Saturday, November 25, 2006

public support for impeachment has been growing

* parry's place:
"On Jan. 3, 2007, the Democrats will be in control as the 110th Congress commences. New members will be sworn in, taking the oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic...”

Few things would seem more fundamental to the support and defense of the Constitution than sanctioning those who have abused it -- as a matter of simple justice as well as a deterrent against future abuse.

Yet just before the Nov. 7 elections, Nancy Pelosi, who will now be the next Speaker of the House, said in an interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes” that if the Democrats gained control of the House the impeachment of President Bush would be “off the table”.

But public support for impeachment has been growing. According to a poll published in Newsweek just before Ms. Pelosi took impeachment off the table, a majority of Americans may now favor it. But in the spirit of bipartisanship she has decided that on the issue of impeachment, the House will ignore the public as well as the remedies which the authors of the Constitution provided for its abuse."

* josh:
"Back when he was riding high President Bush used to say that he 'didn't do nuance' -- a point on which he was unquestionably right. And that being the case, there's just nothing left for him to say. No more chest-thumping or rah-rah or daring his opponents to say he's wrong. So he's just gone silent. Like it's not his problem any more."
* jonathon cook:
"Gemayel's assassination, however, has dramatically revived interest in the question of who killed Hariri and brings Syria firmly back into the spotlight. None of this benefits Syria, but no doubt Israel will be able to take some considerable pleasure in Damascus's discomfort.
Gemayel's death, and Syria's blame for it, strengthens the case of the neoconservatives in Washington – Israel's allies in the Administration – whose star had begun to wane. They can now argue convincingly that Syria is unreformed and unreformable. Such an outcome helps to avert the danger, from Israel's point of view, that White House doves might win the argument for befriending Syria.

For all these reasons, we should be wary of assuming that Syria is the party behind Gemayel's death – or the only regional actor meddling in Lebanon."

* for the record, if the syrians killed that xtian dude in lebanon, they were stupid. if putin killed that dude with nuclear sushi, he was stupid. larisa's post on the russian dude is here.


noise said...

If the goal is to reestablish a political system with a semblance of integrity, impeachment is the #1 priority. If they don't impeach, it means preserving the symbolic power of the Presidency is more important than reestablishing a government of checks and balances based on the rule of law (not as interpreted by Yoo or Addington).

One problem is that if they impeach Bush, they are in essence declaring they should be impeached (or should resign from office in droves). The lack of Congressional opposition (even by "powerless" Democrats) has been one of the hallmarks of the Bush II era.

oldschool said...

Knowing full well that, right on this very blog, I argued in favor of impeachment just a few months ago, I just did an about-face and argued precisely to the contrary down below re: Feingold.

In pertinent part:

I'll agree that impeachment proceedings now would most likely be counter-productive. If there had been a Congress taken by the Dem's in 2004, I'd be saying the opposite. But now it's too late, I fear. Let the hearings begin, from all angles. Let the abuses and crimes become evident. I want everything looked at. Just don't start the actual proceedings, for after the amount of time that hearings will take, there wouldn't be time to do an impeachment trial anyway. Also, impeachment proceedings, no matter how much I long for them, would reinforce a national perception that Congress is nothing but a partisan boxing ring. Huge gains were made in this past election, most especially in the gain of the Independent voters. For now, those voters want meaningful legislation more than they want Bush's ass on a spit. Give 'em what they want; and thereby retain those Independent voters for 2008.

I'm in favor of as many hearings as possible to show the monstrous actions of the Bush presidency - find 'em, post 'em, scream them from the rooftops - and let that be the legacy of George W. Bush.

The problem I have with my own argument above (schizophrenia is such an endearing personalitry trait, don't you think?) is that impeachment would go far as an implicit apology to the rest of the world for what we have foisted upon them, and I wish we could do it. But for now, the logistics augur against it, and I think we gotta take tender care of the gains just made in order that even more might be made in 2008.

The world is just gonna have to accept a huge, public humiliation of the Bush administration as our best apology for now. Maybe we can help get a good war-crimes trial or three going as a further show of good faith.

If, however, there is an attack on Iran, all bets are off, and I'll swear that I never said any of the above.

starroute said...

The big question as I see it isn't impeachment -- it's Constitutional crisis.

When the Democrats ask for documents and witnesses and the administration doesn't provide them, then what? When the Democrats send subpoenas and the administration ignores them, then what? When the Democrats pass good and necessary legislation, and pass it again over Bush's veto (with the help of enough Republicans who know what it will take to get themselves re-elected), and Bush issues a signing statement saying he doesn't have to pay attention to it, then what?

The real issue isn't whether or not the Democrats start the impeachment process in January. It's how they will react when Bush goes renegade -- and whether any tools will be left besides impeachment to rein in a rogue presidency.

oldschool said...

starroute said...

When the Democrats ask for documents and witnesses and the administration doesn't provide them, then what?

Well, that's an excellent question, as to the consequences (or not) thereof and part of why I posit that there isn't time to do an impeachment. I mention only consequences because I don't think that, as to tactics, there's any question that the admin will go into a default, full-court stall.

While I do realize that John Conyers, at least, has already held "hearings", and supposedly has more than enough to proceed with a call for impeachment - that won't work. He's not gonna be able to just read all of that into the record, or whatever, and expect it to be acted upon. No show, no glitz, too dry; this is America; we need BIG showy, dramatic hearings. Other than Conyers, everyone else, I believe, has to start from scratch, including, most inmportantly, Henry Waxman.

The Election of 2006 is over - the Election of 2008 has started. Campaigning has already begun; while there is much to do, there is not much time in which to do it. Please don't misunderstand me - I'm for balls-to-the-wall hearings; I just don't think that they'll be concluded until 2010 or so - and that's only if the D's can hold both Houses until then.

When the Democrats pass good and necessary legislation, and pass it again over Bush's veto...and Bush issues a signing statement saying he doesn't have to pay attention to it, then what?

Then you have viable, and powerful stuff to talk about for the elections of 2008. And let the hearings continue, even if impeachment is off the table.

Larisa Alexandrovna said...

Luke, I think you have to wait for my article on the "nuclear sushi" as you call it, which I have already filed, to better get a grasp of just what happened. Suffice it to say both my researcher and I were fairly shocked ourselves when certain provided information led to some interesting finds.

calipendence said...


Take great care in the mail, etc. you are exposed to. From reading your Raw Story article today, it sounds like being a journalist of Russian ancestry is a hazardous profession right now! We CANNOT afford to lose someone like you. Take care!