Let me get this right, there are actually people on DU still against impeachment?

What the hell are you smoking?

I mean, you'd have to be pretty high on some kind of powerful shit to think this guy in the White House shouldn't be impeached.

He should have been impeached the first damn day the Abu Graib Photos came out.

We've got a man in the White House who's so fucking incompetent or horrible that one of these two is true:
1. He authorized torture
2. He allowed it to happen

Let me give you a short education:
Torture = unconstitutional.

It says it right here:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." --8th Amendment, US Constitution

It doesn't say cruel and unusual punishment is OK if we're dealing with Iraqis, it says "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Pretty damn clear if you ask me.

If the President of the United States cannot be impeached after he allowed torture to occur on his watch (or even authorized that torture), then in the words of Barbara Jordan, "perhaps that 18th-century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th-century paper shredder."

It is not tolerable to allow a President to engage in torture.

How bad does he have to fuck it up before you'll think he should be impeached?

:rofl:

You can't sit around and worry about health care/etc. when you've got Bush the Torturer in the White House. Everything else is secondary when the fucker is torturing people.

"You can't sit around and worry about health care/etc. when you've got Bush the Torturer in the White House. "

So, it's OK for our own citizens to suffer and die?


Is this from Cindy Sheehan?


Do you really think none of us are capable of multitasking?

isn't the same thing as thinking it's the priority at this point in time.

commit before you would think it was a priority to get the destructive bastard out of the WH and and away from the tools of death and destruction?

I've been screaming that the media should be the key target for 4 years. Go ahead and impeach. And watch Repulicans break their necks tripping over each other to run to the media and demonize Democrats until the election. Are you noticing how horribly the filibuster over the Iraq vote is being spun? Mean old Democrats won't help SNOWE pass Iraq legislation. What do you think will happen with impeachment? You think the media will talk about war crimes??? bwahahaha. Partisan, backstabbing, vindictive, Democrats. That's all we'd hear. If that's what you want, own it and quit pretending there'd be any justice because there wouldn't.

Yes they lie (I don't call it spin) and Bush's ratings are still going down because people can see what's going on around them.

Who are you going to believe the MSM or your lyin' eyes ?

The criminal acts of the Bush administraton are so widespread and blatent that nobody can deny them, a dwindling number still choose to ignore the patently obvious. There is no reason remaining to delay, listen to Leahy, Conyers and Waxman. They have uncovered enough monarchist contempt of the constitution and the American people to impeach several times over.

I said to play to win.

45% still oppose impeachment. Only 8% support blocking funds to end the war. People on this board are delusional as to what people really think in this country.

We have a LONG way to go in educating people before the country is ready to do all the things DU thinks the country is ready to do.

If you insist on letting opinion polls in one of the worst inforned nations on earth to dictate policy and timing then you will never get the WH back.

There comes a time to do what's right not popular. If the politicians on the hill lack the political instinct to know that they are in the wrong business.

because the prosecutor has other priorities?

If the evidence is shaky, easily disputed, too difficult for a jury to understand - prosecutors often focus on different priorities.

The proof of wrongdoing is substantial, easy to understand & overwhelming. An impeachment trial will expose even more evidence for the public to see.

As long as there is no impeachment America is a dictatorship.

That 45% certainly includes the die-hard 20% who vote for Vlad Tsepish if he had an (R) next to his name, even while he was drinking their own children's' blood. And 10% are corporate fascists who think they can "control" Vlad if they give him enough money and enough babies to eat.

We don't have to convince 45% - we have to convince 15%. The 15% who are intelligent, honorable, loyal Americans who want what's right for the country but who've been distracted & lied to by the corporate media for years. They oppose impeachment because they don't know the truth; once they realize how they've been lied to they'll turn on Bush like sharks at a feeding frenzy. The only way to expose the lies is through a very public impeachment trial.

Didn't you?

I've seen polls that have said 60% of the people believe Bush lied about the war. We already know over 60% disapprove of them.

But they don't want impeachment. Hmmm. Maybe it isn't as simple as you seem to think it is.

What's the top story on CNN? The Dem YouTube™ "debate" and whether the othwer candiates will gang up of Hillary or not. Next story: She's asked if she's a *gasp* LIBERAL!

The top four stories are about the debate, then Blair trying to clean the blood off his soul in Isreal.

On the WHOLE PAGE at CNN with dozens of links - there isn't one story about Bush, his crimes or the impending impeachment. NOT ONE.

People can't understand what they don't know about.

Isn't that what I say around here every single solitary day.

You prefer to live in a dictatorship?

Cindy Sheehan should be stalking Dan Abrams. They should be getting arrested sitting in at CNN. We should be organizing and hitting every bulletin board and forum in every red county in the country. We should be plastering bulletin boards in our towns. We should fund ads in small newspapers. There's a host of things we could do. But all anybody on the left wants to do is rant and protest and scream at the people who are already on their side.

Just attack and alienate those who would be our allies. Let's make it even harder to get rid of these bastards.

And - if we behave like good little fascists - they may even let us have an election in '08. (They'll still count the votes of course.)

Bring on the Permanent Republican Majority (and a few tame Dems, just for show.)

I couldn't even begin to understand a word of that post. No idea what you're talking about.

It means if Congress doesn't impeach, they give PERMISSION to Bush to do anything he wants - no oversight, no limits, no end to what he can do. And America succumbs to a GOP dictatorship.

You want the Iraq war to continue indefinably? Don't impeach. You want the Constitution to continue to erode? Don't impeach. You want to attack Iran? Pakistan? Syria? We want the Dems to mew ineffectually at Bush about EVERY IMPORTANT ISSUE, then back down every time? Don't impeach.

You never want to be bothered by voting ever again? Don't impeach.

But if you want to make even the smallest amount of progress; if you think Congress has to assert their authority; if you want America to be America again - then impeachment is imperative.

You do what I said, and start getting through to the people so they will pound the media so we can start getting truth on the airwaves, and then put pressure on DC, and then get those changes. AND, at the same time, show the people what these Republicans are really about. Impeachment isn't going to get any of that stuff done, I can't figure out why you think it would.

Or that the Dems will be able to get anything through without Bush killing it.

The best way to deal with a bully is to punch him in the nose. Repeatedly, if necessary.

You want to coddle him.

Not just punch them.

... the facts will get less time in the media under impeachment because there's all the important impeachment stuff to talk about: Why the Dems are haters, How this will hurt the Dems, why do they support terrorists over America, why don't they pass some legislation.

It's a quaint notion that somehow impeachment will make the media report, for the first time, an unvarnished version of Bush's crimes and that the public will finally listen and get, for the first time, the seriousness of those crimes.

People in this country need to grow a pair and stop putting up with lying ass fascist wing nuts.

If the founding fathers and the first Americans were as pathetic as we are now then America would never have been founded.

And another very significant percentage of the American public is simply ignorant as to what is going on. Once those who are ignorant learn the truth their opinion can be swung quite easily. To have so much support for impeachment before it has hardly even been talked about on the corporate networks is incredible, once it starts getting some serious discussion I would expect support to grow rapidly.

and figure the Democrats lied when they said they were going to get things done and put politics aside.

After all we all know that Bush is the most popular man in America. Everyone would cry if he were removed from office. How disgusting it is that some people actually believe Bush should have to follow the laws of this nation or face consequences if he breaks the law. Bush's approval ratings are so high that you just know that people are going to be absolutely disgusted if he gets fired. They all believe that we should put politics aside and just be content with a criminal shredding our Constitution.

So what will people think when Democrats waste the next year on impeachment when nothing results from it???

And by the way it is possible to hold impeachment hearings and do other things at the same time, despite the insistence of those who don't want to hold criminals accountable it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

All the attention is on impeachment. If there actually were an impeachment, it would be 100x worse. And nobody would KNOW that Bush vetoed every decent bill the Congress passed. Why do you think Harry Reid had to pull that all night stunt? To let YOU know why there's no Iraq vote, that's why. As long as people are ranting about impeachment, NOBODY CAN HEAR ANYTHING ELSE.

I mean if ALL the attention is on impeachment as you suggest it is then I think you should be able to tell me about some of those impeachment hearings that I must have missed. If they are taking up all our attention I don't know how I missed those hearings, but I look forward to hearing you fill me in on all the attention our Congress has focused on impeachment.

