United States Attorneys are the peoples' law enforcement officers,
Not political hacks.Everything is on the table!
Congressional Democrats:
You’ve got nothing left to keep your powder dry for. This is it. This is the last stand. It’s showtime, folks. Show us what you've got.
Clusterfuck's last stand?
ReplyDeleteSubpoena time! Truth or consequences!
ReplyDeletevigilante, Your betting Impeachment on the one thing less consequential that "lying about sex?" There is absolutely no crime here at all.
ReplyDeleteIn so far as the real issue of Suponeas on non-cabinet confirmed presidential advisors, be careful what you wish for. Remember it's likely Obama or Cinton will be the next president. Do you want them to face this sledge hammer in the hands of a Republican controlled congress?
Let's build Impeachment around the real issues, not made-up political hackery.
the Wizard......
I have to confess to not being overly excited about the central issue though I am enjoying watching the republicans eating their own offspring.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I have no objection to this being the downfall of at least some of them. They've brought the entire "witch-hunt" mentality upon themselves by their own actions. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Nope, no pity here and I'm really ok with being unreasonable about it for the moment. I'll take whatever we can get in the way of ousting as many of them as possible.
John Dean makes a good case for impeaching various Bush cabinet officials such as Gonzales:
ReplyDelete"The drive to impeach Bush and Cheney should, however, refocus its effort and energy into another undertaking - one that not only might succeed, but if it did, it would greatly benefit the nation and the well-being of all Americans."
For one thing, he argues it will be of a more lasting result, because these people are not near the end of their potential careers and could have their careers truncated by
"disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States", (under Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution).
The best way to answer Wizard is for me to combine the salient points of N.Y. Mama's and Messenger's comments.
ReplyDeleteYears ago, in my youth, at the time we were bombing Cambodia and killing kids at Kent State, I used to say that Dick Nixon was the greatest unindicted war criminal in world history. Later, I marveled the irony with which he was brought to his knees by being caught at covering up a common burglary at the Watergate hotel.
As John Dean has written, Bush is worse than Nixon. Bush is not only unprecedented as a war criminal in American foreign policy but he is the most extra-constitutional president in the domestic policy realm we have ever had. I think all of these threads of illegality have legs and should be followed. Pursue cabinet and sub-cabinet officials who smell smoky and dirty. Alberto Gonzales is the smokiest of all of them. See which ones Bush and Cheney can't cut loose. They're the ones whose trail of crumbs will lead upward. It is totally within Bush-Cheney's pattern of behavior to tempt the gods of irony and try to cover up the wrong thing at the wrong time.
This Neocon gang prides itself on its full court press. I think nothing short of a full spectrum opposition will bring it down. Gonzales is vulnerable because he is dirty; it's worth pursuing him because he is so close to the president.
I sense ironical historical turns in our near future.
V, I have adjusted my moderation comments. Sheesh, never met someone so passionate about it. :<) Anyway, ope to hear from you on the post. I'd really like to hear an American perspective. For the record, my blog is about to undergo an overhaul hence why I wasn't doing anything about it.
ReplyDeleteAs things stand now, who can have confidence in Federal Attorneys? Of course they serve at the pleasure of the President. But do they have to serve the president PLEASURE?
ReplyDeleteHow to Pleasure the President
ReplyDeleteHere's an example in Miami: The U.S. attorney's office in Miami filed the paperwork seeking to reduce Abramoff's 70-month prison term stemming from the SunCruz Casinos case, but did not specify any time off his sentence.
ReplyDeleteIt's impossible to keep up with this story. Notwithstanding Wizard's typical ludicrous statement (he may be a Unitarian, but he's also a Weimarian), this story has legs. There certainly is a there there. The MSM is picking it up and it loves nothing more than a feeding frenzy. The American people hate nothing more than public corruption unless it's attempted government cover-ups of public corruption. They are becoming as mad as hell, and they won't take it much longer.
ReplyDeleteFor God's sake, this is the first-best opportunity the Democrats have ever had to hobble this president's almost unstoppable reach for extreme control of everything. I (and others) have offered our predictions that he might very well decide not to quit in 2008. After all, he has said that God spoke to him and called upon him to do what he is doing.
ReplyDeletePLEASE, Congress, do not compromise on the hearings over the dismissal of the U.S. attorneys.
Sorry, just an aside, has anyone asked Bush why we're in such a hole (yes, it could be worse) if God is helping him? Cheers.
ReplyDeleteI've commented on so many posts today, that I can't remember where I said that I thought I heard that Bush had compromised. Turns out that I was wrong. Hooray!!! I would hate to give him credit for any scruples at all about anything. Go get'em, Congress!!!
ReplyDeleteI agree with littlebill, we have to start somewhere...
ReplyDeleteethel of wotv
Thanks to SwiftSpeech, we learn that even Steven Colbert has called for impeachment!
ReplyDeleteNice table! Woot!
ReplyDeleteThe blatant political maneuvering and cronyism along with the worst than Keystone cop attempt to explain it all should be a "slam dunk" to have at least Gonzales's and a few other heads rolling.
ReplyDeleteWanted to smack Tony Snow upside the head for saying that the president's conditional offer to have his people speak was generous. Kept wondering that if they were as innocent as he said they were how could they be upset about being under oath?
Yeah, Beach. I wish I could find Snow's record on early I-Wreck prognostications so I could post his flavor of Kool-Aid.
ReplyDeleteThis was posted in another thread.
ReplyDeleteCan someone work this out:
Revelation 13:5 - Are we in this 42 month period?
Good luck, Vigilante.
ReplyDeleteYou guys are lucky... Tony Blair is making himself so scarce; we in the UK are still in the dark ages.
Vigilante,
ReplyDeleteHeadline: 15 British sailors seized by Iranian forces
(I have a suspicion the British sailors are not 'ordinary' sailors, more like special commando guys of the SAS variety.)
Let's see how future ex PM Tony Blair resolves this one.
If he can't resolve this one quickly, we might end up with a similar crisis in the UK, i.e., Labour govt falls, but not quite the Constitutional crisis you enunciate in this thread.
Strictly speaking, HM Elizabeth Regina II can't be a party to PM Blair's political shenanigans so in that respect, UK Constitution is intact.
There is no feeding frenzy here. There is a bullfight, with the Democrats in the role of the bull.
ReplyDeleteThe Bull is a powerful, magnificient beast. Strong, fast, graceful and angry. But doomed to die by the sword.
I understand vigilante's argument of fighting any battle, following any lead. The Nixon comparisons are not lost on me.
Yet here the Democrats are setting up a constitutional crisis that, if they are successful, will harm all future Presidents. But it is unlikely the Democrats can successfully breach the separation of the Branches of government.
I am reminded how vigorously the Democrats argued forcefully (and I think some of you here, but I'm not certain) against the invasion of the House of Representatives by the FBI, under a warrant issued by a judge, in an effort to search the offices of William Jefferson (of frozen cash fame). This was an unacceptable crossing of the branches of govenrment, no matter how guilty Jefferson might be.
Historically, and probably constitutionally, Bush is on solid ground.
Plus, as one Senator correctly pointed out yesterday, the ensuing court fight will last well beyond the Bush Presidency.
the Wizard.....
ask and ye shall recieve my brother.
ReplyDeletenow do me a favor :)
For the record, here are the precedents for what George Bush called "unprecedented access" to Presidential aides subjected to subpoenas.
ReplyDeleteTagged, you're it. No problem if you'd rather not but I had to, couldn't help it.
ReplyDeleteThe 18-day gap for missing presidential emails is interesting. Nixon had that 18-minute gap on those tapes. Hmmmm.....
ReplyDeleteDespite a fierce effort from right-wing spinmeisters, the truth is getting out. Yes, presidents do ask U.S. attorneys to resign. But they do it at the beginning of their terms. Much more important, they do not attempt to twist the judicial process for political ends. The Bush administration and Republicans in Congress pressured U.S. attorneys to gin up false cases of corruption and voter fraud against political opponents. This perversion of the judicial process is a trait you find in authoritarian states. It has no place in America.
ReplyDeleteWizard says:
ReplyDelete"Yet here the Democrats are setting up a constitutional crisis that, if they are successful, will harm all future Presidents."
(1) We have been in constitutional crises. Wizard has apparently been oblivious of it. No surprise there.
(2) If democrats are successful, they will harm all future imperial presidencies.
I say, god speed the constitutional crises. (Let's not just have one of them!)
Wizard says:
"But it is unlikely the Democrats can successfully breach the separation of the Branches of government."
I don't know what this means. Except if it means we should not resist or struggle unless we are sure of success - the old 'keep your powder dry' argument - I reject this idea out of hand. We never know what we can achieve until we stand up, speak up, and punch up.
Shock and awe, baby. Shock and awe.
I think you had better read the wording of the unanimous supreme court decision in 1974 before you get too worked up, especially where NO CRIME has even been thought of, let alone alleged.
ReplyDeleteFrankly Bush, FOR ALL FUTURE PRESIDENTS, which will include democrats, such as Clinton who employed executive privilege, and FDR, and Kennedy, etc., should refuse congress and let the supreme court rule if needs be. It will come down on the executive's side and the ruling will probably take place after a democratic president is in office.
SO GET REAL.
What?
ReplyDelete"no crime has even been thought of, let alone alleged"?
How about
Conspiracy to obstruct justice
or how about
multi-conspiracies to obstruct justice?
There's either gold, platinum or uranium is them there hills and you never know what you're going to find until you start mining them.
And the biggest clues are what they try hardest to cover up: that's going to lead where you're going to find the richest veins of the best ore!
President Bush wants the entire truth about the firing of U.S. attorneys to come out, and he's willing to allow administration officials to answer questions from the Senate? As long as it's behind closed doors? Oh, and don't bother to bring a Bible; we won't need that. And you can leave the tape recorders and stenographers at home.
ReplyDeleteDo we, the American people, have "stupid" tattooed on our foreheads?
The rest of the world is laughing.
It's a simple program: Slim Congressional majorities by November '06. Bungled oversight by January '07. Unpopular impeachment proceedings (double!) by January '08. Republican majorities again by January '09. Quite simple. Try to keep on schedule. If you fall behind, you'll never get it done for us.
ReplyDeleteVigil,
ReplyDeleteI am totally ignorant about the subject at hand but wanted to recomend you to visit a blog by Finnish fellow whom seems to have quite an interesting take on American politics.
http://adynaton.blogspot.com/
Don't be scared for his English is way better than mine!
I had to go look Pekka, you know I did.
ReplyDeleteI've come to the conclusion that there are two weaknesses to democracy: the politicians and the voters.
Priceless.
Hiya Vigilante. Thanks for your visit to and comment at Politics Plus. It looks like you have a fantastic blog here, and I fully agree that impeachment is the solution to the problem of Crawford Caligula.
ReplyDeleteThere can't be a conspiracy to obstruct justice with the evidence cited.
ReplyDeleteNo fired prosecutor has even THOUGHT of alleging this. They would know. Such a charge is the wet dream of people whose entire self delusion is to harm Bush.
Don't let BDS ruin your mind.
Get a grip.
The USA is REALLY in peril of one main forces which obliterated the roman republic - the criminalization of every POLITICAL maneuver.
If Bush had sought to obstruct justice and was COMPETENT, he could have just FIRED EVERYONE.
No matter what else can be said this is dangerous political grandstanding and WILL ABSOLUTELY one day bring about the reverse action, just as the stupid actions against Clinton for sperm on a dress have helped to add to this climate.
Neither side will be able to cooperate and the republic will fail.
Don't fool yourself.
This republic needs men of good will, who can find common ground.
BE ONE.
Some time ago, I remember wondering out loud on the 'Net that, as his second term winds down it may not be necessary to impeach Bush because by that time he may have so marginalized himself as to become irrelevant. I think this occurred to me around the time when Daddy Bush's peers in the Iraq Study Group started/tried supervising junior on foreign policy. Now, that scenario seems to becoming more likely as the imperial presidency unravels and dissipates down the spectrum toward general incompetence and aimlessness.
ReplyDeleteI encourage people to visit John Paul McCarty's Impeachment In All But Name: Scandal in the Bush Administration
vigilante Congrats on one of the best discussion threads I seen in the blogosphere in a while. You've even manged to attract a brave conservative or two and a fellow "self proclaimed liberal" (who also claims he is not progressive and doesn't suffer from BDS, if I take Epaminondas at his word(which, of course, I do)).
ReplyDeleteAnd so, as a word of caution to my fellow, non-BDS afflicted, liberal Epaminondas, I'm reminded of the story told by President Johnson at the height of Viet Nam... (sorry, not an exact quote)
"If I walked on water, the New York Times headline would be 'President Unable To Swim.'"
Do not dispair if the Progressives or Democrats (or the Press) seem so uncivil, so unwilling to compromise. They are men of goodwill who genuinely want what is best for the country and the world.
Their word have great credibility.
the Wizard......
The points people tend to miss is that if attorneys were fired to protect republicans from prosecution, it's obstruction of justice. If they were fired because of not wrongfully prosecuting "enemies" it's abuse of power. These are two of the articles of impeachment drawn up against Richard Nixon.
ReplyDeleteMy best response to CHICKENLITTLE (above) is a comment I just read on another site a few minute ago:
ReplyDelete"It isn’t about politics, it is about right vs wrong. . . The real questions have nothing to do with Party, but everything to do with Country. Patriotism means doing what is right, not what is politically expedient . . . . People have every right to be Republicans if they so choose; it does not give them any right to defend the indefensible, and the same goes for Democrats or any other party. This is what is known as the American way, referring to the fact that we pledge allegiance to our Flag, not to our party . . . . There is all the difference in the world between those two views of our duty to our beloved nation . . . ."
I have become so fatigued with the argument that it's the Democrats' fault for not doing / saying X, Y, or Z. This is the most tiresome reaction I have gotten in the last half decade of my reaching out across the political spectrum, on the Net or in person. Politics is no longer some kind of arena-football wherein we walk across the 50 yard-line after regular intervals and shake hands in congratulations or commiserations. It may have been that way before 9-11-01. But after 3-20-03, politics is no longer a zero-sum-game between the Republican and Democratic parties. This new politics is the process where Americans together try to work out together what is the best country. Country first, party affiliation is way down the list.
What is BDS?
ReplyDeleteIn citing John Paul McCarty's article with approval, Vigilante appears to be mellowing on, and backing away from, his iron-clad, iron-fisted timetable.
ReplyDeleteHaving actually followed link provided, I find the following money paras of McCarty's:
In the current election cycle, removing Bush and Cheney from office, given the time it will take, will serve the public interest only marginally more than a clean election. Impeachment might provide some [read immense] satisfaction to those who have watched this administration trample American values and spit on the Constitution. Holding Bush / Cheney to account for the last 6 years and more will do approximately the same thing. Exposing their contempt for ordinary Americans, demonstrated in their actions, will take away much of their support and render them mostly harmless—and mostly harmless is pretty good in today’s politics.
When we look at the meaning of impeachment, that of exposing the misconduct of office holders and holding them to account, Democrats need mostly to do what they’ve begun to do: hold hearings and press conferences, doggedly turning up all available examples of administration malfeasance. Actual crimes uncovered should be prosecuted. The argument of executive power allowing the president to do what is criminal should be thoroughly discredited. If public servants and the media bring the truth to light, the administration, through past and present actions, will impeach itself.
Say it ain't so, Vigil!
Hi Vigilante,
ReplyDeleteJust read your comment in my blog - not quite the topic here but I thought might interest you to know, that is if we believe a report by a Dan Plesch for the Iran Press Service, "The whole of Iran is now within less than an hour of American canons and planes," and worse, apparently, an attack on Iran has been prepared and is imminent.
Geez, the US would have to go it alone if it came to the crunch - UK has effectively NO leader anymore, its military stretched thin, as we speak, 1,000 British troops who have not received medical treatment for war traume are on the run, AWOL, and worse, UK major military equipment faulty (nuclear submarine and aircraft), etc., etc., etc.
And we can't even try to IMPEACH goner Tony Blair!
My take on the firings boils down to, that Bush has a constitutional right to do so. However, what make them wrong in this particular case, were the wrong reasons.
ReplyDeleteIn getting rid of only those United States Attorneys that were not following the political wishes of the Bush Administration is questionable interference at best and unconstitutional/criminal at worst.
If the reasons were, as it looks right now, that these attorneys lost their jobs because they didn't function as a judicial arm for the president's political ambitions, there surely is at least an attempt to politicalize the judiciary. This is the reason why the matter can't be belittled and it has to be thoroughly investigated. And if it can be done as quickly and transparently as possible, the better it is for every American regardless of the party affiliation.
Today (3/26) Senator Chuck Hagel suggested that the Republican leadership is considering impeaching the Dubya! It seems they think he might be a little out of control...Duh!!! Ya gotta love those Right-Wing nutters!!
ReplyDeleteSo what is BDS?? Bush Downright Stupid??