Regarding Impeachment and Ending the War

[H2O Man]

"The New Left has tried to create a sense of revolution in the nation by shouting slogans and marching up and down the streets. But when the hated establishment is left secure in its citadel, certain that it cannot be dislodged, then it has very little reason to pay attention to them and maintains the power to suppress them. The New Left should use the system to create uncertainty in the minds of Congressmen it dislikes so that all would tend to change lest lightening strike them in their next election.

"In a comparable manner the executive branch of the government could be easily changed if sufficient pressure were to be applied to it through the proper channels. …. There has never been a system that would not gladly sacrifice one of its own for a moment’s peace, no matter how brief. If the system is to be changed, then those who would change it should pinpoint its weak spot, its blockage points, and place all the pressure on that one point until the blockage is cleared."

--We Talk, You Listen: New Tribes, New Turf; Vine Deloria, Jr.; Dell; 1970; pages 65-66.


Last week, I posted my essay "On Impeachment" on the Democratic Underground. It was one of dozens of threads that discussed the potential advantages of having the House of Representatives begin the investigations of the Bush administration that should lead to the impeachment of one or more officials in the executive branch. The response was interesting, and included the opinions of people who are strongly in favor of having our democratic officials follow the Constitution, as well as the views of many who believe that potential impeachment hearings would be a dangerous mistake.

Those opposed to the concept of impeaching Bush administration officials tended to express some common concerns. The first was that impeachment is all about "revenge." This is a weak position that deserves no serious consideration. If there is a bank-robber or a murderer in your community, you want the legal system to prosecute him/her. You don’t wring your hands in anxiety, fearful that the criminal might get mad.

Others said it will cause a cycle of impeachment, and used the example of Bill Clinton as evidence that they are correct. They are convinced that Clinton’s experience was only a result of the democrat’s having forced Richard Nixon from office. While it is possible, at least in theory, that some republicans were motivated by a strong sense of loyalty to Richard Nixon, in truth this "theory" reflects a shallow grasp of history.

It is fair to say, however, that in the current climate, a push for Congressional investigations will create hostilities. It is equally fair to say that efforts to protect the environment, to provide adequate health care, and to protect civil rights, will also be marked by conflict. Because republicans are at times hostile is no excuse for inaction.

It has also been stated, numerous times, that impeachment would require investigations first. I would hope that we all could agree that in the history of the United States, there has not been a single impeachment of any official that was not based upon an investigation. Pro-impeachment people seem more aware of this than the anti-impeachment folks.

The last anti-impeachment point is that we have more important things to deal with now. That’s an interesting thought Let’s look closer. What was the #1 issue of concern to voters across the country in last week’s elections? The war in Iraq. Survey after survey showed that the war in Iraq is increasingly unpopular. Republican candidates who recognized that voters associated President Bush with the war were not in a hurry to have George campaign for them.

The war is correctly associated with President Bush and VP Cheney. They came into office planning to invade Iraq. They lied to the country in order to manipulate the public’s perception of the "threat" that Iraq posed to the country. And Dick Cheney was involved in efforts to twist the WMD evidence to scare the hell out of Americans.

More, despite the democratic gains in the House and Senate, it is still the executive office that makes the major decisions about the US occupation of Iraq. Anyone familiar with the Constitution and the history of the USA knows that the president tends to gain the most power in the context of "war." I would be interested in any evidence that indicates that George W. Bush is not inclined to attempt to expand his powers through the use of "war," as well as any evidence that he is inclined to willingly turn that power over to others, especially democrats in Congress?

Some might think that the firing of Donald Rumsfeld is progress in this area. I strongly disagree. Though the timing of his action may have hurt republicans in the elections – and I’m not sure it did – the truth is that this is something that had been under consideration for some time. In fact, some republicans advocated replacing Rumsfeld with Joe Liebermann. It’s difficult to believe that we can rely upon a neoliberal senator like Lieberman to work with the Iran-Contra participant Robert Gates to end the war.

Others might have faith in the James Baker III group. I don’t. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that the Baker group is looking to end the US occupation in the next two years. Baker may try to reduce American involvement in the day-to-day killings to an extent, but he is not going to advocate a complete withdrawal. If anyone heard President Bush talk about the control of the Iraqi oil supply last week, they should know he isn’t going to go along with any plan that doesn’t include control of that oil. And you can be sure that Dick Cheney is going to use his still considerable behind-the-scenes power to block any attempt to give up that control.

That is why I followed my "On Impeachment" essay with two informal surveys on DU. The first asked for opinions on what our course should be in Iraq; the second asked what leaders DUers thought could best help our nation to reach that goal. The first one had a good response, and there were numerous progressive suggestions on what steps we should take to get out of Iraq. The second one had far fewer responses, and I think that the people listed are among the last people on earth that Bush or Cheney would listen to.

So that’s the blockage that we face. We can have good plans, good leaders, and good intentions. But the Bush administration will continue to block real progress in the effort to get the US out of Iraq. Unless, of course, we understand Deloria’s words: "If the system is to be changed, then those who would change it should pinpoint its weak spot, its blockage points, and place all the pressure on that one point until the blockage is cleared." That pressure is the grass roots lobbying Congress to investigate the lies that brought us to war in Iraq. The weak point is VP Cheney. And the republican party would gladly sacrifice him for a moment'’ peace, and for the chance to be re-elected in '‘8.

[riderinthestorm]

1. K AND R!!! All capital letters for emphasis....

Impeach! It's the right thing to do for our country.

Thanks for another brilliant essay.

:patriot:

[H2O Man]

2. Thank you.

While I appreciate that people can and do have differences of opinion, and that these can be a source of strength in the party, I think that we should focus on what the pro-impeachment people are actually saying. It's far more important than worrying about what republicans might say.

[gilpo]

32. Interesting.... Do you think Pelosi's statement of a couple of weeks back....

...was cover?

Are there Democrats currently in office who will pursue this with enough gusto to convince the side-liners to join in?

My opinion (not that it matters on this subject) is that the impeachment hearings will uncover much malfeasance, but I also think that war profiteering hearings will have similar results. Those hearings may lead more naturally (politically speaking) to impeachment hearings and give the Democrats the needed cover so as not to appear to be on a vendetta. "Well, we were looking into the war profiteering and one thing lead to another and here we are..." Seems to me that the public will be more accepting of that approach. Also, if the war profiteering hearings start to uncover things (no doubt they will), the side-liner Democrats will be more likely to get behind impeachment hearings.

Just my $0.02

Gilpo

Edit: Spelling & Grammar

[H2O Man]

38. I will take her

at her words: impeachment was off the table during the campaigns.

The war profiteering is certainly part of the crimes associated with the war. Like the line from one of my favorite movies says, "follow the money."

[puebloknot]

72. Has she...

...altered her original strong statement that "impeachment is off the table"? I haven't heard her modify that statement to say it was for the purpose of the campaigns. I'd like to know if she has done that publicly.

Inquiring minds, you know!

[damntexdem]

4. Start clear and thoroughgoing investigations.

Although I have no doubt that Dubya and Darth Cheney have committed impeachable offenses, let the evidence emerge from investigations. So, I call not for impeachment, rather for investigations with the intent of following up boldly on whatever emerges from them.

[riderinthestorm]

6. Why do you feel it is necessary to make this kind of clarification?

One requirement of impeachment is investigations. You know that right? Nobody calling for impeachment is saying that impeachment is even possible without investigations first.

It's just easier to say "impeach" without having to say "let the evidence emerge from investigations which will surely lead to impeachment".

[AntiFascist]

64. More likely, the evidence emerging from investigations will lead to indictment...

impeachment goes without saying.

[calimary]

78. I believe that's what Henry Waxman is about to do.

I called his office today. He's mine. I made note of that to the staffer when I called. I mentioned specifically this - how IMPEACHMENT is rawther dear to my own heart, because it's just damned NEEDED. These crimes - well-qualified to meet the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors - are SO grave that only the most serious and comparably grave penalties can apply.

Further, I think the very mechanism of IMPEACHMENT, itself, needs to be rehabilitated. That's because what stands for the historical record as of now is an IMPEACHMENT of a president for having lied about cheating on his wife. Such extreme and utterly idiotic application of this serious a penalty does nothing but cheapen, pervert, and make a pathetic joke of it. IMPEACHMENT of a sitting president is a deadly serious business. It is not a trifle. It is not a petty, partisan quick-n-dirty drive-by hit. It is not a tool for vindictive political vendettas. It should be used only for the most serious and grievous of offenses.

This is not about revenge. This is WAY heavier and more serious than petty revenge. This is about JUSTICE.

Good thread, H2O Man! Your points here are "things that need to be said." And then acted upon, in my opinion. We can't NOT IMPEACH. We just can't. As self-respecting, law-respecting citizens of this nation AND of the world. We need to be able to send a signal across the planet to everyone who's watched in horror as this Shining City on a Hill has devolved into tyranny and dictatorship and fascism - that we have awakened from the evil spell, that we recognize as sentient beings and responsible adults that these crimes have to be confronted, prosecuted and punished. We need to telegraph a message to the world that we honor and respect the rule of law and we adhere to it, and that we are NOT a rogue nation.

It's something we just simply HAVE to do to restore our honor in the community of nations, and our self-respect.

[porphyrian]

3. Yeah, I'll kick that, too. - n/t

[mike_c]

5. proud to give a 5th recommendation and a kick....

This is an excellent post, as usual.

I agree completely-- we MUST get these madmen and criminals out of office as soon as possible. No other action to undo the damage they've done will be possible as long as they are in power.

[jpwhite]

7. you're mostly right

I am hoping that people that worked for bush 41 would do a better job than people that work for bush 43. Bush 41 did have a better coalition than we have now. I am hoping that maybe Baker can bring in some other countries to help us get the situation in Iraq fixed.

I think we need to have hearings into how the money is spent here in Iraq first. Let's have real oversight into how the money is spent and then go from there. We need to convince the American people that crimes have been committed. I don't know how you can prove that Bush 43 actually wanted to invade Iraq from the very beginning. I wouldn't doubt it, but it's not a claim that can be proven easily. You would have to get someone who is willing to testify that he was a part of a planning meeting or find a memo.

I think it will be easier to show that the republican congress failed to provide adequate oversight between 2003 and 2006. This will ensure that the dems maintain control of congress in 2008 and of course it is the right thing to do. This will also discredit McCain for his presidential run because if anyone should have spoken out about how much money was spent in Iraq it should have been McCain, BUT HE WENT RIGHT ALONG WITH BUSH!!!

The ultimate goal is the White House. Pres. Bush will ride back to Crawford, TX in 2 years knowing that he did not do a good job with the situation in Iraq and the dems will be back in the White House.

James
[e-mail]

[davekriss]

79. Hate to burst your bubble

...but the folks who created this unnecessary, immoral, and illegal war are all from the GHWB administration. Vice President Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense under Bush 41; Paul Wolfowitz was Cheney's Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy back then, and Scooter Libby was a Principal Deputy Under Secretary (Strategy and Resources); John Negroponte, now intelligence czar, was Bush 41's ambassador to Mexico when Gulf War I started, likewise Elliot Abrams, now Deputy National Intelligence Advisor, was then Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs; Condolezza Rice, our current Secretary of State, served GHWB as a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; Colin Powell, our recently departed Secretary of State, served as Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff under CinC GHWB; Richard Perl, while he did not serve under GHWB, was Assistant Secretary of Defense for international security policy in the Reagan administration; Donald Rumsfeld, who also didn't serve under GHWB, did infamously serve Reagan as Special Envoy to the Middle East...

...I could go on, but I think you can see my point. Key players from Reagan when GHWB was VP and from Bush 41 are in fact key players in the Bush 43 administration. So your statement, "I am hoping that people that worked for bush 41 would do a better job than people that work for bush 43", is false on its premise.

[Jcrowley]

8. Keep it comin'

The picture is clear.

K&R

[Duncan]

9. Right On.

I'm surprised to even see posts on DU suggesting impeachment is anything less than vitally important business.
As far as investigating, there is nothing hidden that needs to be uncovered, all the investigation needs to do is assemble readily available evidence into a coherent case, almost a formality really. If investigation uncovers additional hidden offenses and connections, great, but lets not let anyone be fooled into thinking that an investigation can exonerate GWB.

[stepnw1f]

10. Posts Like This Give Me Hope

Incredible insight.....

[H2O Man]

59. "One of the difficult lessons

we have learned is that you cannot depend upon American institutions to function without pressure. Any real change in the status quo depends on continued creative action to sharpen the conscience of the nation and to establish a climate in which even the most recalcitrant elements are forced to admit that change is necessary." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

This is from an essay that Martin penned for the New York Times. It appeared on Sunday, March 14, 1965. Older DUers will recall that this was the day before LBJ gave his historic speech about his Civil Rights Bill. At the time, a lot of folks -- even some progressives -- thought King erred in writing this. They thought it was dangerous. They believed he should be more patient, and appreciate the progress being made.

I think King was right.

[bleever]

73. Among those thinking that King was should be more patient,

and appreciate the progress being made, were the parents of Condi Rice:

Reverend Rice called local civil rights leader Fred Shuttlesworth and his followers' activism as "misguided".<5> Also, Reverend Rice instilled in his daughter and students that black people would have to prove themselves worthy of advancement, and would simply have to be "twice as good" to overcome injustices built into the system.<6> While the Rices supported the goals of the civil rights movement, they did not agree with some of the tactics that activists had utilized, which included putting children in harm's way.<3>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice

[seemslikeadream]

11. James Baker just did a Barry Goldwater on georgie, BUT

georgie was not asked to resign, oh no he was just told you are no longer in charge, JAMES BAKER III GROUP is taking over.

