The Constitutional Disconnect (A Question)

"A Zogby International poll conducted around the time of the Wisconsin convention asked likely voters nationwide: ‘Do you agree or disagree that, if President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment?’ Among all voters, the split was 50 percent to 42 percent against impeachment, but Democrats favored impeachment under the circumstances described by a margin of 59 percent to 30 percent. In November of 2005, when Zogby again asked the question, support for impeachment had risen, with the split among all voters shifting to 53 percent in favor of holding Bush to account if he lied and 42 percent opposed. Among Democrats, a striking 76 percent backed impeachment.

"After it was revealed in December of 2005 that the president had authorized the NSA to conduct warrentless wiretaps on the phone conversations of Americans, Zogby asked: ‘If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment?’ Overall, 52 percent of those surveyed agreed, while 43 percent disagreed. Among Democrats, 66 percent agreed. In the battleground state of Pennsylvania, a separate poll by Zogby, which was commissioned by the political website OpEdNews.com, asked Democrats whether they would be likely to vote for a congressional candidate who ‘supports having impeachment proceedings against President Bush.’ Eighty-five percent of those surveyed said they would be likely to support such a candidate, while only 7 percent said they would be unlikely to do so.

"Yet, for the most part, national Democratic leaders rejected even the gentlest talk of officially sanctioning President Bush and Vice President Cheney in much the same manner that a vampire rejects the Host. Even when they were offered clear evidence that the communities they represented were overwhelmingly in favor of action, Democratic congressional leaders explicitly rejected it. …..

"The aversion even to talk of impeachment – let alone to action – on the part of so many congressional Democrats, despite their own acknowledgments that members of the administration had broken laws, lied and contravened the system of checks and balances mandated by the Constitution, reflected a broader disconnect between party ‘leaders’ and the party’s base. Not since the dying Whig Party of the early 1850s, which could not bring itself to call once and for all for the abolition of slavery, has the national leadership of an opposition party been so fully delinked from the passions of the voters on whom it relies to remain politically competitive."

--The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders’ Cure for Royalism; John Nichols; pages 56-60.

An interesting question for DUers to consider in discussions and debates about the process of impeachment, which is defined in our Constitution, centers on "why?"

Why do you think the democratic leadership refuses to listen to the grass roots?

the system, if it's not completely broken, is in need of serious repair.

as democrats, we essentially have taxation without representation.

is courage of members of Congress and a true love of our country, instead of loyalty to administration benefactors." -- Ann Wright, retired US Army Reserves Colonel and US diplomat who resigned in March 2003 in opposition to the war in Iraq.

we have 'leaders' who cowl at the thought of being called 'soft on terror'.

we have 'leaders' who won't challege blatantly unconstitutional wiretapping by this administration.

we have 'leaders' who stand by while this administration tortures it's perceived enemies.

we have 'leaders' who continue to pour billions into a war while giving lip service to it's illegality.

i hold little hope for our friends in congress, and more contempt everyday.

Good points. I think that there are advantages to keeping it simple -- what Malcolm X meant when he used to say "make it plain."

There is no advantaged gained by having the highest law of the land broken by the executive office. None. It does not enhance national security.

Even against George Washinton!

It's very important for people to be familiar with what impeachment is. That includes knowing the history of impeachment, the Founding Fathers' views of it, and its intended purpose. The lack of knowledge about impeachment can make it difficult to have worthwhile discussions with some who are convinced that the democrats in congress should avoid even considering it as an option.

Takes a big ego to get to where they are and makes them think they are right. Ever try to tell a person with power or money that they may be wrong?

I agree.

--Would be nice if you put more about your self.

1. has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, as well as

2. fabricating a threat about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, in order to justify the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq in a manner damaging to U.S. national security interests;

3.and in violation of his constitutional oath and duty, has openly threatened aggression against Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and has done so with the proven U.S. capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining U.S. national security. <1><2>

that can be proven beyond any doubt, without any further "investigation" being required.

(then) Rep. Ford who said that impeachment is whatever the house feels rises to the level of HC&M

impeachment would likely not pass the house, and would certainly fail in the Senate.

I know that's not a satisfying answer for many here, but it's the truth.

do you think they are sociopaths that are not able to distinguish right from wrong?

Or, do you think they believe that Bush/Cheney are popular heros like Robin Hood or William Bonney and that their treason, bribery, and crimes against humanity should just be excused?

Or, do you think they are just unaware of their crimes and have been brainwashed by the right-wing noise machine?

What do you think is up with those people?

and thus, it's not worth attempting at this point.

Really, I sincerely believe that.

Why are the votes not there? Or, if you prefer, why would someone think that?

Is there some reason that you suspect for this totally unrealistic, illogical, and insane behavior?

Or do you think this is normal, to excuse treason, bribery, illegal spying, and torture?

I think the votes aren't there because there are enough Republicans who will NOT turn on their president.

We can't get republicans to override a veto against this President - there's no reason to believe they'd vote to remove him from office.

These are criminals we're talking about. Not some social program. You think those things are the same?

you're going on about. Try to calm down.

There aren't 17 Republican Senators who will vote to remove this President. That's my one and only point.

And what do you mean, calm down? Am I typing too fast for you to follow, or what?

Your one and only point seems to consist of arguing that the Republicans are going to do what you say, and nobody can change that, and that's just the way it is.

How does that work exactly, do you think you have some magical power over them? Or if you are just predicting their behavior, what are you basing your predictions on? Child health care? How do you make that connection?

It seems like you can't give any reason why you think the Senate is unfit to be a jury, you just know it's true because you say so. Is that all you got? Your say so? That's all I have been asking.

that if we can't override a single goddamn veto, we're not going to get enough republicans to vote to remove the President.

It's very basic.

So you must think that there was a veto-proof majority when Nixon and Clinton were impeached.

Do you think that?

and Clinton wasn't convicted.

Nixon would've been convicted had he been impeached, because we'd already had the nationally-aired Senate Watergate Committee Hearings which investigated his crimes and exposed them all to the public.

We also had the Washington Post exposing his crimes.

And we had the Saturday Night Massacre - which let the American people see his crimes.

We have nothing similar to that today with Bush. Instead of hassling me, why don't you tell ME which 17 Senators will vote to remove this President when they won't even vote to override a veto of a popular bill.

I just don't see any United States senators that would publicly condone treason or bribery or this level of corruption.

Even Orin Hatch. You know, about fifteen of those Republican senators are up for reelection this cycle.

So, all that stuff you are saying about a veto-proof majority, what is that? Don't you see the obvious contradictions in your argument? Just read your last post. It doesn't make any sense, unless you mistakenly believe that there was a veto-proof majority during the Nixon or Clinton impeachments.

I will keep asking you these questions, though, until you can get some perspective about how your opinion just isn't all that valuable. A whole lot of people think your just plain wrong, and I think you are just being very unrealistic.

why are they all supporting him now?

If the crimes you allege are so obvious and apparent, why are they all still supporting him NOW?

What makes you think they are?

The Republicans don't have to defend Bush at all, from anything. There is no threat of any action against him.

What is this imaginary threat that you think the Republicans are defending him from?

News Flash: IMPEACHMENT IS OFF THE TABLE

they won't override any of his vetoes, they're voting with him on every big issue, they won't even break a stupid filibuster to go against him!!!!

It's just delusional to think that Republicans aren't supporting Bush.

Is that really what you are arguing?

