Rebuttal to Arguments Against Impeachment

[Demeter]

OpEdNews.com

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jodin_mo_061124_arguments_against_im.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 24, 2006

Rebuttal to Arguments Against Impeachment

By Jodin

Arguments Against Bush Impeachment...
- If we impeach Bush, we'll get President Cheney!
Initiating the impeachment process will lead to an investigation that will implicate lots of people in the Bush administration who are guilty of committing crimes, including Cheney.

In addition, no matter who we get to replace Bush, we'll be showing those in power that anyone who breaks the law will be held accountable.

- Promoting impeachment will seem too "extreme."
Demanding that crimes be investigated is NOT extreme. Some previous impeachment attempts were considered extreme because they were pursued for actions that didn't rise to the level of a Constitutional crisis, which is what the impeachment tool is meant to be used for. Nixon's impeachment, however, was bipartisan.

- We should wait to impeach...
Wait to impeach? We've waited 3 or more years too long already. We had enough evidence to impeach years ago. Remember, an impeachment only means you have enough evidence to warrant a trial, just like an indictment. Our congress people didn't take an oath to bipartisanship. They took an oath to the Constitution. Besides which, our troops, Iraqi civilians, and our own civil liberties are all waiting for this.

- Before we impeach, we should get some legislation passed...
And with unconstitutional Presidential Signing Statements, veto power, and the power of "Commander in Chief" at his disposal, how do you think Congress is going to get ANYTHING accomplished without first impeaching Bush?

If your tire blows while you're driving, do you stop to fix it? Or do you continue driving on your rim because to stop would take too much time?

- It hurts the democracy to go through a presidential impeachment. And Bush is a lame duck anyway.
Holding government officials accountable for their actions strengthens our democracy. Letting lawlessness stand weakens it.



MUCH, MUCH MORE...READ IT ALL!


Side note:
Some Democratic Members of Congress have indicated that they're not currently pursuing Bush's impeachment. While this is upsetting, they perceive it to be in their (and the Democratic Party's) political best interest, at least until the political pressure builds. There are other reasons they're waiting as well, and one of those things is us. They (as well as Republican members) need us to legitimize their support for the process. Having millions of ImpeachForPeace.org's "Do-It-Yourself Impeachment" arrive at their door is one powerful tool toward making that happen.



Authors Website: http://impeachforpeace.org

Authors Bio: Jodin Don't wait for your legislatures, Impeach Bush directly....YOURSELF!! ImpeachForPeace.org

[Why Syzygy]

1. They damn well

better pursue impeachment! Pass legislation, indeed. Where are those heads? Dark in there?
B*sh opted out of 90% of the Repulican sponsored legislation!!! He's gonna sign Democratic legislation without opting out? FOOLS! This stuff just makes me want to scream.

K&R

[wryter2000]

2. I'm fine with waiting

And 2/3rds vote in the Senate to remove Bush from office will happen once the evidence gets aired on CSPAN. The political pressure will become too great.

There isn't a person here, or I imagine a Dem in Congress, who would disagree with impeachment once there's strong enough support to get 2/3 of the Senate. But it's foolish to be pushing for it now. Now, it doesn't stand a chance and only hurts our efforts to investigate these two criminals.

Please, let's keep the horse before the cart.

[ClassWarrior]

3. So we shouldn't begin the investigations that will lead to 2/3?

That's what the impeachment process is - it's the discovery process leading to charges and trial.

If we wait, the evidence needed to generate 2/3 will never get heard.

NGU.

[wryter2000]

4. Of course, we should

Absolutely! Even if our goal weren't impeachment, we need to investigate everything. War profiteering authorized directly through Cheney's office should be one of the first things we investigate. That alone ought to sink him.

But, I want the emphasis now to be on getting the truth out. When it's clear that the entire country is behind getting rid of them, that's time to talk of impeachment.

[ClassWarrior]

5. That's the time for our electeds to talk of impeachment...

...but WE need to pave the way for it amongst the public and amongst our more hesitant electeds by talking about it loudly and often NOW.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

8. By the way, how do you expect the country to get behind getting rid of them...

...if we're not talking about getting rid of them? Do you expect this thought to magically form in the minds of the public? Especially when it hasn't already happened in six years of high crimes? And when, now that the Dems are coming to power, the anti-IMPEACHMENT din of the Corporate Media is sure to rise?

NGU.

[wryter2000]

10. We will talk about impeachment when the time comes

Watergate didn't start with cries of impeachment. It started with investigations. After the abuses came to light, impeachment became an option. Nixon resigned before it happened.

Heck, they didn't even talk about impeaching Clinton until after years of investigation. It might have been their goal all along. It might be our eventual goal, but this isn't the time to be calling for it.

[ClassWarrior]

11. Yes, it starts with investigations. Saying...

..."We can't have IMPEACHMENT, we need to have investigations first," is like saying, "We can't drive the car, we have to put it in gear and press the gas pedal first." Investigation is an inseparable first step in the IMPEACHMENT process.

And if you think the Radical RW didn't talk about the way they hoped to achieve their attempted coup against Clinton, you must have been asleep for six years in the late 90s.

NGU.

[KSU Wildcat]

6. I ain't gonna happen....nt

[ClassWarrior]

7. No, you probably ain't.

NGU.

[KSU Wildcat]

12. My bad grammar....

I meant impeachment and probably investigations. I have been known to be wrong on more occasions than I care to admit. Hopefully this is one time I am wrong again.

[wryter2000]

9. Welcome to DU

:hi:

I'm not clear what you say is not gonna happen. If removal from office, I tend to agree with you. I doubt enough R's could be convinced to convict and kick the bums out.

If you mean investigations...Leahy has already said he's going to issue subpenas. The lastest page now has a post about Waxman investigating. I'm sure Conyers will, too. They're not sticking him in the basement any more. :evilgrin:

[KSU Wildcat]

13. My bad grammar....

I meant impeachment and probably investigations. I have been known to be wrong on more occasions than I care to admit. Hopefully this is one time I am wrong again.

[caledesi]

15. Agree. Once the American people find out about the law breaking

et al...they will give us the cue. The rethugs must listen to their constituents, now, mustn't they?

Get all the thugs UNDER OATH. Let the chips, more like boulders, fall where they may.

The Dems have been virtually ignored by this misadministration. Now the American people have spoken and loudly. They want to hear from us!

[Joe Chi Minh]

14. If they know so much about what Americans won't put up with,

how is it they couldn't avoid a slammming by the American public in the election? And with all their putative propaganda geniuses, too....

Remember how they were telling the Democrats what played well with the American public and what didn't? The self-styled experts.

"Say goodnight, Gracie" should be a catch phrase used against the Republicans, whenever they pose as expert advisors.

[caledesi]

16. Great post! Yeah, the American people voted for the "terrorists."

LOL!