In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Impeach Bush?

Jill

bush3.jpg

I’ll admit that I’m skeptical about the “Impeach Bush” crowd, mostly because impeachment seems to have become a talking point of people who tend to come across as slightly crazy. And no matter how much I like many of the policies promoted by Dennis Kucinich, he falls into the same trap: He seems slightly crazy. But Marie Coco is right: There is quite a detailed case for impeaching Bush. I haven’t read through the whole thing — and let’s be honest, I am not going to until after the Bar, if ever — but in skimming it, it seems like an interesting combination of solid accusations and few stretches. It would be nice if it were ever actually dealt with.

That said, I doubt anything will come of it, because (a) Democrats are weenies; (b) it would probably be framed by Republicans as a colossal waste of time; and (c) it might actually be a colossal waste of time and a general impossibility in the current political climate. But I am also happy to admit that I know almost nothing about this. So what do you all think?

58 thoughts on Impeach Bush?

  1. It’s right on the merits, and the second phase of the intelligence report cinches it, but as Carl from Aqua Teen Hunger Force once said to one of his neighbors: “What’s the freakin’ point, meat-man?”

    As for the statute of limitations on war crimes, though…

  2. Personally I find it convenient that now that his term is almost over there is major talk of impeachment. By the time this gets off of the ground he will be busy building his presidential library. A day late, and a dollar short as usual.

  4. Also, if we impeach Bush that means Dick Cheney becomes president, and if that doesn’t give you the willies, I don’t know what will.

    I’m glad that Kucinich brought it up, though, and I’m glad it’s officially in the public record, even though it won’t come to anything.

  5. I think everyone is clear that it’s a symbolic gesture at this point, no? There are six months left in Bush’s term, three as a lame duck. Kucinich knows that his articles of impeachment will get discarded by his own party. I agree with Cocco that the most significant thing here is putting everything on the record, and in a way that’s thorough without turning into an extended rant on every misdeed. It seems like Kucinich’s articles are fairly sound in that regard, and it would be great to see them adopted by the entire Democratic party, for the same reason: a symbolic gesture to go on the record forever against one of the worst regimes in American history. But you’re right, both in that people would see it as time poorly spent and that most Dems are too interested in staying close to the center to support such a biting maneuever.

  6. I read about that, but I’m doubtful anything will come of it. Kuchinich did the same thing with Cheney, and it was basically ignored by the entire party. Kuchinich is one of the few politicians I really like – but that’s mostly because he’s so fringe and random.

    Apparently the majority of the party is planning on ignoring the gesture, which is extremely unfortunate because I think some of his claims have some merit. More merit than the ones brought up against Bill, at least.

    That’s the difference between Dems and Republicans: the Republicans aren’t afraid to embarrass themselves to get their shit done. They aren’t worried about dragging you through the mud buck ass naked with all of your embarrassing moments (and body parts) on view for the world. The Dems, however, don’t play as dirty (still play dirty, though) and are hesitant to stir up a fuss with anything that isn’t directly related to legislation.

    Unless they’re Kuchinich or Biden, of course.

  7. Andrew Johnson was Officially impeached within 10 days of his offense. We have time. I believe that we should impeach them both. Some long talks about those secret energy meeting may go a long way towards finding out why gas is $4.00+ a gallon. You can be impeached after leaving office, so it is never too late. What’s the point? Congressmen take an oath to defend our Constitution and it is not an option to impeach, but their duty. If he is removed from office, we won’t have to pay his $400,000 a year plus benefits salary which is just a few years would make up for the cost of impeachment and even if not removed, we would know that they did their duty and we would all get the opportunity to see that moment. I call it the Clinton is guilty moment where he asked for the definition of sex. From that moment, all who didn’t already know knew he was lying. He was convicted in the court of public opinion and you know from watching his many press conferences and being asked things that he didn’t want to answer that it would be an historic and entertaining day. History will reflect that we did nothing on the heels of impeaching for lie about a consensual act. We are all as guilty as he is if they are allowed to walk without even holding the hearings. This isn’t a red or blue issue. It’s an American one.

  8. Of course it’s a symbolic gesture. But symbolic gestures are important. It’s not to punish Bush (though that would be nice). It’s to emphasize that the President is not above the law, and that Congress will be on the watch for the next illegal abuse of power, and not lie back like this one has up to now.

  9. Isn’t it pathetic how Bill Clinton got impeached for lying about blowjobs (ohhh big deal) but Bush never got impeached for lying, resulting in deaths of thousands and thousands of Afghans, Iraqis, and U.S soldiers, including British and other European soldiers who are forced to fight a stupid, injust war in the name of oil, greed, and capitalism?????

    way to go, Americans!! Keep it up!

  10. If Kucinich seems crazy and the path of endless war, consumerism, corruption, deception, distraction, exploitation, oppression, imperialism, and other politics as usual seems sane, then I definitely want to be crazy.

    The whole point is to put on record these words which contain a glimmer of historical truth-telling and intellectual integrity in a sea of official lies and complacency. Regardless of tactical considerations, that is always a fundamentally good thing.

  11. @Miranda – I agree. I think impeachment of Bush is not taken seriously because there is huge impeachment fatigue after the endless drama of Bill Clinton, and that that’s a tragic and irresponsible way to let the decision be made.

  12. I am of two minds about this — on the one hand, I am enough of a “conservative” to believe that people need to be held accountable for their actions, that if you don’t punish wrongdoers it sends a message that wrongdoing is tolerated, plus I love me some pure vengeance.

    OTOH, in the current political climate, some of the same people who are the most keen to seek vengeance and to punish well beyond the crime, would, if Bush were even merely impeached, whine on and on about “those Democrats who are so deranged by Bush hatred, they can’t do anything constructive for this country, yet they spend their time trying to impeach our commander in chief in a time of war?”. It would be politically destructive for the Dems. to impeach Bush now. And while we need to look in the long term in terms of punishing malfeasance in order that it not repeat (c.f. Iran/Contra), if we don’t win in 2008, the long term will be screwed over anyway due to who would get appointed to SCOTUS next.

