(Untitled)

[zhai]

Still buried in deadlines, but surfacing momentarily to post this letter I sent via Kucinich's petition for impeachment, which recently gained extra attention when Nancy Pelosi indicated impeachment might NOT be off the table entirely. I've been staying out of the political debates because frankly the Obama-mania was a little unnerving, but he's

Comments

[glamberson]

Sadly, the time for impeachment was when Polosi got into office. I want these guys to go to prison, not get kicked out of office when they have six months left. There's no way any proceedings could happen that quickly. Polosi did the damage when Bush needed her to.

[zhai]

What I don't get is even Obama opposing impeachment. He hasn't promised any reckoning that I've seen once he's in office, either. I understand 'moving forward', but you can't move forward until you face the past. The democrats baffle me but they've been a train wreck for so long I kind of expect it of them at this point. They've utterly squandered that feeling of vindication from the last election when so many of them won their seats and then proceeded to do nothing. They must think that the public wouldn't go for impeachment, but that didn't stop Ken Starr over Clinton's blowjob.

I don't think it can have much actual EFFECT right now, but it would be some modicum of redemption for me to see the action actually filed and Bush actually put in the category of "impeached" before he's gone. A grain of sand in a dune, but it would still be something.

[lumi21]

But it would be the prettiest grain in the desert, let me tell you.

"This is not about party lines or vindictiveness, but about accountability and justice...

I cannot possibly agree with this more.

Now I will be STUNNED if this actually comes to pass, but I will be ecstatically stunned.

[zhai]

There has been some good news lately, though. Did you see this one?

[anonymous]

Fair disclosure: I'm an independent moderate and former Republican. I've voted against Bush twice. He's been a terrible president and the living incarnation of the Peter Principle; his ascension drove me away from the party I was raised in, and of course, he's violated the Constitution.

But I don't believe that he should be impeached, though I'll grant you it would feel good.

First off, you couldn't just impeach Bush. If you impeached and convicted him, you'd end up with a President Cheney, which would pretty much be a one way ticket to an immediate war with Iran. Now, I believe Kucinich has also prepared articles of impeachment for Cheney. But that leads to a far worse outcome.

The succession goes from the President, through the Vice President, to the Speaker of the House. Currently, of course, that's Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat. So if Pelosi did allow Bush and Cheney to both be impeached, she would essentially be asking the Senate to make her President by legislative fiat, and overturn the will of the people in 2004 that a

[araken]

(sigh) Didn't realize LJ had logged me out. The above rant is mine. :-)

[zhai]

That is an impressive amount of text for not being logged in. ;) I've been there

[araken]

An interesting way to phrase that: "the impeachment brand". Does it matter that there have been only two presidents impeached in American history, and that both of them were impeached primarily for political reasons rather than criminal ones? Nixon would have been a third, and he would have deserved it, but he resigned as a lesser disgrace.

The presidents who have actually violated the Constitution have never been impeached--Adams with the Alien and Sedition Acts, Buchanan's support for the Dred Scott decision, Wilson's wartime restrictions on speech, Roosevelt's internment of Japanese-Americans--they're remembered by history as stains on that president's legacy and the presidency, and that's the brand they receive. There's a valid argument that can be made that they should have been impeached, just as there's a valid argument to be made that Bush should be impeached. But that didn't happen, and the Republic eventually came to its senses each time even without it.

There's nothing Bush can do to prevent that brand from tainting his

[ellen_denham]

Amen to that.

Impeachment doesn't necessarily mean removal from office, as we saw with Clinton. At this point it would be largely symbolic.

[eggsniper]

Careful, the local authorities might pay you a visit for 'threatening' McHugh. Or maybe the president.

Oh wait, blue state ... still not sure if I actually miss that.

/I guarantee 'Mr. John M. McHugh' will never read your words
//*/cynicism*

[zhai]

We'd have to argue over what exactly constitutes "Mr. John H. McHugh". ;) His office is actually very responsive, though. I've been sending wildlife activist letters at a rate of about three a year when I judge action warranted, and it takes a few months, but I always get a very specific, very polite response precisely about his stance on the issue, which is what I wanted anyway, whether it comes from an individual or the effective mind-hive conglomerate that any politician is.

[hildebabble]

Ehhh... *makes a so-so hand gesture*

At this point I question whether it would do any practical good. It'd feel good, but I've kept myself off the impeachment wagon for the reason araken states above. The term "President Cheney" makes me squirm in my chair. Even if he only had access to Ye Rubber Stamps for, say, a week, he'd still go down in history as "President Cheney." He'd also find some way to blow up France, I'm sure. And then he'd eat a puppy