Conscience vs Pragmatism

[H2O Man]

{1} "Our apologies, good friends, for the fracture of good order, the burning of papers instead of children. …. We could not, so help us God, do otherwise. For we are sick at heart, our hearts give us no rest for thinking of the Land of Burning Children. We ask our fellow Christians to consider in their hearts a question that has tortured us, night and day since the war began. How many must die before our voices are heard, how many must be tortured, dislocated, starved, maddened? … When, at what point, will you say no to this war?" – Daniel Berrigan

The above quote is taken from page 319 of James Carroll’s "House of War: The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power." It is the statement that Daniel made on behalf of the nine people who entered the draft board offices in Catonsville, Maryland, on May 17, 1968, and removed files that they burned in a parking lot. For many older DUers, the Berrigan brothers represented a large part of the social conscience of that era.

Later, Daniel would be found on the "underground." In the wonderful book "The Eloquence of Protest: Voices of the 70’s" (edited by Harrison Salisbury; Houghton Mifflin; 1972), his Letter to the Weathermen can be found. Daniel was, by some standards, an extremist. By my standards, Phillip and Daniel were heroes, and I was privileged to get to know them, though not well, in the Reagan era, when the democratic left was protesting the violence in Central America.

The Reagan - Bush administration damaged our Constitutional democracy with a series of crimes we call the Iran-Contra scandal. The congress should have impeached Reagan and Bush, but the democrats in office took the pragmatic approach that our nation could not afford the upheaval that this could cause, and that there "might not be enough votes."

{2} "And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond with compassion my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak not of the soldiers of each side, not the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war … They must see Americans as strange liberators. …. Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours. ….

"We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world – a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

"Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter – but beautiful – struggle for a new world. This is the calling for the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise we must choose in this crucial moment of human history." – Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.; A Time to Break Silence (aka Beyond Vietnam); Riverside Church, NYC; April 4, 1967

Martin Luther King was another of the great voices of conscience in the 1960s. I believe that this was his greatest speech. When we look back, 40 years later, we know he was right. Yet at the time, the speech was unpopular with a couple of the groups within the democratic party. There were those who believed Martin had sinned against the party, by questioning its leader, President Johnson. And it marked a split within the liberal community that had backed Martin so long as he kept his focus on public water fountains and rest rooms.

This speech would help mark the beginning of a new splinter group in the democratic party, the neoconservatives, which had been little more than a cult until then. And, of course, when Reagan took office, the neoconservatives became part of the "republican revolution." Some, of course, are still found in the democratic party today. One example is Senator Joe Lieberman. He views himself as liberal on most social issues, but is one of the Bush administration’s most reliable friends when it comes to the violent US policies in the Middle East today.

In the past week, here on the Democratic Underground, I have been advocating that those who want to stop the war in Iraq, and prevent a war with Iran, should be active in the organic process that can bring about the impeachment of President Bush and VP Cheney. I am motivated by the values that have been so powerfully expressed by leaders of conscience, including the Berrigan brothers and King.

I have also been inspired by my having attended a Teach-In on Impeachment. Two of the speakers there – John Nichols and Elizabeth de la Vega – presented many important ideas, some of which I am attempting to provide to those members of DU who favor impeachment. One thing that is very clear from the Nixon era is that once the congress began to take steps to impeach President Nixon, he began to communicate a willingness to wind down his escalation – or "surge" – of the violence in southeast Asia.

There are people who take a different view than me. They are focused on what I think we could agree they believe are the pragmatic interests of the democratic party. They hold beliefs that mean as much to them as mine do to me. They point out their belief that even if the House moved to impeach Bush and/or Cheney, that there would not be the necessary 67 votes in the Senate. Just as they speculate in good faith that there would not be, I speculate in good faith that there would be, especially in the case of VP Cheney.

But I also must admit that my motivation is not based entirely by counting votes that might be cast at some future day in Washington DC. I am motivated by those numbers that Daniel Berrigan noted when he asked, "How many must die before our voices are heard, how many must be tortured, dislocated, starved, maddened? … When, at what point will you say no to this war?"

[acmavm]

1. Okay, one of the most relevant and important paragraphs in your post

(in my humble opinion) is as follows:

<snip>

"We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world – a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.


<snip>

This is the bottom line. This is just as relevant today as it was way back then. And by action that means standing up and FIGHTING. Fighting for what's right, moral, and just. Daniel Berrigan and the others who fought to end the Viet Nam war and who fought tooth and nail, sometimes ending up in jail and on trial, never once thought about being 'polite' and 'politically correct' and 'inoffensive'. They fought and they fought hard for what was right, what was moral, what was in the best interests of humanity. AND NEVER ONCE DID THEY APOLOGIZE FOR THEIR ACTIONS OR WHAT THEY SAID.

