checks and balances

I have been for impeachment ever since it became clear to me that we were being "led" by a "president" who was corrupt, a criminal, lying to get us into wars, violating the Constitution, etc. But for various reasons I wasn't relly anxious to see impeachment attempted. It seemed too hard to make the case, too divisive when I wanted to see Democrats seen as the reasonable, uniting force in America, and I wanted to see Democrats get some things accomplished rather than be seen as obstructionist.

Several things have largely changed my mind. What crystalized it was meeting former Congresswoman from Brooklyn, Liz Holtzman, at my local Democratic Club this last week. You see, Liz Holtzman was a member of the House of Representatives in the early '70's and was one of the people who constructed the Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon. She has written a book on the topic called "The Impeachment of George W. Bush" and her top arguement for impeachment is based on an exact precedent from 1974. In other words, Bush has committed one act for which there already is an article of impeachment constructed, written and voted on in Congress. All that needs to be done is for the current Congress to apply the 1974 precedent to our current President.

I am a pragmatist. I believe in getting things done and if something isn't going to work you don't put a lot of time into it. So, I have been reluctant to support impeachment even though I feel the grounds are certainly there. When people talk impeachment I am tentatively interested, but I have tended to want to focus more on exposing Republican corruption to dispel the myth of the "moral" party, build the Democrats as the reasonable, effecitve, fiscally responsible and reformist party, and win some seats in Congress. Impeachment seemed like an impossible dream that could become a very damaging nightmare.

I remain amazed at how well Congressional Democrats have been keeping their promises. And I am waiting for all those people on the left who continue to denegrate the Democratic Party as being "as bad as" the Republicans to start waking up and realizing now is their best chance for Congress to enact those things that most interest them.

The latest great thing done by the new Democratic majority is to sharply snub Bush's insane "surge" idea for digging us deeper into the Iraq quagmire. And, yet again, the Democrats have managed to do it with some bipartisan support showing that the Democratic majority has allowed more moderate Republicans to finally assert their independence from the far right wing branch of their party.

From Citizens for Legitimate Government: (complete with their editorializing)

Senate Panel Votes Against Bush on Iraq 24 Jan 2007 The Democratic-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee dismissed President [sic] Bush's plans to increase troops strength in Iraq on Wednesday as "not in the national interest," an unusual wartime repudiation of the commander-in-chief [thief].

'There is no strategy.' Senators start rebuke of Iraq strategy 24 Jan 2007 Democrats took the first step toward a wartime repudiation of President [sic] George W. Bush today, convening a Senate committee to endorse legislation declaring that the deployment of additional troops to Iraq is "not in the national interest." Sen. Chuck Hagel, of Nebraska, is the only Republican on the committee to announce support for the measure. "There is no strategy," said Hagel of the Bush regime’s war management. "This is a Ping-Pong game with American lives... And we better be damn sure we know what we’re doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder."