Debunking of Arguments Against Bush/Cheney Impeachment by Impeachment Organizations

[Time for change]

No President or Vice President in the history of the United States was ever more deserving and in urgent need of impeachment and removal from office than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are now.

Among the myriad of impeachable offenses they have committed: By repeatedly lying to Congress to justify our invasion of Iraq and thereby undermining the rightful authority of Congress to declare war, Bush and Cheney have violated the separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches of government guaranteed in our Constitution; by authorizing the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies to conduct warrantless spying on hundreds of thousands or millions of American citizens, George Bush has violated our Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches, as well as the laws of our country; and in his treatment of thousands of prisoners of war, he has repeatedly violated international law specified in the Geneva Convention of 1949, as well the due process clause of our Fifth Amendment, our Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, to face one’s accusers, to be represented by counsel and to be informed of the charges against one’s self, and our Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

The amount of evidence for each of the above noted assertions, and many more, is overwhelming, but will not be discussed further here. Thus Bush and Cheney have put themselves above the laws of our country and the Constitution that they have sworn to preserve and protect, thereby gravely threatening the continued functioning of our Constitution, which provides the legal foundation for our nation.


Organizations and groups advocating the impeachment of Bush and Cheney

Consequently, organizations and groups advocating the impeachment of Bush and Cheney have sprung up all over our country, including:

The Center for Constitutional Rights
AfterDowningStreet
ImpeachBush.org
Impeach for Peace– and see their “action steps to get Bush impeached”
ImpeachBush.tv
Constitution Summer
The National Lawyers Guild
The Green Party National Committee
Impeach Central
Veterans for Peace
Gold Star Families for Peace
Democrats.com

In addition, resolutions calling for the impeachment of George Bush have been introduced into the legislatures of four states – Illinois, California, New Mexico and Minnesota. If any of them passes, the U.S. House of Representatives would be forced to consider those resolutions. Also, the cities of Berkeley and San Francisco have voted on and passed resolutions calling for the impeachment of George Bush.


The debunking of anti-impeachment arguments

Along with the grassroots efforts to impeach Bush and Cheney, many people, including some political opponents of George Bush (including DUers), have put forth arguments against impeachment. Many or most of the organizations noted above have vigorously countered and debunked those arguments (in my opinion). I believe that those counter arguments are well worth considering, as this is perhaps the most crucial issue facing our country today. Here are some of the most important counter arguments to the anti-impeachment arguments:

If we impeach Bush we’ll get President Cheney

Not likely. As AfterDowningStreet notes:

Initiating the impeachment process will lead to an investigation that will implicate lots of people in the Bush administration who are guilty of committing crimes, including Cheney.

Promoting impeachment will seem too extreme – and might have adverse political consequences for those who promote it

Impeachment is not extreme at all. It was placed in our Constitution as a safeguard against tyranny – which IS extreme and extremely dangerous. Here is a compilation of what Democrats.com and AfterDowningStreet say about this:

Shedding light on Bush's crimes and the Republican party's complicity in those crimes is the best way to get democrats elected. Demanding impeachment is one effective way of doing that. Secondly, demanding that crimes be investigated IS NOT extreme. Some previous impeachment attempts were considered extreme because they were pursued for actions that didn't rise to the level of a Constitutional crisis, which is what the impeachment tool is meant to be used for.

Anyhow, the voters from Minnesota’s House District 5 certainly didn’t think that impeachment of George Bush is too extreme. One would think that a Muslim running for the U.S. House in the post 9-11 era would have very good reason to avoid being seen as too extreme. Keith Ellison ran for the Minnesota’s 5th District House seat on a Bush impeachment agenda and was subsequently elected last November as our nation’s only Muslim Congressperson.

Passing much needed legislation is more important to the American people than impeachment

Passing much needed legislation is of course very important. But why should it preclude impeachment? And, as AfterDowningStreet points out:

With unconstitutional Presidential Signing Statements, veto power, and the power of "Commander in Chief" at his disposal, how do you think Congress is going to get ANYTHING accomplished without first impeaching Bush?

A presidential impeachment would hurt democracy

That’s one of the lamest arguments around, and is a manifestation of the “ostrich syndrome”. Taking measures to combat a tyrannical government will not hurt democracy. That’s like saying that reporting about or investigating a problem will make it worse. To the contrary, as pointed out by AfterDowningStreet:

Holding government officials accountable for their actions strengthens our democracy. Letting lawlessness stand weakens it.

The votes do not exist in the Senate to convict Bush and Cheney of impeachable crimes. Therefore, Impeachment is a waste of time

Along those same lines, it was reported that the odds against impeachment are 1000 to 1! Oh wait, sorry, that was the odds against the impeachment of Nixon – before the evidence starting to accumulate and be made public. Anyhow, as I’ve said many times, the decision to prosecute a crime (or proceed with impeachment) should be based on the evidence for doing so, NOT on a count of the votes. Once the evidence starts to be spread to the public at large, how do you think that Republican Senators will react to the ensuing public outrage? As AfterDowningStreet points out:

Today's impossibility is tomorrow's reality. Republican Congress members will realize that tying their political future to Bush reduces their chances of getting elected. Remember, one way or another, Bush is gone by 2009- but members of Congress may retain their offices beyond that date. Bush's poll numbers are extremely low, and most Americans support impeachment. This is a bipartisan movement. This means that if we make the pressure unbearable for Members of Congress, they'll turn on him to keep their own seats (like they did with Nixon). It's already starting to happen.

Speaker Pelosi took impeachment “off the table”

(Sigh). That is true unfortunately, she did that. Perhaps one reason she did that was because it would be considered a conflict of interest if she pushed for impeachment, since she could be made President as a result. Some would even call it a coup de tat.

But “off the table” does not denote a permanent state of affairs. If a state legislature passes an impeachment resolution and forwards it to the U.S. House of Representatives, or if currently ongoing Congressional investigations “turn up” impeachable offenses (In saying this, I’m pretending for the sake of argument that there isn’t already overwhelming evidence of impeachable offenses), then the House would be obligated to put impeachment back “on the table”.

Impeachment of George Bush would be seen as revenge for Bill Clinton’s impeachment

That’s just plain silly. Again, the decision to prosecute a crime (or proceed with impeachment) should be based first and foremost on the evidence – not on how some people might view it.

The public won’t support impeachment

Well, a Newsweek poll from October 2006 indicated that 51% of Americans believe that impeachment should be a high (28%) or a low (23%) priority, with 44% against it. Yes, there are some polls that say otherwise (though I doubt that any more recent polls say otherwise). One gets slightly different answers to polls of this nature depending on how the question is asked, and when respondents are given the opportunity to weakly agree to something (as in calling it a ‘low’ priority) they are more likely to indicate at least some agreement. But the point is that half or more Americans are at least mildly in favor of impeachment or neutral on it, and that’s before they’ve sat through weeks or months of impeachment hearings. Certainly, public exposure to the myriad of Bush/Cheney crimes can only cause approval for impeachment to climb.

If we don’t support our President we aid the terrorists

Again I’ll defer to AfterDowningStreet:

We support terrorism when we fail to deal with its root causes (poverty, lack of education, support of dictatorships, etc.). We also support it by enabling a president who creates breeding grounds for terrorists - like Iraq has now become, thanks to our invasion and occupation. Middle Eastern countries are upset with the oppressive international policies of the past and current administration. We might develop more healthy relationships with these countries if we appeared to learn from our mistakes by impeaching a president who has been so instrumental in that oppression.

What happens if we don’t impeach and remove Bush from office

I have three questions, which I think any reasonably well informed and realistic person should be able to answer:

1) Does George Bush fully intend to go to war against Iran, probably using nuclear weapons?

2) Does he intend to present “evidence” to Congress and the American people that Iran poses a grave danger to our country, as a means of justifying that war?

3) Will the “evidence that he presents” be just as bogus as was the evidence that he presented to us for his Iraq war?

If the answer to all three of those questions is yes – and I think it’s obvious that it is – then we need to consider whether Congress will be able to stop him from perpetrating another disaster upon our country and the world, and if removing him from office might not be the best way to stop him. And keep in mind also that if faced with impeachment hearings and trial in the Senate, Bush just might be inclined to drop his war plans in order to avoid providing more ammunition for his conviction.

