Over 50% of citizens think Bush should be impeached if he lied about the reasons for going to war in Iraq. Now he has openly admitted that he has repeatedly violated the FISCA law and openly declared that he will continue to do so. He has also declared in a signing letter that he is free to authorize any kind of prisoner interrogation not withstanding the Defense Appropriation Act, which contained the McCain Amendment re-outlawing torture, that the President had just signed into law. The administration, with the President's tacit approval, has also previously sanctioned torture and prisoner abuse and failed to punish responsible high level officials in contravention of existing laws and treaties. GWB is also guilty of other potentially impeachable offenses.

Here is a comprehensive Article by Nixon era Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman that advocates the need to begin the process of pressuring Congress to begin impeachment investigations.



On the other hand, there are those who defend the President's actions and others who are deeply distressed by them but who regard impeachment as too disruptive, impractical, or politically the wrong tactic. For instants, I was at an open forum with my Congressman Adam Smith where there were at least 50 accumulated questions about impeachment. Remembering the Clinton impeachment proceeding, Representative Smith reacted negatively to the whole idea.

1. Should the public push for the impeachment of George W. Bush?

2. In view of the Vice President's advocacy and close association with many of the impeachable actions and policies, should Vice President Cheney also be impeached?

Yes

Heck yes.

Not only should there be an Impeachment, the current Congress, which has more in common with the Reichstadt than it does with anything the Founding Father envisioned as an oversight body, should stop goose stepping behind this criminal administration, who openly admit they broke the law, and also dust off the ‘War Crimes Act” of 1996 and round up everyone who had anything to do with the “Torture Memo’s”, and give them a taste of what the penalties are for committing a Capital Crime are.

When I look at the Republican dominated Congress today; all I see is a sea of Blue Dresses.

From the article:



Too bad Bush does not enjoy even that much respect in some quarters.

I'm not sure if the author of the piece thinks that the individual acts are impeachable or only that taken together they are impeachable.

She has several sections:

Wiretaps: certainly open to debate, but also undoubtably under the "protecting the country" duty of the President. A decided majority of Americans agree that Bush was right to do this and many are concerned that he is not doing enough in this field.

Iraq War: I doubt that any impartial judge will say that Bush acted in a vacuum on this one and did not consult the Congress who clearly gave the green light.

Failure to take care: Another Iraq war angle.

Torture and abuses of power: Somehow the author jumps to the conclusion that Bush may have personally ordered torture (sorry, "abuse"). I haven't seen any evidence to that. Innuendo perhaps, but no evidence. Bush's not sacking Rumsfeld is hardly evidence and a memo saying something may be legal is not proof that an act was actually carried out.

Ah yes, we get to the point of the article:


So this is a campaign tactic?

Put me down in the "waste of time" category. Just like during the Clinton years, too many people have acted as if the President is to blame (or to credit) for everything that goes on in the world. It's almost as if they thought that if they replaced one President with another President with exactly the same goals and ideology, everything would be just peachy-keen. Obviously this is simple-minded.

In addition to this, an impeachment drive can't help but look like it is motivated by envy and resentment, rather than any desire for justice. There is good reason to believe that this is, in fact, a correct interpretation of the motives of many who push for impeachment.

If this isn't enough, the bottom line is that an attempt to impeach the President and/or the Vice-President is going to fail. A failed impeachment attempt would do nothing but help the GOP, as they point out how their leaders have been proved innocent of any wrongdoing.

Those of us who are against the policies of the current administration need to wait until it is over, then work to replace those policies. The problems with the political philosophy of the current government run much, much deeper than any one human being.

1. Should the public push for the impeachment of George W. Bush?

2. In view of the Vice President's advocacy and close association with many of the impeachable actions and policies, should Vice President Cheney also be impeached?

No, the public should wake up to the fact that it has elected poor candidates for office. That seems to be happening, but the public moves very slowly until it surprises everyone.

The Republicans demonstrated that impeachement is a long, expensive and worthless process. I don't think the public wants another round of that political waste of resources and time. Rather, the public wants government that works, and the change from incompetence to competence begins with the election process. First, get rid of the corporate-think automatons. Then get laws that actually make a positive difference, such as making it illegal for former legislators to lobby. At the least, stop digging the hole deeper and start climbing out.

1. Should the public push for the impeachment of George W. Bush?
Not yet, no. Insufficient grounds have been found as of yet. I won't dismiss the prospect with the current NSA issues as well as a potential (albeit unlikely) fallout from the Abramoff scandal. As for Iraq, I'm with Amlord when I say . I don't like what Bush did, and I don't think he was always straight with the American people about his intentions, but that simply isn't impeachable in my book, just dishonest. And he has a ton of unwitting accomplices from both sides of the aisle if you think Iraq is the grounds for impeachment. I won't dismiss the idea for the wiretapping thing just yet, but the evidence is going to have to be unequivocal.

2. In view of the Vice President's advocacy and close association with many of the impeachable actions and policies, should Vice President Cheney also be impeached?

Part of that is answered in #1. Heck, I trust Cheney a LOT less than Bush, but again I don't know if there is anything to date that would hold enough merit to impeach. Bear in mind, the evidence would have to be of a smoking gun variety the size of a turret on an aircraft carrier of in order for a Republican congress to successfully support articles of impeachment.

I couldn't agree more. Impeachment should be reserved for those situations when it is necessary. I did not agree with the Clinton impeachment, and he was caught red-handed in a lie to a federal judge. So I certainly don't agree to impeach the current President over all the "evidence" or lack thereof.

1. Should the public push for the impeachment of George W. Bush?

Not only do I not think he's done anything impeachable, but given the same choices I had last time and knowing everything I know now, I'd vote for him again. I didn't consider Kerry an acceptable option, nor Badnarik (whom I agreed with on nearly everything but foreign policy, but his extreme isolationism was a deal breaker). Give us better candidates!

But even if I were a Democrat, I'd be against it. It won't go anywhere, and if it does, it'll backfire on you, just as the Clinton impeachment did on Republicans. Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) is right about that.

2. In view of the Vice President's advocacy and close association with many of the impeachable actions and policies, should Vice President Cheney also be impeached?

I reject the premise. There's nothing impeachable here, and I don't have a problem with this administration's policies except for their lack of spending discipline. In fact, I'd prefer Cheney as President to Bush.

I think it goes without saying that the primary impetus behind this question has to do with this single issue. Now, it also goes without saying that full disclosure has never been provided whenever we've entered any war in our history, nor will it ever be the case, nor has it ever been the case anywhere else in history for any country, in any war. So, what's really the objective here? The only logical conclusion would be a decision to impeach any leader who ever conducted any military action anywhere. While I imagine that prospect might appeal to some, I think most would find that that's not really a tenable position. So, then, what's really the point of the question? I think the others issued mentioned might have more merit, but I still think the Iraq situation is what drives the question, and why the above logic renders it moot.

Now, over 50% (53%) of Americans also think the President should be impeached if he ordered wire taps on citizens without court orders. (Zogby Poll).

This public sentiment for impeachment is extra-ordinary. It is far higher than public support levels for the Clinton impeachment and has reached these levels without any major media coverage and little support from Democratic politicians.

I share this public outrage. Although I don't hold out much hope for this Congress taking such a step, I think it has become the only effective step to curb the power of this over reaching executive. Al Gore, although he doesn't quite call for impeachment, stated the case pretty well in his speech on MLK Day at Constitutional Hall. (Gore Speech).



The threat of impeachment may not lead to actual impeachment nor will impeachment in the House necessarily lead to conviction in the Senate but each stage of the process offers the opportunity of reigning in the all powerful administration and of ending the pernicious doctrine of the "unitary executive."

And when you go to this site it is described as a “grass roots coalition that supports investigation of Bush invasion of Iraq”. To say this is not a “scientific unbiased survey” is probably an understatement.

It remains to be seen if Bush had the power to tap the phones of these folks. I for one thing that if the President (any President) doesn’t have the power (clearly) the congress should give it to him/her immediately.

This article points out some problems with that survey.

First of all, the question is not whether the House should impeach, it is whether the House should "consider" impeachment. Heck, I might tell a pollster that the House should consider it, even if I wouldn't agree on actual impeachment.

The only age group which favored impeachment more than the poll total was those aged 18-29.



Which means the poll favored those with a lower age.

Also, only Democrats favored impeachment more than the total poll results, meaning more Democrats were surveyed.

In addition a similar poll, commissioned by the same "lynch Bush" group which was done by Rasmussen says that only 32% favor impeachment. In fact, 52% of pollees said that would unfavorably view a candidate who would consider impeachment.

1. Should the public push for the impeachment of George W. Bush?

I'll go along with most everyone else who's posted and say, "no". However, there is certainly enough evidence justifying an independent council. I think a wide-ranging investigation is appropriate to settle allegations of wrong-doing once and for all.

1.) Victoria Silverwolf hit the nail on the head by asking the question "why bother?" At this point, an internal federal shake-up would be pointless and semi-unnecessary.

2.) Speculative at best. If the president is impeached by Congress then Cheney should certainly shake in his boots, but at this time I again cannot help but ask "why bother?" The only thing to be gained from this is political victory. Like all impeachments in the past, it is not for the good of the American people, but for staunch political reasoning. I'll answer part of question one here: if the people were really so unimpressed with the president's tactics, it would not be a debate here: it would be on the evening news as actually occurring.

1. Should the public push for the impeachment of George W. Bush?

I do not think there are grounds at present. there should be several investigation getting up and going at this time IMO, but I don't think that the march to war in Iraq is an example of it. I think it was bad leadership and bad policy, but that is far below a standard that should be used for the impeachment process.

In terms of the getting the ball rolling snippet quoted at the beginning of the thread, I think Congress is abrogating its responsibilities of oversight at present. Their are many disturbing elements of the secret conduct of the American government during this open-ended war on terror. I would like to see more investigation and openness about some of the apparent areas of executive misconduct. The American public deserves this. And then we can have a philosophical and legal debate about the broad interpretation of executive powers being applied (but generally, I believe, in good faith) But these expansive statements of executive power are troubling and need to be examined and tested somewhere.

2. In view of the Vice President's advocacy and close association with many of the impeachable actions and policies, should Vice President Cheney also be impeached?

