George McGovern: "Bush is much more impeachable than Nixon was"

[WI_DEM]

George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic nominee for president is in Madison, WI today and held an interview with the Capital Times:

"There is no question in my mind that Cheney has committed impeachable offenses. So has George Bush. Bush is much more impeachable than Richard Nixon was. That's been clear for some time. There does not seem to be much sentiment in congress for impeachment, but around the country people are fed up with this administration...I think this is the most lawless administration we've ever had...I'd far rather have Nixon in the WH than those two fella we got now."

McGovern says that if Cheney had any respect for the constitution "he would resign."

read complete interview (no registration required)

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/index.php?ntid=121907

[Richard Steele]

1. George McGovern is a god-blessed National Treasure. Recommended.

[Parisle]

6. Agreed,....

--- I recently caught him on an NPR radio interview. Smart countries listen to their elders.

[jwirr]

13. I couldn't have said it better.

[WI_DEM]

17. So true. It seems that often the best man is the one who doesn't become president.

[tom_paine]

21. So very well said.

:kick:

[MrModerate]

2. If impeachment were a legal process, maybe so . . .

But since it's a political process, I don't think so. Too complicated, and too wasteful of the slender Dem majority that should be spent on more substantial things.

History will impeach Bush -- we don't need to. We just need to keep him from torching the planet over the next 2 years.

[Throwing Stones]

3. The only way to stop them

Is to impeach them. Impeachment is not a political decision, it is a constitutional obligation of Congress to remove criminals from office.

[MrModerate]

7. And what's congress' track record . . .

on fulfilling its constitutional obligations lately?

And while I agree that Bush, et al, are criminals, many politicians -- with all sincerity -- do not. So that makes it a political decision. And not only a decision, but a process. And a damned messy, imprecise, lengthy, and uncertain one. If Abu Ghraib didn't precipitate immediate impeachment proceedings, if warrantless wiretaps didn't, nothing is going to cause the impeachment sword to slash out and behead him just like that. It'd take a year or longer. We need to spend that year on something productive.

Right now I think Bush believes he can ride this out and stay out of jail. I don't think he believes he can attack Iran or do much else for the rest of his term. He's in holding-on mode, and we need to exploit that.

Send him to the Hague in February 2009.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

11. The Hague sounds good to me, too. eom

[Usrename]

57. What is more productive than discrediting the Bush Doctrine?

Is there anything that could be better for our country, better for the world, than discrediting the entire neocon message?

Is there a better way to discredit them, other than through a critical process of examination that has real consequences, beginning with impeachment?

Or perhaps we shouldn't ever discuss such things, since there are some Democratic leaders that wholeheartedly support the Bush Doctrine, and believe that there is a great (personal) benefit to be had from America's struggle for empire.

Is that the real problem with trying to root out and prevent illegal activity? Too many folks stand to benefit from it? Is that where we are a people?

[MrModerate]

58. Is impeachment the proper mechanism for discrediting Bush?

There are at least two sides here: The Bush administration's demonstrably illegal acts (election theft, phony justifications for war, lawless surveillance, etc., etc.) and their foolish, unAmerican, and wicked political choices (preventive war, abrogation of government responsibility to rein in corporate misbehavior, failed transfer of government responsibilities to the private sector, the unitary executive, etc., etc.).

This second part is what I'd call the Bush doctrine and that's what needs to be repudiated in a comprehensive way. True crimes can't be publically supported even by their authors -- no Republican is going to acknowledge fraud, lies, and lawlessness as legitimate exercises of power (even if they engage in such acts every day).

My point is that going after the crimes at this point will take so much political energy that at the end of the process (which could be pretty close to January 2009), so many other issues will have gone by the wayside that we will have effectively wasted the two remaining years of the Bush presidency, during which his relative weakness may allow restoration and repair operations to start.

He'll still be indictable after January 2009; history will not give him a pass; he's wrecked many of the dangerous engines that put him in office; and now's the time to move toward getting things done that will a) help the country generally, b) help elect democrats (or at least non-Republicans) in 2008, and c) continue the trend of marginalizing rightwing nuttery.

Would I like to see him in the docket? You bet. Am I willing to forgo that pleasure for more substantive gain? Yep.

