QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. Why not work only on the election in November to remove Bush and Cheney rather than spend additional energy on impeachment?

We dare not wait because of the harm that Bush and Cheney can do between now and then. There is the on-going occupation by US and other foreign troops of Iraq, which will continue after the scheduled turn-over of partial sovereignty to the Iraqis at the end of June. The attacks of the insurgents can be expected to continue as long as foreign troops continue on Iraqi soil. Moreover, the US overthrow of the democratically elected government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti demonstrates the readiness of the Bush administration to pursue illegal and deadly policies. Venezuela and Cuba may be the next targets. If Bush finds himself in a close race with the Democratic candidate, there is no telling what desperate act he may try. He needs to be removed from office as soon as possible.

In addition, elections are not the way that the American system of justice deals with criminal suspects. They must be properly charged and the evidence carefully examined in an orderly and scrupulous way to protect both the accused and the public. Elections are driven by partisanship and hoopla. Irresponsible charges are often made, and unsubstantiated defenses presented. Elections do not permit the careful examination of evidence that is necessary in so serious a matter.

Even if the impeachment effort is voted down by the Republicans at some point, whatever evidence of the malfeasance of Bush and Cheney were exposed in an official investigation would have an impact. The public would understand why the Republicans cut short the process, and the exposure of misconduct would strengthen the campaign against Bush and Cheney’s re-election.

There must not be impunity when malfeasance of such gravity has been committed. It is not sufficient to simply vote the malefactors out of office. Their "high crimes" must be officially exposed and punished. Otherwise a precedent is set for comparable malfeasance in the future. Impeachment is the appropriate remedy.

2. Why not go for censure rather than impeachment?

Because the punishment should fit the crime. The charges made by those who have proposed censure are much too serious to receive only the rap on the knuckles. The taking of tens of thousands of lives, military and civilian, American, its allies’ and Iraqi, cries out for the most serious punishment. To call only for censure weakens the seriousness of the charges.

Censure would not prevent Bush and Cheney from continuing to do harm, as the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Haiti demonstrates. Only impeachment would remove them from office. Bush publicly took responsibility for misspeaking about Saddam Hussein securing uranium from Africa and nothing happened. He continued the occupation of Iraq.

It would be just as hard to get a censure resolution passed by a Republican dominated Congress as impeachment, because Republican resistance would have to be overcome.

Citizens must have the courage of their convictions. It is timid to demand less than impeachment.

3. It may be difficult to prove that Bush and Cheney deliberately lied to take the nation to war. This requires demonstrating that they intentionally sought to deceive Congress and the public.

The prestigious Carnegie Endowment for International Justice in their recent 107-page report, WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications, showed that the Bush administration "systematically misrepresented" the findings of the nation’s intelligence agencies, which themselves were flawed.

If it were difficult to prove malice, nevertheless Bush and Cheney could be charged with dereliction of duty in failing to exercise due diligence in evaluating the intelligence presented to them or supervising the persons they had appointed to head the intelligence agencies. Instead of being charged with premeditated murder, they could be accused of un-premeditated murder, that is, manslaughter and on a massive scale. These are obviously "high crimes." Clearly they betrayed the trust that citizens placed in them and must be removed from office.

4. What is the punishment for conviction after impeachment and would that end further prosecution?

The only punishment for conviction in such proceedings is dismissal from office and the prevention of the guilty persons from ever serving in any public capacity again. However, after removal from office, the offenders can be tried for criminal or civil offenses, which would carry the same penalties as anyone else committing the same offenses.

5. If Bush and Cheney were convicted by the Senate after impeachment by the House, who would succeed them in office?

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, would become president until the swearing in of the candidate elected in November the following January. Presumably the Republican majorities in the House and Senate would select the replacements of those who presided over both bodies.