Why Don't They Impeach?
Let me recommend to you to watch the Bill Moyers' discussion on impeachment with conservative constitutional lawyer Burce Fein and the liberal writer John Nichols. Both are for it, as is a majority of the U.S. people.
Within the discussion one issue comes up that I truely do not understand.
Without impeachment of Cheney and Bush, the presidency as an institution will have gained some huge new tools in the "presidential toolbox". If Cheney and Bush are not challenged on the rights they have asserted over Congress, these powers will be inherited by the next presidency.
Why do Republicans feel confident that a new President Clinton, Obama or Gore would not use these powers against them? What if a Democratic persident insists on illegal spying on Republicans? What if s/he picks Republican senators off the streets for aiding the terrorists and throws them into some dungeon to be tortured and forgotton? What if s/he abuses the Justice Department to manipulate elections to install a permanent Democratic majority?
Any Republican senator must have those thoughts and fear that possibility. Why aren't they screaming for impeachment? It is beyond me and I currently can only think of one reason.
Rick Santorum recently said:
"Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we’re seeing unfold in the UK.
Why is he so sure on these dates and what may happen or not? Is a "fix" in?
On the other side, why is it that Democrats do not use all means to legislate whatever they want and to impeach. Why are they afraid to force confrontation when the only thing the Republicans understand is fear or force?
Chomsky says both parties are to the right of where the people of the U.S. actually are. I am certain that is so with regard of foreign policy. The Imperial Senate certainly agrees on another war of agression.
But why don't Democrats in Congress try to regain some powers? Trusting a likely Democratic future President to actually give powers back to Congress is delusional. They should legislate some interior issue now and show some backbone on it. Force the Republicans into a physical filibuster and overrule Bush's veto on some popular cause. Force supoenas to be followed.
What are they waiting for?
Posted by b on July 16, 2007 at 20:33 UTC | Permalink
Glenn Greenwald talks about this a bit too. reading the comments over there it seems that the stakes are too high to impeach right now because there are simply not enough votes to pull it off. perhaps the worst thing that could happen would be to start an impeachment and then the cheney admin finds a way to acquit itself of all charges. that would be just terrible because there would be nothing left to do. you couldn't try them again for the same thing because it would look like simple obstructionism.
regardless, I would still like to see the Congress go after cheney or abu gonzales. save bush for last. once cheney has been replaced then pelosi can safely start impeachment proceedings as she would no longer have a conflict of interest.
Posted by: dan of steele | Jul 16 2007 21:27 utc | 4
at the end of the day, the neocons & neolibs are still members of the ruling business class. the rest of us are not -- we're the unfree wage laborers & such who continue to allow them to rob us, kill our kids, and ensure that our grandkids, if they're not disabled by the toxins or violence, will serve their grandkids on down the line.
meanwhile, politics further slips from our grasp, centralizing such that our notion of politics becomes limited to how decisions are made amongst the powerful.
Posted by: b real | Jul 16 2007 21:37 utc | 5
Because there won't be a 'next president'. There will be a Wartime Emergency Government by the 'decider'.
It's too late to impeach--invoke the 25th Amendment. In Cheney's case, it's not difficult to prove insanity.
Posted by: hopping madbunny | Jul 16 2007 22:09 utc | 6
All of the above plus of course the Dems are already feeling the heat of being in power since they won Congress, being held 'responsible' for executive decisions would not only make winning for 4 years rather than 18 months difficult, it may horror of horrors 'confuse' the voters to the point where they go outside the tweedledum tweedledee nexus and vote a prez who isn't 'one of us'.
From this distance it feels like the dems are having a lot of difficulty in holding the line. I don't know what made them think that stalling action on Iraq until after the 08 elections was 'do-able' as their strategists would term it, but now they are trying to do it they are finding it exceedingly difficult. The last thing they need is to lose their scapegoat - the BushCo bogeymen.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Jul 16 2007 22:27 utc | 7
Its not a Dem thing or a Repug thing, it's a corporate thing.
The corporations are tired of working through Congress and want to cut them out.
Dealing directly through the national executive is simpler.
Usurpation of power to create a dictatorship is part of the plan. Public policy creation will move out of government entirely . . .
Posted by: Gaianne | Jul 16 2007 22:44 utc | 8
Its not a Dem thing or a Repug thing, it's a corporate thing.
The corporations are tired of working through Congress and want to cut them out.
Dealing directly through the national executive is simpler.
Usurpation of power to create a dictatorship is part of the plan. Public policy creation will move out of government entirely . . .
Posted by: Gaianne | Jul 16 2007 22:45 utc | 9
To:
"...perhaps the worst thing that could happen would be to start an impeachment and then the cheney admin finds a way to acquit itself of all charges."
The founding fathers said:
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." - Article. I. Section 3, US Constituion
So you are wrong, Nobody is "acquitted" of any crime.
Clear?
Posted by: S Brennan | Jul 16 2007 23:23 utc | 10
I am not a lawyer (thank goodness), but I don't think the constitution states high crimes and misdemeanors has a statute of limitations or double jeopardy. The apparent group of gutless, spineless congresspeople (in both parties) will follow the decider's advice and continue on course, or if someone in either party finds the backbone, we might still be able to save the constitution. Time is running out. As the nuclear attack poster advised, "if we don't stop this abomination of the constitution now, put you head between your legs and kiss your sweet ass goodbye!"
Posted by: Senionor | Jul 17 2007 0:14 utc | 11
GWB won the largest majority of the White vote in recent history -- about 60% in 2000 & 2004
thats street cred you do'nt mess with
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jul 17 2007 0:15 utc | 12
The primary reason for starting impeachment should not be to remove Bush and Cheney from office, as satisfying as that justification might be. The reason it should be done is to have an investigation (into numerous matters) that cannot be blocked by claims of executive privilege. If an impeachment investigation is met with claims of executive privilege then you've got the mother of all constitutional crises, failure to impeach and convict at that point would be a de facto admission of dictatorship.
So, b, I say that's why they're 'waiting'.
Posted by: Dick Durata | Jul 17 2007 1:34 utc | 13
On the filibuster issue, Reid today announced that he will force a debate on the Reed Levin Amendment to the DoD authorization. For detailed and reliable info including the text of Reed Levin, Bob Geiger is really the pro on all things Senate.
That said, Reed Levin like all the other legislation being considered includes the residual force exception which clearly Bush would use, particularly since the missions identified as allowing the maintenance of residual troops are the same "missions" Bush claims now (training of Iraqi forces and anti-terrorism/anti-AQ activities).
Why do they not impeach? For the same reasons they don't deal with Iraq. First, the Dems think that Bush in the White House and chaos in Iraq assure an '08 victory and second, the Dems do not acknowledge (or even believe) that Bush has taken on the powers of a dictator and that the Iraq occupation is a continuing war crime. Instead, they function under the delusion that "we can win" something in Iraq as well - an oil bill (and passage of the Hydro Carbon bill is included as a benchmark in all the Dem versions of Iraq legislation) and some form of "rightful role" in the Middle East.
Neither of these goals is possible since we have lost in Iraq and the only thing left is to get the troops out with the smallest number of casualties along the route. The oil bill is opposed from all sides so even if Maliki is able to force a seemingly positive vote in the Parliament, it will be meaningless as soon as he falls.
I also believe that the Dems are likely to lose in '08 if they do *not* impeach and withdraw ...
Debs #7, ”…it feels like the dems are having a lot of difficulty in holding the line. I don't know what made them think that stalling action on Iraq until after the 08 elections was 'do-able' as their strategists would term it, but now they are trying to do it they are finding it exceedingly difficult.”
Yeah, that appeared to be the strategy, but…
Debs: “The last thing they need is to lose their scapegoat - the BushCo bogeymen.”
I think the Dems may find that scapegoat is actually a Judas goat. From a political and realistic viewpoint, why is it any better for the Democrats to wait until 08 for action (i.e. the U.S. to leave Iraq)? The mess they inherit will only have gotten larger. What was once an “Iraq problem” has now become an even more serious regional problem. And let’s face it, this war is not cheap – the military has been depleted in every aspect and the burden of the Federal Debt will be greater too. Future Federal spending budgets will be a nightmare.
In any case, probably sooner than later, someone is going to have to do something. After watching Senators Webb and Graham on Meet the Press last Sunday, it appears things are coming to a head. Neither Senator came out looking good after their heated exchange.
Posted by: Rick | Jul 17 2007 3:27 utc | 15
Two possibilities come to mind: Pelosi and Reid believe the the longer we stay in Iraq the greater the GOP losses, including the WH. The Dems could have a huge majority for a generation - of course, leaving the meat grinder in Iraq running as a political ploy cannot be discussed.
Second, the at-large anthrax killers have warned Dem leaders of the consequences of pushing back too hard. Strangely enough, the Dems caller ID indicates the calls are coming from the Pentagon OSP, which the Dems have assumed is a clever ploy by the terrorists. So, they are now undercover playing along with Jr. and Darth in order to apprehend the anthrax terrorists.
Posted by: Mart | Jul 17 2007 3:37 utc | 16
Is a "fix" in?
I think this was answered a few years back.
Posted by: mats | Jul 17 2007 3:46 utc | 17
there's no diff between the two parties. they both serve very narrow interests.
this is very hard for "the left" to understand. go figure.
how many times have we been through this? how many more times?
Posted by: slothrop | Jul 17 2007 3:47 utc | 18
"there's no diff between the two parties. they both serve very narrow interests."
Interesting that approval rates for democratic congress are about what the bush numbers are. That would indicate an equal frustration with both political parties and infer that the PTB are more interested in keeping it that way, by predicating the entire process in (in ever greater amounts of) money. By which they can control the emergence of third party interests, especially populists third party interests. This is a democracy that runs on the rules, language, and sociology of unfettered monopoly capitalism.
Posted by: anna misssed | Jul 17 2007 4:32 utc | 19
I believe that Cheney and Bush are cowards hiding behind loyal underlings and the US military. As soon as they are backed into a corner they will start pointing fingers at each other and their peons. Impeach Cheney first and he'll implecate those bellow him including Bush (snark but probably true). The current congressional investigation of the JD, and the Iraq War, etc. are all a waste of time, because the underlings are well trained to protect their masters based largely on the protection of Executive Privilege. Impeachment will undermine that protection and expose the underlings to prosecution or impeachment. Many will take the rap but not all. Impeach Cheney and Cheney will 'rat' on this hachet men (Libby et al.). The hachet men will in turn 'rat' on Cheney and Bush and each other. Cheney is the key. Get him and the rest will fall. And I believe that's why the there is resistance to this process by the powers that be (Corporate America). Too much of the government would crumble which would risk revealing the full extent of the corruption including the role of the Large Corporations behind these guys like Halliburton, Exxon Moble, and the rest.
Posted by: Iron Butterfly | Jul 17 2007 4:44 utc | 20
there is a logic to power determined by "monopoly capital" (though, "monopoly" per se is problematic concept) that exceeds the intentions of even the most powerful. the fact there is no diff between the 2 parties is not really a matter of volition among the powerful. the lack of diff in our politics is the product of class warfare. no one who is powerful will choose to alter these relations. a hard lesson seldom learned.
Posted by: slothrop | Jul 17 2007 4:59 utc | 21
The Senate and House just voted in favour of a huge pro Iran war stunt by 97-0 and more than I can count to 2. They could not hold a co-alition together to cut off Iraq war funding and the provision to explicitly require authorisation from Congress for war with Iran was mysteriously dumped from any bill.
Cheney and Bush are the best hope of war on Iran. The same forces that created the above votes in Congress will use / are using their power to prevent impeachment of their men in the Whitehouse.
The house does not vote 97-0 in favour of war with Iran and then impeach the guy who is going to make that war happen.
Posted by: swio | Jul 17 2007 5:14 utc | 22
who's our leader for the revolution?
the difference between the gop and the dems, is the dems have some progressives. so what? they are hamstrung. i'm thru w/hearing the dems won't impeach because it will dampen their chances in 08. by 08 thousands apon thousands of live iraqis will be dead. for what? for a dem president aligned w/israel?
so what if they can't get the votes to impeach? they may not have the voted to go all the way but damn it so what. just take a friggin stab, whats to loose? an election in 18 months? a lot can happen in 18 months. screw all this, i'm beyond fed up. if they try to impeach, and they can't, will war w/iran become more likely? there gonna do it anyway, do we just friggin roll over like we have in iraq? ok, it seems pretty obvious getting our in the street does no good. really,! 5 minutes on the evening news and they paint us all as wing nuts. if we can't get the dems to fork over an attempt at impeachment, what good are they? they will vote again to fund the war....... ok, dems are better at oversite, waxman and conyers are rad.. but where is this all going if they can't get the executive to budge.
money money money money $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!
Posted by: annie | Jul 17 2007 5:34 utc | 23
All of the conspiracy ideas may well be correct but if they are they won't go much past the inner circle of current congressional leadership. Going any further would be dangerous and un-neccessary so the machine's thinking may be steered along this sort of path:
The dems don't have a lot of confidence in their ability to show the voters they are the good guys unless there is a worse bugger on the paddock. Now that a kingship has been created they are determined to get a slice of it. Firstly because most of them go to sleep at night dreaming that the next king will be moi - secondly because reducing the power down to one person makes things so much 'easier' for corrupt officials to cater to corporate orders.
If a measure has to be affirmed by the legislative process it means that so many palms have to be greased, so many ears whispered into, that things take so long, the mugs known as the citizens of amerika may get wind of what's up and deals be wrecked.
This way is much easier for everyone. This way is exactly the same reason that dictators, despots, kings, emperors got into power throughout history. For all their huffing and puffing about Caesar, the Roman senators would have behaved no differently than Caesar if it were one of them to be crowned emperor. Bonaparte got up because the 'real' power recognised how much easier it is to have only one boss to corrupt. Too many citizens decisions cause too many hiccups and 'mistakes'. The biggest complaint from business about mixed member proportional representation where I live is 'that it takes too long' and worse while nobody disputes that the will of the majority has been carried more and more are arguing that the majority is 'wrong'.
I am sorry that it has come to this in amerika not just because things are going to get much worse for everyone around the world before they get better but because I do understand the depth of betrayal many amerikans must feel. However the sooner they realise that all politicians are the problem, that the system cannot be changed from within and they need get on with changing it rather than wasting time and energy on Pelosi, or Barak, or Hilary, or Fitzy, the better because there is only one other viable option if amerikans don't force a change themselves.
That is the the one that history teaches is not only the most likely but is also the most violent and takes the longest to ferment. That is when the empire's angry victims, the non-citizens from nations outside of amerika come in and sort it.
The seeds of that process have been sown, the most visible being the provision of alternative reserve currencies to the US$. That doesn't mean those who are shifting from the increasingly unstable US$ are doing so because they plan to attack, they are doing so because US$ is no longer up to the task. Foreign economies which are reliant on shifts in the US$ being relative to other shifts are finding to their detriment that is no longer so, the US$ declines while all the other currencies get stronger and that means anyone using it has taken a big hit.
The thing is though, when other countries including those considered to be 'allies' of amerika (ie other whitefella dominated regimes), no longer have to rely on amerika's political stability to eat, they also no longer feel as obligated to assist in maintaining that stability. So what? Many amerikans will say "we can do it ourselves". Maybe right now, at this point in time, but when you consider that amerika is now as energy dependent as those European nations it claimed the brass ring of 'leader of the whiteys' from half a century ago, it is difficult to see how amerika can maintain world domination without assistance.
From an imperialist point of view the greatest problem that Iraq has caused is just as WW2 showed the victims of colonial oppression that the european imperialists (Britain, Holland and France) could be beaten by an upstart (Japan), Iraqi resistance has shown that amerika can't just force it's will anywhere it chooses. That means amerika has to prove itself wherever it goes, including those places where it's rep alone had previously got the job done. Not only is that incredibly draining on any empire, it is only a matter of time until more than one or two 'hotspots' occur simultaneously. That would result in amerikan defeat and humiliation. After that it would really be on.
Every main-chancing head of state around the planet would see an opportunity to 'grab a bit back', at the same time those few in positions of power trying to do the right thing would also see an opportunity to even things up without endangering their own people, so they hop in as well.
Those events may serve to unite amerikans initially but the track record of the type of low life that has gotten into power in the US, in other similar circumstances, in other places, and other times, says the 'leaders' ie the rich and powerful, wouldn't take long to alienate the citizens. The 'leaders' who would be taking an economic and political hit from losing assets outside the US. So they would try and make it up by grabbing a bigger 'share' inside amerika.
Yeah maybe one or two would give out the smell of an oily rag for the masses but lets be honest here, we're talking about people who equate sharing with weakness and losing.
Ordinary amerikans would wise up to that fast and the disintegration of amerikan power structures occuring on the outside would soon be mirrored on the inside.
No matter how angry I may get at the seemingly wilful refusal of ordinary amerikans to objectively consider the poisonous effect of their country's actions on the rest of us, I wouldn't wish the violent turmoil that would result from a forced break up of the amerikan empire on them. That wouldn't be 'karmic' or 'payback' - the people in the firing line in that situations are most often the disempowered, the powerful generally manage to keep covering their asses.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Jul 17 2007 5:59 utc | 24
I think the belief - and its one that many share -that some blackmail or anthrax or something explains the failure of the democrats to act serves only to make excuses for them when the reality is that they serve the same interests as the repubicans. I don't believe they would do something different *if they could* - instead I find it most likely that they are doing precisely what they want.
As long as we provide excuses for their behavior, we cannot begin to solve the problem.
If it were an open-and-shut case that could be through in a matter of weeks/months, then I would be all for it. But an impeachment trial will quickly get bogged down, and rather than focus on the reasons behind the impeachment charges, it will dissipate itself in political squabbles and prcedural points of order.
Posted by: ralphieboy | Jul 17 2007 12:22 utc | 26
I wouldn't take Santorum's fear wishcasting too seriously - it's the last rhetorical refuge of the scoundrels, and it gets trundled out at regular intervals. Prior to the elections last Autumn, one of the messages being pounded by Republicans was that voting Democrat would lead to terrorist attacks in the US - it wasn't exactly a successful strategy, and Democrat gains - especially in the Senate - were substantial. At any rate, worrying that Santorum might "know" something strikes me as absurd - the guy's an ignorant nutcase who lost his senate seat last November.
From memory, Republicans are still competitive with Democrats in terms of National Security approval ratings, and playing the terror fear card is effective at retarding the desertion rate. I would expect this card to get played a lot - it's certainly being deployed at the moment, with Chertoff's gut rumblings, mistaking human ashes for bombs and a new round of security alerts to come over the summer.
What is uncertain is how/whether an ACTUAL terrorist attack in the US might undercut Republican/Bush administration political rhetoric about keeping America safe; I would imagine that in the current environment it might actually play quite badly.
Santorum's "threat-in-being" is a politically useful device; an actual terrorist attack might be politically disastrous for Republicans/administration supporters, as, objectively, it invalidates their one remaining positive appeal to the US electorate.
Posted by: dan | Jul 17 2007 15:09 utc | 27
Why do Republicans feel confident that a new President Clinton, Obama or Gore would not use these powers against them?
Because the difference between the two parties is only for the great unwashed. Cosmetic, as sloth said. The terrorism fix, Gvmt. control of citizens, de regulating big biz : Clinton. See Gaianne @ 9 also.
In this horrific situation the best would be for everyone to rally round a paleo-con (Ron Paul as an example, I don’t know much about him) to elect a sort of ‘People’s President’ - co-opting the Christians - back to core values, etc. People would have to stand up and make real choices, it could just turn the situation around. Won’t happen of course, but that is the path.
Ultimately, a scenario like that presages a tussle between People’s fascism and corporate fascism - using that word very loosely - which is something the PTB have done everything, but everything, to avoid.
Paul would have to have Obama as VP. (Obama is an opportunist careerist, has no own political convictions whatsoever, and will obey.)
----
The US won’t leave Iraq until they completely control energy resources, and thus the country. Most likely, they will in the end prefer to smash what they cannot hold. While a large part of the US public may be against the Iraq war now, US deaths, it is a mess, where are the gains? many nevertheless intuitively understand the stakes, and grasp that hating Muslim and Arabs and to be willing to fight and kill them because those ....fill in an epithet...are sitting on resources, not playing fair (‘free market’), etc. etc. (They supported the ‘invasion’, piece of cake, etc., dressed up in hearts and flowers...) Their expectations are too high - they believe that someone other than Bush could do a better job, and bring the soldiers home (a very narrow view on the present situation) - somehow there must be some way to do better...
The PTB, both Dem and Rep, know this view is short sighted, optimistic and idealistic, while probably many do admit the ‘war’ in Iraq was mismanaged, but that is now water under the bridge for hard-headed realists, the potential gains as measured against investment remain, and, well, throwing good money after bad is sorta human, particularly when the money thrown serves powerful interests and goes into the bottomless pockets of buddies. Quitting Iraq with nothing gained is not an option ‘on the table’. Quarrels about impeachment divert. That is the pessimistic view.
All this comes about because the underlying issues are not, cannot be, mentioned. Ppl now blame Bush for ‘lies’ - while having believed them previously. Not nice, very cheap, Paris Hilton stuff. Many of the lies have been exposed tardily while they were evident at the time (WMD, Saddam is the AlQ chief, etc.) and are now judged as lies but the founding lie - a muslim fundamentalist attack on the free US - is still upheld, though diverse truth movements seem to making inroads. The left plays a gatekeeper role here. One can quibble about the details -saddam, etc -, but that milestone must remain: Enemies wish us ill (but we want their stuff) ..bare bones. Hyenas laughing in the dark.
As for the optimistic view, I am having difficulty scoping it out. Later.
Posted by: Noirette | Jul 17 2007 16:44 utc | 29
Pretty much what I have believed all along. One of the reasons the lies about Iraq were such an easy sell was that many ppl in the west particularly those countries which joined in the invasions wanted to believe that way they could keep their lifestyle while ostensibly 'doing good'.
They are angry at Bush/Biar because they screwed up - hence the minuscule interest in the horrors that Iraqis are enduring.
Is it a coincidence that the english who had avoided involvement in most post WW2 colonial adventures -notably Vietnam got involved in Iraq just as their North Sea oilfield expired? Somehow I doubt it and when you consider the decisions around english involvement in colonialism were trans-generational - extending across the decades, they weren't the result of the Bliar getting a rush of blood and it must also be acknowledged that english involvement was a reflection of tacit acknowledgement of the need to go back to stealing to survive. Well not survive - more to live as one had become accustomed to living.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Jul 17 2007 21:33 utc | 30
gotta say again, it's good to see you back and in such good form DiD :-)
Posted by: DeAnander | Jul 17 2007 22:10 utc | 31
Hi beq. I've been busy over at ET lately, arguing against nuclear power and in favour of demand reduction. the pro-nuke team evidently has more free time than I do :-) but I'm doing my best in spare moments.
Posted by: DeAnander | Jul 17 2007 22:46 utc | 33
Is it a coincidence that the english who had avoided involvement in most post WW2 colonial adventures -notably Vietnam- got involved in Iraq just as their North Sea oilfield expired?
No it is not. Mags (Thatcher) followed on from Winnie (Churchill) to move over to the more efficient, profitable, portable, etc. energy. Facing cornucopia, she could push thru anything really. Ok, she concentrated on her version, never mind the political shading, social policies, basically, GROWTH. And it worked in a way.
Bliar knows, has know forever, that the energy situation is dire, there are few choices, and he chose, as any Brit Pol would, and will continue to do, alliance with the superpower.
50 % of world military spending must be good for something, a powerful ally is to be supported / seduced, even if poss. manipulated, why not.
Bliar, I think, tried hard to cash into old alliances, and new ones, without much success. He feels righteous, in his lights he has done his best, a noble warrior fighting for the Brit lifestyle, position in the world, and his own beliefs and personality have served him well in this effort. Lies which serve a greater purpose, etc. And that is why he was accepted and voted in, etc. despite raucous protest here and there, anti-war demos, etc.
Posted by: Noirette | Jul 18 2007 15:30 utc | 34
The comments to this entry are closed.
Why do Republicans feel confident that a new President Clinton, Obama or Gore would not use these powers against them?
because the only differences between the 2 parties are cosmetic.
Posted by: slothrop | Jul 16 2007 20:45 utc | 1