[UPDATE:
[UPDATE 2: New Newsweek poll shows 52% favor impeachment, 47% of those Democrats, and 5% Republicans. Surprising that's not higher, compared to 51% a year ago, but there it is. Thanks, Lukery!]
Last night I watched the 60 Minutes profile of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. It was pretty interesting, and it only furthered my admiration for her.
Until, that is, the point where she actually stated that pursuit of impeachment was "off the table."
No, impeachment is off the table," she says.
"And that's a pledge?" Stahl asks.
"Well, it's a pledge in the – yes, I mean, it's a pledge. Of course it is. It is a waste of time," she replies.
"Wouldn't they just love it, if we came in and our record as Democrats coming forth in 12 years, is to talk about George Bush and Dick Cheney? This election is about them. This is a referendum on them," Pelosi says. "Making them lame ducks is good enough for me."
A waste of time?? Did she really say that the impeachment process is a waste of time??
Scraping my shattered jaw off the floor, I could not gather my thoughts for a long time, so many ricocheted around my brain I dd not know where to begin. Does she feel the impeachment process itself is a waste of time? Is this just her analysis of the public's position on Clinton's impeachment, so she's cutting and pasting it here? Is she in favor of ignoring crimes in general, or just in the case of Presidents and their cronies who send our soldiers off to kill and die for hegemony and political gain? Was she just being coy? Or just plain stupid? And will the citizens of this nation be invited to this table off of which impeachment has been put?
It really scared the daylights out of me, I have to say. I was only able to brace myself with the possibility that Congressional Democrats have made the conscious strategic decision to avoid any public reference to impeachment until such time as investigations they conduct make it impossible and unconscionable to do otherwise. That actually seems a wise decision, but of course none of us can know if it's true at this point. Though I do notice none of the usual voices are uttering the dreaded "I" word, and haven't for a long time.
We are, however, about to be hearing a lot about the "I" word when US v. George W. Bush et al., a new book by Elizabeth de la Vega on precisely that subject, comes out next month. The author gave me the final draft last month, and has now agreed to be interviewed for Cannonfire next week! This may be her first interview on the book circuit (I'll have to check on that), but it will be fun and stimulating, regardless, as she is both.
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)
A little about the book first, and then a little about her.
The book actually takes you into the ditches of the prosecutor's office, gathers evidence, reviews it and the relevant laws, and then presents the compelling package to a hypothetical grand jury. And the case carefully places Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell and their collective "lying us into war" in its legal framework, a conspiracy to defraud the United States.
The coolest part of the book is how amazingly readable it is. She takes great pains to put the legalese into human language that even I can understand. Plus, the presentation before the hypothetical Grand Jury reads like a play, with hypothetical back and forth between the hypothetical prosecutor and each of these hypothetical Grand Jury members, as well as a hypothetical witness.
But neither the facts presented in this case nor the laws asserted to have been broken are in the least bit hypothetical; they are disturbingly real, and we know them to be true, from the Downing Street Memoes to the misleading use of aluminum tubes and African yellowcake. It is an exciting must-read, and I'm downright honored to know the author....
...who is, in addition to fun and stimulating, a former Federal prosecutor, so she knows of what she speaks. With twenty years experience in MN and then San Jose, she ultimately served as Branch Chief of the Organized Crime Strike Force in San Jose until she resigned in 2004. Since then, she has been writing fascinating articles for the LA Times, The Nation, Salon, Mother Jones, and TomDispatch. This body of work has generally focused on the crimes being committed in Washington by this administration, addressing (for example) wiretapping, the WH criminal conspiracy for war, and several aspects of the Plame case.
Elizabeth's most recent entries on this last topic are particularly intriguing, addressing as they do the likelihood for a Libby pardon by year's end, and the reasons we should expect it, as well as the introduction of another player into the whole convoluted mess.
The reasons Bush would pardon Libby seem obvious - as a trial will only force exposure of all those dirty little secrets they've worked so hard to conceal - but Elizabeth lays them out so clearly it sadly seems a done deal. Still, I have to ask how much time Bush really buys from the inevitable when the Plame lawsuit will undoubtedly expose as much, if not more, and just how much public outcry of "foul!" will be spun for and by the press.
