Obama Needs To Know That He's Now "Off The Table"...

...As long as he believes impeachment is.

His recent comments about opposing impeachment:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1203523&mesg_id=1203523

--

YOUR LETTER to the Obama campaign, expressing your thoughts on the matter:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2

He needs to know the mistake he made, and hopefully if enough people write, he will correct it.

--

My letter:

Dear Senator,

Your recent comments indicate you are not in favor of impeachment proceedings against Bush or Cheney. I, in turn, cannot show favor to your candidacy in the Democratic primary.

While I admire your style and charisma, and had high hopes for you as a leader, this is a dealbreaker. It is unfortunate you feel that the crimes alleged through evidence gathered by Congress and the press aren't "grave" enough to warrant impeachment hearings.

I can see no better use of the Legislature's time than to hold the Bush administration accountable for their actions. Regardless of the outcome, simply the process of impeachment proceedings will shed a much-needed light on this most secretive administration and its blatant disrespect for the Constitution and International Law.

k&r

As a person who has twice donated to Senator Obama's campaign, I was extremely upset today to learn that Senator Obama does not think that the actions of Bush and Cheney are grave enough to rise to impeachment or even the consideration of impeachment. Please read Bruce Fein's comments from yesterday. Or find on Youtube Professor Turley's comments from last night's Countdown. These men are constructional scholars, one from the right and one from the left. They both are talking impeachment. Professor Turley even discusses of the criminality of the illegal wiretaps. If Senator Obama does not recognized the severity of the constitutional crisis that we are experiencing, I can no longer support his campaign either with my vote or my money. We need leaders who will restore this country to sanity and to constitutional government. I would suggest that Senator Obama stop listening to his consultants and start listening to us, the people who want our power back.

And please do not respond to this email with some smarmy spin. Do not respond at all, unless it is to tell me that Senator Obama has changed his position on impeachment and on returning the government of the United States to the people of this country.

Thank you

So spot on - I will simply modify it slightly (only because I've heard they disregard dupes) and send it on.

Excellent job.

Carol

I've tried to keep an open mind about all of the candidates. I like Edwards best right now, and have all along up to this point. But I'm trying to remain open to the others as well.

Now I can cross Obama off the list. I don't know what Bush and Cheney would have to do to warrant impeachment in Obama's eyes, but his reluctance to hold them accountable for their actions tells me he condones the crimes they have committed.

Spying. Outing Covert CIA Agents. Failing to uphold their oath of office, and protect the Constitution.

In my opinion, that makes Obama unfit to lead this country. He's taking the easy way out instead of doing what's right.

If this administration is not held accountable for their actions, you might as well wipe your ass with the Constitution and flush it -- it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

Our public officials swore an oath to uphold the Constitution -- I don't see much of that happening.

now there is no way I will vote for him- even if he's the nominee

you really should consider all those recent 5-4 decisions by the SCOTUS, and think very very hard about how much difference there actually is in corporatist and not-quite-as-openly-corporatist.

Anyone? Anyone?

and ignoring irritants and writing a letter silently.

I am disappointed by this statement.

It's worth noting that my other choice, Gore, is also against impeachment, which I find astounding in light of his past statements calling for high-level resignations.

So is everyone here shifting to Kucinich?

The Congress has to pass articles of impeachment first, which then goes to the Senate. There aren't enough votes in either to get impeachment to happen.

A good definition:
"Impeachment is the act of formally accusing a public official of crimes or serious misconduct. Under the Constitution, the power to impeach lies with the House of Representatives. The Senate conducts any trial that might result from an impeachment."

Links:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/09/14/impeachment.primer/
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/rules.htm

How do I feel about impeachment? I did this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3chpy0CWyI8

He know the gun has no bullets & is moving on...
C'mon people, pick a win-able fight.

I am going to explain how impeachment works. Rather than reading a convoluted news article, I am going to the source, the Constitution. As you know the president or vice-president (and other constitutional officers) can be impeached and removed from office for treason, bribery, and other "high crimes and misdemeanors." First, people must understand that the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" must be taken as a whole. Why? This is a phrase that dates back many hundreds of years to England and taken as a whole includes those actions which undermine the very authority and operation and legitimacy of the government. Two, note the word "other." This clearly notes that bribery and treason are, in fact, "high crimes and misdemeanors" for the reason I stated...that they go to the very legitimacy and operation of government...they amount to abuses of power within the context of the actions of the person being impeached and tried.