That's part of what they do. If they are forced to. But MonkeyFunk thinks they just all wake up one day and decide, for no reason at all, to impeach. That's just silly.

The Dems defended Clinton against impeachment because his transgression wasn't a crime and it did not warrant impeachment.

What is the imaginary defense that you think the Republicans might use to defend Bush?

"We're Republicans and we don't have to follow the law?"

If that scenario seems rational to you, I don't know what to tell you.

According to so many people on DU, that's exactly what they do say. Enough, in fact, that someone invented the acronym IOKIYAR.

of appearing to be openly partisan and revengeful because of the Clinton fiasco. If Bush had come a few years down the line it would not have mattered so much but coming right after scared them. The evidence and issues are much better but they still are scared to death.
In fact that is the best description I have of all the government, from most local to national, a bunch of people so frightened they can't even think.

Politicians don't like precedents, it limits their course of action. Repubs Impeached Clinton. Now Dems Impeach Bush and Cheney. Next Dem Administration Repubs will be looking for anything to cry "Impeachment" about.

Will every Administration from now on have to "fear" Impeachment?

I am afraid so unless we the people make it clear that we understand and will only support impeachment for real reasons as envisioned so long ago. Politics is to too many a game like chess or Monopoly with no rules other than the ones they are forced to obey. We must set all the rules of the game and demand good government as the outcome. Let it be a game but let us be the referees and the kibitzers.
This is where it gets dicey since so few of our people now even understand their part in good government. We can't even get people fired up locally to vote. How do you get them to demand that those who want to be in front of the wagon train lead us where we want to go? That is not even a thought anymore I am afraid.

a) blackmail. Domestic spying on key Democrats may have dug up stuff that they don't want getting out.

b) a culture of failure. These leaders were selected and elected by a congressional democratic delegation so used to losing, so afraid of being labeled weak on terra, that they picked leaders with those facets genetically implanted in them. The leaders reflect the fear and inexperience within the caucus.

c) fear. change is always scary. They fear change. They fear the unknown. They fear the president (rightly so) They fear their own shadows. They fear defeat, but even more, they fear that the GOP may do something horrible - like call them names. (oh my!)

I think that #3, FEAR, is an important consideration. Fear does terrible things to people.

They think waiting for Bush to leave would be safer than taking action.

Who do you think they were wire-tapping? Members of Congress do not want to have their dirty laundry exposed. It is simple blackmail. Also, let's not forget that several prominent members of the opposition have received anthrax laden letters in the past and the perpetrator has not been caught.

in order to fully understand and appreciate the implications of the "patriot act" and the wide-spread domestic spying that this administration is engaged in, one needs to go back and look at the Nixon era Huston Plan. There are numerous sources of information on this: I suggest the Senate Watergate Committee's report. Also the post-Watergate congressional investigations from the later 70s, which can easily be found on the internet.

The Huston Plan was, from the Nixon folks' point of view, a method of tracking dangerous connections between US citizens and the international black hats of the day. And it translated into spying on political opponents mighty fast. More, the methods used in the Huston Plan are important for our understanding what is going on today: they coordinated the activities of federal, state, and local agencies, frequently in un-Constitutional ways.

he worked for Rumsfeld in the Nixon administration. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is a secret, updated version of the Huston Plan (probably called the Cheney Plan now) that has been adopted by the current administration.

Technologically, we have vastly improved they amount and depth of information we can gain on people, including the members. Cheney has never been a guy who would let any silly laws get in the way of his objectives. Put those two factors together and you have a recipe for spying on Congress and using the resulting information as blackmail.

antifaschits third cause, fear is the intended outcome of the blackmail. Really, all the members would need to do is to stand up (probably if three of them did it together it would be sufficient) and tell the press that they are being blackmailed by the administration to inoculate the entire Congress from its effect. Unfortunately, we do not seem to have any brave members any more.

A study of Rumsfeld and Cheney's actions through the years shows that they have long been invested in promoting an imperial presidency. In fact, as John Dean noted, what Cheney has created today goes far beyond Nixon's wildest dreams -- and I think Nixon would recognize that what Bush & Cheney have done is a severe threat to the Constitution.

A huge part of the Runsfeld-Cheney theology is found in their work in the Reagon years, along with a fellow named Oliver North, for a continuity-of-government plan, should there be a nuclear war. The basic plans, which were scrapped during the Clinton administration, were revived very early in the Bush2 administration. And, as noted in sources such as Senator Robert Byrd's wonderful book "Losing America," VP Cheney instituted the "shadow government" on 9-11-01. It is a "government" run by -- surprise, surprise -- republicans and business interests, and does not include congress, or allow for any congressional oversite.

It seems so obvious. You can be sure it was Cheney who revived that scarey plan, too.

Funny, the right-wingers were so paranoid of the Clinton administration, black helocopters, etc. and now where are they? You'd think that they (especially the libertarian-leaning ones) would be freaking out over the current abuses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ByoqZqDGaA

A short speech by a congressman on the very topic...

This current crop plays for keeps.

must argue against their lack of principles, their lack of respect and love of the rule of law perfected as much as possible over our 200+ years as a republic.

When people at the grass roots demand that which is right, and the "leadership" turns a deaf ear, it tends to produce new leadership.

I realized she was every bit as much a part of the problem as the ones that got replaced. Bennies were the mainstay..What personal benefit could she acquire. Her desire has only escalated and the people and the country be damned..

"Office politics" vs substance.

How? By requesting to be treated just as any other Speaker of the House? What a silly republican talking point.

wasn't a ruse to make Americans wary of the process. The Democratic leadership is spineless since it is more afraid of being accused of payback than with defending the constitution. Bush, Cheney, the rest of the goons and the robber barons supporting this madness should be tried and punished for treason. This is way more than mere impeachment.

I have little doubt that if the pukes hadn't impeached Clinton, bush would already have been impeached.

:tinfoilhat:

consequence. I'd never thought of that before -- that it was an intended consequence. Interesting.

take their shiny toy on a try out run, so to speak...

And it went without flaw.

and as a side benefit, they got to smear and denigrate a good president who didn't deserve it. . Why don't we have that push in the House against a president who certainly deserves impeachment?

The succeeded in breaking our govermment. We don't quite get it yet. One more stolen election, and I think we will.

"their decades long push to break government"

And replace it with a corporate state.

impeachment, is arguable. You post polls showing support Here's a recent one that doesn't look like the Zogby ones. I presume that the leadership doesn't look just at the grassroots of the party

"In a July Gallup Poll 36 percent of respondents thought Congress should institute impeachment proceedings against the President. Most poll participants judged Bush on his conduct of the Iraq war, but a significant percentage described him as someone who lies, doesn't listen, and has no regard for the Constitution."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/the-politics-of-trust_b_68607.html

Although I think they should impeach, I don't think the argument that polls support impeachment is a tenable argument.

the poll you quotes asks people to fill in the blanks as to why impeachment.
the polls in the OP actually list the whys for impeachment in the question. and i think it's fair to say if impeachment were on the table,
the whys will get discussed much more. your random 36% already knows reasons why off the top of their head without all that much press.
i think that's encouraging, once the debate started, that number could easily double.

Thank you.

:thumbsup:

I believe that 36% is about double the number that favored Nixon's impeachment in late 1975.

given it's off the table and not eing discussed by "polite" society, i,.e. congress.

It has been cited, even on DU, as basis for claiming "over 60% of the voters OPPOSE impeachment."

For those who see how that misrepresents the polling, no words are needed.; for those who don't, no words could be sufficient.

It's a poll that would (imho) be best represented by saying "the majority of voters are not yet aware of reasons to impeach Cheney or Bush even though over 50% disapprove of their job performance."

I find that fact very disturbing. If any of my employers were more than 50% dissatisfied with my job performance, I'd have been fired. I think that's true for virtually every worker. Impeachment and removal are nothing more than job termination - firing. Millions of people are fired every year.

The fact that Cheney/Bush have committed crimes against their employers argues for far more than impeachment and removal. That we treat impeachment as some "death penalty" is entirely insane. In a nation of 300 million people, there's absolutely no shortage of qualified people for those jobs.

Thank you.

in late 1975. I imagine the support for impeaching Nixon was close to 0% then.

It wasn't until AFTER the Saturday Night Massacre that public consciousness (of the couch potato variety) was raised enough to begin the public groundswell. The 18 1/2 minute gap seeped into the public awareness in December 1973. Between then and August 1974 the public support for impeachment went up, probably tipping over 50% sometime between April and June of 1974.

everyone understood exactly what you meant.

... I'm accustomed to working with devices lacking in imagination and having no tolerance for even trivial single-digit errors. I'm also accustomed to occasionally making such errors - and making hasty corrections.

:rofl: :rofl:

rigid things tend to break under stress,

I was joshin' ya.

But the fact is, in late '73, we were still 6 months away from the Senate Watergate hearings, which pretty much sealed the deal on impeachment.

It was the investigations, by the Congress AND the media, that led to the inescapable result that Nixon would be removed from office.

Impeachment did not occur before the investigations, nor is impeachment an investigation itself.

it is important to be aware of how a question is framed. The Zogby polls asked about if it were shown that Bush lied about the war, should congress impeach. That is significantly different than asking if congress should impeach.

Thank you though, for adding something important to this discussion. I admit that I do not often read the Huffington site, for a variety of reasons. Among them is Arianna Huffington's opposition to impeachment, even though she knows the president and vice president are guilty of abuses of power. (See Nichols, pages 68-69).

But the article you link does note that there is a disconnect between the democratic "leadership" and the grass roots:

"However, judging from the sentiments expressed by left-coast activists, Democratic leaders may be underestimating the extent of deep-blue discontent. Many long-time Democrats are deeply disturbed by what they feel is a betrayal of trust by some Democratic leaders: in 2006 these loyalists worked hard to ensure Democratic victories in the House and Senate believing Dems would use their new legislative power to stop the war. And they haven't."

the fact that Americans are mixed in their opinions about impeachment.

I find your criteria for information and opinion you'll examine, interesting. I prefer not having a litmus test for what opinion or information I'm willing to read. In fact, I'm not interested in hearing or seeing only one side. But each to their own.

all i can say is 36%, wow- people are wking up! :bounce:

all have about 24 hours in them. Hence, I am sorely limited in regard to how much I can read. However, when I want to read things that are republican in nature, I do apply a litmus test, and go for that which is most clearly identified as being produced by republicans. Were you able to look through my library, you would almost certainly agree with that .... unless, of course you were being stubborn as a mule.

having been fortunate enough to grow up in a house with a remarkable one.

Of course, whatever Huffington's past and her present opinion on impeachment, the fact is that it is not a republican site- perhaps you weren't aware of that. Many pro-impeachment writers and provocative thinkers such as Sirota, post there regularly.

Thanks though for the unpleasant and barely disguised little dig. I prefer not to play in kind.

you are seeing things that are not there. That is a risk of internet discussions, I suppose. I think that this thread is actually providing a "dig-free" opportunity for discussion of some serious issues.

Yes, I am familiar enough with the site in question to know that it is not republican. But it is not among the ones that I read very often. We all have different tastes, and if we all read and thought exactly the same, threads like this wouldn't be as much fun.

You use that claim in an attempt to temper your unrelenting anti-impeachment posts.

You have never argued in favor of impeahment that I recall reading. If you have agrued pro-impeachment, please provide me a link to same.

One can support impeachment yet still realize that impeachment is NOT a constitutional obligation. Stating the latter is in no way "anti-impeachment".

:eyes:

It is not, however, surprising that you think your comments satisfy the inquiry made to another as if your word is the last word on the subject, as if you have some type of standing.

You are mistaken, and that too is not surprising. Protecting and defending the constitution is an OBLIGATION of all those that take the oath of office. The House members are the only elected officials that can impeach, the vested duty is their's and their's alone. When they shirk that duty, when they do not protect and defend the constitution as they swore to do, as is required by their office under the constitution, by impeaching those that the constitution provides can be impeached, then they have violated their obligation under the constitution.

Yeah, ok.

"It is not, however, surprising that you think your comments satisfy the inquiry made to another as if your word is the last word on the subject (you never do that), as if you have some type of standing.(what is that supposed to mean?)"

You're boring.

*zing* you really got me :rofl: :rofl:

take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution. There is no question that the president and vice president have abused the power of their office. The Founding Fathers were very clear on what the legislative branch's duty is when the executive abuses power.

Those who argue that it is not their duty are lacking in understanding, but this is to be expected. The Constitution is unfamiliar to them. They have not read the other works by the Founding Fathers. Their position is no more accurate than if they said the police are not obligated to arrest bank robbers, and DAs have no duty to prosecute.

That's why investigations are so important. Do we really know that Bush/Cheney initiated all the things that happened under them, or were they misled by their advisors? Did Bush order the wiretapping, knowing it was illegal, or was he informed by Gonzo that it was legal? Did they invade Iraq knowing it was illegal, or did rummy make a legal justification for them?

That's why we need the investigations. Sure, we "know" Bush/Cheney did it, but is it provable in an impeachment hearing?

Cheney. The evidence needed to convict him is there. Not a single hour of further investigation is needed. Not a single further subpoena is required. With the existing evidence, the only way he would not be convicted in the senate would be if people consciously opted to ignore the evidence, and to support Cheney in order to reap the benefits of associating themselves with the most unpopular politician in Washington, DC.

What charges that I've mentioned do you see things lacking on?

And the one from yesterday.

Then we can talk, if you still want to.

They are terrified of getting labeled "Soft on Terror". The so-called war on terror was the perfect issue for this administration to gain the upper hand. It was a perfect way to divide the nation. The administration was able to put our country in an offensive position after 911 by hyping fears. The problem for the democrats is that they don't know what fears are justified and they are terrified of making a mistake. If they put themselves out there and demand accountability for the government abuses and another terrorist attack happens, they know it could possibly render them irrelevant. The Dems keep allowing the administration to define the terrorists. I believe that is their biggest mistake. If they would take on the bogeymen they might have a chance to gain the upper hand.

Ridiculous!

If they challenge them and a terrorist attack happens, they take the risk that the people will side with the government out of fear. Fear is very powerful and it can blind many.

And would they remember the details in a crisis?

it is possible, and actually important, to combine what the two of you are saying. It is always important to do a "risk assessment." And that has to include congress informing the public of the risks posed by an executive office that refuses to obey the supreme law of the land. I think that most citizens understand that threat .... in fact, evidence indicates they understand it better than congress does.

LOL

That a risk assessment has to include the congress informing the public of an executive office run amok, in fact I think that should be their number one priority. My statements above are not meant to defend the congress, they are simply meant as a reason why they won't do their job. they are afraid to take a risk against the administrations bogeyman. I also think that the nation is divided as to who poses the real threat (the government or the terrorists).

