OK, can we at least agree that GONZO needs to be impeached?

[jgraz]

I called Barbara Lee's office this morning, thanked her for her support of HR333 (impeach Cheney) and asked if she would also support articles of impeachment against the pResident. The guy I talked to on the phone sort of hemmed and hawed about it.

Then I asked about introducing articles of impeachment against Gonzo. His tone immediately changed. He said it's a great idea and he's personally all for it. It seems like this might be a way to start flexing our impeachment muscles. I mean, who could possibly be in favor of keeping the guy after yesterday?

[Jackpine Radical]

1. I don't support impeachment.

I prefer impearment.

[annabanana]

10. or

impalement (but not to the point (!) of "organ failure")

(Hi Agent Mike :hi:)

[Dawgs]

2. I am one those that has been against impeachment.

Not that I that I don't think they should all be impeached, just the idea of trying to impeach.

But, that all changes with Gonzo. I agree 100% that the Dems should try to impeach this guy. He is a cancer to Bush and the Republicans, and they will only look stupid if they go against it.

[Kagemusha]

3. I was thinking about this last night and.. Dems are too hung up on "law" here.

And mind you, I'm a big supporter of the majesty of the law as it should be, not the pigmy version used to make lives miserable by small minded twits. But.. the law is not a cure for bad politics or weak political movements. Finding an exact legal basis for which to impeach Gonzales will neither solve the problem nor contribute to successful conviction. Politics, rather, is a cure for bad law; for illegality. Politics is also a cure for bad politics. Impeachment is a political, not a legal, act, when you get down to brass tacks...

So the point, to me, is not that Gonzales' contempt to Congress, stretching the truth to and sometimes beyond the breaking point and then scurrying to crawl back across the painted line, and so on, breaks the law; it's that it is such egregiously scummy politics that the nation is properly offended to the point that Gonzales' continued service should be made politically untenable, so noxious that it cannot be tolerated by good men and women any longer. Breaking the law isn't really the point. He's breaking the Department of Justice. That's grounds enough for removal. Actually suing his rear end should be treated as an entirely different matter.

And, this is a different issue than trying to get to the Truth about the attorney firings or other matters. Impeaching Gonzales should be about Gonzales sucking, to put it bluntly, not about Congress' rights and powers under the Constitution. (There's Miers and Bolton for kicking that can around, and those efforts should continue.) But impeaching Gonzales should deal only with Gonzales. No one should fantasize that it's a worthy proxy for impeaching Bush; it's not. It's about Gonzales stinking up the joint. It's a political exorcism. Not to throw him in jail, not to strip him of his liberty, but to protect the public from his amoral corruption of federal justice.

Either that is a politically viable option or it is not. It's not a matter of what Gonzales deserves or not; it's a matter of what Democrats can politically succeed in doing to him because of his vast shortcomings.

[damntexdem]

20. Support for law, not to mention order, would seem to require ...

Gonzo's impeachment.

[endarkenment]

4. Why is the argument any different?

it seems once again we are just wishing for ponies, yes?

Our more mature scolds posters have put us on notice that we are just irresponsible idiots demanding the impossible.

[jgraz]

7. The bar is much lower (excuse the pun)

And most of those "scolds" have agreed with me when I asked them.

[endarkenment]

14. Just give it a few days.

As it becomes obvious that NOTHING is going to be done, as us baby-heads start with our whining, the bigtree will be used to bash us back into the pitt of pony-wishers where we belong.

[pnwmom]

13. John Dean and others have made a strong case for prosecuting the

easiest cases first. This means going after Gonzales, whether or not we go after any others. A successful action against Gonzales could boost our impeachment cases against Cheney and Bush. He's the one to start with.

[endarkenment]

15. I agree with that argument.

However it will run straight into the party-line voting Republicans and our own Dithering/Dallying party leaders. We will then see all the same arguments regarding bush/cheney and why we are idiots for thinking they ought to be brought to justice used to explain why we are mere amateurs in this deft game of poltical chess for thinking that the lying AG ought to be tossed out of office.

[Klukie]

5. Absolutely..

Right now Gonzo may be the most important one because he heads the justice dept. and he either allows or he looks the other way when King George decides to gut our laws. If he is impeached, it may hinder the deciders ability to enforce the unitary executive theory.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Absolutely not.

We might not have enough votes, and if it fails we'd look bad.

I think we should focus on the positive.

:eyes:

[jgraz]

8. OK, can we at least agree to use the eyeroll smiley as much as possible?

:P

[damntexdem]

22. What's that? That we're not all in Gitmo yet?

Just try to think positive thoughts about the barbed wire, and the torture.

[Marrah_G]

9. He needs to be jailed is what he needs.

[pnwmom]

11. Yup. We should pick the low lying fruit.

Eat it all up, then we'll have energy for the lower branches. Keep on going till we reach the top.

[The Straight Story]

12. No, nobody does. Impeachment is off the menu as it might take too long to cook

We need to let everything slide they do and reward them with more money to do it....

:sarcasm:

[jpgray]

16. Most of this admin needs to be impeached.

The question is, how do you do it with a tiny majority? What are the risks? Is it a good idea for some of the investigations to mature further before impeachment proceedings "politicize" them wholly in the eyes of the media? Attacking on all fronts all the time is a fine idea in theory, but feasibility is important (for those who hate "empty gestures" like subpoenas, a failed impeachment would be the ultimate empty gesture), and there are risks that need consideration.

Whether it -should- be done is self-evident. Of course it should.

[endarkenment]

17. Screw the bullshit media system.

no matter what tactics we choose they will use all of their considerable talents at spinning bullshit to make us look bad.

[damntexdem]

18. I can't speak for others -- but it's WAY PAST TIME.

They should have already impeached, and convicted, Gonzo as a warmup for Darth Cheney and Dubya.

[leftofthedial]

19. no. impeaching Gonzo would distract the "democrats"

from taking their August vacation, er, their real agenda

[ThomWV]

21. not Gonzo. Impeach Bush and Gonzo will be gone so fast it would make your head spin.

[damntexdem]

23. No, before one exercises ...

one needs to warm up.

[AntiFascist]

24. Yes, and in the meantime...

please keep the other investigations moving at full speed and depth.