The Impeachment Option

With sentiment on the question of impeaching Bush running at a pretty strong 39 percent for giving him the boot (with 49 percent opposed), I think this needs to enter the mainstream conversation. And, insofar as Bush appears determined to use his constitutionally granted authority to shield his subordinates from the consequences of breaking the law, I would say that removing him from the office which grants that authority is something that should be discussed.

The fact remains, however, that impeaching and convicting Bush means, in practice, only that Dick Cheney becomes President. In a weird way, it was the very trumped-up and trivial nature of the charges against Clinton that made impeachment plausible -- replacing Bill Clinton with Al Gore really would have had a material impact on the quantity of tomcatting in the executive branch. Removing Bush doesn't accomplish anything. I suppose you could impeach Cheney, and then impeach Bush before confirming a new vice president, and then Nancy Pelosi becomes president. And that, of course, is going to get 67 votes in the Senate sometime after they establish congressional representation for flying pigs.

UPDATE: I don't think the "impeach Cheney" option makes much sense, though public support for it is quite strong. The problem is that the VP doesn't have any independent legal authority from the President. If Bush delegates authority to Cheney, and Cheney uses that power in an illegal manner, then either Bush needs to hold Cheney accountable for that, or else congress and the public need to hold Bush accountable. Having the buck stop with Cheney creates a terrible set of forward-looking incentives.

The thing to do is to impeach Bush and Cheney on a dual docket and have Nancy Pelosi and Robert Byrd both say that they would decline the presidency in the event of a dual vacancy (they can even note that many scholars think putting members of congress in the line of succession is unconstitutional anyway), thus making Secretary of State Rice the heir apparent, in order to demonstrate a lack of partisan motivation.

You're still left with the problem that this is only getting the requisite votes in fantasyland, but I think it's a perfectly cogent political agenda.

Comments

MY,
You might want to look around. ARG did a survey and found those that favor impeachment are closer to 50%. In fact, more people are in favor of impeaching Cheney than Bush.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | July 7, 2007 3:09 PM

The fact remains, however, that impeaching and convicting Bush means, in practice, only that Dick Cheney becomes President.

As the chess master, Emanuel Lasker, once said, "The threat is more powerful than the execution."

To the extent that Bush, or any president, fears the humiliation of impeachment, he will be at least somewhat deterred.

Which would mean, perhaps, fewer signing statements and fewer smirks.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | July 7, 2007 3:09 PM

Perhaps impeach Cheney first and that will probably be enough.

Posted by otto | July 7, 2007 3:24 PM

Perhaps impeach Cheney first and that will probably be enough.

Exactly. First Cheney, then bush. And actually impeaching Cheney would probably fix a lot of things on their own. But getting rid of both Bush and Cheney would put Peloci in the white house. That might be bad for the democrats. Another option would be put Condi Rice (3rd in line) in as president. That would be a big improvement as well.

And actually public support for impeaching Cheney is pretty high, in fact a majority of Americans support it, from polling I've seen.

Posted by Chad Okere | July 7, 2007 3:26 PM

Please, please, please, please! Congress's favorability ratings are currently at the lowest ever recorded, so I would think it would be difficult to get them to go much lower, but this seems to hold some promise.

Posted by Al | July 7, 2007 3:28 PM

When presented with damning evidence, do you not indict Tony Soprano because you think Chris would be a worse mob boss? Or do you nab them both?

We have a president who has admitted to literally hundreds of felonies in the use of warentless wiretaps against our fellow citizens. We have a President and Vice President who are actively invovled in another felony in an ongoing obstruction of justice in the Plame case.

It doesn't matter if it's a political winner. It doesn't matter if it's difficult. It's the right thing to do. It's what the law requires. You cannot have an admitted felon in the White House and take no action against him, not if you want the rule of law, our society and our ongoing expirement in democracy to succeed.

Posted by kidkostar | July 7, 2007 3:34 PM

Impeach Cheney, leave Bush alone. Cheney is responsible for the more evil aspects of this administration, Bush is more of a politician (though is by no means innocent.) Getting rid of Cheney and letting Bush be term limited out is good enough. Too many people would be suspicious of impeaching them both, seeing it as a way to install Pelosi. Plus, impeaching Cheney is more politically feasible anyway as he's even less popular and it won't be seen as as drastic a measure, as Bush is still the figurehead.

Plus, according to Wikipedia, it goes Cheney -> Pelosi -> Byrd -> THEN Condi. If some sort of binding agreement could be made that Pelosi and Byrd would immediately step down in favor of Rice, that could be more palatable to the country in general but I don't know if that can be done, and there would still be too much suspicion that they would try to weasel out of it somehow.

Posted by Greg | July 7, 2007 3:40 PM

An uncharacteristically dim analysis. Impeach them both; figure out the details of Pelosi's ascension later. Give them a Republican VP and a promise that she won't run in '08, whatever. Or, just impeach Cheney and refuse to confirm a new VP, since the position is next to useless, constitutionally, and has been left vacant in the past.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | July 7, 2007 3:44 PM

I do like the idea of just plain impeaching Cheney. The man is incredibly unpopular, and making senate Republicans fall on their swords for him is both poetic justice and good politics. Plus Cheney deserves it thirty ways from Sunday.

I doubt that they'd get 67 votes to convict Cheney, of course, so he won't be got out of the way. If by chance I'm wrong and a Cheney impeachment succeeded, the chimp on his own would not be able to do much further damage. Especially since we'd have removed his own anti-impeachment insurance policy. (Remember whatever replacement W wants to appoint needs congressional approval, so they couldn't put in another sith lord.)

Posted by jimBOB | July 7, 2007 3:51 PM

I think Greg is right - impeach Cheney, leave Bush. The most important reason hasn't been given here, however. Impeaching Cheney would be tons of fun! At the end of the horror movie, the audience wants a payoff - they want to see the monster taken care of. But at the same time, they are always appreciative of resurgences of monster strength and the like. Think of the Alien series. Or the recent Korean film, The Host. I'd love to see the whole chase and capture and blowing up thing with Cheney. Imagine that oddly shaped man, his molars growing and his eyes glowing, being chased out of his secluded location. aka crypt. I think we can pretty much toss the constitution on this one - the script, instead, should be pure dracula. As in dracula, his flyeating assistants - the whole Fox crew and the merry band of Foxfed morons - would add a lot to the action. Spitting and coughing, claiming that Clinton did it first, proving that 1 plus 1 equals three, equating the great hunt against the Monster with supporting terrorism - it would be cool. The coolest part would be if heads actually started exploding on Fox - it would raise the ratings, too, which, at the end of the day, Murdoch has got to like. So I can see him getting on board with this. Overall, the nation is depressed, what with losing a war and watching the power structure become some hideous likeness of a third world kleptocracy, and we deserve some summer fun. Bring it on, as someone once said.

In order to keep suspense going for a series, however, we should encourage Cheney to lay some great, gelid Cheney eggs. Thus, as we pan down from seeing Cheney melt in acid, asbestos and the tears of thousands of Iraqi babies on the floor of the Senate, we see these eggs start to hatch in the basement, cuing: Cheney Two: Dick's Revenge.

