Yes, it’s a cliché. A bumper sticker. But it needs to happen. The wiretapping is the last straw.
Arguments against an impeachment effort:
- Republicans control the House, so Bush will never be impeached;
- conviction requires 67 senators, so he will never be removed;
- if he is removed, we have President Cheney until 1/20/09;
- the time and effort involved in impeachment would be better spent formulating solid policy positions and strategies for 2008 and beyond.
Arguments for an impeachment effort:
- Bush deserves to be impeached on principle;
- even if a serious effort fails, it will educate people;
- a serious effort could tie up Bush’s agenda for the rest of his presidency.
Something to keep in mind, at least if you are an optimist:
The American people stopped the Vietnam War–against the wishes of the President–and forced a reluctant Congress to act on the impeachment of President Nixon. And they can do the same with President Bush. The task has three elements: building public and Congressional support, getting Congress to undertake investigations into various aspects of presidential misconduct and changing the party makeup of Congress in the 2006 elections.
Drumming up public support means organizing rallies, spearheading letter-writing campaigns to newspapers, organizing petition drives, door-knocking in neighborhoods, handing out leaflets and deploying the full range of mobilizing tactics….
An energized public must in turn bear down on Congress….
Finally, if this pressure fails to produce results, attention must be focused on changing the political composition of the House and Senate in the upcoming 2006 elections. If a Republican Congress is unwilling to investigate and take appropriate action against a Republican President, then a Democratic Congress should replace it.
I have one argument in opposition to the impeachment threat. They impeached Clinton, and now we try to impeach Bush? I’m not saying there’s not good reason to do it, I’m just saying, please, oh, please, for the love of God, let’s not get into the habit of impeaching the President everytime the opposition party takes control of Congress. I say, “Maintain present course, Captain Zulu.” Criticize the man at every point, play up the rampant corruption, and politically hogtie the fool so he can’t do anything. Win the 2006 mid-term elections, take back Congress, and FIND A REAL GODDAMNED CANDIDATE TO RUN IN 2008.
Andy, I take issue with your main argument. You’re basically saying that the idiot Republicans’ wrongful impeachment of Clinton has tainted the impeachment process from now on. That they’ve won. A double win, at that – not only did they impeach a Democratic president, but they made the future impeachment of a Republican president look like revenge. I don’t think we should let that happen.
Two impeached presidents in a row would not make a habit. We shouldn’t let a wrongful impeachment (Clinton’s) spoil a legitimate impeachment.
I agree with your other points, though.
Tinny, I said I have one argument against impeachment. I’ve got about a thousand in favor. He belongs in jail.
Excellent post, Jeff! Go impeach – already! Only if Americans wake up will Australians do the same – they are followers ..
a casual, off the top of my head list:
1) it’ll never happen.
2) because it will never happen, any attempt to do so will only fracture an already polarized country.
3) a non-fractured country is more important than a few wiretaps
4) history will be GWB’s judge and it won’t be pretty
5) history is better revenge than impeachment.
I think that the activist community should definitely push for impeachment.
No, it cannot happen unless the Democrats decisively control the House, but the system requires the political base to take a more radical position to give cover to the mainstream.
You can see how the Right manages this:
James Dobson and Pat Robertson call for concentration camps and the death penalty for gay men and Lesbians. This makes Bush seem less extreme when he wants to use the Constitution to create a separate class of Americans, gay people, for whom the laws do not equally apply.
So, yes, history will be the judge, yadda, yadda …
But we can’t ignore the technical realities of what makes good politics. If some people call for outright impeachment, it makes it easier for the mainstream to call for investigations into the NSA wiretapping actions, which must happen at minimum here.
And this isn’t about “a few wiretaps.” Domestic electronic surveillance is not illegal, if the administration follows the guidelines set out in FISA and the like. There is only one reason for Bush to set up the surveillance without getting a warrant: He didn’t want a paper trail.
This indicates to me that the Bush administration was looking at people that they do not have the authority to spy on. Speculation is that they tapped the Kerry campaign in 2004, but I think it’s more likely that they were spying on renegade Republicans in the State Dept., like Colin Powell.
hearings are a trap to make democrats look soft on national security. we’ve been punk’d, it’s not possible to win this one. time to move on.
Pingback: Jarrett House North
Anyone ever wonder if, since he doesn’t seem to think the Constitution applies to him during “wartime” (which this isn’t, let’s remember), Bush would even agree to go if the Senate convicted him? He’s got the military; the Congress and the courts do not.
Pingback: A Guy In New York