FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT IMPEACHMENT
By Charlottesville Center for Peace and Justice
Why would we want a President Cheney? Or why would we want a new Republican who could run as an incumbent? Or why would we want a President Pelosi?
We propose impeaching Cheney first or together with Bush. The first Articles of Impeachment to be introduced (H Res 333) are addressed only to Cheney. Impeaching Cheney first ought to put the fear of a President Cheney to rest. But there remains the possibility of fearing his replacement or even of not wanting Nancy Pelosi to be president or not wanting her to become president in this way. She won't. We will never succeed in removing Bush and Cheney from office simultaneously and by surprise. We will remove them, but they will be replaced by a new President Ford, who will operate within the rule of law and lose the next election.
But this whole discussion misses the point. The question of who holds which office for the next year or six months, as well as the question of who wins the next election, is of very minor importance in comparison with the question of whether future administrations will be compelled to operate within the limitations of the law. If we do not impeach Cheney and Bush, we will establish that it is permitted for future presidents and vice presidents to mislead the Congress and the public into wars, spy in violation of the law, detain without charge, torture, operate in secrecy, and rewrite laws with signing statements. Those powers in the wrong hands could do far more serious damage than Bush and Cheney have done.
So, if we keep this in perspective, the fear of Cheney appears trivial. It appears even more so when we consider that impeachment and removal from office are two separate steps and that we're only working on the first one so far, and when we recognize the extent to which Cheney has been running the country already for years. Were Cheney officially president, most policies would remain unchanged, but the public face of the White House and of the Republican party would be that of a man whose approval rating has been unable to top 20 percent. The Republicans will never allow this, so it would be rather foolish for the Democrats to retreat out of fear of it.
Whoever is president next will have to operate under fear of being impeached next. That is the point of impeachment. In the case of Cheney, he would be operating under the high probability of being impeached. No serious discussion of the evidence can incriminate Bush or Cheney but not the other. And, in any event, we will be impeaching Cheney first.
Why not just wait for the next election?
The authors of our Constitution established the schedule for elections, but devoted a lot more attention to the mechanism of impeachment as a check on elected despotism in between elections. They had recently thrown off a king and had no interest in electing temporary kings every four years. Neither should we.
Bush and Cheney can still do a great deal of damage before the end of their term. People are dying every day as a result of their policies. There is an urgent need to remove them from office in order to end the brutal occupation of Iraq and prevent an attack on Iran.
But we would need to impeach them were this January 2009 or had they already left office. The purpose of impeachment, again, is to set standards for future administrations. We cannot give the powers assumed by this administration (to mislead the Congress and the public into wars, spy in violation of the law, detain without charge, torture, operate in secrecy, and rewrite laws with signing statements) to future presidents and vice presidents without expecting similar or worse abuses.
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.
Important as stem cell research and immigration policy may be, when did the Bill of Rights become a distraction? What is more important than restoring the right to not be spied on, to not be picked up without charge and locked away to be tortured with no access to a lawyer, a trial, or your family, not to be sent into an aggressive war for greed and power? Of course, there are many pressing areas in which we need to pass legislation. But the outgoing Republican Congress passed some important bills, including those banning torture and illegal spying. But Bush used signing statements to announce his intention to disobey those laws. Under the new Democratic Congress, Bush has made clear that he will either veto or signing statement any bill he disapproves of.
Isn't it more important to end the 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 fulltime 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."
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
IMPEACH NOW
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers
http://www.davidswanson.org
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.
