Libby, Bush-Cheney and Impeachment: Don't "Move On"

[babylonsister]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/24461

Libby, Bush-Cheney and Impeachment: Don't "Move On"
Submitted by davidswanson on Mon, 2007-07-09 15:54. Impeachment

By Paul Street, Znet

"If Cheney-Bush can't be impeached, nobody can."
- Glen Ford, Black Agenda Report, June 20, 2007

"Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men, is now for Congress, and ultimately, the American people, to decide."
- Archibald Cox, 1974

"MOVE ON"

I recently spoke about impeachment to the director of a major Democratic presidential campaign.

I didn't raise the topic. He did.

The current president's war policy, I commented after a talk the director gave in Iowa, is not merely "mistaken." It's "something much worse than a strategic blunder," I said. "It is monumentally illegal and immoral. This is high-state criminality of the worst kind," I added, noting that its victims included hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, not just 3600 United States GIs (1).

The director winced when I said "criminality." He knew I was correct in my evaluation of the White House's war on Iraq.

"If we impeach Bush," he said curtly, "that's all we'll be doing in the next year." Discussion over.

The director did not elaborate but the implications were clear: impeachment would distract attention from his candidate's campaign. The nation would be focused on Bush's crimes instead of opportunities for change associated with his candidate. The Democratic Party would be mired in removing a bad old president instead of clearing the way for a good new one (his guy).

The director was telling me to back off and "move on."

SOME OF WHAT THEY'VE DONE

Sorry. Even though I'm personally left of Dennis Kucinich, I recently gave a modest sum of money to the director's candidate. I can chew gum and walk at the same time. But I can't move on and off impeachment.

I think it is essential to legally remove Bush and Cheney before they finish their second terms and before they wreak yet more unimaginable imperial and plutocratic havoc.

more...

[AndyA]

1. The Dems seem convinced that impeachment will prevent anything else

from happening in Congress over the next year and a half.

Well what the hell is going to get through with Bush threatening to veto everything anyway? If he doesn't like it, he'll not hesitate to veto it, or modify it with a signing statement.

So what the hell is the difference?

Meaningless legislation, or protecting our Constitution. Which is most important. :shrug:

I don't understand why it's so difficult for the Dems to grasp this...

[babylonsister]

2. I have the same issues with the Dems as you! What is more important? nt

[bdamomma]

8. can't the Congress walk and chew gum at the same time.

we are talking about our country here what don't they get???

[pacalo]

3. Something tells me it all has to do with the fact that the boy king's father is an ex-president.

They don't want to "offend" him. If that's the case, they're mistaken. If the son has the cajoles to insert himself into the presidency through the Supreme Court & "win" another term through election misconduct, then conduct his cabal of thugs administration like a Mafioso dictator, then he can face the consequences. We've earned the right to see that happen.

[babylonsister]

4. I never considered that, but Sr. knows better than anyone what a failure

he raised, so I don't understand why they'd try to spare him.

[pacalo]

10. I can't think of any other reason why the absolute worst president of our time

has been allowed to do whatever he wants -- if not by outright breaking or revising the law to suit his need, then by stepping on the vast number of average Americans to suit the corporate CEO's needs -- & after almost 7 years, has never had to answer for any wrong he's done to this country.

Imagine having your house broken into, looted of every valuable. Evidence is left behind, the police know who did it but won't do anything about it because the suspect happens to be the son of the mayor. Instead of holding him to account, they turn a blind eye & do nothing. In fact, they praise his character & twist the facts. What this boy king has done to us & our laws is no different. He's looted our country while he thumbs his nose at us.

[checks-n-balances]

5. If WE don't do it, eventually the rethugs WILL and get all credit

I think it's gonna get that bad, and there again, we'll be behind the curve and be seen as weak & spineless. Haven't we been painted before as "letting criminals go", etc.? They're gonna spin it their way whether or not we impeach, so why don't we show our leadership & do it on our own terms? Meanwhile we can also maybe save this democracy! Won't getting these people out of power ASAP at least expose this huge organized crime syndicate for what it is (and has been for decades)?

NO MORE "GOING ALONG TO GET ALONG"!:grr: (Are you listening, Congressional Dems?)

[mainer]

6. we can't move on UNTIL he's impeached

As long as he's in power, he continues to subvert the Constitution. How can we move on when he's the great big roadblock in the way?

[lonestarnot]

7. So the only argument against was, "that's all we'll be doing for the next year."

Hmmmmmf :applause:

[ima_sinnic]

9. so what exactly are they "getting done"?

and why SHOULDN'T impeachment take up the entire energy of Congress, if that is the case?
this "director" is full of shit.