Impeachment Coalition Taking Shape

by: Matt Stoller

Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 02:30


The New York Times calls for Gonzales's impeachment.  Chuck Schumer admits error on Alito, and calls for a special prosecutor to investigate AG Gonzales.  Iraq is getting worse, and new strange allegations about Bush's spying program are emerging (and that's not including all the other criminal acts, Scooter Libby, reconstruction theft, etc).  We're on a road that leads only to one place to the removal of an illegitimate and overreaching executive.

It's important to frame this by understanding that impeachment is always a political issue, and never a legal one.  As such, the important question is not whether the President committed crimes, but whether there is a coalition behind restoring legitimacy to the political system.  This coalition needs to have at its core a set of elite decision-makers who have decided that impeachment is the only option that will allow them to preserve something they value.  In this case, Bush is threatening the very legitimacy of Congress, and House members and Senators worked hard to get where they are.

I know of several large advocacy organizations that could send emails to their base on impeachment, knowing that the response level would be high.  But the tradeoff for them is to message around impeachment, or message around a policy objective that is more 'achievable'.  Resources are not infinite.  We're in fights on Iraq, Iran, executive privilege, student loans, SCHIP, CAFE standards, the farm bill, 12 spending bills, etc. 

Matt Stoller :: Impeachment Coalition Taking Shape
This is why elite opinion is so important.  Without that, these groups won't move on impeachment, because their resources - which could be used to insure poor kids - will be wasted.  So the shifting of elite opinion, or at least the signs of it, are significant.  Josh Marshall echoes elite opinion with this standard argument.

Without going into all the specifics, I think we are now moving into a situation where the White House, on various fronts, is openly ignoring the constitution, acting as though not just the law but the constitution itself, which is the fundamental law from which all the statutes gain their force and legitimacy, doesn't apply to them.

If that is allowed to continue, the defiance will congeal into precedent. And the whole structure of our system of government will be permanently changed.

Whether because of prudence and pragmatism or mere intellectual inertia, I still have the same opinion on the big question: impeachment. But I think we're moving on to dangerous ground right now, more so than some of us realize. And I'm less sure now under these circumstances that operating by rules of 'normal politics' is justifiable or acquits us of our duty to our country.

It is now conventional wisdom among elite mainstream and liberal pundits that Bush deserves impeachment, but that it 'can't' happen.  That they won't write this is to their discredit, but hey, that's punditocracy for you.  With Schumer and co. openly being laughed at by Gonzales, pressure is building in Congress as well to do something.  Iraq is going to get worse, the conflicts are becoming uglier, and we're going to see more bitter fights over spending bills in the Senate.

Aside from elite opinion shifts, there's now a recognition that legitimacy in our political system needs an organized coalition to defend it.  On Tuesday, there's a press call for this new coalition.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch, MoveOn.org and others are joining together to launch a campaign to help citizens defend democracy.  The American Freedom Campaign (AFC), which will be launched with a teleconference call on Tuesday, July 31, is an online and offline effort to build grassroots support to restore checks and balances and reverse abuses of power by the executive branch.

A variety of pieces are snapping into place to have a real fight over Bush's future.  I can imagine many ways that this plays out.  When Bush refuses to heed Congress on a withdrawal bill, or should he attack Iran, it's going to come to a head. 

Essentially, Bush has figured out that he can govern by vetoing everything he doesn't like and refusing to obey the law.  That's putting immense pressure on Democrats, who are being pushed to 'get something done' while having to deal with someone that will not sign anything that is not exactly what he wants.  That's just not a stable situation.

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Impeachment Coalition Taking Shape | 42 comments
I've Always Felt Impeachment Was Necessary--It's Just The Mathematician In My Soul (4.00 / 1)
All that we're seeing now is simply that people are losing the capacity to ignore what's been staring them right in the face since, oh, sometime in November 2000.

When you start off by stealing a presidential election, you're just bound to end up doing something really bad... like stealing a fucking presidential election!  I mean, what could be worse than that?  Well, now we know.

Still, some sort of line has surely been crossed when even a hard core kool-aid drinker starts to freak out.  I'm talking about this, from the Washington Post:

War Crimes and the White House
The Dishonor in a Tortured New 'Interpretation' of the Geneva Conventions

By P.X. Kelley and Robert F. Turner
Thursday, July 26, 2007; Page A21

One of us was appointed commandant of the Marine Corps by President Ronald Reagan; the other served as a lawyer in the Reagan White House and has vigorously defended the constitutionality of warrantless National Security Agency wiretaps, presidential signing statements and many other controversial aspects of the war on terrorism. But we cannot in good conscience defend a decision that we believe has compromised our national honor and that may well promote the commission of war crimes by Americans and place at risk the welfare of captured American military forces for generations to come.


