President Pelosi in 2007

I don't think that Hillary Clinton is going to be the first woman president. I don't think she will be the front runner in 2008. I think both of those slots will be filled next year.

By Nancy Pelosi.

It's not that I'm a big Nancy fan. It's not that I think she has a burning desire to be the president. And I actually do think that part of the reason that she has said "impeachment is off of the table," is because everyone knows that Bush and Cheney are toast, and she doesn't want to appear to be power hungry.

And I like that. She probably doesn't want the job. But follow me over the jump, and I'll tell you why the stars are aligned.

We know that Bush and Cheney lied to Congress to extort an authorization to start a war in Iraq. We know how they did it, and we know why they did it.

We know that there is a long train of abuses by Bush and Cheney, and that any ONE of them is enough to toss them out of office and into jail.

We know that the president and vice president have mounted a full scale assualt on the constitution on many fronts.

We know that, besides defrauding Congress to commit a crime against peace, that the president and vice president think that contempt for the Supreme Court, even attempting to defraud the Court, on the issue of war crimes, is one of their constitutional powers.

We know that for years they have overeached and abused their authority.

But what many people still do not know, or fully understand, is that the Bush Administration may have finally overeached themselves so far, that they have set the stage for their downfall. And if we still had a Republican Congress, it might not matter.

But there is now a Democratic Congress, and it does matter. The Military Commissions Act matters. It matters because that sly provision to shield Bush and his administration from war crimes prosecution means that his government has has attempted to subvert the Justice system in America to such an extraordinary degree that the only avenue to pursue prosecutions for war crimes rests with the concept of universal jurisdiction under the Geneva Conventions.

Two weeks ago, lawyers from all over the world, joined by human rights organizations and two Nobel Peace Prize winners, have joined a suit brought by 12 plaintiffs alleging war crimes by the Bush Administration. The lead organization is the same organization that handled the Pinochet case, The Center for Constitutional Rights.
The suit is being brought in Germany under universal jurisdiction, as Germany is a High Contracting Party to The Geneva Conventions, and has adopted law to implement cases under universal jurisdiction. The crimes alleged are TORTURE, and along with the living plaintiffs, the lawyers have brought evidence of 100 people who were tortured to death.

Their star witness is Brig Gen Janis Karpinsky, who was commander of the prisons in Iraq.

Some people have dismissed this case as being unlikely and the White House has characterized it as "frivolous." Some commentators have joked about the unlikely event of a case being brought before the international court in the Hague.

This case would not be in The Hague. It would not be before the international court, which has to have a referral from the UN, where the perpetrators have veto power. It would come before a federal court in Germany.

Right now, it is before the Federal Prosecutor, Monika Harms, in Germany. A decision on whether to go forward with prosecution will come sometime after the New Year. The plaintiffs are prepared to bring the suit in other countries (France is next) if this one fails. I don't think it will fail.

Go to The Center for Constitutional Rights' website and read the pdf files on this case there, and see if you agree.

And now we come to the current objections to impeachment and removal of Bush and Cheney. "We don't have the votes!" they say. Will we have the votes if the Attorney General is indicted for WAR CRIMES?

Can we sit still and defend with our inaction, this president, while evidence is being presented to the world that he is a war criminal? Can we hail him as our leader, our representative to the world under those conditions, and ignore the constitution?

And will we ignore the majority of the people, too? A majority of the people favor impeachment and removal NOW, and most of them aren't aware of this case in Germany. And will we ignore the media, who won't be able to resist this story?

I don't think so. And I don't think that the reaction by Congress will be slow, tedious and painstaking examination, investigations and hearings over months and years, concerning evidence that is already public knowledge.

And as long as war crimes are being considered for impeachment, why not OTHER crimes and abuses of power, the evidence of which is already publicly available?

My argument is this: Once a war crimes indictment is a reality, events will take on a life of their own, and it won't matter one bit if the Democrats decided not to pursue impeachment. The issue will pursue them.

And the faster that events begin to unfold, the more urgent will become the need to remove these dangerous criminals from office before further, perhaps more destructive, crimes are committed.

The happier alternative, is President Pelosi.

