The head of Pakistan’s ruling coalition has announced a move to impeach President Pervez Musharraf, who took power in a coup in 1999. Given Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s continued refusal to allow an impeachment investigation into President Bush on ever-changing rationales, it is not clear what her position might be in other nation’s impeaching leaders accused of crimes in office.
Pakistan People’s Party Asif Ali Zardari stated that “The coalition confirmed the resolve that democratic forces will work jointly to making a transition to genuine democracy.” Hopefully, Musharraf with cooperate with his own impeachment since that seems to be the Pelosi standard.
He noted that the United States was still supporting Musharraf with the support of the military. Yet, he observed that even the attempt to hold a leader accountable for possible crimes was “good news for democracy.” Hmmm, that sounds vaguely familiar.
For the full story, click here.
It would be more than a little ironic, if the Islamic country of Pakistan were to impeach Musharif and the United States of America refused to impeach Bush.
An overwhelming majority of the Senate, well over two-thirds, is poised to convict Bush upon impeachment by the House.
Many of the 49 Republican Senators, and Leiberman, will vote to convict the President if impeached by the House.
Under the Constitution, impeachment is limited to removal from office and disqualification from future office. On January 20, 2009, Bush will no longer be President and will be barred from running again.
Impeachment investigation and hearings by House Judiciary, votes by Committee and the full House, and a full trial and vote in the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice of the United States, and a second trial to remove Cheney, can all take place in less than six months.
It would be good to have Cheney as President, even if just for a little while.
The only thing standing between Bush and removal is the Speaker of the House.
The Republicans in the Senate, and Leiberman, are not dead-enders who will never vote to convict Bush, no matter what the evidence.
The Sun rises in the West, the world is flat, Santa Claus is coming to town, and George Washington could not tell a lie about a cherry tree.
Some people believe all these propositions, even before breakfast.
Publius,
I know you’re dripping with sarcasm and I share your cynicism on the chances of impeachment ever happening. It would be dangerous to impeach Bush first, leaving Dick formally in charge of this nation. I’ve explained elsewhere why I believe impeachment is still absolutely vital but Dick would have to be impeached before Bush if this nation is to have any hope of maintaining a democratic government.
Bush Adminstrarion will send the message to the other world leaders who supports US from Mushraf scenario that where US stands when they are in trouble.
“Dick would have to be impeached before Bush”
Please. Investigation, hearings, House committee and floor votes, and Senate trial and vote on Cheney, and then start all over again with Bush, and all this within the next six months? That’s impossible.
I am simply pointing out that this is a waste of everyone’s time and effort. The impeachment effort is doomed to failure only because there are at least 34 Republican Senators who will NEVER NEVER NEVER vote to convict.
Pelosi is not the problem. The problems are the Senators who will never vote to convict.
It is time to move on, everyone. Please consider the concept of “futile gesture.” Please.
Sohail Ahmed
1, August 7, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Bush Adminstrarion will send the message to the other world leaders who supports US from Mushraf scenario that where US stands when they are in trouble.
I have no idea what you mean.
I strongly recommend this interveiw with Ron Suskind on Terry Gross today. If you think there’s no need or evidence to impeach dick and george, think again. With these kinds of facts it won’t take 6 months, not if Congress gets a spine. One of our deals with Pakistan is in the interview as well. Some people in Congress are already moving on this.
http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13
Jill & Publius,
I agree with both of you. While Pelosi has not covered herself with glory in this, she has taken more flak on this issue than she deserves. During Watergate there were enough Republicans and Southern Democrats who still believed in and understood the Constitution, to take appropriate action. This allowed the hearings to proceed. The Republicans are a different breed this time since they view party loyalty as similar to supporting your local football team.
There is also a genuine Republican ignorance of, or disbelief in the Constitution, bolstered by the belief of an Imperial Presidency.
There are also many conservative Democrats who fear their voting base and finally others who simply lack the courage. The votes to impeach do not exist in the House and the Senate lacks the votes to follow through. One could argue that hearings ending in either a defeat to indict in the house, or a defeat to convict in the Senate, would imply innocence. Secondly, the MSM’s reporting of this would be skewed to give the impression that it’s all about politics.
This is a terrible situation and truly a constitutional crisis. I can’t see though, given the current lack of votes in Congress and the disgrace of the MSM, how this can be carried forward effectively. Vote Democrat down the line and maybe this can be revisited criminally after November, or is that my naivety showing?
Michael,
Listen to this interview. It might change a lot of minds, even in this craven Congress.
Jill,
I agree with you that an impeachment must be intitiated. The mere fact that Cheney, Bush and many others in his administration are likely to be pardoned when Bush leaves office so the criminal charges will not stick. Even if you do not complete the conviction phase, the Republicans must be shown that the rule of law counts for something in this country. Without the rule of law going through the process, the felons in charge will get away without answering for their many crimes. Yes, we should also vote Democratic to get a solis majority in the House and Senate, but impeachment must be allowed to proceed.
rafflaw,
There’s something else. The democrats have a lower rating than Bush. We put them in office in 06 to do several jobs, one of which was to initiate impeachment proceedings. Not only do I not believe these hearings will be damaging to the democrats, I think it is one of the things that will actually improve their standing with the public.
Every soldier and family member of someone in Iraq needs to know the info in Suskind’s book. BTW One of the people who approved torture in the CIA went to Pakistan ISI to drum up some terror for the 06 election. If we think that’s not coming our way again, we’d be very wrong.
Rafflaw, Jill,
“Even if you do not complete the conviction phase”
What kind of doubletalk is this? You mean, if Bush were acqitted. That would show nothing about the rule of law, and would be hailed as a victory by his supporters.
Can’t any of you even count? It takes 67 votes in the Senate to convict. There are more than 34 Republicans to block conviction. Anything less than conviction and removal is a victory for Bush and Cheney.
Repeat after me, it is the Republicans, not Pelosi, that stand in the way of impeachment.
Rafflaw, does the concept of a circular firing squad ring a bell? While Bush, Cheney, and the Senate Republicans are the enemy, you turn your guns on Pelosi.
Jill, if Cheney and Bush were both removed, Pelosi would become President. This is an inherent conflict of interest in the process, suggesting that the Succession Act should be revised in the future, but counseling caution at the present time. This consideration would apply even if there were another Speaker. It would give the opponents of impeachment a field day.
Pelosi can easily recuse herself. This is new evidence, directly from intelligence officers, about crimes committed. This information was just released. Let’s look at the new evidence and then decide things are impossible.
Jill, Rafflaw
Do not start impeachment proceedings if you cannot win. That was proven in the Clinton debacle. The charges were not even strong enough to get a majority in the Senate, let alone two thirds. It was a win for Clinton.
If there are not enough votes for removal, then the proper congressional process is oversight, enforced by the subpoena power, continued through the next Congress if necessary. Reread Judge Bates decision last week.
Pelosi can easily recuse herself.
So what? Some other Democrat will be in the same position.
Hold an oversight hearing.
Hold an election. Oh, yes, there is one scheduled already.
Jill,
I’ve got a hunch that within the next 10 years or so one of the current “3rd parties” is going to become a real viable option. All they have to do is position themselves as a real reform party and find a talented organizer and charismatic front man. Or it could be a real possibility that the new party would be a merge of 2 or more of the current underdogs.
The problem with my theory is that they’ll have to overcome a system rigged to keep the current 2 parties from ever having real competition from anyone else. It’s in neither party’s interest to reform, because even if they’re not in power at a particular point in time the cyclical nature of our modern politics means that they will be eventually. Just look at how much of the political reform in the “Contract with America” actually happened. Term limits and finical reform always seem to be the minority parties rallying cry, until they become the majority.
I’m not saying that every Democratic or Republican politician thinks that way, but I’m positive the back room dealers in either party do.
Look at the evidence. It cannot harm you to look at that before you come to a definitive conclusion. I know you haven’t had time to consider the evidence yet, so I understand your reluctance to consider action, but once you do, you might feel differently. The book is called: The Way of the World by Ron Suskind.
There once was a third party that challenged the existing two parties and won.
They eliminated the Whigs and defeated the Democrats
They are now called Republicans.
Good luck.
“Look at the evidence.”
Tell it to the Republicans.
All fair minded people, whether Republican or Democrat will evaluate evidence. I do not believe all Republicans are evil or stupid any more than I believe all Democrats are intelligent or good. I will give the link to the interview with Mr. Suskind so all people, of any party, may evaluate evidence for themselves.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93319762
Pardon me for letting reality intrude, and I do not question your sincerity and conviction, but it appears that the Republicans may have already rejected the evidence out of hand:
quote
In disputing Suskind’s claims, former CIA Director George Tenet said the White House never gave an order to plant false evidence and his agency resisted efforts to find bogus links between Iraq and al-Qaida. A White House spokesman, meanwhile, called the claims another one of those “bizarre conspiracy theories that Ron Suskind likes to dwell in.” unquote
So it just reaffirms the conclusion that there will never be enough votes for removal in the Senate.
Impeachment is an inherently flawed democratic process, appropriate only for the most extreme situations. The proper response is in the oversight and electoral processes.
I think reality is intruding on the administation and they are running scared. George Tenet is implicated in this book. Again, I encourage people of good will to check into this evidence, as I’m certain they will. Here is the link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93319762
Evaluation of evidence isn’t just hearing what George Tenet says. This is scaring a lot of people. It’s interesting that you quote one of them as a way of “proving” there’s nothing to the story.
“It’s interesting that you quote one of them as a way of “proving” there’s nothing to the story”
Wrong. Anyone who reads the post can see that it was quoted to prove that “the Republicans may have already rejected the evidence out of hand,” as they have.
Publius,
I’m well aware of the party change over that’s happened in the past. I’m also well aware of all the changes in American Society in the past 150 years. Even if everything had stayed static, there’s a huge difference between defeating a party that’s been a player for 20 years and one that’s been a player for 150 years. Think about that, there are probably less then 10 people in the country (I’ll admit, that’s a complete guess) who were alive when the Republican party was less then 40 years old. That means that from the oldest voter on down, there is nobody left who hasn’t had it ingrained from them from birth that we have two choices, Republicans and Democrats. That’s a powerful thing to overcome.
The only thing that makes me think that it might be overcome is that there are people of voting age now that haven’t been alive when there weren’t computers and don’t remember when there wasn’t the internet widely available. The young are the ones that bring about change, and this generation has new tools to do it with, and they know how to use them. The internet increases the likelihood of that talented organizer finding that charismatic front man by quite a bit. No longer does random chance need to put the two of them in the same location at the same time, one could read the others blog or see their comments on a political message board. It’s much easier to have people with compatible interests and views meet these days. The advent of Blogs serves as a reincarnation of the pamphleteers of the past, with all their inherent benefits and drawbacks plus a number of its own.
Publius,
If attacking a country and killing over 250,000 to one million of its citizens on trumped up intelligence isn’t enough to impeach, then we might as well take the provision out of the Constitution. If torturing detainees, killing 100 of them while in our custody, in violation of U.S. laws is not enough of a “high crime and misdemeanor”, then I don’t know what is severe enough for you. Throw in the intentional spying on Americans without a warrant in violation of FISA and a myriad of other transgressions into the mix and you have a very solid case against Bush and others. As to your timing issue, If Pelosi had allowed the impeachment to proceed when she took office, we would have completed the process by now. Even if we do not complete the process with a conviction, we must show the country that the government is reponsible to follow the laws and the Constitution.
Did you expect the Republicans to admit to the crimes claimed by anyone against them?? Of course they rejected them. That does not make them false. Since when has the Bush Administration been truthful to us?? Bush already admitted on TV to violating FISA and to torturing prisoners. Those two counts alone would be more than enough. Now, since FISA has been amended, the FISA count may be more difficult. Without the investigation and impeachment, we may never learn the extent of their lawbreaking. Check out Prof. Turleys earlier posts and you will see that he is on the record that impeachment should be on the table and that is a mistake to not make this administration answer for their crimes.
“If Pelosi had allowed the impeachment to proceed when she took office, we would have completed the process by now.”
Yeah, and Bush would have been acquited just like Clinton. Please check the history books: Turley lost that case, too.
Dream on.
Rafflaw, do you yourself expect the Republicans to admit to the crimes claimed by anyone against them? No, of course not. But you keep pushing impeachment, and playing into their strength in the Senate, where their 1/3d of the votes can be cast in disregard even overwhelming evidence. This is just not the right forum for this controversy. You are giving your opponents a veto. Why?
You seem reluctant to allow the future to take its course. Why not wait and see what happens? Why should either of us argue back and forth about something that will happen whether we believe it will or not? I will state your position so you will know I understand what you’ve been saying and you won’t have to repete it.
Impeachment is a waste of time and will never happen. My postition is that impeachment is important and I don’t know if it will happen. The future will give us the answer and there’s really no point to arguing any further. In the meantime it can’t hurt to consider evidence of crimes committted by cheney and bush. Consideration of evidence is important for an informed citizenry, independent of what happens vis a vis impeachment. So I’ll give the link again to anyone who would like to be an informed cititzen, and I’ll let impeachment or not, take care of itself.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93319762
Jill,
Elect a President and a Congress.
Conduct oversight.
Forget impeachment.
Why not be an informed citizen right now? Look at the evidence. I already repeted what you said about impeachment. You seem terrified that people will look at evidence. I hope that’s not true. The link is in the post just above Publius’s post.
Publius,
Impeachment is an important part of the oversight responsibility of Congress. You seem so concerned that the Republicans will vote against it. It is not important if you are able to convict him. The message of the rule of law is the important thing. I am also glad that you already know how an impeachment trial would have turned out.
Publius, the Republicans don’t have to admit their guilt if the evidence show that they are guilty. I have to agree with Jill that you seem to be hesitant to allow an impeachment to proceed. What are you afraid of? Are you afraid of the evidence being so overwhelming that even some Republicans vote for impeachment as was the case in Nixon’s day?
Citizens of countries with Dictators have some excuse for their poor governments, what excuse do Americans have for Bush’s second (and maybe third) term – aside from the inevitable “he stole the election”?
Publius:
“The Sun rises in the West, the world is flat, Santa Claus is coming to town, and George Washington could not tell a lie about a cherry tree.
Some people believe all these propositions, even before breakfast.”
*******************
You forgot one: “You can trust a Republican neo-con.”
All right. You all talked me into it, but it didn’t take much. Let’s impeach the bastards! What do we do next?
Musharif and Nixon resigned because there was a credible threat of impeachment. With Pelosi around, I don’t know why Bush doesn’t just torch the remainder of the Constitution and run for a third term or maybe ‘President for Life”.