http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/23633The Democrats in Congress Need to Either Keep Their Promise to End the War or Impeach Bush/Cheney - Why Not Both?
Submitted by Chip on Thu, 2007-06-14 07:36. Impeachment
The Democrats in Congress Need to Either Keep Their Promise to End the War or Impeach Bush/Cheney
Timothy Sexton
Such is the lust for the White House shared by the Democrats in Congress that they find it perfectly acceptable to give in to the delusional demands of a lame duck President with no more political cache than a cross-dressing homosexual Republican Congressman from San Francisco. While Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership talked big and made big promises last November, it appears to be business as usual. I find it more than distressing that the Democrats laid over and played dead in the game of political maneuvering over funding the war and bringing home the troops. What were these guys elected and put into power for in the first place? To address immigration reform? Hell, nobody who doesn't live along the Mexican border gives a rat's behind about immigration. It's a media-created issue. Let me remind Ms. Pelosi and those newly elected and empowered Democrats why they won: It's the war, stupid!
I suppose I can understand why the Democrats won't undertake the issue of impeaching Bush and Cheney. Even though the offenses are far greater and the evidence is much more overwhelming than that brought against Bill Clinton, the lesson learned from that fiasco is that the party that plays politics with impeachment is voted out. Oh, wait a minute. That's right. Not only didn't the GOP lose their grip on the legislative branch, they actually won the first Presidential election to take place after the purely politically motivated impeachment of Bill Clinton. (Well, they didn't so much win the election as won the appointment process, but you get my drift.) Here's the lesson that Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic leadership needs to learn from the Bill Clinton impeachment fiasco: You stand to lose nothing and regain your backbone. Since the Democrats are too spineless to face down Pres. Bush on Iraq and seem willing to continue rubber stamping his endless and unwinnable war against-everybody now-an abstract noun known as terrorism, there is absolutely no reason not to begin impeachment proceedings.
Impeaching both Bush and Cheney would bring to light not only the criminal manipulation of information that was used to gain support for their war, it would also cast a pall over the current crop of GOP Presidential nominees, every one of whom is too scared to go on record as being against Bush's policies. It is one thing for Hillary Clinton to vote for the war based on piecemeal information that didn't give the entire story and then change her mind; it's another entirely for John McCain to vote for the war based on the same misinformation and then continue supporting it even after finding out it was all a lie and that Bush has no plan to end the madness. Impeachment proceedings would have the effect of keeping Bush so busy with his lawyers as he attempts to stay out of jail that he wouldn't have the time to engage in such insane games as pretending it's 1963 and he's JFK and Vladimir Putin is Nikita Krushchev. (What the heck was that all about anyway? Did somebody slip LSD into his nightly mug of bourbon?) Anything that keeps Pres. Bush from coming up with ways to destroy America can only be a good thing. If Pres. Bush is spending all his waking hours with Alberto Gonzales trying to figure out how to destroy the billions of e-mails that link him to all the impeachable offenses he committed while in office, he simply won't have the time to wreak any more havoc on this country.
Of course, the downside is that Dick Cheney's misshapen face would probably show up on our TV sets more often as he personally accuses each Democrat in Congress of being a terrorist, and nobody wants the face of Cheney to appear in public more often than it has to do. So, there is an alternative. Instead of impeaching Bush and Cheney, the Democrats could do the job they were charged to do. Tell Pres. Bush no. Send him a bill to bring the troops home. If he vetoes it, send it again the next day. Bring camera crews and protestors. When you get there, Nancy, instead of going on the defensive when Bush says your bill is setting a date for defeat, ask him to give you terms of victory. Most military campaigns-by which I mean the ones that have been undertaken by armies not under the command of George W. Bush-come with set guidelines for announcing victory. If the bridge is blown up, it's a win; if not it's a loss. Well, when Pres. Bush says you are handing him terms for defeat turn around and stare into the camera and offer a blank piece of paper and a pen to Bush and say these words: "All right, Mr. President. Unless your plan is for American troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely, please write down all the goals that must be met before they can come home. We won't give you a date for meeting those goals, we just want to know exactly what has to happen before they can. If you can give us your guidelines for victory, we will stop sending you a timeline for surrender."
That's not too hard, Nancy. In fact, it's the ultimate in easy solutions. If Pres. Bush won't allow you to set a timeline for surrender, then you simply press him to come up with a plan for victory. If, as I suspect, he simply stands there with that deer in the headlights look, you can bet that next time around you will have enough Republican support to override any veto. On the other hand, if Bush gives you an actual list of goals that must be accomplished before troops can come home hell will freeze over effectively ending global warming and Jesus Christ will appear behind you. Either that or the universe will implode. Either way, you have nothing to lose and your spine to gain.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
