Impeachment: Let's Throw Bush An Anvil
As Bush falls to the Nixonian approval rating of 31%, he's obviously drowning. So what should Democrats do?
Throw him a f*ing anvil by introducing Articles of Impeachment.
The GOP's latest anti-impeachment argument is silly. NRSC chair Liddy Dole says a Democratic majority in Congress will "call for endless investigations, congressional censure and maybe even impeachment of President Bush."
Why were "endless investigations... and maybe even impeachment" of President Clinton ok when Republicans did it from 1995-2001, but not ok if Democrats do it in 2007?
Republicans have utterly failed to investigate any of Bush's crimes for the past 6 years. According to the latest CBS/NYTimes poll, Americans want Congressional investigations by more than 4 to 1 (67%-16%)!
And who are Republicans to complain about investigations anyway?
Here's Steve Benen at Carpetbagger:
For the better part of 12 years, the GOP has run Congress with the assumption that they'd be there awhile. They held hearings every time Clinton sneezed and eventually even impeached him, despite opposition from the electorate. Republicans in both chambers believed it was their solemn duty to show up for work every day and make the White House as miserable as humanly possible. Congressional investigations were simply a staple of Hill life in the late 1990s, whether the situation warranted it or not. Given a choice between investigating vs. governing, Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, Dan Burton, and Dick Armey didn't hesitate.
Clearly the Republican Congress never suffered for those "endless investigations" and impeachment - their Congressional majority was larger in 2005 (55+232) than it was in 1995 (52+230).
More from Steve Benen at Carpetbagger:
Now that they're genuinely concerned about losing control, and they're looking at Rahm Emanuel's payback's-a-bitch smirk, Republicans' last-ditch effort is to convince people that Dems might do to Bush what they did to Clinton. It's as cynical and shallow an argument as they could come up with, but apparently it's all they've got left.
Yup. Let's see them on "endless investigations" - and raise them on impeachment and removal!
Update 1: Here's Matthew Yglesias:
There's a really palpable dislike of Nancy Pelosi bounding around a lot of quarters in DC that seems to cause people to become completely irrational. John Dickerson, for example, seems to have decided that it was a major gaffe for Nancy Pelosi to tell The Washington Post that one thing a Democratic House Majority would do would be to hold oversight hearings. His rationale is that since Elizabeth Dole wrote a fundraising letter saying Democrats would "call for endless investigations, congressional censure and maybe even impeachment of President Bush" apparently the smart thing to do would be for Democrats to just deny any intention of mounting investigations.
There are a lot of problems with this theory. For one thing, Dole's letter was a fundraising mailing going out to hard-core Republicans and trying to motivate them. These are presumably some of the 30 percent or so of Americans who approve of George W. Bush job performance. And, of course, it makes perfect sense for GOP fundraisers to appeal to those people. But it also makes perfect sense for Pelosi to appeal to the much larger group of people who disapprove of Bush's performance. One of the main things those people might be hoping for from a Democratic congress would be a check on Bush's power. Indeed, many of them may not be very interested in a progressive agenda for America at all, just scared of where the current crew is heading things. By promising oversight, Pelosi is re-iterating that though you can't vote the unpopular Bush out of office, you can vote in a congress that will keep him under control.
Perhaps more to the point, what could possibly be served by denying that Dole is, in some sense, correct about this? Everyone knows that a Democratic congress will mean subpoena power. What's at issue are two different ways of characterizing this. Dole wants people to think of partisan witch-hunts, Pelosi wants people to think of sober-minded oversight. Simply resting silent on the issue isn't going to stop Dole and whomever else from saying what they want. The only way to challenge Dole's characterization is for Pelosi to offer one of her own, which is exactly what she did.
- Bob Fertik's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
Democrats need to make a DECLARATION OF WRONGS
Right on, Bob! What are the Democrats waiting for, re: impeachment? For Bush to 1. commit hara kari? 2. Stage a military coup or 3. embroil the US in WWII?
If nothing else, the Dems should rise to the occasion as a way to safeguard national security - any country whose leader has such a lack of a vote of confidence by the people is entering into very dangerous territory.
