From many other people on the anti-Bushite blogosphere, hearing the idea that it's time to impeach Bush and Cheney would hardly be noteworthy. A great many commentators have been saying that for some time.
I think they've been mistaken-- till now. While I've agreed that Bush and Cheney deserve impeachment --have said, indeed, that no one in American history has deserved it more-- I've never considered that to be a sufficient basis for making such a judgment about what should be done. My approach has always been more strategic than that. I'm concerned not only with the rightness of an action, but with its impact. And a premature effort to move toward impeachment, I thought, might actually have strengthened the Bushites by weaking their opponents.
When many were condemning Nancy Pelosi for declaring impeachment to be "off the table," I did not join in the criticism. I thought it a politically prudent statement to make, given the apparent skittishness of the American electorate at that time about impeachment and, more generally, about so-called "partisanship." For that time, it was probably reassuring to many in the public and it in no way impaired the ability to put impeachment back onto the table when circumstances changed.
Well, now they've changed. And now it is time to begin the drumbeat and the march toward impeachment. (Pelosi's situation does remain delicate, however: if Bush and Cheney are both impeached, guess who is next in the line of succession.)
There have been three important changes since last November's election.
First, in the first half year of this Congress, after years of virtually no congressional oversight, the investigative hearings conducted by the Democratic Congress have brought a whole stream of administration wrong-doing to the attention of the American people.
Second, and likely at least partially as a result of the first, the proportion of the American public now favoring movement toward impeachment has reached a stunning level. Almost half of the public (46%) favors the impeachment of the president, and more than half (54%) favors the impeachment of the vice president. These are already numbers that greatly limit the political risk to the Democrats in pressing forward with impeachment. And it can be assumed that the actual impeachment process --if it is conducted with reasonable political and prosecutorial skill- would raise those numbers considerably. It looks as though about 30% of the public will support Bush regardless of any facts presented about any high crimes he has committed, but there remains an additional quarter of the public whose support might still be won over to supporting impeachment.
Then there's the third important change --and in some respects it might be the most important one. And that is that the Bushites --by their arrogance, their stonewalling, their imperial usurpations-- have quite blatantly and publicly blocked every other recourse.
Just in the past month:
**Their indefensible assertions of "executive privilege" are thwarting the other, lesser forms of congressional investigation into the wrongdoings of the Bush presidency. Battling these issues out in the courts would drag on for so long as to give this lawless regime a victory by default.
**Meanwhile the vice president's machinations have compounded the message of contempt for the public's right to oversee what is being done by their elected leaders with the power entrusted to them.
**The president's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence has made a mockery of the ability of the justice system to deal with criminal activity on the part of this cabal and, moreover, has blocked the ability of prosecutors to get to the root of the crimes committed.
With all these maneuvers, the Bush administration has laid down the gauntlet. It has precipitated the ultimate in constitutional crises: will America be ruled by an all-powerful president, accountable neither to Congress nor to the courts nor to the American public?
The answer to that question must be "No!" For the sake of future generations, American cannot afford to allow this profound constitutional challenge to go unmet.
Andit is the Bushite regime, by blocking every other recourse --for oversight, for accountability, for checks and balances-- that has made impeachment the sole remaining way to defend the integrity of America's constitutional system and the rule of law.
Andrew Bard Schmookler's website www.nonesoblind.org is devoted to understanding the roots of America's present moral crisis and the means by which the urgent challenge of this dangerous moment can be met. Dr. Schmookler is also the author of such books as The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution (SUNY Press) and Debating the Good Society: A Quest to Bridge America's Moral Divide (M.I.T. Press). He also conducts regular talk-radio conversations in both red and blue states.
Like you, I have long been a holdout when it came to the idea of impeachment, admittedly fearful of the paralyzation of the nation's business that would result during the process. But also like you, I have come to understand that the nation's business is harmed far more by maintaining the status quo, by not impeaching POTUS/VPOTUS for their innumerable crimes.
