Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Rebuttals to Reasons NOT to Impeach
OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards > Political Discussion forums > Politics In General
sky of mind
OpEd news
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ro..._to_reasons.htm


December 7, 2007 at 09:47:00
Rebuttals to Reasons NOT to Impeach
by Rob Kall




At a recent Impeachment forum, organized by the Bucks County Coalition for Peace, former congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman and journalist and author David Lindorff itemized the many reasons TO impeach Bush and Cheney.

Even people who believe Bush and Cheney lied or intentionally misled the congress about WMDs and reasons to go to war, even though people people believe that Bush and Cheney have treasonously violated laws and betrayed the constitution, some don’t think there should be impeachment proceedings. I’ve listed, below, some of the common objections, with rebuttals to them.


First, let’s keep in mind that Richard Nixon never ended up getting tried by the senate. A group of Republican senators took “the walk” to the white house and told Nixon he had to go, that if he didn’t, they were ready to remove him. Of course, that was after Agnew had been pushed to resign, with hearings that disclosed enough to show how dirty he was.

That’s the likely scenario with Bush. Cheney will be investigated and resign. The GOP leaders will cut their losses at some point, when supporting Dubya no longer seems at all viable, when the GOP brand will be close to going down the toilet, and they’ll take “the walk” to visit George to tell him he has to quit or they will side with the Dems and remove him. I don’t expect impeachment to ever reach the senate.

But for these things to happen, Nancy Pelosi has to put impeachment back on the table and let John Conyers, head of the house judiciary committee, do the job he’s ready to do—start impeachment investigations of Cheney and Bush. It worked to get rid of Gonzales. It will work for Cheney, then Bush too.

Here are some common arguments against impeachment, with their rebuttals. Frankly, if the Dems fail to impeach, and they fail to end the war, and they let Bush’s disastrous economic policies and his massive war spending continue, the USA will be in even worst trouble than the horrific mortgage/ housing and dollar crash and credit disaster we are already in.


1- That will give us Cheney as president.

Well, of course, we have to impeach Cheney first, but we can and should be INVESTIGATING both. Once Cheney investigations start, the VP will get a note from the Doctor. He’ll try to pull the plug on hearings by resigning with his heart problems as the explanation.

2-Not enough time. Cheney and Bush will be out of office in 14 months. Why bother?

Lots of reasons. They committed crimes. Investigations will turn up more ugly dirt. Investigations will turn up new, fresh witnesses who will roll over and testify against Cheney and Bush. It’s not about timely convenience. It’s about the congress obeying their oath to uphold and defend the constitution—which Bush and Cheney have treasonously violated.

3- . Bush and Cheney have broken no laws

Bush and his defenders argue that as Commander-in-Chief, Bush and his designate Cheney have not violated any laws. The counter argument: The violation of Geneva Convention principles would be a breaking of U. S. law since the United States has signed "a treaty" banning torture and other mistreatment of detainees. International Treaties become U. S. Law and may not be negated by the President. Justice Bryer 9 Oct 2007. And just because Bush issues a signing statement—actually, over 1000—doesn’t mean he is right, that he doesn’t have to follow the laws the congress has passed.

4- The Dems will be accused of wasting time.

So what. They're already being accused of that. It's a lame, weak, unacceptable argument.

Lynn Woolsey says “impeachment would suck air out of the room and get nothing accomplished” Sorry, it may be inconvenient, may even not fit with plans to keep the Republicans hanging out to dry, dangling with their corruption, in the wind, until November, but the Dem leaders in a congress have that annoying duty to uphold the constitution.

5- There's no clear proof

That's what hearings are for.

6. Impeachment will further divide this country. (That's Barack Obama's stance.)

The country is already divided. It can’t get any further divided. Impeachment will unite all the people who want to protect the constitution and democracy.

7. Not enough people support impeachment

It’s not a popularity contest. It’s the job of the congress, when faced with crimes and even questions, to investigate, investigate.

Recent polls have reported that more than half the respondents want impeachment hearings for Cheney. Those numbers will climb when testimony begins, just like it did for Gonzales.