This is something that is way over the heads of some democrats (i.e. Nancy Pelosi) and a few people on this board.

[H2O Man]

2. Yes.

In fact, it is perhaps even more relevant today. More, while Martin's message was one of compassion, there were many who thought it was harsh and divisive. When we attempt to do our best to channel that same force of conscience into today's political debate, there will be those who view it as a negative thing.

[Spurt]

3. K&R

[Jim__]

4. I am not sure there is any conflict between conscience and pragmatism.

Conscience tells us that the killing of innocents is wrong. Pragmatism tells us that in acting against the current wrong, we cannot create a greater wrong, for example, we should not cause the killing of even more innocents.

I remember back in the late 60's early 70's Bill Buckley had the Dalai Lama on his show. Buckley was describing the brutal tactics of the Chinese in Tibet and trying to get the Dalai Lama to say that the US should intervene. After all, the Chines were definitely killing innocents. The Dalai Lama agreed that what the Chinese were doing was terrible and we should do what we can to stop it; but, he said you should not do anything that makes it worse. What happens if the US invades. Wil the lives of Tibetan innocents be saved. He said the consequences of a US invasion of Tibet woudl make the situation far worse for the Tibetans.

The actions of the Berrigans and of King are admirable because they publicized the murderous actions of the US in Vietnam, but they did not make this activity worse. They did not cause the deaths of more innocents.

The very difficult question that we face today, the pragmatic question, is what can we do that will be effective in stopping the killing in Iraq. To me, actions comparable to that of the Berrigans and King are the type of actions that we should be doinjg. Mass civil disobedience actions, actions that effect Americans as they try to drive to work, can be effective.

Personally, I don't see impeachment as a particularly effective action as this time.

[Spurt]

5. It is the only action.

"Personally, I don't see impeachment as a particularly effective action as this time."

It is quite clear that the Iraq debacle will not be ended while Bush is in office. Therefore the only effective action is to remove him. Anything else is futile.
So either sit still and wait until Jan 09 (counting corpses along the way), or kick the bastard out.

[H2O Man]

8. These two posts

reflect the very real differences that can be found among members of DU. Those who do not believe in impeachment are entitled to their beliefs. And those who do believe in it are equally entitled to their belief.

[guruoo]

6. IMHO, outcome is important, too. n/t

[H2O Man]

7. I agree. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

9. I don't see a conflict between conscience and pragmatism

I favor impeachment and have for quite some time. I know the votes aren't there and I know that until they are, the Congress won't move very far on the issue. I'm not happy about that, but, pragmatically and realistically, I know it to be true.

So, as a matter of conscience, I see my job as convincing one person a day that impeachment must happen, or getting one person a day who already agrees it should happen to start talking about it to others. I have been more successful than not.

[H2O Man]

10. Those who say

that the votes aren't there are as entitled to speculate that they would not be at the end of the process, as others are entitled to speculate that they will be there. But it is only speculation.

[Gregorian]

11. I walk away from this post with something very different.

It is true that the road to impeachment may be as important as the final vote. And we do not know how that road goes. But we do know where we stand if we do not begin down that path.


I see another way. Civil disobedience. I am not advocating it, but pointing out the lack of it. This could be a long post. But instead I'll just say that part of why this war, or any war, winds on and on is because of inaction on the part of the people. The burning of the draft files. We are comfortable. And I will guiltily admit that my one or two days on the streets in 2003 was little more than a small discomfort to my itinerary. Nothing like the tanks roaming around the streets, or the destruction of Falluja. We are comfortable and scared. And rightly so. They have us covered now. It's not 1970. They have refined their techniques. But more than anything, we do not want our lives disrupted. We putt around in our metal boxes on rubber wheels. Shopping. Most, as if nothing has changed. I take responsibility for my guilt. And I say that because I AM unwilling to put myself on the line. I'm afraid. I have dreams and goals and much to lose. Am I going to burn "draft files"? No. So after all of the talk about ending this war, I am unwilling to personally take steps to end it. Not that I should feel guilty about it, or that I could end it by civil disobedience. I only point this out as the social sentiment that the entire country consists of. We don't even speak out! Let alone do anything. There is more than impeachment. But were WE showing our outrage, impeachment would surely follow.


One other thing. While reading your post, I realized that as nonviolent people who want a better world, we are up against those who do anything to get their way. The authoritarians. And they are here. They will never be gone. And the fallacy of not impeaching seems to be that if we simply let this administration go, things will be better. Well they won't be better. And we will have given "them" another reason to do it again. This is more than something we have to fight whenever there is war. I now realize we ARE at war. All of the time.

[EFerrari]

13. Those noose hangers in Jena were not prosecuted.

Now there are copycat acts all over the country.

