Why There Is So Little Congressional Enthusiasm for Bush’s Impeachment

Without a doubt, the United States has never before been faced with such a great need to remove its Chief Executive from office, as it has been under the leadership of George W. Bush. A quick recount of a few of the myriad of reasons for this is worth noting:


Some of the most important grounds for impeaching George W. Bush

The Iraq War

There are few decisions that are as important to a nation as the decision to commit it to war. All reasonable people agree that war should be entered into only under extreme circumstances, and as a last resort.

Yet, in 2003 George Bush made the unilateral decision to preemptively invade a country that posed not only no immediate threat to us, but barely any threat at all. And to justify that decision to the American people and to Congress, the Bush administration repeatedly manipulated and twisted intelligence data in order to create the appearance that Iraq presented an immediate threat to our country – as meticulously detailed in Seymour Hersh’s book, Chain of Command, and elsewhere.

Failure to execute the laws of our country

The main function of our President, as defined in our Constitution, is to faithfully execute the laws of our country. But George Bush doesn’t see it that way. Rather, he maintains that he has the right to decide unilaterally on the constitutionality of a law, and then refuse to follow it if he deems it to be unconstitutional. If that isn’t grounds for impeachment, at least it should be grounds for requiring Bush to go back to grade school and take some remedial courses in order to learn about the separation of powers provided by our Constitution.

Gross and frequent violations of the Geneva Convention for humane treatment of prisoners of war

As the most powerful nation in the world, when the United States shows contempt for international law, as it has repeatedly done under George Bush’s leadership, then it sets an example for other countries to do the same, thereby making our world a much more dangerous place for everyone.

Under George Bush’s leadership we have repeatedly violated the Geneva Convention’s requirements for the humane treatment of prisoners, including torture and indefinite confinement without charges, as documented by Amnesty International and the International Red Cross, and as discussed by Jimmy Carter in his recent book. Not only are these actions immoral and create a great danger to our country (by generating hatred against us throughout the world), but they have failed utterly to produce any compensating benefits.

Illegal Warantless domestic spying on American citizens

Although Bush has repeatedly assured American citizens and Congress that his warrantless domestic spying program is “legal” and directed at catching terrorists rather than spying on his domestic opponents, he has made no efforts to offer evidence for either of those assertions. Furthermore, knowledgeable sources have maintained that, though thousands of warantless wiretaps per year have been ordered and conducted by the Bush administration, fewer than ten per year are justified by the constitutional standard of “reasonable cause” for suspicion.

Other grounds for impeachment

The above noted issues constituted just a few of many grounds for impeachment of George W. Bush. Other grounds include the outing of a CIA agent solely for political retribution, failure to make a reasonable effort to protect U.S. citizens against the deadly Hurricane Katrina, and failure to take any action against, let alone even recognize the importance of the threat to our planet of global warming.


Why should Congress be more aggressive towards the abuses of the Bush administration at this time?

Thousands of DUers, including myself, have been terribly frustrated over the failure of Congress to show appropriate outrage, let alone take appropriate actions against the many transgressions of the Bush administration. It is frequently pointed out in defense of our Democratic Congresspersons and Senators that a Republican controlled House and Senate will never carry through on any meaningful action against a Republican President, so it would be meaningless for Democrats to make the effort. Setting aside the question of whether or not the premise of that assertion is true, there are some very good reasons indeed for Democrats to make the effort – the most important one being that the transgressions of the Bush administration are screaming to be publicized, and only by publicizing them will the ground be prepared politically to take meaningful action against them or even slow them down, thereby ameliorating the great damage they are doing to our country.

Yet, even a mere censure resolution, as recently introduced by Senator Feingold, attracted only two supporters in the U.S. Senate.


Then why has Congress been so unenthusiastic about aggressively holding the Bush administration accountable for its transgressions?

That is the trillion dollar question. And though I certainly don’t have a full answer to that question, I definitely have some ideas.

First of all I will say that I may as well have titled this post “Why U.S. Politicians Have Moved so Far to the Right”, because the answer is exactly the same: First and foremost, politicians are concerned about remaining in office and maintaining political viability.

The unfortunate and ominous truth of the matter is that some very dangerous trends in our country have recently converged to push politicians of all stripes way to the right. Those three trends are: 1) The role of money in politics; 2) The abandonment of our national news media of its traditional watchdog role; and, 3) Election fraud.

Let’s face it. Compared to George W. Bush, Richard Nixon was a flaming liberal – or at least he was forced to act like one. Under his administration the Environmental Protection Agency was created, we initiated diplomatic relations with Communist China, the top tax bracket was over 70 %, and one of his appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court was the primary author of the Roe v. Wade decision.

Today’s unmentionable issues

But today, because of the three above mentioned trends, there are certain issues that are almost completely off limits for mainstream politicians:

Questioning the validity of a presidential election is so off limits that only one Senator (Barbara Boxer) dared to formally object to the certification of the highly questionable 2004 presidential election. And even a book that provided excellent discussions about the dangers of DRE voting machines felt obliged to state that the 2004 presidential election was not stolen.