Posted by roger | July 7, 2007 3:59 PM

Re: . I suppose you could impeach Cheney, and then impeach Bush before confirming a new vice president, and then Nancy Pelosi becomes president.

Well, if Cheney was given the boot (or resigned as Agnew did in 1973) then Bush would be able to apppoint a new VP, so the issue of Pelosi becoming president would not enter into the discussion. But there is a political danger here: Bush would appoint someone reasonably popular, or at least completely unstained with his administration's sins and follies, as Nixon did with Ford-- and that person would be thus anointed the GOP front-runner in 2008, changing the dynamic of the election entirely. Of course Bush might not be willing to risk appointing an outsider VP; he seems to require total loyalty and might not want to go beyond his team.

Posted by JonF | July 7, 2007 4:02 PM

Another option would be put Condi Rice (3rd in line) in as president

Condi Rice isn't 3rd in line, she's 4th, after Robert Byrd. And that isn't an option. If Cheney gets removed from office, Bush has to appoint someone to fill his vacancy - someone who has to get approved by a majority of the Senate. That person would become president if Bush were then removed from office. If Bush were impeached and convicted too quickly to have time to appoint a new VP - and we're definitely in Porco Rosso territory by now - then Pelosi becomes the president. Nowhere is there an option for the Secretary of State just jumping up a couple rungs.

Posted by Christmas | July 7, 2007 4:02 PM

You impeach Cheney now, and you start the impeachment procedings against Bush on November 5, 2008.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | July 7, 2007 4:06 PM

This is from THE NATION, May 7, 2007, by John Nichols.

DC Democrats still put forth anti-impeachment arguments--particularly the old saw that going after Bush would just give the presidency to Cheney. Activists have countered with an "Impeach Cheney First!" campaign and a reminder that the Constitution in no way prohibits holding more than one official to account at the same time. They've also picked up an argument made by Daniel Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame, who says it was the threat of impeachment that got Richard Nixon to bend to pressure from Congress to wind down the Vietnam War. "If you want to move Bush on Iraq," says Ellsberg, "get serious about impeachment." Millions of Americans are doing just that.

Interesting idea -- why pick one, when you can legally and ethically have both? If you're going to dream, dream big.

Posted by john mcnamara | July 7, 2007 4:23 PM

Joe Public might be in favor of impeachment, but that doesn't mean he wants Congress to make it a priority.

The danger in pursuing this course of action is not only that it's not likely to get enough votes. It's also that it will take time away from what people want them to actually do, which is get us the heck out of Mess-opotamia. As MY points out, Bush is blocking this agenda quite handily, but Joe Public isn't paying that close attention.

Posted by ProfD | July 7, 2007 4:34 PM

And impeachment is not just a partisan fringe issue now. Forty percent of Independents favored impeachment and removal in that Rasmussen Poll. Take that David Broder.

Posted by Ben Brackley | July 7, 2007 4:44 PM

I think we should let Conyers be Conyers! The point is not removal - it's just impeachment. As Matt opines, 67 Senators would never vote to remove. But that shouldn't stop the effort.

Murtha and Skelton and Obey can be working on the appropriations process at the same time as Conyers and Waxman are working on investigating possible impeachment. It is possible to do multiple things at once.

And pursuing impeachment, in my view, is far more favorable than fighting the executive privilege issue in court after a contempt of Congress citation. And we can do both there too, as was done in Watergate (with Cox/Jaworski and Ervin/Rodino accepting separately).

Posted by patroclus | July 7, 2007 5:26 PM

An overlooked reason for impeaching Bush and Cheney together is the huge overlap in the bill of particulars. For the most part it is acts in which both men were complicit. Separate impeachments would waste much time on redundancy, violating what in a purely legal context is called 'judicial economy'.

We shouldn't worry much about winning in the Senate. That's very unlikely anyway, and even less likely to happen before Bush's term is nearly over. The important thing is to get the facts on record, and hold the wrongdoers accountable before history.

Posted by David Tomlin | July 7, 2007 5:39 PM

I gotta go with patroclus--don't fret about the outcome. Let them bleed politically from all the revelations for 18 months. Then criminally prosecute Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Gonzales after 1/20/09.

Posted by calling all toasters | July 7, 2007 5:44 PM

Winning the congressional majority wasn't enough! Let's put Bush on Cheney to the racks! Sheesh!

Posted by Donald Douglas | July 7, 2007 5:48 PM

Impeach Cheney. It is easier. It is popular. He is even worse than Bush.

If Cheney was booted out Bush in all probably be chastened and scared, with that smirk permanently washed off of his face. Let him serve out the rest of his term.

If instead he hardens and becomes even worse (extreme case, he keeps Cheney on as an 'advisor', then go after Bush as well.

Potential downsides:

1. Cheney has a heart attack and dies, generating sysmpathy anda backlash.

2. Bush makes Condi veep (she would pass in the Senate) and she comports herself exceptionally well and becomes strongest Republican presidential candidate.

Posted by tomtom | July 7, 2007 6:00 PM

Be careful what you wish for. Since we're letting our imaginations run here, what if Bush (frying pan) waited until early next year and resigned? President Cheney (fire) could nominate Giuliani to be VP. Senator Lieberman could flip to the GOP side and vote for him.

Posted by Fred | July 7, 2007 6:09 PM

Re: The problem is that the VP doesn't have any independent legal authority from the President.

So what? Let's say we had a vice-president that broke laws without any involvement from the president, who was as outraged as everyone else. Furthermore that VP refused to resign. Would it not be appropriate to impeach the VP while leaving the innocent president alone? The Founders certainly envisioned the possibility.

Re: It's also that it will take time away from what people want them to actually do, which is get us the heck out of Mess-opotamia

Do you really think we're going to get out of Iraq before Bush leaves office? I think we'd have a better chance of finding W dancing in his undies at the next Miami White Party.

Posted by JonF | July 7, 2007 6:13 PM

This is an example of too much analysis. You don't need to think too much about it. You just pick a new plan, Stan. The best route is to simply begin the impeachment process and let the chips fall where they may.

Posted by Garuda | July 7, 2007 6:30 PM

I don't understand- in this fantasy where we impeach Cheney and Bush, what's so bad about making Pelosi the Prez? Why would that be bad for Democrats?

Posted by Dan | July 7, 2007 6:38 PM

This thread demonstrates my point. Why be rational? Why actually think about it? Hatred blinds reason! Who care who takes the helm after Bush is dead and buried? Cheney will be just as easy to dispose. Besides, we need more cut-and-run leadership: Pelosi in the White House, and Murtha for Secretary of Defense! Sheesh.

Posted by Donald Douglas | July 7, 2007 6:52 PM

This bit about not doing anything until you're sure you'll succeed is for the birds.

Start the impeachment process, and we'll learn stuff that will make even Republican senators vote for impeachment.

The public is probably not too impressed with this Congress precisely because there has been no impeachment move. I think there is a growing realization that the Bushies have no more ability to govern than they do to tell the truth.

Yes, it is unfortunate that over the past 60 years the president has developed dictatorial powers. It is sad that so many congressmen are so accustomed to this situation that they can hardly imagine doing their jobs. That doesn't mean that they can just sit around and watch the country go to hell in a handbasket.

The Congress is not a very good way to run a country, but it's one of the better ways to run a country i>democratically, and way better than a dictatorship, like the one we just tried.

That dictator thing has so not worked.

Posted by serial catowner | July 7, 2007 6:55 PM

...white noise...

Posted by Donald Douglas | July 7, 2007 6:57 PM

I think we should just wait until '09, and put the lot in jail for ever. They are already politically crippled. If the Dems had any balls (fat chance) they could use this time of the "conservative" rot for good purposes. Impeachment is a side show now.

Posted by M. Carey | July 7, 2007 7:00 PM

If impeachment of both becomes a foregone conclusion (e.g., Nixon resigning a head of the actual removal vote), a deal can be struck whereby:

Cheney resigns,

Bush appoints Gates as VP,

Senate approves Gates as VP,

Bush resigns.

Gates, an acceptable consensus choice Republican, becomes President.

This could all happen in an afternoon, or morning if you prefer.

Posted by erict | July 7, 2007 7:17 PM

One point that gets overlooked is that the Speaker of the House doesn't have to be a Congressman. So as part of a double impeachment deal, Pelosi could resign, and the House Democrats could elect a Republican elder statesman (Bob Dole?) Speaker, who would then serve a year or so as a caretaker President.

A more likely scenario is that Cheney gets impeached first, then Bush nominates a new VP. In fact, its almost impossible to imagine a scenario where the Speaker of the House becomes President, though I think some order of succession has to be spelled out.

It also is increasingly appearing that Bush is a puppet, so removing the puppetmaster might be enough. One scary thought I've been having is that Cheney might be capable of murdering Bush, if the latter started acting too independently.

Posted by Ed | July 7, 2007 7:18 PM

I'll take this opportunity to make a prediction. It's based on an observation Churchill made on the Americans, and I think of it every day: "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing . . . after they've tried everything else."

So, I say we lose a division in Iraq. That is not the wish following the thought. That is, rather, a foreseeable consequence of the complete ineptitude and incompetence with which this administration has pursued this ill-conceived, stupid war.

Once we've lost a division or some kind of calamity on that scale occurs, only THEN will impeachment (by which I mean dual impeachment, for there is no way you can really separate Bush and Cheney, as they are guilty of the same crimes) "be on the table."

When it's too fucking late, in other words.

Posted by chuck | July 7, 2007 7:22 PM

Keep in mind Rasmussen has GOP friendly poll numbers. They have consistently show Bush numbers higher than the other polls.

Posted by DonB | July 7, 2007 7:32 PM

If you don't impeach these guys (and Gonzales, too - start with him, in fact) - what good is the impeachment power? Gingrich et. al. trivialized the impeachment power in the 90s by using it; we would trivialize it now by not using it now.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 7, 2007 7:56 PM

Erict:

You left out a step: who do you imagine President Gates nominates as his new VP?

Chuck:

An army division has ~10k troops. We have suffered approx. 3,600 KIA so far in Iraq. In what scenario do you imagine we suddenly "lose" a division?

Posted by Fred | July 7, 2007 8:00 PM

I'd just like to interject that this talk about how President Rice would be a formidable incumbent candidate is the purest moonshine. The woman has never shown the slightest glimmer of political charisma, and she would be a black, unmarried woman running within a party whose base is the old confederacy. The idea that the fundies are going to turn out to vote for her is just nuts.

It's also nuts to imagine that W will voluntarily resign and turn his office over to anyone (even uncle Dick). IMHO, even in the event of a successful impeachment I think you'd need to have troops ready to dig the SOB out of the oval office (yes he's that stubborn and delusional).

Posted by jimBOB | July 7, 2007 8:19 PM

Here's what's wrong with all of those predictions that you will never get the votes for impeachment.

You can't say that unless you know what would come out of the investigation and trial that would go along with impeachment. Impeachment can be brought with a simple majority, which the Democrats have without any help from the Republicans. An impeachment investigation would have discovery powers that the president would be defenseless to stop. All kinds of stuff could come out. All kinds of people could be implicated and be worried about criminal charges that could come even after 2008 based on the record established in the impeachment investigation and trial.

Spare me the bullshit prophecy about how a vote would or wouldn't go after a real investigation. How in the world do you know what smoking guns would emerge? How do you know how the Republicans would vote in the face of smoking gun evidence? Imagine what vulnerable Republican candidates facing re-election in 2008 or 2010 would think about the posibility that they would be held accountable for thwarting a deserved impeachment that had been proved with smoking gun evidence.

Moreover, even if you didn't get the Republican votes in the Senate, there is great benefit merely from getting the facts out. If Bush were proven guilty and then only got off because of a partisan vote by Republican senators this would be a great measure of accountability even if not the fully deserved measure of accountability.

Your prophecies are worthless and pernicious.

Posted by Junius Brutus | July 7, 2007 8:22 PM

Be careful what you wish for. Since we're letting our imaginations run here, what if Bush (frying pan) waited until early next year and resigned? President Cheney (fire) could nominate Giuliani to be VP. Senator Lieberman could flip to the GOP side and vote for him.

That scenario sounds plausible enough for the Senate, where the division of power is so close, but it's a lot less close in the House. A prospective vice president nominated under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment has to be confirmed by both houses.

Posted by navamske | July 7, 2007 8:34 PM

Chuck:

good point.

the deal has to include that Gates will pick Hagel or Lugar as his VP.

Will that work?

Posted by erict | July 7, 2007 8:47 PM

We are pretty much in untrodden waters here. Cheney, being the fourth branch of government, might not be subject to impeachment. I believe his lawyer claimed that, in the case of impeachment, the Cheney branch reserves the right to kidnap senators and take them to undisclosed locations where they can be robustly interrogated about the security risk they pose to the war on terror.

Also, I believe Addington has mentioned that, in case of impeachment and/or if Democrats illegitimately use their majority of the votes cast in the next presidential election as an excuse to actually claim the office of the president, Cheney will hold the world hostage, with various stored nuclear missiles, unless he receives the sum of .... one ... million ... dollars!

Posted by roger | July 7, 2007 8:48 PM

God, I love it when conservative trolls--who support a party that opposes science at essentially every turn--talk about "reason".

If a Democratic President were to make the slightest mistake, the Republicans in DC would do everything in their power to impeach. We have a Republican President that has made a ridiculous amount of huge mistakes, and the Democrats in DC are still too timid to make a move.

Posted by Nobody Important | July 7, 2007 8:51 PM

One thing that Matt didn't mention about that Rasmussen Poll is how fast the pro-impeachment vote seems to be rising -- Independents, who 18 months ago opposed it by 21 points, now oppose it by only 5. Another year, and there may be unquestioned majority support for it smack in the middle of the next Republican's campaign for President. (American voters under 30 already support it by an 56-38 landslide.)

In any case, it seems to me that the Dems are perfectly justified in opening an impeachment investigation, even though our disastrously misdesigned Constitution would prevent Bush and Cheney from actually being removed from office if they were seen eating live babies on television. The beneficial side effects of such an investigation might even include two or three very seriously needed new Constitutional amendments.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | July 7, 2007 8:52 PM

u have to get ur facts straight because this report from American Research Group says that, 45% support impeachment, 54% when it comes to Dick Cheney

if impeaching Bush means Cheney as a President then it will bring bigger disaster, so impeach them both but having Rice as a President isn't good either...perfect catch 22 situation

bhumika
US news desk,the newsroom

Posted by bhumika | July 7, 2007 9:01 PM

Fred wrote:
"An army division has ~10k troops. We have suffered approx. 3,600 KIA so far in Iraq. In what scenario do you imagine we suddenly "lose" a division?"

The Iraq invasion and occupation was/is so reckless with disastrous consequences foreseeable at all times.

However, perhaps the most reckless move is to concentrate most of US soldiers in a small, hostile, tinder box area, add a few carriers with thousands additional soldiers, and you are creating risk of the losses you described-- by a few big bombs intentional or accidental, by foe, ally or friendly's.

Reason would dictate that you only assume this type of risk as a last resort where the survival of the nation is at stake.

But we are not dealing with reason. Bush has been pathetically manipulated by exploiting his good/evil limited intellect and his lazy, messianic default mode. No need for much strategic or tactical analysis with that state of mind.

He is like a compulsive drunk gambler mortgaging the house and continuing to doubling down on bets with horrible odds.

Posted by erict | July 7, 2007 9:30 PM

The thing to do is to impeach Bush and Cheney on a dual docket...

I'm proud to claim authorship of the term "simulpeachment" all the way back in 2005, with exactly this scenario in mind.

Posted by low-tech cyclist (formerly RT) | July 7, 2007 9:32 PM

The only realistic option is defenestration.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 7, 2007 10:00 PM

Roger wrote:

“Cheney will hold the world hostage, with various stored nuclear missiles, unless he receives the sum of .... one ... million ... dollars!”

Interestingly, Cheney's daughter got $1 million advance for a book that ended up selling 666 copies.

A coincidence or a sophisticated kick back?

Also, if you could shrink Cheney down to two feet he would look a lot like Minnie Me

Posted by erict | July 7, 2007 10:20 PM

Has anyone bothered to read the rules (the Constitution) with regard to this issue?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.

"U.S. Constitution

"Amendment XXV

"Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President."

"Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."
...

Says here that the President can nominate anyone he chooses to be vice-president, provided that he (or she) be ratified by a majority of both Houses of the Congress. In theory, he could nominate Popeye the Sailor, if the majority of the Houses ratified him.

In reality, it would probably be much different, with a delegation of senior members of Congress consulting with the president prior to the nomination, but there's no guarantee of that, at least with this crew!

My own personal preference would be the nomination of a highly-qualified person who would agree to not seek election as president or vice-president. People like Colin Powell, James Baker, Chuck Hagel come to mind, just among those who would be acceptable to the Republican Party.

And there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the vice-president can be impeached:

"U.S. Constitution

"Article 2.

"Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

There is also absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the Presidency and the Congress have lost the confidence of the American public, at least as represented in the last of several public opinion polls.

Whenever this happens--whenever the Congress and the Presidency become so out-of-touch with the public--there is an out available to the public. We do have the alternative of convening a Constitutional Convention for the purposes of proposing amendments to the Constitution (which would ostensibly "fix" whatever is wrong or broken with the system.

And there's plenty that's "broke" with the way this government works.

James Hogan

Posted by james Hogan | July 7, 2007 11:21 PM

Re: That is not the wish following the thought. That is, rather, a foreseeable consequence of the complete ineptitude and incompetence with which this administration has pursued this ill-conceived, stupid war.

I rather disagree. The military is not infected with the ineptitude of the Bush administration. There is no possibility we will suffer a military disaster, moreover there is no force opposing us capable on inflicting such a disaster. The Iraqi insurgents are not the Wehrmacht or the Red Army. They're a wildly disorganized guerilla rabble generally more interested in murdering other Iraqis than US soldiers. They'll pick off US soldiers if they find them vulnerable, but as a rule they go after defenseless civilians preferrably. The US is suffering, and will continue to suffer through 2008, a political disaster because of Iraq, but outright military defeat is not on the table.

Re: Says here that the President can nominate anyone he chooses to be vice-presiden

Not quite. The VP must meet the age and citizenship requirements elsewhere given for the executive office.

Posted by JonF | July 7, 2007 11:53 PM

just as a brief matter of historic perspective, the one impeachment that would have led to a sucessful conviction (nixon) was based on the existence of a type of republican who no longer exists in congress, someone who puts country above party.

peter rodino made it perfectly clear that the articles of impeachment were going to be drafter by the moderate republicans on the judiciary committee, which is part of why the invasion of cambodia and the cheating on income taxes didn't make it.

there isn't a single republican congressperson today who would even take seriously the thought of impeachment, much less conviction.

Posted by howard | July 8, 2007 12:38 AM

Ummmm...Bush cannot fire Cheney. The only people who can force his removal is the Senate by convicting him.

Besides, this is like peeling an onion, you start at the bottom and work your way up, like Tom Dewey and the mobbed up NY waterfront.

Posted by Matthew Saroff | July 8, 2007 12:40 AM

The House votes to impeach Bush AND Cheney but before the Senate votes Pelosi takes a temporary leave of absence as Speaker and by prior arrangement a 2007 version of Gerald Ford is selected, perhaps with a vow NOT to run for re-election in 2008.

There is no precedent but there also is no clear authority to say that the Speaker of the House needs to be a member of the House. Thus, the job can be offered to:

Colin Powell;

John Warner;

John McCain (Ha! Ha!);

Chuck Hagel;

General Petreaus?

Matthew Yglesias?

Whoever best floats the boats of 17 GOP Senators.

Posted by Bill White | July 8, 2007 12:45 AM

Am I the only one who thinks that President Cheney might not be such a bad thing? One of the few things Bush has going for him is his charm (not for me, but for the stubborn 20-odd percent who still like him). Cheney is significantly more unpopular than Bush, and if he had to be the spokesman for the Conservative movement, I think that voters would be leaving the Republican Party in even greater droves, and even more Republican congressmen and Democratic fence-sitters would be distancing themselves from him.

Posted by Hong Kong Chevy | July 8, 2007 12:55 AM

Just one more thing.

Slightly off-topic, but while we're talking impeachment, there are a few I would like even more to impeach. I am referring to the last few soulless bastards who the Bushes nominated, and too many Democrats rolled over for. I apologize for calling them bastards -- that gives sex out of wedlock a bad name. Bush will be soon gone, but these people are the gifts who keep giving to the short-term interests of the powerful and against everyone else -- the very definition of conservatism, but the very antithesis of democracy.

Posted by Hong Kong Chevy | July 8, 2007 1:12 AM

Impeach the fuckers already. Why? Not for short-term gain, but to preserve impeachment as a genuine constitutional tool. If Bush can't be impeached, then it's going to be hard justifying impeachment of anyone else. Until, of course, a Democrat gets impeached by a wingnut House in 2085 for farting in public.

One thing that Matt didn't mention about that Rasmussen Poll is how fast the pro-impeachment vote seems to be rising

That's why I'm glad, paradoxically, that the Dems ceremonially took it off the table. The public has to put it back. And the public wants it to be November 2008 tomorrow, and January 2009 on Tuesday. It just wants fucking rid.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 8, 2007 2:14 AM

What is the case for impeachment? Everyone says how awful Bush and Cheney are, but nobody's mentioning which of their actions amount to treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors (as set forth in Art. 11, Sec. 4 of the Constitution). Bush-Cheney hatred is not justification enough.

Posted by Donald Douglas | July 8, 2007 6:28 AM

Bush-Cheney hatred is not justification enough.

Ever hear of Google? The bill of particulars has been under discussion for years.

Investigation may yield more. If it can be shown that Bush or Cheney solicited the crime for which Bush commuted Libby's sentence, that could be grounds for impeachment.

Posted by David Tomlin | July 8, 2007 6:55 AM

OK Impeacho-newbies, first the polls.

The only thing that's changed since the PRE-election Newsweek poll that showed 51% wanted impeachment as a "priority" of the new congress -- with only 44% opposing -- is the Pelosi/Reid "Off The Table" campaign. It -- and their recent public displays of spinelessness -- has had a slightly more than marginal effect.

The thing to look at in these polls is that 30% of Dems currently "oppose." Presumably following DC "leaders." They'd flip (or flip-flop) overnight with a signal from above. So, the REAL impeachment DEMAND is at least 10 points higher. Yes, a majority -- for at least 8 months -- some "fringe."

Now, to all the "gaming it out."

The "only cheney" option is idiotic impotence. Deadeye Dick don't rule by virtue of his "stinkin' VP badge." There are no actual puppet strings to cut. It needs to be both.

Succession is not a problem. Simply do cheney's Senate trial first. If convicted, Congress confirms the new VP -- Danforth or Warner -- unanimously. The bushkid can then resign or be booted.

Senate conviction in "fantasyland?" Perhaps. But first, irrelevant. Failure to impeach is complicity -- approval -- exoneration of the regime. A far far worse result than a noble attempt to defend the core constitutional values of our once-great nation. The formally voiced objection is what the public/electorate demanded.

Second, the Senate has already voted 90-9 in favor of the McCain Anti-Torture Law, sadly -- and impeachably -- negated via Rule By Signing Statement. Impeachophobes fully expect 30-plus Senators to stand before the nation and history to defend torture and war crimes, spying on Americans without a warrant, and/or terrorizing the nation with a bomb threat of "Mushroom Clouds!"

Who's really in fantasyland?

I say we had better well find out. And soon.

--

Posted by thedeanpeople | July 8, 2007 7:06 AM

Dual impeachment = Byrd presidency.

Need the argument go any further? How hilarious would that be? Kind of like a bizarre, US version of King Ralph. Except with a West Virginia dixiecrat fossil instead of a Vegas lounge singer.

Call Mrs. Gallup and Zogby. With enough media attention we can make this thing happen. America needs to laugh again.

Posted by Sam | July 8, 2007 7:53 AM

Re: Am I the only one who thinks that President Cheney might not be such a bad thing?

A president Cheney would probably start a war with Iran. Bush at least either has a wit of sense in his brain, or else can be talked out of that idea by Condi Rice, etc.

Posted by Jonf | July 8, 2007 8:30 AM

Republican's are extraordinarily resistant to the facts despite overwhelming evidence in the news about Republican Dick Cheney: http://havenworks.com/people/a-z/c/cheney-dick

Posted by Not Cheney | July 8, 2007 8:33 AM

What is the case for impeachment?

warrantless wiretapping

Posted by novakant | July 8, 2007 9:41 AM

Apparently, there's nothing that's impeachment worthy. Lying us into war. Defalcating $12 billion. Ignoring habeas corpus. Torture. Treason. None of that's impeachment worthy.

We live in rotten times.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 8, 2007 11:30 AM

Not persuaded yet. Warrantless wiretapping is a legal matter, currently being adjudicated in the courts. Obviously not high crimes, etc,. impeachment advocates to the contrary. Bush has got 18 months left, and the left's salivation is bubbling over. It's politics by other means -- let's punish the administration for its ambitious agenda. The Libby case, Cheney's Fourth Branch? All matters that will be handled through the normal checking and balancing function across the branches, and ultimately by the voters. Google? Sheesh! Like we haven't heard enough already from the seething left punditocracy.

Posted by Donald Douglas | July 8, 2007 1:23 PM

Not persuaded yet.

What do you mean 'yet'? You will never be. You're not interested in being. Pretty obvious.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 8, 2007 2:24 PM

The Cheney impeachment route provides the additional poetic justice of being a slap in the face of Jr.

It basically says, "Look, you are beneath our contempt and an empty suit. You can finish out your term playing the deciderer on TV, but you come ask us if you want something"

Posted by Thunderlips | July 8, 2007 3:25 PM

Bravo, thedeanpeople.

We need to impeach these two simply because, by the constitution, these two have committed high crimes. Period. Forget about the rest of it, the political circus, etc.

The American people, the world, and our posterity will not suffer these two to pass through office unopposed. They must be impeached, or all politicians from here to eternity will believe they can enact these abomonations unscathed.

Posted by smoof | July 8, 2007 3:33 PM

There is a flavor of accountability no one here is talking about, namely the electoral kind. If the GOP becomes so toxic they are unable to elect another President for decades, this will leave a very big impression of politicians of the future. Accomplishing this means Democrats must hang Bush around every Republican's neck for many years to come.

I'm not saying this is a sure thing. But it is true that no matter what crap Bushco is able to skate on, if they put their party in the toilet for a LONG time, then their successors will think twice before acting the same way.

Posted by jimBOB | July 8, 2007 4:35 PM

So, impeachment will make this congress less popular? sure didn't work out that way for the last congress to impeach a prez-- they ended up with a majority in both houses after that.

saying it's a bad idea because people won't approve of the dems for doing it sounds a lot like concern trolling to me.

Posted by jrcjr | July 8, 2007 6:11 PM

Congress is unpopular largely because they haven't ended the war and haven't impeached Bush and Cheney.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 8, 2007 7:01 PM

Re: sure didn't work out that way for the last congress to impeach a prez-- they ended up with a majority in both houses after that.

No, they didn't. They lost seats in the elections of 1998 and 2000.

Posted by Jonf | July 8, 2007 7:16 PM

Nancy Pelosi better move to impeach -- or else! That's the message from Cindy Sheehan: Sheehan considers a challenge to Pelosi

This thread makes me wonder how long our governments would average if we had a parliamentary system. I'm guessing we'd go through governments as fast as Italy in the old days.

Posted by Fred | July 8, 2007 8:09 PM

Re: sure didn't work out that way for the last congress to impeach a prez-- they ended up with a majority in both houses after that.
No, they didn't. They lost seats in the elections of 1998 and 2000.

They lost seats because the Clinton impeachment was bogus. They also lost seats because of their other horseshit (Gov. shutdown, etc.).

Posted by jonnybutter | July 8, 2007 9:41 PM

Donald Douglas,

Warrantless wiretapping on American citizens for the purpose of foreign intelligence surveilance is a legal matter because it is a crime. It is a direct violation of the FISA law, which was passed by Congress. Violating an act of Congress like FISA is the very definition of a high crime or misdeamenor. Put it this way; if commiting perjury about a blowjob establishes the minimum threahold of an impeachable offense, anything worse than that is also impeachable. No matter how you Dubya apologists try to spin it, the failure of the chief executive to execute a law passed by Congress is a worse offense than lying about a blowjob.

Posted by Mike Flores | July 9, 2007 12:23 AM

Impeach Gonzales first.

Congress has unfinished business with Gonzo and the process will unearth further material which might -- just possibly -- persuade some of the 20 "Republican"/Monarchist Senators facing reelection next year that they need to repudiate His Imperial Majesty.

Posted by STS | July 9, 2007 2:38 AM

As a conservative, I applaud you for encouraging the Congress to begin impeachment proceedings. I can think of nothing more likely to ensure Democratic defeat in 2008. Bring it on, baby!

Posted by DBL | July 9, 2007 9:30 AM

Mike Flores: The public didn't back the Clinton impeachment, and neither did I. It's all political -- forget the polls, which are cooked in any case. There no case against Bush. Bush hatred explains it, and it's kinda sad, dontcha think? Bush/Cheny have only got 18 months left. You'll be crying your eyeballs out with no one left to pillory!

Posted by Donald Douglas | July 9, 2007 10:17 AM

Re: They also lost seats because of their other horseshit (Gov. shutdown, etc.).

No doubt there were several reasons the GOP lost seats in 1998, but I was alive and well and politically aware in that year, and I definitely recall the public as a whole being seriously disgusted by the GOP's Monicagate circus. Clinton's popularity actually increased during that period!

Posted by JonF | July 9, 2007 12:25 PM

...thus making Secretary of State Rice the heir apparent...

but, uh, the secretary of (un?)intended consequences should be impeached and removed also

Posted by tofubo | July 9, 2007 6:47 PM

This coversation reminds me of ten year olds discussing whether King Kong could beat Mothra in a fight.

Posted by edh | July 9, 2007 8:22 PM

No one is taking Bush and Cheney's crime seriously enough. These men are war criminals. They torture and murder people -- innocent and guilty. A couple of years ago the number of detainees who had died in custody was over 100, and even the military acknowledged that twenty-some were homicides. Bush and Cheney kidnap people and hold them in prisons -- some of them secret prisons -- without filing charges against them. Their crimes against Padilla -- torturing him into insanity -- are greater than his against the U.S. -- even if he is guilty. Bush and Cheney should have been impeached the first time that they kept someone in prison past the few days permitted without filing charges. Now we've moved past that. Bush and Cheney should be sent to the Hague for trial as a war criminals. Who cares about impeachment? Impeachment is for ordinary high crimes and misdemeanors such as wiretapping without a warrant, not for kidnapping, torture, and murder.

Posted by Henry | July 9, 2007 9:01 PM

Robert C. Byrd can be my president if he promised to make Barack Obama his vice president.

Posted by Puddy Katz | July 9, 2007 9:28 PM

This is the way it should be done. I sent a similar e-mail to Keith Olbermann and Andrew Sullivan in May as well as my congressmaen, Nancy Pelosi, etc, etc.

Part I - the 'R' Word

I am a Democrat, but I am an American first and I truly believe that our government in its present form cannot address the issue of Iraq. terrorism nor almost any other issue in a coherent manner. I also believe that we do not have another twenty gut-churning months to ignore their dysfunctional state. What solution will present itself at that time that cannot be better taken care of now?

It seems that neither party can, on its own, step outside of their standard mode of operations. Fear paralyzes them; the fear of losing an election, the fear of taking responsibility and the fear of any challenge to whatever power they have. They cannot and will not see that the problem of this war and our dysfunctional executive branch cannot be solved by tinkering around the edges with endless nattering about benchmarks, deadlines, war funding and who will be our next president. The issue is not $0, $50 or $100 billion of funding. It is the fact that we have lost our standing in the world and a great measure of our strength and, because of this, our ability to deal with the issues we face. Our military is strained beyond reason, yet we still have an obligation to try and fix the mess we have made. There is a solution and it is the only one that will make a difference. It has surely been considered and cast aside many times by my timid party. The fact that the unraveling of Iraq and the disintegration of the Bush administration is actually advantageous to Democrats makes a rational unified way forward nearly impossible. This dynamic must be changed if any progress is to be made. Democratic campaigns are well served by this crippled administration; the nation is not. It is almost maddening to hear the endless talk of the presidential races. Does anyone realize how far off that is? They act like the election is this fall. It is a year from this fall and the only thing relevant about Clinton, Obama, McCain, etc. at this time is their power as senators. They must use it!

The Congress is obligated by their oath to assume the mantle of responsibility given to them by the Founders and stand up to this renegade Executive. Only politics and fear are standing in the way of duty. If they put the country first, there is no other choice than to remove this president and his cabinet or go down in flames trying. They have met every criteria of impeachment including violating and misleading the nation into a disastrous war. This action can be swift as soon as the Democrats make up their minds and fortify their guts. It is the only way to salvage something out of the war they, however unwittingly, helped launch. Organizations such as Moveon and Take Back America can hammer and hammer away at this until a public pressure develops and the Congress finally accepts its responsibility.

When the Congress decides to act, they must first gain some kind of credibility after their weak efforts on addressing this issue. As part of this, the Democrats must create their own version of ‘shock and awe’. The leadership must demand the Democratic presidential candidates suspend any participation in the presidential race immediately and start focusing on what is best for this country. However improbable this sounds, it is what should be done. It will be threatening to dreams of future power but the problem is now, not 18 months from now. The suspension of the race will suck the wind out of the irrelevant political yammering and focus the talking heads, press and hopefully the nation on the very serious moves that must take place. It will empower the Democrats to move forward as nothing else could.

As the congressional Democrats refocus their energy and efforts to that of salvaging our wrecked government and foreign policy, they will be able to enlist more Republicans in their rescue work than any conventional wisdom would allow. It is absolutely possible to attain the resignation of the President and his enablers if it is done ruthlessly and swiftly. The inevitably of impeachment, trial and conviction will be enough. There are several iron-clad impeachable offenses that almost everyone can now recite. Only the absolute certainty that impeachment will be used will ensure that it will not be needed. The great irony in this situation is that a majority of the Republicans, after some ‘Democrat’ bashing, will leap at the chance to remove this millstone from their party’s neck and will complete the super majority. They will see their redemption and rehabilitation in this action and actually become the more eager actor. The courage, however, must come from the Democrats in the knowledge that in removing this Executive, they will surely be helping the Republicans. They will be helping the nation more and that should be the only calculus. This will require a determination and strength that the country has not witnessed in Congress for many years and the lack of which makes the disgust run so deep. If the resolve is mustered from somewhere in the bowels of this sheepish body to rein in the Democratic presidential aspirants, who benefit so much from this weakened Presidency and will surely fight this action, the earth will shake underneath the White House.

The march up to the White House by Congressional leaders of both parties will be a day for the history books. The weakened Executive will give in to all demands and step down because the power of a resolute Congress will give them no choice. They do understand the workings of power, if nothing else. As part of the process, Cheney must be made to step down first and a new VP selected to address the fears of a Cheney or Pelosi presidency. The new VP/President would have to be a Republican to make this work. It might be someone like Defense Secretary Robert Gates or James Baker; someone who is familiar with Iraq, diplomacy and who, ostensibly, has the experience to guide the country. It would be nice to have a promise from that person not to run in 2008, but that is probably not enforceable. Democrats will just have to take their chances, but again, their obligation to the people is not re-election but to construct an effective government now.

The new cabinet should be bi-partisan so that a unity government is assured and justified public suspicion further ameliorated. The possibilities for this executive branch are breathtaking if it employs the most experienced and pragmatic negotiators, peace makers and war fighters from all parties.

Most importantly, America can renew herself before a startled, yet immensely relieved world. No longer will our allies and much of this nation withhold their valuable resources in a desire to see this strange and destructive administration fail. The delight of watching the hated American executive branch twist into oblivion will no longer affect decision-making across the globe. The only logical benefit to our allies and even many of our foes will be to find solutions rather than abet the situation in Iraq and the entire Middle East. Congress will be able move ahead with a level of respect and support that it will hardly know what to do with and with a common cause in Iraq, rather than half of the government hoping for and benefiting from failure. As for as the next president; campaigning can resume after the nation’s business is taken care of. How the new government can change the Iraq dynamic is a further item of discussion.

Next - Part II - How the new government can change the Iraq dynamic

Our divisiveness on Iraq and other issues makes us almost as weak in our standing before the world as our rejection of Habeas Corpus and our condoning of torture. If this is truly a time of war as the White House insists, our government should be seen to be of one mind before our allies and adversaries. Again, this simply cannot be accomplished under the present administration which seeks only to divide, yet it actually can and will be accomplished when American capabilities are welcomed back into the government. This will require utilizing the best minds and negotiators America has regardless of party affiliation. The reconstituted American unity government will proceed to tackle Iraq with the European allies back on board and perhaps other nations as a result of the success of our regenerated diplomatic capability. Our strengthened position will be projected toward the Middle East and will be far more impressive, if not welcome, to the local powers than our present distracted and incoherent state. Progress will once again be possible.

In Iraq, we must stop pretending like we are not an occupier and as long as we are one, act like one. We should move out the American private sector as fast as possible. The dream of Iraq as the perfect capitalist state will have to wait awhile. Funds going to American companies and mercenaries will then go to a CCC and WPA type jobs and construction programs employing every Iraqi male possible to rebuild the country. These men must have an alternative to the militias and they must have decent salaries. Employing every eligible Iraqi will cost us less than fighting them, even if the jobs are minimal at first. The government must be officially subservient to us during this process. This administration keeps bringing us the comparison to the Japanese or Korean occupations. It is nothing of the kind, but we must stop pretending we have a government there and be the adult until Iraqi governance is possible. "Stuff happens" is not a strategically defensible approach.

The ethnic cleansing and killing of civilians must be stopped. The Green Zone should be opened up to those who seek haven from torture and death at the hands of the militias and thugs. They will be welcomed there, fed and housed, until the situation becomes more stable outside. All of the American bases should also be opened up to refugees as safe havens. Iraqi’s must see the American installations as places of sanctuary rather than occupation. Other safe havens will be created throughout the nation so that threatened Iraqis are in the islands of protection rather than government officials and contractors. The symbolism will be almost as powerful as the action. The government must be relocated out in the community, whatever the danger. There will be protection, of course, but not in the concrete and barb-wire compounds that must be so alienating to the Iraqi people. Again, courage is required.

Our soldiers, while they are still there, will go out with the new workers to protect them while they do their jobs. The workers ranks will swell and rebuilding will actually happen. Good money for hard work under secure conditions will be irresistible to those who need to feel worthwhile and support their loved ones and their culture. As everyone knows, many young men are in the militias because they have no future anywhere else. We must help them find a future.

At some point, when we are believable again, the United Nations, NATO and other entities will enter into this effort at stabilizing the nation. The goal should be to gradually turn the place into blue helmets.

We must also start to deal with the enormous Iraqi refugee problem instead of pretending that it doesn’t exist. Repatriation must be the long term goal but pragmatism in protection, food and shelter must be first. We must help in the refugee camps in Syria and Jordan and be seen to do so. Meanwhile, as the world sees us acting like America rather than some crazed imperialist power, they will begin to support the efforts to wage peace in Iraq. Our diplomats will sit with the neighbors in the region. Hard diplomacy will ferret out what each nation is after and concessions on all sides will be made. Iran and Syria will lose much of the support they have for creating havoc from outsiders no longer as antagonistic towards us. Iran must be respected as a democracy however flawed and the totally ineffectual Axis of Evil doctrine must be revoked. It seems that any country can wind up once in a while with a crazy president and or activist mullahs or even activist ministers and judges. The question is 'what do they do about it?'

Our diplomacy must be ruthlessly pragmatic in the goal of pacifying this area and fighting terror tactics. A result of our transformed approach will be more hope for Israel and Palestine. The same program of providing good paying productive jobs might be applied to young Palestinian men and women with some of the billions of dollars that are now pouring into our totally inept effort in Iraq. This and the billions more we will coax from the petro-neighbors can help to transform those nations as well. We must understand that it is the nature of a man or woman with a family to support and protect it above all else. We must tap into that instinct which is stronger than anything terrorist groups can offer. There will also be much more hope for worldwide cooperation in fighting both terrorists and that dynamic which creates terrorists. America’s dramatic action in cleaning its own house will be a first and not insignificant step in this battle.

Whether Iraq breaks up or forms a loose Federal system will be determined in a totally different atmosphere. Whether it becomes an Islamic Republic like Iran or the perfect capitalist free state as was envisioned by the neocons or, more likely, something we don't even foresee is truly not our decision. We will deal with Turkey, Iran and other concerned nations if a Kurdistan is created. The difference is that we will not longer feel helpless to make things happen. We will have the respect, power and intelligence to make true progress. We will no longer fear but accept the fact that the nations in the region must take their own evolutionary path. We will once again understand that, inevitably, if we guide by example and moral force, freedom will spread.

Once we and our allies stabilize the region and our struggle against terrorists becomes more rational and effective, we can turn more energy to our own issues of health care, trade, immigration, education, energy independence, access to space, the national debt and many other needs that have been in a state of neglect in these past few years of paralysis and incompetence. As we proceed out of our time warp into the 21st century, we will do so with the most respected congress in many, many years, because the courageous rather than the political decision was made.

We need a new government; now. Our Founders gave us the means, but we have to find the courage.

Posted by james clare woodside | July 9, 2007 9:59 PM

Impeaching Cheney is only worth doing if you have criminal proceedings to follow them up with. Impeachment would probably run the course of Clinton's, leaving him in power. What we need is a situation where Bush can no longer shield him, but we can't take the risk of bringing down Bush and leaving Cheney standing. Let's face it, Cheney is the brains of this operation; Bush is just the Halloween mask.

Posted by Edward-O | July 9, 2007 10:03 PM

I can't believe people still think that impeaching Cheney AND Bush will result in Pelosi becoming President, it will never happen.

The minute the impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney gain traction and look like they will go some where here's what will happen.

1. Cheney will resign from office.
2. Bush will pardon him.
3. Bush will appoint a new VP (a Republican).
4. As soon as the new VP is in office Bush will resign.
5. The new President will pardon Bush.
6. The new President will start a search for a new VP.

The elections will arrive before a new VP is found and we'll vote in our new President.

At NO point in time will a Democrat, any Democrat, ever be anywhere near the Oval Office till after the election.

Posted by Tim Who? | July 9, 2007 10:27 PM

JonF wrote:

But there is a political danger here: Bush would appoint someone reasonably popular, or at least completely unstained with his administration's sins and follies, as Nixon did with Ford-- and that person would be thus anointed the GOP front-runner in 2008, changing the dynamic of the election entirely.

I write:

How is this a danger? Force Bush to annoint a successor. . .he's so unpopular it will be the kiss of death. The best chance a GOP candidate has of winning is by distancing himself from W.

Posted by phosphorious | July 9, 2007 11:10 PM

The VP doesn't have any independent authority? Um ... REALLY?

Posted by Bram R | July 10, 2007 1:59 AM

Yes, Gerald Ford was such a strong front runner in 1976.....not. Impeach Cheney, tell Congressmen you'll accept Chuck Hagel as Veep, impeach Bush if there's time. Having Bush's blessing is certainly a curse for modern times.

Posted by Desider | July 10, 2007 2:13 AM

This is all just soooooo amusing. Why not just be the lynch mob you are at heart? You want the BLOOD, BLOOD, BLOOD of those awful miscreants who dared to oppose your will.

Don't bother with the legal pretenses. Hell, you'll just lose anyways. You can't afford to wait. The world will go to hell if you are denied your will.

And no, you can't have that lollipop or a pony either.

Posted by Chris | July 10, 2007 2:25 AM

For "Tim Who?" --

While I certainly agree with the thrust of your post, I'd just like to interject one possible hitch in the Circular Pardoning Squad scenario.

Your Step #3 is not quite correct. The bushkid will nominate a new VP-2B-POTUS who must be confirmed by the full Congress.

This slight augmentation with -- of all things -- the actual "consent of the governed" (Pop quiz: Last existed in the WH? -- 01/20/01) will likely limit the choice of "healing caretakers" to those I mentioned above (Danforth, Warner). It's not that they wouldn't bulldoze this compost heap under a pardon rug, it's just that neither are the typical bagmen for the Analstocracy and could well shock us with a moral assessment.

Oh, and the bushkid is also unable to issue pardons while he himself is under impeachment. Could be a factor.

---

Posted by thedeanpeople | July 10, 2007 2:35 AM

If impeaching both is not a realistic option - which, unfortunately, it probably is not, then impeaching either one is quite desirable. The biggest problem with the Bush/Cheney years has been an executive branch on steroids; if one of them is not impeached and someone akin to Ron Paul is not elected as the next President, the next President will be able to rely on the Bush/Cheney precedent for all sorts of well-intentioned abuses. The fact is, there are very few humans, let alone politicians, who would voluntarily roll back their own powers once granted.
So, if you impeach either Bush or Cheney, you are sending a message that the Executive Branch is not above the law while effectively rolling back the Executive's powers to their pre-9/11 levels. If that means a President Cheney for a year and a half, then so be it - at least he will be taking office under very difficult circumstances where he will know that he is under a microscope as far as Congress is concerned.

Posted by Mark | July 10, 2007 8:05 AM

What should happen in the unlikely event of a joint Bush/Cheney impeachment and conviction is that President Pelosi (or President Byrd) vow not to run for a full term in the 2008 election. Such a declaration would cut some of the partisan bite out of the removal proceedings, while still keeping the Constitution in tact.

Think back to 1998 when the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton over a sex scandal. Do you think for a minute that Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich or Senate President Pro-Tempore Strom Thurmond would have thought, for even an iota of a second, about giving up the presidency in a scenario that would have removed both President Clinton AND Vice-President Gore from office?

Yeah...neither did I.

Posted by Wayne | July 10, 2007 8:23 AM

And that, of course, is going to get 67 votes in the Senate sometime after they establish congressional representation for flying pigs.

So we should expect President Pelosi soon, then?

Posted by lark | July 10, 2007 6:54 PM

If you want to impeach either Bush or Cheney, then you need at least a plausible case that they have committed some "high crime or misdameanor". Since the entire liberal case against them is "We hate them" that represents something of an obstacle. At least if you want to be seen as undertaking a legal process and not a coup. Given the general nuttiness of the left I suppose that is not really an impediment.

Posted by James | July 11, 2007 3:33 AM

Those clinging to the "never gonna get 67 votes" security blanket/rationalizaton for inaction should consider that the charge is torture/war crimes. (A Federal crime under US Code: Title 18,2441.)

And no "case" has to be made, as the regime "confesses" to this crime -- as they do with illegal spying. They simply "defend" it with euphemistic rhetoric (quaint, extraordinary, dunking) and non sequitur claims of legitimacy under "Urinary Executive**" theory.

In fact, the "case" has already been adjudicated. The USSC ruled in Hamdan 1 that Geneva applies -- therefore YEARS of violations had ALREADY occurred. Also, the Senate voted 90-9 in favor of the McCain Anti-Torture Law -- sadly negated via "Rule By Signing Statement" (aka Senator-Gelding).

Call me a cock-eyed optimist but I still have trouble imagining 30-plus US Senators, even Republicans, standing before the nation, the world, and history to defend war criminals.

"If you chase them, they will run."

----------
** Urinary Executive or Urinary Authoritarian Executive (slang, DCspeak) n., (en)title -- the "newly-discovered," or "inherent" (i.e., faith-based) Constitutional Authority for an appointed ruler (as opposed to elected leader) to piss down the back of the American People and tell them it's raining.

See also, Trickle-Down Economics and Whistling Past The Hague Yard

--

Posted by thedeanpeople | July 11, 2007 2:01 PM