Tags: Bush, CCR, cheney, Pelosi, war crimes (all tags)

Comments

32 Comments

Re: President Pelosi in 2007

Not a chance in hell... Your statement alone says it all... They will decide later in the year whether to even proceed.  Any good lawyer will drag these out until Bush is out of office.  Even then, it would be a long shot for him to be punished even if convicted.  

Knowing the GOP will keep up an unpopular idea in the face of public resentment (Iraq..), please name me 17 GOP senators who will turn on Bush and vote for conviction at 67... Given how many supported torture bills, including Joementum, and the fact that many of these don't recognize the authority of these courts and proceedings, I doubt you'd find the numbers.  

by yitbos96bb 2006-12-06 05:41AM | 0 recs
They will decide later in the year

You misunderstood me. Soon after the New Year, the decision of whether to procede on war crimes indictments will be made. That's a month from now. That puts a decision to indict right about the time that Scooter Libby goes on trial, and right about the time the new Congress gets underway, and right before Bush's State of the Union speech.

You say a good lawyer can drag it out for two years? A lawyer may be able to drag out pre-trial motions, but that just feeds the media beast, increases public awareness of this issue, and generates pressure on Congress to take action.

You say we can't get 17 Republican votes to convict? 21 Republican Senators are up for re-election in 2008. Several Republican Senators just won narrow victories for re-election in blue-trending states. I'm not saying it's a cake walk, but there are plenty of determined activists who will lead the charge to lobby these Senators to answer REALITY and remove war criminals from office.

Dismissing it out of hand will become an untenable position with the REALITY of a war crimes indictment.

by taraka das 2006-12-06 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: They will decide later in the year

AN indictment by a FEDERAL court in the US... sure you might get them... An indictment by a court outside of the US... Won't happen, they won't turn on Bush, because while you bring up they are up for re-election, I can tell you in otday's partisan enviroment, they would lose all RNC support in 2008... In their mind, it is better to go out swinging and get beat, than to have the party ostracize you and take your money away.  I would bet a large sum on not being able to get 17 senators to vote to remove based on a court not US soil issuing an indictment.  

by yitbos96bb 2006-12-06 01:11PM | 0 recs
I offered a wager

of USD 100, but Mr. Das has yet to take up my wager.

I will happily wager any person who wishes to that a) the house will not pass a bill of impeachment and b) the Senate will not vote on such a bill, either yeah or nay.

I will wager $100.  To pay off, the loser will make a contribution to the democratic candidate of the choice of the winner.

by dataguy 2006-12-06 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: I offered a wager
I have a feeling he is either very young (16-20), naive on politics, or possibly foreign... maybe 2 or all 3.  This country doesn't work the way he is trying to make it.  If Bush was convicted by a foreign court does he honestly think the US would hand Bush over for prison or impeachment?  Not a chance in HELL would that EVER happen... I wouldn't support it and I HATE Bush with a passion... it sets to much of a bad precident.  There is a reason War Criminals usually only happen when a country is defeated and leadership overthrown.  
Besides, my bet is it is dismissed... Bush's torture at Guantanamo wasn't against soldiers of a country, but terrorist criminals.  Now, it is reprehensible and it SHOULDN'T be tolerated or allowed by our country, but to the letter of the law, most treaties do NOT cover terrorists, they cover POWs.  Ever wonder why they call them detainees instead of POWs.  He can argue the prison as the independent work of soldiers and not sanctioned by him... and no concrete proof exists he did, even if we all pretty much know its true.  If the Guantanamo detainees are not classified by the court as POWs, then he hasn't broken the Geneva convention.  
by yitbos96bb 2006-12-06 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: I offered a wager

"I have a feeling he is either very young (16-20), naive on politics, or possibly foreign..."

Wrong on all three counts, yet you pit your intuition and knowledge against mine.

"This country doesn't work the way he is trying to make it.  If Bush was convicted by a foreign court does he honestly think the US would hand Bush over for prison or impeachment?"

Perhaps I assume my readers know as much about the constitution and the law as I do, and so I sometimes lead them to mistaken conclusions that I didn't make. Or perhaps you didn't read what I wrote very carefully.

