« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Obama is right, Kucinich is wrong (on impeachment)
I've heard some of you lately ask others to join the fight to impeach George W. Bush.
That is ridiculous. First of all, there are no grounds to impeach Bush, or Cheney. Second of all, even Obama has expressed his view that this is a bad idea.
Will you trust Dennis "UFO" Kucinich? Or Barack Obama?
I think the answer is not too difficult.
Take a minute or two to reflect on this. It's not going to happen because we don't have the votes, and again, there are no grounds for impeachment. If you are planning to state that Bush lied us into war, be aware that it was our intelligence agencies that provided the opinions that led us into war. What was Bush to do?
Advertisement
Comments (19)
In all seriousness, I'd rather have a beer with Kucinich than you, you buzzkill :((((
June 12, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are plenty of grounds to impeach Bush and Cheney. But time has expired. The cowardly Democratic Congressmen need to visit McCain's site (see more info here http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=10594) to get their balls back.
June 12, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=10594
June 12, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree there were plenty of grounds to go for it but the point is lost now. It wouldn't even be over by the time he was out of office.
June 12, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Impeachment at this point would also run into the American tradition of a peaceful and orderly transition of power, IMHO. It just doesn't feel fruitful or stable to prosecute an outgoing president regardless of the merits of the case. Anyway, Congress is also complicit in this.
June 13, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also agree.
I think a better title would be. Kucinich is right (on impeachment) and so is Obama.
Kucinich is the right person to introduce the impeachment rationale into the record. The Dems won't take the fall his effort in November exactly because he is seen to be a little fringe. It's also good to have it in the record.
OTOH, as others have noted, the timing is not right for actual impeachment proceedings. Failing to impeach does not rule out the possibility of criminal prosecution later.
June 13, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, at the risk of everyone going off on me, testing laid out the reason why impeachment is not only a good idea but necessary in "President Must Be Impeached to Forever Deny Him Any Pardon": If impeachment proceedings against Bush are even started, he is not eligible for a pardon. If he has no pardon, he can be indicted for all the other stuff we discover as time goes on.
If he's pardoned, all bets are off for indictment on anything he's done as president.
(Yes, testing's posts are trying. They go on too long and he goes off on some, shall I say, tangents. But just because someone's writing makes you crazy doesn't mean that what he's saying is crazy.)
The point is a good one, and it's one that I suspect Mr. Kucinich has in mind.
And please, if thinking that you may have seen something that can't be explained by day-to-day experience means you're a nut, then there are some very well-respected nuts out there (scientists, military officers) who have seen things in the sky that they couldn't explain.
And really, are you more comfortable with people who talk to God and believe that God has talked back to them? That's who we've had as president for the last seven-and-a-half years. I'll take an open-minded visionary over a narrow-minded religious zealot every time.
And what are the reasons that Obama has said it is a bad idea to impeach? I would suspect they have a lot more to do with prudence than with a conviction that impeachment is neither warranted nor deserved.
June 12, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Testing is wrong about the specific relationship between impeachment and pardons. No conviction = no impact. Read comments there.
June 12, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you actually look over the articles of impeachment? Some of the charges seem pretty solid. A bad idea and no grounds are worlds apart.
But as long as we're just spewing nonsense ...
My impeachment fantasy: Dems sweep the election. Pelosi calls an emergency session and impeaches both Bush and Cheney. Reid calls emergency session, convicts the bastards and removes them from office. The GOP, realizing that the game is up, support the move in order to protect their own hides. Pelosi takes the helm as President for a few weeks (making her the first female president) and then Obama is sworn in. Now THAT would be a Christmas present!
June 13, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like your dream and would donate good money to make it a reality.
June 13, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
At best, Kucinich's actions serve an important symbolic purpose. What better Democrat than Kucinich to read a resolution to impeach Bush into the record, almost as a historical note of protest. It's not like he's going to lose any political clout by doing this.
On the one hand I'm glad somebody stood up officially against Bush's criminality. On the other hand I winced at the thought of all the shit this would stir up and questioned whether it would be politically advantageous for Democrats. You can call it cowardice on my part if you like.
Interestingly, Kucinich's resolution was sidelined by House Democrats while the Republicans voted to open the resolution to debate on the floor, obviously sensing it would be to their political advantage.
Fromm CNN:
[...]
All 166 votes in favor of opening up a House impeachment debate came from Republicans, apparently eager to bring up the vote immediately and paint Democrats as political creatures in a time of serious issues.
June 13, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care. I just want to pick him up and hug him.
June 13, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
It will be interesting to see what comes out of Scott McClellan's appearance before the Judicial Comittee. Bush should be impeached, but alas it is probably too late. Obama has said that if he were to become President he supports investigating the Bush administration for crimes.
June 13, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Instead of helping the Dems, impeachment might inflame the now moribund, Republican base.
June 13, 2008 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Always leave a record for posterity.
June 13, 2008 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
June 13, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I somehow lost the "In reply to" checkbox (I did this elsewhere too; it's not my day).
This was in response to Ben's comment here.
June 13, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can a president grant himself blanket immunity? Somehow this does not seem kosher.
Furthermore, such an act would be an admission of guilt, and (a) it doesn't seem this President is able to admit any guilt, and (b) that would then be grounds for a quickie impeachment that would be very hard for the public to find fault with (or so I would hope.)
June 13, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE "Can he?": Are you willing to bet that THIS Supreme Court would rule that he couldn't?
RE (a): My understanding (and I am not a lawyer) is that immunity and amnesty do not imply acceptance of guilt, but pardon and commutation do.
RE (b): If he does this on the morning of Inauguration Day, where does the impeachment come from? There is no Constitutional clause of which I am aware that provides for impeachment of former office-holders.
June 16, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment