Why I believe Bush CAN be impeached AND convicted....

[catnhatnh]

...IF we win the house...
I have seen several posts here stating without reservation that even if we won the house AND the senate because the (near 50/50) senate could "never" garner a 2/3 majority.But let's take a look at the psychology of remaining republicans after the mid-terms should we win the lower and balance or win the upper house....
Lets posit a Democratic pick-up of 4-5 seats...Now keep in mind almost every republican senator running this year is to a greater or lesser degree running AWAY from Bush and his policies.This will set a an a priori mind set that those who ran the farthest away from Bush survived and that those who lost seats failed to run far or fast enough-and that is a good thing-their winners will feel rewarded for distancing themselves from Bush and those losing will take the easy path of blaming their' losses on their close ties to the White House rather than any personal failure.Now onto 2007...
...the house and senate are reconvened and the new members are sworn in.The Democrats will include more than the prior congress that have already endorsed halting the imperial presidency.The republican side of the congress will include 8-10 senators who now recognize the danger of close ties or perceived support for Bush.And now comes the wild cards,and we hold two-first those few republicans who will be moved to impeach based on unfolding moral suasion, but second and MORE important, GOP senators now already facing vicious divisive campaigns in 2008!!!They have already witnessed one bloodbath and are in terror of facing the same-the pendulum will have swung and they will know it.Their presidential candidate will be tying up his or her best Nike's and heading that-a-way from Bush pronto.Bushes approval numbers will have had another year to trend in the direction they always ultimately headed since 9-11.
In short we DO have the chance to do WHAT WE MUST DO to redeem our democracy.The republican congress has long scorned "cut and run" but I'm betting that once they have seen the handwriting on the wall I think they will adopt just one more Rovian meme-I believe they will "adapt to win"....

NGU

[panader0]

1. Then we'll have Dick Cheney as prez.....maybe we already do.

[waiting for hope]

2. That's my biggest fear..

I believe Pelosi said No to impeachment - he's a lame duck as it is.

[havocmom]

3. Right. Impeaching w would feel good, but not solve ANY problems

In fact, it might just make things worse. The whole cabal has to be taken out of power.

Start by taking the Hill. Then clip their wings via something other than the rubber-stamp congress they have used to usurp dictatorial powers. A congress which would actually exercise oversight would be a step back toward representative democracy.

Just tossing Vlad the Decider out does no good and actually rewards the little weasel. He doesn't seem to enjoy being the front man anymore anyway.

[catnhatnh]

6. Perhaps you missed the point I made....

...that we must redeem our democracy...and that means actions both concrete and symbolic.I never asked to stop the impeachments at one,nor would I mind if the Secretary of Agriculture babysat the country through the transition.How could America ever alleviate the shame of not even having removed the most morally corrupt and criminal regimes of the last 100 years???How long before an American administration could look the international community in the face???Bush once "foolishly" called for a crusade and this is mine-to support all rational actions to atone for our servile submission to to the undermining of our democratic ideals and the torpedoing of 60 years of carefully constructed social welfare at a time when countries we derided as "third world" are building their's. It is bad here and WILL get worse unless we endorse acts that are morally correct no matter the cost...

[havocmom]

8. Start with Cheney, not W, if you want ANY chance of success.

Leave the idiot puppet in place. cut the turf out from under him.

Take Cheney down first, then the appointees. What was it the mob said ... if a dog is threatening you, you take the head, not the wagging tail.

Impeaching bush first would lull too many into thinking things were fine and they could slip back into their indifference.

[saberjet22]

34. impeach Cheney first

This actually is a brilliant idea! I agree with you.It avoids the horrifying spectre of President Cheney. The idea is enough to chill me to the bone.
This is the way to go! Impeach Cheney First!

[A Simple Game]

17. I'm sure you feel the same way about the

guy that robbed the store on the corner, or the child molester on the next block.

The difference is that the * administration's crimes are on a scale so huge that they are hard to comprehend.

We have to impeach, convict and punish these people. They are where they are in because Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. were not punished. We have to stop the cycle!

[NoSheep]

20. I agree with you 100%. We have to hold him accountable.

Those who have done wrong before, were not properly held to account for their actions. THAT is why this goes on. The people feel powerless to do anything about it. I say we do everything we can possibly do. Even if those attempts fail, we have to try. Cheney is already the damn "president". We have to make an example of those who lie to the American people and kill our sons and daughters for wealth and power.

[havocmom]

25. You're sure you know how I feel?

Assume much?
:rofl:

[A Simple Game]

27. Assume sarcasm. n/t

[Harry Monroe]

4. Maybe????

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

[mmonk]

5. Different administration officials can be impeached

and should be. With the current high crimes the administration has done, it's a dangerous precedent not to impeach the most impeachable executive branch in US history. It sets the precedent that the executive branch can break our laws and ignore congressional or judicial oversight which violates the constitution of the US. Anyone against impeachment is not a real servant of the people of the US and is not a defender and protector of the constitution of the US and thus is unfit to govern.

[ClassWarrior]

9. Sure, Cheney** will come out squeeky-clean from a Bush** IMPEACHMENT...

...investigation. :eyes:

NGU.

[KansDem]

12. Well, impeach them both at the same time...

If they can both "testify" together for the 9/11 commission (Actually, it was Bush who was suppose to "testify" but wouldn't do so if Cheney wasn't there with him), then they both can be impeached together. Sort of like a packaged deal...

[Vickers]

30. Bingo! let them hold hands together at their impeachment proceedings.

I still can't believe that got away with that bullshit.

[raccoon]

15. But would Bush supporters say Cheney looked like some guy

they'd have a beer with?

Would anybody?

[Vidar]

7. I certainly hope you're right.

[applegrove]

10. It is a many headed Hydra. No point in impeaching Bush. Rummy would

quickly be made VP, then Cheney would resign and Kristol, Feith, Bolton or Wolfowitz would be VP. At least now.. Condi has some "realist" say in the horrors.

Impeachment will not solve anything.



Sketch & info on hydra myth: http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/hydra.html

[ClassWarrior]

11. No, seeing justice served never solved anything, did it?

That's sort of like an abused wife saying, "If I go to the police, he'll just beat me harder."

NGU.

[applegrove]

16. I think many parts are the US government are to blame for this. Notably

the GOP in the Senate and Congress. I think impeachment is not a good thing. But I am Canadian so it is none of my beeswax.

[onenote]

13. sorry, but math and political realities say it won't happen

I have no problem with a Democratically controlled House holding hearings and conducting investigations. But they aren't going to lead to impeachment and trying to force the issue would be a mistake, one that I'm fairly confident the Democratic leadership will seek to avoid.

Start with the fact that there will be no "smoking gun" -- whatever we know now is what we will know after the investigations. And while hearings etc will get some more attention from the public, the repubs in Congress will continue to defend the admins actions just as they have in the past. Any attempt to get "inside" information from the admin will be met with resistance and claims of executive privilege and the current Supreme Court will side with the WH if those battles go to court -- you can bet on it.

Move to the fact that repubs running for the Senate in 08 aren't going to alienate their base by throwing in with the Democrats in an impeachment fight. More than half of the repubs running probably would be putting themselves more at risk by supporting impeachment than by opposing it (I'm thinking of senators like Cornyn, Ihhofe, Robers, Cochran, Enzi, Sessions, etc.) If you do the math, I don't think there is any way you get to 2/3 of the Senate supporting impeachment.

The political reality is that the Democratic leadership would rather have chimpy still in office when 2008 comes around so that they can run against him, so that the repubs at their nominating convention have to deal with chimpy.

Finally, in another post, the OP made the following statement: "nor would I mind if the Secretary of Agriculture babysat the country through the transition". I don't doubt the OP's sinceerity. But I also don't doubt for a minute that a large portion of the public would not share that view and that the Democratic party would pay a severe price politically if they were so glib about who ran the country.

[Independent_Liberal]

18. Sorry, but my gut instinct says you're going to be wrong.

And do keep this in mind about Bush, he's somebody who's never finished anything before in his life.

[onenote]

19. agree to disagree

We can check back with each other in a couple of years to see who was right.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. I think this is unrealistic.

What the Democrats did to Lieberman will be *nothing* to what the Republicans would do to any Republican who voted to impeach Bush.

Never make the mistake of thinking that your opponents are just opposing you to be contrary. The Republicans really do support Bush, and impeaching him is and always will be nothing more than a pipe dream, and a politically harmful one at that.

[Independent_Liberal]

21. No, it's not unrealistic.

The GOP is turning against Bush. And after they become aware that he cost them both houses of Congress, they will want to be rid of him so he doesn't cost them anything else in the next election cycle. They WILL force him to resign. You watch. It will be Nixon all over again.

[FILAM23]

24. They are turning away from Bush

to get re-elected. Once re-elected they are not going to votr for impeachment

[Independent_Liberal]

26. I don't know...

Crazier things have happened. Nobody thought anything would happen with Watergate, and then once some insiders started to come forward and more people became aware of what was going on, the Repubs eventually went and told Nixon it was time to go. It could happen again. You never know.

[onenote]

29. the difference was the "smoking gun"

There will be no smoking gun with chimpy. The folks around him aren't going to turn on him and the courts will never make him give up information for which he claims executive privilege.

[Independent_Liberal]

32. Like I said...

Never say never. We do have many whistleblowers out there like Sibel Edmonds and Russell Tice and several of the Judges on the Federal Courts have ruled the NSA programs as being illegal. You also have Judge Walton who has requested to see White House documents and stuff relating to missing emails from Cheney's office. There's many different smoking guns surround 9/11 and Iraq. There's the Downing Street Memos for instance. History might repeat itself. Let's wait and find out.

[catnhatnh]

22. Evening self kick....

I said it and I stand behind it.Thanks for all the input whether you agree or not-Cat

[PresidentWar]

23. Thank you for posting this. It's about the LAW, not about positioning

And would I tolerate a president Cheney for a short time after an impeachment? Yes. He won't be in office long enough to effect anything substantial - ESPECIALLY after a beat down like an impeachment and removal of his boss.

The nation needs to see that those who abuse executive power will be brought to task for it, and removed. The rethugs certainly need to see it. It will be an example that our impeachment process, constitutionally ordained, should and can work.

Again, this is a question of law....of right and wrong....not about which party stands the most to gain in the aftermath.

[onenote]

28. then you shouldn't mind waiting until after chimpy is out of office

Impeachment is a political act. That's the way it is, like it or not. If you can tolerate Cheney for a short time after impeachment, do you think he should get away completely free after he leaves office? If so, why not the same approach to chimpy, when the act will be less overtly political -- the prosecution and trial will not be conducted by elected politicians, but by career prosecutors and justice department officials.

[oldboy101]

31. President Nancy Pelosi?

Frankly I think it highly unlikely that Bush will be impeached AND removed from office, but if he is we need to be SURE that Cheney gets the boot too! In that case the Speaker of the House becomes President. Since we expect to take back the House this election, that means that Nancy Pelosi will become President! I would love to see that but being realistic I am not counting on it. We will likely have to wait two more years before we will be able to get a competent President again.

[LeftishBrit]

33. I would guess that ...

this is just what could prevent any Republicans from voting for impeachment.

In 1974, impeaching Nixon meant Ford taking over. Moderate Republicans would (I imagine) have had no problem with the concept of Ford as president.

Nowadays, it would mean either Cheney - which wouldn't help anyone - or (if he were also impeached) Pelosi, since this could only even come up if the House went Democratic. Apparently, Pelosi is seen as a left-wing bogeywoman by the right, and it would probably be very difficult to get any Republican to go on record as getting her into office.

Also, the number of Democrats in the Senate was greater in '74 than it would be now, even if the elections go very well; and I believe that there was also a higher proportion of moderate and liberal Republicans at that time than now. I believe that in 1999, 6 Republicans joined the Democrats in voting against Clinton's impeachment. It's probably much easier to rebel against your party by voting against impeaching the opposition president than in favour of impeaching your own president; but even if the same number of Republicans rebelled on this, it could not come close to the 67 senators that would be needed to boot the evil bastards out.

Of course, these are just thoughts; I'm not there, and I would LOVE to be proved wrong!

[lisainmilo]

35. i along with 100,000 + have already sent on our impeachment papers

I am not waiting for these elections. I believe Bush is a criminal and I will do everything I can to get him impeached.

He is abiding by the recent ruling of the supreme court regarding Guantanomo Detainess
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/06/AR2006090600417_2.html

But for 5 or 6 years these people have been held without charges, without legal council. They have been tortured. http://tortureprotest.org/atrocities/guantanamo_bay

But he is still impeachable....why wait?
http://www.johnlisainmilo.com/liberty_1.html
Impeach him today!
Second set goes in Oct 12