There is nothing else for Congress to do that impeachment could distract from. All good bills are vetoed and all partially good bills are signing statemented.
Impeachment in this case could be very quick because of the overwhelming evidence.
If your preference is to focus on the next election, think about how that election would look were John McCain forced to choose between the Constitution and Dick Cheney.
Most impeachments happen late. The movements to impeach Truman and Hoover, and the impeachment of Johnson, happened later than where we are now.
Most impeachment movements achieve useful results in restoring the rule of law without getting all the way to impeachment, much less removal from office.
If there is time for endless hours of grilling steroid-popping baseball players, there is time for impeachment.
If Congress is sincere about wanting Bush and Cheney to obey its laws and comply with its subpoenas it will impeach. If it does not impeach, it is not sincere, and no non-impeachment investigations will get anywhere.
But isn't this all beside the point when we should not dare to impeach a president during a time of war? No, I side with the last great Republican president on this one: Abraham Lincoln. When a president takes us into an unnecessary war, and people are dying for no good reason, that is the most important time to challenge the president. And this current so-called war, we are told, will last for decades or forever. If announcing eternal war provides immunity from impeachment, can you guess what percentage of presidents will make that announcement? James Madison saw war as the tool through which a president might seize inappropriate powers. "War," he said, "is the true wet-nurse of executive aggrandizement."
Remember, we are borrowing from China to spend our grandchildren's hard-earned pay to fund an illegal occupation of a distant land, an operation that our own intelligence agencies say is boosting terrorist recruitment, an operation opposed by about 80 percent of Americans, 90 percent of Iraqis, and 70 percent of active-duty US troops. If we can't challenge THAT, what can we challenge?
Well then, you might ask, isn't it more important to end the occupation, the so-called war?
Ending the war is a task that could best be accomplished by inaction, by Congress refusing to provide any more funding. Or it could be accomplished by a bill created by one committee. It is not a full-time task for the entire Congress.
However, this Congress has already demonstrated that it has no intention of ending the war. Pelosi has sworn that cutting off the funding is "off the table."
What could help move Congress would be the same thing that helped a previous Congress find the nerve to finally cut off the funding for the Vietnam War (once the troops were already home) and convinced Nixon not to veto the cut-off in funding: impeachment. In this case, even more so than Nixon's, impeachment would drive the war debate in the right direction, because impeachment would be for offenses either directly connected to the war or offenses that have been justified by "war on terror" propaganda.
In addition, should Congress actually cut off the funding and end the war, it is very likely that Bush and Cheney would misappropriate funds from the Pentagon to keep the occupation going. They did so in order to secretly begin the war, and they have never been held accountable for it. So, removing them from office is not only needed in order to give Congress the nerve to end the war, but is also needed if the war is to actually end.
Won't impeachment take up too much time and distract from other goals?
Nixon's impeachment took three months. Clinton's impeachment and trial combined took four months. The current Congress has wasted more than that amount of time already in avoiding impeachment, and has almost nothing to show for it (a minimal partial and gradual correction to the plummeting minimum wage). Congress has taken no serious steps toward ending the occupation of Iraq, and has in fact provided major new funding for it. During Nixon's impeachment and the lead up to it, in contrast, the threat of impeachment allowed Congress to raise the minimum wage, create the Endangered Species Act, and end a war.
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, 1176 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, 474 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 (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 180 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, 284 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, 118 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 (9 articles, 7 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 325 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 (
