You guys seem to me to be allowing one misuse of a vital tool to compel you to never use it correctly. But you should keep one thing in mind, President Obama, if there is a President Obama, will not last six months without Republicans pushing for his impeachment aggressively and unapologetically. Think about that. Think about the likelihood that a Democrat could be caught approving torture and not end up in jail. You Democrats claim to oppose the Republicans' agenda, yet you grant them a license to kill.
Sometimes being a Republican means never having to say you were wrong. President Bush is on film being warned about Hurricane Katrina and on film swearing he wasn't warned and could not possibly have been expected to imagine such a thing was coming. Bush was warned by the CIA of possible al Qaeda attacks a month before 9-11, took no steps to prevent them, and now says he had no earthly way of imagining what was coming. We know that top Iraqis, including Saddam Hussein's son-in-law filled the United States in on the truth, but Bush tells us he had no way of possibly imagining that all those mythical stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction didn't really exist. Generals warned that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to occupy Iraq, and economists warned that it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. They lost their jobs, and Bush now tells us he had no humanly possible way of imagining that such things were true. So, somebody ought to have told Bill Clinton. You don't go out there and say "I did not have sex with that woman" and get yourself impeached. You go out there and say "I had no way of imagining what might happen when she crawled under my desk."
What exactly is an impeachable offense? Essentially it is an abuse of power. A crime can be an impeachable offense and cannot be. And an action can be an impeachable offense without being a crime. If the president cheats on his taxes, that may not be impeachable. You or I could do that. It's not an abuse of his power. But if he lies to the public about serious national policy matters, that may be impeachable, without being a crime. Shooting your hunting buddy in the face: not impeachable. Outing an undercover agent: impeachable. Lying about sex is arguably not a proper impeachable offense. Anyone can do THAT. Firing U.S. Attorneys because they won't pervert the justice system to serve your partisan electoral interests is probably impeachable. In the end, of course, what's impeachable is simply whatever the House of Representatives decides is impeachable. The founders discussed more than anything else, I think, the need to have the power of impeachment in case a president took the nation into an unnecessary war.
When President Polk misled the nation into an aggressive war on Mexico with the intention of stealing Mexican land, a young Republican congressman named Abraham Lincoln challenged him. Last year, Republican Alaska Congressman Don Young attempted on the floor of the House to quote Abraham Lincoln's opinion on opposition to presidents' war plans. Young failed rather dramatically. Here's his misquote of Lincoln:
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."
That was close. You can see how Young could have made the mistake. Here's what Lincoln actually said:
"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose – and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.' The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us."
Lincoln wrote these words while America was at war with Mexico, under the presidency of James Polk, and while Lincoln was a member of Congress. But Lincoln did more than talk about the fraud that had been used to launch that illegal and imperialistic war. He introduced a resolution demanding that Polk provide proof. Polk claimed to have launched that war only after American blood had been shed on American soil. Lincoln's resolution required Polk to identify the spot where that blood had been shed.
"Let him answer fully, fairly, and candidly," Lincoln said of the wartime President. "Let him answer with facts and not with arguments. Let him attempt no evasion, no equivocation."
When President Polk did not answer, Lincoln and John Quincy Adams sought a formal investigation of the president's pre-war intelligence claims, and of his use of secret funds to launch his fraudulent and illegal war. Under this pressure, Polk announced that he would not seek reelection. Lincoln, Adams, and their allies in Congress then passed a resolution honoring the service of Major General Zachary Taylor "in a war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States."
Which brings us to the question of exactly what Bush's and Cheney's impeachable offenses are. An exhaustive list would take us all day, so I'll give you my top 12 for the president and my top 12 for his boss.
And by the way, the founders intentionally chose a single executive, not a pair, not a triumvirate, not a council, in order to hold that one person responsible for the executive branch. The Cheney co-presidency and groups like the secret energy task force deny us the ability to know who the decider is, but under our Constitution it really is Bush, regardless of what you may think of his mental abilities.
BUSH:
1. Refusal to comply with subpoenas (not disputable, and passed by the Judiciary Committee against Nixon)
2. Routine violation of numerous laws, preceded by announcement of intention to do so in signing statements (White House website and GAO studies)
3. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant. (Confessed to.)
DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.
imprunement might be better for our constitutions.
don't waste my time with facts. they are just too time consuming. and when it comes to time, it justs ticks and tocks and gives me a head-ache. let's reminisce about the good ol' days and how wonderful it's going to be when Johnnie comes marching home.
but now- forgeddiboutit! i'm too busy, i can't find the time to tell you, Emerson.
go tell it on a mountain. call out to nancy and harry. tell conyers, too. this train is gonna stop for no-one.
let me count the ways ( and means). and I do mean being a meany, minie, moe.
so get it off the table, open up wide and stuff the imprunement where it was intended to travel. impeaches and herb, maybe. but real live congressional representatives are now being replaced by virtual un-reality.
wolfie is no owl, but he does give a hoot!
by
Wolfie (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 1183 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 6:06:56 PM
A couple of things we can do to ensure impeachment
Darn right it does.
The problem is how do we get the House Democrats to hold Impeachment Hearings? We tried about everything.
The answer we think is GET TOUGH WITH THEM! SOON!!!!
We have a To To List for Today and Tuesday.
Item-1: Send preprepared messages to the Democratic New Hampshire House Representatives to urge them to support Rep. Betty Hall's resolution to push the US House to start Impeachment Hearings. The suggested letter and the comma separated email lists are HERE
Item-2: In Colorado we have after much trial and error come up with a plan we think will force the Colorado Congressmen to call for impeachment hearings. We are having enough of an effect on the Udall campaign that one of the prominent Udall supporters contacted us and asked us to back off. Udall is an incumbent Congressman in CD2 that is running for the Senate in a tight race.
