Sunday, November 26, 2006

what would Cheney do if he was on the defensive?

* paulcraigroberts:
"Mark my words, the future of civil liberty in the US depends on the impeachment and conviction of Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales."
* meanwhile, the great WiiG4 impeachment debate continues. oldschool was for it before he was against it, adding:
"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."
* starroute:
"The big question as I see it isn't impeachment -- it's Constitutional crisis.
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:
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.
One of the scarier issues is whether a renegade executive branch will 'allow' impeachment, or elections.

I don't really buy the argument that we need to go easy on impeachment because 2008 is right around the corner, nor that the public will see impeachment as 'payback.' I'd argue that it's better to impeach now AND continue the hearings - and by 2008 the hearings (and events on the ground in iraq and elsewhere) will have demonstrated that impeachment was the correct and proper thing to do.

Further, (successful) impeachment will have the added benefit of minimising the damage that bushco can do in the next two years - and that's not nothin.

OTOH - if we consider starroute's constitutional crisis scenario, what she's really talking about is bushco saving their own asses from the gallows, thus generating a constitutional crisis. the problem is that bushco is still going to have a gallows problem in 2008, so it's seems to me it's going to be difficult to escape the constitutional crisis.

Cheney is already bragging about his “shorteners" strategy for his entirely optional war with iran - what on earth would he do if he was on the defensive?


notjonathon said...

You can't start impeachment proceedings without some hope that there will be enough votes in the Senate to convict. Impeachment by the House is an empty gesture without conviction and removal from office.
Therefore, hearings must precede any talk of impeachment. Hearings should not be begun with the goal of impeachment; rather, a clear-cut imperative for impeachment must grow out of hearings.

My preferred route is for criminal proceedings to be taken against Cheney when it is discovered that he was involved in Halliburton's lawbreaking before he took office. If a Senator without Presidential ambitions is then named to take his place, Republican Senators might be convinced to vote to remove Bush from office. That's how Nixon was forced to resign. Of course, that might let Bush's successor pardon him, as Ford pardoned Nixon.

That might not be the very best solution politically or Constitutionally, but it would permit the passage of laws returning Constitutional government. I really think it would be more than a papering-over of the Constitutional crisis, for it would send a message that Bush's behavior was grounds for impeachment and conviction.

lukery said...

agreed that we should have documented evidence - that part should be easy - and i agree we should 'start' with hearings.

i have problems with "it would send a message that Bush's behavior was grounds for impeachment and conviction. "
for two reasons: a) apparently blowjobs are impeachable offences and b) there's obviosuly a difference between 'impeachable offences' and 'you'll be impeached if you cross this red line'

how many times do we need to say 'oops - that was both illegal and unconstitutional - and impeachable - we on't impeach - but nobofy should do this ever again '?