[sobanos]

64. Is impeachment the proper mechanism for discrediting Bush?

Hearings and subsequent impeachment proceedings will shine a bright light on the depth and breadth of what the Bush administration has done for the past 6 years---- for all the country to see.

And it will hold the administration accountable for its actions, as the process restores at least some measure of dignity to our political processes.

For, what kind of message does it send to allow ANYONE to get away with what these bastards apparently have simply because it sounds like congress might actually have to work a few extra hours per week?

So, you see--- it's not simply about "discrediting" Bush. He's already lost his credibility for the most part.

I's about sending an important message to ALL our elected officials--- that they WILL be held accountable.

And, it's about taking the first steps toward healing a nation.

[sobanos]

63. "And what's congress' track record . . .

on fulfilling its constitutional obligations lately?"

You appear to be forgetting that a GOP-controlled congress was responsible for conducting NO oversight on the executive branch for the past 6 years.

[MrModerate]

71. No, I'm just observing a less-than-stalwart . . .

Dem-controlled congress being very very careful not to appear too radical or out of touch with the people. Might be politically smart, but it's pretty aggravating.

[sobanos]

75. Your observations are flawed

The Dems have only had ANY real power for the past couple of months.

They're moving forward, but it's gonna take some time to undo the myriad of GOP fvckups over the past 6 years.

[MrModerate]

79. Certainly the myriad of fuckups will be a challenge . . .

A bit of backbone would go a long way, but I don't see much of that. Also, Dem power is very tenuous, especially in the Senate, where Lieberman is acting the Republican-manqué. One reason I'm looking forward to 2008 is that I expect Dems to take even more Senate seats (a total of 61 would be nice), and Lieberman can be told to go pound sand.

[sobanos]

82. Absolutely.......... but, it all still needs to be investigated

Even though the myriad of fuckups will be a challenge.

[sobanos]

83. A bit of backbone would go a long way, but I don't see much of that.

True...........

But, I don't think it will show much "backbone" if the Democratically controlled congress lets him skate on everything either.

I mean--- what kind of message does THAT send?

That if a president is gonna screw the country, then he may as well screw it MONUMENTALLY so that the congress thinks that it's too much work to hold him accountable?

I think that is crap.

[Yukari Yakumo]

25. Yes it is a political decision.

And in order to make any good on impeachment, we'd have to rely on there being less than 24 Repukes without shame. I honestly think that, no matter how solidly the case may be, there are at least 24 who'd side with the Chimp.

Also, we know LIEberman would take Chimpy's side no matter what too.

[Throwing Stones]

27. The end result may be siding with *

Aya,
You're probably right that the Senate wouldn't convict, but the House's job is to bring a case to the Senate.

I understand that prosecuters often choose not to bring a case in front of a jury because they believe the jury will not convict,
but there are certain crimes that must be tried regardless of the prosecuter's personal expectations of the outcome.

This is one of them.

Bill avoided conviction in the Senate primarily along party lines. If his crime had actually been meaningful more senators would
have faced opposition back home. Here, though, we have a jury that has about 30% approval ratings back home. The political decision to
convict or acquit, on an issue that actually affects all of us, might skew the outcome.

However, even if the Senate were to acquit along party lines, at least the House would have fulfilled its obligation to bring the case.



"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

US Const. Art. II Sec. 4

Dan


The operative word is SHALL

[orleans]

43. yeah, but try explaining that to all those fucking republicans sitting

in the senate. and good luck.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

19. I DON'T CARE. Moreover, as a "political process", impeachment,...

,...would, in my opinion, do more to unite this divided nation than any other action.

This nation would REGAIN its honor and integrity and hope IF justice is pursued via impeachment and any/all/other proceedings towards accountability and the "RULE OF LAW" enforced against those who have abused their political power.

I totally reject what I perceive as an unforgiveably weak position that proceedings holding this administration's breaches of their oathes to office is too politically risky or will cause too much damage to the nation, etc etc etc. I think that's just,...bullshit!!!!

I believe the American people are YEARNING for a show of "justice at work" and representatives courageous enough to take a strong stand FOR American principles and AGAINST those who have essentially spat upon the Constitution and our ideals. The "safe" place/position in a political system ABHORED by the American is simply,...well, stupid!!!