[H2O Man]

14. I remember when

RFK spoke about the administration's calling upon the darker impulses of the nation in Vietnam. There were those who said he was wrong to focus on problems within the democratic party. But his point was valid then, and it is valid today, when we must speak out against an administration that surely calls upon the very darkest impulses in the land. When we have a president who makes a practice of violence to get his own way, it can come as no surprise when the violent among us do the same thing.

[EFerrari]

16. And that's why Black Water is a near perfect expression

of the Bush legacy, isn't it? A arrogant group of brutes that turn their expensive weapons on anyone who dares get in their way.

The expressions of those impulses by the less powerful, like in Jena, result in older symbols of hatred like nooses being hung on trees or in protesting sanctuary given to the even more helpless or in sponsoring a week of hatred against Muslims on college campuses by the so called Young Republicans.

But Black Water figures the Bush Administration exactly -- slick, entrepreneurial, predatory and carelessly lethal.

(I think you just gave me my weekend text, H2O Man. :) )

[H2O Man]

17. Very good.

I hope it is a text for DU.

[TahitiNut]

22. ... and above the law.

Don't forget that. In that way in particular, Blackwater is iconic of the "might makes right" baseline ideology of the Reich. We have seen the "rule of law" corrupted far beyond anything in our history - Iran/Contra was mere prolog to what we see today.

[EFerrari]

24. That's right. Answerable to no one and to nothing. Not the law,

not the people, not to conscience.

[bleever]

64. ..."slick, entrepreneurial, predatory and carelessly lethal..."

That is poetic in its starkness.

:thumbsup:

[EFerrari]

74. That's what happens when you piss off poets.

[bleever]

12. Practically speaking, impeachment is the only brake on this war

that is likely to have an effect.

The neocons paved their way by pro-actively declaring the things they were about to do legal (regardless of existing laws), and themselves beyond the jurisdiction of any body to enforce those laws.

Culpability under the law has been a central concern of theirs from the beginning.

It is time to gratify their fears by enforcing the law. It is time to impeach. If it does in fact "suck all the air out of the room", that is preferable to a Congress enabling this war, especially in light of the fact that Congress' other means of asserting itself (either to constrain the war, or pass positive social welfare legislation like the S-CHIP bill) continue to be fruitless.

[H2O Man]

15. That is right.

We have friends who say that we can't count to 67. But every 10 minutes, an innocent Iraqi dies in the civil war that Bush has caused; every 10 hours, a US soldier dies in the war that congress continues to fund; and every 10 days, another $2 billion of our tax dollars goes to fund the insanity.

We can count.

[EFerrari]

19. And there's Iran, bookended by BushCo catastrophes.

It's only a matter of time before there's an incident that Iran won't be able to find a rationale to resolve without violence.

[EFerrari]

18. You are right, bleever. That has been their concern

from the outset. And to that end, they set out to capture the Justice Department, to render it useless. Their calculation was: we have our guy in there (Torquemada) and if he's forced out, the department is simply decapitated. Win - win.

[H2O Man]

20. There was a

recent article in TIME about how they have looked to reduce the significance of the US Supreme Court. It will become an instrument the executive branch uses to deny citizens those things defined by the Bill of Rights if we do not change course.

[EFerrari]

21. The Supreme Court, the UN, the World Court.

Maybe that's why Congressional Democrats are proceeding so cautiously.

They are all we have left right now.

[EFerrari]

23. If David Horowitz can organize "Islamo-Facism Awareness Week"

on college campuses all over the country, why can't we organize impeachment debates on those same campuses -- "Impeachment Awareness Week"?

Surely there are more college students that agree with us than that agree with Horowitz, and the debate would go public and national. :shrug:

[H2O Man]

29. There should be.

Colleges and universities have groups that would bebefit from having Teach-Ins on Impeachment.

[EFerrari]

30. I have emails out to impeachment groups in my area,

to the East Coast and to the L.A. Impeachment Center.

If we keep it simple, we should be able to do as well as Mr. Horowitz -- and, use his list of venues into the bargain.

:evilgrin:

[H2O Man]

31. Yep.

I'd love to see a series of teach-ins, and perhaps even debates, on campuses.

[EFerrari]

32. The attendees at our demonstrations are younger and younger

as this crisis wears on.

I believe that debates are the way to go. Most people don't like to be "taught" but they seem to more enjoy a forum to express their opinion.

Whatever form it takes, I'm perfectly willing to counter the poison Horowitz is spreading with a useful, public dialogue. :)

[EFerrari]

33. Oh, and, btw, I emailed Horowitz and thanked him

for the list of venues. lol

[Me.]

25. 'For we are sick at heart'

Says it for me. We have been on a slippery slope since Raygun. Wasn't North so very clever, sticking it to everyone the way he did. Standing there with his chest full of medals?

Putin is beginning to show his strength and I wonder if he has been biding his time? I can't imagine that the Russian people have liked hearing "tear down that wall" repeated constantly for nearly a quarter of a century. It was the right thing to happen and would have without the influence of Raygun, economics would have taken care of that. But no one likes having a sore point pushed in their face. It was a gentler version of axis of evil.

I am also of the opinion that Reid should go. How dare he ignore Senate rules especially when he never did it when the republicons put things on hold? There's a whole lot of going needing to be getting on and we can start at the top and let it 'trickle down'

[H2O Man]

34. As we have noted

before, there was a disease that began with Nixon. It was more than a cancer of the presidency -- it was an infection that was attacking the Constitution. Congress began to administer justice by way of impeachment, but Ford stopped the treatment.

The infection mutated and spread in the Iran-Contra scandals. The congress failed to administer justice as prescribed by the Constitution. There was a brief period, known as the Clinton administration, when some believed the danger had passed.

But the infection had again mutated, and another tumor had grown on the presidency. It is as if the lungs and brain of our federal government are severely diseased. We need Congress to administer the justice prescribed by the Constitution, and to surgically remove the tumor from the executive office.

[Raksha]

26. K & R

[EFerrari]

27. Kick

Sorry if I took this thread off topic.

[H2O Man]

28. I think you

helped develop the topic. I thank you.

[Stinky The Clown]

35. A kick for the night shift

[bleever]

36. If you break a bone, you don't decide

not to have it set just because it's going to hurt again.

If you get bitten by a rabid animal, you don't skip the rabies shots because they're unpleasant.

Enforcing the Constitutional remedies against high crimes and misdemeanors isn't supposed to be easy or pleasant, but we have ample evidence of the consequences of shying away from that duty.

One of those consequences is the administration we have now, with all its unprecedented horrors.

Impeach: the country you save may be your own.

[jpgray]

37. The fatal flaw in your argument is the falsehood that the evidence supports each speculation equally

The evidence that impeachment at this time would result in a failure to convict is far stronger. The constant level of obstruction, the unyielding loyalty of the GOP--it's difficult to believe that after so much success at hiding their crimes they would fold instantly just when the stakes become that much higher. Or conversely that the Democrats who have failed to effectively push investigation would become magically successful at pushing impeachment. Absolutely that strains belief. Further, unless you consider Bernie Sanders, Al Gore, John Conyers, etc., to be fools who are incapable of understanding Congressional politics at your own exalted level, their statements against proceeding at this time should mean something to you.

[H2O Man]

38. One of the flaws

in your stance is to try to make it into a black vs white, me vs Gore et al. More, you are unable to post an entire paragraph without resorting to an attempt to insult: "your own exalted level." But I will give you credit for at least participating in this discussion. Thank you for that.

[jpgray]

42. I point out that some knowledgable folks disagree with you, and that you argue a false equivalency

Namely that because both are speculation, they must be equally valid. Unfortunately the truth is not always "in the middle" when two sides disagree--the evidence is plainly on the side of impeachment at this time being a failure. The GOP has entrenched successfully and the Democrats have attacked unsuccessfully. Why you expect that to magically change once the stakes -increase- for the GOP is a mystery. These points are not answered, mostly because you have no answers. And as for your delicate sensibilities, my safe-as-milk remark doesn't really hold a candle to your accusations that those who disagree with you want to ignore history, hate the Constitution, and are too cowardly to want Bush held accountable. Where's my claim for those insults?

[H2O Man]

43. Respectfully disagree.

Considering that no case has been laid out, you can only speculate what might happen. The sources you list, for example, speak to the possible impeachment of President Bush. For several years on DU, I have spoken about the impeachment of Dick Cheney. Your attempts to use comments from Gore on impeaching Bush as "evidence" of the likelihood of Cheney surviving an impeachment do not hold up.

But again, at least you try. Thank you.

[jpgray]

47. With Cheney alone it's harder to say what would happen.

But you did say: "bring about the impeachment of President Bush and VP Cheney," and I can only confidently speak to the impeachment for which the most evidence exists. However, for a possible Cheney impeachment, I would note that the GOP would -still- not easily give up one of their most visible party symbols. The amount most of the right-wing think tanks and pundits have invested in Cheney/Bush supremacy will not easily be thrown aside, particularly as the GOP has been so effective in hiding their crimes from the full light of investigation. However, it is true that Cheney would be far more likely to be convicted than Bush. And I can't say with as much certainty that it would be a failure.

[H2O Man]

51. Actually

far more evidence exists that would convict Cheney. I hope to put up an essay detailing that in the next day or two.

No republican is going to speak out against Cheney publicly now. But that isn;t because they all love him, and want to be closely associated with him. His poll numbers make clear that he is toxic. If the process were to start, and the evidence laid out, the republicans would quietly move away from him.

[jpgray]

55. I'll wait for your essay. I haven't read up as much on likely reactions to a Cheney impeachment

It carries less risk in my view than a Bush impeachment, so that's positive enough. But again--shouldn't investigation have all the necessary tools to produce the evidence? And if we can't do it with investigation, what special powers does impeachment have, other than perhaps slightly more media coverage? An ignored subpoena is an ignored subpoena. We have to push this executive privilege issue to SCOTUS, and I don't know why we haven't.

[H2O Man]

62. Not always.

An ignored subpoena is not always equal to other ignored subpoenas. Condi Rice is an example. Also, it is worth considering how federal courts rule regarding executive privilege. One example should do: several members of congress have requested the non-Libby files from Mr. Fitzgerald's Plame scandal investigation. Of course, the DoJ has control of them, and they are not sharing them (It is not Mr. Fitzgerald's call.)

I think that you would agree that when Mr. Fitzgerald noted there was a cloud over VP Cheney's head in his summation in the Libby trial, it seemed that he was not attempting to distract attention from the vice president's role. Of course, Mr. Fitzgerald was investigating criminal matters. It appears that VP Cheney's behavior was in a gray area. What might the files tell us?

There is one sure way that congress can access them. That is by having an impeachment process, and then having a federal judge follow the law -- it's already established -- and open the grand jury transcripts. The grand jury considered much more than the Libby evidence.

Impeachment is a civil proceeding. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not translate into only criminal violations -- it is an archaic English phrase that means "abuse of power." The grand jury evidence shows Cheney's role in releasing intelligence to Miller to sway the media coverage of the WMD controversy; it shows his role in exposing Plame; and it shows that he was aware of Libby's attempts to deny what he did.

More, lying to the congress (and to the public in such a way that it intends to get the public to influence congress) about the reasons the executive advocates bringing the nation to war is a crime.

All the evidence is known. Cheney would resign as soon as the grand jury information was released.

[jpgray]

75. Why protect Libby in that case with a commutation? If it's all out there, why bother?

Simply put, Fitz didn't pursue the trail to its end, which undoubtedly was the Vice President himself. Why didn't he do so? Hard to say for sure, but easy to guess. As Vonnegut put it, we do have a sort of Keystone Kops sort of bad actor in Cheney, but his high office gives him the opportunity to cover up some very obvious and blatant crimes under an executive privilege fig leaf. We have to remove that fig leaf--it's the keystone defense of this administration, which hides all necessary evidence for impeachment. We don't need a single impeachment hearing to remove it, because no extra powers are conferred with regard to impeachment. Impeachment will increase resistance, as it will heavily "politicize" the investigation in the eyes of the RNC and therefore the media. You can very accurately claim that they will cry bloody murder even during normal investigation, but it will truly reach a fever pitch once impeachment begins. Basically, I feel you fail to make the case why -impeachment- is necessary to knock down these unconstitutional defenses, other than the fact that you see investigation isn't working and want to reach for a heavier bludgeon. It's not always the most extreme (and risky!) solution that is the most effective. Going for the extreme, risky option when it confers few extra benefits at far greater risk just isn't very responsible. If Congress is too weak to acquire the necessary information through investigation, how will they do so during the intense circus of impeachment, when the stakes are exponentially higher for the GOP?

[H2O Man]

78. From your heading,

I think you missed the point: it's information other than that from the Libby part of the investigation. Also, one would need to be familiar with how federal judges rule on the release of such information before making a statement about there being able to make an accurate statement about impeachment's "extra powers."

[jpgray]

92. That depends on the judge. There's ample precedent for SCOTUS to obviate Bush's exec priv defense

In this case, anyway. Is our SCOTUS as likely to do so as the Nixon era SCOTUS? Not on your life. But it's still worth a shot, and again, this happened in the past directly before the impeachment hearings began. And you've created another logical problem--if the judges are too biased in favor of Bush to strike down his illegal defenses in a regular -investigation-, why would their bias suddenly be chased away when the stakes of removing the executive privilege defense become so much higher? Again it seems you think impeachment will simply change all these factors. You think it will change the obstruction of the GOP, who have seen the evidence all along and are likely in part complicit. You think it will cause the SCOTUS to lose the bias it would have during regular investigation. You think the media will report on it fairly. You think the Democrats will prosecute impeachment effectively, despite their lack of ability in regular investigation. Isn't this just "we will be greeted as liberators!" thinking? Aren't you refusing to realistically consider the likely reaction to impeachment?

[bleever]

39. Is there a place Gore's opposition to impeachment has been reported?

I had not heard that.

[jpgray]

40. It was during his PBS interview. From a quick search:

WASHINGTON: Former US vice president Al Gore, a staunch critic of George W Bush, has said he doesn't agree with calls for impeaching the president due to lack of "time" and "consensus."

Many democrats feel that Bush should be impeached for allegedly misleading the country deliberately in the lead up to the war in Iraq.