And most of the attention on the left is sucked up by impeachment. Nothing else would be talked about except impeachment if it were to move forward. There's barely a blip on climate change, Sicko, the education bill passed today, last weeks Iraq filibuster, none of it. Most of this board is Cindy Sheehan and impeachment. Nothing else will get talked about, or done, for the next year. Absolutely nothing. While troops and Iraqis die. While Darfur continues. While New Orleans waits. Just nothing but partisan mudslinging, day and night.

That's what you're advocating.

Because I have seen plenty of threads on all those issues you mentioned, in fact I have myself written threads dealing with three out of the four subjects you said there was barely a blip on (Iraq, global warming, and Sicko). To say impeachment is the only thing we are focusing attention on is flat out false.

But you want to leave Bush in office "While troops and Iraqis die. While Darfur continues. While New Orleans waits." Because obviously upholding the law would be "partisan mudslinging, day and night."

You made that up. Why?

You said "All the attention is on impeachment", if you can explain how that may mean something significantly different than "the attention is only on impeachment" I may consider apologizing, but as far as I can see those words mean the same thing.

"And most of the attention on the left is sucked up by impeachment. Nothing else would be talked about except impeachment if it were to move forward. There's barely a blip on climate change, Sicko, the education bill passed today, last weeks Iraq filibuster, none of it. Most of this board is Cindy Sheehan and impeachment. Nothing else will get talked about, or done, for the next year. Absolutely nothing. While troops and Iraqis die. While Darfur continues. While New Orleans waits. Just nothing but partisan mudslinging, day and night.

That's what you're advocating."

Most of the energy is on impeachment right now. That's what I said. That's what's happening. Nothing is going to get done at all, at least until the next election. Hillary will probably win. And we'll get a box of band-aids, and next to nothing will be done again. But you keep ranting about impeachment. That'll fix everything.

Just don't imply I am making stuff up because I was going off your own words, you don't deny you said all and I don't deny you followed it up with most. I was going off your own words and to imply I was making stuff up in doing so is dishonest. It is also flat out wrong, because I spend the majority of my time on other issues, but that does not mean I can't speak out from time to time and say that I believe Bush should be impeached.

If you really don't want to spend so much time focusing on impeachment then I would recommend you not spend so much time on these threads. Apparently it is wrong for me to talk about impeachment even though I spend most my time talking about other issues, but there is nothing wrong with you focusing your time on telling people not to impeach. If you want to focus on other issues then focus on other issues, but don't complain about other people talking about impeachment when you are doing the same thing.

... they will, like they always do, tell the people why this is bad for them.

You want support for impeachment? You have to find a way to get it before impeachment starts.

I doubt that you could find seventeen Republican Senators who share your opinion.
Unfortunately that's what's needed.

If they believe Bush's crimes are acceptable make them stand up and say those crimes are acceptable and let the American people judge them when they come up for reelection.

.... because polls show impeachment has no majority support.

Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?

Favor Oppose Undecided
All Adults 45% 46% 9%
Voters 46% 44% 10%

Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney?

Favor Oppose Undecided
All Adults 54% 40% 6%
Voters 50% 44% 6%

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/06/poll_americans_evenly_divided_on_impeachment_of_bush_majority_for_targeting_cheney

And these numbers come before the topic of impeachment has been taken seriously by the media or our politicians. If impeachment started to become a more prominent topic of discussion those numbers would almost certainly rise.

Wow, if that comforts them then I really would hate to see what it takes to make them uncomfortable.

For me, my goal is a Democratic President in 08.

:applause:

talking to people on the street about the war, stuffing envelopes, making phone calls. Yup, I don't happen to think Impeachment is the right STRATEGY at this time and I am now somehow an enemy of the people. Right.

This isn't the time to discuss STRATEGY.

Get rid of the *bushies/mobsters by containment, to quarantine the infection....

This would be done by winning the 08 Presidential Election and maintaining the Majority in the House-Senate....

That way, we can resuscitate America as it has become chronically disabled by the administration. We can heal from within...We have strength in the Congress...let's build on the existing forces....We have no allies out the outer rim, such as from the DOJ, Supreme Court, the Media....All controlled by *bush and company.

If Yes, then should the criminals be charged, or given a free pass?

If No, then what offenses, which have not occurred, would you consider impeachable?

what should Congress do with theirs?

