Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Come 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 AllWell, 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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? 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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Ha!
Rather than discuss it they would rather give Kucinich the boot--and claim he is "not serious" and "trivializing" the issues.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
Petition, in case anyone hasn't signed yet:
http://impeachcheney.org/
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.
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!
You all know, they won't do a damn thing....
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!
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
Not to be funny with numbers, but it is:
333 - Time to impeach Cheney !!!!!
Peace,
Ken Hausle
* the time is NOW
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."
.
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...
Mightygorg:You are right she isn't a republican although with her impeachment is off the table she sometimes acts like one.
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.)
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.
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.
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....
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....
Mainstream media hope? Check out "Olberman Impeach Bush" on youtube.com
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.
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.
And that would give the Democrats an incumbent, far better than Hillary!
IMPEACH NOW! Forget about the posturing and positioning. We are FAR beyond that now. IMPEACH for the good of the country.
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.
"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 ...
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."
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.
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.
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.
Impeachement should be done for the benefit of the country. I just wish the Democrats had the back bone to get on with it.
'Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.' RFK
The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. - Henry A. Wallace
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.