Here’s One Reason Why Impeachment Should Never Be “Off the Table”

Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran:

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: “Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo.”

It’s Cheney, who favors military action, versus Secretary of State Condi Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who favor diplomacy, and Bush had been “siding” with Rice and Gates.

Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. “The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern,” the source said this week.

I would say something like, “Get those mad fuckers out of there before it’s too late,” except I don’t know to whom I’d be saying it, considering the Dems appear insistent on helping them start WWIII.

Advertisements

17 Comments

Filed under 01_shakespeares_sister

17 responses to “Here’s One Reason Why Impeachment Should Never Be “Off the Table”

  1. Rottweiler

    We have entered The Twilight Zone. Bush is afraid of Darth, and earthlings should be very afraid of both of them. Do you guys ever think about just leaving this insane asylum and relocating elsewhere? If so, where would your “peaceful place” be?

  2. at the rate they are going we won’t be having elections in 2 years because those asses will have started not WW111, but the armageddon they and their religious right base have been salivating over.

  3. larkohio

    I have two problems with impeachment. First, if W is impeached we get Doctor Doom, and he is far, far worse.

    Second, it would cost tons of money, and they would not be able to pull it off.

    Do I want them both gone, heck yeah! How to do it though?

  4. nightshift66

    lark,
    The solution to the Cheney issue is to impeach him simultaneously. You are right that the votes to remove them from office aren’t there today, and won’t be without considerable GOP defections. But we only have the tools we have. We can continue to shine the light on what they are doing trying to get those defections. But the only tools left past that are revolution, and that isn’t going to happen in this country.

  5. larkohio

    Nightshift, I do wish they were gone, and I do think we need to make all the uproar about them that we can. They are so arrogant, however, that I don’t think they get it that they are supposed to be representing what WE want, not what they want, or what they think God is telling them to do.

    We really have a train wreck going on right now, and every day is a new outrage. I sometimes just shake my head and say, “How on earth did you come up with that shit?”

  6. larkohio

    Oh, one more thing, if these idiots really want to go into Iran they are truly and dangerously delusional.

  7. nightshift66

    lark,
    No argument from me on any of that, especially the insanity of desiring to attack Iran. I know people who seem to believe that the US military cannot be defeated, ever, by any combination of enemy. I suspect that the administration may believe that, as well. That hubris is a most dangerous delusion.

  8. I don’t think Harry Reid could ever line up the 18 Republican votes necessary to remove either from office. Republicans are just too tied to Bush; convictions of Bush and Cheney would implicitly be condemnations of the Republican Senators as well.

  9. Pingback: The Heretik : Greasy Update

  10. As Bruce Fein said on the most recent Bill Moyers’ Journal:

    There’s always going to be a political element, Bill. But in the past, there’s always been a few statesmen who have said, “You know, the political fallout doesn’t concern me as much as the Constitution of the United States.” We have to keep that undefiled throughout posterity ’cause if it’s not us, it will corrode. It will disappear on the installment plan. And that has been true in the past. When we had during Watergate Republicans and remember Barry Goldwater, Mr. Republican, who approached the president and said, “You’ve got to resign.” There have always been that cream who said the country is more important than my party. We don’t have that anymore.

    [emphasis mine]

  11. Lisa

    I get physically nauseous when I read things like this. I feel so helpless. The song on right now in my office? Jamiroquai’s Virtual Insanity. Fitting don’t you think, although it isn’t virtual anymore, it’s all too real.

  12. Constant Comment

    I’ve come to the conclusion that even impeachment wouldn’t stop these deranged and arrogant SOBs. They’ll do what they want and nothing or no one else matters. Stealing elections? Letting New Orleans die? Demolishing the Constitution? Spying on U.S. citizens? Endorsing torture? Killing 4,000 U.S. soldiers and ruining the military? Bringing more destruction to Iraq than Saddam ever did? Creating more terrorism all over the world? *shrugs shoulders* Feh.

    A recent article noted that Cheney always comes in with the last argument and manages to sway Bush. Personally, I think he has pictures…

  13. What is scary here is how the administration’s thinking is shifting over towards a military confrontation with Iran–a move that Cheney advocates. This Bush administration is under a lot of political pressure, coming from a variety of sources. There is the administration’s fight with Congress over the U.S. attorney firings, Scooter Libby’s commutation, the intelligence failures, Harriet Miers, and the withdrawal timetables of U.S. troops from Iraq. The Bush administration has lost the PR-war regarding Iraq. The Iraqi government has failed to meet the political benchmarks set for determining the Bush administration’s success in the war. Al Qaeda has regained its pre-September 11th strength. And a majority of the American public not only believe that the U.S. war in Iraq has been a mistake, but they’ve abandoned President Bush to a below 30 percent job approval rating. This is an administration that has retreated into a bunker mentality as it lashes out to blame everyone for its own mistakes. President Bush may also just be thinking that a U.S. attack against Iran would allow the White House to institute a “rally-around-the-flag” PR-theme in hopes of increasing President Bush’s job approval ratings, and continuing the Bush war in Iraq until after President Bush leaves office in January 2009. So there is a PR factor here with the Bush administration’s consideration of going to war with Iran.

    There is also a time factor here. Vice President Cheney knows he has got less than 18 months to continue the PNAC neocon’s dream of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East. If Dick Cheney wants to attack Iran, then now is the time–both before 2008 presidential elections, and before a new president takes office. Consider this quote from the Guardian:

    The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively.

    Cheney knows that a Democratic president will not attack Iran, while the U.S. is still entangled in the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A Republican president is probably a little more nuanced. While a Republican president will certainly continue the U.S. war in Iraq, such a president may end up purging the executive branch of the PNAC neocons who have gotten the U.S. into the Iraq mess in the first place. The PNAC influence in the executive branch may have been somewhat diminished, but it still has a great deal of power within the hands of the vice president. So time is not on Dick Cheney’s side here. If he is able to sway President Bush’s thinking towards a military confrontation against Iran, I fear that the best time to attack Iran will be before this year is out. The key factor here is the 2008 presidential elections. A U.S. attack against Iranian nuclear facilities will most likely be air strikes conducted over several days. If President Bush orders a U.S. attack against Iran sometime in 2008, then such an attack becomes an election year issue that could cause even more problems against the Republicans–the air strikes may fail at taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran may retaliate by attacking U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf. There may be increased terror attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq. There may also be domestic outrage and anger against the administration by a majority of Americans who oppose such an attack. Right now, the issue of an American attack against Iran is a speculative issue. It becomes a whole new ballgame once President Bush orders the attack against Iran.

    If President Bush orders an attack against Iran before 2008, there will certainly be political, economic and military consequences that both the Bush administration and the Republican Party would have to endure. But the thinking here would be that these are short-term consequences, just as the U.S. air strikes against Iran would take place over a few days. Americans may be outraged, but the Bush administration may be hoping that the outrage would subside as the White House PR-machine starts spinning that this is only a one-time U.S. attack, and that the Pentagon does not have any plans for a sustained bombing campaign against Iran, or any invasion of Iran. The outrage would be short-term and not stay current through the 2008 election season–the U.S. attack against Iran is done now, it is time to move on. And remember the PR-factor here where the Bush administration may also be wishing that a U.S. attack against Iran would create another rally-around-the-flag-and-president mood within the country to support the president, thus providing an uptick in the president’s job approval ratings, and greater approval for the GOP presidential candidates.

    Now this is all speculation here, and I could be completely wrong in my analysis. It is difficult to make sense of the internal debates taking place within the Bush White House–especially since this administration refuses to divulge anything except their own PR-talking points. What this Guardian story reveals is that there is an internal war taking place within the Bush White House as to whether the Bush administration will attack Iran. And at this point, Vice President Cheney has President Bush’s ear towards provoking a military showdown with Iran. I don’t believe that President Bush has signed the order for the U.S. to conduct air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. But I’m guessing that the order is sitting in the president’s desk drawer, just waiting for the president’s signature.

