On Saturday, at the constitution center, in Philly, I'll be Speaking at Impeach for Change, on a bloggers panel, discussing impeachment. Here's my take.
I want Bush out. He's a criminal in so many ways-- war, constitution, democracy... it's a long list. I want him to do jail time.
But I'm not worried about Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean keeping their promises not to impeach.
We can take care of George W. Bush and, necessarily, at the same time, Dick Cheney, without needing to go through the impeachment process. And we can do it getting very deeply satisfying results.
Here's the way I see it CAN be done:
Start off with investigations. -Pre-war intelligence, planning -re-open the 9/11 investigation. -review the approach being applied to the Plame CIA outing investigation -look at the handling of katrina and the handing out of contracts -look at war contracts -look at energy company meetings cheney held.
Don't talk to Bush or Cheney. Do what prosecutors do. Hit the smaller guys first. Bust them. Confront them with evidence and get them to admit to breaking the law. Then get them to roll over on their bosses. Do the same with their bosses.
Keep building cases with bigger and bigger names, all the time keeping the ultimate two targets in mind-- Bush and Cheney.
When enough evidence and testimony is gathered, don't bother with impeachment. Just take the impeachment and prosecution worthy evidence to Bush and Cheney and offer them a deal-- a small, token amount of time in jail, forfeiture of any wealth they have or will have-- house imprisonment-- no public speaking live of by video for the rest of their lives.
They will have to confess to crimes. They may be vulnerable to prosecution for war crimes. But the offer should leave them the alternative of going to jail in the US for a long, long time, with all their assets attached.
This is not small thinking, not fully laid out, but what impeachment is? What prosecution of a monster, or a pair of planetary level criminals is?
We must deal with the horrible criminal offenses these perpetrators have committed. We must erase the Bush family as a dynasty with a future from the face of the earth. Robert Parry has argued, convincingly, that if Bill Clinton and the Democrats had prosecuted Bush senior for his role in the Iran Contra affair, he would have been marked as a criminal and his son would never have won the Texas gubernatorial or the Presidential election.
We must mark Bush and Cheney as criminals for the sake of history. That does not take impeachment. Resignation with confession of guilt will do. We must prevent Bush and Cheney from profitting from their criminal acts. House arrests and total restriction from access to the press or speechifying will go a long way to make that a reality.
Of course, as I've been saying for months, this double removal of Bush and Cheney from office will make Nancy Pelosi the first woman president, an exciting prospect. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't a fight for her seat, since there are reasonably good odds that whoever becomes speaker of the house will become the next president.
A.B. Stoddard of "The Hill" and Tucker Carlson, sans bowtie, of MSNBC, had a lovefest conversation describing how kookie liberals want impeachment and how, if the Democratic leadership are smart, they'll hew to the center and avoid being vengeful. This is bogus garbage-- a new kind of right wing talking point aimed at damage control.
The truth is the democratic leadership has a responsibility to cast light in the dark, stygian places the Republicans kept dark, kept hidden. It is, as Nancy Pelosi herself has said, a "constitutional obligation." It won't be about revenge. It will be about open government, following the law, protecting the constitution. But it will also be a spin war-- which the right wing corporatocracy owned media will wage on behalf of Bush and Cheney. It will take tough talk and action to stand up to the certain criticism and negative framing which will surely emerge.
Sure, there are plenty of details, but less than would be required top successfully take impeachment through all the steps necessary. I think the end result would be equally satisfying for the majority of Americans and billions of the world's citizens.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
I agree 100%. I said as much in my last article...
... Congressional Democrats MUST investigate certain things like those you and I pointed out. There is no option on that. When the truth hits the light of day, there will be no question other than that Cheney and Bush will not be in public service afterwards (unless you call cleaning the latrines in leavenworth public service.)
The public will demand their ouster.
by
Steven Leser (194 articles, 39 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1302 comments)
on Friday, November 10, 2006 at 3:18:04 PM
I love the idea of Bush rooming with a 6'5" gay biker, but most likely, they'll do a martha stewart length stretch at Allenwood, the country club prison, if we're lucky.
by
Rob Kall (762 articles, 3850 quicklinks, 321 diaries, 1642 comments)
on Friday, November 10, 2006 at 3:49:10 PM
LOL, oh, I know that, but Leavenworth is tres much more fun
to talk about than Danbury or some of the other federal facilities. That vision of the 6'8" gay biker bunking with Bush was hillarious. You can see that guy turning to Bush and saying "Hey boah, weren't you a cheerleader at Yale".
by
Steven Leser (194 articles, 39 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1302 comments)
on Saturday, November 11, 2006 at 9:29:09 AM
Having been in the military for 21 years, I know about Leavenworth. However, I worked in a civilan prison for 21 years. I know a few guys who would like to bunk with Bush. But, the stress of a regimented military prison would be better.
by
LEO BOYLE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments)
on Saturday, November 11, 2006 at 11:05:55 AM
but what I hear about collegiality and across the aisle cooperation from the new leadership makes me rather sceptical that such will occur. As Pelosi leads very firmly indeed, and as she has taken impeachment of the table, I would expect any investigations to lead elsewhere than the White House.