But beyond that, there is another, perhaps just as important reason, to proceed to impeachment. As Robert Weitzel says about impeachment, our Founding Fathers:

never intended impeachment to be either extreme or rare. It was meant to be used forcefully and unapologetically and as often as necessary to check the excesses of power or wanton corruption of the temporary occupants of the White House. That it has been so rarely used has led us to the unconscionable level of abuse by the Bush administration. They proceed as though they have nothing to fear, as if the Constitution is powerless to hold them accountable. It is this lack of fear that is sounding the death knell of our democracy; the final taps at the twilight of the Republic.

And Thomas Jefferson once said something similar about the impeachment provision in our Constitution:

When once a republic is corrupted there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.

In other words, since our President and Vice President have failed to accord our Constitution any validity, others must act to do so. Otherwise our Constitution will come to be seen as just a piece of paper, to be ignored for the convenience of those in power. That process is already very far advanced, and as it proceeds we are threatened with the loss, perhaps permanent, of our democracy and the rule of law in our nation.

[ClassWarrior]

1. The one I get all the time is... "But we don't want to get bogged down..."

"...in IMPEACHMENT, and not be able to take care of (name your favorite Progressive issue here). The Rape-Publicans didn't get anything accomplished during their attempted coup on Clinton."

Bullshit. The Rape-Publicans haven't gotten anything accomplished in the past six years of three-branch government control, and they weren't trying to lynch anyone at all in that time. The reason the Rape-Publicans didn't get anything done when they were trying to overturn the will of the voters in 1998 was because the Rape-Publicans don't WANT to get anything done. They don't believe government is there to get anything done. It's just there to provide them with power and profit.

We, on the other hand, appreciate good government, and we're pretty damn good at governing. And I'm confident that our people will make sure that they address the rest of The People's Business while they're serving Justice with a capital J to Bush/Cheney** and the rest of the Bush** Crime Family.

Visualize. Then DO. (see sigline below)

NGU.

[cascadiance]

5. Personally, I think we're getting "bogged down" with 2008 election!

We shouldn't have to spend much time on that and should be able to start it later too. Both the length of time we're spending galavanting about election prospects 2 years in advance and not doing an impeachment for reasons of "time to do so" contribute to the impression of a government that is ineffective and not able to respond promptly to issues facing us.

You've well stated the case here. A few notes I'd have on this:

1) On the "Passing much needed legislation is more important to the American people than impeachment" bullet:

In addition to the negative aspects of the bums standing our way if we don't do anything about impeachment, pursuing impeachment investigations should actually ENHANCE our abilities to pass other legislation. If Bushco knows that we're getting closer to something that will send them out and perhaps to bad ends such as prison or worse, they'll be more apt to cooperate with passing legislation if they feel it might earn them any kind of favored treatment in the end. If they don't feel like any investigation will happen or isn't even close to uncovering the crimes they are involved in, they'll feel more immune and more apt to be obstinate in standing in the way of anything passing the congress. Daniel Ellsberg noted this happened with Nixon in addition to your bottom three questions and he was more willing to cooperate and also pull back his plans of doing a lot more horrible invasion of North Vietnam which also included using more horrible weapon systems as well. That and civil disobedience pulled him back from the precipice. We NEED to do that to Bush as well.

2) I've been one of those "cautious" types here on impeachment topic. I don't want to rush into impeachment, but I do want to RUSH in and HEAVILY investigate these bums in every way possible to get as much ammo as possible that we haven't been able to get yet to maximize our chances of getting them out of office! There should be NO excuse not to pursue any angle of investigation that can uncover further wrongdoing. It is the congress's consitutional obligation, and it serves us completely doing it. Impeachment is a one shot deal though. So if we pull the trigger too soon (as much evidence as we think we have now already), and it doesn't turn out to be enough to get a conviction vote in the Senate, it's then done, and Bush will feel freedom to do even more damage after that's been attempted, as he will feel bulletproof through the end of his term. I DO NOT want that happening under any circumstances. I definitely want us to pursue impeachment and investigate heavily in a strategic fashion. I don't want congress doing nothing or giving the appearances of doing something but in actuality doing nothing. Nor do I want them rushing in like a bull in a china shop and screwing things up by not approaching it strategically. In any case, I want some form of impeachment attempted before Bush leaves office!

I think THE most important thing strategically over the next two years to accomplish here, whether or not we flush the bums out of office or not, is to MAKE SURE that we don't allow pardons to happen. If that means cutting a deal with Republicans to ensure a constitutional ammendment we might pass that can override Bush's veto that limits the president's power to do so instead of pushing them out directly, then so be it! By passing that minimally, hopefully that will put the fear of god in them that they better not do one iota of criminal activity more after that passes, as perhaps we can put something in about sending them to the Hague or something worse if they don't behave themselves. One thing that should have been learned from Watergate and Iran Contra days but hasn't is that we need to stop these f'ers in their tracks and don't let pardons, etc. allow them to be recycled in through the system again. People like Elliot Abrams, Negroponte, Kissinger, Oliver North, John Poindexter, etc. should all be PERMANENTLY barred from political positions ever again, if not put in prison for a good long time.

One thing that should additionally be pointed out is that even though it takes a 2/3rds majority of the Senate to convict, there are a LOT of vulnerable Republicans in 2008 that are up for re-election, as they have a lion's share of the seats up for grabs, making those affected I believe a lot more amenable to some sort of compromise on their impeachment votes that some might not think possible.

[man4allcats]

7. Re: "But we don't want to get bogged down..."

If I were a mass murderer but a brilliant Democratic strategist with otherwise excellent presidential qualities, would it be wise or moral to overlook my transgressions on behalf of party unity? Certainly not! Justice matters. It's the only thing that does. Without that, we have nothing. "Bogged down?" We're already bogged down! As a nation, we've forgotten the meaning of responsibility. George W. Bush doesn't know what it means to "own up." He's never had to. Daddy always took care of that for him. Cheney knows, but he's too arrogant to let it get in his way. Impeach them both, and lock them up. It's the right thing to do.

P.S.: Thank you for an insightful post.

[Time for change]

12. I agree -- and what do they expect to accomplish with Bush in the White House

ready to veto anything that benefits the American people at the expense of his wealthy cronies?

If the Dems don't get very aggressive, we'll be lucky not to be in the midst of WW III by the time Bush and Cheney leave office.

[helderheid]

19. Be better than what we're bogged down in now!

:hi:

[ClassWarrior]

21. You can say that again!

:hi:

NGU.

[lyonn]

35. The whole world is bogged down due to the incompetence

of our present president. No time like the present to start pulling him out of office. Our troops would probably appreciate the effort. We need people testifying under oath, subpoena documents, etc., get the facts for all to see including Congress to act on.

Impeachment is a no brainer. Two more years of his/cheney's Decision Making could be more disastrous than we can imagine. Look what he did his first year or two?!

[Senator]

25. The answer to that is "weeks not months"

Unlike the Clinton-Hater farce, this impeachment would require no fact witnesses or discussion of intent. There is a simple decision to be made as to whether there is are impeachable criminals in the WH or a Urinary Authoritarian Executive**.

The regime admits/stipulates to the actions, but merely defends/rationalizes like a child with "somebody said we could do this."

This is why we must be clear that "investigation" is NOT required, but rather Impeachment Hearings.

The Clinton Circus was 3 months. This should/would take less than half that.

Not much of bog really. And did you know that bogs are environmentally friendly??

Meaning that the single greatest obstacle to any progress for (name your favorite Progressive issue here) is the unlawful regime.

Impeachment is literally a panacea.

-----
**Urinary Executive or Urinary Authoritarian Executive (slang, DCspeak)

n., (en)title -- the "newly-discovered," or "inherent" (i.e., faith-based) Constitutional Authority for an appointed ruler (as opposed to elected leader) to piss down the back of the American People and tell them it's raining.

See also, Trickle-Down Economics

--

[Time for change]

44. Great points

I hadn't thought of putting it quite like that.

But it's true. The bulk of investigations have already been done -- it's mainly a question of whether what this administration has done is legal or not. And that shouldn't take too long to sort out.

None of their excuses make a bit of sense. Their warantless wiretape are justified on the basis that they're in too much of a hurry to catch terrorists, so they can't take the time to request a warrant -- and yet the law allows them to seek warrants retroactively -- and they still didn't do it.

[mopinko]

2. what does it say about us, if

we don't?

[Time for change]

38. It's reminiscent of the question we ask about those who lived under Hitler's rule and didn't object

to it. I think that the same questions need to be asked.

[vickitulsa]

3. Thanks for this excellent post!

I get so tired of hearing some here at DU arguing that we should not move to impeach the two criminals sitting in the highest seats of power in our country!

I have never found these foot-draggers' reasons compelling or even convincing in the least, and I'm so glad to see these excuses (for they are not reasons) debunked properly.


The longer Chimp and Crashcart go without facing impeachment, the more brazen they become in taking actions which are detrimental to our nation, our welfare, and our planet and all its inhabitants.

IMPEACH NOW! Do it before it's too late, and all we can do is stare shamefacedly at the floor when our children ask us, "WHY did you not STOP them?!?"

[Time for change]

33. Thank you -- I believe you're right about future generations (not to mention the rest of the world)

blaming us for being so passive in the face of such blatant criminal activity on the part of our "leaders". Just as Germans of the 1930s were asked why they let Hitler come to power and commit genocide in their name, this generation of Americans will have a lot to answer for.

[Martin Eden]

4. I'm convinced ...

... that you've done a superb job of stating the case for and debunking the arguments against impeachment.

K&R

[man4allcats]

6. Thank you for this!

In an ongoing MSNBC.com poll , currently almost 422,000 say "Impeach the bastards!" The poll is about Bush, but at this point in time it's clear that both Bush and Cheney need to go - not only out of Washington but to The Hague.

[Time for change]

41. Yes, the Hague

Of course, at this point in time it seems unlikely that charges of international crimes, such as war crimes, will be brought against Bush and Cheney by the International Criminal Court. The main reason for that is that the U.S. (and Bush and Cheney) have too much power and therefore too much influence to allow that. We intimidate the other countries of the world.

I hope that I or my children can someday live in a world where no country is so powerful that its leaders are immune to international law for crimes against humanity. If the world ever gets to the point (and I believe it will) where those who commit crimes against humanity can expect to be held accountable for their crimes, there will probably be a lot less war and we will have a much better world.

[provis99]

8. how about we impeach him just because he's an asshole?

I don't think the Constitution forbids this, does it?

[bananarepublican]

10. To quote John McEnroe, "You can't be serious!"

Bush is much more than just an arse-hole - particularly to the 'Dickster' Cheney. Methinks Cheney has been f'ing Bush up the butt since 911!

[Time for change]

14. The Constitution most definitely does NOT forbid that

Here is a generally accepted viewpoint on the subject:

The generally accepted viewpoint is much broader. It defines high crimes and misdemeanors as any serious abuse of power—including both legal and illegal activities. Supporters of this reading believe that because impeachment is a public inquiry, first and foremost, it is appropriate to read the phrase broadly in order to provide the most thorough inquiry possible. Thus, a civil officer may face impeachment for misconduct, violations of oath of office, serious incompetence, or, in the case of judges, activities that undermine public confidence in or damage the integrity of the judiciary.

http://www.answers.com/topic/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors

In other words, the generally accepted opinion is that it does not require an actual crime. Of course, the present case should virtually be considered a slam dunk, since numerous actual crimes have been committed. But even if by some miracle Bush could show that he is not directly responsible for the Iraq war, the prisoner abuse and the warantless wiretapping, he should still be impeached, simply for the fact that all these things happened under his administration. It would be absurd to believe that a President couldn't be impeached for gross incompetence. Where would that leave us?

[sellitman]

29. I think you must be a Repug mole.

Either that or......

[bleever]

9. Error:

You've already recommended that thread.

Thank you for this great work on the foundation, which by necessity reaches down through all the mud and clay to find the bedrock.


:thumbsup:

[Karenina]

15. No error here. K&R!!!

[ClassWarrior]

22. I love it when I do that...

:hi: Little Bro...

