Three Articles of Impeachment by the House Judiciary Committee in 1974.

Just look at a sample from Article 1, the Obstruction of Justice charges against Nixon.

• making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
• withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
• approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
• interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;
• approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;
• endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;
• disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;
• making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or
• endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

And more from Article 2, all of which are based on actions personally taken by Nixon himself, or specifically directed his subordinates to take.

• He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
• He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.
• He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.
• He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavoured to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.
• In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Although similar allegations could be (and have been) lodged against President Bush (Article 3 addressed Nixon's attempts to avoid Congressional subpoenas, much like Bush has done but in Nixon's case - thanks to the White House taping system - there was conclusive proof that his use of executive priviledge to dodge these subpoenas was false. We do not have similar proof of this in Bush's case, yet...), in many ways these actions were carried out by surrogates such as Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, Andrew Card, Kyle Sampson or Monica Goodling - not by Bush personally.

Until we have conclusive proof that Bush specifically authorized these actions (and that what he has authorized is clearly illegal and has withstood all appeals and arguments to the contrary - unlike the NSA Case and the Plame Suit), what we have (so far) is essentially nothing. Meanwhile Bush is doing his best to ensure that it stays that way be invoking Executive Privilege whenever, and wherever he can up to and including attempts to block implementation of Contempt of Congress charges against Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers.

Based on the current conclusive evidence, or lack thereof, the we currently have against Bush - any attempt to Impeach him would fail miserably.

There's even a likelihood that it wouldn't even get through the House, let alone full removal in the Senate.

Some (on Dkos) have argued strenuously that this is a "false dichotomy", that the War will only end with the end of the Bush Presidency, and they may have a point there. The problem is that right now the chances and slim and nil that we will get the 67 votes needed to Remove Bush in the Senate. Pushing forward on Impeachment without sufficient evidence to bring forward those votes will be seen as nothing more than partisan pay-back for Clinton in 1998, Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, and also that the effort is just as likely to harden Republicans even further against compromise on Iraq. The result in this case would be "Lose - Lose." You may have an Impeachment, but you wouldn't change the course in Iraq or Remove anyone from office. That's not acceptable to me. If we play this game, we should be playing to win.

There are those who would argue, and I would tend to agree, that the Bush Administration has been nothing short of a massive criminal enterprise which has defrauded and abuses the American Public on issues ranging from Election Fraud, to Environmentalism, War Crimes, Torture, Pseudo-Science, Exploiting Terrorism, Disaster Relief Failures to just plain common-sense, and that failing to have a serious and severe accounting for this rampant misconduct will leave a permanent stain on our nation. It will give a blueprint and carte-blanche for continued abuse of power to any future President - including President Hillary Clinton - making them a virtual Dictator, a High Overlord in a nation of serfs.

I would contend that this situation will be made even more dire if Impeachment is attempted and fails, because if it fails it will do so because either a majority in the House or at least 38 Senators will have openly endorsed and legitimized the concepts behind the "Unitary Executive" and permenently reduced the power of Congress. Once that happens there will be no real way to deter any future President from exploiting similar theories of neo-dictatorship. None.

The Bush Administration must be held accountable for his crimes against the American Public - unfortunately, it probably won't happen this year and possibly not the next. But holding him accountable doesn't mean that the Bush-wacker himself personally has to be the one to go under the bus - it just might happen to be Gonzo who might wither under the Impeachment Lamp after both Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten have spent some quality time in the House Jail for Inherent Contempt.

It would be a powerful symbolic visual to have the House Sargent at Arms marching up and arresting Miers and Bolten, then holding them until they either crack and squeal the way Judith Miller did, or simply rot until the end of Bush's term. That would be good enough for me - if we are also able to End the Occupation of Iraq in the bargain.

Bush himself, isn't that important as Nancy Pelosi has stated.

and the President is... ya know what I say? The President isn’t worth it... he’s not worth impeaching. We’ve got important work to do...

What is important, is the lawless of the Bush Administration. And taking out those who enable that Administration to function, removing Bush's Pawns one by one - Domino by Domino - just might be the better plan for now. It holds his administration accountable for their actions, but doesn't necessarily bog the Congress down in the time it has remaining with an impossible impeachment trial.

There is of course, the possibility that the only way to End The Iraq Occupation - or prevent an unprovoked attack on Iran - might be to Remove Bush from Office Now, rather than letting him slip out the back door on Jan 20, 2009 - but that's a bridge we won't be crossing until September and the current Defense Authorization Money runs out.

Vyan

P.S. Feingold also has a new pair of Censure Motions Against the President (partially inspired by the criticism he received on Kos) Small steps, but going in the right direction.

[Tom Joad]

1. illogical-- false choices. eom

[hisownpetard]

9. Totally agree - false premise/choices eom

[hisownpetard]

16. One thing that is driving me insane is when people discourage impeachment...

because of the amount of TIME it would take. WTF???
How about the fact that innumerable illegal and immoral acts have been perpetrated by our government officials
against Americans and our Constitution and the peoples of other countries as well, for which the criminals MUST be held accountable?
How about the fact that, to let them go unpunished, is just plain WRONG?
Has that concept fallen by the wayside?

Should we have stood by, idle, during WWII and said, "Well, if we get involved
it's gonna take a long time and we have lots of other things to do, so maybe
we'll just pass on this one" ??

[Vyan]

18. And how wrong would it be

if we Impeach too soon and They Walk Away Laughing!?

Vyan

[hisownpetard]

25. They've been laughing and will continue to laugh (heh-heh-heh)

unless, by some convergence of miracles, they are somehow (e.g. handcuffs,
jail, disbarment in some cases, impeachment, inherent contempt) made
to pay a price and are forced to trade in their hubris for humble pie.
Oh, how I pray!

[defendandprotect]

37. Too soon? What are you waiting for -- interment camps?

[Vyan]

39. We already have one

in Taylor Texas, and most people still don't seem to care. I'm honestly not sure what it's going to take, but we don't have it yet.

Vyan

[puebloknot]

66. We did do that in WWII for a long time. Roosevelt...

...used lend lease to try to render aid to Great Britain because we were such isolationists that he couldn't just get involved. When Pearl Harbor happened, then it was personal. Of course, there are questions about Pearl Harbor, but the point is that Americans are not in enough personal pain yet to really get serious about accountability.

Your WWII meme is apt, however. How absurd for anyone to suggest that impeachment will take too long, or that there is *anything* more important to the future of this country than to stop our march to fascism NOW, before it's too late.

[babylonsister]

2. Both! One thing leads to another... nt

[YDogg]

3. Amen

[Vyan]

11. But if you fail at one....

(Impeachment and Removal) just how likely is the other?

Vyan

[babylonsister]

19. I have no answer as failure is also hypothetical.

I think that so much damage has been done to this country that it'd be illegal not to impeach at this point, but I will defer to the experts making those calls. If Conyers thinks it's feasible, that's pretty impressive, and he's leaning that way.
And this illegal occupation needs to end yesterday, no question about that, and I think that too will happen. It's time for us to stop one little man from holding this country hostage on this issue, when clearly the majority of us want it over.

[Vyan]

21. Conyers is close...

but even he's not there yet.

Success is a hypothetical too.

Vyan

[rocktivity]

27. Even a failed impeachment vote is an impeachment process on public record

Besides, it's Congress' job not to tolerate the impeachable. Even though the impeachment vote against Clinton failed, look at all the political mileage the Repubs got out of it.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Vyan]

33. And that's what we'd like to emulate?

Impeaching the President from the opposing party simply because we don't like him?

Vyan

[rocktivity]

40. I THINK the case against Bush is stronger than the case against Clinton...

:rofl:
rocknation

[Vyan]

44. Yes, much stronger...

still not good enough though.

Vyan

[puebloknot]

65. Well....yes!!!! Illicit sex vs. murder, rape, illegal war, malfeasance...

... with regard to New Orleans, refusal to honor subpoenas, lying to Congress.

[tavalon]

60. Yeah, that's why we want it.

Don't be silly. This isn't about likeability, this is about the rule of law. Rule of law. Rule of law. Got it yet.

Geez, Cheney and Bush have acted illegally so many times it's mind boggling.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. I pick both

For one thing, I believe that the road out of Iraq is paved with the impeachment and removal of the tyrants Bush and Cheney.

As for the way you frame the issue, pleas click here.

[Vyan]

8. And seriously...

What do you think the chances of Removal are with the information we (and Congress) has now?

Vyan

[Jack Rabbit]

17. Response

I think if Congressional investigators lay the case out in a methodical manner supported by evidence, there a very good chance of getting the required 67 votes in the Senate to remove the tyrants.

There are 22 GOP Senators up for re-election next year. If they know what's good for them, they will support toppling the Regime.

Popular sentiment already favors impeaching Cheney. In the same poll, it was evenly divided on Bush. That was before last week's outrageous executive privilege claims. Sentiment for impeachment and removal will only become wider and deeper in the coming weeks and months.

We grass roots progressives should make it a goal to topple the Bush Regime through impeachment by Christmas.

[Vyan]

20. I agree

the trend line looks good - but also the reality that you need 67 Votes to Convict is daunting, and it should be. Forcibly removing a President is a very serious act. We've never done it before - (except at the barrel of a gun).

Bush is still far more popular than Nixon was at his lowest ebb. He still has very strong and rabid supporters both in Congress and the Senate who absolutely will do everything they can to frustrate any Impeach or Remove attempts. Public sentiment is shifting toward Impeachment, but if you ask about full-on Removal - which should be the real goal - what's the answer to that?

We still have a ways to go yet before the nation is ready for the real deal IMO.

What we really can't afford to do, is use up all of our powder prematurely - then we're all Fucked!

Vyan

[Jack Rabbit]

30. Let me dispute some facts

Forcibly removing a President is a very serious act. We've never done it before - (except at the barrel of a gun).

Barrel of a gun? When did that happen?

I don't recall any one pointing a gun to Nixon's head and saying "get out of Dodge by sundown." Nixon resigned not for the good of the country -- if that were his concern he would have resigned months earlier -- but because the jig was up and the result of the impeachment process had become a foregone conclusion.

Impeaching a president is a difficult task and that is as it should be.

Bush is still far more popular than Nixon was at his lowest ebb.

Actually, they are not at approximately the same level. Bush is a little higher, but sinking. He's now in the mid twenties in some polls, where Nixon's low ebb before his ouster was in the low twenties.

As for Cheney, if popular sentiment is any indicator, he's already a dead man walking. Nevertheless, it would be desirable to impeach and remove them together. Neither of these criminals should be allowed to choose his successor though the 25th Amendment.

(I)f you ask about full-on Removal - which should be the real goal - what's the answer to that?

The ARG poll specifically asked if impeachment proceedings should begin. That reserves the question of guilt, but expresses the idea that there is now enough reason to look seriously at impeachment. This could be taking as a warning to the Democratic leadership: Americans want impeachment on the table.

I remain confident that once impeachment proceedings begin, the case against Bush and Cheney will prove to be solid and well supported with evidence, resulting in a rise in public sentiment for removal of the pair that will overwhelm Republican resistance to making Speaker Pelosi president.

[Vyan]

32. Fact Checking

Forcibly removing a President is a very serious act. We've never done it before - (except at the barrel of a gun).

Barrel of a gun? When did that happen?

Lincoln, McKinnley, Garfield and Kennedy.

I don't recall any one pointing a gun to Nixon's head and saying "get out of Dodge by sundown."

George H. W. Bush as head of the RNC pretty much used similar words to convince Nixon his time was up.

Nixon resigned not for the good of the country -- if that were his concern he would have resigned months earlier -- but because the jig was up and the result of the impeachment process had become a foregone conclusion.

Right, but not just that he would be Impeached - that he was likely to be Removed as well. He walked out on his own before that happened, he wasn't "forced" out in the way I meant (i.e Removed by 2/3rd Vote of the Senate).

Congress has never removed a President from office.

Bush is still far more popular than Nixon was at his lowest ebb.

Actually, they are not at approximately the same level. Bush is a little higher, but sinking. He's now in the mid twenties in some polls, where Nixon's low ebb before his ouster was in the low twenties.

Yes, Nixon was in the low twenties, but some polls still have Bush in the thirties. That's a ten point gap hence my "far more popular" comment.

Fox/Opinion Dynamics - 7/17 - 32%
Gallup - 7/12 - 31%
AP/IPsos - 7/9 - 33%


Both CBS/New York Times (7/9) and Newsweek (7/11) have him at 29% - that isn't the "mid twenties", sorry. He's still got a good long way to go before he reaches Nixonian levels of loathing.

Unfortunately Libby was commuted, so he's not talking.

But otherwise we agree on Cheney, which is why he should be (and can be) Impeached and Removed either before (or in lieu of) Bush just based on the four part Wapo expose'. Clearly he's the "brains" of the operation anyway.

The ARG poll specifically asked if impeachment proceedings should begin. That reserves the question of guilt, but expresses the idea that there is now enough reason to look seriously at impeachment. This could be taking as a warning to the Democratic leadership: Americans want impeachment on the table.

Possibly, but as I said - it's not evidence that they'll support Removal

I remain confident that once impeachment proceedings begin, the case against Bush and Cheney will prove to be solid and well supported with evidence, resulting in a rise in public sentiment for removal of the pair that will overwhelm Republican resistance to making Speaker Pelosi president.

Impeachment proceedings don't "prove" anything, they are simply a summary of the facts which have already been brought to light over a long course of investigation, like an indictment at the completion of a Grand Jury, which is exactly how things went down with Nixon (Impeachment didn't begin until 2 years after the Watergate break in) and with Clinton (who was investigated by Ken Starr for at least 4 years prior to his impeachment)

It's the Senate Trial where things are argued and "proven" and right now I don't think anyone seriously believes (based on current evidence) that the Senate will conjure up 67 votes for Removal, particular when they can't even break a 60 vote filibuster on Iraq.

Right now we have to leave Impeachment on the back-burner while continuing with the Conyers, Waxman and Leahy investigations until they strike real paydirt.

Vyan

[Jack Rabbit]

48. Response

Barrel of a gun.

Your barrel of a gun statement seems fallacious to me.

The presidents who were assassinated were killed by individuals who in at least two cases were acting alone; certainly none of these were not the result of congressional action.

I doubt Mr. Bush was armed when he said any such thing to President Nixon.

{i]Polls.

At least one poll does have Bush at 26%, and others in the high twenties, although others do have him in the low thirties, as you cite.

The probability of success.

Once impeachment begin and those taking a prosecutorial stance lay out the case methodically, I believe that support for removal will rise dramatically. Is that a sure thing? Of course not. But if we wait for a sure thing, we will never move against the tyrants and thus we run the risk of either an escalated war in Iraq or a war widened to Iran.

That risk should make impeachment worth pursuing.

Right now we have to leave Impeachment on the back-burner while continuing with the Conyers, Waxman and Leahy investigations until they strike real paydirt.

Perhaps you've missed Conyers' remarks on the subject this weekend ("What are we waiting for? Let's take these two guys out"). He seems to think he's hit paydirt.

[Vyan]

67. I'm not suggesting

that we just "sit around and wait" - I'm simply pointing out that we need to first focus in intense investigations, and that as those investigations bare fruit begin to consider the option of impeachment, rather than the other way around.

Vyan

[Jack Rabbit]

72. Impeachment as a shorthand term

When most people say impeachment, they really mean impeachment and removal. I use the word like that quite often, and I have a degree in political science. Under the present extraordinary circumstances, impeachment has become shorthand for invetigations leading to the impeachment of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and their removal from office.

We have had investigations and they continue. So far, they have revealed that Mr. Bush thinks he's above the law and can use executive privilege in such a way as to avoid accountability for what is probably criminal activity. That in itself is an impeachable offense.

Last November, we knew little about the Justice Department scandals. Do you not believe that Mr. Gonzales is guilty of perjury? He's told the truth about five different ways now, about three of those under oath. And what does that say about Mr. Bush's fitness to be sitting in the oval office? Any real leader would have fired Gonzales long ago.

As for Mr. Cheney, the transcripts of the Libby trial should be enough to sink him. To refresh some memories, there was sworn testimony from Mr. Cheney's former aides that he was directing the plot to reveal Valerie Plame's employment at the CIA. Fitzgerald didn't bring charges against Cheney because Libby's obstruction of justice prevented him from building a case against Cheney that he could win in court. However, the standard of proof in an impeachment proceeding is clear and convincing, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Vyan]

76. I understand the confusion...

but I would point out that this isn't my first time on this particular merry-go-round, and many people have made it perfectly clear that they don't care about "Removal". As I've pointed out, they don't think that's possible - but simple want to take a stand against what Bush has wrought even if they'll fail in the end.

