Sunday Discussion Group

January 29, 2006

As a rule, I find talk about impeaching Bush to be an occasionally fun diversion, but little more. The focus for Bush’s critics should be on curtailing his agenda and winning as many elections as possible in November. With a Republican Congress, plotting the president’s removal from office seems largely unproductive.

But since the Sunday Discussion Group is often a useful forum for unrealistic thought experiments, let’s give this a go: if Dems were in power, should impeachment be a serious consideration? Don’t answer too quickly; there are some pros and cons to consider.

Taking up the con side recently was the estimable Ezra Klein, who made a compelling case that a) impeaching Bush would give us President Cheney, who would help choose an heir apparent for ’08; b) voters may not perceive impeachment as absolutely necessary, which could cause voters to punish Dems the way they punished Newt & Co. for Clinton’s impeachment in ’98; and c) if impeachment becomes a routine second-term response to political scandals, it may permanently undermine institutional government. Sam Rosenfeld touched on similar concerns Thursday.

Shortly thereafter, Pandagon’s jedmunds suggested a) Cheney could probably be impeached right along with Bush; and b) assumptions about an electoral backlash are unfounded; and c) the ’98 comparison is unhelpful because the circumstances are so different. jedmunds nevertheless concludes that the Republicans took a “frivolous and irresponsible” approach to impeachment when it came to Clinton, so Dems “should be really really timid about the matter, and in fact they should be so cautious, that they shouldn’t do it, even if most people think it would be a good idea.”

And taking up the matter-of-fact approach is Lindsay Beyerstein, who argued, “An impeachment is like an indictment. People who have a lot of evidence against them deserve to be indicted. Whether their cases are heard before a grand jury (or the Senate) shouldn’t depend on whether it’s expeditious to enforce the law in this particular case.”

The issue is also generating attention and analysis from liberal news outlets such as The Nation and The Texas Observer.

So, what say you? Is impeachment a pipe dream? A serious part of the Dem agenda? An issue that should play a role in the 2006 elections?

Discuss.

I say Do it.

Impeach Cheney, too. And any other criminals still in the top ranks of government.

Dems, as usual, are second-guessing themselves, robbing themselves of their weapons. Acting more like academics than politicians. Governance isn’t a spelling bee.

Just look at the current ridiculous pausing and preening rather filibustering. During the Judiciary “hearings’ (posings). did anyone get hurt by losing (other than the voters)?

All politicians, both parties, are too lazy and too rich. We need genuine campaign finance reform — free tv time, strictly limited budgets (paid for by the government), not one dime in bribery, jail for all who accept bribes, etc.

  • At the moment, I’m on the NO IMPEACHMENT side, with an exception if Bush insists that he is above the law.

    Here is what I do not support impeachment for:

    Invading Iraq…unless substantial proof of active deception is proven (e.g. a tie between the WH and the yellowcake forgeries, which Dems should have been looking for for 3 years).
    Bungling Iraq militarily, by failing to anticipate and plan for the insurgency and for failing to equip the troops sufficiently, 90% of which was known pre-election, and is the natural risk of electing a crappy President.
    Corruption in Iraq, unless Bush is personally tied to the theft of U.S. assets (e.g. A Bush bank account in Switz.)
    Plamegate, unless Fitzgerald claims (or it is otherwise revealed) that Bush was a co-conspirator in outing Plame or covering up the WH involvement.
    Anything else which should have been an issue pre-election (e.g. Not killing bin Laden and Zawahiri, not killing Zarqawi pre-invasion, diverting resources from Afghan. to Iraq, diverting money from Afghan. to Iraq, or lying about the cost of the Medicare prescription plan).
    Anything else which is a product of Bush’s lack of competence or twisted ideology and should be addressed through the ordinary political process (e.g. Katrina, Desire to spy on U.S. citizens, bungling Medicare prescription plan rollout, etc.)

    In short, impeachment should be reserved for restraining a President who refuses to be restrained by the Constitution and Laws of the U.S., not for addressing Presidential problems that should be addressed through the ordinary political process.

  • At what point DO we hold our elected officials responsible to uphold the law?

    Nixon got away with it in Watergate (OK, he had to resign, but it’s not like he spent the rest of his days in prison or anything.)

    Reagan and Bush I got away with it in Iran-Contra.

    We let these bastards off the hook for political reasons, and what do we get? Increasingly more egregious law-breaking by the next Republican adminstration is what we get, incredibly with the same set of criminals.

    I can’t imagine that anyone could put up a serious argument that we SHOULDN’T impeach.

    Jesus Christ, wouldn’t anyone of US be in jail for doing this stuff, and wouldn’t we deserve it? Why are we so easy on the political class?

  • Oops…sorry. Above list of non-impeachable offenses should have been formatted. HTML tag didn’t take.