8. You can hold Bush and Cheney accountable without impeaching them. (Pelosi's stance)

Cheney and Bush, still free, still in control can still do further horrific damage to America. And crimes should be punished as the law prescribes., not ignored. If Clinton had prosecuted George Herbert Walker Bush for his involvement in illegal actions, his son would never have appeared on the picture, as a gubernatorial, let alone presidential candidate. He’d be the failure son of a corrupt politician.

9. Pelosi can’t pursue impeachment because she’d become president and it would look like she’s shooting for the job.

No she won’t . The Republicans will work it out with the Democrats. Bush will appoint a VP replacement who will become president—someone the Dems can tolerate.. The Dems will not allow anyone who might run for office, so Bush must appoint someone who could bring integrity and bring America together. He might even appoint someone who actually creates something that leaves a positive legacy—a first woman , Latino, African American VP. Possible VP appointees who might pass muster include; James Baker, Dubya’s father, Herbert Walker Bush, or even Colin Powell, Sen. Elizabeth Dole, Condi Rice or Mel Martinez.

10. Impeachment will not succeed in the senate.

Investigations can last until November, if necessary, and they will hurt the right wingers still supporting Bush and Cheney. Gradually, more will see the light, like Hagel, until before impeachment ever went forward, enough senators would take “THE WALK” to the Whitehouse, to tell Bush it was time to go.
Jubal
Is anybody (besides me) aware of the following?

1. Impeachment does not require or necessitate investigation.
2. Investigation is entirely possible and practicable without impeachment.
3. An investigation tied to an impeachment gives Congress NO POWERS it does not already have. It also does not negate executive privilege, nor the rights of witnesses under the Fifth Amendment.
Omegabob
Agreeing with Jubal with this one. That article seemed to have been written in a fantasy land, almost none of it sounded remotely possible, and in a world where ass hats like Bush are running around in power, that's a stretch.

I do feel, however, that investigations of some sort should be officially conducted, if not in hopes to impeach, but just to make the public more aware of his wrong doings. If the fact that Judge Judy is the show that it is doesn't mean people's ears perk up to anything in a courtroom, I don't know what is.

I feel if more people had the knowledge of what a corrupt government official was capable of, they'd make better decisions as to who they will vote for and such. Let's just hope the unwashed masses don't let us down.
sky of mind
QUOTE(Jubal @ Monday, 10 December 2007, 4:59 am) *
Is anybody (besides me) aware of the following?

1. Impeachment does not require or necessitate investigation.
2. Investigation is entirely possible and practicable without impeachment.
3. An investigation tied to an impeachment gives Congress NO POWERS it does not already have. It also does not negate executive privilege, nor the rights of witnesses under the Fifth Amendment.





Your opinion then Jubal. Why hasn't any of this happened?
I've heard many ideas, I'd like to hear yours.
Jubal
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Monday, 10 December 2007, 10:31 am) *
Your opinion then Jubal. Why hasn't any of this happened?
I've heard many ideas, I'd like to hear yours.

Why hasn't what happened? Impeachment? Because the Democrats know they can't convict.

Investigation? It has happened. Repeatedly. Too much in my opinion.
sky of mind
QUOTE(Jubal @ Monday, 10 December 2007, 7:34 am) *
Why hasn't what happened? Impeachment? Because the Democrats know they can't convict.

Investigation? It has happened. Repeatedly. Too much in my opinion.





Nother question.

YOur opinion.


If Clinton is elected, what do you think the odds are that the Republicans will spend the next 4 - 8 years howling for impeachment everytime she blinks wrong?
Jubal
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Monday, 10 December 2007, 10:39 am) *
Nother question.

YOur opinion.
If Clinton is elected, what do you think the odds are that the Republicans will spend the next 4 - 8 years howling for impeachment everytime she blinks wrong?

Depends what you mean by "the Republicans." Back-benchers and radio mouths? Sure. The leadership? Probably not.
soon2b
QUOTE(Jubal @ Monday, 10 December 2007, 7:59 am) *
Is anybody (besides me) aware of the following?

1. Impeachment does not require or necessitate investigation.
2. Investigation is entirely possible and practicable without impeachment.
3. An investigation tied to an impeachment gives Congress NO POWERS it does not already have. It also does not negate executive privilege, nor the rights of witnesses under the Fifth Amendment.