And then there is this "new player." Seems he is none other than Ken Duberstein, who cleaned up the White House after Iran-Conra as Reagan's COS, and has gone on to - among many other political things - serve on the Boards of several huge mega-corporations. Seems, right after Armitage "realized" he was the leak to whom Novak referred ("not a partisan gunslinger") and contacted Powell, they together contacted Duberstein. Not the DOJ, not the FBI, not the WH. Duberstein. Elizabeth does a great job of exploring why this is important, further supporting her notion that Armitage is playing the standard organized crime scapegoat to diminish the damage, demonize Fitz, and deflect attention from the core of the case, the lies coming out of Cheney's office to get us into this godforsaken war. All these distractions working as a scheme to make the Christmas pardon oh so much easier.
All Elizabeth's articles are great reads, but especially these last two, and now a new book. So a week from Friday I'll put a number of questions to her in our interview. I thought it would be great to solicit some questions from you, our readers, for the occasion. Try to keep them to the issues at hand, which are crimes being committed by our government. I know, I know; that is a rapidly growing and already vast field. But make 'em smart and informed; let's show her our special stuff here at Cannonfire.
P.S. I hope the grammar police were noticing how carefully I avoided letting any dangling prepositions hang out!
27 comments:
Impeachment is certainly a waste of time because even if they succeed in sending it to the Senate they will never have the votes to convict and after that Bush will be able to say he 'exonerated'.
And if they did have the votes they would have to impeach Cheney as well and that would simply make that look like a power-brag on Pelosi's part because she would end up as President unless they negotiated a deal to name some kind of interim Vice-President until Cheney left, and who would that be?
I'd bet Joe Lieberman.
i don't really see it playing out that way, anon.
first of all, and i know this is optimistic but hey, not insane, the dems may yet take the senate, and then it is a moot point.
second, you may be too young to recall the way things went for nixon, but i can tell you that the more info came out about what really happened, and the more nixon's office played yet more dirty tricks to thwart the hearings and stay in power, the more the public wanted him OUT. O.U.T. OUT.
that's why goldwater had to get him to resign, so that the hole nixon was digging could be filled in.
still, so much damage had already been done, and the repugs never did recover from it.
but back to my point, which is simply that an intense exposure of all the crimes will turn the rovian trick on its head, forcing republican senators to vote against their own party when public opinion forces them to.
it's not as hopeless as it might seem.
I totally agree about intense exposure, but this is Jack Abramoff's Republican party. Anyone who votes to convict will know that anything Bushco has on him will start headlining in his hometown newspaper. And they've probably got something on all of them.
On the other hand, my second thought is that John Warner, or someone like that, one of those few mysterious Republicans who isn't a gruesome flake, would be a more plausible compromise interim President.
Paging Dr. Freud:
"Is this just her analysis of the pubic's position on Clinton's impeachment[...]"
:)
ah, mazoola, ya got me on that one!
drat spellcheck; not 'slip' sensitive.
thanks for the attention, and i am correcting it now.
I think Pelosi was aught off guard by the impeachment question. She knows that anything she to say can and will be used against her by Rove. If she even hints that Bush will be impeached, then all other issues will be swept aside and the focus of the election will be on the question of whether or not W should be impeached. It's much easier to win by keeping the focus on Iraq, corruption and the fragile economy.
marcie, these are two excellent questions, and i will not fail to ask them when i talk to elizabeth next week.
And there you have it: How the Democrats have made themselves accessories to all the crimes of state during this and all other Republican administrations since 1980. They've lost their courage and their committment to anything resembling a goverment of, by, and for the people. In the process, they have served as governors on the level of involvement by this nation's citizens. It is principally the Neocon Republicans who have run a Mafia-like "bust out" of the federal government. But it is the Democrats who have produced the national malaise and indifference to these crimes. They have proven over and over again that they will not act, even when they have the political capital to do so.
Why is this?
Is it because the neocons have gathered enough dirt on all of them to keep them under control? is it because all of the obvious crimes of the neocons involve Democratic co-conspirators? Is it because the deliberate decapitation of the nation's liberal centrist Democratic leadership undertaken 40 years ago sent a permanent and chilling message?
I don't know the answers to any of these questions. I'm not sure they matter, anyway. Until we break free of a "two party" system that is really one party, nothing will change.
PS: Thanks to all who responded to my comments in the "Closet Case" thread. I'm honored that you thought enough of it to voice your objections. I wish I had time to forumulate a worthy response. Maybe someday I will. If I do, I hope someone will see it. I enjoy bantering with you all.
Dr E - FYI, that Zogby/Impeachment poll is 12 months old. ie - not 'new'
Oh good Christ, let's keep a lid on the Blame Dems First routine. Read the latest cover story in ROlling Stone and tell me how any Democrat could hope to get anything done under such circumstances. Especially with so much of the population still brainwashed by right winger broadcasters and Jesusmaniacs.
The Bush years and the Clinton years were so strikingly different as to toss aside forever -- I had hoped -- any more of this crap about there being no difference between the parties. I've been hearing THAT nonsense since the 1960s.
Dr. Elsewhere,
I am a fan of your posts but you completely miss the point Pelosi was making last night: The Dems have NO power in any of branch of the government. NONE, ZERO, ZILCH.
Even if there was videotaped evidence of Bush having strangled some young boy to death, Bush still wouldn't be impeached. Because the ReThugs control this country and the Dems are at their mercy and just trying to slow down the march to a total police state.
It isn't that the Dems are complicit, weak, it is that they are scared shitless, like a deer in the headlights, and no one wants to confront the reality that our gov has just changed into some evil dictatorship by using massive election theft in Nov 2004.
Massive election theft will be used again in Nov 2006 to stop the Dems from taking back the House or the Senate.
So Rove has been buying folks off with money and drugs and blackmail to get them to do his bidding at the highest levels of Diebold, ESS, Sequoia, Triad.
I suggest everyone reading this blog, please call the President of each of those companies and tell them they are under suspicion.
good luck everyone!
This is the same Nancy Pelosi who called Chavez a thug for calling Bush the Devil.
I suppose I'd vote for her over any Republican, but she is a politician first and a Democrat second. As Joseph says, she won't bring up the I-word for political reasons.
IF the Dems take Congress, the word will most assuredly come up, although Nancy will get someone else to spearhead the movement, while she pretends to go along with it reluctantly.
BTW, if Libby is pardoned, he can no longer claim the right to not self-incriminate. But, he would still be liable for perjury for any lies he tells in court AFTER the pardon. Wouldn't the Wilsons love to have him on the stand in the civil case!
I agree with Joseph. First things first. Getting Iraq straightened out has got to be the priority before and after election, our guys and gals are dying over there. In the process of fixing all the damage done I think that impeaching Bush will probably come very naturally to many people.
Miss P.
If you remove wubya you get Cheney.
If you remove them both you get Hastert.
At least until January, 2007 here is the current order of succession (try and see if you want any of these people as president):
Cheney
Hastert
Ted Stevens
Condaleeza Rice
yikes, such terrific comments, hard to know where to begin.
first, lukery, you're right, that is an old zogby poll, and now i cannot recall how i came to link to it, but i also saw that 51% on CNN. i'll see what i can find out.
second, again, this is what i see playing out. consistent with joe's perspective, it would certainly be political suicide to make impeachment an election issue, or even a vague consideration. as i suggested, it makes political sense to keep that 'off the table' until such time as hearings and investigations force everyone to realize this is our only option.
third, it continues to play out with regard to the line of succession. folks, don't forget that (a) any hearings and investigations will force impeachment of BOTH bush AND cheney, as the latter has certainly been the mastermind of all the deception and fraud. with them both gone, that puts the next in line to the speaker of the house.
NONE of the above will happen unless the dems take over the house, in which case PELOSI WILL BE SPEAKER. and unless the senate changes hands, their fate may still not go any further than clinton's did.
i am sorry that my post skipped over pelosi's point that congress has been essentially hogtied. i am aware that she is open and vocal about this point, and she was in the interview. but to hear the way she put the question of impeachment - waste of time, move on, better things to do - really threw me.though upon reflection it does make political sense.
and dr. stern, really glad to see you here, but hope you'll take a look at that rolling stones article and consider the reality of what the dems have been up against in the past five years. not only is this crew of repugs ruthless, relentless, and rude, they do not play by the rules, they have governed by taking over congress instead of working with their colleagues, to the point of keeping their colleagues out of the loop.
remember, this gang has changed bills at the last minute (think USAPATRIOT Act), browbeat and threatened their own while holding votes open for HOURS (think the MEDICARE bill), walked out on hearings that weren't going their way (think sensenbrenner during testimony about gitmo), lied and cheated, and just generally bullied their way around the hill.
moreover, the press has been asleep at the wheel, which is entirely key. had the press been doing its job, the dems could have stood up and been recognized for their courage instead of making themselves willing targets for the faux news crews. it's only been in the past few weeks (really; it's only been weeks) that the press has started to notice that their audiences are not buying their spin, so they've started leaning a bit more toward truth and away from truthiness.
(plus, i think they were tired of getting their butts whupped by the likes of colbert and stewart.)
all these points are assuming we can recover the house, which some still predict is not a done deal. barron's yesterday predicted the repugs will retain both houses, based on the warchests; how ironic is that?
and of course, there is the fear that rove has so completely sewn up the vote theft machinery that we don't have a prayer.
still, i'm praying. and going to CT on nov. 6 and 7!
I'll look for that Rolling Stone Article. In the mean time, allow me to leave the defenders of Democratic conduct with this series of questions:
How did they become so powerless?
Are you saying they've done the best they can do?
So, their cooperation in passing multiple itesms of legislation that created this media monster that now eats them for lunch is acceptable?
So, when multiple Representatives came to the dais and begged for a single Democratic Senator to co-sponsor their challenge to the obviously-stolen 2000 Presidential election, and none would budge, you are OK with that? You endorse that as conduct consistent with the kind of courageous moral leadership you want from your party of choice?
This is by no means close to a comprehensive list of examples - just two items that jumped out at me as I was writing this.
I do not disagree that the Democrats' options are limited and have been for the past 6 years. But I would submit that they are powerless and victimized by their own choices. Nancy Pelosi's decision to offer a "pledge" that impeachment is off the table no matter what, when she had many choices short of full committment is emblematic of that fact.
Dr E - the new impeachment poll at Newsweek here
51% v 44% (if you can see past their fuzzy math)
dr. stern,
there have been many occasions where i agree, i could not fathom just why the dems went silent, or were unable to rally a unified front.
but there are so many factors here, and i confess, i had to remind myself that just because the dems weren't doing what i wanted them to do did not mean their choices as our reps were cowardly or depraved.
your example of the 2000 election reminded me of my own outrage at that time, but again, i had to remind myself that al gore himself stood at the dais as president of the senate and graciously held the outcry at bay. frankly, i believe that was a decision he made as leader of the party at that time, and i happen to agree with the sentiment behind it. he chose to respect the process that led to the result, as heinous as it all was.
i had more trouble with the silence of 2004 when the party practically turned on kerry, and so many dems blamed him for losing that election. THAT really ticked me off. still, boxer stood up for the formal challenge to the 2004 vote; don't forget that one, it was historical.
my sense of that entire debacle (and i spoke at length with kerry's sister during that time) was that no one could really believe the depths to which the repugs were stooping. their playbook was so far outside the norm, it would have taken a real huge compromise of integrity to get that far down in the sewer with them. and kerry chose the high road; good for him. it's not a victory if you lose your soul in the battle.
moreover, as i've stated here before, the role of media bias is so soundly nontrivial. say every dem had stood up and spoken the truth, filibustered everything, screamed the wrongs at the tops of their lungs at every turn, do you think the media would have then and thus gotten a clue? absolutely not; the dems would have been painted as extremists and radicals, which would have been playing right into the repug playbook. which is what rove did anyway, so better to not give them anything that supports the notion.
i actually think the strategy the dems have taken, to be firm and measured when they did speak and avoid extreme reactions, has been wise. think of it this way: they reduced the ammo the media could use, while knowing full well that the repugs would eventually be unable to avoid stepping in all the crap they've been producing.
this is wise, and very strategic, it seems to me. if that doesn't get you, try this: if you have ever been in the presence of a dangerous animal, your approach is not to attack in a flash of sound and fury, but remain very still, very quiet, very alert, and very very stealthy.
another analogy is the martial arts. the first lesson you learn is to quickly assess your opponent's weaknesses and their strengths and use those to undo them.
finally, and this is really important, i hardly think it is fair or even accurate to characterize the dems in general as complicit in this horrific congress. just because they lost the votes on so many of those bills does NOT mean they supported them. i will give you that altogether too many dems voted with repugs too much of the time, but never forget that most of them did not. and the ones who did, if you look carefully at that list, they represented difficult districts much of the time. but of course there are the lieberman types....
one of the best parts of the dem party is that they don't actually operate as a 'party', certainly not like the repugs who march in lockstep and shun governance for keeping power. hence the 'herding cats' metaphor for the dems.
look, my apologies for the intense response here, but i've had precisely the feelings you've shared, but when i've really examined all the variables and pressures imposing on the dems in the past several years, i have to say, i don't know how i would have handled things. sometimes it's better to be quietly cagey than loudly courageous. courage that leads to nothing is often just foolishnes.
Dr. Elsewhere,
Thanks for your response. Don't fret about "intensity". I like "intensity". Frankly, I wish the Democrats had more of it. After considering what you have written, it appears our most fundamental difference may lie in how we view the structure of the Democratic party. You see it as a strength. I see it as a weakness. The party is too spread out. It is forced to be too many things to too many people, and as a result, it is unable to focus its political strategy in a way that can bring results when pitted against the vipers who have taken over the Republican party. This goes back to my original post in the "Closet Case" thread, where I said we needed more than a "two party" system. A focused coalition of "Democratic Socialists" "Constituational Conservatives" and "Centrists" could each set their own platforms in their own conventions, then parlay their mutual interests into accomplishing those goals they share mutually - first and foremost to get the criminal thugs out of power and into prison where they belong.
My disgust with the Democrats doesn't begin or end with the brief list of greivances I listed earlier, of course. How many Democrats voted for the "Abrogation of Responsibility Act" aka "Attack Iraq Whenever You Want, Just Leave Us Out Of It"? A principled stand in Defeat could have gone far to positioning the party for victory later on.
Alas, the most principled and courageous Democrat on the Hill got thrown under the bus by her own party. I am of course spaeking of Cynthia McKinney.
Yes, the unimedia the Democrats allowed to concentrate into the hands of their political enemies would mercilessly attack as "extremist" a party that had the courage to speak unvarnished truth to power. But I believe the importance of that on election day is overrated. The voters hold the media in about as high a regard as they hold these politicians. Enough recognize honesty that they would send a signal to all the "politics as usual" players - including the media - if they ever got that chance. One example: Look at what Ross Perot could have accomplished, even with the media solidly against him. Don't take this as an endorsement of Perot. Just look at the example of a guy who brought up things other politicians wouidn't touch, and how the public reacted up until he dropped out.
A principled and committed party could accomplish unlimited things against enormous and powerful opposition, if it carried enough focus. Forget the stuff that divides us. Fix this criminal enterprise - first foremost and with unbroken focus and committment. We can argue about what to do afterward, once that is accomplished.
I understand where you and others are coming from here. But to my thinking, politics as usual isn't going to cut it when confronting uninhibited fascism. You give the example of assessing their weakness. Their weakness is their inability to identify, speak, or act on the truth. Their weakness is their commitment to acruing personal power and wealth for themselves and their cronies at the expense of the health, lives, and livlihoods of the voters who would love a chance to take them out.
Maybe I'm a dreamer... but I'm not the only one. Someday, we'll join up. And the world will live as one.