    Anyway, the shorter version of my post is that Bush should not be impeached merely for sucking, only for a refusal to follow a Congressional demand that he follow the law (it doesn’t matter what law).

    But that raises questions that I haven’t seen people address much: What should we do about an administration that just sucks? Why should we have to wait 4 years for removal of a terrible, terrible administration? And what if we need to remove more than just the President?

    What we really need is a new Amendment (The No Confidence Amendment) that would permit either the Senate or the House to call a Special Executive Election upon meeting a threshold of dissatisfaction. I would recommend several, high hurdles: Letters of No Confidence sent to House of Representatives by 2/3 of state Governors, 2/3 vote of House, 2/3 vote of Senators). Governors, Senators, and Congresspersons would have to have a good faith belief that the Administration was incompetent to execute the duties of the Executve branch.

    Upon attaining a 2/3 vote, a Special Election would be held the soonest November. The current Pres. and V.P. would still be permitted to run, but the opportunity to replace the currrent administration would be available.

  • Impeach the entire Bush administration, find them all guilty of treason.

    [Edited because it recommended violence against elected officials. -CB]

  • WRT Impeachment – yes, of course we should be demanding it, and if it’s possible to make it happen, we ought to do it. The NSA wiretapping scandal is more than sufficient to justify impeachment, especially as the President has vowed to continue violating FISA.

    Should impeachment be the focus of our agenda, and of our hopes? Certainly not. I’d be the first to admit it’s not a likely thing that it’ll happen; I’ll be surprised if Bush isn’t present at the 2009 inaugural. However, advocating impeachment is both justified and could be good politics. Fears that we’ll be punished for it are silly. What’s going to happen, the Dems will end up like the Republicans did? You mean, dominating all branches of the federal government? I’m pretty scared of that.

  • I’m in the impeachment as indictment camp. I think he should be impeached, but I’m not convinced that the calendar makes it a practical issue. Before there is an impeachment, we would need to have a host of congressional investigative hearings. We all know the laundry list there: Prewar intelligence failures, Abramoff’s business at the White House, The warrantless wiretaps, Incompetence and cronyism at FEMA and elsewhere, etc. Getting the regime to comply would be like pulling teeth at each step. They would hem, haw and stonewall in an effort to run out the clock.

    By this time, it would be 2008 and an election year. I’m afraid by that point, too many people view a formal impeachment as a waste of time, or a crass political ploy – the guy is as good as gone anyway. That’s not to say it’s not worth perusing.

    The important thing is to identify what was done wrong, what was done in violation of the law, and fix it. Follow the evidence and present it. Let the chips fall where they may. If momentum for impeachment gathers, go with it. But, do it with the seriousness it deserves, not the circus the repubs staged with Clinton.

    If handled correctly, it could provide a huge platform for the Dems to define themselves by their actions. If done hastily and haphazardly, it could blow up in the Dems face like a trick cigar.

  • I think space is right.

    As much as I despise the lying bastards of the Bush-Cheney administration, they couldn’t do the terrible things that they do without enablers (Oprah Winifrey comes to mind). The prime enablers of Bush & Co. for the past five years have been the Republicans in Congress. And the media is a close second.

    I would liken the Republicans running the government to some sort of mythical beast. Cutting off a head or two won’t do much good, because the beast will only grow new heads. The only way to kill the beast will be to poison it and then disembowel it and grind it guts into a pate to fed to Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife (and other tax-dodging Robber Barons).

    Impeachment just won’t kill the beast.

  • I also say do it. The Dems should have learned a lesson about how to handle an impeachment properly after 1998. And if we end up with President Cheney, so what? Surely the Democrats can handle him.
    He’s got a 20 percent approval rating. Which is going to make any chosen “successor” wildly unpopular.

    But I think it’s a pipedream. The current crop of Democrats will continue to equivocate and pander to some “elusive” swing voter, that’s always out of reach. They’ll no doubt save impeachment for a rainy day, just like the filibuster. It’s about time for Democrats to lose any possible momentum and voter interest.

  • I see impeachment as the responsibility of all Congressmen and Senators when it becomes the last means of fulfilling their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution.

    For my money, it has now become plain that this administration has worked to subvert the Constitution to satisfy the greed of their corporate backers and their own lust for power. I understand that members of Congress may wish to have more plain evidence via investigations into the adminstration’s breaking the FISA law, but as that becomes clearly established, Congress is bound by honor, oath, and patriotism to bring impeachment proceedings.

    The role of the populace is to constantly and loudly state our support of impeachment and pledge our electoral vengeance against those who fail to fulfill their oaths and their duties. We should make it clear to the Republican members of Congress that their choice is between President Hastert now or President Pelosi later.

    INDICT ! IMPEACH !! IMPALE !!!

  • Do Bush assertions of unlimited authority undermine institutional government?

    Personally, I think the first step should be the institution of several well-funded independent prosecutors — including at least one judge advocate general to investigate war crimes in Iraq as well as one to investigate Abramoff and one to investigate contracting in Iraq (i.e. Halliburton).

