Washblog || Washington vs Washington

Washington vs Washington

By zappini
Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 06:43:24 AM PST
Section: Diary Topic: Impeachment

I fully support our state Senator Oemig's effort to kick start the impeachment of Bush. I'm dumbfounded by Inslee and Murray's efforts to squash Oemig's efforts. Thanks. Thanks a lot. People are dying in an illegal war, the lunatics in charge are gunning for a few more wars, and Inslee and Murray want to Make Nice.

Thanks, Inslee and Murray. Such courage. Such leadership. Such panache.

Drives me nuts.

Blogger poputonian over on Digby has two really good writeups:

Democrats Without A Conscience: Undermining A Moral Imperative (March 5th)

Truth Hurts (March 6th)

And this great comment from jman.

I've written countless letters to Murray and Cantwell and a few to Inslee. Mostly asking them what the hell they were doing. But also imploring them to start acting like the opposition party.

Post 2006 elections, I'm still waiting for my oppositional party to show up. Schucks, I'd settle for our state's delegation to DC to stop enabling the binge alcoholics in the administration.

If the people who claim to represent us aren't willing to oppose the Bush Administration, the least they could do is stand aside and allow individuals of purpose and courage to take action. You know the expression: lead, follow, or get out of the way.

To actively thwart what needs to be done is beyond my comprehension. It's complicity. It's to embrace this mistake as your own. It's sickening.

I'm trying to find the words, but that's all I've got.

< MARCH FORTH! with the Backbone Campaign | New Washblog card idea! Vote! >

Washington vs Washington | 22 comments (22 topical)

Cheney First

My main problem with the Bush impeachment effort is that I think that we'd be much better served by going after Cheney first. We have much more in the public record about his lawbreaking (thanks to the Libby trial) and the process could be used as a "we're serious" threat towards Bush to do what he needs to do in order to get us out of Iraq. Ideally, impeachment should be the stick that is used to force Bush's hand over Iraq and Iran (I have a feeling this is already being done quietly over Iran, but Cheney is probably saying "go ahead, impeach me").

by thehim on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:15:29 AM PST

* 1 none 0 *

I believe the WA resolution by dinazina, 03/07/2007 11:38:36 AM PST (none / 0)

Didn't know that by thehim, 03/07/2007 11:57:08 AM PST (none / 0)

Thanks very much

You've linked to some very powerful statements.

Please read my frontpage post of today, March Forth! where I relate my recent encounter with Eric Oemig, and his decision NOT to back down. We can only imagine what kind of pressure he's under, he and the other endorsers. Please make sure to write them with support.

by dinazina on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:42:09 AM PST

* 3 none 0 *

Suppose you're a teacher

and you want to discuss with your class what constitutes impeachable offenses. I think it would be an interesting discussion to have, but it would be highly theoretical and, among a certain class of teenagers, viewed as highly irrelevant because there would be no corroborating discussion in the political culture at-large.

One of the arguments against impeachment investigations is that it would be a distraction for the Democrats. Personally, I find torture, disasterous wars, extraordinary rendition, domestic spying, outing CIA agents as part of smear campaigns, etc., etc. to be a huge distraction from, say, funding public education.

My response is: if it takes extra time to conduct impeachment hearings, then work harder. That's what the rest of us do.

Another argument is that impeachment proceedings are not likely to work. So what? If you think the current government is despotic, just wait until the next one. If there is no national public discussion about whether torture, disasterous wars, extraordinary rendition, domestic spying, outing CIA agents as part of smear campaigns, etc., etc, are impeachable offenses, then they will become, in the view of public opinion, unimpeachable offenses.

by DWE on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:46:48 AM PST

* 5 none 0 *

Very good points by gibney, 03/08/2007 09:41:06 AM PST (none / 0)

I don't think you're by DWE, 03/08/2007 09:47:19 AM PST (none / 0)

It's also good that he and I and others have by gibney, 03/08/2007 12:51:16 PM PST (none / 0)
look. I am cynical AND I got 6 nuerons for art. by rmdSeaBos, 03/08/2007 05:52:33 PM PST (none / 0)

I'm sure your wife by dinazina, 03/08/2007 06:16:31 PM PST (none / 0)
Huh. by DWE, 03/08/2007 06:55:45 PM PST (none / 0)

A teacher to the core by dinazina, 03/08/2007 01:19:27 PM PST (none / 0)

You're using by DWE, 03/08/2007 01:58:56 PM PST (none / 0)

Follow the money ... by rmdSeaBos, 03/08/2007 06:41:43 PM PST (none / 0)

Math skills? by DWE, 03/08/2007 06:58:30 PM PST (none / 0)

balanced education by m3047, 03/09/2007 09:09:53 AM PST (none / 0)

rmdSeaBos, I think I love you! n/t by noemie maxwell, 03/09/2007 12:17:54 PM PST (none / 0)

As The Left Shue alludes to,

maybe it takes a radical fringy to lead Congress to impeachment. You know, a radical fringy like Chuck Hagel.

by DWE on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:08:46 PM PST

* 16 none 0 *

Where Inslee is coming from

He attributes his election to Congress in 1998 to backlash against the Clinton impeachment, and doesn't want the same to happen to him in reverse.

This is a very different situation--I wonder what his Plan B is for stopping Bush from nuking