I really hope Im wrong!
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Friday, November 10, 2006 at 5:40:20 PM
Pardon me for not jumping on the "Pelosi for President in 2007" bandwagon. Pelosi comes from a long line of "pols" (the D'Alessandros from Baltimore) and her husband is from the lovely "Bohemian Grove" crowd.
Not only does the notion of her being President in 2007 not thrill me, it's irresponsible to even keep mentioning her as the "Speaker-elect". She still must be voted in (no doubt, it'll happen); but that is neither automatic, nor something I would particularly endorse.
by
Lilith's Spirit (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 115 comments)
on Friday, November 10, 2006 at 5:46:52 PM
If we impeach or force to resign the President and Vice President, Pelosi will still not become President. The process will not happen in one week. The Republicans will have the right to replace the president with their own nominee. It is just a matter of using the right proceedures.
When Nixon was impeached, Gerald Ford was not the Vice President that he was elected with.
by
Abraham (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Friday, November 10, 2006 at 6:29:58 PM
The Presidential Succession Act of 1947, signed into law by Harry Truman, clarifies and supercedes all other lines of Presidential succession. It clearly establishes the order of succession as follows:
1. Vice-President
2. Speaker of the House
3. President pro tempore of the Senate
4. Secretary of State
5. Secretary of the Treasury
6. Secretary of Defense
7. Attorney General
and so on....
by
Frank J. Ranelli (63 articles, 143 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 365 comments)
on Friday, November 10, 2006 at 8:08:41 PM
Ford was never the speaker (since the GOP was the minority in the house), HE was appointed by Nixon to be the VP.
But don't let that bother you since it is obvious to all that your original post must have been masturbatory fiction written for leftist's self indulgence. Since it is lacking any legal or historical basis for ever becoming real. And the whole idea of rolling up the POTUS and VIP is laughable since Executive Pardon is absolute.
I told you all months ago, "The democrats would control the Congress". I also told you that there was no chance in hell for impeachment. At least I have a track record and historical precedence. Evidently the Editor in Chief here has his own private fantasies that he likes to share.
/Checking in to see the unreality index and noting the lack of change.
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Friday, November 10, 2006 at 10:47:19 PM
As a Bay Area resident for many years I followed Pelosi's career with some interest. She was the darling of liberals out here and only as her star ascended in Washington DC did her persona as the ruthlessly focussed, power amassing centrist we now see in emergence. Power certainly corrupts.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Saturday, November 11, 2006 at 2:05:12 PM
You have to have investigations and evidence even for impeachment. To me it matters not. Pelosi is using her no impeachment line as an inside to begin working together. I think it will be time consuming, when in fact we should be working on getting the troops out of Iraq, and prepare for future readiness against Iran and N. Korea. Those nightmares are not going away.
I doubt Bush will succumb to Nixon's strategy, Dick Cheney might shoot him accidently but I think Bush will only buckle if most of the effort is focused on Cheney. Think of it this way....he is the weaker, since his heart is trouble. I don't think Cheney will take the pressure, and Bush will come to his rescue. Cheney will be unable to become Prez to authorize any pardons.
If anything it might be better to have Bush in Office so he can absorb his humiliation, and begin back peddling toward the center again. This will be embarrassing for him, but if he decides not to do anything he might as well kiss the executive office goodbye for any upcoming 2008 Republican candidate ventures in the White House.
Either position is painful, but if he starts to make ammends it may change enough voters minds in the next election.
I still think prison time or impeachment is not good enough punishment for his crimes. He will get his due somewhere, sometime, in the spectrum of life and hereafter.
I have no doubts about that.
by
Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 934 comments)
on Saturday, November 11, 2006 at 2:39:02 AM
I think it will be time consuming, when in fact we should be working on getting the troops out of Iraq, and prepare for future readiness against Iran and N. Korea.
Stop two wars and gear up for two more ? Why ?
Future readiness AGAINST what ?
Dom, it sounds like you're pro-war, so why the hell ask for the warmongers to be punished ?
by
Tony Forest (4 articles, 14 quicklinks, 131 diaries, 1216 comments)
on Saturday, November 11, 2006 at 2:46:42 AM
No not a War monger..a question you have to ask yourself. Is it OK for Iran and N. Korea to have nuclear weapons? Also how do you stop them?
If we are attacked by them, will America do nothing? I find that hard to believe. Although I believe in the teachings of Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, I am also a realists in knowing that no matter what I believe in the rest of America is already full steam ahead in full combat gear.
If we can convince the neocons that Iraq needs to be redrawn in strategy by removing troops, because of other and more important issues of concern...perhaps time will be on our side...in averting 2 more wars, as we end the other 2.
