SOPHIE'S CHOICE: end Iraq War or impeach Bush & Cheney?

[yurbud]

It's not hard to imagine a scenario with investigations up and running full steam toward impeachment, Cheney seeing the handwriting on the wall (Bush might have trouble even seeing the metaphorical wall)and either subtly or not so subtly offering this faustian bargain: promise not to impeach or prosecute us, and we'll bring the troops home now (essentially using them as over 100,000 hostages).


If that was offered, which would you choose?

[Lerkfish]

1. why are they mutually exclusive?

I call "false dichotomy".

[yurbud]

3. that's why I added tag to impeach first

Pelosi's statement about making ending war her top priority (which is a positive development) made me wonder about this.

Also, you think this would cross the twisted little minds of Cheney and Rove?

[Lerkfish]

4. how do you make a pretzel more twisted?

:)

[yurbud]

20. So you're saying Bush was really choking on....oh the horror...

[mondo joe]

2. Impeachment is nothing but symbolic. Make a REAL difference first.

[jelly]

5. Sometimes, the message matters

Impeachment first (or at the same time) could conceivably help the situation in Iraq from a diplomatic standpoint, making troop withdrawal smoother and the overall state of affairs more likely to stabilize. I mean I'm no fortune teller so I'm not sure it would help, I'm just saying we should not be so quick to discount the possible practical effects of symbolic change.

[mondo joe]

7. The message always matters. But the message should not take prioritization

over the matter.

The dems ran on change - not impeachment. They should address that first.

[yurbud]

18. how many polls even asked about impeachment? The establishment doesn't want it because it will

embarrass more people than just Bush and his flunkies. It might inadvertently shed light on those who back Bush and give him his marching orders.

So the question is unasked, just as the oil motive for the Iraq War is undiscussed, but just because it is never mentioned doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[mondo joe]

24. I'm not talking about polling - I'm talking campaigns. Did the dems who swept

the midterms run on impeachment?

There actually is polling on impeachment - but that's not what the election was about.

[yurbud]

26. to some degree, Dems won IN SPITE of their bland campaigns. They won graded on a curve

[mondo joe]

28. Your crystal ball aside, their priority ought to be what they campaigned on.

IMO.

[yurbud]

32. so our only role in democracy is to watch campaign commercials, vote, and then shut the fuck up?

[mondo joe]

38. Nope. Advocate for anything you like.

But as a Democrat, I think those who were elected should deliver on their campaigns.

[yurbud]

39. they should deliver on promises at a MINIMUM

[jelly]

23. Fair enough, I agree although

I see no obvious reason why the two could not be accomplished at the same time.

[mondo joe]

25. The only reason is timeand other resources.

Certainly Bush deserves to be impeached.

But on a cost/benefit ratio what does it really accomplish? Seriously, what real thing happens if he's impeached?

Even as a rebuke, the GOP has so diminished what impeachment means by using it on Bill Clinton that it's now just a tag.

Given that there is limited time and attention that can be spent, I'd rather our guys get the most real achievements accomplished.

[TahitiNut]

12. Two words: Presidential pardons

We will forever be a nation without honor - an outlaw nation - unless the war crimes of this regime are punished.

[H2O Man]

13. Way wrong.

Anyone who mistakes the Constitution of the United States as "nothing but symbolic" doesn't have a clue to what either the Constitution or symbolism mean.

[mondo joe]

22. The Constitution gives impeachment as an option - its value in this case

is purely symbolic.

The people, and the Constitution, would be better served by the Dems doing the things they ran on.

[H2O Man]

27. Nope.

Way wrong.

[mondo joe]

29. I can live with that being your opinion.

:-)

[H2O Man]

30. Likewise. n/t

[liberal N proud]

6. Ending the useless killing of our young people is most important

I voted for Impeach them anyway. But how many more of our youth must die before this is stopped?

I hear all these people saying the soldiers would have died in vein if we leave, even if that was true, would it make sense to kill more just to justify the death of one?


What kind of moronic thinking justifies killing more people to justify the death of those who have already perished?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. I'm hoping the Dems will do either of them. They can do both.

But, they have to get over the "politics as usual" hump of playing it safe.

[yurbud]

17. that's a good point--it would be an improvement to have a glass half full

[treestar]

9. End the war first

Death is death and killing is killing and Cheney and Bush continue to live under either scenario, so end the killing first and take care of Bush and Cheney later.

They can only stay in office for a limited time anyway. Thank God for the Constitutional Amendment that says so.

[Phredicles]

10. The war won't end before the Gruesome Twosome are gone,

so Impeach Away.

[H2O Man]

11. Other. There is no reason

to pretend it's a one-or-the-other thing. No reason at all.

[yurbud]

19. probably right. I'm just playing through possible scenarios so we don't get any unpleasant surprise

[transeo]

14. Political vengeance vs. continued death and destruction?

That should not be a hard choice for anyone with the slightest moral compass.

[yurbud]

16. is it political vengeance or restoring checks & balances and preventing future abuses of democracy?

[dubykc]

15. I voted "Take the deal", Because impeachment wouldn't...

put Pelosi in the White House. Cheney would resign and * would appoint a VP and that person would become President when * resigned. And the person who became President would no-doubt pardon the two scum bags who resigned.

[Buck Rabbit]

35. Exactly, no way Pilosi becomes President thru impeachment.

The only way you get enough Republicans to vote for a conviction is to give them their choice of successor and the new incumbent for 2008.

The constitutional super majority provision for conviction in the Senate gives the Republicans all the cards regarding conviction. They might go along with a deal to get rid of Bush and Cheney to clean up their image before 2008 but they would dictate all the terms.

It wouldn't be President Pilosi. It could well be President McCain who would hugely increase the troop levels not decrease them.

-------
edited: spelling sucks

[stillcool]

21. I am particularly wary...

of any re-arranging of the furniture. The idea that those involved would quietly give up the prize does not ring true, so I think Impeachment is necessary for the war to end in any factual way.

[alfredo]

31. Take the deal, then as soon as they leave office in 2009,

file war crime charges.

[Jack Rabbit]

33. That would be another good reason to impeach

[Swamp Rat]

34. Never make deals with fascists

[loyalsister]

36. "Just my imagination"

Let's not be drunk with power. The democrats don't have nearly as much as many wish.
This deal is a dream. They actually hold the cards on an impeachment.
The office and the party is protected through resignation. That could happen quickly and would require speedy confimations. Much faster than the impeachment process.
Incumbancy would make 2008 much more difficult for us.

Some questions?

When has a simultaneous impeachment elevating the speaker to the presidency ever happened in history?

Is it actual fact that justice would be served with a trial which consumes time that could be devoted to important policy making?
I think there may be some disagreement here.

We have lives being lost and a mistake of monstrous proportions to correct.
I think the dems need to own it and work on it now that they are in power if they are to have any credibility with me and probably a significant number of other voters.

One might suggest that there may be more than one way to restore the constitution.....
through impeachment or
by successful actual governmental policy change that reflects values embodied in the consitution (habeas corpus), investigating how we got into this war, getting soldiers out of it, and most significantly a return to representative government.

I would argue that the difference in the two is that the second may have some real influence on people's lives, while the first could actually hinder the specific goals of the second.

I'm not sure that setting it up as an immediate goal serves us well when people are dying.
If an ivestigation leaves no alternative that would be another story, but contrary to popular DU opinion, I really don't believe that a full formal investigation has yet produced such results.

[Up2Late]

37. Their are much more important thing to do now other that Impeaching those two...

...Like totally re-writing or completely trashing HAVA and just about every other piece of legislation that last 3 Rethug Congress A-holes's have passed over the last 6 years that need to be corrected first. :banghead:

PLUS, even if they do start the investigations for impeachment ASAP, it would take too long to finish before the next election cycle starts, and it would waste a lot of time that should go to the first thing I mentioned, AND, we aren't talking about a Blow-job here, if either Cheney and/or Bush saw that they were about to be impeached, they would quit just like Nixon did, which would result in a President Condi Rice most likely.