Why Impeach If We Can't Override 'Funding' veto?

[Bobbieo]

I keep getting these e-mail requests from Democratic groups to sign petitions to start the impeachment process against Bush and Cheney.

If Congress hasn’t the power, yet, to over ride Bush’s veto on the Iraq funding bill, what, if any, advantage is there in starting the impeachment process?

[Prophet 451]

1. Justice. Straightforward bloody justice. n/t

[indie_voter]

12. Exactly!! n/t

[sce56]

2. The process involves discussion of the evidence that will show cause for impeachment.

By the way I don't know for sure but if the congress just lets him veto then what no funding? He will have no choice but to agree to the funding proposal or face no funding at all! Tell the Dems to stick with it not one more penny for this illegal and immoral war.

[paparush]

5. Are you kidding me? The Dems do NOT have the political will to do that.

The Rove Swift Boat machine will grind the Dems into pulp, and we'll give another 100Billion to our troops...which is a fucking joke. Most of that will go to pay private contractors.

[Bobbieo]

6. Let's hope the Demos have the guts to stop the funding if Bush vetos the bill.

[DeepBlueC]

3. I'm with you there

How stupid would it look to bring forward articles of impeachment and LOSE?

[MADem]

4. To try to generate a snowball effect, is why. It's to get people saying the word, getting used to

the concept.

In my opinion, it's a long way off. And it is unlikely, barring anything worse coming out. Better to force Bush to deal with this mess and then blame his ass on the way out the door--blame he richly deserves, mind you.

And then, there is his replacement--Cheney? Ugh.


Whoever is up to bat next is gonna be in the shit from the git-go. It'll be a clean-up job of monumental proportions, with no opportunity for wispy little niceties or softball legislation. No honeymoon at all...it's too big a mess.

[Bobbieo]

7. The move to impeach would be a PR campaign

to get people thinking about the process and how it would affect their lives?

[MADem]

9. If people are "this close" to impeaching the asshole, then when 08 rolls around, they are

more likely to pull the lever for a Democrat. It's a PR campaign, sorta like a 'branding' exercise.

[Ian David]

8. If we limit our hopes and dreams to what congress can pass, and what Bush won't veto...

then that is a damned limiting way to live.

To paraphrase Nancy Pelosi.

[Bobbieo]

10. Yes, it is a 'damned limiting way to live'

but that seems to be the reality, right now and I find it very frustrating. We can't get rid of Bush. We can't get rid of Cheney - Gonzalez, Wolfie, Rove, or stop the Iraqi war. Yeahm it's frustrating!

[Ian David]

11. I'm not saying we should stand on the roof, think happy thoughts, and try to fly to Never Land.

But We The People have to keep plugging away with our message, because eventually our "leaders" will have to do what We The People elected them to do.

[Bobbieo]

13. Please tell that to the current 'Decider'.

[knight_of_the_star]

14. What's worse than not impeaching the thugs?

Trying and losing. If we try to impeach and fail to knock his ass out then we will effectively invalidate the purpose of the impeachment process. Afterall, if we can't take this guy out then who should be impeached?

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Because it is the right thing to do? nt.

[Bobbieo]

16. Okay, you guys have convinced me. I just signed the impeachment petition.

[pat_k]

17. A vote to impeach breaks the bonds of complicity in War Crimes.

Voting to impeach (House members) and voting to remove (Senators) is the only way to break the bonds of complicity with the War Criminals in the WH. And if they don't act soon, Pelosi will find herself being blamed for WWIII (or whatever horrors Bush inflicts on the world).

It is NEVER good politics to be complicit in crime, as those who gave into their fear of being called names and voted for the AUMF have discovered.

On the flip side, standing and fighting for principle, win or lose, ALWAYS benefits those who do so, not just morally, but politically.

The "losers" -- the 133 Representatives and 23 Senators -- who opposed the Authorization to Use Military Force have reaped, and continue to reap, political benefits. (They undoubtedly cite that vote daily, as Obey did in his "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAlkfYczY4c">caught on tape" "dust up" with Tina Richards).

When the Democratic leadership surrendered their power to declare war to Bush, they abdicated their duty to serve as the voice of the people in the most grave decision a nation can make: whether or not to go to war. ("It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war," Woodrow Wilson) They became complicit in the War Crimes Bush committed with the power they surrendered to him.

When Pelosi surrendered the ONLY weapon capable of defending the Constitution against the attacks Bush and Cheney are mounting, she abdicated her first duty -- the duty to support and defend the Constition against all enemies, foriegn and domestic. She became an "after the fact" accomplice by giving Bush and Cheney cover for their crimes against our Constitutional democracy ("If we didn't have the unitary authoritarian power break the law at whim and turn Americans into torturers, would Pelosi have taken impeachment 'off the table'? Of course not.")

Perhaps if the leadership had gone all out to oppose the AUMF, they could have stopped Bush from waging his war. If the burden of committing the nation to that "fearful thing" been theirs, perhaps more of them would have heeded the warnings of manufactured "evidence." Perhaps they would have realized that the threat of "mushroom clouds over our cities in 45 minutes" was the most colossal bomb threat in our history. Or maybe they still would have "lost." Perhaps Bush, Cheney, et al., would have successfully terrorized our representatives into declaring war.

We will never know how events would have unfolded. But we do know that the moral burden of complicity in the War has stained and dragged down the entire Democratic Party. The Party cannot escape that stain. It is done.

There is still time for Pelosi and the Democrats to save themselves. Pelosi can redeem herself at any time by saying "I was wrong" and leading the fight to impeach. Any Member can break their bonds of complicity by introducing articles of impeachment, co-sponsoring the resolution, making the case for impeachment, and voting for it when the time comes.

Just as we cannot know how events would have unfolded if the leadership had fought the AUMF, we cannot know how impeachment would unfold until the events are behind us. When they get serious about impeachment, Bush and Cheney could be out stunningly fast. It may never go to the Senate. When specific charges are on the table, Bush and Cheney may find that Republicans are scrambling over each other to escape having to choose between (a) defending war criminals or (b) voting to put Pelosi in the WH. The pressure on Bush and Cheney to resign "for the good of the Party" and to keep the WH in Republican hands could be enormous.

Unlike the AUMF, impeachment is not a one-shot deal. If the first set of articles they vote out doesn't lead to the resignation or removal of Bush and Cheney, they have plenty of time to vote out articles on one of the other high crimes. They could follow with a 3rd set of articles if the 2nd fails to do the trick. Tragically, Bush and Cheney are waging war on the Constitution on so many fronts that they have plenty of high crimes to choose from.

If, despite their best efforts, the 110th Congress doesn't win the fight, so what? The 111th Congress could just introduce a new set and move to impeach "in absentia."

While we cannot know the outcome, we do know that those who fight for impeachment will no longer be accomplices. The impeachers will be on the right side of history, a place I'm sure they all hope to be.