I had a nightmare. President Bush was impeached.

[pnwmom]

In November 2006, Democratic majorities swept into both houses of Congress. After taking office in January, the new Committee Chairs began to hold hearings by February, 2007. The Bush administration stonewalled, but damning information slowly but steadily came to light. In June, Cheney suddenly resigned due to “health issues.” Bush appointed John McCain as his new Vice President. By August 2007, new and revolting information brought the entire Bush administration to its knees. Bush was impeached in November, but resigned before a Senate trial could take place.

President John McCain was sworn into office in December, 2007, and appointed Gen. Colin Powell as his new Vice President. The next day McCain pardoned Bush, Cheney, and ten other top members of the Administration. The Congress continued its investigations, but the press ridiculed Congress for “beating a dead horse.” With everybody already pardoned, what was the point? Less than a year after President McCain was sworn into office, while he was still in the “honeymoon phase” of his relationship with a deeply enamoured press, he ran for reelection.

Pres. John McCain and V.P. Powell were reelected in 2008, after their campaign to “Bring Americans Together” won them strong support across the heartland.

All over the United States, Democrats drank anti-freeze and slit their wrists.


P.S. I hate, hate, hate to say this, but maybe we’d be better off if Bush weren’t impeached. Maybe it would be better to spend two years investigating everything under the sun, allowing Bush (with his then 10% approval rating) and his party to limp together into the election of 2008.

Are we really going to be better off if we give someone like McCain a headstart on 2008?

[bluestateguy]

1. Simila to what happened in Connecticut

John Rowland was corrupt and unpopular, and was driven from office, only to be replaced by the grandmotherly Jodi Rell, who is now one of the most popular governors in the country. She is a walk for winning a full term this year. Democrats would have been better off letting Rowland languish in office.

[pnwmom]

2. Bluestateguy, that's not what I wanted to hear. So my nightmare could

come true. I'm going to vomit.

But thanks for sharing.

:hi:

[Greeby]

4. Yeah, but the key difference is

A governor of any party can't invade and bomb another country

[pnwmom]

5. That is my main concern. But if we had majorities in both Houses,

we'd be better situated to stop him.

And John McCain is no peace-nik.

[lvx35]

3. I would LOVE Bush to be impeached but it won't happen.

His power is too great still...He just needs to make more moves to "come out of the closet" as far as what he really believes. we need the people to see him as what he is, and then there is a chance to end this shit for good. But no sooner, I see your point.

[pnwmom]

6. We need to have the rest of the country completely

understand what a traitor he his. We need them to be sick to death of Bush and his whole stinking party.

[rucky]

7. Good thing that's not how the chain of command works. n/t

[pnwmom]

8. That is EXACTLY how it works, thanks to the 25th Amendment.

If a Vice President resigns, the President gets to appoint the V.P.'s successor.

During the Nixon years, V.P. Spiro Agnew resigned. President Nixon appointed Gerald Ford as the new V.P. Then Watergate happened and Nixon resigned and newly elected President Ford pardoned him.

The chain of command would matter only if there were empty seats in both the President's and the Vice President's positions, for example, in the case of a national disaster.

I hope this doesn't ruin your day!

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

"On October 10, 1973, Agnew became the second Vice President to resign the office. Unlike John C. Calhoun, who resigned to take a seat in the Senate, Agnew resigned and then pleaded nolo contendere (no contest) to criminal charges of tax evasion and money laundering, part of a negotiated resolution to a scheme wherein he allegedly accepted $29,500 in bribes during his tenure as governor of Maryland. Agnew was fined $10,000 and put on three years' probation. He was later disbarred by the State of Maryland. His resignation triggered the first use of the 25th Amendment, as the vacancy prompted the appointment and confirmation of Gerald Ford as his successor. It remains one of only two times that the amendment has been employed to fill a Vice Presidential vacancy. (The other time was when Ford chose Nelson Rockefeller to succeed himself as Vice President.)"

[Guaranteed]

9. I've been saying this for awhile now.

There are other reasons, as well.

[pnwmom]

10. Such as?

Don't spare us. Please. Inquiring minds will want to know.

[beam me up scottie]

11. Wow.

When you have nightmares, you don't mess around.

Not that far fetched for Kentuckians, though.

Our governor was recently indicted.

When he was under investigation last year, he blanket pardoned his entire staff so that they couldn't be charged with any crimes that may have been discovered during the investigation.

The courts just decided that this was completely legal.

I don't even want to consider anyone pardoning the bush cabal for their crimes.

It's too horrible to contemplate.

[greenman3610]

12. after a year of democratic investigations

the GOP will be begging for an impeachment.

[Kahuna]

13. And THIS is why the Dems will not impeach bushco.

nt

[Senator]

14. This is the "Fear Itself" we always have (only) to fear

Sorry, but this is BY FAR our biggest problem on the left.

It's almost ironic to call ourselves the "reality-based community" because we base so many of our actions on hypothetical (i.e., faith-based) fears.

We need to snap out of this "battered syndrome." Stop caring about every detail of the actions of our (and our nation's) abusers.

It makes it impossible to think straight.

The choice is clear: Impeach or Appease.

It's long past crunch time. We are already "Torturers to the World." We need to begin the Redemption of Our National Soul.

We can't impeach for partisan advantage. That is why we MUST NOT wait until November. That make's it about politics, not principle.

We cannot remain complicit with this. And cannot allow our "leaders" to continue to remain complicit.

We must let the chips fall where they may.

There is no other moral or patriotic option.

--
www.january6th.org

[pnwmom]

15. Okay, Senator. But how do we impeach him before November, since

we don't have a majority in either house? Or any subpoena power?

And how does it benefit the country if impeaching George puts Jeb or John McCain or Condi Rice into office . . . what have we gained?

How will we redeem our national soul if the impeachment of a weakened President allows the neo-cons to solidify their power?

Wouldn't we just be carrying out the neo-cons best interests? Should we allow ourselves to be used that way?

[Senator]

26. Regretably, "Violence" is the answer

No, not physical violence.

We need only persuade a handful of Repubs that defending the constitution is also in their own best interests.

We need to offer them the option of Pres. Hastert now, or Pres. Pelosi later. Ask them if they want a Pres. Hillary to be able to do what these thugs have.

(BTW, this is already working: Grover Norquist said, "These are all the powers that you don't want Hillary Clinton to have.")

As to your other list of "fears," they're just rationalizations for inaction.

No one knows what the future will bring but we know what the circumstances are right now. Failure to act to reverse it makes us complicit. We and "our leaders" are currently offering tacit approval.

This is not a time for strategery, but for defensive action.

(Ironically, it would also be the best strategic move the Dems have made in decades -- but that's another story.)

--

[pnwmom]

27. How could we offer them the choice of Pres. Pelosi? If Bush was at risk

for impeachment, he'd get rid of Cheney (pardon him) and appoint a new V.P.. If Bush actually did get impeached, the new V.P. would then take his place as President and pardon Bush. There would be no President Hastert. No President Pelosi. That's a pipedream that too many D.U.ers are promulgating.

This is how it works under the 25th amendment, as many of us saw during the Nixon administration.

[Senator]

38. It's a threat, not an offer really

But we need to stop rearranging the furniture while the house burns down around us.

Impeachment is only the beginning. We need to reverse each and every action of this never-legitimate regime to return to morality.

They can stick in any lame duck they want. It will look like the desperate ploy that it is.

And pardons can only (perhaps) eliminate jail time. We can impeach/convict even after resignations or posthumously for that matter. The object is to set the record straight for history; to extract accountability for what was done unlawfully in our names.

We need to do these things for ourselves, our children, and our nation.

It's time we got on with it.

--

[pnwmom]

16. Why can't opening all the doors and windows, letting in the light,

and airing all our dirty laundry be the beginning of the Redemption of Our National Soul?

And just as the whole country can't stand to hear one more sordid detail, it's time to get ready for the 2008 elections.

[SheilaT]

17. Under your scenario

I'd say there's a far greater chance of the Democratic nominee being elected in 2008, especially if McCain pardoned all the Bush Administration felons. After all, that's exactly what happened when Ford pardoned Nixon. Carter was elected.

Picture, instead, McCain being the nominee (not as sitting president) against Hillary in 2008. The Vietnam War Hero, who's been busily mending fences with the Right, who's mistakenly seen as a liberal of some kind by Democrats (and Republicans) who ought to know better vs. Hillary, who is about the most polarizing candidate ever. Whose husband is portrayed as a draft dodger. And so on. McCain would win in a landslide. He'd also beat Kerry or Gore or any other Democrat who's normally mentioned as possible candidate.

Personally, I'd much rather that scenario, with McCain as the incumbent who pardoned the War Criminal President than running on a clean slate.

[pnwmom]

18. I hope you're right. The media made Ford into a joke. But we have

a different media now. They gush over John McCain.

[zann725]

19. I had quite a REAL dream wks. ago that JK WAS already Prez.

...standing in Oval Office...natural and comfortable as could be on the job.

It was one of those "real" dreams...that just stays with you.

Or perhaps it was alternative reality, or a break in time-space continuum. Or the future...sooner the better.

[pnwmom]

23. I guess we can all still hope.

[calimary]

20. No, we are NOT better off letting bush skate away unpunished.

NO, we are NOT better off.

In fact, I'd just as soon take that result your nightmare pictured, rather than let bush get away with this - NOT held to account, NOT held to answer for what he's done, NOT forced to pay for his crimes, NOT compelled to face justice?

What kind of lesson does that teach? That you have to consider what MIGHT happen, MAYBE someday in some POSSIBLE future, rather than doing the correct and just and moral thing NOW when the facts are the facts and the wreckage and crimes and death and carnage are there for all to see and the opportunity and the call of justice both are coming through loud and clear?

NO. We are NOT Better off!

Frankly, I'd rather risk it.

I mean, we've had almost six full years of Democrats capitulating, keeping their powder dry, pulling their punches, on the chance that MAYBE the enemy will play fair and that sometime soon in some POSSIBLE future, they'll give us a fair hearing and do their jobs in a nonpartisan fashion based on what's good for THE COUNTRY rather than for themselves and their own Party of Pirates. and how'd that work out?

Pulling our punches is what has gotten us into this mess. NO MORE!!!!

Besides, it sets a shitty precedent for our leaders NOT to be held accountable for EGREGIOUS, world-class crimes for the same of some political maneuverings sometime later on - at some vaporous MAYBE-moment that, frankly, may NEVER actually come. They'll point to bush for the next hundred years and say - well, this shit he pulled is okay because he was never called upon to answer for it or to pay penalties for it. So what are you getting all bent out of shape for? He got away with it. I expect to get away with it, too! That's the way you've set it up, after all. It is tantamount to saying what bush did was OKAY. Because there was no reckoning. No punishment? No accountability? No fuss about it? Well, must not be that big a deal then, huh?

Are you REALLY okay with sending a message like THAT? Well, if you are, then I hope you won't ever complain again about spineless leadership or Democratic weakness and flip-flopping.

We also encourage our children to learn that crime DOES pay, that cheaters DO prosper, and that nice guys finish LAST. I realize that reality IS indeed like that a lot of the time, but it only is IF WE ALLOW IT. I don't intend to roll over and play dead for some vague possibilities that might or might not happen a few years from now. This NEEDS TO BE CONFRONTED AND ADDRESSED NOW.

Or, hey, why agonize over it? Let's just let him get away with it, okay? Too much trouble to try and pursue justice, isn't it? Let's just shrug it off and go watch "American Idol."

Let's worry about '08 when it's closer to '08, okay? Let's deal with this, NOW, while we have a good shot at it. While the iron's hot and the passions and facts and momentum and public opinion are all OURS! We may NEVER get another chance.

Look, I'm sorry to rag on you personally. I don't mean to be so harsh. Well, actually, I DO. Harsh with the premise of the argument. NOT with you personally. I know you're looking out for what's best for us Dems in the long run. But to let this schmuck-ass get away with NO accountability and no facing the music is just NOT an option. I've had it up to here with the theories that all somehow find it necessary to let bush off the hook, for WHATEVER reason it is. Should we have let the Nuremburg war criminals skate because to drag them through that spectacle might not be tactically shrewd for some later election farther down the line? NO! And that same NO! holds now, too, IMO.

[pnwmom]

24. He'll be pardoned, if he resigns like Nixon did. Whatever Republican

was then President would just pardon him. He won't be punished.

But if he left office after 2008 with a Democrat taking his place, he could be prosecuted like any private citizen. If the next President had the stomach for it.

[cpass]

40. We probably are better off

what is justice. Besides do we really want a gov that feelsgood only? who wants that kind of life?

[pnwmom]

43. Hi cpass. Welcome to DU!

[Auntie Bush]

21. I had the same nightmare only I dreamed bush* gave the VP to Jebby.

[station agent]

22. Think along the same lines about Clinton and Gore in 98.

If Clinton had been removed do you think there's any chance Gore loses in 2000? I know we're not supoosed to say "loses", but you know what I mean.

[pnwmom]

25. It's not the same, though, because the mass media never stopped

attacking Clinton and Gore; but it gives an entirely different treatment to the Republicans, especially to John McCain.

[station agent]

45. Right, but Gore would have been better off trying to remain President

rather than become president.

[karynnj]

47. Also, it would have let Gore put Clinton behind him

After a year plus without Clinton, his behavior would be part of the past. The problem is that it didn't justify impeachment. If the Democrats voted for it for party reasons, they would have disgraced themselves. There would be no problem of a pardon.

[drm604]

28. We should impeach Bush and Cheney simultaneously

and make it clear that criminal charges will be pursued if Cheney resigns. If I recall, a President cannot pardon anyone for charges related to an impeachment. Whether or not this holds true for someone who resigns during impeachment proceedings would have to be tested in the courts.

[pnwmom]

31. We can't impeach them simultaneously

if Cheney resigns first, as he would. Then Bush would just pardon him and appoint someone else -- maybe even Jeb! -- and we would have our hands tied. (The most we could do is vote against confirming a particular successor, but John McCain would have no trouble in being confirmed.)

Impeachment isn't an overnight process. We couldn't just spring it on both of them unawares. They probably are already prepared to have Cheney resign right after the election if the Democrats win.

You're mistaken about pardons. A President can pardon anyone except himself. President Ford pardoned Nixon for any charges related to Watergate, even though Nixon resigned before any actual impeachment could take place.

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

"On September 8, 1974, a blanket pardon from President Gerald R. Ford, who served as Nixon's second vice president, effectively ended any possibility of indictment. The pardon was highly controversial and Nixon's critics claimed that the blanket pardon was quid pro quo for his resignation. No evidence of this "corrupt bargain" has ever been proven, and many modern historians dismiss any claims of overt collusion between the two men concerning the pardon. The pardon hurt Ford politically, and it was one of the major reasons cited for Ford's defeat in the election of 1976."

Our only hope is that the public would be angry with a successor President for pardoning Bush, but our mass media is light years away from the media we had in the 70's. They would probably go along with the administration's spinning it as "time to heal the country."

[drm604]

39. I'm pretty sure that impeachment proceedings...

can be launched simultaneously against both of them. I can't see why not. I also recall something about the President not being able to pardon someone undergoing impeachment. I can try to find where I saw that. Had impeachment proceedings actually started against Nixon when he resigned? I don't recall.

On Edit: See here re pardons and impeachment - http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/basis.html

"Article 2, Section 2 states:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
"

[pnwmom]

42. The problem is that we can't do it secretly, and that's the only

way we would succeed. Clinton could have resigned before impeachment proceedings began, but he decided to take his chances. He probably knew that the Senate would never find him guilty (not enough votes).

But if we attain majorities in the House and Senate, Cheney and Bush would be able to resign before any impeachment proceedings began. It's not something that happens overnight, like some Saturday night raid.

[yodermon]

29. Thanks, I've been saying this for some time now.

McCain will run as an incumbent in 08.

[pnwmom]

32. A truly depressing thought. And looking more and more possible to me.

[Doctor_J]

30. Be nice for the GOP to go into 2008 with an anchor around their

collective neck. I say win in November, retract the worst of his agaenda, then leave him to do nothing but get drunk for the last two years of his freeloading.

[pnwmom]

33. And to wallow in all the subpoenas that will be coming his way.

[LynneSin]

34. Bush might get impeached but probably will stay in office

Remember Clinton was impeached but the pro-impeachment folks could not find the 60 votes needed in order to remove him from office (I think it's 3/5 votes needed).

So knowing that a.)If we win control of the senate it'll be probably by 1 vote and b.) Most republicans would rather drink dog pee than to vote against their own - I think you're nightmare will stay in it's dreamlike form.

But you know, if Democrats win big in 2006, I could see Cheney stepping down for 'health' reasons and Bush appointing who the regime wants as their replacement

[pnwmom]

35. I bet they're already planning on the new V.P.

[Capn Sunshine]

36. the Main problem with your scenario:

Bush's ego would NEVER let him appoint a stronger more capable man as VP, especially a presidential contender, figuring this would increase the pressure for him to step down.

If anything, he'd appoint his lover, Condi Rice, who stands ZERO chance of getting the nomination after that.

Zero. Same with Colin Powell.

And we all know why.

[pnwmom]

37. I fervently hope that you're right.

[Strathos]

41. You have an excellent point.

Let him die a slow, painful end of his term instead of making it quick and easy.

[ariellyn]

44. That's not a nightmare. nt

[iconoclastNYC]

46. I disagree 100%

This really comes down to a constitutional issue.

We cannot allow our chief executive to break the supreme law of the land. They must be held accountable.

You don't defend the constitution only when it's politically expedient. You defend it always.

[Greyhound]

49. Yours is an excellent post, but this nightmare scenario is not only

possible, but is likely. OTOH, you are still right and it must be made clear that we will not let crimes against humanity stand unchallenged.
I wonder what the process to indict and prosecute in The Hague is?

[Dr Fate]

48. There is no end to the excuses we craft for not fighting Bush.

"The media will be mean to us"

"We must keep our powder dry for 'the fight to come'"

"The swing voters will pay attention for once in their lives and back lash"

"But if we fight, then other Republicans will fight us too"

"We will get our fingernails dirty"

etc, etc, etc.

If we spent as much time fighting Bush as we did making excuses for Democrats who are too frightened to do so, we would not be in this mess today.

I disagree with ANY excuse, no matter how well crafted, for not fighting Bush.

[AX10]

50. This is why I oppose impeachment.

A Democratic congress should assert it's power to curtail Bush. Use an unpopular Bush as a springboard into the 2008 elections.