Foreclose on the White House

[Joanne98]

By David Swanson

If you've lost your house to a predatory lender and you ask your congress member to impeach Bush and Cheney for your loss, will they look at you like you're crazy? That depends entirely on how many of you are asking.

If there are not enough of you, they'll look at you like you're crazy for suggesting impeachment as a response to illegal wars, lies to Congress, misappropriation of funds, rewriting bills with "signing statements," warrantless spying, extra-legal detentions, torture, war crimes, refusal to comply with subpoenas, or just about anything else. The White House could make the occupation of Iraq permanent or ignore a major hurricane or expose an undercover agent as payback for a whistleblower, and you'd get the "You've got to be nuts" look for suggesting impeachment if there weren't enough of you. As a matter of fact, many of us already have.

But if the 81% of Americans who disapprove of the job Bush is doing as president were to demand his removal, he'd be out on his ear faster than you can rig an election, award a no-bid contract, or fire an honest prosecutor.

A different question, of course, is whether, in asking for impeachment as a response to losing your house, you really would be crazy. On what grounds, after all, could you really argue that Bush and Cheney stole your house?

Well, actually pretty solid ones in a lot of cases. They didn't do it single-handedly, but they did it. A one-month moratorium on foreclosures is a joke, but it illustrates what the White House could do if it wanted to. It could institute a 5-year moratorium on foreclosures. To not do so is arguably as gross a failure by the President to perform his duties as has been his response to Hurricane Katrina, his reaction to pre-9-11 warnings, or his sending troops into battle without body armor, all sins of omission for which constitutional experts much better informed than I have argued he should be impeached.

But Bush and Cheney have not just failed to respond to the immediate crisis. Their actions have largely created it. Whether you are convinced, as I am, that they deserve much of the blame for the growing recession, you would be hard-pressed to exculpate them in the area of mortgage industry regulation.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/31280

[flor de jasmim]

1. AMEN!

A couple of days ago a DU'er wrote that every time he/she got a message from the DCCC to contribute money, he/she wrote back telling them to put impeachment on the table first.

I have started doing that, as well. Three times in the last couple of days: When you put IMPEACHMENT back on the table, then we'll talk money."

[NMDemDist2]

3. you're correct, that's a great idea

I just sent back two envelopes with that message

[mac2]

2. Doubt they could be embarrassed to leave

The only way they would leave would be threat of jail time. Like Nixon who left when threats of impeachment were clear. The same gang did fraud and treason under Reagan (who should have been impeached and jailed) but are now back in power. They don't scare easily regardless of low poll numbers and citizen protests.

The election of 2006 clearly said, we want new leadership and accountability yet our Congress ignores us this time.

[fasttense]

4. Every household that lost their home should pitch a tent on the WH lawn.

I did some numbers and came up with over 700,000 households lost their homes every week in 2007. That's over 1,000% higher than in the Republican caused Great Depression.

If they all moved in front of the WH, there would be no room for the bushes.

[Joanne98]

5. Yeah! Like the Bonus Army! That's a great idea!