Now, realizing that that is not all in the constitution (but the history lesson is apropos), the constitution states that the House impeaches with a single majority. Second, the Senate tries and the "impeachee" is convicted on 2/3 of those Senators "present."

What does this mean? The Democrats DEFINITELY have the votes to impeach, assuming the outcome of a vote to impeach, can be inferred from the numbers of each party in the House. Moreover, using the same assumptions, the Senate would likely not vote to convict because even absent Tim Johnson, 66 votes would be required (66 of 99 present, assuming all Senators were present).

However, this is truly a cop out not to impeach. It is in hearings about impeachment, floor debate about impeachment, and the trial in the Senate that the facts would come out. It is in the "search for the truth" that is necessary. As things came out, who can truly say what would happen. I for one am willing and think it is imperative to take that chance. if the truth started coming out, about the myriad of impeachable offenses by these Brownshirts, I believe that a significant number of people would urge their Senators to vote to convict. I think that impeachment hearings, floor debate, and a trial could convince many more people to urge their Senators to vote to convict than could, say, during the Clinton impeachment. In that impeachment, the facts spoke for themselves and when people began to see that the underlying issue was a matter of private conduct unrelated to the execution of his duties as president, they became LESS convinced that he should have been removed from office.

The opposite is true here. Once people begin to see that the underlying offenses are the very essence of what "high crimes and misdemeanors" was supposed to mean, I think they will be more likely to want to convict and remove from office.

Imagine a prosecutor not seeking charges against a murderer because she made the judgment BEFORE THE TRIAL that a jury would not convict someone. If it were my relative who'd been murdered, I'd be damn sure pushing for an indictment and trial and an airing of the facts and would not let a prosecutor make that decision that a conviction was impossible if the facts were as conclusive in that context as they are in the context of a Bush/Cheney impeachment and trial. If nothing else, the facts would be aired, the people would know, then they could hold the Senators who would not vote to convict accountable in the next election. Even if these awful people were not convicted, it would serve to get at the truth and make the people listen.

what I found wrong with Obama is he jumped the gun on announcing his run for president. After he came out so darn early it forced everybody else to. If he had waited til they usually announce we would not have been bombarded with all this stuff now. He should have taken the chance to set forward his views and let people know him better. Then when he announced it would have looked better. THEY ALL ANNOUNCED TOO EARLY. BY THE TIME THE PRIMARIES START we will be zonked out with candidates and their rhetoic.

It's worth noting, however, that he has only said what the other "serious" candidates believe but haven't stated aloud. They're all guilty of not only failing to hold the criminals in question accountable, but of supporting them almost every step of the way.

Interesting though, how shocking it is here to hear one of them actually vocalize their actual position.

and that includes Repugs and quizlings....and they don't want to make impeachment the issue...but themselves and their plans. They feel it's up to Congress and not them to call for impeachment...even though they themselves are in congress it would just give Repugs more ammunition to attack them.

Grrr. So as you see it, the candidates won't tell us their real views because the opposition might not agree and might say so.

And they wonder why the general population sees them as a bunch of wimps.

We need fighters, not people who cave at the first sign of disagreement. Looks like Obama is not on that list.

THANK YOU!

Why the hell is that so hard to comprehend.

Well, we can't stand up for what we believe in... someone may disagree! And other people may say nasty things about us! Oh noes!

Afraid a Repuke bobblehead might poke fun at them on Faux News?

Yup.

I think Obama is smart enough (as is Gore) to realize that however much impeachment may be deserved it would 'energize the bas' of the Republicans. That base, once energised and reunited, could easily thwart impeachment AND cause even more trouble instead of dying like the dead duck it is. Strictly strategic.
Just an impartial analysis as to the 'why'.

Last time I looked, he's still a Senator.

Until he resigns that post, I don't care if he's taking the cloth: he needs to do his JOB.

It's time to force them to uphold that oath.

