Desire is strong in Dems to impeach

[Tigermike 3,025]

Desire is strong in Dems to impeach

MacEachern

THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC

Aug. 13, 2006 12:00 AM

Impeachment hearings? Nobody launches "impeachment hearings."

Should Democrats reassume control of the House of Representatives this fall, an increasingly likely event, they will not convene hearings focused on the possible impeachment of President Bush. Just ask any Democrat in Washington except the delightfully candid Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., whose lust for impeachment is almost refreshing.

"Impeaching the president is so far-fetched it's ridiculous," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid told me last week while in Phoenix for Democratic Senate candidate Jim Pederson.

Reid said he was "very glad" for the opportunity to debunk the 350-page "investigative report" released last week by Conyers in anticipation of a Bush perp walk out of the White House.

"Regarding Conyers, he's been called into (House Minority Leader Nancy) Pelosi's office," said Reid. "Don't worry about that (report)."

Not that the Conyers report needed a lot of debunking. It is heavy with references to left-wing conspiracy-theorist Web sites of the "Bush lied, people died!" variety and columns by Bob Herbert and Frank Rich, both of the New York Times. We didn't need a 350-page report to know that Herbert, Rich and their pals on the op-ed pages of the Times would like to see Bush impeached.

But if Reid really believes that, once in power, House Democrats will be able to resist hearings of the sort that invariably morph into impeachment hearings, he's not paying attention.

For one thing, Pelosi can bark at Conyers now all she likes, but Conyers will become House Judiciary Committee chairman following a Democratic takeover. When that happens, Conyers won't need Pelosi's blessing to convene hearings.

And it isn't just Conyers. The desire among some Democrats to impeach Bush is every bit as passionate as that of the nuttiest Clinton-hating conspiracy theorists in 1994. Billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife has been replaced today by billionaire George Soros. Scaife's preposterous "Arkansas Project" has been replaced by Conyers' tail-chasing report, "The Constitution in Crisis." We know where Scaife's fever-blinded trip up the Whitewater River led. Conyers' little report, however dingy, is capable of kick-starting similar events.

For several weeks now, The Arizona Republic Editorial Board has been entertaining congressional candidates. Many of the Arizona Democrats chasing open or Republican-held seats told us that "impeachment" hearings would be bad. But most added that they would welcome formal hearings into various Bush transgressions. It is a distinction without a difference.

"There is no doubt in my mind the president is impeachable," said Democrat Herb Paine, who hopes to unseat Rep. John Shadegg, R-District 3. "But impeachment hearings would be very divisive." Paine insisted the nation shouldn't go down that road.

But regarding more generic "hearings"? Oh, that's different, Paine said. Yes, by all means, let's have hearings. And lots of them. Let's just not call them "impeachment hearings." Not yet.

Among the several Democrats vying for the open District 8 seat in southern Arizona, enthusiasm for such hearings ranges from merely eager to slobbering with anticipation.

Candidate Francine Shacter, whose Web site declares her "passionate about returning civility" to government, said she had been a "citizen signatory" to Conyers' report.

Patty Weiss said she, too, had been "talking to Conyers." But for sheer, unbridled passion, none could top retired Air Force Lt. Col. Jeff Latas, who said he'd happily serve as "an expert witness" in hearings.

"Bush and Cheney both need impeaching," he said.

Do the more circumspect Democrats really believe that simple "hearings" wouldn't lead invariably down the impeachment path?

Do they really think a party base that just dumped Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut for anti-war candidate Ned Lamont isn't aching to drag the nation through Clinton's revenge?

If so, they need to read up on recent history. The New York Times reported in June 1994 that the Senate would hold Whitewater-related hearings that "will be limited to three elements that are not likely to embarrass President Clinton."

And we know where those hearings went.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/v...achern0813.html

[DKW 86 7,419]

"Impeaching the president is so far-fetched it's ridiculous," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid told me last week while in Phoenix for Democratic Senate candidate Jim Pederson.

Can you imagine the hate mail that guy is going to get from the Whackadoo wing of the Democratic party?

[quietfan 233]

I may be a "bed-wetting libby", but barring major revelations of much more serious misdeeds, I see nothing yet that I would consider impeachable offenses by W & Co. Neither stupidity nor incompetence meets the Constitutional standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

If the Dems went after the President based on anything we've heard about so far, there is a strong possiblity of coming off spiteful and petty. I wouldn't be surprized to see a public backlash much like with the impeachment of Clinton, where much of the country thought the Republicans were wasting everyone's time on a doomed witch hunt. I would hope, if the Dems win the House, they'd use their victory to look forward, accent the positive, and build on their success for more in 2008.

On the other hand--while I don't think GW Bush himself is guilty of anything worse than incompetence--given the climate in Washington and the clouds (real or rumored) around the Abramoff affair, the Tom Delay accusations, and Halliburton contracts/complaints, it would not surprize me if new evidence exposed impeachable crimes by others in the Administration. But then I'm not terribly surprized when any politician, Democrat or Republican, is caught with his/her hands in the cookie jar.

JMHO, but the words "impeachment" and "traitor" are both tossed around far too casually these days for what are in fact very serious and narrowly defined crimes.

[DKW 86 7,419]

The press asked (I think Dean) why the Democrats wanted to win so badly in 2006. The answer was: "Two words: Subpeona power."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...;mesg_id=397296

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-beinha...eo_b_12748.html

Etc.Etc.Etc.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

$#!!can Bush/Cheney in 2007. Why not? Haven't they cause enough problems for our kid's, kid's, kid's? I say wait until they are out of office, then do it. That way they cannot squirm out of it. They'll be private citizens then, subject to the law of the land or the constitution, for those of us who have forgotten.

[rexbo 104]

Let's impeach Bush and Cheney, and since Jimmy Carter was our last single term Democratic President, put him back in, with say Pelosi or Dean as VP!! Of course we will then have to evacuate all of our Middle Eastern Embassies, since we know how afraid the Islamic Fascists are of Jimmy...

[DKW 86 7,419]

Iran became the problem in the middle east when? When Carter was in office! He stood behind the Shah, a ruthless dictator, and then turned the entire country of Iran into a festering Anti-American boil on the earth's rear end for perpetuity. Do you guys realize that when historians talk about the Third World War, they are likley going to point to Carter's presidency as THE formation point? Instead of fostering strong ties to a Republic in the Middle East he turned his Presidency on keeping a harsh dictator in office. That ultimately set us up as the huge boogeyman in the Middle East.

Bush removes a dictator and installs a FREE Secular Republic. Carter backs a cruel dictator and allows a harsh Sharia Republic to go into power there.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Iran became the problem in the middle east when? When Carter was in office! He stood behind the Shah, a ruthless dictator, and then turned the entire country of Iran into a festering Anti-American boil on the earth's rear end for perpetuity. Do you guys realize that when historians talk about the Third World War, they are likley going to point to Carter's presidency as THE formation point? Instead of fostering strong ties to a Republic in the Middle East he turned his Presidency on keeping a harsh dictator in office. That ultimately set us up as the huge boogeyman in the Middle East.

Bush removes a dictator and installs a FREE Secular Republic. Carter backs a cruel dictator and allows a harsh Sharia Republic to go into power there.

Bush sounds like he used a common sense apporach to the cancer that is the Middle East. So why not nuke 'em like we did Japan? Could it be because of the oil?

[AURaptor 1,122]

DKW..... point of fact, the Shah was a fav of every US President, since the 50's. Carter drew the unlucky lot of being in office when Iran was overthrown by Islamo-Shiites. And we all saw well that worked out.

As for what Bush43 has accomplished, time will tell. I'd say it's a bit too early to claim Iraq all that 'Free' and even less clear how 'secular' it is.

[Tiger Al 0]

DKW..... point of fact, the Shah was a fav of every US President, since the 50's. Carter drew the unlucky lot of being in office when Iran was overthrown by Islamo-Shiites. And we all saw well that worked out.

As for what Bush43 has accomplished, time will tell. I'd say it's a bit too early to claim Iraq all that 'Free' and even less clear how 'secular' it is.

Wow. Just...wow. I think we...agree? Hmmm. That's gotta be a first.

[DKW 86 7,419]

DKW..... point of fact, the Shah was a fav of every US President, since the 50's. Carter drew the unlucky lot of being in office when Iran was overthrown by Islamo-Shiites. And we all saw well that worked out.

As for what Bush43 has accomplished, time will tell. I'd say it's a bit too early to claim Iraq all that 'Free' and even less clear how 'secular' it is.

Wow. Just...wow. I think we...agree? Hmmm. That's gotta be a first.

Hey wow we ALL AGREE. Carter should have read the tea leaves and have known what was happening back in 79-80. We knew our folks were in trouble. We still kept helping the Shah. It was a black day for the US. We should never have backed a dictator like the Shah or Saddam after we have a critical mass to take him out of power. Spreading Free Republic govts should be a goal of every American President, not keeping ties to criminal dictators.