Doesn't address the fact that it was much more effective in getting rid of Nixon than not beginning the process.
Nor that high crimes and misdemeanors is a pretty non-specific charge, the fact of which can cut both ways.
Jubal
QUOTE(soon2b @ Monday, 10 December 2007, 12:51 pm) *
Doesn't address the fact that it was much more effective in getting rid of Nixon than not beginning the process.

Probably because I didn't intend it to.
sky of mind
QUOTE(Jubal @ Monday, 10 December 2007, 9:58 am) *
Probably because I didn't intend it to.



what's the difference?

Bottom line is the bottom line!
soon2b
QUOTE(Jubal @ Monday, 10 December 2007, 12:58 pm) *
Probably because I didn't intend it to.

Doesn't address what you did intend.
Jubal
If the Democrats are going to impeach Bush, they should do it as soon as possible. If they want to give the neocons a gift that big, Kwaanza is the appropriate time.
happymisanthropy
QUOTE(Jubal @ Monday, 10 December 2007, 10:09 am) *
If the Democrats are going to impeach Bush, they should do it as soon as possible. If they want to give the neocons a gift that big, Kwaanza is the appropriate time.


What, if anything, do you think America should do now to deter future constitution-shredders?
Rousseau
What is needed is a 21st century Vlad the Impeacher, a man (or woman, hey, Girls can do anything !) just angry enough about the rape and plunder of his country and murder of his (or her..) citizens to drive over the startled squeals of the military industrial complex with a thrashing of gears and grinding of tracks and line Pennsylvania Avenue with neocons while the "Decider" and his Dick get the orange-suit shuffle.


Now THAT would be a superhero ! clap.gif clap.gif


I'm not sure where the Democratic party balls are ? Maybe Joe Liebermann stole them when he slunk out of the chicken coop ? But they sure don't seem angry enough about much.

See my Democrat !!
Listen to it roar !!





........................whimper............. huh.gif
happymisanthropy
QUOTE(Jubal @ Monday, 10 December 2007, 10:09 am) *
If the Democrats are going to impeach Bush, they should do it as soon as possible. If they want to give the neocons a gift that big, Kwaanza is the appropriate time.


Your argument is so persuasive that if Bush has you arrested, tortured, and executed without trial, I won't advocate impeachment for that either.

Ok, you're right, the rest of us aren't very good at sarcasm.
Jubal
QUOTE(happymisanthropy @ Monday, 10 December 2007, 1:50 pm) *
Your argument is so persuasive that if Bush has you arrested, tortured, and executed without trial, I won't advocate impeachment for that either.

Ok, you're right, the rest of us aren't very good at sarcasm.

I hope that fantasy keeps you warm.
sky of mind
QUOTE(happymisanthropy @ Monday, 10 December 2007, 10:42 am) *
What, if anything, do you think America should do now to deter future constitution-shredders?





Personally, I'd like to see somebody go after these criminals the moment they become ex-civil servants.
soon2b
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Monday, 10 December 2007, 3:35 pm) *
Personally, I'd like to see somebody go after these criminals the moment they become ex-civil servants.

They'd have to answer a lot of uncomfortable questions as to why they didn't do it when they should have. sad.gif
maxanne
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Monday, 10 December 2007, 3:35 pm) *
Personally, I'd like to see somebody go after these criminals the moment they become ex-civil servants.


Would you wait a year before rubbing your dog's nose in the place on the rug where he peed?
sky of mind
QUOTE(maxanne @ Monday, 10 December 2007, 6:28 pm) *
Would you wait a year before rubbing your dog's nose in the place on the rug where he peed?




Wish I didn't have too.
I still see no reason private citizens couldn't go after them after that are no longer under he protections of the White House and or national security.
soon2b
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Monday, 10 December 2007, 9:40 pm) *
Wish I didn't have too.
I still see no reason private citizens couldn't go after them after that are no longer under he protections of the White House and or national security.

The White House should (does) not protect criminality. If we allow that case to be made, that protection would logically preclude retroactive prosecution.
sky of mind
QUOTE(soon2b @ Monday, 10 December 2007, 6:59 pm) *
The White House should (does) not protect criminality. If we allow that case to be made, that protection would logically preclude retroactive prosecution.