Going into the home stretch they're neck and neck, no, no... Doc Stern is pulling ahead, yes!--look at that horse run! Doc Elsewhere is falling behind, she's running her best but her position is weak, she's too near the fence! And Doc Stern is showing no mercy! Holy cow, it's Doc Stern at the wire by a nose! The long shot comes in to pay 20 to 1!
I've always viewed such thoughts as -- well, hardly heretical, but certainly dangerous. There were many people complaining about the Weimer Republic under Heinrich Brüning. Those complaints had justification. But (as Martin Anderson used to say) in politics the question is always "Compared to what?" And we all know what happened afterward in the German instance.
Take a look at old issues of the Nation and you'll see that progressives rarely did anything but bitch about Clinton during the Clinton years. Look especially at the Cockburn and Hitchens columns. Bitch bithc bitch. But -- oh my god, I would give ANYTHING to be living in 1995-2000 again. Monica and all. Lay it on me. That's where my time machine would be headed if I had one.
wow, this is fun, but it would be so much more fun sitting around a table with like real faces and voices.
but i'll settle for this.
unirealist, did not see this as a race, and even if it was, is it over?
dr. stern, i agree we'd be better off with multiple parties, but this is what we got, and it ain't gonna change over night. in the face of that, i think it's important to recognize that the democratic party actually serves the purpose of those multiple parties, embracing many under one big tent, to be trite. hence the difficulty of herding cats. i celebrate that, and cringe at how easily the repugs behave like unthinking automatons.
interestingly, though, what you suggest could happen with more parties, pulling mutual goals together, etc., is actually what used to happen with our two party system. you're right that the problem is the viciousness of this current brand of repugs, but i'm not sure how much of that to pin on the democrats. though it is true that the dlc of the last decade so shifted the meaning of the dems to the right that it's hard to know just how to recover any of the rearrangements.
and as much as i admire cynthia mckinney, she as an example makes my point. she was right, and she was courageous. but it cost her not just one but now two elections. i have no doubt she was targeted and that the media blew her behaviors all out of proportion. but the dems did not throw her under the bus; the repugs did that, though clearly the dems just stood by and watched. so i'd give her the same advice i'd give bush at this point: when what you're doing is not working, when it's making things worse, no matter how deeply you believe you're right, you need to re-think your strategy. we need a cagey mckinney, not an absent mckinney.
and i have to say again that i absolutely love her and wish she was still in the game. a lesson in speaking softly and carrying a big stick.
you say that we could accomplish anything with principle and commitment, and i agree completely. but this does not mean it can happen in a day, or at every juncture, or that it will be possible to get everyone on board. the dems allow for each member of the party to have their own reasons, and i quite frankly am not interested in doing what the repugs do to achieve their 'unity' and 'resolve' and 'discipline.' they're bullies, and they threaten their own, each other, in order to keep everyone in line. no thanks, count me out on that one.
but you go on to say that we have to pull together to rid congress of the crime, and that is absolutely true. have you seen the plan for the first 100 hours? the dems plan to correct the most egregious ills of the past six years, starting with breaking the lobby-legislation link, increasing the minimum wage, rolling back tax cuts for the rich, and enforce the recommendations from the 9/11 commission, to name just a few. i hope this is something like what you have in mind:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100600056.html
but i think you're naive to believe that the rest will just fall into place. the repug mafia will not cooperate, bush won't sign anything, they will not go down without a fight. they'll continue to kick and scream and whine to the media, which will give them much of what they want. so the playing field will continue to be terribly slanted until those corrupt laws are taken care of. and importantly, net neutrality will be on the agenda, even in the lame duck session.
all i'm saying is that things are far more complicated than normal politics. we're dealing with the mob, organized crime, and they don't play by the rules, and they are ruthless. it's unfortunately not going to be enough to just be principled and sing 'imagine' with tears in our eyes; we're all going to have to be very very canny and cagey. and you're right, very focused. i think when - if - the dems take the house, we'll see a big difference. i even think we'll start seeing a big difference in many republicans who are disgusted with what has happened to their party.
