I'd like to see a jail cell in this kinglet's future, so, now that's out of the way.
It is political suicide to bring impeachment and not sustain it, the voters won't stand for it. That makes the first question on the issue, are there the votes to sustain an impeachment? I am not sufficiently a Constitutional scholar to say with any certainty that GWB didn't give himself enough legal cover and deniability to avoid a sustainment. Could an impeachement at six years have enough time to dig through all the garbage? The Clinton impeachment proved that the public doesn't support such action without being convinced that the issues are serious. Yes, I'm convinced that the issues are real serious, but I'm not the public. People who take time to cruise political blogs aren't the public. Politicians had better understand the public (uh 11/7/06).
Is impeachment in the public interest? I'd certainly agree that dissuading future kinglets is in the public interest and that persuading the governors and governed that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not optional would be a public service but I'm also positive that we now face a very real socio-economic and diplomatic mess that has got to be cleaned up very quickly. The resulting impacts of dealing with this mess will take time to be felt and they need to be having effect as soon as possible. An impeachment will freeze Congress in place and energize the White House and its Congressional syncophants in opposition to any actions.
Before we take a run off a very high place let's remember that the Republicans got fired, not that the Democrats were hired and the margins were razor thin in a lot of places. I know the actual numbers are encouraging over-all, but quite simply, the election process is what we have to work with. It is easy enough to see how putting a legislative agenda into action might be more politically rewarding than impeaching if the goal is to make a change to the landscape of American life. The crap legislation that the Bushites have put in place can be changed, it might require a new President, a Democrat or (if such a thing exists) a reasonable Republican or it might be possible with George II with the proper ballbat in hand.
Oversight hearings and some snooping in general might bring to light compelling uncovered actions by Bush and Cheney, in which case impeachment might be the absolutely neccesary action. These secretive furtive weasles will have gotten as good advice as possible for coverage and will have hidden, as much as they could, the dirty laundry, so make no big bets on it.
I have three priorities regarding government: 1) The Constitution, 2) the well being of the public, 3) Democratic politics and in that order. I'd argue that 2&3 are inclusive but that requires vigilence. The Constitution is consistently at risk; every power group has hobby-horses to ride and finds Constitutional obstructions to be "archaic" or "irrelevant." If impeachment serves these priorities in their order, I'm all for it, otherwise it's thin ice.
16 comments:
Impeachment is a trauma which I would spare this nation revisiting. It would be worse yet to have to indict the top two leaders, which their conspiracy would demand. We can co-exist with a lame-duck president if he can accept the limits set by the Constitution and the Democratic Congress; hopefully the Supreme Court will excercise some restraint too. We have to consider the breadth of the constituency which comprised the unprecedented (in recent time) gain of representation. I think many are tired of partisan power-play, which the Republicans have pushed so hard. We need to bring back the freedoms this administration has been intent on brushing aside in its head-long pursuit of unassailable power. That should be plenty to keep us busy.
That is surely a good argument and I do think the one that will win out.
I also make no appologies for stating that some of that bunch, especially GWB, deserve jail cells, stomping the Constitution wasn't what anyone fought and died to protect. they've dishonored this country, its traditions, and its sactifices.
Newsweek just released a poll showing 51% of the public supports impeachment.
2/3rds vote in the Senate to Impeach will happen once the evidence gets aired on CSPAN during the trial.
http://impeachforpeace.org/evidence/
All we need is for a few Republican Congress members to realize that tying their political future to Bush reduces their chances of getting elected. Remember, one way or another, Bush is gone by 2009— but members of Congress may retain their offices beyond that date. Bush's poll numbers are extremely low, and most Americans support impeachment. This is a bipartisan movement. This means that if we make the pressure unbearable for Members of Congress, they'll turn on him to keep their own seats (like they did with Nixon). It's already starting to happen.
And even if we only impeach, and the Senate fails to do their duty and remove him from office. It will only implicate the Senators who fail to do their sworn Constitutional duty.
Impeach Bush Yourself...
This is going to be interesting. Congressmen don't confide in me so I'll just have to sit and watch like most everybody else.
They can hold oversight hearings to see if there is available evidence to bring an impeachment hearing and it would be better to not bring an impeachment to go fishing for evidence.
Dear CHUCK:
What was AL-Queda's response to the lefty political win?
Wasn't it posted they still want to blowup the "WHITE HOUSE" no matter who is in it?
How many attacks on this country since Bush took office?
Why don't you have a beer with a few MARINES that fought in Fallugh.
My kid was there, he said, "Dad, their not all like those that shot at us.....Those that did, "need killing!
You need to really have that beer with a few Marines Chuck, you really do.
You know, I put my name on my stuff, always. I take personal responsibility for what I write and for my stands. If a person doesn't want to register with Blogspot, it's just as easy to sign at the bottom of the comment.
You may be making a mistake about me, I am as far from being a pacifist as most anybody. And so you understand that I don't just pull stuff out of my butt, I have a lot of military friends and some relatives.
If you think I'll stand still for the stomping of the Constitution, BOR, and Magna Carta because some half wits put up a statement you must be crazy. You will in no place in this blog find me stating that killing them is problematic. I have, in fact stated that we did not do enough of it in Afghanistan because George II wanted to do it on the cheap. I am real sure that after looking out for their buddies the troops are fighting for this COUNTRY - and this country is not the dirt, it is the ideas expressed in the Constitution, BOR, Declaration of Inbdependence, and ancient English Common Law. You propose to undo that in the name of security, same as the gun banners - both of you are dead wrong. GWB is NOT this country, he's just a rich kid from Texas and they're a dime a dozen, he's an elected President, no more.
If you want to have a stupid argument about security, the gun banners have the numbers on their side vs the Terrorists. In point of fact, terrorists are most enabled by Free Speech, do you want to go there, as well?
This is not a justification, but what do you think you would do if Muslims were running around this country shooting it up? That's not about "who is right?" it's about, "what is going to happen?" A real mess is what would happen and it's what has happened and every argument taking us into this war was based on BS, deliberate or otherwise.
You know, I put my name on my stuff, always. I take personal responsibility for what I write and for my stands. If a person doesn't want to register with Blogspot, it's just as easy to sign at the bottom of the comment.
Chuck: Here in PDX,I WALKED POINT ON WAY TOO MANY ISSUES!(SIGNED MY NAME)
My wife was threatned, my car was vandalized, there never was once a problem or threat from anyone but people like yourself that use that tool to "out" another who stood up to you and those like you.
Hey...BUSH SUCKS! so don't try that one either.
If you "people" had a plan to defend the country or it's southern border, I'd have voted for it.
The "truth"(remember that great line from the movie( "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"
There is a terror threat,to say your not scared is a fing lie.
You are blind an dumb if you think otherwise.
My war in 66 was not even close to what my son fought, it is a war of trully insane people fighting in the name of a religon that S/B peaceful....BUT I GUESS YOU MISSED THAT.
The documents you seek to protect are worthless if they are burned on the fire of radical Islam, and if you seek to be a pacifist against those that will burn those holy papers(can I STILL use a term like that(ACLU may sue me)I won't be alone with other things they burn as well.
I'm not sleeping as well as I did, Nancy an "CHUCKY" are planning outreach to Iran as we speak.
Dear CHUCK:
What was AL-Queda's response to the lefty political win?
Wasn't it posted they still want to blowup the "WHITE HOUSE" no matter who is in it?
How many attacks on this country since Bush took office?
DID YOU MISS THE ABOVE?
like your party, you have no response!!!!!!!
Perhaps the anonymous commenter would sleep better if he weren't misusing a venue meant for honest debate by venting invective and making arguments only intended to belittle any opposition.
Hey anonymous,
see how stupid that is, I can't address one without the other, one actually says something, I may think he's wrong, the other just trolls. Use your initials then.
Look, those pieces of paper are just paper, it's the belief in what they say that counts. There are two things that back those papers, a vote and force and finally force is what backs the vote. (see 2nd A)
My Party has no plan for the Southern border? An un-funded 700 mi fence is a plan?? If you're curious there are a number of statements on this blog regarding that issue, some fellow lefties think I'm mean.
The profile states that if you think you have a niche for me, you're not paying attention, I was serious...
You missed the "pacifist" part of my previous response, look at the picture in "Way Politically Incorrect," and that's just toys. Let's get down to basics and serious don't f*** with me stuff, Commander LW .45ACP, Vaquero 6" .45 Colt, M-1 30-06, Browning Auto 5 12ga - no plug, Marlin Model 1895 45-70 Govt - 400gr. I shoot Nat Match High Power w/M-1, and there are various hunting, etc stuff. No, I'm not a pacifist, but I also understand having good reasons for force.
Look, my work and tools are dangerous (you should see the Work Comp rates), my toys and passtimes are dangerous - guns, hunting, fast cars (NHRA Pro-Bracket), tweaking the Government's nose, I was a USFS Hotshot, I just plain don't scare easily and I don't get pushed around easily either. I didn't like it so I ran for Congress, that's a real public push-back. My name and face have been in nearly every newspaper in the state for some of my activism, I don't just scribble a few lines on the Web to back up what I believe. I do this to provoke thought and discussion.
Yep, I'm a leftwing Democrat, but my name's Chuck Butcher and I have my own personal brain, it's not rented from DPO. (Dem Party OR). When the Democrats agree with me, I'm happy, when they don't, I try to change their minds, but I don't shill for anybody.
My Party has no plan for the Southern border? An un-funded 700 mi fence is a plan?? YOUR PARTY???
Who the f presented that as your plan? YOUR PARTY LIED! AND ITS NOT ENOUGH,....is it?
serious don't f*** with me stuff,
AHH COME ON CHUCK...Marine snipers/and EX ones don't need a description of there "big guns!"
ONE MORE TIME:
Wasn't it posted they still want to blowup the "WHITE HOUSE" no matter who is in it?
How many attacks on this country since Bush took office?
DID YOU MISS THE ABOVE?
Tom W.
Tom,
Did I miss the above? I don't think that one exactly qualifies for bragging rights. Not when the FBI & CIA had enough from conventional law enforcement techniques to have rolled 9/11 up (Bush was Pres, BTW). They didn't and it had nothing to do with trashing the Constitution.
I'm not ex-military for one, for two, that's simply a statement of what's available in the "military scenario" catagory, none accurized or powerful enough to be much use past 1000 yd, but then the reality of urban stuff is that 200yds is pretty darn far. BTW, I'm far from qualified to teach or graduate from sniper school, but I am competent and safe and not the nervous type. I get very calm and decisive when things go weird.
There is a "Search This Blog" button on the right field, put "immigration" in it, I'm not going to re-write all that for you. I already offered it, once, if you don't want to know, then quit asking.
Trolling is the practice of simply attacking and offering no argument, make an argument or be relegated to the role of troll and disregarded.
I spent 22 years in the US Marine Corps. The one thing every member of the US Military swears to uphold and protect against all enemies, both foreign and domestic is the Constitution of the United States.
Chaney and Bush Inc. Have failed that pledge miserably. They are protecting personal beliefs before those of the country and constitution. Period end of statement. What happened to the "Servant" in public servant? Since Richard Nixon, someone in office has attempted or actually has, lined their own pockets at tax payer (you and me) expense. When will we get tired of being used and water the tree of liberty? If there was an absolute amount that could be spent on a campaign, Congressmen, Senators, et al were restricted from working for any one/company that has ever donated to a political campaign, and holders of public office were restricted to two terms...Period. We might have a start toward the type of democracy that is good for all of us. What do you think?
I encourage you and your readers to take a few minutes and see:
http://www.usalone.com/cgi-bin/transparency.cgi?paper=1&qnum=pet45
It's a list of the 25 most recent comments made by real Americans participating in an online poll/letter-writing campaign concerning the impeachment charges recently filed against Vice President Cheney, which are now being evaluated by the House Judiciary Committee. The participation page is at:
http://www.usalone.com/cheney_impeachment.php
Since this campaign began, three members of Congress have signed on as co-sponsors, in part due to hearing from their constituents.
Post a Comment