"With a year and a half to go in his term and with no consensus in the nation as a whole to support such a proposition, any realistic analysis of that as a policy option would lead one to question the allocation of time and resources," Gore said during an interview with PBS.

Pressed on whether he believed that impeachment is a good use of time, Gore replied, "I don't think it is. I don't think it would be successful."

On being asked whether he threw the towel in too soon in the 2000 presidential elections, where he narrowly lost to Bush, Gore said he had taken the fight as far as he could, and the only other option left was a "violent revolution".

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=22274

[bleever]

44. Thanks for the link.

But based on my assertion upthread that Congress isn't getting anything better done, I'll disagree with Gore. Better IMO to stop the whole train than to go any further down this track.

[H2O Man]

48. If congress had

contested even a single penny of the money that Bush requested to pay for his surge, it would be one thing. But they haven't. The democrats who are the majority in both houses of congress since Fanuary have provided Bush with every penny.

[jpgray]

49. The same Democrats who are too weak to do so are capable of impeaching Cheney and Bush?

Do you see the disconnect there?

[H2O Man]

52. No.

I understand the difference between "can't" and "won't." More, I understand the connection between the two.

[jpgray]

58. And your evidence that they -can- effect impeachment is what, exactly?

That you believe it? Once again I have to ask, why do you think people like Sanders disagree with you? What do you see that they cannot?

[EFerrari]

45. Yes, I remember seeing that. n/t

[EFerrari]

50. You beg the question that failure to convict is failure.

Also, the question that Conyers, Sander, Gore et all are either fools or not fools rather than politicans or party members with an agenda.

Let alone, that that is an appeal to authority.

[jpgray]

53. I assume you level the same appeal to authority claim at H2O Man?

Whose arguments are oft-filled with the quotes of dead people? At least I don't choose my examples of experts from those who are immune to criticism by virtue of their glorious history--no longer are you arguing with H2O Man, clearly you are arguing with MLK or Malcolm X! But anyway, a failed impeachment carries the benefit of knowing the right thing was tried, against the risk of empowering the GOP. Without the groundwork of a successful investigation, trying for the fell throw and expecting nothing to go wrong just seems like a fantasy. With this press corps, with this tiny majority, with this lack of ability to effect -basic- fixes such as restoring Habeas Corpus, I don't see how anyone can expect impeachment to work, or that even a failure would have more benefits than risks.

[H2O Man]

54. There is no more

need to "investigate" Dick Cheney. I would be curious if you could identify what else is needed to justify congress's beginning the impeachment process in his case?

[jpgray]

56. The particulars of all his major crimes have yet to be uncovered

We know they have occurred, and we can -readily- assume he was the cause, but we don't have the one-to-one evidence, through testimony or documentation, that he was the cause. And thus they have deniability.

[H2O Man]

63. No matter what evidence

there is, he will claim to be innocent. And actually, Rep. Waxman has over 2000 documents that are related to wrong-doing on the part of the administration in a wide range of things.

[EFerrari]

59. You didn't respond to my post, but are going off on a hobby horse.

H2O Man's posts are often very usefully illustrated with quotations from civil rights leaders. His arguments don't depend on them or anyone else.

And arguing for a "successful investigation" when we have hours of tape of Bush and Cheney lying on camera with impunity seems a little silly to me, sorry.

We disagree.

[jpgray]

60. Let's see: I responded to you "expert appeal" claim, to your "how is failed impeachment?" claim

What else was in your post?

[EFerrari]

71. I don't think we're going to get anywhere either of us want to go.

Let's call it a night.

[jpgray]

76. Fair enough, but I suspect you are holding me to a higher standard because you disagree with me

Which is fine--I'm ready to answer even the harshest criticisms. But please don't shut down on me or put me on ignore just -because- I disagree. I don't know for sure that I'm correct, so these discussions help me constantly re-evaluate my point of view. And that's absolutely necessary if I want to stay objective.

[EFerrari]

89. I wouldn't do that. I just realized that I was too tired

to really read you well or respond to you properly. That's all.

[mzmolly]

41. "my motivation is not based entirely by counting votes..."

Indeed, and we should not concern ourselves as much with the outcome, as we are with the Democratic process, itself.

Once again > :toast:

[H2O Man]

46. One of the things

that I like about John Nichols' book is that he lists various polls that show that the American public supports the idea of finding out if Bush purposely misled the country into war in Iraq, and, if so, they approve of impeachment.

It is only those in select positions that seem intent on preventing this.

[mzmolly]

84. What a great picture H20Man.

In all honesty, I think I'd rather see them impeached without the votes/removal? I want them to rot out their last days in humiliation as we reclaim our Constitution.

[H2O Man]

85. I like that

picture myself.

I am hoping that congress will show respect for the supreme law of the land. That should not be too much to ask.

[mzmolly]

87. It certainly shouldn't.

"That should not be too much to ask."

:hi:

[bleever]

66. That's brilliant.

The democratic process IS more important than the outcome.

It is the democratic process that guarantees that all the outcomes through time will tend towards the realization of the Constitutional ideal.

To focus on anticipated outcomes at the cost of preserving the process is to be distracted from what has made America a lasting exemplar of the possibility of freedom.


:toast:

[H2O Man]

68. The democratic process

is one outcome; doing nothing is the other.

[EFerrari]

72. Yes, it is.

:)

[mzmolly]

86. Thanks, though I can't take credit.

Watching the PBS Moyers special brought me around on this issue, personally. ;) Bruce Fein in particular indicated that the Democratic process is what's important, and it was in that context that I began supporting impeachment. I "understood" the "no votes" argument, but I now feel it's a smoke screen and we're taking the bait by saying "if we build the evidence, the votes will come." However, if instead we say to Congress, "the end result is not as important as the process," the powers that be have little excuse not to proceed. :shrug:

I think as progressives we have to beat our representatives over the head with this premise?

Thanks for letting me babble Bleever. :hi:

[bleever]

57. What is a "failed" impeachment?

An impeachment that failed would be, by definition, a motion to impeach that failed to garner enough votes in the House.

We know that there would likely be enough votes in the House to impeach, that is, to initiate a trial in the Senate of Cheney or his front man.

That would be a successful impeachment, whether or not a conviction resulted.

Other elements of success, even if there were no eventual conviction, would be to elevate the questions of criminality to a national level, which I'd call that a success, and it would also preoccupy the administration with the need to mount a defense of their preciously-crafted preemptive declarations of innocence.

And it would focus the attention of both the White House and the Congress on the defense of the Constitution, and interrupt the trance-like enabling that the neocons have imposed on Congress.


Impeachment is the process of initiating a trial of the executive. It would succeed.

[Me.]

70. A Failed Impeachment Is One That Is Never Attempted

Other than that, all talk of failed impeachment is simply conjecture, an expectation of loss before it ever happens. It is living in a future that hasn't occurred yet.

[porphyrian]

61. We agree on this. I hope this helps others get it. - n/t

[H2O Man]

88. I think that

people do get it. It's interesting that not many of the anti-impeachment folks are posting on this thread. I hope it is because, despite our many differences in values, we all are against the tragic death and destruction brought by the Bush-Cheney policies.

[riderinthestorm]

65. CALL YOUR CONGRESSPERSON RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!111!!!

Heh. Just kidding. Kind of.

As you well know, I am of like-mind. Impeachment now.

Thanks for putting it mildly. So I had to put it wildly.

[H2O Man]

67. Thank you.

I had become aware that a few people were not happy, because they felt a previous post I did on impeachment did not include debating points. I know some people have asked me if I can count to 67? I actually am pretty good at math. And I know that John Nichols has pointed that an innocent Iraqi dies in the Bush war every 10 minutes, and an American soldier dies every 10 hours.

My question is not original -- I borrow it, with permission, from Daniel Berrigan: how many Iraqi children must die before they change their minds?

[in_cog_ni_to]

69. K&R for Conscience......"How many must die before our voices are heard,

how many must be tortured, dislocated, starved, maddened? … When, at what point, will you say no to this war?" – Daniel Berrigan


Indeed. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die" in (Vietnam) Iraq? John Kerry.

Impeachment is a must.

[H2O Man]

81. Thank you.

I know that there are some other DUers who want to focus the discussion on the number 67. I think it is, at the very least, important for them to answer Daniel Berrigan's question. And I thank you for adding young John Kerry's question, as well.

[AuntPatsy]

73. Impeach now, we cannot afford not to.

[H2O Man]

80. Exactly.

Our nation is not in a position where we will remain a Constitutional democracy, if the federal government refuses to respect the rule of law, and turns a deaf ear to the citizens' calls for justice.

[Tatiana]

77. I am so sick of the "we don't have enough votes" cowards out there.

Do Congressional reps only introduce legislation that is veto-proof? No, they don't. They introduce bills and then work their colleagues to earn enough votes for passage. The citizenry participates in the process by placing pressure on their Representatives to either vote in favor or against the legislation.

I don't see why the same wouldn't apply to the impeachment process. We are in a Constitutional crisis right now. If left unchecked, the balance of the separation of powers in our government will be irreparably harmed and the executive branch will become a grotesque distortion of what our founders intended it to be.

Impeachment is the solution to restorce balance in our three branches of government.

We should not base the decision to impeach on some imaginary number we believe is less than what is required for conviction in the Senate. Impeachment is not only the solution to our crisis, but is is also a process. It doesn't happen overnight or even in a week. It takes time to gather and present evidence. It takes time to educate and explain. Votes can be earned. The majority of Americans, when presented with the facts, will be supportive of removing Vice President Cheney. They already are. Cheney can be impeached and removed from office. And once the horrors of the OVP are laid bare for the world to see, most Senators will be shamed into convicting him, if not for the sake of justice and respect for the rule of law, but for their own selfish political reasons.