Thank you for your honesty in writing this. I'd imagine that there are many out there like us, reluctant converts, but converts nonetheless. I'd also imagine that there are many more fencesitters. Let us hope that articles such as yours push them off.
by
Todd Huffman, M.D. (80 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 109 comments)
on Monday, July 16, 2007 at 10:42:48 AM
I'd just say that I don't think of myself as a convert. That would imply that I've come around to a belief that I used not to hold. What I believe now is that NOW IS THE TIME. I do not believe that, contrary to my previous belief, THEN WAS THE TIME.
The moving finger writes....
In every good strategy for battle, timing and sequence are everything. It still remains to be seen whether the country can support such a move. (Indeed, it remains to be seen whether the Democrats in Congress will risk finding out.) One important unknown is whether the media would cover this--as all too much suggests they might-- as a partisan battle, rather than what it is: a battle for the soul of our country.
But at this point, it seems that refraining from the impeachment confrontation --now that the BUshites have shown a willingness to block every other legitimate avenue for them and their lawless conduct to be challenged-- is to admit defeat.
And for that reason, whatever the risks of advancing they can hardly be greater than the risks of accepting the status quo.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (297 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 140 comments)
on Monday, July 16, 2007 at 1:52:55 PM
Perhaps I should've been more clear. I meant "convert" not in the sense that I (and, I supposed, you) were recently converted to the notion that Bush & Cheney DESERVED impeachment, only rather to the notion that the House of Representatives should PURSUE impeachment, which is the notion I understood you to say through your article.
As to whether the House will indeed pursue impeachment, I am terribly skeptical. More than three months on since Kucinich introduced HR 333, he has barely more than a dozen co-sponsors. Folks on this site and others often get excited when, here and there, another congressional representative signs on, but the reality is that as of now only about three percent of House members (or, perhaps better said, only six percent of Democratic House members) are signed on as co-sponsors, hardly a movement.
This is, of course, not to say that we shouldn't keep pushing for more members to sign on, because sometimes these things have a way of creating their own momentum - what begins a trickle becomes flood. But as of now too many of our "representatives" truly believe that it is not in their own vested interest to pursue impeachment, that doing so will somehow affect their chances at re-election next fall, even though the reality is that their re-election chances are more likely to be affected by NOT doing so.
Keep up your writing.
by
Todd Huffman, M.D. (80 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 109 comments)
on Monday, July 16, 2007 at 2:17:53 PM
As one who has supported impeachment for some time now, it is good to see the "converts" stepping forward. But does Congress have the political will any more now than before? Probably not. As Bill Moyers' PBS special pointed out, there are no more statesmen in our Congress, only politicians running for office. It is time to put country above political party. What does it take to get through to our "representatives?" I think Bill Maher had the right idea, we should e-mail ourselves a copy of the constitution hoping someone in government will open it up and read it. Our legislators need to go back to school, perhaps learn some history, take a test about our constitution. It is now up to the American people to demand accountability, and remind these people who hired them. It is our country, not theirs, not the Bushites, not the energy companies, not the corporations, and not the politicians, but WE THE PEOPLE. We must demand it, we can no longer afford to be complacent. You are right, the time is NOW!
by
Judy Ramsey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 80 comments)
on Monday, July 16, 2007 at 2:28:11 PM
I agree both Bush & Cheney should be impeached. Should have been done a long time ago.
But since they have gone way to far out of bounds. I think they should both be made an example of by charging them with their crimes against Americans & war crimes. After finding them guilty. They should be hung on the White House lawn in front of TV camera's for the world to see.
We need to let our elected reps know Americans will no longer tolerate corrupt elected reps in Govt. Force them to vote the way the voters in their area want them to vote.
Ron Paul is our only hope of having an honest President who can't be bought off. Not one candidate running for office is willing to debate this man one on one. All the corrupt puppets fear this man. They know if elected, he will blow the whistle on all the corruption & name those responsible.
Regards,
Mr M. T. Sprague
by
Mitch LaRoche (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments)
on Monday, July 16, 2007 at 2:33:13 PM
Whatever the law would say is the right thing to do. Impeachment is surely the first step, is it not? Can Congress legally try the still-sitting president for war crimes? WHat the law does not allow --"hanged in front of the White House? is that within the law?-- should be shunned. It is the rule of law we are defending against these thugs, so we should act accordingly. It's time to use the law that exists --the law of impeachment-- that allows a body politic in America to defend itself against fascist thugs like these.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (297 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 140 comments)
on Monday, July 16, 2007 at 3:32:29 PM
The World Court at the Hague has performed trials on leaders of nations when the crimes were global in nature. Attacking another country without just provocation or true fear for one's own security would fall into that realm.