Understood, but could the mother of a dead soldier sue the president, or an ex-president for the death of her son or daughter due to an illegal war of agression based on reasons that have proven to be lies?
happymisanthropy
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Monday, 10 December 2007, 7:04 pm) *
Understood, but could the mother of a dead soldier sue the president, or an ex-president for the death of her son or daughter due to an illegal war of agression based on reasons that have proven to be lies?


I believe that judges have recently held that even fundamentally unconstitutional actions still fall within the scope of the president's "official duties" and he's therefore exempt from liability.

Our only hope is that he gets a blowjob.
Omegabob
QUOTE(Rousseau @ Monday, 10 December 2007, 12:44 pm) *
What is needed is a 21st century Vlad the Impeacher, a man (or woman, hey, Girls can do anything !) just angry enough about the rape and plunder of his country and murder of his (or her..) citizens to drive over the startled squeals of the military industrial complex with a thrashing of gears and grinding of tracks and line Pennsylvania Avenue with neocons while the "Decider" and his Dick get the orange-suit shuffle.
Now THAT would be a superhero ! clap.gif clap.gif
I'm not sure where the Democratic party balls are ? Maybe Joe Liebermann stole them when he slunk out of the chicken coop ? But they sure don't seem angry enough about much.

See my Democrat !!
Listen to it roar !!

........................whimper............. huh.gif


I fucking love you.


And as to where the Democrat's balls are... they tucked them safely away underneath three cups and two lead x-ray shields when they decided they would tip toe over every. god. damn. issue. just because they don't want to risk pissing anyone off.

Tis a sad world we are living in.
gkh6
QUOTE(Jubal @ Monday, 10 December 2007, 12:09 pm) *
If the Democrats are going to impeach Bush, they should do it as soon as possible. If they want to give the neocons a gift that big, Kwaanza is the appropriate time.


Why would proceeding with impeachment be a gift to the neocons? I'm not following.
Rousseau
Because it's a bit like an avalanche in reverse. You pull the head off the snake, then get stuck into carving up it's threshing body for some delicious snake steaks and a pair or ten of boots, or attractive neocon-skin purses. tongue.gif
As the neocons seemingly crave an end to all life on the planet, this offers them the unique and once-in-a-sleezy-lifetime chance of actually being first in anything.

Openers of the way, as it were. We might just hang around a bit longer once they've gone, but thats cool. I'll wave "Bye-bye, neocon worm-food..."
Jubal
QUOTE(gkh6 @ Wednesday, 12 December 2007, 4:51 am) *
Why would proceeding with impeachment be a gift to the neocons? I'm not following.

Because the biggest rap on the Democratic Congress right now is that they're ineffectual and don't do anything. Impeachment, which would NEVER result in conviction (get used to it) would emphasize the ineffectuality and take lots of effort away from legislation. And the Republicans would (rightly) pump that for every bit of boost they could get.
sky of mind
QUOTE(Jubal @ Wednesday, 12 December 2007, 6:28 am) *
Because the biggest rap on the Democratic Congress right now is that they're ineffectual and don't do anything. Impeachment, which would NEVER result in conviction (get used to it) would emphasize the ineffectuality and take lots of effort away from legislation. And the Republicans would (rightly) pump that for every bit of boost they could get.





The reps are already spinning at high speed on how the Democrat led congress has done nothing,
never mind that they have been the obstructionists that prevented what they have tried to do.
The spin is clearly effective as many in the country believe it. Even many right here on this forum.

Can you imagine how it would be spun if the Congress was to spend the remainder of Bush's term focused on nothing other than impeachment? And do you really think Impeachment would look like Perry Mason on steroids? Or even Michael Jackson or an OJ trial?
Rousseau
Sadly true. blink.gif

So. What are all the good things the Dem's have done while they weren't impeaching the "Decider" and the "Destroyer" ?

