« L.A. Times Watch | Main | McCain Suicide Watch: Day One »
November 09, 2006
Calm down already, and aim lower
(Posted by John.)
I am wildly excited about the prospects for a Democratic Congress. A mere return to sanity would have been sufficient after Tuesday, and it looks like we'll get more than that from Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid. All that said, you can already hear the murmurs of discontent from some progressives, alarmed at Pelosi saying that impeachment is not on the table. Maybe it was unwise to take that threat off the table - I don't think so, personally - but I think we all need to acknowledge that impeachment is a non-starter now.
It's a nice fantasy, but a fantasy nonetheless. To impeach Bush now would accomplish absolutely nothing that we can't accomplish with serious, coercive hearings. By the time a theoretical impeachment could possibly succeed, Bush would have maybe 12 months left in his Presidency, and all we'd accomplish materially would be to ruin Bush's reputation, assuming that's even possible anymore. And exactly which Republicans are going to vote in favour of impeachment - the moderates that have largely been defeated in this very election?
And in case it isn't obvious, impeachment-as-theatre or impeachment-for-the-show is a disaster waiting to happen. If we can't win, we shouldn't try. In order to win, we'd need to discover something new and so offensive and disturbing that even Senate Republicans would vote for impeachment. Unless somebody reanimates Barry Goldwater, I don't think a crime exists that the GOP wouldn't support Bush committing.
Now, that's not to say the Democrats should shy away from a knockdown fight over accountability, and investigating the conduct of the Iraq war up one side and down the other. It's a fight they can win, and position themselves well for 2008.
The real target Dems should be after is Cheney. Any serious investigation of pre-war intelligence, the conduct of the war, or pretty much anything is going to unearth much of what we already know - Cheney's office is guilty as sin, and the Democrats should say so. There's the outside chance this could sideline Cheney in the White House, or even (dare to dream) cause Bush to find "health reasons" for Cheney to step down. I don't think it's stretching things to say that Cheney's effect on American national security and foreign policy has been at least as pernicious as Don Rumsfeld's was.
Oh, and one last thing: Screw that whole "investigate or govern" meme. There are, at last count, 281 Democrats between the House and Senate. I think they can share the load pretty well. And unlike Republican Presidents, they can walk and chew gum at the same time.
The Democrats have the law on their side for the last 2 years of the Bush administration, something I wasn't sure I'd ever see. We can control the worst effects of a Republican President and affect real change for the good - across the spectrum of America policy - or we can waste that chance for a fight we can't win.
November 9, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
Two things.
1- If you don't thoroughly investigate, and ACT on the findings before Presidential pardons squelch the effort, the bastards will be reincarnated in a future GOP administration. Think Elliott Abrams, and (now) Bob Gates.
2- A thought exercise. How about abolishing the penalty for murder and manslaughter? What would happen? What about eliminating speed limits? What then?
Do you honestly feel that there is no danger of this administration becoming even more emboldened to violate the Constitution, if they knew in advance there would be no consequences?
Posted by: Mimir | Nov 9, 2006 5:35:59 PM
A Bush impeachment would just mean President Cheney, and a corresponding Cheney impeachment would mean Pelosi and all Democrats are just power hungry.
Removing Cheney at this point would also be a bad idea; Bush could then appoint some "nice guy" replacement who would then be a natural presidential candidate.
Better to hold investigations, get to the bottom of everything we can, and stick the bastards in prison after they are removed from office. This of course presumes a Democratic president, since a Republican would just pardon them.
Posted by: Stephen | Nov 9, 2006 5:54:15 PM
impeachment in the last two years of a presidency is just stupid, and a waste of time. oversight - yes. investigation yes. impeachment no. as to the pt about him having committed some crime as perceived here- you know what presidents do all sorts of thing all the time that are wrong. truman did it. fdr did it. johnson did it. i am not condoning it, but the standard has to be higher than progressives wanting purity. i am all for fighting the GOP- i am not all for wasting a two shot on one symbolic, at this point, round of fire.
Posted by: akaison | Nov 9, 2006 6:01:40 PM
What consequence could we impose that they would care about? Neither Bush or Cheney are running for anything after this, and actually winning an impeachment fight is something they know we can't do.
Explain to me how we could actually threaten them - in a way that they would actually believe, and would thus change their behaviour, and I might support a fight for impeachment. But we can't win, they know that, so we need to try something different. Hence my strong support for hearings.
Posted by: John | Nov 9, 2006 6:01:47 PM
I posted this at TAPPED, and I want to spread it around. The subject was Pelosi taking impeachment off the table:
Think of it as a Fed RICO investigation. Use the committees to go after the little and medium fish first.
This is why impeachment should be off the table:so that "I was following orders" is off the table.
1) Bring back rule of law
2) Show that the wrong kind of loyalty can hurt you bad
3) Show that your boss cannot protect you
4) Remove an entire generation of future Haldemans, Negropontes, and Addingtons from the political scene.
5) Make Bush issue an bushel of pardons.
Watergate was the model, not Monica. How do you kill a king? You turn his courtiers against each other, and then they will turn against him.
...
However, I also don't think Pelosi has the right or privilege to tell Conyers or Rangle or Hastings to kiss Republican butt. If she thinks the Committee Chairman are her "boys" then lets seek different leadership.
God, Hoyer/Rakm would be even worse.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Nov 9, 2006 6:08:29 PM
Bush Bi-Partisanship ...Steve Clemons
"I have a call into Speaker Nancy Pelosi for a comment on President Bush's efforts to push John Bolton's nomination again today."
Ok Clemons has this thing about Bolton. I have a thing about Clemons, he had a personal relationship with a Republican State Dep't employee whose job was to go overseas and defend torture. Supposedly a "good" Republican, likely will be the Gates or Rumsfeld of some future dictator. I want that kid destroyed. I want Clemons to be much more careful about his friends.
But why did Pelosi have lunch with that SOB?
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Nov 9, 2006 6:28:59 PM
Excellent post, John. Agree with every point.
Posted by: DivGuy | Nov 9, 2006 6:37:09 PM
I agree with akaison. Bush hasn't done anything (we know of) that's really impeachable. And I agree with those pointing out it wouldn't do any good anyway. The way to stop Bush from breaking the law is to take him to court, which is as fast as impeachment and more effective.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 9, 2006 6:44:19 PM
Oh, and oversight is good too, of course.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 9, 2006 6:45:40 PM
I don't think people are seeing the difference between impeachment and the threat of impeachment. I have NO idea how and when such a threat would be credible, but I would not be stupid enough to foreclose the possibility that there is some eggregious conduct that should trigger impeachment. The Constitution gives the Congress powers to check the Executive, and Congressmen would be derelict in their duty if they preemptively swore off the exercise of such powers under any circumstances.
Pelosi's overbroad statement unfortunately leaves the impression that impeachment is "off the table" no matter what is uncovered in investigations, and no matter what Bush or Cheney does in the next two years.
She should have said that she knows of no grounds for impeachment, and we have important business to tend to. Better yet would have been a statement that talk of impeachment is premature.
Posted by: Mimir | Nov 9, 2006 6:51:39 PM
Posted by: Mimir | Nov 9, 2006 3:51:39 PM I have NO idea how and when such a threat would be credible, but I would not be stupid enough to foreclose the possibility that there is some eggregious conduct that should trigger impeachment.
But, there is certainly no promise to absolutely not impeach Bush under any circumstances from Speaker-to-be Pelosi ... she just said its off the table.
That doesn't mean its been tossed in the trashcan, just that its shelved up somewhere, and something has to happen to bring it onto the table. And there's nothing preventing an impeachment of Cheney if he is found guilty of serious crimes during the hearing process ... if (and given his lame duck status, probably only if) it appears that in the process enough of his hangers on can be cleared out.
But its far more useful to keep the SOBs hopping replacing deputy secretaries who have been forced to resign, which can run side by side with passing popular legislation and daring Bush to veto it and give Republican Congressmen and Senators a chance to vote against it twice, than to tie up all the time on a major impeachment.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Nov 9, 2006 7:11:09 PM
Bush has done and has been involved in PLENTY of things worthy of impeachment. The Dems now need to actually USE their newfound subpeona power and start some REAL, independent investigations, for example into the events of 9/11.