I'm not suggesting that the US would hand Bush over to a foreign court. Or an international court. I would oppose that too. Bush can, and should, be tried for crimes in the United States, since he has offended us, and embarasses us by creating a situation where prohibitions of the most heinous crimes, which we have strenously and persistently insisted that other countries adopt, are now being investigated outside of our country, because accomplices to the crimes have been placed in offices of power to frustrate justice.
And this is the reason that there will be a strong reaction on the part of SENATORS, who have special responsibility to uphold the legality of treaties with regard to WAR CRIMES, and the observance of AMERICAN principles of justice in international law.
It isn't the consequences of prosecution in a foreign court that will drive impeachment and removal. It's the process. The notion that our own principles of law are forced to a venue outside our own country by the subversion of the rule of law by the Bush Administration is the outrage on top of all other outrages that will prompt Senators to vote on the right side of legal principle, and history.
Our ability to nurture and extend our principles around the world is met squarely by this issue. We forfeit our standing as the champion of the rule of law and republican government if we say to the world that these issues are unimportant to us, even in the face of the most awful crimes against humanity.
Hand Bush and Cheney over to a foreign court for prosecution? NO! Assert the mechanisms of our constitution and remove from office the obstacles to legal consequences for the criminals in office. Namely, themselves.
We cannot allow position of office to trump the rule of law. The authority of the office derives from the rule of law, and not the other way around.
"Bush's torture at Guantanamo wasn't against soldiers of a country, but terrorist criminals."

By whose determination? Are you satisfied to insitutionalize the practice of imprisoning anyone without due process merely because they are called a name, and keeping the reason that they are imprisoned a secret? It's a formula for tyranny.

Are you aware that 11 of the plaintiffs in the war crimes case in Germany are innocent people harmed by this unjust and outrageous abuse of power? No, of course you aren't aware of that, because you haven't read the case, have you?

Instead, you simply make opinions based on your gut feelings, and presume to argue with someone who has done a little research on the issue.

Go to The Center for Constitutional Rights' website and read the case. Don't take my word for it that this is a serious case that won't be long ignored, and that it will have consequences here in the near future.

Then take a look at all the Republican Senators that you haven't considered. Look at the demographics.

The time for dismissing impeachment and removal out of hand is fast coming to an end.

by taraka das 2006-12-07 04:31AM | 0 recs
Re: I offered a wager

I'm glad you have $100 to play with as a wager.

For myself, I find gambling to be a childish and foolish waste of money.

That you are affluent enough to make this the measure of your confidence in your point of view tells me a great deal about your stake in the status quo.

I'm in the same boat with quite a lot of my countrymen, and do not fear change. In fact, I welcome it.

I do not take wagers. I do not gamble. And I do not say things that I haven't weighed and considered. You can deride me if you wish. It doesn't much concern me. But if my view is vindicated, I hope you will consider me to be a valuable ally.
We do after all, have similar goals. I do not agree with your path to the goal.

by taraka das 2006-12-07 03:54AM | 0 recs
The Money

Yes the RNC Money would be a factor. But there is a crucial thing to remember about that facet: The Republican Party brand name is in SHREDS. They have lost credibility on issues across the board. The RNC lost a major election, and they are losing the electorate in the national discourse.
This isn't a small setback. It's a sea change. The brand that has served them well for 30 years is in ruins. The Republican Party itself is in the midst of an identity crises, and the battle is between delusional ideologues (a small minority) and practical conservatives. That's not going to translate into a gusher of money to fund right wing challengers to incumbents who voted to unseat a traitors to the constitution and war criminals.
Not only that, but going through removal and rooting out the corruption in Congress afterwards (Abramoff prosecutions), will create an opportunity for the Dems to be truly magnanimous and bipartisan towards HONEST Republicans.
It's a more stable foundation to go forward. Otherwise, we are setting the stage for a continuation of the debate on unaaceptable grounds: That compromise lies somewhere between crime and a lack of ethics.
Prolonging this situation is damaging to the country and both political parties. And it's only sensible to hold those accountable who ARE accountable, and not the entire Republican Party, and not BOTH parties!
If we attempt to ignore the crimes, then we are just as culpable as the criminals themselves. Then the idea that EVERYONE is a crook and EVERYONE is a liar wins, over and above the objections of the electorate. It corrupts our entire system of goverment in an irreparable way.

Money won't solve the Republicans problems. Not now, and not in 2008. Your argument that Senators up for re-election can somehow placate and inspire the electorate with a good ad campaign after they voted to acquit a WAR CRIMINAL is placing too much faith in ad campaigns!

by taraka das 2006-12-07 03:40AM | 0 recs
Re: They will decide later in the year

Ahhhh!

It's a "foreign court!"

Yes, I can forsee that one coming. That's when it's time to tell people that the reason that it's in a foreign court is because one of the war criminals has been promoted to Atty General.

They won't win that "foreign court" argument. It would bring about a national discussion about the fact that the Geneva Conventions, and other treaties, are not foreign law, but international law that we have ADOPTED AS AMERICAN LAW.

And we have done so not because foreign countries have imposed their law on us, but because the principles of OUR law have won the international debate, and they have adopted them.

Nope. They don't win that "foreign law" red herring debate. Not by a long shot.

by taraka das 2006-12-07 03:47AM | 0 recs
17 GOP Senators? GIVE ME 1

All I want is 1 Senator who will even RESPOND to this idiotic impeachment stuff.  1 GOP Senator, and I will cease calling impeachment nutso.  

1 GOP Senator - that's all I ask.

by dataguy 2006-12-06 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: 17 GOP Senators? GIVE ME 1

OK.

Chuck Hagel.
Olympia Snowe.
John Mccain.
John Warner.
Arlen Specter.

I could go on. If you want to argue that none of these Senators would vote to remove right this minute, then I agree. But that's not my premise. My premise is how Senators will vote with an impeachment by the House and a pending war crimes trial.

And I went through all the Senators and handicapped this based on the demographics and the 2008 Senatorial campaigns before I even wrote my diary.

Have YOU? Did you read the CCR case? Do you know what evidence they are bringing? What witnesses? Do you know how many lawyers are pursuing this? Do you know how many countries are involved in investigating these war crimes, RIGHT NOW?

The Senate isn't just the body that removes presidents from office and deliberates legislation. Their constitutional specialty is TREATY LAW, and as Senators, they have an especially pertinent role in contemplating justice when it comes to WAR CRIMES.

by taraka das 2006-12-06 09:24AM | 0 recs
Specifically

what did they say about impeachment?

I want a single Republican senator who will respond that he will vote to convict George W Bush for "high crimes and misdemeanors" or has responded as such in the past.

Please indicate your source.  

You won't find it, BTW.  Politicians almost NEVER do hypotheticals.

by dataguy 2006-12-06 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Specifically

We won't get to THAT point til the war crimes indictment. Or maybe not til the House impeachment.

I'm not betting against it just because it isn't happening yet.

I've been monitoring the news on the war crimes issue. It's popping up somewhere in the country every single day.

It's already been run by Time, Newsweek and AP.

by taraka das 2006-12-06 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Specifically
How old are you, just out of curiosity?  I'm just trying to figure out WHY you think that 17 would turn... This isn't Nixon, where the Dems controlled congress, the GOP wasn't as bitterly partisan and Nixon knowling committed obstruction.
Most of the GOPers in the SENATE SUPPORTED THE WAR AND THE TORTURE BILL.  THEY STILL FEEL IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO AND WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.  In other words, they would feel this indictment was politically motivated (even though it isn't) and complete BS.  They would NEVER support removing BUSH for this... THE only way is if you had CONCRETE proof Bush and Cheney knew and order Scooter to commit his act of treason, and to my knowledge there is no tape of them telling him.  Maybe they Flip Libby and then you might have something, but I think Libby falls on the sword even if he got sentenced to execution for treason (which is doubtful), knowing full well Bush will pardon him as one of his last acts of office for falling on the sword.  You don't get to that level without your loyalty being known.  
by yitbos96bb 2006-12-06 01:18PM | 0 recs
The abetting of crimes

Yes, it's true that the legal cover for the continuation of Bush and Cheney's crimes was pushed through the Republican Congress.
But while you think it is a matter for them to stand and defend, I think the opposite.
I think some of them will defend Bush to the end. At least ten of them will, by my estimate, and possibly a few more.
But that gets us to conviction.

