I'll list some of the common objections, then, I hope you'll add comments listing some more, with your reply, countering them. And also, please add your comments adding to the counter-arguments I provide, which for the sake of time, I will keep short.
1- That will give us Cheney as president.
Well, of course, we have to impeach Cheney first, but we can and should be INVESTIGATING both.
2-Not enough time. Cheney and Bush will be out of office in 14 months. Why bother?
Lots of reasons. They committed crimes. Investigations will turn up more ugly dirt. Investigations will turn up new, fresh witnesses who will roll over and testify against Cheney and Bush.
3- Impeachment will not succeed in the senate.
Investigations can last until November, if necessary, and they will hurt the right wingers still supporting Bush and Cheney. Gradually, more will see the light, like Hagel.
4- The Dems will be accused of wasting time.
So what. They're already being accused of that. It's a lame, weak, unacceptable argument.
5- There's no clear proof
That's what hearings are for.
Okay, hopefully, I've primed the pump. This is the kind of thing that can be put in a pamphlet, once it's done and handed out all over. What are you waiting for? Add your comment.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . 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.
The framed magazine cover, with the word "IDEAS" spelled out in lightbulbs, is based on an article Rob wrote for Writers Digest, telling the magazine's quarter million readers how to come up with and pitch article ideas.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
Rob co-hosts a terrestrial and internet talk radio show broadcasting to the Philadelphia and south NJ area on AM 1360, Thursday- 8-9 PM Online here here:
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
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.
1) Impeachment will further divide this country. (That's Barack Obama's stance. Someone here in Illinois asked him about this at a luncheon prior to his presidential campaigning and he was so cold about this.)
2) Not enough people support impeachment
3) You can hold Bush and Cheney accountable without impeaching them. (Pelosi's stance)
by
Kevin Gosztola (147 articles, 34 quicklinks, 59 diaries, 622 comments)
on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 at 2:34:14 PM
The case for impeachment for both Bush and Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors, too numerous to mention, is that it is a matter of the requirement of the law, as provided for in the Constitution. The binding phrase is, "The President...SHALL be impeached, for high crimes and misdemeanors." No if, and, buts, maybes or equivocation about it. When the Republicans in Congress vote against impeachment after the evidence proves the crimes, they are in violation of the Constitutional requirement tht they impeach, and they are reminded that that is a crime and they can go to prison for it. This is called playing hardball.
The fact that impeachment would be blocked by the Republican members of Congress, and not succeed, is not a reason to quit trying to save our drowning country. A drowning man doesn't quit trying to survive, even though he can't swim.
One case against impeachment of Bush and Cheney is that it doesn't necessarily remove them from office, and even if it did, it would only remove two Republicans from our politically, ethically and morally compromised government, which has been subverted by the Republicans.
The other case against impeachment is that the most it would accomplish is removal from office, a result totally out of proportion to the magnitude of the crimes. It should properly be a criminal investigation, easily proving the crimes, with the inevitable prison time to follow. That physically removes them from office.
But, there's a quirk in the Constitution. There are no disqualifications for being President. It does not prohibit a convicted criminal, serving time, from being President. It only requires that the President be of the proper age, citizenship and residency. So, according to the Constitution, Bush could be convicted and sent to prison and, with the inevitable support of Mukasey, still serve as President from his prison cell. Hell of a note.
So, we're left in a quandry:
With only impeachment and removal, Bush goes free, no prison time.
With only a straight criminal conviction, he can still be President.
Only with impeachment, removal and a criminal conviction does Bush serve time and justice is done.
It looks like impeachment and removal, a slap on the wrist, is about the best we can hope for.
by
Ed Martin (83 articles, 0 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 74 comments)
on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 at 3:27:19 PM
For any of our representatives in the House, their Oath of Office should compel them to impeach both leaders of the Executive Branch. Failure to impeach as a measure to protect the Constitution of the United States of America is a failure to uphold their Oath of Office and as far as I am concerned, grounds for impeachment of those representatives themselves.
