posted by Damozel | UPDATED [CLICK HERE] It's like Bush and Cheney are just deliberately crossing lines, daring Congress to respond. If enough people from both parties decide that somewhere in all of this there's a "high crime or misdemeanor" and they want to initiate proceedings, it could happen, I guess. The proceeding against Clinton definitely lowered the bar. But as a Democrat, the prospect isn't particularly appealing to me. Unless Cheney and Bush were both impeached ; otherwise, it would be---in the immortal words of The Who--- "Meet the new boss, just like the old boss." Or worse, even.
And is it likely that Republicans would EVER vote to hand the presidency to the person who is third in the order of succession? I'm thinking not. Which is one of many reasons why impeachment isn't really an option.
Now Cindy Sheehan has decided to "punish" Pelosi for not doing her bidding by running against her. She says things like this:
Impeachment is not a fringe movement, it is mandated in our Constitution; Nancy Pelosi had no authority to take it off the table, " Sheehan told her group of orange-clad activists Monday. "If Nancy Pelosi doesn't do her constitutionally mandated job by midnight ... I will announce that I'm going to run against her....Pelosi has steadfastly dismissed any talk of impeachment, saying Democrats should focus their efforts on ending the war in Iraq. (Washington Post)
Based on this, I'm guessing that Sheehan thinks she's running not only for Pelosi's seat but also for Speaker of the House.
Pelosi could put impeachment back on the table, but if I were in her Prada shoes, I wouldn't consider it without being pretty certain that there is sufficient support in the House from both parties. If she hangs on, it may indeed come to be, particularly as the 2008 election approaches. As Pelosi is a canny politico, I'm guessing she'll know the right moment when it happens.
As for Sheehan, I thought she was all about ending the war in Iraq (?) Does she not remember what happened while the proceedings against Clinton were going on? I seem to remember that during the interval, President Clinton invaded Iraq.
The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.
Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance....
When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors....
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.
And so we had to act and act now....
That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. (CNN.com)
Maybe he was right to do it; I certainly thought so at the time. At any rate, he was Bill Clinton; he understood "exit strategies" if anyone did. But at the time, there was definitely a rumor in the air that Clinton was letting the tail wag the dog in choosing that moment to take on Saddam Hussein.
And this Administration strikes me as more than capable of wagging the dog if it feels itself seriously threatened. What does Sheehan think Bush will do if they bring proceedings against him? Based on past performance, I don't think he will respond by ending the war in Iraq; that's not how he rolls. I don't actually like to think how this Administration would respond. There are enough conspiracy theories in the air as it is, and we don't want to be that blog.
BN-POLITICS RELATED LINK:
- Whither Cindy Sheehan? From Antiwar Icon to Pelosi-Baiter. How? Also: Why?
- Conspiracy: It's Not Just a Theory Anymore!
QUOTED/CITED:
- Metzler, Sheehan Wants Impeachment, Pelosi's Job (The Washington Post)
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/23/AR2007072300697.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Comments