If you opposed impeachment before, I can understand that ...... but .....

..... what about now?

The Libby trial's shining a light in places darker than black holes.

The surge was just the latest lie. It isn't 21,000 troops. Its more like 48,000. That's more than a 100% error factor. That's no oversight or misstatement. That's a lie.

Global warming isn't fiction anymore. Even if American scientists were shut up or paid to lie. Kyoto was the **right** thing to do, way back when.

Name an issue. Any issue.

These fuckers are wrong on all counts and are not changing course one fucking iota.

If you were opposed to impeachment before, maybe because you couldn't count the votes in the Senate, how can you still be against it?

I'm honestly NOT here to smack anyone for their view on impeachment. It isn't a simple, sound bite matter. I am assuming you came to your views honestly and with reflection. I know I did.

And I want impeachment for the moral imperative. The train isn't just off the track, it is a burning conflagration that just gets worse with each passing hour.

believes he doesn't deserve impeachment. The opposition comes from people who realize that a failed impeachment would do nothing to help Dems and would basically "acquit" Bush.

And we realize that there aren't 16 Republican senators who would vote to convict.

and the world and WE the American people will understand how much be hate this nut we squirreled away in the WH.

By the time the Libby trial reveals more lies...more Rethugs will vote to get rid of b* and C. Be patient! It's coming and sooner than we expected. Gotta get all our blocks lined up in a row.

Edited to make more sense.

Clinton was impeached, and I don't think many people care. His impeachment will be seen as a partisan attack by a Republican congress gone mad.

Republicans were damaged by their failed efforts to remove him. Democrats would similarly be damaged by a failed effort to remove Bush.

Would they be damaged by a SUCCESSFUL effort to remove Bush?
How will they ever get a successful removal unless they start?

.... it's that there are other steps that have to come first.

We're walking, my friend.
Next week, Conyers starts hearings on war dollars/fraud. This is the way to put a bunch of deserving people in jail. And as the little ones go down, the bigger ones come down, and if there are enough investigations, bush may be forced out anyway. I think the idea is to get the proof out and to the public first, then ask for consequences.

... because according to most polls, public support for impeachment is not there yet.

Without substantial majorities in support there is no way the GOP Senators will vote against their party to convict.

And impeachment without conviction is worse than nothing.

it doesn't get you 67 votes in the Senate.

If impeachment fails to get any Republican votes (which it will) then it will just be seen in the history books as a reflection of an era of extreme partisanship where every President is impeached if the other party controls congress.

There may be a good case for impeachment but there isn't the overwhelming support for it that we need. Perhaps it is due to media complacency, lack of congressional oversight, and many other factors but the fact is that it's simply not there.

And I wish more here were willing to allow a case to be put together that can bring a conviction.

It would be like trying to get Emmett Till's murderers convicted by a white jury in segregated Mississippi.

... and that's where you start, before you start impeachment.

We wouldn't waste so much time re-explaining ourselves.

We say "Not yet" but in their impatience all they seem to hear is "No..." and the screaming starts again about how we are complicit in Bush's crimes.

Meanwhile more hell breaks lose around the world. I was for going slow until it has become apparent that bush is charging full speed ahead with his war logic, which isn't logic. It is insanity and we don't have time to walk this thing through.

... but go ahead, if you don't want to actually stop Bush.

What more evidence do we need, if we don't have the evidence now we never will. bush's lies are out there in plain view, on paper. Imagine what might come of some real subpoena power? In Tenet's words, It's a slam dunk.

> What more evidence do we need

I don't know but we either need more evidence or a better campaign to push the evidence

> if we don't have the evidence now we never will.

Based on what? How do you know there's not more to be found?

> bush's lies are out there in plain view, on paper.

Good enough for you. Good enough for me. Need I remind you that our opinions on this are not the opinions that matter.

Yes, I guess I must: our opinions don't matter

When you can name the 67 Senators you are ready grasshopper

Ellsberg, when speaking here in San Diego last weekend, noted that had we not had the kind of protests we had right before Nixon went down, and also had it not been for the efforts towards impeachment starting up after the Pentagon Papers and other info came out that got Nixon in trouble, Nixon had plans to have a major escalation of bombardment of North Vietnam (perhaps even nuclear) that was killed due to these efforts.

Impeachment hearings serve a lot of purposes, even if the ultimate end of impeachment and conviction aren't achieved. I do think that we shouldn't put our foot forward too quickly so that we hopefully have a shot at convicting the bastards in a pragmatic way, but do think we should be going FULL BORE into investigations now, which it sounds like some are trying to pursue. We just keep need to needle them to do more and more investigation in every place that we smell rats! I called Waxman's office as soon as the story on Carol Lam getting fired came out, and gave them the info which they told me they passed along to the oversight committee. It looks like now they are trying to find ways to stop Bushco's efforts to purge and replace the U.S. Attorneys out there that might give them trouble. We just need to make a big deal about everything that smells bad and let them know that we DEMAND that they take action to look at what's going on!

... because their constituents are not impressed.

This is another weird argument to me: the thought that we on DU have access to some stash of secret evidence that the Senate has not seen.

That is how we got in this mess. They need to be drawn a picture.

And their constituents voted (06) and said "Impeach". Some just wanted to get rid of bush, remember, last week, polls said they wanted bush out.

As far as DU's secret stash, it is a conglomeration of info from all over the place. Some DUers are great at assembling the info for quick analysis. That is what Senator's staff should be doing.

... how will impeachment make them look at evidence they've ignored before?

Also you're wrong about the meaning of the 06 vote. Most 06 polls show small minorities in favor of impeachment.

> last week, polls said they wanted bush out.

The poll said people wished it was "just over". Is that the same thing as impeachment? I don't know what they were thinking. I'm still waiting for the first impeachment poll of 07 to come out. Hopefully things have changed. Right now, the evidence is that the people do not want an impeachment.

Given that, it's unlikely a GOP Senator will vote for conviction whatever the evidence is. Constituent opinion is the #1 piece of evidence they care about.

> As far as DU's secret stash, it is a conglomeration of info from all over the place.

The Senators have access to all that info plus more.

> That is what Senator's staff should be doing.

That is what their staff does along with numerous think tanks. All the smart people are not here at DU.

the '06 vote was a mandate for impeachment? Why?

We won the Senate because of a couple of squeaker races. Without "macaca" and Rush Limbaugh mocking Michael J. Fox, we probably wouldn't have won it at all.

Can you point to any polls that show any sort of sizeable majority favoring impeachment? And remember, the Senate is NOT a fairly-distributed body. Which states with Republican senators would have overwhelming support for impeachment - enough to make a Senator buck his own party and vote to convict?

We do not have enough Repugs to convict *.

even if we think we may not have enough vote to convict RIGHT NOW . . . once the hearings get underway, though, I think that the evidence will be so overwhelming that even staunch Bush supporters will have no choice but to vote to convict . . .

present danger to the US, and needs to be removed from office immediately.

I formerly believed that it would be too difficult to initiate impeachment proceedings.

I now believe that, due to recent actions by Bu*h, that he is deliberately attempting to undermine the safety and security of the people of the US, and that it is critical to our national survival that Congress immediately take the steps to remove him from office by any means necessary.

"by any means necessary" efforts usually work out?

him in disgrace on the worldwide big screen if he didn't.

Bu*h is a far more dangerous, and guilty, criminal than Nixon was.

The first order of business is for Congress to put Bu*h on notice that they have the evidence, and the fervent desire, to destroy him, and that he is going to go down as the biggest disgrace in American history if he does not resign immediately.

Congress needs to let Cheney know the same thing while they're at it.

The Republican impeachment effort and Ken Starr never had "sex with that woman". They had the so-called "moral imperative" to go after Clinton without any blowback.

The ONLY reason that the current traitors in congress took impeachment off the table is that they voted for the occupation of Iraq and made lots of money by doing so. How can they now seriously investiagte the very liar they are complicit in supporting? Won't they simply become accessories to the 658,000 murders and many hundreds of thousands of maimings if they try to impeach?

Its the same reason we manipulated the Iraqis into executing Hussein before he could stand trial for gassing the Kurds. We sold them the gas and we betrayed the Kurds. We were totally complicit. Rather than admit that, we'll just let Saddam get killed over lesser evils he's responsible for.

The Democrats HAVE to let Bush go. They are his friends and even those who aren't don't like the thought of being hanged alongside.

Remember, the House impeaches, but the Senate renders judgement: Convict or Acquit.

Do you, dear reader, have a list of at least 18-20 Republican US Senators who will vote with the Democrats to convict?
Because there is nothing written in stone that says all the Democrats and Independents will vote to convict Bush and Cheney (especially not Joe Lieberman, I-Party of One)

You need 2/3 majority in the Senate (that's 67 Senators) to convict the bastards.
And right now, we just don't have the numbers on our side.

Believe me, I want impeachment AND removal. Impeachment but acquittal is unacceptable for me and for all of us. It will only make martyrs out of Bush and Cheney.

I want impeachment, too. But the numbers right now are just not there for us.

:evilfrown:

... and so fail to plan ahead.


Much like Bush and the Iraq war.

issue. They have broken the law. They have ignored the Constitution They swore to defend. Bottom line. Impeach.

The Libby/Plame/cheney issue concerning deliberate lies to the nation when it came to accusing Iraq of making a nuke in the SOTU speech should be enough for anyone. Curveball and his claim of mobil labs is a fun one too. Saddam and Osama being best buds is another lie.

Hell, bush knew or should have known that this was all bs. Didn't he say to Tenet (sp?), is this it, and Tenet said, so the story goes, it's a slam dunk? Come on, what kind of a intelligence answer is that for bush to go to war on - - slam dunk?

I figure it's a dereliction of duty for the Democrats not to start the impeachment process!

... you and I are not the jury and so it's not relevant that the evidence currently out there is enough to convince us.

We've not made a case strong enough to convince the people that matter.

To protect the constitution and the nation you must remove Bush, not impeach him. Removal requires conviction, and conviction requires 67 Senators and 67 Senators requires a strong majority of constituents calling for removal.

You need all that before impeachment makes sense.

None of this "duty" bull. We don't have a duty to do something just because we can.

We should take measures that are effective and not worry about what duty calls for.

I've said it time and time again, if our leaders don't make a big stink about it the people will think it must not be a big deal.

The people have emboldened political leaders to finally start speaking out against the war. It's cowardice. It's "strategery." They think about power and how it's better to have an unpopular shmuck in the WH during campaign season. I'm sorry but this lame duck is still mighty dangerous. And not doing anything makes his unconstitutional conduct the "new normal."

opinion on impeachment. For me, no more. He's too damn dangerous; everything we've been told about the surge is a lie, from troop and money amounts, to time there, to Iraqi troops trained, etc. This guy and his cohorts are way too dangerous to consider anything but impeachment at this point. The sooner they're out, the better for all of us. And that goes for Cheney, too, especially Cheney.

First off ....... no sane person is calling for aerticles of impeachment to be written out and voted on tomorrow. The impeachment hawks, like me, have always held that there must first be investigations and hearings and testimony and facts. These will come from hearings held by the likes of John Conyers and Henry Waxman and Charlie Rangel.

Next ....... our job is not to flap our arms and cry ceaselessly for impeachment. Our job is keep the word viable and keep the notion of impeachment on the radar. And we've been succeding. Note just on those stupid online polls that all the newzchannels like to put on their web sites. Questions about impeachment have been there already. Listen to the teevee chattering class. They've more than once uttered the very word 'impeachment'. Look around the Internet(s). There are many calls for impeachment. The internet is in large measure driving this.

The question in the OP was not about tactics or votes so much as it was about what *you* feel.

Personally, I'm 60 years old. I care about a lot of things, but it is damn well past time that we do now what should have been done in Nixon's day, in Reagan's day, in Poppy's day ..... by NOT impeaching then, we are paying all too fucking dearly TODAY as we watch the idiot son of a bastard to carry on with impunity. Impeachment is a part of our Constitution for a reason.

Look to George W. Bush and you see the very embodiment of that reason. For all the ills of Nixon, Reagan and Poppy, this guy tops them all.

Sometimes the right thing needs to be done and the consequences dealt with. Triangulating and senatorial vote counting is all well and good. But in the end, we have no choice, if you hold anything dear.

I hold my country dear.

I am an impeachment hawk.

Impeachment is a moral imperative.

Impeachment proceedings will take at least a year and grind Congress to a halt. You can forget about making any progressive legislative process during that time. I'm sure Americans will appreciate the fact that the Democrats they elected to reverse the Repubs' bad decisions were chasing the red herring of impeachment instead of doing their jobs. Bush is free to order all the troop escalations he wants, right up to the time he is convicted, assuming that by some miracle it's possible to get the 67 votes. Better to use the legislature to curtail the war, investigate Bush's criminal incompetence and jail his staff members.

The last time a president was impeached it took approximately a month from start to finish.

Then it followed with two terms of Republican rule.

You're the one who's divorced from reality, pal.