As for my age, suffice it to say that I am old enough to be a veteran and a college graduate and have twenty years of employment and experience in the world, and young enough to be a member of GENERATION X.

by taraka das 2006-12-07 04:37AM | 0 recs
Re: President Pelosi in 2007

Now had George Mason gotten his way and maladministration (incompetence) been added to Constitution, then I think you have a shot.  

by yitbos96bb 2006-12-06 05:42AM | 0 recs
maladministration

Actually, the president CAN be removed for incompetence. His cabinet members can unanimously certify that he is mentally unfit.

Not likely to happen in the Bush Administration's mileau of mass psychosis.

But I must say, that I am dismayed that at long last, after all these years, with more than half a dozen war crimes piled up, and a heap of criminal acts stacking up like a modern Tower of Babel, and deliberate subversion of the rule of law in order to commit further crimes and frustrate justice and mold our political system into an anti-republican structure, that your only call to justice is wishing that his disasterous incompetence was impeachable!

Are you satisfied to allow the perversion of our constitutional system to stand for all time?

Are you content to institutionalize the abolishment of habeas corpus and administrative judicial powers?

Are you content to let stand the assertion of unconstitutional powers by fiat?

Are you content to allow contempt for the Supreme Court to become a routine policy of the presidency?

I could go on. And on. And on. But you simply sniff that it's too bad we can't remove him because his administration is a wrecking crew.

Oh, well.

by taraka das 2006-12-06 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: maladministration

You at least made a few worthy debateable comments that have led to an interesting discussion... this last one you come off like a spoiled child... hold yourself to the higher standard and don't act like a kid.

As for your statement

That was NOT the intention of the amendment.  Being mentally unfit is not incompetence, it would be Bush going catatonic or going legally insane.  While you are technically right, my guess is 1) since the cabinet is made up of loyalists to the president, then the chances of getting a majority is slim and 2) Congress would overturn the removal as is prescribed in the constitution... Democrats and Republicans don't generally support Coups... they try to either let the voters decide to remove incompetent politicians OR they fix the elections to give the illusion of it.  

You miss the point... Would I like to see Bush removed?  absolutely.  Do I think he lied, committed fraud, etc during his tenure?  Absolutely.  

BUT anyone who has some semblance of understanding of the current American political scene will tell you that IT WON'T HAPPEN... Not based on this.  And the last thing the Dems want to do is start a fight like this that they KNOW they can't win... much like the GOP learned with Clinton.  There is nothing to gain and too much to lose to make it worth the risk when you know you won't have the votes.  From a ethical and moral stand, yes they should... but we know that most politicians would never take this stand.  

by yitbos96bb 2006-12-06 01:31PM | 0 recs
Too risky?

I think the risks of leaving them in office are greater.
And I do not know what Democrats think they will gain by leaving them in office.
Think about the mechanics of trying to do ANYTHING with Bush in office, asserting the powers and stubbornly standing by his policies, as he has up til this point.
Even the power of the purse does not constrain him: Bush illegally misappropriated funds to start an undeclared war in Iraq in 2002 BEFORE Congress voted on the authorization of force. $700 million dollars to run covert operations and BOMB Iraq in preparation for an invasion that he didn't yet have the authority to wage. And WHILE he said he wasn't planning a war, but seeking peaceful resolution.
It is naive in the extreme to think that ordinary legislative checks will restrain him from abuses of power and committing CRIMES, even war crimes. And he continues to lay a legal foundation for tyranny at home.
Neither Bush nor Cheney can be trusted to tell the truth or honor agreements or uphold the law.

How do we FUNCTION as a republic under those circumstances?

by taraka das 2006-12-07 04:48AM | 0 recs
Geeezzzuuusss

Do you honestly believe that, at this time, and with this president, we have a problem that has NEVER been faced?

Man, you are just naive...

by dataguy 2006-12-07 06:31AM | 0 recs
President Pelosi

when, after a fart, flying monkeys will shoot out of my butt.

That's when.

Never.

This is, to use a simple and easily understood word, moronic. This obsession with revenge.

by dataguy 2006-12-06 06:32AM | 0 recs
An Obsession with revenge?

That's what you call it?

Is that what it is when a mafia family is murdering people and running rackets? Expecting them to be indicted and prosecuted is an obsession with revenge?

Is that what it is when a corrupt police officer or a judge is taking bribes to subvert the rule of law? It's an obsession with revenge to expect that they will be prosecuted?

