Off The Table For Good Reason

Let me begin by saying that impeachment is a wonderful thing. In fact I may be it’s biggest fan, because it provides the means for removing from office those who have disgraced themselves and the office they hold by committing criminal acts, via a thorough and not easily abused process. Also, it is a process that works best when not wielded as a weapon, but held in reserve as a people’s final choice when dealing with abuses of power.

Next month, we will be witness to a change of power that closes as many doors as it opens. Democrats will be in charge of all the mechanisms of the Legislative Branch and based on who has been given control of what committees and the directions that will be taken, one thing is certain: there will be investigations, dozens if not hundreds, pertaining to things from agriculture to ethics to energy to contracting to pick a card any card. Subpoena will be a word heard on a near daily basis, as Congress looks into what it was told was none of their business for the last six years.

There will be subpoenas issued that will be responded to in minutes, for they will be mere formalities. Research groups, journalists who aren’t worried about being on the guest list for the next cocktail party, bloggers like Kos and Larisa Alexandrova, DU and simliar liberal websites have research that is extensive, damning, and most importantly, there for the asking. And unlike the congress now whining about not knowing what they’ll do once the party ends, the incoming congress will not run from this information. Heck, they might even be able read it into a working microphone, in a room where lights don’t flicker on and off.

There will also be subpoenas that will be responded to with stonewalling and obstruction from those still in power in the Executive, and with the one phrase used most successfully with the rubber stamp crew soon to be gone, and that is National Security. I am of the opinion that this chestnut should be almost encouraged from the Cheney and Bush camps as a standard reply to requests for information, to the point that it becomes clear to the public that those using it have no interest in National Security, only in hiding from accountability behind words they cheapen, render useless and debase. Use it to the point that nobody save the True Believers trust these people when they trot it out to save their hides. Make them prove it. In private committees. Redact what you MUST, but get the goods. Over and over and over until it becomes routine, and most importantly, until all that can get out does. Make them look foolish whenever possible.

Yeah, I know…

Information is the key. It must be voluminous, accurate and compelling, not only to those in our own party who see impeachment as a subject best avoided, but also to as many GOP members as can be persuaded though seeing before them enough evidence to change their concern from defending the party, to one of saving this government from abuses unseen before in it’s history. I believe this to be entirely possible, based on factors not only resulting from the recent election, but from years of arm twisting and scare tactics from the far right, that have left many moderates angry and prepared to act in an atmosphere where they are free to act without fear of being ostracized or punished for doing what is right. Find out what they can bring to the table in the form of information and testimony. Build the case on such a grand scale that as opposed to what was done in the 90’s, and make the preponderance of evidence compel impeachment to be necessary, not the other way around. Make it an unavoidable necessity to as many of those on both sides of the aisle as possible, and to a public often skeptical of impeachment being used as a method of revenge and political grandstanding.


This, at least in my view, is how impeachment works best. Let the investigations begin, and for the time being, leave an empty place at the table. You never know who might show up.

She didn't have to be so absolute about it.

It was enough to almost close the door. It didn't need to be slammed and locked.

Sincw she did it, you don't hear much in the media about the Dems loan goal being taking the chimperor down. You hear it on the flying monkey right, they're as much part of the media as I am a member of the Philadelphia Orchestra.


:)

Members of Congress take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them to defend against threats that come from within the halls of power. To take impeachment of Bush "off the table" is a pre-emptive surrender; a declaration of her intent to violate the oath.

It is like answering questions about whether the use of military force is off the table -- the answer to that one is ALWAYS "nothing is off the table." Use of force is a weapon of last resort, but leaders never take the weapons we have made available for our defense "off the table." Never.

All she had to do was point that out.

Until they snap out of their denial of reality. . .

Revised Oath (Changes Mandated by Pelosi's Pledge)

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.

Which you just pointed out, we can't. So I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt that she meant it when she took her oath, and decided to "play politics" with her "off the table" gaffe. Either way, it doesn't exactly breed trust, eh?

....their people throughout government bureaucratic positions and the military as well as how many moles they have. The first six months of the Bush/Cheney administration back in 2001 were spent by their operatives sealing off access to crucial information sources and purging the key rank and file positions of every agency in Federal government while tightening the grip on the military with Bush/Cheney loyalists. These bastards can easily slink back into the shadows for the next 24 months until they determine that they may safely come forward once again. In the meantime, the neo-conservatives and religious radical Dominionists will assume their roles of being obstructionists continually attacking and eroding every democratic effort.

I think Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House will be up to the challenges of leading the party. But, the next two years will be a rough period for all Americans. Let Bush party-hardy during the next two weeks. When he comes to on January 4th 2007, it will be very apparent that there is real leadership in Washington DC and both Bush/Cheney and the republican party will either accept it or be push into the dust bin of history.

The moles, and suck ups might not slink away entirely if any of them can be made to feel that they are going to be left holding the bag for a lot of this, and that the bus coming down the street has their names on the front bumper.

People can tire of loyalty always being a one-way street.

The neocons and fundies will continue to be a thorn in the side of progress, but may also serve through their own arrogance and sense of infallibility, as divisive voices in a party that is already showing signs of tearing itself into lil bitty pieces.

I wasn't gonna tell History this, but I bought it a shiny new dustbin for Xmas. :D

. . .and to determine the extent of the damage can be carried out in parallel with, or following, impeachment.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/11">Only Impeachment

SCE,

I am so pleased to read your post first thing this morning. As much as I too am dismayed by the manner in which BushCo has operated, I feel impeachment continues to send the same ol' devisive (sp?) message that BushCo has perpetuated.

I applaud Nancy P. for taking the stand of no impeachment. Yes, BushCHeney crimes are far more impeachable than a blow job. Yes, they hide behind nat'l security for their personal (and Saudi)interests.

But i feel that the solid red-sters would continue to view the blue-sters with disdain, mis-trust. thereby keeping the division the bush/rove so solidly worked for the past 10 years (i'm including his time in TX).

The only part of your post i mildly disagree with is:

"...to the point that it becomes clear to the public that those using it have no interest in National Security, only in hiding from accountability behind words they cheapen, render useless and debase..."

In trying to think like a red-ster, I see that bush appeals to their spiritual sides, their fear, and yes their need for security. i believe that the other side of the fence (not the 700 mile fence) truly believes that bush acted honestly and with his heart and soul for the good of the USA, and its security....especially after being brainwashed by Faux News.

Note: i don't believe that, but i am trying to walk in their shoes.

i have posted before of the need for compassion and understanding (in reference to the fake and pornographic posts on Tom Delay's blog), and was somewhat ridiculed. that's ok, my skin is thick, or anyway i have quite a bit of extra tissue covering the sensitive bits.

I think investigations and subpoenas are a good thing, as long as the Faux news "graduates" don't think the dems are obsessed and obstructing government. I think Nancy realizes how pervasive the Faux news debacle has become, and is trying to be a dyed-in-the-wool liberal in the age of misinformation.

thank you again SCE for your post!

Sincerely
Robert

And I know what you mean, which is why in the next sentence I gave them a name. The True Believers. A relentless bunch of fear mongering devotees that would've impressed Rashnish. I say let them talk. They will either provide sideshow material, or become seen as so detached from the realities that confront us all, that credibility will be nothing more than a very big word where they are concerned.

Regards

Yet Another Robert :hi:

Impeachment is a defensive act. Members of Congress are sworn to defend the Constitution. When an official is abusing their power to attack the Constitution, Members of Congress fulfill their oath by seeking to impeach and remove the official.

Bush and Cheney have nullified the principle of consent with their Un-Americans and Unconstitutional claims to "unitary" power. They have turned the United States into a War Criminal nation. They are conducting a criminal domestic surveillance program.

The only way to stop the destruction is to remove the destroyers from power.

Impeachment is more likely to be unifying than divisive. Impeachment is a message of hope/renewal. It is a rejection of Bush's America and a declaration of desire to start anew. It is a declaration of our power. It reasserts the principle of consent. It is about defending and reconnecting to our vision of a True America that is embodied in the Constitution (amendments included).

as John Dean recently pointed out (and was posted here at DU somewhere), there are politics involved as well.

As long as we have Faux News out there spinning shit out of control, the dyed-in-the-wool red-sters will believe everything that they say.

If, and only if, Pat Leahy/Judiciary Cmte, and other cmtes, successfully investigate/subpoena, and uncover info that is incontrovertable (sp?)--i mean the Glove had better fit perfectly--beyond all reasonable doubt that even the Faux people can't spin it.

yes, these guys are criminal, and continue to be criminal after the ISG, etc. but i still fear the Rove-ists in spinning impeachment hearings as "not doing the job of governing america and protecing america's security".

My vision, that i'll continue to hold, is that on 1.20.09 just before the next prez (whether D or R) begins his inaugural address, he slaps the cuffs on Bush and Cheney and has them hauled off to The Hague for int'l war crime proceedings. that's a vision i can hold and support!

Impeachment is just to iffy for me right now...

hope this makes sense,
thanks for reading

I have been going to another board where conservatives actually are polite-but one thing they are saying about McKinney's impeachment resolution was that it was just a mean spirited Democratic thing. What is obvious to us isn't to them--we must show them with overwhelming proof--and then the calls for impeachment or resignation (which I think is more likely) will come from the Republicans themselves.

And freeing the moderates to act is the first step. There must be GOP hands in this, whether it be as a masthead or as an equal in the process should they be sincere in their willingness to not view this as partisan, but as something done with an earnest desiew to let the facts fall where they may. Those will be the Republicans who will be called on to help steward the matter to it's conclusions, and it's ... umm... conclusion.

for many reasons.

One is that it curtails the howler monkey media by not giving them a topic to fling shit at.
It also leaves bushco in the dark as to what direction the Dems will be coming from.If Pelosi had said we will impeach then she would have to give specific reasons as to why.Doing so would then give bushco info on what to plan for.Leaving them in the dark works to our advantage.

. . .about it.

We're not looking at another Watergate here, where "cover up" was the name of the game, and detangling the cover-up took some digging.

Bush and Cheney are committing their high crimes and abuses in plain sight. They admit their crimes in their public statements. When they attempted to nullify the principle of consent -- the sole moral principle on which our Constitution is founded -- with their claims to Un-American and Unconstitutional unitary authoritarian power, they didn't escape their crimes, they compounded them.

The case for impeachment is not "voluminous." Feingold's censure motion would be enough to make a case for removal.

But, the war crimes are more compelling, and urgent, than the spying -- particularly for members of Congress.

Failure to stop war crimes when you have the power to do so, is itself a war crime. Bush and Cheney have made it clear that the ONLY thing that will stop them is removal from office. When the 110th Congress convenes in January, the Democratic leadership has the power to lead the fight to end to the war crimes by impeaching and removing Bush and Cheney. If they refuse to take up the fight, win or lose, they don't just become morally complicit, they become war criminals themselves.

There is a reason that violators of Geneva are subject to the death penalty -- to give those with the power to inflict torture or wage a criminal war of aggression a compelling motive not to step anywhere near "the line." And to give those with the power to stop the crimes a compelling motive to do everything in their power to do so.

When Bush and Cheney arbitrarily and unilaterally attempted to "redefine" the Geneva conventions, they demonstrated their intent to violate those conventions. But, it doesn't matter if they have actually deluded themselves into believing that their war crimes aren't war crimes. Although their own actions demonstrate their consciousness of guilt, their state of mind is irrelevant.

All that matters is the reality: they ordered Americans to violate Geneva. If Members of Congress don't want to be party to the war crimes, they must stop them by using every means available to see Bush and Cheney removed from power.