My Personal Position on Impeachment
Apr. 25th, 2007 11:08 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
redneckgaijinLest my last post and responses confuse you, my position on impeachment of Bush and Cheney is: yes, please, now.
However, I also recognize that there are several obstacles to any hope of impeachment.
OBSTACLE #1: the Republicans. In the Senate about twenty Republican votes will be needed in order to convict. Considering that Clinton- despite being clearly and obviously guilty of perjury- had not a single Democratic Senator vote to convict in his impeachment, the evidence for impeachment of either Bush or Cheney has to be so clear and obvious, and the crime so egregious, that Republicans do not dare ignore it.
OBSTACLE #2: the Democrats. Although Senate Majority Leader Reid would love to get articles of impeachment sent to him, they have to start in the House- and Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly promised to squelch them on sight. Furthermore, any counts such as abuse of power are DOA, because most of the new powers Bush has claimed or exercised are powers the Democrats would love to have when their person gets into the White House.
OBSTACLE #3: the Clinton impeachment. This impeachment did two very bad things: first, it made impeachment look like political suicide for the accusing side, and second, it established precedent that lying to the people, to Congress, and even under oath in a court of law is perfectly acceptable behavior for a President. In order for impeachment to succeed there must be massive pressure from below- from the electorate- to drive it through... and no person who voted to acquit Clinton for lying can enter articles of impeachment based on lying and be credible.
OBSTACLE #4: shared guilt. Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force in Iraq- and of those 535 Congresspersons in office in February 2003, at least 435 are still there. Very few Congresspeople are going to support any article of impeachment for which they also could be found guilty. Thus, any article of impeachment, for instance, based on waging aggressive war in Iraq is doomed.
A large number of private citizens have either written books or openly posted proposed articles of impeachment. Here's my take on a sample set from impeachbush.tv- items in italics, in my opinion, are dead on arrival and a waste of time.
* Invading Iraq with United States military forces- approved of by Congress in advance, with most of those persons voting for the measure still in office.
* Sacrificing the lives of thousands of American troops- if this were a crime, then Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, Eisenhower, Truman, Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt would all have been guilty.
* Killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and conscripts - it's not a crime unless it's done deliberately.
* Rejecting possibilities for peaceful resolution of the conflict by rejecting acts of compliance by Saddam Hussein with the United Nations Resolutions, and ignoring the findings by Hans Blix that inspections were working to disarm Iraq - approved of by Congress, etc.
* Violating the Geneva Convention by abducting and transporting human beings to prisons in foreign countries where they can be tortured and subjected to inhumane treatment.
* Providing misinformation to the United Nations Security Council, Congress, and the American people overstating the offensive capabilities of Iraq, including weapons of mass destruction, as justification for military action against Iraq- Clinton precedent.
* Repeatedly manipulating the sentiments of the American people by erroneously linking Iraq with the terrorist attacks of September 11th by Al-Qaeda.- Clinton precedent.
* Repeatedly claiming that satellite photos of sites in Iraq depicted factories for weapons of mass destruction in contradiction with the results of ground inspections by United Nations teams.- Clinton precedent.
* Stating that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" in his State of the Union Address after being told by the CIA that this was untrue and that the supporting documents were forged.- Clinton precedent.
* Influencing, manipulating and distorting intelligence related to Iraq with the intention of using that intelligence to support his goal of invading Iraq.
* Repeatedly ordering the NSA to place illegal wiretaps on American citizens without a court order from FISA.
* Retaliating against whistle-blowers who try to point out errors in statements made by President Bush.
* Directing millions of dollars in government funds to companies associated with White House officials in no-bid contracts that pose serious conflicts of interest. One example is Halliburton, of which Richard Cheney was once CEO.
* Diverting military resources from pursuing known terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden who have repeatedly attacked the United States of America.- approved by Congress, etc.
* Generating ill will among the peoples of the world with an offensive and aggressive foreign policy.- not a crime, unless you mean a war crime, in which case most of Congress would also be guilty.
* Weakening the effects of International Law by defying the United Nations thus encouraging other nations to violate International law by example- the United Nations is not, and should not be, a sovereign entity.
* Diverting the National Guard to foreign wars where they are unavailable to serve the needs of American citizens at home who, for example, are suffering from Hurricane Katrina- foreign wars approved of by Congress.
* Appointing unqualified personnel to critical government positions as political favors where their incompetence places American citizens at risk. An example being the appointment of Mike Brown as head of FEMA- doomed, because the Democrats will want to retain the spoils system when their turn comes again in the White House. Besides, appointing incompetents to office isn't a crime.
* Proposing military strategies involving the first use of tactical or low yield nuclear weapons in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, which is an inherently destabilizing strategy that encourages participants in a conflict to strike before the other side can do so- not a crime.
One item I notice missing from this list is that strong circumstantial evidence has been presented to the public- and possibly direct evidence exists- to show that Bush ordered the torture and illegal imprisonment of individuals, denying them either due process of law or the status of prisoners of war under the Geneva Accords. In my opinion this is the most egregious act of the Bush administration- even worse than the invasion of Iraq, and even more damaging to us in the long term.
Anyway, even eliminating the utterly doomed provisions, there's still plenty to nail Bush and Cheney. If there's to be any hope at all of impeachment- and there isn't much, since the Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans- it needs to focus on those counts.
However, I also recognize that there are several obstacles to any hope of impeachment.
OBSTACLE #1: the Republicans. In the Senate about twenty Republican votes will be needed in order to convict. Considering that Clinton- despite being clearly and obviously guilty of perjury- had not a single Democratic Senator vote to convict in his impeachment, the evidence for impeachment of either Bush or Cheney has to be so clear and obvious, and the crime so egregious, that Republicans do not dare ignore it.
OBSTACLE #2: the Democrats. Although Senate Majority Leader Reid would love to get articles of impeachment sent to him, they have to start in the House- and Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly promised to squelch them on sight. Furthermore, any counts such as abuse of power are DOA, because most of the new powers Bush has claimed or exercised are powers the Democrats would love to have when their person gets into the White House.
OBSTACLE #3: the Clinton impeachment. This impeachment did two very bad things: first, it made impeachment look like political suicide for the accusing side, and second, it established precedent that lying to the people, to Congress, and even under oath in a court of law is perfectly acceptable behavior for a President. In order for impeachment to succeed there must be massive pressure from below- from the electorate- to drive it through... and no person who voted to acquit Clinton for lying can enter articles of impeachment based on lying and be credible.
OBSTACLE #4: shared guilt. Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force in Iraq- and of those 535 Congresspersons in office in February 2003, at least 435 are still there. Very few Congresspeople are going to support any article of impeachment for which they also could be found guilty. Thus, any article of impeachment, for instance, based on waging aggressive war in Iraq is doomed.
A large number of private citizens have either written books or openly posted proposed articles of impeachment. Here's my take on a sample set from impeachbush.tv- items in italics, in my opinion, are dead on arrival and a waste of time.
* Invading Iraq with United States military forces- approved of by Congress in advance, with most of those persons voting for the measure still in office.
* Sacrificing the lives of thousands of American troops- if this were a crime, then Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, Eisenhower, Truman, Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt would all have been guilty.
* Killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and conscripts - it's not a crime unless it's done deliberately.
* Rejecting possibilities for peaceful resolution of the conflict by rejecting acts of compliance by Saddam Hussein with the United Nations Resolutions, and ignoring the findings by Hans Blix that inspections were working to disarm Iraq - approved of by Congress, etc.
* Violating the Geneva Convention by abducting and transporting human beings to prisons in foreign countries where they can be tortured and subjected to inhumane treatment.
* Providing misinformation to the United Nations Security Council, Congress, and the American people overstating the offensive capabilities of Iraq, including weapons of mass destruction, as justification for military action against Iraq- Clinton precedent.
* Repeatedly manipulating the sentiments of the American people by erroneously linking Iraq with the terrorist attacks of September 11th by Al-Qaeda.- Clinton precedent.
* Repeatedly claiming that satellite photos of sites in Iraq depicted factories for weapons of mass destruction in contradiction with the results of ground inspections by United Nations teams.- Clinton precedent.
* Stating that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" in his State of the Union Address after being told by the CIA that this was untrue and that the supporting documents were forged.- Clinton precedent.
* Influencing, manipulating and distorting intelligence related to Iraq with the intention of using that intelligence to support his goal of invading Iraq.
* Repeatedly ordering the NSA to place illegal wiretaps on American citizens without a court order from FISA.
* Retaliating against whistle-blowers who try to point out errors in statements made by President Bush.
* Directing millions of dollars in government funds to companies associated with White House officials in no-bid contracts that pose serious conflicts of interest. One example is Halliburton, of which Richard Cheney was once CEO.
* Diverting military resources from pursuing known terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden who have repeatedly attacked the United States of America.- approved by Congress, etc.
* Generating ill will among the peoples of the world with an offensive and aggressive foreign policy.- not a crime, unless you mean a war crime, in which case most of Congress would also be guilty.
* Weakening the effects of International Law by defying the United Nations thus encouraging other nations to violate International law by example- the United Nations is not, and should not be, a sovereign entity.
* Diverting the National Guard to foreign wars where they are unavailable to serve the needs of American citizens at home who, for example, are suffering from Hurricane Katrina- foreign wars approved of by Congress.
* Appointing unqualified personnel to critical government positions as political favors where their incompetence places American citizens at risk. An example being the appointment of Mike Brown as head of FEMA- doomed, because the Democrats will want to retain the spoils system when their turn comes again in the White House. Besides, appointing incompetents to office isn't a crime.
* Proposing military strategies involving the first use of tactical or low yield nuclear weapons in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, which is an inherently destabilizing strategy that encourages participants in a conflict to strike before the other side can do so- not a crime.
One item I notice missing from this list is that strong circumstantial evidence has been presented to the public- and possibly direct evidence exists- to show that Bush ordered the torture and illegal imprisonment of individuals, denying them either due process of law or the status of prisoners of war under the Geneva Accords. In my opinion this is the most egregious act of the Bush administration- even worse than the invasion of Iraq, and even more damaging to us in the long term.
Anyway, even eliminating the utterly doomed provisions, there's still plenty to nail Bush and Cheney. If there's to be any hope at all of impeachment- and there isn't much, since the Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans- it needs to focus on those counts.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-04-25 06:47 pm (UTC)After the midterm elections five months ago I blogged, "I'm not as convinced as a lot of people are that the new Democratic majorities in the houses of Congress will change things radically, or at all, but I'm as certain as the next blogger that continued Republican majorities wouldn't have changed anything so a cautious optimism may not be out of order." So I'm not surprised at your perspective on the situation. I'm not even disappointed, because the prerequisite to disappointment is expectations.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-25 09:45 pm (UTC)OBSTACLE #3: the Clinton impeachment. This impeachment did two very bad things: first, it made impeachment look like political suicide for the accusing side, and second, it established precedent that lying to the people, to Congress, and even under oath in a court of law is perfectly acceptable behavior for a President. In order for impeachment to succeed there must be massive pressure from below- from the electorate- to drive it through... and no person who voted to acquit Clinton for lying can enter articles of impeachment based on lying and be credible.
Voting against Clinton's impeachment =/ approval of lying. It's possible to be disgusted with Clinton's behavior, while at the same time being of the opinion that impeachment is a disproportionate response.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-25 10:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-25 10:24 pm (UTC)Impeachment and Removal...
Date: 2007-04-27 04:12 am (UTC)So...Impeachment is easy, perhaps too easy and without any realy penalty for wasting the peoples' time by doing so. Impeachment is the accusation of "High crimes and mis-demeanors" on the part of the President. Then, there is the Trial (we saw that farce with teflon Willy) and if convicted, then there is removal from office.
What isn't being discussed is that if Bush were removed, then Cheny would become President and the whole bad theatre would have to play out again.
That they are guilty is palpable and not even worth comment. If that is all they are guilty of, I'd say let them off. Other presidents have done much worse, and been praised for it.
Ask any American citizen of Japanese ancestry about Roosevelt and his executive order on American Citizens of Japanese ancestry...
In a way, I almost would welcome the dual impeachments...at least our Congress would be doing something...and spending our money in the process...
That would leave, as President; non-elected President/Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.
She's a super-liberal; She knows what's best for us, and will show us.
She has said she would declare the NRA and its membership to be subversives, and work to outlaw firearms in public hands, because the Second Amendment is "Old and outmoded". I wonder what else would be "old and outmoded" in her eyes, and as President; she could simply end these pesky parts of the Constitution by Executive Order.
She would set back Female Political aspirations for years. She is also in favor of immediate withdrawl from Iraq and Afganistan, and the reducing of the size of our armed forces...all to "curb our expansionist policies". What? What Policies? I was under the impression that we were trying to give Iraq a democracy, and to destroy the Taliban...but then I just pay taxes. I don't know, but you can bet she does.
Bush's failing is that he sets a course and sticks to it. If I liked him, I'd say he was determined and constant, but liking the President is not current in these days. I admit he has some really nasty friends-or people he owes favors to, and he hasn't a performer's bone in his body; just look at him on television: a rank amateur.
But, Kris; you are absolutely right: The whole damned lot of them were in on the "Major Crimes" alleged-the White house, the Congress (both houses) and for all I know, the Supreme Court as well. Such are Politics today.
What's annoying is that this loose cannon assumes that we, the people, have forgotten everyone's part in this; choosing only to remember the President's actions.
And to think, we applauded him in those bleak days after September 11, 2001. How we have changed...
What I see is that our Government has become something out of a Monty Python setting, so busy intriguing that their business as the People's Servants is ignored, for the glory of insider "coups" and the posturing before the Television lens for the public at large. All this is just to score points, for the Elections upcoming; and the glory of the Party...as well as being re-elected (job searching is so very demeaning).
Perhaps we need a whiff of the smell of Realpolitik to remember that WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT, not these clowns in the District of Columbia. Maybe it'll wake us up...or maybe it'll be the coup de grace.
In life, you can never tell...
Lincoln
Date: 2007-04-29 04:43 am (UTC)Look I do not like how the government has handled Iraq, but we cannot pull out. That will cause the entire region to fall to Al Queada then in a few years we will be forced to go back there and face a far worse enemy.
DEMS first of all barely have control of congress, they have the senate by ONE SEAT. I will not be suprised if Pelosi's actions actually cost them a few seats in 2008.