Science > Abortion > Impeachment Anyone?: The Case for Taking the Tape Off Our Mouths
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"james g. keegan jr." |
| Date: |
06 Oct 2006 07:02:10 PM |
| Object: |
Impeachment Anyone?: The Case for Taking the Tape Off Our Mouths |
Impeachment Anyone?: The Case for Taking the Tape Off Our Mouths
By David Swanson
TomDispatch.com
Thursday 05 October 2006
This piece is based on seven new books on impeachment, all
briefly discussed in a final note.
Never before has the system of government established by the U.S.
Constitution been as seriously threatened; never before has the
built-in remedy for the sort of threat we face been as badly needed;
never before have we had as good an opportunity to use that remedy
exactly as it was intended.
Congress has never impeached a President and removed him from
office. Once, with Richard M. Nixon, impeachment proceedings forced a
resignation. Twice, with Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, impeachment
proceedings led to acquittals. On a few other occasions,
Congressional efforts to advance articles of impeachment have had
legal and political results. These have always benefited the
political party that advanced impeachment. This was even true in the
case of the Republicans' unpopular impeachment of Clinton, during
which the Republicans lost far fewer seats than the norm for a
majority party at that point in its tenure. Two years later, they
lost seats in the Senate, which had acquitted, but maintained their
strength in the House, with representatives who had led the
impeachment charge winning big. (This point - little noted but
important indeed - was made to me recently by John Nichols, author of
the forthcoming book, The Genius of Impeachment.)
In every past case, impeachment efforts were driven by members of
Congress or other Washington political players, sometimes with
support from the media. The public got behind Nixon's impeachment,
but only after the proceedings had revealed massive presidential
crimes. The public never got behind Clinton's impeachment, despite
saturation news coverage and widespread support among political power
players. In the case of George W. Bush's impeachment, with the media
and both parties in Congress opposed to it, public support is just
about all there is - so far.
In past cases, impeachment has either focused on trivial offenses
or on crimes that were serious but not tied to the administration's
major foreign policy decisions or to policies in which Congress was
complicit. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about his sex
life - clearly a crime but not bribery, treason, or a "high crime or
misdemeanor" (an old British phrase meaning an abuse of the political
system by a high office holder), and so not actually an impeachable
offense. Nixon was nearly impeached for obstruction of justice,
warrantless spying, refusing to produce information subpoenaed by
Congress, lying to the public, and other abuses of power, but not for
his secret and illegal bombing of Cambodia.
For all the reasons Nixon was nearly impeached, George W. Bush
could be impeached too. He has openly engaged in illegal,
unconstitutional, warrantless spying, and - while Congress has not
yet used subpoenas - Bush has obstructed its investigations, refused
to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests, and broken a
variety of laws in the course of exacting retribution against
whistleblowers, producing false reports, and establishing a regime of
secrecy of a sort that Nixon could only dream about.
Bush has lied to the public about the warrantless spying program
at the National Security Agency (NSA), the war in Iraq, the kinds of
warnings he was given before hurricane Katrina arrived, and numerous
other issues. While Nixon made secret audio tapes in the White House
which, when discovered, doubled as evidence, this time there is video
- of Bush being warned prior to Katrina and claiming he was not
warned, of Bush assuring us he was not engaged in warrantless spying
and brazenly asserting that he will continue to spy without warrants,
of Bush warning us about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as well
as Saddam's supposed ties to the 9/11 attacks and of Bush claiming he
did no such thing, of Bush claiming the U.S. does not condone torture
and of the torture victims.
Bush's administration has even bribed journalists and
manufactured phony news stories at home as well as in Iraq in order
to deceive the public. Congressman John Conyers has introduced bills
to censure both the President and Vice President Cheney for their
refusal to turn over information, while Senator Russ Feingold has
introduced a bill to censure Bush for his illegal spying programs.
But charging Bush with such Nixonian offenses would only scrape
the surface of the criminal record that is motivating the popular
movement for impeachment - and impeachment was always meant to be a
popular movement. The drafters of the Constitution placed impeachment
in the hands of the House of Representatives because they considered
that body - with its members facing reelection every two years -
closest to the people.
In theory, a democratic system with impeachment at its heart
creates an obvious conflict in the wake of any (honest and credible)
presidential election. How could the people's representatives
impeach, and ask the Senate to consider removing from office, a
president whom the people have just elected? In practice at present,
quite a different conflict takes center stage: How can a Congress
complicit in many of this President's criminal acts be asked to
impeach him? Perhaps by focusing on crimes Congress was not complicit
in, by allowing Congressional representatives to plead ignorance or
remorse, and by electing new representatives better tuned to the
present will of the people.
And how do we get the media to cover investigations of crimes the
media too have been complicit in? Same answer (minus, of course, the
elections).
Let's begin by considering the case for impeaching and removing
from office George W. Bush and ***** Cheney. Quite a few organizations
and individuals have, in fact, already drafted articles of
impeachment. Though no two lists are the same, there is a great deal
of overlap. There are some crimes that appear on almost every list
and that seem to be driving the public demand for accountability.
Many of the best lists are in recently published and forthcoming
books. (See note at end of article.)
Impeachment for What?
Every list of impeachable offenses includes tangential references
to other impeachable offenses. The list seems inexhaustible, but
here's a quick run-down of the main possible charges:
The illegal war in Iraq is at or near the top of everyone's list.
Sometimes, the emphasis is on the illegality of an aggressive war;
sometimes, on the fraud used to sell the war to Congress and the
public; sometimes, on the absence of a proper Congressional
declaration of war.
Lying to Congress is a felony. Lying to the public is an
impeachable offense - and one brought against Nixon. Initiating an
aggressive war is the highest crime under treaties that are part of
international and U.S. law. Launching a war without proper
Congressional approval is a violation of the War Powers Act of 1973.
Misusing government funds to launch a war is a separate crime,
committed by Bush when he ordered troops moved to Iraq and began
bombing raids prior to Congress's dubious authorization to use force.
On some lists are the various war crimes that have accompanied
the war, including the targeting of civilians, journalists,
hospitals, and ambulances, the use of antipersonnel weapons in
densely settled urban areas, and the use of illegal weapons,
including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new version of
napalm used in Mark 77 firebombs.
High on most lists are also unlawful detentions and torture. The
arbitrary detention of Americans, of legal residents, and of
non-Americans without due process, without charge, and without access
to counsel is illegal under U.S. and international law, and
unconstitutional as well. In case anyone doubted this fact, the
Supreme Court recently ruled on it. The highest body in our judicial
branch of government has essentially declared Bush a criminal, and
yet Congress recently acted, through the Military Commissions Act of
2006, to provide the President with retroactive immunity for some of
his acts in these areas.
Bush has authorized the torture of thousands of captives,
resulting in some cases in death, and sought to evade responsibility
by redefining acts commonly considered torture out of the category of
torture. He has agreed to let suspects be kidnapped off the streets
of cities in other countries, allowed prisoners to be hidden from the
International Committee of the Red Cross, shipped people under U.S.
control to third nations or a network of secret U.S. prisons to be
tortured. The Constitution, international treaties that are part of
U.S. law, and other U.S. laws ban torture. When, in the McCain
Amendment to a Department of Defense bill last January, Congress
redundantly re-banned torture, the President signed the bill but
added a signing statement explaining that he would not obey it.
On every impeachment list as well is the illegal National
Security Agency spying to which Bush has publicly (and proudly)
confessed, and which a federal court has ruled criminal. Yet, to this
day, it goes on unchecked. Bush lied to the public and Congress about
his illegal spying programs for years. Congress has passed bills
cutting off funding for the programs, but Bush countermanded these
with signing statements.
The spying, done without recourse to the secret FISA court set up
in 1978 for exactly this purpose, is also in blatant violation of the
FISA Act of 1978, of the Fourth Amendment, and - according to
Congressman John Conyers' report, George W. Bush versus the U.S.
Constitution - of the Stored Communications Act of 1986 and the
Communications Act of 1934. Congressman Conyers also cites Bush for
violating the National Security Act and for failing to keep all
members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees "fully and
currently informed" of intelligence activities, such as the
warrantless surveillance programs.
On nearly every list of impeachable offenses is the President's
failure to protect New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina. Over a period
of years, the administration undermined the city's protection. In the
days prior to the storm's arrival, Bush was warned about just what
might happen. Yet prior to the storm - and for days after it hit - he
did nothing; the unqualified cronies he had put in charge of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency did nothing; and the National
Guard members from Louisiana, Mississippi and other states of the
southeast whom he had dispatched to Iraq could not be called upon to
help. Thousands of Americans died preventable deaths and a city was
ruined, not so much by a storm as by the non-response to it. Even
now, people who lost their homes in the Katrina debacle are being
told there are no funds available to help them.
The Constitution requires that the President "take care that the
laws be faithfully executed." Former Congresswoman and Judiciary
Committee Member Elizabeth Holtzman in her new book, The Impeachment
of George W. Bush, argues that Bush's neglect of New Orleans (and
other presidential duties) violated this responsibility and so
constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. Holtzman puts into this
category as well the administration's failure to provide U.S. troops
in Iraq with proper body armor, and the failure of the President and
his top officials to plan for the occupation of Iraq.
In their book, The Case for Impeachment, Dave Lindorff and
Barbara Olshansky make a similar argument about Bush's failure to
attempt to prevent the attacks of September 11, 2001 and his
obstruction of investigations into those crimes (as do Dennis Loo and
Peter Phillips in their book Impeach the President).
The same two books, along with the Bush Crimes Commission in its
"verdict," also suggest that, by denying the existence of, enacting
policies that increase, and failing to work to decrease global
warming, Bush has committed perhaps the most serious offense possible
- in the words of Loo and Phillips, "placing oil-industry profits
over the long-term survival of the human race and the viability of
the planet."
The Bush Crimes Commission finds the President's imposition of
abstinence-only policies on countries being ravaged by AIDS to be a
serious crime against humanity. Loo and Phillips charge Bush with
"violating the constitutional principle of separation of church and
state through the interlinking of theocratic ideologies in the
decision-making process of the U.S. government."
Three of the recent books on impeachment include as an
impeachable offense Bush's use of signing statements to announce his
refusal to obey hundreds of laws passed by Congress. The American Bar
Association has found the practice unconstitutional. It is, in fact,
an open threat to the rule of law.
An official censure by Congress would do nothing to compel the
President to obey laws he chooses not to obey. Impeachment would do
nothing. Only impeachment followed by removal from office will cure
this cancer on the American political system. The current situation
is exactly what the authors of the Constitution had in mind when they
made impeachment and removal from office the means of protection
against tyranny.
Holtzman includes in her roster of impeachable offenses the
selective and misleading leaking of classified information,
especially on supposed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (which Bush
himself was directly involved in) to advance a dishonest case for
war. Lindorff and Olshansky also include the leaking of CIA agent
Valerie Plame's identity.
Conyers cites violations of the following related laws: 1)
Federal requirements concerning the leaking and misuse of
intelligence, including failing to enforce an executive order that
requires the disciplining of those who leak classified information,
whether intentionally or not; 2) Federal laws forbidding retaliation
against whistle-blowers of various sorts, an example being the
demotion of Bunnatine Greenhouse, the chief contracting officer at
the Army Corps of Engineers, who exposed secret, no-bid contracts
awarded to Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton; 3)
Federal regulations and ethical requirements governing conflicts of
interest, including the briefing of then-Attorney General John
Ashcroft on an FBI investigation of possible misconduct by Karl Rove,
even though Mr. Rove had previously received nearly $750,000 in fees
for political work on Mr. Ashcroft's campaigns.
Loo and Phillips - rightly I think - bring up a number of
offenses not found on most lists, including:
* "Usurping the American people's right to know the truth about
governmental actions through the systematic use of propaganda and
disinformation";
* "Overthrowing Haiti's democratically elected president,
Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and installing a highly repressive regime" in
his place;
* Hiding government decisions from public and congressional view
"by a willful subversion of the Freedom of Information Act."
I would add one item not yet found on anybody's list: the passage
by Congress of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that
retroactively and unconstitutionally legalizes various Bush
administration acts involving torture and illegal detention, and the
passage of other bills doing the same on a number of the crimes
listed above. Impeachment is not a criminal process. Legalizing
impeachable offenses does not make them less impeachable. But
proposing and lobbying to legalize illegal impeachable offenses are
themselves additional impeachable offenses.
What Would It Take for Impeachment to Happen?
Believe it or not, the impeachment of George W. Bush and *****
Cheney is perfectly possible, although a number of factors will have
to come together for it to happen. The public will is already there,
and this is quite remarkable given the lack of action in Congress or
mention in the mainstream media. The polling that has been done on
impeachment is dramatic. The Washington Post finds that a third of
the country wants Bush not just impeached but also removed from
office. Zogby finds that, by a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want
Congress to impeach President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq.
When Americans were asked, "What 2 or 3 specific changes would have
to take place in order to improve your trust in government today?"
the winner by far was "personnel changes/impeachment proceedings."
When Pennsylvanians were asked whether they would be likely to vote
for a congressional candidate who "supports having impeachment
proceedings against President Bush," 84.9% of Democrats said yes,
while 7.0% said no. Among Independents, 49.3% said yes, while 40.6%
said no.
The Republican National Committee got spooked this past summer
and felt obliged to announce that impeachment would be good for
Republicans in the coming elections. This claim is made without a
shred of evidence, either in history or in present polling. Nothing
excites non-Republicans today like impeachment, and "Vote for us or
we'll go to jail" is a lousy slogan. The Democratic base is aching
for Democrats in Congress to get some spine and stand up to the
criminals who are throwing away one of the most brilliant creations
of the eighteenth century: our Constitution. Instead, Leader Nancy
Pelosi has ordered Democrats in Congress to stay away from
impeachment - though she did say that they would hold hearings and
see where they wentŠ if the Democrats win a majority in the House of
Representatives.
To voters who are paying attention, the "let's hold
investigations and see where they go" approach looks disingenuous,
given how many impeachable offenses are already public knowledge.
I've heard reports from dozens of Congressional representatives, in
both parties, who refused to sign onto Conyers' bill for an
investigation, and not once has anyone argued that there is too
little evidence. The argument always focuses on the "extreme" nature
of impeachment or the political agenda behind impeachment. As a
result, the Democrats are, for the most part, steering clear even of
talk of future investigations.
Quietly, however, Democrats do acknowledge that impeachment is
coming. Following the triumphal 1972 election of Richard Nixon, had
you raised the topic of impeachment, Democrats in Washington would
have dismissed it as impossible. Today, on the other hand, they
dismiss it as unacceptable - at least pre-election. When former
director of the NSA, Lt. Gen. William Odom, suggested impeaching Bush
last week at a forum on Iraq organized by progressive Democratic
Congress members, the ensuing silence and shuffling in seats
suggested a strong desire by our representatives to dive under the
table. They resisted that urge and changed the subject. They did not,
however, argue against impeachment.
A lot of activists imagine that there is a conflict between
working on impeachment and working on the upcoming elections. They
fail to see raising impeachment as one way to win those elections. I
would argue that holding a large rally for impeachment, as we did in
Charlotte, North Carolina last Saturday, does more to help defeat
Republicans than does funding the campaigns of any number of
milquetoast Democrats who will use the money to run uninspiring ads
that excite nobody. If Democrats could stop worrying for a minute
about energizing the Republican base and converting Republicans, they
might be able to look at the potential impeachment has to excite and
turn out their own base. This is an off-year election. It will be won
by turnout - and by fighting suppression, fraud, and theft. To the
extent that the elections are about something as significant as
impeachment, candidates and citizens will be more likely to fight for
stolen votes.
If the Democratic incumbents all stood for impeachment now, the
Democrats would win a majority in a landslide. In fact, they might
even persuade the necessary fifteen Republicans to join them and
impeach Bush and Cheney pre-election. Rep. Ron Paul has spoken up for
impeachment. Only fourteen more are needed, and there is no law that
says Republicans can't put their country ahead of George W. Bush.
That fact will become increasingly important if the Democrats do not
win a majority or do not fight when their elections are stolen. For
now, impeachment advocates find themselves in the situation of trying
to push the Democrats to talk about impeachment for their own good.
After the election, come what may, citizen activists will find
themselves with time on their hands for at least a few months until
the next election cycle begins. During this window, leading into the
next Congress, the American public will either force impeachment on
Washington or allow the slide toward fascism to continue. This moment
in our history presents an opportunity for the first time for a
popular presidential impeachment, an impeachment imposed on the
government by the people.
Impeachment and removal, followed later by indictment and
conviction, will be a long struggle. (It will, sadly, slow Congress
down for a while in its work of destroying the world.) But it is
needed to restore the U.S. Constitution as well as international law,
and to establish a standard of accountability for the launching of
aggressive wars. So, while the process may need to begin with crimes
that Congress has been less complicit in, such as the use of signing
statements, it must end with the offenses our world cannot well
survive if they are repeated.
The first subpoena sent to the White House will be refused, of
course, and the conflict will develop from that point. Democrats and
any Republicans of conscience should be prepared for that and have a
plan that will see us through to George Bush's removal from office
for the highest of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Note on Bush and Books: The New Impeachment Literature
The fact that a sizeable collection of books exists on the
subject of impeaching George W. Bush is a phenomenon worthy of
comment in itself. Some of the offenses committed by Bush and Cheney
have been reported first - and sometimes only - in books as was the
case with James Risen's State of War: The Secret History of the
C.I.A. and the Bush Administration and Philippe Sands' Lawless World:
America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules. The books that
follow, all exploring where U.S. citizens must take that evidence,
constitute a field of reporting that has yet to make an appearance in
a major American newspaper or on a major American television network.
Books (and the internet) are now the first draft of history as well
as the last, since the other news media have abandoned the field. Yet
the analysis in these books is not only largely in agreement but
readily comprehensible by anyone with an elementary school education,
no less a reporter, and there is no reason to imagine that the views
expressed could not be effectively expressed on television or in a
newspaper.
If you know nothing about the impeachment movement, pick up at
least one of the following. They tend to be brief, easy to read, and
enormously important:
* The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for
Concerned Citizens, by Elizabeth Holtzman, former Congresswoman and
member of the Nixon impeachment panel, and Cynthia L. Cooper (Nation
Books, 268 pages, $14.95), an excellent and readable book, lays out
five major grounds for the President's impeachment, and offers a
bonus section on ***** Cheney.
* Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney, edited
by Dennis Loo and Peter Phillips, with an introduction by Howard Zinn
(Seven Stories Press, 208 pages, $17.95), is a wonderfully well
written collection of essays organized around a list of 12 grounds
for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
* The Case for Impeachment, the Legal Argument for Removing
President George W. Bush from Office by Dave Lindorff and Barbara
Olshansky (Thomas Dunne Books, 275 pages, $23.95), an amazingly
popular and extremely readable book, explains the context for
impeachment proceedings, while also setting forth six articles of
impeachment against Bush, plus an extra section on Cheney, Donald
Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales.
* Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush by the Center
for Constitutional Rights (Melville House, 144 pages, $9.95) is a
short book that simply lists and explains four (multi-part) articles
of impeachment
* George W. Bush versus the U.S. Constitution: The Downing Street
Memos and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and
Cover-ups in the Iraq War and Illegal Domestic Spying by the U.S.
House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff (Academy Chicago
Publishers, 260 pages, $16.95) not only collects the evidence but
also tells us what Congressman John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on
the Judiciary Committee, is thinking. The full text, minus a new
introduction by Joseph Wilson, is available here and the book can be
purchased here.
* Verdict and Findings of Fact by the International Commission of
Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush
Administration of the United States ($10), a report that looks at
five major international crimes and overlaps significantly with most
lists of impeachable offenses. The full text is available by clicking
here.
* Impeach Bush: A Funny Li'l Graphical Novel About the Worstest
Pres'dent in the History of Forevar (Blatant Comics, $12.95) is a
comic-book account of Bush's impeachable offenses - the crimes really
are self-evident, but pictures don't hurt. It can be purchased by
clicking here.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100606O.shtml
.
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Impeachment Anyone?: The Case for Taking the Tape Off Our Mouths |
06 Oct 2006 09:56:23 PM |
|
|
Can we impeach you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Impeachment Anyone?: The Case for Taking the Tape Off Our Mouths |
07 Oct 2006 12:48:37 AM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
Can we impeach you?
Is he an elected official anywhere? (Free clue, even though you don't deserve
one: the answer to both questions are the same.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. Grand Rapids, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Impeachment Anyone?: The Case for Taking the Tape Off Our Mouths |
07 Oct 2006 07:00:12 PM |
|
|
In talk.abortion, John D. Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote
on Fri, 6 Oct 2006 22:56:23 -0400
<bHEVg.43014$KR1.26132@bignews2.bellsouth.net>:
Can we impeach you?
Impeachment is the equivalent of arrest and criminal
arraignment; the trial in the Senate is required since
Presidents appoint jurists -- a bit of a conflict of
interest.
What charges would you bring against Keegan?
--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #12398234:
char *p; char *q = strdup(p); strcpy(p,q);
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Impeachment Anyone?: The Case for Taking the Tape Off Our Mouths |
07 Oct 2006 07:00:11 PM |
|
|
In talk.abortion, james g. keegan jr.
<jgkeegan@gmail.com>
wrote
on Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:02:10 -0400
<jgkeegan-4467AF.20021006102006@individual.net>:
Impeachment Anyone?: The Case for Taking the Tape Off Our Mouths
By David Swanson
TomDispatch.com
Thursday 05 October 2006
This piece is based on seven new books on impeachment, all
briefly discussed in a final note.
Never before has the system of government established by the U.S.
Constitution been as seriously threatened; never before has the
built-in remedy for the sort of threat we face been as badly needed;
never before have we had as good an opportunity to use that remedy
exactly as it was intended.
[rest snipped]
Impeachment would be slightly pointless, although it might serve as a
hint that His Imperial Presidency should be reined in on occasion. It
would be an *extremely* partisan affair, and guaranteed to work only if
the Dems take over the Senate ... and maybe not even then; there's a
number of conservative Democrats in there.
Depending on circumstances, we might get one of the following.
[1] Cheney. Any system worth its salt would impeach and remove him,
too.
[2] Hastert. However, considering the Foley affair, it's far from clear
how long he'll stick around.
[3] Nancy Pelosi. (This could only occur if the Dems takes over the
House.)
[4] Ted Stevens, President pro tempore of the Senate. Heard of him?
Me neither.
[5] Condoleeza Rice. Could be interesting, especially since she's
expressed no interest in actually running for the office in 2008.
[6] Henry Paulson. (Who?)
[7] Donald Rumsfeld. I might have liked Ike (though he served before my
time). I can't say I like Rummy.
[8] Alberto Gonzales. Lovely.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101032.html
In any event, Bush'll be gone come 2009; however, his legacy will live on,
and it's not a pretty legacy.
--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #40490127:
for(;;) ;
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Impeachment Anyone?: The Case for Taking the Tape Off Our Mouths |
07 Oct 2006 08:24:34 PM |
|
|
In article <seqlv3-fkq.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net>,
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
[...]
Impeachment would be slightly pointless, although it might serve as a
hint that His Imperial Presidency should be reined in on occasion.
'
i don't think it would be pointless.
i think the impeachment process exists for a reason. in fact, i think
the entire bush administration is a textbook example of why the
process exists.
would be an *extremely* partisan affair,
probably, and as it was during the clinton impeachment.
clinton, of course, was not convicted and i believe most government
scholors view his impeachment as silly and entirely political.
a bush, or bush administration official, impeachment would also be
somewhat political but it would be enlightening to see who actually
had the nerve to vote not to convict.
[...]
In any event, Bush'll be gone come 2009; however, his legacy will live on,
and it's not a pretty legacy.
we'll see how effective the diebold cheating algorithm is.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