:eyes:

happens in the weeks to come, He should re-concentrate on selling himself and not continue to do battle with Hil,

And done. :toast:

I am deeply troubled by the Senator's comments today regarding the impeachment of the current administration.

Today, at a forum in Washington, Sen. Obama claimed that he was against bringing impeachment charges against Bush and Cheney because impeachment should be reserved for "grave" breaches of presidential authority. This statement troubled me, and leads me to question the Senator's judgment.

I can understand the argument some have made with respect to the time and effort needed to bring articles of impeachment. They claim that it would not be worth the effort and would take away from other legislative duties. I do not agree with that argument, but I understand and respect it.

However, what Sen. Obama said today means something else entirely.

This administration has consistently and repeatedly violated FISA, which is a federal crime. They have also consistently and repeatedly violated the Geneva Conventions with respect to both the authorization of torture and the extraordinary rendition of detainees for extreme methods of torture. I consider these two issues grave breaches of presidential authority, since these actions fly in the face of democratic governance and the rule of law.

If Sen. Obama truly believes that the current administration has not committed grave breaches of presidential authority, then he has lost my money and my vote.

Jeffrey

Should I still send a letter condemning him?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

on impeachment, which wont happen, subpoenas that get ignored, my favorite, non binding resolutions that change nothing, Gonzales and his emails, cheney I can't keep track of how many things he has going on... etc......

OR

we could put our energy and time into Health Care for all, Lower college loans, getting out of Iraq, bringing jobs back into the country, (The ones the Mexicans don't want)improving our public education, cleaning our air........I could go on

but you guys are right, let's make sure we get those damn republicans. Maybe congress could get an approval rating greater than the presidents and that should solve all your issues

Ever wonder why more and more people are becoming independents? I didn't think so

they have broken.

If not now, when?

When is enough...enough?

There is a reason for checks and balances. This administration must be held accountable.

and how is it going? How many angry days and nights have you had? Depression is topping this board as the number 1 posts that I read here.

This administration will be gone in a year and 1/2. Bush is a lame duck. The death of his immigration bill will be his last bill he will see or not see for the rest of his term

With all that said:
What do you say about that health care, how about lower interest rates for student loans. Lets get the hell out of Iraq. Jobs coming into this country, now wouldn't that be something

Just a thought

Are all of those wonderful things going to happen with these assholes in office?

For some reason, I don't think so...

a year to get the bills written up. Do it now so on 1/20/09 they get signed

HE HAS ANOTHER YEAR AND A HALF TO GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Since when has 'lame duck' come to mean someone who is not running again? A lame duck is the president who serves between the time the next president is elected and takes office. used to be 4 months, now, 2 1/2 months when he is rendered ineffective by his impending departure.

You really think * is incapable of doing any more damage in the next 18 months? With a year and a half to go with no impending elections for him he is now at his most dangerous.

How about nuking Iran? How about overthrowing Chavez? How about a new CIA war in Bolivia? How do you feel about martial law? Blackwater manning random checkpoints searching for terrorists and illegals?

You do realize that despite the paltry few Democratic victories in '06, there was MORE electoral fraud in that election than in the 3 previous? You think the repukes are going to roll over just because * is going away in 18 months?

If we refuse to pursue legal action against the criminals, they will stop every positive initiative we put up dead cold. the only way we will prevail is if every one of them is more worried about their individual asses than about their fellow conspiritors and the plans of the coup.

thing at a time huh?:sarcasm: The highest leaders of this once great land have committed high crimes and treason and you and others of your ilk want to forget about it?? You think its just about "getting those repubs"??? Its about upholding the freaking CONSTITUTION!!!!

but if it gets health care for us all, and we get out of Iraq... all of what I said about. Me and my "ilk" will be much obliged.

Like any of that's going to happen with The Decider in office?

The "decider" in office is almost out of office. We have the house and the senate lets at least try to get a bill going for the people. Lets stand for something other than and eye for an eye. We are bigger and better than they are.

Over a year and a half doesn't fit my definition of "almost out of office". And how much more damage is he going to do to what's left of our constitution in the meantime?

Lieberman is consitently voting with the Rs, and even supporting their candidates for reelection. All they need is one Democrat to vote with the Rs and a bill is dead. And even if some Rs come over to the D side on some bills, the Rs are pros at obstruction. Maybe we should have been too as the minority party. Too late now.