I can only guess at the actual reason but the excuse given will be - ultimately - not good for the country - the lie about healing.

It sells the best.

You have a wonderful talent for "making it plain," as Minister Malcolm X used to say.

I took the cowards way out.

The "why" tells a lot about a person - why they will or will not commit to an action.

It's important - the why.

It explains motive and the people need to know that motive to clearly see what they are dealing with...how deep it goes, so to speak.

I also think the final result speaks loudly. The end game...how it turns out - ultimately - screams motive to me.

I call the healing excuse the healing lie. Intentional word choice...my motive isn't hard to discern.

The very use of the word excuse...

My reason for doing this...my excuse for doing that

If a train is coming, get off the tracks. The outcome is not inevitable. Some people go tharn and hope the trains stops in time. They forget they can help themselves.

Not sure what I mean by that ...only it seems some people hear the train coming and feel the train coming, but as long as they don't quite see the train - then it must not be a train - so they remain on the tracks - and hope.....and all the while, the train is bearing down on top of them...

It if sounds like a train and feels like a train...(quack quack-choo-choo)

Except, people hear and feel a train but see something else...or tell themselves it is something else...

Anyway...lol sorry for the rambling

oh yes, back in the eighties when raygun was the criminal in chief. :(

coming from a victorious new Democratic administration. I mean I have been consciously in terror of those words for years, and it makes me angry just to think about the possibility. "Healing" in that context would only be code for shoveling it all under the rug again, and much worse than that, allowing the evil to "take another form and grow again, to quote J.R.R. Tolkien. We've already seen it happen once (Iran-Contra). That kind of "healing" is luxury we can't afford.

By "healing," they mean we should submit peacefully. They confuse "healing" with "novocaine" ..... which reminds me of something Minister Malcolm X used to say. I know someone on this thread dislikes my using Malcolm's teachings on DU, but I think that the majority of DUers are fully capable of deciding for themselves if this is of value.

Malcolm spoke about when we go to the dentist, how we act differently than we normally would. We would usually fight anyone who wanted to force us into a chair, and yank a tooth out of our mouth. But a dentist injects novocaine, and we sit in the chair and suffer peacefully -- with the blood dripping down our chins.

What the administration is stealing from us today is more important than a tooth. We should be dighting to protect what belongs to us. Yet many advocate that we should not fight for the Constitution ..... but rather, we should "heal" by taking an double-dose of novocaine, and sit quietly with a dull-witted grin on our face, while that blood drips down our chin.

"Healing," indeed.

people who view it in that context. And they are not all democrats.

in which they benefit monetarily. They simply do not care to do the job they were elected to do if it means disrupting the status quo. It is the corporations that rule. :(

Gandhi taught that it is beneath human dignity to become a mere cog in the machine. Congress has reaffirmed this basic truth.

good one

I belive they know the American people want a big change now. If the change happens now, they fear the populace may expect more.
Same as if they end the unpopular war, they worry voters will become complacent by November.
Emmanuel, Carville, the rest of the DLC think tank as well as many "pragmatic" DUers are to be thanked. In their haste to be "results" oriented, they have missed the fact that the bloods not going to wash off their hands.

and not from the base, either. Main-stream America is already very cynical of Congress.

because they are big enough assholes to run on the "you're just as bad as us- otherwise you would have spoke up years ago"
platform. Add some expanded military operations and a few chouruses of the "Terra Song" and they own it all next year.

The notion that a partisan political calculus would seek to perpetuate the damage to a nation and violation of basic human rights for the sake of benefitting thereby, if only as the presumptive "better aternative," is so egregiously corrupt as to beggar articulation.

If anything is a condemnation of a purported "two-party system," it'd be that.

More, it is not a position that holds up to close examination. But corrupt rationales rarely do.

Thank you for raising it.

Do DUers think that all of the democratic candidates would be equally likely to dismantle the Cheney-instituted executive powers? I doubt that very much.

What has been done since the coup of 2000 will remain in place until there is an actual structural breakdown of the current power relationships that control both parties and all branches of government.

At the risk of being accused once again of wishing misfortune on us all, until there is a crackup on the order of the Great Depression, nothing much is going to change. Most importantly, the course that the 'Washington Consensus' established by the Reagan presidency, by the Thatcher regime, and by the collection of plutocratic elites who are now clearly running almost the entire world, the course they have put us on, is both disastrous and it appears, not likely to change until it has taken the system of the world off the cliff it is surely driving over.

some would be more likely than others to embrace it. I agree with what you have said, here.

Until the misery of the situation they are currently in becomes so bad that it overwhelms any fear and reluctance to change. In short, I get what you're saying.

i think the democrats in congress don't impeach because they like the outlook for 2008 the way it is and don't want to upset things.

it's wonderful to run against the party of a hugely unpopular president. if they impeach and remove and replace, bush/cheney would become history and completely irrelevant to the election. the replacement president would certainly be more popular (or at least, less unpopular) and might even be (gasp!) one of the republican candidates! why give you campaign opposition the power of the presidency?

remember how ford nearly beat carter in 1976?


NOTE: i am not defending this line of thought, i am merely expressing the opinion that this is a line of thought the democrats in congress (especially those running for president and their supporters) hold.

I had some discussions in the last week, in which I did my very best to communicate to some of our friends in Washington that the democratic party is risking the loss of support of the progressive left, including some democrats, because of their refusal to challenge the president's policy in Iraq.

that the best thing to do right now is work towards the 2008 elections and make a Democratic sweep, which will, of course fix everything, are ignoring reality. The idea that we can wait until 2008 implies that we are living in normal circumstances, that all of this corruption and murder and treason is somehow part of the normal American process. Maybe Bush is "bad", but we can wait and it will get better. it is not normal. It is not part of the American process which will sway more Dem and more Repub, more 60s, more 80s. Even here on Du, there is a large contingent who believes that the elections are going to save the country. Just as in congress, the fact that are elections have been fraudulent since 2000 is not addressed head on.
denial?

I think it is important for the pro-impeachmemt people, like myself, to remember that many of the anti-impeachment people are sincere in their beliefs, and that is why I do try to engage those people in discussions and debates. I don't waste time with those I think are not sincere. But I respect the fact that there are differences of opinion among good and decent democrats.

What there are, are people who don't think that it is FEASIBLE, not that it is A BAD THING. Please don't mischaracterize us.

I will express my opinion, and have no problem with you expressing yours.

But who are the people on DU that want to keep Bush in office? Who doesn't want an impeachment? What I have seen is people arguing whether it is workable to have an impeachment, not whether Bush should stay in office.

If it doesn't describe you, then there's no reason for the reaction.

Is that good enough for you?

So I'll do you the favor that you deny me:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2106483&mesg_id=2108673

After reading this thread, I haven't seen one point where you list evidence that directly implicates Cheney. Maybe I missed it. Maybe you should tell me where it is, instead of insisting that I post your points for you.

need to do.

Much as I and many of us would like to see an impeachment, it will cause a disruption, real or perceived, and provide a rallying cry for future contests. They don't want to give the opposition that hook to hang on. There are the inevitable shouts about the action being "political," which is one of those words which has acquired a negative connotation.

Undoubtedly, there will be a "mess" which nobody looks forward to cleaning up.

--IMM

even if it were VP Cheney being impeached, there would be an initial cry of "foul!" by most republicans. As the evidence was laid out, that would end quickly. Loyalty is a fluid value among the species we know as "republicans."

Letter of Warning To a Young Patriot", p.141, Copyright 2007, Naomi Wolf:

-snip-

"We all have to reengage in an old-fashioned commitment to democratic action and believe once again in an old-fashioned notion of the Repubic. We need you to help lead a democracy movement in America like the ones that have toppled repressive regimes overseas.

We can't as a nation, switch on the metaphorical iPod and go for a run, somehow expecting a magical shift in the winds."

-snip-

A lot!

It's not a spectator sport nor some toy given us by our parents to be cast into the corner when we're bored.

The price (in the proverbial blood, sweat, and tears) we'll pay to reclaim it goes up each and every day. Those who merely sit back and think the Lone Ranger will ride in on the Great White Horse called "ELection" are deluded, imho.

or dead. Those are the choices.

Perhaps it is time to outlaw monetary involvement in politics by non-persons. Money buys influence, and corporate money buys influence for corporations. Ihis is contrary to the basic principle on one person, one vote? If only "persons" were allowed to "buy influence" that would be a good start on democratization of money politics. Then, the next move in that direction is redistribution of wealth, back to the more normal pattern of the past, like before corporations bought up all the political influence.

I remember one time, many years ago, when Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman told me that money is the most dangerous threat to the security of any nation. Things like drugs and weapons are bought and sold for money. Kings send armies to steal other nation's natural resources, for money. As long as people value "money" as being more powerful than truth, and honesty, and respect for their neighbors, our communities are at risk.

They see all impeachments in the same light at the Clinton impeachment, as if impeachment is used to retake political power or to punish political opponents. Sadly, that is how many of our elected office holders (they don't deserve to be called leaders) see it. Many of the dems in Congress and those that are under the misconception that once the dems control congress and the WH they can restore the nation and impeachment proceedings would politically threaten the chances to win in 2008.

And there are the "but for the grace of God" dems, those that believe a "tit for a tat" will make them appear as petty as those they oppose. How stand that standing up for our nation, that doing your elected duty is a seen that way. No matter how hard they want us to believe it, denying a blow job, telling lies about extramarital relations will never rise to the lies and abuses of power of this administration.

done for purely political reasons is always wrong. Impeachment done for the right reasons is never political. That is a concept some people understand, but that confuses the hell out of others. Sad, eh?

This country never does wrong by holding tightly to the Constitution. It always does wrong when it ignores the Constitution. Again, we have a concept that some understand, but that others find confusing.

in the constitution. It's a damn shame the house (Pelosi especially) can't understand that.

The signing orders alone are enough to call him on his abuse of office, add to that the other flagrant violations of the constitution and congress becomes his accomplice.

thank you

We have a good group of people here at DU. That promotes civil discourse.

Fear of backlash, fear of looking petty, fear of looking soft on terrorism, fear of a lack of votes...fear...fear...fear. It's been stuffed down our throats and up our noses. The real fear, that we are losing/lost our democracy hasn't become greater than the others yet and until it does, they won't move off the dime, so they need to be pushed. A great, mighty shove from we, the people.

One way is to get more progressive candidates into office (though that won't help with impeachment). But if money is the name of the game we need to make them very aware of the power of small donors. Dodd's campaign is shocked by the amount raised in 24 hours for one single stand against fascism.

does terrible things to people. That is why the enlightened teachers throughout history have always had the same message -- "Do not be afraid" -- while the most vile of snakes peddle fear.

the only thing we have to fear is bu$h & chenee

... but cowardice can create it's own fears.

most fascinating characters that I ever met was Cus D'Amato, the old boxing trainer. The guy was brilliant, as far as understanding human nature. He used to say that the hero and the coward both feel the exact same fear .... but that the hero uses it for fuel, while the coward is destroyed by it.

... but the psychological difference is immense. There's a lot in how we choose to frame our experiences.

We are hard-wired the same as our ancestors' ancestors, and so we are going to have a lot of the same "edge" to us. But we can process it differently.

with the monetary advantages of supporting the status quo and the cudgel of the corporate media screech machine poised above their heads are keeping them well in line...

This is a massive uphill battle.

I agree.

I also think it is important that we keep in mind something that Elizabeth de la Vega says, that we are all ordinary citizens who become extraordinary citizens when we exercise those democratic muscles defined by the Bill of Rights. It is an uphill battle, but we will get to that mountaintop. Believe it.

because i have not heard a satisfactory or convincing reason yet.

even warrantless wiretapping could enter the process, is that if you're conducting a poll, you know who to call ... you know who will support your own bias.

The Dems keep saying that they don't have enough votes in the Senate to over ride the Pres. Veto regarding a definite timetable for withdrawing the troop from Iraq. The same applies to Impeachment of either Bush/Cheney. Since there is no 100% documented proof of crimes by either the Pres. &/or VP, the Dems are afraid of moving forward on Impeachment. Leveling charges & then failing to convict scares the Hell out of Dems.

:shrug:

Nancy Pelosi said so herself. :thumbsdown:

has some quotes from the Speaker that are disturbing.

...is a shadow over *all* elected officials. In Naomi Wolf's book "The End of America," she advises those who would be activists to get their own lives in order -- financially, ethically, etc. -- because she warns that even the slightest personal vulnerability will be sought out and used against those who want to be agents of change.

The ethic of "Let's all hang together or we'll all hang separately" takes on quite a different meaning today. Too many are hanging together to protect their common malfeasance in office -- or at the least, their cowardice -- not to stand in solidarity for a high principle.

The spotlight of impeachment might shine on those doing the impeaching. For fear of having a questionable financial transaction or a personal pecadillo, no matter how slight or how remotely in the past, revealed, resulting in loss of a career, our Congressional representatives are going along to get along.

And I'm truly sad to say that the Democrats we have in office now are highly suggestive of a party like that "dying Whig Party" to which you make reference.

is that if anyone mentioned his past, he would smile and say, "Oh, you have no idea, Sir -- I was far worse than that."

This is the kind of stepping up to the plate we need from our would-be leaders: "I may not be perfect, but here is what I will do for the country."

A little humor is a great palliative for reining in the self-righteous!

the American public is fine with the imperfections that make us all human, as long as we do not pretend to be otherwise. It is a sad thing that our media promotes the attempts to make "leaders" into plastic (there is a future in plastics, of course).

People respect change. Real people respond favorably to those who have learned from mistakes, and who are honest about them. And, as you noted, the use of humor is a powerful tool.

One of my favorite books about Malcolm that came out in the 90s, during the time when Spike Lee's wonderful movie brought so much attention to him, was by a fellow who tried to convince his readers that Malcolm was no hero, because he really hadn't been so bad as he implied he was. Some people tell jokes, other people are jokes.

...organization we all know and love, and who was the "go-to girl" for impeachment efforts, explained to me that one of the reasons John Conyers was having to back off on impeachment was because of "that little ethics violation...."

I seem to recall he had his feet held to the flames over paying a babysitter out of campaign funds, or some such thing. I can't attest to the facts here, but only recall shaking my head in disbelief that such a petty consideration would be considered enough to hold back evicting criminals from The People's House!

We need more people in office who can say: "I call Bullshit."

I haven't made up my mind about voting in 2008, but I'm really liking the fact that John Edwards has done his mea culpa over voting for the war, and is now moving ahead with stellar ideas for making substantive change. And anyone with a totally clean slate would make me nervous, anyway. It's either not true, or said person would dither away time on trying to preserve a personal "rap sheet" with nothing on it, to the detriment of the country.

other things we need to get done, Impeachment would take up all their time, so those other things would never get finished. I think they fear a backlash, but the polls show just the opposite would happen.:shrug:

Maybe Nancy doesn't want to be VP? Maybe they're being blackmailed/extorted with illegal NSA wiretap info? The NSA program DID start BEFORE 911. Maybe they have garbage on Congress members? They think we're just the "Loony Left?" (Dave Obey) and don't really represent the Grassroots...Mid-America....The Heartland? I honestly have NO CLUE why they ignore us.:(

There actually is plenty of time.

Nancy would not become VP. The Speaker is third in line, but the positions are not, for lack of better example, like candy in a vending machine, with one replacing the next. Though the VP does replace the President, the Speak only takes the presidency if both of the two top executives are unable to. If Cheney were facing impeachment, he would resign. Bush would then consider if he should be replaced or not. An example is when JFK was killed, and did not fill the VP position until the following election.

and this congress couldn't even manage to override a veto on it.

No way they are going to attempt HR 333

the congress has been impotent since the democrats took power in January.

Timidity. Not the fear already mentioned, but the lack of a leader's instinct that they must be the one to act, to take the initiative, and to stand up and say that this must stop.

Kucinich shows us the exception. He's not waiting for someone else to step up and do the job, or for it to become popular, or even feasible.

But our other elected officials seem to be preoccupied with matters that occupy them more than the Constitution. They don't seem capable of seeing the intrinsic good that comes from defending the process even when there isn't a visible short-term payoff.

If they had the vision and the conviction, they would act, maybe even in spite of their fear and desire to maintain power and position. Without that vision and conviction, they are mere placeholders in the neocon pageant that passes for democracy these days.

That works. That reminds me of when heavyweight champion Floyd Patterson was going to fight Sonny Liston. Floyd was timid. He brought some disguises with him when he went to the fight, because he was prepared for defeat. He was so scared of Liston that he folded in the first round.

Liston, of course, lost to Ali. And Floyd tried to redeem himself by saying he would challenge Ali, so he could "bring the title back to America," as if Ali were not as patriotic as him. Ali dubbed Floyd "the rabbit," because he was so timid.

Our congress and some of its supporters are too timid to even think of fighting back against the thugs who are stealing the Constitution from them. But they attempt to compensate for that by accusing those of us who stand up to the thugs of being less patriotic as them. That disguise doesn't work.

In hindsight, they may still feel responsible for not giving Gore and Kerry better cover. Looking ahead, they are about to regain real power for the first time in many years.

They are being very protective of Senator Clinton. Imho, they could run any of their candidates and win because this country has had it with Republicans but it doesn't look like the leadership knows that. They're all behaving as if under a death threat and that's disturbing.

My concern is that they are risking the loss of a growing number of natural allies. I know that many of us recognize this risk.

Failed impeachment carries serious risks and paltry benefits when compared to regular investigation. An entire administration was brought down in 73-4 through strong investigation. That some believe that the time is ripe for impeachment when we can't even unite to force effective regular investigation--it's redolent of very wishful thinking, and fantasy-based expectations. "We will be greeted as liberators" is how I hear it from those who ignore the risks and obstacles. Those that claim GOP obstruction would disappear, media coverage would be favorable, the crimes would see the light of day, the Democrats would push effectively, etc., are so doggedly ignoring the obvious evidence to the contrary that it's almost insulting. Bernie Sanders and Al Gore see the risks of failed impeachment, and they understand success is all but impossible at this time. Given the obvious evidence, why can't we?

you would be willing to provide us with some historic examples of the "serious risks and paltry benefits" that have been associated with what you define as a "failed impeachment." Once you do that, I think we could have an interesting discussion. It is unlikely that we will agree with one another any more than we already do -- which is not at all -- but it might be fun.

I know that you find my use of the historic teachings of great Americans like Malcolm and Martin upsetting. Two days ago, on another related thread, you said to another of our DU friends that I use them in a way that appears to make it seem that that disagreeing with me indicates disagreeing with Malcolm and Martin. I thank you for saying that, though I will show a difference in your attempted use of Al Gore.

I have great respect for Al Gore. One reason I invested as much time, energy, and money in the 92 and 96 elections was because I liked Gore, even more than Clinton. I supported him in 2000, though I felt he ran a poor campaign, and I felt that he was poorly represented in the legal contest that followed. Vince Bugliosi's book demonstrated what approach Gore's legal team should have taken.

As a result, Gore's finest speech from that period was when he accepted defeat. It was followed by the humiliating scene that is captured on the beginning of Michael Moore's film.

My respect for Gore has increased, as he has transformed into a mature leader in the years since that ugly period. And I am fully aware of what he has said about impeachment. Still, respectfully, I disagree with him. And I do so in full confidence that were he and I to discuss this, he would not feel compelled to resort to the name-calling that we find in your posts, such as this one that I am responding to. I can say in full confidence that Al Gore would be able to focus on the facts involved this administration, not shy away from the history of impeachment in our country, and share the respect for the Constitution that makes it possible to find common ground, even with those he disagrees with.

Would you say Sanders, Gore, et al are lacking in conscience? Overstuffed with pragmatism? Or might the two not necessarily be a bad thing in combination? Perhaps their particular mixtures of each are what made these men great? I do find it amusing that you are calling me the name of name-caller. I'm not sure you realize it, but your responses to polite criticism can be a bit sensitive at times. I don't mind it, but why throw "Silly n/t" at new DUer cuke for making a valid criticism of one of your arguments? Was his point wrong, was he rude, or did you just not want to respond to criticism? Everywhere in life people are found who will fawn over any argument, however flawed, if they support its conclusion. Reasoned criticism and disagreement is the valuable stuff--don't knock it when you get it. Only acknowledging or valuing agreement or praise leads to complacency in the form of hasty, inattentive arguments that are only convincing to those already convinced..

But to your point--some of the most basic questions to start:

1. Can we impeach? Do we have enough votes in the House?

2. Can we convict on the evidence we have now? Are we likely to obtain the evidence we need? How will this happen?

3. Assuming impeachment passes, and we have a viable path to conviction, what is your evidence that this majority will stand up effectively, unite and accomplish this? Have they stood up effectively during regular investigation? Since you mentioned the war, have they stood up effectively to the administration on the war? What is your evidence the Democrats will be suddenly effective when the stakes are even higher for the administration, and march down the necessary and difficult path to conviction?

as we've discussed already. We could discuss Bush or Cheney. For sake of this discussion, I'll go with Dick Cheney, as for years I've said that there is a strong case for impeaching him.

1. Can he be impeached? The only way to know for sure is to have democrats in the House try. It is a process. I believe the House would impeach Cheney. I am not saying that it is an absolute certainty. The only thing we can say wih certainty is that if they do not try, it won't happen.

I view not trying as failure. You view trying and not impeaching him as failure. Those are differences in values. The differences we have in values makes communication between the two of us difficult.

2. The evidence: There is enough evidence to impeach Cheney and get a conviction with the evidence that is already on record. This point has been made by retired federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega and others. No further subpoenas are needed. No further investigations are required.

The only argument that can be made is that the members of congress would willingly ignore the evidence, and would instead seek political advantage by associating themselves with the most unpopular political figure in the United States.

3. I have no more "proof" that the Senate would convict him, than you have that they wouldn't. You are certainly entitled to base your speculation on votes that the senators have been made in the past.