NGU.

[WiseButAngrySara]

11. Excellent! Bookmarked and KNR! ....n/t

[chknltl]

13. Thank you for this.

I have a different reason why I feel impeachment is urgent.
We Americans are not selfish asses.

Here is why I say this:
If your car collided with another and you could still get out of your car would your FIRST concern be your own car or would it be for the safety of the occupants of the other car? I already know your answer. What if some ass got in your way while attempting rescue? Again I already know your answer.

We wrecked Iraq. Each day that bushco holds power more and more are dieing over in Iraq. We mourn our own loss's but can you even imagine what a nightmare it must be over there? I don't know what the ratio is but perhaps 50 to 1 Iraqi deaths for each American. THIS NEEDS TO STOP SOON! PLEASE AMERICA...DO NOT TURN YOUR BACKS ON THIS!

We broke it and yes we own it and when it comes to saving the people of Iraq there is an asshole in our way. I say that asshole needs to be removed from power quickly, sooner the better. Iraqi recovery can ONLY begin after bush and his cronies are gone.

If you are so hard hearted and selfish that you feel we need to take care of matters here first let me remind you of 9-11. Do you really trust bush, even the clipped wings version we have now, to protect the ones you love from future 9-11s?

Take a look at your world through the eyes of an Iraqi civilian: water, electricity, sewer, spotty at best. Jobs, school, food... all hard to get to with a good chance you will not make it home. DEATH everywhere you turn. DEATH everywhere you turn. DEATH everywhere you turn. Life under Sadam before the Americans showed up was not even close to this waking nightmare! So when a a minion of osama bin laden comes along and offers you a chance to get even...

Again I ask you: DO YOU TRUST BUSH TO PROTECT YOU FROM FUTURE 9-11s?

We dally here at our own peril!

Please look at what this Iraqi blogger has put together...IN HIS EYES, WE DID THIS TO HIM. PLEASE DO NOT TURN YOUR BACK ON THIS:

http://gorillasguides.com/2007/02/10/what-will-we-talk-about-today-you-and-i

If you are ghosting through here Senator or Talk Radio Host hear my words: Don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud over your city, BUSH MUST GO NOW!!!
c

[Time for change]

24. Those are great points

You rarely hear our corporate media talk about the fact of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died from Bush and Cheney's war.

You rarely hear them talk about the fact that the Iraqis do not want us in their country.

Those things aren't important to them.

And I love your ending -- "Don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud over your cit, BUSH MUST GO NOW." That is Sooooooooooooooo appropriate.

As far as the question about whether we trust Bush to protect us from another 9-11.... don't ask that question of someone who believes in MIHOP.;)

[In Truth We Trust]

16. IMPEACH NOW! Let there be justice and rule of law! Or fascism forever.

[MagickMuffin]

17. Hey There Time For Change

I just did my comic on this topic, however, I would love to include this thread as a lot of research went into this argument and I didn't commit that much into my rant.

Thanks for the input. You have definitely done your homework.:applause:

[Time for change]

23. Thank you MagicMuffin -- That's great, I love to see my writing put to good use

Thank you for doing that.

I've gone into greater detail about the evidence on this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3021745

[Felinity]

18. Thanks, K&R, Bookmarked n/t

[mod mom]

20. Every day it is delayed, more lives are ruined and the planet takes one step

closer to a point of no return.

Excellent post TFC, I wish the DNC was on that list.

[WilliamPitt]

26. All these are well-crafted except the most important one.

Getting to 67.

On the others, you nail it. On the issue of actually having the votes, however, you offer no real basis of fact. "The votes will be there, just you wait," is the summary...and that is the verbal equivalent of asking people to cross their fingers.

John Warner derailed a simple debate on a non-binding resolution. One guy wrecked a conversation on Iraq legislation, a bill with no force of law whatsoever, and it took him a day. My fingers are crossed that the Senate - now in full presidential campaign mode and thus as tepid as puddle water - can manage even a simple debate over a non-law without falling down at some point.

These people are going to get to 67 on impeachment? While the '08 race is in full swing? When they can't even talk about non-binding resolutions without blowing it? I don't have that many fingers to cross.

In other words, no, I'm not sold. But thank you for the excellent post.

[Time for change]

27. Thank you Will -- Let's suppose that we can't or don't get to 67 votes

Yet, during the impeachment hearings and the trial in the Senate the CM has little choice but to cover those events, and millions of Americans who previously had little interest become outraged over the conduct of their President and Vice President. Yet, the Republicans in the Senate hold fast to their ideology or misplaced loyalty or whatever, and the 67 votes never materialize.

What has been lost by this?

1) Our country has undergone an extremely valuable educational experience.

2) The Bush/Cheney regime has undergone a massive scare that is likely to put a big dent in their arrogance and tie their hands with respect to causing additional massive damage, such as nuking Iran --for fear that they really will be removed from office if they do that.

3) The stubborn GOP Senators who continue to support the administration undergo a substantial loss of popularity with their voters, and consequently, many of them are in great jeopardy of losing their seats in 08.

Is any of that far-fetched?

Nobody knows whether the 67 votes will materialize or not. But what is the harm in trying?

We're all accustomed to failures -- But why should that stop us from continuing to try?

[puebloknot]

36. K&$ Whenever the force of law is brought to bear on any...

...situation, there is never a guarantee about the outcome. The cynicism implicit in foregoing impeachment proceedings because Republicans won't support it is beyond me. Impeachment will put them publicly on record as enabling a criminal regime.

And then it remains to be seen whether America will find herself again, or whether we are hopelessly corrupt.

[ClassWarrior]

49. K&$ ??

Share the wealth!!

B-)

NGU.

[puebloknot]

54. A typo, but a good one. I'm willing to share a bit of my wealth...

...to help with impeachment. And a bit of my time, too!

[KoKo]

50. Starting Impeachment Hearings in the House would be a start

to get the discussion going and media attention focused on it. An attempt at Impeachment by the House should be made...but the Committee's need to finish their hearings to present evidence. So far the Committees seem to be working hard and since Bush doesn't seem to be heeding all the warnings the House might feel at some point (maybe close to Summer) that they have enough evidence that it's worth doing even if it won't pass in the Senate. :shrug:

[ProudDad]

37. We didn't have to get to 67 against Nixon

I think the shrub might crumble if there's enough pressure on him and his handlers...

Just a stray thought...:hi:

[Senator]

45. That's By Far the Least Important

Really of no importance at all. Only a "concern" one arrogates to oneself as a rationalization for inaction.

To assume one needs to be assured of victory before one takes up a fight is just another form of the circular Powell Doctrine. Under this "logic" there's no point in acting on any of the tired, laundry list of issues without the "most important...getting to 290 (veto override)."

The irony of this non-point is that certifying Articles of Impeachment is one of the few powers vested entirely in the People's House. To argue that the response of the "Senate Lords" should temper this act is elitist and aristocratic in its essence.

The duty of the House (and ourselves) is to put the Senate on the spot. Not to try to sell them something with crossed fingers, but to do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may.

Anything else just compounds the damage.

--

[WilliamPitt]

47. OK

This is maybe the sixth or seventh time you have replied to me on this matter in a way that manages to be both supercilious and insulting in one shot.

I am neither elitist nor aristocratic, and if the best you can do is lay those words on me because your arguments don't move me, then that's just poor. You aren't going to move any doubters with insults, friend. Ask the 9/11 Truth Movement people, many of whom have blown the feet off their own activism with the same kind of slash-and-burn rhetoric.

"Let the chips fall where they may" is a brave sentiment, but you're betting with money that isn't yours. If an impeachment move fails, we stand to lose the White House, the House, the Senate, more of the Supreme Court, and that's just for starters.

You want to bet the whole world on a hole card no one can see. If this were simply poker, I'd say go for it. But it isn't, and being absolutely prepared isn't arrogance or elitism. In fact, there is a whiff of the arrogance of the activist absolutist in you, who does not appear interested in any potential consequences of failure. "The act is what matters"...in theater and drama. This is flesh and bone reality, friend, and failure comes at a savage cost.

So put away your insults, and stop thinking that belittling those who disagree is some way to move your point along. Oh, and try to pretend you give a shit about what happens to the rest of us when those 67 votes don't show up. At least try.

[Time for change]

52. I respect the fear that a failed impeachment could do political damage

If as you suggest the consequences of failure would be the loss in 08 of the Presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court, that would be a terrible tragedy indeed. And I won't pretend to know that that couldn't happen.

But I have two things to say about that.

1) I think the alternative (i.e., not even trying to impeach and remove Bush/Cheney from office) is terrible enough and sets a very dangerous precedent for the future of our country.

2) If the Senate fails to convict them, I just don't see why that would have adverse political repercussions -- in fact it seems to me that it is more likely that the outrage generated by the information that comes out during the impeachment hearings and trial in the Senate would work to the Democrats' big advantage.

Senator is correct that this issue is very similar to many other issues that come up all the time in Congress: How much weight do we give to what is the right policy to pursue, vs. how much weight do we give to the potential political consequences? Both are important, obviously, because ignoring the political consequences could permanently block our ability to accomplishe anything.

But I just don't see the likelihood of adverse political consequences here, even IF the Senate fails to convict.

[Senator]

55. Sorry. Had to look up supercilious.

While I can't help your feeling insulted and belittled by my refusal to join you in your fears of "savage cost" and lost poker antes, I will simply point out that the consequences of failing to act are just as "flesh and bone" as the those of acting but failing. At the very least, the failed actor has self-respect; and an experience to learn from and build upon.

And at the risk of being called super-supercilious, I'll confess to a whiff of amusement at being called an "absolutist" in defense of "being absolutely prepared."

The real problem though is not "being absolutely prepared" to DO anything specific. That sadly, is the history of the DC Dems in recent years.

But I remain optimistic about how the point is moving along. Many are leading, others are being pushed, some are fearfully getting out of the way. All that is progress.

--

[sakabatou]

28. K&R

[tbyg52]

30. THANK YOU, for answering all the but.... but.... but.... objections!

Recommended and bookmarked.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana

[earth mom]

31. Excellent! K & R! NGU! nt

[gratefultobelib]

32. Thanks to all who contributed to this thread. It was an honor just reading down through the posts!

Recommended, of course!

[Time for change]

34. Please consider signing the pledge to impeach

It's linked to "actions steps to get Bush impeached" in the OP, but those who didn't follow the link will have missed it. Here is a link to the pledge:

http://pledgetoimpeach.org/signpledgetoimpeach.html

[loyal9]

39. there many reasons for bush impeachment:

where to begin is the hardest part.i`ll be as succint as i can.bush intends to declare marshall law either before or after an attack on iran,thus in effect disolving the government for practical purposes.his firing of u.s. attorneys,military personnel being placed as cabinet members,other key personnel in key positions lead me to believe that rex-84 is in the works.sort of like operation northwoods,only that was a military operation.rex-84 will jail innocent people that create problems after marshall law has been declared.all the base closings have been turned into concentration camps,etc.etc.it would take all night to explain,but suffice it to say,bush needs to be impeached.

[Time for change]

40. I guess what you're saying is that

he needs to be impeached not only because of what he's done but because of what he is likely to do in the future.

I agree. He is not only the worst president in U.S. history, but he is by far the most dangerous. If he could get away with declaring himself dictator for life I don't doubt that he would do it. He has not a single good quality to balance out his many malicious intentions. We're asking for big trouble if we don't impeach him and remove him from office.

[ClassWarrior]

48. Or what a successor is likely do in the future.

We leave the door open to this kind of criminality, and we can look forward to WORSE than Bush/Cheney**. And yes, it can get worse.

NGU.

[Time for change]

51. I agree -- I think letting this go sets (or continues) a very bad and dangerous precedent.

[gratefultobelib]

43. There was a good discussion a couple of weeks ago that touched on this

scenario, and the consensus was that bushco would not go to the extremes that you are describing because of the economic repercussions. Not many countries would be eager to do business with us if martial law were declared, gov't dissolved, etc.

[Poiuyt]

42. Kick

[Mister Ed]

46. Kicked & Bookmarked

[Quantess]

53. Thanks for posting this! K&R.. (no text)