    Of course, if the Dems. were actually getting a bunch of constructive bills through Congress (that would fully “support the troops” but also have a plan to get them out of Iraq, etc), even if the President obstructed them and vetoed them (especially if the President obstructed such bills), the political dynamics would be different. But unlike the GOP who whined and complained when the Dems. dared try to fillibuster nominations for SCOTUS for people who think basic due process rights are unprecidented, the Dems. have done nothing to point out the degree of obstruction provided by the GOP — instead they help the GOP keep their constant threat of fillibuster all but hidden, so that people’ll think of the 2006 Congress as the “Dem do-nothing Congress”.

    The American people, for better or for worse (c.f. P.J. O’Rourke on drug testing and the Vietnam war), like to “get things done”. Congress is not getting things done. It may be the GOP’s fault, but people don’t know that — they know the Dems. are in charge. And if the Dems. try seriously to impeach GWB now, the GOP will get sympathy votes in Nov. plus people will be turned off from the Dems “who can’t even pass a bill but can somehow find time to engage in petty vengeance against the President”.

    Now the American people love vengeance, but only when applied to people who are, shall we say, less melanically challenged than the President. For all of our democratic rhetoric, Americans are loath for vengeance to be sought against those to the manor born. If the Dems. could really control Congress and be doing stuff, our “vengeance” will be forgiven and history will look kindly on us for sending a clear message that the likes of GWB will not be tolerated by democratic republics for long. OTOH, if the Dems. “do nothing”, the verdict of history will be “those Dems. almost had 2008 given to them on a plate but they frittered it away”. Which is not a good verdict.

    Get some bills passed … make them “clean” enough that the President cannot spin his vetoes as “they didn’t give me a clean bill” (i.e. get rid of all the pork and make any “additions” to the bills intolerable to the President but easily explained to the American people — like timelines and requests for formal reports — “does your boss give you money for a project without a timeline of when to get it done and asking for a report on how the money was spent? … remember we in Congress represent you the people and it is you who are the boss of the President, not the other way around” … maybe the Dems are “out of touch” like the GOP claims if they can’t make this easy, “in touch with Joe Sixpack” argument?) … then we can talk about impeachment. But not until then. And by then it’ll be too late.

  13. What do I think?

    I think it is a sad and frightening reflection of how far the rule of law has declined in any country when a regime –democratically elected or otherwise– cannot be driven from power despite having committed criminal offenses under both domestic and international law.

    It is sadder still that even a serious criminal investigation has not been commenced.

    But what do I know? I’m just some crazy, indoctrinated by lawmongering professors and international organizations.

  14. This wouldn’t even be an issue if the Republicans, led by “statesman” Henry Hyde (who I hope is rotting in hell), hadn’t pushed through their ridiculous impeachment of Bill Clinton.

    It’s never going to happen, but at least people are talking about it.

  15. At this point, I’m trying to comfort myself by looking at Bush not getting impeached as similar to Leo Tolstoy or Yukio Mishima not getting the Nobel Prize. Everyone knows what he did, regardless of how it was or wasn’t recognized, and sometimes that carries just as much weight.

    I still want him impeached, though. (Bush, not Tolstoy or Mishima.)

  16. I’ll admit that I’m skeptical about the “Impeach Bush” crowd, mostly because impeachment seems to have become a talking point of people who tend to come across as slightly crazy. And no matter how much I like many of the policies promoted by Dennis Kucinich, he falls into the same trap: He seems slightly crazy.

    Though I share your skepticism, it is not because the people I know who support him and his wanting to impeach Bush come across as “slightly crazy”….I fear you may have subconsciously bought in to the right-wing MSM portrayal/framing of him and his supporters…..though the fact so many “9/11 is an inside job” people support him makes this understandable.

    The Kucinich supporters I’ve met…including a few college/grad school classmates tended to be enraged with how Bush and to some extent, Clinton (Their words) have been helping the corporate lobbyists and corporations at the expense of everyone else over the last 16 years.

    My main skepticism with Kucinich and his supporters…including my college friends is that their ideals are too radically out of the American political mainstream…especially now and the fact Kucinich and his supporters remind me too much of the overidealistic undergrad classmates at my college who have plenty of ideas on fixing national/world problems…but are unable to provide any coherent concrete details on how to carry those plans out. Some of his supporters may also turn off people who are undecided by openly assuming that anyone who supports even mainstream Democrat candidates* are stupid naive pawns who are voting for candidates in the corporations’ pockets.

    Though I understand a large part of that is their seething anger with the political establishment along with some helping of upper/upper-middle class and academic derived elitism….this attitude tends to be self-defeating if one’s actual purpose is to attract support for one’s candidate/cause.

    That is not to say I do not respect the congressman as I do feel he serves an important purpose as a congressional gadfly to goad other politicians out of their mainstreamed political stupor.

    As for impeaching Bush….I believe there is far more of a compelling case for doing so than Clinton’s case considering the Constitutional violations and other forms of serious malfeasance that occurred during the Bush/Cheney administration.

    I do agree with some commenters, however, that considering the current political climate….pushing this too hard may end up backfiring spectacularly on the Democrats…especially considering the GOP’s effective noise machine and the Democratic Party’s inability to effectively counter it.

    * In their minds….anyone but Kucinich tended to be labeled as tools in the corporations’ pockets.

  17. I still want him impeached, though. (Bush, not Tolstoy or Mishima.)

    Mishima did get the equivalent by being mocked and jeered by Japanese SDF troops after attempting to arouse them into carrying out a coup d’etat to overturn the government and replace it with a militarist right-wing regime with powers centered around the Japanese imperial throne. Considering the Japanese right-wing militarist crap he was espousing, especially toward the latter part of his life…he deserves nothing but scorn and ridicule in my book.

    Out of curiosity, what did Tolstoy do to merit the equivalent scorn?

  18. A few years ago, I would’ve given my right arm to see Bush and Cheney impeached. But now, with only six months left to go in the Worst President In The History Of Ever’s regime, it seems kind of pointless. And while part of me agrees with Liz’s sentiment

    That’s the difference between Dems and Republicans: the Republicans aren’t afraid to embarrass themselves to get their shit done. They aren’t worried about dragging you through the mud buck ass naked with all of your embarrassing moments (and body parts) on view for the world.

    . . . it’s instructive to remember what all that bravado and fearlessness got them when they tried to impeach Clinton in 1998: In an off-year election when they should’ve picked up seats anyway, and they had the advantage of running against a president who’d just gotten caught fooling around with an intern, they actually managed to lose seats in Congress.

    This year’s presidential election is about looking forward and figuring out how we’re going to fix Bush’s messes, both at home and abroad, over the next 10-20 years. There is a clear contrast between Obama, the candidate who wants to fix those messes, and McCain, the one who wants to just keep on making them. Obama and the Democratic Party as a whole have a chance to be seen as the party of the future, the party that actually solves these problems, but to overshadow this historic campaign with a mostly symbolic impeachment effort would detract from that and make the Dems look like score-settlers rather than leaders.

    With the Republicans getting their clocks cleaned in terms of poll numbers, Congressional retirements, fundraising and everything else, is now the time to get greedy? Impeachment or no impeachment, I’m pretty confident that Bush and his administration will go down as one of the worst in history either way. Instead of carrying coals to Newcastle and trying to pile on to that litany of failure, I’d prefer we focused on winning an election and figuring out how to turn the country around. An impeachment would be fun for a few weeks, but ultimately it’d do precious little to solve the very serious problems we’re confronted with.

  19. Mishima did get the equivalent by being mocked and jeered by Japanese SDF troops after attempting to arouse them into carrying out a coup d’etat to overturn the government and replace it with a militarist right-wing regime with powers centered around the Japanese imperial throne. Considering the Japanese right-wing militarist crap he was espousing, especially toward the latter part of his life…he deserves nothing but scorn and ridicule in my book.

    That’s true – Mishima could be pretty disgusting in real life (as were a lot of writers – Roald Dahl was a staunch antisemite, for instance). We can reward good fiction without condoning other aspects of the writer’s life, though.

    Janet Frame – there’s another writer who should have gotten a Nobel. (Not too late, I guess.) Okay, sorry for the tangent.

  20. It’s obviously symbolic, but I don’ t think that’s a waste of time. Everyone in that administration, give or take one or two, has gotten away with everything. Everything.

    Obviously this isn’t jail time, it’s not a trial for war crimes, it’s none of those things. But it does at least say, We know what you did. And it’s not okay. And now everyone who ever learns about you in any history book will have to know too.

  21. None of which, I hasten to add, means that it will actually happen. My expectations on that front are zero.

  22. Should have been done back in 2006 when the Democrats gained the majority, but it would have been rather difficult since having Cheney in office is worse, so both Cheney and the president would have needed to be impeached. That would have made Pelosi president, and the Republicans would have cried that the Democrats were attempting to seize the whitehouse, and I think that would have been an impossible spin to shake off. Not that I’d want Pelosi to be president either, but she’s most likely be a damn sight better than what we’ve had.

    I’d really like for him to be impeached, and I don’t really care if it was done five years ago or two days before he leaves office. 20 years from now most people won’t remember at what point in his term he was impeached, but that he was impeached at all will remain in the general narrative of the time. Impeachment would disgrace him in history, and hopefully the idea of pre-emptive war would get tarnished by association.

    Unfortunatly the Democrats have been pretty useless so far, and thinking years ahead is not a hallmark of politicians in general anyway. Kucinich is one of the few who does, putting forward the articles of impeachment does seem a crazy thing when we all know they’re not going to pass, but I’d wager his motivation is to get it into the record, similar to when Ron Paul forced the congress to vote on an actual decleration of war versus simply handing authority to the president to go to war whenever he pleased and on whatever terms he thought fit. Symbolic action is still better than no action at all; as an individual member of congress this is what Kucinich can accomplish and I commend him for it.

  23. I’m betting that he issues a heck of a lot of pardons on January 19, 2009. I agree that symbols are important, and while justice delayed is justice denied, I still think he should be impeached and prosecuted. He. Broke. The. Laws. Of. This. Country.

  24. I agree with TinaH. I’m not sure it can be accurately stated that we live under the rule of law if Bush and Cheney aren’t held legally accountable for their actions.

    I’m completely baffled by the many otherwise intelligent commenters here who think this would be a ‘waste of time’ or ‘purely symbolic’.

  25. I agree that ideally we would impeach both of them and they’d both be held accountable. Unfortunately, I just don’t think that’s a realistic possibility. Perhaps the ongoing breaches of the rule of law over the past eight years have made me cynical.

    I would love to see them hauled before an international court, though. It won’t happen, but it would be great.

  26. The point that I am not hearing here, and which swung the balance for me, is the fact that veil of executive privilege cannot be used during impeachment proceedings.

    Once the American people get an unvarnished look at the scope and severity of the issues unearthed, voting Republican will seem downright unpatriotic. The Cheney/Bush administration has used executive privilege to conceal crimes petty and monumental, as a matter of regular business.

    We do not need to find the administration guilty of impeachable offenses in order to achieve positive gains for our country and at the ballot box. It is the duty of our representatives to investigate the articles presented by Congressman Kucinich. It is also a political winner.

    To fail to initiate proceedings will mean that future generations will curse the laxity of our response to the enormity of the abuses, as they will have nothing but appeasement as a precedent. By ‘letting it slide’, we implicitly endorse, to our lasting shame, and with lasting harm to the republic.

    The refusal of the house Judiciary to consider the impeachment of Dick Cheney last year makes impeachment now a quixotic affair, to be sure. It assumes that Congress could do the research and make the case in an unreasonably short amount of time. And as the Democratic leadership has failed thus far, it may be safe to assume that they would fail again. And any effort, however valid, could be ignored by the major media outlets, or dismissed by voters as a ’stunt’ in an election year.

    On the other hand, there is a tremendous amount of scholarship and research already in existence which could make light work of demolishing efforts to defend the indefensible, unshielded by executive privilege. With the threat of prosecution for perjury, supporters of administation initiatives will be far more open to telling the truth and exposing the mechanisms used to dismantle the rule of law. The only ’stunt’ thus revealed would be the coup d’etat, almost complete, undertaken on behalf of a global military-industri-oil complex. The media, seeing their patrons indicted, would know that the political wind was changing, and with it the repercussions for speaking truth to power.

    If nothing else, initiating impeachment proceedings will keep the spotlight on the crimes of the administration, whose policies John McCain seems eager to continue, and will remind voters how appealing change can truly be. Furthermore, it will become virtually impossible for the administration to initiate hostilities with Iran. Or meddle unlawfully with electoral systems. Or swindle more taxpayer money from the coffers. Or much of anything else.

  27. Sentiment will not bring about impeachment, only an indictment with the most horrible crimes that shock and awe America will bring this administration down. Impeachment is the great American Shakespearean drama, and America is only in a position to play this drama out on T.V.. So let’s play ball.

    An indictment that grabs the attention of Americans and grabs the short hairs of Congress is the only indictment that will not be ignored.

    Kucinich is being ignored.

    Americans would be absolutely fascinated and entertained by the trial of bush and cheney using articles of impeachment based solely upon felony violations of the USA Patriot Act. Imagine the wealth of FOX television consultant contractors hired to pontificate on USA Patriot Act theory, imagine the ratings. Imagine the discovery powers a Judge would have under the USA Patriot Act, imagine. bush imagined, and look what it got him. It is your law and it is the only law that will terminate this un-American administration.

    Tens of millions of dollars have been spent by the ‘media’ at large in conjunction with government propaganda offices to sell the war and the USA Patriot Act to Americans. This law shines, radiates an energy that when cast upon the accused and paints them instantly and forever as horribly and terribly un-American. This is a directed political weapon and it must be focused on those who have committed felony violations of the USA Patriot Act. The USA Patriot Act is a new politica weapon and the people must coop the strategy of Misaprion of a Felony within the scope of the felony provisions of the USA Patriot Act.

    It would have been a huge news story if Kucinich charged bush and cheney with felony violation of the USA Patriot Act, I mean that would be HUGE. bush and cheney would be absolutely terrified, stammering their responses through the limbags. Blogs would fume, tongues would lather, ivory towers would crash down and the dust would cover all of the media with a conspiratorial cloak stinking of un-Americanism. Yes, I ‘ism’ and ‘eason them in the same breath. The soldier who wins the war walks off to battle merrily for he knows he will return the same.

    When the roaches scurry, they leave tracks, and of course that’s all part of the hard-hitting prosecutorial strategy of using the USA Patriot Act to defend this nation from terrorism and those that aid and abet terrorism by disseminating false information on terrorism, a serious and egregious felony violation of the USA Patriot Act.

    If Kucinich would have simply indicted bush with articles that were fortified with the prosecutorial tools and discovery tools included within the felony provisions of the USA Patriot Act he would have effectively tarred and feathered bush. bush’s lawyers could then only attack the USA Patriot Act itself in order to destroy its power in the courts.
    America loves irony, a wild story, juice baby. The vast majority have no interest in the Constitution or the law, unless it’s some hot babe on a police show pointing a gun at a dude and shooting him. Ratings talk.

    Kucinich has no ratings.

    If you are going to bring down warring tyrant then you will have to throw him to some very real lions. The lions in the USA Patriot Act make Kucinich’s application of old, tired laws, (that are being ignored also), a real disappointment. Kucinich needs some help with his presentation. He puts everybody to sleep.

    – WAKE UP AMERICA ! –

    Do you really want to drool yourself to sleep over 4 hours of droning old stuff that has failed so often already, or do you want to see bush accused of un-American and illegal activities, felony violations of the USA Patriot Act … or does everybody want to pretend the USA Patriot Act like, doesn’t exist?

    Whatever … right?

    Prosecuting by making use of the felony provisions within the USA Patriot Act will bring bush down like a chain saw clears brush. The lawyers will be forced to attack the USA Patriot Act law and its extensions, they will have to attack the theory of the USA Patriot Act and dismember and destroy the USA Patriot Act and associated legislation in order to save their hides.

    And they would be branded as un-American for all time. They would hold up their executive orders signed by bush to shield him from the very laws he made to keep you in check, and then you would start to connect the dots. Then you would connect the dots.

    It really is in plain sight.

    Focus on real felonies, not emotional or bandwagon appeals and you will get your man.

    The glittering generalities of crime, banging on pots and pans will not indict or impeach. Congress is complicit in all of this, and some of them must also be charged with felony violation of the USA Patriot Act.

    Terrify them, please; they have terrified you with it all. Fight back with felony prosecution using the felony provisions of the USA Patriot Act and its extended legislations.

  28. As Dan Savage has said, Impeach the Motherfucker Already.

    Seriously, if Bush doesn’t deserve it, then no president ever has or ever will.

  29. Impeachment is not easy. It is the one and only legal route that the American people have to remove a criminal president. Just because impeachment is difficult does not mean that the American people should shirk their duty.

    I’m not all that impressed with the “it’s too hard to do” crowd myself. Excuses is what got us into the mess we are in. It’s time the grown ups acted like responsible grown ups.

  30. The case for impeachment is there. You all know it, yet are not willing to push for it. For some reason, killing thousands of people is not important enough? Why? Perhaps because the mainstream media keeps it from being a mainstream idea… or perhaps because the US is morally bankrupt??

    Dennis Kucinich, one of only 2 Democrats, willing to stand up in Congress and right a wrong. Are there other democrats in your country willing to do the same?

    Speak out, and speak out soon… do it while you can.

    Oh, and by the way, a well know lawyer has written a book: “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder” … just in case you think the articles are not strong enough.

  31. The case for impeachment is there. You all know it, yet are not willing to push for it. For some reason, killing thousands of people is not important enough? Why? Perhaps because the mainstream media keeps it from being a mainstream idea… or perhaps because the US is morally bankrupt??

    I don’t think it’s because the case for impeachment isn’t there or because people don’t think it’s important enough. I think it’s because it’s a tricky political move, and could come back to bite Democrats in the ass in the upcoming election.

    Plus like you said, the mainstream media does relegate it to the fringes, and it’s not even being examined very seriously in Congress. It’s a matter of political will, and that’s something that American voters as a block don’t have in this instance.

  32. Pingback: Impeach Bush? « The United States of Jamerica

  33. Wait until after the elections. If things gas prices stay high and inflation starts to heat up, you”ll see the political will coalesce for an impeachment of somebody. Maybe not George, but somebody.

  34. I’m trying to figure out why the adults in America want to command so much respect when they refuse to earn it. Impeachment may be a tricky political move but if American adults want any creditability with younger generations as being adults and capable of leading being lazy and wishy-washy is not the way to go.

    One thing that needs to be addressed are criminal charages that can be filed even after Bush and Cheney leave office. It’s beyond time that American adults stop being so silly about egos. Same old Same old is not cutting it.

  37. I’ll admit that I’m skeptical about the “Impeach Bush” crowd, mostly because impeachment seems to have become a talking point of people who tend to come across as slightly crazy.

    That’s a terrible reason and you should stop to consider that maybe it’s everyone else who is crazy.

    The President claims he has the power to lock American citizens away, forever, without any due process of any kind. In the past heads would have rolled.

    If Kucinich seems crazy and the path of endless war, consumerism, corruption, deception, distraction, exploitation, oppression, imperialism, and other politics as usual seems sane, then I definitely want to be crazy.

    This right here is a major failure of our modern politics: if you talk in hushed, “serious” tones about establishing a global hegemony by force over the entire world you are respected. If you agitate slightly in the opposite direction you’re crazy.

    It’s all presentation. Wear a suit and a shit eating grin, refer to everyone as “my friends” and speak without swearing and somehow whatever you say, no matter how stupid and ignorant, is automatically worth considering. It’s marketing over substance.

  38. “Patriot Act”: Using the USA Patriot Act to bring down Bush would be a lot like trying to use the Ring to bring down Sauron.

  39. I think the biggest problem with impeaching Bush is the precedent it sets. Sure, he’s done things that warrant impeachment. He’s lied, caused deaths, shown gross incompetence and corruption, and shat on individual liberty every chance he’s gotten. Unfortunately for us he was preceded by a president who was also impeached (though for a lesser offense). In the end it doesn’t matter if Clinton’s impeachment was justified, all that matters is that we cannot have two presidents impeached in a row. The more something happens the easier it becomes and if Bush were to be impeached then the process would simply become another tool in the political arsenal, another weapon that the GOP will be good at wielding and the Dems will suck at. I think the reason that Bush hasn’t been impeached is because the Dems know that. They know that it will just be used against them in the future by better Machiavellians. Moreover, they know they’ll lose. Even though the evidence is there, even though Bush is a war criminal and a traitor, they don’t have the guts to fight a battle they might lose. Not publicly, and certainly not in an election year when they’re scion is running on a clean politics ticket. They know how an impeach would get spun.

    Thats why the impeachment crowd is crazy. They’d burn down their own house to get rid of the rats with the pied piper only a few hours up the road. Yeah, it sucks, but sometimes the bad guys get away and the only consolation you get is that that means they aren’t here anymore.

  41. Perhaps they won’t get away. Pardons from Bush or not, none of them will ever be able to travel outside the US again if Rummy’s treatment in Paris is any indication.

    Sad that we may have to depend on our European friends to do what we, for political reasons like William details, cannot.

    Seeing Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al, on trial at the Hague would absolutely make my lifetime.

  42. William, your comment contains some glaring logical errors. No one had used ‘impeachment’ (as a political tool or otherwise) for over a century … that did not stop the Republican party from hauling it out and abusing it with Bill Clinton. Why on earth should anyone think they won’t abuse it again if they think it can be used for their political advantage, regardless of whether or not the Democrats use it against Bush?

    I think the biggest problem with impeaching Bush is the precedent it sets.

    Allowing Bush and Cheney to escape without a legal accounting for their constitutionally subversive and deadly activities sets a far more dangerous precedent.

    In the end it doesn’t matter if Clinton’s impeachment was justified, all that matters is that we cannot have two presidents impeached in a row.

    This sentiment makes no sense, but it does serve the interests of those in power. Is that you, David Broder?

  43. No one had used ‘impeachment’ (as a political tool or otherwise) for over a century … that did not stop the Republican party from hauling it out and abusing it with Bill Clinton. Why on earth should anyone think they won’t abuse it again if they think it can be used for their political advantage, regardless of whether or not the Democrats use it against Bush?

    That was something of a special case though, wasn’t it? The Republicans were at the high water mark of their power in this country when they went after Clinton. He was bruised, stumbling, and corrupt at the exact same time as they had taken both houses of congress for the first time in a generation or so. They leveraged their majority and Clinton’s weakness in the midst of a conservative shift in this country when they had a pretty unique combination of brutal new talent and grizzled old veterans. Even at the time people were shocked by the chutzpah and the whole show left a bad taste in many conservative mouths. It was a stunt that made them look sleazy and unreliable and they were punished for it. Its not a coincidence that the GOP’s influence has been steadily falling since the late 90s, despite having a wartime president, and especially with people who came into political awareness during the Clinton impeachment.

    Allowing Bush and Cheney to escape without a legal accounting for their constitutionally subversive and deadly activities sets a far more dangerous precedent.

    I’d love to see it happen. Honestly I’d like to see them tried for treason and executed, I believe that their crimes are that great. But wanting something doesn’t make it so. At the end of the day the Democrats are cowards, Bush is nearing the point where he won’t be able to do any further damage, SCOTUS is starting to show the spine that Congress has so far refused to show, and the Democrats have an election thats theirs to lose coming in November. Going after Bush and Cheney, no matter how utterly right or important it is, will be spun by the right as politically driven and dirty. The Democrats simply don’t get to play that card until they get better at the game, and the only people in the party who are really in that league have decided to take the high road. The last thing Dean and Pelosi want in four months is McCain being able to pull off painting Obama as a carbon copy of Kucinch.

    Besides, impeachment at this stage is the ultimate in short term thinking. Sure, it would feel good, but the costs would be great. In about eight months, however, Bush will be out of office and out of official cover. He won’t have the power to resist subpoenas, he won’t have an army of publicly funded attorneys, he won’t have the full power of the executive branch to use as a shield, he won’t have flunkies to throw under the bus, he won’t have an army that feels responsible to do what he says because he’s Commander in Chief. If you want to hold them accountable, learn to play the game. Don’t attack them when they’re at their strongest and have nothing to lose. Don’t go for blood when you’re still trying to gain ground. Wait until he’s weak, wait until he’s down, wait until he doesn’t have the perks that come with official power, then take him to the woodshed.

    This sentiment makes no sense, but it does serve the interests of those in power.

    I wish it didn’t make sense. Unfortunately politics isn’t a game of logic, its an underhanded game of superstition and perception. The more often impeachments happen the less severe they begin to seem, the more common and normal they begin to appear. Everything is harder to do, psychologically, the first time. By the third or fourth go around what was almost unthinkable becomes routine.

    As for serving the interests of those in power, that would have been a true statement two years ago. Then again, two years ago I would have been a fan of impeaching the bastards. Right now, however, those in power are about to be out. An impeachment does nothing but distract from the presidential campaign and risk the Democrat’s political capital. And what do you get for it? At best Bush is out of office a month or two earlier than he otherwise would have been. If you just wait it out and go after him once he’s a civilian all he can do is hope Obama pardons him.

    Is that you, David Broder?

    Heh. Nice of you to take the time to attack me personally, you’ll forgive me if I don’t return the favor.

  44. Forgot to add this but, Ballgame, you’re wrong about impeachment not being used for a century before Clinton. The threat of impeachment was what took Nixon out of office. He left when it became clear that if he didn’t he was going to be impeached, then he put Ford up to giving him a pardon. Just because congress never actually held a trial doesn’t mean that impeachment wasn’t the impetus for his resignation.

  45. Having once burned itself, a cat will not jump on a hot stove again. Of course, it won’t jump on a cold stove either.

    The Republicans looked like morons when they impeached Bill Clinton on flimsy political grounds, but now seem almost prescient to have succeeded in neutering their opponents by conflating the legitimate use of constitutional authority with political revenge.

    Yes, I believe our republic will be damaged by our failure to censure the Bush Administration for its crimes. It’s record will be noted and some enterprising successor will pick up where it has left off, and as long as some future version of American Idol is lighting up the televisions, no one will notice or care.

  46. You waht to know why Bush should be impeached?
    Just Google this: “35 Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush”, all written by a US Congressmen, and nearly any one of these 35 articles is worthy of impeaching Bush, so I say IMPEACH BUSH!!!

  47. You’re right, William. I didn’t realize that the Judiciary Committee had approved articles of impeachment prior to Nixon resigning.

    You’re still wrong on the issue of substance, though, because you claim that Republicans won’t use ‘impeachment’ in an abusive manner if the Democrats don’t use it now. The fact that no one had used impeachment in over two decades didn’t stop the Republicans from trying to impeach Clinton.

  48. The Republicans looked like morons when they impeached Bill Clinton on flimsy political grounds, but now seem almost prescient to have succeeded in neutering their opponents by conflating the legitimate use of constitutional authority with political revenge. – alicia-logic

    There is an even larger issue here about what’s broke with this system. E.g., billions of dollars have been wasted in the Iraq war due to corruption, graft, mismanagement, etc. When this sort of thing happened (to a lesser degree, even after adjusting for inflation) in WWII (held up as the exemplar of a “good war”), a certain Harry S Truman launched various investigations into what was going on and was rewarded for doing so … being made the VP and ultimately the Pres.

    Could you imagine what would happen to a modern day Harry S Truman? The same people who today worship at the shrine of Truman (who they imagine as their idea of a moderate, hawkish Dem) would be all over the media making sure the modern day Harry S Truman would never work in DC again — they’d blast him as partisan and using his office for political gain.

    The thing is — Harry S Truman (now remembered like so many, in a Sanitized version) was indeed doing exactly that! And that’s how the system is supposed to work: “ambition must be made to check ambition”. The reason why we’ve had 8 years of self-destructive BushCO is that nobody felt their political bread was buttered on challenging BushCO, but quite the opposite — because any challenge would be dismissed as “partisan politicking” … as if, c.f. Madison and Hamilton in Federalist #10, that’s a bad thing. No offense to Obama meant here, but if the system worked, the Dem. nominee for Pres. would be Henry Waxman.

    The GOP, since the days of McCarthy, has done their utmost to use ambition not to challenge ambition, but to make fools of themselves … with the idea in the long term of descrediting the very notion of ambition challenging ambition. Their attacks on “politics”, which resonate with a populace more and more removed (except for those elements of the populace who are already more conservative by nature anyway) from day to day politics (c.f. Bowling Alone), are nothing less than descrediting the very idea of a democratic polis and vigorous small-r republican government. The elites of the media, mistaken though they be for liberals (which thus adds resonance to their otherwise hollow claims), help the GOP along because they truly are neo-feudalists who fear and loath the masses.

    Impeaching GWB at this point will create a backlash that’ll make things worse because the most important thing right now is for the Dems. to win in Nov. so that way we can keep the courts from rubber-stamping a decline of the US into feudalism or empire. However, once we win, we Dems. really do need to work to change the nature of discourse in this country so people again think of themselves as “citizens of a democratic-republic” and engage in the polis rather than cynically dismissing the political.

    Americans, by and large, are a small-p pragmatic people (even a large part of our national vengeance kick relates to “doing something about crime” rather than any pure desire for vengeance, which is how impeachment will be spun) and don’t see impeachment as doing anything constructive. In order to maintain the rule of law, we must punish transgressors of it, to be sure. But we also need people to be committed to that rule of law in the first place that they see doing what must be done to maintain the rule of law as a constructive act.

    The GOP, with their use of their ambition to run-roughshod over politics (and not even challenge ambition but rather to do stupid things like impeaching Clinton for engaging in a GOP speciality of lying about sex), has descredited in the popular mind the very mechanisms by which our country can remain free. We Dems. first need to recredit the very notion of democratic governnance by showing that Democratic governance can work. The Dems. have, from the level of local political machines governing very stupidly to the level of Congress (where the Dems. appear to be doing nothing — even if GOP intrastringence is at fault, the Dems. have not made that obvious), not demonstrated this.

    The Democratic party needs to demonstrate that democratic-republicanism can work. And then we can talk about maintaining the rule of law by making sure wrong-doers get punished properly, e.g. via impeachment.

  49. You’re still wrong on the issue of substance, though, because you claim that Republicans won’t use ‘impeachment’ in an abusive manner if the Democrats don’t use it now. The fact that no one had used impeachment in over two decades didn’t stop the Republicans from trying to impeach Clinton.

    I didn’t say they wouldn’t use it but that they couldn’t. ’98 was a pretty unique time and even then the GOP was only able to squeek by two of their four articles of impeachment during a lame duck session. They failed to convict primarily because they couldn’t manage to control GOP members in the Senate (10 voting against conviction in on one charge and five on the other) as well as they could in the house. Indeed, neither charge managed to break the 50% mark, falling well short of the 67 votes that would have been required for conviction. It was a political blunder, a failure of massive proportions. The GOP took a gamble and lost hard, taking a beating in the 2000 elections.

    Also, if we want to talk about parallels, lets not forget that the GOP completely jumped the gun. Clinton lied during a sexual harassment lawsuit. Ultimately he was cited for contempt, fined, and lost his license to practice law for five years because of his misbehavior during depositions. The system worked fine without congress getting involved.

    Impeaching Bush yields nothing but an emotional boost and comes with great risks. Its far too late in the game for impeachment to matter. We’re four and a half months from a presidential election (which should be the focus of the Democrat’s attention), six months from Bush leaving office, and it would take at least two or three months to manage two impeachments. During that time national attention would be on the impeachments, not the presidential race, and the GOP would be able to play the victim card. Why not just wait until he’s out of office and bring him up on the criminal charges he deserves to face?

  50. Why not just wait until he’s out of office and bring him up on the criminal charges he deserves to face?

    Well, first of all, he won’t face any charges if McSame wins, and as I see it Obama’s election is anything but a foregone conclusion. Nor, frankly, do I think it inevitable that there will be criminal prosecution of Bush and Cheney even if Obama wins.

    Secondly, failing to impeach Bush could very well have serious negative consequences for the Democrats. The approval ratings of Congress as whole have been extremely low, because the Democrats haven’t been doing anything. The majority of Americans now realize that Bush was a major blunder, so they turn to the only alternative they know, and — with rare exceptions — find the alternative really hasn’t been very alternative.

    Thirdly, everything other commenters have said about impeachment being a moral and Constitutional imperative is absolutely true. I also think it would make good politics: let the voters see the GOP as the War Crimes and Constitutional Subversion Party that it really is.

    The reason many Democrats have been dragging their feet on these things is NOT because it’s ‘bad politics’ (i.e. that it would turn off a majority of their constituents or pose some future hazard of making Congress impeachment-happy), but because many of them are just Nicer Corporatists Than Those Other Corporatists, and being too mean to a fine upstanding Corporatist like Bush might jeopardize their status as members in good standing of the Corporate Elite.

    [Quoting me:} Is that you, David Broder?

    Heh. Nice of you to take the time to attack me personally, you’ll forgive me if I don’t return the favor.

    William, I find your arguments infuriating, because you, in effect, embrace propositions that you admit are wrong: you concede that Bush should be impeached, then argue against it. You agree that the idea that ‘we shouldn’t impeach Bush since Clinton was impeached’ is silly, then basically use those very grounds to argue against it. Your rhetorical stance on the political reality you supposedly oppose has the effect of reinforcing that reality.

    Nevertheless, you’ve also been polite and thoughtful in your responses to me. Though I stand by my analysis of your argument, I apologize for accusing you of being David Broder.

  52. It is too late for impeachment. I would like to see some sort of Iraq war tribunal that tries to find out and publish may of the key decision in

  53. It is too late for impeachment. I would like to see some sort of Iraq war tribunal that tries to find out and publish may of the key decision in the way the war was sold to Congress and they way it has been conducted. It should have the power to press charges. It will never happen. I would like to see President Bush, Vice president Cheney, Donald Rumsfield, Colin Powel (lied to the UN), Condi Rice and many others face the consequences of their decisions. But it will never happen. We do not want to face uncomfortable truths in this country.

  54. Well, first of all, he won’t face any charges if McSame wins, and as I see it Obama’s election is anything but a foregone conclusion. Nor, frankly, do I think it inevitable that there will be criminal prosecution of Bush and Cheney even if Obama wins.

    You’re right. If McCain wins Bush won’t face any charges and I’m not sure that Obama and the rest of the Dems are brave enough to pick that fight. Thats unfortunate. I wish it wasn’t, but those seem to be the cards were playing with.

    Secondly, failing to impeach Bush could very well have serious negative consequences for the Democrats. The approval ratings of Congress as whole have been extremely low, because the Democrats haven’t been doing anything. The majority of Americans now realize that Bush was a major blunder, so they turn to the only alternative they know, and — with rare exceptions — find the alternative really hasn’t been very alternative

    If there was a huge number of people calling for impeachment the dems would suffer for not impeaching him. As it is I’d be shocked if more than half the country could tell you what impeachment was. Of the voices calling for impeachment the loudest are the far left and the hard core libertarians, not exactly major (or even unpredictable) voting blocks. Bush was a major blunder and the Democrats are failures. But lets not forget that the Democrats have failed over the last few years because their leadership is shit and their tactical skill is laughable. Even if the Democrats managed to somehow grow enough of a spine to impeach Bush I’d be willing to put money on them botching it. They can’t even get it together enough to pass laws, what on Earth makes you think they’re up to fighting a bloody battle and pulling off a two thirds majority? Is it really worth fighting a fight you know will do nothing but hurt your cause?

    hirdly, everything other commenters have said about impeachment being a moral and Constitutional imperative is absolutely true. I also think it would make good politics: let the voters see the GOP as the War Crimes and Constitutional Subversion Party that it really is.

    I agree that the impeachment is a moral and constitutional imperative. I agree with those commenters. I’m also a realist. The Democrats simply don’t have an impeachment fight in them. Maybe if they’d managed to pull themselves together six years ago, but not now. And especially not with Kennedy out of commission, Obama on the campaign trail, and Clinton beaten and drained. Thats the Senate Democrat’s best politician, best orator, and best tactician essentially out of the fight.

    Also, you seem to have great faith in the voters. Lets not forget that these are the people who gave Bush a second term when we already knew what he was. These are the people who watch 24 and root for macho sadists like Jack Bauer. If they gave two tugs of a dead dog’s cock about war crimes and the constitution there would have been blood in the streets years ago. Sadly, those of us who care are in the distinct minority. Even if somehow the masses of mouth breathing, Fox news watching, Bush voting (or nonvoting) proles managed to wake up and get pissed off they’d be distracted by the right wing noise machine in less time than it takes to fill up their SUV. If you want to fight the good fight, fine, I commend you, someone has to and you’re a better person than I for finding the strength. But I’m not exactly convinced that half the country is just a little education away from being better people.

    The reason many Democrats have been dragging their feet on these things is NOT because it’s ‘bad politics’ (i.e. that it would turn off a majority of their constituents or pose some future hazard of making Congress impeachment-happy), but because many of them are just Nicer Corporatists Than Those Other Corporatists, and being too mean to a fine upstanding Corporatist like Bush might jeopardize their status as members in good standing of the Corporate Elite.

    I think thats certainly part of it. The charge that the Democrats are more of the same old shit is something I’m sympathetic to. I still think the situation is a bit more complicated for the reasons I’ve stated before, but you’re right that a big chunk of it is fear of upsetting the status quo.

    William, I find your arguments infuriating, because you, in effect, embrace propositions that you admit are wrong: you concede that Bush should be impeached, then argue against it. You agree that the idea that ‘we shouldn’t impeach Bush since Clinton was impeached’ is silly, then basically use those very grounds to argue against it. Your rhetorical stance on the political reality you supposedly oppose has the effect of reinforcing that reality.

    Thats because I’m a cynic and a moral relativist. I’m a poor graduate student in Chicago, my voice doesn’t really count. For me, this discussion is pretty much masturbatory. Nothing is going to change, Pelosi isn’t going to come across it and say “aha! THATS what we should do!” I’d love to impeach Bush, but I’ve learned over the years that all fighting those kinds of fights means is ending up disappointed and bitter. That said, I feel that even my shockingly low bar might not be met if somehow the Democrats managed to pick an impeachment fight they couldn’t win. I understand your fury, I’m just all out at this point. After eight years of Bush’s abuses preceded by eight years of Clinton’s abuses which came after 12 years of the monster that was Reagan/Bush I’d like to put what little energy I have left into moving on.

    But hey, if you feel otherwise, thats great. Nothing bad ever came of competing ideas.

    Nevertheless, you’ve also been polite and thoughtful in your responses to me. Though I stand by my analysis of your argument, I apologize for accusing you of being David Broder.

    Thanks for that. I get that these kinds of things can become heated.

  57. A preponderance of evidence shows that the highest officials of the Bush Administration, in collusion with many other officials from the Pentagon, CIA, FBI, FEMA, NSA, NORAD, airline executives, and others, together planned and committed the horrible attacks of 9/11, which were subsequently blamed on some bogus “Arab highjackers.” The 9/11 attacks provided the excuse for the US government’s “War on Terrorism,” the chief purpose of which is for the USA to gain control of the lucrative oil fields of the Middle East. A secondary purpose is to increase taxation of Americans for Defense spending in support of the USA’s enormous Military/Industrial Complex, and a tertiary purpose is the justification of the enactment of Police-State measures within the USA under the umbrella of “Homeland Security.”
    The Pentagon, CIA, FBI, and other agencies and officials of the US Government have perpetrated many crimes, assassinations, and bombings against US citizens and US interests during the past 45 years, including, but by no means limited to, the assassinations of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Robert Fitzgerald Kennedy, and Martin Luther King; the 1988 Berlin Disco bombing; the 1993 WTC bombing; the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing; and the anthrax letter attacks of October 2001. Since the end of World War Two, fanatic right-wing ideologues with corporate connections have gradually gained control of the US military, the US intelligence agencies, and the US government. Fascism in the USA is not merely a current threat posed by the George W. Bush Administration; it is an already accomplished situation that has been decades in the making.
    The USA’s descent into fascism cannot be halted or stopped merely by electing a member of the Democrat Party to the Presidency or by electing a Democrat majority to Congress. The infiltration and control of the US government by right-wing extremists is far too advanced and complete — they manipulate our elected officials like puppets on a string, and many of our elected officials are themselves part of the fascist establishment. The right-wing takeover of the US government has been a gradual and very successful fascist coup that will not be reversed without a very serious struggle. Given the history of extreme and indiscriminate violence shown by the ruling junta, it appears quite likely to me that restoring democracy to the USA would inevitably require a violent armed struggle.
    As a US citizen and as a human being, I personally view the killing of innocent people in foreign countries by the CIA and the US military in support of the economic interests of US corporations as totally immoral and intolerable, and I consider it my duty to oppose US aggression and Imperialism in any way that I can. There is nothing noble or ‘heroic’ about unprovoked military aggression and genocide.
    I realize that there are some very worthy reasons to oppose capital punishment in many situations. However, it is also quite apparent to me that any show of clemency for the US government perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks leaves open the possibility that they and their sympathizers could revive their subversion of American democracy and their violence toward peace-loving Americans. That is why I advocate a policy of capital punishment without any mercy for the US government perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and their allies.
    George W., George H., Jeb, Neil, and Marvin Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, Wolfowitz, Powell, Armitage, Ashcroft, Mueller, Tenet, Goss, Giuliani, Hayden, Chertoff, Baker and scores of other individuals working for the White House, CIA, FBI, FEMA, the Pentagon, NSA, NORAD, the airline industry, and the US news media together planned and executed the 9/11 attacks. All of the above-named and their accomplices need to be tried for Treason and Mass Murder, with the death penalty as the reward for their conviction of those crimes.
    We need a Nuremberg-style trial for Treason and Mass Murder for all of the members of the US government, the US military, the US intelligence agencies, and their civilian accomplices in the airline industry and the news media who participated in the murderous crimes of 9/11. The death penalty should be applied to all of the principals and their accomplices, even if that means executing several hundred or even several thousand people, because crimes against the Republic of this magnitude cannot go unpunished, and the punishment must be extreme to send a message that the American people will not tolerate such Treason now or in the future. If allowed to remain unpunished and at liberty, these individuals represent a grave threat to the safety and security of all Americans. If convicted of the heinous crimes of 9/11, the death penalty is the only way to ensure that they or their allies will not somehow manage to attack America and Americans again. The executions should be performed in public and be televized for the entire world to witness.
    No one in or out of the US government should be exempt from prosecution and capital punishment for the Treasonous attacks of 9/11. The planners and participants in the 9/11 attacks within the US government and their accomplices must not be allowed to protect themselves behind the specious excuse of “National Security.” The true security and survival of our Republic depends entirely on this.

    — Gregory F. Fegel

  58. Kucinich is simply the best.

    George W. Bush’s sentence-by-sentence speaking skills are deteriorating. Apparently, this may be due to a mental illness called “presenile dementia.” Bush may or may not be secretly still drinking heavily. Bush suffers from narcissism and megalomania. Moreover, Bush has been arrested three times. Bush was arrested for disorderly conduct. Bush was arrested for stealing. Bush was also arrested for a serious crime—driving under the influence of alcohol. There are reasons to believe that Bush suffers from a learning disability. Bush’s learning disability would explain a lot of things. All in all, Bush is a severely mentally ill individual. Bush is not fit to be the president of the United States.

    Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
    B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
    Messiah College, Grantham, PA

Comments are currently closed.