i guess i agree with joe's assessment here, too. consistent with the cat-herding phenomenon, we hear a lot more dems belly-aching about each other than we do repugs. (the fact that repugs are in lockstep is of course consistent with the authoritarian personality.) but again, that's part of the democratic deal; at least there is discussion and debate. more sophistication than bellyaching would be nice, but bellyaching is a helluva lot nicer compared to no debate at all. hell, even wimpy dems is better than no debate at all.
so all of us should be careful in trumpeting our opinions (my own very much included here) that the passion of our own voices does not make us deaf to the voices of others. as furious and outraged as i am about the corruption and destruction of our democracy, i don't want those emotions to so overtake me that i become like them and seek to destroy my enemies. and i sure don't want to destroy those of my own who have seemed weak. there but for fortune go you and i.
Dr elsewhere, It is fun. (and I think that was what unirealist was really saying.) Unfortunately I have to go home now. (Fortunately, actually.) You make some good points, and I suspect if/when we continue this discussion, we might come at some middle ground where the best approach would be bolder, but not reckless.
I'll close with one of my thoughts on JFK, the man who wrote "Profiles in Courage." A flawed humman being, I am sure. You can't have the human being without the flaws. But if someone were to write an entry for him, I think it would have to tell the story of how, as he learned more and more about the world and power politics, he began to carry a message of peaceful coexistance to a nation whose majority was strongly still in the cold war mentality.
That is a leader. That's what I want from my politicians. If that is what the Democrats have in store for us, then AMEN! I'll take a "better late than never" and be thankful for it. But if in the mean time, they end up signing away another war decision to the executive, the party is over.
Still an independant, but always a fan...
(By the way, why doesn't the word verification work in Firefox?)
One other thing: I sent my address to Joe via his posted address above, specifically for your use, should you ever want to carry on a conversation longer than the life of any given thread. If you are interested but have not received that, ask Joe about it.
Pragmatist at large here. Let's look at this realistically. IF, IF, there is a considerable democratic victory on the other side of 11/7, and IF they can be convinced to act cohesively in the best interests of the country and IF they can line up more or less together behind the speaker on impeachment (again, IF she will go forward with it) then what have we? We have months of hearings and discussions before a vote is even taken. C-span, CNN, Faux, MSNBC will cover nothing else but the hearings; forget Iraq, medicare Rx, tax reform, immigration, etc. Nothing will be done except impeachment.
Okay, say it goes ahead and finally passes and Bush is out. Then we have Cheney. And the hearings, evidence taking, etc., starts all over again for him. Meanwhile he gets to appoint another vice president. Anyone want to guess who that will be? You won't like it whoever you have guessed.
Long story short, nothing will be done except impeachment hearings and the republicans win because the status quo has been dragged on for two more years and another election.
Now tell me if that is really more important than getting out of Iraq, and all the other problems this gang has fostered.
fallinglady
If the Democrats simply start investigating all existing scandals (and others yet to emerge) and let nature take its course, it could easily end up with Cheney and Bush out of the WH and the Democrat Speaker in. A Democratic publicly espoused ambition of ousting Bush/Cheney through impeachment may be a bit too unseemly. However, like Nixon's Watergate scandal more than 20 years ago, once the public sees the disgusting, criminal underbelly of the GOP, the present regime is finished.
Furthermore, as long as the Democrats have the threat of investigations and impeachment hearings hanging over the head of a lameduck Bush, they will have far more negotiating power to get what they want. If they play the Impeachment hand too early, there is nothing much to get from it, especially if it fails to turn out this crooked GOP regime.
ewastud, eloquently - and succinctly - put.
the advantage of NOT going for impeachment immediately, instead pressing forward with important legislation and hearings, is that the truth will come out.
and this truth will be about not just bush but also about cheney. it will all be so obvious, as it was with nixon, that impeachment will become imperative.
and as for whether or not this is more important than getting out of iraq, we can't get out of iraq as long as bush is in office. ipso facto, we have to get his sorry arse out of office before we can do the right thing.
almost a catch-22 there. but important to keep these particulars in mind: investigations and hearings in the house will expose what we need to know to impeach BOTH bush AND cheney.
Post a Comment