To this point I see no impeachable offences. The "offenses" that are out there should be handled in the voting booth not in impeachment hearings.

Your premise is horribly flawed. Bushco has done no such thing. In fact, their line is, "This is perfectly legal," and no one has proved they're wrong.

Now look, I get it. You really, really, really hate Bush and no matter how many times you call him a moron nothing you accuse him of ever sticks (Voter fraud 2000, 2002, 2004 - AWOL - Iraq - Plame - Katrina - Wire Taps) and it should because you just know you're smarter than he is... yet nothing ever sticks.

Impeachment isn't an option. You have to actually catch him doing something impeachable and have proof beyond "you're pretty sure he did it." I think the Impeachment of Bill Clinton was a total waste of time - but let's face it - the guy stared into the camera and lied and then played word games with IS...

In 2 years you can try to hire a guy from your side but, seriously listen to me, if you bring up 2000 again you will marginalize yourself and your party further than it is now. As it stands you're going to lose seats in this election.

Stop wasting time with this impeachment fantasy and get cracking on keeping the country from being Right/Right/Right for the next 4 decades. Please. It's important.

Unlike the FISA Act, which is very clear about Warrants, there can be honest debate regarding whether or not Clinton lied/committed perjury.

I for one do not consider a EDIT to be sex. And if I were asked the same question as Clinton was, I would also respond similarly.

Clinton should have fought his conviction with an appeal; because I don’t think any individual can prove that a EDIT is sex.

It’s as ludicrous as trying to claim that a EDIT is sex.


Edited to remove vulgar sexual references.

Except for Curtis Bradley, Duke Law School, former Counselor on International Law in the State Department Legal Adviser's Office; David Cole, Georgetown University Law Center; Walter Dellinger, Duke Law School, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel and Acting Solicitor General; Ronald Dworkin, NYU Law School; Richard Epstein, University of Chicago Law School, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution; Philip B. Heymann, Harvard Law School, former Deputy Attorney General; Harold Hongju Koh, Dean, Yale Law School, former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, former Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, DOJ; Martin Lederman, Georgetown University Law Center, former Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, DOJ; Beth Nolan, former Counsel to the President and Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel; William S. Sessions, former Director, FBI, former Chief United States District Judge; Geoffrey Stone, Professor of Law and former Provost, University of Chicago; Kathleen Sullivan, Professor and former Dean, Stanford Law School; Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law School; and William Van Alstyne, William & Mary Law School, former Justice Department attorney - plus anyone else with even a passing familiarity with the rule of law and the United states Constitution. If you have not done so already, you should read the letter to Congress written by the above. It can be found here.

President Bush has broken the law. He has admitted to breaking the law. He has stated that it is his intention to go on breaking the law. He believes it is his divine right to break the law. George W Bush is a criminal despot and anyone who is not now pushing for his impeachment hates America. I am, of course, borrowing the terminology of those who support President Bush and find our Constitution a bit of a nuisance. Except, in this case, it's true. No one - no one - can endorse the President's actions in relation to illegal wiretapping and claim to respect the founding principles of this country. Period.


1. Should the public push for the impeachment of George W. Bush?

Only those sectors of the public that believe in the laws and Constitution of the United States of America. Everyone else should sit back and wait for even more people to be spied on, apprehended, imprisoned, tortured, and disappeared without a shred of oversight or accountability - not to mention due process. To be honest, I remain convinced that George W Bush is the most clueless man ever to have occupied the Oval Office and that he doesn't even know the difference between right and wrong, legal and illegal, day and night. But ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. The question of his impeachment, in a sane, rational society, would not even be a question - it would be in progress.

2. In view of the Vice President's advocacy and close association with many of the impeachable actions and policies, should Vice President Cheney also be impeached?

I would say yes, but that would be a tad preemptive. He should probably first be given the opportunity to prove that, as president, he would every bit as despotic and dismissive of US law as Bush. I am as certain as anyone that Cheney is far more culpable in relation to this this administration's crimes than the gormless Bush, but he has been pretty careful about keeping his hands clean. I suspect, though, that it would only take about thirty-seven seconds from the time that he took the oath of office until he, too, started publicly defecating on our balance of powers and using the Constitution as toilet paper. Those who believe they are above the law don't tend to be very subtle.

As Wertz pointed out OF COURSE there are grounds to impeach GW=

and it is sad that the Republican party- so out for blood on Clinton for no real thing, when no US citizen was adversely affected by what even his initial accusations were- are so unwilling to go against this guy- when there are probably 30 or 40 very egregious reasons to go after GW-

Even worse still! - there has been no credible investigatin, independent investigation, with real teeth and budget, by the right wing in general or republicans specifically- and that is where the hypocrisy of the right truly lies-

If you were supportive of the 88 millioin dollar fishing expeditioni that started with whitewater and ended with a sex scandal- why, if you are pro-GW now- are you not supporting an 88 million dollar + investigation of GW now? Where are all these moral pronouncements and "character" issues now?

I would be okay with any investigation run by say, Hillary Clinton, with an unlimited budget and unlimited time, that came up with a big fat 0 except for some personal issue like snorting coke or something.

There are several circular arguments proposed in the document you linked to. The gist is that AUMF *probably* doesn't give Bushco the authority to do what they are doing.

So Bushco has the appropriate wiggle room, yet again.

Before making such sweeping pronouncements, you might want to consider what one of the founders - and in particular one of the most libertarian and government-fearing of the founders, Thomas Jefferson - had to say on the subject:

What are the circular arguments? How are they circular? That is certainly not the "gist" of the argument. The "gist" is that the AUMF does not give Bushco the authority to do what they are doing.

Congress has the explicit constitutional authority to regulate the actions of the military via statutes like FISA. As Commander in Chief of the military, the President is bound by these regulations. There is no constitutional conflict between FISA regulations (established under Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution) and Presidential authority (under Article II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution). FISA deals very specifically with wartime surveillance. The general language of the AUMF can't be construed as altering existing regulations regarding wartime surveillance -- "necessary and appropriate" can certainly be construed, however, as meaning that such force should be used in accordance with existing regulations regarding military actions in wartime. It is clear -- and the DOJ admits this -- that Congress would never have authorized this program. And it is true what they say in the article about construing statutes... general language must not be construed in such a way that it creates a constitutional conflict. This means that the government can't construe the general language of the AUMF in such a way that it creates a conflict with the Fourth Amendment.

I see nothing in that argument that is circular.

Blackstone,

There is that word again... necessity. Why was it a necessity to violate FISA?



To answer the questions:

1. Yes, the public should most definitely push for his impeachment. This is a clear violation of law and one that has been admitted to by the President himself.

2. I wish we could... but, being Vice President, Cheney's hands are pretty clean. There'd have to be a smoking gun there.

I see no problem with my "sweeping pronouncement" in relation to that quote - nor, I suspect, would Jefferson. Indeed, I believe Jefferson (who must be doing cartwheels in his grave at this point) would be among the first - if not the first - to initiate impeachment proceedings against Mr. Bush. These wiretaps were not "of necessity" - and they could have been garnered legally (assuming, of course, that they were for the purposes so far stated - though there is evidence to suggest that the wiretaps were requested well before September 11, 2001). The bottom line is that there was no need for the president to break the law. At least, not for the reasons being offered.

Further, the right-wing cowards who are crying, "Oh, but the president needs to break the law to protect us from the big, bad terrorists" are so fearful that they seem to have no consideration of the consequences of such presidential lawlessness. The question of wiretapping is not the issue. No one should have a problem with wiretapping if it is in the interest of national security - and no one would have denied the president the authority to have instituted such taps, had they been "of necessity". But the president didn't even seek the authority. He behaved like an autocrat - with no authority and no accountability. It is an extraordinarily dangerous precedent for any head of state to set. And it is indefensible - even by Jeffersonian quotes devoid of context.


And, entspeak, you are quite right: there is nothing circular in the legal argument put forward by Bradley, et al. In fact, legal arguments don't come much more black and white. Anyway, the president's entire defense of warantless wiretaps is specious. "Wartime powers" simply do not exist without a war resolution. The AUMF is by no stretch of anyone's imagination a formal war resolution. The presidential rationalization simply doesn't wash - and is no excuse for criminal acts.

Even if this were a war and the President had "wartime powers", he would still be bound by FISA which specifically deals with wartime warrantless surveillance. The President, as Commander in Chief of the Miltary is bound by regulations established by Congress under Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution.

The tone of your entire post suggests that you never were willing to give any kind of serious consideration to those reasons to start with. Your only criterion seems to be that you don't like Bush, and so whatever he was doing, he was guilty of abusing his power. But just in case I'm wrong about you, I'll say that the reasons that I've seen offered have not been entirely implausible. This column, for example, makes some decent points for debate - at least, for debate among people who don't display a vehement intolerance for any views but their own. One of the several points raised about current law:



By the way, I looked over your "evidence" link, and I don't see how it supports the contention that the specific wiretaps in question were requested before 9/11. All it is is a general statement of goals the NSA wanted to accomplish, in terms of legislation, funding, organization, etc.


I don't know what you mean by a "formal" war resolution, but as Hamdi v Rumsfeld shows, the Supreme Court, speaking through Justice O'Connor, definitely regarded it as a war resolution.

I completely agree with your sentiment. And so do 52% of Americans, according to a January Zogby poll.

In a the most recent January 2006 Zogby poll, 52% thought Bush should be impeached. Below is a copy of the Zogby poll.



The link to this article can also be found at: Zogby Poll

So why aren't leading Democrats calling for his impeachment, if they have such clear public support? Answer: Because they know how loaded the poll question was, which made the results virtually useless. The question asked if Bush should be impeached if he wiretapped Americans without a warrant. If you answer No, that's saying that you think he should be free to wiretap Americans all he wants, which obviously very few people believe.

If you want scientifically significant results, ask them if they think he should be impeached for what he's actually done. If you think the numbers would be the same, then surely you wouldn't have a problem with a poll that phrases it that way, would you?

Carl Bernstein, one of the investigative reporters who uncovered the Watergate coverup, has just published an article inVanity Fair calling for a select committee to investigate the President and the Vice President with impeachments as a possible outcome.

(See Bernstein Article).

In the article the veteran reporter makes the case for why it might be good politics for Republican members of Congress to support such an investigation.

More questionable behavior has been discovered since I responded to the question of impeachment. I am still against it, but not for the reasons given in this thread by others.

I am against impeachment because it is a meaningless thing. An impeached president still retains power, still gets paid, still gets the pension, still gets the library. Impeachment is what? A scolding? An historical black mark? It only costs the taxpayer more money while the jerks get away with all sorts of tricks.

We don't punish presidents unless we take thir powers away. That's the way of our form of government, and so there you go. I would be for impeachment if there was some kind of punishment in it, such as docking pay or lifting the pension, maybe even denying the library. How about a floating fine of 99% of all future income to make up for wasted tax dollars? Something more tangible than a little shameful thing that goes into history books.

Besides, impeachment would suck up prime media space, and way more important things are going on in the world. I'm against impeachment because not only is it meaningless and expensive, it makes for boring news.

Well, what have we learned though? That we cannot trust what this administration says. Careful interpretation has to be done, such as:

"Did you authorize the leaks?"

"Nobody in my administration has leaked any classified information."

"How about just recently declassified information that you conveniently released just in the nick of time and just the information that was leaked?"

"It's not a leak to use declassified information in public media."

"Okay, then did you declassify the information to damage so-and-so's credibility?"

"It's the President's choice to declassify information whenever the President feels like it. I don't have to give a reason. This is a right-to-declassify country."

"Fine, Mr. President. I think we get your drift. Are you planning any other ad hoc declassifications in order to discredit your critics?"

"Well, as a matter of fact -- hey! You're trying to trick me!"

"How about that, Mr. Slippery, I mean, Prez."

I think you are laboring under a misunderstanding of the impeachment process. If a president (or other official) is impeached (charged) by a vote in the House of Representatives and convicted by a vote of 2/3rds of the Senate, he is indeed removed from office and forbidden to hold any future office. No president has ever been convicted by the Senate. After the Civil War, Andrew Johnson was impeached (charged) by the House but acquitted by the Senate by a single vote and continued to serve in a weakened status. Richard Nixon was impeached by the House and resigned facing almost certain conviction by the Senate. Clinton was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate and left office with his popularity intact. The impeachments of Johnson and Clinton were politically motivated and unfortunate acts. The impeachment of Nixon was totally justified and essential for the continuation of the Republic. I would argue that the impeachment of Bush and Cheney is even more essential for the survival of the constitutional system. Even a select committee investigation that took testimony under oath and which only led to censure would be worthwhile. However, I am convinced that once a careful investigation was done the horrendous crimes of this administration would be revealed to the general public and political pressure would make a conviction likely.

President Nixon was not impeached. The House Judiciary Committee approved 21-17 on July 30, 1974 to send articles of impeachment before the full House of Representatives. On Friday, August 9, Nixon resigned the presidency and avoided the likely prospect of losing the impeachment vote in the full House and a subsequent trial in the Senate.

1. Should the public push for the impeachment of George W. Bush?

No. As of yet there is nothing to impeach him on. I think what the public is expressing is buyer's remorse. So sad. too bad. The process of impeachment because of public dislike would be too disruptive to the country and weakens our position as a law-abiding nation of morals and process. However, if something comes out to indicate that Bush knowingly lied to the public for his own ends regarding the war, or broke the law unambiguously, then impeachment would strengthen our nation (i.e. we will bring anyone to justice, even if it is our president).

I would fully support an investigation on the supposed crimes of this president. I expect them to come up with nothing. I personally believe he lied and continues to dissemble at will, but proving it is another matter.

2. In view of the Vice President's advocacy and close association with many of the impeachable actions and policies, should Vice President Cheney also be impeached?

If Bush were to be impeached for reasons stated above, Cheney's actions would have to be considered independently.


Here's a question back at ya: Should we have a process by which to remove a president by vote of no confidence? It's a tough call. On one hand, nations that repeal their government at will are relatively unstable. However, if the people are truly for removing an administration (impeachment being the method bandied about now) but their elected representatives choose not to pursue it, then perhaps we need a mechanism to override the republic and put the power back in democracy.

You are correct. I was careless in my review of impeachments. I'm surprised I made this error even in a quick response because I followed the unravelling of the Nixon Administration from the first news of the Watergate breakin to its culmination in his resignation.

Oh. Okay then, full speed ahead! Except Congress is controlled by the Repubs. Whoa, throttle back. First get both houses of Congress in 2006, then pull out all the stops.

Thanks for setting this record straight. I no longer must labor

Carl Bernstein has written a piece in the current edition of Vanity Fair calling for a bipartisan investigation of the Bush Administration.

Here’s a link to an online version of the story.

http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/conte...es/060417roco03

Bernstein seems to think that any move against Bush might and should come from Republicans.

Keith Olbernmann interview Bernstein on last night’s Countdown. Here is part of that interview:



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12388563/

Bernstein it’s probably right. It’s a long shot. To paraphrase the old saying, if Republicans dispatching Bush seems to good to be true, it probably isn’t. Still BoF’s law might yet apply. "If the little rats feel threatened enough, they might rise up and throw the big rat overboard."

BTW: Bush’s poll numbers continue to plummet. Even Rasmussen now shows Bush more than a 20 percentage point down.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Ah, the "decider-in-chief" inches ever closer to Nixon territory.

Thanks BoF, I linked the Bernstein article in Post #28 above and sought to generate some discussion around it. I don't blame you for missing it, the intervening posts totally ignored it. Maybe your interview and excerpts will generate more discussion.

Believe me, the odds were just as long against impeaching Nixon when we first started!

For poll trends and comparisons, I like:

Flush Bush and

Nixon-Clinton-Bush Comaparison

While I appreciate the efforts of Carl Bernstein - and, even more, those of Lewis Lapham in Harper's magazine - the evidence justifying the impeachment and conviction of George W Bush was first substantially argued by former Attorney General Ramsey Clark in January of 2003 when he drew up Articles of Impeachment against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft.

A more comprehensive effort was completed by the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff last December. If anyone doubts that there is substantial evidence of crime on behalf of this administration, they simply need peruse the Judiciary Commitee report, The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Coverups in the Iraq War.

In Chapter IV, Legal Analysis, they summarize the crimes of the Bush administration: violation of 18 U.S.C. §371 (at least seven counts); violation of 18 U.S.C. §793-94; violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001 (two counts); violation of the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148; violation of laws prohibiting the Misuse of Government Funds, 31 U.S.C. §1301 (at least three counts); violation of the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. §2302; and violations of domestic laws and international treaty obligations including the Anti-Torture Statute, 18 U.S.C. §2339; the War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. §2441; the Geneva and Hague Conventions; the Convention Against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment; and the legal principle of command responsibility. And that's not to mention possible violations of the Obstruction of Congress Act, 18 U.S.C. §1505; the Lloyd-La Follette Act, 5 U.S.C. §7211;the Retaliation Against Witnesses Act, 18 U.S.C. §1513; and additional violations of 18 U.S.C. §371 and the Misuse of Government Funds Act, 31 U.S.C. §1301.

For each of these crimes, they provide substantial evidence - not speculation, not partisan spin, substantial evidence. Anyone who argues that there is no evidence of impeachable acts on behalf of this administration - and George W Bush (whether knowingly or as a dupe of his handlers) - is simply uninformed.

I disagree with Victoria Silverwolf's argument that this would be a "waste of time" in the strongest possible terms - even were impeachment proceedings to fail. We either live under the rule of law or we don't. We either expect our leaders to obey our laws or we don't. We either honor international treaties to which we are signatories or we don't. We either expect the Constitution of the United States of America to be upheld or we don't. I know where I stand on each of these. I also know where the defenders of this administration stand.

This is not - and never has been - a partisan issue for me. I hated Ronald Reagan with every fiber of my being - I hold him personally responsible for the deaths of many of my friends and loved ones - but I never once suggested that he should be impeached. George W Bush, so far as I'm concerned, scarcely even exists - there's nothing there to hate. Were he simply dishonest or incompetent, I would have no argument. But he is dishonest, incompetent, and a criminal. Not to initiate impeachment proceedings would be a national disgrace - and a conclusive demonstration that, as a people, we simply no longer care.

Wertz, well said! I didn't mean to imply any particular originality or comprehensiveness to the statements by Elizabeth Holzman and Carl Bernstein. They were merely prominent personalities from the Nixon impeachment proceedings that made statements indicating the need to begin the process again. You are entirely right in pointing out both the earlier and the far more comprehensive list of impeachable offenses.

It is important, however, to keep the public sentiment for impeachment building and to use it to pressure Congress to begin investigations. Quite a bit is now happening on the local and state level supporting impeachment. (See Impeachment from Below). If the Republicans in Congress don't act, as the probably won't, it is up to all of us to make the 2006 election a referendum on impeachment.

Purely on a legal basis, a vast program of unwarranted spying on the private communications of citizens obviously merits impeachment. It won't happen, of course, given the state of the national polity. This merely demonstrates that, contrary to what is often asserted, we are not always a nation ruled by law. It also demonstrates that many self-proclaimed advocates of "small government" and defenders of "freedom" are not so at all.

Well said Wertz: certain Democrats want Bush, Cheney, and probably every other Republican impeached.

Notice that your cited report also says that at a minimum, the Congress should censure the President. What happened when certain Congressmen introduced a censure bill against the President: they were shouted down by people in their own party!! link

So if there is little support for censure, how can there be support for impeachment?

John Conyers has introduced his Articles of Impeachment. To date, he has 31 supporters. Time to throw a party, I guess.

The fact that Conyers' "detailed finding of fact" leads off with the Downing Street Memo, the interpretation of one agent who isn't even affiliated with the US government, says a lot. Sorry if I don't believe that Bush finalized his decision to go to war based upon the uncorroborated statement of one British agent.

Conyers follows up the Downing Street memo with his "avenging the father" motif followed by "working with neo-cons". I'm sorry, but these types of statements insult the intelligence. Rumor and innuendo do not a case make and it is not illegal to associate with neocons.

Conyers sums up his report by asking for several things, including that the President be forced to submit a report on pardons (clearly unConstitutional, but I wonder if Conyers would have supported that in the Clinton years?) and that the US submit to the power of the ICC.

Just throw the kitchen sink in already...

