What is it about impeachment that has the Democratic Party leadership so frightened? Talking with members of Congress, one hears the same refrain: “I know Bush and Cheney have committed impeachable crimes, but impeachment is a bad idea.” The rationales offered are many, but all are either specious or based upon flawed reasoning. Let’s consider them separately: Excuse one, offered by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is that impeachment would be a diversion from Democrats’ main goals of ending the Iraq War, and passing important legislation. The reality, of course, is that many of the administration’s impeachable acts relate directly to the war, so hearings would only build support for ending it. Meanwhile, with the slim majorities in both houses, Democrats cannot pass any significant progressive legislation that could survive a veto (or a presidential signing statement) and the record shows it. Excuse two is that impeachment is divisive. This seems the height of absurdity. When voters handed Congress to the Democrats, they knew they were setting the stage for divided government. That was the whole point. Moreover, divisiveness in Washington has largely emanated from the White House, not from Congress. Anyhow, given administration intransigence on all the issues that matter to Democrats, they have no alternative but to take a stand. Excuse three is a claim that the public opposes impeachment. This is simply wrong. The few straightforward scientific polls done on impeachment, such as one published by Newsweek last October, show a majority of Americans to want it. Furthermore, if Bush has committed impeachable acts, it is inappropriate for House members, all of whom swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, not to act. Excuse four is that old canard that impeaching Bush would mean making Cheney president—a deliberately scary prospect but one which any politician in Washington knows is garbage. Firstly, if Cheney were to become president because of a Bush impeachment or resignation, it would only be for a few months, and given his stunning lack of support among the public—currently about 9 percent and falling—he would be the lamest of lame ducks, unable to do anything. But more importantly, his own party would be certain to remove him before any removal of Bush, and for exactly that reason—they would not want to be going into the 2008 election with Cheney as party leader. This is exactly what happened to Spiro Agnew, whom a Republican attorney general managed to indict and remove before the collapse of Nixon’s presidency. The same thing can be expected to happen to Cheney, who would surely face either a sudden health crisis, or an indictment for corruption. Finally, excuse five is that the president’s crimes and abuses of power need to be proven before any impeachment bill. This is completely backwards. An impeachment bill can be filed by any member of Congress who believes the president has violated the Constitution. At that point, it is up to the House Judiciary Committee to consider the bill’s merits and decide whether to ask the full House to authorize impeachment hearings. It is at an impeachment hearing where investigations should proceed. After all, only after the Judiciary Committee votes out an impeachment article can the full House consider whether to actually impeach. Calling for investigations before an impeachment hearing is like asking for an investigation before a grand jury investigation. It’s redundant, simply a dodge.
Besides, some of this president’s high crimes are self-evident. Take the case of Bush’s ordering the National Security Agency to spy on Americans’ communications without a warrant. A federal judge has already labeled this violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act a felony. There is no denying this felony occurred, or that Bush is responsible. The only question the House needs to vote on is whether the felony is a “high crime” warranting impeachment. The same applies Bush’s refusal to enact over 1200 laws or parts of laws duly passed by Congress. Bush doesn’t deny that he has usurped the power of the Congress, as laid down in Article I of the Constitution. Rather, he asserts—with no basis in the wording of that document—that as commander in chief in the war on terror, he has the “unitary executive” authority to ignore acts of Congress. Again, there is no need for an “investigation” to establish whether this happened. What Congress must do is decide whether this usurpation of its Constitutional role is an impeachable abuse of power. Likewise the president’s authorization of kidnap and torture. We know the president okayed torture. We know too, that he used his “unitary executive” claim to refuse to accept a law passed overwhelmingly by the last Congress outlawing torture. Finally, we know the president did not, as required by US and international law, act to halt torture and punish those up the chain of command who oversaw systematic, widespread torture. There are many impeachable crimes by this president (and vice president), such as obstruction of justice in the Valeria Plame outing case, conspiracy (or treason) in the Niger “yellowcake” document forgery scandal, conspiracy to engage in election fraud, lying to Congress, criminal negligence in responding to the Katrina disaster, bribery and war profiteering, etc., which would require Judiciary Committee investigations. In the meantime, though, Democrats need to step up to their responsibility. If this president is not to be impeached, Congress may as well the Constitution to remove the impeachment clause. It will, in that case, have become as much an anachronism as prohibition. -------------------- <i>About the author: Philadelphia journalist Dave Lindorff is co-author, with Barbara Olshansky, of “The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net.</i>
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
Our impotence is laid bare in the phrase "Democrats need to
step up to their responsibility." After all, in the same sense, Bush also "needs to step up to his responsibility." But he won't, & there's no way to compel him to do so. Likewise, though the Democrats "should" live up to their responsibility, they won't, and there's no way to compel them to. In their own way, they're as unaccountable & cowardly as the Bush gangsters.
The Achilles Heel of the system is that there is no real opposition party. This is no accident -- the driving forces of the system won't tolerate real opposition. The 2-party monopoly is entirely the creature of the financial oligarchy. As long as the American people permit the vesting of all political power in a fraudulent scheme like this, we'll never get beyond bleating helplessly & mournfully that the Democrats "should" take this or that action against the more blatantly criminal Republicans.
This is the deadly & inevitable price of basing the whole political system on the foundation of a Big Lie. Accepting rule-by-duopoly has always meant that when push comes to shove, the fake "opposition party" would fail to perform its function. It's pretty late in the day, to say the least, to be suddenly waking up to the fact that the Democrats won't lift a finger against the Bush Mob, & that the rest of us are reduced to whining piteously that "the Dems won't act!," as though this were somehow unexpected.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1014 comments)
on Friday, May 11, 2007 at 11:30:16 AM
Except what is the next logical step? Whining about our powerlessness or about the need to move beyond two parties?
We're still stuck with a criminal in the White House who is killing people at a prodigious rate. So do we demand action with the limited power we have, and try to use impeachment as a tool to educate the public about conditions in America today, or do we just grouse about how impotent we are?
Sorry. I don't get the point.
by
Dave Lindorff (295 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 141 comments)
on Friday, May 11, 2007 at 11:48:13 AM
We need tough questioning of those who fail to impeach
Maybe getting some tough questions asked at the future debates about any funding to the candidates campaigns that may be from questionable sources. "Does your contributions from (xyz's) political arm have any influence upon your failure to support impeachment?" is one question that may either effect their stance or their spot in the polls.
by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 264 comments)
on Friday, May 11, 2007 at 12:44:44 PM
They are not proceeding with it because they know they won't get the votes to succeed. What I say, though, is by going through the process, it will lift the veil of secrecy off this criminal operation, and just maybe it would be sooo bad, the 'pugs won't even be able to look the other way.
by
mike wygant (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 287 comments)
on Friday, May 11, 2007 at 9:37:57 PM
Hey, I'm as pro-impeachment as you are!! // The question you
raise here ("So do we demand action with the limited power we have, and try to use impeachment as a tool to educate the public about conditions in America today, or do we just grouse about how impotent we are?") is not really either/or. We should do both. Demanding action even with our limited power is important, AND educating the public is important. No one claims that simply grousing is an adequate strategy, but serious & reflective grousing about the basic weaknesses of our political system is part of educating.
Educating the public must include fostering consciousness of what it really means to have no genuine opposition party. When there are only 2 parties & both are mainly controlled by the same social forces, it's the political equivalent of driving around with a spare tire in one's trunk, which one knows in advance has a big hole in it. It's living with a mechanism that's guaranteed to fail, just when you need it the most.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1014 comments)
on Friday, May 11, 2007 at 1:06:21 PM
what excuses the politicians give us for not moving forward. We've heard it's "difficult" or a "distraction" or "impossible"
In my opinion, these excuses are little more than complicity. What's right is right. period. If we don't impeach, we've just given permission to future presidents to do EXACTLY what bush has done.
I can only assume that there's people out there who actually want that.
No,
The Duopoly will keep it just in case some Anticorporate-populist slips into power under the radar somehow.
No Wait, I forgot,
The assassin' bullet is always just a click away.
So yea, Go ahead and get rid of the useless Impeachment clause
by
"Hoss" David P. (51 articles, 5 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 339 comments)
on Friday, May 11, 2007 at 4:42:50 PM
The main problem I keep runnng into when thinking about this sort of thing is that it tends to resolve to "what can I do" -- and the truth is nothing that matters -- I don't have the power to change much, really -- not by myself. WE can chnage things, actng together, but I'm not sure who WE is or how to handle that. I research, I write, I talk to people, etc., but it's not unitl a WE emerges that change will occur, and that seems to be very much a waiting game -- waiting for more people wake up.
In the meantime I also do small things, like discontinuing the TV a few years, and looking at what I buy (not much in any case on my budget). but that's something I don't have to wait for other to do -- and that's really the answer, becasue non one has to wait for others to do anything if we look to the small things. When enough people do those small things, then change occurs. If everyone dropped the cables and satellite, if everyone wrote one letter, if everyone switched buying a product supporting a fascist company -- then that would do it.
It depends on the political "weather" -- it's like snow -- when the condition are right a flake forms here, another there -- none of the flakes talk to each other, but yet there is a blizzard. So I'm a flake --a single solitary flake, who encourages others to be flakes to. As the storm grows we flakes bump into each other and stick together -- and at some point enough snow falls that there is an avalance.
Unlike a snow storm, however, every little action by anyone does not just respond to the weather, but helps to make it. And then not just the weather, but the political climate changes. Things which people did not think about before become thinkable. It's something like the propaganda that flows from the top down, covering everything, but here it starts from the bottom and works it's way up, in a non-hierachical fashion. A different sort of organization. Grassroots spread like crabgrass, going everywhere -- and yet there is no crabgrass king. It's the public mind, group consciousness -- every person like one little cell in a huge brain, and when a critical mass of little cells is reached, then the public mind acts.
Just keep on keeping at it.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Friday, May 11, 2007 at 5:37:21 PM
I am reminded of something I heard Noam Chomsky say.
He was talking about this very thing; the power/or powerlessness of a citizenry.
He said he was always amazed at how Americans, who have the greatest freedom of any society in the world, (or did before Bush started stripping away our rights), would come to him after speeches and ask, "What can we do?". And yet when he would talk to people in much more oppressive cultures, they would come to him and say, "This is what we are doing."
We're still waiting for someone to tell us what to do. And I think that is because we still haven't lost enough yet. We're afraid to be too active. We don't want to be arrested, don't want to be on a list, don't want to risk losing our jobs, not be able to pay the mortgage.
We haven't lost enough to make us willing to risk losing our comfortable lives.
The question is: how bad will it have to get before we are more afraid of losing what's left of our rights than we are of losing our possessions or our position?
We surprised ourselves last November, but the thought of taking it to the next level now and going into the streets until Congress removes BushCo is simply too frightening for most of us. We want Congress to do it now. But they can't do it without us.
The Founding Fathers were composed of some very wealthy, socially prominant men who sacrified everything; some died and some died penniless, to make this country.
Would we have what it takes today to take our country back if it meant making the kind of sacrifice the Founding Fathers made? If not, do we deserve to keep our freedoms?
From what I see, the only people willing to put it all on the line are the people devoting themselves to destroying this country. They've shown the single-minded dedication needed to overthrow a government. Unfortunately, they're doing it to get unlimited power and profit for thwmselves, at our expense.
Are we willing to do what it would take to get our country back? To push this country to the edge of revolution, and over the edge if necessary, to get the criminals out and start fixing the mess they made?
Because the other side is willing to do all that and more to keep it from us. And sitting around hoping that the next election will fix this is a fool's dream. We may not have an election, at least not a real one.
It's crunch time, people, and we can't blame Congress for not doing it if we aren't willing to fight the fight with them. They will follow our lead.
by
Ruth Lopez (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments)
on Friday, May 11, 2007 at 6:38:22 PM
Are we willing to do what it would take to get our country back? To push this country to the edge of revolution, and over the edge if necessary, to get the criminals out and start fixing the mess they made?
Because the other side is willing to do all that and more to keep it from us. And sitting around hoping that the next election will fix this is a fool's dream. We may not have an election, at least not a real one.
