Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCome on, Obama, and Clinton, and Edwards, and Pelosi: All Aboard the Impeachment Train
With Bush stiff-arming Congress with one specious claim of executive privilege after another, impeachment is more imperative than ever.
The people understand this. It's the politicians, even most Democratic ones, who are lagging so far behind.
A poll came out in early July that showed 45 percent of the public in favor of impeaching Bush, and a whopping 54 percent in favor of impeaching Cheney.
What makes these numbers even more amazing is that they are so high when no senior Democrat has been promoting the cause, and the mainstream media has been shortshrifting it (until Bill Moyers just interviewed John Nichols and Bruce Fein on the subject).
This may be changing for the better, though.
Senator Barbara Boxer was on the Ed Schultz Show last week, and she did not agree with Nancy Pelosi that we should keep impeachment off the table.
"I don't think you can take anything off the table," Boxer said. "Because, in fact, the Constitution does not permit us to take these things off the table."
Boxer, at least, recognizes the gravity of the Bush crimes.
"This is as close as we've ever come to dictatorship," she said.
But the Democratic Presidential candidates, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, are laggards on this one.
Only Dennis Kucinich has come out for the impeachment of Cheney.
Barack Obama, to his discredit, said on June 28 that he opposes impeaching either Cheney or Bush.
"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the President's authority," Obama said.
Well, let's take a look here.
Lying to Congress and the American people about weapons of mass destruction so as to justify a war of aggression is not a grave or intentional breach?
Come on, Obama.
Eavesdropping on Americans here at home without a warrant, when the law says clearly that the "exclusive means" for authorizing such eavesdropping is via a warrant, is not a grave or intentional breach?
Come on, Obama.
Disappearing detainees and torturing them isn't a grave or intentional breach?
Come on, Obama.
Using the U.S. attorneys to file flimsy charges against Democrats in an attempt to alter the outcome of an election, and firing those who wouldn't play Bush League ball, isn't a grave or intentional breach?
Come on, Obama.
Using signing statements more than 750 times to unfaithfully execute the laws of the land isn't a grave or intentional breach?
Come on, Obama.
Outing a CIA agent to silence criticism of this hideous war, and then commuting the sentence of the guy who obstructed the investigation of the matter, isn't a grave or intentional breach?
Come on, Obama.
And now depriving Congress of the documents and witnesses it needs to explore a whole range of Bush Administration malfeasance-this, too, isn't a grave or intentional breach?
Come on, Obama.
And come on, John Edwards.
And come on, Hillary Clinton.
And come on, all other aspirants to that office.
And come on, Nancy Pelosi, too.
The impeachment train is leaving the station.
All aboard.
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine.
© 2007 The Progressive
72 Comments so far
Show AllOh, I forgot...AAALLLLLLLLL ABOARD!
Finally DC actions that aren't on Saturday and that will at least slow down traffic - and with one call: To Impeach!
Join us in DC this Monday or at your local Congressional office - I ask you, where can you have more righteous fun? No where!
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/sit
http://www.democrats.com/sit
AGAIN!!!!!!!!!! I SAY!!!!!!!!!!!
ask Hilary about Mena Arkansas, she/him are/were with bush in narcobiz
Many thanks to all you guys/girls for the informative posts, to this superlative article and others in commondreams.
Of note to the Michael Moore fans who may not have read his interview in Rolling Stone here's a quote taken from the August edition of Playboy:
"I was filming outside the country recently, and people in other countries are so polite. They say, 'We don't hate America - it's just the government.' I have to stop and say (to them), 'I have to tell you something folks, we have a slogan: Of, by, and for the people. Don't let us off the hook so easily. The government is there only because we elected them.' Sure, after 2000 you could say that Bush didn't represent us, because he clearly didn't get the most votes. For four years you could say, 'Please don't blow up the plane I'm flying on! We the people did not elect this guy.' But in 2004, a year and a half into this illegal war, the American people spoke with a loud voice: 'We want more of this. '"
MM may not be cut from the same cute cloth as some in the MSM and in politics....but he damn sure ain't afraid to tell it like it is....and he certainly cut ZNN's "Wookie" Blitzer a new ass. A big Thank You Mike....now give Special K a call...we have about 18 months to field progressive independent candidates and what better place to start?
"If they can back room button hole all the votes they need in the House and the Senate then I would say do it. But until that time, do not waste the time." sjc_1
Actually, an excellent point made by a number of thoughtful proponents of impeachment hearings (recently both John Nichols and Bruce Fein on Bill Moyers' Journal) is that the process of the hearing itself is critical to obtaining and presenting evidence on the basis of which representatives not now supportive of impeachment and Senators not now supportive of conviction may be convinced, by the emerging and well-presented evidence, to change their minds. The point is two-fold: first, that not all evidence supportive of impeachment has been disclosed; more would be likely to be presented by witnesses testifying under oath before the House Judiciary Committee, and second, that none of the evidence, neither that which has already been disclosed nor that which would be obtained and made know for the first time at a hearing, has been organized and presented in the most coherent manner. So what Nichols, Fein and others refer to as the "organic process" of the hearings, with that process's unique ability to obtain and present evidence needed to convince a majority of representatives and two thirds of the Senate to vote to impeach or convict, is one very important reason not to make a "back room button hole [of] all the votes they need in the House and the Senate" a condition of impeachment hearings. An even more important reason is that a fundamental crime of Bush and Cheney, along with war crimes, is their thorough-going subversion of legal process. How much more subversive of legal process can one get than to hold hearings only if one has first predetermined the outcome of the hearing by "back room button hol[ing] all the votes they need in the House and the Senate"? The purpose of a hearing is to obtain and present evidence on the basis of which, and only on the basis of which, a decision is made.
In the same spirit, and in response to "Isn't the president pro tempore of the senate Robert Byrd? We should impeach Bush & Cheney, politely ask the speaker to retain her current occupation, and make him president!" and ". . . public chooses a VP in special election": We're trying to defend the constitution, not make things up as we go along as do Bush, Cheney et al. There are constitutionally mandated processes by which a president removed from office is replaced and a vacancy in the Vice Presidency is filled
U.S. Constitution, Amendment XXV
Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
What should happen is that cheney and bush should be impeached and pres pelosi should then not run as an incumbent but allow the party machinery to do it's thing (repugnant tho that is) and have an elected president...novel idea eh? We haven't had an elected president in years now.
Your kidding yourself if you expect Pelosi to ever sign on to impeachment of Bush. Bush has promised her a Reichmarshall. That's Reichmarshall Nancy Pelosi.
Spirit of Ezra Pound: I agree with the important points you made. Add your thesis to that of Paul Magil smith shared on an earlier posting, as he explains the precipitous decline of the US dollar if the countries being attacked substitute other currencies for ours, and we SEE what's at stake to the elite powers setting policies of global destruction into motion. CHILLING stuff... makes you wish it was just another TV sci-fi that your imagination allowed to SEEM real, just for the 2 hours it played.
Ya know, if Hillary gets in, we are most likely going to have to impeach her. And most likely Obama too. Gore's about a 75% bet for future impeachment.
Impeach the president, and Bush too!
Dear Obama Barack, that would be: grave-grave-grave-grave; about 1,000,000 of them.
All of Iraq and all of the political slithering y'all are indulging yourselves in are not worth one American life.
"Will putting in Obama cause the war to end and the permanent military bases to be destroyed."
Absolutely not , unfortunately neither will Hillary who seems to be about a tad right of Cheney in her hawkish comments on Iran. We currently have a one-party system with two different names. We also delude ourselves we are free and democratic ...
As for criticism we have been doing it for years and years to our benefit. Somehow claiming that our underbelly is marginally cleaner than that of Saudi Arabia in my opinion is a specious argument. It very quickly deteriorates into moral ambiguity. BTW if you are not cynical you are not reading the news !!
Impeachment/removal of Bush/Cheney simultaneously is the only way the Dems will win in 2008. They must go for the jugular, not the fingernail. The national polls show a clear climate among the American people for impeachment/removal of Bush/Cheney simultaneously. National polls show that 75% of the people think we're moving in the wrong direction under Bush/Cheney. 64% of the American people want out of Iraq according to national polls. A large plurality want the Bush/Cheney Administration over NOW. That is fertile ground for impeachment/removal of Bush/Cheney.
When the American people hear uninterrupted the Unamerican high crimes and misdemeanors of Bush/Cheney, they will overwhelmingly support impeachment/removal. Well drafted Article of Impeachment would give the Dems the bully pulpit to make the case properly. The rest of the 67 votes to remove in the Senate will come from those Republican incumbents who are among the 22 Republican Senate seats up for reelection in 2008. Those incumbent Republican Senators will have the choice of voting to remove or being removed by the voting of their constituents in 2008.
Also this would make Nancy Pelosi the first US woman President of the US -- someone who had the good judgment to read the overwhelming intelligence AT THE TIME that Saddam did not have WMDs and was an enemy of Al Qaeda and voted accordingly (as opposed to mediocre, corporatist thinkers like Hillary, Edwards and Obama who feign omnipotence while still wanting to keep troops in Iraq, the first two having voted for the Iraq incursion and Obama calling for residual forces to remain).
Impeachment/removal of Bush/Cheney would take about 4 months. The Dems must do it or lose their edge. The polls already show the people don't believe the garbage being spewed by the pundits and the Emmanuels that the Dems can't do anything to end the war until they have 100 Democratic Senators. That's why the new Congress has even lower approval ratings than Bush.
With all due respect to many who have expressed their views on this subject, the fact is that the United States of America is no longer a republic, or a nation of laws. It has become a country of empowered criminals, who write their own rules as they go along...
There are no remaining substantial vestiges (only forms) of American jurisprudence and the common law... both have given way to ubiquitous statutes, formulated over the years in the interest of banking, trading and commercial cartels and known as the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C).
Where once there was AJUDICATION of PUBLIC LAW on behalf of the commonwealth, there is now ADMINISTRATION of PUBLIC POLICY on behalf of special interests (defined NOT as groups favoring worthwhile causes, e.g., fair play, peace, equity, life, liberty, free enterprise, renewable energy, etc., BUT as entities possessing untold wealth), i.e., the people with the means to buy politicians and judges cum administrators.
With few and notable exceptions, American politicians -at all levels of government- are the vassals of corporate or international patronage, i.e., the bosses who write the checks and provide the other emoluments for office holders, as opposed to their alleged (and entirely fictional) 'constituency'.
The few honorable public servants, in all jurisdictions, are numerically outnumbered by their colleagues on-the-take: the majority of glad-handing, step-'n-fetch-it job holders, concerned only with their own personal continuance in good health, financial prosperity and public office... concerns which can be thwarted at next election by obvious things, such as a loss of patronage and the drying up of campaign funds...
Or, more subtly, continuity can be broken immediately and finally by any number of events which recent history has suggested may be model outcomes for members of Congress or the Senate who develop consciences, or can no longer be counted on 'to play ball' for their patrons... For example, a mysterious plane crash, a white surprise in the mail (remember the unsolved anthrax scare in the wake of 9-11 ?), an inexplicable personal accident... or any number of fatal consequences.... any of which could be touted to the Pavlovian masses as the work of Muslim terrorists, Al Quadia, or what other AaaRaab boogey man may be pulled out of their GUT, by a corrupt and scare-mongering administration.
Then too, many of these feckless office holders have been compromised and intimidated by their fear of public exposure of their own personal vices, by an administration whose snoops have been collecting dirt and filth on them for lo, these many years.
No, folks: It's a nice thought, but there will be no impeachment of Bush or Cheney, because they are the BIG DOGS who serve their own ubermasters... and all of the little dogs -including Speaker of the House Ms. Bella Lugosi and 'Senator' Obama- have been trained to love in fear of them...
P. J. O'Rourke was prescient! Without a doubt, we have a Parliament of Whores.
I'd be completely shocked if the Democratic Party impeached Bush. Going back to at least 1992, the role of the Democrats is to protect and defend Republican gains during the lean Republican years when people have figured out they are crazy and crooked. The Democrats are not a grassroots party, nor a party of the people. It takes big bucks to be a player in the Democratic Party. You emails to reps and online petitions are useless.... unless maybe you've got a million bucks or so to donate to back it up.
The Democratic party is back by big money just like the Republicans. Maybe different flavors of big money, but big money. And if you look close (www.opensecrets.org), you'll see industries like Defense and Oil giving more money to the Dems these days.
All of this means the Dems ain't never going to impeach. Not a chance. Its not because they are cowards. Its not because they are political idiots who can't read a poll and see Bush in the 20% range. Its because they are bought and paid for by the same people, and there role is to keep things under control when the Republicans crash. Impeachment is off the table. The Dems have plainly said so. Yet people still voted for them. Why?
