World peace is more likely than impeachment, and Democrats appear ok with this

Last night’s moveon.org in Iraq sponsored candlelight vigil was beyond pathetic.

Several dozen Democrats in Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, attended this vigil outside of Capitol Building. They were calling for Senate Republicans to stop a filibuster of a resolution calling for reduced U.S. military involvement in Iraq (Molly Hooper, Fox News, July 18).

Candlelight vigils are the type of thing done by peace and justice groups after an hour-long meeting in the basement of the Unitarian church that serves the needs of the local mid-tier directional university. These groups hold vigils because they are unable to do anything productive, like pass laws, and so they might as well do something pretty. When both heads of a bicameral legislature are attending your vigil, something is clearly wrong.

One thing candle light vigils usually do have going for them is that if they call for something, they call for something absolute, which can be expressed in a slogan. Some examples are “Free Health Care for All,” “The Legal Fiction Involved in Statutory Rape Cases Should be Revised” and even “End the War Now.”

moveon.org had less ambitious goals. Their vigil was for the Levin-Reid amendment, which does call for most U.S. troops to leave Iraq by spring of next year but no more than it gives the president the ability to waive the withdrawals so long as legislators get a nice letter from the White House with an explanation. (“They are staying,” the president would write. “I want them to do so.”)

One might think the out clause for the president is something sponsors of the amendment would not want to talk about. However, according to a May 14 statement on the matter, Senator, Benjamin Franklin impersonator and titular sponsor of the legislation in question Carl Levin thinks this is a selling point.

All of this should be kept in mind when considering what I like to call Impeachment Fever. Many liberals seem to have gotten the idea recently that there is actually a possibility the U.S. House of Representatives will impeach President George W. Bush and/or Vice President Dick Cheney.

Impeachment was the topic of the July 13 edition of Bill Moyer’s Journal and Rep. Dennis Kucinich has actually introduced in a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives to impeach Cheney. After Downing Street, a group dedicated to encouraging investigation about any impeachable offenses members of the Bush Administration may be guilty of, runs a regularly updated website where you can read about how it is important that the city council of West Hollywood, California recently voted in support of impeaching Bush and Cheney (Lisa Moscatiello, July 16.)

Members of the Bush Administration do deserve to be impeached. They should be kicked out of office and put in little cages where schoolchildren can poke them with sharp sticks. (I think that this punishment is one that our criminal justice system does not use nearly enough. If nothing else, it would teach youngsters that even social studies can be fun.)

Nevertheless, impeachment, removal from office and the torture of Bush by grade-schoolers are all simply not going to happen. Democrats have been in control of both the House and Senate for over six months. During this time, they have defunded zero military actions, rescinded no use of force authorizations and repealed not a single patriot act. People with this record are not going to be impeaching members of the Bush Administration anytime soon.

This is of no real concern, however, according to Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive. In a July 16 piece he authored, impeachment is a “train” that is “leaving the station” so congressional Democrats, especially those running for president, had better hop on while they still can.

Rothschild probably did not mean to put forward a specific scenario, but if he did, it would have to be that Democrats are about to storm the gates and impeach Bush and Cheney. This is not how you conduct a decent revolution and anybody who would consider doing something so lame is not going to bother with doing much of anything. It might hurt the party’s chances in 08 or whatever the excuse is.

This sad state of affairs is not in the least bit disappointing or surprising as the Democratic Party’s course of action is entirely predictable. They may like people to think they are less bellicose than Republicans are, but there is little reason to think this. Back in 2002, for instance, they didn’t stop a green light to invade and occupy Iraq in the Senate when they had more seats than the GOP has now. Democrats mostly supported this measure, in fact. And, in case you were wondering, this did not lead to serious internal rifts amongst the donkeys.

I could give many more examples that show the Democrats’ support for military action and lack of much effort to end even the wars they claim to be against, but there is no point in doing so. It is hard to imagine that any member of the party is going to hear it and say, “I’m going to have verify the things you are telling me, but if you are right, I feel terrible for not voting for Nader.” The two solid anti-war candidates amongst the major candidates for the Presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, Mike Gravel (a former U.S. Senator who was a fine opponent of the the Vietnam War during his tenure in that body) and the previously mentioned Dennis Kucinich, do not appear to have considerable support. What explanation do the Democrats who want to believe their party is anti-war have for this? The hokum that’s often directed against anti-war candidates about how they cannot win because they are not running on the ticket of one the two legitimate political parties of the U.S. of A. does not apply here for obvious reasons and yet there still is little support for either of them. Democrats apparently have the party they want and are not particularly bothered by the military interventions of their country.

So I guess the real joke is people like me who try, or at least have tried, to reason with Democrats.

Comments

[Dawn Jackson]

You say "Members of the Bush Administration do deserve to be impeached."

So I urge you to join the growing movement to impeach. Its a lot easier than you think. Impeachment does not mean "removal from office". No president has ever been removed by impeachment. It simply means that those in congress get a chance to investigate. And once the resolution hits the floor for debate, watch the rats starts to abandon the sinking ship.

After ignoring subpoenas, firing all opposition, and continuing to obstruct justice at every turn, impeachment is the only option left to keep the excutive branch in check. This is not about political strategy. This is about having integrity to stand up for what you believe. If you believe they deserve impeachment, IMPEACH. If a criminal breaks a law, you arrest him. You do not speculate "He will probably not be jailed, so why bother?"

Thousands died to create a country where no one is above the law. And thousands more die each day in this illegal occupation. This is not a joke. If we do nothing, if we keep coming up with excuses, we set a dangerous precedent. But if you want change, you can have it. Visit http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/ and get involved.

[Jonathan Versen]

for the longest time I didn't want to believe that Arvin Hill was right, in his contention that the problem with the democrats wasn't the leadership, but the cowed, cowardly rank-and-file who readily vote for GOP-lite schmucks like Kerry and HRC, worshipping at the altar of "viability". But now I accept his thesis.