I think it was back on December 9th that I said the evidence was in and there was no longer any way to avoid impeaching both the President and Vice-President. I can’t write about this everyday, but it needs to be repeated. We have to remove this administration from power. We do not want it to be done by violence, we certainly do not want the military to do it. And if we want to avoid those things, we have the means to do so through a legal, constitutional vehicle called impeachment.
What, after all, can you do when you have lost a war and the commander-in-chief refuses to concede defeat and insists on fighting on? On July 20th, 1944 mutinous German officers exploded a bomb in an unfortunately unsuccessful attempt to kill Hitler. We do not want to witness something of that type here in the United States. Unlike Nazi Germany, here in the United States we have, through our elected officials, the means to remove a delusional and dangerous administration from power in a peaceful manner. The military knows this. And the military must rely on Congress to do their duty.
Our top Middle East commander has just announced his retirement. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are openly disagreeing and defying the President. Republican wise men from Jim Baker to Colin Powell are openly opposed to the President’s strategy. What would you have the military do?
It is time for people to stop thinking about impeachment in the context of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. That was a sham. We need to start thinking about the needs of our military men and women. They cannot openly defy their commander-in-chief for long. They require Congress to draw the correct conclusions.
It could not be any clearer that we have lost the war in Iraq and that we need to enter a new phase in the Middle East. That phase will involve an effort at re-stabilization, but it cannot occur with American troops as the instrument. And this Bush-Cheney administration is not up to the job. They are too tainted by and too invested in the decision to invade Iraq. They cannot remain in power. It’s that simple.
If virtually everyone can see this, then it is irrelevant what the polls say. It will not be a problem getting 18 Republican Senators to agree to a change if only people like Baker and Powell will acknowledge the problem and send the signal to Congress.
Yes, it will be messy. Yes there are all kinds of questions to be answered, like what are the specific charges, and who will become President, and how we can do that constititionally. This is not about seizing power for Democrats or making Nancy Pelosi the President. That is not the solution. The solution is to hammer out an agreement that will make some caretaker the President. Maybe John Danforth, maybe Bob Dole, maybe even Jim Baker. We need someone that will agree not to run for re-election. And we need someone that both parties trust and that the international community respects. That is what we need. Are you listening Republicans? Are you listening Congress?
A war based on lies woiuld seem to be adequate enough charges for me.
Sadly most are.
I completely agree.
Hell, at this point I wouldn’t even be opposed to Daddy Bush stepping in to take over for his idiot son.
justice in our lives can be messy. Anyone afraid to stand up for themselves when they have been wronged only buys themselves a life of drudgery and a sad heart. It’s a shitty trade. One I’m unwilling to make for myself.
If I had a wish for the new year, it would be that you, BooMan, would become the new Carl Bernstein and do what the mainstream should – ferreting out the specific evidence and making it cogent and succinct so that the populace understands.
This is our chance to show that Bloggers can beat the mainstream, IF we can beat the mainstream, to the punch on a super important story.
If I had a SECOND wish for the new year (I know, I’m so greedy!) it would be to hear that Al Gore has decided to run! If you share my belief that Gore is the best candidate the Democratic Party could possibly run in 2008, please visit the links below.
Some sites. I know the first one is legit – it’s Al Gore’s personal site. But after that – I wouldn’t give anyone money until you know who is getting it… But money will be needed, and soon, if we’re to get an organizing effort off the ground.
Al Gore’s Personal Site
AlGore 08 / AlGore.org
Draft Gore 2008 PAC – this looks to be a site for insiders only, as of yet.
I’d recommend getting on all their mailing lists.
Thanks for the links…I’m right after you on the petition 🙂
And soon several of my friends will be too…
Great. Now we need a petition to keep Booman doing these great posts. Or maybe we don’t – he’s got a mind of his own, and it’s a damn fine one!
Even Joe Scarborough is having serious questions re Bush’s competency!
See Crooks and Liars today.