After Impeachment, trial, conviction, and removal, the new President should make it clear that they will turn over any members of this corrupt administration who are indicted by the World Court. The indictment will come soon enough, when the world sees that the new administration is serious about re-establishing America's position in the world as a moral leader.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 638 comments)
on Monday, July 16, 2007 at 3:41:53 PM
I've been reading Phillipe Sands book entitled LAWLESS WORLD - America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules.
I quote the following from that.
"In May 2002 the Bush Administration announced that it would not ratify the Rome Statute. Three months later Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act. According to Human Rights Watch, the Act is intended to intimidate countries which exercise their sovereign right to ratify the Rome Statute. It is difficult to disagree. The Act authorizes the American President 'to use all means necessary and appropriate' to relaease any American national who is 'being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or ath the request of the ICC (International Criminal Court). The Act is sometimes referred to as 'The Hague Invasion Act'. It prohibits all American co-operation with the ICC (but not the Yugoslav and Rwandan tribunals), including the sharing of any intelligence. It prohibits the participation of American troops in UN peace-keeping operations unless they are granted complete immunity from the risk of prosecution before the ICC. Acting under this provision the [Bush] Administration threatened to block the August 2003 UN peace-keeping operation in Liberia until it hd obtained an exemption for personnel from non-state parties to the ICC from the ICC and from any other jurisdiction except that of the sending state. Later that month it hekd up the adoption of a Security council resolution condemning the attack of 19 August against the UN headquarters in Baghdad, until references to the ICCin the draft resolution had been removed. Without bringing any real benefit these acts merely serve to inflame opinion abroad."
(Writes Phillipe Sands - let me tell you this Australian agrees with him on that point).
Sands continues:
"In applying 'The Hague Invasion Act' the Bush Administration has embarked on an ambitious program to persuade every other country in the world - including its own allies - to agree that they would not transfer to the ICC any American, under any circumstances.
This is why this particular Australian wants to see Americans impeach this President. It would be easy for Americans to allow their politicians to cut out exceptions from the rule of law for themselves (all Americans have to do is nothing and remain blissfully ignorant for their politicians to write themselves out of internation law and the standards of basic decency) but it is not in the interests of the rest of us who may be on the receiving end of international lawlessness from American politicians. American citizens, I argue, have a duty to the rest of us in the world who support their values and with whom the US has signed treaties. American politicans could not except themselves from these laws if they were also accountable electorally and legally to the people that they want immunity from harming.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 961 comments)
on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 at 9:46:22 AM
Apparently engineering helps sometimes: impeachment of the Commander- in- Chief and his deputy during the war cannot happen unless those two collaborate with an enemy and that is surely not what is happening ( at least not directly). It is a typical feedback control- Bush needed the war (to last as long as posssible) to keep himself at power at home and Congress as an institution sanctioned that illegal war and that power: they might as well impeach themselves now.
I do not want to sound Macchiavellian here but the only possible chance for the impeachment process to actually start and take place with possible successful outcome is associated with a very grim event- a mass human casualty (lump) among the US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan. That is there has to be a big one- say 500 GIs killed or so. Obviously, none of us want that to happen no matter what our political views are. But without it unless Bush attacks Cheney sexually there is not a chance in Hell that impeachment process can start. Nonlinear feedback systems are usually intrinsically stable and self-adjusting.
So war is the key- the driving force of the nonlinear control and until we have a military disaster or we go away from those places it will continue to feed the power here. As the Congress here had developed on itself the war feeding mechanism, there is no perspective that we will leave Iraq. Thus I come to the conclusion that Dems or whoever are WAITING for the casualty I described. Same as it was in Vietnam they want the casualties to happen because that seem to them the only way to stop the war while keeping their benefits intact.