I had asked you if you could provide evidence of the terrible things that you claim would happen if the senate did not convict Cheney. Are you able to: (a) identify those terrible things; and (b) provide any historic evidence that supports your claim? Please do that, and then we can continue.

I see you find my questions difficult to answer in either case, since you have chosen your own questions to answer. Is that discussion in your view? Again--what is your evidence that the Democrats will prosecute this effectively? If they fail to be effective in opposing the war, what makes you think they will succeed with impeachment? Or do you believe strong evidence and support does not exist for ending the war? If they fail, do you see that as carrying no risk? If you do see risk there, why do you pretend so often that no serious risk exists?

You have clear evidence of a Cheney crime, evidence that isn't deniable or transferable to an unlucky, pardon-in-his-future stooge? If you don't have this, given the precedent of criminal GOP presidents like Reagan et al, what is your evidence that a smaller, less united, less strong majority of Democrats will successfully prosecute the wrongdoing?

Before undertaking a risky strategy, you should listen to the experts. Why do you so easily throw aside the advice of such progressives as Sanders and Gore, who have plenty of reason to dislike Bush and have two lifetimes of political experience between them? What do you know that they do not? On what basis should we throw out their advice? Is "try it and see, we can't know the future" really a convincing argument to you? I hope it wasn't convincing to you as an answer to Ritter or Blix during the runup to war. When examining risk and benefit, trust the experts--not all speculation is equal. I, for instance, would trust Sanders and Gore for the reasons stated. Why do you distrust them?

And finally, do you believe Sanders and Gore are described by what you said here?:



These pompous digs at those who disagree with you are immeasurably petty and childish. Many respect you here, and you ought to be better than that. You have no idea what the people who disagree with you have read. I've read all major works of Madison and Jefferson, and many of the other Founding Fathers. Speaking of the Founding Fathers, fact is a scant twelve years after the convention the Alien & Sedition acts appeared. By today's standards they were blatantly unconstitutional because first amendment protections are universal. At that time the first amendment did not definitively restrict the states--Jefferson's main argument against them was based on state's rights, which is some nine amendments down, if I remember. If Congress's duty in the eyes of the Founders was to defend that document, why did we not see impeachment proceedings brought against Adams, the president who signed it? Is it because the Constitution was a volatile document at that time? Or is it possible that propping up the Founders to dance to your tune was done in the hasty, inattentive way that many feel is deserving of criticism? And why not -listen- to that criticism when it is valid instead of throwing petty, baseless insults around?

to answer my questions. That's fine.

I have advocated impeaching Cheney in numerous posts on DU since 2004. I have consistently said that he should be the focus.

You seek to distract from the fact that you can not back up your claim about the terrible damage that would happen if an attempt to convict Cheney in the Senate did not have enough votes. I've offered John Nichols book, which has numerous historic references, that suggest that you are wrong.

Another: Attacking the most visible symbol of a party without the ability to be successful -increases- that party's solidarity. We saw it with the failed impeachment of Clinton, despite the two not being at all comparable otherwise.

Yet another: Listen to the experts. Those dull, complacent folks Sanders and Gore, who of course know nothing of duty, the Constitution or the Founders--how could they? They disagree with you.

I suppose you'll answer all my questions now?

Can you identify them?

In other words, FISA, war intelligence, habeas corpus suspension, Plame, the whole lot. Or would you hold a few crimes back from the impeachment charges?

My other claims remain unanswered. My questions upthread were replaced with questions of your own, perhaps questions you found easier to answer. I've pointed out the risks, I've pointed out why impeachment is likely to fail at least in Bush's case. I've jumped through your hoops. Is this where you show your evidence that disproves mine? If it's all trapped up in the book and resistant to expression, my replies will still be there. Feel free to refute any of my claims at any time--if you do have the evidence that would change my mind and hang Cheney, I'd love to have it.

that it's clear that I don't want to change your mind. I prefer that you argue against me, in exactly the way that you do. In all sincerity, I do thank you for that.

Now, I've made clear on numerous threads what I think VP Cheney should be impeached for. I have listed resources that document how the process of impeachment provides congress access to things that the White House can otherwise keep from them. Again, at risk of boring folks by repeating myself, the information that the grand jury investigating the Plame scandal is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Respectfully, you are not able to name any other manner for accessing this information.

The information regarding Cheney's violating the law by purposefully misrepresenting the intelligence about Iraqi WMD is on record. The evidence regarding his abuse of power in the sharing of select intelligence to Ms. Miller is on record. And the issues involving the Plame scandal are on a record that can be accessed through impeachment.

These pose no threats to any investigations regarding Bush and FISA etc. None. I will also note that the majority of the anti-impeachment DUers take the stance that this congress would never impeach Bush or Cheney, and also advocate poorly identified "further investigations" -- which is so obvious a contradiction that it is stunning that anyone would make it.

In any case there's an obvious quid pro quo in the commutation of Libby's sentence, but is it certain the smoking gun evidence is in there to bring down Cheney? When did Fitz switch his focus to Libby and perjury? I've not read of any definitive powers conferred by impeachment that would blow all this wide open without the most dogged persistence on the part of the Democrats.

But I'm not as concerned about a possible Cheney impeachment, perhaps because the risks simply aren't as serious. If Dennis does follow through on it, I'd support him all the way. I would support a Bush impeachment once it started as well, but I would have serious concerns about where it would lead. The only concerns again are the Democrats' seeming inability to strongly confront even enormously unpopular administration practices, because despite Cheney's complete lack of public support, the administration won't easily survive if he is convicted. So we can expect a lot of resistance.

I don't know if this is clear, but my problem with impeachment arguments isn't the idea of "damn the risks, this has to be done." I have a problem with "there really aren't too many risks at all, let's try it!" I feel we should at least have a strong idea of what we're getting into before we commit, especially when I have my doubts about how effectively our majority can carry it off.

was investigating violations of criminal law. Impeachment is civil law; it can include charges relating to criminal violations, but is not restricted to them. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" causes those unfamiliar with it to assume incorrectly that it refers strictly to criminal violations. It applies equally to abuses of power of the type that lead to Mr. Fitzgerald's comment about the cloud over Cheney. More, there are several examples of Cheney's violating the law in regard to misrepresenting evidence of the Iraqi WMD "threat" which are indirectly related to the Plame scandal, but were not part of Mr. Fitzgerald's focus. The letter from Rep. Hinchey, co-signed by 40 others, that I have quoted several times details this.

the irony of the charges in your post.... but I doubt it.

I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that you have little tolerance for those that disagree with you, and you belittle them as having less conscience. You appear to want an echo chamber, not debate.

I am more than happy to debate any person that I believe is sincere in their position. I recognize that there are many people who are sincere in opposing impeachment, and many who are sincere in questioning it. It does not follow, however, that I should believe that everyone who is opposed to impeachment is sincere. You might note that even those who are opposed to it here on DU state that it would fail, because the republicans would not consider it on its merits, but would instead base their position on an agenda. I recognize that there are people with agendas.

More, after some of the people who disagree with me were unhappy with my polite request that they not try to disrupt a thread that was intended solely to help pro-impeachment people organize a specific effort, I have done my very best to accommodate them. That includes you, of course, because as the old song goes, "you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need." (See? I read your thread, though it had little echo!)

In two days I posted two threads, in which I attempted to be available to answer any sincere question that anti-impeachment folks had. Or to discuss any issue they raised. I'm not looking to convince them, because that isn't important to me. Rather, I wanted to express what I think, and explain my values. And yes, Daniel Berrigan's quote and Martin's speech are valid ways to express what my values are. I recognize others have very different values. I do not think you could find any reference that supports your claim that I said my values are superior. But the fact you suggest that is interesting.

