Impeachment Is Not For Punishment, Its to Protect The Nation

[ThomWV]

I am much dismayed by Nancy Pelosi's comment that she did not intend to pursue impeachment of Bush, and one presumes, his henchmen.

George W. Bush has been a despicable President. Many in this angry democracy demand he pay the price for purposeful misdirection of our national resources and plain and simple looting he has enabled. His acts demand the public humiliation of impeachment.

That suggests that impeachment, as a means to remove miscreant public servants from office, has the purpose of punishment. I suggest that the reason the founding fathers gave us the tool of impeachment was to protect that nation, not punish the impeached.

That is why I disagree with the future Speaker of the House when she said that it would be good enough to contain Bush for the final two years of his Presidency. Were punishment the purpose of impeachment then I could agree with Speaker Pelosi that no great good would come from the time and energy impeachment would demand. However Bush has no regard even for laws that suit him, as demonstrated by his signing statements, and he still has veto power to block whatever good works a Democratic Congress might send him to sign during his lame duck session.

It is his future illegal acts and disregard of the Constitution that impeachment will protect us from. That is why impeachment is not a waste of the time of the Congress; moreover it is why so many of us demand impeachment. A nation obsessed with its own security should certainly first tend to its own rotten core.

[Hubert Flottz]

1. I was dismayed by it too...

If she won't do her duty she is as no good, as Denny Doolittle!

[Philosoraptor]

2. Has any bunch ever deserved it more?

We have failed to do our duty as citizens by not removing these jerks. I too pray for impeachment but I'd settle for seeing the republicans dissolve into goo.

[AzDar]

63. Never. I feel it's our DUTY as Americans to impeach....n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Signing Statements Can't Be Contained

There's no way to contain out-of-control signing statements, other than impeachment. Each one of these things is a mini Constitutional crisis - that the Congress is choosing to lose for us.

It's utterly imperative that Bush be censured and/or impeached.

[Vidar]

18. Exactly right. Nor can they be erased. They are the quintessential

public record of treason.

[MannyGoldstein]

23. Unfortunately, Congress is Playing Dead

It takes two to tango - the Congress, save for a very few of its members, has participated in this treason.

[Vidar]

69. With the exception of Conyers, the CBC, & Kucinich, it's what they are

best at.

[Norquist Nemesis]

4. Well, she would first have to present the 'evidence' to the public

in order to have strong support for Impeachment. So far, there haven't been official oversight hearings. Once those get rolling...look out! She may have no choice but to offer up the Articles.

[klyon]

45. The problem I see is that dems by themselves won't be able to

remove. Unless some rethugs vote with dems in the Senate we can not end this administration. But I think investigations are in order and we should hold our fire until we get there. If we only impeach but not remove, it will amount to an exoneration which I don't like. Does it have to be a slam dunk before we impeach? I am not sure.

Also it might be good politically to have a bloodied rethug lame duck to shoot at in '08. But for that reason some rethugs might join our side.

It is a difficult decision. We should think this through before locking-in.

[GreenArrow]

5. given the rather large number of Democrats

who have supported and helped sell any number of Bush's policies, the non-impeachment stance is probably a safe road to take.

[NNN0LHI]

6. I don't want her to say she is for impeachment until we win in 2 weeks

Things will change then.

Don

[badgerpup]

37. Exactly!

Once we have the power of subpoena and can start with the oversight,
THEN impeachment will be the obvious, necessary course to ALL of Congress...
especially the Repubs who want to keep their seats come 2008.

Seriously, I don't they give a flying BFD about the Constitution, or legality, or rights, or anything of that nature; at least, they certainly haven't shown any sign of doing so.

:grr: :banghead: :grr: :banghead: :grr: :banghead:

[civildisoBDence]

51. Smart move by Pelosi...

The Republicans want to use her to scare their base into voting.

Good move, Ms. Speaker.

Newsprism

[GreenArrow]

7. sorry, dupe

.

[katinmn]

8. Pelosi will change her mind after the election.

Let's assume she meant impeachment wasn't on the table at the time she said it a couple months ago.

Things change. And those of us who elected a Dem majority will demand it.

[bryant69]

9. The problem is that impeachment takes the form of a trial, in effect

The House, if they go forward with impeachment, will present information proving that Bush isn't fit to hold office. And frankly we aren't going to claim that he's a drunk or that he's a moran. We are going to claim that he's committed crimes and those crimes make him ineligable to hold the office any further.

It's also a political process of course - and I can certainly see the wisdom in not starting it if we can't finish it.

I don't like her blanket denial though - because obviously we are going to be investigating the Bush White house, and if we get more concrete evidence or a more solid case, I would hope we would take the next step.

Bryant
Check it out -> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[sam sarrha]

12. IT ISNT UP TO HER.. it is the will if the people.. she isnt a decider

[bryant69]

14. Thank you for shouting at me

But actually it is up to her, if we put her in that postion. This is a Republic - we select the people who run the show, but we don't run the show ourselves.

Bryant

[sam sarrha]

39. i wasnt shouting.. my caps were on and i was just too lazy to retype

iam not a good typer and i dont wathc the screen...point was i dont think she could stop an impeachment if the congress wanted to presue obvious 'criminal' behavior by the president. or she would be complicit in the crime

[mondo joe]

33. The will of the people - as carried out by their representatives.

Don't forget - this is a representative democracy.

[earth mom]

53. Exactly-THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

For proof, look no further than the Harpers Magazine Impeachment Panel:

http://www.harpers.org/IsThereACaseForImpeachment.html

Impeachment: "It started because the people of the United States said enough is enough."

[BobRossi]

10. First order of business: stop the bleeding

First: cripple shrub. Second: make sure ALL THE VOTES ARE COUNTED IN 2008.

[sam sarrha]

41. second is pretty difficult to do unless we have a majority in both houses

[sam sarrha]

42. about 5,250,000 votes were not counted in the last election.. there will

more this time.. for sure

[mmonk]

11. That's correct and failure to act is a breach of trust and the system.

[magellan]

13. Exactly, well said.

[tavalon]

15. Thank you for saying this

It isn't about retribution, it's about protection. He has injured so much that is, or could be good about this nation. We need to impeach them for the sake of our country and our constitution. I get so riled when people act like an impeachment here is somehow related to the asinine impeachment of Clinton over a blow job! One has nothing to do with the other.

[terip64]

16. People will have to demand impeachment, Pelosi has her hands full.

One step at a time, painstakingly and god willingly, one step at a time.

First we have to get elected. Then we have to start the clean up.

It is going to be a long and ugly clean up and I hope we all have the stomach for it. We are going to have to prioritize and every one's prioritites are different. It is going to take hard work and patience, but we have no choice and we'll get it done.

I know I have to take time and breath because the stress level is ridiculice. I am going for a walk right now so at least I know I will breath in and out on a regular basis for at least the next 45 minutes.

[lonestarnot]

17. It may just be a numbers decision. Have to wait and see.

[frogcycle]

19. it is more complicated than that

we cannot let cheney take over. you think its bad now?

of course cheney is really in charge anyway, and bush doesnt actually write or even think of the signing statements. but at least he gets in the cabal's way.

the only choices are to do a "twofer" (which might not be possible) thus making Pelosi pres, or take out cheney first and deal with the appointed successor as pres, as happened with agnew/ford

we cannot impeach the entire cabal. I think Pelosi is just recognizing that and being pragmatic. She knows that even if we win, "containing" for two years is the best we can do.

"containing" can be pretty effective. It can include hearings, resolutions, etc. we're talking battlefield first aid here - stop or slow the bleeding, stabilize the patient, get to the ER

[BlueJac]

20. Call it what you want......

It is the only fair thing to do to Bush......IMPEACHMENT. The American people deserve it, it shows people this nation of laws is nothing to mess with.

[Bigmack]

21. Conyers.. and others...

have seats that are safe enough so they can hold hearings that would build momentum for some sort of impeachment hearings.

At the very least, hearings are going to be very damaging to the Repubs and neocons.

[JudyM]

40. Hopefully after Nov the dems' hearings won't be relegated to the basement!

And hopefully we can start getting some meaningful press coverage for a change.

[pat_k]

22. Kick and Recommend for SANITY!!!

Her pledge mandates a few changes to the their Congressional oath

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and be derelict in my duty to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear foreswear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will fail to take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully negligently and faithlessly discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

[mmonk]

24. Thanks for that. Puts it forth squarely.

[chill_wind]

31. Hallelujah! EVERONE should read every word of that!

I hope I won't have to make this my DU sig. I really do.

The truth matters. The oath matters. The Constitution matters. Justice and the rule of law EFFING MATTERS.

[MontanaMaven]

25. "The Truth Matters" by Robert Parry

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html

Please read Robert Parry on why putting criminals in jail or least investigating them is necessary. Because Clinton decided NOT to investigate Iran Contra fully, George H. W. Bush, Bush 43 got a pass. Over time, we became all touchy feely over him allowing his gang and his son to take over and continue the descent into hell. The Truth matters.

[pat_k]

55. Hear! Hear!

I love that piece. Thanks for the reminder. I always intended to order the book -- now is the time.

And you are undoubtedly aware of it, but the truths that Parry captures are echoed in Nichol's "The Genius of John Nichols" (excerpts from http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/621">David Swansons blog]

"When the congressional Democrats failed to pursue impeachment as the necessary response to the Iran-Contra revelations of rampant illegality in the Reagan White House – rejecting the advice of Henry B. Gonzalez, the wily Texas congressman who alone introduced the appropriate articles in 1987 – they thought they were positioning the party for victory in the coming presidential election. Instead, Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush, having recovered from the gentle slap on the wrist he received from Congress for his own involvement in the scandal, was elected to the presidency in 1988 by a landslide, and expected Democratic advances in Congress failed to materialize.

"Pulling punches in a political battle usually results in a knockout, with the party that holds back collapsing to the mat and struggling, often for a very long time, to finally get up again. And the Democratic Party of the George Herbert Walker Bush years, with its inexplicable penchant for pulling punches, runs the very real risk of being flattened not once but repeatedly if it fails to confront the issue of rampant wrongdoing on the part of the Bush administration."

[Art_from_Ark]

59. How could Clinton have pursued Iran-contra?

Before he had taken office, bu$h 41 had already pardoned the key players.

[TahitiNut]

26. No 'president' could be as richly deserving of impeachment

... indictment, conviction, and imprisonment as that sack of corrupt shit and his cabal of sociopaths. Imagine the pardons being issued from the Offal Orifice in January 2009! Obscene.

Again, unless and until these war criminals are brought to justice, this nation is an outlaw nation without honor and without integrity and every citizen is an accomplice to those war crimes.

[StClone]

27. Dems don't want the GOP talking point

"Endless litigation and investigation" to be supported in fact prior to Nov. 7th. If the power swings our way no holds barred included calling ourselves Liberals if we see fit.

[Xenotime]

28. I agree with you 100% She is failing but not going after him.

[requiem99]

29. Endless litigation and impeachment will take place, count on it.

But we have to win in November first. Both sides know exactly what will happen if Dems win and put Conyers in a position where he can call for impeachment. I can't wait. I agree that impeachment is to protect the nation, but in some cases punishment is needed, and in Bush's case, only public humiliation and having whatever "legacy" he thinks he has evaporate in front of his eyes will be nowhere NEAR punishment enough.

But I'll take it.

[okasha]

30. It's politics. Pelosi can't say anything else right now.

If she says she favors impeachment--and it's going to have to be impeachement of Bush and Cheney--that comes down to saying that she intends to use the power of the Constitution to make herself President. The election then becomes an attempted power-grab by Democrats, and we lose.

Impeachment is going to have to be "forced" on her by a majority of the House once she's Speaker.

[Stand and Fight]

32. You've a keen and logical mind.

People really should learn to think of politics as a chess match. Declaring your intentions to your opponent is the last thing you want to do, and, let's face it, we're in a delicate situation. We must be careful of how we conduct ourselves now and what we say, if we are to be victorious in the next couple of weeks. Showing our hand now would be an unforgivable mistake.

[Pacifist Patriot]

34. I wish more people thought ahead a few more moves like you do.

It would be politically stupid of Pelosi to advocate impeachment right now.

And since when did so many of us start believing everything a politician says? LOL!

[RestoreGore]

58. I'll believe it when I see it. n/t

[MiniMe]

35. Agree completely, however, oversight is essential

And with the oversight comes the right to subpeona and to hold hearings. After the hearings, decisions can be made. It is madness to call for impeachment before an investigation.

And the congress does have a lot to do, impeachment would stop everything until the next election. The dems have to push their agenda and force * to start veto-ing bills.

[onenote]

44. a majority of the house will not want to aggressively pursue impeachment

First and foremost, members of Congress are political animals. Almost immediately upon winning election, they begin working towards re-election. There will be (hopefully) a lot of new Democratic members of the House, a number of whom will come from districts that are only marginally "Democratic" and in some cases, from districts that are as, if not more, red as they are blue. These new members are going to want to show something constructive for their constituents: minimum wage, prescription drug reform, lobbying reform, stem cell research. They aren't going to demand that the Democratic leadership pursue impeachment; indeed, to the contrary, they will push for impeachment talk to be kept to a minimum, even as the House ramps up its oversight of the administration by conducting hearings and subpoenaing records and documents.

[survivor999]

36. In the long run, the ONLY way to make a difference

is to elect truly progressive candidates to the House and Senate. The current ones are too entrenched and will never do anything to rock the boat.

[npincus]

38. only if it's a two-fer... Prez. Cheney would be WORSE

if that's possible.

[WinkyDink]

43. 2000 was a coup d'etat, and someone should PAY FOR THAT!

Personally, I like the way the Romanians did it.

[fooj]

46. Fear not...

The honorable John Conyers is waiting...:kick:

[The Sushi Bandit]

47. This thread says it all!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2889225

[Ellis Wyatt]

48. Winning the battle vs winning the war

Sure, it would be swell to go at Bush & co all guns blazing, but it would absolutely halt much of the pro-democrat momentum after the election.

If it appears a main focus of the Democrats after the election is to put people in jail rather than legislation, it may come accross as childish and vendictive, which could stunt the momentem going into '08.

You know a key message from the right wing in '08 would be something along the lines of: The Republicans have been painting democrats as not having a message for the past decade. Not having a plan. Just basically presenting themselves as "we're not Bush". Making a big indictment push after the midterm elections would only play into the right wing's hands for the '08 election. The republicans would be saying "They've been out of power for 12 years, they finally get in power, and what's their big message? What is the first thing they do? Act like children and punish those who they disagreed with for a decade. They should have been implementing their agenda, but their actions prove that they HAVE NO AGENDA. So you should vote for us again, blah blah."

I completely agree with Pelosi, and think handle the question perfectly.

[j_gregory1948]

49. I hope Pelosi

is just trying to keep Repugnants in the their holes on election day by saying she's not going to impeach.

[gully]

50. I think Nancy is playing this smart.

She has said in the past "let's see where the evidence takes us." That is what I expect she'll do?

[curiousdemo]

52. She been smoking

:smoke:

what Bush is on. Maybe Pelosi and Bush both need to be impeached.

[Jack Rabbit]

54. !!

PELOSI FOR PRESIDENT IN 2007
(Whether she wants it or not)

[WHAT]

56. Impeach...

let the evidence come forth...

If Pelosi obstructs justice, get rid of her.

Rule of Law

[RestoreGore]

57. Thank you for this post

I happened to catch her on Sixty Minutes last night while I was waiting to watch a segment about Darfur, and she said just making them lame ducks would be good enough for her. Well, excuse me, but this isn't about HER and her aspirations to be Speaker of the House that seem to have clouded her judgement and moral clarity. To think that after all of the crimes these bastards have committed against our Constitution that they will not be held accountable is a bigger disgrace than how they got there in the first damn place. I frankly am tired of the poltical powerplaying on all sides in this country.

I'm only placing my vote with Menendez in my state because I don't want Kean, and frankly, I'm getting tired of voting AGAINST someone when I should be excited to vote FOR someone, and someone who will do what must be done in this Congress for the good of this country. Only 13% of Americans actually approve of the job Congress is (not)doing, and that includes both Republicans AND Democrats. The Democrats may win the House, and that may be enough for them, However,for those of us who truly believe in the rule of law and in securing this nation, IT SURE AS HELL ISN'T. This isn't about politics, this is about doing what is right! Shame on all of them for their dereliction of duty as representatives who swore an oath to protect and defend our Constitution.

[omega minimo]

60. Don't demand impeachment. Demand thorough investigation & hearings.

"That is why impeachment is not a waste of the time of the Congress; moreover it is why so many of us demand impeachment. "

The result of thorough investigation (of Bush and Cheney et al) and hearings will be impeachment.

The reason to do so is because THE SYSTEM REQUIRES IT. "Waste of time"? Who the fuck are we or anyone in Congress to betray the integrity of the system of checks and balances merely because to do otherwise is INCONVENIENT?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :wtf:

This is a very good piece from you TWV. Thank you.

At the California Democratic Progressive Caucus Impeachment Forum (chaired by Mike Malloy at the CA Dem Convention in April and attended by 1000 supporters) Rep.. Maxine Waters expressed her (and her Congressional colleagues) shock and dismay that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE NOT CALLING OUT AND/OR MARCHING FOR IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.

They were waiting for US to do something, while we were waiting for THEM to do something.

[intheflow]

61. Hear, hear!

:applause: This is exactly the point of impeachment. To suggest it is a punishment is to buy into the Republican playbook, who took Nixon's impeachment to be punishment for being caught and not protection against undermining democracy. That interpretation in turn led the Repukes to feel justified in "punishing" Clinton with impeachment for unimpeachable offenses. You are right on the money, here, ThomWV. Thanks for posting.

[Kurovski]

62. I agree that it is a duty to impeach when required by circumstances.

But I also believe that Pelosi would be "swayed" by any compelling movement to impeach on the part of Americans and its voted representatives.

I think it's important that some folks don't sound as though vengeance is a motivator, even for that which is merely a duty.

Such is the spinning game.

Edit: recommended.

[Martin Eden]

64. Find the TRUTH and Uphold the LAW

It's as simple as that.

There is plenty this administration has done to warrant investigations with full power of subpeona. If those investigations reveal impeachable offenses, then impeachment must follow -- not only to protect the nation from further criminal acts, but TO RESTORE THE RULE OF LAW and the Constitutional checks & balances that have been lost during the tenure of this Republican president and this Republican congress.

Doing anything less is an abdication of duty.

Who the hell is Pelosi to declare that crimes against the American people shall go unrevealed and uncorrected?

[Hippo_Tron]

65. Umm, we haven't been able to conduct a single hearing yet

We can't impeach because we haven't had a chance to gather the evidence that we need. Wait until Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. are grilled under oath by Conyers. Then maybe there's a chance this will happen.

[Cleita]

66. She may not even be selected the majority leader if we win

the House. Randi Rhodes made that point today. However, I agree we need to impeach all of them, so that any future wannabe criminals think twice before trying to steal our country and sell it to foreign interests. If they see they can get away with treasonous and criminal actions, they will all be back in the future.

[Fovea]

67. Impeachment is the remedy for crimes against the constitution

and government of the United States.

[Keepontruking]

68. impeachment

Personally I will hold in my heart that sanity and peace will
once again come forth in this once great nation and jump forth
and bring everybody to their senses.  It is now the joke of
the world with the leader (joke) that we have, he is leading
us to destruction.  I hate saying I am an American.  I feel
that this is the 1950's and I am that NAZI that all the
neighbors were suppose to report to the Government if we were
spotted in suspicious behavior.  NSA, WIRE TAPPING, TORTURE
CAMPS what next?????   This is a travesty...we have even lost
free speech!!!  I sit and cry!!!!!  Circus Girl