oh how I would love to see this happen! any politically savvy monks have an assessment of this?
ABOUT DAMN TIME is my assessment.
Before going too crazy, it might be wise to consider who is in line for the job should an impeachment be successful. Observe, in particular, footnote #4.
"And, if the law is too cumbersome or inapplicable to modern technology, then it is unclear why the President did not seek to revise it instead of disregarding it and thus jeopardizing many otherwise legitimate anti-terrorism prosecutions."
According to David Brooks, the administration did ask about a revision of that 72 hr provision. When it became clear that Congress wouldn't be buying their story that getting court approval 72 hrs after commencing wiretapping would be too cumbersome, the administration dropped the matter, and just did what it wanted anyway, completely bypassing the emergency powers proviso altogether.
It was only after they were caught wiretapping that they claimed that they didn't need the authority of Congress in the first place, that everything and anything was justified under the blanket authority given to Chimpy at the start of the war.
And considering that this all came from the brown lips of David Brooks, I'm inclined to give it some credibility.
Something makes me think Tricky Dick Cheney wouldn't hold up to the white hot scrutiny of an energized democratic majority Congress.
Plus watching Faux News cover Impeachment proceedings would be schweet.
Those checks do not vanish in wartime; the President's role as Commander in Chief does not swallow up Congress's powers or the Bill of Rights.
werd.
How badass would we be as a nation if we impeached two Presidents in a row?
I have a suspicion that Cheney would resign for health reasons if Bush were to be convicted. I mean, he excused himself from running the Katrina show on those grounds.
Underpants Monster (great handle, by the way!), I was thinking the same thing about your first comment, but replacing the word "badass" with "pathetic in the eyes of the international community."
Who's next in line is pretty much irrelevant; impeachment would send a strong message that he has to tow the line. It has to happen.
Not having read the post yet as I'm at work... I wish this would happen, but I sort of doubt it will. In many ways, Clinton's impeachment (in my eyes, anyway) was a punishment for the Iran-Contra hearings, even though no one pushing impeachment would admit it at the time. Ironically, though, any attempt to impeach Bush II, for anything less than strangling toddlers while kicking puppies, would bring up the cry of "retaliation!" for Clinton.
Maybe the shock of Chimpy's impeachment would be enough to send Dick into a cardiac episode, and then all our problems are solved!
Allright, that's a pathetic idea.
Let 'em cry - the President allegedly committed a felony, and is allegedly guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Pick the crime that is worthy of impeachment:
A) Lying about a blowjob
B) Illegal wiretaps on American citizens
Allegedly Illegal wiretaps, pete.
That blowjob, on the other hand, was clearly a stain on American Citizenry.
Which is more pathetic:
impeaching two presidents in a row
-or-
not impeaching Bush
As assuredly as I feel that impeachment and conviction are deserved, I know that the public is not, and likely will not be motivated enough to make it happen.
If it were to happen, it would HAVE to happen in the following order:
The Democrat party takes control of the House. A proposition that I'd say has a likelihood of about 10%.
The House opens an inquiry. 90% if under Democrat control, 5% if under Republican control.
The Democrats take control of the Senate. 30%.
The Democrats take control of the Senate enough to make a conviction likely... They'd probably need a near Filibuster-busting 60% supermajority to have any hope of getting 6 Republicans to vote with them. 10% if they even get a simple majority.
The Republicans vote for conviction, even if the Democrats don't have much of a majority, or are in the minority. This would require probably at least 15 Republican Senators to vote for conviction: 0.1%
I think my estimates of likelihood are generous, so let's multiply to get the actual "risk exposure" of Bush to conviction:
Dems take both houses: 10% x 90% x 30% x 10% = 0.27%
Republicans keep either house: 5% x 0.1% = 0.005%
Or, to put it in a slightly different way: Ain't gonna happen.
They're both equally pathetic - but it's not we who are pathetic, but the people who are supposed to be our reprsntatives, senators and presidents who are pathetic. If Clinton had the self control of a doormouse or, further back, was not so amenable to take the easy "investment return" from his compatriots in Arkansas, he'd have never gotten into a position to perjure himself - and if the Republicans hadn't been so rancorous, so vituperative, so small about it, we'd have been spared the pallid pr0nography of the Starr Report. Similarly, if the current batch of executive branch fungoes hadn't been so willing to set to war, nor as completely incompetent and wishful in planning it, nor as willing to play fast and loose with the grayer parts of the law back home, nor as blatantly reliant on plausible deniability as an excuse for chicanery, they wouldn't be facing approval ratings in the 30s and a significant portion of the populace (and the world) which believes they're all bloated plutocratic Sith Lords - and if the Democrats weren't so rancorous, so vituperative, so small about it, we'd be spared the periodic spasms of holier than thou righteous indignation and wild proclamations of "Hitler!" and "Orwell!" that are not only untrue, but drive away the moderates who would probably be firmly with them, if only they were even remotely pleasant to be around. Believe it or not, politics is secondary at best to most people lives. They - we - have other things to do. But we expect our electors to behave themselves, well, if not like gentlemen, at least like grown-ups. And it's been a LONG time since a grown-up has been anywhere near the Capitol.
Impeach or don't - honestly, after the chicken-fried shit tarted up as theater of the Clinton impeachment, many of the people I know will simply roll their eyes, assume the children in Washington are simply playing out their little Heathers-y games, realize that at the backyard level whether this particular adolescent or that one is in charge or not in charge is by and large of no real direct consequence except in a very bad emergency, and go about the daily business of their lives as best they can.
Chimera, it's the DEMOCRATIC party, NOT the democrat party.
Fes has it, in a nutshell, unfortunately 'cause I'd really liked to see Bush slammed.
Out of curiousity, Fes, who, in your opinion, was the last grown-up in office?
/was that too many commas?
I stand corrected, waitingtoderail. I knew that; it was lazy typing.
Marxism is just lookin' better and better, folks.
Monkeyfilter: wild proclamations of "Hitler!" and "Orwell!"
Personally, I wouldn't find it pathetic to have 100 impeaches in a row. It's one of the safeties built in to our system, We're supposed to use it. Correcting a problem is not pathetic, it's someting to be proud of. Failing to correct a problem is pathetic.
>whether this particular adolescent or that one is in charge or not in charge is by and large of no real direct consequence except in a very bad emergency
Okay, so we got a war engineered by a president who now advances the idea that, in wartime, his powers shouldn't be limited by that silly Consititution thing. Or that silly Geneva convention thing, or that silly habeas corpus thing.
If this isn't your 'very bad emergency', what would qualify? Sure, 'business as usual' in American political life is nothing to be proud of- but this is NOT business as usual.
I was one of the many Canadians who was less than enthusiastic about the fall of our government and the prospects of an other election campaign so soon after the last. Now that I compare our system, which easily holds corrupt leaders accountable for indiscretions without endless investigations, trials, and partisan votes - and ultimately lets the people decide if they deserve to keep their job - to the American practice of electing a monarch for a four year term that can't be foreshortened without actual crimes being committed, I don't mind it so much at all.
That's a good point.
Rocket, there is no more "four year term" here. We've got Baby Doc Bush, who's going to announce an "imminent threat to Americans" if we dare to go to the polls again. Long live the king.
Oh, and an aside to the NSA monitors: I am speaking in tongues.
Obligatory quote attributed to Huey Long (I'm too busy/lazy to look if he actually said it. Folks say he said it.): "Yes, but we will call it anti-fascism".
It doesn't matter who is in office, he'll still be Big Brother.
Now if you all will excuse me, I must get fitted for my tinfoil hat and straightjacket.
He'd have to do something pretty ghastly to get his cronies to step back from the party line into the unfamiliar realm of their own individual consciences.
I'm putting a lot of hope in the midterm elections to restore some checks and balances to this government. Well, you gotta hope, right?
...can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
-- Lincoln
Well, here's hoping.
'Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again' -- Bush
Fooled again, dammit!!!
Sorry Chimaera. People like Tom Delay constantly saying "democrat party" has gotten a bit grating. It's like he has so much contempt for the opposition he can't even be bothered to say their entire name. I've taken to referring to the other party as the "republic party" in response.
People like Tom Delay constantly saying "democrat party" has gotten a bit grating. It's like he has so much contempt for the opposition he can't even be bothered to say their entire name. I've taken to referring to the other party as the "republic party" in response.
There should be even shorter ways to mention each group. Any thing that wants discussion needs some kind of name that is three syllables or less. Anything longer is too unweildly to for any long meaningful conversation.
Dems and Pugs.
many of the people I know will simply roll their eyes, assume the children in Washington are simply playing out their little Heathers-y games, ... and go about the daily business of their lives as best they can.
i think you're right, but i also think that this is a major problem*. people have become so weary of partisan oneupmanship that they cease to distinguish between a threat to the carpets in the oval office and a threat to the principles upon which your nation was founded.
*i'd say that this is a problem in most democracies, not just the u.s.
You Americans and your provincial politics...
"Impeaches come from a can
They were put there by a man
In a factory downtown"
- The Presidents of The United States of America
very funny, but it won't happen.
Out of curiousity, Fes, who, in your opinion, was the last grown-up in office?
My heart says Roosevelt, but my gut says Eisenhower.
Okay, so we got a war engineered by a president who now advances the idea that, in wartime, his powers shouldn't be limited by that silly Consititution thing. Or that silly Geneva convention thing, or that silly habeas corpus thing. If this isn't your 'very bad emergency', what would qualify?
I was thinking Katrina, which was a very bad emergency that directed affected lots of actual people. Those other things that you mention, while they do affect a few people, and are, generally and theoretically speaking, baddish, are for the vast VAST majority of people very small and very far away.
i also think that this is a major problem*. people have become so weary of partisan oneupmanship that they cease to distinguish between a threat to the carpets in the oval office and a threat to the principles upon which your nation was founded.
two points on this: first, I think that the major problem you describe has been one that has been part and parcel of democracy since it's envisioning. We the People have lives to lead! It is the idea, after all, that direct democracy on the (sort of) Greek model was eschewed here in favor of representative democracy - that most of us had better things to do than diddle around with politics. So, we picked someone who looked, acted and thought like us, to go to that swamp on the Potomac and act in our stead. A prefectly respectable method - until the people we picked started believing they were a new aristocracy.