So, in addition to articles of impeachment, the Dems also need to TAKE A STAND and make a clear and unequivocal "declaration of wrongs":
Here's an excerpt from a recent commentary, "DECLARATION OF WRONGS"
"What is turning public opinion against the Democrats- and I specifically mean the folks in Congress - is not the same thing that has turned the public against the Republicans. People are repulsed by the GOP because of its "culture of corruption," its hypocrisy, arrogance, its indifference to the everyday man and woman's needs, its indifference to other cultures, the environment, and the future.
What pisses Americans off about the Democrats is that no one in the party seems able to come out and make a clear, unequivocal "declaration of war" on what Bush has done to America. Instead, what America hears is a lot of Democratic "bet hedging." For example, even now, with all the evidence before us, with only 30% of the public approving of the Iraq situation, the Democrats will not, as a unified body, officially condemn the war and call for a near-future withdrawal....
READ THE REST:
http://cherylsealreports.com/declarationofwrongs.html
Congressional Hearings..
inconvenient..? Like the eight years and millions of dollars (our tax money) spent on the constant Congressional hearings (Republican) of President Clinton...? And they finally got him for lying about an extra-marital affair..(lets don't talk about Gingrich boinking his "fiancee" while his wife was dying in the hospital...or hookergate....or over half the husbands and wives in extra-marital dalliances) Republicans are more worried about Congressional hearings bringing out the "dirt" on the GOP (and probably a few dirty Dems) upper echelon, not just the president...I think thats the main reason they have looked the other way for almost 6 years...they are all dirty and all tied and tangled up together in conspiracies, RICO, theft, war crimes.....
Vomit
What in hell is she doing!!!!!!!
Hilary Clinton? What is she doing, this person who said that she is a Democrat? Or is she a “Republican plant” in the Democratic Party, or is she just buttering up to the Republican for their Vote! I now know that she would screw the people and the Democrats for her own personal gains. This woman is no Democrat. She has no commonsense what so ever!
At least she never said he
At least she never said he had any brains
or leadership qualitites.
I'm trying very hard to see the glass
half full. It's hard to do, right now.
Has Hillary lost her mind?
She actually believes that by sucking up to the moderate republicans she can win? She needs to sit down with Howard Dean and have a very long heart to heart and she needs to do a lot of town hall type meetings with real democrat voters!
In a time of deception telling the truth is a revolutionary act. ~ George Orwell
I saw this story at Raw
I saw this story at Raw Story and couldn't believe my eyes.
This is so sickening, and in my mine, unexcusable.
I'd better not see any political envelopes in my mail box with 'Hillary Rodham Clinton' in the upper corner!
I don't even recognize this woman any more.
You should recognize her...
she is the same republican-lite, DLC'er, corporate-feeding trough whore she has always been!
Nothing has changed.
With 20 million in her war chest and growing, Hillary will pander any where there is loot to add to her bounty- right, left, center...where ever.
She has no interest in progressing democratic ideas or agenda, she is only interested in her own legacy...people of the US be damned!
"Its time to replace fear with hope. This is the crucial message that America must begin to hear and believe in again. For hope is the mortal enemy of fear; and fear cannot succeed in the solidarity of inspired hope."
True...all true. I can only
True...all true.
I can only say, Hillary WHO??
I posted this exact post on another thread...
My own personal problem with Hillary:
IMO; there is no such thing as Bill Clinton. There is no such thing as Hillary Clinton. There is only Clinton Inc.
Clinton Inc. is not interested in promoting liberal ideas, nor conservative ideas. Not interested in promoting moderate nor centrist ideas. Clinton Inc. is interested only in promoting Clinton Inc.
Hillary is fine right where she is. As senator of New York, she has a her share of influence. She gets plenty of press, plenty of attention. Evidently, the people of New York are satisfied with her. She's fine right where she is.
Terry
Oh great... Another "let's
Oh great... Another "let's blame it on Bill" comment. Hillary could not be any more different from Bill Clinton unless she had a sex-change operation.
Absolutely right Bill
Absolutely right Bill ;)
In a time of deception telling the truth is a revolutionary act. ~ George Orwell
Impeachmentment of the Bush (Admin)
Understand, at present the Congress is controlled by the NeoCon Fascists, which include some Arse-kissing Democrats at the top. Everyone knows who they are (DEM/GOP), come November when these people are kicked out on their (arse), then WE can start a Constitutional government in America (again). And by this I mean legal actions can be taken against the NeoCon CABAL and all their stripe.
