Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton's impeachment gave Junior a free-pass.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 05:59 PM
Original message
Clinton's impeachment gave Junior a free-pass.
Edited on Tue Nov-21-06 06:02 PM by SoCalDem
The way junior was "groomed" (as a do-nothing governor, down there in Texas with his Poppy), coupled with the full court press put on Clinton from day one, make my tinfoil hat vibrate.

The whole Paula Jones thing, with the supreme court ruling that allowed him to be set up for the inevitable 'sex-lie" that would lead to impeachment, was bizarre to say the least.

Kind of a perfect storm, eh?

Junior waltzes in to "finish Daddy's agenda", and no matter HOW badly he screws up, ANY congress would be reluctant to impeach back-to-back presidents..

Nixon deserved impeachment, but managed to escape by resigning, and prior to that there had been only one other, so what a dangerous precedent we would have set if they tried to impeach *². Here, among the partisans, it would be viewed as tit-for-tat, and abroad it would cement our membership in the "coup of the month" club..along with the other Banana Republics.

They were, and ARE, counting on the sense of decorum and public image that democrats have nurtured since WWII. They know that no matter how much he screws up, no matter how many people die, he will skate.

Do these two deserve impeachment? At least as much as..maybe more than Nixon did, but I see them riding out this "rough patch" and all slinking off into the setting sun, until they are "needed" by a future republican adminsitration.. :scared:

How we can stop this from happening to our children and grandchildren?

We can carefully build the cases, do the investigations, take that under-oath testimony, and make sure we still have a majority in Jan 09 (hopefully a veto-proof one) and THEN we indict. After junior leaves office, the pardon-pen is inoperable (by HIM). That's when the shit hits the fan.

We have to take a lesson from the republican text book. They never rush. They take their time. It takes as long as it takes. They wanted to impeach Clinton on his first day in office, but it took them years.. They wanted a media empire, but it took them years.

We have to stop playing pinochle and start playing bridge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. I prefer Texas Hold'Em in this case
As in we "hold" the current "Texan" back from doing any more harm to America.

We investigate. Then we impeach. Any Democrat who stands in our way will not be sent back to Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. Except that I didn't think the plan originally was to use Junior
I would imagine Poppy would have preferred Jeb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Unrtil Columba got caught smuggling stuff from (eek) FRANCE
:rofl:

That all happened right around the time he was choosing who would finish his term :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. I think you are completely right.
The Clinton impeachment makes it look like Dems are just going after a "revenge" impeachment - no matter what Chimpy's crimes are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
5. Technically, Clinton was impeached.
But in my mind, he wasn't. And I would bet that in the minds of almost everyone on the planet, he was not impeached. Everyone knows it was frivolous. Much of the world is educated. They know better. And they're on our side. Bush is hated worldwide.

I honestly believe that the whole world is with us when investigations and the inevitable impeachment of this administration begins.

We didn't come this far to play softball.

Turning around the mess is going to take a parallel path of legislature and education of the American people.

I guarantee that look when Andy Card put his hand on Bush's shoulder was one of guilt. I knew it the moment I saw it. Now we're going to find out. No matter what.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zambero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. The term impeachment "gets a small i", unless...
it is followed by a subsequent conviction in the Senate. Impeachment an is indictment per se, but if the accused in acquitted in the Senate, it tends to call into question the motives of the House for taking that step to begin with. That seems to be the public's perception of the attempted coup on Bill Clinton. The fact that Dems actually picked up House and Senate seats in the 2nd midterm of Clinton's presidency speaks volumes as to the voters attitude toward the GOP's antics. Interesting that the current GOP Congress has exercised zero oversight on an incumbent president who breaks the all-time records for high crimes, but was obsessed with consensual adult sex when it came to Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewoden Donating Member (634 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
6. I cannot accept the following
"They know that no matter how much he screws up, no matter how many people die, he will skate."

