The Best Reasons Not to Impeach, And Why They're Wrong By David Swanson

The Best Reasons Not to Impeach, And Why They're Wrong

By David Swanson

<snip>

"Bush has not committed perjury."

...When Diane Sawyer asked Bush on television why he had made the claims he had about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, he replied: "What's the difference? The possibility that could acquire weapons, if he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger."

What's the difference? The difference is that had the President merely said that Saddam Hussein could conceivably acquire weapons someday, many people would have opposed his war who supported it. They supported it because Bush said that Saddam had nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and was behind the attacks of 9-11. True, in many instances he avoided making these claims in so many words, and rather implied them. In other cases, he and his subordinates (for whom he is legally responsible), made these claims in the clearest language. In every such case, fraud was committed. Implying and omitting are legally fraud as much as lying is.

But Bush's crimes don't end with fraud or deception. It is illegal to spy in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, something Bush has confessed to doing. It is illegal to detain without charge and to torture, practices that have been well documented, drafted as official White House policy, lobbied for by the Vice President, and possibly retroactively pardoned by the Military Commissions Act (another technicality that is irrelevant to a case for impeachment and, anyway, may soon be reversed). It is illegal to take funds from other projects to begin a war before it has been authorized. It is illegal to target civilians and hospitals and journalists, and to use white phosphorous and napalm as weapons. It is a fundamental violation of the U.S. Constitution to alter laws with signing statements. Congressman John Conyers has published a report listing numerous other laws violated by Bush.

"Bush is too dumb to know he was lying."

Bush's comment to Diane Sawyer above belies this, as do other statements he's made. But as the previous discussion should suggest, Bush's lying is the least of it. In addition to the crimes mentioned above, Bush has failed to perform his duties as president as required of him by the Constitution. His negligence prior to and after 9-11, prior to and after Katrina, and during the ongoing global warming crisis: these are failures of the highest order. Indeed, these are, in the old British phrase that appears in our Constitution: "high crimes and misdemeanors."

"You can't impeach over policy differences. You must impeach for specific legal violations."

We're seeking to impeach over extreme abuses of power. Bush's specific legal violations are too many to list and can begin, again, with the violations of FISA to which Bush has confessed. But impeachment is not a technical, legal question. Among the grounds for Nixon's impeachment, in an Article of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee, was his lying to the public. The lying cited was his lying about an ongoing investigation and cover-up of his crimes, not his lying about, for example, secretly bombing Cambodia. But Nixon's lying about his investigation, nonetheless, was an impeachable offense without being a crime. It was a "high crime and misdemeanor," an abuse of power.


"Bush has committed impeachable offenses, but impeachment should not be our priority."


OK, now we're back to those of you who believe that Bush has committed impeachable offenses. Most of you also want to see him impeached, but some of you do not. Among those of you who do not, a common theme is a belief that other people disagree with you and will be turned off just by your proposing impeachment. <snip>

Are you in the "make it a low priority" bunch? If so, you may subscribe to one of the four most common reasons for your position:

Dick Cheney would become president
Impeachment is divisive and partisan
Impeachment will make the Democrats lose in 2008
There are more pressing issues. We must pass positive legislation.

Let's look at each of these in order.
<snip>

much more in his email - I'll ask him if I can post all of it.

He lied.

Supposeily Nixon was caught on tape telling the President of South Vietnam NOT to agree to anything during 1968 and when Nixon won he would give them a better deal. This undermined US foreign Policy and was a CRIME even at that date. LBJ found out about the tapes but decided not to use them during the election of 1968, instead LBJ kept them back and used them as Black mail against Nixon (Many people believe it was these tapes that the Watergate Burglars were after in 1972). People often wonder why Nixon did not immediately undo LBJ's Great Society Program, this seems to be hy (and why Nixon was so progressive until he won re-elected in 1972).

Now Bush is no Nixon, Nixon understood Blackmail and would deal with it, Bush on the other hand would attack anyone who exposed his illegal actions. During Watergate they were rumors of Nixon attempting a Coup (Turned out to be more talk then anything real) but Bush is the type to do a Coup to stay in power if confronted with impeachment. On the other Hand Bush wants his agenda which includes being President. Thus it might be better NOT to impeach him but use him in the next election to get a Democrat into the Presidency. A sitting Bush obstructing what is needed is better than a removed Bush and Cheney. If Bush and Cheney are removed from Office the GOP can then turn to a "Reform" candidate and may even win election in 2008. The "Reform" Candidate would still follow the present GOP agenda but having no ties with Bush or Cheney would be a a stronger position than if Bush and Cheney still in office.

Just my opinion, unless the GOP is willing to join in on impeaching Bush and Cheney, no impeachment should occur, but Bush and Company MUST be investigated and the result of those investigation revealed to the American People in time for the Next election.

We are WAY past the need for investigations.

The case for impeachment is clear, compelling, and COMPLETE. Everything needed is public record. It has been for years.

The Constitution is under attack. The public has leveled charges (elected bodies, good gov orgs, countless citizens). Members of the House are duty bound to dismiss those charges as baseless, or to accuse (impeach).

We are the victimes of crime. We have reported those crimes. Willfully turning a blind eye is NOT an option for law enforcement, and it is not an option for Congress.

Introduce articles and make the case - that is the ONLY way they can fulfill their oath to defend (note, it is not an oath to win, it is an oath to fight).

The SOLE duty of the House is to accuse. Predictions of outcome in the Senate (which cannot be known by any human anyway) cannot trump their sworn duty.

We take oaths to do tough things for a reason -- so that we JUST DO IT when the time comes.

The time has come.

I can't say it better than this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2882573&mesg_id=2886048