Impeachment Now
Nov 12th, 2006 at 3:20 pm by Susie
The funny thing is, I keep coming back to the same conclusion: To me, impeachment is the truly conservative solution to Bush’s crimes. I mean, it’s not as if I’m suggesting we string him up in a show trial (cough Saddam Hussein cough).
This impeachment panel yesterday was fraught with historical symbolism. First of all, it was held in Philadelphia, one block from Independence Hall, where after much discussion, a group of concerned citizens finally came to the conclusion they had to make an agonizing break with England. That decision wasn’t made lightly.
This movement toward impeachment isn’t made lightly, either. As Elizabeth Holtzman (the former congresswoman who worked on the House judiciary committee during the Watergate hearing) said yesterday, this isn’t partisan. This isn’t about revenge. The same as it was about Richard Nixon illegally sending troops into Cambodia, it’s about a war.
“It was a subversion of the Constitution to send them to die on the basis of a lie,” she said. “He knew if we knew the truth, we wouldn’t have gone to war.
“The Founding Fathers put that [impeachment] in there because they knew one day there would be a Richard Nixon, and one day, there would be a George Bush.”
She said voters wanted a change, “and if you say this change doesn’t include impeachment, you’re wrong.” According to a recent Newsweek poll, the majority of the American people support it.”
Holtzman said there was a wrong way and a right way to approach it. With Nixon, she said, the Democratic-controlled Congress was unwilling to pursue impeachment, but were forced to do so by the American people.
She compared that with the Clinton impeachment, which she called “abusive” and “improper.” In that instance, polls showed that 63% of the public opposed the Clinton impeachment, with only 26% in favor. “Instead of rising from the bottom to the top, the Congress imposed it from the top down,” she said.
“Why did the president drive us into way on the basis of deceoption? As a former prosecutor, I believe we have all the evidence we need.”
I don’t believe this Democratic Congress will ever be credible until they move to restore our system of checks and balances. This isn’t about getting even; it’s about putting things right.
I have very mixed feelings about impeachment. There are all the right reasons and the facts to support them. But is the public ready? Because if this is going to mean anything in an historical sense of high crimes, there absolutly has to be a very large public support for impeachment. Not that it should not be done, but vocal support from the public is the only thing that will give it validity in the public’s eye, and that is what this is all about, you and me.
The next best thing would be a censor or other type of action short of impeachment, that is presented in the harshest of terms and that would effectively wrestle control of the president’s actions (ie: veto pen, appointments, etc). This would go down in history as a bipartison action with hugh support. You could advocate this type of action as a desire to not totally throw the country in disarray, with a “war” on and such. I could live with this, if it declared the misdeeds our bush, including those which could be brought to trial after he quits. Hey maybe you could reduce his retirement benifits, you know something becoming of a criminal.
Food for thought. Bb
I impeached a man just to watch him try.
Even if the House voted for impeachment, the Democrats don’t have the two-thirds of the votes needed for conviction. Instead, Democrats have a marginal 1 vote majority only because of two independents.
I thought Bush was impeachable three years ago but the country reelected him knowing that he had lied about WMDs in making his case for war in Iraq.
In the last three years, it’s become increasingly obvious that our first priority is to get the government functioning again and we start by having a Congress that engages in oversight and accountability and starts informing itself again instead of being a corrupt rubber stamp. If in the course of hearings overwhelming evidence stirs Americans to demand impeachment, no argument from me. But we should begin by getting some work done and letting events take their course.
I would also argue that while a majoritly of Repubilcans in Washington remain weirdly uninformed, even Democrats in Washington have been falling behind the times. We need pure informational hearings to bring our nation up to speed.
Here’s a metaphor for what I mean: if shoddy construction work by a bunch of crooks is putting a dam at risk during a flood, you don’t stop to prosecute the crooks, you do the hard work it takes to keep the dam from bursting.
But then you prosecute the crooks, and I don’t mean metaphorically.
Lets not rule out the Pelosi approach which seems to be shapping up into ‘let the inevitable impeachment raise its own ugly head which it must surely do’.
We should consider that impeachment is just pissing in the wind if your not going to be able to convince republicans. the Pelosi approach may be less likely to give republicans a “political witchhunt argument.” and makes an actual impeachment more likely.
maybe.
Let’s remember that there isn’t a rule that says you can’t prosecute after the term is over. The rules are different, but it is still possible.
This is different. Clinton got a blowjob!