Check out the value of putting rentless uncompromising pressure on Democratic Congressmen who are in tight races. We think it might be the key to getting the "safe seat" Democrats to call for impeachment.
the Constitution and support the laws that govern the nation. When you refer to it as a "piece of paper" and issue signing statements, I would understand it to mean that impeachment is vital to protect the pillars of government.
Obviously the democrats are in too deep with the republicans on the illegal occupations profiteering, that bill as a "War on Terrorism".
by
Stanimal (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 480 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 10:28:01 PM
David, great work! It is important to remind everyone that impeachment is the means by which Congress can tell the executive and judicial branches to follow the law, but so far, only a handful of courageous members have pushed for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. Others may join in the push to require the legislative branch to do its duty and hold the executive and judicial branches accountable. The way to get that to happen is by more people taking action.
Go to campaign functions, and tell the candidates that you have two short questions. Ask the candidates whether they believe that members of our government should be required to follow the law and be held accountable if they have broken the law. They will almost certainly say yes. People inherently understand that if our governors can violate the law without consequences, then they will abuse their power. Then, ask if they support impeachment of Bush and Cheney for their numerous offenses. Videotape your Q & A, and put it up on the web.
For more information on the push to have New Hampshire’s Legislature pass legislation requiring institution of impeachment proceedings in the U.S. House of Representatives, see http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0804/S00172.htm
Our governors at all levels now routinely violate the law without consequences. The checks that the people had to hold our governors accountable have been almost completely eliminated.
Currently, we no longer get to elect our leaders or throw bad ones out of office. Our votes are "counted" in secret on computers, and these "official" secret vote counts have been proven wrong repeatedly. Not only is secret vote counting dangerous, it’s unconstitutional, and when it was put in place, it is impossible to imagine that no one bothered to look at the constitutionality of it.
My article, "Virginia’s Elections Are UNCONSTITUTIONAL?!?!" includes a link in my comment to a video of my conversation with election officials in Virginia who pretend not to understand that computers count in secret. They say no one ever even though of that. Yeah, right!?! It also includes a link to my letters to each candidate asking them to take action to require that our elections be conducted in a constitutional manner. Naturally, not a single one took action.
My discussion with the election official in South Carolina was as laughable, but he did not want to be recorded. Any way, in my articles on Virginia and South Carolina, I point out that not only do the constitutions of both of those states specifically prohibit secret vote counting, but also, so do some U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Everyone knows that the people are supposed to be able to peacefully remove bad leaders through elections, but what if those who control the machines, and their secret vote count, want bad leaders in power? Is there another way that citizens can prevent abuse of power without resorting to violence?
Yes, there is or was another way to hold our governors accountable without resorting to violence. If you want to find out the other civil check on government abuse of power that our Founders provided for us, then read What Happens When the People Lose the Power to Control Government and What You Can Do to Take the Power Back?http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mark_ada_080204_what_happens_when_th.htm
If Congress will not perform its duty to hold Bush and Cheney accountable, then our nation is no longer a government of law, and everyone will suffer from increasing crime, violence, and poverty, the consequences that flow from every dictatorship.
by
Mark Adams (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 181 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 11:58:41 PM
our forefathers clearly saw the need to expel anyone who was either incompetent or abused the power of the presidency. this is clearly true with Bush & Cheney. So it's really a " no-brainer ".
by
vin agamenone (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 17 comments)
on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 11:19:44 AM
The litany of impeachable offences of which this administration is guilty should be clear to anyone with an IQ slightly above that of mud, and to any demonstrably sane person who has the ability to think for himself. But here in New Hampshire, where impeachment is currently being debated in the House of Representatives, there is little sanity on this side of the paradigm shift.
An article in the Concord Monitor today describes the rally last night in favor of impeachment this way:
"The event drew a variety of entertainment. An Ethan Allen impersonator from Vermont kicked off the show by proclaiming Cheney and Bush 'vain, arrogant, corrupt, unelected and impeachable'. Next up came a music video featuring images of Cheney in a devil suit and Bush as a vampire looming over the neck of the Statue of Libery and a song with the line: 'You lied, you lied, you lied - and because of you thousands of people have died."
With coverage like this, who needs any more facts?
Don't hold your breath waiting for the neanderthals here in New Hampshire State government to actully make a difference. I've lived here for 32 years, and the plodding mentality I see all around me is downright depressing.
by
Bill Cain (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 287 comments)
on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 11:28:25 AM
How do we get Congress to act when the bulk of the body is so guilty of corruption and complicity? My feeling is that our Reps are so dirty that they fear the investigations themselves. We have waited too long, I see no public pressure adequate to institute proceedings at this time.
But you know, doing the right thing needs not wait on surety, or even expectation of success. We must keep pushing.
by
Torus (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 12:02:27 PM
together with Bush”. You say “Impeachment is an investigation, leading to an indictment.”But nothing you say suggests you have reviewed the House Rules on Impeachment (#603 and #604) to come up with a workable plan.
by
Samuel Bryan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 120 comments)
on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 3:44:18 PM
Too bad that Nancy Pelosi does not understand her responibilities to the constitution.
Everyone who agrees with this should send Nancy Pelosi a link to this article. No doubt she lacks the time to read such a long article but perhaps her staff can read it and digest its contents for her.
You can send such a link by visiting her contact web page.
by
PrMaine (10 articles, 8 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 329 comments)
on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 5:59:04 PM
12 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
