anyone who wants to try impeachment

not anyone for impeachment because we all probably are, but those who actually want the Democrats to push for it:

what will it accomplish?

are you delusional enough to think we could get more than 2-3 Republicans to vote to impeach (and of course get every Democrat). There is no way it'd even get out of the House, assuming DeLay and Hastert even let the articles come to the table.

But aside from that, impeachment over it was one of the things that made the public sick of Monica Lewinsky, and boosted Clinton's ratings. Then in the next elections a lot of House members in liberal districts who voted to impeach lost, as did a lot of senators in 2000. A lot of analasies i've seen here said that Rod Grams vote to convict Clinton was the main thing that sunk him.

I just want to know what i'd accomplish that would be worth the potential loss of House and Senate seats and the possibility of the tide turning in Bush's favor.

It would take a good 6-7 months probably to go through the process.

but keeping the word "impeachment" in the news has been a plus.

If the time comes when the Repigs think he should be impeached, then it will be appropriate to agree with them.

- stil

1. We have been shown that "grounds for impeachment" are whatever the House says they are.

2. The House is solidly in Republican claws. (Oops! I mean Corporate Claws, because Congress IS for sale after all)

3. Ergo, no impeachment of bu$h.

:freak:
dbt

But aside from that, impeachment over it was one of the things that made the public sick of Monica Lewinsky,

the difference is that we have a real, significant issue to pursue here. a visceral issue. bush lied, thousands died. billions of dollars in national treasure - wasted. and bush can't even point to a booming economy as a mitigating factor in his favor. things are not going well in any sphere of national life.

I just want to know what i'd accomplish that would be worth the potential loss of House and Senate seats and the possibility of the tide turning in Bush's favor.

i disagree with your assumption that the issue would be a loser. sure, the repubs lost a little ground after impeaching Clinton, but they more than gained it back - because they inflicted long-term PR damage on the dems. this is our opportunity to return the favor, using their own words about the absolute moral imperative to expose and punish a lying chief executive.

that said, even if it did run the risk of losing seats - it would be worth it to expose the truth. i believe that we the people deserve to know the truth about this administration's lies - though the heavens may fall. i do believe each and every one of us has the duty to honor and pursue the truth - no matter what the consequences. that applies even more strongly to those who hold elected office.

and mark my words - if the truth is not fully exposed in this case, we'll pay an even greater price in the future. the price of allowing the deceivers to go on deceiving and driving this country into the ground.

that's why impeachment is worth the risk, imho. this is about something bigger than the next election.

I'm inclined to believe that if we just let the outrage simmer (about impeachment for lying about BJ vs. impeachment for lying about war), enough people will be motivated to go vote this clown out of office. It is taking the high road, and I think that's great that we can choose to do it. (Like we have a choice.)

The first use of the Bush Doctrine made him The Most Hated Man on Earth (TM). We should voice our opposition to the notion that we can pre-emptively invade any country we want, based on...our best intelligence...? :wtf:

I've been thinking of a slogan for this:
"Repeal the Bush Doctrine
by Repealing Bush
at the Ballot Box."
...needs to be shorter, I know...:shrug:

With the assholes running congress, it would be futile and self-defeating to push impeachment. But, the more we associate Bush with "impeachment", the more we taint the bastard.

In 1776 people were saying, you want independence? What fools! You think you can separate from the greatest nation on earth. And the majority of Americans will support this? You are nothing but a trouble maker! I wonder what ever happened to this idea?
I certainly can relate this to what you just wrote.

For those who do not fully understand what Impeachment means: Impeachment is a political tool to remove a sitting President from office that the American people do not trust and or think he is not doing his job.

If the Majority in the house does not follow the wishes of public outcry, they shall receive Impeachment in the following election. House members are considered closest to the people of anyone in Government. That is one reason they only serve two year terms. History has shown that public outcry usually wins in the end.

Clinton was not removed from office for the simple fact he was a popular President, and the governed liked the way they were being governed.

I can assure you with enough public outcry and demonstrations in the streets, no President; I repeat no President is beyond Impeachment.

there aren't people rioting in the streets demanding Bush be impeached. Sure the base of the Left will support it, but the middle won't. His ratings now show that he is vulnerable, but if 53% "approve" of him, that's enough to oppose impeachment, even if they won't vote for him in 2004. i'm sure if you did a poll around 60% of the public would oppose impeachment. So what's this about how Republicans who vote against it will lose in 2004 because of that?

until there is a huge public outcry that represents the majority, your scenario doesn't mean anything.

Thank you for the help in carifying it. Impeachment is based on Public opinion of the President.

would look pretty bad on the historical rap sheet, worse than the * that's already there.

Don't misunderstand. I vote for all the pain, terror and shame that can be heaped on these traitors.

The question is: what will hurt them and help us most?

If there were a clear and viable path to impeachment, he would be forced to resign; then they get to reload and have a better shot in '04. Winking at the I word does have some value though, just to make people think and rattle the R's.

My preference would be more and more investigations, hearings, press feeding frenzy, whistle-blowers, cover-up and intimidation, as they circle their wagons into a tighter and tighter circle.

Then, if the D's do it right, we do it right, and the press is firing on at least 2 or 3 cylinders, the result would be ignimonious electoral slaughter with the R's clutched to aWol's flaming coattails.

I lay awake at night thinking of ways to get Bug Boy Delay to step in front of the wrecking ball I think is drawing back to swing a mighty blow for freedom.

you have it down pat. please see a similar recent thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=83622&mesg_id=83622&page=

:kick:

and don't forget that Cheney takes over if * is impeached and convicted. If you get Cheney, then Hastert (DeLay stooge) takes over.

that makes definitive that the president and his men (including Cheney) faked everything about the need for a war in Iraq, and that in doing so have compromised US National Security - in a way that treason is apparent - then I don't care when the timing is - treason should be grounds for impeachment.

I think the case is there to be made but the hard and undisputable facts are not yet in hand. Without them, it would be futile. For the reasons that you state.

But with some information there becomes a point of no return (as was the case with Nixon). Many republicans, if the case is there, would not support Bush. I doubt that information that is definitive, noncontrovertable and damning - if it does exist - will come out - in a definitive format until after the election - or at least so far into the election season that to pursue impeachment would throw everything off (and if the evidence is that compelling either bush would pull and lbj, or he would be soundly defeated). There may indeed be impeachment in the future - but not based on what is currently out there.

They wouldn't be able to pursue their agenda because they'd be too busy defending bush. That's what happened with clinton. The impeachment of clinton was very successful for the GOP even though they failed to remove him.

All that needs to happen is for the facts to emerge. Let the facts push for impeachment (or not). All we need to do is keep asking for the facts. The media are not letting up. Neither should we.

I think it's OK to compare what Bush did to what Clinton did on the impeachment scale. That clearly reflects badly on Bush among those who know the details.

The GOP will probably try to innoculate Bush from impeachment simply by saying that Dems are (you know, in our "blind hatred," whatever) pushing for it. But the facts speak for themselves.

Bush is toast, either way.

We should push investigations and then let it take it's natural course. Graham's questions on the standards for impeachment, rather than impeachment itself, is very good, it accomplishes alot. It brings up the Republican impeachment again which many people are still unhappy about. It exposes the seriousness of what Bush has done and plants the seed of what real 'high crimes' are. At the same time, it shows that Democrats are above putting the country in a crisis when alternative means to achieving good governance are available. It's a win all the way around.

And Bob Graham is getting it exactly right.

We all know that as long as the gop controls the Congress, impeachment is a non-starter. We also know how much they lowered the bar for same with their harrassment of Bill Clinton. To expend political capital for something that will not happen is far to Don Quixote for me.

But the word IMPEACHMENT needs to be out there regularly. Bush needs to hear the word. Rove needs to hear the word. Often.

And, the public needs to be reminded about what these very same goons did to our last elected President and how reticent they are to do so when their boy is in power.

...of or calls for impeachment will highlight the cause and quite possibly force the repug congress into an investigation. it is a valid premise to say that "if the admin lied and mislead congress and the public in order to start a war that does fall within the standards that were set by congress in the clinton impeachment." it is also valid to then state to the cabal "these are very serious charges that you deny, if they are not true you should have nothing to fear from a congressional investigation or special prosecutor."

obviously we are a long way from this actually happening but the only way to get it started is to push the issue until the uneducated masses wake up and public opinion demands it. the repugs in congress, above all else, want to be re-elected. all pols actually, that is their reason for being.

no ifs, ands or buts. They were protected by lying henchmen willing to take the fall, a complicit Congress, a paid-for media, a few well-placed pardons by the guilty individuals themselves...and a convenient death or two (can you say William Colby?).

That's the story I'd like to see out there. The pattern of lying and malfeasance isn't just a BFEE trait - it's a republican trait.