Did impeachment hearings restrain or prevent Clinton . . . from doing ANYTHING?

I don't think so.

Although I'm all in for holding Bush and Cheney accountable - and would be overjoyed if impeachment hearings were initiated against Bush, Cheney, or any of the rest of the cabal - I'm not convinced there would be any stifling of whatever Bush is doing now or whatever he plans for the future.


Remember Operation Desert Fox in 1998?

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said during his Oval Office address to the nation . . .

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the middle east and around the world," Clinton said.

A showdown between the U.S. and Iraq six weeks ago, when again the military action was threatened, ended with Saddam Hussein's promise to give U.N. inspectors unconditional access to Iraqi facilities so they could determine if Iraq was rebuilding its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.

At the time, Clinton said he "concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate. I made it very clear at that time what 'unconditional cooperation' meant."

Both directly and indirectly, Clinton addressed the impeachment crisis his presidency is currently facing. He defended the timing of strikes, which his critics have questioned in light of Thursday's scheduled debate and floor vote.

He also said that Saddam Hussein should not believe that domestic troubles in the U.S. would deter the nation from taking decisive action.

"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate before the House of Representatives would distract Americans," Clinton said. "But once more the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests we will do so."


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/clinton/

The hearings also distracted from a direct focus on other things the Clinton administration was pursuing. I remember that the attitude of the Clinton WH was to continue with business as usual. That attitude worked for them. To a large extent, Americans felt Clinton was spending his time working on their behalf. I don't think Bush could pull that one off, but it should be a caution that there will really be no legislative restraints on Bush as a result of the decision to hold hearings, and such a move would likely rally republicans to support him who may have otherwise joined in legislative efforts to restrain him.

The two do not compare at all, and I question your motives for doing so.

as if the mere discussion of subjects threatened to upset some apple cart somewhere.

The inference to most of these calls to impeach Bush is that the mere act of holding hearings would either convict him or force him to resign, or that the hearings would restrain Bush from waging his occupation. I'm pointing out that Clinton was able to continue his military action, over the strong objections of the opposition, despite the ongoing impeachment hearings against him.

#$%^&* questioning motives!!

The "opposition" to Clinton was a minority. The opposition to this entire administration is more than two thirds of the country. You realize this, don't you? You're trying to compare two entirely different animals.

I say fuck questioning impeachment. It's years too late, and I can't believe the amount of resistance it is still getting from people in our own fucking camp. What the hell's in your head? Explain your motive, because it isn't obvious to people whose side you're supposed to be on. If you don't want to explain yourself, why plaster your opinion in public where people can respond?

do you want agreement or a fight?

For the fucking life of me, I don't know if people want a democracy or a cult. Is there a bible or something I can study so I don't subject myself to your holy inquisition?

In my world, in my 46 years, my association and 100% support for my party has afforded me the opportunity to express that support in any way I damn well please. You sound like a fucking McCarthy-ite.

The goddamn query stands. I still wonder if it's a worthwhile course, no matter how much my politic-addicted self would eat up every bit of it. My main wonder is whether it would stifle Bush in Iraq, or would the effort actually cause him to dig in or continue to escalate. Would the hearings themselves end the occupation? What's the entire course. There should be SOME discussion of what course of events we expect and what likely reactions from the opposition we can expect. And we should SURELY discuss what our actual goals are in impeaching and whether that action would take away from other priorities, like ending the occupation.

I might be inclined to agree that public opinion is on our side, but that alone hasn't moved the ball so far. It's not at all assured that there would be the defection of republicans that I think we would need to pull it off. I want to know where the evidence has been gathered IN CONGRESS which would lead to a conviction. Impeachment will be a political process, not necessarily a process of law. I expect that the same opposition we face in this Congress now would be magnified if we came at impeachment half-cocked, just for impeachment sake, with no clear plan for success. Just because we think we have a clear case out here in the public and the press, it will be a different matter for Congress to collectively decide to convict Bush or Cheney through the impeachment process, even if they do manage to get the vote through for a hearing. Pelosi can send the matter to committee, I think with a simple majority, but then it gets trickier. It can be unilaterally reported back to the floor, but from there, it would be hard to set up the impeachment committees with just our majority voting. Our party can't just dictate impeachment.

I want to know what the effect of such an action will be, and under what circumstances that action would take place. I don't see any value at all in just bulling forward without taking the consequences of such an action into serious account. How do YOU do that without discussing these? Should we do this in secret? Would I be invited in with my questions and facts and all?

In a democracy, you can say whatever you want, but you have to be able to support your claims, to answer to the rest of those involved and to explain your motives on occasion. You don't get to pick and choose which parts apply to you. Tough shit.

My "inquisition" isn't some organized conspiracy (and it isn't likely "holy," either), I simply asked you to explain yourself. You're the one acting like a drama queen about it.

If you think I sound like a "McCarthy-ite," you haven't listened to them.