Of course, the proper alternative for the real national politicians should be to declare an emergency session of Demparty and call for the national referendum on the war: call Bush a traitor and Cheney mad- openly proclaim that the country is in danger from within. But they will never do that and, moreover- we will never do that because we are afraid of each other so far more than we are afraid of Bush. Thus, what did I say- we do not want the big casualty to happen? Think again, folks- deep down we all here want it to happen because that seems to be the only way to break te vicious circle of death imposed by Bushits. I am so sorry. In all fairness, though the same mechanism and the same way of breaking it took place throughout history everywhere. We are not the first ones and not the last ones to betray our young many times.
by
Mark Sashine (47 articles, 19 quicklinks, 235 diaries, 3360 comments)
on Monday, July 16, 2007 at 2:45:36 PM
If people have to die, it should not be ignorant, poor, and/or deceived American troops just trying to stay alive in the middle of a historic war zone in the Middle East. It should be the political and military leaders who put them there.
And I personally DO NOT CARE if impeachment leads to conviction and removal.
I just want to see the trial and have the vote. I want every Rethuglican Senator who votes innocent to have to stand by that vote when they next come up for re-election, because after the impeachment trial and once Bush/Cheney are (hopefully) gone from office, the truth of the Rethuglican corruption of this White House will flow like a tidal wave as all the lower-level peons who helped enginner the corruption try to make money off their books.
Let's move H. Res 333 and get on with it.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 638 comments)
on Monday, July 16, 2007 at 3:46:29 PM
While I don't agree with your attempt to invoke nonlinear feedback theory, I do agree that the Dems' plan seems to be to let the Republicans make as big a mess as possible. As long as they make a show of attempting to stop it, the Republicans own the mess. That is precisely why impeachment will never happen. While impeachment may indeed be the only way to save the soul of American democracy, at least in the short term, it is still not politically expediant.
by
Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 191 comments)
on Monday, July 16, 2007 at 8:16:19 PM
(Pelosi's situation does remain delicate, however: if Bush and Cheney are both impeached, guess who is next in the line of succession.)
Actually, the next president would be the next vice president, appointed by either Bush or Cheny depending on who is impeached first -- assuming they will not be impeached AND removed simultaneously -- which won't happen.
-----------
As far 'now is the time', the time never comes unless people agitate for the end result, or even the most extreme result. If more people agitated for Bush to brought before a war crimes tribunal and hanged then impeachment seems like quite a moderate compromise.
You should understand the psychology of 'propaganda' -- the right does. They argue for the most extreme posistion possible, shifting the perceived center, and always moving towards that extreme -- and sometimes even reaching it. How many people, 10 years ago, would have accepted that's it is alright to spy on Americans or let the president do away with chrages or trials, or allow torture -- and compare that with now. How many would have thought, 20 years ago, it was alright for the government to give money to religious orgnaizations for 'faith based' programs -- but it's happening now with many not objecting.
The 'moderate' position creeps, but by bit, led by the extremes, which when heard often enough no longer seem extreme to most people. That's what the Nazis did.
If there had been a greater outcry for impeachment at the start of this, then this "now" moment would have come all the sooner and we would have been spared much grief. To make a thing possible it must first become thinkable, and that means there must be those who expouse the most extreme positions long before many people can think it. This true whether that extreme is actually irrational, or really quite reasonable and just rejected because the 'middle' has been slowly distorted over time.
When the income tax was first introduced there were those who argued against it, saying that if it was allowed it would ballon out of all proportion and eventually could go as high as ten percent -- and they were called extremists and unrealistic alarmists.
There was a time when saying "damn" in the movies was considered alarming, and the TV rule was a man and woman could not be shown in the same bed unless one of them had a foot on the floor. Just look at the old lists of 'obscene' books which were banned. The middle shifts. It can shift either way.
Just try to cast your mind back to other times, and see what impeachment, and what abuses would have been tolerated then. Would we now allow a journalist be jailed simply fot writing an article criticizing the president? We did once -- John Adams did that. He was defeated by Jefferson and the journalists then freed, but Adams was an early probing into US dictatorship. It could happen again -- especially if people were not outraged enough to elect another Jefferson. Recall there was a time when slavery was accepted as normal. We;ve come a long way since those times, but that's what the Bush gang is trying to bring back -- to set the march of civilization back hundreds of years. A million dead Iraqis? Well -- we have the precedent: we've slughted people before -- we practiced genocide on the Native American Indians. We've started many aggressive wars, and most people went right along. Have you noticed the greatest outcry about the Iraq invasion came from those old enough to remember the Vietnam genocide and quagmire -- while many of the youth did not understand what we were getting into, and thought FOX really was a news network?
If everyone waits until people are ready to comfortably hear the message, then no one will ever hear the message, and the fascist propagandists will go along unimpeded.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Monday, July 16, 2007 at 4:45:35 PM
Schmookler never cared if impeachment was the right thing to do. As he says in the final paragraph of his article here, he worried about what is or might be "politically viable". And that's exactly what Pelosi worries about, that's how Pelosi feels.
I'm encouraged by Schmookler's epiphany, though. If he, being the way he is, decides that impeachment is the way to go, impeachment may actually be forthcoming. He's the kind of a guy who won't step into a fight -- no matter who or what is right -- until he's sure who's going to win. Pelosi is the same way. So maybe now the time has come.
by
Jimmy Montague (3 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments)
on Monday, July 16, 2007 at 5:34:42 PM
2. Cheney is impeached, tried, convicted and removed, or "resigns to spend more time with his family" and avoid the trial.
3. Bush nominates a new VP, but the Dem-controlled Senate prevents a vote to confirm, leaving the position empty.
4. Bush is impeached.
Optional step 4.B: During the trial, Ms. Pelosi gives up her speakership and Al Gore is nominated to be Speaker of the House (note, the Speaker does NOT have to be a member of the House).
5. Bush is tried, convicted, and removed from office.
6. Ms. Pelosi (or Mr. Gore [see 4b above]) becomes the PResident.
7. President fires entire cabinet and provides evidence for impeachment of ALL of them, perhaps offering clemency to the few lower level staffers willing to sing long and hard against their former bosses, but with provisio that THEY MAY NEVER SERVE IN A POSITION OF HONOR OR TRUST IN THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AGAIN FOR THE REMAINDER OF THEIR LIVES.
8. President hands over any Rethuglican Administration criminals who are indicted by the World Court for War Crimes (Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rumsfeld come immediately to mind).
9. Congress begins impeachment process for Roberts, Scalia, & Alito. (Hey, if you're gonna dream, dream BIG!!!)
That's how I'd have it go.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 638 comments)
on Monday, July 16, 2007 at 6:06:25 PM
-third party candidates on right and left appear. Mike Bloomberg becomes president with 28% of the vote, with Ralph Nader as his vice president., beating out Hillarywith Richardson as VP, Pat Robertson, with Ralph Reed, in third, and in last place, The Thompson Giuliani ticket. Congress votes to require instant run-off voting from then on, for all federal elections, requiring over 50% to win.
-Third party candidates take 24 of the 33 seats up for grabs in the senate, routing incumbents on right and left.
-Bush, after the elections, in 2009, is prosecuted in the US for multiple crimes and is put in jail. Cheney gets an even longer term.
-Fox news loses its broadcasting license.
by
Rob Kall (761 articles, 3850 quicklinks, 320 diaries, 1642 comments)
on Monday, July 16, 2007 at 9:33:30 PM
The good news for the religious right and conservatives is Jesus Christ comes back; the bad news is he is very, VERY angry.
Back to Earth -- we have impeachments, and one of the old-school moderate to somewhat liberal Republicans is dragged out of retirement and drafted for the interim (maybe like Snow, Voinovich or even Chafee). The Republicans hope this will pull their bacon out of the fire, but the next election is then up for grabs even by independents or third party. The occupation is winding down, but the hard-line consrvatives are still being obstructionist about that, and other important issues, and the people throw the lot of them down the sewer and make a strong shift towards the left, liberty, and human rights.
BTW -- I see this video with Ron Paul saying we should eliminate income taxes -- and the IRS. He's better than Bush, but the man is a lunatic.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Monday, July 16, 2007 at 9:57:20 PM