[H2O Man]

18. A couple of years ago,

on the infamous Plame Threads, I seem to recall quoting R. Buckminster Fuller's book "Critical Path":

"In our comprehensive reviewing of published, academically accepted history we continually explore for the invisible power structure behind the visible kings, prime ministers, czars, emperors, presidents, and other official head men, as well as for the underlying, hidden causes of individual wars and the long, drawn-out campaigns not disclosed by the widely published and popularly accepted causes of these wars."

Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty notes that Churchill called this same group as the "High Cabal" in his book "JFK." These people rarely step out from behind the curtain. They do not need to be seen in the visible government, though some -- like Baker or Harriman, or to some extent Nitze -- do hold on to some positions of power when it suits their needs. I think the case can be made that this is exactly what is going on with this Baker group.

[ConsAreLiars]

83. People who haven't read Prouty's "The Secret Team" yet can find

it online here: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/

The one fault it has is that it makes it seem that there is only one "Secret Team" at work, but he lays out the history and practice of what is undoubtedly the biggest player. It is as good a history lesson as you will find. Zinn's "Peoples History" is the most important couterweight, and an essential view of how our side shapes history and fights for justice. It can be found here: http://www.historyisaweapon.org/zinnapeopleshistory.html

[DemPower]

12. excellent work!

"those who would change it should pinpoint its weak spot, its blockage points, and place all the pressure on that one point until the blockage is cleared."
Bush is blocking our arteries :rofl: sorry

"That pressure is the grass roots lobbying Congress to investigate the lies that brought us to war in Iraq"
Hey,Kucinich is already listening...
"America Needs Iraq War Hearings"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-scheer/rep-kucinich-america-ne_b_33981.html
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), the potential next chair of the Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations, calls for congressional hearings into how and why America invaded Iraq, and demands "accountability" for those who led America into a "war based on lies."

TRUTHDIG: Are you planning investigations?

KUCINICH: It's imperative for there to be accountability. How that accountability is enforced is going to be the subject of a lot of debate. But that there should be accountability is absolutely imperative.

[earth mom]

13. A most excellent post-highly recommended!

:applause:

[Me.]

14. Your Points Are Especially Cogent

when ons considers that * has now set up an Iraq group of his own to counter Baker's. That says to me he isn't going to listen to anyone in his fiefdom. Time for him to face justice.

As for 41's men coming in to rescue junior, while there is some relief in the notion that someone os trying to reel him in, I am mindful of the fact that none of these people have been elected by the American people either. Also, they need to face what the American people already know, junior has gone off the reservation (so to speak).

[Gold Metal Flake]

58. Me, what constitutes *'s personal Iraq group?

On Edit: Nevermind, I just read reply #19.

[troubleinwinter]

15. Top drawer

What bugs me on DU is the chanting of "Impeachment NOW!". Seems like cart before the horse. Investigations of this gang can lead nowhere BUT impeachment. These investigations will educate and bring the public to the inevitable conclusion that impeachment is necessary. (see Nixon!)

So, I call for "Investigations NOW!".

Many gripe about Pelosi saying "Impeachment is off the table." But it is in the top drawer, and the runners are lubricated.

The Constitution IS ON the table. It gives us the key to open the top drawer.

[puebloknot]

70. The "NOW" issue

I support impeachment, period. It's the constitutionally prescribed way to oust our criminal government. In calling for impeachment on this day -- now -- I am not suggesting it can be done today, or next week, or even in January.

We hear people constantly using the phrase "Bring our troops home NOW"! We know that the sentiment expressed is just one of frustration with the status quo, and a wish to get the ball rolling asap.

In calling for "Investigations NOW," do you think they will begin immediately, or after the new Congress is seated? As I've said, I think we're dealing with semantics here. However, you can't have impeachment without investigations, but you most certainly *can* have investigations without impeachment. "Investigations like this" were held during Iran/Contra, and they led anywhere *but* impeachment.

And once again, I doubt if there's anyone here at DU who is dumb enough to think that we can have impeachment *without* investigations. Nowhere in the annals of law is there a principle that lets someone be indicted without something to indict them on. Of course, that rule of law has been destroyed with the Military Commissions Act, for now anyway. And the Constitution has a lot of holes in it now. But I think we have to proceed *as if* that hallowed document is still intact in its guiding principles for the country.

If impeachment really is in the top drawer, but Nancy Pelosi *pledged* before the election that it was "off the table," I sincerely doubt that the MSM and the Repubs are going to "nuance" it quite the way you are suggesting. They'll say she broke her promise, that she has no integrity. I fear I have to agree with them. She should have said nothing definitive on the subject, and let things develop, unless, as it appears, she was already committed to squelching impeachment during the campaigning for the election. As it now stands, there are an awful lot of very intelligent and informed people who feel she's stepped way beyond her authorized bounds as Speaker -- and she hasn't even taken up that role officially yet.

I appreciate your analogy in this post, and I accept that there are many thoughtful, intelligent, and informed people here at DU who feel impeachment is a bad choice. It's just that it is the *constitutional* choice for removing a president for malfeasance while in office.

What happens once he's removed from office is another issue, and one ripe with possibility!

[bleever]

74. Just like * said he had no war plans on his desk, prior to the Iraq war.

Of course they were in a desk down the hall.

And this is a great image: "The Constitution IS ON the table. It gives us the key to open the top drawer."

[riderinthestorm]

97. WHEN impeachment proceedings begin, Pelosi and Reid are going to smeared as liars

Their words that "impeachment is off the table" (with your implication that they were fudging the meaning by implying that the plans are in the drawer) won't be interpreted as a great image but as a lie.

Pelosi and Reid should never have made these comments because impeachment will be something we must consider when the full magnitude of this Admin's crimes are exposed. And the "off the table" comment is going to come back to haunt us in a very bad way I fear.

(And this is beyond the fact that I really hate it when politicians fudge like this - it's shitty and deceptive, and I really wish we were above this - especially about something as serious as impeachment).

[civildisoBDence]

91. As the potential Speaker, Pelosi couldn't have, and still can't, appear to be

pushing towards impeachment.

I'm sure there are plenty in Congress, including some Republicans, who are chomping at the bit for the chance to impeach DUHbya as soon as the right smoking gun is found.

Newsprism

[Joe Chi Minh]

16. Straight to the puppet master. A brilliant insight.

[Straight Shooter]

17. Republicans already fortifying against investigation of the War on Iraq.

November 2, 2005: "A short while ago the Senate's number two Republican, Mitch McConnell, rejected Democrats' suggestions they move an investigation of pre-war intelligence in Iraq forward.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/02/sitroom.02.h...


November 15, 2006: Mitch McConnell picked as Senate Republican leader.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061115/pl_nm/usa_congress_leaders_dc

[leftchick]

19. cheney and the chimp started their own ISG

so cheney gets his oil unless someone stops them. Excellent piece H2O Man.

:)

Bush Initiates Iraq Policy Review Separate From Baker Group's

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 15, 2006; Page A16

President Bush formally launched a sweeping internal review of Iraq policy yesterday, pulling together studies underway by various government agencies, according to U.S. officials.

The initiative, begun after Bush met at the White House with his foreign policy team, parallels the effort by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to salvage U.S. policy in Iraq, develop an exit strategy and protect long-term U.S. interests in the region. The two reviews are not competitive, administration officials said, although the White House wants to complete the process before mid-December, about the time the Iraq Study Group's final report is expected.

The White House's decision changes the dynamics of what happens next to U.S. policy deliberations. The administration will have its own working document as well as recommendations from an independent bipartisan commission to consider as it struggles to prevent further deterioration in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111401095.html

[H2O Man]

21. Interesting article.

And I don't say that just because it supports what I said in the OP. But I thank you for linking to it here, because I think it surely does!

[WilliamPitt]

20. Well argued, but I have some questions.

You say:

The last anti-impeachment point is that we have more important things to deal with now. That’s an interesting thought Let’s look closer. What was the #1 issue of concern to voters across the country in last week’s elections? The war in Iraq. Survey after survey showed that the war in Iraq is increasingly unpopular. Republican candidates who recognized that voters associated President Bush with the war were not in a hurry to have George campaign for them.

The war is correctly associated with President Bush and VP Cheney. They came into office planning to invade Iraq. They lied to the country in order to manipulate the public’s perception of the "threat" that Iraq posed to the country. And Dick Cheney was involved in efforts to twist the WMD evidence to scare the hell out of Americans.

More, despite the democratic gains in the House and Senate, it is still the executive office that makes the major decisions about the US occupation of Iraq. Anyone familiar with the Constitution and the history of the USA knows that the president tends to gain the most power in the context of "war." I would be interested in any evidence that indicates that George W. Bush is not inclined to attempt to expand his powers through the use of "war," as well as any evidence that he is inclined to willingly turn that power over to others, especially democrats in Congress?

How, in your mind, would a protracted impeachment fight help the situation in Iraq? It would not stop the administration from making decisions, but would completely distract and derail any congressional attempts at offering alternative courses of action, or passing legislation demanding changes in the policy. It would tie the congress in knots, effectively empowering the Executive more than it would be with an unencumbered congress.

The American people voted their dissatisfaction about Iraq, you say, and this is true. But to my mind, that means they want a solution. Impeaching Bush would offer no solution, but would instead (importantly, to be sure) expose just how messed up the process that got us in there was. As necessary as that is - and investigations will do this - it offers no solutions, and makes the process of finding and/or implementing solutions practically impossible...and what is happening in Iraq requires more attention than that.

Also, I wonder about why you would talk about DU polls regarding impeachment. I'm sure it is good to get the opinions of DU on this matter, but as you are a member of long standing here, you must know that DU is not reflective of the mindset of much of the country.

Finally, and speaking perfectly tactically, I wonder where you are going to find sixteen Republican Senators who will vote to impeach. In reality, you'll need more than twenty, if I had to bet, because you're not going to get every member of the Democratic caucus to vote for impeachment. Lieberman won't, and neither will some of our Senators from the South and West. So before we get into any intellectual debate about impeachment, we should probably discuss the simple viability of it. I do not forsee any scenario that has us convincing 20+ Republican Senators to impeach Bush. It simply won't happen, which means the idea is doomed from the get-go.

So:

1. How does impeaching Bush and completely scrambling the government - Executive and Legislative both - help deal with the crisis in Iraq?

2. How do DU polls reflect anything other than DU attitudes?

3. Who are the 20+ Republicans you see going along with this? To wit, is impeachment dead on arrival, and thus a dead-bang loser for the Democratic Party? If it is dead on arrival, is all the high-minded talkj about due process worth torpedoing this hard-fought-for majority?

And, P.S., I do also really think Americans want us to raise the minimum wage, pass stem-cell research legislation, fix the Medicare prescription drug plan, and keep Social Security from going private. None of that will happen once we deploy impeachment.

Investigate. Investigate their asses off. Pass legislation to help people, and to demand a new course in Iraq. Investigate some more. Maybe...MAYBE...serious investigations will convince 20+ Republicans to impeach. Until then, in my opinion, it's a doomed exercise.

Investigate, publicly, and get their approval ratings into the teens. Set the table for 2008 - not only the presidency, but the Senate (the GOP has 26 seats to defend, we have significantly less) - so we can have control of the whole ballgame by 2009 and really begin to make some changes.

I don't want the man impeached, frankly. I want him right where he is, but paralyzed. He is the best advertisement we have for our arguments and our leadership.

[H2O Man]

27. For two weeks,

I have said that we should impeach Cheney.(Actually, I've said it for three years on DU.)I agree with you that if we made Bush the target, it would surely create a big fight. I don't question that. I do not advocate that. (At least not to begin with. I'm willing to listen to those who believe otherwise.)

Cheney is extremely unpopular with democrats, republicans, and almost every other voting group in the country. I think it is fair to say that his handwriting is all over the administration's Iraq agenda .... kind of like it's all over a certain NY Times op-ed. If the lies that led us to war, including the twisting and manipulation of intelligence, were to be examined in Congressional hearings, I am confident that there are not going to be a lot of republicans looking to defend Cheney.

Sun Tzu wrote, "When you surround an army leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard." Investigating an impeaching Cheney would leave Bush an outlet free. I think that the Office of the President would prefer to blame the OVP than accept responsibility for the failed Iraqi policies.

I do not think an investigation of Cheney would end up a long, bitter fight. If the House were to even begin investigations in February, it would be completed in six months. He'd most likely resign.

Thucydides, in his history of the Peloponnesian Wars, noted that "those who want to understand clearly the events which happened in the past and which will at some time or another and in much the same way be repeated in the future." (I found that in James Carroll's "House of War.") There is no doubt that your concerns that impeachment could be a difficult experience for our nation are valid. But I think that it would be far worse to not investigate and aim for justice.

[WilliamPitt]

31. If they don't investigate,

I will be forced to resort to firebombing. (note to fbi: kidding)

Let me think on the Cheney thing a bit. I have it in mind that he's going to quit for "health reasons" before the snow melts, anyway.

[H2O Man]

37. I'll look through

for another more in-depth essay I wrote about Cheney before. I believe that if the pressure begins, he will resign. He has always been brave with other people's lives, and when he is in a position of power. But I believe that those who would engage in activities such as exposing ms. Plame are cowards. And cowards fold before the fight really starts on their territory.

[pat_k]

35. Gosh Will, I was joking

Here I find you literally saying "...the idea is doomed from the get-go...it's a doomed exercise."

I thought I was joking when I titled this post.

[mike_c]

40. one further point to bear in mind is that the executive...

...can obstruct on this issue until the cows come home. Ultimately, Congress can only force an end to the war against Iraq by cutting off the funds or by formally withdrawing authorization, an act that would throw the president back to the war powers wolves with 90 days to either cease hostilities or convince Congress to reauthorize the war. The latter course would undoubtedly precipitate a constitutional crisis because the administration would likely refuse to comply-- and at that point impeachment would be the Congress's only recourse.

The point is that it will likely be necessary to impeach at least Cheney and likely Bush too in order to effect any real change in American foreign policy or to end the war against Iraq. As long as they are in power they will continue to prolong their crimes against humanity. They cannot do otherwise without losing everything. They are desperate men now, and cannot be trusted to respond rationally.

[Gregorian]

22. Do we clear the blockage, or do we save the patient?

If I understand, they are one in the same. But I'm questioning if that's the case.

I am assuming that several hundred Congressmen in perhaps only a 24 month period, may not have sufficient time to accomplish both clearing the blockage and altering the course of where this country is heading. And that may be my mistake. Perhaps we can do both. Or perhaps we'll end up with more than two years in which to do so.

I don't know if we're talking about vetoes or signing statements. But if the blockage is serious enough, then we must do a bypass.

I was thinking that passing critical legislation be foremost on the agenda. I fear that if we cannot do both, and we lose in '08, and all we've done is persue impeachment, then health care, correcting the Iraq mistake, working for a balanced budget, and undoing the disasters done by Bush, we may not have the chance for years to come.

I say this because of what appears to be a giant conglomeration of corporations that are driving this mess. And I seriously doubt they are going to alter their course by the simple removal of several men in the high offices.

[DemPower]

30. We have time to do all of these things

Has anyone watched what Congress actually does all day? There are days on end where the House debates naming post offices and congratulating sports teams.

We can end the war in Iraq with one piece of legislation in one day- cutting off the funding like Kucinich is suggesting today on Democracy Now, but we cannot do this because of Bush- he is in the way and must be removed.

I also believe it is imperative that we follow our constitution and hope for the best, enough of the political rhetoric and games. The impeachment clause of the constitution was clearly written with George Bush's name all over it. There has never been anyone more deserving. He must be removed from office so that Nancy Pelosi can sign onto the ICC and we can then send Bush to the Hague. Democracy requires this of US, as well as humanity itself. We owe it to our children.

[Gregorian]

33. My first post in Feb of '03 was Impeach Bush.

I now believe that all of these posts on this subject are our means of determining the best course of action. And it's interesting to see the variety of stances. I'm surprised.

One thing is certain, investigations will happen.

[Swamp Rat]

23. IMPEACH!!! INDICT!!! IMPRISON!!!

[Martin Eden]

24. You left something out

The last anti-impeachment point is that we have more important things to deal with now. That’s an interesting thought Let’s look closer. What was the #1 issue of concern to voters across the country in last week’s elections? The war in Iraq. Survey after survey showed that the war in Iraq is increasingly unpopular. Republican candidates who recognized that voters associated President Bush with the war were not in a hurry to have George campaign for them.

Yes, Iraq was the #1 concern, and voters punished the Republicans because of it. However, their concern going forward is to extricate our troops from Iraq without leaving that country a major threat to our security. The midterm vote was more anti-Bush than pro-Democrat, which means that we have much to prove in order to build on the gains we've made.

What you left out is the question of how a push for impeachment might affect the prospects of the Democratic party in 2008.

The "blockage point" argument is that we need to remove Bush/Cheney in order to achieve the goal in Iraq, but seriously, what are the chances of a successful impeachment in the near-enough future to achieve real change before the end of the current presidential term? I think the chances are fairly slim.

I think Will Pitt had it right when he suggested that our approach should not be to push for impeachment. Rather, do the investigations that are the duty and responsibility of congressional oversight. If this exposes enough high crimes and misdemeanors, then impeachment will have the necessary public and political support.

I understand this approach -- investigations first -- is a given. However, the investigations must not be seen as contrived for the purpose of impeachment. There is a subtle yet important difference here, and how it is played out will seriously impact the electoral success of Democrats in 2008. If demands for impeachment are associated with the investigations from the beginning, it could poison the well for us.

[riderinthestorm]

29. I can appreciate the nuance you describe

regarding moving forward with investigations with impeachment overtones from the start.

BUT I believe that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's statement that impeachment is unequivocably "off the table" means that any investigations won't have consequences that mean something to this Admin or the rethugs in office who have facilitated the "blockage".

This isn't going to be Clinton redux where the "high crime" is lying about a blowjob. This Admin won't leave Iraq, won't ever honor the voters' demands for real Iraq solutions and/or withdrawal unless their crimes are exposed and the criminals are removed. It is our job, as the people, to participate in this process. This vote was anti-Bush. It's time to take that to it's logical conclusion.

I believe that impeachment will ultimately be a bi-partisan effort and the Dem chances for '08 are only enhanced by finally getting serious about the criminals that got us to Iraq, remove them, and begin to make real progress on getting out of Iraq.

If we don't investigate and impeach, we will never be out of Iraq. Not for 5 generations. We will never be rid of BFEE, or the Cheneys and Halliburtons and Bakers ad nauseum.

We don't know what our chances for success with this will be but it's the right thing to do. And I believe the American people, once they see the magnitude of the crimes, will join this (small and mostly on DU for the moment) chorus.

[Martin Eden]

47. The chances for a bipartisan effort at impeachment ...

... will be significantly reduced if the investigations are initiated as a push for impeachment. The way this needs to be played out is for impeachment to grow from the results of investigation.

IMO Bush/Cheney deserve impeachment more than any other executives in history, and I think it would be a terrible injustice to the American people for them to escape punishment for their crimes. However, it's very important how we go about this. We have to be smart politically, and the statements by Pelosi & Reed that impeachment is "off the table" may be necessary for the investigations to have the necessary support at the outset.

When the crimes are fully exposed, that paradigm is changed. Impeachment must be seen as necessary by a majority of the public and at least two thirds of the Senate (49 Dems, 2 Indies, and 16 Repubs). Right now there is nowhere near that much support for impeachment.

[H2O Man]

49. Malcolm X used to say

that it would be foolish to put a skull & cross-bones on a bottle of medicine that you expect people to take.

[riderinthestorm]

69. Thanks for a thoughtful response

We are very close in our positions. I believe that Waxman, Conyers and others have gathered significant files on impeachable crimes by this Admin. I believe they will proceed prudently and the process won't take as long nor be as convoluted as Clinton's (and unfortunately practice makes perfect. Since these players have already been through it once, the process will be smoother and faster the next time.)

Peace!

[annabanana]

25. This excellent essay did not touch on one critical aspect.

I think it is fair to say that the corporate media will howl, full throated, against any move toward impeachment. They will employ their traditional tools of ridicule, repetition and obfuscation to relegate those who would proceed to the "lunatic fringe".

Aside from a drumbeat of online trashcan lids, we have little defense for this weapon.

[kpete]

26. Investigate the lies...

Thats all I am asking - for now...kpete

[Individualist]

28. The anti-impeachment point that none dare mention

DLC is opposed to it, and the "let's not make waves" talking points are an attempt to divert attention from their neocon enabling motivation.

[Me.]

39. Bingo

DLC judgment has been so good for the dems in the past:sarcasm:

[Tatiana]

34. I'm reminded by how political honchos talk about the expectation of "genteel" behavior in the Senate

I think about the Democrats giving Lieberman a standing ovation.

Or suggestions that Democrats need to "work across the aisle."

In my opinion, the opportunity for conciliation, gentility, bipartisanship and the like has come and gone. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Why? Because it is commonly thought that the negotiations only reinforce the wicked beliefs and validate wrongful actions.

At some point, we must say this is "right" and we will not compromise or negotiate this position. We must leave Iraq to prevent more deaths. We must raise the minimum wage so people who work do not live in poverty. We must (RE!?)institute habeas corpus because our nation was founded on certain guaranteed rights and principles.

What happens, then, if those in opposition continue to force their "wrong" (evil, unjust, treasonous) policies and opinions on us? What can we do?

We remove them from office so they cannot continue to harm other citizens or this nation.

The removal of these people from office is usually a political process. We can vote such evildoers out of power. We can also impeach certain public servants and remove them from office in that way.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why people are content to just turn their heads and allow the bloodbath, murder, rape, torture, false imprisonment, and desecration of the Constitution to continue until... what? 2008? What if another election is stolen? What if another Republican is elected Commander-in-Chief?

What will we do then? Will we look back and think, we should have taken the opportunity to rid ourselves of those would-be leaders who have only loyalty to themselves and the power they wield? The American public has already gotten us on the right track by removing several threatening evildoers from office.

It is now time for us to finish what the American public has begun. Investigate, *educate* the American public regarding the threats to this nation, and then remove these people from office -- using whatever means are at our disposal, be it the justice system or the political one.

It's time we realize we are at a crisis point and we can no longer afford gentility.

[pat_k]

36. Impeachment IS Our Positive Agenda!

Posted Apr-22-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x997060">"IMPEACH BUSH" is a message of hope and a declaration of our power

. . .
Are the members of Congress that represent you and the Candidates you support looking for a way out of the quagmire in Iraq?

Step 1 is simple: Impeach Bush Cheney

Every day, more of our fellow citizens are coming to understand something that the people and leaders of other nations have long known -- a rogue regime seized the power of the American presidency on January 6th, 2001. The people of other nations can no longer appeal to good will of the American people because we surrendered the sovereignty of We the People.

As long as we leave governing power in the hands of men who are a law onto themselves, options that would be available to a legitimate American President will remain closed to us.

The conflict and chaos that is spreading inhumanity and destroying lives in the Middle East is not inevitable. We can transform resignation into hope right now by reasserting our collective sovereignty, forcing Bush and Cheney out of power, and turning them over to the Hague to answer for their war crimes.

If we restore legitimate leadership in the White House, the doors of possibility that are closed to the fascist war criminals will open

Legitimate American power can be transformed into a force for good overnight. We can commit our nation to the task of engaging the critical players (Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish blocs, ourselves, the EU, Turkey, Russia, China, the Arab League. . . ) and helping them to find solutions that can work because all the parties have a stake in making them work.

If, because of our complicity in the horrors committed by this regime our continued involvement is rejected, we must get out of the way, withdraw our troops, and begin to redeem ourselves by setting aside reparations that would be paid as negotiated milestones and conditions are met.

[independentpiney]

41. Your essays on this have been brilliant

and I'm in agreement with them in all the significant ideas you've put forward. The only thing I'm inclined to differ with in this essay is your observation that the pro-impeachment advocates seem more aware of the need for formal Congressional investigations than those who might be termed anti-impeachment. To the contrary for me, my objection to some of the pro-impeachment posts is that they seem to ignore the need for investigations first and call for impeachment petitions and mass e-mails to the House leaders-to-be NOW, before any investigations have begun.

Something I tend to believe is that Conyers and others have done enough legwork that the formal House investigations shouldn't take as long as Watergate or other earlier ones. With the wealth of research and accumulated evidence here at DU and other places on these internets, it would seem they can skip much of the preliminary work and quickly move to subpoenas of the key perpetrators.And when these investigations happen corporate media cannot ignore them and will not be able to spin them as a partisan fishing expedition. When the truth is exposed to the American public, they're going to be so outraged the demand for impeachment will be unstoppable.

[H2O Man]

48. One big difference

between the Watergate era and now is that Nixon was a heck of a lot smarter than George W. and Dick Cheney combined. He was able to squirm and stretch things out for a while .... but even he found out that you own your lies in life. They always come back to you. Always.

[robertpaulsen]

42. Three thank yous.

First of all, thank you for clarifying the historical inaccuracy behind the argument of Clinton's impeachment being revenge for Nixon. True, the Neo-con Nutters might seem to be aligned with Nixon, since they're both Republicans focused on power as an ends to itself by whatever means, legal or not. But ideologically, Nixon was practically liberal compared to Gingrich, it makes more sense to suggest they were out for revenge over the censure of Joe McCarthy.

Thank you also for pointing out the strawman argument of impeachments versus investigations. Nobody who is seriously studying the situation would argue that we could initiate impeachment proceedings without the formal investigative process that I have pointed out that Waxman intends to initiate. This is not just for maintaining accuracy among like minds, but to engage the public in an understanding of the genesis of this criminal enterprise, especially as it relates to Cheney and Halliburton. The goal is to build consensus so that the general public understands that high "borderline treasonous" crimes as opposed to trivial (lying about blowjob) misdemeanors.

Finally, thank you for pointing out something that previously only Olbermann has drawn attention to, and that is Bush talking about the control of oil on the weekend prior to the election. It was one of those rare moments where the truth slipped out in a time of desperation. Given the results of the election, I think it would be in our favor to keep using his own words against him as a talking point: this war cannot be maintained over fear that we may lose control of oil THAT DOES NOT BELONG TO US.

[AntiFascist]

85. Your last paragraph brought to mind an anti-impeachment point...

of the Democrats I had almost forgotten. Whether or not the oil belongs to us, even Jimmy Carter (no less) felt it was of paramount importance to maintain control of the Persian Gulf. I know that he is quoted as saying as much somewhere, of course his foreign oil dependent era was a bit different than what we're dealing with.

What we need is a radical change of world view, and we need it soon. Gore is someone who speaks in this direction. I fear that we have more than just the neocons and DLC to battle on this, we also have people like Sen. Feinstein who express their own US dominated world view. (I know that she is also DLC/Dino, but her intelligence-oriented view is pervasive)

[robertpaulsen]

101. I agree with you about Gore.

Not only has Gore gone on the record for the past 30 years regarding the connection between global warming and human consumption of non-renewable fossil fuels, but he is one of the few politicians of either major party in this country to go on the record stating his belief that the world is either at or near the peak of global oil production. Once we reach that peak, every year afterward the world will produce less oil, even as demand grows exponentially with overpopulation.

Gore understands better than most the radical change of world view you speak of: we cannot run the world on non-renewable energy, it is fatal for both the environment and the economy. I pray he runs for President in 2008, I would support him 100%.

[Senator]

43. "Missed it by that much." -- Maxwell Smart

While the logic of applying maximum leverage is unassailable, your identification of Cheney the weak point misses the mark.

There simply is no way to split the bushcheney baby, either on a reality or perception basis.

Trying to do so creates unnecessary complexity and would weaken the effort.

--

[H2O Man]

46. I suppose that if

someone is going to disagree with me, I prefer to have that someone to be able to quote Max Smart. While I do not agree with your position on the Cheney issue, I think it is good for you to continue to outline your position. And you can be sure I'm going to list 99 reasons to impeach Cheney.

[Senator]

56. There are as many reasons to impeach cheney as to impeach bush

But no reason I can see to impeach only cheney. It would only be perceived as a de facto impeachment of bush, only with the added confusion of "why not bush?"

Unless your intent is to provide some level of temporary exoneration to bush -- claiming that cheney is somehow worse or more responsible, I don't see any difference in how it would play out with the Euphemedia or the public.

There's no real position to outline, other than the self-defensive legal, moral, and patriotic imperative to impeach both these traitors and punish their minions immediately.

---

[many a good man]

44. Teachable moments

The Democratic Party leadership misses opportunity after opportunity to teach the public about the meaning of democracy and to explain our stance on the important issues of the day.

The confirmations of Supreme Court justices were missed opportunities. The assents given to other nominees has also diluted our message and leads the public to think everything is not all that bad. Investigations and impeachment are another opportunity that must not be missed.

Cheney is the cancer on the body politic. There are many others. There is only one way Congress can end the war (power of the purse) but it will never happen. Vigorous investigations and impeachment will teach the public many things and generate overwhelming support that will drown out the media puppets.

The only force in the world more powerful than the US military is public opinion.

[H2O Man]

45. I like that.

I tell my kids that opportunities only come once. If you miss it, another one may come along later that looks the same, feels the same, and might even smell similar. But it isn't the same one. That missed opportunity goes down the river of time, and you can't retrieve it.

[Disturbed]

52. "I have said that we should impeach Cheney."

I have posted that many times, as well. I don't think that would take six months; maybe three. I suspect that Rep. Waxman already has the documentation needed for the Articles of Impeachment to proceed.

[H2O Man]

53. "I came here

to be for all and with all, and what I do today in my solitude will be echoed Tomorrow by the multitude. What I say now with one heart will be said Tomorrow by thousands of hearts."
-- Kahlil Gibran

I think that what a few of us have been saying will catch on. I'm fully confident in the process.

[puebloknot]

71. Moving...

...and very hopeful. Thank you for that!

[focusfan]

50. he should be impeached

but if he is not maybe Congress can fix the laws Bush has
screwed up like Habeas Corpus.the Geneva convention.

[dogday]

51. Politically, it is a bad move.... Steps should be

taken to give back to the American People... Raise minimum wage, work on Universal Health Care, I would love to see them repeal of few laws, give money back to the vets... Just a few things... In the meantime I expect others will be investigating and subpoenas will be flying...

[mmonk]

54. .

:kick:

[westerebus]

55. Impeachment for FUN or PROFIT?

While many may argue with conviction on the merits of impeachment and the value in the act itself, what has already been is known. There were high crimes and complicity and fraud in great measure. Is it possible to investigate with haste,sure. Can you get enough senators to do their duty,maybe.
Rumsfield is gone. Bush 41 has been working to replace one set of actors with another in the Whitehouse. There is no consolation in the Democratic leadership's proclamation of "impeachment is off the table". Why is it off the table? The US military can not sustain the violence in Iraq for much longer. The american people voted against the war. We want our troops out as soon as possible. That's unity with purpose.
Baker/Hamilton are the means to an end. The problem is not how long we stay in Iraq. The concern is what will BushCheny do with IRAN!! Don't think for a moment they won't do it. So the question may be is it worth the FUN to see them squirm or do we PROFIT knowing WE won. And by all means let the investigations begin. We don't have to forgive or forget. And that will make them nuts!

[H2O Man]

57. "Now we are told

that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese.

"Each day, to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam, someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, 'the first President to lose a war.'

"We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
--Navy Lieutenant John Kerry's testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; April 22, 1971

[westerebus]

87. Right aisle,wrong church.

There will always be the "last man".
That we are there in the first place meant someone was to die.
There are no "backses",no "if I knew now",no "had the intel been". When the congress gave Bush the green light what did you think was going to happen? That we are still there is testement to the folly of Congress. Be it DEM or REP.
We are going to pull the troops out. But, it won't happen tommorrow.
Kerry wasn't the only vet in Washington that day in protest to that tragic war. Getting the troops home NOW is what the focus needs to be. Investigate and keep the presure on.

[Dystopian]

60. Thank You for posting this. K&R! eom

[AntiFascist]

61. Scaife was largely behind the impeachment of Clinton...

in case no one knows, he also funded PNAC. Many feel that the impeachment of Clinton was largely in response to turning down plans to attack Iraq. The DLC has also historically been aligned with very similar plans to those of PNAC. This should explain the larger motives behind the push for anti-impeachment.

[H2O Man]

62. I agree.

Thank you.

[mmonk]

63. Something's rotten but I don't know if that's it.

[AntiFascist]

65. What complicates the situation is...

both Clintons and Bushes may be complicit in drug running operations. Impeachment proceedings are likely to turn up some issues that had been swept under the rug in Iran-Contra. See Sibel Edmonds.

[mmonk]

67. Yes.

I've been keeping information on the Sibel situation.

[Imagevision]

66. Investigations/oversight, will be self serving...

[rosesaylavee]

68. Thanks for another

post to bookmark and refer back to.

I think you are very right that *co is not going to lay down and allow the DEM Congress make any moves in Iraq other than what they want to do. People are forgetting how much authority this last congress gave up to these mad men. Impeachment is the only way out of the constitutional crisis in which we find ourselves. This is but the lull before the storm, folks. Enjoy it while you can and get plenty of rest. 2007 will test us more than the election.

GREAT post. Many thanks for the education.

H - how about this bow tie? Or would you prefer a different color? :)

[stevedeshazer]

75. I have a theory about Nancy Pelosi's anti-impeachment statement

In the run-up to the recent election, if Leader Pelosi had betrayed any indication that she leaned toward impeachment proceedings against either Bush and/or Cheney, she would have been tarred and feathered and run out of town.

This certainly doesn't mean investigations won't happen. Investigations follow smoke; at times, they reveal fire. The presumptive Speaker will not move to quash the fire department, in this case one Rep. John Conyers.

Nancy Pelosi is no fool. She knows exactly what she is doing. This appears to me why she has gone out on a limb for Jack Murtha. At this point in American politics, Jack Murtha is nearly unassailable, despite attempts to go after him on old ABSCAM charges. You sure don't see the radical right going after Steny Hoyer!

The Iraq occupation is THE overriding issue of these times, and Pelosi is smart to advocate for Murtha as majority leader. Murtha has a limited shelf life; the guy is no spring chicken. Perhaps Mr. Hoyer will have his day; this day should belong to Murtha.

[KoKo]

77. Then we keep pressure on for INVESTIGATIONS by several

Committees. I know that Waxman has the groundwork done. He has letters that have never been answered by the Bushies in his files. He's thorough and dogged. Conyers will have much pressure to oppose his chairmanship...which is why I believe he had to put out a letter posted today on DU saying in very "couched language" that Impeachment wasn't on the table now. But, if he can retain his chairmanship of Judicial I feel the background he and his staffers already have filed away will help hearings go forward promptly.

However, I feel Impeachment is to good for Bush and want investigations to go on so that the documentation goes back to his father because that's where the ties are that investigations will lead to with Cheney. So, if we can prosecute them and send them to jail rather than Impeaching we might have some hope of not having parts of them "rise again" down the road in a new fashion.

I want the Bush Administration held collectively accountable for their crimes agains humanity. I want them prosecuted for those crimes and their robbing our tax dollars for their follies. I want a few Neo-Cons to go with them and I want our MSMedia to be hauled into it also.

I don't know how in two years we can remove these people when I want civil suits that will hold them accountable after the Congress has documented the crimes. Impeachment is too good for them...and too easy. I would like nothing more than for them to be gone as soon as possible...but not with pardons and not going lightly.

Keeping the pressure on for hearings and not letting up is all we can do. Is that what you are proposing? :shrug:

[stevedeshazer]

80. Hell, yes. The hearings, as you and I know, will reveal explosive corruption

When these hearings bear fruit, I'm not sure what will happen. But it surely won't be good news for Bush & Co.

[GOTV]

98. Yes, this is the way to do it....

... do investigations first and don't act as if we don't take the investigations seriously by announcing an impeachment before the investigations are done. (first we have a fair and impartial trial... and then we hang him)

We persuade the voters that the Bush admin must be punished and when they support impeachment by wide enough margins that 67 Senators will convict, only then do we go for impeachment.

[H2O Man]

84. The republican machine

attempted to make her into an issue to scare voters. If she had but once said, "I think impeachment is on the table," there would have been a thousand republican commercials that screamed that this was the central issue in the '06 elections.

[riderinthestorm]

99. I see your point here but I believe that WHEN impeachment

proceedings begin, Pelosi and Reid's credibility will be severely diminished with what will surely be painted as their big "lie". I believe they are going to need every ounce of credibility to be effective and this lie ("impeachment is off the table" with the implication that she/he really meant "for now") will take a big toll.

I would have liked to see Pelosi as a future candidate for VP or even Pres but this will be her "flip flop" moment, spun even further as being a "whimsical woman" who couldn't make up her mind.

Perhaps you know H2O Man, what was the context that Reid and Pelosi made these comments? I'm trying to figure out if these comments were made independently or were they somehow pressured into making them by the media?

[bleever]

76. Boil the frog

starting with room-temperature water.

[calimary]

100. Lordy, Lordy, BEST response on a really wonderful thread!

LOVE it! Sums up in a beautifully simple way what we have to do.

:yourock:

[calimary]

81. Wish I could recommend this one again...

But at least I can give it another KICK!!!

[bigtree]

82. that seems to be what Reid is contemplating

investigations and pressure

[democrank]

86. George W. Bush must be held accountable

not through red hot revenge but via a systematic search for the truth.

Did Bush come into office with a ready-made PNAC playbook for an invasion of Iraq? Who forged the Niger documents? What was the impact on the hunt for bin Laden after redeploying troops from Afghanistan to Iraq? Why were Iraqi jobs given to American businesses? How was the decision made to hire mercenaries from other countries and who do they answer to? Who ordered the secret torture planes? Why was Abu Gharib Commander, Brigadier General Janis Kapinski, not allowed in certain rooms at Abu Gharib? Who authorized our "embassy" in Baghdad? Have we used banned weaponry in Iraq? Who approved the program for paying journalists to write positive stories about our involvement in Iraq?
Who were the sources for the aluminum tube lies? The mobile weapons labs lies? The mushroom cloud lies? Why was Cheney in possession of Iraqi oilfield maps long before the war? Why does George Bush believe he can ignore all international laws without consequence? What about these 700+ signing statements? What`s the real story behind the warrantless wiretaps? On and on and on....

What a dangerous precedent if American voters choose to overlook any and all presidential abuses of our Constitution and our laws. Unless we set things right, we will pay for the decisions made by George W. Bush for years to come.

[frustrated_lefty]

88. What a well thought out post....

that was a joy to read. I'm in the anti-impeachment crowd...for the moment....and for the last reason you addressed. There simply are higher priority items to attend to first. Get our troops home. Ixnay on the signing statements. Correct all of the shitty policies which most affect those who can afford it least.

In the meantime, pursue investigations. Just don't use the "I" word yet. Let it rise up on its own throughout the land. Just be patient for a little bit longer.

The one point we disagree upon is that I seriously believe you over-estimate the power of the Bush administration to expand its authority or block much of anything at this moment in time.

I do agree Cheney is the weak link. But, he needs to be hit from three directions at once: falsifying or cherry-picking intel for war, profiteering through Halliburton, and outing Plame. The commercial could last 5 seconds: "He lied to get us into a war so he could make a buck, and then he stuck a knife in the backs of our sons and daughters." That, I think, will resonate even in the deepest recesses of the South.

-fl

[ms liberty]

89. George McGovern was on Democracy Now! yesterday with

Dennis Kucinich talking about the war. My first thought when that segment began was "damn! McGovern! I didn't put him on my list!" (referring to your second informal survey). He really is someone to admire and look up to, and we would do well to listen to him.

I agree with everything you've said in this essay. And I thank you for trying to turn our minds to more positive and thoughtful endeavors. Now is the time for us to redouble our efforts. Winning this election is only the beginning, IMHO. There's way too much work to do. While the diversity within our party is IMO a great strength, our fractiousness (if I may coin a term!) is often a drag on our energy and purpose.

K&R

[grizmaster]

90. superbly articulated

kicked, reced, and bookmarked

[GOTV]

92. I think you've completely mis charaterized the anti-revenge argument

I don't feel that the anti-revenge argument is the best argument for holding off impeachment either but when you say:

"You don’t wring your hands in anxiety, fearful that the criminal might get mad."

I doubt the majority of anti-revengers are afraid Bush will get mad at them. Their fear is more likely that the American people will not support the new Dem majorities because they will feel that the Dems are motivated by revenge and not motivated by the needs of the people.

My point is not to say they are right or wrong. My point is that you hurt your own argument when you misstate the argument of those that disagree with you.

[H2O Man]

93. I'll risk

"hurting (my) own argument" by telling the truth to the best of my ability.

[GOTV]

95. That's the point...

... if the given best of your ability, you still don't understand the opponents arguments, your own arguments are suspect.

Perhaps you should take another look at the opponents arguments and see if you haven't missed something that might have helped you tell a better truth.

[H2O Man]

96. No thank you. n/t

[GOTV]

94. Wrong - Corruption is #1 issue

You claim:

"What was the #1 issue of concern to voters across the country in last week’s elections? The war in Iraq."

That doesn't seem to be true:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/07/exit-polls-corruption/

Do you have any other exit polls that say otherwise?


"Survey after survey showed that the war in Iraq is increasingly unpopular."

True enough. But the bridges to nowhere and shielding congressional sexual predators are also unpopular. Perhaps more so according to exit polls"

[Mme. Defarge]

102. Bravo!

Brilliant as usual.