Impeachment: America Must Decide

[marmar]

these are the first few graphs of an article from Consortium News. The full article is at: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/112406a.html


We Americans need to decide: are we a nation of laws or not? Is our Constitution still the foundation on which the United States rests or not?

On Jan. 3, 2007, the Democrats will be in control as the 110th Congress commences. New members will be sworn in, taking the oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic...”

Few things would seem more fundamental to the support and defense of the Constitution than sanctioning those who have abused it -- as a matter of simple justice as well as a deterrent against future abuse.

Yet just before the Nov. 7 elections, Nancy Pelosi, who will now be the next Speaker of the House, said in an interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes” that if the Democrats gained control of the House the impeachment of President Bush would be “off the table”.

But public support for impeachment has been growing. According to a poll published in Newsweek just before Ms. Pelosi took impeachment off the table, a majority of Americans may now favor it. But in the spirit of bipartisanship she has decided that on the issue of impeachment, the House will ignore the public as well as the remedies which the authors of the Constitution provided for its abuse.

This is a bad idea, politically and constitutionally.

When Bill Clinton was elected President in 1992, two landmark investigations of scandals from the two previous Republican administrations, Reagan and Bush, were winding down. One was of “Iraqgate,” concerning secret U.S. arming of Saddam Hussein during the Iraq/Iran war. The other investigation was of the Iran/Contra affair.

Despite considerable and powerful evidence of Republican misdeeds at the highest levels, the incoming Clinton administration decided not to seriously pursue either of these scandals, hoping, just as Ms. Pelosi apparently hopes now, to encourage a spirit of bipartisanship. Unfortunately for President Clinton, the right wing fought him aggressively from the beginning of his administration, killing, for example, the attempt to reform health care.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. K&R! Well Said!

Bush has taken a stand that neither the Constitution, nor the Congress, has any jurisdiction over the Executive. Gonzales has literally said that Congress's laws are only "suggestions".

This is the gravest attack we've ever had on our government - and it is precisely the mechanism that allowed Hitler to gain absolute power in Germany.

We must act. This is no time for triangulation.

[elocs]

2. I don't think that the majority of Americans favor blanket impeachment.

I think that Americans favoring impeachment is dependent upon hearings and investigations which would call for it. I wonder why so many here would seem to be so satisfied with impeachment without conviction? I wonder how happy the Brown family was that justice was served after OJ walked after failing to be convicted of murder?

[ClassWarrior]

3. I wonder how happy the Brown family would have been...

...if there hadn't been any trial at all?

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

4. Hello?

NGU.

[puebloknot]

6. Using your analogy...

...how happy would the Brown family have been if charges were never even filed in that case, if the People had just said it wasn't worth pursuing because it was a foregone conclusion that he would be acquitted?

Congressman Conyers has already compiled an in-depth report of many impeachable offenses on the part of Bush, et al. Hearings needn't be long and drawn out to find even one solid and provable offense which could lead to impeachment.

We all know that finding enough support in the Senate for conviction would be difficult -- some insist, impossible. Should we as a nation just brush this administration's crimes under the table because Ms. Pelosi and other members of the House don't find it politically expedient to "put the country through it?"

And some are saying that it's *just too expensive* to undertake impeachment -- pointing to the millions spent by Ken Starr in trying to bring down Bill Clinton. They had nothing on him and they kept spending more and more money to try to manufacture something that would stick. That's not what we are are talking about here. There are provable offenses in great abundance against Bush. What may be lacking is the will of our Congresspersons to see that justice is done.

[petgoat]

7. We can't charge OJ because it would damage race relations

and then the mayor might not get re-elected and and besides,
we're too busy prosecuting non-violent drug offenses.
And think how it would traumatize the children if a football hero
and role model were to face trial!

Besides, he's innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and
you can't take him to court if he's innocent. Right?

So just forget it!

[puebloknot]

9. We can't impeach Bush and Cheney...

...because it would damage bipartisan harmony, and then a Democrat might not get elected President in 2008.

Besides that, we're too busy passing a minimum wage law and ending the war in Iraq by sending more troops so we can make it safe enough to begin redeployment of the troops that are already over there.