It's time to take the "RISK" of BEING HONORABLE, WITH INTEGRITY and go forth with cleaning the houses of this country.

[WI_DEM]

20. Welcome to DU!!!

:hi:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

36. Thanx *smile*. The RW took the risk of being grossly inhumane,...

,...why can't the Dems take the risk of being grossly HUMANE and stand up to these barbaric bullies?

I just do not get the hesitation, especially at this most opportune moment, to take the bullies down. Well, a systemic dysfunction is difficult to change, I guess. But, change only happens when the dysfunction is confronted, head-ON.

[orleans]

44. "head-ON" ?

[ProudDad]

28. The notion of impeachment

ALREADY unites the majority:

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2
http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3528

And don't forget to DU this one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

[JanMichael]

35. Well damned said and stated!

Mealy mouthed collaborators, enablers, "nice; no rocka the boata"types, no longer needed!

[Richard Steele]

46. Nothing like a subtle, nuanced debut, eh? Welcome to DU, Sick3nT !

[MrModerate]

54. Some Americans are eager to take this risk . . .

But most are not. Many think impeachment is too much of a strain on the national fabric; on the other hand, many think the Clinton impeachment so devalued the process that it doesn't matter any more; most don't think about it at all.

You get a groundswell, and I'll march with the pro-impeachment forces. As of today, the cost in lost opportunity would be too high.

Not bullshit, just politics.

[sobanos]

60. MOST people aren't eager to take this so-called "risk" you speak of????

Where are you getting your information from?

And when you respond---- at least TRY to make a substantive case for this alleged "risk" you speak of.......... thus far, your "case" has been weak.

I mean "a strain on the national fabric"?????

What in the hell kind of "strain on the national fabric" do you suppose that the Bush administration is responsible for? And how would NOT holding our elected officials accountable "strengthen" this fabric you speak of?

I’ll tell you what……………. the "strain on the national fabric" that will result from NOT holding hearings leading to impeachment will be tremendous.

For, how will a nation’s people reconcile the fact that a president was recently impeached for “lying under oath about sex” with the notion that we shouldn’t conduct similar proceedings for a president (and vice president) that has likely committed exponentially more egregious actions????

I’m sorry, but your whole line of reasoning appears to be nonsense…………

[MrModerate]

72. My case is based on observation . . .

Nationally: Tepid to no interest in impeachment among the media; leading Dems effectively taking the issue off the table prior to the start of the current congress; the 2008 presidential sweeps already drowning out other political news (not entirely, of course, but dampening it to be sure); pro-impeachment organizations fading.

Locally: No "water cooler" interest whatsoever; local papers (I've sampled Maryland, DC, and Texas papers over the last few weeks) silent on the issue; no perceptible groundswell whatsoever.

I was alive during the Nixon years. The tension -- even among the avowedly nonpolitical -- was palpable as the Wategate scandal ratcheted up and up. The country wanted that sonuvabitch gone and it was clear that had impeachment been brought, he would have been convicted.

I see none of that today. Political junkies and the blogosphere are fulminating (as always) but the bulk of the people don't even have impeachment on their radar screens.

[sobanos]

74. I see.............

Your case is based on observation?

In other words, your entire set of claims is based upon your personal "gut feeling". Based upon nothing factual or information otherwise verifiable by anyone else.

Got it..........

[MrModerate]

76. Well, yeah . . .

I took my observations of reality from a variety of complementary sources and made a personal assessment of what they added up to. My bad.

You have something better?

[sobanos]

78. Yep

Yes...... YOUR "reality".

Got it.

[Norquist Nemesis]

70. Bravo and very well said!!!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

Welcome to DU!

[ProudDad]

26. Why not do both???

The Impeachment process will be highly instrumental in tying his hands over the next 1.8 years.


On Edit: You do know that with gwbush's veto and the lack of even a majority of progressives in the Congress, we ain't gonna get much of anything in the way of legislation over the next 1.8 years. Might as well tie the bastards up...

[sobanos]

61. Why not do both??? EXACTLY!!

This bullcrap notion that congress has so much on it's plate that it can't find the time and resources to investigate these SERIOUS matters is laughable.

[sobanos]

62. "Too complicated, and too wasteful....................

......of the slender Dem majority that should be spent on more substantial things."??????

Utter hogwash.

[MrModerate]

73. Well said! A substantive and thoughtful response!

Perhaps you'd care to expand on that?

[sobanos]

77. Substantive? You should talk!

I gave up trying to reason with you after I read more of your posts......... a string of baseless assertions followed by "observations" you've made and "conclusions" you've drawn based upon said assertions.

[MrModerate]

80. "Tried to reason with me"?

I must have missed that part.

But just to get this straight -- you reject observation and both deductive and inductive reasoning? What does that leave you? Pure passion?

[sobanos]

81. See post #64

See post #64.

A pretty thoughtful and well-reasoned post......... and you chose to ignore it.

You've made many claims (i.e. that delving into the administration's wrongdoings would be a "waste of time", etc), and then you've backed them up with little or no sound reasoning.

That seems to be your "schtick"..........

[MrModerate]

85. Post 64 is a "would-coulda-shoulda" post

Should Bush be impeached? Sure, and have his butt whacked in the Hague to boot.

Could he be impeached? Maybe, if House Dems united behind the idea. It'd founder in the Senate, though (and that's not me talking, but the Republicans who've said they'll quash any impeachment that comes to them).

Should he? You maintain that it would be good for the country's soul to have his crimes laid out before the world. Maybe so.

But at what cost? At the cost of getting NOTHING ELSE DONE for two years? At the cost of wrecking Dem chances in 2008 because of public disgust for the whole process? At the cost of being unable to respond to a million other challenges because of focus on this one goal? At the cost of having a wounded animal -- who's already proved his viciousness under attack -- retreating to the White House and planning his revenge?

Listen to the people (look out, I'm recommending "observation" again) and see if your high dudgeon is reflected in what they're saying. Is there a hunger for impeachment out there? Enough to create nixonian conditions?

I don't think so. I've told you why I've come to this conclusion. My conclusion is not unfounded, but instead based on a testing of the political winds -- which anyone paying attention to the media, the blogosphere, and their fellow citizens can do.

As far as I'm concerned, a) it ain't gonna happen and b) trying would be too costly. Doesn't mean that I don't hate Bush like poison. I wouldn't have been posting on this board for years if I didn't share some of your dudgeon. But I want Dems to focus on fixing some of the things Bush has wrecked and maybe getting a little of the progressive agenda out there over the next few years.

[sobanos]

86. WOW

What a bunch of nonsense you spew.

I fully explained why I believe that hearings (likely leading to impeachment) are not a waste of time.

Nothing in your wordy post counters what I said.

You keep alluding to some unknown quantities of "cost" or "risk" associated with taking this course, but if either of our posts is truly "speculative with no solid basis"--- it most certainly is yours.

[MrModerate]

88. Fine. You think it's practical . . .

And worth doing.

I don't.

You seem to think that being on the side of the angels is all that's required to prevail.

I disagree.

Impeachment would turn into a circus, create a muddy swarm of lies, half truths and countercharges, strain the national fabric (yep, I said that again), and disgust the American people who'd end up loathing politics even more than they do now, leading to even less engagement with the electoral process and a net loss for everybody. Dems are simply not strong enough to sweep aside the Republican defenses against such an assault. And they would bring every gun they've got to bear. This wouldn't be like the Clinton impeachment, which struck most people as rather silly and demeaning to all involved; it would be all-out war.

That's a prediction. Who's right? You or me?

Let's see where we are in a year.

[sobanos]

89. Predictions? Who cares?

You said: "Fine. You think it's practical . . .
And worth doing. I don't."

Then we will agree to disagree.

Your predictions of what such a process "would turn in to" simply aren't persuasive enough.

[sobanos]

87. You said:

"But I want Dems to focus on fixing some of the things Bush has wrecked and maybe getting a little of the progressive agenda out there over the next few years."


And that's great.

But, I completely reject the implication that congress can't do both.

[porphyrian]

4. Uh, yeah. - n/t

[enid602]

5. 'impeachable' . . .

The very word has such a nice, hopeful ring to it.

