It's almost tragic. They wanted to hold a head of state responsible for his many crimes

[jpgray]

-There are equally effective, less-risky options for achieving the goal, but they refuse to allow such any time to work. Instead they reach for the most extreme and risky plan of attack immediately.

-Planning this risky attack thoroughly would bring up uncomfortable questions about the obvious dangers, and the aftermath of a failure would involve even -more- chaotic danger. Instead of addressing those concerns, they plan based on a fantasy scenario. In this fantasy their strategy will utterly succeed, and there is no risk. They provide no evidence to support this fantasy other than their own zealously optimistic fervor and wishful thinking, which seem to contradict all informed expectation.

-They respond to reasonable, informed criticism and warnings from experts and even -allies- by accusing them of a lack of patriotism, all while refusing (or being unable) to refute any of the criticisms.

-Those who point out that the less dangerous options have often worked in the past are denounced as cowards and traitors. Those who think of the future and point out the long-term damage that failure could cause are viciously attacked, accused of actually -aiding and abetting- the evil leader's crimes.

Now here's the twist--am I talking about the Iraq war mongers, or those who support -immediate- impeachment on DU? It's an extreme and unfair comparison, but I'm sick of being called a Constitution hater and a coward simply because I point out the major risks of a failed impeachment. Strong investigation brought down Nixon--his executive privilege defense was struck down and his administration destroyed before a single impeachment hearing began. Strong investigation can bring down this president. I stand with Bernie Sanders and Al Gore--an ill-planned impeachment that doesn't have the groundwork of strong investigation will not effectively hold Bush accountable, and unlike current investigations failure in the circus of impeachment carries incredible risk.

I know it's an unpopular opinion on DU to argue against immediate impeachment. I don't expect my view on this to be popular. But there isn't even a debate here about it--you either agree with instant impeachment and ignore its risks, or you get called a Constitution-hating, traitorous coward. I won't start another thread on this since people feel so strongly about it, but the stifling of debate on this issue is fucking frustrating, since the risks of a failed impeachment are very real and -should- be discussed. Listen to Gore! Listen to Sanders! That's all.

[whistle]

1. There is no investigation going on into the crimes of Bush or Cheney

...this appears to be a LIHOP operation

[jpgray]

5. If the Democrats were that complicit, wouldn't impeachment be guaranteed to fail?

[EstimatedProphet]

10. There are too

They're investigations into what has been going on in the administration. They have to be given time to lead to Bush and Cheney.

[whistle]

14. There has been no investigation on the level of the Watergate

...which was what brought the Nixon administration down and Nixon would have been impeached very quickly after those investigations concluded had he not resigned

[EstimatedProphet]

17. Define "level"

Have there been efective Congressional investigations? Yes. Otherwise we'd still have Gonzo and Rove around. Maybe the investigations we have had haven't been as publicized, or have dominated the news as much as the Watergate hearings, but that's because the media is nothing like it once was, not because there are no investigations. The Watergate investigation wasn't on the level of the Watergate investigation until close to the end.

[Hydra]

2. There's one problem with your idea

without the impeachment process, Bushco will continue to stonewall. Congress has not found an effective counter for Bush's executive privilege and state secrets defense for not allowing witnesses to testify.

If Bushco manages to leave office without any challenge to the powers they asserted, those powers stay...possibly permanently.

If you argue in favor of investigation, tell them to get some teeth and hurry up! Iran is only a short time away...and a huge problem we won't be able to shake once we have it.

[jpgray]

3. The Democrats -must- push investigation more strongly. SCOTUS needs to rule on executive privilege

That's in large part what brought down Nixon, and even if this court (two members worse) has an ugly history of aiding and abetting W when he's in obvious trouble, it's our best shot at getting that smoking gun.

[Hydra]

4. SCOTUS will approve of Bush's POV

But the Dems have plenty of other options using congressional power. I posted many of those options in my first journal. They need to be using those options rather than trying to make the repubs "own the war"

That strategy only works when the repubs control congress.

[jpgray]

8. You'll get no disagreement from me on that. But they may as well push SCOTUS anyway

The stakes are pretty high on this, so it might not go so badly as you think--Bush has weaseled out of providing evidence to Congressional investigation on executive privilege far more times than any other administration I'm aware of.

[Hydra]

13. Honestly, I think the dems are afraid of what SCOTUS will do

which is why they are hesitating to press the issue.

I'd like to be more optimistic, but remember Bush vs. Gore SCOTUS decision

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

Unfortunately, Bush knows this as well, and is taking advantage of his control of the DoJ to railroad Congress.

What a mess!

[jpgray]

19. That's the stumbling block, though--it's going to have be met sooner or later

But just on a basic level you can't allow this kind of executive privilege claim just to obstruct investigation. It's a bad precedent that needs challenging.

[annabanana]

26. And that is where the rubber meets the road on so many points.

That is where the decisions actually lie, when all else is either completed or blocked.

I do not trust this Court. Rulings in favor of a "Unitary Executive" would do near-irreparable damage to the functioning of The Republic (or rather, it's tattered relic).

I do not trust the corporate Democrats to fight AGAINST a Unitary Executive, should they slide into the well-warmed seats that are waiting for them.

If a Democratic President will move strongly away from the Federalist Society in his/her choices for SCOTUS, then and only then will I take a deep breath and welcome the questions to be resolved.

[jpgray]

29. Reclaiming SCOTUS or stopping the bleeding is a major argument for voting Democratic in '08

[MonkeyFunk]

18. There's nothing about an impeachment hearing

that gives Congress special powers. If Bush can stonewall a regular committee, he can stonewall an impeachment committee.

[jpgray]

24. The best intrinsic benefit is -presumably- extra media coverage

Whether it's accurate or fair media coverage, of course, is something else.

[EstimatedProphet]

6. Hear hear!

[jpgray]

25. Thanks man.

[mike_c]

7. I agree with you, but there's a caveat....

No bill of impeachment should be debated unless there is compelling evidence of executive crimes, and acquiring that evidence requires investigation. However, I'd argue at least two points:

--The administration has been quite successful in staving off congressional investigations, in particular in stonewalling on documents and testimony, and more to the point, on preventing oversight investigations that might get to the real hard truths about executive crimes that Congress abetted. Congress must get seriously tough about doing the hard investigations, and while oversight committees have "done their job" up front in at least some instances, they have not done the tough follow-up, such as enforcing subpoenas. Congress has not demonstrated serious commitment to carrying out those investigations.

--Congress needs to focus its efforts on investigations directed toward eventual articles of impeachment, i.e. upon specifically documenting impeachable offenses. With impeachment "off the table" simple oversight investigations are pretty toothless, no matter how comprehensive they might be. They might ruin people's reputations, but they're not going to bring the executive to justice. Oversight investigations are wandering all over the map. They need to be directed-- they need to be gathering the compelling evidence of executive malfeasance and building a case for impeachment, but they're not doing that at present. It's almost as though Conyers and Leahy et al hope that some of the necessary outrage will simply muster itself into place while the oversight committees chunder along. It won't, not in this Congress. They need to be shining a big and mean spotlight directly at building a rock solid case for impeachment. Oversight investigations that might stumble upon the truth here and there will not do the job.

[jpgray]

11. No disagreement here. Congress -needs- to get tough with investigation immediately, yesterday, etc.

And I think the wiretap investigation might provide the most fruit for impeachment. If Bush was listening in on political foes (and who would argue that he -wouldn't-, given the chance?) then that could well be the smoking gun. Not to mention that he was apparently illegally surveilling before 9/11.

[redqueen]

9. Oh come now...

I hope you're not claiming that the mudslinging is one-sided. Those who call for impeachment are called childish, delusional, etc.

As for stronger investigations... sure... that'd be great. When that happens, the calls for impeachment won't be so loud.

When this session first started, I didn't join the furor over the 'impeachment is off the table' business... I thought we should have investigations, and that as those brought the crimes to light, that impeachment would be the natural result. But that is not what is happening. What is happening is a few fall guys are getting sentences that seem like slaps on the wrist when you consider what their crimes were... a few have quit to go on to get lucrative gigs in the revolving door of influence peddling in DC.

Due to the way the events have played out up to now, I'm no longer so confident that the investigations will lead to anything but more fall guys getting light sentences and a few more people being forced to hang their head for a moment, after which they'll get a new role and keep on playing their part in this scam.

[jpgray]

12. We might be stuck with a crappy Reagan-type scenario--a few convictions, then a few pardons

And I don't believe for a second there exists a single DUer who doesn't want to see Bush impeached. If there's anyone who resembles what the founders probably had in mind concerning high crimes and misdemeanors, it'd be hard to do better than Bush. I don't think Sanders, Gore, et al are refusing to hold Bush accountable, I think they see a failed, premature impeachment as a big risk. I believe Sanders called it a "Karl Rove wet dream." Unfortunately a failed impeachment will not likely hold Bush any more accountable than a few weak convictions will.

[redqueen]

16. I wouldn't say they're refusing to hold bush accountable...

but are they basing their opinions on political expediency?

I think the major disconnect with respect to impeachment is some think that because the republicans might not vote to impeach, that it will make the Dems look bad or give a veneer of not-guiltiness to the administration; while others think that the republicans not voting to impeach will make the republicans look bad, and that the Dems failure to launch impeachment proceedings will make Dems look bad.

[jpgray]

20. The way this site views Congress, it's going to be "Spineless Dems! They fucked up impeachment!"

Seriously. The most vitriol I see directed as this Congress (fairly enough in my view, despite our tiny majority) is that their confrontations of Bush are mostly empty symbolic gestures, or strong language followed by a flop, or a backdown. Failed impeachment would represent all of these things. Doubtless people would argue that it was prosecuted effectively or that it was pushed too weakly, and thus the Democrats would not be lauded for failing to convict. Also, many I speak with here believe conviction is almost inevitable if impeachment begins--by what rationale they reach that conclusion, who knows. The obvious risk to me is increasing GOP solidarity, and in addition jeopardizing or invalidating every serious investigation we have going on. It's clear to me that the GOP can make substantial media hay out of their president being declared "not guilty" of any wrongdoing, and conservatives have been playing the victim successfully even after four years of dominating all 3 branches of government.

[redqueen]

21. That's a very good point you make... re: increasing GOP solidarity...

I wonder if many in the "Hillary would unite the pukes" camp are also in the "impeach now" camp.

Again, though... excellent point... I hadn't considered that angle.

:hi:


And I'm sure you're right about the results... you can't please everyone all the time... least of all pissed off, disillusioned liberals. :P

[jpgray]

22. Everyone here has a perfect right to be frustrated with this Congress

And I understand the idea of grabbing the biggest accountability bludgeon in the box when regular investigations aren't working. However, the same reasons investigation isn't working would make any impeachment hearing at this time very disappointing. Because we'd have the same problems with Democratic unity/strength and GOP obstruction. Still, it's only my guess (like anyone else, I don't know for sure) that if impeachment were tried now, when we can't even get our delegation behind strong investigation, nobody would be very happy with the results.

[tandot]

15. Your view is popular with me and most of the people I know.

Thanks, jpgray. :hi:

[jpgray]

23. Thanks! I'm tired of people making extreme stereotypes out of even mildly critical arguments

[IdaBriggs]

27. "Immediate" was when 9/11 wasn't prevented.

Or it could have been when we invade Iraq. Or even after Hurricane Katrina. Or after the news came out we were being Illegally wiretapped. Or that we were sending prisoners to places where they could be tortured. Or when, for the first time in history, we refused to respect our own Constitutional Rights *or* the Geneva Convention, and created Guantanamo.

Immediate has long since passed. Get this F*CK*R OUT YESTERDAY!!!

[jpgray]

28. I don't agree--what time before 2007 did we have the votes to start impeachment hearings?

At what time before 2007 did Bush face serious investigation? If you're asking at what point did he -deserve- impeachment, well, very early on. Certainly by March 2003.

[Toots]

30. More fear mongering it seems

How about them subpoenas that have been ignored. Precedent has been established, no subpoenas of any material from the Administration will be allowed. Investigations will be stymied unless charges are filed and that means articles of Impeachment. In Nixon's case the court ruled Nixon had to turn over the tapes. No court today will rule that way..Your way means they will escape scott free without even so much as a blemish on their record. It appears that is the way it will be though and the Democrats will share equally in the blame..

[jpgray]

33. Why would the Bush administration be any more compelled to honor subpoenas during impeachment?

Other than more media coverage (which would have to be -fair- coverage to have a positive influence), everything about a premature impeachment would -encourage- obstruction, because the stakes are that much higher. Why do you think Sanders and Gore disagree with initiating impeachment at this time?

[Toots]

34. Once official charges have been filed the Administration can not hide behind executive privilege

At least that is what a judge ruled duing the Clinton Impeachment...Right now Congress has no way to break the "Privilege" claim. There is no pressing urgency. If official charges are filed that changes.

[OneBlueSky]

31. you initiate an investigation by initiating impeachment . . . duh . . . n/t

.

[jpgray]

32. I suggest you research the way Nixon was brought down.

His administration was effectively brought down before there was a single impeachment hearing. Strong investigation can do all we need, and carries fewer risks than an unplanned, likely-to-fail impeachment.