Enforcement of the Supreme Law of the Land is not an optional exercise for these representatives. All three branches are arguably responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Constitution. They must carry out their duty.
Once the House of Representatives votes approval of the articles of impeachment, the Senate will have no option but to try the case. It seems to me that in the case of the People of the United States against George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, even the Senate's most stalwart partisan Republicans will be compelled to convict in the face of such a mountain of clear evidence.
If they fail in their duty, it is incumbent upon us as citizens to remove all of the criminals, Bush, Cheney and their supporters in the legislature, and deal appropriate justice to them.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 646 comments)
on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 at 3:58:23 PM
The argument will be that as Commander-in-Chief, Bush and his designate Cheney have not violated any laws. The counter argument: The violation of Geneva Convention principles would be a breaking of U. S. law since the United States has signed "a treaty" banning torture and other mistreatment of detainees. International Treaties become U. S. Law and may not be negated by the President. Justice Bryer 9 Oct 2007.
2. Bush and Cheney committed no crime by lying to the American people to lead them into an illegal war-they were the victims of bad intelligence. The counter argument is that they cherry picked "facts" and "molded" thru a web of propaganda a hysteria in America taking 67% of the public to believe that Iraq was complicit in 9/11.
3. Actions taken by Bush and Cheney were authorized by Congress
The counter argument is that Congress actually only authorized Bush and Cheney to determine the threat and take approperiate action. The fact that the decision was proffered thru lies and deception by Bush and Cheney should negate the authorization. In other words they committed a fraud
by
Cliff Carson (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 at 6:12:08 PM
I have used the basis for impeachment that J. Sanchez puts forth and it seems to roll right off them. In Fla. we have two Repugs and one Dem, though these days I'm not too sure of Bill Nelson's loyalties anymore. I imagine Mel Martinez and Dave Weldon laugh their asses off but I always get one of those cleverly worded "we are glad to hear from you on this matter" without enumerating why. Hopefully, when we get through this as a nation, the guilty will be named and made to pay. And that includes Dems who have participated in corporate Fascism, two of which are the highest ranking women.
by
HarpMan1224 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 at 6:18:59 PM
Actually, a successfiul impeachment of both President Bush and Vice President Cheney will give us Speaker Pelosi as President. And let's be honest, the Honorable junior Senator Clinton from the great state of New York will NOT stand for that.
by
Tom Murphy (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1183 comments)
on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 at 6:53:50 PM
I'd welcome a Republican President over a Democrat
if that Republican had the personal character to put the Constitution (and their own oath to support and defend it) above loyalty to the President and to so impeach when impeachment was warranted when an opportunistic unprincipled personal oath breaking Democrat didn't.
How can those represented trust so called representatives of any political flavor if those representatives won't stand behind the first oath they make as a representative? Impeachment (when it is genuinely warranted) is an issue more fundamental than party. Impeachment forces a choice between loyalty to the Constitution and loyalty to the incumbent.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 611 comments)
on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 at 10:33:23 PM
Cliffcarson has got it right, however, what difference does it make? Hellhooray gets the demoncrat nod and its who the corporatacracy wants to replace Busky in the first place. So it's business as usual. Left and right wing of the same bird of prey and they sure have been preying on us--prayers and all. Hate to sound like a cynic, but at 72, my faith in the proletariat is dwindling rapidly.
by
Dadeoh (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments)
on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 at 9:01:05 PM
That those that know these men don't think of them as deserving of being harmed and humiliated. That they have done the best they could in the difficult circumstances of the post 9-11 world. They didn't create the world they just got elected into office to do what they could with the tools that were available and with their human limitations.
And it is not the American way to blame people for doing their best and failing. The President took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" but to "the best of his ability". But he is not responsible for being promoted beyond his abilities. And he is not God to have some magic wand to waive or miracles to work. The American people chose Bush knowing he was just a fallible ordinary man. They can't humiliate him. That would be too cruel.
That Bush is not guilty of high crimes because he has lacked mense re. The criminal mindset. He never intended to do wrong. And those that know him like him and they do not want to hurt and humiliate him without seeing that it would help matters. And they think they could not have done any better had they had to occupy the Presidency in the circumstances he did.
----------
Blah. Its a good exercise you try Rob, too few pro impeachment folks do take the time to look at the alternative views and so too few understand why impeachment is such a hard thing to persuade others too, but I don't want to defend the indefensible. Give Bush a fair trial I say and I do mean fair but dammit what is at stake here is the US constitution and whether the worlds leading power is going to be pro or anti rule of law. Impeachment doesn't require a John the Baptist head on a platter, it does require though an honest and open appraisal of what went wrong. And without that there cannot be a correction.
I don't want impeachment for revenge I want impeachment to correct a terrible disease. I want impeachment so that the United States can show the world - look we really are FOR the rule of law and we are sorry and we want return to living our values. That torture stuff and illegal invasions stuff that was largely a mistake by well meaning people having to do too much with too poor tools.
I want impeachment to be a liberating moment for America and the world. Let the reluctant rogue country repent and come home. Frankly cleaning up terrorism and reforming the UN look to be easy to me if America can show the world that it will walk its talk on values.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 611 comments)
on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 at 9:24:41 PM
This comment has been flagged and is awaiting review by the editors -
Reason: Inappropriate Content
Careful, Brett. Don't you be talkin' 'bout any of dat reasonable and practical nonsense 'round here now. We be simple folk that just want to see a good ole tarrin' and featherin' of two stuffed pigeons is all.
by
Tom Murphy (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1183 comments)
on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 at 9:58:13 PM
This is in bad taste satire but if bad taste was a criteia for inappropriate language on this site there should be a lot of others with their unfounded and unsustainable abuse that should be banned.
But I'm sure the editor will realize that throwing the baby out with the bath water is inappropriate.
I wonder if the complainer is just against the other opinion
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 532 comments)
on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 3:19:16 AM
For the record I didn't flag a complaint against Tom
and I won't.
But I don't think he is here in good faith. And I do think it is fair enough to warn people about that because they may spend a lot of time with Tom that they could have put to better use.
Bush is not yet impeached. Tom has never said he was in favour of impeaching Bush and yet joined in the discussion about building counterarguments with a swag of diversionary arguments or statements against Democrats and against the people who are posting here.
Some forms of nuisance can actually be tactical. If it looks like a cogent impeachment movement might emerge sending dissenters in to break it up might be a smart play. I'm not saying that Tom is here for anything other than his own amusement. But I do recall Tony Snow whose job it once was to put the White House spin out, stating that the cavalry was on the way. ie. Essentially to break up the organised internet resistance and the protesting that was impacting on the President.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 611 comments)
on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 10:29:26 PM
Your deflecting statement of thinking that I'm probably here for my own amusement was mentioned first to make "right" your ability to leave the more poignant and lasting comment thereafter.
But I take it as a complement, Brett, that you think I'm some sort of operative sent in "behind enemy lines" to sow confusion, disrupt lines of communication, and cause general mayhem at OpEdNews.com. You make my actions sound like that of a contemporary, political General Sherman on my own March to the Sea of Truth. However, your thinking that I am an operative is yet more evidence that demonstrates a fair number of folks here not only confine themselves to a half-full glass world (i.e., constantly viewing the issue in the worst light possible) – but they actually thrive off of this viewing and its sinister suppositions.
"[Tom] joined in the discussion about building counterarguments with a swag of diversionary arguments or statements against Democrats and against the people who are posting here."
The impeachment counterarguments are not diversionary but realistic. I've even sourced authors and others who have similar thoughts to myself. I'd call this an alternative perspective or opinion but not diversionary. It's only diversionary if you believe that your position is the ONLY position and that no other position is possible. Adopting such a belief only limits your thinking and narrows your view of others to that of Tony Snow operative.