That is the logical first step in the process: removing Cheney from office. Once he is gone, we will have removed the most virulent cancer on our system of government and made it easier to heal sickness upon our government. We will have already forced one check on the executive branch and moved closer to bringing troops home. We don't need 67 votes right now. We only need them at the end of the process. I belive it is unpatriotic to deny administration of the only solution to the crisis this black cloud on our democracy has visited upon American citizens and the global community.

[H2O Man]

79. I agree.

Thank you.

Cheney would fold. He would bluster and bluff, much like he did in the Libby pre-trial. But he wouldn't show up. He'd resign.

[Hun Joro]

82. Kick for an excellent post

[H2O Man]

83. Thank you.

I think it is a good thread.

[omega minimo]

90. Sanity or Delusion

that's the real choice.


:patriot:

[H2O Man]

91. Yes.

I agree with that.

[EFerrari]

93. They seem to believe they're protecting the election.

And, I think they're exactly wrong.

[jpgray]

94. Hardly. But giving the fractured GOP renewed solidarity via a failed impeachment is dangerous

Sanders and Gore see it, I don't see why no one on DU seems to. Apparently to many here impeachment is a magic wand that removes all our problems. We will be greeted as liberators once we initiate it, and of course there is no risk. Once you initiate it, the SCOTUS will lose their bias, Democrats will become united and effective, GOP congresspeople complicit in Bush admin crimes will hold him accountable, the media will report on it fairly, and all obstruction and counterattacks from the white house will become magically ineffective. To my mind people want Bush held accountable (who doesn't?), see investigation failing, and somehow conclude that all the obstacles to investigation must disappear via impeachment. What are they basing this on? I haven't a clue.

[EFerrari]

95. That's a big pile of assumptions you got there.

:)

I can only speak for myself. I'm tired of investigations that skirt the issues and go nowhere. It's CSPAN theatre and our Congress is in the orchestra seats while real people are really dying.

I don't believe in magic, that's why I work for impeachment.

[jpgray]

96. Yeah, that was a snarky, unproductive post. But it seems that way sometimes!

I see people saying all the time "impeachment will bring out the evidence, and the GOP will be forced to convict"--what are people -basing- this on? If the Democrats ever do impeach (unlikely, since they can't even unite for a strong investigation), these are going to be some incredibly disappointed people. And who will get blamed for an impeachment that is a disaster? The party that prosecuted it ineffectively. When the GOP makes extreme media hay out of a possible failed impeachment, these people are going to be seriously pissed off. Now I can't claim that failure is inevitable, but it sure seems likely.

So are these people literally unaware of the risks? Or are they just -thinking- "damn the risks," and -saying- "there's no serious risk?" It's hard to tell sometimes on DU, because people (myself included) often treat the debates here as though they had significant influence on the actual public political scene. Happily, they don't--ideally "marketing" for basic legislative strategy shouldn't be necessary here, so we should be able to discuss the risks of a certain strategy without being disingenuous. I could at least understand someone who said "the risks are there, but it's important that Congress at least -tries- to impeach one of the worst presidents in history." Someone who says "impeachment will work great, everything will fall before us" just boggles my mind. Is it possible they could be right? Sure--but I think it's very unlikely that they would be.

[EFerrari]

97. What makes you think there was any snark in that post at all?

I don't think we're reading the same DU.

The risks of allowing these felons to stay in office unchallenged for another year are greater to my mind than any risk that an impeachment proceeding can incur. It's pretty simple for me.

[jpgray]

98. I was referring to my post, you were correct that it included many assumptions

But if people -aren't- just assuming all those things, why do so many deny the risks are there? Why not say "the risks are there, but this has to be done?" That argument I wouldn't have so much of a problem with. But when people disingenuously push a risky strategy all while claiming the risks aren't there, I get very nervous, even when the goal is noble enough. It's just an insulting way to state your case.

[EFerrari]

99. Oh, I see.

I can't speak for anyone else. And, there are always risks when you challenge power, aren't there?

I see the risks of allowing these guys to stay in power far outweighing the risks of challenging them. Risks for our 2008 election, for the next horrible attack on our civil rights, for our troops who are in harms' way and just camoflauge for BushCo war profiteers.

The Democrats haven't had this much public support since Clinton was elected. If they can't risk this right now, we're in deeper trouble than even a worrier like me can imagine.

[H2O Man]

100. They are exactly wrong.

They are not able to give any evidence from previous elections that support their fears. And they refuse to consider the evidence that folks like John Nichols provide that shows that they are exactly wrong.

The timid democrats are the greatest weakness that the party has.