If we're going to get ticked off about our leadership not impeaching these SOBs, we at least need to game out what would likely go down if they were to heed our advice.
After all, I don't think these people have taken impeachment off the table because they like BushCo. They feel like impeachment is a (big) political loser.
Posted by dj moonbat at June 9, 2008 05:45 PM“Democrats pledge civility and bipartisanship in the conduct of the work here and we pledge partnerships with Congress and the Republicans in Congress, and the president — not partisanship.”
Yeah Nancy, that worked out real well, didn't it?
"They feel like impeachment is a (big) political loser."
What ever happened to people with integrity, who believe that when others act in a criminal manner, they should pay the price regardless of who they are? Let me ask you one thing, who were the real losers by not impeaching Bush?
Bush was right, he was above the law.
Let me ask you one thing, who were the real losers by not impeaching Bush?
I don't know.
I know that I have a strong visceral desire for Bush and his enablers to be punished. But what I want even more is for America to become a better place -- a process that, given the unfortunate realities of the two-party system, will involve the election of many more Democrats over the next few decades.
If foregoing Bush's impeachment leaves my eye-for-an-eye cravings unsatisfied, but makes the public more inclined to elect Democrats, I must reluctantly toe the line. I'm not sure they have correctly assessed the downside of impeachment, but again, it's that downside that's stopping them -- not some kind of warm fuzzies toward the administration.
Posted by dj moonbat at June 9, 2008 06:08 PMMy point is that whether or not Bush should have been impreached is not a political question, it is a legal question, right? Bush has violated the law, the Constitution, the rights of American citizens, and yet, the Democrats hesitated for political reasons? Didn't stop the Republicans for trying to impeach Clinton (although no law had been violated) did it, and they won the next election.
The price we have paid for being "political" in our judgement has cost this Country dearly. Future administrations now know that breaking the law may be too political for the opposition to render impeachment as an option.
Evil reigns where good men do nothing.
Some are guilty, all are responsible.
Posted by Judith#1 at June 9, 2008 06:29 PM
they didnt want to make him into a "victim" so he got any sympathy and just let him keep being to blame for all the garbage until his time in office was/is over. Same reason they have fixed nothing.
Just my guess
Posted by the young Judith at June 9, 2008 06:38 PMMy point is that whether or not Bush should have been impreached is not a political question, it is a legal question, right?
I think impeachment was always intended to be a political measure.
Posted by dj moonbat at June 9, 2008 06:39 PMLive on CSpan NOW:
Rep Kucinich is reading 35 Articles of Impeachment into the record. 22: Secret Laws, FISA. 23: Posse Comitatus (armies as police). 24: NSA warrantless wiretapping of citizens.
He's up to 25 Total Information Awareness
"On January 20th, 2009, if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account this Administration will hand off a toolbox with more powers than any President has ever had, more powers than the founders could have imagined. And that box may be handed to Hillary Clinton or it may be handed to John McCain or Barack Obama or someone else. But whoever gets it, one of the things we know about power is that people don't give away the tools." — John Nichols
In Nichols book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT, he argues that impeachment is an essential instrument of America's democratic system. Nichols' argument also bases the power of impeachment in the hands of the people, rather than the congress. In his recent article, "In Praise of Impeachment," Nichols argues "While the Constitution handed Congress the power to officially check such despotism, Jefferson and his colleagues fully expected the American people to be the champions of the application of the rule of law to an errant executive."
Posted by Judith#1 at June 9, 2008 08:00 PMI think the segment of the population that actively desires retribution for Iraq is quite small. I think most people want to be able to forget the whole thing ever happened. I don't think they'll take kindly to a lengthy, public process that involves reminding them of stuff they conveniently ignored in the run-up to war.
Posted by dj moonbat at June 9, 2008 08:51 PMdj, yes, it is a political process by which a president can be removed from office. However, politics should play no part in it other than to bring the charges. A president should be removed because he has broken the law.
At one point-in-time, 51% of the people were behind impreaching Bush and 54% Cheney. The US Constitution says presidents and vice presidents can be impeached formally charged by the House for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" by a simple majority vote.
While conviction by the Senate requires a two-thirds majority to be removed from office, and even if we did not have the votes, it certainly would have sent a severe warning to future politicians. However, the Democrats and some Republicans, afraid of their own shadows, chose to ignore high crimes and misdemeanors because of "politics." For me it is very simple, you either believe in the law or you don't. You cannot believe in the law only when it is convenient or politically safe.
OT: S.O.F.A maybe in jeopardy, another blow to Shrub!!
Posted by Goyo at June 9, 2008 09:54 PMMany Americans like to think they lead by example. That is something I fundamentally disagree with, but I also think Americans presume they learn by example, an even more preposterous assumption. Impeachment is necessary for its own sake--to remove untrustworthy and destructive leadership. It is also an object lesson to others---you know, the old "capital punishment is deterrent to crime" theory conservatives love so much. The "broken window" theory of police enforcement touted by law and order types. The old "Clinton blow jobs are the beginning of moral decadence and lead to perjury in high office" theory of how to make an example and learn from it.
Yeah, right.
Posted by gtash at June 10, 2008 05:32 AMThe leadership did not want to impeach Bush and Cheney becuase they would have inherited Bush's economic depression. Who in their right mind would inherit this mess?
Bush and Cheney are convinient punching bags for the Dems, which will lead to the election of more Dems.
Posted by mje at June 10, 2008 06:05 AMWell, if it leads to more elections for Democrates, then by all means leave the Little Dictator in office. Give him more time to implement his hell bent destruction of our Country. We'll try to clean up the mess after he is gone.
Posted by Judith#1 at June 10, 2008 07:08 AMI think the segment of the population that actively desires retribution for Iraq is quite small. I think most people want to be able to forget the whole thing ever happened. I don't think they'll take kindly to a lengthy, public process that involves reminding them of stuff they conveniently ignored in the run-up to war.
Posted by dj moonbat
Yes, DJ, I think you absolutely nailed it: the majority of citizens in this country just want to forget. I have only this to say in response:
A Soviet general in Spring of 1945 is reputed to have said: "In Germany today, I consider that only dogs and unborn children are innocent."
What kind of country do you want to live in?
Barry, the list of impeachable offenses is longer than just lying us into a war.
I just cannot seem to reconcile that justice is a situational thing. Call me Polly Anna.
Posted by Judith#1 at June 10, 2008 12:34 PM
Hi Judith,
I agree. My point is that we, the citizens of this country, are ultimately responsible for this country's actions. Calculating the political fallout from holding one set of political leaders responsible for their actions is, in my opinion, cowardly. Saying we should do nothing becasue most people just want to forget about it and get back to tv is a cop-out.
Barry, I couldn't agree more with your statement.
Posted by Judith#1 at June 10, 2008 04:55 PM