Reply #46: Impeachment is a DEFENSIVE act of absolute necessity. . .

[pat_k]

. . .to enforce the dictates of our Constitution and assert our sovereignty.

Impeaching to "support and defend" is for Congress. Failure to impeach is intolerable appeasement and surrender to fascism.

Retribution -- prosecution and punishment -- is for the Courts. Failure to turn them over to the Hague for prosecution for War Crimes is an intolerable breach our international compact and our commitment to the pursuit of justice.

Both are of absolute necessity.

There is no other authority -- only Our Congress; Our Voice -- that can unequivocally "draw the line." We can't leave it the next occupant of the Office of the President to "restore" the dictates of our Cosntitution (as Edwards and others promise). To hand over the power to "restore" is just the flip side of handing over the power to "nullify."

Those who know the truth of our national crisis have a moral obligation stand up for it -- to draw the line.

It doesn't matter if the minions of the offenders in the Senate refuse to remove. The truth exposes them for what they are. It is our job to speak the truth, accuse the outlaws in the White House, and expose their co-conspirators and minions in the Senate.

==============================

Re: your "knock yourself out" quip:

Failure to accuse is complicity. If too many Senators refuse to render a verdict consistent with the truth, that's their problem, not ours.

We elect Members of the House and Senate to do a job for us. We charge them with the duty to "support and defend." That's an oath to fight. It is not an oath to win. Our civic duty is to insist that they do the job we hired them to do. The most critical duty, the one the supersedes all others, is the duty is to stand and fight to defend the dictates of our Constitution with everything they've got, win or lose.

People take oaths to do the hard stuff for a reason. We know human frailty can lead us to act contrary to our principles. We take oaths so that when the going gets tough, we remember and act consistently with our values -- that we "just do it" because we made a public commitment to.

The lesson -- that we must stand up for ourselves and our most treasured principles whatever misguided or evil people may say or do -- is one that our heroes and champions teach us by example. Do we really want our leaders to take the path of appeasement? I sure hope not.

If the above doesn't prompt you to reevaluate your assertions, here's the more detailed response I am giving to those who defend the failure of Congress to impeach:

The beliefs that are invoked to defend the "off the table" edict are pervasive and damaging. They must be challenged if we are rescue ourselves and our nation from complicity with the outrages committed by the outlaws in the White House.

Many here on DU have been posting the moral, factual, and logical cases against the various arguments for quite a while. For example, the exchange that starts with http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x34242#34533">this Jun 14th post or one that starts with http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3146696#3147620">this Mar 16th post covers:

1. The simple truths and moral principles that make the fight to impeach Bush and Cheney a moral obligation for each and every Member of the House and Senate. (This case is the ultimate "bottom line.")


2. The facts that contradict the assertion that impeachment is a "legal process," when it is a purely political process.


3. The compelling evidence and confessions that make the case that Bush and Cheney are committing intolerable violations of our Constituiton. Offenses that go far beyond "impeachable." The outlaws built the cases against themselves. It's all public record. (e.g., The fact that the case for War Crimes has already been adjudicated by SCOTUS.)


4. The arguments that not only is continued "investigation" unnecessary, asserting the need to "investigate" undermines the simple and compelling cases that Bush and Cheney must be removed because the claim "we must investigate first" promotes the lie that "we don't have a case" when we do.


5. The reasons that "Can't Win; Won't Fight" is so insidious and politically destructive.


6. The events, polls, and examples from history that demonstrate the many ways that impeaching Bush and Cheney and fighting to remove them can do more to benefit the Democratic Party than anything they have done for decades.


7. The events, polls, and examples from history that demonstrate the many ways that FAILING to impeach Bush and Cheney will not just be devastating to the nation, it will damage the Democratic Party, and by extension every candidate who runs under the Democratic banner.


8. The analysis of the current dynamics and probable consequences of impeachment that support the conclusion that victory, either resignation or removal, is not only possible, it is likely.

Note: the entire case against the excuses for "off the table" that are so pervasive is embodied in items 1, 2, and 3. The remaining political and results oriented arguments are not essential since the moral obligation trumps (i.e., the duty we have charged Members of Congress with and the facts that trigger that duty). But the results-oriented cases -- that the impeachers can win; that impeachment will politically benefit the Democratic Party; that failure to impeach will damage them -- can make it easier for the political animals on the Hill to see what duty demands, and do it.

Since the details are laid out in the referenced exchanges, there is no reason to repeat them here. Dialog can be an effective way to make a case. The "real life" dialogs demonstrate what lobbying for impeachment is like. (It's kinda like a game of "whack a mole.")

To date, I haven't encountered an argument against impeachment that stands up, but if you believe to be factual and logical counter-arguments that have not already been covered in the referenced exchanges, I'm more than happy to respond.