Impeachment is a political process, and not only are the votes to remove either Bush or Cheney lacking, but it also would not be very good politics to do to them what was done to President Clinton.I agree that the Republican party shamed itself, and that the proceedings were ugly. But the Clinton impeachment worked. Had it never occurred, Gore would have won in 2000 and we'd now have a movement to place Clinton's face on Mt. Rushmore.
There Is No Chance Either Bush or Cheney Will Be Removed From Office
The Republican Congress shamed itself when it impeached and tried President William Jefferson Clinton. It was a repeat of what an earlier Republican Congress had done to President Andrew Johnson, following the Civil War. Both proceedings were politics at their ugliest.
Democrats, when they undertook to impeach Richard Nixon, moved very slowly, building bipartisan support for the undertaking.
True, we cannot rush the removal of W, which is why I remain infuriated with those who demand that Nancy Pelosi ally herself with this movement. She must remain aloof until the last possible instant; otherwise, the country will damn her as a power-mad coup plotter.
I would argue, however, that many Republicans are secretly dying to get the Bush nightmare behind them as soon as possible. If I were in the G.O.P., I'd want the opposite party to receive the blame for the coming Middle East horrors. I'd want to flush Bush down the memory hole as rapidly as possible. Afterwards, the Republicans can regain power by squawking about terror and taxes and testicles.
The votes for removal do not exist yet. But the day may soon come when a number of Republican senators decide that they can best serve their party by turning against their president.
5 comments:
Two conflicting thoughts strike me on this impeachment issue. One is that the American people would not appreciate a partisan attack on a president dealing with vital national matters. The other is that if the people see the president and his high crimes as the cause of national disasters, they will regard impeachment as non-partisan and necessary.
Dean's error is neglecting that impeaching Clinton was always opposed by the people at 2-1 levels while it was going on. I estimate support for impeachment now at about 45%, and that's before any case has been made. Iraq's getting worse, and as the facts become more widely known, I think support may go to 60%.
I didn't know impeachment was possible for 'inferior' officers in the executive branch, and that a precedent for it exists. Or that in essence banishing impeached executive branch officers from any future office required only a majority vote in the Senate?
Still unclear on that last notion. Was that only because the removal of the officer was mooted by his resignation already, leaving only the question of barring him from future office?
If 'junior' officers can be impeached, and then at least banned forever by a mere majority vote (assuming they'd resigned sometime in the process), that may be a worthwhile endeavor.
First, it would actually be achievable, and without a single Republican vote. Although I expect any evidence sufficient for bringing impeachment would attract at least a handful of GOP votes to convict. Therefore, the impracticality/impossibility argument against initiating the process goes away.
Next, it could tar the Bush brand with impeached and convicted members, while preventing those persons from being recycled into a future administration, ala Negroponte, Poindexter, Abrams, et al. Not even a presidential pardon can overcome this banning sanction.
Such proceedings would implicate Bush and Cheney and their policies as (so far) unimpeached co-actors being impeached in effigy if you will, right along with their surrogates.
It may be the best we can get. And simultaneously, the country would see the exact painstaking laying out of the evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors that might lead to a consensus for impeaching B/C, which dovetails with your plan.
Newsweek's poll c. October 15, 2006 found 51% to 44% favoring impeachment, with the Ipsos poll reporting 50% to 44% a year before.
Oh I agree, and I agree with Dean that impeachment of a lower creature would be a valuable move. I simply think it should be seen as a step toward the big goal. One can offer a deal to someone willing to snitch on the big boys.
So. Who goes first? Are there grounds for going after everyone's unfavorite, Rove? That's one for the Plame-Gamers to mull over...
I agree with you Joseph about the likelihood that many GOP legislators could easily be brought to a point to impeach Bush and Cheney. If through these many anticipated, upcoming oversight investigations even more disturbing scandals come forth (I believe it is inevitable) to make Bush and Cheney even more unpopular than they already are, the GOP will have no logical choice but to throw them overboard to save their own party from ruin and their futures. Loyalty will go out the window.
Dean's Fallacy of Composition- It is BUSH WHO IS DEMANDING HIS OWN IMPEACHMENT!!!
If you look at the composition of the membership of the Iraq Study Group, you will see Democrats and Republicans, from all recent Presidencies plus all branches of the US Government represented. The fact that Bush (meaning Cheney and the criminals behind them) have so arrogantly ruled out taking what are so plainly obvious and elementary steps to get out of the disaster, they have created...... means that they are intent on destroying the UNITED STATES (US). They are saying in effect, "We Don't Care About the Elections, We Don't Care About Your Baker-Hamilton Comission, Go Ahead, Impeach us!!!"
So if WE want to have a United States, they have left us no choice!!!! Give them that which they have asked for!!! Double Impeachment for A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!! Gerald Pechenuk cities12345@yahoo.com
Post a Comment