  14. But the thinking here would be that these are short-term consequences, just as the U.S. air strikes against Iran would take place over a few days.

    You’d have to be a friggin’ idiot to assume that there will only be short-term consequences from bombing another country in a strategic hot-spot. If I was Iran, I’d simply start sending troops out into the Gulf and confiscate any oil tanker or cargo of oil owned by an American company – which would force the US Navy to come in close enough for potshots to be exchanged.

    Of course, the Bush Administration is stuffed with friggin’ idiots.

  15. boatboy_srq

    I love how this ADHD-afflicted [mal]administration seems bent on serial IslamoBashing and losing interest when there’s no “slam-dunk.” Afghanistan? Yawn. Iraq? Shrug. That inexplicable fiasco that Israel attempted to inflict on Hezbollah? Just another day in Lebanon, folks.

    I’ve been calling the Iran assault gambit unavoidable for years now. Scenario: Afghanistan is no longer the focus of the GWoT – it’s tiresome, cumbersone, and those original Taleban and al-Qaida guys who actually did the deed aren’t getting good airplay anymore. Iraq is a mess, and it’s on the news every day – but at least its oil fields are effectively sequestered and our people have the rights (even if they did have to wrench them out of Iraqi hands the hard way). Meanwhile, Iran’s oil is all going to Russia and China and other places we’re not especially fond of, and Iran is thumbing its nose at the US fairly regularly.

    Solution? Replace Iran with a broad, glassy, totally uninhabitable plain. That solves two problems at once: we silence them uppity imams and Islamofascists (even the survivors aren’t likely to make a lot of noise after a blast like that), and we stanch the flow of oil to nations that aren’t in lockstep with us whilst keeping our own hands on the remaining taps. It’s win/win – win for the ideologues, win for the petroleum industry.

    Pity the poor Iranian citizenry caught in the midst of it. And neocons are notorious for overestimating the love their Freedom[tm] and Democracy[tm] bring when they foist it on others, so the idea of a general Muslim backlash – supported by China, who’s getting hooked on cheap Iranian crude, and Venezuela, Nigeria and Sudan, which by then would think they’re next – just doesn’t occur to them outside the occasional suitcase dirty bomb dutifully caught by airport security or the box-cutters fruitlessly hacking at the BAE Systems’ hardened cockpit door.

  16. You’d have to be a friggin’ idiot to assume that there will only be short-term consequences from bombing another country in a strategic hot-spot.

    I completely agree with you here. An attack against Iran will be a complete disaster for the U.S. on both the military and economic terms. The Iranians may just engage in all-out war against the U.S., oil prices will go straight through the roof to $100 a barrel, gas prices here may just end up going over $5.00 a gallon. A Bush administration attack against Iran may just tip the U.S. into a deep recession. But in my comment above, I was trying to analyze this story through the neocon mindset of President Bush and Dick Cheney. And it is difficult to write this analysis because the neocon mindset requires you to accept certain assumptions here–this will be a short-term attack where the Iranians will not respond, or will feebly respond to. The American public will have a short attention span and forget about the U.S. attacks in 2008. The U.S. military will destroy all the Iranian nuclear facilities, meaning that the attack will be short and quick, rather than a long-term bombing campaign. The neocons are basing their arguments to attack Iran using the best-case scenarios that could take place in the event of such an attack, while ignoring, or dismissing, the worst-case scenarios. I could say it is like trying to analyze complex geopolitical events using the rules from a Candyland board game.

    Of course, the Bush Administration is stuffed with friggin’ idiots. They probably have been spending too much time playing their Candyland games.

  17. Pingback: Mike Malloy :: View topic - One Reason Why Impeachment Should Never Be

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s