Raising the Issue
of Impeachment
By John Nichols
thenation.com
All I can say is, it's about time
someone on the Hill demands accountability from the crooks who have
hi-jacked our country! Thank you John Conyers! I can't believe the
Downing Street Memo wasn't enough to reveal their nefarious intentions
early on… to top that, it's now completely obvious (to me) that Bush,
Rove, Cheney and Libby all had a hand in the outing of the CIA
operative, Valerie Plame. When will it end?. The corporate media is
just as culpable for letting them get away with anything and
everything.
At a time when we are seeing an
attack on our civil liberties like never before and cuts are being made
to social programs who help the most vulnerable in our society, I find
it ironic that the radical right has been so concerned with keeping
“under God” in the pledge of allegiance and yet they conveniently
ignore the last sentence; “with liberty and justice for all.” What an
oxymoran… Even Orwell would be amazed!
President Bush and his aides scramble to explain new revelations
regarding Bush's authorization of spying on the international telephone
calls and emails of Americans, the ranking Democrat on the House
Judiciary Committee, has begun a process that could lead to the
censure, and perhaps the impeachment, of the president and vice
president.
U.S.
Representative John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who was a critical
player in the Watergate and Iran-Contra investigations into
presidential wrongdoing, has introduced a package of resolutions that
would censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney and create a
select committee to investigate the Administration's possible crimes
and make recommendations regarding grounds for impeachment.
The
Conyers resolutions add a significant new twist to the debate about how
to hold the administration to account. Members of Congress have become
increasingly aggressive in the criticism of the White House, with U.S.
Senator Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, saiying Monday, “Americans have
been stunned at the recent news of the abuses of power by an
overzealous President. It has become apparent that this Administration
has engaged in a consistent and unrelenting pattern of abuse against
our Country's law-abiding citizens, and against our Constitution.” Even
Republicans, including Senate Judiciary Committee chair Arlen Specter,
R-Pennsylvania, are talking for the first time about mounting
potentially serious investigations into abuses of power by the
president.
But
Conyers is seeking to do much more than schedule a committee hearing,
or even launch a formal inquiry. He is proposing that the Congress use
all of the powers that are available to it to hold the president and
vice president to account – up to and including the power to impeach
the holders of the nation's most powerful positions and to remove them
from office.
The
first of the three resolutions introduced by Conyers, H.Res.635, asks
that the Congress establish a select committee to investigate whether
members of the administration made moves to invade Iraq before
receiving congressional authorization, manipulated pre-war
intelligence, encouraged the use of torture in Iraq and elsewhere, and
used their positions to retaliate against critics of the war.
The select committee would be asked to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
To read the rest of the article, click here:
Blog For Iowa 
For another side of the story, visit this link: http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-12_26_05_MB.html
This is hardly a cut-and-dried issue, as the MSM would have you believe.
LikeLike
Doug: What does the link have to do with the article posted?
LikeLike
Read it and find out. 🙂
LikeLike
Doug: I did. That's why I asked the question. The issues raised in the post by John, and the issues raised in the article link you posted, have no connection. . . . Or, do they? If so, what is the connection?
LikeLike
The connection (if I may speak out for Doug's possible intention with the posted link) is the simple point that there is a determined pursuit of an “agenda to undermine the Bush administration regardless of any damage to” [national security] <–insert the next devised "scandal" the liberal media promotes when this one falls flat. My opinion is that there is too much rhetoric in John's article for it to be very interesting.
LikeLike
Netter: Interesting comments. I'd like to point out that John raised the issue of possible impeachment relating to whether or not “members of the administration made moves to invade Iraq before receiving congressional authorization, manipulated pre-war intelligence, encouraged the use of torture in Iraq and elsewhere, and used their positions to retaliate against critics of the war.”
You and Doug seem to be implying that the secret directive to engage in domestic wiretapping without court order (pre or post) is an issue without merit. Is that your positions? Before you respond, let me point you to the white house statements on the matter:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
On April 20, 2004, in Buffalo, New York, Bush said: “Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires—a wiretap requires a court order.” He added: “Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.”
http://villagevoice.com/news/0552,schanberg,71325,6.html is a link to a summary of similar statements made by the white house, and also points out that we all need to recognize the issue surrounding our protections against dictators who would abuse our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
LikeLike
One can find a plethora of articles possessing good arguments for both sides of this debate. It does essentially boil down to individual worldviews and personal feelings of trust or suspicion toward the government AND whether the international-domestic phone calls fall neatly and cleanly under the definition of domestic spying. I tend to believe the checks and balances in our government are alive and well, else we would not even be discussing this POTENTIALLY troubling revelation. I think I've read that Congress has conducted the required 45-day reviews of the plan resulting in approval of these war-time “gray” areas. Often there are conflicting requirements in the law that cause these “gray” areas. Impeachment viable? In my mind this instance is not an impeachable offense because of the war against terror and because many of us don't mind some small intrusions of privacy in exchange for security. The legitimacy of this “crime” is undermined by Liberals who are too eager to have a Bush scandal in retribution for the Clinton debacle. I don't believe that the President is guilty of callous disregard for the laws of this country. But rather, in his fervent determination to win the war against terror misses the pothole in the road.
LikeLike
Netter: “In my mind this instance is not an impeachable offense because of the war against terror and because many of us don't mind some small intrusions of privacy in exchange for security.”
I have to assume you don't dispute the issue of our leader [sic] having lied to the American public, and carrying out a secret domestic spying program with no checks or balances in place. Your reference to a 45-day congressional review is not a check or balance, even if it were factual, because it was held in secret. With that in mind, I need to remind you that John did not identify the secret domestic spying program as an impeachable offense, but rather pointed to the issue of Iraq occupation, and the actions carried out by the present administration.
But, all that aside, I wonder about your quote above, that you'd be agreeable to a “little” violation of our right to protection against unwarranted search and seizure, in the name of fighting terrorism. You seem to feel (correct me if I'm misunderstanding you) that our government is entitled to act in secret, and create programs that spy on citizens without checks and balances, without providing any form of due process for those affected (that's you). When you think about it, that “little” secret program can't be effective, unless it is able to operate to exclude all those who are NOT related to the war on terrorism. Such a program needs to ramp up to cover everyone, all the time. If, tomorrow, your loyalty shifts to one that supports a terrorist organization, the rest of us need to know. And, to that end, we all need to be able to help get you off the street, so-to-speak. Hmmm. Let's just hope something the secret program folks picks up from you, isn't misinterpreted, because the next step is to quietly remove you from society, never to return, and without recourse in the courts. Let me be the first to say goodby, Netter, in the event I don't get the opportunity later. 🙂
LikeLike
“I don't like Big Brother anymore than anyone else…but I'd rather be safe and secure and know that I'm not doing anything I shouldn't be doing anyway… ”
Doug: This isn't about who's doing something they shouldn't be doing. The issue is about who is acting in secret to make decisions about what the citizens are doing. Do you really feel secure and safe, knowing there is a staff of nameless folks that can decide at any moment, that you're in need of some life-altering event that removes you, physically, from society, without recourse? What will you think, the day the secret program decides that it's time to have everyone placed in “suitable” jobs? Suppose the next job you want to apply for, is not considered appropriate for you by these folks, and a message is delivered to your hoped-for employer to pass you by? Does such a scenario not fall within the scope of a secret surveillance program designed to protect you, and make you safe and secure? Of course it does. You do the “right” things, and there are suspected terrorist sympathizers in the company you're targeting for a job. The folks in the secret program don't want you polluted with “bad” thoughts, so . . . . no job for you, there, my friend.
Aahh, but such outlandish fantasies serve no good purpose. Better we focus on the real issue. The white house is collecting information about every citizen and deciding what to do with that information, without oversight from those they serve. At what point do we, the voters (who by the way, now vote with a voting system that counts our votes in secret) object?
LikeLike
I really can't believe how anyone can justify all of the outright lies and atrocities that have come out of this administration. And by the way, even if Canada, France and Great Britain is guilty of what you say Doug, when has 4 wrongs ever made a right?
Also, it is a fallacy (if ever there was) that this administration has made us safer by fighting the war on terror because by going into Iraq who had nothing to do with 911 and who had NONE of the stockpiles of weapons that Bush and others touted, by blowing up innocent people, men, women and children, brothers and sisters, moms and dads, we are actually creating more terrorists than ever before… Wear the shoe – Human nature being as it is, what would YOU do if you were just an average Iraqi citizen living in the wrong place at the wrong time, and your loved ones were blown to smithereans… what would YOU do? And that's is exactly the kind of blowback we can expect. The whole world knew that Iraq was already bombed into the stone age from the last Persian Gulf War and isn't it interesting that the American companies are the ones privatizing all of the resources over there, from their water to their oil.
How can you say Bush is protecting us in the name of national security and all when he appoints someone like Michael Brown in charge of disaster management? How can you honestly make that argument given this fact? From Bush's standpoint, it is obviously not WHAT you know but WHO you know. How is that protecting US?
By the way, the liberal media is a myth that the far right keeps trying to perpetuate! Rather, it's the CORPORATE media who serves anyone who feeds their “bottom line” regardless of principle. So much for our fourth estate.
I understand that some degree of fear can be healthy (fight or flight), but if that is the main paradigm from which you operate, if you choose to let fear rule over your life then that is the reality that you create for yourself. You only get out of anything what you put into it. To live in fear is paralyzing and never liberating.
LikeLike
Taxpayer money should not be wasted on pursuit of impeaching this president and the word “lies” or “liar” is too broadly used these days which waters down its meaning considerably. Like him or not, we citizens placed him in a position of leadership, just as we did Clinton. I felt passionately that Clinton's moral compass is terribly skewed but since we elected him, and because I accept that God is the granter of all authority (good and bad alike) I was able to cope with the temporary condition of his leadership. I'm grateful that we can vote to change what turns out to be wrong and didn't we learn quite a lot from those years anyway? Caroline: it is you who operates from fear and paranoia of your own government as opposed to fear of this terrible enemy to our peace: terrorism. You should take a deep breath, calm yourself, look for something good out of the bad that you perceive and patiently await your chance to vote the change. It is disheartening to see how we Americans tear each other down. Any elected American President deserves our encouragement and constructive criticisms. And to Tom I'd say this: the average American is on camera 8-10 times a day which helps in the capture of child abductors and other criminals. How can that not bother you more than random filtering of phone conversations for key words like “bomb”? How often do you use terrorist language in your daily conversation? The bigger threat comes from irrational thinking and exposure of secret tactics for combatting would-be terrorists. Secrecy is sometime very necessary. Business leaders keep secrets from employees, parents keep secrets from children for their protection and so on. Fatalists will promote their fears by predicting the worst-case outcomes as being unavoidable. What I would like to see is some data on how effective wiretapping is in capturing criminals. We have plenty of data on the rise of “spying” since the 70's. But before I get too rankled by the accusations circulating I want to see what results this increased spying has brought.
LikeLike
Netter: You've made statements of fact that might be interesting, but not on point to the issues raised about domestic spying or the actions of the present administration in the occupation of Iraq. I was struck by your comment, “We have plenty of data on the rise of “spying” since the 70's. But before I get too rankled by the accusations circulating I want to see what results this increased spying has brought.” I wonder how you think a secret domestic spying program with no accountability or checks or balances would operate to produce those results for you? Maybe, it would be important to have such information provided to Americans in a transparent environment by those who claim to be “elected”. Keep in mind, recent elections have been held under secret vote count. And, as a sidenote, I hope you don't mistake responsibility and due diligence as excess paranoia on the part of those who might question a secret vote count.
LikeLike
Netter, you confuse fear with disgust! BTW, Bush was NOT elected to office as you say – he was appointed! And the 2nd time around is highly questionable as well given the rampant discrepancies with the electronic voting machines during the last election. The GAO came out on the record and confirmed widespread fraud and said it's so bad we won't have time to fix it by the 2006 elections. And let me tell you something else Netter, just because a person holds an office (of any kind) that is not an excuse to exempt their bad behavior. You're wrong about the word liar – it's not overused in my opinion… it's about time people call things what they ARE! I am disgusted with Bush because of all the damage he has done, and continues to do in this country and others! The list is so long I'm thinking you have to be in denial not to acknowledge the facts… He lied about the stockpiles of weapons (the Downing Street Memo confirms his intentions to manipulate the intelligence), he lied about going through the FISA courts as was already relayed by Tom Poe, he conveniently changed his stance on the outing of Valerie Plame – he initially said he would fire anyone who was involved and then he changed that to anyone who was convicted of a crime (how convenient for him), he lied about Iraq trying to purchase yellowcake from Niger, full well knowing that the document was discredited (but it fit his agenda so well), and he continues to lie about the number of American casualties, only reporting those who are KIA but not those who die as a result of their wounds while in the hospital or even en route… that's just a few examples of what he has lied about – that doesn't even begin to speak to the damage he has done to the environment by softening regulations of mercury emissions and other pollutants as well as his denial of global warming or even science in general, not to mention his all-out attack on our civil liberties. He has ruined our good name abroad and continues to lie about torturing prisoners and he really thinks he is above the law. I have never known such arrogance! He is NOT a good man and he is about as far from being a true Christian as you can get. By their fruits you shall know them… over a hundred thousand lives have been lost due to his choices! Does that not mean anything to anyone???? Most of those people were innocent! Does that not matter to you? And will you please respond to my request to “wear the shoe?” As Benjamin Franklin said, Those who would give up their liberty for security, deserve neither.
LikeLike
Tom: You wrote “Keep in mind, recent elections have been held under secret vote count.” I don't understand that to be true. Where has that been the case? So right you are about the importance of due diligence in keeping our elected officials accountable and I do heartily applaud watchdogs. You also wrote: “I wonder how you think a secret domestic spying program with no accountability or checks or balances would operate to produce those results for you?” I'm not with you on the term “domestic spying program” I would describe the kind of “spying” our government has implemented as international call-monitoring for terrorist activity. And given that we have terror cells embedded stateside, any once-secretive filters resulting with hits on key terrorist terminologies are fine by me. In my limited view, the problem Bush has, could be that current laws didn't include the handling of international-domestic phone call surveillance. Isn't it possible that the interpretation made in Congress could have been incomplete – addressing only domestic to domestic surveillance relative to warrants?
I believe that Bush is unafraid to make hard decisions in a crucial moment (a great leadership quality, btw) and went with “beg forgiveness later”. The most disgusting (to borrow from Caroline) thing about this flap is it has happened ONLY because the Dems didn't want to extend the provisions in the Patriot Act and a well-timed negative “outing” of a secret so-called domestic spying program served very well to procure the result they desired. I view the checks and balances to be working by the fact that the Patriot Act (a war-time, not permanent, tool) undergoes Congressional review for how well it is working.
Caroline: I accept your correction on my description of your disgust as fear. It is obvious that you loathe Bush. Sorry that you can find nothing positive at all about this President, but even more sorry for the divide that your stance creates with fellow citizens who don't have your personal insight into the true heart of this man and believe that he is doing a good job in office. Funny thing about Christians – they come in every degree of spiritual maturity. Makes it a dangerous thing to try and judge one. There were many criticisms listed in your response that are tangents away from the original topic of impeachment. Let me just say that for everything you listed there is an opposing interpretation and that every decision made by every president down through the ages has critics as vehement in their accusations as you are. Right on some things – wrong on some things. Never right on everything. You asked me to respond to your “wear the shoe” comment. With my western worldview and priveleged existence in a free country, I will do my best to wear the shoe of an average Iraqi mother of three sons and a daughter. I'm crying at night because my sons were removed from my home when they turned 9 years old to be trained and indoctrinated by Saddam's army – who will they become? I worry about what things I could accidentally say to warrant my tongue being removed by soldiers who were informed by someone I entrusted with my thoughts and feelings about the government. Deep in my heart I desperately want change, freedom, democracy and there is no one listening to my heart cry. I am afraid and despairing – there is no safety. My daughter shows signs of youthful rebellion against the tyrannical government of my land. Fear grips me that she will be detected and mutilated like her raped and murdered cousin was. I am silent, try to remain unseen, pray. Grieving for my losses… who will dare to change things? When? Caroline, what is war, really? It can be internalized for decades at a cost of innocent lives or it can be waged externally at a cost to innocent ALONG WITH not-so-innocent lives. You choose the former…I choose the latter. I detest all warring and long for permanent peace which you have to understand has a better chance in a democracy than it does with a ruthless dictator like Saddam. Bush's mistake was the vehicle for a chance at Iraqi democracy – I like to believe that God was not absent in all this, empowered it to happen the way that it did. We now need to be about the business of healing torn lives and supporting the new Democratic Iraq. I don't think there is anything more I can say on this subject. I'm exhausted!
LikeLike
“Bush's mistake was the vehicle for a chance at Iraqi democracy – I like to believe that God was not absent in all this, empowered it to happen the way that it did. We now need to be about the business of healing torn lives and supporting the new Democratic Iraq. I don't think there is anything more I can say on this subject. I'm exhausted!”
Netter: Appreciated your creative response to Caroline. Not sure what you meant by using the term, “mistake”, rather than acknowledging what Bush did was without excuse. The man went against everything this country stands for, in order to occupy Iraq. You might be exhausted, but I'm certain there are untold numbers of children in America that want to have you explain why they're being told to forego health care, food, and housing, to pay for the occupation, while the very rich will be enjoying yet more tax cuts.
It's a noble thought that we, as Americans, support the idea of forcing democracy on countries that are governed by dictators. Such a noble thought, though, needs to be measured, certainly in relation to how we live and act at home. I can only point to those in Congress, that now wish they had known in 2002, what they know now, and had a chance to voice the consensus of the citizens of America that we not occupy Iraq, without justification. I can only point to those interviewed following the Katrina hurricane, that wish Bush had not held back the federal response that might have mitigated the tragedy they had to go through. I am specifically thinking back to the “mistake” that Bush made then, by not replacing the troops he used for Iraq with troops to serve our country at home. All recent hurricanes experienced elsewhere in our country, all received federal troop response within hours. In times of local natural disasters or civil disturbances, the Guard stands ready to help.
LikeLike
Netter, I have never read such an example of rationalizing everything unto yourself in order to justify what IS. As someone who tries to live my own life according to the teachings of Christ, the earmark, once again, is “by their fruits you shall know them”… that's all one needs to know when discerning an individual's true character. I do not misjudge Bush. There is nothing wrong with my powers of discernment. I am happy to engage anyone on any topic and no, we may not always agree, sometimes even profusely, and I can easily respect that – coming from a large competitive family, I do understand how that is, but if someone chooses to insult my intelligence by dropping a load of BS on me, I'm going to call it what it is… you can expect that.
LikeLike
Editor's note: I had to remove Doug's comment because the link was too long and was distorting the blog page. Before I removed it, I copied it and pasted it below. So below, you will see Doug's comment in full. The original post by Doug Wagner was posted on 12/28 at 11: 14am, if you're trying to follow the thread. Linda
A couple of things…there's a wonderful editorial from the New York Post entitled:
The Gray Lady Toys With Treason.
It can be read at:
http://politics.yahoo.com/s/
nypost/20051227/cm_nypost/
thegrayladytoyswithtreason
&printer=1;_ylt=AibIvmv1a
EBnGUi52r.SRkVVZ0YC;_ylu
=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-
The other item is something I found in the Washington Post yesterday…
“Spying on e-mail and cell phone traffic without a warrant. Searching offices and residences without a court order. Locking citizens away for weeks or months without filing charges.
“Sound like your worst nightmare about the supposedly lawless Bush administration? Perhaps. But I refer to restrictions on civil liberties that are taking place not in the United States but, in the order in which I cited them, Canada, France and Great Britain,” Thomas Bray writes at http://www.realclearpolitics.com.
“All three countries are cited as moral superiors to the rogue regime in Washington, where the fascist leaders George Bush and Dick Cheney are said to be intent on fastening a reign of terror on the United States. But a brief scan of newspaper Web sites in those countries — something that the American mainstream media could easily have done before unleashing its own reign of terror on unsuspecting readers — reveals that their governments have in many cases gone far beyond where Bush-Cheney could ever dream of going,” Mr. Bray said.
I don't like Big Brother anymore than anyone else…but I'd rather be safe and secure and know that I'm not doing anything I shouldn't be doing anyway…
Doug
LikeLike
Bush – the emperor who will do anything and say anything to gain and hold power – will not quietly go down. What would a cornered escaped felon do with the police surrounding him? Anything.
What would Bush do if the Democrats finally control the House and succeed in impeachment? Anything.
LikeLike
Friends, the discourse we've engaged in appears to have run its course. When I stumbled across this blog (lured by the very attractive Grant Wood-style logo) I felt invited to join you in a decent exchange of opinions, thoughts, and ideas. For the most part, that is what I've experienced here. Thank you for that. I am discovering however that I may have landed in a shark-pit and should leave before blood is drawn. Leaving you all with one final thought: how might a person's innate temperament contribute to his/her alignment with a particular party's philosphies and attitudes? Specifically, would we find – if studied – that Democratically-aligned temperaments have the tendency to be driven by 'feeling' while Republican-aligned temperaments are generally driven by 'rationale' and ne'er the twain shall meet. In my own unofficial observations of the people I know, there seems to be a pattern. Not that one is better than the other – only that I am seeking to find a community that understands one another's temperament and can live in respectful peace together. [sigh] AMEN.
LikeLike
Netter, It is my belief that every person should be judged by the content of their character. I think and feel that it is disengenuous to continue to lump people together under a specific label as if that it all encompassing – it's not. People cannot be reduced down to simply thinking or feeling or conservative or liberal or whatever… most of us embody all of these characteristics and more. What we choose to manifest so often depends upon external factors within our environment (cause and effect). If there is an inbalance in any regard, we should do what we can as individuals to offset that. It's all about the yen and the yang brother.
Your last comment implied that those who feel are irrational while Republicans are rational. It is my contention that while many people are dying as a result of the decisions of others who seem far removed from the magnitude of this reality, they might begin to exemplify true leadership by trying to empathize with those who stand to lose their lives. In order to experience empathy, one must be able to “feel” and experience the energy of the raw emotion. That does not necessarily mean that the feeling individual who chooses to express their emotions is somehow irrational or not able to control them. Nor is it to say that those who “reason” inevitably rationalize unto themselves in order to reinforce what they want to believe.
LikeLike
Some food for thought: http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/bl37.html
LikeLike
Sorry…previous entry should have been, Click on the link titled “Big Story 2005” at the top-right of the page http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/bl37.html
LikeLike