As Lorie pointed out earlier, the “impeach Bush” movement is kicking back into high gear. This is betraying a lot of typical ignorance on the left, who seem to think that if they use the word “impeach” enough, President Bush and his entire administration will just disappear in a puff of good karmic smoke.
I went over the whole Constitutional process just a few months ago, but I’m going to recap it again for those too lazy or to dull-witted to read that again.
First of all, an impeached president is NOT automatically removed from office. (Just ask the Birthday Boy, who was only the second president in history to be impeached — and neither was removed from office.) An impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment — and with two presidential impeachments as precedent, no one should take seriously the potential argument that “Bush should step aside until the matter is settled.”
The Constitution is extremely vague on what grounds for impeachment are. They say “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Technically, those could be most anything — the next time President Bush works a rope line on a street, he could be impeached for jaywalking.
But historically and practically speaking, it takes a hell of a lot to bring about an impeachment. Andrew Johnson was impeached for violating the law governing how he manages his cabinet officers, and in the end the law was struck down for being an unconstitutional intrusion by the Congress into the Executive branch. Bill Clinton was impeached not for his extramarital liaisons, but for raising his hand, swearing to tell a United States court the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and then lying through his teeth to save his miserable ass from public embarassment. And in the end, neither man was convicted and removed from office.
Richard Nixon was on his way to being impeached over his role in the Watergate scandal and coverup, but resigned before the process could reach that far. There is little doubt he would have been impeached and quite possibly convicted, but he circumvented the whole event. The corruption of his administration, however, set the bar of “impeachable offenses” at a very high level.
Anyway, let’s dispense with the actual charges against Bush and just presume that at least one member of Congress files the appropriate paperwork. (Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinich spring to mind as likely candidates.) And to make it simple, we’ll say that the vote for impeachment goes strictly on party lines. It only takes a simple majority to impeach the president, so it would take 217 votes (there are currently two seats vacant) to successfully pass the impeachment.
Currently, the Republicans hold 231 seats, the Democrats 201, and 1 is an independent (but Vermont’s Socialist Bernie Sanders might as well be a Democrat, so we’ll move him into that column for this discussion). Right now, that impeachment ain’t going anywhere.
So, how about after the mid-term elections? The Democrats would have to pick up a total of 16 seats to wrest the majority away from the Republicans. Assuming they win the two vacant seats, they would still have to take 14 seats from Republican hands to wrest power in the House and have a prayer of passing an impeachment.
Of course, that also presumes that the Republicans don’t follow the lead the Democrats started over the matter of judges and pass on filibustering the impeachment process. If that happens, it’s dead.
OK, so the Democrats pull off a miracle and win the House. Then they intimidate the Republicans and get their bill of impeachment passed. Then what?
Why, then it goes to the Senate, where they hold the trial.
The trial is a big deal. It is presided over by the Chief Justice, and the entire Senate sits as jury. And if the Senate votes for conviction, President Bush is removed from office.
That’s the dry stuff. Here’s where it gets juicy:
1) The Chief Justice, John Roberts, was appointed by President Bush. Even if people say he ought to recuse himself, there is no Constitutional provision for him to do so.
2) It takes a 2/3 vote by the Senate to convict. Currently, the Senate has 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and 1 independent (who, again, is a Vermonter who tends to vote with the Democrats. And again, if we wait until after the November elections, it STILL won’t help — only 33 Senators are up for re-election, and only 15 are Democrats. Even if they take every single one of those seats (and 9 are considered “safe” for the Republicans), they’ll only have 59 (plus the Vermont seat, possibly) — still short of the 67 needed for conviction.
OK, setting aside all that, let’s presume that the utterly impossible happens and President Bush is impeached and convicted. What happens next?
Why, he goes back to Crawford Texas, Cindy Sheehan sells her house, and President Cheney steps up to become president.
You know, I could almost go along with this impeachment silliness. The thought of the left devoting all that time and effort into removing Bush, then realizing that they’ve just handed the Oval Office to Dick Cheney, warms the cockles of my heart.
In the meantime, though, I hope they have a lot of fun with their little “impeach Bush” movement. While they’re engaging in that particular form of political masturbation, they ought to be too busy to cause any real mischief.
No Steph, you don’t get it.
I, as many conservatives, have found fault with the Pres. on a whole host of issues, from immigration to the budget to veto nonuse to the problems with the aftermath of the war. But this would interfere with your tightly held views. Tight as a tick.
No sense arguing facts with you since you have preemptively decided I would “refut” it. It’s your fear of being refuted on the facts, and what that would do to your conclusory arguments, that makes the debate difficult.
Anyway, here’s another interesting nugget from WSJ:
“Linda Gottfredson, a co-director of the University of Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society, told United Press International columnist Steve Sailer in 2004 that when she converted Mr. Bush’s SAT score to an IQ, “I derived an IQ of 125, which is the 95th percentile.” A study in the latest issue of the academic journal Political Psychology concludes that “Bush is definitely intelligent . . . in the upper range of college graduates in raw intellect.”
Mitch, just for clarification, I’m not suggesting a “Rovian Conspiracy”, merely a lifelong political technique that stops at nothing to achieve victory. Since college Rove has made hi reputation with dirty tricks, smears, personal attacks and outright lies. This is pretty well documented stuff, known by many on both sides, The Repubs just don’t make a big deal of it because he’s their cheater. I reread my post and couldn’t see where I called anybody a name. My poit was that Rove used fear (e.g. impeachment) as a political tool. BTW, I’m not an “ultra-lib” (whatever that is, and I’m not a Democrat. I am angry, though, about what’s happening to this country.
On a related note, at a press conference this AM, Bush was asked directly what Iraq had to do with the 9/11 attacks. His answer: nothing. Kind of adds a little credibility to the Bush lied view, don’t you think?
Actually, groucho, it kind of puts a huge damper on YOUR argument. Bush has consistently said that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. The notion that he did has been a classic example of the “big lie” technique — his detractors have repeated and repeated and repeated it so much, they now seem to believe their own bullshit.
J.
Mitchell,
Let me restate: Rather than claiming you would not find “fault” of any sort with this President, moreover you would not admit that he lied to you. It’s easy to debate issues like immigration, budgets etc. It’s not so easy for some to claim there’s been deception and they’ve been fooled.
I’m an independent, but I’m sure most independent’s and democrats can agree Clinton lied to them. There was enough evidence before all of it came out to conclude that, just as there is enough evidence now to conclude we’ve been had by this administration.
And I’m not “fearful” of being refutted on anything in an argument. I’m not that sensitive. I can just tell with your previous posts that it’s an argument that would not be fruitful and go nowhere. You’re too hardheaded and you don’t really debate – you lecture – and just because you do that doesn’t mean you’re always right. It’s like talking to a brick wall.
I can claim wrongdoing on both ends of the political spectrum. That’s why I’m neither a democrat or a republican. I wouldn’t want to be that ingenuous to myself. I’ve voted both ways. I’m just not a true believer with any of these guys enough to buy their arguments when they say their “not” lying to me.
Jay
On Mar 19 of ’03 Bush said, in justifying the Iraq invasion, something about taking necessary actionas against all terrorist factions, including those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Cheney and others were saying similar things at the time. There was a concerted effort to connect the two and polls showed the effort was, initially anyway, successful. To blow this off as crackpot conspiracy stuff is intellectualy dishonest. We were mislesd. Period. Personally, I’m prepared to get over it and elect people with a solution other than “Stay and Die” current plan, but that doesn’t change reality, no matter how hard you spin it.
Groucho and Steph, are you the same person?
If there were credible evidence that Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq, but made the statements he did that led up to the war, he’d have been impeached by now, and dare I say, quite a few of us old-fashioned
Republicans would have supported the impeachment.
But you have nothing more than these inferences you pull out of inapplicable facts to make the point, like groucho did, that doesn’t correspond at all: in fact, I do remember throughout the period that the Pres. made no assertion of a tie to 9/11, although Iraq had clear ties to terrorism, and to an intimidation of the entire region, as well as putting our U.N. overflights at risk of being shot down.
In this new 9/11 world, some will be so afraid, and will crave going back to the time before, that they will invent in their minds all sorts of things as a kind of balm to that fear.
It reminds me of what happened in the ’80’s with Reagan, and all the lefties railed at him for standing up to the Soviet aggression and threat. Same thing this time, just different threat.
free the Iraqi people, create a democrating society, etc. – is very gullible. Governments are far more cynical and self-serving than that, especially this one.
Posted by: StephieJanna29 at August 21, 2006 12:24 PM
http://www.milnet.com/public-law-105-235.htm
… you were saying?
Groucho: “On Mar 19 of ’03 Bush said, in justifying the Iraq invasion, something about taking necessary actionas against all terrorist factions, including those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.”
Terrorist factions AND those responsible for 911 are not necessarily an inclusive lot.
Connect the dots as you may, and I’m sure Bush believes that Iraq has some nacient connection, but he never once – not ever – stated clearly, specifically and publicly that Saddam and 911 were connected.
I challenge you to find one (1) direct quote from Bush which counters that statement.
And how would this incredible evidence come to the fore if it existed, Mitchell? Maybe an investigation. We have no way of putting any of what we know together in once place since no republican is willing to have THAT investigation. (They do have the deciding vote in these things, you know).
And as far as being “afraid”, I don’t need to be lectured by anyone about that. I live in NJ and have a husband who trains into the city (NYC) every day. The reality of what’s been happening in the world is not just something I see on TV. Yet I can still discern truth from fiction.
And 80’s Russia? A completely different animal from Islamic fundamentalists – one of the reasons we’re in this mess. Wars are NOT all the same and you can’t compare – and the solutions aren’t all the same.
These people in office you adore – they’re not a baseball team to root for. They are elected officials who are being paid out of money from your pocket and mine. They’re not Superman or any other kind of hero that is protecting you from all the evils of the world. They work for us, and they’re human and, to a great degree, faulty. When they’re too faulty, a re-assessment needs to happen and that’s what’s happening now.
Yes, we do live in a post-9/11 world, but that doesn’t mean the U.S. should become Gattaca – and no amount of macho rhetoric is going to hide the fact that you’re scared. If you weren’t, you wouldn’t have so little finesse in your argument.
Also, don’t be so fooled. These folks in office don’t think concretely in the way they filter information to you, so you shouldn’t be concretely believing the direct translation of what they tell you.
And, insofar as Iraq was concerned, they’ve always been a spoiled little brat, but were contained ones as well. There was a bit of shooting in the no fly zone in early 2001, but that had been going on for years. The reason we were pulled into war was the WMD’s and the link to al qaeda. Both were lies, no matter how you slice it. That’s the reality of it.
There’s a million different ways to run a government. The solutions of these people in office are not the only way to go about this, and just because I disagree with their methods, doesn’t mean I’m “with” the terrorists, and it doesn’t mean I’m 100% for the democrats. Not everything is so black and white, and we’ll see what comes up in ’08.
And how would this incredible evidence come to the fore if it existed, Mitchell? Maybe an investigation. We have no way of putting any of what we know together in once place since no republican is willing to have THAT investigation. (They do have the deciding vote in these things, you know).
And as far as being “afraid”, I don’t need to be lectured by anyone about that. I live in NJ and have a husband who trains into the city every day. The reality of what’s been happening in the world is not just something I see on TV. Yet I can still discern truth from fiction.
And 80’s Russia? A completely different animal from Islamic fundamentalists – one of the reasons we’re in this mess. Wars are NOT all the same and you can’t compare – and the solutions aren’t all the same.
These people in office you adore – they’re not a baseball team to root for. They are elected officials who are being paid out of money from your pocket and mine. They’re not Superman or any other kind of hero that is protecting you from all the evils of the world. They work for us, and they’re human and, to a great degree, faulty. When they’re too faulty, a re-assessment needs to happen and that’s what’s happening now.
Yes, we do live in a post-9/11 world, but that doesn’t mean the U.S. should become Gattaca – and no amount of macho rhetoric is going to hide the fact that you’re scared. If you weren’t, you wouldn’t have so little finesse in your argument.
Also, don’t be so fooled. These folks in office don’t think concretely in the way they filter information to you, so you shouldn’t be concretely believing the direct translation of what they tell you.
And, insofar as Iraq was concerned, they’ve always been a spoiled little brat, but were contained ones as well. There was a bit of shooting in the no fly zone in early 2001, but that had been going on for years. The reason we were pulled into war was the WMD’s and the link to al qaeda. Both were lies, no matter how you slice it. That’s the reality of it.
There’s a million different ways to run a government. The solutions of these people in office are not the only way to go about this, and just because I disagree with their methods, doesn’t mean I’m “with” the terrorists, and it doesn’t mean I’m 100% for the democrats. Not everything is so black and white, and we’ll see what comes up in ’08.
“The reason we were pulled into war was the WMD’s and the link to al qaeda. Both were lies, no matter how you slice it. That’s the reality of it.”
— Stephanie
No. No we weren’t, and no it isn’t.
You forget about the extensive list of UNSC resolutions that were ignored, the Gulf Ware Cease-Fire which was breached.
You overlook the murder of 10,000 Kurds.
You overlook Oil-for-Food.
You overlook Saddam’s sponsorship of Palestinian suicide bombers.
You overlook the terrorist training camps in NE Iraq.
You overlook the terrorist Who’s Who located in Bahgdad.
You definitely overlook PL 105-235, and you completely ignore the text of Senate Bill 114.
WMD was an easily digested morsel that the administration and democrats all fed to the american public; but not at all the end all beat all reason that we went into Iraq.
If this is not a balck and white world, why are you using such black and white terms?
yo,
I know the resolution. It was drafted because their was a perceived threat to the country. Nothing in there is new- but it’s also not complete in terms of the information our government had.
And it still doesn’t exonerate the government from lying to us.
If we’re both playing cards together and you lie about your hand and take my money – then I see your hand and tell you you cheated – you’re acting as if “showing me that you currently have the money” is the same as you winning it legitimately. Having the money means nothing. You received it illegitimately.
No, I don’t you do know the resolution, or you wouldn’t have made some of the comments that you did. WMD is only PART of the reason. To state otherwise is to show that you are not as familiar with those laws as you claim.
Also, just because the american people, by and large, are either too lazy, or too ignorant to understand all of the issues at stake doesn’t mean the government lied to us.
Same logic applies to the fact that just because I don’t see the connection in your analogy doesn’t mean the analogy is irrelevent based on the fact that it’s your responsibility to ask to see my cards before you let me take your money.
Ante’ up.
“WMD was an easily digested morsel that the administration and democrats all fed to the american public; but not at all the end all beat all reason that we went into Iraq.”
You, too, are the American public. And there’s a process. Digestible or not, it was false, so our ability to make a judgement on the evidence was compromised. You can’t tell me you want to be force fed only what the government deems “digestible” to you? You’re not a child, or so I assume.
Neither are the taxpayers and voters.
“No, I don’t THINK …”
sorry … can’t type
“I don’t see the connection in your analogy doesn’t mean the analogy is irrelevent based on the fact that it’s your responsibility to ask to see my cards before you let me take your money.”
You won’t show me your cards. That’s the point.
Our government didn’t show us all the evidence. They cherry picked. It’s like you showing me an Ace and saying you won when you have a hand full of nothing.
“You won’t show me your cards. That’s the point.” – stephanie
No, the point is that it’s your fault for letting me take your money.
And, as far “digestable” … I don’t stop at what I’m told. I take my responsibilities as an American citizen, seriously. I research.
If the “digestable” and the research don’t match, then I need to do something about it.
I don’t just sit back and accept that someone says they have the winning hand, and let them take my dough.
The 9/11 Commission said there was no cherry picking, and no intimidation of our intel services. The services were just plain off, but there was no there there.
Logically, it is possible to have flawed intel., and that intel., not the President’s use of it, be the main factor in the perrenial issues over the WMD in Iraq.
Your assertion of “cherry picked,” again, is only an assertion. Especially in light of the investigation by the 9/11 Commission.
So, you may have your delusions, but don’t try to fob them off on the rest of us who tend to stay in the here and now.
I find it unbelievable that clear thinking people can look at the whole Iraq issue, going all the way back to Gulf War I and not see a long string of dots begging to be connected. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others formulate a new Manifest Destiny vision for the 21st century, using political and military force to bend the world into a unipolar America-centric monopoly determined to leverage whatever petroleum and other resources left on the planet into US based corporate control. The Project for A New American Century forms in 1997, with much talk and planning already underway regarding a pre-emptive into, most likely, Iraq. Coincidently, virtually all of the top level people in PNAC somehow find themselves in the highest level policy making positions in the new Bush gov. Amazing! The terrorist threat looms larger and the time is deemed appropriate to sell the plan to America. Steph has referenced the Downing Street Memo, I would add the Plame/Wilson fiasco, all the prewar planners who were shown the door when they wouldn’t sell the company line to display this whole thing was planned and executed with total premeditation, not as a response to an iminent threat.
This has been one of the biggest con jobs in history, and I’m sure it will be exposed as such in time. I give grudging credit to this bunch of soulless non-patriots that they were so successful in convincing so many Americans of their noble intentions
Yes, Grouch, it is all a conspiracy, Karl Rove is a monster, yes, yes, you are so right.
We will probably find that GWB was the son of an alien creature sent to earth to infect us all and make rational thought impossible.
Looks like they’ve infected quite a few so far . . .
Only time will tell.
Am I the only one who thinks that “high crimes” is an appropriate standard for impeachment, but that “misdemeanors” is not? I mean, should the president be impeached if he, say, commits an act of vandalism? That would be bad behavior, I grant you, but…
Does the phrase mean “high misdemeanors?” I don’t know; it’s pretty 18th Century. Interesting question you have there . . .
Impeachment for “rolling” the White House lawn would be silly.
The author is not very familiar with the impeachment movement that he criticizes. He seems to think the only relevant issue is whether there are enough Democrats to vote for impeachment. But I think a more important issue is whether deliberately misleading Congress about Iraq and violating the Geneva Convention and FISA laws are impeachable offenses. If they are then Republicans who respect the Constitution might also vote for impeachment.
By the way, most impeachment resolutions also call for Cheny to be impeached along with Bush. More details here:
http://www.impeachbush.tv/
http://www.kucinich.com
No one wants Cheney either. As a matter of fact, the first motion would be to impeach Cheney since he’s the bigger criminal (Plamegate, anyone?) After Cheney’s out on his ear, then Bush goes.
Personally, I’m for ousting the entire line of succesion all the way down to the lying AG.
Jay,
You’re so cute and adorable in your mockery of the dedicated Americans who actually care about democracy and the constitution.
Kudos to Phil (8/22 post) for clarifying that the the Impeach Bush-Cheney movement has solid legal and moral grounds – Geneva Convention, War Crimes Act, FISA act, lying to congress.