Why Haven't They Impeached Bush Already? (Dave Lindorff)

[marmar]

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Why Haven't They Impeached Bush Already?

After a year of running around flogging my book The Case for Impeachment (St. Martin’s Press, 2006), I’ve had to give a lot of thought to a question I have gotten over and over from radio hosts to ordinary people concerned about the fate of the country and our Constitution. The question: Why haven’t the Democrats already impeached the president for all these crimes, abuses of power and assaults of the Constitution?

I used to chalk it up to cowardice, but I’m no longer happy with that answer. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) may be a politician’s politician, but she hasn’t lacked for courage. She has, for example, always been ready to stand for taking a tough line on civil liberties in China, when the corporatocracy has been pressing the government to cozy up to China.

It’s also hard to buy the idea that so many progressive members of the House--people like John Conyers (D-Mich.), Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), Chakka Fattah (D-Penna.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)--all of whom clearly understand the nature of the president’s crimes, could be afraid to submit bills of impeachment--indeed that all the progressive members of the Democratic Party in the House are so afraid to take a stand on impeachment that not one has dared to submit an impeachment bill. (Only Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) has taken that step, and she waited until she had already been voted out of office and then filed her impeachment bill in the last week of the 109th Congress.)

That said, there are some things I do know. ....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/

[seemslikeadream]

1. Then where would Democrats be?

They’d have to stand on their own merits. They’d have to give voters a positive reason to vote for them.


Dave Lindorff

[CRH]

2. because they are refusing 'to protect and defend the constitution of the U.S. ...

snip: from link in post

And so it has been, at least inside the Beltway. And not only has it been put off the table--Pelosi and the party leadership have been actively working behind the scenes in an unconscionable effort to undermine grassroots campaigns to put it back on, via state legislative resolutions. In both New Mexico and Washington state, Democratic party leaders from Washington have put the screws on local legislative leaders to keep the issue of impeachment from even making it to an open floor debate in a legislative chamber. Clearly, progressive members of Congress have also been pressured not to submit impeachment bills.

snip

Yesterday I posted this in a different thread, but it speaks directly to your question. Without impeachment there is nothing to prevent the future disdainful actions heaped on the constitution by the right wing, and in fact it lowers the bar, of actions without consequence, with precedence. It has been very profitable for the neo conservative interests they represent, to corrupt every area of the government, with no apparent significant restitution. Not criminal, not financial, no restitution at all. So what, is to prevent them from doing it again? CRH (Yesterdays comment below.)

One wonders how much more obvious corruption it will take before the Washington political elite from both parties, will even consider putting impeachment back on the table. When the corruption is such that every cabinet position, every department, every policy foreign and domestic, is tainted by distortion of purpose, misappropriation, and scandal; and the sitting congress allows legitimacy through their very inaction in using the tool of impeachment as a protection from this very assault of unbridled power against the institutions of the people; one has to consider the whole as responsible for aiding and abetting consistent crimes against the people.

There are times when political malfeasance of both parties travels beyond the limits of outrage.