Joe Scarborough is essentially calling for Impeachment!
I know.
I don’t know why so few people in the blogosphere are getting this.
The ISG was Bush’s last chance. The logic of impeachment became overwhelming when he didn’t take the fig leaf.
I know Robin Wright has a huge piece coming out tomorrow on Saudi royal intrigue, but their ambassador split. Our commander resigned. The Joint Chiefs are in revolt. And, yes, Joe Scarborough has reached the same conclusion because it is unavoidable.
But some people want to focus on passing health care or something. Hell-o. The building is on fire. Let’s deal with it.
Exactly, Booman. I truly think this is a byproduct of youth. They 1) don’t understand just how serious the transgressions are, primarily because they don’t know how fascism creeps into being, 2) they are turned off on the notion of impeachment by the actions taken against Clinton, and 3) they are following the lead of people in DC, who live in their own strange version of unreality.
I can’t thank you ENOUGH for your work so far on this, and hope to read about this every day until it happens. This effort MUST come from the grassroots. The leaders won’t step forward until they feel they have full political cover (the cowards!) So it’s up to us to give it to ’em.
I’m with you all the way on this one, Booman.
I would also add to your list (#2 I think is HUGE btw) a fourth item, as a relative youth and someone who has only really been paying attention for a couple years:
It’s like going to an all you can eat buffet 10 minutes before it closes…you want to get your money’s worth so you stuff as much as you can down your gullet.
But what they don’t realize is that impeachment is one of the ways we can just keep the buffet open later.
Here’s the important point:
We have a problem. There is a way to solve the problem. We can solve it, or we can let it metastasize until the patient is doomed.
Remember John Dean? “There’s a cancer in the presidency and it’s growing.”
But even worse, what if we don’t try to solve it and someone in the military decides to take matters into their own hands?
You think it can’t happen here? Well, neither did I until the last couple of weeks.
We don’t want to let the military be put in this situation. They have no confidence in their chief and that means Congress should act.
So how do we get there?
Booman: I’ll let you provide the rationale and the how-to.
We (those who don’t want to bring on Armegeddon): Need to convince a core number of influential Senators that this must be done OR ELSE THEY WILL LOSE THEIR JOBS. I would like to think that our elected officials will do things on behalf of the country (and/or humanity), but most really, really care about loosing their own jobs.
We are not ready to launch a campaign to do this yet. We need allies on the Right. We need the multi-nationals that benefit from the current system to step up to the plate. We need the folks at Red State to start griping.
But I predict this is going to come waaaayyyy to late: In August of 2005 I attended a bi-partisan “National Security Conference” in Washington DC. This is where the supposed grown-ups assembled. This is where Colin Powell’s former chief of staff first startled everyone with his speech about the plan to install Marshall Law if another 9-11 ever occurred.
At that conference, I met a lot of influential DC Republicans who had realized the war was lost and we needed to get out. They booed Rumsfeld when he spoke about our “success in Iraq” and quietly starred at Madeleine Albright when she failed to speak out against the war.
I had a lot of hope after that conference — that things would change, that the grown-ups would DO something. But until the Right wing that does not reside in brain-dead DC decides to take action, the impeachment effort is dead in the water.
The job of the public is to continue to express its frustration that Bush-Cheney are still there. This is clearly not what the public wants. If we could have voted Bush out in November, he would be gone.
But this is a matter that needs to dealt with at the highest levels and behind the scenes.
In my view, Bush is already toast. He cannot survive much longer in his current stance. But Reid and Pelosi need to talk with the Joint Chiefs, they need to talk with the ISG, they need to talk to leading national security Republicans like Lugar and Warner.
I think they all share the feeling that this cannot go on for another two years. The question is whether they can agree on a plan and what will be the first hints we get that the plan has begun.
I’ll tell you right now though that having Joe Scarborough talking impeachment and of relieving the commander-in-chief of duty…and doing it on national television…
that’s a pretty strong sign right there.