Impeachment may be rough on the country but it is necessary to preserve the Constitution, which this Administration defies every day.

I see more people identifying themselves as Democrats lately.

http://nowthatsironic.blogspot.com/2005/02/george-washingtons-view-of-party.html

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

corporatists?

Obama is NOT for healthcare for all he is for INSURANCE for all.

ahfvpaign;erhf

Until and unless they are, I'm glad most of the D's are being cautious, at least in public. The public wants Bushco gone but it's more a sense of buyer's remorse. You don't impeach over that.

Yeah...that's why we want him gone. Let's just ignore the illegal wiretapping, the war based on lies, the war profiteering, and all the rest of the crap that has gone on with this administration.

"Buyer's remorse"?

Please.

The sentiment at Democratic Underground HARDLY is representative of mainstream America as a whole. :eyes:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3528

Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq

By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 6-9.

The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."

44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error.

Among those who felt strongly either way, 39% strongly agreed, while 30% strongly disagreed.

"The results of this poll are truly astonishing," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. "Bush's record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House."

October.

I'd be surprised if it wasn't a solid 55/45 by now.

But nobody's doing the polling on that question, that I'm aware of.

6/17/2007
***** Harris Poll results leaked, 54% of likely voters favor impeachment.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1129958
Link: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/23715


and that's not a new development, either:

15:06 1/31/2007
Newsweek poll: Impeachment supporters at 58% (up from 51%)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x82492


nor is it new from THIS year, either:

New Zogby Poll: 52% of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x368423
Link: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/polling



Zogby impeachment poll (if he lied re Iraq)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2985169
Link: http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12150

October 11, 2005
Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq
http://democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2666087#2667580

Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2666087
Link: http://democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-1

Look at the internals on the Zogby. Only half of those who said they would approve of impeachment actually thought it should be a priority. That's 25% or less of Americans who think we should be putting the rest of government on hold in order to impeach AT THIS TIME.

Please understand, I'm not against impeachment. Far from it. When a majority of Americans believe impeachment should be a top priority then IMHO the Dems can go for it and get enough Republican support to actually do it. Until then, I have no problem with Democrats talking "off the table" and "oversighting" the ever loving snot out of the BFEE until the rest of America catches up.

That's just me. I don't mind if you disagree at all. :)

"the people" can be brought along with just a little publicity and news reporting on the subject. They WILL think it's a priority once they start learning about some of the specifics of why these people NEED to be impeached.

Further, the rest of government does NOT have to come to a stop. SOmeone else posted (in another thread?) about some of the major legislation which was passed all the while impeachment proceedings were going on against Clinton. So that's a red herring, and IMO a particularly silly one (in that IMO it doesn't pass the common sense test). I also think it's basically a rightwing argument against impeachment.

I think it's shameful to only expect our leaders to stand up for what's right when it's convenient (when the polling numbers look right).

Ugh!

and John Kerry? And John Conyers?

I favor impeachment, also support Obama. I understand that the frontrunners are nervous about supporting impeachment and getting slammed as a far-left wacko for the next year and a half. Kucinich can do that, because that's his public perception anyway.

By the way, where is Waxman's calls for impeachment? If anyone should know about whether or not we should impeach it would be him.

I don't have time to fact check this post, but I believe I'm right on who is and isn't supporting impeachment right now. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Obama brought this on himself.

none of them are supporting impeachment. Why single out Obama?

statement is that impeachment should be reserved for truly grave crimes. What can be worse than suborning our Constitution, torturing detainees, ignoring global warming, spying on the American people, stealing us blind, allowing Katrina to kill 1000s and of course starting a preemptive war based on lies.

:shakinghead:

I suspect so, yet have not seen her asked the "I" question yet.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/bush/impeachment_hillary_no_appetite_for_bush_impeachment.htm

Clinton said there does not appear to be the "appetite or support" in Congress to try to impeach Bush, but "we're going to have to reform the government and these unqualified cronies."

It was the Republican leadership that went up to Tricky Dick and told him "It's Over." The only likely way * is getting tossed out is if the Republicans in Congress turn on him just like they turned on Nixon. We don't have the votes in the Senate to complete the process, and even if we try it's obvious the MSM will spin it like crazy. The only think we can do is to dig up enough dirt that the Republicans are forced to tell * that "It's Over" in order to save thier asses.

That's absurd.

:eyes:

I just don't feel that your point deserves a full rebuttal. Plus it was all in fun.

Ta ta!

With all the obfuscation and hiding of evidence? After we turn over the stones even a majority Republicans will vote to remove Bush and Cheney from office. The evidence against them will be overwhelming. Why haven't you considered this? I question your motives.

only all the repukes are unindicted co-conspiritors. They know if * goes down, they will too. They are beyond saving. If they don't hang together they will hang seperately.

... any who don't so call.

if impeachment hasn't been an issue taken seriously by our senators, maybe it's time they do. Responding to Obama's comment is a good opportunity for them to re-assess what's important.

If one of the top tier has the guts to say the I word the way it should be used, the floodgates are open.

No, the rest haven't lighted any torches or hoisted any pitchforks, but at least they're not appearing to say there's no REASON to impeach... only that they're too afraid of going against public opinion, or too worried they won't have enough votes.

How real democrats support Hillary is beyond me. Obama reminds me of Edwards in 2004 - a little green and not quite sure how to adjust to the national stage.

"Edwards said the Republican-led impeachment of former President Clinton was driven by politics and damaged the nation. "I don't think the way to correct that mistake is by another mistake," Edwards said. "We don't have to get in the mud with pigs."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000254.html

many....were just above fighting on their level...how many wars do you think have been won or more importantly lost by this very IDIOTIC attitude. I AM FUKING TIRED OF THE DEMS CAVING WITH THAT TURN THE OTHER BUTT CHEEK HOLIER THAN THOU, GOODY TOO SHOES ATTITUDE ONLY TO GET SCREWED AGAIN while the pugs are fighting this battle as a life and death struggle. The dems are a pushover, clutching their pearls and gasping never really entering the fray. The Pugs own the battlefield and if that does not change then it is time to get the hell out of this country because it will become far worse than Nazi Germany.

"Edwards said the Republican-led impeachment of former President Clinton was driven by politics and damaged the nation. "I don't think the way to correct that mistake is by another mistake," Edwards said. "We don't have to get in the mud with pigs."

He's not saying that impeachment is equivalent to mudwrestling. He said the CLINTON impeachment was driven by politics - not by a search for justice. Even if the 'lying to congress' is a little fuzzy, the overt violation of the 4th amendment with the warrantless wiretap program DOES constitute a "high crime and misdemeanor".

He was equivocating there, but he did not rule out impeachment. If he believes the grounds for impeachment exist, he may yet call for it. Obama flat out said that the grounds don't exist.

What constitutes a grave breach of presidential authority, then? Would would it take?

Glarf, I am fed up -- not that I am surpised to hear something like this from The Top Tier<tm>.

I'm a little late, but welcome to DU!

:hi:

I have said some things. I have indicated that I very strongly support these things that I have said and will not back down.

Ooh.

Shiny things.

I thought he had his own bag...

...that was one of the things that would have (no longer true) been 'refreshing' about him as a candidate. That he didn't have YEARS & YEARS of favors to return. So it looks like he's giving away YOUR & MY farm without even 'getting' anything for it!

That's a loser in my book. <----- and don't anybody flame me for stating MY opinion.

That he has lost the thimble full of Democrats who believe impeachment is the most important issue out there...the exact type of people Matt Taibbi was talking about a few weeks ago...

Any candidate who spends their time pandering to this bunch.

Talk about your fair weather, damned if you do, damned if you don't types. I recall even Barbara Boxer's good name being dragged through the mud here because she had the gall to support an incumbent Dem running for the CT primary.

The next thing you know we'll see a thread thanking Ted Kennedy....for "nothing."

Any Dem that hasn't thrown their hands up in the air and said "screw it" about the thimble full of loud-mouth, never-satisfied, not-even-all-that-politically-knowledgeable group of discussion board junkies isn't going to get very far. Thank goodness.

where did all of these attackers come from? As part of the 2% minority here at DU, I am little uncomfortable!

I understand policy differences, but I detect undercurrents of racism/hatefulness and that is not what I thought this place was about!

Why are we giving ammunition to the Republics?

:-(

Racism? Bullshit! If Obama doesn't recognize the severity of Bush Administration crimes he isn't fit to be president. The same goes for the rest.

FWIW, Obama has been my candidate. Obama had better come right out with a retraction or he has lost my support.

hardly. I detected NONE of that in any wording whatsoever. don't drag that argument out. this is my only statement on the insinuation, and I believe it's brought up only because the candidate being discussed for saying b*sh's crimes aren't "grave", is black.

as far as my family is concerned, his candidacy is no "off the table".

Without enough votes, it will never happen....which sucks...

There needs to be pressure on vulnerable thugs as well as conservative DINOs, both through individual lobbying and through public statements addressing the criminal nature of the current regime. Then, of course, there would be the hearings, which would bring all sorts of nefarious conduct to light.

What so infuriates me is the mindset, in Congress where it matters most but also on DU, of "Well, it doesn't look like we'll have enough votes, so let's just not even try."

That's just seeing fucking reality.

Is he delusional?

Not 'grave'... my ass his crimes aren't grave!

now I know not to support him.

Dear Sen. Obama:

I'm writing to ask how you could be so ill informed on the need to impeach Bush. You said that wasn't on the table. Here's why it should be.

Bush lied us into a war; spied on the populace at will; destroyed the Department of Justice's credibility; ruined our nation's reputation for years; suppressed real, healing science; allowed Americans to starve for days, to die and be victimized for days in New Orleans.

What does it take to impeach someone in your book?

You can't really be serious about your position.

(This guy is in a trance, as are the others, no feel for the public)

:kick:

Or only that they were too chickenshit to stand up for the law despite the polls... or that they were too scared to out the republicans as being loyal to party before country (which is what would become BLINDINGLY obvious during impeachment hearings)?

This guy went a little further than the other cowards. He dismissed even the idea that bush had done anything to impeach him for.

the impeachment issue is not decisive in my choice of president.

I think those who say "impeachment or nothing" are not true democrats.

about whether bush has even done anything that warrants even considering it.

The others are just being cowardly. Obama appears downright delusional by saying the crimes are not 'grave' enough.

It appears Obama is more concentrated on keping up or/and battling the Clintons to stay on top and he's losing the direction from where he came from.

I am wondering if Cheney's approval ratings have to drop to ZERO before these elected officials impeach the bastards.

Dennis seems more human/has our interests at heart to me everyday.

But one man will do the right thing, hint hint>333

Impeachment is a drastic measure that should not be initiated for purely political advantage or on frivolous grounds. But our founding fathers included in the Constitution for good reason -- to provide the American people to loose themselves from the clutches of tyrants, traitors and criminals. A leader who is proved to be a tyrant, a traitor or a criminal should be impeached. The Constitution designates the House of Representatives as the body that brings and may pass articles of impeachment. I am not a member of the House of Representatives at this time and will, for that reason, not be called upon to vote on impeachment of anyone in the current administration. I believe that it is inappropriate for me to comment on a hypothetical impeachment at this time.

Obama can loosen the language and use his own words, but that is the gist of what he should say. I thought Obama was a lawyer. This is really not such a tough one.

"As a senator I will be required to sit in judgement if the House votes for impeachment, therefore it is inappropriate for me to comment."

The same should hold for ANY senator up there - Hillary, Biden, whoever.

Not understanding the implications of what this President has done totally and irredeemably in my opinion removes Obama from the list of viable candidates.

ACCOUNTABLE!!

as hilldog veep

It would be a waste of time. He's a dead duck...let it go.

50 recs for this nonsense? :eyes:

that they haven't done anything bad enough.

Edwards acknowledges the crimes while Obama denies them. Both of them do oppose impeachment.

and, if his past statements- like his criticism of the Alito filibuster are any indication- he'll do it again.

You can chalk that up plain and simply to ego and inexperience on the national stage.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton is the top-rated presidential contender in the United States, according to a poll by Opinion Research Corporation released by CNN. At least 49 per cent of respondents would support the New York senator in head-to-head contests against three prospective Republican nominees.
And it can only go higher......
I do thank you, Shalom
Ben David