Impeach Bush or Get Rid of the Impeachment Clause

[nosmokes]

i think he pretty much nails it. whats the point of having the right tool if you're not going to use it when it's needed? if we're gonna pull it out for a guy getting coughed off in the oval office, which is ceertainly bad judgement of the highest order, are we not going to use it when we have the most corrupt administration in living memory? otherwise just trash the damn thing along w/ the rest of the constitution shrubco has shredded and otherwise defiled during his reign.
--###--


original-baltimorechron

Impeach Bush or Get Rid of the Impeachment Clause

If this president is not to be impeached, Congress may as well amend the Constitution to remove the impeachment clause. It will, in that case, have become as much an anachronism as prohibition.


by Dave Lindorff

What is it about impeachment that has the Democratic Party leadership so frightened?

Talking with members of Congress, one hears the same refrain: “I know Bush and Cheney have committed impeachable crimes, but impeachment is a bad idea.”

The rationales offered are many, but all are either specious or based upon flawed reasoning. Let’s consider them separately:

Excuse one, offered by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is that impeachment would be a diversion from Democrats’ main goals of ending the Iraq War, and passing important legislation. The reality, of course, is that many of the administration’s impeachable acts relate directly to the war, so hearings would only build support for ending it. Meanwhile, with the slim majorities in both houses, Democrats cannot pass any significant progressive legislation that could survive a veto (or a presidential signing statement) and the record shows it.

Excuse two is that impeachment is divisive. This seems the height of absurdity. When voters handed Congress to the Democrats, they knew they were setting the stage for divided government. That was the whole point. Moreover, divisiveness in Washington has largely emanated from the White House, not from Congress. Anyhow, given administration intransigence on all the issues that matter to Democrats, they have no alternative but to take a stand.

Excuse three is a claim that the public opposes impeachment. This is simply wrong. The few straightforward scientific polls done on impeachment, such as one published by Newsweek last October, show a majority of Americans to want it. Furthermore, if Bush has committed impeachable acts, it is inappropriate for House members, all of whom swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, not to act.
~snip~
.
.
.
complete article here

[90-percent]

1. K&R

any post about anything that includes the two words "bush" and "impeachment" is always gonna get my vote.

bring 'em on!

-85% jimmy

[grytpype]

2. OH NOES!!!! IMPEACH MENT NOWWWW!!!!!

[postulater]

3. Either impeachment now or imprisonment later

would show the world that we can recognize when we have made a mistake and at least discipline the wrongdoer even if we can't repair the damage.

[Drum]

4. Seriously!

If it doesn't apply to this idiot, and yet brings down Clinton for an indiscretion, then it is indeed a flawed and capriciously applied law.

Recommended!! :thumbsup:

[trogdor]

16. Clinton was acquitted.

Bush would be acquitted too, and by a larger margin than Clinton was. Is this what you want our Congress to spend its time on? Seriously? Better to build the case for indictment later. I have more confidence in an impartial jury than I do 100 politicians in a room.

[pberq]

17. Right - so we just institutionalize a fascist dictatorship

If there is no impeachment, then all the dictatorial powers Bush has accumulated will continue.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070507/nichols

Impeachment Fever Rises
John Nichols

. . .Pelosi fears that impeachment would distract from the Democratic legislative agenda and provoke an electoral backlash. History suggests she is wrong: The Watergate Congress was highly efficient, and Democrats had one of their best years ever at the polls after pressuring Richard Nixon out of office. But aside from Dennis Kucinich, who is particularly fired up about Cheney's misdeeds, few in Congress have even hinted at bucking Pelosi's ban.

Outside Washington, however, an "impeachment from below" movement is gathering steam. The President's troop surge into Iraq and his refusal to consider exit strategies has caused many to react like GOP Senator Chuck Hagel, who has observed, "The President says...he's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him." Hagel's remarks go to the heart of the surge in interest in impeachment: It stems from Bush's ongoing disregard for the demands of the electorate, the Congress and the Constitution. Legitimate impeachment initiatives are organic responses to the realities of a moment rather than purely legal procedures. Talk of impeachment gains traction when it becomes clear that an Administration is unwilling to respect the system of checks and balances or the rule of law. This explains why the allegation that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, apparently with White House approval, pressured US Attorneys to politicize prosecutions has added so much fuel to the fire, with activists like Vermont's Dan DeWalt now saying, "I don't have any trouble getting people to agree that impeachment is necessary."

. . .

[tomp]

18. so you think we have to have all the votes for a convinction...

...lined up and in our pocket before we impeach? that borders on insanity and is devoid of principle.

[chknltl]

26. bush's sentiments exactly.. let this issue keep till later!

Much Much Later! In the meanwhile....

[Drum]

34. Wasn't it MLK

that said "Justice delayed is justice denied"?

There's a point where someone's just gotta say enough. We're not just waiting out the harvest in this country or in this world. People are perishing without reason from fighting and from poverty. The class system ($s vs no-$s) or gulf or whatever you may call it is outta control, and in so many ways the scales have swayed precipitously...especially those of justice and law.

Just what does another waiting strategy promise that is different from all of the other delays? Just what does it take to get us as a nation indignant enough to put on the brakes?

:mad:


EDIT: I heard it via Dr. King first, but the original quote is attributed to William Gladstone, British politician (1809 - 1898)

[klook]

39. Clinton was impeached.

And acquitted.

His reputation is permanently tarnished as a result.

That's the least that Bush and Cheney deserve.

[GOTV]

43. Yes, and I frequently rub Clinton's acquittal in embarrased conservative's faces....

... because they were shown to be totally wrong about Clinton's behavior.

His impeachment is one of the shining moments of his presidency, when his opponents charged, sensing his weakness, and ended up face first in the mud.

[OHdem10]

5. The Primary and pobably the main reason for not impeaching

is:

Historically no one has been successfully impeached by both houses--Senate
and House of Representatives. This weighs very heavily in Congress.

The 2ond reason is simple one. Although Bush's ratings are low on
a national basis: the Republican Party is still willing to stand
with him. Rank and File Republicans.

When Impeachment against Clinton went to the Senate, the Democratic
Party and some Indepents stood with him. This prevented the Senate
from voting Impeachment. Also some Republicans in Senate did
not believe Impeachment was appropriate.

From where I stand, the more Impeachment is yelled--the harder
the Repubs dig in.

I chalk it up to the ways of Washington and move on. Impeaching someone
is sort of like trying to ammend the Consitution.

[papau]

7. You are talking about removal - impeachment should be easy to accomplish - and is needed n/t

n/t

[JimDandy]

15. Impeachment is just bringing up the charges against Bush.

For the Democrats, overriding a veto is tough -- impeachment, though, would be easy.

[GOTV]

21. Yes, impeachment would be easy, and pointless, if not followed by conviction n/t

[Qutzupalotl]

36. Not pointless.

Every day that Congress does not impeach, it is giving tacit approval to this president's actions.

An impeachment, even without a conviction, would at least say for posterity that defrauding the country is not acceptable.

Think of the children... ;-)

[GOTV]

42. Maybe not pointless in that it would totally vindicate Bush to be found innocent of all charges....

... which is what would happen if the impeachment happened today. Better tacit approval that the direct explicit approval of acquittal.

> An impeachment, even without a conviction, would at least
> say for posterity that defrauding the country is not acceptable.

No, you see, it DOESN'T say that. An impeachment is an accusation. The trial happens in the Senate. If we acquit in the Senate it means that the activities of the Bush administration are in fact acceptable.

A failed impeachment means just the opposite of what you say.

[Qutzupalotl]

45. What is a "failed impeachment"?

If he's impeached, he will have a well-deserved asterisk by his name in the history books. THAT is why it is important. Future generations will hear about his machinations and wonder, How did he get away with it? Oh, he didn't, completely. At least someone tried to stop him, even if his own party circled the wagons. That means someone is paying attention.

[JimDandy]

46. My point was

take it one step at a time. Don't look at the goal -- removal -- as an overwhelming and un-doable task. The impeachment process and hearings will undoubtedly uncover even more ammunition to convince enough holdouts to actually vote for removal.

Pelosi keeps saying Dems were put in power because of the national anti-war sentiment. That was undoubtedly the one reason we all had -- Democrats, Republicans and Independents -- but from every Dem and independent I've talk to who voted, the main reason was to obtain the control of congress in order to impeach Bush.

That Pelosi is not pushing an impeachment agenda, which would not only take care of the Iraqi war problem, but also eliminate so many other problems, leads me to wonder if her real concern is that dirt on her, Feinstein and other corporate Dems would also be uncovered in the process or offered up by BushCo.

[papau]

6. K&R - excellent point! n/t

n/t

[liberal N proud]

8. If this regime isn't impeachable, none ever will be

But if this regime is successful, will there ever be anyone else that could be impeached?

[GOTV]

23. Any future regime will impeachable whenever the opposition party has a large enough majority ....

... in the house. Easy. Nothing to fear.

[Qutzupalotl]

37. ...AND has committed high crimes

like this one has, over and over.

[GOTV]

41. No need for high crimes actually since high crimes are whatever congress says they are.

Congress is the sole and final arbiter of what constitutes grounds for impeachment, which is only an accusation anyway.

[liberal renegade]

9. until someone

gives him a presidential hummer, impeachment is off the table......

[durtee librul]

10. Ok, I got it.....

someone wait until he passes out, then pose a hooker (preferably Jeff Gannon/Guckert) over his privates and take the pic, release it to the national enguirer for a front page edition and that's it. He's cooked. Oh and be sure and release the hotel receipt from Ms. Pickles Mayflower Hotel stay that night.

Done - - or as lil boots likes to say - - - Mission Accomplished.

[Gregorian]

11. The Hague will only take them if we impeach them first.

And like I have already said, anyone who impeached Clinton over an extra marital affair, but won't impeach for an illegal invasion should not be allowed to practice politics.

We need someone who can relate that in terms that exposes repubs in a way they cannot tolerate.

[OHdem10]

12. It is not easy unless he loses support in his own party

Just to impeach him in one house only causes a loss of time
and effort by our party . The country would be so angry
we would stand to lose election after election.

[Flatulo]

13. I'm less worried about this regime than the next one... we're setting a terrible precedent.

When future regimes look back on the excesses of this administration, they will be emboldened to push the envelope even further.

Democrat or Republican, I don't care... this kind of behavior and power-grabbing has to be discouraged in the Executive branch.

[rucky]

14. Impeachment is a no-brainer.

though I've heard some pretty wild rationalizations for why we shouldn't

[Lee_n_Tenn]

19. With each new IMPEACHABLE offense ....

I find it OFFENSIVE that our congress doesn't impeach these mafia dons

[jahyarain]

27. should have been "on the table" 01/27.

and welcome to DU.

[Lee_n_Tenn]

29. I have been a daily reader of DU since 2003 .. but thanks :) N/T

[sce56]

20. ITMFA!

Yes Impeach The MF Already!
How many more have to die?
How much lower can our country sink?
How much blood is on the hands of the politicians who allow this to continue?


If the congress did a decent job of investigating a possible impeachment the evidence will verify the need.


http://web.archive.org/web/20030402135135/

[emald]

22. this cabal is CRIMINAL

They have commited CRIMES, many of them. Impeachment is only a start. Imprisonment is required also. If Bushit is allowed to get away with his crimes and lies than this country is toast, gone the way of the edsel. Justice is a basic requirement of democracy, fairness it's twin sister. Bushit has done away with justice and fairness, sold in a capricious bid for historical renumeration. Lives have been lost, lots of them, because of lies and fabrications with malice a forethought.
IMPEACH IMPRISON NOW
damn dems better get on the ball with this or they will be seen as complicit in the crimes.

[volstork]

24. A resounding K&R

:kick:

[PATRICK]

25. Fear of failure, fear of success

In essence- fear, the legacy of the wimpiest grand dictator in world history.

Or just maybe, especially after Iran Contra the fizzle of the church hearings, the Congressional bodies piled before GOP stonewalls they just aren't up to it. The only successful removals of presidents- whether by gun or impeachment came from hate filled ravenous determination. Stop and think how Nixon came down despite big majorities on the courts and in the Congress. We like to think the normal course of law works, except in politics the club, the gatekeepers and the nice guys fall way short of the matching rigors and determination needed to bring down insinuated crooks. Corporate pirates, entrenched titled authorities, taboo and safe haven territory, few even want to lay siege storm the walls, knock one of their own black sheep.

Consider the scandals and the hearings. The language is off the side, muted, eloquently indignant- and ineffective. Untouched the harbored secrets, the press loyalty to this impotence and the legitimacy or glory of the GOP gang. The language peters out with posturings before the press, when upon examination- fall short of the determination commensurate to the crisis the crime, the vast implications. They grind exceeding slow indeed but to what purpose? To wear down the public ignorance without simply wearing down the public? To eventually bring something to justice less effectively than an appointed prosecutor who by the rules of the game the Congress really plays is also up against the wall, fizzling out. Unless that prosecutor is backed by judges and a rabid partisan Congress as with Clinton, impotence rules.

So we have two examples of Congressional theory. One, simply knowing it lacks any legitimacy but power itself, does what it wants, no horror too great, nothing sacred. The other, without really being liberal, has nearly succeeded in making moderation a second fantasy, a myth scorned rightly but in a warped sense by the destroyers of democracy. The position we are precariously in with the Democrats perhaps at least since WWII is the fair minded pragmatism, softness that could not possibly prevent a Hitler and a vicious public swing to the right- and end up being hated and scorned by all sides, both the victimizers and the victims. The large tent of blame settles over this strange impotence. The words echo and play off the hostile warped corporate media and the pays homage to the equally invaded and warped corporate clique and respect to the vandals because of the territory they have seized.

We have more examples of withstanding and suffering the slings and arrows but not so many in getting the archers and slinger's without a general war that has the populace cleaning up the woeful political failures of generations.

[LynneSin]

28. So you think 67 senators are going to vote for removal?

I truly believe that impeachment will happen - I also believe it'll happen because the republicans realize that this is a no-win situation that could create a massive removal of their kind from the senate & house and thus will be the ones who initiate the impeachment.

[nosmokes]

30. honestly? no. but

i think if there was any integrity on the hill, among both parties, and if they really put the country before party, held an honest and open impeachment hearing then there wouldn't be any other option but to impeach both cheney and bush. and i think if the republicans had the guts to do that they could probably win at least one house and maybe the WH in the elections, especially after the democrats pulled their bullshit w/ the free trade thing.

[The Wizard]

31. Don't expect Repubes

to violate Saint Ronnie's 11th Commandment about not speaking ill of other Repubes. Remember they're a cult, not a political party, much like the German Nazis.

[LynneSin]

40. It's something I hope so but in lieu of the impeachment now...

...we have to keep pushing these investigations. When the republicans in congress see that the Bush 'titanic' is sinking fast they'll man the lifeboats first in order to save their jobs. There are 21 repuke senators up for re-elections (with only like 12-13 democrats) - there is room for some serious damage in 2008 and some of those republicans are gonna want to save their collective hides

[GOTV]

44. Then impeachment = vindication for Bush and smug complaints of witch hunt from his supporters n/t

[Yukari Yakumo]

32. Anyone who says "Impeach Now!!!" or the like should be declared...

...absolutely brainless.

If Congress can't pass a military budget bill that's veto-proof, there's no way in hell they would Impeach and Remove Chimpy.

The Dems aren't frightened. They're smart. They know there are too many dead-enders on the other side of the isle who would never vote to impeach or remove. Impeachment will not succeed and will likely backfire.

[stimbox]

38. So what you're saying is...

That it is not politically expedient to impeach, so we should just forget about it and give these criminals a pass?
Doesn't that make those who will not stand up and stop the crimes accomplices to those crimes?
That's really great, coddling the f**kin' criminals. I'm so sick of this crap. I'd rather be called brainless than be called an enabler.

[Enthusiast]

47. You are so wrong!

Once all evidence of the high crimes commited by the Bush Administration is exposed to the light of day the vote to impeach will be close to unanimous. Republicans will be embarrassed by their previous words of praise, of the Bush Administration.

[lonestarnot]

33. ZACTLY!

[Flabbergasted]

35. K and R

[depakid]

48. Excuses are about all that the party leadership has offered

in opposing the far right for at least 6 years now... no matter how extreme the nominees or how egregious the legislation has been.

I don't expect that to change.