Impeachment: How we lose it all

T.A. Barnhart

The rage is still hot from Bush's subversion of justice last week (the commutation, preceeding pardoning, of Libby); that fire blew up easily from six years of anger and frustration, not to mention the horrific legacy of death being sown by the Bush cabal. The calls for impeachment grow daily, somewhat more for Cheney at times, but now over half the country says they'd support impeachment. It's at the point where Cindy Sheehan feels she can give Nancy Pelosi a two-week ultimatum: introduce articles of impeachment, or face an election battle for your seat.

But where has this gotten us?

To begin with, Democrats (and their independent allies) are spending vast amounts of time and energy attacking each other. It took barely half-a-year but we've got ourselves a good old-fashioned circular firing squad, exactly the sort of stupidity that has cost the party elections so often in the past.

Deja vu, and meanwhile the troops are still dying.

Long before it became all the rage, I had written here in BlueOregon that we needed to impeach Bush. He's violated his oath of office, not to mention committing high crimes against humanity. Justice would be removal from office straight to a prison cell for the rest of his life. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, all the rest of them, same thing: impeach and try as war criminals. The thought of that kind of justice kind of gives me a glow.

But it's the wrong thing to do. It's too damn little, and it's far too late. Impeachment or censure had to happen long ago; it didn't, and, to be honest, it never was going to. Perhaps the Dems could have drawn a line in the sand earlier this year and thrown down the gauntlet, but the voters didn't give them power to grind the country to a halt, especially when doing so would have made no difference in the Bush war plan. Part of their mandate was to govern, to end the corrupt partisan tactics of Tom Delay and work towards what the public sees as "bipartisanship". An impeachment battle will do exactly the opposite.

Even now, with Republicans deserting the ship like the rats many of them are, impeachment is their line in the sand. If the Dems go that route, enough Rs will dig and resist, not to save Bush but for party solidarity. They'll spin it as the Dems going power-mad, seeking political vengeance, and the resulting failure to stop the war — anyone think the Rs will cooperate with the Dems on anything, even ending the war, if this gets rolling? — will prove them right. They will convince enough voters, and mobilize enough voters, to cost the Dems the Senate and maybe the House. And god help us, if they win the White House, the world will have no chance to recover from this administration.

Remember how much got done when the Republicans tried to make oral sex an impeachable offense? Think back to the quality of governance we had then. How can impeachment lead to anything but a morass that sinks the Dems, and the country, right as we stand poised to increase our majorities and take back the White House?

Republicans now smell the blood in the water, and they know it's going to bring the sharks to get them. Harry Reid's strategy to let fear bring the Rs around is proving well-founded. (Of course, that was obvious when he "caved" earlier, but the Democrats showed their usual ability to see the big picture and instead damn near gave up then and there.) By the time the Congress begins debate on the next war funding bill in a few weeks, he'll have the votes he needs to shove a withdrawal timetable down Bush's throats. Dick Lugar has bailed out on the war, but will he work with Reid if he sees an impeachment battle looming? Why would he?

There is a big picture here, and short-term rage over the latest abuse only obscures that. The commutation of Libby's sentence is pathethic, and probably criminal in intent, but not nearly as horrific as what they've done with detainees. These bastards will never be brought to the kind of justice that will befit their crimes. We can cry for justice and the rule of law — both of which remain in dire condition — but destroying what remains of this Congress' term, and possibly a future under Democratic guidance, will not bring justice to anyone.

We need to keep our eye on what matters: ending the war and winning in 2008. Nothing else matters. If the Dems can work with the Republicans to end the war, and if we use that success to win next year, we can begin a healing process rather than snuff it out prematurely. If anyone can think of a way to get twenty Republican Senators to vote for impeachment and to work to end the war, please let me know. We've seen these people at work for over twenty-five years. Too many of them put party and power first. They will help end the war, but only if they think it can help save their seats. There are not enough of them who will put the rule of law before their own self-interest.

Cindy Sheehan has the right to call for impeachment, and I hope Nancy Pelosi politely tells her to go to hell. This is not our great chance to get Bush and Cheney; this is our great chance to end this war. We can only do that working with those Republicans who are scared of the consequences of not ending the war. And we will alienate exactly those necessary allies if we pursue impeachment.

If we Dems can't pull our heads out enough to see that, then we'll deserve to lose in 2008. And may the world, and the future, forgive us if we do.

  • (Show?)

    What your calculus fails to take into account is the lasting and dire impact NOT impeaching Bush/Cheney will have on the military and its relationship with civilian control. The military is dangerously beginning to develop an opinion and a disregard for the entire process of constitutional checks and balances. Even if the various electoral/political calendars and math doesn't end in removal from office before this administration effectively runs out the clock, the very fact that we are rapidly approaching open dissent in the military bodes very ill things. It carries with it ominous implications, none of them good, if we do not begin to move to impeach. Implications both domestically and overseas.

  • Robert G. Gourley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    IF impeachment could be done quickly, what could it prevent?

    I suspect any concerns about overt military action against Iran (I suspect we're taking military action, and risking getting caught) would be eased by a swift impeachment. But I doubt such is possible.

    So continuing the present action, putting in timelines for controlled withdrawals, will have the same effect - even regarding Iran.

    But we've got to watch for false flag operations here, it will take cool heads to deal with that possibility.

  • (Show?)

    The military is dangerously beginning to develop an opinion and a disregard for the entire process of constitutional checks and balances.

    I disagree. Every single military leader that exits the military comes out against the war.

    I know there are lefties that have nightmares about Bush and Cheney trying to find some way to stay in power after January 20, 2009 -- but I'm pretty sure that's the only way we'd see military intervention in domestic politics... to STOP them, not keep them.

    <hr/>

    Anyway, thanks T.A. for this excellent contribution to the discussion. I think too many of us on the left have been focused on the question of "punishing" Bush & Cheney (and arguing about the best ways to do that) rather than staying focused on the real question -- how do we end this war as soon as possible?

  • (Show?)

    I recently wrote a piece to be published in the Jackson County Democratic Newletter in August.

    www.jcdemocrats.org

    Left, the Middle, and the Reasonable Right By Paulie Brading, Chair, JCDCC

    "What if a Cheney/Bush impeachment effort failed? Would its failure hand another victory to the Republicans in 2008?"

    I have heard that question many times in my travels around the county representing Jackson County Democrats. I learned a long time ago that encounters on this topic can turn up the heat. Sure, we can laugh, smile, joke and talk about it wherever we are on the political continum. However, I'm a realist who thinks Jackson County Democrats have the opportunity for the first time in a long time to link arms with reasonable voters on the right, middle and left to bring about a progressive agenda that represents us all. We should not be distracted from this goal............

    Read the rest on August 1st. The July issue of THE DEMOCRAT is filled with our activities in S. Oregon. From a Summer Wine and Picnic underwritten by the owners of the Rogue Creamery to a Comedy Night at the Black Swan Theatre featuring OSF actors, to our Veteran's Day chili, beer and line dancing with instruction you will enjoy being a Democrat in our neck of the woods. We have BIG plans for Super Tuesday in February, 2008!

    T.A. this column is spot on. Thank you.

  • (Show?)

    Read and learn about Jackson County Democrats at www.jcdemocrats.org

  • jeffk (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Even if they were to start impeachment proceedings tomorrow, the process likely would not be complete before the 2008 election. And even if it did get through the House, there are over 40 chickenshits in the Senate who would not support it. And the GOP cabal has NO sense of shame, so they will never resign in disgrace.

    Impeachment sounds good, and is extremely appropriate, but I don't think it could actually happen before 2009.

    That said, I think there are ways that impeachment, or the impeachment process, could be used to hamper the Bush regime. Focus on impeaching Cheney, and spend the next year or so holding hearings and gathering evidence and forcing the cabal to overstep it's bounds even further, so that when next fall rolls around, it's clear to at least 20% of the mouth breathers that currently still support Bush just how heinous he, and Cheney, and the rest of the GOP really is.

    Impeachment won't happen, but we can use the process, or even just the threat of it, to help mitigate the damage the current administration will do to the country in the next 18 months.

  • (Show?)

    Kari, your statment about military coming out against the war is exactly my point. We have NEVER had this occur with even one General, let alone some 240+ ones doe what is now occurring.

    You are misreading what I am talking about entirely. Because the military realizes the absolute disregard for the truth, in basically lying the nation into a war they are paying the price for... NOT holding the violation of oath office by this President and Vice-President is the first crack. That the Congress is not holding the administration to atone for its violation of oath of office, by impeachment, we are destroying the fabric upon which people who serve in the military bet their very lives on, depend.

    Again, at the height of Vietnam, not one General (retired or otherwise) spoke out against a sitting CnC. It would be if one had done so over Iraq, and the outright betrayal this administration committed in fabricating the rationale for invasion. We now have over 240 flag rank or above who have publicly called BS on this war, and are beginning to see just how much our constitutional checks and balances are failing us by not impeaching.

    Talk with people like General McPeak about this issue if you ever get the chance.

    That we have hundreds of flag-rank officers speaking out is unprecedented and something that should give anyone who comes from a military background some serious hair-raising contemplations about what the effect (damage) of NOT impeaching might have long-term.

  • (Show?)

    Ugh...

    On of these days I will actually proof what I post. Let's try again (re-worked and corrected):

    Kari, your statment about military coming out against the war is exactly my point. We have NEVER had this occur with even one General, let alone having some 240+ flag-rank officers do what is now occurring.

    I respectfully posit that you are misreading what I am talking about.

    The military realizes the absolute disregard for the truth by their CnC who basically lied the nation into a war, a war in which they, the military, are paying the price for. By NOT holding to account that violation of their oaths of office commited by this President and Vice-President, that is the first crack which we do not want to have widen.

    That the Congress is NOT holding the administration to account, by not making this administration atone for its violation of oath of office, via impeachment, we are destroying the very fabric upon which people who serve in the military bet their very lives on. A system of checks and balances upon which they depend when they make that commitment.

    Even at the height of Vietnam, not one General (retired or otherwise) spoke out against the sitting CnC. It would be precedent setting if even one did so now over Iraq (and the outright betrayal this administration committed in fabricating the rationale for invasion)... and here we have hundreds doing so!

    We now have over 240 flag rank or above who have publicly called BS on this war, and our military is beginning to see just how much our constitutional checks and balances are failing us (and them) by not impeaching.

    Talk with people like General McPeak about this issue if you ever get the chance.

    That we have hundreds of flag-rank officers speaking out is unprecedented and something that should give anyone who comes from a military background some serious hair-raising moments when contemplating what the effect (damage) of NOT impeaching might have long-term.

    We on the left actually agree with the military (and vice-versa) over the fraudulent nature and abject mishandling of our military at the hands of this administration. But by NOT acting to hold this administration to account for that however, we are, by lack of action, crossing a line we as a nation do not want to cross. A precedent is being set by NOT impeaching, which has long-term implications of reducing our nation to nothing more than an 800 lbs. nuclear armed banana republic.

  • Paul Motta (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I disagree.

    We hear the argument repeatedly that there is not enough time and the Bush administration will simply run out the clock because proceedings will take too long.

    Can we allow the precedents that this criminal administration has set stand unchallenged and open the door to similar abuse by future administrations?

    If we do not take legal action against this administration we will be seen as being complicit in their crimes, as surely as someone who helps a murderer dispose of the body after the fact… In the eyes of the world we will be willing accomplices.

    As implied by the author, the fact remains that the only reason NOT to impeach is for Dems to save their own asses. That’s not serving the people, that’s serving themselves.

    As far as getting Articles out of the House, not even all the Dems need to be awake for that. A simple majority (50%) is all that’s required to get past the House.

    In the Senate it’s slightly more difficult. The Dems need another 17 votes. There are up to 12 Republicans who are either at odds with Bush, have voted & spoke out against Bush policy, are RINO's or are up for re-election in 2009. All the Dems need to do is lean on these weak links and they’ll get the votes they need. Maybe explain to them that if they don’t vote to impeach, Republicans aren't going to be getting into office for the next 30 years because they’ll all be seen as Bush brown-nosers. Even if they can’t see doing their duty to their constituents, self interest will probably sway them.

    However, it doesn’t matter whether the Dems can pull enough votes in the Senate or not and here is why...

    In the case of the NSA Wire tapping and FISA violations you are talking about having the Congress investigate a crime. As Jonathan Turley, the constitutional law scholar pointed out on KO last night, if congress simply names this as a "criminal investigation" then Bush and Cheney can no longer claim Executive Privilege and must surrender all requested documents and testify under oath!

    As Professor Turley and Former White House council John Dean have said repeatedly, the FISA violations by Bush, Cheney, and Attorney General Gonzales are, indeed, prima fascia criminal acts.

    If the Dems vote for impeachment in the House, the Senate must have a hearing and there must be an investigation with the appointment of a Independent Special Prosecutor. The Special Prosecutor’s subpoenas can not be turned down by the White House, Nixon fought this one all the way to the Supreme Court and lost!

    Who cares if they are removed from office by impeachment -- the process in Congress does not stop criminal proceedings. By simply naming one of the Articles of Impeachment as an investigation into a crime, Bush and Cheney lose all immunity under "Executive Privilege" and must comply with Congressional demands and the Special Prosecutors subpoenas.

    This is why it is totally irrelevant if the impeachment proceedings succeed or not, simply trying will bring them down. Let Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales try to lead from a jail cell!

    No more hesitation. Full speed ahead!

  • Paul Motta (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I disagree.

    We hear the argument repeatedly that there is not enough time and the Bush administration will simply run out the clock because proceedings will take too long.

    Can we allow the precedents that this criminal administration has set stand unchallenged and open the door to similar abuse by future administrations?

    If we do not take legal action against this administration we will be seen as being complicit in their crimes, as surely as someone who helps a murderer dispose of the body after the fact… In the eyes of the world we will be willing accomplices.

    As implied by the author, the fact remains that the only reason NOT to impeach is for Dems to save their own asses. That’s not serving the people, that’s serving themselves.

    As far as getting Articles out of the House, not even all the Dems need to be awake for that. A simple majority (50%) is all that’s required to get past the House.

    In the Senate it’s slightly more difficult. The Dems need another 17 votes. There are up to 12 Republicans who are either at odds with Bush, have voted & spoke out against Bush policy, are RINO's or are up for re-election in 2009. All the Dems need to do is lean on these weak links and they’ll get the votes they need. Maybe explain to them that if they don’t vote to impeach, Republicans aren't going to be getting into office for the next 30 years because they’ll all be seen as Bush brown-nosers. Even if they can’t see doing their duty to their constituents, self interest will probably sway them.

    However, it doesn’t matter whether the Dems can pull enough votes in the Senate or not and here is why...

    In the case of the NSA Wire tapping and FISA violations you are talking about having the Congress investigate a crime. As Jonathan Turley, the constitutional law scholar pointed out on KO last night, if congress simply names this as a "criminal investigation" then Bush and Cheney can no longer claim Executive Privilege and must surrender all requested documents and testify under oath!

    As Professor Turley and Former White House council John Dean have said repeatedly, the FISA violations by Bush, Cheney, and Attorney General Gonzales are, indeed, prima fascia criminal acts.

    If the Dems vote for impeachment in the House, the Senate must have a hearing and there must be an investigation with the appointment of a Independent Special Prosecutor. The Special Prosecutor’s subpoenas can not be turned down by the White House, Nixon fought this one all the way to the Supreme Court and lost!

    Who cares if they are removed from office by impeachment -- the process in Congress does not stop criminal proceedings. By simply naming one of the Articles of Impeachment as an investigation into a crime, Bush and Cheney lose all immunity under "Executive Privilege" and must comply with Congressional demands and the Special Prosecutors subpoenas.

    This is why it is totally irrelevant if the impeachment proceedings succeed or not, simply trying will bring them down. Let Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales try to lead from a jail cell!

    No more hesitation. Full speed ahead!

  • Wait a minute... (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Haven't you been one of the louder, more shrill voices spewing forth pro-impeachment rhetoric on this very site?

    Not that I disagree completely with your latest words on the subject. Frankly, it's one of your more coherent, rational writings on the topic. Take that as a compliment.

  • (Show?)

    Wait, i pointed out that i did write for impeachment -- but that was Nov of last year. and as i said, it was always a non-starter. and the longer we go without a progressive Congress and a good president, the longer until we restore the rule of law. impeachment won't get us there.

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's too damn little

    If impeachment is too small a measure, what greater sanction against Bush would you suggest?

    it's far too late

    If you mean there's not enough time to bring and pass articles of impeachment and complete a Senate trial, remember that Clinton's impeachment took less than 4 months.

    the voters didn't give them power to grind the country to a halt

    The power to impeach is granted by the Constitution. Although, whether or not the voters "want" impeachment isn't entirely relevant. Nevertheless i imagine responses to your post will show you that Democrats are vehemently split on the issue.

    [The Republicans will] spin it as the Dems going power-mad

    Granted, the Democrats have failed miserably to combat the Repub spin machine, but it is not reasonable to take impeachment off the table for fear of attack from the right.

    [Impeachment will] cost the Dems the Senate and maybe the House

    I disagree with the premise and even if it were so, find the reasoning to be shallow. It's like deciding not to do your job now in order to ensure you'll have a job in the future.

    How can impeachment lead to anything but a morass

    Congress actually manages to do a lot when they're not getting much done. Whether or not articles of impeachment are drawn up, the various House committees are still responsible for investigating the crimes of Bush end Cheney.

    If the Dems can work with the Republicans to end the war

    All the Democrats had to do to end the war was simply not to fund it. For every month the Democrats pay for the Iraq war, an additional 60-100 US soldiers will pay with their lives.

    I hope Nancy Pelosi politely tells [Cindy Sheehan] to go to hell.

    This statement flat out offends me. I've done my best to strip away sarcasm and cheekiness from my response. (And it was very difficult.) I read your opinion loud and clear that ending the war and capturing the White House takes priority over punishing Bush. It's my belief that all three priorities could be accomplished but for the leadership of the Democratic party.

  • (Show?)

    It is my understanding that successful impeachment means immunity from the vast majority of prosecutions afterward. Add to that the unlikely prospect of impeaching them both is more than unlikely (and I haven't seen ANYONE who wants a President Cheney!) and I wonder if maybe this is what keeps it "off the table".

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I know there are lefties that have nightmares about Bush and Cheney trying to find some way to stay in power after January 20, 2009

    I don't consider myself a lefty even if I often support positions taken by people on the left. On the other hand I take exception to what some on the left say. Nor would I make like Paul Revere and run around shouting that Bush is going to become a dictator and cancel the November 2008 elections. On the other hand, my conservative side and readings of history tell me the judicious approach is to keep an eye out and an ear cocked for such a possibility. Bush, Cheney and Rove have not only pushed the envelope on the Constitution they have continually indicated they are capable of pushing a whole pallet load of envelopes.

    As for impeachment given the hypocrites and other forms of wretchedness in Congress it will only lead to a lot of hyperventilating on both sides of the political spectrum as opposed to the party aisle. However, a call for impeachment would have one virtue. It would let the people know where their congressional representatives stand on high crimes and misdemeanors and the Constitution. Those of us in Congressional District No. 2 already know the answer to that one.

  • bye bye smith (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What level of heinous crime will this administration have to commit, before every one gets a spine and demands accountability through the impeachment process. Is no one listening to the Constitution?

    “…ending the war” only means re-labeling our troops as trainers, it doesn’t remove the contractors, tear down the military bases, tear down the embassy fortress, reverse the 100 points of bremerpiss, un-privatize the country, leave the oil to the Iraqis or all of the other crimes de jour. It doesn’t give back the $4 trillion stolen, or tear down the detention camps in this country. It doesn’t find out the truth of the towers coming down.

    Impeachment on the other hand, looking at T.A.'s “big picture”, can bring up evidence of all of this and is the first step in further limiting corporate control over the private citizen in US politics. It can set the threshold for what we will allow and what we won’t for the next executive branch.

    Returning to the rule of law and not the arrogant rule of signing statements is an avenue to end all facets of Bush’s war.

  • (Show?)

    Thanks, lestatdelc, re-reading your original comment, I get what you meant now.

  • DeanOR (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thoughts on the fly: This post presents some good arguments against impeachment, but as far as the politics of the decision, we also have to consider the wimp factor. We hear that people complain about Dems not standing for anything and that we won't stand up to the Bushies. Congress now has a lower approval rating than Bush! Some people may already be feeling that "we elected Democrats and they haven't done a thing to counter Bush". Republicans savor all of the above, of course, and portray us as effeminate and ineffectual. I'm not sure which way this should go, but I think this is probably a time to stand up for the Constitution, which in addition to impeachment means the on-going investigations. There are some risks in it, but I think the reasons to impeach outweigh them, and the reasons to impeach that people have already noted here are extremely important to the future of the country. That has to be the primary consideration. And I agree that even if impeachment does not happen, it will keep the pressure on. At the same time, we can not lose the focus on ending the war. We will be facing agonizing decisions about how to withdraw, or reduce forces, in the least destructive manner, which calls for great moral fortitude. In the long run, we'll achieve our goals by trying to put the welfare of the country and Iraq, and the world, first, rather than focusing on winning in 2008 (it isn't an easy choice, and I don't mean to over-simplify it). So I'm for betting the farm on trying to do the right thing for the future of the country - impeachment, no matter how risky it may be politically in the short run. There is a good chance that people will support us if we are courageous, and they may despise us it we are not - and perhaps rightly so. I wish Dems would get more political credit for the legislative work that has already been accomplished, and more to come, but I don't think that credit will count for much if we fail to confront the Cheney/Bush Administration in the strongest possible manner. Americans are fed up with this bunch, want to kick their asses, and hope in despair that Dems just might come through for them.

  • (Show?)

    I can find no poll that finds more than 43% of the nation saying they favor impeachment.

    We went through a partisan driven impeachment process in 1998. Haven't we learned anything?

    This is a non-starter and would result in irreparable damage.

    Considering impeachment as a ploy to keep "pressure" on the Administration, to respond to signing statements, as a response to the commutation of a sentence is shockingly short sighted.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Someone once said that the difference between a gamble and a longshot is that with a gamble you don't know the odds, with a longshot you know the odds----long odds but you know what they are.

    Seems to me that impeachment is a gamble.

    In late January, 2009, Bush and Cheney become private citizens---subject to courts, law enforcement, etc. I understand the anger, but to me it would be better to win the 2008 elections and then prosecute them as private citizens.

    Meanwhile, didn't I hear that Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) who is definitely not a rat (regardless of the comment "the rats most of them are" above) now openly opposes Bush's Iraq policy?

    Please remember that it was not directly due to the actions of Democrats that Nixon resigned. Some very senior Republicans incl. Goldwater went to the White House and told him he didn't have the votes if impeachment came to the Senate.

    Chuck Hagel and Jim Webb (Senators from different parties united by service in Vietnam) have introduced an amendment to set conditions for deploying troops: training, limits on time deployed, guarantee of time at home between deployments, etc. How could the Republicans running for re-election possibly vote against that and ever again say "support the troops"?

    I wouldn't support Sheehan if she ran for Congress because I have been a Nancy Pelosi fan since at least when she first ran (used to live in N. Calif.).

    Elections are won by majorities. If everyone who says "Stay the course, we are behind Pres. Bush 100%" AND everyone who supports impeachment now, Cindy Sheehan, etc. were to be counted, my guess is that they would be less than 20% of the population.

    It would be better to expend the effort on replacing Smith and Walden than on anger at the folks in DC not doing things immediately. Lasting change usually doesn't happen overnight.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I have a slightly different take on this over at "Chuck for", click my name.

  • Heals (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thank you LT. Well stated.

    I am sickened and disgusted by the Bush/Cheney regime but the thought of Sheehan running against Pelosi if the Speaker doesn't present impeachment papers in two weeks is stomach-turning. I empathize with Sheehan for the grief she has been dealt since losing her son and commend her for her valor in keeping Bush on his toes. But for her to threaten Pelosi (hopefully a bluff) just splits the party into factions whose energy would be best used in presenting a united front and moving forward.

    I am a proud Democrat but am getting tired of threats coming from within the party stating you better do this or do that and therefore trying to dictate policy within the party. In 16 months we're going to have a new president who will be held accountable, will have messes to clean up and will, most likely, God willing, be a Democrat. Our energy needs to focus on the future. Trying Bush/Cheney as private citizens appears to me to be a better idea then presenting impeachment articles that would drag down other important legislation in Congress.

    The last thing I would want to do is let Bush/Cheney off the hook but we risk losing the Independents who have moved left more out of an intense disgust with Bush; but not because of any Democratic policies. We lose them, we could lose the election. What do the Democrats plan to do, what is our future, what are our ideas, etc. If impeaching Bush/Cheney is one of them it should be on the bottom of the list...

  • (Show?)

    Impeach! Impeach! Impeach! To do any less would be amnesty for criminals. Congress CAN walk and chew gum at the same time. Just because the Republican-led Congress chose to use the Clinton impeachment as an excuse for not actually working, it does not mean the current Congress will do the same. The Bush Crime Family has done everything short of biting the heads off of kittens (at least as far as we know) and letting them get off without a fight is unacceptable. I hope Cindy Sheehan shines a light on Speaker Pelosi and helps the reluctant ones among the Dems grow a collective pair. Tie up BushCo with legal proceedings and see who grinds to a halt. It won't be Congress, it will be the chickenhawks. And for God's sake, no more money for the illegal occupation of Iraq. Nobody ever talks about how almost all of the "emergency appropriations" are unfunded, ie, borrowed from other countries. No more loans from China and Saudi Arabia. No more additional debt. No more money means the private contractors (aka mercenaries) will quit killing people and leave Iraq. Doesn't it scare anybody else that the second largest armed forces in Iraq is a corporate force? Anyway, if Bush wants more money, let him ask Congress to raise taxes specifically for "Operation Iraqi FUBAR", see who votes in favor of it and who stands by their principles. Unless our Representitives in Congress start to represent the wishes of the people, criminals will continue to get away with murder, of human beings and the US Constitution. It has to stop.

  • Garrett (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You are spot on T.A. I completely empathize with people like Cindy Sheehan. Unfortunately I think she is lashing out because she was so mad at Republicans that she thought even a tiny minority in Congress would be enough to immediately stop the war. Look, by passing the TEMPORARY war supplemental when they did they were force at least 4 Republican Senators to jump ship. At least 2 other Republicans are saying there are more about to. By the time they have to repass that bill there will may be enough Republicans who have stuck their tails between their legs and finally split off from Bush that they may actually have enough votes to tell Bush to go f%&* himself.

    Also...does anyone know how long the Watergate investigations went on? Sure the Clinton impeachment only took 4 months but everyone knew it was completely partisan and had absolutely no chance of working. Watergate was successful and if I remember my history well enough those investigations took years and they also ended up with enough proof to make SANE Republicans with a consience like Barry Goldwater go to Nixon and say they would support an impeachment. Name 3 Republican Senators that would do that now? Do it...if you can you get a cookie.

    Yes there may be time for an impeachment. Give the Congress a chance though. Investigations have to happen and if they work out in our favor we may get an impeachment that happens fast but the fact of the matter is we're still probably 6 months to a year away. You just have to face facts. Our majority is based on a lot of red constituencies that voted for VERY moderate Democrats and they were elected by very narrow margins. The Republicans redistricted over those 12 years they had the Dems by the balls. Don't sell out the Democratic party because they haven't been able to get our troops out of Iraq and impeach a President in 6 months. I wish it would happen but at some point people like Cindy Sheehan have to face reality. I have a lot of heart for people like her but results like what she wants don't happen overnight.

  • edison (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "What your calculus fails to take into account is the lasting and dire impact NOT impeaching Bush/Cheney ..."

    The damage that's been done will not be undone by simply allowing them to exit office unscathed. For me, what's even sadder than the crimes committed by this crowd is the precedent set by Congress in not meeting their constitutional responsibility. The notion that there's not enough time left to impeach rings hollow. It's not about time or the next election cycle, it's about doing what's right.

  • BOHICA (unverified)
    (Show?)

    lestatdelc Again, at the height of Vietnam, not one General (retired or otherwise) spoke out against a sitting CnC.

    Can't find a quote against the C-in-C but General David M. Shoup, former US Marine Commandant and recipient of the Medal of Honor, had this to say in 1966:

    "I don't think,the whole of Southeast Asia, as related to the present and future safety and freedom of the people of this country, is worth the life or limb of a single American [and] I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-soaked fingers out of the business of these [Third World] nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own.... And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the "haves" refuse to share with the "have-nots" by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don't want and above all don't want crammed down their throats by Americans."

    General Shoup served under General Smedley Butler ("War is a racket") in China

  • (Show?)

    What if a Cheney/Bush impeachment effort failed? Would its failure hand another victory to the Republicans in 2008?

  • (Show?)

    and unfortunately this post, and the comments, demonstrates the veracity of one of my biggest fears, and what i started the post with: we Democrats are busily engaged in fighting each other and not working together. we do this all the frikkin' time, and meanwhile we Reagan, Bush 1, Gingrich, DeLay, Bush 2, IranContra, 9/11, the war in Iraq, bin Laden on the loose -- we're all so busy being so pure and so right, we never pull our heads out long enough to find what we have to do to help the country.

    this is hard to overcome. i said, near the end of this pice, that "Nothing else matters." that's a pretty absolute statement. how can that attitude co-exist and work productively with "It's not about time or the next election cycle, it's about doing what's right"? my statement implies foolishness on the part of those seeking impeachment, while the latter statement implies i am just wrong.

    and we're on the same side?

    meanwhile, Rove is sitting on top of a bunch of states that haven't had anti-gay marriage votes yet; the voting machines are waiting; and the holier-than-thou bullshit keeps flying. i think it's possible we might all agree on this: beating the hell out of each other only helps them extend their victories. we have to find a way to work together past our differences. that's one i'm still working on.

  • Frank f (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Remember how much got done when the Republicans tried to make oral sex an impeachable offense?"

    Odd, I thought that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath.

    You do your credibility no favors when you so ridiculously mischaracterize the reason for Clinton's impeachment.

    Not that your breathless compatriots on this site care about credibility.

  • (Show?)

    I agree it's a waste of time trying to impeach Bush and/or Cheney. Congress should be spending its time passing legislation and investigating an overreaching administration that has clearly abused their power.

    The impeachment of Clinton changed the landscape of going after a president and that act of partisan hackery may have finally paid off for the Republicans. I think any attempt to go after Bush is going to look like a partisan witch hunt, no matter how good the cause is or how strong the evidence may seem.

    First and foremost, ending the war in Iraq should be the goal of the Congress. Forcing Bush to withdrawl troops proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the war was a complete and utter failure. There is nothing more then that which could be done to show what a disgrace the Bush/Cheney Administration has been.

  • (Show?)

    I'm with you T.A. it is time to link arms, march together and defeat the Republicans. I remind you the percentage of folks who post here is very small and not representative of the Democrats across the full spectrum from very left to center and right. There are Dems, a great many of them, that understand winning in 2008 is more important than anything else. You made the correct call, stick with it. More of us see the win in 2008 as the way to take back our country. I ask again, would the failure to impeach Cheney/Bush hand the Republicans a victory in 2008?

  • Blueshift (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Don't sell out the Democratic party because they haven't been able to get our troops out of Iraq and impeach a President in 6 months. Absolutely. I'm glad someone said this. If we jump ship because our elected Dems can't undo in 6 months what it took the R's 12 years to do (namely, currently Washington culture), then we'll deserve what we get when the R's come back into power.

    The notion that there's not enough time left to impeach rings hollow. It's not about time or the next election cycle, it's about doing what's right. Actually, it's all about time and the next election cycle, because after that, Bush won't be President anymore and impeachment won't be an option. And time is not on our side. Given how long the Administration and the R's have been able to drag out this US Atty's scandal, I have no doubt that they could delay impeachment proceedings until Bush&Co. have left office. Personally, I'd rather see a tangible victory in the form of withdrawal of troops than an attempt at an unlikely and merely symbolic victory in the form of impeachment proceedings.

    TA, thank you for your remarks on impeachment, but even more for the comments about Democratic in-fighting. They are right on the mark; until we decide we'd rather fight Republicans instead of each other, our elected Dems aren't going to get where we want them to go.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    we Democrats are busily engaged in fighting each other and not working together.

    It is understandable that Democrats fight among each other. The party gets some sorry specimens for candidates and there is a faction within the party that wants it to be what it claims to be - the party of the people - but isn't. I'm an independent who votes mostly for Democrats and was prepared to vote for Gore in 2000, but he ran a pathetic campaign and was too obviously a phony to get my vote. Kerry followed Gore's playbook or consultants who went to the same sorry school as Gore's. I held my nose and voted for Kerry but only because he wore the anybody-but-Bush mantle. I would rather have voted for his wife. She had the guts to be honest and say what she believed in. Now it looks like the oligarchs in the party are going to foist Hillary on us. If the Democrats want my vote and those of other independents they had better hope the Republicans come up with a candidate that makes it blatantly obvious that he will be another Bush and Hillary will be a significantly lesser evil.

  • paul spencer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I vote with jeffk. The only impeachment articles needed are for Darth Cheney. As many of the Commenters point out, the process and the hearings will be good for keeping all of the egregious conduct and policies of this administration right out front.

    This limited approach allows the Senate to continue to function in other legislative areas. If it were to succeed, it would also remove the real political center of this "administration".

    I predict that several Republican Senators, including Collins of Maine and Coleman of Minnesote, might vote "yes", so, although the final vote will probably fail, there could be a majority for impeachment.

  • Sally (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Paul Motta and East Bank Thom effectively destroyed T.A. Barnhart's arguments.

    Congress takes and oath to protect and defend the constitution. They do not take an oath to protect and defend their political parties.

    According to T.A. We need to keep our eye on what matters: ending the war and winning in 2008. Nothing else matters.

    The rule of law doesn't matter? Isn't that the same argument the Bush administration uses to justify its criminal behavior? The end justifies the means? I don't buy it.

    Nancy Pelosi's cowardice in announcing that she would NOT impeach the President was inexcusable. I'm glad someone's running against her and I'll be happy to send money to her. It is Cindy's right and duty as a citizen to take action if she sees something she disagrees with. Good for her!

    Congress, it's your JOB to enforce the law if it's been broken. It's your JOB to impeach if evidence of violations of the oath of office and the law occurs.

    If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen but do your job. Otherwise the Democrats that were voted in will be voted out again and prove that there's no difference between the two parties and it's time for a change.

    After the Democratic nomination, I'm changing my party affiliation from Democrat to Independent. My husband has already registered as an independent and left the Democrats.

    If people don't agree w/ impeachment it's up to Congress to show LEADERSHIP to persuade people that an impeachment is a just course of action. If they can't, then they should get out.

  • Terry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If memory serves, after the Republicans made fools of themselves for impeaching Clinton, they won in 2000 not only the White House, but both houses of Congress. Thus began, in the wake of the impeachment follies, our long national nightmare.

    So please spare us the doomsday scenario of the Dems blowing their chances in 2008 should they pursue the much deserved impeachment of George W. Bush.

  • Blueshift (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Says Sally: Congress, it's your JOB to enforce the law if it's been broken. It's your JOB to impeach if evidence of violations of the oath of office and the law occurs.

    No, it is NOT the job of Congress to enforce the law if it's been broken. That responsibility belongs to the Executive branch. If we can all return to our elementary school social studies class for a moment, we'll recall that when it comes to the law, the Legislative Makes, the Judiciary Interprets, and the Executive Enforces. The problem with the rule of law in this country is that the Executive branch has failed in this duty (as in others), thus leaving it to other branches of government to try and pick up the slack. The Legislative branch's responsibility in the broad sense is to investigate, as fully as possible, the need for enforcement of the law, so that the enforcement wing of the Executive branch has enough evidence to take action.

    In the specific case of our current Administration, the Legislative branch needs to replace Alberto Gonzales with an Attorney General who will fully and honestly exercise his enforcement powers, even if that means against his own boss, and who will not pressure lower court judges to pass rulings supporting the Administration's preferred position. Congress won't help the country by trying to take over the enforcement duties of the Executive branch and further muddying the checks-and-balances waters. Instead, they need to repair the institutions the current Administration has damaged.

  • Garrett (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sally,

    I realize you're mad but think about this. I don't think there is a Democrat in Congress that wouldn't vote for impeachment. I'm fairly certain that only 1 or 2 Republicans would defect their own party at this point and vote with the Democrats. The Dems could railroad impeachment in the house but never through the Senate. If you don't understand that you're living in a dreamworld. Why would they waste their time on something like impeachment right now. They are doing exactly what they should be doing which is making the Bush administration more corrupt than Nixon's (they are) and making any Republican that sticks behind Bush look like he's supporting a criminal (they are). Cover of USA Today said Bush was at 29% approval. Grow up and quit blaming Democrats for Republican obstruction. You obviously have no idea the way Congress works if you think impeachment and ending a war can happen in 6 months with a tiny minority in both the House and Senate. I understand you're upset but you are directing your anger in the wrong direction. Nancy Pelosi is the first female Speaker of the House and I can assure no a coward doesn't just get handed that position in the good ole boys club. She is no coward.

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sally: Paul Motta and East Bank Thom effectively destroyed T.A. Barnhart's arguments.

    Thank you so much, Sally. I was thinking, "Is it just me? Does nobody give a damn about justice any more? First, the newly elected Democratic majority, but now BlueOregon?!" We need to scream your question from the highest mountain tops:

    "The rule of law doesn't matter?"

    Above all!

  • (Show?)

    Thom, read what you said again, and understand it: you're saying i don't give a damn about justice because i oppose impeachment. do you really believe that? would you like to meet me in person and tell me to my face that i don't give a damn, that, to me, the rule of law doesn't matter? because that is what you're telling me, safely inside your nick'd comment.

    i can cope with our differences. i'm perfectly fine knowing that many Dems want to pursue impeachment. we'll see how that works out. but enough with these accusations against one another. i want justice, but i see it happening in a different way than you, Sally and Paul M. none of us is right; we have our opinions and nothing more. the only "right" is that we all agree this administration is populated with criminals who deserve punishment. (kinda think i said that.)

    why isn't that good enough for now? or is it more important that your opinion be the only correct opinion? is so, say that and have done with it.

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    read what you said again, and understand it: you're saying i don't give a damn about justice because i oppose impeachment.

    o.k., t.a.... I reread it and don't find your fanciful claim. Suggest you invest in a new pair of (non-rose-colored) glasses.

    would you like to meet me in person and tell me to my face that i don't give a damn, that, to me, the rule of law doesn't matter?

    What? Are you calling me out now? Ya know, i tried the civil exchange route. Thanks T.A. for being such a fine leader in the big blue tent. By the way, have you found the right verbiage yet to tell Cindy Sheehan to "go to hell"? I'm praying you still have some pearls of wisdom to share, revered elder.

  • DeanOR (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Congress persons take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Oh well, we'll do that later, somehow. It's just an oath, just words. Never mind that the Constitution provides a process (impeachment) for exactly the situation we are in now with Administration officials making a mockery of law and the Constitution. The Constitution will come back to life after the next election, right, so why bother upholding the Constitution and our laws now? Maybe we should wait until they bomb Iran. As Glen Ford has said, if the administration can ignore the law, then there are no laws, and Congress may as well go home. And future imperial Presidents need not fear opposition. Timidity and selling out principles is not how Democrats win elections, it's how they lose elections. Current investigations in Congress will lead naturally to the next level, which is impeachment. Trying and failing, while educating the public in the process, is better than not even trying. Impeachment is a legitimate process, let the process work. Maybe the votes are not there; so be it. Are Democrats going to be recorded in history as the party that didn't fight back when the worst administration in history was ruining the country? Impeachment won't solve everything, but it should not be "off the table" as if it were so radical as to be unthinkable. The founders foresaw this; they didn't want us to have to wait four years to fire a President who was running amok. It is our duty and our right. Just talking about it is the first step, so people get used to the idea. Embrace it, as many are doing. I can now look across the street and see my neighbor's sign "Impeach". :) As for all getting along, this debate is called democracy. It's just what we should be doing.

  • Sally (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Congress is the ONLY branch of government that can correct the abuses of the Executive branch. By refusing to take action--both Republicans and Democrats--they're abdicating their duty and violating their oath. Pointing fingers at the other "obstructionist" party is the exact same phrasing the Republicans and their rightwing echo chamber employ. It doesn't wash.

    There's an old adage in English Common Law that Silence Implies Consent. Nancy Pelosi eliminated the most important tool Congress has. This is cowardly, there's no other way to describe it. If she wanted an easy job, she shouldn't be in government.

    So who is supposed to go to bat for the American public when Congress refuses to?

    Of course I'm angry. Anyone who's followed politics during the past 40 years would be angry. This is the most corrupt administration in history and the Republicans and Democrats have a duty to uphold the law and uphold their responsibility under the law.

    By refusing to consider to impeach, it gives a free pass to the government to continue to torture, kill, maim, falsely imprison, smear, libel, slander, destroy the military, steal, and influence peddle IN OUR NAME.

    As for the idea that Democrats shouldn't argue w/ each other. Doesn't anyone remember the 1968 Democratic convention in the Democrat-stronghold of Chicago? Democrats were beating other Democrats in the streets. At least today we confine our arguments online or in town meetings. I'd say that's progress. But we'll never stop arguing and that's healthy.

    Also, the idea that the Republicans will "play nice" if the Democrats avoid impeachment is foolish. The Republicans and their partners in the press will continue to trash the Democrats no matter what they do. Look at Harry Reid, "Under the policies of this administration, the war's lost" becomes "The war's lost" Democrats will be slandered no matter how they act. Why not act with courage and integrity? Why not do their job?

  • Urban Planning Overlord (unverified)
    (Show?)

    George Bush has been a lousy President? YES.

    George Bush is the worst President in U.S. history? Maybe. He has some stiff competition (Warren Harding, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ulysses Grant, etc.)

    George Bush should be impeached and convicted? No. It would do no one any good. It would do for the Democrats what the Clinton impeachment did for the Republicans. Democrats don't need to sink to that level. Fight him politically for the next 1 1/2 years and work to elect a better successor.

    George Bush convicted for war crimes and given a life sentence? I think this qualifies as Bush Derangement Syndrome.

  • Ted (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Paul Motta hit the nail on the head. All this garbage about "not having the votes" is nonsense. A 50% vote in the House gets the impeachment investigation going forward and will get a special prosecutor with subpoena power, which means that for once we will be able to compel this administration to testify on record, in committee, and turn over records when requested. In other words, we will finally start to see behind the stonewall and whitewash.

    Impeachment is the right thing to do. Bush has National Security Presidential Directive 51 that will give him total control over state police and national guard resources, in the case of some vaguely defined national emergency. Basically the man who jokes about how much easier life would be if he were a dictator will have dictatorial powers. One emergency is all they need to seize on. If you don't see the urgency in this, why don't you consider how disasterously Katrina was handled and apply that to the entire nation. Look at how much regard Bush has for legal integrity when it comes to attorney-gate or Libby-gate.

    Only when the American people demand that members of Congress uphold their oaths of office and begin impeachment as a matter of principal and constitutional law will the discovery process actually begin. Only when public outcry reaches this critical amplitude will Congress be forced to react to public pressure instead of globalist agendae of big corporations and modern robber barons.

  • Dem Voter (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The Republicans went on to capture the White House and hold majorities in both houses of Congress following the impeachment of Clinton. They lost Congress on the performance of Bush.

    This discussion is all about losing the votes >>>of Republicans<<<. As a Democrat, I don't know if I'm going to vote Independent, not vote at all, or vote Republican.

    Obviously my vote doesn't matter, so it won't be missed.

  • (Show?)

    Hey Dem Voter,

    Elections are won and lost by just one vote. Don't kid yourself, your vote matters. If a person doesn't vote they join a large group of folks who allow the country to be run like it is right now. Vote and get your friends, family and neighbors to vote. That is the only way we can return our country to a place of law, order, ethics and legality. The U.S. appears to be weak and divided before the world and that is the most dangerous thing this country can do. 33 Senators are up for re-election in 2008. Help elect a Democrat in our state of Oregon.

    Sally and East Bank Thom you are welcome to hold your opinions but Thom your personal style is less than helpful to the discussion. I hold a different opinion than yours and it's OK. I'll be putting all the energy I have in taking back the country vote by vote. The Cheney/Bush administration stinks like Republican trash rotting in the hot sun. On that we agree.

  • Dem Voter (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I probably will vote, but that vote will be one that sends the message "you are fired" to the part of the Democratic party that is calling the shots (blanks) now.

  • davidg (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am not sure I understand the impeachment plan. Impeach Bush. Hello, President Dick Cheney! Consider, there might actually be a scenario worse than President Bush.

    Impeach both of them! Hello, President Nancy Pelosi! Sixteen Republican senators are going to vote for that? Not!

    Ironically, the Clinton impeachment and the 2000 election show that voters won't necessarily punish the party that impeaches a president. So there is no political disincentive to impeach, even if the chances of conviction and removal from office are remote.

    I think the problem with TJ's argument is that he seems as passionate about winning the next election as he does about ending the war. He sounds too much like a party hack. Focus only on ending the war! Now THAT is something people will unite behind.

  • (Show?)

    I wholeheartedly agree with TA that attempting to impeach Bush and/or Cheney at this stage of the game is inevitably doomed to failure. If you disagree, that's your right, but I would suggest that you either haven't checked the number of Republicans in the Senate lately, have difficulty with basic counting, or are deluded enough to believe that even a single Republican will vote to convict. The costs of losing this battle are too high...

    However, I disagree that impeachment is not the answer. Buried in Paul Motta's reply is a very important tidbit:

    In the case of the NSA Wire tapping and FISA violations you are talking about having the Congress investigate a crime. As Jonathan Turley, the constitutional law scholar pointed out on KO last night, if congress simply names this as a "criminal investigation" then Bush and Cheney can no longer claim Executive Privilege and must surrender all requested documents and testify under oath!

    As we're about to see the Bush administration ignore Congressional subpoenas, it becomes clear that without impeachment proceedings the administration will, in all likelihood, be able to stall these investigations all the way to January 2009.

    That is why the House must immediately move to impeach the Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. The charges are potentially numerous, but they could start with the his recent lies to Congress. Once administration officials are forced to take the stand under oath, only then can we really start to get to the bottom of all damage that has been done. If, in the course of the Gonzales trial, additional information about the illegal practices of other members of the administration become part of the Congressional Record, then there is the potential to take action against additional targets with some hope of success. There is also a very strong chance that, at the end of the proceedings, the Senate will have the necessary votes to impeach Gonzales. Even if they fail, the amount of hand-wringing Republicans have done regarding Gonzales should be enough to inoculate Democrats from the charge of staging a partisan witch hunt.

    What is most important is that Congress can finally get to the bottom of what's really been going on in the White House. That is what the American people need to see. Only by exposing the cravenness of this administration can we hope to begin to undo the damage.

  • (Show?)

    I think the problem with TJ's argument is that he seems as passionate about winning the next election as he does about ending the war. He sounds too much like a party hack. Focus only on ending the war! Now THAT is something people will unite behind.

    You want to know the surest way to have this war go on past January 2009? Lose the next election. Maybe TA thinks that the election and the war are inextricably tied. For the record, so do I...

  • davidg (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I don't see the tie. The war should be over before the next election. This is achievable and should be the focus.

  • Sally (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Impeach Gonzales Impeach Cheney Impeach Bush

    Simple.

    Want to stop the war in Iraq? Dry up the funding for the 125,000 contractors and mercenaries. After the profit incentive leaves, so will the Bush administration. Disallow privatization of Iraqi assets.

    Yes, Bush is worse than Nixon or any other President. When Nixon signed a minimum wage into law, one person working full time could support three people above the poverty line. Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, reestablished contact w/ China, established detente w/ Russia, established peace initiatives with Israel, and expanded civil rights and EEOC enforcement budget by over ten times LBJ's administration--legislation passed by a Democratic majority most of the time. That was a bad President. What do you think it makes Bush as a President?

    Nixon was impeached for bugging Democrats. Bush gets a pass for bugging the entire country.

    You don't give up because "maybe it won't work".

    Enough excuses. It's past time for Congress to do their job.

  • (Show?)

    I don't see the tie. The war should be over before the next election. This is achievable and should be the focus.

    Maybe. I'm not sure how though. Color me skeptical. We don't have the votes and I don't think we can get the votes. It'll take 60 in the Senate for cloture on any sort of meaningful budget resolution, which we haven't even come close to. We may be able to get to 60 on some sort of de-authorization, but the bar will be higher (67) because we'd then have to override an inevitable veto. Even if THAT occurred, I suspect Bush could (and would) reshuffle funds and/or flatly ignore Congress and tie the whole thing up in the courts until the end of his term. Impeachment is the only way we could get around that, and I can assure you there aren't 16 Republicans who will bail on Bush that completely either.

    If there aren't still over 100,000 US troops on the ground come next election, I'll eat my hat...

  • Paul Motta (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I want to end the occupation yesterday and bring the troops home today, but something very interesting was pointed out last night on Ray Taliaferro's radio show on KGO San Francisco...

    No matter how much we defund the "War," the only person who can actually bring the troops home is Bush. Congress cannot force the troops home, they can only cut off additional future funding.

    Yes, it is true that Congress can cut off the funds funds that are going to the mercenaries, and these contractors would likely get out because they are there for the money, but the regular troops could be forced to stay. Bush is too proud and dishonest to admit his reasons for invading and continuing the occupation; he would likely start another war (Iran) in an effort to manufacture enough patriotism to rally a few dumb suckers to enlist (or stay in) and to justify keeping the existing soldiers in the Middle East. He will never allow the troops to come home -- never -- and I believe that there is enough money to keep the regular troops there until he scurries out of office. This is why we need to impeach Bush and Cheney now. Too many lives will continue to be wasted, too many tax dollars will continue to be stolen, and too much faith in our justice system will ooze away.

    I personally believe that there will be a number of Democrats across the country who will defect from the Democratic Party because of the reluctance to put the heat on Bush and Cheney. I already have several Democratic friends who have done this in the past month.

    Neither of these bastards can stomach the idea of being impeached, so it's time to quit bluffing and lay down the aces. There has to be continued investigations and there has to be an effort to impeach. Murder and theft are just that -- murder and theft. And Bush and Cheney are the criminals.

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm preparing a longer post offline, but this just occurred to me. I used to be very "churchy" and it struck me as a kid, how sad and ironic it was that the even the "protestant" church was so replete with splits. So too, the Democratic party. In the one denomination, you've got those who evidence the last vestiges of the high church. They tend to be traditionalists, stuck in the mud. Then you've got the St. Francis of Assisi types, running naked from cause to cause. This tension between action and perceived inaction all too often splits congregations and communities of cause. For gawds sake, i'm not saying that anybody here belongs in the two groups just described. Progressives split into as many groups as they can find acronyms. Remember the People's Front of Judea. Splitter!

    I would just like to say this to those who time and time again seem to oppose the bold move... it is better to fight and fail than to fear defeat and not fight at all.

    [truth in advertising... i was in a recent accident, and the meds are starting to kick in...]

  • Blueshift (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Nixon was impeached for bugging Democrats. Bush gets a pass for bugging the entire country.

    Sally, I'm sorry but I need to correct you again. Nixon was not impeached for bugging Democrats. He was impeached for secretly and illegally invading Cambodia without the consent of Congress. If we're going to be making historical comparisons, I think it's important that we make accurate ones.

    That said, I think the Nixon impeachment proceedings have some important lessons for us here. Nixon's Congress didn't start out by going directly from "Hey, there's some weird stuff going on," to "Impeach the President!" They started investigating. They pulled down Nixon's advisors, political appointees, and Cabinet officials. They drew a circle around Nixon's White House and slowly drew it in tighter and tighter, so that when it came to be the President's turn for justice, members of both political parties were sufficiently disgusted to support impeachment.

    Right now, we aren't at that stage in this country. We're just beginning to draw the circle around the White House, and this White House is a lot smarter than Nixon's was (not to mention having the example of Nixon for what not to do--remember that some people in Bush's White House also worked for Nixon). We need to start with the people who carried out Bush's directives, then use their testimony to make moves towards the policy masterminds. If this is a comparison to Watergate, then I think we're still at the stage where the Grand Jury handed down its first abbreviated list of indictments.

  • Sally (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Blueshift>The First article of impeachment against Nixon. You can google "Daniel Ellsworth" "Watergate" "Democratic National Headquarters" to get more information.

    Articles of Impeachment Adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary July 27, 1974

    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:

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

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

    2. 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;

    3. 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;

    4. 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;

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

    6. 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;

    7. 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

    8. 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.

    * Listen to the roll call of the Judiciary Committee
    
  • davidg (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Nate, I think you are just not cynical enough about the political process. You wonder where the Republican votes will come from to end the war.

    Look to the US Senate. In 2008, 22 of 33 US senators up for election will be Republicans. Those guys are staring at polls showing nearly 70% of us want the US out of Iraq. Loyalty to a sitting president is important to Republicans, but political survival will always trump loyalty. Those 22 Republicans are NOT going to let a sentimental virtue like loyalty interfere with their political survival. Gordon Smith is not the only one seeing the handwriting on the wall on this issue, he is just the first. The cascade of Republicans who will oppose the war is just starting. Count on it. It will happen.

    If we unite on opposition to the war, we will win. That's where the focus should be now.

  • John Perry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A million dead Iraqis, 3600 dead American troops, 4 million Iraqi refugees, illegal invasion and occupation based entirely on lies, Iraq's infrastructure destroyed, their landscape poisoned with depleted uranium fallout from our weapons, threatening to attack Iran (another violation of international law)....

    ....Public admission to a felony by the President of the United States (warrantless spying on American citizens), defiant promise by same president to continue perpetrating said felony, intentional revelation of the identity of a covert CIA operative, rampant politicization of the United States Department of Justice, refusal to submit to constitutionally mandated, on the record oversight by congressional investigators, torture, illegal rendition, suspension of habeas corpus, holding detainees without charges, trial or access to counsel, claiming and executing authority which does not exist under the Constitution that every president swears to preserve, protect and defend....

    And you're more concerned with positioning democrats for 2008 than bringing the most heinous criminals in the history of American government to justice?

    Not exactly a great strategy for winning the hearts and minds of a country that is quickly waking up to a Congress that is refusing to fulfill its election mandate.

    Funny that you sould refer to democrats attacking each other as a "circular firing squad." It fits right in with your ridiculously circular logic:

    "These bastards will never be brought to the kind of justice that will befit their crimes. We can cry for justice and the rule of law — both of which remain in dire condition — but destroying what remains of this Congress' term, and possibly a future under Democratic guidance, will not bring justice to anyone."

    Can the anti-accountability, anti-justice Beltway democrats and writers like you really be as pitifully ignorant as you appear, or are you actually all covert advocates of one-party fascist rule?

  • Blueshift (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yes Sally, I understand that the articles of impeachment list all of Nixon's "high crimes and misdemeanors," including unlawfully entering the DNC headquarters. The point I was trying to make was that the impeachment proceedings were started because of Nixon's illegal invasion of Cambodia, not because of domestic spying. Domestic spying just wasn't enough to get impeachment going. I'm certainly not trying to argue that domestic spying is okay--it's not, and it's a crime. But just as Nixon's Congress did not impeach the President until the revealed crimes were incredibly severe, I don't think we've uncovered severe enough crimes on Bush's part to make Republicans swallow their partisanship and do what needs to be done.

  • (Show?)

    On the contrary david, I think I may be too cynical. So cynical that I believe Republicans in the Senate are incapable of reading the writing on the wall. Sure, we'll get a few endangered Rs who are up in '08. In addition to Smith, Coleman (MN), Collins (ME), and Sununu (NH) are endangered Rs who may join to save their skins. Add to them a few who we might actually get on principle (Hagel, Snowe, Warner). That gets us to seven which, when Johnson (D-SD) returns in the fall could get us to 57 (obviously Lieberman is effectively a R). Who else? Voinovich? Domenici? Specter? Those all seem dubious to me, but even granting those, we finally get to magic 60 for cloture only to run up against a Presidential veto. I just don't see 67 votes in the Senate (to say nothing of 290 in the House). Maybe sometime next year, but then Bush still has all sorts of ways he can fiddle with budgets and deliberately disobey Congress (as he's been doing for years) to run out the clock till the end of his term.

    Unfortunately, impeachment is the only way to end the war, and it won't happen either. The votes just aren't there. All we can do is try to make it as tough on Bush and the Rs as possible, do what we can for the troops and veterans, and make damn sure we elect a President who is serious about getting us out of Iraq starting on January 20th, 2009.

  • (Show?)

    Oh, and for the record, I completely support both [successful] impeachment and ending the war ASAP on principle. If someone can come up with a realistic roadmap to get us there, or if circumstances change such that one or both of these goals becomes attainable, you can count on me.

  • Sally (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Blueshift>You've been misinformed. It was illegal wiretapping and the Watergate burglary that undid the President. Congress found a backbone (Republicans and Democrats) who voted to cut off funding to the war and impeach the President.

    The illegal bombing of Cambodia was barely reported in the media. It was the Republicans and Democrats who finally said "Enough is enough" and voted to impeach.

    There isn't a single charge against Nixon that doesn't apply to this administration. The Bush administration criminal conduct exceeds anything done in previous administrations.

    John Conyers may prepare impeachment papers against Bush. Today another congressional rep signed on to Kucinicich's impeachment bill against Cheney. They're moving slowly, but they're moving and it's up to us to pressure our legislature to hold them to account.

  • (Show?)

    to Sally, Thom and others who believe they know the Absolute Truth in this matter:

    my older son joined the Oregon Natl Guard this year; he's done with training (top NG in his class, and i have damned mixed feelings about that) which means that when they need to send replacements over, he's available. until this war ends, he's basically on standby. so excuse if i believe that ending this war however quickly and in whatever way possible is more important than a futile impeachment effort.

    you want the rule of law? so do i. i also want my son alive. i want all our children back home, and if that means Bush gets off, so be it. jesus, do we have to punish someone to know for ourselves, and our country, that law matters? do you think the entire country is that pathetic?

    impeachment is the least important thing i can think of at this point in history. ending a war matters far more.

  • dddave (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Please. The dems have the numbers in Congress to stop the funding of the war. This is what they CAMPAIGNED on. The truth is that they know this will be seen as cut and run by a large chunk of their constituents (correctly by the way). Add to that no plan from here on out, and they know it is political suicide. They are going to wait for '08 to save their skin and blame everything on the previous admin, standard operating procedure. Dems, your party has no balls either, so climb off the high horse and hold your own democrat senators and reps responsible, you wanted them, you got them. Impeachment, etc, is just a humongous waste of time for the party of the people. How about fixing JUST ONE THING!! PICK ONE, ANYTHING? (Note: raising our taxes is not a fix....) Not so easy when you have the power, eh?

  • Sally (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Impeachment is not mutually exclusive with ending the war.

    Nixon and the Vietnamese war ended with the same President in the same term. Why should you believe this is different?

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    to Sally, Thom and others who believe they know the Absolute Truth in this matter: my older son joined the Oregon Natl Guard this year [...]impeachment is the least important thing i can think of at this point in history. ending a war matters far more.

    So finally, the truth comes out. Why didn't t.a. say this in the first place instead of composing his original bogus "argument"? I already detailed the fallacies of his contention that impeachment is "the wrong thing to do" in what i believed was a courteous, well reasoned response. Nonetheless t.a. ignored this and preferred later to call me out like a schoolyard bully challenging me to "tell him to his face" what i thought. Now we know what has changed since November when t.a. used to be for impeachment (before he was against it). There's no reason for me to continue on another serious rebuttal to add to this "debate." Understandably, t.a. sees everything now as a choice between the lesser of two evils. Given such a (false) dilemma, his only priority remains now stopping the war. Presumably if Gordon Smith were a sincere war opponent and presented the promise of bringing a few more GOP votes our way, t.a. would be editorializing of late in favor of our Pendleton frozen food packer.

    Picking up on Glen's point, many of us in Blue Oregon are prepared to walk and chew gum at the same time. It's fine that t.a. has changed his mind. The old road (like t.a.) is changing fast though, and he ought to get out of the way if he can't lend a hand (at least on the impeachment issue).

  • Robert G. Gourley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    impeachment is the least important thing i can think of at this point in history. ending a war matters far more

    The problem is ending a futile military conflict in Iraq doesn't, by itself, keep anyone's military offspring out of harms way. There's too much evidence that this current administration can think of other ways to put them in jeopardy. You want your kid out of harms way, get them out of the military.

    A successful impeachment of Bush and Cheney - votes of both House and Senate in favor - says here's what happens when you institute idiot rule. Folks might be harmed by such an effort, folks other than Bush or Cheney, and that harm might require weighing the worth of such an effort.

    That, it seems to me, is where we are right now. Nobody is safe - one way or the other folks will be in harm's way - even if they are cowering in their spider hole.

  • Garrett (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Someone tried to make this clear but I'll reiterate. In order to bring down the White House you need a lot of people in on it. Dems and Repubs. Most of the people reading this blog are progressives and understand the high crimes and misdemeanors. We get it. If you expand yourself outside of Portland you'll get the idea that a lot of people would see impeachment proceedings against Bush as partisan bickering and would get a bad taste in their mouths. This isn't Nixon. READ THIS. Republicans once didn't used to be like this. Republicans in the 1970s were like moderates now. Republicans are 100% different now. Hell, these aren't even the same Republicans elected in 1994. The Republicans have gotten so into fear mongering they've even got members of their own party aboard because they know they'll get lynched if they jump ship. The rule of law doesn't matter to them...its only party loyalty.

    This just frankly disgusts me. We are so close to capturing majorities in the house, senate and maybe the presidency and there are a bunch of jokers willing to sell out the party because they won't impeach W. Well..its been 6 months since the Dems got SLIM majorities in the Senate and House. Sure 22 of 33 Senators are Repubs. We live in Oregon and although I like Steve Novick he's the only person to step up to take on Gordo? Seriously? He's a good guy and would make a great Senator but he's not exactly a heavyweight that is going to command a lot of press. I feel sick that Kitzhaber won't step up but I understand why he wouldn't. How do you think they feel in those states that are really Republican? South Carolina...you get the idea...we're a blue state that can only find a lightweight to run against a weak Senator...figure it out

    Look...let the Dems build a case. If you think what they have now is a case you're a lost cause because it only makes sense to Dems. Give them time...they're going to make the White House look worse and worse and worse. With time more Republicans will bail on the President. It's just the fact of the matter. If you step back there really isn't anything that would get public opinion behind impeachment right now. What were the numbers when Nixon went? Sure Bush's 29% approval rating sucks but only 45% of us want him impeached...what was Nixons...28% approval and 71% wanting impeachment...

    Politics is timing. The fat congress of the 80s got rocked by Newt and his contract with america. The Repubs were out of control for so long by then in hurt. They had the right timing. You've got Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Pat Leahy getting after it. Give it some time before you join the list of Repubs that say Dems are gutless.

  • Sally (unverified)
    (Show?)

    More than half people polled support impeaching Vice President Cheney. John Conyers is head of the Judiciary committee and has prepared impeachment against Cheney w/ HRes 333. Ask Congressman Wu (or your rep) to sign on as a cosponsor.

    You can contact your rep here: http://www.house.gov/writerep/

    Over 900,000 have signed on to impeach Bush here: www.VoteToImpeach.org

    Only 25% of the registered voters self-identify as Republicans. Democrats and Republicans with integrity have an unprecedented opportunity to end this criminal enterprise.

    Also, read the letters section of the Oregonian today. Every Republican doesn't agree with Bush's actions.

  • (Show?)

    dddave: The dems have the numbers in Congress to stop the funding of the war.

    This is a complete fallacy. Forgetting for the moment that any action in the Senate requires 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster and 67 to overturn a Bush veto (in addition to the 290 that Dems also do not have in the House), let's do an actual count...

    In the Senate there are currently 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and 2 Independents. With Sen. Johnson (D-SD) still recovering from a brain hemorrhage, Democrats don't even have a functioning plurality, let alone a majority. Of those two independents, one votes with Dems on the Iraq war (Sanders-VT) and the other votes with Republicans (Lieberman-CT). Even counting them, Dems still can't even get to 50 without defecting Republicans, let alone the 60 or 67 they'd need.

  • Robert G. Gourley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The dems have the numbers in Congress to stop the funding of the war.

    This is a complete fallacy.

    This is how you do it, you send a funding bill to the President with a new withdrawal strategy included. You keep on doing this over and over, one way or the other the Republicans keep on blocking it, or the President vetos it.

    The funding runs out because the Republicans would not pass a funding bill.

  • DJ (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You're all engaging in a pointless debate..."End the war with or without impeachment?" The US isn't calling the shots on when this war will end...the islamofascists are.

    Don't take my word for it, take the word of OBL five years prior to the invasion of Iraq: "To kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim." Osama bin Laden In Fatwa entitled Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders World Islamic Front Statement, February 28, 1998

    (Maybe one of you can tell John Edwards that camels don't wear bumper stickers).

  • ducklady (unverified)
    (Show?)

    OK, if I am understanding the above posts, the biggest argument against impeachment is that the Democrats' time and energy could be better spent trying to end the war and win the next election. Then here is my question.

    What if we don't impeach AND we lose the election? Then what have we gained by avoiding the issue of impeachment?

    Based on the results of the last two presidential elections, don't you agree that there is some chance that the Republicans will find a way to steal votes from critical states and possibly even "win" again? Aren't there still some Diebold machines out there just waiting to give the election to Republicans again?

    I am just not as optimistic about the integrity of our election system as some Dems seem to be that I can look at a Democratic victory in 2008 as a 'sure thing.' I hope the Dems in office now will do everything in their power to bring back some accountability in the White House in case this is their only chance to do it.

  • ducklady (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Oops, I broke my own rule. We need to break the Republican's framing of the debacle in Iraq as a "war." It is an occupation. You cannot win or lose an occupation, you can only end it. And the sooner the better.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    T.A. could not be more wrong. He writes:

    "We need to keep our eye on what matters: ending the war and winning in 2008. Nothing else matters."

    Both of these are trivial compared to the destruction of Constitutional governmence being wrecked by the Shrubbery. The prospect of the globe's only superpower unrestrained by even it's own people is indeed a terrifying one. Impeachment is the way to recover the republic.

    I agree with ducklady. This is not war in Iraq. It is an imperial occupation.

  • Steve S (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Much as I and many others might like to see Bush/Cheney impeached or otherwise "punished", T.A. is right: the focus must be on ending the invasion/occupation of Iraq and increasing Demo majorities so that we can have some REAL accomplishments in this nation. Another consideration for those who cannot give up on their dreams of impeachment: even if used as a harrassment tactic to hold Cheney's feet to the fire, the Republicans and the public at large would likely just see this as payback (for Clinton) or just as the harrassment it would be, and therefore the net result would be "Well, there go those stupid Dems spending all their/our time, money and energy on punitive actions and not keeping their eyes on the ball." There are other ways (oversight investigations, etc.) to keep the Bush/Cheney agenda dampened down, but impeachment, as sweet as it may sound, is just a Siren call to lure us overboard, and we desparately need to make landfall...

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steve S, is there any crime that Bush/Cheney may commit that might warrant impeachment or is your fear of what nasty things the Republican so great that you're willing to give them a pass on everything?

    Seriously, either you believe that high crimes have been committed or you don't. If you do, and oppose impeachment, you are advocating a path which weakens our democracy. I can't think of any issue more critical, not even the occupation (which will end as soon as the Democrats stop funding it).

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steve S, T.A. and others can't see politics as other than a tactical struggle between Democrats and Republicans. Constitution? Democratic governance? These are trivial matters in their minds. No wonder cynicism over government and political parties in particular continues to grow.

    It is not those calling for impeachment who are playing petty politics. It is those warning against impeachment who have lost sight of the big picture.

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steve S, T.A. and others can't see politics as other than a tactical struggle between Democrats and Republicans.

    Not knowing Steve or t.a., i don't have the where with all to make such sweeping judgments. Mr. Barnhart used to support impeachment and it's more likely that a spoonful of honey will persuade him that he was right before and that impeachment is right, right now. Or we could see what a cup of vinegar might yield.

    As for Steve S, my questions weren't rhetorical, nor were they meant to be cynical. Do you believe that Bush or Cheney have committed any impeachable offenses?

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thom,

    Honey is appropriate when one is seeking a favor, but not when one is pointing out errors in thinking. Someone cajoled to take a position is just as likely to be cajoled in the opposite direction and so makes an unreliable ally.

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I see Tom C's debate style has not changed, still falling back on character assassination when he cannot win a debate with reasonable argument. What does he know about how his opponents value the Constitution? Does he seek to implement the circular firing squad?

    Bush has been weakened, but it happened after he catapulted not only the propaganda, but the power of the Administration stifle dissent. That impeachment is warranted can be true, and that immediate prosecution of it would fail and redound to the benefit of the criminal enterprise we all seek to bring down.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    And Ed has still not figured out the difference between being told that he is wrong and being told that he is worthless. He should try therapy.

    By the way, I employ a different style when talking with children under age seven. They have have developmental reasons for seeing everything through the lens of their ego.

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks for demonstating the truth of my assertion of the scurrilous nature of your commentary.

    The truth remains that you still have not justified your position in opposition to T.A.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ed,

    T.A. did that himself when he wrote:

    We need to keep our eye on what matters: ending the war and winning in 2008. Nothing else matters.

    These certainly matter, but they are minor compared to preserving operation of the Constitution. Besides, Iraq is an imperial occupation, not a war. If the troops are just shifted to some other colony, then nothing of long-term worth is won. We'll just destroy someone else's country in defense of oil, er, democracy.

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I do not want Bush to succeed in establishing the unitary executive, but we need to be smart in persuing him, and not go off half-cocked.

  • (Show?)

    "Don't take my word for it, take the word of OBL five years prior to the invasion of Iraq:"

    Not only is it fascinating that DJ thinks OBL is some kind of credible news source (then again, maybe Fox viewers are just used to bias), but that he'd cite a years-old fatwah that doesn't even mention (with good reason) the country we're currently occupying.

    Whatever the Iraq war is about, it's certainly not islamofascism.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ed,

    I couldn't agree more that we need to act carefully and intelligently. Just because Republicans made impeachment into a circus doesn't mean Democrats need to follow suit. Dennis Kucinich's bill of impeachment of the VP [HR333] is well thought out and would help to end the Iraq misadventure - and prevent new ones. I think going after Cheney makes sense as we have more documentation of his shenanigans and he is, after all, the de facto leader in foreign affairs.

    Regarding torridjoe's comment on islamofascists, it's important to realize that these thugs were funded and aided by covert US programs aimed at battling nationalism in the middle east and countering Soviet influence. To paraphrase Henry Kissinger: the Iranian mullahs and al Qaida are "our sons of a bitch." To defeat them now that they have turned on us, we need to do what we have refused to do up until now. That is, treat the people of the Moslem world fairly and with respect, not as squatters on our oilfields.

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    That T. A. is focussed on getting out of Iraq is understandable from someone who has flesh-and-blood at risk is understandable and defensible. He's hardly alone. I too have a son with boots on the ground there, and everyone who does wants them back in good shape.

    The propaganda has been catapulted by the Administration for years that their mission is our only bulwark against terrorism at home. We have not yet completely countered that brainwashing. If we back them into a corner with impeachment now, there is still a good chance that they could panic the population into compliance with their perpetual war. They have proven themselves bestial in their political battles, and a cornered animal is extremely dangerous.

    There is still time to beat them back without forcing a pitched battle we are unlikely to win outright.

connect with blueoregon