As I discussed at length elsewhere here about your "warning" comment, Brett, there is nothing wrong with disagreement. You seem to believe that all who post here must essentially believe in the validity of the same issue with the only differences limited to nuances. I disagree with this belief not on the grounds that you are a liberal or Democrat, but instead, such thought is limiting and destructive toward the spirit of compromise that is sadly lacking in political debate today.
As an aside and in response to the flagged comment, I DO apologize if it offended anyone. I actually did debate the posting of it, knowing that some could've taken it the wrong way – which they appear to have done. It was meant to highlight what I perceived was Brett's twist on using a kernel of truth to then wrap and layer impeachment in not just a possible light but also a legally needed one.
While I agree with the possibility that impeachment could happen as part of the total range of options, I disagree with its legal necessity. To the extent that the case for impeachment is a complex and not black and white as Brett would have it, the use of a slow southern drawl fit the perception of slow, simple folk not in need of all that fancy talk.
by
Tom Murphy (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1183 comments)
on Saturday, November 17, 2007 at 1:48:17 PM
"But, there's a quirk in the Constitution. There are no disqualifications for being President. It does not prohibit a convicted criminal, serving time, from being President."
Section 4 [Impeachment]
"Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of ...."
The Presidency is an office. Thats not a building its a role. Removing the President from office means removing the incumbent from the role (and of course the powers of the Presidency which vest in that executive office).
I'm Australian, not American, I could be wrong in my interpretation of your Constitution. But I think I am pretty confident that I am right so you'd have to show me evidence of my error to convince me.
This sort of discussion could be good for sharpening the intellectual blades of those who to protect the Constitution need to better understand it.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 611 comments)
on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 at 10:10:31 PM
Notice the wording. The President shall be removed from office on impeachment AND conviction. It requires both to remove. The President can be impeached, but without conviction, cannot be removed.
Ed.
by
Ed Martin (83 articles, 0 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 74 comments)
on Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 10:04:58 AM
That's right. The House impeached Clinton, but the Senate didn't convict. The impeach and convict terms in the Constitution refer only to actions by the Congress, not the judiciary. There are no disqualifications for President for being a criminal, convicted in the judicial system, as the current President shows. Bush has a criminal record.
All you must have to be President is the proper age, residency and citizenship. Being a convicted criminal is not a disqualification, since there are none. A convicted criminal with the three qualifications could be elected, then if the Congress wanted to, it could take up Congressional impeachment, conviction and removal, based on the judicial conviction, a separate thing. But, if Congress chose not to, as they have with Bush, we could have a criminal serving as President, as we do now.
That's the quirk.
Ed.
by
Ed Martin (83 articles, 0 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 74 comments)
on Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:27:10 PM
I didn't know George W Bush had been convicted of something in the past.
Actually, I personally wouldn't object to an ex-convict being elected President so long as the voters were given a chance to take into account the whole character of the person and their history including the conviction. Sometimes people change.
Crimes committed in office after taking the Presidential oath and when it is part of the duty of the President to see that the laws are faithfully executed, are in a completely different moral category to me.
I'd regard an illegal invasion of a country resulting in massive and foreseeable loss of life of both American servicemen and women and hundreds of thousands of innocent foreigners (including women and children) as extremely serious. Mass murder scales of moral seriousness. I don't want Presidents to be able to get away with mass murder. Which is why I'm for impeachment. That and the fact that Presidents are examples.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 611 comments)
on Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 11:50:25 PM
We ca argue all we can about not impeachment. but i say how about the stealing of two presidential elections?? dont this say something? this should be considerd as FRAUD. A IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. these two imposter's or swindler's should never be president and vice-president of america.what do you have to say about this?
by
vincent passiatore (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 129 comments)
on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 at 11:51:48 PM