Maybe they need a new PR dude, who actually shows what they have done, because from here the efforts of the Democrats looks like gentle waves lapping a calm seashore as an oil slick 500,000 miles wide coils it's tendrils landward without a hint of resistance or clean-up on the horizon, just a placid calm from the senior Dems who seem to expect fate to play into their non-reactive hands, while they try and ignore the visionaries and alert members who attempt to break the hypnotic spell they are under as they sit gazing dumbfast at the sinuous weaving of the neocon Ju-Ju before them......


There is a similar problem at the moment throughout the Western World. The "left" wing, or liberal parties seem lost, floundering and unable to concentrate on anything more important than their belly-button fluff gazing and internal squabbling, and appear utterly incapable of tearing out the ingrowing fascism by it's roots.
This disturbs the shit out of me, frankly. eek.gif
maxanne
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Wednesday, 12 December 2007, 10:27 am) *
The reps are already spinning at high speed on how the Democrat led congress has done nothing,
never mind that they have been the obstructionists that prevented what they have tried to do.
The spin is clearly effective as many in the country believe it. Even many right here on this forum.

Can you imagine how it would be spun if the Congress was to spend the remainder of Bush's term focused on nothing other than impeachment? And do you really think Impeachment would look like Perry Mason on steroids? Or even Michael Jackson or an OJ trial?


I seem to recall that the work of the country continued to go on during the Clinton impeachment.

What you're saying is that the Democratic Congress is too incompetent to handle impeachment and the people's business.

Gee, the Democrats couldn't have done any more to ensure Bush was NOT impeached if they'd tried.

Not that they would....oh...never....
sky of mind
QUOTE(maxanne @ Wednesday, 12 December 2007, 8:39 am) *
I seem to recall that the work of the country continued to go on during the Clinton impeachment.

What you're saying is that the Democratic Congress is too incompetent to handle impeachment and the people's business.

Gee, the Democrats couldn't have done any more to ensure Bush was NOT impeached if they'd tried.

Not that they would....oh...never....





Anybody of reason with more time available then myself care to reply to this and answer the questions?
soon2b
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Wednesday, 12 December 2007, 1:02 pm) *
Anybody of reason with more time available then myself care to reply to this and answer the questions?

Sorry, I now think that if they don't impeach him the Dem leadership has sold us out. If they made some kinda deal, they sure as hell didn't get much for it. He continues to flaunt the law and show them nothing but arrogant contempt.
Rousseau
If "Decider" and "Dick" were impeached and pushed out the door, they wouldn't be there, and they wouldn't be able to play with the "button", nor even get close to it.
The headless chicken of the neocon-subverted ship-of-state would not run aground, but it would lose a bit of Armageddon momentum until saner hands retake the wheel. clap.gif

The perceived "danger" of having these two chickenhawks flushed off the top perch is nothing compared to the damage they continue to do. A leaderless America, if only for a short while, well, to be honest, I don't think anybody would notice the difference.
It couldn't be worse.

So yeah, get rid of the Horsemen BEFORE the Apocalypse !!

Get rid of them YESTERDAY !! thumbup.gif
sky of mind
Having considered both sides of the impeachment idea for sometime now I can't help but conclude that both arguments, both pro and con have worthy arguments that cannot be ignored. I don't know how to resolve that both side of such an argument could be correct, and yet not be able to occupy the same space.

There is a large part of me that wants impeachment and see's impeachment as a neccessiary aspect of our democracy and without it, our American democracy as a whole suffers.

Then the arguments, as pointed out by Jubal and others, come into play and these are very good and worthy arguments. Maxanne more or less asks, if the Repugs could impeach Clinton and get away with it, is there any reason the Dems can't similarly impeach Bush? Well, the Reps didn't get away with it, and in fact they lost control of congress because of it. They didn't get it back again until 2004. I believe this is what Pelosi and Reid look at when the take impeachment off the table. Long term, is impeachment more than an emotional reaction to being so completely screwed?
Or is impeachment necessiary to "set the record straight", and what would the consequences be, if any?


Tough call.