I am no fool...but I know hot water when I see it, and no matter how hard I fan it....it ain't cooling down.
by
Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 934 comments)
on Saturday, November 11, 2006 at 6:17:03 PM
for the USA to have nuclear weapons? I cannot for the life of me understand this thinking on the possession of such weaponry. Nelson Mandela called US policy on this as a "nuclear apartheid" and I quite agree.
Are you comfortable with Pakistan in the nuclear club? India? Was it North Korea or China invading Iraq? Which nation is it currently threatening Iran with such weapons? Which nation tests more such while yelling at others to stop doing the same damn thing? So which government is the most warlike here? Which has demonstrated the least fitness to possess such grave threats to the world as nuclear armament?
How do we overcome this mind set by well meaning and well intentioned folks that the USA is, somehow, "endowed by the creator" with the inalienable right to choose anything for anyone else?
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Sunday, November 12, 2006 at 10:23:41 AM
let's start off with the most extreme example. If they were both alive would feel much better about Gandhi being in control of nuclear weapons than Adolph Hitler. There is nothing prima facia unreasonable about believing it is OK for some countries to possess certain weapons and not others. Here in the US on a micro level, we recognize that where it may be OK for police to have guns, it is not ok for felons to have guns. To follow your reasoning to its ultimate conclusion, the disallowing of felons to have handguns while the police have them would be illogical. I don't think that it is. I think it makes perfect sense. Once you deconstruct the "Why is it OK for us but not them" argument on WMD, the argument destructs completely.
Virtually every form of weapon that is now banned was once used in warfare before it was decided that the weapon was too barbaric. Chemical weapons were used in the first world war by many countries but were prohibited by the Geneva conventions by the time WWII came around. Nuclear weapons were of course used by the US in the Second World War, but the universal agreement on non-proliferation and utter disgust at the thought of their use did not take long to develop. Since this time, we have had ten different Presidential administrations, several changes in the party in power in congress, empires around the world have risen and fallen, but still some people persist in the trite argument that "Well, the US is the only country that ever used nuclear weapons, so..." as soon as you utter that trite phrase you may as well stop because nothing that comes after means anything. Most of the American electorate wasn't even born at the time. None of my ancestors were even here, so, I dont feel the need to even continue a debate with people who continue with that silly tactic.
I do not believe any nation SHOULD have nuclear weapons. But, if we are going to debate whether any nation in particular should have them, lets at least use arguments that are not superficial or non-sequitors or rife with other logical fallacies. Of those countries that are now members of the nuclear club or on the brink, two stand out as countries that should absolutely not have them, and two more are of grave concern.
Iran and North Korea should not have nuclear weapons for various reasons. India and Pakistan have come close to a nuclear exchange several times in the last few years. To even contemplate such a thing boggles the mind. India and Pakistan have some of the biggest populations and most densely populated cities in the world. Any such exchange could have fatalities in the tens or even hundreds of millions. I would not even know how to describe the magnitude of that catastrophe. Incidentally, how do you care for a couple of hundred million severe burn victims with a completely destroyed local infrastructure?
To compare the above four with whether the US, or UK, or France, or even Israel should have nuclear weapons requires absolute denial of a couple of key facts. If we are to discuss whether or not countries should have nuclear weapons, can we not deny facts that are current, timely, and not in dispute?
by
Steven Leser (194 articles, 39 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1302 comments)
on Sunday, November 12, 2006 at 3:16:13 PM
I agree Steve, but Ardee makes the point that the US still promotes them, by making bunker busters, etc. Its as though we are in a trap. We can't pursue the extinction of nukes, because the felons are carrying them around. So we are ever so bold to continue to make ours better.
This is worse than being an addict on heroin I think. As sick as it may seem, the use of nuclear weapons sure will solve the over population problems...in the world, whether we find that a comforting thought or not.
In light of predictions I think humanity is too afraid to ever use them again. The memories and the pain that brings; is too unbearable for the human psyche.
Which brings us back to; why the need for them?
Certainly would be a change in this addiction to the nuclear weapons club by having a President say...lets turn the tide and work to reduce nuclear proliferation. At least it will stop the idea we are all threats to each other.
by
Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 934 comments)
on Sunday, November 12, 2006 at 6:47:59 PM
Steve, your analogy re: police vs. criminals fails on at least one important level; the police are an agency of government, a government voted in by the people, thus they are operating at the behest of and under the control of the people.
There was, last time I looked, no world government, thus the USA's arrogant assumptions about its role in policing the world falls more than a bit flat. We rail about terrorists, justice and democracy yet support some of the most heinous governments in the world mainly because it is convenient to our business interests to do so. Some of which, by the by, we installed ouselves.
My comment that arms control is not the exclusive parvenue of this nation of ours, especially considering that we are the largest arms dealers in the world, stands. If the US was really foursquare for the control of nuclear weaponry we should make it a world issue, using the UN to discuss such issues. Yet what we do is, in our supreme arrogance, make statements, judgments and take actions that vary with each Presidency, actions that are looked at as intrusive to say the least.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 at 7:15:10 AM