[Turbineguy]

8. He's right about Nixon

Nixon only did the Watergate Coverup and at the end of the day, the break-in was more of a stupid act than a crime. Nobody died. Even Liddy who invited them to shoot him on the street did not die.

The Bush list would go on for some time.

Bush and Cheney need some time in the Cooler.

[ProudDad]

31. Please don't forget the

over 30,000 American dead, a million and a half Vietnamese, more millions in Cambodia and Laos and the hundreds U.S. citizens murdered on the streets and in the colleges of the United States...

Nixon's victims.... Plenty died...

As a former target of Cointelpro back then, I don't forget...


I agree that bush is more impeachable if the will is there to do it since the fascist shrub's crimes are a matter of public record.

Nixon TRIED to be a little more sneaky and many of the crimes he and bush have committed weren't strictly "illegal" under Nixon but are now!



At least, I am comforted that bush, cheney, wolfowitz, gonzales, rumsfeld and the rest of that murderous crew had better NOT try to visit Europe after they leave office.

They'll be arrested and tried as war criminals if they do... http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/home.asp

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. Sometimes someone says something that makes me smile.

"Bush is much more impeachable than Nixon was"

sigh.

[Richard Steele]

40. "By today's standards, Richard Nixon governed as a moderate liberal." He said that, too!

[driver8]

10. Cheney has no respect for the Constitution.

Neither does Bush and neither does Gonzo...that's the problem.

The Constitution is simply a piece of paper to them...no more valuable than yesterday's Washington Post.

[bdamomma]

66. they have no respect for the LAWS.

and they are not above the law. Geez, I can't wait to march on March 17th.

[Leilani]

12. Nixon was a Prince

compared to these guys.

[orleans]

45. nixon was an asshole

and these guys are super assholes

nixon was no

[scarletwoman]

14. "I feel an obligation to speak up when I see these flagrant things happen," says McGovern.

"I can't be silent when President Bush and Vice President Cheney choose to disregard the Constitution. Maybe if there were other people in the White House, I could slow down a little. But I can't do that as long as this administration is in charge."

George McGovern is a national treasure! (Also, the first presidential candidate I ever voted for.) Long life to you, sir!

Thanks very much for posting this, WI_DEM -- voted to recommend.

sw

[Disturbed]

15. "if Cheney had any respect for the constitution "he would resign."

Cheney has no respect for anything except $$$$!

If Congress had any courage, Impeachment of Bush and Cheney already be ongoing.

[EFerrari]

16. Impeach the Decider.

www.impeach07.org

:kick:

[Kurovski]

18. Thank you Mr. George McGovern for saying it "out loud."

K&R.

[AzDar]

22. Who would've thunk it ...the Country waxing nostalgic about Nixon?

George McGovern is such a lovely man. I saw him on one of the news channels a few months ago, and at the end of his interview I blew a kiss to the teevee.. my kids looked at me like I was a loony.

[WI_DEM]

24. Junior makes Nixon look like a statesman

[burythehatchet]

23. D-frickin-uh

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. The need is there. The political will isn't.

[ProudDad]

32. Ah, but political will is building

don't give up hope!

[truedelphi]

30. Pat Buchannan disagrees with this notion - So do I

I greatly admire mcGovern BUT let us examine the differences between the two events - Nixon and his impeachment and the possibility of a Bush impeachment.

The main difference between the Nixon impeachment and the Bush impeachment is that
those in Congress had not taken a stand on the Wartergate Burglary. They did not vote in the notion of pulling off a burglary at that infamous hotel. They knew nothing about the break-in until the hearings.

One of the main contentions in the notion of Impeaching Bush is the fact of the Iraq war.

So many in Congress AGREED to this war. THEY VOTED FOR IT! They have not and will not apologize -
and even those who do apologize do so in a somewhat mamby pamby way, and then they ADD THAT THEY NOW WANT WAR WITH IRAN!

They still refuse to say they are sorry.

I just do not see any of those who voted the IWR in to now want to face the consequences. Are they not complicit?!?

Jeez, as far as I am concerned - they can admit their complicity as long as they agree to not have any more wars for like a hundred years.

[ProudDad]

33. The war is the least of his offenses

The outing of a CIA agent for political gain
The LIES that came before the war -- Cooking the books
Wiretapping American Citizens against FISA
Torture

The list is very long...

Again, impeachment is a political tool. I don't expect his removal through an impeachment process.

I hope for an impeachment process to bring the evidence of the CRIMES OF THE RIGHT-WING CABAL to the attention of the MSM and then to the (few) American people who think and vote.

I hope for an impeachment process to render the rest of their ill-begotten reign impotent.

I hope for an impeachment process to make it impossible to elect another repuke for at least 20 years!!!

These are just a few very good reasons to support Rep. Conyers in his investigations.

And for the impatient, of course Rep. Conyers can't voice the "I" word just yet. He has to build the case. He has begun building the case. Our job is to tell our friends, relatives, co-workers and neighbors all about it...

--------------------------------

On Edit: the Watergate Burglary was NOT one of the articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Check it out:

Article 1: Covering UP the burglary and other acts.
Article 2: Sicking the IRS on political opponents
Article 3: Refusing to give Congress the papers and tapes thereby
giving the appearance of and acting as a Unitary Presidency

http://watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles.shtml

Here are my bush analogues to the Nixon Articles of Impeachment:

Article 1: Manufacturing "evidence" and lying to the American people
about his previously made decision to invade Iraq
Article 2: Illegal Wiretapping and other surveillance of American Citizens
Article 3: Stonewalling EVERY request for information from Congress.
Lying to Congress and suborning others to lie to Congress.

[A Simple Game]

37. "Again, impeachment is a political tool." Why is it political?

I hear and read this all the time, why is it political?

An impeachment is an indictment is it not? An incitement is being charged with a crime, not a Republican or Democratic crime, just a crime. Impeachment is for treason, high crimes and or misdemeanors, right?

I am not trying to pick on you, I just don't understand why people say it political?

[ProudDad]

67. High Crimes and Misdemeanors

Covers a LOT of territory.


"Bribery and treason are among the least ambiguous reasons meriting impeachment, but the ocean of wrongdoing encompassed by the Constitution's stipulation of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is vast. Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category, but one act that is definitely not grounds for impeachment is partisan discord. Several impeachment cases have confused political animosity with genuine crimes. Since Congress, the vortex of partisanship, is responsible for indicting, trying, and convicting public officials, it is necessary for the legislative branch to temporarily cast aside its factional nature and adopt a judicial role."

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764613.html

"Judge John Pickering of New Hampshire was the first impeached official actually convicted. He was found guilty of drunkenness and unlawful rulings, on March 12, 1804, and was believed to have been insane."

" Bill Clinton was ultimately dragged down—though not defeated—by the “character issues” brought into question even before his election. An investigation into some suspect real estate dealings in which Clinton was involved prior to his presidency failed to turn up any implicating evidence. However, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr managed to unravel a tangled web of alleged sexual advances and affairs in Clinton's past. The trail led to former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky. After months of denials, including in a videotaped legal testimony, Clinton admitted in August of 1998 that he had had a sexual relationship with the young woman during the time of her internship.

The infamous “Starr Report” outlining the findings of the Independent Counsel's investigation was delivered to the House of Representatives on Sept. 9, 1998 and subsequently made available to the public. Many felt the report, filled with lurid details of Clinton's sexual encounters with Lewinsky, to be a political attack against the President rather than a legal justification for his impeachment. Of the 11 possible grounds for impeachment cited by Starr, four were eventually approved by the House Judiciary Committee: grand jury perjury, civil suit perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.

On December 19, following much debate over the constitutionality of the proceedings and whether or not Clinton could be punished by censure rather than impeachment, the House of Representatives held its historic vote. Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines. The Senate Republicans, however, were unable to gather enough support to achieve the two-thirds majority required for his conviction. On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted President Clinton on both counts. The perjury charge failed by a vote of 55–45, with 10 Republicans voting against impeachment along with all 45 Democrats. The obstruction of justice vote was 50–50, with 5 Republicans breaking ranks to vote against impeachment."

[A Simple Game]

68. I have to agree with you that impeachment can be political.

From your first paragraph, "but one act that is definitely not grounds for impeachment is partisan discord. Several impeachment cases have confused political animosity with genuine crimes." This supports my contention that impeachment is not, at least in theory, political.

Your example with President Clinton shows that theory is not always fact. I should have remembered Clinton's impeachment for what it was.

I am also lumping conviction with impeachment, impeachment in and of itself can amount to little more than a majority opinion. All of the weight is in the conviction, and a conviction to look upright and true, needs to be based on a law.

on edit: Thanks for the clarification.

[truedelphi]

55. Yours is a great response - and I consider myself now better

Educated. Thanks!

[mile18blister]

38. There are some regrets.

They didn't all agree to this war. There were conditions in the IWR about going to war, such as getting a second vote from the UN which * ignored. I've heard Randi Rhodes say that many in Congress were shown a lot of "top secret" BS that we didn't see. Hell, they came up with a convincing enough horror show to get Henry Waxman to vote for it. Not only does he regret his vote, he is leading the charge to get these bastards. Some were pro-war, some couldn't believe that * would lie about something that serious, and some played politics. It's a mixed bag, but as the slaughter continues, I think an increasing number on both sides of the aisle will point out the lies and throw * under the bus. By the way, I was always against invading Iraq or trusting * to keep his word.

Everyone in Congress takes an oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. House member violate this oath if there are grounds for impeachment and they do not act.

[immoderate]

34. K&R for George McGovern

:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

Probably the smartest man to ever run for president.

--IMM

[Time for change]

39. Great to hear at least an occasional national figure speak about

impeachment in terms that it ought to be spoken about.

Too bad he didn't win the 72 election.

[Maraya1969]

41. How many people need to say this to get the Congress to stop making a mockery

out of us? The Republicans impeached our last president because of a damn blow job and this congress does nothing?

How the Hell is that going to make us Democrats look? The man has murdered hundreds of thousands of people and they are going to let him get away with it? No wonder the rest of the world have lost respect for us.

Dead Iraqi children are lying on the ground and our country does not take responsibility for it.

I am just sick of the whole thing.

[Madspirit]

42. I was around

I was around during Nixon and I've thought this exact thing!! This is a nightmare administration.

McGovern was the first campaign I ever worked on, just btw. The voting age had just dropped to 19 in my state, Texas and so I was too young to vote for him because I was 18 but I worked on his campaign. I love the man.
Lee

[redacted]

47. I thought the same thing too! Started Jr. h.s. during Nixon.

This fellow is far more vulnerable than Nixon ever was.

[malaise]

48. By George he's got it

I hope KO interviews him on Countdown as soon as he returns from vacation.

[Vinca]

49. Someone's got to convince Pelosi she's wrong about

impeachment being off the table. I remember Nixon and Watergate and as best as I can recall, no states were passing resolutions calling for impeachment and that's where Vermont is headed.

[Jawja]

50. And I would imagine

a thousand times more impeachable than Clinton? :shrug:

[Dinger]

51. From His Lips To God's Ears

Please, let it be, let it be!

[salin]

52. meanwhile in GDP - bush compares himself to Churchill - and thinks he (jr)

has a leg up on Churchill - cuz Churchill was an agnostic and bushjr has 'God'. Course noone tells jr that if you tell yourself what you want to hear to reconfirm your own opinions - that isn't the voice of god - it is the voice of self-delusion.

[RedEarth]

53. Didn't John Dean somewhat imply the same thing the other night on Countdown....

[IWantAChange]

56. The Wizard's curtain keeps going up - as more wrongdoing is exposed public opinion

may force the issue. It would seem patience and letting the process gain some momentum could (albeit an incredible long shot) make it happen.

[ananda]

59. Nearly everyone is bought.

Bush and Cheney should have been impeached and removed from office already. In fact, they never should have been in office in the first place. Period.

The fact that they are in office and have not been removed speaks to the rampant corruption of Congress, the (in)Justice Department, the judges, the courts, and the media... all controlled and owned by big oil, other corporations, lobbyists, ratings, and advertising.

Sue

[bdamomma]

65. we got to get these madmen out of office

[Donald Ian Rankin]

69. If anyone can arrange for the trial to be held in Mr McGovern's mind, we might get a conviction.

Until then, impeachment will remain unachievable.

[onenote]

84. I love George, but his political instincts leave something to be desired

Of course, he probably didn't think he'd get creamed in 1972.