Again, I have no problem with sincere anti-impeachment folks making their case. Please do.

Why would I make an argument against impeachment?

You know perfectly well that I'm pro-impeachment, and I've stated it dozens of times. I written OPs about it. I suggest you do a search, if you really can't recall my position. I've been pro-impeachment for well over a year now.

I think your claim to superiority is implicit in your OP, and many other things you right. I also find it arrogant of someone to ask others not to comment on a an OP posted in GD. The structure of GD is antithetical to such a request.

In case it's not crystal clear, here's my positon on impeachment:

It should be introduced and fought for by the dems, because of the future. We can't afford to set the bar so high for holding a President of VP accountable. If bush hasn't committed crimes worthy of impeachment, who possibly could?

BUT, jpgray is quite right about the risks and of course your argument that his claim that the Senate wouldn't convict, and your claim that his prediction has no more value than yours, is waaay off. He has far more evidence. All you have to do is listen to what repub Senators have said, and consider their support of bushco over the past few years. All opinions don't have equal validity.

the terrible consequences that would take place if the Senate did not impeach VP Cheney? And give a few examples from our nation's history that support the claims? It might be fun to compare them to the examples that John Nichols lists in his book, don't you think?

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. It's like the belief that I have caused serious injury to DU:GD with my impeachment threads. You think I have, and I think that we will survive, and perhaps be a better place because of these threads. Ha!


"Arrogant, pompous, obnoxious, vain, cruel, verbose, a show-off. I have been called all of these. Of course, I am." -- Howard Cosell

I simply expressed why I support impeachment. Again why would you ask me to make an anti-impeachment argument. It's a strange request and I question your motivation for making it.

I certainly haven't offered an opinion about your impeachment threads. And if I've said that you've caused serious damage to GD for posting them, it would be the polite and HONORABLE thing to do, to provide a post of mine stating that. Please feel free to do so.

Posting a charge such as that without evidence is a seriously flawed way to make an argument.

on your post before this one. Perhaps I did not understand what you were saying in the manner you said it. That happens -- why, just yesterday, you thought I had attempted to insult you when I surely hadn't. If I erred in my interpretation of what you said, than I am sorry.

You had been expressing some support for jpgray, and I thought it would be possible for you to provide your thoughts on what the terrible consequences he keeps mentioning are. That would not require that you believe them to be true. But you seem more in tune with him than I, and because I've asked him several times and not had an attempted answer to the question, I was hoping that you could help. Again, it appears to have been an error on my part, to assume that you would consider such a possibility.

just fall off the turnip truck. You made a comment to the effect that if I didn't agree with you about your library if I saw it, I must be "stubborn as a mule". Not exactly honeyed words. And implicit in such words is indeed an insult.

And jpgray has consistently presented a coherent argument about what the consequences of a failed impeachment/convictin could be- and done it better than I could, but briefly, here you go: Should he not be convicted it'll serve as exoneration of his misdeeds. Should he not be impeached that would be amplified. It would be portrayed in the press as exactly that- an exoneration. It could give a boost to his waning popularity and to the popularity of the repuke "philosophy".

the discussion about reading material was in the context of your statement about my choosing not to read a web site that you like. My not exactly honeyed words was a simple, good-natured play on your recent comment that it was good to see me off my "high-horse." I did not think that you were insulting me, and I did not intend to insult you. I suppose that your library, like my own, would have reference to examples of miscommunications.

I haven't read any of the consistent coherent arguments on how a failure to get the needed votes in the senate to impeach Cheney would spark a huge boost in his popularity.

You're misinterpreting what I said. I didn't claim that a failure to impeach Cheney would spark a boost in his popularity. I claimed it would serve to exonerate the administration on critical crimes, and that it could boost bush's popularity. And yes, there have been very coherent arguments about it. You simply choose to misread them, and to veer off course. That's your perogative. Just as it's mine to say that you haven't been able to give any sound reason as to why the republicans in the Senate would actually vote for conviction no matter what the evidence.

As I said, I'm pro-impeachment despite my having little hope for a good outcome, because the accountability of future presidents is important.

we can agree on Daniel Berrigan's message.

Impeachment is a very real workable possibility...in one case. That case is that the investigations which will demonstrate the complicity of Bush/Cheney are allowed to continue, and that they do conclusively demonstrate that Bush/Cheney are complicit instead of just their advisors. But every time this issue is brought up, the thread gets huge numbers of responses saying that we have all the evidence we need, and we should start an impeachment hearing immediately. I can't see a better way to guarantee making the impeachment fail.

... they (at least I) are not suggesting proceeding without caution. Impeachment, by definition, is the process of formally bringing that evidence that has been gathered into a hearing process, exposing it to the public, and hopefully leading to referral to the Senate for trial.

I don't think those of us who advocate impeachment want to go off "half-cocked," but the impeachment process is itself a "preliminary hearing" to determine if there is enough evidence to bind over the defendant(s) for trial in the Senate.

If there are not enough votes to send these criminals to trial in the Senate, at least there was a principled attempt to do so, and in that process, members of Congress would have to step up to the plate and publicly declare themselves as condoning, or not condoning a criminal administration.

To do nothing is simply immoral. In my opinion, of course.

All it takes is a simple majority in the House of Representatives.

Note I don't believe for a second that Pelosi truly means impeachment is totally off the table. It's likely she meant it even as Bush meant "I have no war plans on my desk." It was a stupid comment, I agree, perhaps aimed as a way to market the new majority as -not- being out to hunt the president and lend legitimacy to investigations, but if one of the many investigations uncovers something undeniable she will have little choice but to impeach. The main failure right now to my mind is failing to bring this executive privilege defense to the necessary tests--we need to push this at the judiciary, biased as they are, to get the evidence we need. Ignored subpoenas are quite the precedent to be enshrined in law, and I doubt the SCOTUS has the balls for it. -That- at least is worth a try.

and that's the real shame, the real dismay, the real problem.

"An entire administration was brought down in 73-4 through strong investigation."

One would more correctly argue that he was brought down by impeachment. Nixon resigned BECAUSE he was being impeached, he was not just being threatened with impeachment, he was actually in the process of being impeached.

The articles of impeachment were already voted on and apppoved by the Judiciary Committee.

You have it exactly backwards, he didn't leave because of any INVESTIGATION (he had been under all kinds of investigations for years and he never resigned), he left because of IMPEACHMENT!

http://www.watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles.shtml
Articles of Impeachment Adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary

Article 1
RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.

ARTICLE 1

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his consitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:


making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;

interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;

endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;

disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;

making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or

endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.


In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.


Adopted 27-11 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, at 7.07pm on Saturday, 27th July, 1974, in Room 2141 of the Rayburn Office Building, Washington D.C.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Article 2
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:


He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.

He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.

He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavoured to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.

In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.


Adopted 28-10 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Article 3
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.


Adopted 21-17 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.

on edit> added emphasis

Oh and on edit: Error: You've already recommended that thread.

They believe that the Republican Party is self destructing and they will therefore make big gains in 08 -- in Congress, and win the presidency. So they are afraid to do anything to rock the boat. In other words, they are trying to run out the clock on the 08 election. In other words, their goal is to elect a hightly Democratic Congress and President and save considerations of statesmanship for later.

I think it is a mistake for them to do that, but that's my best guess.