Paging H2O Man: You were right. I was wrong. Impeach him already.

You were right. Impeach the motherfucker already.

Back in November, you began writing that Congress, with its new Democratic majority, had a constitutional obligation to begin impeachment proceedings. Your argument, as I understand it, was based primarily on the Constitutional obligation our legislators have to uphold the law, by holding this criminal administration accountable through its most draconian remedy -- impeachment. You were horrified by Speaker Pelosi's statement that impeachment was off the table.

After some reflection, I wrote a post agreeing with Madame Speaker, that impeachment should not be a priority.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2675009#2676304

My main reasons were tactical. I felt that the spectacle of a powerless president being dragged through investigations that would reveal unspeakable crimes and unfathomable levels of corruption would be more damaging to the Republicans in the long run and offer less risk of backlash to the Democrats. I argued that the criminal law would be awaiting this junta as an alternative means of holding them accountable. Most of all, I worried that impeachment of Bush and Cheney would leave us with an incumbent President McCain or President Powell going into the 2008 election, because the mechanism that would invariably be pursued would be the mechanism that was used on the Nixon administration -- namely the removal of the vice president, his replacement by a clean Republican, and then the removal of the president. I argued there was no chance that impeachment would lead to a President Pelosi, as some incorrectly understand the order of succession.

But my reasoning depended on the notion -- now revealed to be incorrect -- that this administration was at least marginally like other administrations. But it isn't.

I thought that having been rejected at the polls, having suffered a crushing Congressional defeat, the administration would be powerless.

But this perverse administration has arrogated more power to itself in the face of increasingly universal rejection by the electorate, the press, the intelligencia, former administration officials (including those of Bush's own father's administration!), and former military general officers, a rejection of the administration, its policies and its war of choice.

In other words, the Bush administration is not just delusional but out of control of all the institutions of American society.

Zbigniew Brzezinski's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday (made known to us by autorank) shows that even elites now believe that the administration is capable of false flag crimes -- operations that only "crazy conspiracy theorists" talked about until recently -- in order to provoke a catastrophic war with Iran. It's not just Sy Hersh and Scott Ritter warning of an impending war. You can see the very same messages that preceded the Iraq war being orchestrated into a manipulated and lazy mass media. The seizing of regulatory power from executive agencies shows that these people are bent on a dictatorship, but a peculiar one based on greed and corruption.

Israelis often speak of "existential threats" to their society. In other words, Israel need only lose one war to cease to exist.

The United States today faces an "exisential threat" from the Bush administration and its "stupefyingly inevitable" war with Iran -- a threat to our constitutional order, our security at home, our alliances and very membership in the lawful international community, to our troops in Iraq and our overall military (which is so wrecked that it can barely scrape up 20,000 troops for the "surge").

Nothing is more important today than removing these criminals legally and peacefully from office as soon as humanly possible. It doesn't matter whether that results in a President Pelosi or a President McCain, because if the Bush administration is not removed very soon, there won't be a United States of America for either Mme. Pelosi or Senator McCain to be president of.

Perhaps it is already too late. Zbigniew Brzezinski seems almost to think so. If Iran is attacked, the people will not rally around the presidency as the Bush regime is calculating. I suspect that because the public now knows that the president is a delusional complete fraud and his wars are based on lies, that if he attacks Iran, he will be removed either by Congress in a hasty kangaroo style impeachment or by the military itself. Either would be crushing to our Constitutional order. To continue the Israeli comparison, we need suffer only one coup and our 200 years of continuous Constitutional government -- one that survived even the Civil War -- will be irreparably broken.

It would be much better for Congress to put regular business aside and just start deliberative impeachment proceedings now. The public support exists for it, and once Congress begins to elicit the true horrors perpetrated by this regime -- torture (let's see the damned Abu Ghraib pictures splattered across TV every night already), kidnapping, murder, spying on citizens, detention without trial, what really happened on 9/11 (whatever the hell that actually was), the murder by drowning of the glorious city of New Orleans and leaving the bodies of American citizens to rot for months -- we can expect support for impeachment to grow explosively. Those of us who lived through the Nixon impeachment know how utterly a president's prestige can collapse (See Nixon's "crook speech,": "People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook...") Bush is almost there, and impeachment proceedings haven't even started yet.

A few days ago, H2O Man asked whether there were any DUers who thought impeachment was properly off the table before, who have changed their minds.

Well, H2O Man, here I am.

Either way, we can't afford to sit by while Bush single-handedly starts war with Iran.

We are literally running out of time to save the country from an apocolypic political and military disaster.

1) the House has to vote on Articles of Impeachment to submit to the Senate;
2) the Senate has to vote to Impeach on those articles.

The procedure in the House is purely legislative, not investigative, and the Senate vote can be made without a quasi-judicial "trial" in committee. The Articles can tried on the Floor of the Senate and voted on after evidence has been heard for both sides.

Let us say that the House submits that the President is "In breach of his oath of office by subverting, ignoring and failing to defend and submit to the Constitution of the United States of America," this would be a "High" crime (or misdemeanor). The Senate could then hear how signing statements, misleading Congress, domestic spying without warrant etc etc, place the President in breach of this oath - or not. They then vote on this. Simple majority means he is impeached but does not require removal from office, 67-33 means he is impeached and requires his removal from office

You said "means he is impeached and requires his removal from office" ??

Thanks in advance for your reply.

but 67 of 100 senators have to vote in favour of impeachment to force his removal from office

...both Cheney and Bush is absolutely necessary.

Unfortunately, that's not a bad thing to some of the sheep who fell for the whole healing thing.

It takes a strong person to admit when they are wrong, and re-think an issue. Very impressive. I've been in H20 Man's camp from the get-go myself. Welcome to the party!

Impeachment isn't a choice. It is an obligation. It is their duty given to them in the Constitution to put a check on the Executive. They are what stands between a Monarchy (fascist dictatorship?) and a Republic.

If they don't have the stomach for the job they should just walk away and let others lead.

It is the most important thing we can do,if it takes 1 year and 363 days, so be it!

America knows how to talk and chew gum at the same time.

I've always thought it was a good thing for Nancy to say " off the table."

That made the CONS feel comfortable and we were able to give major legislation a head start.

We can keep all that coming and still impeach the hell out of these DANGEROUS fools.
To think that he has his hand on the Button scares the hell out of me.

The CRIME would be for Americans to stand by and know that mentally ill people, not of good will and truly dangerous are running our government and we don't address it by IMPEACHMENT.

Pretty soon, IMO, any one that is not for IMPEACHMENT is not on my list of patriots.

WE, the citizens, need to give Congress the POWER to know that we want them IMPEACHED, NOW~



Not just Bush, Cheney is worse --- a truly mentally sick man with no heart and a shotgun.

it should be done today, before midnight

Good post.

:thumbsup:

:kick:

Who are you and what have you done to the real Swamp Rat?

Will you set it up on Cafe Press (or someplace like that)?

sw

:evilgrin:

Love ya! :hi:

I love it: ITMFA!

is his mother, that would look like ...

Nevermind.

BTW, I recall from your link that Dan Savage was the person who coined the phrase, "impeach the motherfucker already," as a variation on his usual sex advice, "dump the motherfucker already."

I can think of nothing more important than starting the proceedings IMMEDIATELY. This born-again messianic lunatic is lurching us toward a war that will make Iraq look lke a day at the beach.

IMPEACH, NOW. Listen up, Dems: No more of this namby-pamby, non-binding shit.

Welcome aboard.

K&R

They have enough grounds to begin impeachment. Testimony of the Libby trial, the grounds. Light a fire under their asses. We need this started YESTERDAY!

Which it won't of course

K & R

I have wanted impeachment from very early on, but you've encapsulated the immediacy of the need to do something NOW.

K&R

Kicked and recommended

Would have saved a lot of heartache.

The damage done to this country and several others by the criminals in the White House should be front and center in Congress.

I am an impeachment hawk.

Impeach!

(for Molly)

sw

(edit: voted to recommend, too!)

this crowd. Someday, it will just seem like we never considered any other course of action. I pray that day comes soon and it begins.

"He's almost done, he's harmless now, let's not drag the
country through another impeachment."

Wrong response. You don't make nice with fascists. You
show them the door decisively.

be impeached along with Cheney...immediately...

yes - ITMFA!

Many folks have argued tactics, chess games, stragety (a la Bugs Bunny :) ) since 2000

You're not the first, and alas you're not the last.

Over the years, when I've seen folks use "tactical" and the like, I let them know where it has gotten us.

It's like some Bergman movie...playing chess.

Best of luck to all who've been able to wrench themselves away from the "game" with the realization that it's only a game in which every last one of us loses.

I've been wishy-washy on impeachment, but now I'm literally scared out of my wits when I think about what other atrocities we are about to see at the hands of these maniacs.

If Bush is allowed to continue, this becomes the precedent for all other presidents.

If he is not impeached, it implies that his actions are acceptable.

I wouldn't want even the most honest president in the world to retain this system.

If he isn't impeached - successfully - you can expect this insanity to continue long after
Bush steps down.

What in the hell are we waiting on now?

The one difference is that I am not wholly convinced that the Constitutional process is adequate. It may just be that the country would benefit MORE from an extra-Constitutional solution. Call it a coup if you want.

I agree it is coming if impeachment does not come first. I don't know what form it might take, and you are correct - it COULD have long-lasting negative effect. But, quite frankly, this sorry episode demonstrates that the Constitution needs work. It counted on checks and balances which have been systematically dismantled. It did not count on the influence of Big Business co-opting the news media, nor the KSt gang. I fear that removing them by the prescribed means in "civilized" fashion would be nothing more than cutting off two heads of a hydra. They would be sacrificed; we would be appeased, and Big Brother would continue on his way.

We just might NEED a revolution.

Much like the situation in Iraq, there are no "good" solutions.

I wholeheartedly agree with impeachment, I don't think we cannot do it after all the crimes they've committed. I wish we could march them out faster though. Too much damage can be done by them during the hearings required to impeach.

They'd have to be impeached simultaneously though. Otherwise another Repub gets in and possibly cleans up and gets credit for it.

Also, is there any way to tie his hands if impeachment is started? I mean since he's being impeached shouldn't he not be allowed to make any major decisions like attack another country?

I do think if he were impeached that the public would most likely force the Senate to indict. By that point I don't think it would be possible not to, at least if they televise the hearings on something other than CSPAN and people watch.

Impeach that fascist rat bastard.

that post...Welcome to the bright side!:pals:

What the hell does it TAKE to get it through some people's head that this is not politics as usual -- and hasn't been since 2000? That, in fact, the selection of 2000 WAS stage one of a bloodless coup and that we've been suffering under it ever since? What the hell has been taking good, intelligent, caring people so long to grasp the profound ignominy into which our body politic has fallen? It has been exasperating beyond belief!

My post "Against Impeachment" argued that after extensive hearings, so much treason, crime, corruption and murder would be revealed that the Republicans would be discredited for a generation.

Even during times of extraordinary politics strategy and tactics matter. It's not that I was saying they shouldn't be held accountable, but how to hold them accountable.

But don't really think that impeachment is off the table permanently. Mme. Pelosi is a highly intelligent woman who grew up in politics. To say anything other than "impeachment if off the table" would be to give the green light to document shredding and other destruction of evidence, as well as signaling the administration to trigger alternative plans that they - make no mistake - have in place. Add to this the fact that there are other, even more urgent problems that must be addressed to secure this country on a solid footing before such a process of upheaval is set into motion.

Have faith in our Speaker and our new Congress. They have not been living in a cave.

The only thing that I disagreed with in the OP was the statement that I was "horrified" by Nancy P's saying that impeachment was off the table. Many others were horrified. I never thought for a second that she meant it was off the table once the democrats took over. My view has long been that VP Cheney's actions are EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers had in mind as requiring impeachment. I've spoken with aides to enough democrats in the House to know that even among conservative democrats, it is an idea that is given merit.

Likewise, I've never been upset with people who held sincere but differing opinions on impeachment. I did believe that a few people who opposed targeting Cheney were not progressive democrats, and I certainly held them in utter contempt. But honest disagreement was fine .... in fact, welcome.

On the day of the State of the Union, an old friend called me. She is a Native American Elder, who holds very traditional beliefs and values. I was surprised that she said she was planning to watch Bush that evening. She said that, in part, she was watching to see Cheney; she remembered in the late summer of 2003, that I told her that the Plame scandal went straight to Cheney's desk, and that it would result in his being impeached. It took her 3.5 years to recognize that I was right. So I am patient. I know that impeachment can be hard on this nation, in the same way cancer surgery on a family member is difficult for an entire family. But Cheney is a tumor of darkness. There is no safe alternative to surgery at this point.

"Tumor of Darkness."

The only thing about the man that is appealing is that he is easy to understand. If you understand the way that an unscrupulous CEO thinks, then you can understand Cheney.

Our Chimp-in-Chief is a different matter. Through a complex interaction of greed, insecurity, lack of self-esteem and associated overcompensation, lack of experience, mental instability, family issues, long established patterns of sneaky behavior, avoidance, total lack of empathy, inability to plan for long-term outcomes, and other weakness of mind and character, he is the extreme danger to this country and the world. However, to Cheney's benefit, it makes him extremely easy to manipulate.

:kick::applause::thumbsup:

These war criminals must be removed from office! NOW!

The lapdog Publican minority in the Senate is obviously still following Junior's script, just as they did when they had the majority. Their push for a line item veto is a convincing example of what I am saying.

and a nation where it's leaders are not above the law, then impeachment of administration officials would be a great way to start.

Our nation faces a constitutional crisis.

congress must investigate the actions of bush & cheney, it is their constitutional duty.

The window of opportunity for impeachment will, unfortunately, not arrive until AFTER the prick attacks Iran. Even then it's a toss up as to whether the scared-of-their-own-shadow slice of the American public will rally around the maniac or finish turning on him.
The investigations won't move fast enough to prevent the attack; sanity is still in a reactive mode.

...before they are confident enough to pursue Bush's impeachment.

The irony being, it was the catalyzing event of 9/11 that Bush was waiting for to pusuade the American People we needed to go to war in the middle east.

Flip side to every coin, I guess.

and the path to follow becomes obvious.

ITMFA indeed.

Great post, I find nothing to disagree with, and your point about this week's announcement that political appointees will act as overseers of executive was well taken. This is clearly another very significant step towards gutting our republic and putting full control in the hands of the Bush Administration. What a scary year 2007 is turning out to be.

The "liberal" media spins it that people will be turned off by the Democrats trying to "drag" the country through this process, similar to the way they felt during Clinton's impeachment. And just as Dems have fallen into the trap of believing the media spin that the citizens want "middle of the road" politics, they now appear to be believing the media spin that impeachment will turn the country off and prevent a Democrat from winning in 2008. How stupid do they think we are, that we can't tell the difference between Clinton's "crimes" and what's going on now?

NOT California. Arnold will fuck it up!

A-fucking-MEN!


:kick:

Impeach the sorry SOB's!