home

The Remedy

This brings us to the second enquiry; which is . . . [i]f he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?

The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.

-Marbury v. Madison

One of the great ironies of the seminal case Marbury v. Madison is that it provided no remedy to the party, Marbury, whose vested right was deemed by the Court to be violated. Chief Justice Marshall struck down a law passed by Congress which purported to give jursidiction to the Supreme Court over actions such as Marbury's, ruling that the law was unconstitutional.

Today, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, dismissed the ACLU's case against the National Security Agency, which sought the enjoining of the NSA's warrantless surveillance program. The Sixth Circuit ruled that the ACLU lacked standing and thus dismissed the case. More.

The standing requirememt is, to be frank, often bent and twisted to serve the desires of the particular court deciding the question. This article states it well:

Standing doctrine confuses both lower courts and litigants, because the Court manipulates the doctrine to serve other objectives. When the Court wants to reach the merits of a case, the standing doctrine is often relaxed. Conversely, when the Court wishes to avoid deciding the merits of a case--or perhaps, when it wants to shut a whole category of cases out of court--, the requirements for standing are tightened.

Whenever I read a standing decision, I almost always see a court making a policy decision, not a legal decision. The Sixth Circuit's decision is no exception, and it was a divided court. The Republican appointees found no standing. The Democratic appointee found standing.

If this becomes the final word from the courts on this issue, has the issue been pushed fully in to the political arena and the possible remedies available there? In short, is the only remedy impeachment and removal? This seems to be the conclusion of KagroX at daily kos:

Is the program still unconstitutional? Yes, but only in theory. Because the 6th Circuit says the ACLU didn't prove it was directly injured by the violation, and therefore has no standing to bring the suit in the first place.

Sorry, everyone!

Hope some nice censure fixes your Constitution for you!

Kagro rejects the notion of impeachment as making a statement for posterity, as his dismissive reference to censure makes clear. Kagro insists upon a remedy. And Kagro has chosen his best possible ground - the warrantless surveillance program of the NSA, a clear and inarguable violation of the wiretapping statutes. Indeed, it has long been my view that President Bush has committed an undisputed impeachable offense in this manner by deliberately violating a duly enacted federal law.

So I should support impeachment on this right? I do not reach that conclusion. The reason why is, like Kagro, I am demanding of a remedy when it comes to impeachment. If there is no removal, then impeachment is no remedy.

Does that mean impeachment will always be off the table for Bush? Practically speaking I think so. The political will to set of the political nuclear bomb of impeachment is not there and is not likely to be there before we travel into the heart of the 2008 elections. Let us consider the chronology of Watergate:

1972

1972 June 17
Five burglars are arrested at 2.30am during a break-in at the Watergate

James W. McCord is the security director for the Committee for the Re-election of the President (CREEP).

June 19 A GOP security aide is among the Watergate burglars, The Washington Post reports. Former attorney general John Mitchell, head of the Nixon reelection campaign, denies any link to the operation.

August 30 Nixon claimed that White House counsel John Dean had conducted an investigation into the Watergate matter and found that no-one from the White House was involved.

September 15 The first indictments in Watergate are made against the burglars: James W. McCord, Frank Sturgis, Bernard Barker, Eugenio Martinez and Virgilio Gonzalez. Indictments are also made against E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy.

November 11 Nixon is reelected in one of the largest landslides in American political history, taking more than 60 percent of the vote and crushing the Democratic nominee, Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota.

1973

1973 February 7 The Senate votes (77-0) to create the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities.

March 19/23 James W. McCord writes a letter to Judge John Sirica in which he claims that the defendants had pleaded guilty under duress. He says they committed perjury and that others are involved in the Watergate break-in. He claims that the burglars lied at the urging of John Dean, Counsel to the President, and John Mitchell, the Attorney-General.

These allegations of a cover-up and obstruction of justice by the highest law officers in the land blew Watergate wide open.

April 6 John Dean, the White House Counsel, begins co-operating with the Watergate prosecutors.

April 30 Nixon appears on national television and announces the dismissal of Dean and the resignations of Haldeman and Erlichman, describing them as two of his "closest advisers". The Attorney-General, Richard Kleindienst, also resigns and is replaced by Elliot Richardson.

May 17 The Senate Watergate Committee begins public hearings.

May 18 The Senate Watergate committee begins its nationally televised hearings. Attorney General-designate Elliot Richardson announces the appointment of former solicitor general Archibald Cox as the Justice Department's special prosecutor for Watergate. He is sworn in on May 25.

June 03 It is reported by the Washington Post that John Dean has told Watergate investigators that he discussed the Watergate cover-up with President Nixon at least 35 times.

June 25 Testifying before the Senate Watergate Committee, Dean claims that Nixon was involved in the cover-up of the Watergate burglary within days in June 1972. In a seven-hour opening statement, he details a program of political espionage activites conducted by the White House in recent years.

July 13 Alexander P. Butterfield, a former presidential appointments secretary, informs the Senate Committee of the White House taping system. He says that since 1971 Nixon has recorded all conversations and telephone calls in his office. A protracted legal battle begins between the White House, the Congress and the Special Prosecutor.

July 23 The Senate Committee and Archibald Cox demand that Nixon hand over a range of White House tapes and documents.

July 25
Nixon refuses to surrender any documents or tapes.

July 26 The Watergate Committee subpoenas several White House tapes.

August 9 The Senate Committee takes legal action against Nixon for failure to comply with the subpoena.

August 15: Nixon delivers a second Address to the Nation on Watergate. Nixon claimed "executive privilege" for the tapes and argued that he should not have to hand them over. Archibald Cox and the Senate Watergate committee request the Supreme Court instruct Nixon to surrender the tapes.

August 29 Judge Sirica orders Nixon to hand over 9 tapes for Sirica to review in private. This is the first of a number of court battles that Nixon is to lose.

October 12 The US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld Judge Sirica's ruling that Nixon should surrender tape recordings relevant to Watergate.

October 19 Nixon offers a compromise to the Senate Watergate Committee, proposing that the Democratic Senator from Mississippi, John Stennis, be permitted to listen to the tapes and prepare summaries for Special Prosecutor Cox.

October 20 Cox rejects the Stennis compromise. In a series of events that became known as the Saturday Night Massacre:


Nixon orders his Attorney-General, Elliot Richardson, to fire Archibald Cox. Richardson refuses and resigns in protest. Nixon orders the deputy Attorney-General, William Ruckelshaus, to fire Cox. Ruckelshaus refuses and is sacked. Robert Bork, the Solicitor-General, now acting as Attorney-General, fires Cox.




October 23 Under immense pressure, Nixon agrees to comply with the subpoena and releases some of the tapes.

November 1 Leon Jaworski is named as the new Watergate Special Prosecutor.

November 17 During a press conference, Nixon defends his actions, urges the nation to put Watergate behind it and says "I'm not a crook.

November 21 A gap of 18 and a half minutes is discovered on the tape of the conversation between Nixon and Haldeman on June 20, 1972. Electronics experts report that the gap is the result of at least 5 separate erasures. Nixon's secretary, Rose Mary Woods, denies deliberately erasing the tape.

1974

1974 January There are now ongoing calls for Nixon to resign and the Congress begins to seriously consider impeachment.

February 6 The House of Representatives votes to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether grounds exist for the impeachment of President Nixon.

April 16 Special Prosecutor Jaworski issues a subpoena for 64 White House tapes.

April 30 Nixon refuses to hand over the tapes, but provides more edited transcripts to the Judiciary Committee.

May 9 Impeachment hearings begin before the House Judiciary Committee.

July 24 The Supreme Court, by a unanimous vote of 8-0 (William Rehnquist abstaining) upholds the Special Prosecutor's subpoena, ordering Nixon to make the tapes available for the Watergate trials of his former subordinates. The case is known as United States v. Nixon.

July 27 The House Judiciary Committee adopts the first Article of Impeachment by a vote of 27-11, with 6 Republicans voting with the Democrats. The Article charges Nixon with obstruction of the investigation of the Watergate break-in.

July 29 The House Judiciary Committee adopts the second Article of Impeachment that charges Nixon with misuse of power and violation of his oath of office.

July 30 The House Judiciary Committee adopts the third Article of Impeachment, charging Nixon with failure to comply with the House subpoenas.

August 5 Nixon releases transcripts of three conversation he had with Haldeman six days after the Watergate break-in. The June 23 tape becomes known as The Smoking Gun because it reveals that Nixon ordered the FBI to abandon its investigation of the break-in.

Nixon releases three more tapes that prove he ordered a cover-up of the Watergate burglary on June 23rd 1972, six days after the break-in. The tapes show that he knew of the involvement of White House officials and the Campaign for the Re-election of the President, as well as revealing that Nixon ordered the FBI to abandon its investigation of the break-in.

These tapes become known as The Smoking Gun. The eleven Republicans on the Judiciary Committee who voted against impeachment say they will change their votes. It is clear that Nixon will be impeached and convicted in the Senate.

August 7 Three senior Republican congressmen meet with Nixon, advising him that his chances of avoiding impeachment by the House and removal from office by the Senate are "gloomy".
Around the country, calls mount for Nixon's resignation, and speculation builds about Nixon's intentions.

August 9 In the morning, Nixon delivers a farewell address to the White House.

From the time of the formation of the Select Commitee of Presidential Election Campaign Practices, the famous Ervin Committee in February 1973, 18 months passed before Nixon resigned.

The Watergate investigation had an ongoing criminal investigation.

An appointed Special Prosecutor.

An aggressive press corps.

And critical here - a John Dean.

And the ultimate critical piece - TAPES.

In addition, the time frame for removing Nixon from office was more plausible than is the removal of Bush.

If removal from office is the remedy, if impeachment is not to be a form of censure, then impeachment proponents need explain how it can happen. What facts will shock the American People.

Is warrantless wiretapping the issue? Well, they have known about it since December 2005 and they seem less than shocked.

What has shocked the American People is the disastrous Debacle in Iraq. The Congress has the political power to act on Iraq. If they will just do it. It seems to me that impeachment proponents are not thinking clearly on the politicalnature of the battles the Democrats and progressives must fight and how they can win them.

Dems can win on Iraq. It seems irresponsible to me to fight a battle with no prospect of victory, a symbolic fight, when a real and monumental and essential fight CAN be won on Iraq.

It is what makes me less than sympathetic with impeachment proponents.

< Libby, the Marc Rich Pardon and Congressional Hearings | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Yep. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 12:29:41 PM EST


    The ground is shifting (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 12:36:22 PM EST
    Impeachment Fever

    (poll conducted 7/3 through 7/5)

    * 45% favor "the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush;" 46% oppose.

    * 54% favor "US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney;" 40% oppose.

    For context:

        Aug-Sept 1998 (Before Impeachment)

        * Average support for impeachment and removal (10 polls): 26%
        * Average support for hearings (6 polls): 36%

    And on the Libby commutation:

    Approve Disapprove Undecided
    Democrats (38%) 13% 76% 11%
    Republicans (29%) 50% 47% 3%
    Independents (33%) 19% 80% 1%

    Sounds like the American People are ready to jump on the impeachment train, at least for Cheney. Impeachment isn't just for bloggers any more! Between Angler and the commutation, the last straw has been reached for quite a few people apparently.

    Seems like you didn't read the post (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 12:39:49 PM EST
    "the people" ≠ The Senate.

    Parent
    In fact (none / 0) (#5)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 12:57:18 PM EST
    I agree with most of the post on a practical level. Except for this, which is disingenuous:

    Kagro rejects the notion of impeachment as making a statement for posterity, as his dismissive reference to censure makes clear. Kagro insists upon a remedy.

    My reading is that he rejects censure vs impeachment not because he insists on a remedy but that he insists on at least the threat of the remedy and the gravity of the proceedings for impeachment.

    I think it's kind of silly to dismiss where public opinion is at on this with a facile comment like "the people ≠ The Senate".

    Parent

    Talk about disingenuous (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 01:00:35 PM EST
    Kargo rejects "censure because there is not threat of a remedy" is EXACTLY what I said.

    My argument is that there is no threat of a remedy with impeachment either.

    Honestly AA, what in blazes are you talking about?  

    Parent

    You seriously don't see how you're twisting (none / 0) (#15)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 01:23:11 PM EST
    his argument? I don't believe it.

    He insists on the weight of impeachment proceedings for the impact now and historically because it has that remedy, not because the remedy is certain to be achieved.

    You want to dismiss the dynamic nature of something like this by saying simply that it can't succeed, or that it will harm Dem prospects in 08. But in fact in such a public opinion climate it looks more like proceeding with impeachment and what will come out in the investigations will just further inflame public opinion against the GOP. Who knows - it may even give timid Dems the courage to cut off funds for the war.

    Parent

    Historically? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 02:00:59 PM EST
    Bush is out in 1/09! There will be no history.

    This is just making stuff up now.

    You seriously do not see how YOU distorted MY argument?

    I am getting fed up with the distortions in favor of impeachment.

    Parent

    History (3.66 / 3) (#37)
    by scarshapedstar on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:12:29 PM EST
    $election 2000: Making a big fuss requires actual risk and might offend Republicans, so the Democrats should do nothing.

    War on Iraq, 2003: Making a big fuss requires actual risk and might offend Republicans, so the Democrats should do nothing.

    Ohio 2004: Making a big fuss requires actual risk and might offend Republicans, so the Democrats should do nothing.

    Wingnut judicial appointees, 2005: Making a big fuss requires actual risk and might offend Republicans, so the Democrats should do nothing.

    Iraq funding cutoff, 2007: Making a big fuss requires actual risk and might offend Republicans, so the Democrats should do nothing.

    Bush obstructs justice, this week: Making a big fuss requires actual risk and might offend Republicans, so the Democrats should do nothing.

    ...

    Man, I wish there were some kind of pattern here. Hey, does anyone know why Democrats can't shake the "spineless wimp" label?

    Parent

    This is utter BS from you (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:35:07 PM EST
    GORE fought like hell in 2000 as we all urged him to do. Was there something else you wanted done after the SCOTUS did what it did?

    2002, I URGED no votes and did more of use here BECAUSE we knew how Iraq would turn out and we knew the politics and policy mandated voting no on Iraq. You now just slander without thought.

    Ohio, you made a big fuss. And? What would Dems have accomplished by making a big fuss there? Explain your stratefgy? OR are you just one to throw out the most crazy sh*t and expect it to prove how spinely you are?

    As for judicial nominations, for you to say that to me , well you can just kiss my a**. You know nothing of what I said and did on that.

    Iraq funding cutoff. Say that to me again to prove what an idiot you are.

    The difference between you and me is I think, you bleat.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#87)
    by scarshapedstar on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 07:34:52 PM EST
    I didn't mean to say you took all these positions. My point is that all day, every day, you hear the same beltway yammering: Democrats will lie there and take it if they know what's good for them, no matter what the issue, because the Democratic base is like 12 people and if they don't lean to the right then they'll lose the next election. Because if there's one thing Americans hate, it's a politician with balls.

    Now I keep hearing the same game theory / electoral concerns regarding whether or not it's a good idea to impeach Bush for the 30 felonies that he doesn't even bother denying. I've read your reasoning and I reject it. To believe that we will have a Democratic president in 2008 if just shut up and sit tight and play it safe and don't make waves is to ignore the last six years. You might think that the last whimpers of a lame-duck presidency are a good backdrop for a Democratic campaign, but the "do-nothing Congress" taunts are already beginning.

    It's high time we reversed that and rallied our own base for the first time in God knows how long. Everyone I know would support a Cheney impeachment, at the very least. It would be more popular than an Iraq war funding cutoff, the SCLM would have a hard time calling it unjustified, and -- best of all, in my humble opinion -- it's f*cking time.

    And, you know, I don't care if it fails. You might say the Democrats would walk away with a bloody nose, but at least it's proof they put up a fight. That's more important than bipartisan comity to the voters we realistically ought to be counting on.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 07:40:44 PM EST
    I aqppreciate your clarification but it is not black and white in each case.

    Think EACH situation through and debate the merits of each.

    As you can see, I have been called an "idiot liberal" - when I worked for filibuster of Roberts and Alito, when I worked for not funding the Iraq Debacle and now I am a Bush enabler.
    I hate non-thinking whomever it comes from.

    I find a species of impeachment proponent is mindless, insulting and fact challenged.

    I call them impeachniks.

    They will oppose not funding the IRaq Debacle now. Will you?


    Parent

    Votes (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:17:47 PM EST
    Is all it boils down to. For whatever problem we have with spinless dems reality is that we are short of real power.

    Waxman is doing a good job. The GOP will lose their grip big time in 08.

    Parent

    Umm (none / 0) (#27)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 02:34:01 PM EST
    There will be no history.

    Okaaay.

    Parent

    Okaaay (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 02:46:14 PM EST
    Back atcha.

    Parent
    As far as I recall... (none / 0) (#7)
    by ctrenta on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 01:02:34 PM EST
    The leaders do the bidding for our support. It's their job to represent the interests of what a majority of Americans think.

    Personally, I think it will be tougher to get the Senate on board than they did back in '73-'74 but that doesn't mean it can't happen, especially since 2008 is an election year. Now that people are beginning to look for strong opposition against the Bushies, it may serve vulenrable GOP incumbents best interests to jump off the Bush bandwagon, and that could mean calling for investigations.

    These poll numbers are encouraging and I predict they will only be more supportive for investigations, especially since MoveOn and other Democratic activist groups are starting to pick up on it.

    What's the quickest and most effective way to end the war?

    Consider investigations into impeachment! It's not careless or reckless as people make it out to be.

    Parent

    the bidding (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 01:11:23 PM EST
    even in this poll, the most favoprable ever on the issue, the bidding is to not commence impeachment proceedings against Bush.

    Parent
    OK.... (none / 0) (#14)
    by ctrenta on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 01:22:54 PM EST

    but the point is to show that people are warming up to the idea.

    That's the impression I got and that to me is a positive development, albeit slowly.

    Parent

    Warming Up TO The Idea (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 01:29:58 PM EST
    Hey, no-one here has to warm up to the idea. Who wouldn't like to see the Chimp fried, all but the trolls here. If you polled the public if they wanted to have a million dollars free, they would overwhelmingly answer yes.

    The problem is that given the numbers it is a very impractible idea, even foolhardy.

    Parent

    Not necessary squeaky (none / 0) (#26)
    by ctrenta on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 02:29:33 PM EST
    Why am I a troll for wanting to engage in a serious discussion about the merits of impeachment?

    Personally, I don't assume the numbers will remain the same from here on out. In fact, I believe they are improving, especially with this latest poll by the American Research Group.

    And there are a number of reputable experts -- like Bruce Fein, Liz Holtzman, John Nichols, Dave Lindorff & Barbara Olshansky, Dennis Loo, John Dean, and Elizabeth de la Vega-- that have provided clear evidene that Bush & Cheney committed many grave and dangerous offenses that subverted the Constitution. Congress CANNOT shirk it's responsibility to protect our nation from proven despots, and now is the most appropriate time to engage in its use. It would be wise to use it, not waste it.  

    Parent

    Misread (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 02:57:22 PM EST
    I said that everyone here wants impeachment, save the trolls.
    That would exclude you.  

     Just like everyone here including the trolls would like a million dollars.

    Reality bites big time, Impeachment is not practical. This is the most corrupt Admin in US history, but they have done their homework and are safe due to loopholes.

    If you really believe that even one Republican,  no less 17, will actually put their vote down against the chimp, regardless of what they say, I have a bridge to sell you.

    Look at the record.

    Parent

    Gotcha! n/t (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ctrenta on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:28:10 PM EST
    Sure (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 12:53:17 PM EST
    But the Senate will not remove him.

    Moreover, Bush's approval ratings are at 26%. So 46% do not want impeachment hearings gives youy an idea of the political ground you are giving up by insisting on them.

    It is clearly not a positive politically and likely to be a harm when it happens.

    End the Iraq War should be the goal.

    Through not funding.

    Parent

    I suppose you see the glass half-empty... (none / 0) (#12)
    by ctrenta on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 01:21:06 PM EST
    ... And that's OK.

    But what I'm starting to see is more people are warming to the idea of investigations into impeachment. This last one done by the American Research Group indicates that change.

    I see where you're coming from in terms of what harm this may cause if the Dems fail, but from my recollection, the party that attempts investigations, may be harmed by the party that is under investigation but NOT NECESSARILY AMONG THE VOTERS, which is where it REALLY matters! That's what I'm focused on! Here's some evidence I got from Impeachment experts John Nichols (author of The Genius of Impeachment and Liz Holtzman, author of The Impeachment of George W. Bush and former House judiciary committee member back in Watergate:

    #1. When the Democrats held back from impeachment during Iran Contra, they lost the next elections. When the Democrats led the effort to investigate and impeach Nixon, they won big in the next election, even though Ford was running as an incumbent. When the Republicans tried to impeach Truman, they got what they wanted out of the Supreme Court and then won the next elections. Articles of Impeachment have been filed against 10 presidents, usually by Republicans, and usually with electoral success following. When the Republicans impeached Clinton, impeachment was actually unpopular with the public. Even so, the Republicans lost far fewer seats than is the norm for a majority party at that point in its tenure. Two years later, they lost seats in the Senate, which had acquitted, but maintained their strength in the House, with representatives who had led the impeachment charge winning big.

    Parties that seek to impeach frequently improve their position -- as evidenced by Dems in 1974, Republicans in 1952, and all the way back to the Whigs of last century. In every election back to 1842 where House members of an opposition party to a sitting president have -- as a whole or a significant caucus within the party -- proposed impeachment of the president, that opposition party retained or improved its position in the House at the following election.

    As far as I know, there is no instance of voters responding to a significant impeachment effort by sweeping its advocates out of office. In fact, history points in a different direction -- suggesting that voters frequently reward parties for taking the Constitution and the rule of law seriously.

    As for ending the Iraq war through not funding it, that could work. But will it when a number of Congressmen and women approved Bush's Iraw Supplemental Funding Bill? Perhaps investigations into impeachment may be a faster and more effective means to end the war. It seemed to back in '73-'74!

    In this case, even more so than Nixon's, impeachment would drive the war debate in the right direction, because impeachment would be for offenses either directly connected to the war or offenses that have been justified by "war on terror" misinformation.

    In addition, should Congress actually cut off the funding and end the war, it is very likely that Bush and Cheney would misappropriate funds from the Pentagon to keep the occupation going anyway. They've already demonstrated that when they secretly began the war to begin with and they have never been held accountable for it. So, removing them from office is not only needed in order to give Congress the nerve to end the war, but is also needed if the war is ever to actually end.

    Parent

    I saw nothing (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 01:59:02 PM EST
    I used your words against your argument.

    I suppose those who support Bush see the glass half full.

    I say the Senate won't vote to remove him because 17 GOP Senators won't vote to do it.

    You want to discuss fantasies.

    Parent

    Arthur Schopenhauer once said... (none / 0) (#29)
    by ctrenta on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 02:43:23 PM EST

    All truth passes through three stages:

    1. It is ridiculed.
    2. It is violently opposed.
    3. It becomes accepted as self-evident all along.

    Impeachment advocates are not engaging in fantasies, it is the art of the possible, albeit a difficult art of the possible. Even though it is a difficult and unfortunate mesaure to pursue, it is necessary at this time and place and I think America, in the long run, will be a better country because of it. We send a message to future presidents that they are not above the law and our system of government gets some added life back.

    Parent
    See (3.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 02:47:41 PM EST
    This is just the type of silly discussion that impeachniks will offer.

    Are you seriusly saying we are on our way to realizing the truth that Bush will be removed from office?

    As I said, I am fed up with this style of delusional argumentation.

    Parent

    Who says it's delusional? (none / 0) (#36)
    by ctrenta on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:10:39 PM EST

    Doesn't seem delusional to me if people like Nichols, Dean, Holtzman, and others (like Daniel Ellsberg) think it's appropriate.

    As for the Schopenhauer quote, it seems from what I'm reading is we're at steps one and two, and if Bush and Cheney are removed, that step three will become a reality.

    BTD, if investigations into impeachment was an idea you agreed with, would you still be making the same kinds of comments? Probably not. If something looked like fluff to you (which it isn't) but supported your ideas, you'd probably be singing its praise, not be calling it delusional thinking.

    Parent

    Removal is delusional (3.66 / 3) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:30:03 PM EST
    And if Dean ands Holtzman are saying it is not, you provide no cites and I am sure Dean NEVER said it, then they are delusional too.

    Step 3 will never come, so there is not moving to step 2.

    As for your last graf, this is more silly nonsense.

    Suppose it was true, which it is not, what in blazes does it have to do with the issue?

    This is the shiny penny gambit of argumentation.

    Jim is quite good at it.

    Parent

    What I'm saying about Dean and Holtzman et al (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ctrenta on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:38:27 PM EST
    ... is that they believe the necessity to pursue investigations into impeachment for Bush and Cheney IS NOT delusional.

    Why else would they write books entitled, Worse Than Watergate, The Impeachment of George W. Bush, Conservatives Without Conscience, and an upcoming book by Dean, Broken Government.

    Parent

    Dean on Impeachment (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:49:06 PM EST
    There is a well-organized and growing movement to impeach President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney. On my bookshelf sit half a dozen books making the case for Bush's impeachment. I myself have no doubt that Bush has, in fact, committed impeachable offenses, and that for each Bush "high crime and misdemeanor," Cheney's culpability is ten or twenty times greater......

    Impeachment is a political process, and not only are the votes to remove either Bush or Cheney lacking, but it also would not be very good politics to do to them what was done to President Clinton.

    There Is No Chance Either Bush or Cheney Will Be Removed From Office

    findlaw

    Parent

    Like Minds (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:49:36 PM EST
    Both paying attention... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:55:49 PM EST
    If everyone would we would be trying to end the occupation and marginalize the apes who support Bush.

    Parent
    errr... "wouldn't be" (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:56:54 PM EST
    This is precisely my rancor with impeachniks (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 04:23:12 PM EST
    Dean says what we say but they cite him as supporting their views when he rejects theirs views.

    It is of a piece with the fantastical world they wish us to join them in.

    Parent

    John Dean (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:45:58 PM EST
    Refocusing the Impeachment Movement on Administration Officials Below the President and Vice-President:
    Why Not Have A Realistic Debate, with Charges that Could Actually Result in Convictions?

    There is a well-organized and growing movement to impeach President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney. On my bookshelf sit half a dozen books making the case for Bush's impeachment. I myself have no doubt that Bush has, in fact, committed impeachable offenses, and that for each Bush "high crime and misdemeanor," Cheney's culpability is ten or twenty times greater.
    ...
    Impeachment is a political process, and not only are the votes to remove either Bush or Cheney lacking, but it also would not be very good politics to do to them what was done to President Clinton.

    There Is No Chance Either Bush or Cheney Will Be Removed From Office.

    Getting the necessary two-thirds supermajority in support of impeachment in today's Senate, which is virtually evenly-divided politically, is simply not possible. With forty-nine senators of the 110th Congress members in good standing with the Republican Party, and most of them rock-ribbed conservatives, even if the House produced evidence of Cheney personally water-boarding "Gitmo" detainees in the basement of his home at the Naval Observatory, with Bush looking on approvingly, there are more than thirty-three GOP Senators who still would not vote to convict. (Senate Republicans who have no problem with torture, or with removing the right to habeas corpus, and who refused to exercise any oversight whatsoever of Bush or Cheney, are hardly going to remove these men for actions in which they too are complicit.)

    Pelosi and Reid have long understood this reality



    Parent
    Fascinating. History of Watergate (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 01:04:57 PM EST
    courtesy of an Australian school teacher.  

    It gave me (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 01:09:42 PM EST
    what I wanted to convey here.

    Parent
    Indeed. (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 01:38:13 AM EST
    The Numbers Say it All (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 01:14:27 PM EST
    1973 February 7 The Senate votes (77-0) to create the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities.


    July 24 The Supreme Court, by a unanimous vote of 8-0 (William Rehnquist abstaining) upholds the Special Prosecutor's subpoena, ordering Nixon to make the tapes available for the Watergate trials of his former subordinates. The case is known as United States v. Nixon.


    July 24 The Supreme Court, by a unanimous vote of 8-0 (William Rehnquist abstaining) upholds the Special Prosecutor's subpoena, ordering Nixon to make the tapes available for the Watergate trials of his former subordinates. The case is known as United States v. Nixon.

    And the press was not in a stupor.

    the 93rd congress:

    Senate: 56 dems 42 repubs 1 conservative and 1 independent

    House: 242 dems 192 repubs 1 independent dem

    110th congress:

    Senate: 49 dems 49 repubs 2 independent

    House: 233 dems 201 repubs

    And (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 01:21:11 PM EST
    July 27 The House Judiciary Committee adopts the first Article of Impeachment by a vote of 27-11, with 6 Republicans voting with the Democrats. The Article charges Nixon with obstruction of the investigation of the Watergate break-in.

    Anyone see the Smoking gun? The NSA wiretapping doesn't seem tp be getting much traction now, does it?

    Anyone see the 17 republican senators that will vote for impeachment?

    This admin not only learned from Nixon and Iran-Contra, but can luxuriate in the fact that they have impunity by numbers.

    The best gift we can give the repubs is an impeachment proceeding against Bush. My guess is that the idea is being pushed by republican operatives.

    Parent

    asdf (none / 0) (#28)
    by ctrenta on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 02:34:24 PM EST
    Anyone see the 17 republican senators that will vote for impeachment?

    Why do we need to see them now?

    Just because they're not there now doesn't mean they won't change their minds later. I seem to think that's how the Nixon impeachment get started too and I'm sure John Dean and Elizabeth Holtzman can back that up..... and they  "lived" Watergate!

    Parent

    Because (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:04:36 PM EST
    The way it stands now the GOP prospects for 08 are eroding big time.

    The parallels with Nixon are not viable. Now is a different situation.

    The GOP would love us to impeach Bush. They will laugh in our faces when they appoint two more SC religious wingnuts, in 09 after stealing an election 08 that is sitting in our laps.

    Way too much to lose. Cool your heels ctrenta:

    Revenge is a dish best served cold and When seeking revenge it is best to dig two graves.


    Parent

    But why are we worried about them laughing at us? (none / 0) (#41)
    by ctrenta on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:18:25 PM EST
    Why is that even an issue? That shouldn't even matter if fighting for the constitution is at stake. This is about doing what's right. If it were so, then nobody else's opinion should matter.

    That's an interesting quote you have. But I'd like to respectfuly challange it. IMHO, impeachment is not about revenge. It may be for some, but it shouldn't be. I'd say people like that need to look over again what it means to impeach someone. But in my view, this is all about preserving and protecting the Constitution and our fragile system of checks and balances. For those of us who pursued impeachment resolutions wouldn't care if the offending president were Republican, Democrat, Independent, whatever! That's the last thing I beleive we should care about!

    When there is a gross abuse of power by those in office, it's our duty to pursue investigations into impeachment. I don't care if we win or lose or how it will affect the results of future elections (even though history shows it rewards the party that conducts investigations) and this is coming from a staunch Democrat!

    No matter what the results of elections may be, it should be ALL of our duties to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution and it's a shame that those who took oaths to defend it HAVE TO be told to do so by the citizens they serve.

    Parent

    On the Other Hand (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:57:08 PM EST
    Why impeach lower-level officials, rather than the "big enchilada," as Nixon used to say? There are multiple reasons.

    Lowering the aim of an impeachment effort to focus on those who have aided and abetted, or directly engaged in, the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, would have all the positives, and none of the negatives, of going after Bush and Cheney. It would not be an effort to overturn the 2004 election, but rather to rid the government of those who have participated, along with Bush and Cheney, in abuses and misuses of power; indeed, many among them have actually encouraged Bush and Cheney to undertake the offensive activities.

    Many of these men (and a few women) are young enough that it is very likely that they will return to other posts in future Republican Administrations, and based on their experience in the Bush/Cheney Administration, they can be expected to make the offensive conduct of this presidency the baseline for the next president they serve. Impeachment, however, would prevent that from happening.

    findlaw

    Typical Democratic Cant Wins The Day (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Lavocat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:57:33 PM EST
    This is so simple, though no doubt forever elusive to the Sunshine Friends among the Democratic elite.

    This is NOT about numbers.  This is not even about the need for a certainty of winning.

    This is about standing up for one's principles.  Period.

    And for an administration so incredibly beholden to symbolism - and a Democratic Congress that likes to engage in symbolic dalliances, all in the name of looking tough (but not BEING tough) - to be willfully blind to the symbolism here - even if THAT IS ALL THERE IS - is tantamount to a complete and utter abdication of the core values of ALL Ameircan politicians on the national level.

    Stand up and be counted, damn it!  Losing fights is NOT something to be afraid of. What is to be feared most is NOT engaging in fights when the chance of success, however remote, exists!  Because, otherwise, you will always be asking "what if"!

    Besides, silence on impeachment = acceptance of the status quo.  C'mon, does ANYONE really still accept the status quo!!!???

    The Democrats already own the Iraq Debacle; apparently they are eager to have ownership of the corruption of the Constitution as well.

    And so it goes.  Not with a bang, but a terrified little whimper from a gutless, gutless Democratic Party; a party to which I GLADLY no longer belong.

    All that needs be done for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing.

    Sometimes you just need to get bloody, even if it's your own ass that ultimately winds up getting kicked.

    Lastly, it amazes me that we have at least three litigators authoring articles on this site and nary a word about fighting for fighting's sake.

    Sad.


    This is for you to feel good (3.66 / 3) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 04:24:59 PM EST
    As opposed to do good.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 04:01:57 PM EST
    Losing fights is NOT something to be afraid of.
    ]

    But losing the 2008 election is something that will set this country back to the middle ages. Two more SC religious zealots will start a new age of inquisition.

    That is not worth losing.

    Parent

    It is about winning fights (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 04:25:53 PM EST
    on Defunding Iraq, whioch these impeachniks do not care about at all.

    They want to feel good.

    They could not care less if good comes of it.

    Parent

    requital (none / 0) (#65)
    by Sumner on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 05:14:07 PM EST
    Then I offer you leave to imagine, if you will, that you hold the Regalia - Power of life and death; power of judicature; power of war and peace; power of taxation; power of minting money.

    What then is your design?

    Parent

    Imagine (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 05:43:12 PM EST
    That is the impeachnik approach.

    Parent
    polyocularity (none / 0) (#81)
    by Sumner on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 07:14:36 PM EST
    Let us put aside whether-or-not "impeachnic" is merely a pejorative for rhetorical flourish.

    "To want to feel good", evokes no sense of disparagement, and I have no argument to that.

    "They could not care less if good comes of it" appears inconsistant with reference to my concerns, and so seems to be itself, a characterization delving into the "imaginative".

    I acknowledge harm reduction; law of unintended consequences; fallout; blowback; blindsiding.

    I run counterfactuals, regularly. Be glad for it.

    As noted in other posts, government attacks are at this moment being made where citizens are most obliged to respond, such as on "net neutrality" and with NSA wire-tapping. We anticipated they would do something.

    In an ideal world there would be a clear right answer to problems. In the real world there are opportunity costs and unfortunately, lesser-of-evil, no-win situations and choices. "May you live in interesting times", the ancient Chinese proverb and curse, comes to mind. As does, Thomas Paine's, "These are the times that try men's souls."

    Everything we are, hopefully builds us for times like these. Are we any match for the moment? Can you imagine the doubt of some poor kid told to "take that hill"?

    The "Blood for Oil" is wrong, and the profits are hardly shared. And you likely accept the proposition, that, short of near genocide of people in lawful possession of those resources, that they are otherwise going to use a cartel to maximize their profits. You are likely resigned to that trade-off. But that is a trade-off, in favor of humanity and morality and International law. I presume to understand your position on that.

    And methinks this empire has committed war crimes. We have signs that Bush administration commits crimes here too.

    And I was always taught that circumstance is the final arbiter.

    Parent

    Off topic comment (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 07:30:47 PM EST
    IT is an interesting comment unrelated to my post.

    Parent
    This is about standing up for one's principles. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 04:04:02 PM EST
    Exactly.

    Democrat and Republican alike have forsaken representation of the people and the people's will. The latest polls show that 77 percent of Americans want the troops home from Iraq. And still the politicians argue for more time, maybe more money, maybe there is a way to support the troops without confronting the GOP machine. Congressional approval is at the same depressing nadir as that of George Bush. The people voted for change and got nothing but wimpy words and bluster and more political petulance - and more death and destruction.

    ...here's the deal: it's time to wake up and step up, dear Democrats. Plan all you want to take Congressional seats in the '08 elections - but be prepared to pay the price for inaction today. Nothing is off the table. Nothing. Ever.

    John Cory: Once Upon America

    Parent
    Hey stupidicus (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 07:17:11 PM EST
    You do  not get to say we have blood on our hands and we do not get to say it about you.

    Do it again and I will ask you be banned.

    As is, I deleted you troll comment.

    I deleted your next comment (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 07:42:39 PM EST
    for obvious reasons.

    I will be asking for your account to be deleted.

    Have a good night.

    Parent

    Let it be known (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 07:45:53 PM EST
    that nothing would give me more pleasure than to eviscerate Mr. Stupid in the language that he desserves.

    Sadly, that is not consonant with the rules of this site.

    Thus, Mr. Stupid has to go.

    Parent

    Nation of laws, yeah right. (4.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Aaron on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:34:44 PM EST
    [The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. ]

    What a laughable assertion, it certainly isn't true today, and i doubt whether it was ever anything more than a statement of high ideals that this country never did live up to.  The statement is little more than a myth, perpetuated by those who consistently had the law and the courts working in their favor.  Just a superficial examination of the federal government's behavior and the federal courts and Supreme Court who consistently supported virtually whatever the federal government wanted throughout the 1800s right up until the 1950s, in just about every case that involved Native Americans, African-Americans, recent immigrants you name it, anyone who went up against the federal government almost always wound up losing in the end. Native Americans continued to get screwed throughout the 60s, 70s, 80s and into the 90s.  For the most part they don't have anything of value left that the federal government can take away from them.  

    If the federal government were to live up to the law, a good 25% of our land mass would immediately be returned to the Native American tribes it was stolen from, at the behest of federal judges (just men) who had no problem throwing the law out the window, when it suited the presidents (just men) who were telling them what to do. Government of laws, that's a joke, a sad sick joke on all of us.

    Now it's the rest of us who are on the receiving end of unchecked federal power in the form of an executive branch drunk with power, it's our turn to find out that the country we thought was ours really isn't, it belongs to a small minority of rich and powerful folks who are obviously fed up with continuing this pretense at representative democracy.  All the evidence we need is right before our eyes, the American people change the face of Congress, thinking that it would alter the course we were on.  Well it didn't.  Now, as an agenda that is surely not in the best interests of the American people goes forward, we get to wait for the next election and tell ourselves that when the Democrats regain the White House, these politicians of ours will have to start doing what the people want, right?

    We just better hope that there still a few drops of integrity left in the electoral process, because one more Republican president in the White House will surely be the death knell for freedom, liberty and justice in the United States for anyone who can't afford to pay for it.  Though perhaps I'm naïve in thinking that a Democratic president will be able to reverse this slide towards democracy's abolition.  I suppose we'll all find out come to thousand nine.

    An old English song, (none / 0) (#100)
    by gollo on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 08:21:52 PM EST
    The law locks up the man or woman
    Who steals the goose from off the common
    But leaves the greater villain loose
    Who steals the common from off the goose.

    The law demands that we alone
    When we take things we do not own
    But leaves the lords and ladies fine
    Who take things that are yours and mine.

    The poor and wretched don't escape
    If they conspire the law to break;
    This must be so but they endure
    Those who conspire to make the law.

    The law locks up the man or woman
    Who steals the goose from off the common
    And geese will still a common lack
    Till they go and steal it back.
    --Anonymous

    Parent

    The perfect impeachnik (3.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 05:42:21 PM EST


    Can't be for real (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 05:50:39 PM EST
    Must be a GOP plant. Stupidicus????

    Parent
    Impeachniks (none / 0) (#74)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 06:03:13 PM EST
    are close to becoming the new trolls.

    Arguing for something that has not a hope in hell of succeeding.

    Anything to avoid NOT funding for the occupation, and willing to trade peoples lives for the opportunity to have a continuing Iraq occupation to run against next year.

    Almost as if they don't know that it is obvious to everyone that the GOP has been virtually consigned to oblivion and the Democrats will probably win next year anyway... they want to continue with the same kind of policies Bush has.

    Curious, isn't it? If it walks like a duck, etc.

    Something really frickin' stinks here. Maybe the impeachniks haven't yet realized that that is obvious too.

    Almost as badly as the stink of Bushco trolls.

    Parent

    Latin Grammar (none / 0) (#95)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 08:01:21 PM EST
    Adjectives with the sense of belonging to are formed by means of the suffixes--

        * -ānus, -ēnus, -īnus; -ās, -ēnsis; -cus, -acus (-ācus), -icus; -eus, -êius, -icius

    Parent

    Thank you again (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 05:56:13 PM EST
    Stupid . . .

    Parent
    That is the most disingenuous (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 06:48:06 PM EST
    set of misrepresentations, blatant lies and trolling nonsense I've seen posted here.

    Obviously you have read little here, and comprehended even less.

    Parent

    As I said (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 06:58:16 PM EST
    the perfect impeachnik.

    Parent
    Here's the thing (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 07:02:49 PM EST
    cite things I HAVE WRITTEN,not things you have written to support your slanderous lies.

    As I said, the perfect impeachnik.

    Parent

    You cited no words of mine (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 07:26:24 PM EST
    Try quoting me next time.

    But the perfect impeachnik does not care about facts or reality.

    Lies and slander are the order of the day from them now.

    Parent

    Thanks again (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 08:06:54 PM EST
    G'night.

    Parent
    Anyone who has been paying attention (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 07:27:45 PM EST
    knows, stupidicus, that your invitation to refute things that have been refuted endelessly and completely is no more than a trolling attempt to have people waste their time on you.

    You're not worth it. People are not anywhere near as dumb as you believe they are.

    You are a troll. And not a very good one. Go tell whoever sent you that you're not up to the task, and that they need to send a more competent troll.


    Parent

    Perhaps I missed something.. (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:10:31 PM EST
    What high crimes and misdemeanors has Bush done??

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    30 FISA violations x 5 years each (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by scarshapedstar on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:16:29 PM EST
    Snore (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:22:12 PM EST
    Perhaps I missed something..

    Yes you did but don't worry, go back to sleep, we will wake you again in Dec 08.

    sweet dreams

    Parent

    Try (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:29:01 PM EST
    reading the TalkLeft archives since Bush was installed as president, or this.

    Either one will give you something to ignore again, and pretend you've never asked the question and had it answered or had a discussion about it before.

    Parent

    So ... there IS no remedy (none / 0) (#17)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 01:47:24 PM EST
    I don't consider stopping the war a remedy.  

    Maybe it's a step toward a remedy but not a remedy.

    Stopping the war is NOT a remedy? (3.66 / 3) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 01:56:56 PM EST
    Omigawd.

    It is is most certainly the remdy for the Iraq Debacle.

    I'm getting more and more fed up.

    I can't believe you wrote that.

    Parent

    The remedy for illegal wiretapping (none / 0) (#22)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 02:00:19 PM EST
    and other violations of law by this administration.  It's not the remedy for that.  

    If we defund the war and Bush throws up his hands, gives in and ends the war -- a good thing has happened.  But it doesn't remedy the other matter.  

    If under Odom's scenario he refuses to end the war then MAYBE he'll be impeached - which is a remedy for everything.  I consider that an unlikely scenario.  But if it happens then defunding the war is a step toward a remedy.

    That's what I meant.

    Parent

    Of course it is not (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 02:02:27 PM EST
    There is only one remedy. Removal from office now.

    I buy that.

    But like Marbury, we have a right without a remedy.

    Madison was NOT impeached.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 02:19:44 PM EST
    I agree with your post.  I just don't see why we shouldn't just say it out loud and face facts squarely - there is no practical remedy. We're just going to have to live with the fact that an administration can decide on a unitary executive theory and do whatever it wants (legally or illegall) unless (i) the opposing party is in complete control of the impeachment votes or (ii) the administration's own party has a moral base and is willing to reject the administration and join in impeachment proceedings.  There's nothing new in that.  But in the past we've never had such a corrupt administration so we've never had to face the shortcomings in our system to such an extent as now.

    The only part of your post I part company with you is on this, and I don't even disagree with it factually:

    What has shocked the American People is the disastrous Debacle in Iraq. The Congress has the political power to act on Iraq. If they will just do it. It seems to me that impeachment proponents are not thinking clearly on the politicalnature of the battles the Democrats and progressives must fight and how they can win them.

    From what I can see this week, both online and in real life, the American People are also shocked by the Libby sentence commutation. THAT is why you're seeing people head over to the impeachment side.  Your very practical argument that Congress should do what it can do is being rejected BECAUSE of the shock and anger arising out of that situation - shock and anger that may be exacerbated by the ruling today.  What Congress can do is to far unrelated to what everyone is angry about for it to be a satisfying solution.  


    Parent

    That may be true (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 02:51:22 PM EST
    We'll see.

    By those lights then, impeachment will be based on the President's exercise of his pardon power.

    Ironic.

    Parent

    Peoples lives come first. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 04:30:48 PM EST
    Stopping the death comes first.

    The rest is 'nice to have' stuff, for now.

    If the window can be moved far enough to force and end to the Iraq occupation, the 'nice to have' stuff will follow naturally.

    Parent

    ironic (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 04:46:27 PM EST
    That on a legal issues blog someone would post that enforcement of the law is only 'nice to have stuff'.  

    What's the phrase?  Unworthy of response?

    Parent

    You're not unworthy of a response, Mary. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 05:02:02 PM EST
    Unless you refuse to address the point and resort to snark.

    I am not a lawyer, for one.

    Two, you know what I said is true from a practical standpoint.

    Prosecutors routinely do not file charges in a case where there is no hope of conviction.

    You know that too.

    If you can't address the point, you'll look better not commenting.

    Parent

    I have no problem with your priorities (4.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 09:03:15 PM EST
    but I have a huge problem with you calling the constitution and the rule of law "nice to have" stuff.   If that's how you feel about it you only deserve snark and you don't deserve my attention.  

    That was MY point.

    Parent

    I ::clearly:: said (none / 0) (#104)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 09:33:12 PM EST
    The rest is 'nice to have' stuff, for now.

    Meaning getting the hell out of Iraq ASAP and stopping the dying is a higher priority.

    The only priority. The rest would be nice to have, and is important, and I'd love to see it.

    But it's not as important as the people who are dying in Iraq.

    I doubt they give a damn, when they are breathing their last breath or watching their life bleed out through an IED or gunshot wound or being blown to bits of hamburger by a suicide bomber, whether or not a hopeless impeachment proceeding is started.

    This
    might clarify my attitude further.

    Parent

    What on earth do hopeless impeachment (none / 0) (#105)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 09:49:13 PM EST
    proceedings have to do with my comment? Where did I ever propose that impeachment was a workable remedy?  Where did I ever say that I didn't want to end the war?  Where did I ever question your priorities?  

    E, I'm not impressed by your ability to do graphic descriptions of people dying. It doesn't move me in the least.  I'm well aware that people are dying. I repeat - I don't object to your priorities.

    It's your "'nice to have' stuff" that I object to. Since you continue to say it I have to assume you mean it.  The words you add after it don't help. If you don't understand why I object to that I can't help you.  

    Parent

    Perhaps I misread you, Mary. (none / 0) (#106)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 10:12:03 PM EST
    I took your comment about "enforcement of the law" above to mean you felt that trying to impeach should take precedence over ending the occupation of Iraq and that you would rather see energy expended trying to garner support to impeach than to defund.

    If I misinterpreted you I apologize.

    Impeachment, in my view, would be "nice to have", was my meaning.

    It looks like we are both reading into each others comments meanings that are not there.

    My inability to write "graphic descriptions" that meet your high standards of "graphic" notwithstanding. I'm not here to write a  novel with astounding literary brilliance to equal the descriptive talents of history greatest writers.

    I'm concerned with ending the occupation of Iraq, a specific instance of a poisoned mindset.

    I want the occupation ended as soon as possible so that the fewest Americans and Iraqis die. Preferably none. Period. I also see the occupation as a specific instance of the more general doctrine of preemptive war - really imperialist hegemony - that the neocons and rethugs want to pursue. I want the specific instance ended and the mindset behind the general doctrine made politically and socially unacceptable and people who hold that mindset treated as pariahs, so that no matter which party is elected it will not happen again.

    I also don't think we need to have a "sarcasm" contest that neither of us will exit unbloodied (metaphorically speaking).

    Peace.

    Parent

    You should know (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 10:28:46 PM EST
    that, except for that first "unworthy of response" comment, there was nothing sarcastic in anything I said.  I meant every word.  

    But in any event, I'm sorry if I offended you. People on the same side shouldn't waste time fighting with each other.

    Parent

    One of my faults is excessive sarcasm. (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 10:33:38 PM EST
    I try to reserve it for unloading on the wingnuts to put them in their place. I don't always succeed at that and occasionally I misread people.

    We are on the same side I think. I mean no offense to you.

    Parent

    Priorities (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 05:07:51 PM EST
    and what we can get.

    End the war.

    Parent

    Exactly... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 05:26:22 PM EST
    see my response to E above (none / 0) (#103)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 09:04:01 PM EST
    Stop the dying ... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Sailor on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 05:26:06 PM EST
    ... and then we can concentrate on lesser evils.

    Parent
    Winning In 08 (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 01:54:58 PM EST
    Is the best remedy I can see.

    How to stop the maniacs from more war is a top priority in my book. Ending the war prior would certainly be nice, avoiding a war with Iran is a must.  

    Parent

    Gordian Knot (none / 0) (#18)
    by Sumner on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 01:50:18 PM EST
    Here's the person I want. Hullo, person! Doesn't hear me.

    Perhaps if the future existed, concretely and individually, as something that could be discerned by a  better brain, the past would not be so seductive: its demands would be balanced by those of the future. Persons might then straddle the middle stretch of the seesaw when considering this or that object. It might be fun.

    But the future has no such reality (as the pictured past and the perceived present possess); the future is but a figure of speech, a specter of thought.

    Hullo, person! What's the matter, don't pull me. I'm not bothering him. Oh, all right. Hullo, person  .  .  . (last time, in a very small voice).

    When  we concentrate on a material object, whatever its situation, the very act of attention may lead to our involuntarily sinking into the history of that object. Novices must learn to skim over matter if they want matter to stay at the exact level of the moment. Transparent things, through which the past shines!

    -- from the opening paragraphs of Vladimir Nabokov's, Transparent Things

    So the Remedy will come later (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cptsalesman on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:12:43 PM EST
     If the next President is willing to appoint and charge his new Atty. General with the investigation of Violations of Civil Rights, War Crimes, Domestic Spying, Secret Prisons, Violations of the Geneva Convention, Starting a war based on False Information and everything else, and even appoint a Special Prosecutor or 2 or 3, Remedy will have come after the fact. Placing Bush in Prison this year or next is fine with me as long as it gets done. That includes all his cronys of course.

     It's time to ask your Candidates if they are willing to promise to carry out the above. If not, they are not the kind of person I want for President.

    Fight for the survival of democracy, it's war (none / 0) (#96)
    by Aaron on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 08:04:33 PM EST
    Big Tent Democrat

    It baffles me that you or anyone else can really entertain for one moment that a Democrat won't win the election in 2008.  I submit that the only way that that can't happen is if the election is completely fixed, there is no other way that a Democrat doesn't get at least 300 electoral votes and a landslide of popular votes in the coming election.  So what, that's just the beginning of the fight to reclaim our country.

    Now is not the time for caution and reserve and cool heads, now is the time to pounce and rip their throats out, metaphorically speaking.  This is not a game of brinkmanship any longer, this is a hand-to-hand close quarters knife fight where you get them down and jam your blade into the eye socket of the enemy, the Republican Party, before they do the same to you.  We're talking about the ugliest kind of political war where the survival of this country as a free society is quite obviously at stake.  

    The Republicans have made it abundantly clear that they have no intentions of playing by any rules, or by any code of ethical conduct whatsoever, they don't have to, they long ago sold their principles and souls for the opiate of power.  Like some crazed heroin junkie, they can rationalize away any crime, like making excuses for president who has obviously subverted the Constitution, holding up the security of the nation as a blanket to hide their grab for power, they'll do anything for that next fix, they're completely hooked.  Forget the Democrats, the people of this country have no choice but to take the gloves off.  It's war now, political war perhaps, but war nonetheless.

    The Democratic response must be equivalent to the allied response to the Nazis and the axis powers during World War II.  In that fight America used its industrial might to swamp the enemy with a massive mobilization of men and resources to a level unknown in human conflict. The Democratic Party must institute the same type of mobilization.  They have one last card to play in the fight for the survival of America, and it's a card that they long ago forgot they had, the people of the United States.  We are the sleeping giant who've finally been roused from our slumber by these deepest most bald-faced acts of corruption on the part of our Republican representatives, who mistakenly believe that they are the power and the glory.  Their hubris is to a point where they take their own constituents entirely for granted, having so brainwashed them with fear and a steady diet of scapegoating minorities, gays, immigrants etc. that these folks hardly even know who they are any longer.  For years they've worked to condition their sheep into believing that they should be more and more grateful for less and less in their lives. I'm not going to end up like them, I can tell you that, but with each passing day it seems as if that's what the Democratic Party has in mind for us as well.

    The Democrats who are running for the presidency, and the Democrats in the Congress better remember who hands out the power in this country, and if they're not prepared to use that power viciously and without mercy to save this country from slipping into the equivalent of prerevolution 1788 France, then the only choice left to Americans will be a popular revolt.  The alternative will be for the majority of the population to accept generations of peonage and economic enslavement at the hands of a ruling upperclass, a state that to some degree already exists in this country.  Even now it's apparent that those who already have so much power that it's effectively killing democracy, feel they must have it all, and obviously they'll stop at nothing to get it.

    If you don't think this is the direction that America is heading, then I submit that you don't see clearly.  If no one represents the people, it is our right, our birthright to abolish the current system and replace it with a new one. We may not be at that crossroads yet, but it is rapidly approaching.

     I'm a registered Democrat, but I don't believe the Democrats represent me, and I've felt that way for some time.  We see now the problem with a two-party system, it's either one or the other, and if both sides begin to work against the interests of the people, we have been effectively cut out of our own government, abandoned by those that think they have no choice but to capitulate with the enemy in order to keep the system functioning.  At some point someone has to stand up and say no further, you shall go no further no matter what the consequences. If no one is prepared to do that then democracy is lost, liberty evaporates, and freedom will become nothing but a fading memory.

    I do not think your comment (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 08:07:54 PM EST
    is responsive to my post.

    thanks for commenting.

    Parent

    All of what you say is true Aaron. (none / 0) (#99)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 08:15:45 PM EST
    Now is the time to pounce.

    By cutting off all funding for the Iraq occupation.

    If the Democrats can find the guts to do that I'm fairly certain you would feel that they are representing you.

    If they will not use that power (and they do have it, without question) then they would also not use it to pursue impeachment.

    They cannot get ENOUGH votes to viably pursue impeachment.

    They do not need ANY votes in Congress to cut off funding for the occupation of Iraq - but they refuse to do it (so far).

    Parent

    For commenters (none / 0) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 08:58:32 PM EST
    If you can not refrain from questioning my morals, you simply cannot comment in my threads.

    Gollo, I deleted your comment.

    I didn't question your morals, (1.00 / 1) (#110)
    by gollo on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:26:31 AM EST
    I questioned your commitment to enforce your morals, a very important distinction, but a nuance obviously lost on you.

    Parent
    You discussed ny (none / 0) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 10:50:12 AM EST
    "questionable morals" - that is a quote.

    Don't do it again.

    Parent

    firstly, (none / 0) (#112)
    by gollo on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 01:28:33 PM EST
    please quote the whole sentence or paragraph to provide the context shown in my argument to prove your case.

    What you have provided is a textbook example of a quote mining ad-hominem.

    Secondly, my post was questioning the truth value of an argument that was based on premises that had an illogical content(See sumners post which details correctly the fallacies employed)

    Arbitrarily you decided that this was an attack on yourself, (did I name you?), for which you have no proof as it was a philosophical arguement on the thruth value of a set of statements in which an arguement and the rebuttal which if logically constructed cannot contain a fallacy for itself to be true.

    Thirdly, all morals are questionable, for if they are not thoroughly questioned, how are we to know that they are true? To question a moral is a vital part of ethical philosophy that has been practised for thousands of years.  Even if a moral is found to be based on faulty argument, it does not necessarily condem those who hold it to any degree, for in the past people whom we would hold to be good today held questionable moral positions.

    Parent

    Look (none / 0) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 03:37:24 PM EST
    Don't do it again.

    Moving on.

    Parent