The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:20 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 4:13 pm 
Perhaps it comes from living in what may be the last bastion of Communism in the US (Berkeley, CA), but I've been hearing more and more talk of trying to impeach Bush and Dick. Well, as much as I would love to see the two of them having to punk for Big Tony in Cellblock 42, I just don't see this as a practical strategy - in fact, it is so obviously counter-productive that the paranoid in me (the sub-persona Pope Ulvoh, specifically) wonders if it isn't a setup to distract the radicals from more practical goals.

There seems to be a real misunderstanding about what impeachment means, actually. It isn't some vote to remove the President from office; it is a much more complex process than that, starting with an investigation, then a vote whether to remove protection from prosecution, then a further investigation, then a vote to indict and prosecute (the actual impeachment), and then finally a trial for the alleged crime. Only if the official in question (not just the President, but any major official, including congressmen, judges, and in more recent times, cabinet members) is actually convicted of 'Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors' would they be removed from office - and it is possible that a fairly minor crime would be deemed insufficient for actual removal, if I recall some cases involving congressmen correctly.

In other words, you need to convict. This isn't easy, by any means. First off, you need some pretty damning evidence to get the majority of congress members to vote for an investigation, never mind indictment. Finding that evidence isn't going to be easy; anyone canny enough to reach high office isn't going to leave evidence of a crime just lying around, and Bush and Co. are much smarter than most people give them credit for (indeed, they work very hard at looking less intelligent than they really are, precisely to confuse their opponents).

Even hard evidence is going to be a hard sell, as many if not most of them have their own skeletons in their closets, and and would hesitate to do something that might put their own heads in the noose. Remember the Clinton case? That ended primarily because of Larry Flynt's trick of digging up dirt on the prime movers of the of the investigation - just the threat of scandals was enough to cause several resignations - and Flynt claimed to have (and probably did) enough information to put every single member of both houses, all of the Supreme Court justices, and every major figure in the Clinton Administration in jail for life. When you consider that in light of what I said earlier about how cautious the officials are to hide their actions, it means that there are probably a lot of 'high Crimes and Misdemeanors' going on.

In other words, you would be asking group of over 500 career criminals to convict one of their own. Not likely.

Finally, the impeachment process itself is a long, drawn out affair, and at this point, it would probably take longer just to finish the initial investigation than Bush will be in office. Why bother, at that point, unless you have something really extreme to try him for - I'm talking something on the order of getting caught on national television eating babies while selling nuclear secrets to Osama bin Laden. Another reason the Clinton case fell apart was simply that he was already a lame duck at the end of his second term, and many in congress just didn't see the point in pursuing the matter, IIRC.

So, given how unlikely it would be to successfully impeach Bush and remove him from office, why is this even an issue? No one that I know of has the sort of hard, physical evidence it would take to get a conviction, and most of the people talking about it seem to be basing it on nothing more than Dubya being a big meanie poopoo-head. This isn't the way the game works, folks.

Besides, removing Bush and Cheney would just move power down the ladder, which doesn't really accomplish much; the same basic group would still be in power, and what's more, they would probably be even more determined than before. Much of partisan politics is based on a rather simple-minded, gonad-level 'us versus them' mentality, and this would only confirm that 'the liberals' were out to get them in the minds of most of the 'neo-cons' (just as the Clinton impeachment move convinced many 'liberals' that there was some massive Right Wing Conspiracy against them).

For that matter, does anyone really think that any of the people on the other side of the fence are any better than those at the top now? News flash: they are all bastards. The power drive of a high-level Alpha type personality doesn't leave much room for ethics, and it is very rare for any other type to reach high office in the real world.

I guess it's mostly because it is dramatic - it grabs people's attention and enthusiasm, it's something that seems immediate and decisive. But strategically, it's a bad move. At most, it would be a harassment tactic; more likely, it will just drain away resources and support from more practical approaches. But... it's hard to get people behind most of those. Impeachment seems more real to most people than the smaller, more immediate steps than take a lot of work and may not pay off for years, if at all.

Since I'm not inclined favorably towards any political activity - it is all speciousas far as I'm concerned, and often based on a poor understanding of science, engineering and/or psychology - I'm not sure why this bothers me so much, but it does. There's is just something wasteful about it, I guess.


Last edited by Schol-R-LEA on Sun May 06, 2007 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:42 pm 
Good post.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:22 am 
One quibble:

Schol-R-LEA wrote:
Besides, removing Bush and Cheney would just move power down the ladder, which doesn't really accomplish much; the same basic group would still be in power, and what's more, they would probably be even more determined than before.


After the VP in the line of succession is the Speaker of the House. So a successful impeachment would make Nancy Pelosi president, which might change a few things. (Unless your "same basic group" is "politicians" here, but that's a whole other post.)

Of course, this would be seen as a power grab on the Dems' part, an attempt to subvert democracy, etc., so it still wouldn't be a terribly good idea.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 9:14 pm 
BeinSane wrote:
One quibble:

Schol-R-LEA wrote:
Besides, removing Bush and Cheney would just move power down the ladder, which doesn't really accomplish much; the same basic group would still be in power, and what's more, they would probably be even more determined than before.


After the VP in the line of succession is the Speaker of the House. So a successful impeachment would make Nancy Pelosi president, which might change a few things. (Unless your "same basic group" is "politicians" here, but that's a whole other post.)

Of course, this would be seen as a power grab on the Dems' part, an attempt to subvert democracy, etc., so it still wouldn't be a terribly good idea.

There are a few holes in your arguement:

Pelosi has said, and I quote "impeachment is not an option."

Nobody in actual power has actually seriously talked about impeaching Bush, there isn't a case. While Cheney has been submitted to the appropriate committie for conceredration for impeachment, its probably not going to happen. Even if it did, the removal of the VP would not remove Bush from power.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2007 2:39 pm 
BeinSane wrote:
One quibble:

Schol-R-LEA wrote:
Besides, removing Bush and Cheney would just move power down the ladder, which doesn't really accomplish much; the same basic group would still be in power, and what's more, they would probably be even more determined than before.


After the VP in the line of succession is the Speaker of the House. So a successful impeachment would make Nancy Pelosi president, which might change a few things. (Unless your "same basic group" is "politicians" here, but that's a whole other post.)


Oh, yes, that is true. While I don't see Pelosi as being all that different, it would certainly affect the partisanship aspect of it.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:17 pm 
Seeing how many things in Bush's domestic policies he has outright plagiarized from Democrats, I also agree that policies won't be too much more dramatic from what we currently know them.

As far as I'm concerned, the Bushublican is no different than the Clintocrat, except in terms of which side they pretend to cater to as well as what extent they're willing to go to in order to maintain a shadow government.

I also agree that waiting for someone to become a lame duck before demanding their impeachment is akin to granting them near-immunity to any serious consideration.

I'm actually hoping Fred Thompson wins; though I have a sneaking suspicion Obama will win. (Especially if Hillary does anything else stupid in an attempt to take out Rush Limbaugh.) Either way, while many don't share my sentiment, Bush and company have become so far removed from my experience up where I live that I don't see how him staying or leaving will really change anything. Therefore, I'm content to let the process devour him, while I sit behind my laptop and do more of the same thing I do every night.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group