Senator Richard Durbin, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, courageously complained about the inhumane treatment of prisoners of war by the Bush administration, in very blunt but accurate terms. For that he was vigorously castigated by the news media and Republicans, and he received very little support from his fellow Democrats.

Cynthia McKinney was our only national elected representative to question the motives, rather than just the competence, of the Bush administration regarding its role in the 9-11 attacks on our country. For that her House seat was aggressively targeted in 2002, resulting in her being voted out of office (only to regain her House seat in 2004), and she has even been ostracized by many if not most of her fellow Democrats.

Even talking about the problem of poverty in our country brings on vigorous allegations of “class warfare” from our corporate media, so that few of our mainstream politicians have had the courage to do that. John Edwards, Wes Clark, and Howard Dean are courageous exceptions to this rule, among the leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, from what I could tell from speeches I heard during that campaign.

The role of money, the corporate media, and election fraud

These factors act synergistically to turn our politicians to the right. The American public is way to the left of most of our mainstream politicians on all important issues (due in no small part to the information provided through the internet). 62 % of Americans believe that we should have a national health insurance plan. 76 % of Americans believe the war in Iraq has damaged our relationships with the rest of the world. Two thirds of Americans are against a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortions. 39 % of Americans even believe that the 2004 election was stolen. The list goes on and on. But most important, only 29% of Americans now approve of George Bush’s performance in office. So where is all the political opposition that such numbers should generate?

The problem is, and all of our national elected representatives know this, that if they say or do anything that scares the powerful elites in this country they will face, in addition to the withholding of campaign contributions, a barrage of public insults. As Chris Matthews has shown, even those who express a dislike for our pResident are labeled as “whackos”. The evidence for this is too abundant to discuss in much more detail here, but I will just mention here two excellent books that provide numerous examples: Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert and What Liberal Media by Eric Alterman.

The ever present danger of election fraud, with today’s multiplicity of dirty tricks, black box voting machines, and fraudulent purging of registered voters, must also weigh heavily on the minds of today’s Democratic politicians, who must have a good idea of the problem even though many of them say and do little or nothing about it. Nobody knows how many votes today’s right wing power brokers are capable of stealing in any given election. But it stands to reason that if X % of voters are going to be disenfranchised in a given election, then in order for a liberal Democrat to win (assuming that most of the disenfranchised voters are far to the left of center), those votes are probably going to have to come from the center and from the right-center. Thus the temptation to move further to the right.


Is there a case for moderation?

This is an age old question, and I certainly don’t have the answers. Like many other DUers I was thrilled that Senator Feingold introduced a censure resolution, and dismayed that only two Senators supported him in that effort. I was thrilled that Senator Boxer officially objected to the 2004 presidential election, but dismayed that no Senators officially supported her in that. I greatly admired Senator Durbin for his public exposing of our treatment of our prisoners of war, but was disappointed that he received so little support from his fellow Democrats. And I want to puke when I hear Senator Clinton publicly compliment the personality of George Bush by saying that he has charisma, among other things.

But then I consider the case of our 16th President. Abraham Lincoln is rightfully generally regarded as the greatest President in the history of our country. The main reason for that is his single greatest achievement – the ending of slavery in our country through an executive order, the Emancipation Proclamation.

Some say that Lincoln does not deserve a great amount of credit for that because his order was necessitated by other considerations (primarily winning the Civil War), and in any event he was merely a moderate on the question of slavery.

That attitude does not do him justice. It is evident from the totality of his speeches and actions that for most if not all of his life he hated slavery. Yet he publicly maintained a politically viable attitude towards it, repeatedly proclaiming that he did not believe it wise to abolish slavery where it already existed. Because he maintained a politically viable public stance towards slavery he was elected President of the United States. And despite his “moderate” public stance towards slavery, his anti-slavery views were well enough known that his ascendance to the Presidency resulted in the quick succession from our nation of eleven slave states, which incited the Civil War, and the ending of slavery that soon followed.

Was Lincoln right to adopt a moderate public stance towards slavery? Well, there is little question that had he recommended the abolition of slavery at any time during his political career, he never would have been elected President. And in that case, it probably would have been another several years or even decades before slavery was abolished from this country. So who am I to criticize him for his political calculations on that issue?

Does that mean that I am recommending a moderate stance towards the many impeachable offenses of the Bush administration? Absolutely not. But I will say that these considerations do give me some understanding of what our Democratic politicians are going through; that I do believe that many of them have beliefs that are far to the left of what they let on; and that I have hope that we and they together will eventually find a way to overcome the reactionary forces that are currently digging our country into the grave.


But on the other hand, let us never forget how tyrants obtain and maintain power

Yet we must also consider the parallels between the Bush administration and how Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933 and eventually plunged his country and the world into a terrible war:

The Reichstag fire, which Hitler blamed on the Communists, and which he used to demonize the Communists and create fear of terror in his country, and which we now know was started by the Nazis, should remind us of the fear mongering used in our country to create support for our “War on Terror”.

The Enabling Act, which granted Hitler dictatorial powers, and which was passed by a compliant Reichstag (parliament), should remind us of George Bush’s blatant disregard for the laws of our country, even while he proclaims that he is not breaking any laws and that his most fervent desire is to spread democracy throughout the world.

The Nazi concentration camps should remind us of the Bush regime’s blatant disregard for international laws protecting the rights of prisoners, as well as the numerous instances of torture and death occurring in our “detention camps” (And for those who argue that the Nazi concentration camps were far worse in scope than our detention camps, it should be pointed out that that was not the case until almost ten years after Hitler initially came to power in Germany).

The “referendums” held in Nazi Germany to prove that Hitler continued to enjoy the support of the German people should remind us of the many uninvestigated “irregularities” in some of our own recent national elections, as well as the fact that the computer programs that count our votes are considered “proprietary”, and therefore not available for public inspection.

The German invasion of Poland in 1939, rationalized by lies that were transparent to the whole world but not to a substantial portion of the German people, should remind us of our invasion of Iraq, similarly rationalized by transparent lies, which are still not transparent to a substantial, though declining minority of people in this country.

The German Propaganda Ministry should remind us of our corporate news media, as it has so woefully failed to do its job of exposing the worst transgressions of any Presidential administration in the history of our country.

And lastly, consider this quote from “They Thought They Were Free”, by Milton Meyer, which summarizes in two paragraphs how tyranny became implanted in Germany:

IMHO that the only thing this is about for winning in 2006. The Dems do not want this to be the Gay Marriage of the 2006 election.

political reasons.

I believe that first and foremost, there are many excellent grounds for impeachment. I believe that if we don't try to impeach him it sends the message to the American public that Bush's actions have been within the acceptable range. And I think that that is a very bad message to send.

I do not know where the political equations come out on this. I suspect that trying to impeach Bush would favor the Dems politically, but I can't be sure.

If it is politically to our advantage not to go for impeachment now - which apparently most Democratic Congresspersons believe - then perhaps it would be better to wait. But that makes me very nervous, as I indicate with the quote at the end of my OP.

"I believe that if we don't try to impeach him it sends the message to the American public that Bush's actions have been within the acceptable range. And I think that that is a very bad message to send."

The psychological effects of such a "very bad message" -- and the fantasy that there is always time "later" to face reality -- is how the mechanisms in your final quote work their evil magic.

If we try it now, and it goes down in flames, if we take the House in 2006 and try it in 2007, they'll cry, "You already tried this. Dems have no ideas."

our Democratic congress-people sitting on their hands with blank looks on their faces. Why don't they do something? Anything...even just verbalize contempt for the incredible amount of wrong-doing. And for gods sake they are pushing for, Jeb, to be president, next. Insane!!!

Maybe they're thinking back to the effort to impeach Clinton. That effort backfired on the Repukes, and they had to pay for it in the 98 election.

But that was because there were no grounds for impeachment in that case. It seems to me that the public will be much more supportive of an effort to impeach Bush.

as is believing in some mythical "later."

Just as after the 2nd stolen election -- and so quickly! -- so many Dems were already talking about "next time."

I hope your excellent thread provides some food for thought for the folks who think they can ride this one out without doing anything about it. How much more damage will be done in the meantime? Wasn't same question relevant after the first stolen election and more so after the second? :crazy:

Rep. Maxine Waters said at the CA Impeachment Forum that she kept hearing the Capitol Hill excuse for not impeaching "But he's the President........." After the Feingold censure resolution, her thinking shifted to "IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST."

One reason she gave FOR proceeding with impeachment was echoed in the OP-- to raise the issue, do the job media won't and educate the public. She also seemed PUZZLED that there was not more OUTRAGE in the PUBLIC and said "I would have thought people would be out in the streets."

:patriot:

We definitely cannot trust the corporate media to keep the public informed about what is going on and what is important - so we must do it ourselves.

I think that the reason for the lack of outrage is precisely that - people get a very slanted view about what is going on.

Kicked and recommended.

did it to Clinton, because it was "payback" time...but to do it to the very next president (no matter how much he deserves it) would weaken the presidency and open the floodgates. It should have happened to reagan, but that would have been "too close" to Nixon..

Basically, we need to CHOOSE them more carefully, and monitor them all along so they don;t get out of hand..

Impeachment should be reserved for serious cases, but when it's used like it was on Clinton, it trivializes the whole procedure.

It's like using your last match to see where you are in the dark, instead of lighting a fire to stay warm.. It;s a wasted effort unless it's really deserved.

To do it now would have the media portraying it as revenge for Clinton and garner sympathy for *²..

The congress just needs to take back their powers and publically humiliate him by forcing him to testify in public hearings.
The press needs to stay focused and report all his misdeeds, and the democrats need to stop "playing nice" with him..

what they did for Clinton. Or they would portray it in any other negative way that they thought they could get away with. As Bill Moyers has pointed out, today's corporate media is almost like another arm of our government in many ways.

So if the Dems push hard they can expect the media to lambast them.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't do it. But if they do, they'd better be prepared for a big fight. It will be the Dems against the Bush administration, the Republican Party, AND the corporate media.

impeachment and trial. Think about it.

Going after the cabinet, one by one, picking off all the enablers and cronies will leave Stupid isolated, blockaded, frustrated, and neutered.

Congress can do the work of the country, especially with a clear Democratic majority that can override all his petulant vetoes.

That is the best way for the country to survive the next 3 years.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1069705
Calif. Impeachment Forum: Malloy, Rep. Waters & others + crowd of 1,000

Shayana Kadidal is staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York City. He is counsel in the Center’s pending challenge to the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program.

Mr. Kadidal said that, THE WATERGATE HEARINGS REVEALED THE TAPING SYSTEM. JOHN DEAN PLED GUILTY AND TALKED.

"COUNTING VOTES IS IRRELEVANT TO THAT."

:bounce: :bounce:

Elisabeth De La Vega is a former federal prosecutor with more than 20 years experience. She pointed out Bush appointed 30-40 staff who were on record as wanting to attack Iraq. Before 9-11 their focus was attacking Iraq. On 9-11, their focus was “how to use this to attack Iraq.”
There is an ongoing “conspiracy to defraud the nation to prosecute this war” and an “overwhelming case” for impeachment. Ms. De La Vega called it “RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE THE TRUTH AND THAT’S FRAUD.”

She advised that we “have the courage to talk to people that don’t agree with you. Be sincere, not histrionic. People are persuaded by sincerity.” People talking to each other about this in “committees of correspondence” can reach a tipping point, a geometric progression of awareness and action.

Mike Malloy asked about impeachment actions around the country and what effect they have. Bob Fertik of Democrats.com said,
“This is giving us hope. Hope is the scarcest commodity right now. We expect our leaders to do this for us, that’s why we elect them-- but they’re not. Efforts to impeach are better from the bottom up because Washington is so poisonous....
“EVEN FOX NEWS CAN’T STOP THE PEOPLE FROM SPEAKING.”

What to do?
Looks like we have to choose someone else for Speaker.

And it may be time for someone to challange Pelosi in 2008. Democrats believe in democracy, not in entitlement to office.

Here it is:

He knows everyone's dirty little secrets by now, if they have any. We already know that the neocons will do ANYTHING it takes, to get what they want.

Impeachment is not a tool to bring the minority party to power, nor is it a tool for any other political purpose. It is a tool to remove incompetents, traitors, and other law breakers. It is appropriate for use with this crowd no matter what their party.

We should never even consider ipeachment over something so stupid as what they tried to impeach Clinton for.

But right now it is absolutely appropriate on numerous differnet grounds.

parties stand for the same thing. Maintain Power/Presidency and Rule of Law at any cost. The "Business of Government is Government, and all the Power and Perks that go with it.

These are CEO's of our Legislature. They serve the Lobbyists who write the bills...they are the LEADERS of AMERICA...

They Understand that it's unusual for a "Docrine" like our Constitution and Bill of Rights to last over a couple hundred years. They know that it's tinme for a CHANGE...but the people fed "romantic propaganda" are slow to adapt.

They are for the STATUS QUOT..(Except those brave ROMANTICS that I mentioned who are like the Founders of America who believed that a "higher truth" might prevail and an "Experiment in Democracy" was worth the WAR and the TORMENT and the OVERTHROW of an "OCCUPYING KING."

Jaded and Pragmatic those in power will work to preserve "THE SYSTEM." They will WIN....they believe. The rest of us out here and in their Progressive Caucuses are "Loopy." The new LABEL for DISSENTERS and INSURGENTS.

:shrug:

About time to act with honor, integrity and courage.

Forget the politics and self serving interests. Is there no one in this country who can step up to the plate and act with honor and courage?
To hell with chances of re election. What about a responsibility to the American people, the world, and the planet.

... Look around at the neo-cons that would gladly fall on theirs swords for the almighty chimpinator, and for what?? To make sure that he can and will get away with anything he wants, for his own evil purposes...

Is there not one, or a group of Democrats, that don't give a damn if * has anything on them or not, and will do the right thing for the people they are sworn to represent?

Here's why folks... It used to be said that our members of congress, both senate and the house, were there to represent the wishes of the people they represent. In reality, it is as * said after he stole the second election...

"Well, the people voted me back in, so they must think I'm doing something right"

Senators and Reps feel the same way... We the people voted them into office, and we should have the confidence that they will do what they know we want them to do, without oversight...

Not any more

It's not so simple to separate "politics" and "doing the right thing". If by "doing the right thing" we get set up for a situation where the Republicans hang on to both Houses of Congress, thereby allowing Bush to carry through on his agenda and, let's say, start a war with Iran, for example -- then it would turn out that maybe that wasn't the "right thing" after all.

I'm not saying that impeachment charges shouldn't be brought against Bush -- either now or later. I believe that they probably should - at this time. But I don't think it makes sense for the Dems to not consider the political repercussions of their decisions.

...for what we do... but...

As I think back on everything this administration stands for... They haven't done the right thing for the right reasons yet...

So as your name aptly suggests... "Time for a Change"

as much as we can, and let the chips fall where they may.
Just my .02. (BTW I have a undergrad degree in poli sci so I
do understand what you are saying, I just think the planet needs
men and women who can step up to the plate and make the best decision for
the country and the planet. I believe that doing the right thing is the best politics of all.)

if we run up the impeachment flag all of the backwash will vote.

And they voted against doing anything about it.
Kerry said it very well: "who knew he would fuck it up this badly?"
They agree with his agenda.
It's just that he lacks the necessary finesse.

To attain POWER! (Please do not ask me for a link, I learned this in 10th grade Political Science class.)

Of course how these people use this power is another question.

Excellent post Time for change, it will take time to go though the links, but in the mean time this post gets my recommendation.

Thank you mrdmk. We all know the reason that this administration wants to attain power: To use it to get more and more power and to make themselves and their friends wealthy beyond their wildest dreams.

It's counterproductive right now to discuss impeachment, as much as I'd LOVE to see it happen. i think we have to be patient, let more come out, and regain control of SOMETHING in the government. All trying to impeach now would do is give soundbites to the assholes running against us in 2006.

First would come hearings and investigation into the charges for impeachment-- have you looked at them? How can any sane person review that lengthy and horrifying list and say, Oh it's really not worth the trouble.....................

There is no telling what would be revealed during those hearings, who would say what. See my other post about the Watergate hearings.

There is no telling what the votes would be. We can count votes ahead of time and roll over and play dead or we can say YES we stand on the Right Side Of History no matter what the outcome. As in the quote I mentioned "Counting votes is irrelevant to that (revelations during hearings)"

IF this is going to happen, it will come from the States and the grassroots, coordinated with the efforts of those in Congress who have the principle, courage, conscience and American spirit to do the right thing for the nation and the Constitution. Why? Because Thomas Jefferson encoded that option into the Law of the Land. Perhaps for a time such as this when the entire Federal government has been compromised and there ARE NO CHECKS AND BALANCES.

Nancy Pelosi said impeachment was "off the table" and "we know where that leads." With respect to Ms. Pelosi, NO ONE KNOWS WHERE THIS WILL LEAD.

Any of us pretending we can predict the unpredictable future are lulling ourselves in to the same complacency that has led this nation directly to illegal war and Constitutional crisis.

The thing I hate most about Democratic "strategery" is that well-meaning people base their decisions on what they think all the OTHER stupid suckers are thinking.

The people who are running the country (into the ground) have been treating all of us like stupid suckers ("How much more will these fools put up with!!??!!) for decades.

And here we are, still saying "Oh, let's wait a little longer until it's more CONVENIENT."

This should be sent to a few Newspapers.

Maybe the Dems in Congress are waiting for the States to initiate Impeachment of Bush/Cheney?

newspaper might be interested in this?

I don't know whether they are waiting for the states or not.

Nancy Pelosi, on Meet the Press recently, refused to rull out impeachment when Tim (Pre$$titute) Russert asked her about it. She said that it depends on what facts turn up.

Following that, several Republicans jumped on her, claiming that she intends to push impeachment if the Dems take over Congress this fall. I guess they thought that that would be a good political move for putting fear into the electorate, and give them a better chance of maintaining their hold on the House. Whether they are correct in their belief that that would help them is an open question, however. Maybe they're just getting desperate.

Apparently, however, Pelosi believed that this point may resonate with voters, because that's when she decided to take impeachment completely off the table.

I think that was a big mistake. I think she should have stayed with her original "Let's see where the facts lead."

Even if a state passes a resolution (which hasn't happened yet) and a member from that state presents it (which he/she wouldn't be required to do and if they were interested, why not simply introduce the resolution now?), the matter will be referred to a committee that won't ever take it up for as long as the repubs control the majority.

onenote

an impeachment hearing? The public would learn a lot about what is happening which has been kept from them by a news media that wants to keep this stuff underground. Then the Republicans would be forced to take a stand. They would have to either repudiate the Bush administration or look foolish or corrupt by not repudiating them.

At least that's one way to look at it, which seems valid to me.

Calling for impeachment without having investigations is not the way to go. It is as bad as throwing somebody in jail for life on circumstantial evidence. I agree that he had committed many impeachable offenses, but you still have to investigate first. Also, you want to build a big case against him, that will be tried in the public arena so the senate won't be afraid to convict. To do anything else is political suicide.

Just as an example, it would be like if they impeached Clinton for Whitewater. They never could find any evidence of wrongdoing, but it was big in the news at the time and many were convinced that there was something to it instead of being the witch hunt it was.

amount of evidence we currently have on some of the items I brought up in the beginning of the OP.

It seems to me that there is barely any doubt that intelligence was manipulated and lies were told to justify the Iraq War;

There is no doubt at all that international law is being violated on a regular basis with regard to our treatment of prisoners of war. The administration has so much as admitted it - they simply get around it by changing the name of our prisoners of war to "illegal combatants". He does this by administrative fiat. There is no precedent for it in international law. And it makes no sense either.

With regard to the illegal warantless wiretapping, Bush has publicly admitted that he does this. He simply claims that it is legal, without going through the trouble to explain why.


Sure we need to investigate all this. But a Republican Congress has proven extremely reluctant to do so.

What is left for elected representatives who care about the trashing of our laws and our constitution? The impeachment process itself requires an investigation - which could help us to move forward on this.

Anyhow, I don't think that anyone would disagree with the fact that impeachment will not be successful in a Republican controlled Congress. But the question remains whether or not that is sufficient reason for not pushing ahead.

One very important reason for starting impeachment hearings is to bring these very serious issues to the attention of the American public. All of them have been getting way too little press. An informed public is a public who is less apt to be taken over by a tyrannical government - which I believe we are very close to right now.

If we don't have enough evidence to start proceedings on this now, how are we ever going to get the necessary evidence if we don't proceed with some aggressive action - at least a censure.

You may be right - I don't know. But a lot of us are wondering if there is any ceiling on what the Bush administration can get away with, without having to pay a price, other than dropping poll numbers.

everything in the house. They will have subpeona power, they will be able to have oversight on these goons, they will able to hold hearings on suspected wrongdoing. These are all things that they can't do now. The dems are powerless, they can't subpeona anybody, they can't introduce legislation, they can't hold hearings. They can make statements, and complain, and bitch and moan all they want, but they have no power to make a change.

The democrats won't win on a platform of "Vote for us and we'll impeach the idiot", unfortunately. And if they would do that, they would be assuming a crime with no investigation. Not good things. So they need to run on a platform that tells people "This is what we will do for you if we win". Oversight and investigation are the beginning. Healthcare, social security, and medicare are also part of their platform. If you assume the outcome, you have lost before you begin.

In other words, just because the repukes are thugs, it doesn't mean the democrats should be thugs too.

I don't believe that holding impeachment hearings means that they are assuming the outcome. Isn't that part of the purpose of impeachment hearings -- to investigate and determine whether or not there is enough evidence for impeachment?

And even if they hold a "meeting", it isn't even recorded in the public record. They can't subpeona anybody to testify. If they bring it up now, they will get shot down, and attacked by the right wing attack machine.

But you still have to investigate first. An impeachment is like an indictment, and you have to have cause and evidence.

The people are the easy part.

along with the Repukes. That would be the ones with all the money, the ones who are entrenched and who only put a kinder face on tyranny.

Simply winning D seats isn't enough. Pelosi can go straight to hell and take her underhanded under the table agreements with the Repukes with her.

She was asked by Time Russert on Meet the Press whether or not she intended to pursue impreachment if the Dems won control of Congress. She said that it would depend on what further facts came out.

That caused a stampede of Repukes claiming that it was her intention to impeach Bush if she became Speaker. They were using that accusation in a desperate attempt to energize their base and scare people (though why that would scare people is hard for me to figure).

But once they started with those accusations, Pelosi got rattled, I guess, or simply felt that those accusations would hurt our chances in the 2006 elections. And that's when she took empeachment off the table.

I think that was a mistake on her part -- maybe a big mistake.

The Backbone Campaign has an action directed at Pelosi.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Never Say Never Nancy! Accountability Is Not Negotiable!
Impeachment is a tool for defending the Constitution.
May 13, 2006
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Contrary to recent statements by Democratic Party leadership, impeachment is a matter of principle, not mere politics. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues swore an oath to "defend the Constitution." Americans and the health of our democracy depend on them standing by that promise.

This week, contrary to her oath, Leader Pelosi placed political calculus before Constitutional principle. She stated to the Democratic caucus and the press that Democrats will not impeach Bush and Cheney, even if Democrats win a majority in Congress, and even asserted her opposition to the minimal measure of censure. Read this article about Pelosi's position:
"A Democrat-controlled House wouldn't impeach, Pelosi says"

We call for her to withdraw that statement and to promise the American people that accountability will be part of a constructive agenda for the country. Americans hunger for forceful, principled leadership. The health of our democracy, health care for all, living-wage jobs, energy independence, environmental stewardship, and a foreign policy that protects democracy, not empire, are all indispensable elements of a responsible vision for the country.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, in her position as House Minority Leader (potential Majority Leader after this fall's elections) wields great power and speaks for all Democrats. She must not be allowed to sidestep her oath and duty to us all.

TAKE ACTION: Send faxes, call, and email Leader Pelosi to stand by her oath to "defend the Constitution" and use her power to ensure that no Administration will ever again feel they can disregard the Constitution, dismantled safeguards on individual liberty, and ignore Constitutional limitations on presidential power without consequence.

Leader Pelosi's office:
Phone: 202-226-7616
Fax: 202-225-8259
Use this convenient form to send your FAX.
Here's where you can send her your own thoughts: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov


Four Reasons For Impeachment:
All members of the Administration, Congress and the Military swear an oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States."

By intentionally misleading Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371; and

by admitting to order the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805; and

by conspiring to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of the "Federal Torture Act" (Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C), the UN Torture Convention, and the Geneva Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution are part of the "supreme Law of the Land;" and

by stripping American citizens of their Constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention without access to legal counsel, without charge, and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the President of a U.S. citizen as an "enemy combatant," all in subversion of law:

Members of the Bush Administration have violated their Oaths of Office. Congress members are bound by these oaths to initiate impeachment in defense of the Constitution.

Polling on Impeachment

Actually, Impeachment Is Good for Democrats
Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi has instructed the Democratic Caucus and promised the corporate media that the Democrats will not impeach Bush and Cheney even if they win a majority in Congress. Of course, such timidity is the most likely way for the Democrats to NOT win a majority in Congress. While 90% of Democrats and 81% of Independents disapprove of Bush in the latest Harris poll, only 67% of Republicans approve of him. Every poll done on impeachment shows very strong support among Democrats and weak opposition among Republicans. Moreover, an off-year election is won by inspiring your side to turn out in higher numbers, and nothing inspires anti-Republican voters like impeachment.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
email: info@backbonecampaign.org
phone: 206-408-8058
web: http://www.backbonecampaign.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Interesting - they emphasize 3 of the 4 points in my OP.

I received something very similar from Democrat.com:



I'll bet she wishes she had that decision to do over again.

every day the cabal is in office is another day they are bleeding their resources paying to maintain their huge and ever-growing network of operatives on the street. Their backers don't want to pay up anymore for the privilege of not paying their fair share and enjoying lack of regulation. Someday, they will be tapped out. That's the time to go after them.

Hitler eventually got tapped out too, but by waiting too long to go after him the world had to pay a terrible price.

they have caused too much damage already.

and threatened and have had their families threatened.
Or they have a share in the $ pie.

that's why.
no other reasonable explaination.

Some of them may be thinking about Paul Wellstone's untimely death:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/well-o29.shtml

Horse. Cart.

Reality. Check.

<< Reality. Check. >>

Oh brother! :eyes:


Or maybe the question I ought to be asking is: Which party do YOU think is in charge of congress?

We must first get control before we can seriously start talking about impeachment. It's simple numbers... everything else is just a fantasy.

If we do not gain control first then we cannot impeach. This congress as it is today will NOT impeach Bush. Anyone who believes otherwise is the one who needs the reality check.

Anyone running on an "impeachment now" platform is wasting their breath and effort. It plays only to the base... it plays to the angry Dems, but it does very little to make any meaningful inroads or to sway the center or erode the RW base.

Efforts now should be on winning control. After we have control then we can concentrate on other matters like impeachment.

Yes, most of us realize that impeachment will not succeed while the Republicans are in control.

But there are two closely related reasons why it might be worth while pursuing anyhow. First, it is the right thing to do, because to do otherwise may send a message that we consider Bush's actions to be within acceptable limits. And secondly, the bringing of impeachment charges could result in the publicizing to a large segment of the American public things that they are not currently aware of. It could even help us to take back the House and Senate.

You believe that it would create bad publicity rather than good publicity. But why?

I think it would create bad publicity if the charges were frivolous, like in the case with Clinton. But I think that these charges are far from frivolous.

<< Yes, most of us realize that impeachment will not succeed while the Republicans are in control. >>

Yet many still don't.

<< First, it is the right thing to do, because to do otherwise may send a message that we consider Bush's actions to be within acceptable limits. >>

Oh, I doubt that. Candidates can certainly criticize Bush... they can make it clear that his actions are not acceptable without making impeachment a central core-issue that every Dem runs on.

<< And secondly, the bringing of impeachment charges could result in the publicizing to a large segment of the American public things that they are not currently aware of. >>

But is it a winning election issue? I doubt it. What ordinary non-partisan voter would WANT the constitutional showdown of an impeachment?

Are you telling me that this is the BEST ISSUE that the Democrats can think of to run on? Is there NO OTHER ISSUE? Are there NO OTHER PLANS? Do we have NO OTHER VISION that we can use to attract voters?


<< You believe that it would create bad publicity rather than good publicity. But why? >>

That's not true. I never said such a thing.

On the other hand, I don't think it's a winning issue. Any Dem candidate who hands his entire election on "elect me so that I can impeach Bush" is a fool.

That's no way to win an election. Surely the Democrats have some OTHER message that can attract voters.

Impeachments are messy... as satisfying as it might be for the most partisan Dems... and even though it may be the "right thing to do", it's unlikely to be something that everyone wants. I doubt that it's an election issue that will sway many voters away from the Republican candidates.

Why is everyone so fired up and so eager for everyone to show their cards? Now is not the time. There are other priorities that must come first (not "ought to" come first... but MUST come first) before we can seriously start talking about impeachment.

What I'm saying is that impeachment may be the best vehicle for bringing to light a great many other issues that are badly in need of being laid out on the table for the American people to see.

Moreover, whereas not everyone wants impeachment, I believe that those who want it is approaching 50%. And once it's out on the table, that number may surpass 50%.

... that's how it appears to me at least.

Why should they even bother when it's a NON-issue right now. It's completely, absolutely, positively, 100% out-of-the-question. It's not going to happen UNLESS we win back control.

I think it's a big mistake to make impeachment the core-issue that Dems run on in order to try an regain control. That's a losing strategy.

Putting it "on the table", as you say, and doing it right now, is too early. It's showing our hand, it's blowing our wad, it's premature. Our efforts should be ONLY on regaining control... and in having an attractive PLAN to sway voters. We need to show how we're different from Republicans, and WHY republicans don't deserve to be in charge.

The cry of "Vote For Me 'Cause I'll Impeach" just isn't enough for the average American. Impeachment is something that needs to be carefully crafted. It doesn't just "happen". We need to investigate, we need to have the power to subpoena, we need to build the case.

And even THEN it takes more than a simple majority to remove the president from office. I completely understand everyone's eagerness to impeach, convict, and remove. I think Bush deserves it.

But I also think that being too hasty would be a mistake that backfires on the Democrats. It would look like tit-for-tat revenge, it would be a distraction from the OTHER problems that affect the voters... their paychecks, their bank balance, their grocery bill... pocketbook issues.

Let the pundits and the editorialists talk about impeachment. Let the politicians develop a PLAN to solve problems and WIN the election on REAL ISSUES. After they've won, after we're in control, then we can berate them about impeachment.

I thought I made it clear that I am not saying that impeachment per se is an issue that we should run on.

What I'm saying is that this administration has done a lot of terrible things during its five years in office, and it should be called to account for those things, and so should the Republican Congresspersons who have supported those things.

The war in Iraq is an important issue. So is the blatant disregard for international law. So is Bush's disregard for laws passed by Congress and for our Constitution. So is warrantless spying on millions of Americans. These are all issues that should be publicized, and those who have supported them should be called to account for them. The press will not do that. So it is up to us.

... everything ELSE has lead me to believe that you think candidates should make impeachment their #1 priority. I guess we have a communication problem. Perhaps it's on my end. I'm not much of a mind reader, so I tend to take people at their word.

So now I understand, you agree with me when I say that I do not think that this should be the core issue that Democratic candidates should rally-around in order to get elected.

:patriot:

But I still think it should be pursued.

And it most certainly should not be taken off the table.

In another post you said "Impeachments are messy." Impeachments aren't messy-- impeachment is the cleanup process after a sitting president takes a big dump all over his office and his country and its Constitution.

All of your arguments are based on hypotheticals that can't be proven. A self-fulfilling prophecy like this one ("We can't win so let's not do anything to challenge") is deadly dangerous.

It seems easier for people to talk themselves out of doing anything, based on a better time in the future that may never arrive. Human Nature.

The notion you argue about "Anyone running on an "impeachment now" platform..." is not to be found anywhere in this thread except in the kneejerk reactions of the naysayers. No one is suggesting that is what this is about. High crimes and misdemeanors are not a matter to be trifled with as merely "political calculus."

First is a reason. Since we get new reasons to throw the bum in jail every day, this we've accomplished.

Second is the majority in both houses of Congress. We can't do it with only one since articles of impeachment are remanded from the House to the Senate. Without a Democratic majority in the House the articles will never come to the floor; no majority in the Senate means the Repukes merely need band together as a bloc to defeat the effort.

And third, we need a press that smells blood in the water. They're sharks. We all know that. If the press actually comes to our side, and I believe they will since the thing they love most is money and bringing down a president can bring them that, they'll motivate the recalcitrant Repukes to action. Assume we take 51 seats in the Senate not counting Jeffords and Sanders. We know we have both of their votes, so that's 53. With the proper priming of the public by the media, you know there will be 14 Republican senators interested enough in keeping their jobs to vote in favor of the Democratic articles.

At the present time we have the first one and are gaining the third (Bush is about ready to fuck up with this "charge the press criminally for doing their jobs" initiative he's pushing), but without the second--the bicameral majority--Bush will remain in the White House.

Well, he will unless the "negative coattails" scenario I've been predicting comes to fruition.

The press is in the pocket of the Republican Party. Therefore, we've got to virtually drag them kicking and screaming in order to get any legitimate news out to the public. Impeachment proceedings are one way to do that IMO.

Secondly, though impeachment cannot be successful with the current makeup of the House and Senate, initiating proceedings has the potential to have the effect of a public education campaign, which could facilitate a change for the better in Congress.

We need demonstrations. The issue isn't Iraq any more. We know that's a hopeless mess. The issue isn't the Patriot Act any more. We know the regime is hostile to civil liberties. The issue is whther Bush and Cheney should continue in office. The politicians don't know that yet.

We need to let them know.

case for Bush's impeachment.

In any event, I don' think that the presence of Cheney should be a barrier to efforts of our Congress to carry out its constitutional duty to remove from office those who abuse the office of the Presidency. And I don't think that Cheney could be any worse.