The record will show that I've been calling for it for years now.

what is the punishment for impeachment? Embarrassment? A conservative asshole embarrassed for committing crimes? Oh how I wish he were gone, but I'd like to see him gone to a war crimes tribunal with his boss cheney, given a fair and swift trial, guilty verdicts all around and a trip to the gallows. He's fucked up way beyond any rational reason for wanting him impeached. I'd just rather go for the gusto and true justice. On the other hand, I fully support any efforts to impeach.

It boggles the mind that there are people here who are still against impeachment. It boggles the mind that there are people in this country that are against it!!

If Bush and Cheney are not impeachable -- who the fuck is? (I know, Clinton...).

But then again, it's "just" torture and the Iraqis are "brown people" -- so they really don't count, do they?

K and R!

On edit -- I am proud to give this post rec #5!!

They think things are just going fine. That Pelosi has a 'plan'.

Easy to criticize Pelosi. Tell us your plan for getting enough votes (a) in the House despite the fact that there are several dozen blue dog democrats who almost certainly are not in favor of starting an impeachment process unless, as was the case in the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, the vote to start the process has at least some measure of bi-partisan support and (b) getting enough votes in the Senate to convict.

and you will see even the Republicans will not support that.

If the Speaker holds a press conference stating that articles of impeachment will be introduced solely relation to the matter of torture, the national will support her. While torture does have sicko nutball nazi supporters, they are a clear minority.

There are photos and if they want them, there are videos per Sy Hersch's reporting.

Put that on national TV, tell the nation that's why we must impeach this man, and he'll be gone.

We know that the Republicans didn't go for torture, just look at the McCain torture amendment, it passed with flying colors.

How they going to defend Bush without implicitly saying they supported Abu Graib?

I don't think the GOP are afraid of the torture label.

Mitt's going after the macho dickhead niche.

They just enjoy it too much to give it up. They probably watch movies about the Spanish Inquisition with popcorn.

You've jumped ahead to impeaching him. The first step, however, is for the House to pass a resolution authorizing and directing the Judiciary Committee to conduct and inquiry into whether impeachable offenses have occured and to consider possible articles of impeachment. Where do you find the votes for this first step which takes place BEFORE hearings commence. BTW, the vote to take this first step in the Nixon impeachment was 410-4 and even in the CLinton impeachment, there were 31 Democrats that supported the resolution directing the Judiciary Committee to start its inquiry.

So what is your plan for getting enough Democrats to support starting the process.

Impeachment doesn't have to work that way. The process is to bring evidence to light, educate members and then let them decide how to vote.

What you're suggesting is the same as requiring a prosecutor to declaring someone guilty or innocent before bringing them to trial.

with an investigation and hearings. In 1973, that vote was 410-4 -- a full year before the House Judiciary finally adopted articles of impeachment. In 1998, 31 Democrats supported the vote in the House to start the Clinton impeachment procedure.


This is the way its been done in the past and anyone who thinks it would be done differently this time is just fooling themselves.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/impeachment/guide.html

That's what you'd need.

It may have existed at some point, but you bet your ass it doesn't now.

With no physical evidence, you have to get sworn testimony that he ordered torture, maybe from somebody like his Attorney General?

As wrong as the U.S. attorney firings were, they are only a way for the House to begin to get to Gonzalez. Once he's on the stand, and under oath, then you start questioning him about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

If you can somehow get the truth out of him about these things, then you've got Bush and Cheney.

"How they (Republican Senators, I presume) going to defend Bush without implicitly saying they supported Abu Graib?"

The same way Reagan was defended during Iran Contra...he was out of the loop...it was the fault of rogue operators in the Defense Dept. and the Army.

We need signed documents or direct testimony before any Republican will vote to convict.

Does the 8th amendment apply to not citizens in a foreign country?

The impeachment process all by itself will allow Congress to finally fully investigate the crimes of the Bush administration. It will galvanize public opinion and put unsustainable pressure on the GOP to abandon their leader. It will make it impossible to sweep all of this under the rug, as the GOP and the news media is trying to do.

Your argument is the GOP frame and I'm surprised to see DU'ers buying into it.

I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand, unless they just willfully don't want to understand. The first step in the impeachment process is for the House to vote to authorize and direct the Judiciary COmmittee to conduct an inquiry into whether there have impeachable offenses committed. In February 1973, the House took this step to commence the Nixon impeachment process (which culminated a year later with the adoption of articles of impeachment by the Judiciary Committee). That vote in Feb 1973 was 410-4. In October 1998, the House took the similar step of voting to direct and authorize the Judic. Committee to conduct an inquiry into whether Clinton had committed impeachable offense. That vote was closer, but still picked up 31 Democrats for a bi-partisan majority.

At this point, I don't see any indication that if Pelosi called a vote on a resolution authorizing and directing the House Judiciary Committee to start an impeachment inquiry, any repubs would join. And knowing what I do about the voting patterns of blue dogs, I suspect that without bi-partisan support, there is a very substantial risk that more than enough Democrats would abandon the party and vote against the resolution. Now we can scream, pull our hair, and demand that these blue dogs be defeated by real Democrat in 2008 but if you think an impeachment supporting Democrat is going to be elected in Heath Shuler's district (to name one), I think you misread the local politics of that district.

As soon as Dems send the signal that they're serious and impeachment talk grows, the votes will follow.

It won't happen as long as no one is talking about it.

Are repubs going to feel the pressure and join in? People have been talking about, and support in far greater numbers, setting a timetable on Iraq, but repubs have resisted that pressure. If repubs can resist the pressure, so can blue dog Democrats. And they will.

Whereby she will allow Bush to do as he wishes then perhaps the American public will wake up and get angry and all their anger will turn into a big white hot star which will fly through the air and land on the White House and kill Bush....

or something like that...

He's a big believer in having to burn the village to the ground in order to save it.

There will be no tapes of Bush and Cheney talking through their crimes. (and probably no physical documents)
You turn a criminal organization out from the bottom. You pressure the flunkies like Miers to flip, and you go up the chain gathering evidence if you're lucky.

That is what is happening now.

Recognizing that we don't have the votes (which we clearly don't) is NOT the same as thinking things are just fine. I strongly favor impeachment. I can also do basic math. Hint: you need to add 17 to something.

Don't lump people who don't agree with you into one group and then define what they believe as a group as if they were some kind of lump of lockstepping flesh. Please.

Like medical care and the economy ,.Like Civil rights and the Immigration problem.Like the predatory Loan situation.Like poverty.Bush is a lame duck who is NOT going to be in office much longer.Impeachment takes a long time.I am not willing to tie up the affairs of the nation for that length of time.If Impeachment starts, we will do nothing else till Bush leaves.I would like to see Bush and cabal punished, but not at the expense of the nation.

these criminals are running the show?

Bush is a lame duck, true...but he will do all that he can to ensure that nothing constructive or productive is done on his watch.

These fuckers need to be impeached -- NOW!

and legislate by Executive Order.

Without anyone to challenge his legitimacy to power, he will run rampant (as he is already demonstrating).

We cannot work towards our goals at all with him there, but we can potentially backslide all of the way to a police state and martial law with him there. Given these two conditions, impeachment is the only remedy. I have absolutely no faith that anything else has a decent of stopping him. We gamble our futures on our ability to counter him and/or his good faith in the next 18 months. Neither of which have held up at all for six years.

:shrug:

Without reigning in this president and this vice-president and this attorney general first. If you wait, the disaster is likely to be not only world-changing but world-destroying.

The sooner that Bush and Co. are reminded that they work for the people, not the other way around, the sooner the work can get done on changing the world in a positive manner......starting by educating folks. Every country whitewashes its history somewhat, but the gap between what the US leaders do in this world and what the people of the US think they are doing is one of the greatest triumphs of propaganda ever.

He's one of the most harmful this country has ever produced and he still has 18 more months to wreck havoc on our country and our rights. I can't believe you're okay with just letting him get away with it.

S.O.S.

S.O.S.

S.O.S.

This administration has set some pretty dangerous precedents. Ignoring them means your grand kids will pay in the future.

It's not about politics. It's about upholding the Constitution....you know, that thing that set us apart from the Soviet Union, Franco's Spain, Nazi Germany, and Fascist Italy.

Pretty simple, IMHO.

Its like saying, I don't want to remove the cancer because it might hurt...ok, but the cancer will kill you while you pussyfoot around about it.

none of those things are going to happen, whether you impeach or not. In fact, putting pressure on the GOP is more likely to make those things happen.

