Letters to the Editor
-
WT
I just don't think that the initiation of impeachment proceedings is the only way for Congress to do so; in that I agree with kovie.
I'm not aware that any commenter here has said that impeachment is the only tool available. Kovie may have characterized the argument that way, but I think most would agree that impeachment is not the only game in town. However, impeachment is an appropriate tool that fits the task at hand, which is why the founders put it there. I have to think that the founders would be wondering why it had not already been employed.
The initiation of impeachment proceedings could be, I believe, the establishment of a committee or subcommittee to assess the merits of impeachment. The committee would then report to the body. But even this, totally non-commital effort has not been made or even discussed by house members, that I know of.
My only real regret is that exactly this debate isn't taking place in the MSM, and in public meetings all over the country.
The public debate is taking place. The blogs are alive with it, even though many major bloggers have not come out on this issue. Which concerns me. Anyway, Re: MSM--that's a big part of the point being made by many here today. The MSM will get into it plenty if the House does. The formation of a subcommittee itself would, I believe, create a storm of headlines. And yes, they would come in on all sides of the issue, and the coverage would be subject to all the bias, idiocy and sloppiness of any other issue. So what.
-
The blogs are alive with it
Yes. They are. For all those who read and participate in them, more do not, which was my only point.
-
Google: Pelosi on Impeachment
You will find wingnuts claiming a year ago that she would impeach:
Pelosi to Push for Bush Impeachment
May 07, 2006 11:13 AM EST
By Sher Zieve – Democrat House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said that she is preparing to take back the House of Representatives for Democrats. One of the first thins she plans to do, should the Democrats gain a House majority and she becomes the new Speaker of the House, is to launch renewed investigations into President Bush, the Iraq war and the NSA terrorist monitoring program.
Although she would not specifically confirm that she and her Democrat colleagues plan to immediately impeach the president, she is said to have coyly commented of the investigation she plans: "You never know where it leads to."
SFGate.com reports: “during their [the Democrats] first week in power that [they] would raise the minimum wage, roll back parts of the Republican prescription drug law, implement homeland security measures and reinstate lapsed budget deficit controls.”
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/14416.html
Pelosi cannot be the one to initiate it. She would become President if it succeeded, not that it would, we don't have the votes in the Senate. That raises all kinds of complicated issues. With all due respect, anyone who does not acknowledge this is being willfully obstinant and obtuse. It must come from the states. She just cannot do it.
This is what she said after the election:
November 8, 2006
Pelosi: Bush Impeachment `Off the Table’
By Susan Ferrechio
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi promised Wednesday that when her party takes over, the new majority will not attempt to remove President Bush from office, despite earlier pledges to the contrary from others in the caucus.
“I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said during a news conference.
Pelosi also said Democrats, despite complaining about years of unfair treatment by the majority GOP, “are not about getting even” with Republicans.
She said the GOP, which frequently excluded Democrats from conference committee hearings and often blocked attempts to introduce amendments, would not suffer similar treatment.
“Democrats pledge civility and bipartisanship in the conduct of the work here and we pledge partnerships with Congress and the Republicans in Congress, and the president — not partisanship.”
She also extended an olive branch to Bush on the war in Iraq, saying she plans to work with him on a new plan but will not support the current strategy and supports beginning redeployment of troops by the end of the year.
Pelosi also said she supports the idea of a bipartisan summit on the war.
“We know, ‘stay the course,’ is not the way,” Pelosi said.
Pelosi said she received a brief, early-morning call from Bush, who invited her to lunch on Thursday.
“We both expressed our wish to work in a bipartisan way for the benefit of the American people.”
A handful of Democratic lawmakers who are considered top Pelosi lieutenants said after the news conference that they believe she will be able to keep their traditionally diverse caucus united, despite an influx of new, more moderate Democrats.
“She will force a synergistic union,” of the caucus, said Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman John B. Larson of Connecticut.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., said the election has sent a message to Democrats that will foster a sense of unity even among those who agree the least.
But the party must still complete potentially contentious leadership elections before any of that work can begin.
Pelosi was unwilling to discuss those elections Wednesday, saying the votes for all the House seats have not been counted.
“There are people who have ambitions,” Lofgren acknowledged. “A majority of the Democratic members have never served in the majority. There is a lot of pent-up ambition to do something.”
© 2006 Congressional Quarterly
http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2006/11/08/cq_1916.html
-
Another important impeachment "what if"
What happens if by hook and by crook impeachment proceedings are somehow begun, but directed and run incompetently, spinelessly, and compromisingly by the Democratic initiators?
What happens then?
Just for my own curiosity, since I like to ask weird questions, is it in any way possible that an effort at impeachment improperly handled could somehow serve to make things worse? Is it morally wrong to ask? Is it physically impossible, as I was once so confidently assured that it was impossible that a US war could make life in Iraq worse than under Saddam Hussein?
I don't have any question whether or not Fourthbranch and Bush Jr. & their Dogg Pount deserve impeachment, but as far as beginning the process or not in our actual, real political environment, I feel like I'm hearing distinct yet clearly discernible alarm bells ringing in each direction, and I don't know which ones are the drill and which ones are the real alarms.