Impeachment: "Congress is not leading on this, the American people are."

[pat_k]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/303769_resolution15.html

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
State senator wants Bush actions investigated
Bill could run into House roadblock

Thursday, February 15, 2007

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

OLYMPIA -- A freshman Democratic state senator who represents a traditionally Republican district introduced a resolution Wednesday asking that Congress investigate the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war and possibly consider impeachment of the president and vice president. . .

"Congress is not leading on this, the American people are."

But Oemig said he has eight Democratic co-sponsors in the state Senate and expects the bill to clear the upper chamber. A hearing is set for March 1. . . .

[AndyA]

1. It's about time, and he is correct. It's not Congress, it's their employers who want this.

That would be the American people. And it's way past time someone in Congress recognized this fact. We should all encourage the Dems in Congress to get behind this.

[pat_k]

2. And their oath demands it! (nt)

[IWantAChange]

3. Exactly right - the call for Impeachment has to come from the populace

[Blackhatjack]

4. It will happen when the Repubs lead the way....

... but I think that there will be a delegation of Repubs visiting the WH to tell Bush it is time to go(just like Nixon).

The Republican Party is imploding, and that is the only survival alternative available to them. The question is when will they realize it.

[EFerrari]

5. K&R

[Senator]

6. k&r

[porphyrian]

7. I'll kick that. - n/t

[WilliamPitt]

8. And that's why any impeachment move will fail right now.

Because the people aren't in the Senate. Senators are, unfortunately. We need 67 of them to do this, and they can't get out of their own way long enough to have debate on a non-binding resolution.

If John Warner can torpedo a simple debate on legislation that has no binding force of law, how in Christ can we honestly expect any traction on impeachment?

I don't see it.

[Peace Patriot]

10. You're right on the numbers. The Senate remains full of Bush "pod people"

partly because only 1/3 was up for reelection in '06. Both House and Senate were elected by Diebold/ES&S, but the people outvoted the machines and turned Congress as Democratic as they could, with the severe handicap of rightwing Bushite electronic voting corporations "counting" all the votes with "trade secret," proprietary programming code and virtually no audit/recount controls--added to all the other handicaps on representative government (filthy campaign money, purges of black voters, war profiteering corporate news monopolies choosing our candidates). The Senate is the biggest problem. It's about 50/50, with Lieberman as the swing vote, with some of the "good" fifty being people like Diane Feinstein and Joe Biden (war hawks). The House is just handicapped enough (a Democratic edge of about 30, but with about 40 "Blue Dog" Democrats who want to cut everything but war funding) that impeachment has been delayed if not totally nixed by the leadership.

And that leaves the ultimate "check and balance" on executive tyranny--the state legislatures' and grand juries' power to start impeachment proceedings in the House. (Thank you, Mr. Jefferson!)

States where impeachment resolutions (aiming to use Jefferson's Rules to submit impeachment bills to the US House) have been submitted to state legislatures: New Mexico (recent), Illinois (the first--last session), California (last session), Vermont (re-writing a letter already passed by the legislature into an impeachment bill), and at least one other (I lost track), and now Washington.

A combination of several state legislatures submitting bills of impeachment, with new Congressional hearings/investigations and formulation of causes of action, could make it happen. And further Bush/Cheney crimes could add to momentum. (Iran comes to mind.) It is by no means impossible. Impeachment was deliberately structured into our system for this exact situation--curtailing or removing an out-of-control president. And, boy, do we have that!

We should not be disheartened that our political system is so corrupt that the longest list of "high crimes and misdemeanors" ever committed by a president and vice president, in our entire history, is being essentially ignored by Congress and of course by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies. That's our starting condition for restoring democracy in the U.S. It didn't happen in a day, and won't be undone in a day. And we may have to suffer through a second war, if not financial ruin, before we have a decent government again. But I see, a) a remarkably well-informed progressive MAJORITY in the country (apparent in the polls, but "Iron Curtain"-ed in the corporate news monopolies), and b) a democracy movement sweeping the Western Hemisphere everywhere but here--and we will be next, when it succeeds in central America. (Virtually the entire So. American continent has gone "blue"--way blue--with leftist (majorityist) governments elected in Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and Brazil, and big leftist movements in Peru and Paraguay. Further north, in central America, Nicaragua just elected a leftist government; there is a huge leftist movement in Mexico (stymied only by stolen elections), and a new leftist movement in Guatemala (scene of the slaughter of 200,000 Mayan Indians in the '80s, with Reagan's direct complicity).

The world is changing radically around us. We are the last to know.

Two factors that we don't see enough info or talk about at DU: The democratic, leftist (majorityist) revolution that is occurring throughout Latin America. And the recent meeting of China, Russia and India, aimed at curtailing US (Bush Junta) power, with Putin (of all people) recently stating that the US is a threat to world peace. (--seems obvious to us, but to have Bush's bud Putin say it is...well, amazing). If these forces were to combine--for instance, a Latin American "Common Market" with a common currency (to get off the US dollar)--which is now being discussed--working together with, say, China (which holds a good portion of our debt paper), the US (Bush Junta) could be severely punished economically--for instance, for bombing Iran, or for the Bush Junta's continued stoking of nuclear proliferation. China could probably crash the US dollar tomorrow, all by itself. But with all of these anti/US (Bush Junta) forces gathering and organizing, SOMETHING is going to happen to de-fang this gigantic rogue state--the US, tyrannized over by Dick Cheney and oil/war profiteers. And they might go easier on us if we were impeaching the Bush Junta at the time.

The lessons I've learned from studying the developments in South America are these--and we should burn them into our brains:

1. TRANSPARENT elections.
2. Grass roots organization.
3. Think big.

[pat_k]

18. Not so fast.

While by no means sure, conviction in the U.S. Senate is not only possible, there are compelling reasons to believe it would be likely -- if it gets there at all (When the leadership gets serious about impeachment, Republicans will be to be VERY motivated to pressure Bush and Cheney to take the resignation "exit strategy" to ensure the WH stays in Repub hands.)

When push comes to shove, far fewer Republicans may be willing to defend the indefensible than the chattering class can possibly imagine.

When Bush nullified McCain's anti-torture amendment (which passed with over 90 votes) he slapped the Republican caucus in the face. They would be hard pressed to defend Bush for abusing signing statements to nullify the overwhelming will of the people in order to keep torture "on the table." Warner, Graham, McCain, and Collins (may have been others I'm not recalling) came out against the "War Criminals Protection Act." The "compromise" they got was not much of one, it just shifted the responsibility for actually approving torture to Bush (as opposed to approving it themselves and becoming War Criminals). Specter dismissed the WH defense of the criminal surveillance program as absurd. There are some other "rational" Republicans (Snowe, Hagel, and Lugar).

The Repubs will certainly try the "partisan coup" counter-accusation, but that's (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12">easy to turn against them). They'll try the "Un-Patriotic to distract/attack the President in War time" bit too, but that's not likely to go far these days either. Without a scintilla of legitimacy, rationality, or trust, nothing "the decider" does will "work" and Americans know it. Better to hamstring this WH in an impeachment battle than to allow him to force more of his "help" on the people of the Middle East.

Unless the leadership stops complaining, and formally accuses in articles of impeachment, the Repubs won't be forced to mount a defense -- and we won't find out how many, or how few, will be willing to join that defense. In all likelihood, the 'defense' of Bush and Cheney would look a lot like Libby's -- lots of hot air, stonewalling, and final surrender to the inevitable.

The impeachophobics in the beltway know the score. Between her squawks of "Impossible!" and certainty that Democratic cowardice will win the day, A.B. Stoddard ("The Hill") scares herself with some bits of reality:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16904772/">'Tucker' for Jan. 30

STODDARD: And last May, he—there was some discussion about impeachment. And someone asked, I think, Nancy Pelosi, and she said, oh, no, it‘s not going to happen. And literally within 13 days there was a John Conyers editorial in “The Washington Post” saying, I‘m not going to push for impeachment because blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And I think that...