Dems in Congress can chew gum and walk at the same time. The "tying up Congress" meme is a myth.

There is no way to get enough Republicans to sign on to get a veto proof bill on Iraq or most of the other issues that are important to those who voted Democratic in November.

We can either keep treading water, sink or swim at this point.

... shining light on the crimes of this administration.

And when Bush leaves, where will he go? Back to the ranch? Will he, like pedophile priests, just be hurried off to an undisclosed location, there to meditate on his sins?

The expense of the nation has already reached incredible heights. While this lame duck continues to crap all over the nation (big expense there), people who do not have the luxury of participating at DU, and ruminating over poverty and civil rights, are dying in Iraq. Yes, people are dying in this country, too, from what Dennis Kucinich refers to as the many manifestations of poverty and injustice -- as weapons of mass destruction. But first, we have to regain the very mechanisms that make these social program possible. Nancy Pelosi's First One Hundred Hours list is much like this one of yours -- and worthy of respect -- but nothing much has happened around it.

If we don't get rid of the people who are spending the nation into bankruptcy, while killing ours and theirs in Iraq, there will be no money to fund any of these worthy projects.

With people dying daily in the war, I cringe (and I do worse than that) when someone advocates just waiting out the clock. And as many have said here, impeachment can take place in a month, if the will existed to do it.

Nothing is more important than this country reinstating the rule of law -- through the means outlined by the Founders: Impeachment.

Proclaim the entire time he *was in office* null and void. Recall and repeal.

Rembermber what happened in California... A few people got a bug up there but., and some money behind them and ran a decent man out of office. On a larger scale.....Do you have any doubt given the current climate that every president would not be recalled like once a year?

in the courts or legislative branch. Not a voter recall! The idea is to erase, repeal, all the disasters he has manifested and get us back to a constitutional government.

I dont think part 2 is possible with this Senate.

Believe it or not, but there are even those that would silence (from DU) the presence of one dear lady who stands up against those who oppose impeachment!

Because it won't go anywhere. I'd be all for impeachment if I thought it would be successful at removing him from power.

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

As much as I think he deserves to have his smirk wiped off for the rest of his life, it's critical to get the repukes out of the WH in '08 and we can deal with his crimes in court afterward. There's a showdown brewing between Congress , DOJ and the WH and that will likely trim his little feathers, and little dick's feathers, as well.

... and believe me, I've argued this way too many times.... but for the first time, I can see the ins and outs of what you just said. It's all about hanging in the middle, until you see which way the wind is blowing, right? Why put out the effort and do the hard ground breaking work at the beginning when you can just hang back and ride on the coat tails of those who laid the foundation? Is that what it's all about? Never take a risk yourself? Don't be ambitious? Just go with the flow...

You sounded almost like Nancy Pelosi with your assertation. Remember her words?
“The President isn’t worth it…he’s not worth impeaching. We’ve got important work to do.”

Stark says he replied, “Respectfully, the question is whether or not the Constitution is worth it,” to which he says Pelosi responded, “Well, yeah, the constitution is worth it if you can succeed.” http://www.democrats.com/node/13440

Dude, you could almost be her speech writer.... hmmmm...

Thanks for opening my eyes to a new way of thinking... always be a follower because it's easier than blazing the trail. WOW! Astounding! I feel like I'll sleep better already tonight. All my anxieties have been washed away. Thank you! Nothing is worth doing unless you're 100% positive about a successful outcome.

But bryant, always remember this: I have my own meter for measuring success. It goes like this:
Successful: You did something and everything worked out fine to your advantage.

Unsuccessful: You tried something, you gave it your best shot, 110% of your effort, but it didn't work out for various reasons.

FAILURE: You sat with your thumb in your ass and didn't do a damned thing to help yourself or anyone else.

I'll take unsuccessful over failure any day of the week, my friend.. any day of the week.

with the most effective strategy. Well I hope that works out for you.

Bryant

by the "lockstep" response on this topic by all of our Democratic congressmen/women. They have all gotten the same "talking points." For all of their foibles, this isn't like the Democrats. I admit I'm pretty paranoid these days and this is making me especially nervous.

into the losing war and providing further support to our criminal administration. This can't possibly be good for the economy, for the future of democracy, and for any of the various programs that Democrats claim need our attention. Something really stinks about this.