The magnitude of the Bush Administrations crimes are staggering compared to the two examples I just gave, but you characterize an expectation that they should be prosecuted as an obsession with revenge?

There is no standard of legality, morality and civilization, just manipulations of political viewpoints? Any criticisms of political opponents for CRIMES they have committed is simply politically motivated revenge?

Well, it's an amoral and anarchist point of view, and you're welcome to it. I'm prepared to publicly defend what I have to say on grounds of common decency. I'll encourage you to try to do the same.

by taraka das 2006-12-06 08:44AM | 0 recs
In the next 24 months, we can EITHER

spend the time obsessed with this pipe-dream of a concept or we can accomplish something.

In 2008, if we have impeached George Bush and replaced him with Cheney, we will be thrown out of power again.  Sucks, eh?

In 2008, if we have advanced a positive agenda of things the American people are supportive of, we will retain our position of power, and we will have a Democratic President.  Pretty cool, eh?  

Impearchment is a moronic idea.  Sorry.  I don't really care about all that crap about crimes, etc.  Investigate, run hearings, do oversight, yes.  Impeachment would be the biggest mistake that the Democratic Party ever made.  Thank GAWD Pelosi has ruled it OUT.

Impeachment is the Children's Crusade (Yep, you've heard that before).  You have no idea HOW to do it.  You have no idea WHAT the consequences are. The statement "President Cheney" is met with either plans to impeach BOTH or some other equally moronic and blitheringly stupid statement like "Cheney will resign".  You have no plan for HOW LONG it will take.  No one in Congress agrees with you.  You have no Republican support.  The American people DO NOT support this pipedream (51 % is not support - you need a MINIMUM of 80 %).  But, undetered by reality, time, sense, clarity of purpose or anything that adults think about, you forge on, into the mist, where you will be eaten by yeti.  

Count me fucking out.

The word "pipe-dream" is chosen carefully.  You sit around doing nothing but posting these auto-stimulatory fantasies, and there is work to be done.  Impeachment is an opium dream of revenge and retribution.  It accomplishes nothing.  Moreover, it will not happen.  I will wager $100 that, in 2 years, no impeachment will have passed in the House, and no vote to convict will occur in the Senate.

We get revenge by doing things right, and showing the Repukeliscum and the American electorate what the right way is, and contrast it with the Repukeliscum way.

by dataguy 2006-12-06 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: In the next 24 months, we can EITHER

"I don't really care about all that crap about crimes, etc."

Really? What's your bank account number? I need some cash.

"You have no idea HOW to do it."

Fine. You waste your time negotiating with a president who has no interest and no motivation to cooperate with you on ANY of your naive pipe-dreams. You think this crook is going to play ball with you so you can look good for the next election? THINK AGAIN.

Why don't you take a look at what the Congressional Republicans are planning for the next two years?

Removal and ARREST of these crooks in the white house, and subsequently, the racketeers STILL in control of the Republican Caucus in Congress, is not just one of your paths, it's the only one.

They will thwart you at every turn and laugh in your face campaigning against your "incompetent" lack of leadership. They will pretend to be bipartisan, and stab you in the back.

Bush will sign your proud legislative work, and then abolish it by fiat.

Oversight? THAT will be the useless waste of time. They'll refuse to cooperate and fight subpoenas and run the clock out and slowfoot anything you try. You'll be held up as weak and ineffectual and you will be blamed for everything that goes wrong, even the policies of the wrecking crew in the White House.

Tell me again how you have to put aside impeachment to go forward with WHAT? What will you accomplish? HOW?

I love ya. Wise up.

by taraka das 2006-12-06 09:37AM | 0 recs
I expect to pass

nothing of any value.

What I hope, hope against hope, is that the Dems force Bush to veto bill after bill, and to mount the single largest collection of vetoes in US history. That's my positive agenda.

People say the Dems stand for nothing. That enormous pile of vetoes would better than anything define the  Dems and Repukeliscum with great clarity.  

We pass a bill about student loans. Bush vetoes it.  We get the college students.

We pass a bill about Medicare Part D to negotiate prices.  Bush vetoes it.

We pass a bill making bankrupsy more fair.  Bush vetoes it.

We restrict free trade.  Bush vetoes it.

We severely remodel NCLB. Bush vetoes it.

We will win in 2008, have both houses, and the WH.  

Unless we do impeachment.  If we do that, we lose all three.

by dataguy 2006-12-06 09:53AM | 0 recs
He will not veto bills

He will make a great show of bipartisanship, and then abolish or rewrite bills at will by FIAT.

Don't you get it?

He won't abide by the rule of law!

by taraka das 2006-12-07 04:55AM | 0 recs
Impeachment is not about revenge and retribution

The Newt Gingrinch witch hunt which brought Clinton to impeachment should not be held up as  the example of the proper use of the Constitutional tool for checking the power of the executive branch.  The Constitution discusses impeachment at great length.  The founders must have been extremely wary of an imperial chief executive after declaring independence from the English king.  Impeachment should be viewed as just another means of implementing the Constitutional checks and balances without all the media circus.

I highly recommend reading "The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism" by John Nichols, the associate editor of The Capital Times.

And, of course, it is rather pointless to even speculate about the outcome of a Senate trial and which way Senators would vote since it is completely contingent upon a House impeachment and the accompanying investigation.

The notion that Speaker Pelosi is being coy and will let 2007 events dictate the need for impeachment is somewhat intriguing.  I wonder if there will be a Congressman willing to break the Pelosi directive of keeping impeachment "off the table".  Even John Conyers has publicly bent to the will of the Speaker and agreed not to consider impeachment.   Perhaps privately, he or other Congressmen are keeping the option available as investigations proceed.  Should be an interesting year coming up in Congress.

by pascal1947 2006-12-06 04:54PM | 0 recs
Your use of ratings

Please indicate why you use the 1 rating.

by dataguy 2006-12-07 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: President Pelosi in 2007

Moving towards impeachement of Bush and Cheney would just look like a coup d'etat by the Democrats.  During Watergate, the Democratic Speaker of the House maintained that he would not push for impeachment of Nixon until a VP was appointed, since the country voted for Republican rule in '72.  I know that the Democrats won this year, but it is a better idea to propose a constructive agenda, let Bush reject it, and then run on it again in 2008.  

by Max Friedman 2006-12-06 03:15PM | 0 recs
Get Bush to reject a positive agenda

Exactly my approach.

Make him veto and veto and veto and veto again.

Every single day, take the bully pulpit to talk about "Republican obstructionism"

Investigate, hold hearings, and BLAME BUSH FOR FAILURE 24/7/365.

by dataguy 2006-12-06 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Get Bush to reject a positive agenda

He won't.

He'll pretend to be bipartisan.

Then he will rewrite or abolish the laws passed by FIAT and redirect funds as he sees fit.

And when things get screwed up, and they will, he'll blame the DEMOCRATS and the RNC will run against the Democrats based on that in 2008.

And as for investigations and hearings: Bush and Cheney will fight any requests for information, pretend that "ongoing investigations" prevent them from giving information, LIE to Congress, slowfoot any requests for action, and take every subpoena to the Supreme Court. And if they lose, they'll defy the court.

Then he'll laugh your faces. How do I know this? He's been doing it for years, and it's naive to believe he's going to act difeerently.

The best way forward is to make a clean break. The war crimes give us an excuse to do that with criminal actions that are utterly indefensible.

While we are at it, though, we lose nothing by throwing the book at them.

You folks seem to believe impeachment and removal will lose the Congress and WH in 2008. I disagree. But even if you are right, It's still a better thing than pretending that the utter depravity of the neocons is excusable and workable.

by taraka das 2006-12-07 05:12AM | 0 recs
Impeachment and Values

"From a ethical and moral stand, yes they should... but we know that most politicians would never take this stand."

I haven't heard REPUBLICANS make this argument that politicians won't take a stand on moral and ethical grounds. I've only heard DEMOCRATS say this.

Why is there a reluctance to challenge the Republican brand on this?

WHY NOT push the notion that honesty and morality and ethics ought to be something that VALUES VOTERS (the Republican Base) care about?

I'm sorry, but I don't see any downsides from pursuing impeachment and removal.

It's a political win, and it's the only practical solution when it comes to addressing things that urgently need action.

by taraka das 2006-12-07 05:31AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads