Considering impeachment
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Digby makes a strong case:
Read on, of course. The threefold problem is indeed a major obstacle, so much so that impeachment more than likely wouldn't go anywhere. It would at most be a "symbolic" act. Does that make it "worthwhile"? Would it hold Bush "accountable"? Or would a "failed" impeachment let them "off the hook"?
In short, should the Dems pursue impeachment?
I think that's a question we all need to be asking ourselves. What do you think? Let me know.
**********
Digby also asks: "What's the alternative?" Is there a suitable one? If impeachment is bound to fail, what else should the Dems be doing?
More investigating, I would suggest. More hearings. More subpoenas. On everything.
**********
One quibble: I'm not so sure that Bush is the president in history most deserving of impeachment. What about Nixon?
Again, what do you think?
Digby makes a strong case:
Has there ever been a president who deserved it more? I don't think so. Looking at this as someone who believes that until we hold them accountable for their crimes, these zombie crooks will keep doing this over and over again until our country is unrecognizable, my instinct is to scream it from the rafters. But I'm still not convinced that the Democrats should try to impeach. The problem for me is threefold and it has nothing to do with the merits of the case or the desirability of doing it. It's about the political landscape.
Read on, of course. The threefold problem is indeed a major obstacle, so much so that impeachment more than likely wouldn't go anywhere. It would at most be a "symbolic" act. Does that make it "worthwhile"? Would it hold Bush "accountable"? Or would a "failed" impeachment let them "off the hook"?
In short, should the Dems pursue impeachment?
I think that's a question we all need to be asking ourselves. What do you think? Let me know.
**********
Digby also asks: "What's the alternative?" Is there a suitable one? If impeachment is bound to fail, what else should the Dems be doing?
More investigating, I would suggest. More hearings. More subpoenas. On everything.
**********
One quibble: I'm not so sure that Bush is the president in history most deserving of impeachment. What about Nixon?
Again, what do you think?
Labels: Bush, Democrats, impeachment
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
1:29 AM
1 Comments:
Look at what happened in South Korea in April, 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roh_Moo-hyun
On March 12, 2004, the South Korean National Assembly voted to impeach Roh Moo-hyun for illegal electioneering and incompetence charges. The vote was 193-2, with Roh's supporters abstaining from the vote. Pro-Roh Uri Party members had blocked the speaker's podium for 3 days to prevent a vote before being hauled out by opposition lawmakers and security guards. Roh's executive power was suspended until final decision is made by the Constitutional Court, and Prime Minister Goh Kun ran the country as the Acting President.
The National Assembly's attempt to impeach Roh met with strong opposition. Although Roh's popularity hovered around the 30% mark due to social unrest, disclosure of illegal fund-raising in the 2002 Presidential election, creation of a new party, and often-made improper remarks, many Koreans thought the impeachment was too harsh and heavy-handed, and Roh's popularity went up dramatically to 50% soon after the assembly's vote to impeach Roh. The results of the April 2004 parliamentary election showed public support for him, with the Uri Party winning a majority of seats.
On May 14, 2004, the Constitutional Court overturned the impeachment decision, restoring Roh as President, and Roh enjoyed increased support for some while after he was restored to power.
There's no party in America more South Korean than the GOP! Beware!
By
Unknown, at 8:23 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home