Why Bush/Chenney must be impeached

[KafirChobee]

Now, I understand we have had this discussion before. However, a few weeks ago I went to a discussion on the occupation of (war - if you wish) Iraq and its consequences. I've been pondering what one of the speakers (gah! don't ask for a name please, I got dragged to the damn thing and didn't bring a note pad) said; that is, that if charges of impeachment weren't brought against him (and Cheney) that we would surpass the point of an Imperialistic presidency. That after allowing Dubya's arrogances a future President would have a set of precidences (set under Bush?Chenney) that would allow them to deny anything (and know one could challange him for fear of jail), avoid giving up any info to anyone (could ignore the power to turn over documents to any investgatory committee), the abililty to fire and hire (Judicial, Military, and gov. dept. under him - though they pretty much have that now, without showing cause - except in extreme cases) at will and without oversight.

Consider the power Bush (Cheney) has given the Presidency (actually the rubberstamp GOP congress from 2002 - Jan. 2007). For the neo-cons out there - does another FDR sound like a good thing to you? Even if FDR's acts were done more for America's survival and the little guy - versus Bushy's for the wealthy (the upper 0.05%).

So, I went looking for support to this arguement, hoping to find the creaton that got me thinking about it, instead I found things dating back to May 2003. Curious how what goes around, comes around.

A few of the earlier Bush Impeachment calls:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0512-07.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0402-16.htm

Later:
http://www.impeachbush.tv/

IMO, charges must be brought against Bush and Cheney on matters of principle and the future on democracy in America - if not for their obvious breaking of the laws of the nation they agreed (under oath) to uphold. Their responsability for causing the war in Iraq is known by all, only those that "wish" to believe in the concept for it still believe it. Those that have risen above it (and their preference for a political party) realize that BS regardless of whom is feeding it to you is still BS.

[Accepting their party line (or their spin) in my book is the same as confessing to being an idiot and denying being an idiot on the principle that their party is always right - the idiot loop.]

Bush and Cheney must be impeached to preserve the balance of power, or we will have an Imperial Presidency - next election. Queen Hillary - has a nice ring to it, eh?

[Papewaio]

Pointless.

The next President regardless of political party would pardon them the moment they were made the President. Only time this would not happen is when it is a party vs party conflict.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Clearly, as an outsider, my view counts for little, but as I understand the Constitution, impeachment is a responsibility of Congress rather than the judiciary.

This surely means it is an entirely political power and rather than being tied to some very clear legal rules, impeaching a president - as an act that effectively subverts the will of the people - can only be done by the body that similarly is elected by the people. The decision to do so is therefore a political decision based on the political realities of the day.

As presidents have a pretty monarchial power anyway, the checks and balances of Congress are essential to curbing excesses in that power. If Congress abdicates that responsibility because of party politics or loyalties, I don't think there is much that can be done.

Wiser scholars may well have other precedents, but to this observer, the damage was done by the foolish and entirely partisan use of impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. The exercise devalued the awesome power that impeachment represents (ie the subversion by politicians of the will of the people). That damage means that politicians across the board are now wary of such proceedings even if more justified.

More importantly, it seems to me that Congress has long thrown away its role to be the check to presidential excess within a responsible partnership of power, in favour of the trough and the gravy train.

Rather than waste time impeaching President Bush (who for all that I disagree with his policies, strikes me as a man that has taken decisions based on his real belief that he is doing the right thing, and it's difficult to blame a chap for that) the effort would be better spent impeaching every Congress until they get the message to do their job.

[Csargo]

The sig.

[drone]

I think I actually prefer them hamstrung, like they are now, to having someone else in the seat. And don't forget, Pelosi is 3rd in line. I have no problem with Congress nipping away at Bush's cronies for the next year and a half, pretty much getting nothing done, with a fresh start in Jan 2009.

Although after they leave office, I'm all for a special investigation team to go through the records and bust as many of the administration as they can get. Not much is going to happen now with the "executive privilege", "4th branch" crap being spewed now. And while they are at it, take out some of Congress for aiding and abetting the abuses.

[Marshal Murat]

I think either Don or Dave said it best.
We are going to ride this lame duck out, then elect a new President.

Even with all these 'new powers' granted to the Executive Branch, anyone following this President will try to shy away from anything to 'Bush'. If they even think about touching any more power, than the other party will immediately call them out, label it 'imperialistic' and the President will either take the fury, or step back.

I don't think that Impeachment can go through, for the simple reason that the rules that govern the proceedings require
1. High misdemeanors
2. Treason
3. Bribery

While #3 is lucrative :) the Bush presidency fails to fulfill those requirements and cannot be impeached.
If the Congress wants to define 'High Misdemeanors', good luck.
Otherwise, Bush will sit in office till the day he leaves.

[Devastatin Dave]

Who's Chenney?

[Gregoshi]

Who's Chenney?

Dick "Shotgun" Chenney is the Vice President who went Quayle hunting and shot the wrong guy in the face.

[PanzerJaeger]

Wiser scholars may well have other precedents, but to this observer, the damage was done by the foolish and entirely partisan use of impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. The exercise devalued the awesome power that impeachment represents (ie the subversion by politicians of the will of the people). That damage means that politicians across the board are now wary of such proceedings even if more justified.

Thats nothing compared to the impeachment of Johnson.

[Whacker]

Dick "Shotgun" Chenney is the Vice President who went Quayle hunting and shot the wrong guy in the face.

Ever play Unreal Tournament or Counter-strike? Every time I hear about that I can't help but think of this sound clip. Bonus link to the rest of the UT sounds.

Also itchy, your sig is entirely appropriate for this conversation.

Honestly, I'm still pissed at all the Dems that we voted in just for the sake of change and sending a message, and the huge striding leaps they've made moving forward to fixing a lot of the problems with our government. /dripping sarcasm

[Zaknafien]

Ive already written both of my Senators and congressman pleading with them to support the recent Censure measures.

[Xiahou]

Ive already written both of my Senators and congressman pleading with them to support the recent Censure measures.

It's no wonder the Democrats came out with this censure notion. It allows them to pander to their fringe by passing a meaningless resolution, while not actually doing anything binding. That seems to be their hallmark of late.

[Zaknafien]

meaningless? the historical record must be set. That the American people are not in favor of these madmen in office. For their numerous crimes against this country and others, as well as their disregard for the Constitution.

[Csargo]

Ever play Unreal Tournament or Counter-strike? Every time I hear about that I can't help but think of this sound clip. Bonus link to the rest of the UT sounds.

Also itchy, your sig is entirely appropriate for this conversation.

Honestly, I'm still pissed at all the Dems that we voted in just for the sake of change and sending a message, and the huge striding leaps they've made moving forward to fixing a lot of the problems with our government. /dripping sarcasm

You're going to have to wait it out for the long haul(what less than a year?) It seems like a waste of time to impeach them at this point. Maybe a year or two ago, but at this point it seems well pointless.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

High Crimes and misdemeanors require intent.

I have seen no effective evidence of an intent that rises to the impeachable.

Questions of competence are not grounds for impeachment -- though pressure on the incompetent to resign may be brought to bear.



However, in terms of political capital, there is much to be lost in an attempt to impeach and convict Bush and little for the Democrats to gain thereby. It will not, therefore, happen -- though they may throw any number of sops to their base to placate them.

[Whacker]

You're going to have to wait it out for the long haul(what less than a year?) It seems like a waste of time to impeach them at this point. Maybe a year or two ago, but at this point it seems well pointless.

They can still do a lot of damage in that year or two.

[Zaknafien]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI_y-plh274

[Devastatin Dave]

Dick "Shotgun" Chenney is the Vice President who went Quayle hunting and shot the wrong guy in the face.

I still don't recall a Vice President named Dick Chenney.

[Crazed Rabbit]

IMO, charges must be brought against Bush and Chenney on matters of principle and the future on democracy in America - if not for their obvious breaking of the laws of the nation they agreed (under oath) to uphold.

Your examples of early calls for impeachment are truly pathetic. Under those definitions, anyone fighting a war should be hung.

Your idea that Bush should be impeached on principle? What a crock.

The law demands and requires that one of the following has occurred:

1. High misdemeanors
2. Treason
3. Bribery

If you and your fellow lefties insist on an impeachment without that basis, you are spitting upon the law you claim to uphold, and you are worse than you claim Bush is.

Crazed Rabbit

[Zaknafien]

Actually, the recquirements for impeachment were left purposely vague by the founders. Presidents have been impeached before for things like "insulting the Senate" for example.

[Csargo]

I still don't recall a Vice President named Dick Chenney.

I also wonder who these fellows are.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Actually, the recquirements for impeachment were left purposely vague by the founders. Presidents have been impeached before for things like "insulting the Senate" for example.

Who, exactly?

Crazed Rabbit

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Who, exactly?

Crazed Rabbit

POTUS Andrew Johnson, 1866.

It was not one of the first 9 articles of impeachment voted, but was added shortly thereafter in article 10. Source.

The impeachment of Johnson was an attempt by Stanton to remain in power -- it nearly succeeded.

[Crazed Rabbit]

POTUS Andrew Johnson, 1866

That's one president, not 'Presidents'. One could argue that Johnson was not impeached for insulting the Senate or any other crime, but because of his the Republicans back then didn't like his leniency during reconstruction.

Also, I was speaking of the whole shebang - actually getting removed from office. I suppose Johnson got impeached, but no President has been impeached and removed from office, which is what the dems want, I gather.

CR

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually, the recquirements for impeachment were left purposely vague by the founders. Presidents have been impeached before for things like "insulting the Senate" for example.

True, "high crimes and misdemeanors" had known connotations in English Common Law, but were not absolute measures.

This is why I place such importance of "intent."

I have seen little to show that there was an attempt by either Bush or Cheney to purposefully mislead either for personal gain or for aggrandizement of their offices. There are any number of instances where their decision-making, situational evaluations, and/or competence in execution can be questioned, but this is evidence of bad management/leadership not an impeachable offense.

Please note: Not only has history judged the attempted impeachment of Johnson to be more or less a purely political fight and poorly grounded in the Constitution, but the other attempt at impeachment was nearly as blatantly political and assinine. When they failed to vote to impeach Clinton on the obstruction of justice article, the effort should have ended. Perjury over a private matter should have called for no more than censure (and perhaps resignation depending on one's personal sense of honor).

[Gregoshi]

I still don't recall a Vice President named Dick Chenney.

Ah, you're doing the spelling thing. Cheney, not Chenney. No matter how you spell it, he's still Dick.

[Ice]

Once again, blah blah blah, Politics. There is no way an impeachment measure would ever pass. Unless the president openly commits treason or murder, he isn't going anywhere no matter how much you hate him. You might as well hold your breath.

The democrats would never start impeachment due to the facts:

A) It would never pass, they don't have enough support
B) The Republicans would seek revenge. No more playing nice between the two parties.

[Divinus Arma]

Another classic rant, as eloquently detailed in the Orgah Summations.

[Brenus]

There are no reasons for impeachment. G.W. Bush didn’t have consensual sex with a adult woman, he just lied to sent his own soldiers to died for his own vanity and interests of the Military Industry Complex… These are honourable goals… Making money on others blood is not so bad… To play on honourable patriotic feeling of your citizens to lead them in an un-useful war is common and accepted by all countries…

“The Republicans would seek revenge" Nice bit of humour

[KafirChobee]

The intent to allow Executive privilege was to allow the President to converse freely with his advisors on national security issues and international affairs - and the likes. It was not intended to allow a Prez to hide everything he and his subordinates were doing (especially those things associated with congressional oversight committees) - invoking national security for everything - or to cover-up their misdeeds.

When every memo from every Cabinet member of a Presidentcy is labelled "classified", when a VP classifes all his inter-office memos (even those issued to release information), when the President envelopes his entire staff and cabinet to be included under a veil of "executive privilege" - then he has in fact broken the law.

Bush is attempting to extend Executive privilege into perpetuity:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/pdbnews/index.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/pdbnews/20050715.htm
This pertains to withholding documents from the LBJ's era concerning Vietnam (circa 1967); but the purpose is much more sinister in that if allowed it would set the precident to keep embarrassing documents from the Reagan, Bush41, and Bush43 from ever reaching the eyes of the public.

The Republicans were against executive privilege, before they were for it - that is, when Clinton was Prez:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/..._i_was_for_it/
When it is seen in a political light, the GOPists oppose executive privilege - same-o-same-o when for it. Seems hypocritical, but what the hey - DC politics as usual. I suppose.

Then there is the Nixon arguement for it, and concessions to Congress:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...emocrac/72.htm

Then we have the ACLU's view point, which neo-cons will see as a liberal attack on freedom (what an oxymoronic that train of thought is):
"ACLU: Bush thumbing his nose at the constitution"
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/a...humbsNose.html

Then we have the recent contempt of congress involving Harriet Miers (former canidate to the Supreme Court - gah) - and others. Now here i do believe that the Republican plan for retribution is more sensible than the Dems - since the Dems relys on the (un)Justice Department of Gonzales to allow it to for forward.

Regardless, the Bushys have pushed past the envelope concerning Executive privilege - they've even surpassed Nixon in their subverting the law for their own purpose and to conceal any wrong doings.
To allow the Bushys to continue unimpeeded will permit all future Presidents to use Bush43's antics to justify the empowerment any inaction by Congress has given him. If it goes unchallanged now - it becomes a defacto law.

Regardless of the future actions brought against the next presidentcy to curtail it - the precident will be set. Believing it is to late, or not in our best interest to impeach a President for subverting and breaking the law (Constitution) is irrational. For, had the GOPist congresses of 2002 - 2006 been doing their job to uphold the laws and oversee the presidentcy - none of this would be necessary. But, they didn't - and now it is necessary for someone to uphold the law and impeach those responsable for subverting it.

Contempt for the law and arrogance of power, must not be rewarded with silence.