Impeachment or Bust --Craig Crawford

[pat_k]

A glimpse of reality in the beltway House of Mirrors.

The New York Times
February 23, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/02/23/cq_2321.html?pagewanted=print">Craig Crawford’s Trail Mix:
Impeachment or Bust
By Craig Crawford

If Democrats are determined to go all the way to stop the Iraq war, they will probably have to impeach, convict and oust President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney — which is another way of saying that Democrats are not going to stop or limit this war.

That is because it is a safe bet that Democrats are not prepared to go that far, and an even safer bet that Bush will veto anything Congress passes.

So what is the point of Democratic congressional leaders staging votes on binding legislation without having the votes to override a veto (as evidenced by their failure to pass a non-binding resolution in the Senate)?

Forcing Republicans to repeatedly go on the record in support of Bush’s unpopular war policies — while having no effect in Iraq — does serve Democratic interests in hammering GOP incumbents at the ballot box next year.

Looks like the rationalization that impeachment would distract them from "getting things done" is falling victim to the reality that their refusal to impeach has rendered them impotent.

But the beltway House of Mirrors is tricky. Comforting themselves with the wrong-headed notion that they are gaining by "Forcing Republicans to repeatedly go on the record" keeps them trapped in the maze.

Unfortunately, their attempts to force Republicans to "go on the record" may backfire. Vulnerable Republicans are already seizing the opportunity to "go on the record" to distance themselves from the Bush. As he steamrolls the Congressional leadership, Bush is the "strong leader" -- and as Clinton points out, Americans go for strong and wrong over weak and right.

Even more tragically, if the Dems refuse to impeach, they are passing up an unprecedented opportunity to demonstrate strength and principle and to define themselves as the Party of the People's Government and the Constitution. They are not just betraying their oath; they are failing to deal with the Democratic Party's Number 1 and Number 2 problems -- i.e., the perception that Democrats are weak and their failure to define overarching principles that inspire.

As long as they refuse to impeach, they aren't just being derilect in their duty; they aren't just passing up enormous political benefits; they are damaging themselves by reinforcing the "weak Dem" image. Even if they could gain something by "forcing Republicans to go on the record," feeding the "weak Dem" image would more than wipe it out.

As long as we reject their declarations that impeachment is "impossible" and keep hammering away at their rationalizations for refusing to impeach, we are changing the odds and making the "bet that Democrats are not prepared to go that far" a lot less safe.

[redqueen]

1. As long as they refuse to impeach, they prove they aren't serving our interests.

Bush & Cheney are CRIMINALS.

[Bobbie Jo]

2. Nothing more to add to this, other than...

I completely agree. We witnessed a shameful abuse of power with the Clinton impeachment. We now have the opportunity, (or the duty, as I would argue) to demonstrate the proper use of this power. What we have witnessed over the past 6 years is the ultimate example of why the impeachment remedy was provided for in the constitution. Is it not?

I would go even further to reprimand those who conspired to abuse this power, so that it never happens again.

[Disturbed]

4. GW Bush- High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

GW Bush- High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

1. "A Crime Against Peace." Initiating a war of aggression against a nation that posed no immediate threat to the U.S.--a war that has needlessly killed 2550 Americans and maimed and damaged over 20,000 more, while killing over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children, is the number one war crime according to the Nuremberg Charter, a document which was largely drawn up by American lawyers after World War II.

2. Lying and organizing a conspiracy to trick the American people and the U.S. Congress into approving an unnecessary and illegal war. This is defined as "A Conspiracy to Commit a Crime Against Peace" in the Nuremberg Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory.

3. Approving and encouraging, in violation of U.S. and international law, the use of torture, kidnapping and rendering of prisoners of war captured in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the course of the so-called War on Terror. Note that the Hamdan decision actually declares Bush to have violated the Third Geneva Convention on Treatment of Prisoners of War, which means the justices are in effect calling the president a war criminal. Under U.S. and international law, if prisoners have died because of such a violation--and many have died in illegal US captivity because of torture authorized by this president--the penalty is death (a point made to the president in a warning memo written by his then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, the text of which is published in full in the appendix of our book).

4. Illegally stripping the right of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution from American citizens, denying them the fundamental right to have their cases heard in a court, to hear the charges against them, to be judged in a public court by a jury of their peers, and to have access to a lawyer.

5. Authorizing the spying on American citizens and their communications by the National Security Agency and other U.S. police and intelligence agencies, in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

6. Obstructing investigation into and covering up knowledge of the deliberate exposing of the identity of a U.S. CIA undercover operative, and possibly conspiring in that initial outing itself.

7. Obstructing the investigation into the 9-11 attacks and lying to investigators from the Congress and the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission--actions that come perilously close to treason. (Former Florida Senator Bob Graham, who headed the Senate Intelligence Committee until his retirement at the end of 2002, has called this the president's most impeachable crime.)

8. Violating the due process and other constitutional rights of thousands of citizens and legal residents by rounding them up and disappearing or deporting them without hearings.

9. Abuse of power, undermining of the Constitution and violating the presidential oath of office by deliberately refusing to administer over 750 acts duly passed into law by the Congress--actions with if left unchallenged would make the Congress a vestigial body, and the president a dictator.

10. Criminal negligence in failing to provide American troops with adequate armor before sending them into a war of choice, criminal negligence in going to war against a weak, third-world nation without any planning for post war occupation and reconstruction, criminal negligence in failing to respond to a known and growing crisis in the storm-blasted city of New Orleans, and criminal negligence in failing to act, and in fact in actively obstructing efforts by other countries and American state governments, to deal with the looming crisis of global warming.


The Democrats’ Impeachment Road Map

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVjM2M2N2U3ZjJlNTRiZmYzZjJkYzJiN2RlZGQyYjY=

[pat_k]

15. If Conyers "wins that seat, and he moves toward impeachment — and how could he not. . .

. . .if he believes the president broke not one, not two, not three, but 26 laws and regulations?. . ."

-- http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YjVjM2M2N2U3ZjJlNTRiZmYzZjJkYzJiN2RlZGQyYjY=">The Democrats’ Impeachment Road Map, Bryon York, NRO Aug-2006

It really is tragic. The Democratic leadership actually believes that their "off the table" declarations "defused" the attempts by right-wing propagandists like Byron York to "stir up the base" with their "Beware, the Dems will impeach" drumbeat.

Of course, the reality is that Pelosi's declarations did absolutely nothing to shake the reactionaries' firm belief that the Dems would impeach the minute they were in power. Those extremists don't listen to a word Pelosi says -- if they heard the declarations at all, they assumed they were hypocritical BS.

The message "the Dems are gonna impeach if they win" didn't "stir up the base" because a vast majority of the electorate -- right wingers included -- would like nothing better than to see the end of the Bush-Cheney era.¹ Bush has alienated many who were once his staunchest supporters. They may not be attacking him, but they aren't inclined to defend or stand up for him either. Had the Dems be out there saying "Darn right we're gonna impeach" they probably would have won more seats by bigger margins than they did.

York's summary of charges from Conyers report -- and other articles aimed at demonstrating that impeachment would be inevitable if Dems won control of the House -- undoubtedly helped the Dems because they captured a moral truth (perhaps a first for folks like York) and instilled hope that Pelosi's "off the table" couldn't possibly hold; that the Dems would impeach and rescue the nation from the devastating grip of Bush and Cheney. How can Conyers submit to Pelosi's "off the table" edict "if he believes the president broke not one, not two, not three, but 26 laws and regulations?" It is beyond all rational understanding.

_______________________________________

1. Newsweek Poll, http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-27-2007/0004514285&EDATE=">27-Jan-07
   
   "At this point in time, do you personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over, or don't you feel this way?
   58% Yes, wish it was over
   
   37% No, do not
   
   5% Don't know/refused
   
   Note: The question, "do you personally want it over" strips out all the impeachophobic rationalizations, and thus captures the actual level of support for impeachment.

[pat_k]

7. Defending our Constitutional "territory" defines the borders. . .

. . .but as you point out, it won't necessarily deter future invaders.

Removing the power to harm is step one. Deterring future abuse requires more substantial consequences. In our constitutional democracy, retribution -- balancing the scales of justice and punishment -- is for the Courts, both here and at The Hague, not Congress.

Impeaching Bush and Cheney to defend the Constitution against their attacks is the first and most urgent priority. It is also the easiest step. As Wil S. Hylton points out in this month's GQ, the Constitution was crafted to ensure that impeachment is simple, swift, and certain.¹

The task of defending the Constitution must start with Bush and Cheney, but it can't stop there. Every single adherent to the fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive in the judiciary and the executive is an intolerable threat that must be removed from power. (And that includes Scalia et al for Bush v. Gore, and Alito, a key proponent of the "unitary" lunacy.)

Prosecution and punishment for the crimes they have committed² may be more difficult to achieve, but we must nevertheless demand it when the time comes. (Like going after an erratic driver, you pull 'em over and get the keys first, and then you can worry about gathering evidence and prosecuting for driving under the influence.)

___________________________________

1. http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5402">The People v. Richard Cheney, GQ, March 2007.
   
   "When the Founding Fathers crafted the U.S. Constitution, they wanted to be sure that the president, vice president, and other ranking officials could be evicted more easily than the British monarchy. To ensure that the process would be swift and certain, they made it simple: Only two conditions must be met. First, a majority of the House of Representatives must agree on a set of charges; then, two-thirds of the Senate must agree to convict. After that, there is no legal wrangling, no appeal to a higher authority, no reversal on technical grounds. There is not even a limit on what the charges may be. As the Constitution describes it, the cause may be "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors," but even these were left deliberately vague; as Gerald Ford once pointed out while still serving in the House of Representatives, the only real definition of an "impeachable offense" is "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."


2. In their attack on the Constitution, Bush and Cheney are blatantly committing grave violations of law that go far beyond impeachable. They have committed crimes that are subject to the penalty of death. Namely, war crimes under U.S. Code (Title 18 section 2441) and international law and violations of the Anti-Terrorism Act (Title 18, Section 844 paragraph e. Bomb Threat -- "mushroom clouds in 45 min").
   
   In addition, they violate the sanctity of our civil rights with their criminal spying operation (Title 50, Section 1805).

[Bobbie Jo]

9. I should have clarified my last remark.

Future invaders in terms those who abused the power of impeachment, ie...Clinton. This type of abuse damages the process intended for the true offenders, and as a result impeachment is perceived as nothing more than a political ploy.

[pat_k]

11. It's a Catch 22. . .

If our so-called "leaders" had a handle on the real purpose of impeachment, instead of being lost in the images and irrational fears that pervade the beltway, they would easily contradict and crush the propaganda that impeachment is a "political ploy" or that it is "vindictive" or that it "would tear the nation apart."

If they crushed the propaganda, there would be no need to reprimand the Republicans for staining impeachment with their vile use of it to "get Clinton" because there would be no stain.

WRT to condemning the Clinton impeachment. Declaring what is, or is not "out of bounds" when it comes to impeachment can be problematic. The fascists are constantly trying to impose false limits on our power. They are quick to tell us things like "You can't impeach Bush/Cheney for incompetence." The truth is that Impeachment for incompetence isn't just possible; if Members of Congress consider an executive's incompetence to be a threat to the integrity or security of our constitutional democracy they should impeach.

While the motives that drove the reactionaries in Congress to impeach Clinton were vile, when they managed to vote out their asinine articles they were operating within the limits of the power we granted them. They tried to impose the will of their tiny faction on us, but their abhorrent effort was derailed when it ran headlong into the reality of our will.

Although the "strategerists" invoke the ickiness of the Clinton impeachment to rationalize the leadership's refusal to impeach today, Democrats were plagued by impeachophobia long before Ken Starr and the House Managers made their debut. We hear the same excuses today that we heard in 1986 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=142357&mesg_id=142901"> It's like Deja vu all over again.).

From http://january6th.org/saving-ourselves.html

. . .
We are contending with the same forces behind the refusal of our Democratic leaders to impeach Reagan and Poppy; throw out illegitimate electors on January 6th in 2001 and 2005; reject the Authorization to Use Military Force; or filibuster Alito.
The rationalizations and self-defeating tendencies have been so intractable because they are rooted in who we are. They are products of strengths gone wrong. Under the guise being realistic, careful, dispassionate, and rational, we find we the seeds of immobility, abandoned principles, and weakness.

http://january6th.org/saving-ourselves.html">More. . .

[Senator]

3. Crawford's Right: AntiWar AND AntiImpeach is a Big Sick Lie

Not only to the real Dem base, but to the victims of ongoing torture, our troops in the meat grinder, and the American People.

What better plan to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in '08?

Only Impeachment... is a substantive act.

It IS our positive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

--

[TahitiNut]

5. "They are not just betraying their oath;"

"They are not just betraying their oath; they are failing to deal with the Democratic Party's Number 1 and Number 2 problems -- i.e., the perception that Democrats are weak and their failure to define overarching principles that inspire.

"As long as they refuse to impeach, they aren't just being derilect in their duty; they aren't just passing up enormous political benefits; they are damaging themselves by reinforcing the "weak Dem" image. Even if they could gain something by "forcing Republicans to go on the record," feeding the "weak Dem" image would more than wipe it out."

ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY!

Worse than Ford pardoning Nixon and worse than Poppy Bush pardoning Iran/Contra co-conspirators, this is a PROFESSIONAL POLITICAL CLASS effectively pardoning the biggest War Criminals in this nation's history!

[faithnotgreed]

6. I will kick to that~

HARD

[Morgana LaFey]

8. Aaaargh. They JUST don't get it.

Well, there are a few that do and near as I can tell, they're all black (COnyers, Waxman probably, Waters probably, Rangel possibly).

Most of the rest of them just don't understand the stakes. They STILL think there's something decent and redeeming about this monster, this squatter in the White House. They still don't understand he's a freakin' PSYCHOPATH.

What on earth are we going to do?

[TahitiNut]

10. Mostly ... but there's Jerry Nadler and Barney Frank, too.

By and large, the only members of Congress I support are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus ... and a couple of them are a bit "iffy" as well.

[Jacobin]

12. The most telling thing that makes this ring true is

The continued taunting of the democrats by Bush and Cheney: "Hey if they were really serious about this they would cut off funding,etc" wink wink, they're a bunch of putzes who talk a lot but won't do anything, whereas we are strong and in control.

Craig nails it

[Senator]

13. kick

[Kurovski]

14. k&r.(NT)