CARLSON: So she cracks the whip.

STODDARD: I think the whip is then cracked. But, you know, I know Republicans who voted—sane, grownup, respectable people who voted for Bush...

CARLSON: Right?

STODDARD: ... who would like him to not be in office tomorrow.
. . .

STODDARD: . . .the Republicans, what they would do is they wouldn‘t so much defend Bush, as they would say, look, the Democrats are power hungry, we, too, oppose the war.

CARLSON: Right.

STODDARD: We, too, think it‘s a disaster.

CARLSON: Of course. No, of course.

STODDARD: Please, let us ride it out.
. . .

STODDARD:. . .the point being made about impeaching both of them, the fact that you couldn‘t just impeach Bush, is obviously a salient point. I mean, you just really couldn‘t look at what Cheney has, you know, practically admitted at this point.

I think the whole thing is just impossible

CARLSON: No, but wait a second.'

STODDARD: It‘s just impossible.
. . .
STODDARD:. . .This discussion will go on and on. It will not stop. And it might—John Conyers might start talking about it again, but are they actually going to proceed? I mean, no.

CARLSON: Of course not. It would be interesting.

STODDARD: So I think we‘re back to Democrats are cowards.
. . .

[rinsd]

21. Conviction likely?

"When push comes to shove, far fewer Republicans may be willing to defend the indefensible than the chattering class can possibly imagine."

The public is screaming about the war and these assholes can't see fit to support a non-binding resolution saying the President may have ereed in judgement yet they are going to support conviction and removal?

You can't even present evidence honestly as there is a huge difference between the Republican voter and a Republican Senator. The latter has shown that he cares little about the former.

[pat_k]

24. Trashing the toothless resolution is easy for them. No comparison to defending the high crimes. . .

Just as there is no contest between "cutting the funding" v. Impeachment:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/12

[rinsd]

25. Yeah ok. Impeach is everything blah blah blah

I was right the 1st time.

Fantasy world.

[pat_k]

26. Kinda like the Repub failure to defend Bush. . .

. . .you fail to defend your assertion.

It's not much fun to defend the indefensible.

[rinsd]

28. That's the problem with talking to those in their own world

No matter what you do or say, they will come to their own conclusions on what was done or said.

[pat_k]

29. "Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic. . ." -- Monty Python

I've backed every assertion with detailed argument and evidence. (Much of it captured in my journal, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k">Get Up, Stand Up!).

Your replies to over the past months are consistently the equivalent of "Is Not!" While that may make for a great http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm">Monty Python sketch, it's a pathetic display on a topic as grave as the preservation of our government.

[redqueen]

11. Do you think it would be a complete waste of time?

They may not vote to convict... but getting them on record as not convicting two people who are so THOROUGHLY negligent (malfeasant?)... to me, that seems to be pretty worthwhile, really.

[Senator]

14. Fail? You're Asserting the Ziskey Doctrine?

"Never hit anyone in anger. Unless you're absolutely sure you can get away with it." -- Russell Ziskey

What kind of politico-electoro-strategero mesmerism (sorry, sophistication?) allows one to stand down in the face of ongoing war crimes?

How in Christ can we honestly expect to reverse the "traction" on cowardice if this is our creed?

Since they were handed the impeachment baton by the electorate in Nov., not a single word from the LieberDems in DC has been worth spit in the face of even the looming veto -- let alone the reality of "rule by signing statement." It's all just a sick shadow play.

Nope, not even the Cut The Funding Hoax.

Well, see this.

Our duty to our nation does not allow us the luxury of fearing fear itself -- of counting imagined Senate votes -- of standing in idle complicity while torture continues.

The impeachment move itself (removal or not) IS THE SUCCESS. It recaptures our self respect and redeems The American People in the eyes of the world.

Can't afford a soul? Fine. Even your craven calculations are based on imaginary numbers. Warner's feared torpedo has already been used to disable the War Criminals Protection Act. Expecting him to lead an impeachment trial defense of what would amount to a referendum on ratifying US War Criminal Nation Status ignores this past performance. (The same goes for McCain and Graham -- and the likely contingent of Senators that would follow their lead.)

Resignation is still more likely than removal. But removal has a real probability, not possibility -- probability.

Knees still shaking over "Electoral Armageddon" to come? Rubbish. The electorate is miles ahead of the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy on this. The real risk is the failure to impeach. That's what props up the decades-old PR work of the neofascists in driving home the "Weak Dems" meme.

That's why there's no bump for the "100 hours" or any of the other "non-binding" masturbation that's been going on among the "new majority." The tectonic plate is adrift. But it will only move if the DC-Dems DO SOME DAMN THING.

Only Impeachment ... is actually DOING.

It's the only thing that makes any sense on any level - moral, logical, political, historical, electoral -- you name it. (That is, if one's not mired in the Beltway Bedlam Blather Bubble.)

It is our ONLY meaningful option.

--

[pat_k]

16. When they resign to ensure the WH stays in repub hands. . .

. . .you can comfort yourself that your pronouncements of "certain" (not) failure in the Senate would have proven right if the Republicans hadn't been so thrilled with the excuse to force them out before it got there.

The rest of us will be out here celebrating our victory in this pivotal battle to defend the Constitution.

Fortunately for the nation, the Congressional oath is an oath to fight -- to support and defend; not an oath to win.

Tragically, our Congressional leadership appears to be oblivious of the duty with which we have charged them. By refusing to impeach, they effectively exonerate Bush and Cheney. If that is their intent, they should do it honestly and publicly defend Bush and Cheney's fascist fantasy of an all powerful unitary authoritarian executive. The idea of King Hillary may appeal to some, but i can't imagine it would be much of a vote getter.

Even more tragically for the nation, every additional day that the massive power of the American presidency remains, unchallenged, in the hands of these lawless men they gain ground in their war on our constitutional democracy. They take us a step closer to WWIII. Their actions have gone so far past the "impeachable" threshold that the refusal of the Congressional leadership to impeach is lunacy.

This White House; this Commander in Chief, has cried wolf so many times that no one believes a word they say. All their "proof" is rejected simply because they are the source of it. They've rendered themselves incapable of defending the nation. That alone is more than enough.

As for their War Crimes and terroristic bomb threats ("mushroom clouds in 45 minutes"), this isn't Watergate, where investigation was required to uncover a cover-up. Bush and Cheney are subverting the Constitution in plain sight. Articles could be drafted today. The case could be presented in impeachment hearings tomorrow. It's a slam dunk to the American people, the REAL power brokers.

Congress can't "get things done" under rule by signing statement. Pelosi and Reid will accomplish nothing unless the "unitary authoritarian executive" deigns to permit it. If they think betraying their oath and spending two years blowing hot air and demonstrating their impotence with finger-wagging "investigation" will help Democratic candidates win next time around, they'd better think again.

If they won't fight, win or lose, to fulfill their oath, perhaps they'll do it to preserve their political futures. Even in the irrational "political calculus" that pervades their insular world, it ought to be dawning on them that failing to impeach Bush and Cheney is a FAR greater risk to the future of the Democratic Party than even the worst of their (baseless) fears of impeachment.

Does the Democratic caucus really want to set their image as weaklings and cowards into stone by refusing to stand up?

Does Nancy "off the table" Pelosi really want to go down in history as the ONE person who had the power to stop WWIII, but refused to act? As the leader who "cracked the whip" to silence every member who dared to utter the word impeachment? As a woman so deluded that she thought it was more important to pass a minimum wage increase than to stop the blatant, willful criminality, subversion, and international devastation being wrought by the Bush/Cheney WH?

It is long past time for our Democratic leaders to conquer their impeachophobia and become champions of the People's Government and the Constitution.

Curtis Gans, Director, http://spa.american.edu/csae">Center for the Study of the American Electorate

On Politically Direct with David Bender
http://podcast.rbn.com/airam/airam/download/archive/2006/11/aapd111006.mp3">MP3 (Interview start time approx 18:30)

Bender: You've been doing this for almost 30 years; studying the American electorate. And there is probably no greater expert than you. It's just a real pleasure to have you on this program;
. . .

Gans: . . .Traditionally, at least for the last 30 years, {the Democrats} have essentially been very tactical; very programmatic. I don't think either one of those works. I think they have to have an articulation of central American principles and what that means within a progressive Party.
. . .

Bender: This is a moment, clearly -- the people voted for accountability, there's no question about that. And the opportunity to show that the Democratic Party is the Party of the Constitution, I think will be a very popular position across the board, particularly with Independents, and maybe even some Republicans who still love this Constitution.

Gans: The concept of the Constitution and the People's Government is something that can unite the Democratic Party in ways it hasn't been united since the late 1960's. . .

[DinahMoeHum]

17. Yep, impeachment won't mean diddly-shit without a conviction.

from the US Senate.

And if anyone challenges me on this, I ask them: Give us a list of the 20 or more Republican Senators who will vote to convict. Because there is nothing written in stone that says the Democrats and Independents will all vote to convict.

:evilfrown:

[pat_k]

19. See. . .

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=217956&mesg_id=226658">Reply #16, "When they resign to ensure the WH stays in repub hands. . ." and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=217956&mesg_id=227382">Reply #18, "Not so fast."

[rinsd]

22. Yes see pat_k's impeachment fantasy come to life

:eyes:

[pat_k]

23. The power to impeach a fantasy? Should warm the hearts of fascsts everywhere.

[DinahMoeHum]

27. I'm still waiting for that list of Republicans who will put country

and Constitution over party and vote to convict Bush and Cheney.

pat-k, nothing on God's green earth would please me more than to see impeachment charges drawn up against these guys. But remember, impeachment by the House is merely the indictment part; it's the Senate that decides guilty or not guilty. And the way things stand now, we don't have the votes in the Senate to vote guilty.

:evilfrown:

[pat_k]

30. Re-read the referenced replies. The question. . .

. . .of who might vote Yea, or who might vote Nay in the Senate has no bearing on the question of whether or not Impeachment by the House is of absolute necessity to the preservation of the our constitutional democracy.

• It may never get to the Senate (escape via resignation to keep WH in Republican hands).
• If it did get there, it is impossible to "know" the outcome. The only way to find out who will, or will not, be willing to defend Bush and Cheney is to accuse them and force Senators to take sides.
• Even if Members of the House were omnipotent creatures who actually did "know" the Senate will acquit, that knowledge would not excuse them from their duty.

If a prosecutor had confessions and irrefutable proof against a lynch mob, it would be beneath contempt if he refused to bring charges because he figured he'd just get a racist jury that would acquit anyway. To fail to charge is to be complicit with the murders and the racists.

Just as refusal to impeach Bush and Cheney because they don't trust their minions in the Senate to convict makes them complicit with the war criminals and their minions.

[rman]

9. If only we'd have government "of, for and by the people" -

this would not be an issue.

[reprehensor]

12. New Mexico is hard at it, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=217541&mesg_id=217541

More here;

ImpeachBush.tv
http://www.impeachbush.tv/

[In Truth We Trust]

13. IMPEACH NOW! Let there be justice and rule of law!

[Decruiter]

15. Hang on everyone, I think Texas is getting ready to break out.

There appears there just might be a resolution coming..............

[gratuitous]

20. If the people lead

Some of the leaders will surely follow. And there's going to be some opportunistic egotist who wants to get out in front of the parade. Keep up the pressure, is my feeling. I want the historical record to show at the very least that the people of the United States were onto this bunch of crooks, even before all their crimes were declassified.