Once you start losing the soft-core fascists, you know you're in trouble.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
coalitions (0.00 / 0)
The formation of AFC is a huge step forward towards impeachment.

I've been annoyed at the "yell louder" school of thought re: impeachment.  Now, those with spare energy (and vocal cords) can productively call various groups and try to convince them to join the AFC coalition.  Just possibly, a few million calls later, most every group on the left will have joined this group, as well as growing numbers of organizations on the right.

Wishful thinking?  Perhaps.  But I don't think even threat of impeachment will make Bush back off: Senators would have to vote him out of office, which means 2/3 majority.

In coalition terms, perhaps a good goal is to get at least 2/3 of groups that donate to Senate campaigns to join the AFC.  That could be a useful metric, and one that you could look at in the FEC data. 

end the occupation of Iraq

The number are not there to impeach (0.00 / 0)
And you are right even an impeachment inquiry will not stop him from his lawless actions. But I think this point of Josh Marshall, and it's something Kagro X also says

"If that is allowed to continue, the defiance will congeal into precedent. And the whole structure of our system of government will be permanently changed"

Congress needs to do something to put into  historical record that they deem his actions to be an abuse of power. If they don't other presidients will use it ---- sometimes for good but ofttimes for bad.

And I am not sure if executive privelge can be invoked in an impeachment trial.  Maybe others know?


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Having a constitution with rights and restraints the government never gave a fig about ... (0.00 / 0)
... we used to mock the Soviets for that, right?
[ Parent ]
republicans: impeach next (dem) president that does same thing? (0.00 / 0)
Good point, to keep it from congealing into accepted law, perhaps Republicans are thinking they will impeach the next Democratic president that does the same thing?  And then they can accuse Dems of being hypocritical if Dems don't vote to impeach.

Everything is pointing to an attempt at impeachment before the end of Bush's term.  Personally, I'm warming to the idea.

end the occupation of Iraq

[ Parent ]
Having a constitution with rights and restraints the government never gave a fig about ... (0.00 / 0)
... we used to mock the Soviets for that, right?
[ Parent ]
American Freedom Campaign and Ron Paul (0.00 / 0)
I haven't investigated this too fully yet, but it looks like there are a lot of American Freedom Campaign meetups forming, many around Ron Paul's presidential candidacy. If Paul does join the "coalition" of voices calling for impeachment, it'll certainly ad a curious wrinkle to the debate.
I see -- it's the American Freedom Agenda (4.00 / 1)
So apparently in June a conservative/libertarian coalition led by Bob Barr and Bruce Fein called the American Freedom Agenda began pushing Republican candidates to explicitly adopt anti-unitary executive policy such as no warentless wiretapping, no military commissions to try terrorism suspects, and no signing statements. Amazing that this didn't attract more attention in the progressive blogosphere.

American Freedom Campaign is the liberal counterpart. Interesting that the latter group chose an almost identical name. I guess the idea is to have an extremely broad ideological coalition made up of people from across the political spectrum, if that makes sense.

Impeachment and Coalitions (4.00 / 2)
I understand that impeachment is a political process more than a legal one, and as such is going to require the building of a coalition to achieve it.

However, where I seem to differ with many is that I believe that part of building this coalition is taking bold action that will galvanize support in the general populace, raising the issue to a level of discussion at which the GOP can not drown it out with their disinformation and propaganda. I also see this taking of action toward impeachment, regardless of actually achieving it, as having positives over the long term for both Democrats and our Democracy.

I feel that there is a great fear to act going on in DC. It seems to me, an admitted outsider and just plain old Democratic voter, that the people we've elected are concerned more about the direction the "elite" opinion makers are taking, and less about the precedent that is being set every day this administration's actions go unchallenged.

I firmly believe that if public opinion was raised on the issues surrounding impeachment, then public outcry and pressure on the "elite" would move them to action, and the party that shows the strength to lead on this would reap the benefits at the ballot box in 2008. However, the only way I see the public actually taking the seriousness of this administration's dissection of the Constitution is through acting on impeachment.

Without action, there will not be the public focus and outcry that will provide the pressure required to force the "elite" into the coalition required. Instead our lawmakers will sit on the sidelines waiting for someone else to make the "safe" move politically.

And of course, Bush and his administration will continue to act accordingly, knowing that no one will step forward and take real action.

As you mention Matt, there are finite resources. But at some point those resources don't mean anything if the bigger picture is not realized and resources mobilized for the greater and long term good. Mobilizing resources to get health insurance for kids that will only be filibustered by the GOP in the Senate or vetoed by Bush does little in the long run.

Prairie State Blue Covering Illinois Democratic politics.

Two Other Obstacles Hindering Impeachment (0.00 / 0)
Another reason that elite opinion hasn't already shifted is that elites are afraid of the right-wing noise/attack machine. No one wants to be swift-boated -- bombarded by a relentless barrage of vicioius, dishonest attacks. The right-wing machine is less potent now than before, but it still has strong influence on probably 1/3 of Americans. We need to keep pointing out the lies and absurdities that the right-wing noise machine spews and illuminate their fear-mongering and racist/sexist/classisst/xenophobic/homophobic hate talk. If there is a way, we also need to undercut their ability to bring in advertising income or to attract new employees. We need to encourage insider defections and whistleblowing.

And, I fear, another reason that elite opinion hasn't already shifted is that elites are afraid of right-wing thuggery. No one wants to find anthrax in her/his office or have their office bombed by terrorists. From lynchings to firebombings to company thugs, the Right has a long history of using vicious violence to kill, maim, and terrorize opponents. Bush has demonstrated that he is willing to wiretap, kidnap, and torture opponents and has set himself up so that he can impose martial law if he chooses. We must shine a bright light on this behavior too and encourage insider defections.

Safety in numbers (4.00 / 2)
Still, if enough people speak out, they can't attack everyone, at least not with the same ferocity.  The attack is blunted.  They can't shoot everyone who is in the streets.  A big group of Dems should speak out en masse.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
Yes, I agree. The more people we can get involved and informed, the safer for everyone. And actually, impeachment -- taking the offensive and knocking them off balance -- might be the safest of all. As it is now, they are still able to plan in secret, but if impeached, then all of their activities would get a lot more scrutiny and they would have to be more careful about what they do for fear of being indicted/convicted.

I can feel the energy for impeachment growing and I'm still hopeful we'll see it in September.

[ Parent ]
I would prefer not to make that tradeoff (0.00 / 0)
I would rather Congress focus on drafting a better farm bill, CAFE standards, the spending bills, etc. If we drop all that to pursue impeachment, we will not succeed in removing Bush or Cheney and will not go into the 2008 elections with anything to show for the Democratic majorities in Congress.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
it's not one _or_ the other (0.00 / 0)
During the Clinton impeachment, the Senate was tied up from Jan 7th to Feb. 12th, a little over a month.

Sure, that's a lot of time, but it's not so much that it prohibits anything else from getting done in the session.

end the occupation of Iraq

[ Parent ]
Lots of people would prefer that. (4.00 / 2)
Of course, all those things are currently under veto threat. 2/3 of the appropriations agenda has drawn veto threats. The farm bill is under veto threat. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay act is under veto threat. The College Cost Reduction Act. The Energy Price Gouging Act. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The DC Voting Rights Act. The Rail and Mass Transit Security Act. The Presidential Records Amendment Act. The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. Clean Water reauthorization. The Employee Free Choice Act. Negotiation of lower drug prices through Medicare.

All slated for vetoes.

I'm not so sure we're actually trading anything.

[ Parent ]
yup (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
There MIGHT be an impeachment of Gonzo (0.00 / 0)
but you can bet your bottom dollar that Bush and Cheney will not be. There simply will never be the votes to convict in the Senate. (The same is probably true for Gonzo, but the political show would probably be worthwhile in that case).
You need 0 Senate votes to remove a President (4.00 / 1)
that's how we got rid of Nixon.
[ Parent ]
I don't buy this part (4.00 / 3)
It's important to frame this by understanding that impeachment is always a political issue, and never a legal one.
Sometimes even the Elites need to come to the point of accepting that it is a moral issue, and to do nothing is immoral.
  Even Josh over at TPM is coming to the point that Impeachment is about more than politics, something I never thought I would see..

Pledge To Ask "The Question"
Not without an earthquake (0.00 / 0)
We know that the Dem Congressional leadership (and most of their troops) skew heavily risk-averse. Starting impeachment proceedings would be gorging on risk.

(Of course, circumstances alter cases - Bush suddenly going Jack D Ripper over Iran might well be just such a circumstance.)

I'm sure they also fear the precedent set, for the next time (which could be in 2009) when there's divided government with a Dem in the WH. History is full of cases where the GOP have exploited to the full shenanigans previously toyed with by Dem majorities. (Use of closed rules, for instance.)

That's not an argument to be dismissed as a smokescreen for cowardice. There are probably other good arguments against.

But - however good the arguments in favor, the current crew are not the guys to push the button, as things stand.

Dems are a bit naive (4.00 / 4)
The Dem leadership seems to think that if they try to govern and do well at the polls in 2009, all will be well.  But given what we have seen to date, what evidence is there that Bush/Cheney will just slip off into the sunset in January, 2009?  It seems to me that NOT drawing a line in the sand via at least a Gonzales impeachment is tempting Bush/Cheney to think they can stay in power longer and no one will do anything about it. 

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Already a grassroots impeachment coalition (4.00 / 1)
I'm very glad that a new coalition is now forming to defend the Constitution, but there is already a growing coalition of grassroots groups has been pushing hard for impeachment at least since the Downing Street Minutes surfaced in May 2005.  They can be found at afterdowningstreet.org if you're not familiar with that, and include PDA, democrats.com, Velvet Revolution, Code Pink, IVAW, and many, many more, especially the local and state grassroots groups that passed successful impeachment resolutions in so many places. (Plus, I admit I am biased, but how can people keep writing about impeachment as if Kucinich does not exist, when he's the one brave enough to put in the Cheney impeachment bill?)
You're right (4.00 / 1)
I thought the same exact thing when reading Stoller's post. He's ignored the other coalition, and is only mentioning this new coalition because it's composed of groups with a large inside-the-Beltway presence (meaning they have substantial communications budgets and are thus considered, to partisan Democrats in the Beltway, to be "mainstream").

Leftmost Bit
[ Parent ]
I tried to educate Stoller (4.00 / 2)
about the existing netroots/grassroots coalition when he kindly asked for advice on 7/11.

But judging from this post I guess he's not interested in the real grassroots, just the DC folks with the budgets you refer to.

For example, this is the first I'm hearing about the American Freedom Campaign.

To me this is a defining challenge to this site: is OpenLeft about empowering the netroots or about empowering the DC institutions?

It could be both, but not if the organizers of this site choose to ignore the netroots.

So Matt, what's up with that?

[ Parent ]
But is this new coalition (4.00 / 1)
really about impeachment?

The I-word doesn't appear in the article John Nichols wrote on Friday.

According to Nichols, they are just trying to get the Democratic Presidential candidates to forswear the unconstitutional acts of this President.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch and MoveOn.org have launched a vital campaign to put restoration of the Constitution on the agenda for Democratic presidential candidates -- just as the conservative American Freedom Agenda movement has done for Republican candidates.

It looks to me like they are avoiding impeachment entirely...

[ Parent ]
Worse Than That, Apparently... (4.00 / 1)
Since Nichols also notes that the liberal AFC statement is a lot weaker than the conservative AFA statement, as it leaves out a whole string of explicit prohibitions.  What's up with that?

Nichols:

That's a sound statement, although it is not quite as specific as the American Freedom Agenda declaration, which asks candidates to pledge to:

* Prohibit military commissions whose verdicts are suspect except in places of active hostilities where a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony or to prevent anarchy;

* Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture or coercion in military or civilian tribunals;

* Prohibit the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants without proof of criminal activity on the President's say-so;

* Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien enemy combatants, i.e., non-citizens who have allegedly participated in active hostilities against the United States, to protect the innocent;

* Prohibit the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or emails or breaking and entering homes on the President's say-so in violation of federal law;

* Empower the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively to challenge in the Supreme Court the constitutionality of signing statements that declare the intent of the President to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills he has signed into law because he maintains they are unconstitutional;

* Prohibit the executive from invoking the state secrets privilege to deny justice to victims of constitutional violations perpetrated by government officers or agents; and, establish legislative-executive committees in the House and Senate to adjudicate the withholding of information from Congress based on executive privilege that obstructs oversight and government in the sunshine;

* Prohibit the President from kidnapping, detaining, and torturing persons abroad in collaboration with foreign governments;

* Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution; and;

* Prohibit the listing of individuals or organizations with a presence in the United States as global terrorists or global terrorist organizations based on secret evidence.



"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Thank you, cobblestones, bob, and luigi (0.00 / 0)
There is most definitely a growing coalition of grassgroots groups pushing hard for impeachment.  In New York there are several groups gearing up to convince Jerry Nadler to do the right thing.  To varying extents they are also working together.  One of the groups has also very recently submitted a resolution to the New York City Council.

I don't disagree that we need to build a credible front, and we need to have a mainstream identity if we are to make headway in the beltway, but I do think this is happening and has been evidenced by the willingness of people like John Nichols and Bruce Fein to work with this coalition.

Reading this post has shored up conviction that impeachment will happen and will succeed.

[ Parent ]
ImpeachGonzales.org (0.00 / 0)
Kudos to Brave New Films and Democracy for America for beginning the call for impeachment of Gonzales two months ago. Their leadership on the issue was vital.

Sign the ImpeachGonzales.org petition

Leftmost Bit

A Change In Meaning (4.00 / 6)
It needs to be pointed out that what's starting to happen here is a change in the meaning of "impeachment."

Heretofore, those who have supported impeachment have been groups associated with afterdowningstreet.org, Code Pink, etc.  These are, primarily, outsider groups who are well aware of the glaring evidence out there (such as the Downing Street Memos [DSMs) which makes a compelling case for impeachment.  For them, the meaning of impeachment is to clean up a rotten system.

The new support comes from more insider groups, more tuned into the Beltway political process than boring old facts (like the DSMs).  For them, the meaning of impeachment is to preserve the system via a ritual cleansing.

This second approach embraces the same mistaken route taken with Richard Nixon, which lead to the very pickle we find ourselves in today.  While I might welcome the added firepower and political leverage, the difference in intentions is not something lightly to be ignored.

The problem is not just Bush, Cheney, Rove and Gonzales.  The problem is focalized in them, to be sure.  But it is far deeper and more pervasive, not just within the GOP, but within the entire culture of Versailles--by which I mean not just the Beltway, but the entire elite political culture that dominates all media discussions, and most political processes at the federal level.

This gets back to Howard Dean, both the people-powered vision of his 2003/2004 campaign, and his current 50-state plan for re-building the party from the grassroots on up.  Have people really internalized these values?  Or were they, in the end, just faddish ideas that people rode for a while until they arrived at a different place, where different ideas are now more appealing?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Very Good Points (4.00 / 1)
To move this body politic a great deal of effort is required.  Some groups have to  take the point, and push the effort as far as possible.  We need the more insider/elite groups as well.  But those on the point who understand the true stakes have to push for a more total cleansing even as the insiders seem to join in. 

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Paul I don't quite see these two poles (4.00 / 1)
although they are interesting and worth watching over time.

We founded AfterDowningStreet.org to expose the fundamental Bush lies that got us into Iraq and to insist on accountability for those lies.

Were we trying to "clean up a rotten system"? Not really - we were trying to punish those responsible for a specific (albeit enormous) crime.

Of course we recognized that the Iraq War lies were just one of many impeachable offenses committed by Bush & Co., and our main impeachment petition lists 10 reasons:
http://www.democrats.com/impeach-bush-cheney-petition.

Ideally we'd like to see all of these crimes be punished, but we realize the top priority is to actually remove Cheney and then Bush from office to (a) stop the current crimes they are committing, (b) prevent them from committing even more heinous crimes before January 2009, (c) restore the Constitution as we thought we knew it, and (d) draw a line in the sand to stop future Presidents from committing similar or worse crimes.

I don't know the motives of those forming the new coalition, but I suspect they are similar to our motives.

I think they waited until now because the Democratic establishment in Washington DC was so hostile to impeachment. In fact when we created ImpeachPAC last year, the DCCC explicitly (and vehemently) told Democratic candidates not to take our money!

But the hostility of Democratic insiders didn't deter us, and by now our netroots/grassroots efforts have gained enough traction that the groups Stoller is working with realize they will lose support among their small donors if they don't jump on the train that has left the station...

[ Parent ]
Bush/Cheney will exercise the power they have usurped (4.00 / 4)
The main reason to impeach Cheney (first) and Bush (second) as soon as possible is to prevent them from exercising the power they have already seized and the power they are currently in the process of seizing.

I find it very curious that they continue to seize more power despite the implosion of Iraq and the opposition of a majority of the American people to most of what they are doing.

Why would they be seizing more power (e.g. the power to seize the assets of any American citizen they suspect of terrorism without due process) when such actions are manifestly jeopardizing the re-election prospects of Republicans throughout the country, as measured by falling fund-raising  and public opinion polls?

Wouldn't you think they'd cut their losses? Haven't a number of leading Republicans told them to shift gears and prepare to leave office without wrecking the Republican Party?

The only hypothesis I can come up with for connecting these dots, far fetched as it may sound, is that Bush and Cheney may not be planning on leaving office at the end of their term.

I hope this is just paranoia on my part, but I urge everyone to read the recent article in CommonDreams.org by David Lindorff, The Threat of Martial Law is Real.

He outlines a worst case scenario that I think provides the single most important reason for impeaching Bush and Cheney now, which is to prevent them from exercising the power they have already seized to suspend the constitution and rule by decree.

We have to ask the really hard questions about the worse things that could happen and take action to forestall them.

Why, for example, have Bush and Cheney gone to such lengths to prepare for the imposition of martial law in the U.S., including the creation of detention centers throughout the country for holding hundreds of thousands of American citizens indefinitely?

Why have they created their own private armies of mercenaries under their control comprised of hundreds of thousands of armed troops that operate independently of U.S. forces? From what I have read, it is unconstitutional for the president to create and maintain his own standing army, yet this is exactly what he has done. That he even deployed his private security forces in New Orleans after Katrina is writing on the wall that should not be ignored.

Why did the Bush administration insist on the passage of a law by Congress last October that gave him the authority to place state National Guards under his control without the authorization of state governors - especially since a majority of state governors opposed the move?

I am less concerned about the precedents that have been set by their seizure of power. The single most important reason to impeach Bush and Cheney now is to prevent them from using these powers while they are still in office.


impeachment (0.00 / 0)
Part of the reason BushCo Inc. continues to commit illegal acts and ignore the Constitution is because they have already done so much bad stuff that they are in the position of having to cover their tracks.  Lies pile up upon lies, and it all has a self-sustaining momentum that can't be stopped, because the administration is not willing to accept that anything they have done is wrong.  Any concession, any sign of weakness on the part of the Bushniks could bring it all crashing down on their heads.
[ Parent ]
tinfoil-hat territory (0.00 / 0)
When there is an "other"  (Bush) that has done so many things that are so wrong in our eyes, there are many scenarios that we can imagine he'll try.  We can try to equate all of the wrong things he's done, with all wrong things he could possible do, and there's a world of difference.

What the difference is that he would lose 1/2 to 2/3 of his conservative supporters if Bush tries anything like this, dropping his approval to the single digits.  He can't hold onto power without the support of the people.  It's not like Hitler where he was popularly supported, rather, Bush would have the support of only 1 person in 10, perhaps 1 in 20. 

When Bush's term ends, he's not going to remain in power.  I think going over worst-case scenarios are not useful, and I encourage you to think about other issues.

end the occupation of Iraq

[ Parent ]
Thinking about the Unthinkable (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for your encouragement. I prefer to think about other things and usually do.

In this case, just because it seems to most of us a preposterous idea that Bush and Cheney might declare martial law doesn't mean that it's a preposterous idea to them.

I have read many of the preposterous documents published by the Project for the New American Century and the various neoconservative think tanks that argue the U.S. will only be secure if it establishes a global hegemony. These documents provide written blueprints for what Bush and Cheney have been doing for the past 7 years.

The corollary of the premise that the U.S. must establish an uncontested global hegemony is that the U.S. president must establish himself as the pre-eminent source of authority and use of force within the U.S. By so doing, he can prevent the other branches of government from interfering with his plan to achieve global hegemony.

If we are lucky, Bush and Cheney will go quietly into the night in January 2009.

But if you look at the systematic way they have gone about instituting an unconstitutional superstructure of laws and executive orders conferring on themselves unlimited power, even as their power base crumbles beneath them, you have to wonder what preposterous plans they may have in the works.

 

[ Parent ]
There are several reasons (4.00 / 1)
for all of us to think seriously about the issues that Nancy so thoughtfully raises.

1. For the past 6.5 years, Cheney has always exceeded our worst fears. It would be foolish - perhaps idiotic - to think he couldn't do worse than he's already done.

2. Democrats in Congress need to think through these scenarios. Let's start with the one that will be upon us soon: what if the House chooses the "inherent contempt" route to bring Harriet Miers before Congress through an arrest by the Sargeant-at-Arms, and Bush sends the Secret Service to stop the Sargeant-at-Arms from arresting her? If that sounds crazy, remember that James Comey called Robert Mueller on his way to Ashcroft's hospital bed to make sure the FBI guards outside Ashcroft's room took orders from Comey (then the Acting Attorney General) rather than then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and then-Chief of Staff Andrew Card.

When Nancy (and Dave Lindorff) talk about Martial Law, it's not hard to see a series of actions that could lead from here to there.

In an earlier era, the Washington Pundits would have warned the White House not to defy the legitimate acts of Congress. But the Washington Post under Fred Hiatt and David Broder is nothing but a mouthpiece for Dick Cheney. The Washington Establishment will not defend our Constitution - that will be up to the blogs, the progressive movement, and the American people.

[ Parent ]
If Bush/Cheney have their own militias (0.00 / 0)
and have already built the detention centers...

...what makes you think they would quietly leave office if they were impeached?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Very Good Question (4.00 / 1)
You raise an excellent question.

Right now, with $700 billion already in the coffers of the defense department and under the control of Bush and Cheney, they have the $wherewithal to do anything that requires the use of force, both inside and outside the U.S.

All Congress can do is pass laws. It is up to the executive branch, namely, the office of the president, to execute them.

As we have already seen, Bush and Cheney are prepared to rule by executive orders and signing statements that abrogate the laws passed by Congress.

While it is hard to imagine but worth thinking about, preposterous as it may seem,  Bush could enforce his orders and signing statements using his own private security forces.

He could shut down the internet and sweep all of his opponents in the U.S. into his American detention centers, just as he has done to tens of thousands of suspected terrorists abroad. The only communications we would get would be those issued by the White House.

Basically, back to the present, as things now stand, Bush and Cheney are calling the shots in the most important area, namely the monopoly of the legitimate use of force at home and abroad in the name of the U.S.

They are primarily using it to to promote U.S hegemony abroad wherever they choose, but all the evidence shows they are poised to use it domestically if they see fit.

Congress is at a standstill legislatively. Although it does have the power to refuse to pass legislation funding executive branch agencies and operations, like Iraq war funding, even if it refuses to do so, Bush and Cheney already have $700 billion in hand from last year's defense appropriations, so they can pretty much do whatever they want.

To get back to the thrust of your question, the main thing that impeachment will do will is to officially expulse them from office. They will no longer be president and vice president of the U.S. in the legal sense.

Even if they refuse to leave office, they will not be able to do anything that would have the force of law, either domestically or internationally. They would be official outlaws instead of the unofficial outlaws they now are, given all their prior violations of U.S. constitutional laws and international laws and treaties signed by the U.S.

Once they are officially declared outlaws, their adversaries inside and outside the U.S. will encircle them literally and figuratively and eventually force them out, as dictators always are.

We are a far cry from any of these highly implausible scenarios, but we dare not rule them out given what we have already seen Bush and Cheney do over the past 7 years. Few people thought that Hitler was going to do what he did, but if more people had taken his early pronouncements and acts seriously, preventive action might have been possible.

As in business, the best course of action is to prepare for the worst and then hope for the best.

To prepare for the worst and stop Bush and Cheney in their immediate tracks, they must be impeached as quickly as possible. Then we can hope for the best.


[ Parent ]
B. Franklin, prophet (0.00 / 0)
Mr. Franklin wrote a great speech for the Constitutional Convention meeting of September 17, 1787.  Too infirm for standing to speak, Franklin asked James Wilson to read it.  Early in the text:

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

Perhaps close to half of the people in the United States have become so corrupt that only a despot such as Bu$h xliii is truly suitable for them. 

2008 election (4.00 / 1)
Democrats should weigh how many votes they'll lose in 2008 if they don't impeach Cheney, Bush, & Gonzo.

I have a feeling it could be considerable.

x (0.00 / 0)

Worthwhile reading (0.00 / 0)
This diary and the comments do a good job of assessing the impeachment movement.

The warning alarms are not so far afield. Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Sec of State Powell, gave a similar warning at a town hall forum on Presidential Accountability June 23 at George Mason University, that Cheney would impose marshal law if Bush were impeached first.

Impeachment Coalition Taking Shape | 42 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox