Biden: Impeaching Bush is possible, but impractical

[cyberpj]

Biden: Impeaching Bush is possible, but impractical
By HENRY C. JACKSON, Associated Press
Posted Wednesday, April 4, 2007 at 8:20 am

snip -
“I don’t want to impeach Bush — because I don’t want Cheney,” he said, referring to Vice President Dick Cheney.

snip -
Biden said the nation’s reputation would not be repaired until there was a new president and Bush policies were abolished or drastically altered.

Among other things, Biden called for:

• The razing of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the site of a prisoner abuse scandal.

• The closing and abandonment of the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay Cuba, where suspected terrorists are being held.

• A more assertive Congress that is willing to be steadfast in its opposition to the president’s policies.

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070404/NEWS/70404014/1006/NEWS

[pat_k]

1. Gee, maybe if he were "more assertive" on impeachment. . .

. . .the 110th Congress would wake the heck up to reality and be "more assertive" by opposing Bush with the ONLY "lethal" weapon in the Congressional arsenal. Maybe if he demanded impeachment he would have a shot as accomplishing some of his goals before 2009.

They can accomplish nothing under "rule by signing statement." Anything short of impeachment is "impractical" and impotent gesture, so however "impractical" he may believe impeachment is, at least, unlike the empty gestures they are currently engaged in or threatening, at least it is capable of stopping the outlaws.

If Biden demanded impeachment, he could make himself the champion of the Constitution and the People's Government. He may be an asshole, but if told the truth, accused Bush and Cheney in no uncertain terms, and called on the House to send up articles NOW, he would probably catapult to the front of the "pack" in a week.

It might not last though, as others are likely to jump on the bandwagon pretty fast. Groupthink is a strange thing. As long as all the members of the group is in lock-step, it is VERY difficult to break through. But, if even just one Member, particularly one with some gravitas says "Hey, what are we doing? We have to . . . .!" the rationalizations, self-censorship, and denial can come tumbling down with amazing speed.

[cyberpj]

2. I understand the "we'd waste a lot of time on that instead of fixing things" argument, but

I also feel that letting this one go without an impeachment notation in the history books is unacceptable.

[pat_k]

3. If we can't move the 110th Cong to remove, we'll just have to. . .

. . .take up the fight to get the 111th to impeach and pass judgment on Bush and Cheney "in absenstia."

If the House votes out a set of articles and the Senate votes them down, then we'll just have to call on the House to vote out another set. Tragically, Bush and Cheney are conducting so many open attacks on the Constitution; we have enough for at least a half-dozen impeachments.

As you say, failing to impeach Bush and Cheney is absolutely unacceptable.

Giving up the fight to make it a reality, whether now, or 10 years from now, is every bit as unacceptable to me.