Comments on: Bombing Iran? Impeachment first!

By: Mariam Russell

Mariam Russell — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 02:28:35 +0000

On January 20th, 2009, if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account this administration will hand off a toolbox with more powers than any president has ever had, more powers than the founders could have imagined. And that box may be handed to Hillary Clinton or it may be handed to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or someone else. But whoever gets it, one of the things we know about power is that people don’t give away the tools. They don’t give them up. The only way we take tools out of that box is if we sanction George Bush and Dick Cheney now and say the next president cannot govern as these men have.

Good explanation. Also in tne Moyers discussion.

By: Mariam Russell

Mariam Russell — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:35:38 +0000

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/143205/elizabeth_de_la_vega_indicting_bush

This is Elizabeth De La Vega, former federal prosecuter, indictment of Pres Bush. There is a book.

By: Robert Silvey

Robert Silvey — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:13:53 +0000

Thanks, Darrell! Chapter and verse, the high crimes and misdemeanors of Darth Cheney. Oh, yes, and thanks to Mr Kucinich, too!

By: Darrell

Darrell — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:10:30 +0000

I remember seeing this a while back, House Resolution 333. It’s already there waithing for Pelosi.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.Res.333:

By: Robert Silvey

Robert Silvey — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:02:44 +0000

I would guess that the chances of a two-thirds Senate majority are slim for Bush, though the chances against Cheney would be much greater. Nevertheless, the cautionary and educational effects of an impeachment and trial would be salutary for Congress and for the public (and Bush might even resign, as Nixon did, rather than face the music). The lessons, I think, are more important than the punishment, however well deserved.

By: Sam Smith

Sam Smith — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:17:18 +0000

There are no random outcomes in American politics. There’s a strong inverse correlation between the intelligence of a thing and the likelihood of it happening, which suggests that something systematic is work.

By: Mariam Russell

Mariam Russell — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:57:18 +0000

No, the Supreme Court put Bush in office, as the Repubs had populated the court with that sort of thing in mind.

By: whythawk

whythawk — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:51:32 +0000

What are the chances of getting a two-thirds majority? What are the repercussions? The attempts to impeach Bill Clinton resulted in the election of … er, Bush. Can you get random outcomes again?

By: Robert Silvey

Robert Silvey — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:59:55 +0000

Gavin, no need to go before the UN, and the legal requirements are much less demanding than in a normal criminal trial. The relevant section of the US Constitution reads, "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." These are terms that admit of many meanings, as was clear when Bill Clinton was impeached. The House of Representatives requires only a majority to impeach, and the Senate ~~only a~~ a two-thirds majority to convict. No penalties other than removal from office are attached, though criminal charges may be filed separately (and later). The potential charges are legion. A good place to start is Elizabeth de la Vega's book United States v. George W. Bush et al., an excerpt of which appears here on TomDispatch. I don't know the South Aftican requirements, but I hope for our sake we can show you how it's done.

By: whythawk

whythawk — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:46:50 +0000

The question is: impeach on what charges that will stick? I imagine that impeaching a president is a tricky thing to do. I’ve read a great deal on both sides of the impeachment divide.

Left-wing writers seem to think the evidence is so clear that a trial will yield an obvious result. Right-wing writers demand to hear charges. And I, an admitted outsider, can see the loathing but am not sure of the crime. Too many house democrats and republicans agreed with the decision to invade Iraq. Was it illegal to enter Iraq? How clear is that?

And, wouldn’t a trial like that have to go before the UN?

Perhaps this is my challenge: write the charge-sheet. Let people discuss the nitty-gritty rather than simply shouting the odds.

In this my interest is closer to home. My president has deliberately chosen to deny life-saving medication and advice to people both infected and exposed to HIV / AIDS because he disputes the scientific evidence. I consider this a clear act of genocide. I’d like him charged by the international criminal court.

Show me how it’s done.

By: Robert Silvey

Robert Silvey — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:46:28 +0000

On the Bill Moyers show, John Nichols makes the additional point that the toolkit of available presidential powers is now much larger than Before Bush

By: Elaine

Elaine — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:35:05 +0000

...and there was I thinking Bush was not yet sold on war with Iran despite the pressure being applied by the only nuclear power in the Middle East

By: Sam Smith

Sam Smith — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:05:31 +0000

Gavin,

Some people you can rehabilitate. Some you can negotiate with. But not these people. Sgt Axley is right – these two are the closest we’ve ever come to having the living, fire-breathing incarnation of what the framers feared the worst. And yes, that means they’re worse than Nixon.

They need to be removed, if not from office (which is going to be hard to do given the number of votes the GOP still has in the Senate), then at least from any real handle on power.

Some months back I agreed when Pelosi said taking on impeachment was a bad option. I don’t anymore.

By: Jim Booth

Jim Booth — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:27:09 +0000

John Dean once said, “There’s a cancer growing on the Presidency….” Well, now we have two tumors – one the size of Texas, the other the size of Wyoming.

Better a Constitutional fight here than a debacle in Iran that will start a war from which we may never extricate ourselves. I think you’re right, Robert. Impeachment has to go back on the table. My preference would be to go after Cheney. That might scare the Shrub enough that he backs off the Iran idea. And it would get rid of the guy I think of as the greater of two evils.

But first the Dems are going to have to show some gumption. I worry about that…a lot….

By: Mariam Russell

Mariam Russell — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:26:26 +0000

Rehabilitation, Redemption, Future built on mutual respect, Olive branch?

This is not church, Whythawk, and we, the people of the United States are not responsible for, nor need to be concerned about the rehabilitation of this dangerous duo. We are, however, responsible to minimize the damage they can do with the continuance of their forever war and the envisceration of the laws of the land, unless we like the piles of bodies and someone tapping our phones and e-mail.

Odd as it seems considering the actions of presidents, they really are bound by law and just like the guy who robs the 7-11, they are aware of the penalties, and just like the robbing of the 7-11, if it is tolerated we have decended several levels into the morass of chaos.

Seems to me 2 countries bombed and upward to a million bodies should be enough for any bloodthirsty beast out to prove how tough he is.

By: Master Sergeant Ron Axley, USAF, Retired

Master Sergeant Ron Axley, USAF, Retired — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:02:44 +0000

Before, I would have resisted any move to impeach Bush and Cheney.
Well, no longer. I think that they need to go and go right now! What
we have is tyranny.
And, not being a constitutional scholar, I know enough about that
sacred document to state that the Founding Fathers feared a tyrant.
That is why We The People have a legal means to remove such persons from elected office that is built into our Constitution.
Bush is “power-mad” and I agree – He will either order a air strike on
Iran or quietly encourage Israel to do so – “We will cover your ass”….
The end result will be a bigger mess than we are already in.

By: whythawk

whythawk — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:43:18 +0000

A president/vice-president combo with nothing to lose and the cavalry calling to take them away? No opportunity for rehabilitation or redemption?

The democrats already control both houses and the next election will go to a moderate (whether from the left or right).

If you are serious about reform, if you are true to the idea of a future built on mutual respect, surely it starts by offering an olive branch to your president?

Otherwise, what are you bringing to this that is in any way different to the accusations you level at an enemy you wish to publicly eviscerate?

By: University Update - George W Bush - Bombing Iran? Impeachment first!

University Update - George W Bush - Bombing Iran? Impeachment first! — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:53:18 +0000

[...] Clark Link to Article george w bush Bombing Iran? Impeachment first! » Posted at Scholars and [...]