For nearly seven years now, no one's significantly opposed this administration at all. They've lied to our faces, started an illegal war, destroyed our international relations, increased the threat of terrorism, turned a multi-trillion dollar surplus into an even greater deficit while padding their cronys' pockets, abused the power of the executive branch, pissed on the Constitution and are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans (and even more of foreign nationalities) either through intent or incompetence. NO ONE IN THE EXISTENCE OF AMERICA is more worthy of impeachment than the members of this administration. What don't you get about it?

My goddamn query still stands. In light of the fact that your comparison of Clinton's impeachment to the impeachment of cheney is comparing apples to oranges, why are you treating them as if they aren't radically different? Did you just decide you'd be against impeachment and now you're being stubborn or something? Some people are on a payroll to push that line, you know. If you're not, why help them?

At this point, even the most drastic action (which impeachment certainly isn't) isn't "bullying forward," it's fucking overdue.

kind of a 'with us, or against us' dig at me for 'pushing a line', 'helping them'. Then there's the patented DU paranoia about 'paid operatives' whose posts are somehow more convincing or pernicious than any of the crap that's volunteered here for free.

Is your argument so weak and fragile that it can't withstand a query without coming off like some some paranoid guardian of whatever ideology you're trying to defend? I've never felt a need to defend anything outside of my own liberalism until recently when more than a few folks decided they held the lock on morality, courage, or virtue and attacked me for sharing my own opinions and questions here. If I though for a minute that folks here were as intolerant of unshared ideas and opinions as you are appearing to be here, I wouldn't bother to engage in discussions here at all. It's definitely easier to just chop off all doubt and just post stuff everyone would agree with, but that's not real life, and it's no option for a free-thinker to succumb to labeling and innuendo and settle for echoing the rhetoric of some clique or another, or whatever rhetoric you think I should spend my time mouthing.

I don't yet see any case for impeachment that has been produced, by Kucinich or anyone else in Congress, which has the necessary gravitas to attract the necessary support to allow an impeachment process to proceed. Not at this point. All of the hyper-ventilation ignores the fact that this process would be played out with this Congress with it's present balance of power and the same actors who've been obstructing our party's efforts so far. I don't know how anyone expects the argument that hasn't yet been successfully prosecuted against Bush with legislation we've managed to advance to prevail in an effort to unseat him.

You act like the opposition is just going to fold under the weight of evidence that they've been ignoring for Bush's entire term. Our party won't be able to pull an impeachment off unless and until they produce evidence IN CONGRESS which has enough weight to cause republicans to agree to set up the investigative committees and fold on the other measures which require their cooperation. Democrats will not be able to just dictate impeachment down to republicans with the present balance of power.

At this point, a move towards impeachment by the Democratic majority would be just 'bulling forward'. Where is this groundswell for impeachment IN CONGRESS? When, and if, they manage to get something explosive together from one of these investigative committee hearings they're conducting which directly implicates the WH, that will likely generate enough support to reasonably proceed. Right now, there has been no such explosion in Congress.

Again, you're full of shit if you think I'm a "McCarthy-ite." I'm certainly not conservative or fascist, and I didn't say anything "with us or against us." I repeated my request for you to explain yourself, which you apparently can't or won't do.

My argument isn't weak at all. Your retort is.

Congressional support is fickle and requires as little as two minutes to reverse in some cases. Requiring it to exist before proceeding with what should have been done years ago is just dumb.

If you don't see the case for impeachment, you're either blind or ignorant of the mechanics of impeachment. Read the Constitution Congress swore to uphold.

I'm not acting "like" anything. I'm speaking truth to your bullshit.

And you might want to be careful with the words you choose when talking about Congress. Agent Mike gets twitchy when you put "explosion" in the same sentence.

It just hasn't been made in Congress in a fashion which has attracted the necessary amount of support needed to get cooperation to unseat the Executive. The support within his party would increase, not decrease, in the face of a half-assed impeachment effort launched without the case having been made in Congress. The Articles I've seen presented so far would just be debated back and forth, much like the Iraq debate we're having now with the opposition. There needs to be more developed in Congress for there to be any effect at all in moving towards a majority who would vote for the necessary levers to proceed. Our majority can only proceed so far, then what?

(How does it feel to be labeled?)

That's a false assumption, and a stupid one, considering that the Senate doesn't convict until AFTER the House is done with the impeachment hearings.

You have no idea what the support in the republican party would or wouldn't do. Or do you?

Wait, are you a psychic? What am I thinking right now?

(I get labeled all the time. I've learned to stop giving a shit. How does it feel to be you? Actually, never mind, I don't care.)

and not just count on impeachment to solve all the world's problems. I believe if impeachment is warranted it will come, but it will have to come organically from the process. I personally think there's an excellent chance Bush-Cheney will come to a day of reckoning of some kind for all the shit they've pulled. I trust it will come in due time.

but, I've been watching these folks for a long time. You never really know what sparks them to action. It can be a new revelation, or usually it's an old issue that somehow just takes off and sparks public interest.

I do think there is more of a possibility that a special prosecutor could emerge as a result of one of the investigations. That would be the most likely course to impeachment as it would involve possible violations of law which could be readily prosecuted outside of Congress, and referred afterward for impeachment hearings.

that will come back to bite them on their fat, boil-scarred asses. But I know it's just a feeling and a wish I have. I am not expecting that just because I wish it, it will be so.

