Jump to navigation
The Rule of Law and the Imperative of Appeasement
Now that U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has determined
that White House aides John Bolton and Harriet Myers committed no crime in refusing to comply with U.S. House of Representatives subpoenas, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has announced that a civil lawsuit will be filed claiming Bolton and Myers are in contempt of Congress.
To clarify a legal point concerning Pelosi's latest attempt at pretending she and her cowardly Dem cohorts have a spine, a civil lawsuit carries no possibility of imprisonment of the law-breakers, and it will very likely go nowhere anyway because the federal judiciary has recent, mandatory precedents handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court giving President Bush and just about everyone around him sovereign immunity from civil prosecution. See, for example, Tenet v. Doe
, 544 U.S. 1 (2005), wherein the Bush Administration reached all the way back to the era of our last dalliance with an authoritarian unitary executive, the fawningly revered Abraham Lincoln, for case precedent.
That means Pelosi's pathetic attempt at appeasing
the core of so-called "liberal" Congressmen demanding impeachment of George W. Bush is nothing other than an exercise in the politics of futility. Madam Speaker, of course, knows that.
Madam Speaker also knows that she and her fellow cowards, despite their transparently disingenuous posturing against the wanton, seven-year spree of law-breaking by the Bush Administration, will nevertheless get re-elected.
Madam Speaker may be an appeaser, but unlike those who vote for her kind, Madam Speaker is not stupid.
The Dark Wraith encourages everyone to rush out and vote for some more of that auld-timey Hope 'n Change snake oil.
Politically frustrated is definitely worse, IMO. :-(
Good morning, Mr Wraith.
I understand the desire for impeachment, but I believe the logistics are a bit lacking.
If you start counting from 1917 when the size of the House was increased to 435 members, the 110th Congress has the slimmest majority of any Congress in history.
And while diversity is the Democrats strength, it can also be their undoing under such circumstances.
Really, I believe it is helpful to look at the Democrats as being two political parties that share the same administrative services.
Now, I am too young to remember Nixon's impeachment, though I do remember his resignation speech (always at the tail end of history...). My mom made me be quiet so she could listen to him (which took forever...). I listened to him too, though I didn't understand what he was trying to say. It was like hearing a sermon at the church, in a way-- guy in suit, makes a big talk, babbles on a long time, have to be quiet, etc. Now, even though I was very small, I knew something very important was taking place. I'm not going to sit around and be quiet that long for nothing, ya know.
But reading about the matter, is seems as if there was, at the time, a sense of shock, a national sense of betrayal, etc., that made impeachment a wildly popular move. And I just don't see such a widespread outcry for impeachment these days. It isn't that the people shouting for it aren't shouting hard enough, it's that there isn't enough people shouting. Maybe most just don't see it as being relevant to their daily lives. Could it really be explained by desensitization? I don't know.
Remind me, if you will.
Please give an authoritative version.
Good Morning, Dark Wraith
House Speaker Pelosi responded by sending Bolton and Meiers each a fruit tray to avoid any appearance of partisanship.
People have been shouting for years for impeachment. But by now, our voices have broken. We nurse sore throats and get odd looks from the officious, who write our names on lists for future reference.
A majority of America supports impeachment or an end to an evil war, but all media suppresses it, and the emergent police state media complex threatens the most vocal with charges of treason.
Our Leaders are owned by the war profiteers, the supporters of those who deserve impeachment.
The business of rape and pillage goes on as usual.
Ten years ago, Neocons tried their best to whip up hysteria over Bill Clinton's dalliance with an intern. The public did not buy it for a minute, and instead gave the Democrats a resounding victory in the midterm election- an obvious rejection of the Republican's position. Nevertheless, the neocons pushed their agenda against the public's wishes, creating a political fiasco which Bill Clinton survived. Today, a criminally incompetent band of thugs inhabiting the White House have lied us into war, trashed the economy, damaged our international relations, suspended basic constituational guarentees, and put us massively in debt to China, yet will walk away without incident, NOT because the public doesn't care, but because the public has finally realized that those in power have little interest in public opinion; our elected officials have found it far more effective to manufacture the consent of the governed than to bow to its whims (or, at least, to give the appearance that the consent of the governed exists through its selected media outlets)
Good morning, Dark Wraith.
I saw this today, and I thought it was worth sharing:
...[T]he case for impeaching Bush and Cheney--indeed the entire administration--is by far the most powerful and necessary case for impeachment that has ever existed. By declaring Bush unimpeachable, Pelosi is giving away Congress' only remaining power to prevent tyrannical rule by the executive branch....
The Bush Regime, with the complicity of Congress and the judiciary, has destroyed the American constitutional system.
Now, none of that is surprising or noteworthy (unfortunately).
What struck me more than anything was the bio of the author:
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review.
Who would have thought?
Anyway, I spoke to a friend over the weekend, who was twenty at the time of Nixon's resignation. He said that there were always people that didn't like him (he was, after all, Nixon), but the impeachment took place rather quickly after the topic came up. I believe his words were, "Once they confronted him with the evidence, he gave up pretty quick after that."
But then, Nixon was on tape talking price about placing hits on his political enemies. I'm sure that had something to do with convincing Congress of the necessity of the situation.
Become a Registered Commenter