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.
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”.
All right. You all talked me into it, but it didn’t take much. Let’s impeach the bastards! What do we do next?
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.”
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,
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?
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.
Jill,
Elect a President and a Congress.
Conduct oversight.
Forget impeachment.
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
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?
“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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.