Do you seriously beleive that Reid and Pelosi have the intestinal fortitude to do this after so many years of political calculation? I swear being in DC, or anywhere else devoid of actual voters, alters your brain.
I guess TV right-wingers will help, but they need more guns coming to the fight.
I don’t think they will take the lead.
Let’s look at it.
We know that Bush violated laws when he implemented the NSA program and that a thorough investigation of that would result in either a cover-up and contempt of Congress or revealing the true scope, which was obviously much broader than just suspected terrorists calling in to the United States.
The question is whether Congress wants to pursue it and do Republican Senators want to shrug it off or treat it seriously.
There are many other potential causes for impeachment, but that one is strictly definitional. It’s a crime, but is it an impeachable crime?
The Dems have no reason to decide because it is really up to the GOP in the Senate. They decide. And anytime they want Bush and Cheney gone, all they have to do is signal to Pelosi to go ahead and set Conyers free.
I am calling on the Republicans to do just that.
Wouldn’t the 25th amendment offer a smoother alternative?
.
VERY ESSENTIAL: IRAQ NOW AND NEVER WAS PART OF AL QAEDA TERROR!
BARNICLE: I think one of the things that people in Congress on both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat–Michael Crowley alluded to this in terms of troop levels. This president and this Joint Chiefs of Staff were asked to increase troop levels years ago, months ago, from the inception of the war in Iraq–which is no longer the war on terror, it’s just a miserable civil war. This is not the war on terror in Iraq.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
I just figured it out – why so many on the left don’t want to face impeachment. It has to do with emotional intelligence. In the book of the same name, the author detailed an experiment. Kids were told they could have one cookie at the start of the session, or, if they could wait for I-forget-the-period-of-time, they could have two cookies. The study tracked these kids into adulthood, and found that kids who were able to delay their gratification succeeded the most in later years, whereas those kids who couldn’t wait, who wanted the cookie sooner than later, didn’t do as well later.
I think politically, those who are emotionally intelligent take the long view, and realize that if we don’t penalize someone for so breaking the constitution’s letter and spirit, we are essentially paving our way to a hell worse than Bush. Healthcare reform (or any other legislation we choose) would be only temporary if we pave the road to dictatorship, which NOT impeaching the president does. We’re so close it’s truly terrifying. Impeachment is a BIG STEP BACK towards sanity, a big move to restore the constitution to its appropriate place at the top of our system.
I like your theory but I have another explanation.
The big bulk of the left just isn’t that interested in foreign policy. Sure, they are against the war, but they have no clue what to do about it beyond pulling our troops out and minding our business in the future. Unfortunately, this is highly unlikely to happen because interventionism is in blood of the American people and our obligations and foreign relationships demand that we’re very engaged in the world. Plus, we can rely on the media to plug everything from free trade to keeping nukes out of the hands of Iran. So, even if I thought our best option was to pull out of a lot of our obligations and start acting more like Canada, I would have a hard time advocating it as an immediate foreign policy option.
So, the left doesn’t have much interest, first of all. Second, they’ve been right about the war for so long that they don’t have much else to say.
Third, they don’t understand the full scope of what our defeat in Iraq means for our foreign policy obligations and our foreign relations with allies. For example, the decimation of the Sunnis in Iraq could destroy our relations with Saudi Arabia and possibly even with Turkey. That has consequences on everything from NATO to the financing of our national debt, to the free flow of energy supplies to the global economy.
Once you understand the gravity of the problem, replacing Bush and Cheney becomes the top priority.
But if we think we can just pull our troops out and that’s the end of it, then you just think about the 2008 election and positioning ourselves and all the surface level stuff.
Plus, at least in the case of Chris and Markos, they are election people. That’s what they do. That’s their interest. And it’s natural that they should look first to the politics of impeachment.
But this isn’t a political argument I am making. It’s not even really a legal one. It’s an issue of command.
It’s an issue of survival, if you ask me. Agree with all your points above, including the “political” arguments. But doesn’t that make Chris and Kos the same people they originally crashed the gate to oppose?
I think our country has engendered so much hate in the world we’ll be paying for the next few centuries. The only way to reverse that is for the American people to wield the law, put that first, and say no more to this criminal regime. If we do that, people abroad will watch and wait, and cut us a little slack. A little. If we don’t do that, we might as well all be Bush lovers, because that’s how we’ll look to them.
Booman, do you have any thoughts as to why the idea that impeachment is bad politics for Dems is so rampant when the absolute and totally complete historical record of impeachments is that the party who does the impeaching makes gains in the next election cycle(s)?
NO ONE, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE AFAIK, other than myself has even mentioned the history of impeachments in politics in any of these discussions about impeachment anywhere…
And furthermore, whenever I bring it up, NO ONE has anything to add to or detract from my insistence that the historical record is absolutely and totally consistent with political gains for the impeaching party. NO ONE has made an argument that I can respect for ignoring impeachment, and NO left-leaner who argues against impeachment for political reasons has addressed in any detail how they manage to totally and completely discount the overwhelming weight and absolute consistency of the historical political record of impeachments.
I’m flabbergasted at the ostrich-like behavior of the anti-impeachment left as regards this matter. DO they REALLY think that history doesn’t matter anymore and that all of a sudden the politics of impeachment has done a 180? If so, why won’t any one of them defend that proposition? Have I missed an argument somewhere on one of the big boards where the political history of impeachment has been effectively negated?… (and I don’t mean arguments like ‘Congress can’t walk AND chew gum’.)
If we go for impeachment, we waste 2 years, and lose our majority.
It’s just revenge.
you keep saying that but where in my argument do I say anything about revenge?
You have no evidence. You have nothing but inchoate longings.
I too would like Bush to be impeached. I realize that IT AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN.
Ponder two facts:
1) In 2001 or so, Dick Cheney convened a task force. This energy task force had a secret list of attendees. Since that time, progressives have tried to find the names of the members of that task force. Recently, the SC agreed that the list of attendees was protected by executive priveledge.
Question: If we can’t get the list of members of this task force, how could we get important stuff, like EVIDENCE of impeachable offenses?
2) Bush has appointed Alito and Roberts to the SC. These are both even more agreeable to the strong executive model of Bush.
Question: With the SC constituted as currently, how can the more aggresive arguments required to get impeachable evidence?
The answer to both of these questions is “We can’t”.
Get over this impeachable stuff. Bush is ALREADY convicted in history of impeachable offenses.
We want the WH in 2008.
We want 60 in the Senate.
We want 260 in the House.
Impeachment stops all this for a useless, fruitless, ultimately undoable and UNPOPULAR exercize in revenge.
It won’t help, it won’t do anything, and it will not advance the progressive agenda.
Dataguy – you’re the one who has no evidence.
When the Republicans set about to impeach Clinton – what did that do? Fired up their base. They had great turnout. If you believe the numbers, they even won. And that was on a totally bogus stretch of what impeachment is there for.
So what’s your evidence we’d lose in 2008?
Second, what’s your evidence that we can get anything done that will STICK? If we put forward a progressive agenda, we might still lose anyway in 2008 because the Republicans will be unified and angry.
Where’s your evidence that anything you say has any merit?
Hey, what’s good for the goose, and all that.
Every point you make is “Look at Clinton.”
That translates as “They got Clinton, and we’ll get Bush.”
It’s revenge.
No – you missed my point entirely. YOU are the one looking at Clinton. My point is that Nixon is the model – NOT Clinton.
“What’s good for the goose”
That is the revenge statement.
Face facts. You want to get the repubs for what they did to clinton. A natural human reaction.
Political death.
Are you a troll? You’re not logical, you seem to only want to come here and talk us out of impeachment, but offer no substance to your arguments.
It’s a fair question. Of course, if you are a troll, I couldn’t expect a fair answer now, could I?
someone who is a republican.
Someone who disagrees with you is not a troll. They are just someone who disagrees.
A troll is also someone who can’t carry an argument without resorting to a personal attack, as you did when you asked if I was on drugs.
And re your point #1 – hello, with Democrats controlling the judiciary, we should be able to get those documents. If they refuse, that’s an impeachable offense right there – obstruction of justice. This gets really easy if they refuse. If they do turn over the docs, isn’t your argument moot?
HELLOOOO!! It took 4 years to get the case about the Task Force to the SC.
We have two years.
Impeachment is just a huge pipe dream.
Every year, there are murder cases. These cases are tried by people who want to make the murderer pay. But, you know who does pay? The county residents. It can cost $500,000 to try a murder case. So, what to do? Plea bargain. Court cases are WAY too expensive.
It’s the same here. The COST of impeachment is WAAAAYYYY TOOOOO HIGH. I want ACCOMPLISHMENT, not REVENGE.
We would pay for impeachment by 1) getting nothing else done 2) losing Congress 3) losing the WH. These are the costs of impeachment and they are way too high.
In politics, you are either looking forward, or you are looking back. I am looking forward. You are looking back. The American people want forward-looking ideas and politicians. You do impeachment, you are those Bush-hating, revenge-seeking, no-ideas Democrats. That’s not me. Is that you?
Let’s get at Bush by hamstringing him.
Hello! Four years under REPUBLICAN RULE.
And re your point #2, if the evidence is clearly presented to the American public as well as the SC, and the SC refuses to budge, that could generate a revolution in this country. Seriously. People might actually take to the streets. We should have when the SC decided the vote in 2000. I don’t think the people will sit around if the SC screws us again. Fool us once, shame on them. Fool us twice? Shame on us.
You must be on drugs. Seriously.
The American people is not going to rise up. It just indicates that you impeachment folks are out of touch.
So you have no rebuttal. Duly noted.
And I’ve never taken non-prescription, non-over the counter drugs in my life. Never inhaled, never shot up, never over-imbibed, nada. So no, I am not now and have never been on drugs. (I know that makes me a rarity on the left, but it’s true!)
I HATE troll rating people, but personal attacks are way out of line.
Make your argument without them please.
That’s what should be done. Very aggressive oversight and very aggressive investigations.
Tie up Bush and his minions in investigations.
Pass legislation which Bush hates but which the American people like.
In the next two years, we set the table. We use the 2008 elections to gain a mandate. In 2008, we gain the WH, retain the Senate and the House, and then do what is needed to be done. That’s what I want. You can have that, or you can have impeachment. You just can’t have both.
Senator Boxer made it clear when she spoke on this issue last year that this was NOT a zero sum game, that we could, legally and conceptually, go after Bush AND Cheney AND still get some good legislation passed.
You tell us it’s either or. But someone in a position to know says that’s not true. Whom should we believe?
How is putting the law back on top and our elected officials second wasting two years?
Do you have no concern that our laws are not being followed?
Wanna take on all of American history and explain your cockamamie personal belief system about impeachment leading to Dem losses?
From my comment above:
To the best of my knowledge, there are two recent cases, and one very old case. You can’t make a general principle out of three cases.
True.
But it is not true that the Republicans suffered lasting damage from the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It strengthened them greatly and led to the close election of 2000, which should not have been close.
But the reason to impeach the President and Vice-President is not political. That is what you will not acknowledge. Sure, it is a political process and each member must make a political calculation about what a vote one way or the other will mean for their career. But we don’t need to impeach them to advance a political ideology. We need to do it so the military doesn’t feel the need to do it for us. Bush and Cheney are unhinged, if you haven’t noticed. The Joint Chiefs have…
I argue that the impeachment would have a cost, and that this cost would be high. I have stated 4-5 different measures of that cost, and that the cost would be too high.
What you and impeachment supporters will not admit is that there is a cost. You appear to believe that impeachment is a free lunch, all positives, no negatives.
Why do you ignore the costs, and focus exclusively on the benefits? That is not a sensible position…
because the cost of them staying is too much to bear. I really don’t care that much about who wins the Presidency in 2008 when I compare it to two more years of Bush as commander-in-chief. I’m not making a political calculation, I am making a national one.
Your list of the costs presupposes that the Congress can’t chew gum and walk at the same time, so it’s one argument, not five. Me 2, you 0.
Impeachment hearings will take time. The time they take will stop other hearings. Me 1, you 0.
Impeachment hearings will occupy attention. Attention and interest should be in the long-term, permanent Democratic agenda, not this crappy little revenge fantasy. Me 1, you 0.
Impeachment hearings will offer republicans an IMMEDIATE attack scenario. “They have no agenda. They have no ideas. They have nothing but hatred for Bush. They had their chance, and spent it on impeachment, which failed. Elect republicans.” Me 1, you 0.
It’s not a revenge scenario. It’s a calculated political move which will lead to an overwhelming Dem majority in the legislature and in the White House.
Nothing short of that, including the new Congress in 2007-8 will be able to do any real progressive legislation anyway. We an’t override the veto, so we should go for impeachment.
F— the Republcian ‘attack scenario’. If they want to argue against the Constitution, let ’em do it, they’ll attract a few of of their already hard-core base to become frenzied attack idiots, who will be seen through by the vast majority of Americans.
To deny history is the height of arrogance. It’s like saying that because there was only one Viet Nam, you can’t apply the lessons of Viet Nam to Iraq or any other wars. Dumb, very dumb, and we see where ignoring the clear lessons of history gets us, don’t we?
I am a statistician. If you wish to draw a general conclusion, we need enough data. We don’t have enough with impeachment.
So, rather than ignoring history, I examine it with care, and conclude that there is not enough there to draw a conclusion.
I’m not a statistician, I’m a scientist. You have many examples in the past two hundred years which all point to a hypothesis: impeachments help the party doing the impeachment. Then you have a modern test of the hypothesis: Clinton’s impeachment. It works every time in history, and now it’s confirmed to work exactly the same way in modern times.
You assume for the sake of your argument that these legislative initiatives you propose will actually get passed into law without being vetoed. That is PREPOSTEROUS. I don’t need any statistics to tell me that Bush will veto (by pen or, more likely, by pocket) any truly progressive legislation that crosses his desk and that the two-thirds majorities in the legislature required to overrride that veto will not be there. Hence, all of the time put into those initiatives will be totally wasted unless we can get a President and both houses in 2008. The best way to do that politically is to impeach Bush and Cheney.
Game, set, match.
I’m speaking not only of presidential impeachments but other impeachments of high officials as well. Me 1, you 0.
For me the issue is bush and cheney need to be removed because they are an imminent danger to the health and well being of our nation and the world. The secondary issue of whether we will succeed or not is a separate question. Allowing them to stay in office without challenging their right to be there will end up costing us our moral compass, our economic security and our sanity, at least for the foreseeable future.
And here:
We are fast approaching a Rastenberg moment. (Where the German officers failed in their attempt at eliminating an already obviously unhinged Hitler.)
I don’t want to see it happen either.
But if the DemRats keep dragging their heels and the Neo-Cons keep pushing for more, more, MORE, we will see it.
Bet on it.
WAKE THE FUCK UP, DEMS!!!
You are blowing it.
AG
shit arthur, i think this is the first time we have agreed on anything.
Hmmmm…
I’ve been pretty consistent…
AG
in the past we differed on other issues, arthur. this president brings people together.
Hmmmmm…
I’ve been pretty consistent on everything, Howie.
My position on impeachment is part and parcel of my position on everything else.
Maybe you are just beginning to understand how deeply we are in trouble.
Or…maybe not.
AG