  • The corporate shadow government that calls the shots and benefits from the resulting deregulated looting of our country is not necessarily loyal to Bush and the Repubs… who are just tools to be bought, used and discarded when worn out. Deepthroat said “follow the money”, and it still applies. Until there is a radical campaign finance reform, and clear limitations on the military industrial complex, our political activisim is of little real consequence.
    Impeach or not… it really doesn’t matter unless underlying conditions are addressed.

  • For all the yammering we do regarding the present misguided course this country is on, the incompetence of our leadership, and near outright criminality of many of its actions, I would say that we have gained just about nothing out of it. With Republicans in control of the machinery the chance of doing the thorough investigating we need to make any of our charges stick is basically impossible, so this rules out any chance of bringing about impeachment prior to any potential changes in control of Congress this fall. After that, it may well be too late. But the right thing to do is not put the cart in front of the horse with the impeachment talk. If our arguments had somehow brought about some accountability, Id say ok, because IMHO the sum total of all the arrogant powergrabbing that is going on, even without the incompetence of execution, is surely more impeachable than lying about a blowjob. So, for now, why not focus on activities that can bring about change in Nov06 and then worry about finding a way to investigate what is going on behind the scenes in the leadership of this country. It’s no accident that there are so many potential criminal investigations that could legitimately be undertaken. That should tell you something right there. But talking impeachment now just makes Democrats or Indepents like myself or anyone who cares about this country just look like whiners, because not enough people believe the reasons we would be asking for it to come about, whether they are legit or not.

  • Going to war on false pretenses and the NSA spying scandal are extremely serious offenses, and just how many more could I add after I finish another cup of coffee? My biggest thought is, what happens to the law in the future if we don’t enforce it today?

    The sad part about this whole situation is that it shouldn’t even be a partisan issue. If any of us were to commit a serious crime our political party affiliation wouldn’t even come into play.

    I’m sure that my arguments are similar to some that were being made while Clinton was in office, but what is going on now is literally destroying the foundations of our democracy.

    My recommendation, an impeachment double-date, for Bush and Cheney.

  • We should not impeach until impeachment is obvious to everyone. A Democratic congress should hold hearings into all the nefarious activities of this administration. As light is shined on the inner workings of the Bush administration, the case for impeachment will make itself.

    So, hearings first, impeachment second.

  • IF Democrats take back one (or both) Chambers, I don’t think an Impeachment could be put together in one year.

    Better to open committee investigations into EVERYTHING going on in the White House and executvie branch. Expose all the rot to the light of day. This will force Bush to complain to the Supreme Court weekly trying to withhold documents, preventing testimony, and endlessly explaining why the American People who are the actual owners of the American government are not entitled to know what is going on.

    Also churning up alot of campaign fodder to make the 08 Republican candidates life miserable.

  • ..as a follow up to Klein’s arguments – if Bush is impeached, he could hardly go down without accomplices, because frankly, I dont think he is the one pullign the strings, and the evidence required to show that what is happenign in this country is criminal, would surely not leave Cheney standing. However, I dont know how the rules for this would work. Also, in order to impeach Bush for the various high crimes and misdemeanors he would be accused of, we’d need considerable evidence- since what we have shown so far has clearly not been sufficient even to get decent hearings going, or produce hearings that are actually useful at getting at the truth, since noone in congress seems interested in forcing the administration to ever hand over documents that actually get at the truth. So, if impeached, as in Klein’s second argument, there would be plenty of good reason brought out into the light of day, and there wouldnt be so many people thinking it shouldnt have been done. As of now, this isnt going to happen. If we were able to impeach now on a whim, this argument might hold up. Third, as to undermining government, this is silly. There has been one recent impeachment, and two hardly makes a trend. Given the vastly different reasons the two presidents would be impeached, although the lying part is important in both, they wouldnt be comparable. One is a personal foible compounded by a personal coverup – the other is a fundamental breakdown of the checks and balances system in this country. Any impeachment procedure in this country would clearly be shown to be the latter, and not the mostly irrelevant former.