And second: the people neither called for Clinton's impeachment, nor for Bush's. That's political foofaraw, like the teapot-tempest of the "nuclear option" versus filibusters awhile back. For most of us, it was like listening to a couple jamokes debate the merits of the infield fly rule on sports radio - the small minority that understand or are interested weighed in, the rest of us listened for a moment, then changed over to "Twofer Twosdays" on K-ROCK.
I wouldn't find it pathetic to have 100 impeaches in a row
Extremely unlikely the US system of govt. would still exist if this were to come true.
Every time this post comes up, my heart leaps for joy at the idea of the impeachment of King Gorge.
Oh yeah, right - George W. Bush "broke the law"! Hahaha . . *snif* whoo! Haaa! yeah here he goes to jail! Hahahahaaha! No no, wait . . . he's totally impeachable!! They're gonna drive him out of office! HAHAHahahahAAaaahahaha!
Oh! Oh! . . . ahhhhhh . . . ah.
*snif* whoo!
ahh.
"Foofaraw" is a wonderful word. Thanks for that.
Yeah, right. Talk's cheap. Let's impeach the barstard already, then we'll talk.
Crap. And I thought Russ only Rocked way hard.
Democrats scurried away like scared rats.
My point entirely.
From today's Pew poll:
"The single word most frequently associated with George W. Bush today is 'incompetent,' and close behind are two other increasingly mentioned descriptors: 'idiot' and 'liar.' All three are mentioned far more often today than a year ago."
In fact, the terms "ass", "jerk", "selfish" and "untrustworthy" are all new additions to Pew's list of top responses, though for some reason "sucks" has actually fallen off the list."
Headline: Pew Says Suck Off
Angry calls and e-mails flooded Newfane, population 1,680, the next day. One critic sent a mock thank-you note, signed ''Usama Bin Ladin," that applauded the town for its help in ''bringing down" America. Some regular guests of the picturesque, 175-year-old Four Columns Inn notified its owners that they would never visit again.
''Shame on you," one caller said on the town clerk's voicemail. ''A little Socialist town like yourself is a disgrace to America."
Idiots.
I got into an argument the other day, with an american email friend. He claimed how many people support their Pres out of fear for losing whatever still remains solid in their worldview: a stable government, a strong world power. 'I guess they also benefit', I wrote, 'why, if somehow oil, weapons industry, or outsourcing profits were soaking me up, the least I could do was be grateful, I guess'. No, that's not it, he said. 'Then, I don't understand it.' And that's when the dialogue looped again and again...
Politics already made me lost a couple very good american friends, after 9/11, due to nothing more than basic discussion and opinions.
I can believe it. You really can see utter fear on the faces of some of the "we have to support the President" crowd.
Maybe we're just used to preaching to the converted. I always find it interesting when even small groups get together here and reinforce each other's assertations, which are well-practiced, canned "talking points" (as the new parlance has it.) The like-minded members will reiterate, on each get-together, the same, tired affirmations of their beliefs as though they had just discovered them. It really doesn't matter whether it's stoners averring that we really need a hemp industry, corporate manages who assume that all their fellows have the same conservative attitudes, or pretty much any other insular set of folks who find it comforting to listen to the echoes from their fellow believers.
The result of a non-believer expressing a differing opinion is very funny and threatening, at the same time. Having been shielded from controversy for so long, the believers give you a lovely startle response. Maybe face-to-face debate still exists in colleges and universities, but it's hard to find, otherwise. The folks at street level just don't know how to deal with opinion, since they confuse it with fact.
Is that really so different from the rest of the world? Are there no yahoos in other parts of the world who think that disagreements come only from heretics and will rightiously take it upon themselves to punish the disbeliever? (Sincere question.)
But how would you turn that into a strategy for the DNC to NOT screw up with?
There's no strategy, unless you can go out and convince folks that opinion and fact are different. Even the stoners I used to have have contact with were completely invested in their echoes, and they were at least as smart as we are.
So, how do you teach people that opinions are meaningless? How would I convince petebest that his opinions are meaningless? The best I've been able to do is to challenge the zeitgeist is to point out that we fall into the same sinkhole. If we understand that we have the same frailties, does that make it easier to deal with folks whos frailities only differ in opinion?
Sorry to have focused on petebest, 'cause his opinions are certainly not meaningless.
*sniffle*
;)
"George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably;
Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress' Laws to Protect National Security"
Nixon aide John Dean testifies at the censure hearings on Bush.
Apparently this was the first time Dean has testified before Congress since 1974, the year Nixon resigned.
In its top-of-the-hour intro to the news, Fox News just characterized this as "a colossal waste of taxpayer money." Fair and balanced, bitch!
Those fuckholes are shameless.
Was emailed this yesterday by a kinsman:
CHICKENHAWKY
(With apologies to Lewis Carroll's ghost)
'Twas Cheney and the Slimy Rove
Did Rice and Rumsfeld in the shade
Convince the mimsy Bush to go
And to Iraq invade
Beware the Chickenhawks, my dear
They'll start new wars ad infinitum --
As long as someone else will fight 'em
To keep us all in fear
"Once Iraq has been set free
They will love us, wait and see
Osama's plans we soon will foil
And we'll pay for it with oil."
No matter that no bombs were found
No germs, no nukes, no Qaeda ties
Just Saddam hiding in the ground
Next to some Freedom Fries
Beware the Chickenhawks, my sons
Whose fierce unwavering battle cry
Invariably involves a lie
That's why they call them neo-cons
"With Saddam gone," the hawks did boast,
"Our mission is accomplished -- mostly
Democracy will spread," they said,
"Like margarine on toast."
The insurgents, though, would not be quelled
By Sunnis spoiling for a fight
And Chickenhawks then found themselves
Up to their necks in Shiite
Don't ask them when the war will end
They'll say, "Peace? It's round the bend
This year, or next, or 2010."
Beware the Chickenhawks, my friend
'Twas Cheney and the Slimy Rove
Didst Rice and Rumsfeld in the shade
Convince the mimsy Bush to go
And to Iraq invade
-- Dan Tynan
bees, that's great
"Democracy will spread," they said,
'Like margarine on toast.'"
Absofruitly beautiful.
Ye have talented kinfolk, bees!
I've been inept: he found it somewhere online, I think -- definitely didn't write it.
Ah. Perspicacious kinfolk then.
I feel like I've been arguing that 2+2=4 for four years.
Tracicle, check the log files, see if anyone from the domain fbi.gov has been viewing Skirk's profile.
Bring 'em on. Let's see how long the long arm of the American law is.
" . . . the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE."
Plain as the smirk on his face.
You suppose the Harry Taylor thing was scripted in an effort to make the scripted Q&A sessions seem less scripted?
Nope.
Let's see how long the long arm of the American law is.
It's not the law you should worry about, rather the disturbing amount of illegal activity the government is engaged in.
Hold that thought, there's someone pounding on the door, let me just go and--
Not to mention that wishing death on anyone is totally uncalled for. Be passionate about your political beliefs, but remain sane. Please.
Skrik:
I agree. It's not right to wish anyone dead. But wishing he were locked up in a basement with some Mormon Senator's sweet teenager and a broomstick is fair enough.
No, sorry, I wish he were dead.
Not to mention that wishing death on anyone is totally uncalled for.
Agreed.
MonkeyFilter: Be passionate about your political beliefs, but remain sane.
Leaders of both parties are acutely aware of the vehemence of anti-Bush sentiment in the country, expressed especially in the increasing number of Americans—nearing fifty percent in some polls—who say they would favor impeachment if the president were proved to have deliberately lied to justify going to war in Iraq.
Helloooo? Downing Street, anyone?
Thinking about the Nixon presidency, I remember that it took years for the impetus to impeach to gain steam, which is probably a good thing. Otherwise, me might have a new bill of impeachment any time a bloc of senators disgreed with any president's policy.
I do wonder whether, if the Senate seriously considered impeaching Bush, they would have time to do the research to build a formal case and go through the months of testimony that lead up to impeachment, much less conviction by the House of Representitives. (I doubt that Bush would resign as Nixon did before the final phase. In fact I could almost see him deciding that he has the authority to quash a bill of impeachment.)
I suppose the general populus could have a decided impact on what happens next, but I don't see that armies of protestors with flags flying will keep this in the nation's view. And, I don't foresee that Democrats or Republicans will take the high road in selecting the next presidential slates.
I'm an optimist by nature, but I'm to the point where I think I've lost my country. And I'm probably not a candidate for moving to Canada, so I'll just have to ride out the coming apocolypse.
Impeachment TeaHold a Tea Party to overthrow King George!
Is your country turning into a totalitarian state? Are you saddened by the destruction of our democracy? This zesty blend of high-quality black teas, infused with the aromas of ripening peaches and cool, dewy mint leaves, is sure to calm your nerves! Just drink up, and take "Mmm... Peach Mint" power into your own hands!
In my view, more than anything else, this will be the value of a Democratic takeover of at least one of the houses of Congress. As much wrongdoing as we have learned about on the part of Bush administration already, it is almost certainly the case that there is much, much more that we don't know about, but ought to.
Or it would be of value if the Democrats weren't completely inept, spineless panderers. With some exception.
And not the cute, squeeeful kind of panderer either!
REP. NANCY PELOSI: Democrats are not about getting even. Democrats are about helping the American people get ahead. And that's what our agenda is about. So while some people are excited about prospects that they have, in terms of their priorities, they are not our priorities. I have said, and I say again, that impeachment is off the table.
Hello, Nancy? Listen, um, I'm on board with the whole not-into-getting-even thing, but y'know, ShrubCo has broken a lot of, like, laws? And stuff? So, like, can the bulls**t, do your job and begin impeachment proceedings m'kay?
That'd be great. kthxbye!
If not impeachment, at least censure?
I mean, I'm all for moving on and cooperating looking forward and shit, but the administration, and anyone who's considering being part of any future administrations, need to be sent the clear signal that breaking laws is not OK.
Bringing Gates in to replace Rummy seems to suggest that the neocon fantasies of attacking Iran are off the table for Bush. But if Cheney were POTUS, it might be another story.
The Democratic congressman who will investigate the Bush administration's running of the government says there are so many areas of possible wrongdoing, his biggest problem will be deciding which ones to pursue.
Okay: illegal wiretapping, fraudulent intelligence, and Gannon/Guckert.
Okay that last one was just for the wtf fun factor
Pelosi & Dean only said that there'll be no impeachment so as not to shake the election. I don't believe for a minute that when Bush fucks up again (and he will) that it won't be a possibility.
But would it be a pointless waste of time, & ultimately a bad thing for Democrat chances in 2008?
Probably. Dems haven't had a solid, tangible, positive vision of the future to sell to the country since Clinton's second term began and they started taking heavy fire. They need that, something to inspire people and make them hopeful. Like "Contract With America," only with actual substance. They manage that and get one big visible win, the Dems can do with the Pubs did eight years ago: take the whole taco.
My vote: announce an Apollo Project for alternative energy. Goal: 75 percent of U.S. energy from alternative sources by 2020, or something like that. Rally the country around a common cause. So much cheaper than endless war in oil-producing regions of the world.
They need that, something to inspire people and make them hopeful. Like "Contract With America," only with actual substance.
The reason I disagree with that is that the Republicans have been selling our lunch and kicking us in the ass the whole time without anything except "Booo! Gay! Boooo!" to go on.
A metaphorical hanging of this despot with the attendant pageantry and a reading of the crimes will suffice.
The Republican Party has shown in the last six years how concerned they are with "working together". Fuck That Shit.
And if Pelosi wants to paint rainbows for show, fine, but I want some fucking heads on pikes, mmkay? Listen up Dems - the way the Iraq debacle was concocted by this group of insane evangelical government-haters is the biggest affront to America in any of our lifetimes - not to mention the countless list of other offenses perpetrated by this bizarrely cruel administration. If you wallpaper over that shit I will personally chew you 50 new assholes from the inside out, capiche?! Now get in there!! RRRRAAAAHHHHHHGGGGHHH!!
*snif* ahhh that felt cathartic
I was thinking about the subject of impeachment, because it has been whispered about a lot lately. My argument for impeachment is simple. We will gain credibility back in the international community.
That's some of the most clear, direct writing I've seen in a long time in regards to the Bush administration's performance. I'm anxious to read to rest of it to see if the presentation of the case is as riveting as the introduction.
Muy exellente!
I'm anxious to read the rest as well. Thanks for the link!
*takes a tabasco-laced tequila shot*
I think I like that Republican Hagel fellow.
Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) said pushing for impeachment would be counterproductive because it would break off efforts to recruit conservative support for changing the course of the war in Iraq. “We’re trying to get [conservatives] to vote against the war. They’re coming around. You don’t hear them singing the virtues of George Bush like they used to. But nothing will turn this into a partisan lockdown faster than impeachment.” Inslee added, “Ending the war is what’s important now.”
Hm.
I keep hoping everytime I see this post come up that ya'll will have breaking news that hasn't reached the Faux Network.
Impeach the bastard, already!
Spying on Americans and authorizing torture is only the tip of the iceberg. Imagine what we'd know if the Republicans didn't abdicate their oversight responsibilites over the past six years.
.
Well, at least it's something.
*goes off to write yet another letter to Feinstein & Boxer...*
Articles of impeachment filed against Cheney
Yay!
Shortly after Democrats took control of Congress in January from Bush's Republicans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would not consider impeachment, a highly divisive issue that could tie Capitol Hill into knots.
"Nothing has changed. It's off the table," said Nadeam Elshami, a Pelosi spokesman.
Boo!
Assholes. I predict much wrong-doing and America-screwing by the Bush administration in the next two years. The Dems need to do something about that. It's bigger than their political careers - it's our country.
Assholes.
I don't know if it makes any difference (probably not), but I *did* e-mail Senators Boxer & Feinstein this morning asking them to support Kucinich & Vermont in their impeachment efforts. So, while rocket's probably right, SMT has the idea: we should at least try.
Minda, could you please provide the e-mail addresses you used (and perhaps even the boilerplate text?). Make it easy enough, and I'd bet many monkeys will chime in. I will.
The timing is wrong, there's potential for backfire, and it interferes with the current small battles, which the Dems are winning.
If you convince enough Republican Senators that supporting Bush is bad for their careers, then you can do it. You're not there yet.
Feinstein and Boxer represent areas of Northern California. Googling "Senator Boxer" and "Senator Feinstein" and clicking on the "contact me" links will get you there. (I had it set up to implant the links here, but I'm Vista challenged. sorry.)
On the other hand, folks in other areas should probably get in touch with their own representatives. Looks to me as though the senate has standardised an email form - the house may have also. It's just a search, a click or two and a form to fill out. Easy and doesn't take a lot of time out of surfing.
For those of you out of the US who want to express their opinions, I know that Boxer has been great in responding, often with personal messages. We used to be able to email Pres. Bush, but his address is no longer listed on the Us government site. I like to think that I caused that by sending him a message on every stupid mistake his administration made, and remindng him that he was personally responsible. Cheney's was, the last time I looked at the US government site, but I've always figured that he didn't care what any of us thought.
And, I'd bet that the senators and representative can't tell whether any email comes from their constituency, so flood 'em all, if you feel up it.
Shhhhhhhh!
