The I-word is not really an issue by itself, since we are a long way from knowing what might be involved regarding charges. That is what the current hearings are building, whether presented as such or not; we're developing the foundation for an indictment by getting all this stuff on public record.

Impeachment is political, but only because at root all power is political, and there is no higher court to confirm or overturn an impeachment. So one could say it would be political to defend the Constitution.

There's good fishing, and great fishing. The privilege flap is good fishing, so far, and Gonzales was great. Don't you love it when the audience laughs at the AG?

We never heard in public from Rove, or Cheney. I'd like them to swear they didn't intend to confuse and mislead Fitzgerald. Fitz had to quit when he knew he was up against privilege. Now it's Congress' ball. Enjoy the game, it's going to be better (worse) than Nixon.

Fitz had to quit when he knew he was up against privilege.

I remember when people kept saying the same thing about Starr and Clinton-- he was always just one witness away from proving that Willie was a rapist (or something) and that was going to bring the whole house down. Yet somehow they never did find that witness.

Let's start by realistically accepting that if a special prosecutor, with all the time and resources in the world, can't bring more than a once-removed perjury charge, there's no case there and there's never likely to be one. You can even believe whatever, in your heart of hearts, but there's no case that anyone's going to find evidence to support. It's over.

What's next?

FItz had a different brief than Starr. Starr had more political power, because Congress was behind him. You'll remember that Congress was not exactly behind Fitz.

It ain't over; it's just beginning.

Just one witness away from bringing the whole house of cards down. I know, I know.

What'll be just beginning is Rudy's first term.

public opinion turned decisively against the impeachment effort once it became obvious the Senate wasn't going to convict him

I can't think how this could be misstated any more clearly.

I'm not sure public opinion ever supported impeachment in the first place. In the second place, if it did, it turned on the realization that Clinton did nothing worth impeaching - he committed perjury trying to hide his sins from his wife, exactly as everyone else would have done, and that's why they forgave Clinton.

So let's look at this another way:

1. Bush didn't cheat on his wife, he cheated the entire country, lied us into war, obstructed justice, and politicized the department of justice. No one is going to sympathize with that.

2. The public was so disgusted by the Republicans' impeachment proceedings that they promptly voted BUSH into office and gave him a compliant Republican Congress. Boy, we sure wouldn't want that to happen to Democrats, would we?

I think the answer is to impeach Cheney. You don't need to impeach Bush. Cheney is the real power behind the throne. You have a much better chance of getting a majority of Senators to convict because he is so toxic. And his destruction will tear down any remaining power to do harm that Bush might try to exert. He just won't have the will. He is, at heart, a coward, and with Cheney in the dock, Bush will run home to his mommies.

Impeach Cheney, and leave Bush swinging in the wind. After he's out of office, then we can bring war crime charges against him.

Every day there are more compelling reasons to begin the impeachment process: Gonzalez lying to Senate Judiciary Committee, Harriet Miers refusal to respond to a congressional supoena, Josh Bolten's refusal to respond to a congressional supoena, and let us not forget, lying to get us into Iraq, outing an undercover CIA agent and all those other gems.

Bill Moyers devoted an hour of his show on this topic recently. His guests were a reporter for the Nation and a very conservative think tank fellow. I was most impressed with the realization that the conservative was doing all the ranting about why impeachment is critical to the future of our country.

The reporter from the Nation reminded us that impeachment proceedings do not create a constitutional crisis--impeachment proceedings resolve a constitutional crisis. The Bush administration has created the most severe constitutional crisis to date. Action must be taken. It must be taken now.

Bill Moyers devoted an hour of his show on this topic recently.

On-line video of that show is available here.

Chancellor:

No offense, but I have to say that yours is the sort of approach I was specifically warning about in my post: making this a matter of "courage" or "timidity" rather than what it will actually produce politically. Your point about the Nixon impeachment is completely relevant, but not dispositive, given Nixon's self-destructive determination to play into his enemies' every tactic. Maybe Bush would do the same thing, but I don't think we can count on it. And we need to talk about such questions very specifically, and not reduce it all to a measurement of partisan machismo. Believe me, if the party does in a unified way decide to pursue impeachment, I won't be timid about supporting it.

BTW, since you brought it up, I have never once, ever, in my whole life tried to "convince" Democrats to be "afraid" of running on national security, or suggested they concede the issue, or any other issue, to Republicans. Au contraire, as a matter of fact. The only beef I've had with Democrats in terms of attacking Bush on Iraq is that they sometimes forget there are plenty of other issues on which his record is dreadful. Which is why, of course, we're in the position of even thinking about impeachment.

Ed Kilgore

So the fundamental question remains whether Democrats want to take up the "I-word" as a political exercise. And other questions quickly follow.

No, Mr. Kilgore. The fundamental question is whether Congress is going to allow the constitution to be shredded without a fight.

We are dealing with fundamental questions here --- the kind of questions that the American people can understand.

Right now, various polls show support for impeachment between 36-45% --- but those number reflect a level of ignorance regarding the actions of this administration because of the failure of the mainstream media (and the cowardice of the DLC types that you represent). Impeaching Bush (and Cheney) will make those facts unavoidable --- and the 70% of Americans who disapprove of the way he is doing his job with turn into 70% support for impeaching the criminals who are running this nation into the ground.

There is one other reason for impeachment -- by beginning impeachment procedings immediately, Bush's dubious claims to executive privilege become MUCH weaker.

Gee thanks Ed for advocating that a serious assault on the Constitution can be dismissed because you feel that the public would equate the Clinton and Bush impeachments.

You say that the public abandoned support of impeachment when it became obvious that Clinton wouldn’t be convicted. I don’t have polling data in front of me and confess that I can only cite anecdotal evidence, but, as I recall people recognized that the Clinton impeachment was frivolous before it was obvious that there would be an acquittal. I do recall that as the impeachment hearings in the House moved along Clinton’s job approval rating continued to rise.

Inasmuch as the charges are concerned the public will recognize that an impeachment of Bush is anything but trivial. You said it yourself. In a presidency that’s this bad charges are easy to come by. Already 45% of voters want Bush impeached. That may only represent the people who have been paying at least some attention. What happens to that percentage when the full litany of charges is presented and even casual observers are shocked at the perfidious nature of the Bush reign? I believe that a significant majority will demand conviction.

And if there is no conviction? What will an enraged public think of those who failed to convict.

Finally, it should be remembered that impeachment is meant to protect the Constitution. Never has any president so abused his power, neglected his oath of office and so brazenly sought to subvert the Constitution. Any cynical calculation that condones abandonment of the responsibility to protect the rule of law is itself subversion.

It's absurd to even be arguing this. OF COURSE Bush and Cheney should be impeached. If they're not, as Bruce Fein has said, it will be like leaving loaded guns all around the house. The long term future of our country is at stake. The precedents Bush has set can not be allowed to stand. If the Democrats set this aside because they think it might help them win an election, it WILL come back to haunt them and they'll damn well deserve it.

Impeachment is not a task anyone wants to take on. But it's a responsibility that has fallen on the Democrats. The Constitution is far more important than any short term gains the Democrats might hope to achieve. OF COURSE we MUST impeach.

I assure you I am quite serious, if you cannot see my points you are not thinking it through.

An investigation without serious direction from the grownups at the head of the party will bring out every kook theory and attention whore from Ramsey Clark to the LaRouchies to whatever popped up on Daily Khaos that day.

Meanwhile, the media (who have hours and hours to fill) and the Republicans (who see a chance to hoist the other side by their own petard) will take every opportunity to talk about how this impeachment is or is not like the Clinton one. I promise you, the last thing Hillary wants leading into the election is 24-hour retrospective coverage of Monica and Whitewater. Doesn't matter that Clinton mostly got off (so to speak). She doesn't want it brought up at all.

It is precisely because the bigshots fear what could happen if that red meat is thrown to those of you in the base that they will resist throwing it at all. They will conduct hearings to the day Bush leaves, they will have great sport with hapless Albert and other small fish, but impeachment isn't off the table, it's never been anywhere near the table.

I don't object; and I fully expect investigations, hearings, etc.

But as I say below, the powers that be won't let them go anywhere near becoming impeachment hearings. They absolutely will not. No matter how much internet sites whine and seethe.

It is not considered impeachment in other governments. It is merely a "no confidence vote" and it happens.

Americans seem to think this (question of impeachment) is a sign of death to the country if it happens.

Is it arrogance that your country MUST believe you are better or fear that you are not? Is there any situation that Americans would consider impeachment?

I am astounded that what you say you believe in free speach, association, right to own property etc) can be so ignored to protect one man and expel ghosts.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I disagree with you that we should be looking at "what it will actually produce politically." IMHO, impeachment should never be a political process. The Constitution never mentions Democrats, Republicans, Whigs or whatever, to the best of my knowledge, in considering grounds for impeachment. My primary concern in moving for impeachment before Bush and Cheney are out of office is that if Congress refuses to act, a legal precedent could be set which would actually have the effect of endorsing these activities through inaction.

I totally agree with you that impeachment cannot be seen as partisan. Dems must be forceful in reiterating that the same actions would be taken against a lawless Democratic administration. They should also try to corral the Republicans such as Bruce Fein into an Iraq-Study-Group-type of document, arguing for impeachment as the only recourse when confronted by a President and Vice President who have lost all respect for our laws. However, trying to draft new laws to prevent executive abuses is a pointless exercise when you have people like Bush and Cheney who believe that they are above the law.

Here is what the "Constitutional Grounds for Impeachment of the President" Report said in 1974:

Impeachment is a constitutional remedy addressed to serious offenses against the system of government. The purpose of impeachment under the Constitution is indicated by the limited scope of the remedy (removal from office and possible disqualification from future office) and by the stated grounds for impeachment (treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors). It is not controlling whether treason and bribery are criminal. More important, they are constitutional wrongs that subvert the structure of government, or undermine the integrity of office and even the Constitution itself, and thus are "high" offenses in the sense that word was used in English impeachments. The framers of our Constitutional conspicuously adopted a particular phrase from the English practice to help define the consitutional grounds for removal. The content of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" for the framers is to be related to what the framers knew, on the whole, about the English practice-- the broad sweep of English constitutional history and the vital role impeachment had played in the limitation of royal prerogative and the control of abuses of ministerial and judicial power.

Impeachment was not a remote subject for the framers. . . . The framers understood quite clearly that the constitutional system they were creating must include some ultimate check on the conduct of the executive, particularly as they came to reject the suggested plural executive. While insistent that balance between the executive and legislative branches be maintained so that the executive would not become the creature of the legislature, dismissible at its will, the framers also recognized that some means would be needed to deal with excesses by the executive. Impeachment was familiar to them. They understood its essential constitutional functions and perceived its adaptability to the American contest.

While it may be argued that some articles of impeachment have charged conduct that constituted crime and thus that criminality is an essential ingredient, or that some have charged conduct that was not criminal and thus that criminality is not essential, the fact remains that in the English practice and in several of the American impeachments the criminality issue was not raised at all. The emphasis has been on the significant effects of the conduct-- undermining the integrity of office, disregard of constitutional duties and oath of office, arrogation of power, abuse of the governmental process, adverse impact on the system of government. Clearly, these effects can be brought about in ways not anticipated by the criminal law. [Emphasis added.]

Essentially, this is the message that conservative scholar Bruce Fein has delivered on the Bill Moyers program, Countdown with Keith Olbermann and other public and television appearances.

There is little doubt that Bush and Cheney have committed these attacks on the Constitution, the sovereign act of the people to establish and limit a government to act in their best interests.

The time is long past for Bush and Cheney to be held accountable for these transgressions and to be impeached, tried and removed from office.

And that brings me to the issue that most troubles me about this debate: its effect on Democratic unity going into 2008.

Good point. The impeachment of Clinton so much destroyed the Republicans that they won the presidency and kept both Houses of Congress in the next election. That taught them!

I suppose other people have jumped on this, but let me throw my hat in:

From the Clinton experience, we know that public opinion turned decisively against the impeachment effort once it became obvious the Senate wasn't going to convict him (which wasn't entirely obvious at the beginning of the saga), for the simple reason that the whole thing looked like a waste of time.

What utter shiite! The reason that public opinion turned decisively against the impeachment effort wasn't the public's conclusion that it wasn't going to work.

The reason was that the President was being impeached over a consensual blow job, while his persecutors included a man who had a son out of wedlock, another man who as a card carrying racist had fathered an interracial daughter, a man who had dropped divorce papers on a wife fighting cancer in the hospital and who had philandered on her with the woman who became his second wife who he was currently philandering on with the woman who became his second wife.

In short, it was a spectacular put up job. It was a witch hunt. It was hypocrisy from start to finish.

The public turned against the Clinton impeachment because it was such an obvious sham. Because it was a disgusting and discreditable display.

Now, if someone isn't going to be honest about something so basic... why should I take the rest of their discussion seriously?

Ed - I've suggested a focus on out-years impeachment of subordinates as a paradoxically faster-acting cure for and curb on abuse of executive authority.

OK, perhaps it's been discussed already, but there was an op-ed in today's WaPo explaining in no uncertain terms that the executive order on CIA interrogation techniques is basically unlawful (as in: war crimes). So just on principles, in an ideal world (and tactical considerations notwithstanding) I think impeachment is not just legitimate but necessary.
Obviously, we don't live in that world.

One has to wonder what persons and policies you think you are trying to protect? The case for an impeachment and conviction of Bush and Cheney is a slam-dunk if investigations of what is already know by the better informed commences. There is no fishing necessary though the stench from some detailed fishing would be overpowering. Following the impeachments we can then have some criminal and treason trials some of the Neo-Cons who falsified intelligence and profited from the messes they started.

...Or perhaps you'd like to see this same sort of undemocratic crap attempted under a Democrat administration and try to live through a very nasty revolution and purge?

I think you just provided a fine example of mgmax's point.

Violence including random kidnapping, rape, torture, bombing and shooting of people that we ostensibly liberated from a vicious dictator is rather a new twist, don't you think?

I'm with LeeNYC on this, but practically I'm sort of with Crust. Here's why.

