The Case for Impeachment

[Jack Rabbit]

This morning, a thread went up arguing against the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

While I have always been a loud supporter of the impeachment and removal of the war criminals Bush and Cheney, I no longer make any illusions that this will come to pass.

Mr. Kucinich laid out in detail the case for impeachment on the House floor the night before last by reading 35 articles of impeachment against Mr. Bush into the Congressional Record.

We have heard all of the arguments against impeachment (in addition to the absurd denial by Republicans that no impeachable offenses have been committed). The arguments against impeachment are therefore political, crassly political.

To put the matter more simply, the Democratic leadership is assuming (rightly) that the election is theirs to lose and don't want to do anything to jeopardize that coming victory. It is by no means certain that a movement to impeach Bush and Cheney would jeopardize a Democratic victory in November. Of course, it is by no means certain that it would.

Courage is fighting those battles that must be fought with no guarantee as to the outcome. The impeachment and removal of Bush and Cheney is a battle that must be fought. It is time for Congress to take a firm stand against the kind of dictatorial and authoritarian presidency advocated by Dick Cheney and David Addington and, more practically, to remove Bush and Cheney before they make more mischief.

Mr. Kucinich, displaying real courage, has brought the issue forward and demands of his colleagues that they take a stand. Regrettably, most members of Congress will be found wanting in courage. Their cowardice shames them all.

Let us look at the case made against impeachment made on the other thread this morning as a way refutting it.

Thus far all I've seen mostly is:

1. IMPEACH!!!! (in big letters)

2. Your not a democrat if your not for impeachment (that seems to have a familiar ring to it...coming from the GOP)

3. We Must defend the Constitution (I didn't know Bush was going over there with a hammer and a torch)

While I agree that point 1 is nothing but a battle cry and point two needs elaboration (BTW, as long as democrat is spelled with a small d, a good case could be made that the second point is true), the dismissal of defending the Constitution in point 3 is not well taken. Bush has used the practical power of the office of the president to gain even more power, far beyond what the Founding Fathers intended. Under Bush, the presidency has become a dictatorship subject to term limits and a quadrennial plebiscite, which is the President's only moment of accountability. Beyond that, in Bush's mind (or whatever it is), the president has the power to issue signing statements modifying acts of Congress to suit his whim; he has lied us into an unnecessary, imperialist war; he has unilaterally abrogated treaties to which the United States is party, including the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1948 and the Convention against Torture; he conspired to blow the cover of a secret agent as a part of a political vendetta, consequently doing great damage to counter-proliferation efforts by the US government; he is currently attempting to establish a long term security arrangement without congressional approval; and he is currently conspiring to start a war against Iran without congressional approval.

The possibility of war against Iran makes the impeachment and removal of Messrs. Bush and Cheney not only desirable but urgent. The next president, who is almost certainly Barack Obama, can ignore any security deal Bush makes with al-Maliki without congressional approval, but it would much more difficult to undo American troops being engaged in a war that nobody but the neoconservative war criminals wanted. It would be mischief unprecedented by any other situation in history.

Impeachment will also rally the demoralized republicans and give then renewed vigor. In an election year, do you really want to give the Neo-Cons a viable chance at the executive office? Or potentially pick up congressional seats? The neo-cons need an issue to rally their troops and bring back those disaffected. Don't give them one. Particularly when their are too many issues domestically that also need attention. The Constitution is there to respect the Country and its people. Impeachment could have unintended consequences that disrespect the people, country and the Constitution.

These arguments are mere fear mongering. It is by no means certain that demoralized Republicans will be revitalized by an impeachment effort. Neither is it by any means certain that the public, now ready to punish the GOP for the sins of Bush and Cheney, will rally to the GOP. After all, Bush has failed as president in every respect, not just those for which he can be impeached and removed. In addition to being the most tyrannical and authoritarian president in US history, Bush is the most incompetent and has had congressional Republicans standing behind him every questionable decision from going to war in Iraq to the upper class tax cut to cutting health care for uninsured children. The last two are not impeachable offenses, as unwise as they are, and the first isn't impeachable in and of itself but only for the way it was done.

Impeachment even if successful is just a slap on the wrist.

Yes, removal from office for war crimes is a mere slap on the war criminal's wrist. However, while the Constitution provides that the penalty for an impeachable office shall not extend beyond removal from office and the disqualification from holding office, it also specifically allows one impeached and convicted to be processed by the criminal justice system if that is appropriate. Bush, Cheney and their lieutenants should never be welcomed back into polite society, as Richard Clarke said the other day, but they should be prosecuted and held accountable for their heinous acts of imperialism and war. That is true whether they are successfully impeached and removed or not.

Therefore, I say: IMPEACH!!

[samq79]

1. well put! n/t

[onenote]

2. weighing the "certainties"

A lot of your points seem to rely on the argument that the case for not impeaching is based on assumptions that are not "certain." Well, that's largely true. But even accepting that as true, there is no certainty associated with argument on the other side either. No certainty that an impeachment effort won't fail, won't rally the repubs, won't be rejected by the public as a waste of time when they desparately want Congress and the president to address their priorities, which do not include impeachment but do include health care, the economy, energy, gas prices, the war.

I think there is and has been a basis for pursuing impeachment. But I've also recognized that the concept has never particularly gelled with the public.

Here is how I see the situation:

Its not certain that pursuing impeachment as a priority will fail, but it is more likely than not that it will fail given the lack of significant public demand and the political reality presented by the current make-up of the House and Senate.

It also is not certain that pursuing impeachment will cause a serious enough blowback to jeopardize the election of a Democratic president or the election/re-election of a number of House and Senate Democrats . But again, it seems more likely to do so than to help elect Democrats. (Will people who would be voting repub if there is no impeachment effort switch and vote for a Democrat if there is an impeachment effort? I doubt it).

And, finally, if there is any risk that impeachment would fail and any risk that it could hurt the election/re-election of Democrats in the fall, I see no reason to take that risk since the one certainty -- and you've got tinfoil poisoning if you think otherwise -- is that bush and gang will not be in office any longer in a few months whether or not impeachment is attempted.

It is more