Some feel that having hearings that are called "Impeachment" are going to a) be enough to deter this and future Presidents from following a similar course or b) magically transform the country into one were the rule of law matters again.

For example.

See my other post

regarding a hugely publicized trial exposing all of Bushcos crimes before the nation and the world.

I consider THAT a success in itself.

Removal is a bonus!

by buhdydharma on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 03:56:38 PM PDT

To me, the two are distinct - Andrew Johnson was Impeached, Bill Clinton was Impeached, George W. Bush must be Removed. Impeaching him out of anger, without a strategy to win will fail and we can't afford to fail.

Vyan

[sellitman]

5. Both

We must do both or we are complicit in the destruction of the Constitution and our way of life.

Impeach then Imprison.

[ClayZ]

6. Both!

[acmavm]

7. We can do both. I would suggest that most dems (not the ones in

Washington, but the public) can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[John Q. Citizen]

10. Your false dichotomy is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

It isn't a choice of either stop the illegal occupation or impeach.

And anyone who makes that claim should be engaged immediately about the false premise of the suggestion.

How utterly ridicules.

[Vyan]

13. You did read the post right?

Just checking.

Vyan

[EpiDave]

45. Impeaching Cheney is the best way out of Iraq - even if removal fails

Given the current crop of Republicans without Conscience, removal might fail. But impeaching Cheney, and later Bush if Cheney were removed, would improve our standing in the world, and help in the fight for the hearts and minds of moderates around the world. It should help us get out of Iraq in an honorable fashion, and should distract Cheney from his push for Bush to bomb Iran. Bush might start acting more rationally if Cheney were impeached, even without removal.

Also, to protect the constitution - even if Cheney / Bush are not removed, at least there will have been a dissent against their riding rough-shod over the constitution. An analogy - the Supreme Court (or the Senate) may not make the right decision, but the process and the dissenting opinion provide a basis for eventual remedies / corrections. So it is crazy to say that impeachment without removal would be pointless. Have you listened or watched Moyers special on impeachment? You can watch it at pbs.org or download the audio via iTunes. It's a great discussion of why impeachment is needed.

Also, though not a strong argument - for those who are interested in simulations of reality - a tit for tat or modified tit for tat strategy is usually the most effective approach in game theory. See wiki tit for tat for more info on game theory and speculation about the evolution of cooperation among animals and humans. From that point of view, Repubs impeached Clinton for diddlysquat, and the Democrats appear weak and powerless if they can't even impeach Cheney - how can we trust them to fight terrorists if they don't even have the nerve to throw a serious punch at Bush / Cheney for trying to turn our country into a Mussolini-style dictatorship?

Most importantly, if the Dems do not seriously move forward with impeachment of Cheney, it's unlikely that Bush or the Repubs will give in on withdrawal from Iraq. Bush will run out the clock and leave this mess for his successor. It's nice to hope Repubs will join, but Bush will just veto any attempt to limit funding for his war. Will the Dems have the strength to withstand Repub tirades about not supporting the troups if they refuse to pass any funding legistlation? I would hope so, but I think we'd be better off starting on the impeachment route at the same time. Impeachment would lead to more serious negotiations about withdrawal - both on our side, and from our allies and enemies. Also, believe it or not, there may be more of a consensus on impeaching Cheney than how and when to withdraw from Iraq.

[puebloknot]

63. First Cheney, and then a domino effect...

Impeachment is seen by too many as just revenge for Clinton's absurd impeachment. The Dems need to get it straight in their own heads, first, that no, they are not just playing a revenge game, but are doing what they were elected to do in beginning impeachment proceedings -- which will be a public airing of our filthy laundry, and will cause Congresspersons to go on record as supporting this criminal administration, or not.

The Moyers piece you refer to is superb. The point is made there very strongly by a conservative Republican that impeachment is not just to try to divest ourselves of Bush and Cheney. It's needed to squelch any setting of precedent for future presidents, Dem or Repub. Power is seductive, and I haven't seen anything from the Dems of late that assures me that they wouldn't be happy to step into the presidency and continue to chip away at our freedoms. If they won't step up to the plate and take a swing at a home run for democracy now, why should we assume they'll do that if they win in 2008? And there is an "if" in the sentence that precedes this one.

There's an old expression that we need to keep repeating to the Dems: "Those who lie down with dogs rise up with fleas." And we ain't having no flea-bitten dogs occupying the White House, no matter what party they belong to.

History is filled with examples of those who tried to pacify tyrants by giving just a little more, and a little more. It has never worked, and it isn't working now.

I spent last night talking with wonderful activist Democrat friends, a couple in their 70's, and we discussed our crisis every which way from sundown. The man, a lawyer, was describing how he felt that he might succumb to his shock when he heard the Bush v. Gore decision which said that a continued recount would "cause irreparable harm" to Bush. You don't have to be a lawyer to know that it was complete and utter b.s., and it is a mark of how jaded we've become as a nation that we let it happen -- We the People.

We talked last night about the energy and the integrity which have driven the people of other nations to the streets very recently, when the same kinds of propaganda ploys have been tried. My lawyer friend said last night that we've had large demonstrations in D.C., and now we need to get ourselves there in our enraged millions to say that this coup d'etat which took place in 2000 *WILL NOT STAND*!

Every day I ask myself if this nation has become so dumbed down that we're just going to shuffle into that "good" night like sheep, or if we can rally a sufficient percentage of the people who are awake enough to carry water for the whole!

We the People are crying for constitutional "bread," and we're basically being told to eat cake and shut up.

It's 2 hours and 50 minutes into Monday, EST. Let us see what this day brings. We're down to it now. We need an impeachment sweep from the top down, and we need inherent contempt proceedings *on the table*!

Off the soapbox for now!

[tavalon]

61. Thank you

I couldn't remember the name of the fallacy. I knew it was a classic but couldn't remember the name. False dichotomy. Thanks.

[MH1]

12. Thank you - excellent post.

But I see reality and rationality are, predictably, not very welcome here.

[Vyan]

15. There's nothing wrong with passion....

it's just needs to be nudged in a more productive direction every once in awhile...

Vyan

[Inuca]

14. Unfortunately and realistically

it is most likely one or the other. Not a false choice IMHO. This is also why I like Feingold's idea of censure (which most likely will not even be discussed much, hope I am wrong...). I HATE the idea of all these bastards not getting their due, but in spite of that I think that doing something to start taking care of the Iraq nightmare is more important.

[PoconoPragmatist]

22. endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;

Kinda like Tom DeLay misused the Homeland Security Department to track the Texas Democrats who fled Texas to deny a quorum for the unfair and unconstitutional redistricting of Texas in a way guaranteed to be advantageous to Republicans, and very damaging to Democrats...and in a way that disenfranchised thousands and thousands of minority voters.

Although I have to disagree...I want to see impeachment...and in my case, you bet your BIPPY it's payback for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. I won't even deny this.

[Vyan]

24. And Delay is under indictment

for this.

I think that Bush should be under Indictment for violations of FISA and the War Crimes Act - but unfortunatley wishes aren't dollars.

Vyan

[PoconoPragmatist]

28. Gotcha

You just argued against your own OP.

If indictment for DeLay is warranted and desired for his actions (and I believe they are) then why is not indictment and impeachment warranted, desired, and NECESSARY for Bush for his violations?

There has to be a way to pry out the facts that we all already know. There HAS to be a way to prove the case. There's no WAY this malAdministration could have committed so much malfeasance, and yet we still be unable to make a solid case against it. And we all know the malfeasance has occurred. There MUST be a way to pry the truth out...and the facts out...and the proof out. If we are not able to...then what's to stop the next President, and the next and the next...from trying the very same tactics?

[Vyan]

29. Not really...

You just argued against your own OP.

If indictment for DeLay is warranted and desired for his actions (and I believe they are) then why is not indictment and impeachment warranted, desired, and NECESSARY for Bush for his violations?

It is warranted, we just won't WIN - yet. Go back and re-read what I really said.

There has to be a way to pry out the facts that we all already know. There HAS to be a way to prove the case. There's no WAY this malAdministration could have committed so much malfeasance, and yet we still be unable to make a solid case against it. And we all know the malfeasance has occurred. There MUST be a way to pry the truth out...and the facts out...and the proof out.

Yes, there is a way - it's called Inherent Contempt. I mentioned it in the article, follow the link it's very informative. We need direct testimony from a close Bush advisor and/or some physical evidence linking him directly to these crimes as the White Hosue tapes linked Nixon directly to Watergate and the cover-up. We don't have that, but Inherent Contempt just might give it to us.

If we are not able to...then what's to stop the next President, and the next and the next...from trying the very same tactics?

That is exactly my point. If we Impeach but don't Remove - there's nothing to stop them, nothing.

Vyan

[PoconoPragmatist]

38. But...

Whether or not we can win...

If we don't even TRY...then we have already lost.

If we don't even TRY...then what's to stop the next and the next and the next President from employing Bush tactics?

My point is...if we do not even TRY to impeach him...then that is sending a signal that we really do not care about the severe abuse to our liberties that this Pretzeldent has committed. We do not care about the outrages committed by this mal-Administration.

And, yes, there's a part of me that wants this solely, and totally out of spite and payback for Clinton, you bet your bippy that is part of it for me...and I don't care who knows that...or who says it. Because, my own personal desires for payback aside - impeachment against this Pretzeldent is still WARRANTED, JUSTIFIED, AND NECESSARY.

We must show that no man regardless of his position, is above the law...and that no man may get away with what Bush so far HAS gotten away with. If we don't get him NOW, we never will - and he will never pay for his outrages, and his injustices. the important thing to my mind is that he must pay.

[rocktivity]

41. DING DING DING! PoconoPragmatist, you're our grand prize winner!

...If we don't even TRY...then we have already lost.

The Dems aren't going to to ride into the White House in '08 on the backs of a do-nothing Congress. They should do their jobs--including oversight--and let the Repubs block, obstruct, filibuster, and try riding on the backs of THAT next November! Even worse, the less the Dems do, the harder Bush will made it for them to do anything even if they wanted to.

I agree that a false dilemma has been created--if Pelosi, Reid and Conyers play their cards right, impeachment and Iraq can dovetail into each other. Would Bush have failed at fighting two wars if HE hadn't at least tried?

:headbang:
rocknation

[Vyan]

42. I used to feel that way too....

now my thinking has progressed and matured. I don't want revenge, I don't even care about symbols so much - but we do have to take a stand for the rule of law and to preserve our co-equal branches of governemnt.

Impeaching Bush isn't the only or even best way to do that. Dismantling his Unitary Executive claims one by one, brick by brick will do it too. The first and worst of those is his claim that he can wage War anytime, anywhere with anyone in any manner he so chooses without oversight or consequences.

Vyan

[PoconoPragmatist]

57. Then You Are A Bigger Person Than I Am

Because I still want revenge...I want payback for Clinton...and I'm big enough to blatantly own up to that. I'm big enough to sya...yeah, that's a large part of it...AND SO WHAT IF IT IS?? Does that make impeachment of this entire malAdministration any less justified or necessary?? Hell no!

And since YOU seem to believe impeachment is not a good idea, might I inquire as to exactly what YOU suggest?

I'm telling you, I'm not alone, there's a lot of Democrats out there who want their pound of flesh. The most recent elections should have been a wake-up call to that very fact.

[Vyan]

68. I think Removal

is a good idea. I think it's a neccesity - I think fruitless Impeachment that doesn't result in removal is an extremely bad idea.

Vyan

[tavalon]

62. Progressed and matured to a false dichotomy

It's changed but I'm not sure I would characterize it the way you have.

[Vyan]

69. How about...

much less angry and far more analytical?


Vyan

[LordJFT]

23. i was actually planning to make a post with this same question

Ending the Occupation should be first and foremost. Whether people here are willing to admit it or not impeachment hearings would slow down the effort to end the occupation just like the Clinton impeachment hearings slowed down everything else that congress was doing and personally I think saving lives is more important right now than punishing *. And realistically if our majority in congress can't even stop the war, there is no way in hell we can get a majority to impeach.

[pstans]

26. It it is an either/or...cutting funding for war wins out

[defendandprotect]

31. False choice -- WE CAN DO BOTH AT THE SAME TIME . . .

AS SOMEONE RECENTLY SAID . . . DEMOCRATS CAN WALK AND CHEW GUN AT THE SAME TIME --

[broadcaster]

34. I completely disagree--Impeachment is the right way.

Feingold's idea of censure was shot down by Senator Reid today on Face the Nation.

Reid said we didn't need censure since the nation was on record about Bush being
"the worst presidentwe ever had. I don't think we need a censure resolution in the Senate to prove that." Reid said that the most important business now
is the defense spending bill and funding for homeland security.

Clearly, Reid and Pelosi are not open to impeachment, so it's up to us, and sponsoring
members in Congress to force this through.

I believe in activism, not sitting in the bleacher seats.

[jmp]

35. Ending the occupation of Iraq

Bush/Cheney will be out of office soon enough.

[saltpoint]

36. Would prefer both. But must navigate a landscape that may not

favor either.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

43. Walk and chew gum at the same time?

IMPEACH THE MOTHERFUCKERS ALREADY!

[DutchLiberal]

46. I read the first two paragraphs and had already made up my mind:

The Democrats can't do *anything* until Bush & Cheney are impeached. That's all that counts. When will this catch on? When will both Democratic politicians and Democratic supporters understand this?

"A failed impeachment will turn Bush into God"? Oh please, he's *already* acting like God. Basically, what Bush is doing, is spitting in the face of Congress every time one of his cronies gets a subpoena, he tells them not to cooperate, he labels everything Congress wants oversight on 'off-limits' invoking 'executive privilege', he commutes his convicted cronies etc.

Impeachment is the only way to stop the madness.

[Vyan]

70. If they Impeach and Don't Remove

do you think that will Stop Bush from doing any of the things that he's been doing? Do you think it'll even slow him down a little?

Or do you think he'll simply look at an aquital in the Senate as vidication and validation for each and every power-grab he's attempted?

Think about it...

Vyan

[DutchLiberal]

73. What are you talking about?

He doesn't care what Congress thinks of his power grabs, thus he will continue to grab more and more power, no matter what we do. So why not TRY to Impeach as well?? Impeachment CAN stop his power grabs, doing nothing CAN'T. Even if we fail at removing him, it doesn't make him more powerful. He's *already* becoming more powerful. And why act like failure is the only possible outcome?

I guess now I know where the term 'defeat-ocrats' comes from.

[Vyan]

77. Yet again...

I'm not suggesting "Doing Nothing" - I'm talking about using Inherent Contempt to Put Harriet Mier and Josh Bolten into the House Prison and forcing them to cough up a little truthiness. It's possible that once that is done, we might have some juicy Impeachment nuggets.

Simply because I oppose Impeaching Without A Plan to Win doesn't mean I want to simply give up.

Sometimes we can be just as bad as the Repubs when someone challenges the conventional wisdom. They argue that pointing out their failures at intelligence and in prosecuting the War mean we are some kind of "Al Qaeda sympathezers and appeasers."

It's not that simple.

Now, on the issue of a the result of a failed Impeachment - one which doesn't remove the President. Look at their history, look at how they've taken every oppurtunity to spin a complete debacle into some type of victory. We attacked the wrong country, and that's us being strong and being on the "offense against terrorism." They fucked up the rebuilding of Iraq, they have completely screwed up the training of the Iraqi Army, and continue to deny that the country his disolved into Civil War and Ethnic Cleansing.

You think their going to see an Impeachment Aquital in the Senate as anything but Vindication and Validation of everything they've done so far?

Thing again.

Vyan

[DutchLiberal]

79. So you'd settle for 'a little truth' from Meirs and Bolten?

I don't want to offend you, but do you even follow the news?

This White House, including cronies like Meirs and Bolten, don't care what Congress says, what the law says, or even what the Constitution says. They will never, ever tell the truth. And maybe they get arrested then and then... well, then Bush will commute their sentences.

And why do we need more hearings? More bureaucratic rubbish that leads to nothing. We already know what they did that is impeachable. What are you talking about: "once that is done, we might have some juicy Impeachment nuggets"? If you don't think we have impeachment nuggets already, then I don't know on which planet you've been living for the past six years.

And your last argument doesn't ring true either. Because the failures you mentioned got spinned into something good by the administration, but a.) we uncovered them all for the fuck-ups they were and b.) nobody believes them anymore.

Besides, if we do not impeach, they will get that powerful *anyway*.

[Vyan]

80. We don't yet have anything that directly implicates Bush...

And why do we need more hearings? More bureaucratic rubbish that leads to nothing. We already know what they did that is impeachable. What are you talking about: "once that is done, we might have some juicy Impeachment nuggets"?

It all depends on who you're talking about specifically. I think Gonzales just cooked his own goose today, he clearly perjured himself multiple times - not to mention clear obstruction of justice with Monica Goodling - even Arlen Specter was getting pissed off.

Cheney's situation is looking worse and worse since declaring himself to be the FourthBranch of government, particularly with the revelations that he's been interfering with the Justice Dept according to Senator Whitehouse.

But Bush? Not quite yet.

You could argue that Bush Violated FISA and that this is backed by the Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, except that the case that generated that decision has been thrown out of court for "lack of standing" and the Bush Administration has found at least one judge whose been willing to sign off on the program effectively making it completely legal.

Back to square one on that.

You could argue that Bush has committed War Crimes by creating a new class of detainees called "Enemy Combatants" specifically to avoid the Geneva Conventions - except that congress has essentially ratified that approach with the toothless Detainee Treatment Act and shut the door completely on justice by recinding Habeaus Corpus with the Military Commissions Act.

How does Congress Impeach Bush for implementing something they agreed too?

You could argue that Bush (and Cheney) hold responsibility for completely screwing up the Intelligence on Iraq, ignoring Al Qeada and outing a CIA agent to cover up their actions - except that most of that seemed to be occuring far downstream of them with Douglas Feith at the Dept of Defense, and in the meanwhile they've done an end-run by commuting Libby's sentence and short-circuiting that entire investigation. An oh yeah, the Plame case was just thrown out.

Is Cheney guilty of Treason? Can't tell yet, Fitz seems to think Libby knows and he aint talking.


There are many many other examples, and I've documented them one by one, by one, by one well over a year ago. I still feel that everything I said then was and is still valid, but also that Bush (and particualrly Cheney) have done everything in their power to remain as slippery and safe as possible. They aren't going down without a huge fight.

All the above reasons are compelling arguements for their removal, I know because I've made them, but I don't think they're winning arguements in our current circumstances- yet.

We better be ready for it or we'll lose. So like Pelosi, John Dean and John Conyers, I feel that rather than fight to lose we should keep working for a better position and win the battles that we can in the meantime.

That doesn't mean we should compeletely give up on impeachment and removal of Bush, it simply means we have to be more patient and methodical strategists about it by focusing instead on Gonzales and Impeaching HIM NOW - then Cheney later.

We aren't ready to remove Bush, but with luck we will be soon as we continue this process of progressively working our way upword from one Admin scumbag to the next.

Vyan

[DutchLiberal]

83. We have nothing against Bush??????????

Oh, puh-leaze. Wake up already, will you??? WE've got him on tape: about Iraq, about Katrina, about illegal spying. We could impeach him in a day.

But seems there are cowardly defeat'ocrats who don't want that.

[pinto]

47. Simply, I favor House and Senate actions to end the occupation in Iraq.

Internationally, that is the big, deadly albatross on our back.

Domestically, I support dismantling the Republican coup of the federal bureaucracy from the Department level up - legislatively, legally and consistently. The politicization of the Departments - and the very role of the federal executive branch - are crippling us domestically. Congress plays a major role here, and I favor that approach.

Nixon's possibility to face impeachment hinged on an adjudicated criminal case and it's documented cover-up. It was widely assumed that Mr. Nixon was being considered as an un-indicted co-conspirator. It was clear cut, in political terms, as well, and his fellow party members realized that fact. Bushco may have learned that lesson in their obvious use of surrogates and party partisans to shield the White House from implication.

Investigations may well break the code of silence this Administration has enforced. If so, I'd rethink my stance, easily.

Until then, though, I really think Congress needs to continue its moves to establish a withdrawal from Iraq, work to move a Democratic legislative agenda forward and, yes, continue its oversight and investigations.

(ed for spell)

[Fiendish Thingy]

49. Impeachment- the Constitution stands above all else

Withdrawal from Iraq would happen sooner with Bush/Cheny out of office anyway.

[karynnj]

50. Incredibly insightful post

I have 2 questions, can a President be censured or charged with anything when he is out of office?

The second question is whether we can get the moral high ground if our candidates made campaign promises to immediately undo - in whatever method was appropriate the list of actions that we call unconstitutional when Bush is President. It would be a way to show that we mean what we say and it would be holding true to the type of government we all learned of in high school. I do not want Democrats doing what he don't want Republicans to do. (If you think this out of the question - consider how many Democrats, who voted Clinton a line item veto, were willing to consider a fair line item veto when Bush was trying to get one.)

[many a good man]

51. Meaningful ACTION requires legal challenges to executive over reaching

That's even more important than an impeachment drive ends in failure in the Senate. There MUST be a LEGAL rebuke of these tactics. We must have something SUBSTANTIVE at the end of the day if we are going to repair this breach in our democracy.

[diane in sf]

52. Both! They're not mutually exclusive.

[puebloknot]

53. So, then, why don't we just curl up in the fetal position and ...

... let the world know that we aren't even gonna try to cause irreparable harm to the Thief in Chief?

You simply do not know what impeachment hearings may lead to, and it is not the right of any private citizen, nor is it the right of Madame Speaker Pelosi, to ignore the rule of law and the oath to defend our constitution.

The "important work" that Pelosi has done so far is pissing in the pond when held up to the light of the truly threatening actions being taken on a constant basis by a rogue administration against our democracy.

"If not now, when?"

[EpiDave]

54. Right on Pueblo

If not now when?? I agree completely, and see my post above.

[puebloknot]

64. I just noticed your three posts! Welcome to DU!!! nt

[Vyan]

71. When you can WIN. n/t

[puebloknot]

74. Something irreplaceable has gone out of the American character...

... in terms of courage and integrity.

Visualize this: You, standing on the beach with Dwight D. Eisenhower as he talked to the landing force, just before they climbed into the boats to head for Normandy. And tell General Eisenhower that he's a fool to strike out because he has no guarantee that he'll prevail in that historic event. Tell him to stand down until he can WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Vyan]

75. That's not the point....

I am not for one second suggesting we do nothing. I'm suggesting and strongly argueing that we get what we NEED TO WIN - THEN ATTACK, not before.

The proper analogy to yours would be let's not have a plan to attack the Germans at Normandie, lets not put the hard work and the hard effort together to figure out how to defeat a near intractable foe --- let's just run off into the night without the taking time to get our resources together cuz were pissed - Pissed - PISSED! Fuck D-Day, that's too far way, lets just attack *NOW* because we feel like it and get ourselves slaughtered in the process, ultimately leaving the rest of the world completely defenseless to Hitlers Army.

Yeah, that'll work.

This isn't a question of character, it's a question of strategy and tactics.

Vyan

[puebloknot]

78. Impeachable offenses are already on the record. If the will existed to impeach...

... it could be done in short order. We're talking impeachment now, not necessarily conviction in the Senate.

As so many good minds have posted here (never mind my senseless ranting 'cause I'm "pissed - Pissed - PISSED" -- which I am, and for exceedingly good reasons) that the value of starting an impeachment is to get things on the public record and force the Congress to take a stand.

It's very much a question of character!

We're very divided here at DU, and elsewhere, between those who insist that we have to know we're going to win before we ever take a single step toward accountability, and those who want to hold up a spit-dampened finger to the wind before we take a single step.

Given that scenario, we should just forget elections in 2008 because we don't know we're going to win. And the more the Dems fool around, playing games and praying for time to pass quickly, so they can collect their victory laurels in 2008, the more challenged they are going to find themselves. I, for one, will never again cast a vote for the lowest common denominator because that's all I see on a ballot.

The attack at Normandy was done because we knew what the crimes of the Third Reich were. It was done because there was some force for peace and justice (not to mention fear of being swallowed by Axis tyranny) driving the whole campaign. It's absurd to suggest that the proper analogy to mine would be to go off half-cocked. No one who is fighting for impeachment is making such a dumb assertion.

[Vyan]

81. With all due respect...

It's absurd to suggest that the proper analogy to mine would be to go off half-cocked. No one who is fighting for impeachment is making such a dumb assertion.

Going off half-cocked simply to make a "statement" is exactly what I've seen suggested multiple times, (I have lots of examples), and is exactly why people such as Nancy Pelosi and Russ Fiengold have resisted Impeachment.

It's exactly why John Dean, certainly someone with some impeachment experience, repeatedly state that Bush Won't Be Impeached. It's why John Conyers, who was on the Judiciary Committee that Impeached NIXON - told Cindy Sheehan that he won't do it now. Not yet.

Vyan

[puebloknot]

84. I'm aware of Dean's views. Here's my response to them...

... in December of last year:

(John Dean has been discussing the one tool that might be used to rein in this rogue administration -- inherent contempt. That it won't be used is not an argument against its usefulness. It's simply a statement that points to "How Fallen are the Mighty," the "Mighty" being these United States of America.)

"Not yet" is a long shadow that hangs over our country, as the Dems fiddle their way to electoral Nirvana in 2008 -- with any luck at all!

*^*^*^*^**^*^*^*^*^*^^**^*^

Is John Dean Lost in the Fog of Watergate?
Posted by puebloknot in General Discussion: Politics
Sat Dec 16th 2006, 03:29 AM
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?

[jenmarie]

55. After watching Bill Moyers Journal

the other night, I became convinced we MUST impeach now.

But I believe you are correct -- I don't see that we'd get enough Republics to do what is best for the country. They would continue to stand by this president and their party. The consequences of failing would likely be worse than what's happening now.

OTOH, Elizabeth De La Vega (former Asst. U.S. Attorney), says this:

...
In reference to the administration's claims of Executive Privilege to block the Congressional subpoenas for testimony and documents from former Bush attorney Harriet Miers and current Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, de la Vega advised Congress to ignore the claims made by the unnamed official and proceed with contempt charges.

If Bush should make that legal argument officially, that in itself would be grounds for impeachment, according to the former federal prosecutor...

"They should just proceed and completely ignore what the President has said right now --- because he actually hasn't said it in any formal way, in fact, no one has even ascribed a name to the person who is saying it."

"They should proceed. Find these two in contempt and refer the matter to the D.C. U.S. Attorney. At that point, if the President says to the U.S. Attorney in a formal way, 'You can't proceed' that is a grounds for impeachment."

She noted that the entire matter is "very similar to...Article 3 in the Impeachment Articles against Nixon which was for defying Congressional subpoenas."

...

Conyers reportedly urged patience in the process, and asked for everyone's support as things moved forward first with Cheney, and then with Bush.

The entire hour on Impeachment from Friday's show with de la Vega can be heard as archived on this previous post.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4852#more-4852

So...I'm confused.

[zulchzulu]

56. Without enough votes, neither will happen

The focus should be calling and writing those against impeachment AND the Iraqi occupation know that they better change their minds or face a loos in 2008.

That's it.

[penguin7]

58. Doesn't it require a majority to fund the war?

So impeachment and not funding the war are not mutually exclusive. In fact impeachment will only serve to reinforce the resolve to not fund the war.

[tavalon]

59. It's not an either/or situation

I decline to answer a false choice game like that.

[Mythsaje]

82. Here we go...

The problem is that if they don't confront this administration and its enablers DIRECTLY we're going to be going down this same goddamn road in less than a decade because they'll shove the same lies at the American People yet again and it will be swallowed yet again.

[LWolf]

85. Those are not "either or" choices. We can do both. n/t