| 13 comments |
|
|
An excellent read... Well-Done, once again, David! Right now, all we hear is the version(s) the politicians give us as to why we can't or shouldn't impeach. It's too difficult, they've not broken the law, it can't happen, it's a distraction. This reeks of complicity in my opinion. We need to impeach because it restores the Constitution and the rule of law. Some follow up reading: by
Populist Party (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 154 diaries, 32 comments)
on Friday, June 15, 2007 at 11:56:54 AM
|
|
|
Great article David tbonsell - Bush and Cheney will never protect the US against anything, and they love endless war and fear. So tying them up in impeachement proceedings will help protect the US, not make it more insecure. by
John R Moffett (80 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 610 comments)
on Friday, June 15, 2007 at 2:07:16 PM
|
|
Impeachment delayed by Congressional Auction The thing that motivated Pelosi to betray the peace activists, by pulling the Impeachment of Bush/Cheney “off the table” is the same thing that motivated Bill Clinton to betray the unions and environmentalists: campaign money from the corporations in exchange passing “fast-track”. NAFTA in Bill's case, CAFTA for Nancy. Call it fast-track treason, “Agreements” allowing the looting of the American economy by transnationals. The auction, delaying the Impeachment, will continue until thousands call Pelosi's office, (and your own Rep.), connecting Bush's war, Impeachment delays, and the fast-track sellout of America. by
Samuel Bryan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 120 comments)
on Friday, June 15, 2007 at 2:46:00 PM
|
|
|
You may be right Sam
by
John R Moffett (80 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 610 comments)
on Friday, June 15, 2007 at 2:53:41 PM
|
|
John I am partial to monkeywrenching the legislative auction by denying corporations the fruits of their bribes by throwing in ballot initiatives. Try: Bush/Cheney's violation of the Bill of Rights (as noted by the Supremes) is so flagrant that anyone who has taken an oath to uphold our Constitution, and fails to act to Impeach Bush/Cheney will be ineligible for any office of trust in the state of CA. Or: With the enforcement mechanisms (“courts”) of the WTO, GATT, and NAFTA having failed to be authorized by a Constitutional Amendment, any attempt by any corporation to circumvent our Constitutionally established Courts by filing a claim outside our established Courts, places said corporation in the position of outlaw, thereby forfeiting all their assets to the State of CA, or upon the States failure to act, to the people. With the millions of dollars poring into the campaigns of Dems., I see little possibility of ever obtaining a real legislative solution, but if you are in CA, and are interest in a ballot initiative stay in contact. by
Samuel Bryan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 120 comments)
on Friday, June 15, 2007 at 4:41:41 PM
|
|
|
Impeachment Is the Categorical Imperative of TheseTimes It's often said that "Impeachment is unnecessary because we can tolerate Bush & Cheney for another 18 months and then they'll be gone." Bush and Cheney have arrogated extraordinary powers to themselves - so much so that it is entirely conceivable (indeed in my opinion, highly likely) that they will trump-up an incident to justify a declaration of martial law, dissolve Congress and the Courts, and cancel future elections thereby effectively making themselves rulers for life answerable to no one. Barring assassination the only way to prevent this is through the constitutional process of impeachment. by
Robert R. Regl (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 13 comments)
on Friday, June 15, 2007 at 3:40:27 PM
|
|
|
impeach Bullshit and Cheney for their 9/11 crimes And almost this entire Congress of corporate dicksuckers should be recalled as well, spineless traitors who won't do the will of the people. by
Better World Order (4 articles, 417 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 881 comments)
on Friday, June 15, 2007 at 10:48:30 PM
|
|
84 year old liberal Democrat and atheist Married 62 years, four children, seven grandchildren. Military service (1939 through 1945) with California National Guard, 185th Inf. , Company M (pvt), USN, Patrol Squadron Eleven (y2c), and USMC (1st Lt.). Undergraduate major military science at Carrol College, Helena, Montana, and University of California, Berkeley: USC law school.Professional career, mainly sole practioner, criminal and family l... |
WE THE PEOPLE AND IMPEACHMENT The Constitution exists to protect the rights and privileges of the People. We, the People, want the House of Representatives to file Articles of Impeachment. When elected officials tell us that impeachment is off the table they are violating their oaths to protect and obey the Constitution. The Constitution is never "off the table" Our Representatives are depriving us of the right to remove the president and/or vice-president, and/or civil officers who have violated their oaths to protect and obey the Constitution. Those members of the House of Representatives who refuse to file Articles of Immpeachment should be recalled. Now! by
Alden Mason (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments)
on Saturday, June 16, 2007 at 2:32:34 PM
|
|
46, Married, no kids, friend of dogs and all animals, even some humans. Sick of partisanship, hope for impeachments, ready to take the streets whether alone or with a mob, tired of bearing the guilt of a nation immersed in apathy and narcisism yet seemingly incapable of self-reflection, and tired of paying taxes that are spent on devestation...and consequently condoning it. |
I wrote my congressman about this...his reply: Dear Mr. De\'ak, Thank you for contacting me with your deep concerns about the behavior of this administration. I have heard from a number of people who are ready for this president, to be censured, even impeached. Recently, Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced legislation calling for the impeachment of Vice President Cheney. Certainly having endured the travesty of the Republican impeachment of Clinton, I can understand and sympathize with the drive to impeach the President and Vice President. I believe that an impeachment process on an administration that is already on its way out the door would hinder the time and efforts of our slim Democratic majority in congress. The practical matter is that given the rules of the Senate, there is no way that an impeachment process would lead to the removal of the President or Vice President. Instead, it would create a media circus that would detract from our mission of reversing the policies (both domestic and international) of what the public continues to see as a failing presidency. With Democratic control of both houses of Congress, the legislative branch is already exercising its oversight and investigations role into many areas of the Bush Administration. We are conducting investigations into pre-Iraq war intelligence, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the firings of US attorneys, the Valerie Plame leak, and the way the Iraq War is being conducted. While there is a part of me that would love to see this President and Vice President publicly admonished by Congress, I feel the American people have done that through their votes in the 2006 elections. If I were Karl Rove I would like nothing better than an impeachment process that wouldn't go anywhere, and would distract people from the very real failures of this administration on the important issues our country faces. I would never discourage anybody from pursuing their passion. My passion is to hold this administration accountable and to enact progressive legislation, while we lay the foundation for a new administration in less than two years. Thank you again for sharing your opinion with me. by
Steve De'ak (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Saturday, June 16, 2007 at 2:45:58 PM
|
|
46, Married, no kids, friend of dogs and all animals, even some humans. Sick of partisanship, hope for impeachments, ready to take the streets whether alone or with a mob, tired of bearing the guilt of a nation immersed in apathy and narcisism yet seemingly incapable of self-reflection, and tired of paying taxes that are spent on devestation...and consequently condoning it. |
And then I wrote him back...no reply. Dear Congressman Blumenauer, Thank you, I appreciate your taking the time to reply to me personally. With all of America having endured the travesty of the impeachment of Clinton, and in spite of the squawking heads of radio and television who ceaselessly (and senselessly) warn of appearing petty and vindictive if the congress were to hold impeachment hearings, I assure you it is in no way revenge or political tit-for-tat that drives the grassroots impeachment movement. What most citizens I talk to are most disgusted with is the political partisanship, omnipresent corporate influence peddling and in the case of the democrats, tough-talk middle-class rhetoric that is rarely matched by votes and legislation. This is not about elections or majorities…or put another way, this IS about elections and majorities, and the party that stands up and STOPS this criminal administration is going to sweep the next Generation’s worth of elections and majorities. Tough talk about holding them accountable must be matched by more than transparently empty terms like “practical matters” and capitulations re-labeled as “compromises”. Besides, assuming the Senate would never remove the president and vice president requires a bit of a leap of faith, especially when considering most Americans would be SCREAMING for their removal if even a fraction of what is available in the public domain about their crimes is true. If the media are forced to report on the full list of crimes, at even close to the level they gave to Clinton, NOT impeaching will be the most impractical (and politically dangerous) thing to do. It is to our eternal national shame to even consider anything BUT immediate impeachment proceedings, followed by international war crimes investigations. The proper, grown-up way to end this war started by war profiteers, is to immediately withdraw, bring in the International community to provide security and have the American people pay the Iraqi people restitution while our leaders sit on the docket at The Hague, thereby showing the world we are capable of controlling our own. We hanged people at Nuremburg for this, somehow waiting for the administration’s term to end falls short of what I expect to see from a Nation of Laws. I can’t urge you enough to do the same…I think you’d be surprised at how much support you’d have. Thank you again for your time, Stephen T. De’ak by
Steve De'ak (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Saturday, June 16, 2007 at 2:50:48 PM
|
|
I un-registered with the Democratic Party. Stephen, May I suggest that telling Congressman Blumenauer that you were thinking of testing the voters' outrage on the “Impeach Bush/Cheney issue” in the primary election, would have gotten his attention. We need look at how those supporting the Impeachment of Cheney became motivated. by
Samuel Bryan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 120 comments)
on Saturday, June 16, 2007 at 6:04:19 PM
|
|
I just want to post a comment, don't have anything to say about myself. |
What is the risk? Yes, we may distract Bush from what he would otherwise be doing. But what are the odds that it's something we'd want him to do? Pretty low, I'll wager. by
Jill Hacker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Sunday, June 17, 2007 at 8:55:19 PM
|
| 13 comments |
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