And it isunDemocratic.

this does not cover the charges of impeachment.....If there were cause then I am sure the Senate would have the 60 plus votes to remove from office, but there are no repubs that would vote for removal.

I do thank you
Ben David

Some feel it is wasting political capital on impeaching someone who has less than 20 months left in office, when chance of a successful impeachment is nil.

Some feel it is political suicide because even bringing up the subject will show just how fractured our party is on the issue. Many Dems and LIEberman would vote against impeachment, along with all Repukes. So, what's the point?

I think ALL on this board would like nothing more than to throw the neo-con war criminals out of the White House and into the Brig....However, some are more nuanced in their understanding of the politics surrounding the base desire to impeach. In short, we DO NOT have the votes for impeachment, and DO NOT have the votes to even get around a filibuster and get it to the floor.

Attempting an impeachment would embarrass the majority because it has NO possible chance of success, AND it would create a backlash. Dems are better advised to simply focus on governing, condemn the President's actions at every turn, and focus on picking up the White House and additional Congressional seats by focusing on ending the war, improving access to affordable healthcare, and improving government accountability, transparency and efficacy.

I wish SO DAMN BADLY we could impeach this crew of crooks. God knows they deserve it more than ANY administration in this nation's history. It's just not gonna happen.

I say they just don't really give a fuck about us in New Orleans. If they did, they would NEVER say it is a waste of time, and the others are fucking cowards.

I too live in NOLA, and I too KNOW that the rest of the country has forgotten about us.

I watch each day as the spin consumes more inertia we had to fix this city, and watch as crime and Eddie Jordan's and Nagin's ineptitude kill off the rest.

I was here when Bush played the guitar and ate cake.

I wish we could toss this crew of crooks in the brig forever, but it just isn't in the cards. The Republicans put Bush and their seats over the American people EVERY TIME, and he's gonna pardon everyone on his way out.

Makes me sick to think about it really, but I just have to focus on getting it right next time, having concluded the fix is in on this one and that all the major fixers are still in power.

Bush could be photographed fucking a dead infant while worshipping Satan and he still wouldn't get impeached. It's just the mindset of his supporters.

I just hope that Dems continue to make a convincing case and that the focus in 08 is getting past 60 seats so we can actually get some things done around here.

Sorry I was hard on you a couple months back - RE: violence in the city - if you recall. :hug:

I didn't want to scare away any possible tourists.

:hi:

Would be nice to meet you in person, one of these days. Next time you are down in the Quarter and want a free drink, gimme a call/IM....It's my neck of the woods.

The other thing I found that they didn't like is that how did those people who were left in the water, how did they drown? And I discovered, talking to the head of the LSU, Louisiana State University Hurricane Center--the people running the hurricane evacuation--they told me, the Chief, a guy named Ivor van Heerden, had been holding this information to himself, he couldn't stand it any more, he said, "Someone's got to speak out. Let me lose my job." What he was saying is that George Bush's White House--he emphasised the "White House"; not just the government--the White House knew 20 hours or so before the levees burst that they were cracking apart and the city was gonna flood.

He was running the operation at the hurricane center in Lousiana, the state of Louisiana, and they stopped evacuating New Orleans. They were all congratulating each other. Katrina never hit the city, it went east of the city, so they were evacuating east. The White House didn't tell them that the levees were failing, and those things collapsed and 1500 people drowned. So people think it's bad; think that George Bush screwed up. It's worse than that. It's worse than that.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0704/S00338.htm

But remember, we live in a country that reelected this piece of shit AFTER they found out about how the Chimp was told of the Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack inside US", then told his cabinet to quit flying commercial airliners and went on a month-long fucking vacation.

So, I don't have any faith that two year old revelations would make any difference, especially when the obvious argument would be made "what could he have done 20 hours before the breech". A decent argument too, actually. Everyone who was going to be able to evacuate was out, and 20 hours before the breech is LANDFALL of the STORM, so no construction could have been initiated to shore, and no extra manpower was available for evacuations...They were already either mobilized or evacuated or holed up in survival centers.

Really, we've got these crooks dead to rights on the USAttorney scandal and the Niger Yellowcake forgeries, if we only looked as a country. However, with the bald partisans across the aisle unwilling to condemn any conduct whatsoever, I cannot imagine a crime or circumstance that would be so objectionable that it would cause the Repukes to turn on the Chimp, and until then, we are complete captives to the filibuster.

you have had a fugitive from justice squatting in the WH since Jan 2000.