Endless investigations
Few seem to remember that Clinton was an Empire pawn just as the little Bush is today.
For those who don't remember, let me refresh your memory of the (fake) impeachment of Clinton.
Side stepping issues like Mena, Ark. and $99,000.00 return on a $1,000.00 investment connections, instead the NeoCon taking control of the GOP began a fake impeachment. Of course the dark issues that could have been used were not, instead the NeoCons began serious charges of consensual sex among adults. They then began fake impeachment charges in the House. After 6-8 years of keeping Americans busy with Sex-gossip, they dropped all impeachment charges in a GOP controlled Senate.
Yes, (endless none issue) investigations do cost money, do not go anywhere, but they keep the weakminded busy.
Remove the NeoCon Congress, install (new) DEM Congress, and "Take Back America."
Your memory seems to be at
Your memory seems to be at odds with the facts. The "Mena conspiracy" is a fable, and Bill Clinton was impeached. The impeachment charges were not "thrown out" -- the Senate, acting as a jury, found him "not guilty" of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Your insinuation that Bill Clinton was a part of the neocon conspiracy to wreck his own presidency is assinine. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is a neocon in DINO clothing, and is not worthy of cleaning Bill Clinton's boots.
Regardless of Slick Willy's proclivity for wandering, his presidency was one of the more meaningful for the Liberal cause in recent history.
Clean house
While I do agree that Bush should be impeached, I really don't see what will change. Putting Cheney in charge with Rice still at it will not change much. It actually might just tick them off enough to do worse than Bush (GASP! IS IT POSSIBLE?).
I think a little house, White House, cleaning is in order.
On the Hillary note, while I do agree with many that it is about time for a woman in office I also disagree with putting Hillary in there. Her right-left-right (emphasis on the RIGHT) would probably cause just as many problems as Bush does.
Of course Democrats have not really introduced an official who is solid. Dems need to bring a candidate that will not fumble around as Kerry did. Bring in someone who will support and LISTEN to the American PEOPLE, eitherwise WE THE PEOPLE has no MEANING.
Wrong focus -- wrong
Wrong focus -- wrong election. Winning back Congress this year is much more important than who sits in the Oval Office in 2009. The key to reversing the damage done by this administration and it's puppet Congress is electing a Democratic Congress, and 65-69% of the American people agree.
The DNC can not "introduce an official who is solid" until such an individual declares their candidacy.
Impeachment . . IS . . the "Postitive Agenda"
Impeachment . . IS . . the "Postitive Agenda" ... (stupid)
Without it, what exactly are the Dems offering TO DO with their shiny new non-veto-proof majority ?!?
Gee, perhaps they'll pass a law criminalizing signing statements -- which the chuckling bushkid will instantly negate with a signing statement?
That's the reality folks. No "investigation" is needed. In fact the suggestion itself is a veiled call to inaction.
What part of "We don't need no stinking badges (warrants)!" do people not understand ?!?
How is TERRORZING the American People with a bomb threat of "Mushroom Clouds ... in 45 minutes" not an impeachable offense? Even if they hadn't done it to commit war crimes in our name?
Really, it's long past "get off the pot" time.
Save Feingold, Conyers and few others, THE LOT OF THEM are complicit with ongoing criminality and treason. Yes, really.
And so are each and every one of us, if we're not screaming our heads off about it.
Yes, screaming. "Violence" really is the answer.
Stop listening to the Beltway BS from the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy. Calling for impeachment is not bad strategy. It will not energize a backlash. It will not "be like the Clinton impeachment" (it will be the opposite).
And it can't wait. Calling for it now makes it non-partisan -- and more likely to succeed. In fact, if we got the message to Repubs that "It's Pres. Hastert now or Pres. Pelosi later," we'd likely see the back of bush/cheney before the midterms. (Again. Yes, really.)
But the bottom line is that strategy, fallout, and likelihood of success CANNOT be part of the equation. It is simply a moral imperative. Something that we all know must be done.
Principles we're not willing to stand on are just bromides.
There really is no other moral or patriotic option.
--
www.january6th.org