Where are the '08 candidates on IMPEACHMENT? Various supporters please respond.

It may be a pet issue of yours, but as President, who would they impeach? And, if they come out loudly in favor of impeachment, God help us if the Congress goes GOP again.

It matters to me for the above stated obviousness as well as my insight to the candidates integrity and their respect for the rule of law and the integrity of the Constitution.

Who is your candidate?

You'll turn purple and keel over dead before one of the serious candidates comes out in support of impeachment.

Ain't gonna happen. Not now. Not ever.

Nevertheless, it is a poisonous issue. The Repukes will come out against, but the Dems won't touch it.

The backlash beast is a myth. Where would it come from? No poll or study of the electorate detects some silent majority that will stand up and oppose impeachment. In fact, just the opposite. There's compelling evidence that a vast majority would rally behind impeachment -- that impeachment would tap a motherlode of energy and outrage against Bush. Newsweek just found that 58% of the nation wants the Bush presidency over right now. Before the election, when Newsweek asked whether impeachment should be a priority in the new Congress, only 44% said it "should not be done at all" (and that included Dems and Independents who were following Pelosi's "off the table" edict. These people would be on the impeachment bus in a second if the leadership got serious about it.)

Republicans are not defending Bush against accusations that they are abusing the Constitution to commit war crimes and operate a criminal spying program. Until the leadership gets serious about impeachment, we won't know how many, or how few, will be willing to defend the indefensible. The reality that is almost universally denied by impeachment naysayers is that Republicans would be happy to be rid of Bush and Cheney. They'll be VERY motivated to pressure Bush and Cheney to take the resignation "exit strategy" to ensure the White House stays in Republican hands.

Their fears of backlash have no rational basis.

On the other hand, the risk of failing to impeach is VERY real. When Bush starts WWIII, does Pelosi really want to be the one who had the power to stop him, but refused because she wanted to pass a Federal minimum wage lower than what is required in most states?

The election was not an Anti-War ralling cry; it was an Anti-Bush rallying cry. It was a cry to get us out of Bush World. There's no good solution to the quagmire in Iraq and Americans are rightfully ambivilent. The only consensus is that we must inject some sanity, and that there can be no sanity as long as we stay in Bush World.

All the sqwawking that the election was "all stopping the war" is just an attempt to shuttle the outrage at Bush into the safe and familiar "Anti-War" bucket. The parrots love that bucket. What better topic than a quagmire? What better way to feed the 24 hour "news" beast than the endless debate about the inescapable rathole. It's almost as good as the meaningless fluff of the "horserace."

Impeachment is the only way out of Bush World. Impeachment is the only way to express the true will of the people.

In addition to ignoring the risks of failing to impeach, they are ignoring the guaranteed benefits of impeaching Bush and Cheney.

The BIGGEST problem the Democratic Party has is the perception that they are cowardly and unprincipled weaklings. Failing to take up the fight to defend the Constitution with the ONLY weapon in the arsenal just confirms the perception.

The Dems are already being called cowards. The parrots are squawking. The drumbeat has begun. (If you doubt this, just read the http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16904772/">'Tucker' transcript for Jan. 30).

Demonstrating fortitude and commitment to principle -- right or wrong -- ALWAYS benefits the leader who does so. Impeachment is the most effective way the Dems can challenge the "weak Dem" image.

Of course, even if impeachment weren't a political winner, the leadership of the House would still have a duty to call for impeachment. Their oath is not an oath to to win; it is an oath to fight -- to support and defend. There's nothing in the Congressional oath about defending the Constitution only when it gains them political advantage or when it exacts no cost.

It is NEVER good politics to be complicit in crime.

Even in the irrational "political calculus" that pervades the beltway, it ought to be dawning on them that the failure to impeach Bush and Cheney is a FAR greater risk to the future of the Democratic Party than even the worst of their (baseless) fears of impeachment.

Does Pelosi really want to go down in history as the ONE person who had the power to stop WWIII, but refused to act? As the leader who "cracked the whip" to silence every member who dared to utter the word impeachment? As a woman so deluded that she thought it was more important to pass a minimum wage increase than to stop the blatant, willful criminality, subversion, and international devastation being wrought by the Bush/Cheney WH?

Wake up and smell the coffee.

The rest of them have no constitutional say. Sure, they can have an opinion and bitch until they're blue in the face, but even a sitting Senator doesn't have the power to impeach (and a sitting Senator would be part of the jury in an impeachment proceeding -- it's only fair that a juror would keep his or her opinions about whether to convict to himself or herself until there's actually been a trial).

And I'd like to know why a Presidential candidate would support impeachment, anyway -- it makes no sense.

Crazy Scenario A: Bush AND Cheney are simultaneously impeached, convicted and removed from office. Speaker Pelosi becomes president and immediately has the power of incumbency to run for president in her own right, thus thwarting the rest of the field.

Crazy Scenario B: (B1) Bush is impeached, convicted and removed from office, and Cheney either becomes president or (B2) resigns beforehand and a new VP is selected and ascends to the presidency. Either way, a Republican president nominates a Republican VP, and that person (or the new president in Scenario B2) has the power of incumbency to run for president in his or her own right, thus thwarting the rest of the field.

While it might be important to a handful of people who post here for a candidate to say, "I don't care if it destroys my chances of becoming president -- or a democrat becoming president at all; we need to impeach Bush and/or Cheney and convict and replace him/them for the year or so that would actually result between conviction and the next election, for the good of the Republic," it's not gonna happen.

Sorry.

Crazy Scenario C: They do not impeach and we have 23 more months of fraWd lies, war, deatrh and destruction of this country and our rules of law. Crazy scenario c would mean we "play chess while the electorate want checkers". In other words we play self serving games in the name of triangulating and buy into all the bullshit propaganda about why we shouldn't uphold the law and the constitution.

The case for impeachment is a slam dunk and we all know that. Let the chips fall where they may and support people who will truly do what is in the best interest of the nation as a whole and not that of the oligarchs.

Crazy scenario c would enable further war and perhaps even expanded war with Iran and god knows where else.

I'll take a scenario of impeaching now!

edit to add: Btw, I do believe that Kucinich has publicly stated there is a case for impeachment and supports such action.

This is possibly the most ludicrous statement I've ever read on DU.

"The case for impeachment is a slam dunk and we all know that."

Yes, the president lied us into war. Yes, his administration committed TREASON in outing an undercover CIA agent. But this is the real world, not some fantasy candy land.

As you have repeatedly proven yourself to have no understanding whatsoever of the United States Constitution, let me spell it out in terms even you can understand: after the House impeaches, it requires TWO-THIRDS of the Senate to convict and remove from office.

THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

You could have videotape of George W. Bush giving Osama bin Laden the fucking nuclear launch codes, and 90% of Senate Republicans would still vote to acquit. Does this make them sick, degenerate, immoral rat bastards; far more "America-hating" than they accuse us of being? Yes, it does. But that's the real world.

The American people will then be suckered by the corporate media and the RW talking heads into believing that the Democrats only impeached for revenge, and we will lose the 2008 presidential election to McCain or Romney or who the fuck ever. Is this what you want?

There IS a case for impeachment. But it will never happen. Perhaps you deserve ten million dollars just for being you. But you know what? No matter how much you say it, it's not gonna happen. So why waste your breath?

Get out there and work for REAL change. It'll probably be more effective than posting incoherent exclamations on an echo-chamber website with your caps lock key stuck.

many here would prefer the vague emotional satisfaction that comes from tying up the congress for months, ending with Bush's ACQUITTAL, to actually doing something constructive.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You're really bordering on personal attack territory.

In fact, I'm going to alert on this. "Your argument is weak and unprincipled" is a legitimate way to attack what someone's saying (even if I think your assessment is incorrect); questioning someone's patriotism is no better than what the Republicans do every time someone on our side dares to question their fearless leader. It's ugly and it's cheap, no matter what side you're on.

assertions and was THREE: Insulting to say the least. Go read it and then come back and defend it. The op admitted there were grounds for impeachment but further stated that in his/her opinion it would never happen. Maybe so, but we will never know with defeatist, complicit attitudes like that would we? I fyou don't defend the constitution, the very backbone of this country, then yes, you are not a patriot imo.

People that proffer political calculus rather than rule of law offend my sensibilities and they shouldn't be surprised when they get what we all have gotten over these last six years. I'm sick and tired of bullshit arguments and complicit dlc type of wolves in sheeps clothing. Go ahead and alert. I have re read the rules and I'm have not broken any of them. Btw, by your logic the poster to which I responded whom you evidently feel a need to defend was the first to cast characterizations of me which were unfounded and insulting. Typical though; attack the messenger and not the message. How utterly brave of you top alert on me. You must be proud! Shame.

And attack those who disagree in the bitterest of terms.

That says alot to me.

Which choice do you prefer? If that is myopic in your opinion so be it.

. . . rationalizations for inaction. It is perhaps the Number 1 reason that the Democratic Party is failing to capture the respect and support of a vast majority of Americans, even though the Party is committed to protecting and advancing their interests.

Members of the Democratic Party may believe they are "picking fights wisely," but to observers it appears they spend all their time predicting defeat and "saving their energy" for fights they are guaranteed to win. Outsiders looking in do not see "wise selection," they see unprincipled cowardice. When the rare "winnable fight" does materialize, it is often for some incremental step or practical end that inspires no one.

For your consideration:

under current circumstances.

How I love the sound of rationality in the morning!

When it comes to speaking out against intolerable conditions, "bitching," as you call it, is the ONLY moral option. To keep silent is to be complicit with the perpetrators of the conditions.

City councils and other elected bodies don't have the power to impeach either (with the exception of State legislatures, which do have the power to initiate the process), but they doing what conscience demands. They are passing resolutions. They are calling on the House to take the first step required to defend us against Bush and Cheney's war on the Constitution.

Well known authorities on the Constitution, Federal statute, and international law don't have the power to impeach, but they too are speaking out.

Ordinary citizens, who have delegated the power to impeach to the House, are making the case and demanding action.

Members of the Senate could put their words into action by introducting a "Sense of the Senate" resolution stating that the many accusations and cases for impeachment that have been presented to Congress by elected bodies, good government organizations, authorities, and countless ordinary citizens call for action from Members of the House -- either introduce articles of impeachment or publicly state the reasons that the charges are baseless. The resolution could simply point out that the black cloud of the public's accusations must be dealt with.

The Congressional oath is an individual oath. Their duty to act is an individual duty. It doesn't matter whether they would be standing alone or with a legion, if they keep silent they are complicit.

Such a resolution would in no way compromise the role of the Senate as trier of fact in an impeachment. Such a resolution is not a "pre-judgement" of any charges, it is simply a statement that the key accusations against Bush and Cheney that are well-known to a vast majority of Americans cannot be ignored.

Impeachment is one of the most important issues to me, as I'm sure many poeple are aware from past threads I've started about it. If I were to find out that my favorite candidate was outright against impeaching Bush, it would make me think twice about supporting that candidate.

Trouble is, how do we find out how they feel about it? It's not likely that it'll be something they'll feel comfortable about talking about.

Thank you for bringing up this subject!

I just don't see "Impeachment" become a plank in the Dem platform.

Why would you promise to impeach Bush when your very election causes Bush to leave office?

OTOH, Asking how they stand on Bush's various constitutional violations, the "unitary president" nonsense does make sense.

their current position on whether there should be impeachment proceedings NOW? I should think that would be obvious.

does make sense."

Quoting myself, which I have never done -- LOL

I think we are probably on the same page, except I don't think calling for impeachment is a good litmus test for a presidential candidate. JMHO

They are busy trying to solve problems.

Not wasting their time.

I suggest you join them.

"They are busy" doing a great job of proving the perception that Democrats are cowardly weaklings.

There is only one solution to rule by signing statement:

Impeachment.

In Bush World, they can only "accomplish" that which the unitary authoritarian executive deigns to permit.

In Bush World, they stand by while Americans are turned into torturers (and with torture "on the table" it's "fair game" for other parties to armed conflict to torture Americans).

In Bush World, the horrors and lunacy that is spreading inhumanity, death and destruction throughout the Middle East continues.

The only "solution" is to escape from Bush World.

The only way out is impeachment.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3106957&mesg_id=3108832

Back when Russ Feingold proposed censuring Bush, Clark didn't exactly call for impeachment, but he said censure was insufficient to hold Bush accountable.

and I believe he means a real one!

Even in his recent DNC speech, Clark called to hold those accountable that should be.

I think if there is any real hope to actually get to the real truth of the Bush crime family, it will be under the presidency of a Pres. Clark.......not anyone else running (other than Kucinich).

"The course, right now we're hearing from every politician on this, even some of the war's staunchest supporters are admitting they were wrong. And others now call for poll-tested positions.

I speak to you today as the only person who will take this podium before you to actually have done the things we need to succeed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world.

And I believe that being right isn't enough. We must also be strong. So while I get angry, I'm reminded of the old saying "Don't get mad, get even." And to me, getting even isn't about political payback, but it's instead getting equality, justice, balance, and fair play back into American life.
< >
Where's the justice where sergeants and colonels are punished for the abuse of prisoners but the political leaders and high-ranking lawyers who encouraged and perhaps directed it remain in office - exempt from accountability for the tragedies they unleashed. "
http://securingamerica.com/node/2197


IN AUGUST OF '03



IN SEPTEMBER OF '03
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/000070.html
And now, the moment all you Valerie Plame fans have been waiting for: the CIA has made a formal referral to the Justice Department.

And I think we can count on Howard Dean, who has already broached the issue, and Wesley Clark and Bob Graham to keep this issue boiling.
--------
Inquiry call over US agent leak
BBC Washington correspondent Justin Webb says the president's opponents believe this affair could do real damage to the reputation of the Bush White House.

Democratic presidential hopefuls Howard Dean and Wesley Clark said a special investigator should be appointed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3151066.stm

AND IN OCT 2003....


Saturday, October 04, 2003
Wesley Clark Calls for Criminal Investigation of Bush Iraq policy


AND IN JANUARY OF '04





This is a broadly covered story. You can also look here for additional coverage;
http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/2004/january/1_13Clark.shtml
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108236,00.html
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040113_240.html
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/13/news/oneill/

and it would actively hurt Dems in 2008.

Impeachment not about justice or retribution. That is for the courts, not congress. Impeachment is a defensive act. When an official abuses power and violates our common contract (i.e., the Constitution), impeachment is the means by which we enforce the terms by removing the violator and renewing the terms with their successor.

Bush and Cheney are waging war on the Constitution in plain sight. Countless citizens, experts, and organizations have publicly accused them of subverting the Constitution. Key accusations well-known to a vast majority of Americans.

Members of Congress are sworn to defend the Constitution. The power to impeach is the weapon we gave them to defend against such abuses. By refusing impeach, Members of Congress effectively exonerate Bush and Cheney. If that is their intent, they should do it honestly and publicly defend Bush and Cheney's fascist claim to unlimited unitary authoritarian powers.

Tragically, in the current crisis, Bush and Cheney have gone so far past the "impeachable" threshold that the refusal of the Congressional leadership to impeach is lunacy. Bush and Cheney confess their willful intent to nullify the Constitution every time they publicly assert the fascist fantasy of a "unitary authoritarian executive" that can break the law at its whim.

Impeachment doesn't require criminal violations, but in their attack on the Constitution, Bush and Cheney are blatantly committing grave violations that not only demand impeachment, they have committed crimes that are subject to the penalty of death. Namely, war crimes under U.S. Code (Title 18 section 2441) and international law and the Anti-Terrorism Act (Title 18, Section 844 paragraph e. Bomb Threat -- "mushroom clouds in 45 min").

There is no legitimate rationalization for delay. There is nothing to investigate. Everything we need to know has been in the public record for years. It is long past time for impeachment hearings. It is long past time to make the case. It is long past time to vote out articles.

Over the past four decades, Rep. John Conyers has been our champion. Unfortunately, in the current crisis, his refusal to move past "investigation" to "impeachment" is devastating. When Chairman Conyers conducts "investigations" instead of "impeachment hearings" he is saying "we don't have a case."

Chairman Conyers, there is nothing to investigate. This is not Watergate, where investigation was required to uncover a cover-up. It is time. We need you. We need a champion to demand impeachment NOW.

over and NEVER supported with any substantive basis despite MANY requests for something beyond "Count the votes."

That is utter bumpersticker bullshit that enables Republicans and lets Democrats off the hook. Including DUers who don't know shit about history or American government (No really!! We asked 'em. Over and over and over :boring: )

:evilfrown:

geez, I wonder who might have come with that meme....Qui Prodest?

Like kidnapped children, the Democratic caucus lives in a "reality" created by their abuser -- a "reality" in which escape carries with it such horrible, catastrophic, consequences they are too frightened to even contemplate the possibility. As long as they are hostage to fear, they will remain hostage to their abuser. The is no escape without outsider intervention. Only when the victim re-enters the reality of the outside world can they see the lunacy of the threatened consequences.

Tragically, Congressional leaders and Democratic candidates have completely internalized the created "reality" of their insular world -- a "reality" in which impeachment is outside the realm of possibility. They are hostages to their bizzaro world fears, assumptions, and beliefs.

For the sake of the nation, and for the sake of the Democratic Party, we need to rescue these people.

that there is time to wait for a better time, coming back to fix something that has been completely obliterated
or that there is time to run campaigns, shifting focus and unified Congress Dem efforts from the immediate Constitutional crises
or that there will even BE "free and fair" elections after the past election cycles have proven otherwise.


The fact that this administration has not been impeached already -- that there are all sorts of rationale that supercede the FACTS of the crimes and abuses committed -- is completely insane.

. . .is part and parcel of rescuing our "leaders" on the Hill.

We're the ones we've been waiting for.

27 years.........................................................

...I would think they aren't for impeachment. If Bush/Cheney are impeached, doesn't Pelosi become President? In that case I personally would vote for her for President in '08 because I feel she would be in the middle of some important issues I would want her to continue working on.

ing them to appoint a "gerry ford" if you will. Should bush be impeached the cheney would take the helm (not that he really isn't pulling the strings now anyway). Cheney would then pick a vp (probably hagel) and then hagel would be next in line of succesion. The same scenario would be applied certainly if Cheney were to go first.

The question is do we or do we not have a country that governs by the rule of law or not?!!!!? Where do our current candidates stand on this critical question? As said earlier upstream; silence is complicity.

crimes since back in 2002...He may have used the "I" word.
And Kuchinich.
The rest - not so much.

"Elect me and we will impeach Bush!"

Even Kucinich who prides himself on being "ahead of the curve" has backpedaled on impeachment.

You throw a straw man into a discussion which already demonstrably addressed your bogus misrepresentation.

Nobody has called for it but one in the wings came out in clear terms and calleld * on the tyranny he put in place and demanded that Congress act. Now who would that be?

-ed those words. I fear we will not witness Congress acting in a just and expedient manner and will suffer the consequences for many years to come.

Of particular interest in the link you provided was Mr. Gores point number 6 I believe which I've taken the liberty of pasting here:

6. Finally, going off of his prepared test, Gore said that any candidate for public office in 2006 should face a litmus test, regardless of party, based on their support for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the President’s transgressions against the Constitution.

There is not only no litmus test, there is a complete amnesia about The Patriot Act, etc.

It's like they've never read the Constitution or the Declaration.

Sad day when the 'leet are so frozen in their on aloofness, they forget the basis for
even holding office, free and fair elections in which all of the people aprticipate.

These guy need to sign a contract before taking office. Think I'll work one up;)

Excellent thread!