Thursday, July 19, 2007

More thoughts on impeachment

For our 500th post (woohoo) I'm revisiting the issue of impeachment. It's an issue that I'm mildly conflicted on. Our shrub and the cheney certainly have taken so many actions for which they truly deserve to be impeached, but should the impeachment fail in the senate then their abuses of power will be the norm for future administrations. In short, any articles of impeachment must be so well crafted that it cannot be defeated. It has to be overwhelming.
There are more than enough outrages deserving impeachment. Lies about Iraq, the failures on 9/11 and Katrina, warrentless wiretapping, politicizing the DOJ, the suspension of Habeus Corpus, and the executive signing statements are just the first to spring into my mind. Hell, I just read another this morning. Remember the cheney energy task force?

In March 2001, while California's two largest utilities were teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, and the state's electricity crisis was spiraling out of control, Vice President Dick Cheney summoned Curt Hebert, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), to his office next to the White House for a hastily arranged meeting.

Cheney had just been informed by his longtime friend Thomas Cruikshank, the man who handpicked the vice president to succeed him at Halliburton in the mid-1990s, that federal energy regulators were close to completing an investigation into allegations that Tulsa, Oklahoma-based Williams Companies and AES Corporation of Arlington, Virginia had created an artificial power shortage in California in April and May of 2000 by shutting down a power plant for more than two weeks.

Cruikshank was a member of Williams's board of directors, and perhaps more importantly, had been one of many energy industry insiders advising Cheney's energy task force on a wide-range of policy issues, including deregulation of the nation's electricity sector, that would benefit Williams financially.

Cruikshank informed the vice president he had learned about the preliminary findings of FERC's investigation during a Williams board meeting earlier in March 2001. FERC, Cruikshank told Cheney, was in possession of incriminating audio tapes in which a Williams official and an AES power plant operator discussed keeping a Southern California power plant offline so Williams could continue to receive the $750 per megawatt hour premium for emergency power California's grid operator was forced to procure to keep the lights on in Southern California.http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_071907J.shtml



That's right. They covered up the conspiracy behind the California electricity crises. They have no shame.
In spite of my earlier expressed reservations, I've come to believe we must impeach. Because the cost of allowing the administrations dishonesty to continue would be the destruction of the America we love. If we are to remain a constitutional democracy we must call the bastards to account.
DCUP at PoliTits (who I've grown to love) has some great thoughts on the need to impeach:
Finally, since I'm not an expert on the impeachment process, I went out and looked up an answer to your 2/3 question. Here's what I found:
(1) To convict Bush we only need 16 Republican Senators in addition to all the Democrats. It is quite possible that we will get them.
(2) After investigations and the trial, it will be obvious to everyone that Bush is guilty of serious crimes. At that point, many Republicans will feel compelled to vote for a guilty verdict.
(3) Many Republican politicians oppose Bush because they feel he is hurting them politically.

(4) Many Republican voters are calling for impeachment. If Senators want to get reelected they may have to vote Bush guilty.
(5) Bush committed crimes and it is our duty to oppose those crimes
and defend the Constitution regardless of our chance of success
(6) If we can force a debate on impeachment then it will expose Bush's crimes even if he is not convicted.
(7) If we can force a roll call vote and some Republicans vote with Bush then we will have them on record as being on the wrong side of history.
(8) It is better to fight for justice and lose then to accept injustice.http://politits.blogspot.com/2007/07/your-daily-reminder-that-democrats-are_18.html#links

I'm with her. We cannot let them get away with it.
While my own congress-critters are all staunch rethugs, I've decided to contact them every day, calling for impeachment. They need to here from all of us.
Here's the contact info:
Senate:http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
House:http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml

2 comments:

DCup said...

Sorry I'm late with this!

Thanks for the link!

gandhisxmas said...

Yes, I know a bit about this. Before Bush got into office he rationalized deregulation and rejected government intervention in the CA energy crisis, i mean scam, in the name of freedom and markets. His Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham openly worked with Enron, Duke energy, Dynegy, Reliant, Halliburton et al. to ensure that the scams under progress would continue. Hell in feb 2001 Business Week magazine was speculating if Ken Lay would be Secretary of Energy due to his personal friendship with GW Bush. Lay was also on Cheney's secret energy task force. Jeff Skilling and Lay, along with Enron execs were primary supporters of the GOP.

When Enron went under and Lay and Skilling came up criminal, one of Bushs first BIG LIES was put forth that he did not know Ken Lay.

Another reason for impeachment.

Gandhisxmas