Impeachment won't be like WJC or RMN.

Since World War II, the specter of impeachment has haunted two Presidents, over widely different circumstances.

Richard M. Nixon stood on the throes of impeachment due to his interference into the investigation of a reprehensible political operation.

William J. Clinton was impeached and tried due to his prevarication over a personal indiscretion.

George W. Bush's situation is drastically different from both those men's.  His political problems don't stem from underhanded electioneering or an inability to keep his trousers fastened; they stem from the fundamental, zealously advanced actions and agendas of his entire administration, and if he is impeached, it won't be a distraction or a sideshow; it will be a referendum on his stewardship of the office of President of the United States.

It's also useful to look at the various Vice Presidents involved.

Spiro Agnew was rather a peripheral player in the Nixon White House, and ended up resigning practically on a technicality (groceries as bribery?); his successor, Gerald Ford, was something of an outsider, so he didn't suffer as much from the taint of Watergate.

Al Gore was very much a political ally of Bill Clinton, but Clinton's impeachment wasn't predicated on his policy or politics, but on his personal foibles, and not even Ken Starr would have been able to propose that Al Gore had been "ahem" personally involved in the Lewinsky fiasco.

Dick Cheney, on the other hand, is intricately linked to the policies of the Bush II administration; he's seen as the eminence grise behind the facade of His Royal Imperious Shrubliness George II, and if Bush is removed by impeachment, Cheney will be sworn in - facing a Congress which will have already given him an unprecedented vote of no confidence.

Face it: Cheney's in it up to his neck, and if George II goes down, Tricky Dick II won't have the political clout to call for a time of national healing.

In fact, the end game might not result in impeachment after all.  If the Congress flips in '06, and the Downing Street Minutes or something even bigger and more damning dominate the headlines, then the result may be a plea-bargain much like Nixon's.

Only the price demanded by the prosecutors may be two resignations, not one.

•  Impeachment is too easy

  We need a criminal trial for violating the War Crimes Act.

  The only way we will stop torture and abuse being committed in our name is to take the gloves off. Commit crimes against humanity, rot in jail, no matter how powerful you are.

  by Aguas de Marco on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:48:29 AM PDT

  •  Impeachment and Criminal Trial...

    ...are not exclusive; indeed, impeachment and removal makes criminal trial, if anything, more likely, rather than less.

    by cdicely on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:52:50 AM PDT

    •  asdf

      Good point. And I think one of the things that we'll have to keep in mind as Americans is that if we're to have any hope of redemption in the world community, frog-marching the war criminals in the White House off to the Hague is imperative.

      by James Benjamin on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:15:42 AM PDT

      •  The Hague would be failure...

        ...as the International Criminal Court exists to provide a venue when national courts are unable or unwilling to provide a trial for suspects in war crimes cases.

        We have war crimes laws in this country that are applicable and should be used; governments whose officials are tried by international tribunals don't gain much respect for it, those that show they are able and willing to police their own wrongdoers do more to reestablish credibility.

        by cdicely on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:21:02 AM PDT

•  wooooooooooo BRING IT ON

  down with the right, long live the resistance!

  by mediaprisoner on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:51:14 AM PDT

•  We need a twofer

  Cheney is the Iago whispering in Shrub's ear. They both must be removed from office.

  Withour Cheney, I doubt if King Georgie Porgie could manage a decent bowel movement.

  by Maine Atticus on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:55:03 AM PDT

  •  Well, perhaps more than two...

    ...Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others all should be impeached, though its most critical, I think, for Bush to be.

    by cdicely on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:57:38 AM PDT

  •  Which is part of the point I want to make.

    An impeachment of His Royal Imperious Shrubliness would effectively be an indictment of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the whole crooked gang.  Because of the inextricable link, the impeachment would be politically crippling in a way that Nixon's was not for Ford.

    by BruceK on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:59:50 AM PDT

•  Impeachment?

  What is this impeachment nonsense? EVen if the House AND Senate flip in '06, it's NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Why are we wasting our time talking about it?

  by xtu on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:03:28 AM PDT

  •  Plan for all possibilities.

    Nobody talked about impeachment in 1996.  Look what happened two years later.

    And if things go much farther wrong for Bush and company, who knows?

    by BruceK on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:09:08 AM PDT

  •  Its not going to happen?

    Why? Because people aren't behind it now? That can change. We aren't going to make any progress if we don't work to alter the landscape of what is acheivable.

    by cdicely on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:18:30 AM PDT

•  The thing is....

  ..how do you get this past Congress?  

  The Repug majority is bound to delay or prevent any such action from happening.  Even if we take back the House in 2006, they are going to go psycho on us, declaring us traitors and worse, and you know it.

  If we are serious about impeachment as an option, we have to prepare for a major league shitstorm applied to us, akin to the actions against German-Americans in 1917 and, God help us if it comes to it, against Japanese-Americans in 1941.

  Next:  how do we get this past the courts?  Especially the Surpremes?
  

  by Palamedes on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:07:56 AM PDT

  •  Maybe not...

    If the economy melts down with $100/b oil and interest rates go through the roof exploding the hosuing bubble. Maybe once-were-wingnuts will want to take out some frustration on the Administration and vote for impeachment as well.  Stranger things have happened...

    by bobtaco on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:22:24 AM PDT

  •  Getting people to talk about it...

    Is a victory in itself.  It doesn't matter whether it comes to fruition or not.

    I think the backlash would be less the one Clinton was able to engineer.  For one, there's a lot more legimacy to the charges (1700+ dead, 10,000+ injured Americans, untold numbers of Iraqis (at least tens of thousands).  Secondly, Shrubya isn't a quarter as politically skilled as Clinton.  His reaction will be to get angry, paranoid, and defensive ala Nixon.

    by Fro on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:25:18 AM PDT

  •  You get it past Congress...

    ...by convincing the public its a good idea, and creating political pressure; there are Republicans that believe in limited government and the rule of law and accountability, and there are Republicans that believe in advancing their personal and partisan political interests. I would bet that there are precious few Republicans who put loyalty to George W. Bush above both of those.

    So, if the politically best thing for individual Republicans and the party seems to be holding Bush accountable for his crimes, they'll go along with it. Heck, they'll try to pretend it was their idea.

    by cdicely on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:35:13 AM PDT

    •  Public viewing of the caskets.

      Show the bodies coming back and watch the awareness rise.
      Mandated 24 hour public viewing of the dead.
      Just the thought makes me gag and tear.
      Keeping it fresh in the mind of the people.
      The action of accountability needs to be taken. Only the outrage of the lies can bring the action.

      by Clzwld on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:26:15 AM PDT

  •  You mean the Congress...

    ... whose approval ratings right now are at about 20%? That Congress?

    I don't think the Repubs in Congress feel they have much of a mandate for carrying on in their current mode. The reality of angry voters is starting to break the rubber-stamp, anything Karl Rove says is the Law Of The Land mode.

    by rppa on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:03:15 PM PDT

•  Make this THE 2006 campaign issue

  As pointed out above, impeachment will go nowhere in the current winger held Congress.

  Thus the only route to a successful impeachment is publically campaign for it in every contested district in the nation in 2006.

  We need to get behind the best drafted articles of impeachment and circulate it to every Dem House and Senate candidate for their support.

  by baldandy on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:11:51 AM PDT

•  Make EVERY street DOWNING STREET

  
  
  

  Send your pics here:

  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/18/22214/1075

  by STOP George on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:12:27 AM PDT

•  Technical Reminder...

  ...this is George III. I know Geo. I was so long ago that we forget, but it is nice to have the III there as an added parallel to another sovereign who refused his Assent to Laws most wholesome and necessary for the public good, who exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within, who made his judges dependent upon his will for their tenure in office, who deprive, in many cases, the benefits of Trial by Jury...

  I'm just saying.

  Remember.

  This is George III.

  Again.

  by JD SoOR on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:51:24 AM PDT

•  Illegal bombing

  I feel this issue needs to be pushed more.
  www.timesonline.co.uk :
  

  A SHARP increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war "to put pressure on the regime" was illegal under international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice...

  The increased attacks on Iraqi installations, which senior US officers admitted were designed to "degrade" Iraqi air defences, began six months before the UN passed resolution 1441, which the allies claim authorised military action. The war finally started in March 2003.

  This weekend the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Goodhart, vice-president of the International Commission of Jurists and a world authority on international law, said the intensified raids were illegal if they were meant to pressurise the regime.

  He said UN Resolution 688, used by the allies to justify allied patrols over the no-fly zones, was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which deals with all matters authorising military force.

  It might be easier to to make the case around actions taken, not quotes about conversations, i.e. DSM and "fixed intel". Don't get me wrong, I think the DSM is damning, but I try to look at things from the sceptic's point of view.

  When I have time, I will try to put a stronger case together on this point.

  by Nicholas Phillips on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:00:40 AM PDT

•  Let's not talk impeachment

  Let's talk investigation.

  Impeachment is a loaded word, and brings up too many wrong historical analogies.  It also smacks of political payback for the travesty that was foisted in Clinton. What Bushco has done is so serious that we need to isolate it from the process involvled in the Clinton affair.

  What we need is an investigation. A real investigation that lays bare the tattered fabric of lies and distortions and abuse of process that is the Bush administration. An investigations that clarifies that Bush ignored the actual provisions of UN resolution 1441 and even unconstitutionally went beyond the powers granted him in his own Congressional resolution in taking us to war.  In order to get that we need to regain control of Congress in '06. Using the crying need for an investigation can be a powerful tool to achieve that end as in the campaign  theme that the American people have a right to know.

  It is a more universal and less partisan direction that will resonate much more deeply among the electorate. Who doesn't "want to know?"

  What that investigation reveals may well will be grounds for impeachment. By then we can use that word without appearing to be merely partisan, but rather defenders of the Constitution.

  by mjshep on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:04:47 AM PDT

•  Getting back our good name

  Impeachment might not be possible, but then it might be as time goes on.
  I have said it will take years for our country to recover from all the ill that the boy king has done to our country and our relationships with other countries.
  However impeachment or even the start of investigations and proceedings would, at the least build a foundation, if not a major jumpstart to recovering our good name and rebuilding relationships with all the countries and people that the boy king has pissed on.

  by retLT on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:25:08 AM PDT