  • Some reasons from the Rude Pundit http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/ to filibuster Sam Alito’s appointment would also make a case for impeaching Bush & Co:

    Then here’s a brief list of reasons to filibuster Alito that have nothing to do with Savage Sammy:

    – Because President Bush authorizes spying on Americans without a warrant.
    – Because President Bush authorized torture by Americans and through renditioning.
    – Because President Bush detains people without charge for an indefinite period.
    – Because President Bush ignores whatever laws he wants, even if he signs them.
    – Because President Bush lied about Iraq to get us into the war.
    – Because the Army is stretched “to the breaking point.”
    – Because the reconstruction of Iraq is being fucked up, too.
    – Because President Bush refuses to acknowledge what it’s gonna take to help the people of the Gulf Coast.
    – Because Ford is getting rid of 30,000 employees.
    – Because Karl Rove still has a job.
    – Because President Bush and the Republicans fail to fully fund the bullshit “No Child Left Behind” program.
    – Because President Bush denies the existence of global warming.
    – Because the Medicare prescription drug program is a clusterfuck that will end up in people dying because of its existence.
    – Because President Bush denies any connection to Jack Abramoff.
    – Because President Bush refuses to speak before any audience that doesn’t adore him.
    – Because Dick Cheney exists.
    – Because Osama Bin Laden is either living free or died free.
    – Because Donald Rumsfeld still has a job.
    – Because the White House has stymied every investigation into its fuck-ups.
    – Because President Bush calls spying “terrorist surveillance” and pollution “Clean Skies” and money to churches “Faith-Based Initiatives.”
    – Because Richard Scaife doesn’t need another tax cut.
    – Because there has to be a line in the sand, somewhere; otherwise, it’s just one long desert until who-knows-when.

  • My views on this change daily, hourly. The most challenging and intellectually honest view (as I see it) is the one which asks, Are the Democrats any better? I don’t mean that lightly. The hardest thing to face about Bush and Cheney is that they are our progeny. We’re going to keep bopping back and forth between slightly different genres of corruption and corporatism if we don’t face up to it.

    I think maybe I’d like to see Bush and Cheney prosecuted in a way which is less political and more judicious.

    Whatever happens, impeachment or censure or prosecution won’t do us any good unless they reveal the truth equally to all sides, all believers. The right has got to face up to the damage it’s done; the left has got to face up to having enabled it.

    Bush and Cheney are symptoms of deeper problems: a growing disregard for law, decreasing civic responsibility, huge dissatisfaction with a culture which values economic success over all else, and a curiously childlike habit of blaming the other for our failed choices. Impeachment along wouldn’t cure those problems and would likely increase anger and ramp up the blame game.

  • I think Ronnie Dugger as it exactly right: indict both of the goddamned criminals (and just take Rove out and hang him from the first lamp post).

    In the meantime, it is time to STOP CALLING THEM CONSERVATIVES! They are NOT conservatives any more than Hitler and Mussolini were conservatives. They are far right revolutionaries in service to corporatism, just as Hitler and Mussolini were – and this has nothing to do with conservatism. Look at the last five years of their legislation and you can see this.

    Bush, Cheney, and the present Confederate Party masquerading as Republicans are the current expression of the ideology of the Barbadian Pirates who immigrated to Charleston in 1715 and whose ideology of avariciousness has fueled the extermination of Indians, enslavement of Africans, and the imperial land grabs known as “Manifest Destiny,” none of which was going on before their arrival to the degree it went on after. No wonder these guys are all Texans (said as a former Texan who knows the real history of how that swamp was founded).

  • No matter what, though, I think that the conservatives’ sense of the thing is that public discussion about impeachment is pretty bad for them. I think they would prefer that we not even talk about impeachment at all. It seems they would like to try to make us shy about even admitting the possibility of taking any serious measures.

    I guess they think that our being seen as considering taking measures like that tends to improve our image, and to make them look a lot worse.

  • Ronnie Dugger and Tom Cleaver — One thing that I would like to point out, and I’m trying to do this in an inoffensive way, is that right-wing pundits such as Michelle Malkin are constantly trolling the blogs on the left looking for examples of how hateful the left is. By advocating hanging I think that we’re giving them plenty of ammo. I don’t disagree with your sentiments, but I think that we need to be extra vigilant about our rhetoric.

    I hope that you don’t take this in the wrong way, it’s just something that has concerned me recently.

  • Basically, we should continue doing our duty and talking about impeachment with the seriousness that the issue deserves. It’s a real issue.

    Will we impeach? I don’t know; you don’t know. Could happen. This administration has been involved in a lot of very serious things.

  • I can handle either idealism or pragmatism. The problem with impeachment is that it is rooted in neither. It is both an unlikely and imperfect goal to strive for.

  • I tend to agree with bcinaz, and to some degree with Swan.

    Where this leads me is that

    (a) i am not a fan of impeachment generally, but intellectually I think impeachment is well justified here primarily on the wholly unlawful domestic spying (and I suspect we only know the tip of the iceburg on this issue – with real investigations with teeth, I suspect the facts would get much more damning);

    (b) i think merely keeping the issue alive and in the atmosphere is useful;

    (c) the political strategist in me opposes actually trying it even if we regain control in 06 because (i) it will take a lot of time and resources from leading Ds that would be better spent winning political battles in 08; and more important (ii) i would rather deal with this in the voting booth, with the electorate acting as a jury on the misdeeds of the Rs rather than “cleansing” those misdeeds with impeachment and having the electorate entering a referendum on whether we used impeachment for political purposes (unless, somehow, between now and then we are able to lead general public opinion through a sea-change and they are clamoring by sizable majorities for impeachment).

    If we regain some power in 06, I think the better use of our resources would be, as bcinaz suggests, to use committee work and investigative tools to expose more and more evidence for the “jury of voters” to consider in 2008.

  • I favor impeachment because three years is too long a time to allow this administration to wreak more destruction.

  • Space, I think impeachment can be rooted in both pragmatism and idealism. In fact, for it to happen, it must be. But I agree that it’s not a goal to strive for. It’s a tool for remedying a serious wrong – an option that should be at the center of the table. If the evidence warrants it, we must do it. If the evidence doesn’t we shouldn’t.

  • But the right thing to do is not put the cart in front of the horse with the impeachment talk. G2000

    At the moment, I’m on the NO IMPEACHMENT side, with an exception if Bush insists that he is above the law. space

    G2000 and space took the words out of my mouth. Let’s focus on taking over at least once branch of Congress and instituting some real oversight. If Bush resists that oversight, then we can consider impeachment as an option.

    Many of us have elevated our suspicions to facts. This is fine for deciding how to vote. However, impeachment and conviction would be a traumatic experience for the country.

    What we need are real answers to the questions raised in space’s first post. Again we can only get those answers if Dem control at least one house of Congress.

    Acting more like academics than politicians.
    We could do worse than having Democrats acting like politicians. Most of my insights into the ugly tactics of the Republicans have come from my first hand observations of academic politics.

  • Political strategists seem to think like chess players, analyzing each possible move to anticipate the opposition’s response.

    There’s a place for that in political crises, but there are also questions of morality and law, which sometimes trump strategy.

    We need not be afraid of impeachment because the Republicans misused it in impeaching Clinton for lying about consenual sex.

    We should be afraid of a President who blatantly breaks our laws. They are OUR laws, and OUR laws are diminshed by the precedent set when the President (Commander in Chief and all that) breaks them, and we ignore it. He must be held accountable. Impeachment and removal from office are the only tools we have, so we must use them.

  • A dose of horrible possibilities:

    The Republicans will actually consolidate their power in the 2006 elections.

    Why do I say that?

    Because I believe that the American people (by and large) are steadily devolving into brutes who enjoy the power of violence.

    And I believe that the Republican party which flips the bird at Europe and drops bombs on the Middle East… secretly appeals to a population reared and raised on endless tv and movie violence.

    And I believe that the HAVES (in this case clearly Americans with their incredible consumption of the world’s resources) in history have always fought to maintain their HAVINGNESS.

    Now couple all I’ve written with the fact of dwindling resources:

    Dwindling oil.
    Dwindling fish catches.
    Dwindling arable land.
    Dwindling potable water.

    What I am saying is something no other blogger dares suggest:

    Bush and Cheney represent America perfectly.
    They are the true and somewhat secret face of America.

    “Kill them all and let God sort them out”…. isn’t just a embarrassing slogan of a few rural Americans anymore.

    It is in the heart of many of your countryman…
    And therein lies the danger.

    I hope I am a wrong of course….
    But….
    I fear I am right.

  • If the press would be honest and cover these stories, Bush&Co would be stopped and perhaps forced to resign. Impeachment takes too long, and these bastards need stopping NOW.

  • A prosecuter won’t bring a case to trial unless he/she is fairly certain of being able to obtain a conviction. A conviction in the US Senate would require 67 votes. Presuming that the Democrats will not have anywhere close to 67 votes – mathematically impossible I think – they would have to depend on the votes of several, or many, Republicans. And there lies the issue – the GOP is generally as corrupt and monolithic as an organized crime family – could many Republican senators actually be counted on vote based on the merits of the impeachment case and not on party loyalty? Highly doubtful. Instead it would become just a futile and traumatic episode in partisan warfare – just as the 1998-99 Impeachment of Clinton was. And regardless of Bush’s crimes or the proof presented, as long as it is perceived as partisan warfare, it will generate backlash and be looked upon as payback for Clinton.

    Instead, if the Democrats do succeed in controlling a branch of Congress, it is imperitive to hold hearings and oversight. expose as much of the Bush regime as possible, and hold the Administrations feet to the fire of public opinion. Explosive hearings get the media’s attention – can be far-ranging and far-reaching – and can captrure the public’s interest over the long term. This is exactly what need to solidify the Democratic message of “Culrure of Corruption” during the summer of 2008 – and keep the Republicans on the defensive, rather than the offense, going into the 2008 election.

    One possible result of this strategy would be the Republicans turning to someone outside of Washington as their standard-bearer in 2008 – Jeb may be tainted by his ties to his brother – meaning someone like Guiliani might get the nomination – which would piss off the Religious Right royally.

  • At the moment, I’m on the NO IMPEACHMENT side, with an exception if Bush insists that he is above the law.

    Bush himself, on television, on numerous occasions, keeps saying this.

    What more do you need?

  • While there are many reasons for impeachment to be plausible, I do think it is a bit of a pipe dream, especially with the GOP in control of the House. There is also the question of if somehow Dubya did get removed, do we really want Darth Cheney to ascend to the presidency? Not many people have proposed the idea of impeaching Cheney, but that could have unforseen consequences as well, since Dubya could then anoint a handpicked successor for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination. The sad fact is that I think impeachment might be taken more seriously right now if they hadn’t wasted one on Clinton for lying about oral sex. There’s a reason only two presidents have been impeached ever (and none removed) — and I don’t think there’s stomach for going for a third this soon after Clinton, no matter how deserved.

  • What I like I about this idea is we can continue to obstruct governmental process so that nothing gets done, and then we can blame the Republicans that long-standing problems continue to fester. Then maybe the electorate will let us try to govern this nation.
    .
    This is much easier than convincing the nation to elect us on the strength of our ideas!

  • OK, but the biggest minus of not pursuing impeachment- or at least talking about impeachment- is this:

    The American public, public office holders and media will come away from this presidency not having the question of whether any of this stuff can constitute impeachable offenses resolved. And that sets a terrible precedent.

    There at least have to be hearings, with the question of, “Is any of this impeachable?” looming in the background. The American people have to be able to protect themselves from executive-office corruption and incompetence. To safeguard our national security, we can’t compromise on that issue one iota.

  • Impeachment is indictment. It is also a historical tattoo that will follow the Bush administration for all time. Just as Clinton’s achievements are shadowed by his impeachment, let Bush’s crimes and failures be reinforced by impeachment. More than likely, the Senate would not vote to remove Bush from office; therefore the prospect of President Cheney is a non-issue. The only way the American people and the world will recognize the seriousness Bush’s illegal actions and duplicity is to start the impeachment process.

  • Cheney has always been the “impeachment insurance” from the very beginning in 2000.

  • To Swan#40

    If your goal is to test the constitutionality of the argument the President is using in the wiretap issue, who do you want it tested by:
    .
    ….our illustious senators — as the jurors in an impeachment?
    .
    ….the media — as the intended audience for hearings?
    .
    Isn’t that what we have a judicial system for?

  • The idea that Karl Rove would prefer that people do talk about impeachment is absurd. That’s like saying that a recently divorced- wife would prefer that everybody in town keep chit-chatting about her divorce all the time. It’s like saying that Karl Rove prefers Abramoff’s getting indicted, pleading guilty and the story being in the news, or that Karl Rove prefers that Delay getting indicted & the story being in the news.

    Of course there would have to be investigations in the first place, and Bush’s time in office is running out. But when there are investigations of the president, it’s just natural to discuss whether this stuff is impeachable of not. A substantial portion of America really wants to have the answer to that question resolved.

  • Terrific interview just now on NPR-ATC with Desmond Tutu in which he speaks, among other things, about the importance of truth and reconciliation — in fact he believes there should be one in the US. I don’t disagree, but he was talking about it in terms of racial reconcilation (slavery, native Americans). I think there should be a truth and reconciliation commission here… about our leadership, its illegalities, and who owns it.

  • One consideration if we don’t impeach Shrub is that we will have to pay for secret service protection for that criminal’s lifetime. Frankly speaking, he has cost America far too much already and I think he should pay for his own protection. I won’t even go into all the other reasons I think we should impeach him, Cheney and the rest of his criminal cohorts. (Not even mentioning the 100,000 or more people that would still be alive if that turd hadn’t reached the pinnacle of his puppetdom.)

  • This is simple. If we’re going to impeach, impeach Cheney.

    1 – He and his philosophy are the source of so much of this chicanery.
    2 – This would avoid the whole W cult of personality; to the extent Cheney has one, it’s a small and peculiar crew.
    3 – President Hastert? Doesn’t concern me that much, in comparitive terms anyway.
    4 – The investigation would get directly at all the issues we’re concerned about.
    5 – It would make Bush look weak, or to put that another way, reveal the fact that he is weak.

  • My point of view has been expressed by others.
    There can be no doubt, IMHO, that the impeachment of Bill Clinton cheapened the process and weakened its seriousness as a political weapon against this administration. But, I cannot shake my sense that Bush’s actions and proclaimations indicate that he deems himself above the law make him a dangerous executive that should be checked and checked hard in defense of our form of government. So, I cannot bring myself to discard the consideration of impeachment. That said, it is premature to jump to impeachment. Oversight must come first, and that oversight must be robust to expose the many actions that have been antithetical to democracy, antithetical to making this country safer, and antithetical to the prosperity and well-being of millions of voters who supported Bush. Oversight is the way to expose that (1) Bush fancies himself an emperor and (2) that “emperor” is stark naked before us. As of today (since Democrats do not have the power CB asked us to imagine they had) simply having serious hearings seems a pipe dream – let alone the notion of impeachment. So, we must push hard for serious hearings and see where that road takes us. But, I do believe the words “George W. Bush” and “impeachment” absolutely belong in the same (affirmative) sentence.

  • Impeachment? Nope—it’s just a knee-jerk reaction. Even in the best of scenarios, George Jr. gets off with a presidential pardon—courtesy of whoever takes his place. Take down Bush and Cheney—who’s next in line? Speaker of the House; Senate Majority Leader; right on down the ad-nauseum list of characters.

    I think the best-case scenario (IMHO, of course) is to pour everything into the ’06 midterms. Try to take just one of the two Congressional chambers away from the “Godlessly Obese Pachyderm.” Then, have that one house (whether the Senate of House of Representatives) bury the administration under a mountain of legislation, all aimed at enforcing the myriad promises made and not kept. That, then, could be the cornerstone for the ’08 campaign:

    He made you a promise.

    We tried to make him keep his word.

    He refused…and his Party helped him get away with it.

    On a number line, his lame-duck coattails could suddenly have a very negative value—even for those who make the effort to stay off those coattails….

  • Go after Cheney first for betraying Valerie Plame and fixing Halliburton contracts with Feith’s office. If evidence against Bush comes up during that, so much the better.

    Cheney is a much easier target and has much less sympathy among voters.

  • I’ve no doubt that Bush has committed several offenses that, under a Democratically controlled Congress could be considered impeachable. Last I checked, the Republicans held a sizable majority. Only recently have any Republicans in Congress begun to speak in opposition to the party line. So, we’re a long way from getting impeachment.

    I’m with those who think Dems ought to occassionally use the “i” word to refresh the public’s short attention span. In the meantime, they ought to work out of their battered-party syndrome, put forth some viable ideas and candidates, and win some elections.

    In spite of all that the Republicans did in the 00 and 04 presidential elections, I still believe those contests were lost by Gore and Kerry more than the were won by Bush.

  • Impeachment is fine. If he deserves it and the charges can be made to stick and the exercise isn’t just some obstructionist circus then it’s even an obligation.

    But it still feels like one more incidence of Dems hoping that some “one fell swoop” manuever is going to be the device that allows Dems back into power without really analyzing or changing their own methods of doing business.

    Impeachment is a powerful word and a powerful procedure. It shouldn’t be used lightly by either side.

  • please permit me a little space to educate who wrote the column. “impeach bush” is as much as rallying cry as a goal. if the grunts ain’t in the fight, there’s no fight.

    anyway, here’s what I’m doing to get the folks fired up … read and learn …

    okay, let’s say you’d like to learn about an actual political campaign to impeach the president …

    ah, none of this noise about a yearning for somebody to go do it …

    in addition, you’d like to learn about a game plan to snag Osama …

    if all the above meets with your approval, then click, somehow, on the following hyperlink:

    http://hewhoisknownassefton.blogspot.com/2006/01/osama-and-our-president-dumass-botch_20.html

    and get ready for a ride on a wild blog

    toodles
    …….\
    .he who is known as sefton

    oh, yes, the above was copied and then pasted by an actual human being, who visited your blog.

    oh, one more thing, keep an eye on Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional District … I’m trying to base my campaign on the three planks I nailed together in my platform … “impeach bush” is the first plank … the second is “impeach bush” … and the third is like the second, “impeach bush”.

  • If Dems were in power, should impeachment be a serious consideration?

    If Dems were in power they should make an agressive push to reestablish the rights and authority of the Congress. This country was created with 3 co-equal branches. Each of them needs to be strong and take its responsibilities and obligations seriously. Partisan Republicans today want a hierarchy with the President being boss, the Congress being junior partners and the Judiciary being simple, unthinking automatons. I’d hope the Dems would spend time providing oversight of the war budget, requiring accountability of the DoJ and DoD, investigating administration abuses of law, and the authorization of torture among other things. Rebuilding the 3 branch system of checks and balances is the most important job they’d have. Impeachment would only be necessary if the administration continued to assert it would disobey the law.

  • There are a lot of little lessons that Democrats could stand to walk away from these past few years with. One of them is to be more audacious.

    If I had kids and they asked me, “Is the country in a serious situation right now?” I’d say, “No shit the country is in a serious situation right now.”

    And then if they asked me if impeachment was a serious thing, I’d say “Yes, impeachment is a very serious thing.”

    Finally, if they asked “Well should people be considering impeaching the president now then?” I would say, “Well…” and then I’d explain all the practical and legal hurdles to impeachment.

    Point being, so long as we are aware of and keep in mind the hurdles that stand in the way, talk of impeachment isn’t exactly a bucnh of dizzying, dangerous talk.

    Remember, on the other side there are a bunch of people who rigged up a fake impeachment that was basically a total waste of oodles and oddles taxpayer money. Just talking about impeaching W without being near to being in a position to actually decide to impeach is not exactly perilous.

    A lot of liberals need to be a little more like Beverly Hills Cop, I think. Otherwise, pick a different foxhole, please. We liberals will keep getting our asses handed to us until we actual can show we have learned the lessons we are claiming to have learned from these times.

  • By all means, focus on things that are practically accomplishable. But a constant goal has to be to keep talking to the people. And one of the things our base is most going to want to hear our message on is all the things Bush has done with his office over the past few years.

    And they can see for themselves that there might be some scandal somewhere there. So being prepared to explain whether or not impeachment is practical, and to explain where you think investigations could possibly have led to impeachable behavior, is more of a civic duty than it is something useless.

    Talking about the last few years as if nothing possibly happened in the White House that possibly could be impeachable seems to sort of fly in the face of reality, to me.

  • “An impeachment is like an indictment. People who have a lot of evidence against them deserve to be indicted. Whether their cases are heard before a grand jury (or the Senate) shouldn’t depend on whether it’s expeditious to enforce the law in this particular case.”

    Impeachment is a no-brainer.

    All the equivocation in (some of) these comments, analysis on the basis of tactics and strategy, the likelihood of success, or how impeachment would be perceived in the public eye, is symptomatic of the terrible wishy-washiness afflicting liberals today. If this is the response of the left-wing of the democratic party, it’s no wonder the party as a whole is so weak-kneed and wussy. “The best men lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

    Personally, I find it disheartening. There are some things you do without regard to consequences, just because it’s the right thing, the principled thing to do. If you don’t have the courage of your convictions- if you can’t forcefully oppose the policies and tactics of this administration- then why do you think the party merits support? Why should anyone support the party of timidity, of risk-aversion, of polling, focus groups, effete strategists, and tepid sloganeering? “Together, we can do better.” There’s a natural limit to how well invertebrates can do.

    Go back and review Al Gore’s speech of just last week. For all the approbation it received, the comments I see in this thread make me wonder how well and widely it was understood. A trumped up war, civil rights issues, torture, indefinite solitary detentions, warrantless wiretapping, renditions, Geneva violations- if there’s a will to impeach, there are impeachable offenses. If impeachment is not warranted in response to the many outrages perpetrated by this administration, then when would it be appropriate?

    Steve, your blog is wonderful. I read it every day. But on this issue, I think you’re missing the point. My concern is that the Bush administration be a singular, unrepeated anomaly, and not become in any way the paradigm for future presidencies. I think it’s vital that their actions be emphatically, thoroughly, and resoundingly discredited and repudiated. Impeachment is necessary to accomplish that. It will be an injustice if it doesn’t happen.

  • Impeach the bastards. These people have lied to start a war to inrich their buddies. I don’t care how much Sadam sucked, he was the Iraqi peoples problem, NOT OURS. to any sane observer Bush and Chenny are war criminals. OK, they might not be AS bad as Hitler or Stalin, but how many tens of thousands of innocent people have to dir before we say ENOUGH! Impeach them, then strip them of any immunity and turn then over to the World Court. Then, MAYBE, America stands some chance of regaining ANY credibility as a force for rule of law and the moral high ground. And that dosn’t EVEN begin to go into the ILLEGAL domestic spying. This is clearly an administration that views the constitution as “that God damned piece of paper” as verified by three, count em three differant sources. They are criminals.

  • Look, the President went on national television and radio and bragged about breaking the law with regard to FISA. If I widely announced I was guilty of a serious crime, the local constabulary would be at my house in under 10 minutes. If the president is not above the law, he should already be under arrest. Impeachment is letting him off easy. He’s a criminal, an oathbreaker, and a liar. If that doesn’t get you impeached, nothing should.

  • Ray, sorry you think we are being easy on Bush. I personally agree that the administration has placed itsefl far above the law on a few fronts and engaged in pretty outrageous behavior all around. With a democratic congress, impeachment would already be underway, but one thing that’s important to remember, is that with a democratic congress, the WH wouldnt have been able to overstep so far. Regardless, while I think this whole administration is illegitimate and should have already been impeached, the issues we are discussing are not so much “have impeachable offenses been committed?” but rather “is it possible to push forward with impeachment proceedings” given what we know and how the system works. Sadly, given whose hands are on the reins of power, I dont think it is workable at this point.

  • IMPEACH! Both Bush & Cheney simultaneously. It is similar to an indictment and if they’re found “not guilty” so be it. But the ‘Rule of Law’ means the Rule of Law (read ACCOUNTABILITY) and there has been an enormous amount of lawbreaking in this Administration. And the GOPs should have their feet held to the fire over their own Clinton impeachment statements. There is no political down side to having convictions and acting on them…sometimes the useless and futile gesture is the right one.

    Get angry or get the fuck out of Congress!

    • Comments are closed.