As George Tenet might say, it’s a slam dunk. Hearings would be needed to get on record exactly what ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ the principals approved in what combination, but there isn’t much doubt that it wouldn’t look pretty.
It goes without saying that the votes aren’t there for removing Bush and Cheney from office: getting 34 GOP Senators to back Bush and Cheney up, no matter what, is also a slam dunk. But it would at least show the American people and the world that one of our two political parties takes this stuff seriously. And it would put the other party in the position of explaining why approving torture isn’t impeachable, but lying about a blowjob is.
So, other than ‘they’re out of here in 9 months - why waste time over this?’ is there an argument against a dual impeachment?
I think America is just too numbed to the whole thing. There’s been a new ‘Bush & his friends are evil’ revelation every other week. We all know they were torturing, we all know they knew about it, there’s nothing I can do about, yawn. I don’t think most of America would care much at this point. To get the majority of population behind it, not that it’s necessary, there would need to be something new or especially bad to cause an outcry.
At this point, it would probably just look like Impeachment II: the Revenge for what they did to our guy. Until you can get enough of the people behind it that Congress/Senate has to go along with it, there’s no point.
Wasn’t Clinton under oath at the time he lied? And didn’t he wag his finger and lie directly to the American people’s faces?
GW at least admits what he did here, the torture was legal, was to be used on alleged terrororists and had the AG’s approval. They’re really not the same thing. One person knew they were doing the wrong thing and the other was pushing the legal limits to get al Queda suspects to talk.
I’m pretty sure you can guess which one would bother the American people the most.
If lying about a blowjob bothers the American people more than an administration systematically deconstructing the rule of law with the sole aim of detaining people in secret and torturing them, I think we’re already fucked.
There isn’t going to be an impeachment, much less a removal from office as a result. You know this… right?
Now, for those in a cave, on Mars, for the past few years, a brief recap why:
Although “grounds for impeachment” can technically be “anything the House says they are,” the reality is that you need to allege clear violations of criminal law to get impeachment votes. So when you wonder plaintively why the impeachment votes aren’t there, despite all the mean, nasty, conservative things Bush and Cheney have done, the answer is: because there is no credible allegation of a clear violation of domestic law.
Andrew Johnson’s impeachment was very simple: he was alleged to have violated the Tenure of Office Act. Bill Clinton’s impeachment was simple: he was alleged to have violated the perjury statutes.
Doing mean, nasty, things that infringe on “international law” ain’t gonna cut it. This will remain true no matter how many threads you start about it.
I think a better thread title would be: I can has impeachment now?
Firstly, they’ve already admitting to waterboarding at least 3 times, so I don’t see that this is anything new. Of course Bush and Cheney knew about that.
Secondly, I think you should ask Nancy Pelosi and other Congressional Democratic leaders that last question. I certainly think there are grounds for impeachment, but it’s a political decision at this point, I think, more than anything else.
There is no proof that the administration has approved anything that is torture (and illegal) under American law. It is a fuzzy question as to whether any of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” are legally torture. There was a thread in the Pit on this subject . There is nothing in the law that makes the way waterboarding was used or the way any of the other “enhanced interrogation techniques” (that we know about) were used that makes them torture under American law.
It certainly implies it, but from a practical POV, there seemed to be the likelihood of a whole lot of stonewalling between officials saying Hayden received approval from the White House, and building a clear and convincing case that Bush or Cheney approved it.
Now Bush has owned up to it. In the words of Nick Danger, “Thanks, half-pint - you just saved me a great deal of investigative work.” That was the hard part with the Nixon impeachment, after all - it was obvious in the spring of 1973 that Nixon was in on the cover-up, but it took another 15 months to build a solid case to prove it.