It's crunch time, people, and we can't blame Congress for not doing it if we aren't willing to fight the fight with them. They will follow our lead.
How absolutely true! I'm sick of the crybabies that blame everything on their congress. It is supposed to be 'we the people'.
by
LYNNE KRINGLER (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 41 comments)
on Friday, May 11, 2007 at 10:53:34 PM
Excuses, excuses, excuses... Mr. Linforff use the word as though it is a magical talisman designed to make us forsake logic and good sense.
The problems that got us into Iraq go far beyond Bush and Cheney, they are endemic in the way that the system responds to a national emergency.
Can Mr. Lindorff truly make the case that had he been in Congress in the aftermath of 9/11 he would have been unable to understand the President's position or the position of the other members who supported him?
What is needed is not respective punishment of particular officials for poor performance, but instead a better political system that will permit due dilligence in emergencies.
In other words a political culture that provides the debate needed to think through the consequences of proposed actions.
It is difficult to envision a method of codifying such a system into a constitution while retaining the flexibility and authority that are the hallmarks of the current one.
In my opinion, we use our time better in agitating for political and policy changes than in remonstrating over Bush and Cheney's manifest errors.
Robert Chapman
by
Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 557 comments)
on Friday, May 11, 2007 at 6:09:51 PM
Impeachment is a tool that was put in the Constitution for a reason by some pretty wise people.
It's supposed to be used when the Constitution is threatened, which it is.
It won't make America or American government perfect if it's used, but it certainly would make the bastards sit up straight. Impeachment efforts against Nixon resulted in the only time since the late 40s that we actually had a reversal for a time in the forward march of the National Security State. We got restraints on the CIA and FBI, we got a Freedom of Information Act that really worked to get at the secrets of government, at least until Reagan came along and began the process of reversing it.
So to say it's pointless to impeach, or try to impeach is just ignorant and defeatist.
I don't use impeachment as a talisman. I use it as a tool--to draw out the crimes, to educate the public, and even to make some improvements in the US. Of course we need to go way beyond impeachment, but making people take responsibility for their political crimes is an essential step.
by
Dave Lindorff (295 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 141 comments)
on Saturday, May 12, 2007 at 8:53:25 AM
We really can't throw out the clause just because the democrats are poorly advised. They certainly have not the guts of the Dems which went after Nixon. I do speak a bit about Nancy Pelosi and this matter in my article today at:
The best solution may be a Special Prosecutor to investigate the entire administration. Right now the dems are playing the same game they played in 2000-2004, a weak-kneed, whimpy, snuggly tea party approach to solving our problems and letting feloons off the hook.
If they do not go after the Bushites, then we shouldopen the prison gates of every prison in America and let everyone out. Otherwise there is NO justice anymore in America. Dod you know that the Treasury Department is investigating Michael Moore for his visit to Cuba w/9/11 heroes? That The drug companies and physiicans associations are trying to stop the showing of his SiCKO and expose' of the medical industry?This is every bit like Nazi Germany. We have to send the bastards to prison for the rest of their lives.
The only real War for our citizenry is in defense of our Constitution. Impeachment is the remedy for High Crimes like TREASON. An offensive against our Constitution is occuring every day and the main enemy is in near total control of all of our three main branches. They bombard us with untruths, they invite themselve into our home to collect data (evidence) without warrants. They make a mockery of Due Process. They rob the Working Class in the form of tax dollars and energy bills, Pharacuticals and insurance. Lets not forget Health Care.
We sacrifice our children to ensure their record profits. They can even wisk us away in the middle of the night or day and just take us away. The decider need only to declare us a Terrorist. Most any action can be construed as terrorism if that is what the decider wants to do. We have no FREEDOM for any other nation to want. We are under occupation.
Any member of the "Sons of Liberty" would most definately have been considered a TERRORIST. Being what that is we would not be here living in our dream world.
by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 264 comments)
on Saturday, May 12, 2007 at 1:57:47 PM
I've been hearing it all my life, "... a government for the people, by the people ..." it's right there in the Constitution. I haven't seen much yet. But I've heard it. A vast majority of Americans have voiced their opinions.
We know we've been lied to. We don't like it. We especially don't like it when it costs us fortune, honor and our children. We also don't like it when the so-called higher-ups of the leadership tells us they're not concerned with holding those accountable for squandering said fortune, honor and the lives of are most precious commodity, our children. Just forget about all that. We have to move on with the business of governing.
Believe me, we REALLY don't like this. Matter of fact we'll put you right in with the squanders of our fortune, honor and children. So, what is that "business of governing"? Going back to the Constitution, it's holding to the true principle of the law.
What a beautiful thing "law". Not fully absolute, but firm. Allowed before bush&co to be separate from the corrupting influence of politics. (poli’; from Greek, meaning “many”, and tics’; meaning “blood sucking insect)
The law has been broken BIG time. I need not go down the list. Either we bring to justice those that have broken some of the most horrendous crimes against humanity accountable or we don't have an America. There is no United States. There is no law. No shame. No nothing. Impeach? Not only that, the perpetrators should be dragged before the World Court and judged if we are to even begin to regain any measure of honor.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 1014 comments)
on Friday, May 11, 2007 at 7:11:37 PM
If Bush is impeached who then do we look to to defend America? If we pull out of the war who is going to fight it. When people ask for help attaining freedom who will be there for them.
by
MrCarter (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments)
on Friday, May 11, 2007 at 8:04:55 PM
You should really spend more time watching something else than propaganda. Read more articles on this newssite for instance. They may open your eyes as well.
by
Han (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 194 comments)
on Friday, May 11, 2007 at 9:18:16 PM
Sir: I am a remnant of the Viet Nam era. I assume you have served in the military. I also assume that you know, or should by now that a nation of 300,000,000 humans, if you subtract most of the 53,000,000 who voted for Bush, you would have a nation of at least 260,000,000 tough, smart, people. Presidents don't defend us, we the people defend us. Just like baseball managers don't play, Presidents don't fight, this one didn't even when he was asked to, and he refused to have a duel with Saddam even when invited to do so. I think that is called cowardice, where I Come from. He dodged the war, dodged a duel which would have saved thousands of lives, dodged a bankruptcy at a savings and loan and other business failures and didn't even land the plane on the infamous, "Mission Accomplished" fiasco, his co-pilot did.The airforce was smarter than the voters, the air force didn't trust him to land a $50,000,000 jet fighter.
I think you must knowby now what some of us trained in straey and logistics knew before the war" That a nation of 25,000,000 1/12 the size of the USA, with neither air force nor navy poses no threat to a nation 7,000 miles away, with the greatest Air Force and Navy in world history.
I think you must by now know, if you have not lived in a vacuum, what some of us knew before the war, there were no WMD's, the ones we gave Saddam in Bush Seniors era of CIA management were use up long before, in the war against Iran. Further, no one could, short of the entire world pose a serious, sustained military threat to the USA, once we purge it of the softheaded military sycophants who refuse to do what men of greater courage have already done-I speak of the dozens of generals and other high ranking other who resigned or retired away the fascist regime now in control. I speak also of long time RepublicanIcons such as Paul O'Neil, who resigned in disgust as the Bushites squandered a $5.9 trillion dollar Clinton Surplus, $3.9 trillion of whioch was earmarked by he and Greenspan for Social Security, making it viable for the next 150 years. That the Bushites turned down $800,000 in aid from our allies for Katrina victims.
Sir, I assume you are an honest man, please start reading more and stop listening to the IQ bereft idiots on Fox.
than a President (any President) that will set aside the Constitution and the rule of law.
Except, a populace that will let him.
Whatever interests people imagine they are arguing for when they argue that "impeachment is off the table" it cannot be for the interests of that America whose constitution expressly includes impeachment in it.
If impeachment is ever "off the table" then so to is the constitution AND the United States of America.
I am not an American, I am an Australian.
I know what oath your Presidents take, I can read it right there in your constitution. But I wonder what oaths your congressmen and women take that they think they can ever take impeachment "off the table" ?
Democracy is not merely mob rule. Minorities have rights backed by laws and courts. When a President or member of congress takes and oath that oath has to mean something. Minorities
