|
A reply to the form letter he sent in response to my letter in November.
_____________________________________________________
I know that you and the House leadership believe it is important not to sacrifice possible legislative accomplishments that could be gained during this last year of Bush's term by conducting an impeachment of the President and Vice President. Under most circumstances, that would be a tenable position to take. Today, it's not. I recently received a letter from the DCCC Chairman that listed a number of "legislative accomplishments" by passed in the House. He then went on to write "But despite public support for these initiatives, President Bush is vetoing key parts of our agenda for change." Which leads me to believe that something is amiss: either important legislation will be passed by both Houses and enacted, or it will be passed by the House and blocked by the Republicans in the Senate or vetoed by Bush. Which is it?
I don't have to remind you to count the votes. You don't have enough votes to get anything important passed in the other chamber. You can't block a filibuster or override a veto. Given that this is the case, why contend that impeachment would be bad because it is an "all-consuming process would prevent nearly all other legislative initiatives from proceeding"? If the "legislative initiatives" of which you speak include things such as totally capitulating to the President and funding his occupation of Iraq to the tune of $70 billion, then preventing all other initiatives from passing would be a good thing.
I disagree with your assertion that "the Democratic Congress has begun to turn the tide on several issues." Firstly, we don't have a Democratic Congress. The Independent Senator from Connecticut recently endorsed a Republican for president, which should remove any delusions about his being a Democrat, no matter with whom it is he chooses to caucus. Secondly, you cite as an example the resignation of Alberto Gonzales as an important accomplishment. While it is true that he was an incompetent crony of the President, his successor has not proved to be any better, and has called for an end to all investigation into the CIA's recently reported destruction of important evidence.
We misunderestimated Bush in Florida in 2000, and again in Ohio in 2004. The list of offenses is long, beginning with the subversion of the Constitution by stealing two presidential elections. We know they have wiped hard drives. I'm sure the fire in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building yesterday was accidental. Nothing will come of this.
Unless you impeach. Don't misunderestimate them again. Every scandal, every suspicion of wrongdoing has not only proved to be true, but far worse than originally thought. Even without enough support in the Senate, an impeachment would have value that is more than symbolic. It would busy the White House with defending itself so that it could not actively pursue its agenda of evil.
Earlier this autumn, you wrote: "While I believe the Vice President likely engaged in behavior that could be considered impeachable...." There should not be a "while" or a "but" or any other qualifier there. If you believe the Vice President has done something that may be impeachable, impeach him. What are you waiting for? Things have gotten even worse since you first adopted your "I will absolutely never consider impeaching the Vice President, who I do think may have committed impeachable offenses" stance. Perhaps you should reconsider this one. Why does my grandfather continue to save those flags from the coffins of my ancestors, if we are not interested in defending the Republic any longer? Protect the Constitution. No political agenda could possibly be more important than that.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