*shoves Skrik under desk
You fool. The walls have ears.
Unfortunately, that is NOT an option.
not that it wouldn't benefit the country....
Here's a handy utility for contacting Senators. And Here's one for contacting your local rep.
I tried to duplicate what I wrote earlier, to no avail. Earlier I was not mostly drunk, a state that does not lend itself to eloquent letter-writing. I'm not sure when I'll be on MoFi again (before Monday, that is), but when I am I'll write something up & post it.
*e-mails lolcatz pictures to dick cheney*
y'know, he seems so cranky and dour all the time. might cheer him up.
In a poll taken by Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion, 39 percent of Americans say they would favor the impeachment of both Cheney and his boss, George W. Bush. It's not just those crazy, far-left, America-hating Democrats, either; 42 percent of the independents polled said they, too, would favor impeaching Cheney and Bush.
Matt Towery, who ran Newt Gingrich's PAC before taking the helm at Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion, was so startled by the poll results that he sought some explanation from Bob Barr, the former Republican congressman who initiated an "inquiry of impeachment" against Bill Clinton in 1997. Barr's take: "This indicates the surprising depth of dissatisfaction with Bush," he tells Towery. "I'm not sure we ever really had hard polling numbers in favor of impeachment that were this high when we were in the midst of the process. Perhaps, but I don't recall it."
Actually, the numbers were pretty similar: Polls taken around the time of the House vote on Clinton's impeachment showed that about 40 percent of the public supported it. The difference? The views of those 40 percent were taken seriously by members of Congress, who, for better or for worse, actually did something about them.
Yeah, that's one difference.
Dear Mrs. [Minda25]:
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.Res.333, a resolution to impeach Vice President Richard B. Cheney. I appreciate hearing from you.
Our Constitution requires that impeachment proceedings begin in the House of Representatives. The House must vote for impeachment before presenting its case to the Senate. The Senate then holds a trial to consider the case for impeachment.
H.Res.333 is currently being considered by the House Judiciary Committee. Should H.Res.333 reach the Senate, please know that I will fulfill my Constitutional duty to the best of my ability by considering all of the facts in the case - and there certainly are many!
Again, thank you for writing to me. Please do not hesitate to contact me again about this or any other issue of concern to you.
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
*goes off to bug the House Judiciary Committee*
Well that's some nice squeaky wheelin' there minda25.
Okay, I am having ZERO luck with this. I can't find anything on the House Judiciary Committee's website about the H. Res. 333 Boxer mentioned, and a google search yields zip. I've given up and am going to write them without seeing the resolution first, but now I'm stuck: how does one address the House Judiciary Committee in a letter? "Dear Honorable Representatives"? "Dear Members of the House Judiciary Committee"? "Hey knotheads*"? Ack!
*Bonus points if you know which movie that line is from.
I have just been informed that "knothead" is a racist term. I had no idea. I'm sorry!
Knothead?
Gowannn!
So if you're being stupid, and I hit you enough times that you have knots on your skull, that makes you a knothead, and I'm racist?
how does one address the House Judiciary Committee in a letter?
Depending on who's sitting. In this case, this year, it would be "You Absolute Utter Assholes!"
GramMa, I heard that phrase in McClintock (John Wayne), said by an Indian ("Everyone calls me an Indian!" "You're an Indian. What's wrong with that?" "Nothing, except I'm also the stenographer, the secretary, and the bookkeeper. Does anyone say 'Hello stenographer' or 'Hello, bookkeeper? No! Not even 'hello knothead'!" Apparently knothead is a derogatory term for Native Americans.
Somehow, I don't think that particular greeting will endure the committee to my message, but I'm quite tempted to use it, just the same.
I'd probably go with "Dear Members of the House Judiciary Committee." Sounds better than "Dear Congresspersons."
Darling Bank Manager,
Give me some more money you bastard.
May the seed of your loin be fruitful in the belly of your woman,
Neil
Why Bush Hasn't Been ImpeachedBut there's a deeper reason why the popular impeachment movement has never taken off -- and it has to do not with Bush but with the American people. Bush's warmongering spoke to something deep in our national psyche. The emotional force behind America's support for the Iraq war, the molten core of an angry, resentful patriotism, is still too hot for Congress, the media and even many Americans who oppose the war, to confront directly. It's a national myth. It's John Wayne. To impeach Bush would force us to directly confront our national core of violent self-righteousness -- come to terms with it, understand it and reject it. And we're not ready to do that.
Hmmmmmm. Y'know, that's a point there.
"Dear Mrs. [Minda25]:
Thank you for your letter concerning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Richard Cheney. I appreciate the time you took to write and welcome the opportunity to respond.
In our most recent elections, the American people expressed clear disapproval with the path this country was on. They are tired of partisan politics and of an Administration that pays little heed to the wishes of the American people. They want-and deserve-a Congress that holds the Administration accountable and fulfills its Constitutional responsibility to check and balance the Executive branch. I share this sentiment and am determined to work hard and across party lines in the United States Senate to promote issues that are of real concern to most Americans, including the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, homeland security, global warming, and lobbying and election reform.
At this time, however, I believe that impeachment proceedings against President Bush or Vice President Cheney will only divide the country even further, frustrating our hopes for a meaningful change in direction, while having little chance of success.
I have been deeply disappointed by many of this Administration's actions and have been outspoken in those instances. Nevertheless, given the challenges our country faces I believe that we need to focus on constructive and cooperative steps that would lead us in the right direction.
Again, thank you for your letter. If you have any further questions or comments, please contact my office in Washington, D.C. at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator"
A meaningful change in direction like, say, a timetable for withdrawal, or not that meaningful?
Good on ya, minda!
Well at least the Dems are sticking to their . . umm . . elect. .ah bility? No, that's not it . . .
Thanks for the transcript minda25!
The response I got back from my Senator was even more noncommittal than that.
On a note that I take as more positive, though, the legislature in my hometown just passed a resolution to support any impeachment efforts. While it's true that they don't have any real influence in the matter, if more towns and cities take a public stand then maybe the people who do have influence will get the message. Maybe. Perhaps. Possibly.
It's worth a try, at least.
Well I'm all kinds of impressed with you active monkeys for communicating with your elected representatives.
Like a man who has his visitors log destroyed, responds to orders to produce documents by attempting to abolish the agency asking for them, invents his own new secrecy system, refuses to reveal how many people are working for him, or keeps a man-sized safe in his office has anything to hide.
I have this vision of the hours before the next inauguration, when pardons rain down thick and heavy, that we won't know who half of these people are, much less how to pronounce their names...
Also, I'm thoroughly enjoying the association of Dick Cheney with man-sized safes. No news story is complete without it, just as you can no longer write about crazed-astronauts without mentioning space diapers.
Okay, after a several week "for my sanity" hiatus, I have started up my letter-writing campaign again. Here's one I sent to our against-impeachment local representative, in case you'd like to use it (not because I think it's particularly good [it isn't at all, and will probably be laughed at], but because writing your representatives is a pain in the ass, and it's nice to have a starting point):
Dear Representative Matsui,
I am writing to you today to ask that you please consider impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
I have heard and appreciate your arguments against these impeachment proceedings. However in the last few months we have seen that, with respect to politics, the only thing that not bringing impeachment proceedings against both the President and the Vice President is accomplishing is angering the Democrats and Liberals, and giving Republicans and Conservatives a feeling of absolute and unchecked power. That was displayed in the last week by President Bush, when he commuted Mr. Libby's sentence. That was just one abuse of power in a litany of other abuses of power and obviously-illegal acts.
Our President regularly acts outside of the confines of the law and the Constitution. He acts as if he has dictatorial powers, and sometimes it appears as if he does. We must show those with such horrible ambitions, as well as the rest of the world, that we will not tolerate this.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration,
Me
He [Former Surgeon General, Dr. Carmona] was required to mention George Bush's name three times on each page of every speech.
I'm sorry HW, you got it wrong. All heil the Great Leader! seems appropriate.
Does Godwin not apply here?
Just when I though I didn't have any more puke left to come up[...
I've gone past puke and bile, and have since taken on blood...
Wow, she's almost saying something, there.
I have to apologize to republican & conservative monkeys for my letter above. I re-read it last night, and realized it is insulting to you guys. I should have said "the Bush administration" instead of "republicans and conservatives". I certainly don't mean to say that all republicans & conservatives are power-hungry conscience-less a-holes. I mean to say that the Bush administration are (is?) a bunch of power-hungry conscience-less a-holes. I blame too much t.v., bad proofing, and too many beers. Er, and myself, because I wrote it.
You've got to admire politicians who have the guts to stand up and talk about possibly discussing at some future time the idea of potentially exploring the fight for what's right. Hypothetically, of course.
I know this doesn't compare to suppressing genuine public health information, but it's just so despicable (from the Tuesday NYT story):
And administration officials even discouraged him from attending the Special Olympics because, he said, of that charitable organization’s longtime ties to a “prominent family” that he refused to name.
“I was specifically told by a senior person, ‘Why would you want to help those people?’ ” Dr. Carmona said.
The Special Olympics is one of the nation’s premier charitable organizations to benefit disabled people, and the Kennedys have long been deeply involved in it.
When asked after the hearing if that “prominent family” was the Kennedys, Dr. Carmona responded, “You said it. I didn’t.”
Remember when they actually had the chutzpah to claim something called "compassionate conservatism"? What pathetic people. Just go away and stew in your anger, lust, and fear.
No wonder her office hasn't replied to my letter asking when Congress is going to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for their violations of the Constitution. Wasn't that why she ascended to her current position in the first place? What a shithole is American federal politics.
Impeach Pelosi!
From the Chicago Sun Times' Richard Roeper, in an article entitled A Humble Way for Bush to Make Amends:
"Alice Collins of Oak Lawn has an idea.
"Three hundred and sixty-five days a year, in the wind and snow of winter and the heat and humidity of summer, let him tend to the graves of the almost 4,000 men and women who have given their lives in the debacle of Iraq. They honored their oaths, obeyed their commander-in-chief and sacrificed their lives of promise to a lying, unprincipled warmonger.
"He can begin at the grave of my grandson, Lcpl Jonathan W. Collins, killed in action on 8/8/2004."
Nope, let's send him overseas.
Let him lead the next attack as our fearless Commander in Thief.
Who's kiddin' who?
Of course Bush gets a free pass no matter who's up next. Even if we voted in some saint that would honestly work to pull this country out of the hole we're in, there wouldn't be time, energy, or money to go after Bush. That diseased tick has dug himself in too deep. Trying to pull our social services, education, health care, environment, economy, and foreign relations out of the toilet would be enough for any superhero. That's assuming we get some poor honest shlub in there, not the wafflers, cross-toters, or pocket-liners we have running now.
I never thought I'd stand up to shout, "Three cheers for that asshole McGovern!"
Scary, when that racist, warmongering, impotent, old bastard can recognize how evil Bush is, but the rest of America can't.
"This recovery will take a generation..."
Optimist.
that racist, warmongering, impotent, old bastard
Might you have George "Amnesty, Abortion, and Acid" McGovern mixed up with someone else?
Uunnnnnnhhhhhha, yeah.
It was that other guy I was thinking of. Yeah, you know, him. The one I can't now recollect the name of.
Sorry.
*scrapes crap post from thread, wipes with Pine Sol*
Yeah, got your hint. Wikipedia set me straight.
Thanks, man.
*promises with hand on heart never to post in hydrocodone drug stupor again*
Perhaps you were thinking of Barry Goldwater? Except that his quotes about Bush and Cheney are less relevant, as he died two years before they came into office.
via link above:
---------------------------------------------
• Spied on Americans without a court order in violation of the Fourth Amendment;
• Directed senior members of the administration to ignore subpoenas in contempt of Congress;
• Outed Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert agent of the CIA and then intentionally obstructed justice by disseminating false information through the White House press office;
• Ordered U.S. attorneys to pursue politically-motivated prosecutions in violation of the law;
• Fired eight U.S. attorneys and allowed others to retain their jobs because of partisan political considerations;
• Refused to provide subpoenaed emails and other documentation;
• Purposefully manipulated intelligence to deceive American citizens and the Congress;
• Fabricated a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the war in Iraq - a war that has taken the lives of nearly 4,000 U.S. troops, injured 60,000 more, and that will cost more than a trillion dollars by many accounts;
• Alleged, despite all evidence to the contrary, a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida, to justify the war in Iraq;
• Manipulated and exaggerated evidence of Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities;
• Undermined national security by openly threatening aggression against Iran, despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or capability of attacking the U.S.;
• Suspended habeas corpus by claiming the power to declare any person an "enemy combatant" - ignoring the Geneva Convention protections that the U.S. helped create;
• Endorsed torture and rendition of prisoners in violation of international law and stated American policy and values, and destroyed videotaped evidence of such torture;
• Awarded unlawful no-bid contracts to political friends at home and abroad; and
• Skirted legal consequences by employing paid mercenaries to act as bodyguards for American diplomats in Iraq.
-----------------------------------------------
clip-n-save!
All this, and we're still sitting on our thumbs, watching American Idol.
But that Paula, she's so crazeee! What she do next?
...we apparently impeach presidents for having consensual sex outside of marriage and trying to cover it up. ... the president takes the country to war on a lie where thousands of American soldiers die horrible, violent deaths and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, even babies are killed, the punishment obviously has to be much, much more severe. That's just common sense.
Wait, we're talkin' sex vs war on terrier!
Everyone knows that sex is teh EVIL.
Vinnie, first you have to get the bastard to trial!
And he supports McCain?
*sighs
Here we go round the Bush again.
The thing about impeachment is that it has "peach" in it. Peachy, which is fuzzy and nice. That's like a trap. You could be president and not be very smart and someone could say "how about we impeach you" and you say, wow yeah, let's do it because you like fuzzy and nice.
I can understand that pouring tons of money into this right now enriches lawyers and screws the economy further. I would like to see Obama roundly criticize the morals of the previous administration, and go after ONE or TWO selected, absolutely egregious transgressions. (There's so bloody many.)
"my view is also that nobody is above the law. And if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen,"
Then he has no choice.
I saw him state that last night on RT's Alyona Show. Her conclusion was that Obama won't let it happen. Some kind of reverse glass ceiling for uppity-ups.
- The Democrat party takes control of the House. A proposition that I'd say has a likelihood of about 10%.
- The House opens an inquiry. 90% if under Democrat control, 5% if under Republican control.
- The Democrats take control of the Senate. 30%.
- The Democrats take control of the Senate enough to make a conviction likely... They'd probably need a near Filibuster-busting 60% supermajority to have any hope of getting 6 Republicans to vote with them. 10% if they even get a simple majority.
- The Republicans vote for conviction, even if the Democrats don't have much of a majority, or are in the minority. This would require probably at least 15 Republican Senators to vote for conviction: 0.1%
I think my estimates of likelihood are generous, so let's multiply to get the actual "risk exposure" of Bush to conviction: Dems take both houses: 10% x 90% x 30% x 10% = 0.27% Republicans keep either house: 5% x 0.1% = 0.005% Or, to put it in a slightly different way: Ain't gonna happen.that assholeMcGovern!" Scary, when that racist, warmongering, impotent, old bastard can recognize how evil Bush is, but the rest of America can't. "This recovery will take a generation..." Optimist.