Reply #39: Turning accusations of "partisan coup" against them is simple. . .

[pat_k]

The Dems just need to make sure the public knows that it is up to Bush and Cheney to "spare the nation" from the disruption of impeachment by doing the following:

1. Cheney resigns, Bush nominates new VP.
   
   The VP must be confirmed by both the House and Senate. Since we elected these folks, if they object to a nominee, that objection reflects our will.


2. Bush resigns, new VP is sworn in as President.


3. New President nominates a VP.
   
   Once again, the VP he/she nominates must be confirmed by both the House and Senate, and therefore meets with our approval (through the people who represent us).

The Democratic members of the Congress fighting for impeachment need to sincerely express their fervent hope that Bush and Cheney do this. They need to be clear that they want things to play out this way because they do not want the nation to have ANY Question about whether or not their motivation is partisan.

Of course, if Bush and Cheney choose to be forcibly removed through impeachment, then the succession We the People have established in the 25th amendment will govern, and the Democratic Speaker will take the office of the Presidency. Since this succession is in accordance with the laws we established, it is also a reflection of our will.

Pointing out the choices that are available to the criminals in the WH could be a very effective way to speed up the whole process. It shifts the accusations that "they are subjecting the nation to a long painful process" to Bush and Cheney.

Republicans are likely to be VERY motivated to pressure Bush and Cheney to take the resignation "exit strategy."

Republicans may not be willing to defend the indefensible for long. When Bush nullified McCain's anti-torture amendment (which passed with over 90 votes) he slapped them in the face. They would be hard pressed to defend Bush for abusing signing statements nullify the overwhelming will of the people in order to keep torture "on the table." Warner, Graham, McCain, and Collins (may have been others I'm not recalling) came out against the "War Criminals Protection Act." The "compromise" they got was not much of one, it just shifted the responsibility for actually approving torture to Bush (as opposed to approving it themselves and becoming War Criminals). Specter dismissed the WH defense of the criminal surveillance program as absurd. There are some other "rational" Republicans (Snowe, Hagel, and Lugar).

Repubs will certainly try the "Un-Patriotic to attack the President in War time" bit (the only "attack" on impeachment we have heard out of them) but that doesn't go far if Repubs aren't willing to defend against the indefensible charges (which they aren't even doing now).

Bush and Cheney are an albatross that many Republicans would be happy to get rid of.

An as long as Democratic leaders accuse in strong and clear language (no more hiding truth in euphemism) "debates" about the charges will be the nightly fare on every news-entertainment show. Debates about:

• Whether or not Bush and Cheney's claim to have a "get out of jail free" card (unitary authoritarian executive) are absurd;


• Whether or not Bush and Cheney confess to high crimes every time they invoke the "unitary" fig leaf;


• Whether or not Bush and Co abused power to terrorize the nation into a criminal war of aggression. (No amount of "stretching" can support the notion that Iraq had the capability to drop a nuclear bomb anywhere within the United States -- not in 45 minutes; not in a year; not in 5 years.);


• Whether or not forcing through the War Criminals Protection Act demonstrates consciousness of guilt.


• Whether or not they should be turned over to the Hague, given that SCOTUS declared them to be War Criminals in Hamdam.

When the Democratic leadership gets serious about impeachment, Repubs may have Bush and Cheney out within a week.