There have been times when I felt quite lonely within the progressive blogosphere in my calls for impeachment, but that has decidedly changed with the commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison term. Fewer and fewer bloggers are willing to dispute the urgent need to remove Bush and Cheney from office. But there is still a problem.
Just because we impeach Bush and Cheney doesn’t mean that we will succeed in removing them from office. We could make the same argument for Bush and Cheney that the Republicans made for Bill Clinton: impeaching them will leave a mark on their records and dissuade future administrations from thinking they can flout the rule of law. I didn’t think much of that argument when the Republicans made it about lies told in a meritless sexual harassment case. It makes a lot more sense when applied to the Bush administration.
Nonetheless, it pays to answer the question, ‘Do you support putting maximum pressure on the Democrats to impeach even if it is unlikely to result in removal?’
To my mind, we should try to set that question aside for the moment and consider a different question. ‘On what basis would we be most likely to get the support of a significant minority of congressional Republicans?’
If it is at all possible to actually succeed in removing Bush and Cheney, we should pursue that path. And it is quite clear that the Republicans are not willing to convict Bush or Cheney for anything they have already done (at least, anything that is publicly known). We will not succeed merely by making a better case about torture, or warrantless wiretaps, or signing statements, or politicization of the Justice Dept., or voter fraud, or Katrina.
To convince Republicans we have to do something different. The answer, I believe, is to force Bush and Cheney to come into a direct constitutional confrontation with Congress. If Congress feels their powers are being subsumed under the Executive Branch they will stand up and exert their rights. We saw this when the administration snuck a provision into the Patriot Act that eliminated the Senate’s advise and consent role in confirming US Attorneys. Congress swiftly restored that power to themselves.
The first step is for Senator Leahy and Rep. Conyers to take the administration to court and find them in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with congressional subpoenas. It will then be up to Alberto Gonzales to enforce the law. He probably won’t. At that point, Conyers should open up impeachment hearings based on the usurpation of congressional power by the Executive. This would include not only a failure to comply with subpoenas, but a failure to enforce the law, an examination of signing statements, failure to comply with classification oversight and standards, and other aspects of the Unitary Executive theory.
The advantage of this strategy is that it places supportive Republicans in the position of dealing away their own prerogatives.
Meanwhile, once this campaign is underway, the blogospheric noise machine will focus on the failings of the administration that lead less than 30% of the public to support them. Even though the vast majority of these failings will not be part of the articles of impeachment, they will remind people how much they hate Bush and Cheney and lead them to support the effort to remove them.
This is the strategy I recommend.
Personally, I don’t know why Conyers and the rest of them don’t bypass the DOJ all together. They can:
Not that I think they will. I have come to expect nothing out of this congress. Pelosi wants “the record” that they are building as the “issue” for a guaranteed win in 08. I think her “guarantee” is a bit wobbly but politics first last and always. . .constitutional issues just aren’t in play if she perceives they can’t “win.” Meaning as she framed it, if they can’t be assured of removing them from office, they won’t investigate and bring indictment in the house.
None the less, I am still writing and calling and being hung up on and ignored, just like the rest of you.
Don’t think building the record is about winning in ’08, think it’s about 1. uncovering as much dirt as possible ASAP 2. knowining we’re in a constitutional crisis not heading into a confrontation that will set us back or derail us completely. The hearings route is already yielding results, and in that sense I support the strategy. Let’s see how they build the constitutional confrontation now.
In her interview 2 days ago she said it was all about winning in 08. The question posed by Mike Stark and a group of bloggers that interviewed her.
She said Bush “isn’t worth it.” Mike asked if the constitution wasn’t worth it. She said, “Well, yes if we can win.” Meaning only if the senate would vote to convict and remove.
In the long conversation they had, she made it very clear that these “crimes” are what the dems are hanging their hopes on for 08. . .they want them on the record. They do not want to impeach. Takes too much time and might risk the “citizens” not voting for dems. She was very clear about it.
LINK
that I’m referring to. In my reading she was saying essentially that it’s important to choose battles that dems can win in confrontation over the constitutional issues, not win in ’08 – that’s where she says it’s important to use the chosen battle to build a record of wrongdoing on the admins part. I didn’t see anything in there about winning in ’08. the phrase, much discussed over at the orange place about the constitution “worth it if we can win” I understood to mean picking a constitutional confrontation that the congress can win – we can’t afford a constitutional showdown that will be won by the “unitary executive”. I’ll go reread the Mike Stark diary, but I was very disappointed by the discussion over at orange.
http://www.dailykos.com/hotlist/add/2007/6/30/05731/7541/displaystory//
Reread the Mike Stark interview (link above) and I see what you mean about ’08 and in connection with “constitution is worth it” – but I stand by my interpretation. Imo the key to her strategy is in her reply to Dave Johnson about choosing confrontation in the courts;
also, re: Bush that “he’s not worth impeaching” means, imo, it’s not worth spending this congress on a hunt for Bush; more important to make public the record of bushco’s wrongdoings and begin to reverse it. public has to understand the depth of the problem and be on board with whatever must be done to correct them. With Nixon, the whole country was on board, thanks to a real press and the hearings. Now, people who read the blogs understand, but there are lots of democrats and independents who hate bush but don’t understand the magnitude of the problems. I think lots of people don’t read the blogs because they’re not used to it and they have dial-up. that means they were surprised and horrified by the Cheney articles, for example, in the WaPo.
Then respectfully, you and I disagree. Thanks for sharing your views with me.
Why don’t we touch base a year from now and compare notes on how it’s playing out? imo some of the congresscritters (and ’08 candidates) are using electorate’s anger at bush just to get elected; others are genuinely concerned about our disappearing democracy (Feingold, Leahy, others). I put both Pelosi and Reid in with Feingold, Leahy. imo congress has to restore as much of balance of powers before ’09 as possible. I think another problem for Pelosi pushing impeachment is that she is in line of succession, and people want both Bush and Cheney out, which boils down to people want her for president, so she can’t be too direct about pushing impeachment and still get republican support.
Democrats just don’t have the numbers, and attempting to impeach a president during war time only invites backlash. This is a lose-lose situation.
But not impeaching them is also a loser.
Grin and bear it.
It is enough that the Democrats are risking a shift of responsibility for Iraq onto themselves as they obviously have no better solution to a major calamity in the making, a full scale civil war. Pelosi and Reid know what they are doing. Plus the votes are not there.
“Pelosi and reid know what they are doing”?
This statement is either ridiculous optimism or an embrace of collusion.
Pelosi and Reid refuse to confront an unpopular president who defies the rule of law.
if refusing to stop the criminal regime is “knwoing what they’re doing” then give me some amateurs please.
If giving the president a blank check for war, including no congressional permission on Iran, is “knowing what they’re doing”, give me an amateur.
When it takes efforts from the blogosphere to force democrats to back a bill restoring habeas corpus, because the dipshit leadership in the Senate doesn’t see this as a no-brainer, give me an amateur.
“They know what they’re doing”. That’s the same lazy, authoritarian mindset that got us into this mess to begin with.
The Democrats are unable to respond to the question, how do we stop and/or prevent an escalation of the civil war in Iraq any better than Bush has.
So what is your solution to preventing a blood bath that exceeds what is going on today?
The whole thing has to be compartmentalized.
We need a strategy for the Turkish/Kurdish border.
We need a refugee strategy for Jordan and Syria.
We need to work with our Sunni Arab allies so that they don’t fund an anti-government insurgency.
We need to somehow limit Iranian ambitions so that our Sunni Arab allies don’t feel the need to fund an insurgency.
The whole thing is so screwed up.
It’s impossible to know what might help without getting on the ground and talking to the players.
But we can’t afford to stay just to prevent the worst. And, frankly, we don’t have the credibility to take the lead humanitarian role here.
You are repeating what has been said all along: a political solution is necessary. I would be all for Democratic leaders in congress taking the lead on this front, either through congressional hearings on progress or actually interference on the ground in Iraq and neighboring countries. Pelosi went to Syria and Iran; why shouldn’t others follow. At least it might help to derail any further Clean Break ambitions and provide some balance to Blair’s “crusade.”
You’re asking the wrong questions and you are changing the subject from impeachment to Iraq. Nice try.
The bloodbath is unavoidable. However, it will be less bad, and may be less likely to spread to a regional conflagration, if we can bring other powers to the table. Unfortunately, that will only be accomplished by restoring our national reputation and honor: no one in the region wants to do business with the Bush administration. That in turn will only be accomplished by impeaching and removing the regime that brought us to this point in the road.
but favor impeachment anyway. I used to be in your camp re impeachment, and argued strongly that backlash was the problem.
Today, the Bush Administration is totally out of control, has engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors, and has determined for itself that it is above the law.
Bush’s motto is “L’etat, c’est moi.”
That is the motto of a king. He is not the king. We must impeach him. But, we must get Cheney first.
Everything you say is true.
But retribution is just not worth it, and I don’t think the Democrats are strong enough to take the risk. The most important thing at this time is to contrain Bush, especially from engaging Iran militarily without senate approval or doing something that disasterous. Blair in the Middle East is about the limit of what one might tolerate from this lame duck.
what are you afraid might happen?
Do you think it could cost us the presidential election?
Do you think it could cost us a house of congress?
Do you think it will limit our gains?
Doing nothing will have consequences too, and they might come out okay in the end, but they might not.
There is exactly zero prospect of the Dems losing Senate seats in 2008.
House seats are possible, but not so many that we’ll lose the house.
And Democrats are clamoring for something to be done, so if we do nothing we will wind up with a lot of disaffected people that might run to a Bloomberg, Nader, or other third-party campaign.
Of course, engaging in impeachment might help Bloomberg too, with his message of rising above partisanship. But there are risks to any strategy.
For the record, I don’t think anyone here is stupid, just using the cliche line…
We need HEARINGS that no one can avoid but cover. This is when the Authoritarian Followers finally experience the great moment of cognitive dissonance that they so badly need to have – and stop supporting the criminal Leaders. When the bright TV lights of an oversight or impeachment hearing shine on these issues and people are forced to hear the testimony and the smug “I don’t recall” or “I’ll only meet with you in private, off record and with Cheney holding my hand” bullshit, they have to support pressing forward. Even Republicans do, if they want to be re-elected. Besides, not many believe in the “Time of War” excuse anymore since it’s been used far too often to justify anything and everything.
Times are different. It’s not the Clinton administration anymore. He still had public support even through the bogus impeachment hearings. And it doesn’t matter if it’s successful. The precedent needs to be set for history’s sake. If we don’t, then every president will behave this way from now on.
Exactly. This is not about who wins the next election or the one after that. This is about whether we can still salvage a shred of credibility for the notion that we are a nation of equal justice under law, and that that is a question of supreme importance. If Bush/Cheney get away with their official crime wave, we have no further right to prosecute or convict anyone of any crime anywhere in this country. The only realistic standard for justice will be, who do you know, and whose henchman are you? Trying to see objectively, this is the kind of society the United States deserves, and yet it’s so agonizing to watch it coming.
Let them eat cake.
This is business as usual in the US, the only difference is the ‘Thuglicans are admitting it, and quite frankly now they are daring anyone to do anything about it.
We can talk about this until the cows come home. Fact of the matter is unless George W Bush is impeached, this will be status quo for America. BooMan is absolutely right about that.
But here’s the thing. You guys know I’m a cynic, and even with all this outrage from the Dems, real outrage, not just “mooooooooom he’s hitting me!” bullcrap, nobody’s talking impeachment.
The Dems are seeing the Cheney/Rove playbook in action, and they like what they see. They want in on that kind of unlimited power. They figure they can use it better, some of them. Others? They want payback. Still others want their cut.
While it’s nice to see Hillary and Obama and Edwards and everyone dogpile on Scooter’s boys, it’s important to note that nobody’s saying the I word, even after all this, with the lone exception of Kucinich.
But even he hasn’t gone on record and said “If I’m elected, I’ll return this power back to the people, to Congress, to the Judiciary.”
Those are the words that will get my vote in ’08. Who will stand by that?
…those court wrangles can take a looooooong time. Nixon fought releasing the tapes for a year. Mister Bush’s lawyers could play all kinds of games: dribbling out bits at a time; promising, then postponing; month-after-month of shenanigans until the clock runs out. I think the better choice comes from impeaching when/if Bush fails to meet the current deadline for subpoenas. Let them work it out in court WHILE impeachment proceedings proceed. Nixon was in court trying to keep his secrets at the same Senators were continuing the very investigation that led to the House Judiciary Committee issuing Articles of Impeachment.
Well, we don’t have to wait for the SC. Once a district judge rules that the administration has no executive privilege claim on RNC emails or whatever, we can proceed then. Or, if Justice refuses to enforce contempt of Congress on people like Sara Taylor and Karl Rove. Start then.
Isn’t what Leahy is doing re USattorneys heading in that direction? I think congress must go for some kind of constitutional confrontation to begin to undo both Bush and Cheney’s de facto appropriation of branches of gov under the executive. I guess imo impeachment is too narrow (much as I’d like to see them get their just desserts) – the damage is too wide ranging throughout the gov to be addressed by impeachment alone.
If the iceberg theory indeed applies here where what we know vs what we don’t know is enough to produce a lengthy list of articles of impeachment…it’s hard to ignore that the process (even without success) may be the only way to rein in Bush’s hold on power.
After 6 years of Congress’ reluctance to exercise their own oversight muscles; 6 months of peeling back the layers and layers of corruption what’s left is the unbelievable question of how to actually stop much less correct Bush and the methods he uses.
I understand it’s difficult for most Americans to comprehend just how boldly Bush has dismantled this country. And that is exactly why it is important to begin a process of impeachment. Standard fare Congressional hearings are literally being neutered by Bush’s stonewalling. So, even if impeachment isn’t successful the process alone could go a long way toward regaining balance.
that pretty well sums up the predicament that we find ourselves in when considering impeachment.
l do not believe that there are enough R votes to convict in the senate at the moment…and the danger of an acquittal is that it would only further embolden and worsen what are already clearly illegal acts.
failure to convict could/will easily be seen as confirmation of the basic concept of the unitary executive, and l for one, have no confidence that any of the current crop of candidates, from either side, would be anxious to repudiate it once elected.
if it happens make it count and get them both….then we can start w/ abu and the supremes.
lTMF’sA
While I appreciate erudite quotes to make points in arguments, unhappily, Emerson’s is no appropriate to the times.
The beauty of televising impeachment hearings that record the investigation into Bush & Cronies’ slouch toward tyranny is that the less political citizens are forced to regard the blips on their radars.
The latest revelations from Watergate kept a much less politicized America glued to the TV, not just for the dinner time sound bites, but, in many instances, during the live daytime broadcasts that even supplanted daytime soap operas.
Building an outrage factor can be an ends to impeachment hearings means. Who knows, the revelations may yield enough evidence of criminal wrongdoing to get convictions in regular courts of law without necessitating an impeachment conviction. And it’s hard to argue that the residue of distaste in the AmPub’s mouth for Republicans in general may lead to a moratorium against electing them to any office, not just the executive of the land.
The benefits of publicly aired congressional impeachment hearings held in the absence of the traditional motive — to bet a conviction — shouldn’t be overlooked.
of, by and for, the oligarchy.
who’s going to air all the “congressional impeachment hearings held in the absence of the traditional motive–“….c-span?
yeah…that’ll work. ignite a blazing fire in the heart of america…sure.
the watergate revelations, spellbinding as they were [yes, l remember], occurred in a decidedly different political and media context…the viet nam war had been front and center…protests, body bags, body counts, and helicopters from the roof of the us embassy….every day, all day for years. lies about cambodia, lies about laos….the list is interminable and is solemnly recognized by a black wall in dc…a wall that the current administration defiles everyday it remains in power.
perhaps you’ve missed the significance of the changes that have been wrought over the past 33 years…perhaps you’re unaware of who controls the airwaves in the good ole us of a today….what drives the media and who’s collecting the fare.
as to the relevance of emerson….imo, it’s as simple as this paraphrase: when you take on the powers that be, you damn well better succeed, because the consequence if you fail is going to be your head.
lTMF’sA
I think all this partisan vote-counting and strategizing is irrelevant and self-destructive. Like the 2008 polls we’re seeing every day, the current mood means nothing. All that will matter is that the Dems start the process and then make their case. They will have the full attention of the public and the press to do so. Personally I believe the case for impeachment and removal, as well as criminal prosecution, could be effectively made by any bright high school kid.
The only argument against getting started is the real message of the parent post: the Dems are not capable of making it work. That’s a telling argument, but a lousy excuse.
Dave W. I would add that many of us here are living under a govt that our mis/uninformed neighbors voted for. The process of investigations &/or impeachment is also to force feed ill-inclined, incurious folk, who have a vote, a cocktail of meaningful facts (ever the opptimist) via hearings so that they will vote not for the guy they like to have a beer with but the best candidate/s to mend and strengthen this land under the law.
Granted the MSM will screw it up and report stupid, but I’m thinking after watching those high school Presidential Scholars face off against Bush with their letter that we need to be catching up with them!
how bout this idea
the dems announce they wont impeach…they will wait to take over the executive branch and more of congress, and after the bush/cheney cabal leaves office(and power) they will indict them for war crimes, war profiteering, obstruction of justice, etc and then put them in jail where they belong.
let every member of congress running for election in 08 run on that platform…..bringing them to justice after they leave office and cant pardon themselves….or letting them leave office with no consequences for their actions.
Honestly, I have disturbing dream regularly about this very scenario. In my dream, they break open Cheney’s secret files and indict him on everything from conspiracy for 9/11 and all of the other criminal acts. Idiot Bush gets indicted for being a fool and letting it all happen. Then Cheney has a heart attack and dies with a smile (his first ever!) on his face. And everyone is disappointed.
Really, I wake up with the cold-sweats.
n/t
Now if we could just get it televised in place of game shows & soap operas! I still remember watching the Watergate hearings while the dirty linen of the Nixon administration was aired in public. Not everyone has cable or CSPAN.