Besides that, we stand for peace, and we want the world to know it. How would it look if we can't even extend the hand of friendship across the aisle in our own Congress? We have to bloom where we're planted first!

Besides that, we have limited time and money, and a lot of children (and their parents) would think we're putting God's own representative on Earth on trial. That wouldn't play well in the mega-churches and the corporate boardrooms, which are one and the same in a lot of cases. Suffer the little children, etc.

We already know that an impeachment will just fall flat on its face, so why go through the tawdry embarrassment of even beginning the process. The Republicans aren't the only ones who know how to use a shredder!!!!

Why can't we all just get along?

[petgoat]

11. Why can't we all just get along?

Because you don't just sit and sing Kumbaiya with fascists who steal elections
and enact laws enabling the Empress to declare anyone she wants an enemy
combatant and off with their heads.

You and OPPIE are political pacifists the equivalent of the kind of pacifist
who would not lift a hand against thugs raping and killing his wife and
children--declaring the thugs to be children of God who should be gently
influenced to mend their ways.

[puebloknot]

12. Au contraire, mon ami.

The problem with a forum like this is that it is soooooooooooooooo easy to be misunderstood.

That last post was an attempt at irony, humor, which obviously sank like a rock. Speaking just for myself, I am the very antithesis of your last paragraph. Maybe I should use one of those "sarcasm* thingies when I want it known I'm just kidding. If I have to do that, I think I'll just pass.

For the record, I'm not French!

Have a great impeachment! (And look for me there!)

[petgoat]

22. Perdone me, amigo. My sarcastometer got bumped and

decalibrated by the self-satirizing OPERATIONMINDCRIME on another thread.
I was multitasking on several boards, and the kids were squirting honey
on the cat.

Also you were only following my sarcastic post asserting
that OJ could not have been prosecuted. My fault entirely.

[monarch]

27. So tell us why you have disabled your profile

That's usually a dead giveaway for me.

[puebloknot]

28. I didn't...

...disable my profile. I updated it in the last 48 hours, and now it's putting out an error message.

However.....a profile is a personal choice, and not necessarily a sinister sign that someone is hiding something!

[KAT119]

24. *called our Constitution 'just a goddamned piece of paper' enough said.

[emcguffie]

5. Could it be that the Dems don't want to show their hand prematurely?

They're not even seated yet. Seems reasonable to me. Kind of like "Don't shoot 'til you see the whites of their eyes"?

[petgoat]

8. Could be. But I thought the Dems were up to something

behind the scenes in 2004. "It's a clever clever trap!" I said. "They'll expose
the corrupted election and refuse to seat electors and we'll have to have a new
election on known-honest voting machines." When Poppy Bush and Clinton went out
to raise tsunami funds together I thought they were negotiating W's surrender.

When the vote to count the electoral ballots came up I honestly thought some
honest Republicans would stand up for the principle of electoral integrity.
Hah! There was not one honest Republican. And damned few Democrats had the
spine to stand up for democracy either.

So I'm not basing any sugerplum visions on secret Dem plans.

Hell, what happened to Fitzmas? What's old superPat got going behind the scenes,
huh? Do you know he negotiated the plea bargain of Ali Mohammed, a CIA-connected
and FBI-connected participant in al Qaeda's African embassy bombings who provided
weapons training and secret US Army manuals to the Blind Sheikh's al Qaeda cell
before the WTC 93 bombings?

Ali Mohammed was never sentenced, and nobody knows where he is now.

[emcguffie]

18. Well, yes, I got as much as was in that Book TV thing on C-Span.

And I hope it isn't quite the same thing. I honestly don't know, but let's just imagine, if we were in the House, the minority, and we had just won a majority but they weren't seated yet, and our enemies had demonstrated over and over and over again just how dangerous they could really be, would you want to show your hand before you could actually play a hand?

I don't think I would. I think I would keep all my cards next to my chest until I could play.

Of course, I could be way, way wrong, and they could all be tame, cowed, done-in Dems. I just can't imagine, even if they were not, being so incautious as to start making threats at this time, when they actually do not yet have any power. It just seems like an utterly foolish move.

So, while I hate to be critical or disagreeable, I respectfully do hope you are wrong. I do recognize that I may have my head in the clouds, however.....

[petgoat]

23. Oh I hope I'm wrong too. And I hope they are just playing

close to the vest. Maybe it's more politic to let 3 months pass before "changing
their minds" about their course.

But keeping their plans secret over the recess brings the danger of secret negotiations,
or at least the perception of secret negotiations.

And how is making their intentions clear incautious? Should they fear assassinations and
false-flag terrorist attacks? Don't stand up to the bully because he might hit us?

[ClassWarrior]

10. That's possible... but we need to assume nothing and make sure they...

...KNOW that IMPEACHMENT is still on the table for us.

NGU.

[emcguffie]

19. I have to agree with you there.

I don't think we should ever let up on letting our elected reps know that we are sick and tired and absolutely DONE with them doing whatever they feel like, despite our clear wishes.

I think they must be constantly reminded that those days are over. And just because they are still there does not mean that they will get to stay there, if they continue to say one thing and do another.

They are not the people.

[onenote]

13. spinning the newsweek poll

The article suggests that a newsweek poll shows that a majority favor impeachment. Well, that's true. But its also misleading. What that poll shows is that a large majority does not think impeachment should be a top priority. In other words, a large majority doesn't think impeachment should be high up on the agenda of things that the new Congress devotes itself to. So anyone citing that poll should be careful about what it really shows.

I come back to the same point again and again. Its been three weeks since 435 members of Congress and 33 Senators were elected. Out of all of those contests, in how many of them did the Democratic candidate make impeachment an issue or make it part of his/her platform? Virtually none. Of those who did discuss impeachment, how many won? Virtually none.

It would be a mistake for Democrats who didn't run on impeachment, and who got elected running on other issues (such as the war, stem cells, minimum wage, corruption, and the need for more oversight, to name a few), to turn around and make impeachment a top priority. Investigations should be conducted as an end unto themselves, not as a vehicle for getting to impeachment. If those investigations turn up evidence that causes the public to become more interested in impeachment, then that becomes the logical step. But putting the cart before the horse would be the equivalent of electoral bait and switch.

[ClassWarrior]

14. Out of all of those contests, in how many of them did...

...the Democratic candidate make responsibility and holding the misAdministration** an issue or make it part of his/her platform?

All of them. Nothing virtual about it.

NGU.

[onenote]

16. exactly -- which is why you hold hearings as an end unto themselves

you can't play hide the ball with impeachment. The issue was reining in the administration and performing the investigations and oversight functions that were not being performed. If they lead to impeachment, fine. But you don't begin the process as an impeachment process if you didn't bring it up to the voters when you sought their support.

[ClassWarrior]

17. Of course our electeds can't lead with IMPEACHMENT...

...which is why WE need to keep it on the table. Loudly and often.

:eyes:

NGU.

[sampsonblk]

20. One more thing

What that poll shows is that a large majority does not think impeachment should be a top priority right now. If our party leaders went out and convinced the public that these crimes require urgent attention, the numbers would change. That's how republicans think. GOP: What can we get the public to support? Dems: What does the public support today?

Yet another reason why they have beaten us so many times.

[Laelth]

15. Hear, hear.

More reasons here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2657058

:dem:

-Laelth

[caledesi]

21. Let's show the people that elected us that we care first.

Increase Minimum wage.

Investigate, investigate, investigate.

Impeach.

[dmosh42]

25. Yes, you have the right method

The Dems need to follow their plan for passing that necessary legislation when congress convenes in Jan. And after that they will have a need to get facts in order to look into trade matters, military appropriations, immigration, energy needs, etc. All these areas, I believe, have potential law violations which could fall into the 'high crimes' areas, and exposing them will prompt a demand for impeachment from the public. For the Democratic leadership to go on a crusade to make this happen would not be a good strategic position.

[caledesi]

30. When the American people find out all of the treachery, they will

give us the cue on impeachment. Better believe it.

[lligrd]

26. Impeachment Or War Crimes Trials

Or both. And in which order I don't care. I do know investigations need to be held in either case and the sooner the better.

[AtomicKitten]

29. It's putting the cart before the horse to demand impeachment now.

The Dems will provide all the ammo required through investigative oversight to cause Americans to insist on impeachment. Let the subpoenas begin.