1. Bush is a Jimmy Carter clone. A personally affable fellow who is totally out of his depth as POTUS. The chickens have finally come home to roost as he is reaching Richard Nixon era popularity polling numbers. That said, there's a world of difference between a president being unpopular with a majority of citizens and being so dishonest, dysfunctional, incompetent or corrupt as to warrant impeachment. The public yawned with disinterest at Senator Feingold's attempt to censure the President. There's NO sentiment to impeach Bush beyond the Move On.org crowd.

2. There's a bumper sticker that reads "Impeach Cheney first." There's no sense of getting rid of President Bush if all it does is give us President Cheney. That's one thing that Junior learned from Daddy Bush; never pick a vice-president that presents a better alternative to the top guy.

With Republicans in charge of the House (where impeachment has to start) and Senate, there's NO chance of getting rid of Bush and/or Cheney barring some heinous crime so overt even the right-wing zombies in Congress couldn't ignore it.

Not only should Bush be impeached, but Bush will be impeached after the 2006 mid-term elections produce a Democratic controlled House and Senate. Bush clearly knew the facts about WMDs before the election of 2004. He waited until a year and a half later to be honest about it, almost halfway into his second term. Had Bush come out and said this during the election year he would have risked losing the election, which proves that maintaining his power was more important than honesty. Politicians are only honest when it is convenient and George W. Bush is no exception. We now know there were no weapons. The Congress still voted to grant the President the authority to use force. What we do not know for a fact is if the President and his advisers intentionally left out contradictory information to disprove his reasoning for invasion. That is the question that should be posed to the 36% of Americans who still approve of President Bush. If the Administration disregarded contradictory intelligence in order to gain public support for invading Iraq would you vote for impeachment?

That's not 100% accurate actually. There is a little known, and never used rule that a joint resolution from a state can force the House to start impeachment proceedings.

From section 603 of Jefferson's Manual (part of the House rules) link (PDF):


Currently there are resolutions for impeachment of Bush in Illinois and of both Bush and Cheney in California as amendments to Assembly Joint Resolution No. 39 which discusses depleted uranium.

There is also an active campaign to get this going in other states. If just one of these resolutions passes then impeachment proceedings will begin.

I wouldn't call that a "Rule" more like a precedent. There was a case in 1903 where the Legislature of Florida passed a joint resolution to impeace a certain Judge Swayne. A Congressman from Florida used that as the basis of his call for impeachment of the judge and the House used that as a method of bypassing the Judiciary Committee. The charges against Judge Swayne seemed to be politically motivated ( ) and although he was impeached in the House, the Senate found him not guilty on all counts.

The fact remains that Articles of Impeachment must pass the full House in order to impeach any federal officer, including the President. What any state legislature does is not really material, although it can be used as supporting grounds, since only the House of Representatives may impeach the President and only the Senate may conduct the trial.

I can't think of a better way to ensure high Republican turnout in swing states than to promise impeachment proceedings upon taking the House. The Democrats have less seats in the House of Representatives than since any time since, what, 1948? And they are going to gain NET 16 seats by promising to impeach the President? Just FYI, the Clinton and Nixon crises were not the nation's finest moments. We have no desire to repeat them, even if Chimpy McHitler is sitting in the oval office. Not. Gonna. Happen.


To paraphrase Joe Trippi (Howard Dean's campaign manager), the Democrat's 30-year death spiral appears likely to continue through '06... Perhaps you forget that Bush gained 9 million votes from 2000 to 2004, and Kerry only gained 1 million vs. Gore+Nader four years prior? Or is it a split in the Democratic Party that you seek? This move would be truly suicidal for the Democrats. It's one thing to talk and bluster about it on your blog or whatever, but to suggest impeachment as a serious political consideration would just remind people why they elected the grownups.

1. Should the public push for the impeachment of George W. Bush?

Well, they shouldn't, no. But after seeing a Senior Democrat whose judgement in the past I have respected (Jane Harman) say something like this on Sunday:

"The President seems to think that he has powers that no one else has..."

Uh, yeah, Senator, he also has "commander in chief" powers that no one else has...and let's not forget that he has the telekinesis and the mind-control to make all of the Democrats talk about Iraqi WMD on television back when he was Governor of Texas...

I think that the media confusion over "leaks" and "Plame" and "domestic spying" and whatever is so overwhelming that John Q Public will never be able to form an unbiased opinion on the matter. I do, however, believe that John and Jane Q Public do not want to impeach President Bush. Despite the ratings. With the new chief of staff, maybe Bush will get smart and the image will improve by November. Things couldn't get worse, so this seems likely.

You make it sound as if John Q Public is being hood-winked by the media. And that because of all the confusion, they can't figure out Bush is really doing a great job.

I think people are indeed NOT confused at all. What people are contending with are fewer good paying jobs, skyrocketing gas prices, Mexicans marching thru our streets and spitting in our faces and a miserable, miserable, miserable foreign policy.

Bush has miserable ratings for a good reason, not a left-wing conpsiracy media.

And I keep hearing how Americans don't want Bush impeached. What do you base that on? If Congress becomes overwhelmingly democratic and all these panels surface that are investigating 9/11 lies and misleading us to war, or these indictments push forward against White House officials, I think people will be salivating at the chance to impeach Bush.

And it can't get worse? Are you serious? How about $5/gas prices? How about Iran enriching uranium?

I just don't understand the Bush apologists. This guy is a horrible leader in a time when we need one of the best.

Well, I certainly don’t think that he’s “doing a great job,” so I don’t see why you are saying this. What I meant was that all of the “confusion” that would surround grounds for impeachment. If we impeached every unpopular president, this would undermine our very democracy. Think Italy, without the cool clothes and fast cars.


“Fewer good paying jobs?” Please cite your source and be specific because you could not be more wrong.

As for gas prices, yes they are approaching the inflation-adjusted all-time high set in 1981, but “skyrocketing” is a little dramatic.

And do you think that Mexicans “spitting in our faces” will make people want to impeach the president? He and President Fox are best buddies, but the Democrats would be chanting “sí, se puede” to the “amnestia” and enabling those protestors to get what they want, as long as it increases Democratic voter registrations.

Where do you keep hearing this? I’ve never heard this on a newscast; all I hear are “polls” and articles where Americans are starting to “discuss” and “consider” impeachment. Please help me understand.


That’s a pretty big IF my friend. As I pointed out in my post above, when the Dems gain NET 16 seats in the House, it will not be in 2006. The Daily Kos is something like 1-for-23 in endorsing Democratic winners, so let’s not go drinking the Moveon.org blue kool-aid just yet friends. We’ve been hearing these predictions every year since 1996 after Newt “shut the government down”


Again, the alternative to Republicans (currently) is Democrats. Their plan for high gas prices and nuclear Iran is what exactly? Kerry and Pelosi tell me that they are going to be "smart" and "tough." Wait, "smarter" and "tougher."

In 2008, we will have another Presidential election. Feel free to register, vote, campaign, etc.

Even after the Watergate break-in and the appointment of a special prosecutor Nixon's approval rating remained above 40%. Only with John Dean's testimony to the Senate select committee did his ratings drop to the mid 30s (equivalent to GWBs numbers now). Granted it took the revelation of the Whilte House recording system, the refusal to turn over the tapes, the firing of the special prosecutor (and others), and the content of the tapes themselves to get the House Judiciary Committee to pass articles of impeachment. The point is, however, that nothing would have transpired if the Congress and the special prosecutor had failed to investigate. (Compare these graphs with this timeline).

Granted, the impeachment proceeding against Nixon weren't our finest hour. However, that is true because of the abuses of power by the Nixon Administration not the impeachment effort. Some balance was restored to our constitutional system as a consequence of the process.

The abuses of power by this administration are more serious than those of the Nixon Administration. After all, Bush openly asserts that he is above the law and has behaved accordingly. The only thing worse than impeaching him and his VP is to not make the attempt!

So people are confused, so they don't want an impeachment? Is that your point? I think most Americans are very reactionary and if pressed would opt for an impeachment. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that that's not what I think how Americans in general think.



"Candidates who choose to boast about positive economic developments will need to be prepared to discuss what they would do about a variety of serious matters.

These include corporate downsizing and layoffs; outsourcing of jobs; the decline in employer-provided health care and retirement plans; fewer good-paying jobs for people who are not college graduates; the high cost of housing; higher energy costs; higher interest rates; the growing divide between the rich and poor; the economic threat posed by illegal immigration, free trade policies, and the continued emergence of China and India in the global economy. "

http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/04/the_cqpo...m_will_the.html

You can also track real wages against increasing inflation.

I couldn't be more wrong? Please cite YOUR sources, thank you.



A little dramatic? I don't run CNN or Fox or any other major news organization, maybe you need to talk them. Denial isn't a river in Egypt, btw.



Yes, I think it makes Bush look bad. Regardless of what democrats would do, it still makes Bush look bad.



I've heard pundits, for example Jerry Springer just this morning on Air America saying it would be a huge blunder to suggest impeachment by democrats.



Regardless, do you not agree? Do you think if the lies of the Iraq war and 9/11 come to the forefront that Americans wouldn't overwhelmingly push for impeachment?



Does that matter? You said it couldn't get worse. Now you're defending a different position? I'm just saying it can get worse. If you have incompetence, you opt for a change, no? I wasn't arguing for democrats just rebutting your claim things can't get worse. They can.

You jumped right to an assumption..... and an incorrect one.
I never suggested, nor would I suggest, that Democrats use impeachment as a campaign issue. Do not put words in my mouth.... or in this case, on my screen.

It is clear that Americans are unhappy with Congress and the direction in which the country is going. It is possible, regardless of all the gerrymandering, for the Democrats to take over the House and Senate. I voted Republican and will not vote for a Republican Senator or Congressman in the next election. I am turned off by the increase in poverty, reduction in real wages, increase in gas prices at the pump and in the home, lies about the war, corruption in Congress, and the disdain by this administration of anything that resembles a democratic process. I would surmise that I am not unique in my unhappiness.

When a President is a criminal, or if it is found out that he neglected intelligence in order to invade Iraq, then it is Congress' obligation to impeach him and anyone involved. Regardless of whether or not it is a "fine moment." That is a weak excuse to forego an impeachment process.