People keep acting like the expect Dems to do things like impeach, or end the war. Why is this? They won't. They haven't. They show no sign of doing so. They come out and clearly say they won't do so. Yet the people who keep voting Dem keep acting like the Dems are only one email or one online petition signature away from hearing the voice of the people and suddnely doing this. Its a fantasy. Give it up. Please. When you vote Dem based on this bizarre fantasy, you are hurting the rest of us. Please stop!
"So in reality its media conglomeration and its related stranglehold on governments on either side thats the issue and has nothing to do with our 'constituition' or yours. Nothiong irritates more than the british criticizing the americans and picking on flaws, however festered they are. The brits have done nothing but sucked the blood of most nations in the world for the last 500 years. Its time they shut the f!@# up and go away someplace to die peacefully."
Really, when you think about nobody really has a place criticizing any nation, since I can't think of one that doesn't have an underbelly.
Sure, the Brits should just die. Right now, there's some right-winger saying the same things about Arabs, blacks, gays, feminists, people in unions, etc.
Most Brits are against this war also. Let's not sling mud at them. Cynicism is counterproductive. We can turn the tide here.
Would that be the real reasons that the democrats will not impeach?
Gyptian,
I disagree only with your last sentence :-
"Its time they (the brits) shut the f!@# up and go away someplace to die peacefully."
I am not about to do that, but I would substitute the following:-
"It is time they rose up and threw out this traitorous Blairite government."
Sadly, despite having protested in their millions just prior to the elections, they elected him in again. The reason they did not, is that they have a two party system like the U.S.. Blair belongs to the Labor Party (the equivalent of your Democrats). To have a change of government would put the Conservative Party in (your Republicans). That is, to have a change of government would be the equivalent of throwing out Pelosi, Obama and Hillary and putting in Cheney, Bush, Rumsfield and Rice. That would not improve anything.
Like you, the brits can have TweedleDee in power, or they can have TweedleDum. Both act on behalf of the corporations and the super rich. One has a little of the rhetoric of peace, and then only if they happen not to be in power.
Your Democrats voted for FOR the Iraq war and seem to be spoiling for one in Iran. I ask you honestly - Will putting in Obama cause the war to end and the permanent military bases to be destroyed. Will your democrats walk away from all that oil that the U.S. is so close to owning?
Isn't the president pro tempore of the senate Robert Byrd? We should impeach Bush & Cheney, politely ask the speaker to retain her current occupation, and make him president! We'd be out of there in no time. And, I seriously doubt the guy ever wanted to be president - so he'd be perfect at it.
There is no doubt that impeachment is what we need. The question is: How? I am emailing my congress REPRESENTATIVE weekly as well as Nancy Pelosi to support HR 333. It seems to be getting a little more attention, but we need impeachment before they bomb Iran and begin WWIII. We need Kucinich as our next President, but until then??
Any ideas?
Obama rallies his constituents with his 'I spoke out against the war' rhetoric but now when all the chips are on the table, he move with the same vigilance as all the rest. What is at stake with these people? Is it more important than letting the world know that the U.S. can right its own ship and learn from its misdeeds. If we allow these criminals to walk our moral standing in the world is nil.
So in reality its media conglomeration and its related stranglehold on governments on either side thats the issue and has nothing to do with our 'constituition' or yours. Nothiong irritates more than the british criticizing the americans and picking on flaws, however festered they are. The brits have done nothing but sucked the blood of most nations in the world for the last 500 years. Its time they shut the f!@# up and go away someplace to die peacefully.
The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. - Henry A. Wallace
'Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.' RFK
Impeachement should be done for the benefit of the country. I just wish the Democrats had the back bone to get on with it.
Gyptian,
"How else would you explain blair being in power all these years despite his best 'poodle' impression ? Is it because the brits actually love being our bitches and gave him the leeway"
It is because the empire is bigger than you might think. Large slabs of the UK media are owned by those aligned with those who run the USA. E.G. "The Sun", Britain's top selling newspaper is owned by Fox News USA. So far, amongst other things, they have used flag waving to keep the UK from adopting the Euro. The owners of commercial TV also have similar alignments. The BBC also has to tow the line, as it depends on funds from the government.
Australia too, is in exactly that same position. For example, in Brisbane it is not possible to buy a newspaper that not owned by Fox News USA. They have very Australian sounding names such as "The Australian" and "Queensland Newspapers", but if you follow the chain up, they are all owned by Fox News USA. The owners of the commercial TV are solidly aligned with the USA. The ABC and SBS also must tow the line, as they depend on funds from above.
A politician who utters the wrong words will be demonised and has little chance of success. Politicians who submit obediently to their masters in the USA get good publicity as well as other benefits as well.
On paper, the USA does not own the UK or Australia. In practice, by owning their media, they do.
I just read Paul Craig Robert's article. It's pretty scary stuff and certainly more than credible given the history of the Bush administration. I really believe Bush and Cheney are up to no good, no good for American democracy. They will do everything in their power to stay in control. They're like cornered animals at this point. And I would also agree that impeachment IS the only option. It must be done. After all that's happened in this country the last six years, we would be EXTREMELY naive not to believe that the Bush administration is more than willing to do just what PCR is talking about.
Michael Moore's "Sicko" to me had as its underlying theme the notion that our country was on the wrong track in its overall approach to its people. And it also seem to be saying that we need to change a lot more than just the health care delivery system in order to be able to change the health care delivery system. Think about the issues raised from the imperialist war in Iraq to paid vacation to child care to housing to homelessness.
That film is a work of genius and he is right about all those changes needing to come as a package.
There is a segment of the film where he discusses the advantages of life in France and then that progresses to a sequence of images of demonstrations of French citizens for various populust causes, including direct demands from workers.
The conversation then talks about how the government in France is afraid of the people, but here in the U.S. the people are afraid of the government, and its storm troopers, and that what we need is to change the atmosphere here from what we now have to a situation like that in France where the government fears the reaction of the people to things like tax cuts for the rich and imperialist wars that break our children's hearts and leave many of them dead and make us all complicit in war crimes and make us decide for financial reasons to throw our very flesh on the dump like the man in Oregon was forced to do because he didn't have $60,000 to get it sewn back on.
Let's face it - Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld have to be arrested and imprisoned. It is the only way we will be able to resurrect the U.S.A.'s once glowing international reputation. Anything else would be like the Germans allowing Hitler and Goering to live out their golden years at Bergtesgarten.
Its divine intervention that made us all aware of Clinton and Edwards intentions. They are New World Order elites. "Lucy, you gotta lotta splain'n to do..."
What is also outrageous is Michael Moore's ranting 'wag the dog' fourteen-years-too-late distraction film about Medicare conveniently timed when, if we don't IMPEACH these devils now, that's all she wrote America! If he wasn't a gate keeper his film would be a summation of Treason and Impeachment and then I'd be reassured whose side he's really on. "By their fruits you shall know them."
"In a parliamentary system, such as Britain's,"
Thre truth is either system currently allows runaway heads of state like bush and blair continue on endlessly. How else would you explain blair being in power all these years despite his best 'poodle' impression ? Is it because the brits actually love being our bitches and gave him the leeway or is it becqause the british parliamentary system is somehow better than our own flawed constitution ...
The more that the "lead runners" diminish the NEED for impeachment, the more it seems they truly have been pre-selected by larger handlers to do the bidding of these hidden elites. Their major qualification, they can put on a show of smoke and mirrors and at times mime the illusion that there is still a discernible difference between the two bought & paid for corporate parties. Of course, given what is at stake for ordinary citizens, an utter loss of American life as we've known it, this is no time to stay seated and obediently watch the show.
IMPEACH NOW! Forget about the posturing and positioning. We are FAR beyond that now. IMPEACH for the good of the country.
And that would give the Democrats an incumbent, far better than Hillary!
To hell with Pelosi. Have her resign her speaker post and let the House elect someone far more responsible and capable of being president. Then get on with the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
Responding to the first post, by Jwea, Congress must approve any appointment to fill a vacancy in the office of Vice President. Most exponents of impeachment favor removing Cheney first, or both Bush and Cheney together.
Mainstream media hope? Check out "Olberman Impeach Bush" on youtube.com
I don't think the President should be impeached first because, if there was conviction in the Senate, then the VP would become the P. No way.
Peace,
Ken Hausle
* I support HRes333 - Impeach the VP first, then lets see what happens....
Pelosi would not become President under any circumstance. You bring up articles of Impeachment on both Bush and Cheney. Even if they both succeed, they are still in power until the Senate votes. If it looks at that point that removal would pass then Cheney would resign, a new VP would be voted on by the Senate including 50 Dems, so it wouldn't be anyone currently running for President. Then Bush would either step down or be removed (no way he allows himself to be removed) and on we go. It's funny that the Dem apologizers on this thread always use the "politics" argument as a reason to not impeach yet can't see how politics would shape the event. And to all those Kucinich backers out there- where is the call to impeach Bush? If they are guilty of the same crimes then shouldn't we impeach the President of the country first, and then the VP? Or is it just easier to go after the guy with 15% approval ratings and leave alone the "Unitary Decider" and his 30% approval ratings? And before anyone makes the lame argument that Cheney is the real President, don't! You sound as stupid as those people that always claimed Hilary was the "real" President in the Clinton White House, and of course will now say that Bill is the "real" President if Hilary wins. It just gives cover to the Bush Dynasty which controls W and Cheney....
For a long time now I didn't thnk Kucinich had much of a chance at winning the Presidential election and I have held my support until I saw a viable candidate. I don't see any. And I waited for Al Gore to take a run for the Demo nomination but I think I can give up on that idea completely. There are only nay noises coming from Gore quarters. Kucinich is the only candidate who speaks intelligently, understands world affairs from the experience of his House seat, and speaks as if he cares about our country, the environment of the world, and us the citizens. I have decided not to stray from the Democratic Party (I was very tempted to go Indepenent) just so I can vote for Kucinich in the primary. It's time we give our presidency to an honest man.
Obama just proves how out of touch he is with the people by not being for impeaching Cheney/Bush in that order. Obama would be as big a disaster as Bush if that's possible.What are those people thinking giving him all of that money for his campaign?I'm still hoping against hope that AL Gore will run.
Matthew Rothschild is a true progressive. And this article exposing Obama, Clinton and Edwards as corporate representatives (Thanks for the phrase Rabblerowzer) and as corporate Democrats is a great service to the progressive citizenry. Paul Street at ZNet has also exposed these corporate Democrats posing as progressives.
I agree with all who complement Kucinich. He is progressive on the issues. If someone here has his ear, tell him to quit saying he is opposed to war by using the phrase "war as an instrument of policy." He needs to say he is opposed to "torture, kidnapping, illegal spying, illegal wars, lying and trashing our Constitution as instruments of policy." The truth is there are scenarios where war is necessary and legit as an instrument of policy. For example, if Bush attacks Iran, an Iranian attack on US forces would be a necessary, legit use of war as an instrument of policy--by Iran--as long as they gave the matter to the UNSC to decide upon while they defended themselves from Bush's aggression. (In accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter and Article 4 (2) also.)
Mightygorg:You are right she isn't a republican although with her impeachment is off the table she sometimes acts like one.
I wonder if they think they will get to keep their jobs in a sort of "ornamental congress" alongside Bush's "emergency" dictatorship; we'll all get to continue voting, and whoever is there will simply inform us that "nothing is on the table." They will continue wearing expensive suits and mostly not showing up to vote on bills which all have an automatic veto, because Cheney will not merely be "president of the senate," but the entire legislative branch himself. Hillary Clinton will insist that WWIII, IV, and V are "george bush's wars" and we at commondreams can log on to continue our discussion of the green party...
Obama says he opposes impeaching either Cheney or Bush. "I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the President's authority."
Dennis Kucinich has come out for the impeachment of Cheney, but only a few Democrats are backing him.
Take a look and listen to this guy. Dennis talks sense, has convictions and courage and I haven't caught him in a lie yet. On top of that, he isn't one of the shiny new Corporate Representatives the Republican owned Monopoly Media has plopped down on our plates. "Here, eat this."
.
Carol Dodson, 3:12 pm --
The important thing is not "cutting Pelosi some slack." It's defending the US Constitution -- and if Pelosi stands in the way of this, she should be impeached as well.
You have badly confused your priorities to imagine that Pelosi's personal reputation, feelings or PR requirements rank anywhere near the top of the list, here. She works for us, remember? We are very close in this country to enshrining presidential dictatorship as a de facto norm. We are very close to abandoning the Constitution in all but name. Impeachment is the ONLY way our society can preserve the Constitution & the rule of law -- and Pelosi's career, reputation, & feelings have zero importance, relative to the urgency of destroying the Bush-Cheney tyranny & preserving constitutional rule.
Not to be funny with numbers, but it is:
333 - Time to impeach Cheney !!!!!
Peace,
Ken Hausle
* the time is NOW
Steps:
1. Impeachment of Cheney.
2. Bush names successor per the approval of Congress.
3. Impeachment of Bush.
4. Named successor becomes President and public chooses a VP in special election.
Peace,
Ken Hausle
* I support HRes333 - Impeach the VP
** time is of the essence
Carol, it may be a slippery slope right out of office if Cindy Sheehan gets elected, and tja.... your right they won't do a damn thing unless we make them!
You all know, they won't do a damn thing....
If Bush and Cheney are impeached, then according to the Constitution the person in line for the presidency would be the Speaker of the House, who is, of course, Nancy Pelosi. No wonder, then, that Pelosi is not too keen on impeachment, since it would make it appear as though she has an agenda to become president without being elected to the office. Would she then be able to choose her V.P.? If this scenario were to occur, then how would this impact those Democrats now running for president? I don't know, but I can see how this is a slippery slope for Pelosi, so cut her some slack!
If they can back room button hole all the votes they need in the House and the Senate then I would say do it. But until that time, do not waste the time.
Petition, in case anyone hasn't signed yet:
http://impeachcheney.org/
Obama, how grave do you want your breaches to be? It would only be slightly more grave of a breach than those Bush already committed if he declared he is suspending the constitution, and then it will be too late. My god Barack, what is wrong with you? I have lost every bit of respect for you I ever had.
Paul hit it spot on. Well done. For the very reasons he stated, to my and our dismay, impeachment will never happen, as evidenced by the fact that, three or more months after introducing them, Kucinich's draft articles of impeachment against Cheney (HR 333) have as co-sponsors only about three percent of House members, and only about six percent of Democratic House members. Folks get all excited when, here and there, another co-sponsor signs on, but the big picture here, folks, is that a very small percentage of our "representatives" are representing us.
Check out Paul Craig Roberts article today in Counterpunch, "Impeach Now". We should all be very, very, concerned. These guys are not going away unless we throw them out now and send a message to Republicans AND Democrats that we the people will not be messed with. Forget political posturing for the election. It may be too late!
As a Brit, may I suggest that you may have a problem with your constitution? Impeachment is a crude weapon, but it seems to be the only one you have with which to check a rogue executive. And of course the Clinton impeachment brought it into disrepute. In a parliamentary system, such as Britain's, Bush would have been out on his ear last November. Additionally, as head of government, Bush would not have been head of state - our dear old queen does have her uses!
It's simply a wrong analysis to paint the Dems as being overly concerned about election politics, while not taking advantage of (a) a very low public opinion of Bush & Co. (b) stepping up to the plate and showing a little leadership.
The analysis that they're worried about elections just doesn't hold water. Furthermore, all politicians are always worried about elections. But if such a crass power-mentality overrides substance, ethics, responsibility, etc. they -- like Shrub -- are simply unfit to rule.
On the contrary, they're beholden to many of the same interests, and have passed through the same corporate/media sieve as Shrub. It's not that they're afraid to represent the US, it's that they can't. Their base generally overlaps Shrub's base.
Dream on. The spineless, gutless democ-rats will never do it. You can fantasize as much as you want. Its too obvious how closely these 2 parties are tied together.
Ha!
Rather than discuss it they would rather give Kucinich the boot--and claim he is "not serious" and "trivializing" the issues.
"Senator Barbara Boxer was on the Ed Schultz Show last week, and she did not agree with Nancy Pelosi that we should keep impeachment off the table.
"'I don't think you can take anything off the table,' Boxer said. "Because, in fact, the Constitution does not permit us to take these things off the table."
"Boxer, at least, recognizes the gravity of the Bush crimes.
"'This is as close as we've ever come to dictatorship,' she said."
Thanks to Matthew Rothschild and the Progressive for proving two things:
1) There is at least one US Senator who can read, write and think and has the intelligence and moral capability to understand the difference between constitutionalism and the rule of law and dictatorship;
2) There is at least one publication that, in a few words, can highlight a salient issue in plain language and propose a concrete, doable solution that makes sense to almost everybody except those charged with carrying the decision out.
When the rest of the political and media establishment cry the false defense of "we didn't know it was this bad" after the next attack on constitutional government and democracy in the US (assuming there is anything left to attack) by the fascists who now hold power, it may be entertaining to ask them, how come you didn't know when Kuchinich, Boxer, Rothschild and the Progressive did? At least the truth can survive a little longer.
And even the Cheney articles aren't intrepid leadership, with only HALF the number of co-sponsors for a vice impeachment compared to those for presidential IMPEACHMENT articles filed By JOHN CONYERS under the prior miserepublican CONgress.
From the article sited above posted by zoya:
"No decision on military action is expected until next year. In the meantime, the state department will continue to pursue the diplomatic route."
Gee...no decision on military action until next year...2008?...election year???? Hmmmm.
Hello jwea...
I think you need to check up on who is next in line to be President if Bush and Cheney are impeached... hint.... she certainly is not a Republican...
..........................
It is time to bring impeachment of these criminals to the front of the table.
I'm terrified - not of terrorists, but of my own government, and Barack, you just lost my vote.
If the current administration is not held accountable, then the way has been paved for even more abuse of power in the future. Could it be that Bush and Cheney have succeeded in strengthening the executive branch to the point that no democratic candidate will impeach because they are all looking to increased power as the next president?
IMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!
Let's blanket the country with signs, dialogue, letters to the editor, blogs and conversations!
Impeachment? Yes. Re-electing an incumbent politician? No.
Look here for the continuing "Cunningham Conspiracy" http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/071607L.shtml
C'mon America!
If the Dems are refusing to do their duty to the nation and the constitution because of some crass political calculation as to what's best for their own narrow selfish interests, then the American people should completely reject them as possible leaders and representatives of the rest of us.
-- come to Denver next year! www.recreate68.org
Impeachment is the only way to keep Bush and Cheney too busy to start bombing Iran. See today's Guardian and Time mag.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2127343,00.html
Do the Dems want an incumbent president who is eligible to run for office? The answer is NO.
That's why they are sitting on their hands and playing it safe.
If both cheney and bush were to be impeached now, then someone, presumably a Republican, would be placed in office. If this, presumably Republican, individual is eligible to run for office, and IF the Republican nominee were already not selected, then that person, the same as G. Ford in '76, would be the logical choice for the Republican nomination and they would by default become the candidate in November '08.
No matter how bad the incumbent is, or how good the challenger is, incumbents ALWAYS have a significant advantage.
The Dems have screwed themselves too many times to let that happen.
THAT's what they are thinking. THAT's why they are sitting on their hands.
The case for impeachment is about as solid as one could ask. The provisions in the Constitution, however, do not mandate Congress to do the right thing. And in this case, the right thing runs fully counter to Pelosi's perception of what could become the hugely political thing. Impeaching Bush and Cheney would create a situation in which Pelosi would become president. The line of succession if the top two administration officials are removed is the Speaker of the House, followed by the Senate's president pro tem, the secretary of state, and then other members of the Cabinet. Imagine the conservative firestorm about a Democratic coup-de-impeachment, if Pelosi were to countenance an effort that, however justified on the merits would give her the presidency? This is the double-bind of our succession provisions. At one point in history, the successor would hold office only until an election were held. That, or some version of it, makes better sense.
So what does that mean? We go put on some brown shirts and get in line? Or take to the streets and so raise some hell?
I understand the Dems argument against impeaching Bush and Cheney. It's all political due to concerns about the next election. After giving this much thought, I've come to the conclusion that sometimes you just have to do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may. This is one of those times. I think our Constitution demands it. If we don't stop this presidential abuse of power, a precedent will be established allowing future presidents to operate outside the law. If that happens, we are one step closer to tyranny. Bush is asserting theories of govt that are dictatorial and antithetical to American democracy. It's imperative that Congress reclaim it's authority as a coequal branch of govt and prevent that from happening. Can you imagine what would happen if we don't impeach, and a republican gets elected anyway? Don't you think he would simply pick up where Bush left off, pushing the limits of presidential power and defying congress at every turn. This needs to be stopped now, even if it's risky for the Dems. I think people would respect the Dems more for standing up to this presidential abuse of power.
Well, there's war as economic/resource policy (nationalized piracy or plundering). Perhaps that's what Kucinich is refering to.
Regarding the earlier commentary about the Speaker being next in line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession) so we should cut her some slack -- that completely misses the deeper issue. Namely, that this is INDEED her responsibility, and she's being paid to accept that possibility. No leader who shirks his/her duty is deserving of it. If there's one "lesson" we can learn from Bush/Rove and the politics of power, it's that power is not an abstract title. It's something to be wielded to its full extent if necessary.
They failed, of course, in that they didn't do so wisely. Their purpose was strictly for making the rich richer, the poor poorer.