First AG.AG has pretty obviously perjured himself and, even if not convicted, the evidence pulled to bring him to trial will include improper and illegal use/non-use of FISA and White House interference in US Attorney appointments, and the use of the AG's office to protect White House illegal behavior and prevent proper oversight. The whole sccaffold of lies will teeter.

Continuing revelations will make Bush Co. and previous Rerpublican house non-oversight a continuing news story into the elections.

The next Democratic president can lift the veil on previously "secret" papers. A full inquiry into the reasons for going into war against Iraq initiated.

Finally, rather than impeachment, Cheney and his aider-abettor can be tried criminally for high crimes and misdemeanors, starting a war illegally, even treason, perhaps.

Then jail, not some comfortable retirement.

Oh, and JPF311, what war crimes? Starting a war illegally; extraordinary rendition, torture? Wouldn't that have been enough to convict Saddam?

Even the UK Attorney General declared the war illegal until sent back for a rewrite.

Yes, think how much information came to light during the Nixon impeachment hearings.

FDR went after far-right nuts like William Dudley Pelley and Gerald Winrod through what can only be called gross misuse of the Justice Dept. The whole Lend-Lease program and other aid he gave to England before the war was wildly in violation of Congress. Talk about executive privilege-- imagine Bush trying something like the Supreme Court packing scheme. But historical perspective is obviously not the strong suit here, a lot of people seem to have a lot invested emotionally in believing, self-dramatizingly, that we live in the scariest worstest most dangerous time in American history (and look how brave I am standing up to Bushitler and his Gonzalez-stapo!)

Sorry, kiddies. No impeachment, Bush leaves office on 1-20-09 and he won't send in the tanks nor will the tanks come for him, and hate to say it, but there's at least a 45% chance that he'll have a Republican successor. Life goes on, much as it ever does.

Aiding and abetting Israel's War in Lebanon, surely an accessory and supporter of war crimes. Regime change efforts against Iran, including funding terrorist operations.

Hey, that's what the Democratic party really needs to do to win both impeachment and the next election-- come out on the Syrian-Iranian side in all this stuff!

Bush's whole enemy combatant scheme was found to violate the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act in Hamdi and Hamden. This included illegal rendition, denial of habeas and "interrogation" provisions. Now, seeing how people, including U.S. citizens and innocent victims, have been swept up, and in dozens of cases, have been killed under this torture, I would say that war crimes were committed.

It is frustrating, but amusing that so many people, including Democrats, refuse to acknowledge the war crimes of Bush, which certainly meet any definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors", plus the signing statements where Bush states that he won't follow the very law he just signed, clearly a violation of the constitution, again a high crime and misdemeanor. Then we have the obstruction of justice by commuting a sentence of a convicted felon to keep him from spilling the details of other crimes committed in the White House. Congress really is obligated by the Constitution to impeach Bush, because the Constitution does not say Congress may, if they wish to do so, use impeachment for criminal presidents.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Ann in AZ

The main problem with your theory (and the same goes for "the powers that be") is that in order to follow your line one has to swallow hard and hold your nose for another year and a half while the current administration holds court and gives banquets for their cronies. What I'm saying is that we have a rogue President who is becoming more and more of a monarch by the day. He has taken our laws, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our Freedom, and used it all for cannon fodder that he shoots at the Middle East, while at the same time he and his administration enrich their pals with war profiteering, like Halliburton overcharges and Custer Battles $10M fraud that the DOJ has not bothered to prosecute. Our reputation is lower than dirt to rest of the world, our army is broken and military equipment is getting scarce. Yet, you are suggesting turning our back on all of these things, and much more (the offenses are too numerous to mention, but I know a guy who has a list of about 200) to show party loyalty and how smart we are? Oh, yeah, sounds like a bunch of people I want to waste time voting for. Real principled sorts.

Don't bet anything you can't afford to lose.

hoppycalif2, I guess my judgement is that he CAN'T be removed "quickly".

If the prosecution arises from another prosecution where it clearly exposes laws broken, surely there is no choice under an even-handed system than to follow the course of justice.

Hardly a bad precedent. And I can't see that prosecuting any politician -- president or other -- who has broken the law can be bad. Part of the problem here is that too many people put the president on some kind of special pedestal.

If only we had a weekly presidential question time. Hardly an undemocratic idea!

Similarly, if an Iraq investigation exposes deliberate lies to mislead Congress into an unjustified and illegal war, follow the law. Undeserving people have made fortunes out of this. People, many of them, have died; many more have had their lives changed forever.

This administration has avoided all legal restraints both domestically and abroad. The International Court of The Hague is not recognized by the US.

Boo on the whole bunch of them. Let them die by the blind-eyed sword of justice.

This summarizes my feeling pretty clearly with a few points as this conversation on impeachment grows.

There is a false notion that someone has to argue this is an impeachment, and Clinton was impeached and Andrew Johnson was impeached...must be the same.

False

Distinctions matter.

The distaste for the Clinton impeachment in the 90s could have easily been from the combination of the bullshit moral outrage from the moral right, to the more genuine outrage from people who felt, 'oh come on...get real...for a blowjob?' and that it was obstruction.

This is a matter very different from Johnson who fired the Secretary of War and had congress jump his ass, to Bush who stuck with a war criminal Secretary of Defense and has a whole staff that he has refused to fire even when they leak the name of a CIA agent to a journalagent in attacking a critic of your criminal deception.

Johnson was vindicated by the Supreme Court in Myers v. US which said the Pres has the right to fire officials in the Executive Branch from the postmaster general to high secretaries. The Tenure Act was repealed.

The irony of Johnson's history and Bush's history thus fire is thick.

BushCheneyCo LLP. have committed many crimes and if you can't even let the grand jury survey the evidence, then you are committing obstruction of justice. This watering down of the process with political convenience for either party is disgusting. We've created new kings and queens, lords and ladies.

I accept the theory that government is a sad consequence of our vices as a people. If we are to say, 'due to the election cycle, if you have committed crimes, we favor political potentials to accountability'.

The political preachy types who are saying, 'look, forgetta bout it, we got Hillary to elect, so shaddap', are playing the game that used to be played during the writing of the Constitution of the US.

"the people are too stupid to understand this stuff. we know what's best for them. we'll decide."

so, cscs thanks for reminding us that the context of Clinton's impeachment counts and that people can understand the difference.

political expediency be damned.

This is much more like Nixon in the sense that it was all based on narrow minded politically partisan hacks who put party and ambition above the world security, the national security, and the Constitution of the United States. Funny how the faces of his administration are still running the game.

Ann in AZ

And the Conservative participant was Bruce Fein.

Even if the fates provide us (post election) with a Democratic administration, all emphasis will be placed, by them (and DLC advisors like Mr Kilgore), on the glorious future. But by necessity, they will also be busy defending themselves against spurious charges of malfeasance, coming from “guess where".

Once the immediacy of the dangerous Bush precedents is past there will be little motivation for future officials to correct them. Little, that is, until they once again become a invoked. By that time it will most likely be too late.

Lastly, perhaps persons who see themselves as the next occupant of the oval office lust after these newly developing presidential powers. Perhaps they imagine themselves with the ability to simply blow off Congressional inquries.

Kevin Russell Cook

Or perhaps to Argentina.

In the MSM the are two kinds of organs: partisan ones, like FOX, and those that take a secretarial approach, refraining from even the most obvious conclusions while reporting, "A" said; "B" said.

The latter may arouse your contempt, but they are better than no press at all, which could be our future.

Look at the polls. Give the public some credit. Look at what they've learned in spite of a lame press!

Impeachment can, with just a little good lawyering, prevail with the public in spite of the handicaps Democrats would labor under.

Kevin Russell Cook

Sorry, but this is a terrible anaysis by Mr Kilgore. It almost seems like concern trolling.

- Was the public behind the Clinton impeachment until it became clear that he wasn't going to be convicted? No. Would they have been behind it if he had been? No, and for good reason. This part of Ed's argument is so obtuse - apples and oranges - that I wonder if even he believes it (maybe so!).

- Who is generally horrified by the idea of Impeachment? The political class/people in DC. The 'American People'? Not so much. Impeachment of Bush and especially Cheney would probably be quite popular. They are hated - esp. Cheney. DC in general is hated, too, because that 'town' is so horribly self-involved that it doesn't do its job serving the public interest very well. Its job right now is to impeach a rogue president. If either Bush or Cheney isn't convicted, so be it - you will have Senators on record voting to convict or aquit, and some of them will be running for reelection, and a formal record of at least some of this administration's crimes.

Rosenberg is right. Kilgore (and Drum) don't quite get it: impeachment isn't about 'revenge', in this case, and it needn't be 'catastrophic' and almost never used. If you never use a tool, you lose it. The founders put it there for a reason. If you don't impeach these guys, who do you?

The overriding reason to impeach is to reassert the Consitutionally-mandated role of Congress vis a vis the president. It shouldn't be about punishing Cheney/Bush for bad policy and worse execution. It shouldn't be about the war or new orleans. It should be about stopping our headlong drift into dictatorship. It's about Bush arrogating Congress's right to declare war. It's about Bush violating treaty obligations to endorse torture, the eavesdropping. It's bout Bush ignoring the intention of Congress through signing statements, It's about the blanket assertions of privilege. The Cheney/Bush doctrine on the powers of the presidency is a legacy that must not be allowed to stand unchallenged.

The impeachment of Clinton was only about his dick. The impeachment of Bush isn't about his Dick. It's about saving the constitution.

EXCELLENT!

I can only assume from your post that your singling out of these two items means that you agree that the rest of the enumerated items constitute War Crimes by the President of the United States which, according to the Nuremberg precedents, justify public hanging.

Your right wing buddies will be so pleased.

Granting Mr. Kilgore's premise, what exactly does Congress do then? Does it simply accept the Unitary Executive Theory and its role as a subordinate of the Executive Branch? In answering please take into account that the Justice Dept has stated explicitly that it will not indict any member of the Executive Branch for contempt of Congress if the President (and presumably Rove and Cheney) tells them not to.

So I would like to hear from Mr. Kilgore what he expects the relationship to be between Congress and the Executive Branch (really, the dictatorial President) under the Jeb Bush Administration in 2013?

sPh

Executive orders are the tools of autocracy and dictatorship. From a 1999 document:

"The practice of using executive orders to set policy has evolved over the years and is currently governed by principles that have been established by precedent, oversight by Congress and the public, and intervention by the courts. It is generally accepted that, where executive orders have been based upon appropriate constitutional or statutory authority, they have the force and effect of law.

"An offspring of the [unconstitutional] implied powers doctrine is the executive order. This critical instrument of active presidential power is nowhere defined in the Constitution but generally is construed as a presidential directive that becomes law without prior congressional approval. It is based either on existing statutes or on the president's other constitutional responsibilities. Executive orders usually pertain specifically to government agencies and officials, but their effects often reach to the average citizen [they can, and have, reached everywhere, like to Iraq].

"The Congress may seek to nullify, repeal, revoke, terminate or de-fund an executive order, but each such action requires the eventual concurrence of the President (most likely the same President that issued the order in the first place)."

http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/rules_hear08.htm

Run, run, run, little piggy better run,
run, run, run, the day ain't done.

ROTFL

It's not that I don't like you. I don't know you and have no feelings or impulses on this front at all.

What I did object to was your blatant mischaracterization with respect to the Clinton impeachment issue, as part of a none to coherent battery of arguments which you used to support your case.

You were well aware, as we all are, of the circumstances of the Clinton impeachment, as well as the various controversies surrounding it, including the well demonstrated hypocrisy of the principals.

Yet you chose to ignore this in favour of a very superficial generalization which you yourself admit is hardly accepted and for which the evidence is not conclusive. Indeed, I'm being very kind to you here, since my impulse then and now was to characterize this argument as deeply dishonest or at least bizarrely maladaptive to the facts.

This threw your entire case into doubt. Is there a point to arguing with a man who cannot distinguish black from white, up from down? Is there a reason to argue with a man who knowingly claims that a dog is a cat?

Certain sorts of positions fundamentally impair credibility. This is sad but true. It's possible that a person could take one incredible position and be sound on most others. However, the reality is that taking a clearly incredible position leads to question the judgement and wisdom applied to the rest.

Essentially, 'an idiot in one thing is often an idiot in other things.'

Why should I continue to take this seriously.

I found your overall approach sloppy and facile. Even had you not made your fatal mistake, it is not at all clear to me that the balance of your argument would have been sustainable. Certainly I did not see enough there to earn you the benefit of the doubt.

Next time, construct your arguments with greater care.

Valdon:

Lord have mercy.

I am sorry that I have not lived up to your evidently high standards of argument construction, having committed "fatal mistakes" that label me as an "idiot." I recommend you apply to Josh Marshall to have me banned here, idiot that I am.

Did you actually read what I wrote? It was a relatively small but initial argument that there was in fact a negative effect on public opinion towards the Clinton impeachment produced by the realization that Republicans had no intention or expectation of actually winning. I still think I'm right, but don't think the issue is important enough to argue about. And I never, explicitly or implicitly, suggested that the impeachment of Clinton was generally analogous to the case for impeaching Bush and/or Cheney.

And again, you don't seem interested in answering the questions about impeachment that I actually posed, and tried to clarify in the comment that led you to tell me what a lying idiot I am.

Ed Kilgore

Hmmm. Thin skinned too. And a touch sarcastic.

Look, its this way: In a perfect world there would be an infinite opportunity to fully deconstruct and disprove every aspect of every argument ad infinitem and ceaselessly obtain towards the ultimate truth.

This is not a perfect world. The sheer volumes of argument will always exceed the time and resources necessary to sort through arguments.

One way of separating the wheat from the chaff is to look for signs of obvious nonsense, of misrepresentation, evasion, of logical breakdown, which suggest that the whole or totality of the argument does not hold up.

This is hardly a radical approach. You find this in law, in science, in business, in journalism and public advocacy.

Sorry, you wound up with the chaff, not the wheat. That's not my fault. And your original attempt to minimize your failing indicates that you didn't clue into it at all. Also, not my fault.

I realize this stings. All I can say is that it'd probably a good thing. It's part of the learning process.

Learn to make better arguments.

Is this an unreasonable request?

I have to agree with the previous two comments - any future Democratic presidency (unless it's Dennis Kucinich, which it won't be) is going to be advised by the professional adviser class and by the very serious Washington media to "move on" for the good of the country. Just like they did with Bush I.

I should hope that Ms. Clinton will have learned her lesson about the value of moving on, as her husband's early efforts to move on were so gratefully and nobly recognized and rewarded by their Republican opponents.

This also assumes there will be a Democratic presidency. And you know what happens when you assume.

It's now or never. And an impeached president and/or vice president will be much easier to prosecute them for war crimes. I think a war crimes trial for this administration is the only thing that is going to redeem America in the eyes of the world.

You seem to assume that the president won't get a fair trial. That somehow the result of an election will swing the balance of justice so that the president won't be able to defend herself or himself in a court of law.

It's like saying that trying someone for murder after they have murdered sets a dangerous precedent because it just seems like revenge at that point.

If war crimes were committed, they should be prosecuted. Otherwise, the slim possibility of impeachment seems to be a small price to pay for the possibly enormous rewards of wielding that much power.

And if there is any place where a fair trial is most tenuous, it is in the very impeachment process you advocate as the most fair and just rememdy. Impeachment can be a political tool, whereas it is much more difficult to use the courts as a political tool. Not impossible, but certainly more difficult. I know if I were innocent, I'd much rather have my day in court than in Congress.

It just so happens that in this case, impeachment isn't a political tool. It is merely the right first step in a process that should ultimately put some very bad people in jail and hopefully set a precedent to prevent future presidents from overstepping their Constitutional and moral authorities.

If you think Bush might refuse to accept and impeachment ruling, what makes you think he would accept the results of another election? Then what? Do you have a plan for when Bush refuses to recognize the legitimate winner of the next election?

Because you're basically asking us to also offer a plan for an extremely unlikely event.

I don't see a lot of anger and fury on this thread. I see a lot of deliberative thought by most but arguments here are not hot-headed rants. There are many places where strategies for impeachment are underway.

You say this: "...impeachment is not a practical option until some additional political developments occur."

Followed by this: "...impeachment might be irrelevent because the current political crisis is getting so much worse so quickly."

And then claim that Bush would simply ignore impeachment, anyway. Sounds like you're just against impeachment whatever the case.

Hoppy, Jeff said very well what I would have said.

If there are crimes, you try them, whether it is Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, GHWBush, Clinton, BushII-the return, or the next jackass.

You are exposing your concern that this would become a political attack system. Fine, let us see if our Judicial system is politico proof, it was supposed to be.

It is sad when Constitutional values take second seat to political ambitions.

Bush's war crimes, real as they are, are shared by many Americans who enthusiastically enabled him. Don't forget that very near, if not more than 50% of our voters approved his activities by reelecting him in 2004. I like the idea that he may well be unable to leave this country after he leaves office, for fear of arrest and trial for his crimes.

I have not said I doubt the honesty of our court system, so I would expect any ex-president to get a fair trial, as things stand today. But, we are rapidly moving towards a political justice system, where such fair trials may not be a given. It is easy to believe that in the future there will be a Repub president and administration so bent on revenge for having had to sit still for a Democratic president, that they will stack the deck against the ex-president and fabricate sufficient evidence that a conviction will be a certainty. I don't want any precedents that will make it easier for them to do that.

We have never convicted a president in an impeachment trial. But, the fear of impeachment was so great that Nixon resigned rather than face the trial. Clinton didn't do so because there was never the slightest chance of a conviction in his case, nor even a clearly stated reason for the trial in the first place. We need to exercise the impeachment process when it is appropriate, as it absolutely is now. I share the belief of many others here that once the hearings and trial are underway the evidence will stack up so convincingly that even Repub senators will feel obligated to vote for conviction.
Hoppy in Sacramento

My problems as regards notthere's proposals:

I was in my twenties when Ford pardoned Nixon. He didn’t deserve it. The nation let it pass because we were tired of all the contention and eager to look to the future. Should we get these ugly days behind us, people will feel much the same.

Like too many, you seem to assume, almost slam dunk, our POTUS to be elected (2008) will be a Dem. With the election so far away and this administration in power (Republican, proactive, and disrespectful of any law it dislikes) this may not be true. More so should Congress show a lack of resolve.

Given our mainstream media, making Republican legislative non-oversight into an ongoing story is way, way out of reach.

Papers? What papers?? No doubt, Cheney thinks Nixon was a fool to hand over the tapes. He will not make those mistakes.

I won’t go into the problems regarding the appellate courts. It would all get to the Supremes anyway. So, after the 2000 election decision and the subsequent new appointments, just what kind of results would you expect from your proposed cases?

The founders wisely did not provide a great role for the courts in such crises. It is supposed to go: indictment by the House and trial by the Senate. Shortly after, the entire House and one third of the Senate would face the electorate. It was intended as political in the best sense of the word. The beauty of it!

Notthere, I sense good instincts behind your comments. Stay on the case.

Kevin Russell Cook

If we don't have the conviction to stay with some of the concerns about oligarchy in our country we won't have the luxury later of debating it. Impeachment was the cure for such conflicts in abusing power.

I think it would be a great idea to hold any former presidents who committed crimes while in office accountable for their crimes. Only a conflict of interest would keep me for wanting it. Further because they can so easily manipulate information at the top, we might not know for 25 years or more that they were lying us into wars or trade deals.

You are I are the same page, just I'm not honoring the gossipy level Hannity Vince Foster crap with any dignity. If it can be shown that Clinton acted outside the law in bombing Kosovo, so be it. If he acted in league with Indonesia in a manner that supported the Genocide in East Timor, then fine have a trial.

Can't try him again over a blowjob that's been done, falls under that double jeopardy thingy that Libby needs to think about. (note: he wasn't tried for treason, just lying and obstructing)

I want them tried as criminals when the crimes are revealed. I want the Democrats to keep focused and don't do more damage to themselves. They can certainly mess up an otherwise good investigation.

Courts don't bring you to justice, they are the representation of justice. Prosecutors bring you to justice.

hossier,
some democrat guy who had to battle polio talked about fearing fear. I concur.

I have thought about the options and I conclude this:
we must act because of patriotism.
we must act to demonstrate the strength of our constitution and the end of monarchical government structures.
we have the duty to hold our officals accountable without thought of election cycles.

Where there is no ground covered, we will cover it. There may be a few precedents in this event, as there was with Andrew Johnson who faced a failed impeachment attempt and then a second impeachment. Can you imagine telling people before Lincoln that they might impeach the president?

Has it has become so built up that nobody can us it? That would defeat the very logic of the founders who decided to specifically include impeachment in the Constitution. Many who spoke of it like George Mason wanted a clear removal procedure as had been used in a limited fashion in English Law. But he and others wanted it much more readily available and without a big fuss.

So to your point about Cheney and Bush finding it legitimate. I have two answers for you.
One, US Marshall Service
Two, Frog March

"What is important, and this too is a topic where pro-impeachment folk may differ, is the simple fact that support for impeachment and removal is relatively weak among congressional Democrats,"

Yes, and that's what's really paving the way for the imperial Presidency. The Democrat "representing" me in the Senate is a relentless advocate for safe toys and safe country club swimming pools.

So where do I go for someone to tackle grown up problems? I mean, electing more Democrats of this "let them eat cake" variety is not any different than electing Republicans. You think she's going to expand her platform to public swimming pools if the party has a bigger majority come 2008?

Nothing is going to change until the public figures out how to make itself heard. So by all means lets make this an extra-party endeavor.

If we can't impeach Bush can we impeach the Congress or at least throw the bums out and replace them with folks who want to represent us? If the Democrats don't care enough to fight for the Constitution, let's find some people who are willing to do so.

Let's remember that Nixon resigned because the votes were there to impeach him, and to remove him from office and possibly bring him into criminal court. Therefore the move toward impeachment did in fact remove him from office.
Public sentiment was strongly for the impeachment and removal of Nixon, and that is an important fact.

In the other two cases Clinton's being the closest historically. Both moves to impeach were entirely politically driven, and both failed to remove the President. In Clinton's case the public was strongly against his removal.

The world and the American people want the Bushies removed from control of this country. The intent of and acts preparatory to impeaching Bush et al should be at the forefront of Congress's business. That is what the people of this country want. It is what the world needs. It is what the Iraqi people need as a first step toward a return to peace.

I tend to agree that withdrawal will allow the covert war of bombings to become an overt war over territory, a partition/civil war. I might be wrong, as this data point from Ken Pollack suggests---things are much better in Mosul now, with only a few hundred Americans presiding over much reduced violence, as opposed to thousands of soldiers and plenty of incidents. Pollack's explanation is that Iraqus have taken over security. What is not obvious is the causal sequence. Did we draw down and force the Iraqis, or did we reduce after we saw that we could?

In any case we have a correlation---fewer American soldiers=less violence.

More generally, though, after enough mistakes by a manager you get the idea that he isn't up to the job. That's this administration. The choices made have been exclusively disastrous. The good things that have happened have been the doing of professionals that keep trying anyway, such as mid-level Army and Marine commanders, or State Dept negotiators. I have no reason to believe that any suggestions by the administration have merit. I'll listen to suggestions from anyone outside the WH.