in my heart of hearts I know that junior will not skate. ultimately he will come to face judgement by the God in whos name he contributed to the deaths of tens if not hundreds of thousands. He will burn for it in the end. It is too bad he cannot accept his evil doings, perform contrition, and beg forgiveness of a merciful God. Through the sacking of Rumsfeld Bush probably feels he has washed his hands, but only really sealed his fate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. The Roller Rink in the sky has different rules, but here on earth
I think he will "appear" to skate. If our legislators are savvy, though, they may still "git 'im" aftre he loses the Presidential Aura of Protection :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
9. I have thought for years (even before Bush was anointed by the SC)
Edited on Tue Nov-21-06 07:07 PM by kestrel91316
that the sole reason to impeach Clinton over sexual BS was to make the American people so SICK of the impeachment process that whoever they got into power would get a free pass, as you put it. They intended to break the law and trample all over the Constitution LONG BEFORE they put their man into the White House.

In other words: You CAN'T impeach Bush. Not right after Clinton having been impeached. WTF is next? Impeaching every single president?

They wanted to make the Impeachment process UNTHINKABLE, and they did. Of course they won't hesitate to go after the next Dem president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longabach Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Impeachment Is Doable
It isn't the people who think "the impeachment process UNTHINKABLE," that is corporate media spin.
Bush IS a criminal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. Hi longabach!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
10. No, he HAS to be impeached. It's a matter of life and death!
He could start a war with Iran or Syria. Would you let a known murderer run loose for two more years? Impeachment is an imperitive. It's an imperitive to defending the nation and the constitution and protecting the people.

Remember Iran Contra? The crew that ran that show were allowed to skate. And now they're back in this administration. In 1987, only one member of Congress called for Reagan's impeachment. It was Democrat Henry Gonzalez of Texas. But the Democrats didn't support such a measure because they thought it would hurt them in 1988. And what happened then? George Herbert Walker Bush got elected.

After Watergate and the move to impeach Nixon in 1974, the Democrats picked up a veto proof majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate in that midterm election cycle. They went on to take the Presidency in 1976 with Jimmy Carter. See, impeachment can be a good thing for us.

In 1998 when the Republicans impeached Clinton, everybody viewed it as a partisan witchhunt (which it was), the public was really against it and Clinton was a very popular President with an approval rating above 60%. After the impeachment, the Republicans lost a few seats in the House in the 1998 midterm election. But they did win the Presidency in 2000.

The public was well informed about Nixon and by the time impeachment was proposed it had the support of the public and they knew it was justified.

See what I'm saying. If something is justified, it can work very well for us.

Silence is the same as complicity. Not even pushing for impeachment makes you look like an accomplice. Our members of Congress have taken oath to defend the constitution. They must carry out their duties. It's either keep democracy and the consitution, or be doomed to live under the rule of a King George II.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. The pardon pen undoes everything.
Our margin in the senate is not strong enough to remove him from office.

Remember?? we have Lieberman,as the 51st vote..

the reason we have all the toxic sludge in DC NOW is because Bush1 issued all those pardons..

I am forever pissed at the dems when they did not go after the jugular during Iran Contra, but at that thime they never envisioned being a minority party for a decade, so I guess they thought they would go easy and everyone would play nice..HAH!
I DO want to hold these criminals responsible but I want the boom lowered AFTER he cannot pardon anyone :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. That's another thing...
We have to quit with this "it's not even worth trying" thing because we fear it might not be successful. A lot of Republicans have been distancing themselves from Bush. Once investigations get underway and everything is dragged out and the public becomes informed, public opinion can really have an impact. The political careers of the Republican Senators up for re-election in 2008 will be on the line. They would be more than happy to toss Bush and Cheney. They would become an albatross around their necks. Bush and Cheney could very well just take the resignation "exit strategy." That is, if impeachment becomes a real danger, they can just resign. Something like this, Cheney steps down for "health reasons," Bush is forced to nominate an acceptable 08 candidate as VP who gets confirmed by the House and Senate, then Bush resigns and the VP becomes President and he appoints his own President. You then wouldn't have to worry about Bush pardoning anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boston Critic Donating Member (606 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. No, we don't *start* with impeachment....
... we make it clear we (i.e., Democrats) are doing the people's business: Medicare prescription reform, no more tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the rest of us, economic issues that are our strength.

Meanwhile let the investigations begin. They won't be about impeachment. They'll be about how we were lied to get into a war with Iraq. They'll be about unconstitutional searches and "signing statements." They'll be about war profiteering and torture.

As the evidence mounts, the *public* will demand he be removed from office. Then the Democrats are not seeking revenge, they are doing the public's will.

It is the *only* way an impeachment -- let alone a conviction -- will ever happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
13. How we STOP it is by opening the books on BushInc and not trusting those Dems
who have been proven willing to participate in the coverups.

Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didnt pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Husseins government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clintons domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton didnt feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people, Sender told me in an interview. He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.

Clintons relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bushs administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, these centrist Democrats warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its non-interventionist left wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office, said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLCs dont-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clintons decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies never materialized.

Politicized CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush politicization of the CIAs analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a Presidents desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA directors job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.

One senior Democrat told me Clinton picked Woolsey as a reward to the neocon-leaning editors of the New Republic for backing Clinton in Election 1992.

I told that the New Republic hadnt brought them enough votes to win a single precinct, the senior Democrat said. But they kept saying that they owed this to the editors of the New Republic.

During his tenure at the CIA, Woolsey did next to nothing to address the CIAs politicization issue, intelligence analysts said. Woolsey also never gained Clintons confidence and after several CIA scandals was out of the job by January 1995.

At the time of that White House chat with Stuart Sender, Clinton thought that his see-no-evil approach toward the Reagan-Bush era would give him an edge in fulfilling his campaign promise to focus like a laser beam on the economy.

He was taking on other major domestic challenges, too, like cutting the federal deficit and pushing a national health insurance plan developed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasnt on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided, Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.

Unexpected Results

Clintons generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didnt turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clintons failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bushs inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his fathers presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bushs role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Familys reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bushs candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Rights political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clintons tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nations fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clintons approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

Yet, Clinton and now some pro-Iraq War Democrats view truth as an expendable trade-off when measured against political tactics or government policies. In reality, accurate information about important events is the lifeblood of democracy.

Though sometimes the truth can hurt, Clinton and the Democrats should understand that covering up the truth can hurt even more. As Clintons folly with the Reagan-Bush scandals should have taught, the Democrats may hurt themselves worst of all when helping the Republicans cover up the truth.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
14. They set the impeachment bar on the ground for Clinton, so they could
raise it to an impossibly high level for Bush.

I agree with your assessment...I do think this was the case. The disaster these criminals have wrought on this country can't all be explained away by incompetence. There was a method to this madness. If this agenda was planned...obviously they had to be concerned with the application of impeachment. What a beautiful thing.... a real twofer. Use impeachment to bring down a popularly elected President and make the following election close enough to steal; use the same impeachment as a shield to argue against a selected pResident who truely deserves to face impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwerlain Donating Member (516 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
17. My tendency is to say,
Edited on Tue Nov-21-06 07:52 PM by Gwerlain
"keep on getting into office and abusing the Constitution, and we'll keep on impeaching. We don't CARE if you play games about sex scandals with ours; we'll get yours INDICTED and IMPRISONED." And I'd like to see a Democrat as President in '09, one who has the good sense to keep the pardon pen in hir pocket. We need to make an example of *. This needs to stop, and the only way it will stop is if we make it clear that if you attack the constitution, your next domicile will be shared with Bubba.

ETA: but that doesn't change my original position:

INVESTIGATE, impeach, indict, imprison.

And for those who haven't been paying attention, we're not done with step one yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Feb 24th 2018, 07:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC