Impeach The Bastard Already!
When the Downing Street Minutes surfaced, many of us thought that eventually the news would reach the newsrooms and then we’d have a real national debate over the trumped up intelligence, a White House out of control and a President guilty of impeachable offenses. Sadly, the news did reach the newsrooms of America, they just didn’t deem it important enough to broadcast to the American people. It became clear then, that it would take more than facts and official government memos to tarnish this administration’s sterling reputation in the minds of Republicans, opinion peddlers at the big papers and the chattering class on television.
Well, if lying our country into a war isn’t grounds for impeachment, what was the use in hammering away at the lesser crimes of this administration? But hammer away we did and as luck would have it, we were handed another blatant crime in the NSA domestic spying scandal. What luck, two impeachable offenses uncovered in little over a year, and this one didn’t get stuck in the newsrooms, well, sure the New York Times sat on the story for a year, but after they finally let the cat out of the bag, the rest of the MSM picked up the ball and has been running full steam ahead with the story ever since. Surely impeachment is just around the corner, right?
Bush has admitted to authorizing domestic spying of American citizens in direct violation of the law. His lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the manufactured ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda have been exposed. His penchant for cronyism and appointing political hacks and crooks to head crucial federal agencies has proven to be disastrous to the country and has resulted in billions of dollars missing in Iraq, tens of millions funneled from our pockets and onto the balance sheets of politically connected companies, and thousands of people dead in New Orleans. The majority of the country thinks we should impeach this guy if he broke the law and 85% of Democrats don’t even need the “if”. So what’s the hold up?
Yes, it is true that the Republicans control the House where articles of impeachment must originate and yes, Congressional Republicans are scared shitless to do anything to piss off Karl Rove and yes, every single talking head on television thinks that impeachment is a non starter and a losing proposition for Democrats, but so what? We have a President who broke the law. It is our duty to impeach him, regardless of what the pundits say.
Republicans are on Karl’s short leash so they are certainly not going to talk out of school, but the Democrats need to start using impeachment in every sentence, hell, make it every other word. Lied to Congress, impeach. Lied to the American people, impeach. Broke the law, impeach. Spit on the constitution, impeach. He’s President not King, impeach. Corruption, impeach. See, it’s easy once you get the hang of it.
posted by The (liberal)Girl Next Door @ 12:12 PM
20 Comments:
I completely agree ... love your fire ... query re: the lies concerning Iraq ... congresspeople and senators mostly backed him up ... the gutless and spineless ones impeached their own ability to impeach? They have to fall back on the argument that he gave them bad intelligence and they relied on it ... but what about most of the rest of the world and the UN who essentially said horseshit to the whole thing ... what do you think?
Not gonna happen. I sympathize, he deserves it, but it's. not. gonna. happen. The GOP controls Congress. MAYBE and it's a BIG maybe the Democrats can take the Senate in November. But even then--never gonna happen. We can rant and rave about it online all we want, we can rally all we want, but Bush (absent something even the GOPBorg can't drown out, like biting the head off a kitten on national television) will serve out his disastrous, corrupt, mendacious, humiliating train wreck of a term, open a library, and start raking in mega-bucks pimping for various corporations. And, as usual, we will be left to clean up the mess. And that's why my usual response to calling for impeachment is to suggest we direct all that energy to taking back Congress.
Rory--I think that they were willfully duped, there is no way that I knew the intelligence was crap when I had half the information that they did. You're right, they did impeach their own ability to impeach, at least on that count. Their complicity leaves them in the awkward position of admitting to either being stupid or being irresponsible. The bottom line is, they don't want to impeach, otherwise they would, it’s not like there’s lack of evidence to support it.
Local Crank--I agree with you, it is never going to happen, but that doesn't negate the fact that it should, especially given they impeached our last president for lying about a blowjob. I'm actually coming around to the idea that we should just sit back and let them destroy themselves. Left on their own, unimpeded, Republicans will likely destroy their party for decades to come.
couldn't agree more. and I'm also sick of adding to the list of bush & co's list of lies, outrageous actions, "horror story of the day," etc. not sure about the self-destruction "fantasy" though. on the other hand, I don't have any positive suggestions, either, as far as how to bring the "crooks and liars" down.
There is no way Congress could have believed that Saddam was a threat to us – or even his neighbors. Like most people who were curious enough, cynical, and not easily manipulated, I knew the truth.
One thing we need to recognize is how partisan Congress and the nation are. Another is that it is mathematically impossible for the Dems to get a two-thirds majority in the Senate in 2006 and it takes a two-thirds majority in the Senate to remove a President (or any civil officer) from office. As appropriate and just as impeachment of Bush and Cheney and others would be it is not pragmatic to believe that it could become a reality.
At this point I am hopeful that we will gain a majority in the House and maybe the Senate in the 2006 elections. Then genuine Congressional investigations can begin. This will make it damn near impossible for Bush to do any more damage to the country in his last two years and it will expose the crimes of the Bush regime for all to see. We may even be able to start undoing some of the damage to the country. But the results of Bush’s failing policies will continue to be felt by the average American during that period. Having Bush still in office as the results of his policies come home to roost seems like it should prove to be a huge benefit to the Democrats for a generation.
I guess I agree with Jonathan at this point. Elect Darcy Burner and 14 other new Dems in the House and get the impeachment started.
Okay, but guys? What happened when the Republicans took control of Congress in '94 and started a nonstop investiga-thon on Clinton? They ended up looking like idiots and he was more popular than ever. Or consider 1987, when Democrats retook the Senate. They started a high-profile investigation of Reagan, blew it, and ended up energizing the RW base and losing in 1988 (that wasn't the only reason, of course; we did manage to nominate the only person in the country who was a bigger weiner than GHWB). I don't think there's much chance we can take both Houses this time, but we don't need to. Take one--especially the Senate--and we can shut down everything Bush does until Jan. 20, 2009. BUT we need to have our own agenda, not just relentlessly shooting down everything the White House proposes; Gingrich made that mistake, too. We should start throwing out popular things that Bush will HAVE to veto, or the GOP House shoot down--nat'l health care, more money for education and the environment--and then WE set the terms of the debate for 2008. Investigate, yes, but appoint special investigators for it. Congress should be setting the agenda, not fighting the WH for every scrap of paper and email. It'll bog down into a war of attrition.
Local Crank--I think maybe you make too much sense.
sorry to change the subject but congrats on your koufax nomination!!!
wampum
I agree with much of what Local said. I think maybe I didn't articulate my position well.
I think a Democratic led impeachment process would be seen as retribution for the Clinton impeachment. I don't think it would play well in Peoria, as they say.
A special prosecutor for every republican scandal would be great. But I thought that the law that allowed Congress to appoint a special prosecutor had expired. Justice can still do it as evidenced by Fitzpatrick. What are the chances that Justice would appoint truly independent special prosecutors like Fitz for each and every republican scandal? Frankly I don't think we can trust anything Justice does at this point.
The investigations by Congress that I hope for would not necessarily result in impeachment. But it might (probably would?) result in indictments of scores of corrupt republican operators.
Local makes a very good point about setting our own agenda. Once we get one chamber of Congress we can initiate bills that speak to our core values and that would be popular with the majority of the country. If Bush or the republicans in the other chamber shoot them down they will have some explaining to do before the the 2008 election.
Support Ron Paul, 14th District Texas Congressman, in his expert opinion about holding Helicopter Ben and the Feds accountable for continuing to print money which supports this Cabal to continue its wars. The new trick by Bernanke is that the Feds omitted the "M3" from the report (M3 is the government's inflation tally sheet). Stop the printing presses and this can ultimately stop the power of this administration. As always, it is all about the money.
The Feds shall pretend the economy is in inflation mode because of increased costs of "food and energy" but it has to do with the printing of countless devalued dollars so the Cabal can have its way with globalization.
http://www.house.gov/paul/index.shtml
Without educating ourselves about how the Feds printing counterfeit money supports illegal government spending, which we pay for by higher interest rates, we are doomed to continue in ignorance about our America and globalization continues as long as the printing presses roll.
Demanding accountability from Helicopter Ben and maybe we can make a difference, but I seriously doubt anything is going to stop this until it reaches critical mass. Human nature is unfortunately mostly about waiting until the eleventh hour. Plus, the majority of Americans do not know and do not want to know about how our economy actually functions. Truly depressing.
Rose--Thank you, I am pretty excited to have been nominated.
Howie, Jonathan, Local Crank--In my opinion, impeachment should not be merely a political calculation but a remedy for an executive who's broken the law and is out of control. By talking about it (preferably non-stop)at least we send the message to the American people that we care about the rule of law. If we don't, then by all means let's move on and push forward a positive agenda and accept that impeachment is only for sexual misconduct and political retribution.
Roberta--I so admire your single minded determination to not let us be distracted by the little things and always point us toward the big bouncing ball.
The special prosecutor law has expired, but Congress still has the power to appoint special investigators. Liberl Girl, I agree that this Administration is completely out of control, but sadly, judgment must wait for the next world. Bush is not going to be impeached, prosecuted or anything else. We need to focus our energy on winning control of at least one House of Congress before the White House finishes its work looting the economy and selling the environment off to the highest bidder.
To compare the impeachment of Clinton with the impeachment of this total lying criminal is insane. This can best be accomplished by gaining a Democratic majority in the House, with the pick-up of 15 seats.
I'm all for gaining control of the House (and the Senate for that matter) but a bare majority is NOT enough for impeachment. I repeat-not gonna happen. And, frankly, as long as Bush's corporatist agenda is brought to a screeching halt and the damage he's already done reversed, I can live with him retiring in peace and building a little library where everything is classified.
Oh, and Ron Paul is a complete and utter foaming-at-the mouth, pissing in the corners lunatic. And that's saying some by Texas standards. Tho' I will give him this: he's a consisten lunatic.
Hey Local,
Couple points I am hoping you will comment on:
Set aside the impeachment thing for now.
1) Polls show that a plurality of the nation wants the Dems to have control of Congress after the 2006 elections. Which chamber do we have the best chance of taking? Seems to me that it would be easier to get control of the House simply because all 435 seats are up for reelection. I realize that the conventional wisdom is that only X number of seats are competitive. But something similar can be said about the Senate as well and only 1/3 of the seats are up for reelection. Anyone know where we can bet a current breakdown of competitive seats for both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections? Last time I saw such numbers it didn’t look good for taking either house in spite of the plurality that desires the Dems to gain control.
2) If you had a choice about which chamber you would want control over which would it be? You seemed to be saying in an earlier post that you would want the Senate. I’m puzzled by that because of the filibuster rule in the Senate. Wouldn’t it be more effective politically to actually pass a bill in the House (even if along party lines) than to propose a bill in the Senate that was blocked by a filibuster? Or would a republican filibuster of a populist bill be more damaging to the republicans? What say ye?
Back to impeachment.
Everyone here agrees that Bush (Cheney, Rumpsfelt, Condiliar, et al) deserve to be impeached. But it isn’t looking like that will happen. (Just to pile on: absent something truly egregious being discovered the time line simply wouldn’t support it. It took nearly two years from the start of investigations until articles of impeachment were issued in the House against Nixon.) You seem to be okay with Bush being able to retire in peace. I can’t agree with that. I want the son of a bitch to be tried for crimes against humanity and war crimes at the Hague after he leaves office. Now excuse me while I wipe the foam from my mouth and go pee in the corner.
Actually, jonathan, what I said was IF we stop Bush's Agenda AND reverse the damage he's done, I can live with him toddling off to a cozy retirement. Hell, I managed to survive that bucolic old fascist Nixon being trotted out as an "elder statesmen"; I can survive anything now. Doesn't mean I like it.
And here, have a moist towlette.
Only about 15 House seats are considered "competitive," but keep in mind that many of these same experts missed the Republican tidal wave in '94. In Texas, no one-and I mean NO ONE-thought 30 year incumbent Jack Brooks would lose to a frootloop with shadowy ties to the Michigan Militia whose most recent job was being homeless in one of the most Democratic congressional districts in the nation, but it happened. If I only get control of one House, I pick the Senate for two reasons; one, because the Senate (thanks to the fillibuster and other arcane rules) can bottle up virtually anything. And it is VITALLY important that Bush's legislative agenda be brought to a screeching halt, and soon. It won't do us any good (in practical terms) to get the House if the GOP still runs the Senate. Two, appointments. Alito may be enough to end Roe v. Wade, the Clear Water Act, among others, maybe not. But ANOTHER Alito will seal the deal.
On the other hand, if we had only the House, it might help politically by passing popular legislation only to have it die in the Senate--could be a good way to set up a victory in the Senate AND the White House in '08. But, in the meantime, Bush would be packing the courts.
Excellent point about the filibuster of appointments. Can’t believe I missed that. Guess that is why I’m not an attorney. On the other hand we weren’t especially successful filibustering Alito. But if we have a majority in the Senate then we can keep an appointment from ever seeing the Senate floor by simply refusing to take a vote in the appropriate committee. That is how the Republicans kept many of Clinton’s appointments from getting confirmed I believe.
That is precisely how they did it, jonathan, tho' it would of course be "obstructionism" if we did it.
Post a Comment
<< Home