I'm thinking that Waxman's investigations have a very good probability of hitting paydirt.

fucking incredible effort from Rep. Waxman over the years, and continuing . . .

Current and Past Investigations

* Abstinence-Only Education
* Abu Ghraib Prison Abuses
* Administration Oversight
* Arsenic in Drinking Water
* Census Data
* Chemical Regulation
* Cheney Energy Task Force
* Congressional Preemption of State Laws
* Dietary Supplements
* Disabled Veterans Tax
* Disclosure of CIA Agent Identity
* Education
* Elections and Voting
* Energy Policy
* Enron Investigation
* Environment
* Fifty Caliber Rifles and Ammunition
* Flu Vaccine Crisis
* Food Safety
* Global Terrorism Report
* Global Tobacco Accord
* Government Use of Propaganda
* Guns
* Head Start
* HIV/AIDS
* Holocaust-Era Insurance Restitution
* Hurricane Katrina Response
* Information Technology
* Iraq Intelligence and Nuclear Evidence
* Iraq Reconstruction
* Medicaid and Medicare
* Medical Privacy
* Medicare Bill Cost Estimates
* Member Reports
* National Missile Defense
* Nursing Homes
* Open Government
* Politics and Science
* Postal Reform
* Prescription Drugs
* Price Discrimination
* Public Health
* Seven Member Rule
* Social Security
* Steroid Use in Sports
* Terrorism
* Tobacco
* U.S. House Ethics
* United States Congress
* Veterans Health Care
* Waste, Fraud, and Abuse
* Western Energy Crisis
* White House Use of Private E-mail Accounts
* Workplace Injuries

all of these linked here: http://oversight.house.gov/investigations.asp

I see nothing wrong with your question. You're simply asking if it will really cripple Bush in any real way, to impeach him. Valid quesion and I don't have an answer. I just wanted to defend your right to ask it.
Lee

Getting a BJ and lying does not amount to treason. Lying about intel so you can your pals can make money off war, now that just might be treason. So whada ya guys say, hanging was good enough for Saddam right?

They have to hold hearings and make these determinations in-house. The charges can be introduced into a hearing, witnesses called to testify, the matter referred to the floor for a recommendation to impeach . . . I know I muffed the order, but it's not at all assured that there will be enough of a consensus in Congress for that charge or any other to produce widespread support for an impeachment. This is all jus flailing around. Impeachment won't necessarily just stop Bush in his tracks, no matter how hot the charges are we manage to bring. We need to produce enough evidence in Congress to support the charges or the effort could cause a shift in support back Bush's way. I'm not convinced we have such a case ready to go, in Congress.

If the progressive members of Congress do not support the efforts of those advocating impeachment of Cheney, Bush, or other administration officials, it won't happen.

If progressive people do try to impeach Cheney and/or others, it is going to be a tough fight. I think that Spinoza was correct in saying that all noble things are as difficult as they are rare.

Regarding Clinton, I believe that if you read some of the books and articles about that period in his administration, you will find that he was indeed restricted in some of his actions. The fact that he did some things with the military is not the proper measure; rather, one should note those things he did not do, either at all, or to the extent he would have otherwise done.

I don't know how 'progressive' members expect to prevail, though, without the support of the other less progressive members of Congress. There has to be something other than their high hopes to sustain their effort.

I think a great deal of damage could come from an effort which relied on the expectation that republicans would run from Bush and launch an ineffective defense. One thing they are good at is digging in. Behind all of that, there could be enough of a distraction for mischief to proceed.

And, I would be lying if I didn't worry that the public may have become immune to the Iraq charges about prewar lies and the rest in the news. I think a successful effort would likely have to come out of the efforts of a special prosecutor. That would be the best first step - out of a committee investigation - to appoint a special prosecutor so that the charges are removed from the political debate and placed into the realm of lawbreaking and criminal behavior which could then be referred to committee for impeachment proceedings.

to impeach both Cheney and bush.

but I don't think those charges have yet generated the necessary amount of support to reasonably and successfully proceed with this Congress. There could be an event or relevation, though, which could spark attention and action on the Conyers Report.

and yes, there is a lot the congress knows and they are doing nothing and that is the problem. There are documents all over the place actually. People have been convicted of crimes in this country without as much documentation and circumstantial evidence that's been gathered against members of this administration, especially as it relates to the constitution.

And I can't help but think that he was able to dispense his presidential duties without interruption throughout the impeachment process.

That being said, I also believe that impeachment created a circus-like atmosphere that most certainly DISTRACTED the man from achieving his utmost.

I seem to recall that, at one point in time prior to impeachment, Clinton told his accusers that their attacks should be dealt with post-presidency, in a civil court of law. Otherwise, he warned, he would not be able to act in an unmitigated presidential manner throughout the impeachment process.

His accusers scoffed at him, and went forward.

And now, the same witch hunters blame Clinton for overlooking details that might have prevented 9/11.

God, I hate those hypocritical bastards.

The American people need to know what's going on so even if he does stay, lies never become truth and this amount of abuse of office doesn't come without consequences.