One thing that struck me as odd in the days after 9/11 was Bush saying "We will not tolerate conspiracy theories [regarding 9/11]". Sure enough there have been some wacky conspiracy theories surrounding the events of that day. The most far-fetched and patently ridiculous one that I've ever heard goes like this: Nineteen hijackers who claimed to be devout Muslims but yet were so un-Muslim as to be getting drunk all the time, doing cocaine and frequenting strip clubs decided to hijack four airliners and fly them into buildings in the northeastern U.S., the area of the country that is the most thick with fighter bases. After leaving a Koran on a barstool at a strip bar after getting shitfaced drunk on the night before, then writing a suicide note/inspirational letter that sounded like it was written by someone with next to no knowledge of Islam, they went to bed and got up the next morning hung over and carried out their devious plan. Nevermind the fact that of the four "pilots" among them there was not a one that could handle a Cessna or a Piper Cub let alone fly a jumbo jet, and the one assigned the most difficult task of all, Hani Hanjour, was so laughably incompetent that he was the worst fake "pilot" of the bunch. Nevermind the fact that they received very rudimentary flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station, making them more likely to have been C.I.A. assets than Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. So on to the airports. These "hijackers" somehow managed to board all four airliners with their tickets, yet not even ONE got his name on any of the flight manifests. So they hijack all four airliners and at this time passengers on United 93 start making a bunch of cell phone calls from 35,000 feet in the air to tell people what was going on. Nevermind the fact that cell phones wouldn't work very well above 4,000 feet, and wouldn't work at ALL above 8,000 feet. But the conspiracy theorists won't let that fact get in the way of a good fantasy. That is one of the little things you "aren't supposed to think about". Nevermind that one of the callers called his mom and said his first and last name, more like he was reading from a list than calling his own mom. Anyway, when these airliners each deviated from their flight plan and didn't respond to ground control, NORAD would any other time have followed standard operating procedure (and did NOT have to be told by F.A.A. that there were hijackings because they were watching the same events unfold on their own radar) which means fighter jets would be scrambled from the nearest base where they were available on standby within a few minutes, just like every other time when airliners stray off course. But of course on 9/11 this didn't happen, not even close. Somehow these "hijackers" must have used magical powers to cause NORAD to stand down, as ridiculous as this sounds because total inaction from the most high-tech and professional Air Force in the world would be necessary to carry out their tasks. So on the most important day in its history the Air Force was totally worthless. Then they had to make one of the airliners look like a smaller plane, because unknown to them the Naudet brothers had a videocamera to capture the only known footage of the North Tower crash, and this footage shows something that is not at all like a jumbo jet, but didn't have to bother with the South Tower jet disguising itself because that was the one we were "supposed to see". Anyway, as for the Pentagon they had to have Hani Hanjour fly his airliner like it was a fighter plane, making a high G-force corkscrew turn that no real airliner can do, in making its descent to strike the Pentagon. But these "hijackers" wanted to make sure Rumsfeld survived so they went out of their way to hit the farthest point in the building from where Rumsfeld and the top brass are located. And this worked out rather well for the military personnel in the Pentagon, since the side that was hit was the part that was under renovation at the time with few military personnel present compared to construction workers. Still more fortuitous for the Pentagon, the side that was hit had just before 9/11 been structurally reinforced to prevent a large fire there from spreading elsewhere in the building. Awful nice of them to pick that part to hit, huh? Then the airliner vaporized itself into nothing but tiny unidentifiable pieces no bigger than a fist, unlike the crash of a real airliner when you will be able to see at least some identifiable parts, like crumpled wings, broken tail section etc. Why, Hani Hanjour the terrible pilot flew that airliner so good that even though he hit the Pentagon on the ground floor the engines didn't even drag the ground!! Imagine that!! Though the airliner vaporized itself on impact it only made a tiny 16 foot hole in the building. Amazing. Meanwhile, though the planes hitting the Twin Towers caused fires small enough for the firefighters to be heard on their radios saying "We just need 2 hoses and we can knock this fire down" attesting to the small size of it, somehow they must have used magical powers from beyond the grave to make this morph into a raging inferno capable of making the steel on all forty-seven main support columns (not to mention the over 100 smaller support columns) soften and buckle, then all fail at once. Hmmm. Then still more magic was used to make the building totally defy physics as well as common sense in having the uppermost floors pass through the remainder of the building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air, a feat that without magic could only be done with explosives. Then exactly 30 minutes later the North Tower collapses in precisely the same freefall physics-defying manner. Incredible. Not to mention the fact that both collapsed at a uniform rate too, not slowing down, which also defies physics because as the uppermost floors crash into and through each successive floor beneath them they would shed more and more energy each time, thus slowing itself down. Common sense tells you this is not possible without either the hijackers' magical powers or explosives. To emphasize their telekinetic prowess, later in the day they made a third building, WTC # 7, collapse also at freefall rate though no plane or any major debris hit it. Amazing guys these magical hijackers. But we know it had to be "Muslim hijackers" the conspiracy theorist will tell you because (now don't laugh) one of their passports was "found" a couple days later near Ground Zero, miraculously "surviving" the fire that we were told incinerated planes, passengers and black boxes, and also "survived" the collapse of the building it was in. When common sense tells you if that were true then they should start making buildings and airliners out of heavy paper and plastic so as to be "indestructable" like that magic passport. The hijackers even used their magical powers to bring at least seven of their number back to life, to appear at american embassies outraged at being blamed for 9/11!! BBC reported on that and it is still online. Nevertheless, they also used magical powers to make the american government look like it was covering something up in the aftermath of this, what with the hasty removal of the steel debris and having it driven to ports in trucks with GPS locators on them, to be shipped overseas to China and India to be melted down. When common sense again tells you that this is paradoxical in that if the steel was so unimportant that they didn't bother saving some for analysis but so important as to require GPS locators on the trucks with one driver losing his job because he stopped to get lunch. Hmmmm. Further making themselves look guilty, the Bush administration steadfastly refused for over a year to allow a commission to investigate 9/11 to even be formed, only agreeing to it on the conditions that they get to dictate its scope, meaning it was based on the false pretense of the "official story" being true with no other alternatives allowed to be considered, handpicked all its members making sure the ones picked had vested interests in the truth remaining buried, and with Bush and Cheney only "testifying" together, only for an hour, behind closed doors, with their attorneys present and with their "testimonies" not being recorded by tape or even written down in notes. Yes, this whole story smacks of the utmost idiocy and fantastic far-fetched lying, but it is amazingly enough what some people believe. Even now, five years later, the provably false fairy tale of the "nineteen hijackers" is heard repeated again and again, and is accepted without question by so many Americans. Which is itself a testament to the innate psychological cowardice of the American sheeple, i mean people, and their abject willingness to believe something, ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous in order to avoid facing a scary uncomfortable truth. Time to wake up America.
Debunking Popular Mechanics lies:
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=6880
someone else debunking Popular Mechanics crap:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm
still more debunking Poopular Mechanics:
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=5505
and still more debunking of Popular Mechanics:
http://www.reopen911.org/ericreubt.htm
Poopular Mechanics staff replaced just before laughable “debunking” article written:
http://www.reopen911.org/hiddenhand.htm
another neo-con 9/11 hit piece explodes, is retracted:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/180806hitpiece.htm
Professor Steven Jones debunks the N.I.S.T. “report” as well as the F.E.M.A. one and the 9/11 commission "report":
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/wtc_buildings_collapse_steven_jones.htm
N.I.S.T. scientist interviewed:
http://www.teamliberty.net/id235.html
F.B.I. says no hard evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11 which is why his wanted poster says nothing about 9/11:
http://forum.afghansite.com/index.php?showtopic=9349
Fire Engineering magazine says important questions about the Twin Tower “collapses” still need to be addressed:http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID
Twin Towers’ construction certifiers say they should have easily withstood it:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/121104easilywithstood.htm
USA Today interview with the last man out of the South Tower, pursued by a fireball:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/19/usat-escape.htm
Janitor who heard explosions and escaped has testimony ignored by 9/11 whitewash commission:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/ignoring_9-11.html
Janitor starts speaking out about it and his apartment is burglarized, laptop stolen:
http://kurtnimmo.blogspot.com/2005/08/apartment-of-nine-eleven-hero-william_28.html
Firefighters tell of multiple explosions:
http://www.wnbc.com/news/1315651/detail.html
Eyewitnesses tell of explosions:
http://research.amnh.org/users/tyson/essays/TheHorrorTheHorror.html
Interview with another firefighter telling of explosions:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt
Firefighter saw “sparkles” (strobe lights on detonators?) before “collapse”:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Fitzpatrick_Tom.txt
Other eyewitnesses talk of seeing/hearing explosions:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/more-proof-911-inside-job-witnesses-to.html
Surviving eyewitnesses talk of multiple explosions there:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/veliz-bombs.htm
Cutter charge explosions clearly visible:
http://www.rense.com/general63/cutt.htm
The pyroclastic wave (that dust cloud that a second before was concrete) and how it wouldn’t be possible without explosives:
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/physics/
Detailed description of the demolition of the Twin Towers:
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html
Freefall rate of “collapses” math:
http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml
More about their freefall rate “collapses”:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/second_wave.htm
Video footage of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers:
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/
Video footage of the controlled demolition of WTC # 7 building:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
More
http://www.wtc7.net/
Photos of the Pentagon’s lawn (look at these and see if you can tell me with a straight face that a jumbo jet crashed there):
http://www.911blimp.net/cached/HuntTheBoeing!.htm
More photos of this amazing lawn at the Pentagon:
http://cryptogon.com/docs/Introducing%20the%20amazing%20Penta-Lawn%202000!%20(9-11).htm
Very unconvincing fake “Osama” “confession” tape:
http://welfarestate.com/wtc/faketape/
More about the fake “Osama” tape:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape2.html
Fake “Mohammed Atta” “suicide” letter:
http://www.welfarestate.com/wtc/fake-letters.txt
Commercial pilots disagree with “official” 9/11 myth:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/september_11_us_government_accused.htm
More commercial jet pilots say “official” myth is impossible:
http://www.masternewmedia.org/2001/10/31/commercial_jet_pilots_analysis_of_the_twin_tower_attack.htm
Impossibility of cell phone calls from United 93:
http://www.physics911.net/cellphoneflight93.htm
More about the impossible cell phone calls:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html
Experiment proves cell phone calls were NOT possible from anywhere near the altitude the “official” myth has them at:
http://physics911.ca/org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9
Fake Barbara Olson phone call:
http://www.vialls.com/lies911/lies.htm
Where the hell was the Air Force?
http://www.welfarestate.com/wtc/af-scramble.txt
More about the Air Force impotence question:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0331-11.htm
Sept. 10th 2001, Pentagon announces it is “missing” $2.3 trillion (now why do you think they picked THAT day to announce it? So it could be buried the next day by 9/11 news):
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml
Unocal pipeline-through-Afghanistan plan:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0513/p05s01-wosc.html
Unocal pipeline-through-Afghanistan plan mentioned:
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/05/19/OutOfAfghanistan
More on Unocal Afghan pipeline:
http://www.newscentralasia.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1031
The attack on Afghanistan was planned in the summer of 2001, months before 9/11:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
Pentagon deliberately misled 9/11 Commission:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=EGG20060802&articleId=2887
9/11 whitewash Commission and NORAD day:
http://fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/071204_final_fraud.shtml
The incredible fish tales of the 9/11 Commission examined:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20GR20051213&articleId=1478
Jeb Bush declares state of emergency 4 days before 9/11 for Florida, saying it will help respond to terrorism:
http://www.eionews.addr.com/psyops/news/jebknew.htm
Steel debris removal from Ground Zero, destruction of evidence:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html
Over two hundred incriminating bits of 9/11 evidence shown in the mainstream media:
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911smokingguns.html
Tracking the “hijackers”:
http://www.welfarestate.com/911/
“Hijacker” patsies:
http://911review.org/Wiki/HijackersPatsies.shtml
“Hijackers” receiving flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0208/S00085.htm
No Arabs on Flight 77:
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm
Flight manifests (tell me if you find any Arabs):
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html
Thirty experts say “official” 9/11 myth impossible:
http://911fraud.blogspot.com/2005/06/us-governments-offical-911-story-is.html
“Al Qaeda” website tracks back to Maryland:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/alqmaryland.html
Al Qaeda videos uploaded from U.S. government website:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2004/140704governmentwebsite.htm
Operation: Northwoods, a plan for a false-flag “terror” attack to be blamed on Castro to use it as a pretext for America to invade Cuba, thankfully not approved by Kennedy back in 1962 but was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and sent to his desk:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/us_terror_plan_cuba_invasion_pretext.html
Posted by: Enlightenment | Nov 9, 2006 7:28:24 PM
WTF?
Posted by: Thlayli | Nov 9, 2006 7:41:10 PM
Hey Ezra can you do something about that huge long comment there?
Posted by: fiat lux | Nov 9, 2006 8:09:20 PM
I think there is plenty to investigate that is illegal without touching Bush and Cheney directly. There were lots of quids for the pros. We also should pass good legislation to force Bush to veto it. The sound bite I suggest is Legislate and Oversight. The Congressional equivalent of Trust but Verify.
Posted by: marc sobel | Nov 9, 2006 8:49:16 PM
The people did not vote for impeachment. They voted for a different kind of governance. An impeachment circus is sure to backfire in 2008.
Don't engage in score-settling. Do the people's work. Get us on track to wind down our involvement in Iraq. Get the executive back on the reservation through legislation and by exposing the illegal and unconstitutional power grabs to the light of day. Bring back fiscal discipline.
Fight the battles that are worth fighting like universal health care and a humane minimum wage. Don't let the party get marginalized ever again. Wrap your arms around the vital center and hang on tight. Better times are coming.
Posted by: Antonio Manetti | Nov 9, 2006 11:14:20 PM
One reason she may have it off the table is: President Cheney?????
Besides, as someone pointed out today- the chimp has 2 years left. by the time all the stuff is over with it'll be time for the new president. She may think: why waste the money and time when it isn't going to really make that much difference. He's now under the control of Dems and 41.
Posted by: vwcat | Nov 10, 2006 1:21:44 AM
You give all the reasons we should rush towards impeachment.
Wait to impeach? We've waited 3 or more years too long already. We had enough evidence to impeach years ago. Remember, an impeachment only means you have enough evidence to warrant a trial. Just like an indictment. Our congress people didn't take an oath to bipartisanship. They took an oath to the Constitution.
-
Pelosi said what she has to remove the acusation of conflict-of-interest once she gets thrust into the presidency as a result.
Posted by: Jodin | Nov 10, 2006 1:48:12 AM
The real target Dems should be after is Cheney. Any serious investigation of pre-war intelligence, the conduct of the war, or pretty much anything is going to unearth much of what we already know - Cheney's office is guilty as sin, and the Democrats should say so.
I'll stop posting comments after this, but comments like this destroy any credibility an investigation might have. Researching to find what your already sure of is not too far from "Creation Science." Maybe not everyone will realize it, but the portion of the country with an IQ over 70 just might and, since educated people elected Democrats for a change from the Republican mess, insulting their intelligence won't win further support, will it?
Posted by: Toby | Nov 10, 2006 2:00:48 AM
I just heard Howard Dean on TV say impeachment was off the table. I guess it's off the table.
Posted by: DRR | Nov 10, 2006 2:48:48 AM
Hi, I'd like two extra-large impeachments, one with Bush, the other with Cheney and pepperoncinis. Oh, and can I get the President Pelosi special with that?
Posted by: scarshapedstar | Nov 10, 2006 4:54:24 AM
Look, the voters have already concluded that the Iraq War is FUBAR, and probably also that they were deceived in the run-up. That's what they just said, loud and clear. As much fun as it would be to sift through the gory details through multiple investigations, moderates will lose patience quickly if the focus is not on charting a new and better course for the future.
Posted by: jbd | Nov 10, 2006 8:23:13 AM
I agree that taking impeachment off the table is necessary. It gives the appearance of bi-partisanship and level heads in control. What it also does is give the party two years to research and subpeona to set up the legal arguments after the 2008 elections.
The rest of the party needs to scour the country for one Democrat with the charisma to win the Presidency. Once Bush is out and has no one to pardon him, then go after him with the full force of outrage and the law.
Posted by: Hawise | Nov 10, 2006 9:04:54 AM
In 1998, the Republican House voted for Articles of Impeachment when everyone knew they didn't have 67 votes in the Senate for removal of the President. It was a "show trial" for no other reason than to politically castrate and humiliate Clinton. After all the dust settled, he was not removed and salvaged a certain measure of vindication. In the '98 mid-term election, the Democrats picked up 5 seats in the House and Gingrich resigned, followed by Livingston. The president came away soiled, but looking like the victim of a witch hunt. The Republicans came away looking like a bunch of philandering hypocrites (which they were). Ultimately, the entire impeachment circus hurt the Republicans worse than the Democrats. And nothing substantively positive for the American people was had.
Lesson: As much as we'd all love to see this gang live out their days in Spandau prison, cranking up the impeachment machinery when you know you cannot win is not good political strategy.
Posted by: Paul | Nov 10, 2006 4:26:33 PM
Well, it's nice to finally have the last word.
Posted by: Paul | Nov 12, 2006 12:10:30 PM