This time my mind hasn't come to a conclusion, and I feel compelled to ride the fence.
karen
QUOTE(Rousseau @ Wednesday, 12 December 2007, 2:25 pm) *
If "Decider" and "Dick" were impeached and pushed out the door, they wouldn't be there, and they wouldn't be able to play with the "button", nor even get close to it.
The headless chicken of the neocon-subverted ship-of-state would not run aground, but it would lose a bit of Armageddon momentum until saner hands retake the wheel. clap.gif

The perceived "danger" of having these two chickenhawks flushed off the top perch is nothing compared to the damage they continue to do. A leaderless America, if only for a short while, well, to be honest, I don't think anybody would notice the difference.
It couldn't be worse.

So yeah, get rid of the Horsemen BEFORE the Apocalypse !!

Get rid of them YESTERDAY !! thumbup.gif


Succinct and to the point! I love that about you Rou... and I like your thinking too! clap.gif clap.gif clap.gif
sky of mind
The impeachment investigation would not remove them from office,
and it's highly unlikely that the investigation could or would conclude anytime before January 09.
soon2b
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Wednesday, 12 December 2007, 4:02 pm) *
The impeachment investigation would not remove them from office,
and it's highly unlikely that the investigation could or would conclude anytime before January 09.

The Dems become weaker each day they allow Bush to be immune from accountability. Had they in fact reached some accomodation that would constrain Bush's excesses, I would agree with you Sky. But laws continue to be broken and more corruption is exposed almost daily. Loyal Bushies continue to be appointed. Most damaging possibly, is that he works hand in hand with Repubs in congress to make sure that everything the Democrats try to accomplish is obstructed, either by threat of veto or fillibuster. At this point, I think that not beginning impeachment is more damaging than doing so. I also think the comparison with Clinton is less apt than comparing Bush's situation with Nixon's.
Rousseau
But if impeachment had taken place in 2005.........
gkh6
QUOTE(Jubal @ Wednesday, 12 December 2007, 8:28 am) *
Because the biggest rap on the Democratic Congress right now is that they're ineffectual and don't do anything. Impeachment, which would NEVER result in conviction (get used to it) would emphasize the ineffectuality and take lots of effort away from legislation. And the Republicans would (rightly) pump that for every bit of boost they could get.



Thanks for the insight everyone. What a sad state of affairs our young country finds itself in. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. cry.gif
gkh6
QUOTE(maxanne @ Wednesday, 12 December 2007, 10:39 am) *
I seem to recall that the work of the country continued to go on during the Clinton impeachment.

What you're saying is that the Democratic Congress is too incompetent to handle impeachment and the people's business.

Gee, the Democrats couldn't have done any more to ensure Bush was NOT impeached if they'd tried.

Not that they would....oh...never....


Amazing. The sarcasm and derision just jumps out at you. How do you get the emotional content in your posts to jump out like that Maxie? My hat is off to you. There is no mistaking your feelings on the subject. clap.gif
sky of mind
QUOTE(gkh6 @ Wednesday, 12 December 2007, 3:33 pm) *
Amazing. The sarcasm and derision just jumps out at you. How do you get the emotional content in your posts to jump out like that Maxie? My hat is off to you. There is no mistaking your feelings on the subject. clap.gif




Maxanne's post style is as distinctive as Rouse's.
One thing about Maxanne's style. She pumps the emotion of the reader like an old well pump.



Otherwise, I agree with you in the damned if you do, damned if you don't department.

I don't think Impeachment is gonna happen. (unless CNN has pics of Bush getting a BJ in the restroom of an airport in New Mexico.) As such, I sincerely hope that Bush's presidential retirement doesn't close the book and lock it like some dime store diary.
gkh6
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Wednesday, 12 December 2007, 9:44 pm) *
Maxanne's post style is as distinctive as Rouse's.
One thing about Maxanne's style. She pumps the emotion of the reader like an old well pump.
Otherwise, I agree with you in the damned if you do, damned if you don't department.

I don't think Impeachment is gonna happen. (unless CNN has pics of Bush getting a BJ in the restroom of an airport in New Mexico.) As such, I sincerely hope that Bush's presidential retirement doesn't close the book and lock it like some dime store diary.


I'm hoping that he is expeditiously arrested by a foreign country and tried for his war crimes. Along with Cheney and Rummy. I hope they nail him up on a cross personally. Not that he is deserving of the comparison. I pray every day for him to receive what he has sowed 10 fold.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.