Letters to the Editor
DCLaw1
Published Letters: 839 Editor's Choice: 2
-
My Man Godfrey
[Read the article: Journalistic balance vs. truth]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I go back and forth on the impeachment thing. At the risk of sounding as milquetoast as the Democrats we make fun of, I certainly see ample grounds for impeachment -- even if Bush does not invade Iran -- but I'm not sure about the wisdom of pressing forth with impeachment proceedings now.
Here's the rub. Impeachment was never intended by the founders to be the unthinkable nuclear bomb that many regard it to be now. There's plenty of historical evidence that the founders regarded it as a perfectly reasonable political check on presidential abuses of power. Procedurally, it's not even as difficult as overcoming a presidential veto (!) or amending the Constitution, and the grounds for impeachment were left intentionally vague and subject to definition by the House of Representatives.
However, the political reality right now in this country is that impeachment is seen as nearly akin to ripping up the Bill of Rights. It is consistently portrayed as some insurmountable "constitutional crisis." More accurately, as John Dean has wisely said, it is in fact the solution to the constitutional crisis of an out-of-control executive. Nevertheless, because it is seen as such a dire option, its use can have powerful, unintended consequences.
Now, of course, there's certainly something to be said for restoring the constitutional order even at the risk of setting the responsible party's political prospects back substantially. That is a different matter. And there's also a case to be made that Democrats wouldn't necessarily suffer too much if they actually tried to do so.
However, the current political reality is that there is nowhere near the two-thirds support in the Senate to convict on Articles of Impeachment. Moreover, a failure to convict -- or to even garner a simple majority -- could be seen historically and institutionally as invalidating the argument that the President abused his power. Indeed, this is largely what happened in the wake of the Clinton impeachment.
Anyway, in short, it's complicated.
-
"It's all DCLaw1's fault for flaming the fans of the abortion debate."
[Read the article: Harry Reid's pro-life stance vs. Ron Paul's ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hahaha! I can't help it, I'm in a mischievous mood!
-
Godfrey
[Read the article: Journalistic balance vs. truth]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If Bush isn't impeached, then no president should ever be impeached. He is the most flagrantly and destructively criminal president in American history. If people chuckle at that description, it's only because we've been trained to dismiss every expression of concern for our Constitution as hyperbole. It isn't the right of Congress to seek impeachment, or even an issue that Congress has a right to wrestle with; Congress has an obligation to impeach this rogue president.
Like I said, there's ample reason to impeach, by all means, and Congress certainly should recognize that fact at least in large enough numbers to make impeachment assured.
But that's just not the case. There are many reasons for this, none of them pretty, but that is reality.
The impeachment issue is indeed more complicated than our hopes and frustrations might want it to be. What makes it complicated is the difference between "ought" and "is." Don't confuse the two.
Bebop:
I want some of what you've been smoking/drinking/eating.
-
clarification
[Read the article: Journalistic balance vs. truth]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I want to clarify what I just wrote about impeachment, because it might seem at odds with a theme I've been riding quite a bit lately. No, I don't expect anyone to have paid close enough attention to my sporadic comments to realize this, but I want to underline the point anyway.
The obstacles to impeachment are different, and more difficult, than other political obstacles that I generally believe can be overcome by the devoted leadership of even a relative few, and the sentiments of a dedicated movement. Whereas Democrats can cure much of what ails them simply by standing up for what they believe and articulating it clearly and forcefully, successful impeachment and conviction has a greater structural hurtle: the 2/3 vote requirement in a narrowly Democratic Senate.
Every Senate Democrat, and at least 16 Senate Republicans, will never -- I repeat, not in our wildest dreams ever -- vote to convict Bush on any Article of Impeachment, barring some immensely galvanizing new atrocity. This is not the same as refusing to pass a budget that does not mandate withdrawal from Iraq, voting for inherent contempt of Congress, refusing to amend FISA according to Bush's demands, etc.
This is structural impediment, a veritable wall. As I mentioned earlier, even if Articles of Impeachment were filed by the House, a failure to get anywhere near the required votes to convict in the Senate would in fact be counterproductive to the immense effort and potential for backlash of simply getting to that point.
Calls for impeachment may satisfy one's sense of outrage, but people do need to realize that their attention and efforts are much better spent on other, entirely obtainable objectives.
-
Anonymous at page 19
[Read the article: Reid and company target the true enemy: "Dodd and his allies"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Now, as the real illegal wiretapping story comes to light, the Telecoms have found it necessary to call in their Congressional chits. Reid, et al, know that depositions given by the Telecoms would include formal evidence of their complicity [in the post-911 environment], and they know that by offering immunity to the Telecoms this complicity would probably never be exposed (or perhaps exposed after several decades through the Freedom of Information Act).
There may be some truth to this very insightful hypothesis.
I think it's easy to underestimate just how delirious and taken with the Bush Administration much of the Congress (and the public, for that matter) were immediately after 911.
Combine that with the craven, but widespread, attribute of selfish pride in our politicians, and you have a potent recipe for institutional refusal to learn from its worst lapses of judgment.
Nice comment, Anonymous p. 19.
-
By the end of this thread
[Read the article: Hillary and the mean kids on the bus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]we will have conclusively determined which Democratic candidate is the most worthy.
Or we will have conclusively determined that they all suck (!), at least the viable ones. The American experiment has failed!
"You support ___??? You probably don't even realize that he/she is a horrible, __ist, __ist __ist!!!"
"See, here's a URL (or painfully long block quote) that proves it!"