The Genius of Impeachment----John Nichols

[rodeodance]

Wisconsin public Radio had a segment on today with John Nickols. He said he was very disappointed in Pelosi saying that impeachment was off the table. One of the things he said that many think ----promoted by RW talk radio---was that impeachment never should be considered during a time of war, yet, as his new book points out--most impeachment proceedings took place in a 'time of war" (see his new book below---with is a history of impeachment). lots more.

After listening to him i am of the mind that she should step aside and let someone else take over the speakership of the House--and put this issue back on the table.

He has a new book out--
http://www.wpr.org/hereonearth/archive_061113k.cfm

The Genius of Impeachment
November 13, 2006 Monday 3PM CT ( listen)
This hour on Here on Earth: Radio Without Borders, Jean Feraca and her guest, John Nichols, discuss his new book, The Genius of Impeachment.

Guest

* John Nichols, associate editor of the Capital Times and Washington DC writer for the Nation Magazine.


Related Links

* The Genius of Impeachment
* Nichols' bio and articles on The Nation
* Nichols' column on Capital Times

[indepat]

1. Golly gee, no action must ever be taken against the instigators of a perpetual war

of choice: it must go on and on unabated. How convenient. Now isn't that special. Thanks Dana: the shoe seemed to fit.

[Swamp Rat]

2. IMPEACH BUSH!

[rock]

3. "impeachment never should be considered during a time of war"

Gee, what a completely arbitrary, and convenient rule. Who's ass did he get that out of?

[Just-plain-Kathy]

4. If Pelosi took impeachment off the table

because of pressure felt from our RW media, she allowing the GOP to get away with what they've done to us in '00 and '04.

We all remember the likes of Robert Novak & Co. telling us to “move on for the sake of the country”.

If we’re going to be the party of accountability, let’s get started.

[AntiFascist]

11. Quickly becoming the party of compromise n/t

[puebloknot]

14. Yep! nt

[BlueEyedSon]

5. I'm sorry, did someone declare war without me noticing???

We are not at war, I'm sick and tired of this manipulative fiction!

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. What if the reason for impeachment IS a false premise for war?

In that case, the war should not be allowed to be used as a Chinese Wall to impeachment. Bush is no good faith buyer in this scenario and should not be able to profit from the sale of the war.

[truedelphi]

10. Yep, really, can you shoot both parents and then

demand clemency because you are now an orphan?

[pberq]

7. Kick & Nominated

[City of Mills]

8. I can't believe...

...after all the discussions and arguments I've been following here at DU for the past few years regarding the urgency and importance of impeaching this criminal administration, we have to even argue about this point. Now that we're regaining power, it's time to brush aside our differences and work with these criminals??? You have to be kidding me. History isn't going to judge Bush alone. We have to think of future generations and the importance of doing what is right. We have to impeach or at least prioritize the investigations.

[porphyrian]

9. While I don't fault Pelosi for her stand at the moment, which I believe...

...to be nothing more than posturing while the reality bubbles of half the population burst, I agree that impeachment is imperative. Of course we have to investigate first, anyone suggesting otherwise would be ridiculous. Of course we have to have the support in the Senate, anyone suggesting otherwise would be ridiculous. That doesn't mean we shouldn't call for impeachment NOW. Believe me, our elected representatives are intelligent enough to know the procedure. It's a fucking given, folks. Be cowardly and backpedal somewhere else.

[AntiFascist]

12. She has "pledged" that it won't happen...

contradicting her pledge to serve the Constitution.

[puebloknot]

13. Yes, she has pledged...on television

I have grave concerns about Nancy Pelosi. I haven't paid a great deal of attention to her until lately, but I recall her posturing when Hugo Chavez was at the U.N. and calling George Bush "The Devil." She was aggrieved over his "coming to *our* country and calling *our* president....." She seemed entirely disingenuous that day, to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the U.N. considered international territory? And what's this *our president* stuff? He was never elected, Nancy!

I think she has shown her true colors, already. In my dreams, she never ascends to the speakership.

The first moment I heard her say "impeachment is off the table," my antennae went up, and I've been having a terrible feeling about her ever since.

Worse than that, though, is the number of people at DU, and people all over the country, who are eager to "work with" the Bush administration, who want to do a dozen other things first, and then maybe consider impeachment. If serious hearings aren't instituted immediately (in January), we can kiss accountability goodbye. And even if they are, if they string out over time, just so Georgie can walk off into the sunset, we're just not America any longer.

There continues to be this drumbeat about how some of us are wanting to rush in with "guns blaring" and impeach Bush and Cheney early in January. "But we, the smarter ones, want investigations. We're not totally opposed to impeachment -- later on -- but first we have to have very in-depth investigations."

What rot! Anyone with two neurons firing knows that you can't impeach without evidence, and for that you have to investigate. However...there is already a lot of material that could produce *evidence* very quickly if we just get the bastards under oath.

Does anyone else think that reticence about impeachment is based on fear that when investigations start, they will have tentacles that will wrap themselves around some Democrats, also? With no independent counsel, John Conyers singing Nancy's tune, how will We the People know what is happening? Maybe they'll hold open hearings. But maybe those hearings will take two years!

So, if we *investigate* and come up with criminal activity on the part of Bush, et al. (a certainty), how do we avoid *impeachment* without trashing the Constitution? Outside of the impeachment process, who is going to arrest and try these guys? Do we think we'll see them hauled off to The Hague? And how do we know that it is not possible that we may find enough votes to convict, following impeachment? (Which is not the same thing as impeachment, but many people don't seem to understand that. It's a two-step process.)

I saw one post that says we are not in The Hague's jurisdiction because GW refused to sign the treaty to make our people (including hizownself) liable under the International Criminal Court. Can someone clarify this for me?

The more things change, the more....

[earth mom]

15. Thank you for your most excellent and sane post...

The naysayers are out in full force around here pushing their orchestrated agenda while trashing those who speak out demanding Impeachment or questioning the integrity of Pelosi or Congress which appears questionable at best at this point. The sheer underhandedness of it is absolutely sickening, but then again it's par for the course after 6 years isn't it? :grr:

[puebloknot]

16. Par for the course...

...for a lot longer than six years, I think, but these six years have been so blatant that it boggles the mind.

I keep having the fantasy that if we don't clean up our own act in America, the rest of the world is going to clean it up for us. Anger grows apace, but we have the biggest stick -- right now at least!

That Germany is filing criminal charges against Rumsfeld is remarkable. We're living in interesting times!

Judy Barrett, Citizen
United States of America