How about this as backlash...

President Romney.

I can't think of anything to add, you said it all.

isn't the same as being "against impeachment" and I think a lot of DUers fall in this category. If and when public sentiment becomes so overwhelming that impeachment has a chance of succeeding, or at least when we get to the point where a modicum of repubs in the House are willing to support the commencment of an impeachment proceeding, then by all means it should move forward.

In fact the executive branch is laughing at Congress, the Constitution, and "WE THE PEOPLE"

Congress says we need to do the people's business, which is why they won't impeach, though the real reason is that they are afraid that impeachment may bring backlash against them

For the leadership in Congress who decided impeachment wasn't worth it, what happens if a republican wins the white house in 2008? Will you realize what you have done then?

Of course it really doesn't matter whether it is a Democrat or a republican in the white house, our founding Fathers NEVER intended this kind of power for the executive branch.

WHERE IS THE CHECKS AND BALANCES?

The people who come up with all these good "reasons" why impeachment isn't such a hot idea.

You know the excuses, we've all heard them:

- Not enough votes to convict
- Not a good use of time
- Too many other important things that need attention
- Wrong strategy
- Everything else would come to a grinding halt

blah blah blah

Well you know what? The Constitution is the most important thing we should be concerned with right now. Without it, we have NOTHING!

Got that?

Impeachment protect the Constitution, and by default also protects us, our rights and liberties, and our country. Nothing else matters until we secure the Constitution. And right now, with Bushco shredding it daily, it's in grave danger, a clear and present danger.

It's so shocking to the mind that I doubt many Senators would vote against an article of impeachment after hearing about the abuses of Abu Graib in the context of an impeachment trial. (I refer you to the McCain torture amendment, it passed with more than the 2/3 needed to impeach.)

Does it prevent further damage, does it repair existing damage? How does it do that?

Or three.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1411203&mesg_id=1411203

... for it

Once you commit a crime, it can't be undone.

But once you are convicted and serving time for that crime, it prevents you from running around loose and doing more crimes.

Got it?

... unless it is followed by conviction. So, shouldn't the goal be conviction rather than stopping at impeachment?

conviction in the Senate.

And I doubt it would ever get that far. Bush has always walked away before things got that bad. (See Harken Energy.)

If you don't have a plan for conviction you don't have a plan to protect the constitution.

Bush did not walk away from Harken in front of the whole nation.

No Republican is going to be stupid enough to vote to support Bush in the months before they're up for re-election. The mood will change drastically between now and then.

Bush doesn't really care what the nation thinks. He's made that very clear. If it becomes too troublesome for him, he'll do what he's always done, let some one else clean up the mess. He would never tolerate being put through the impeachment process, he thinks he's above it all.

Secondly, if there is a conviction, then the person causing the damage will be removed from a position of power that might be used to cause even more damage.

It repairs damage by telling the world with our most powerful condemnation, that Bush is not an American, he is a twisted sick man of his own cloth. That alone with mend much of the damage abroad.

Now, to be accurate, Cheney must also be impeached, as he participated in the decision to torture at Abu Graib, and putting him in the White House would cause even more damage.

and nobody has yet shown me how it can result in conviction in the Senate.

As has been said, not supporting a process that is guaranteed to fail isn't the same as supporting Bush.

This is high stakes stuff here -- there are no guarantees. Not that we would succeed, not that we would fail. Many of us here feel that our whole constitutional form of government is at risk and that not acting now to save it will lead to catastrophe. In risk analysis terms, we have what I would describe as a high probability/high seriousness situation that represents an extremely high threat. That means we need to act now -- if it's not already too late. There is no higher national priority.

but right now there's not even a reasonable possibility of it succeeding. We can't even break a filibuster, much less get 67 votes to convict.

Let's see if we can pass a censure resolution.

Let's see if we can impeach Gonzales.

Then let's see if we can impeach and remove Cheney.

If we can't do those, there's no way we can remove Bush.

:applause: there is still the voice of reason on this board...

... conviction will not happen.

Third how does "telling the world" something protect the constitution. What does our statements to the world change about the constitution?

The responses to this question all sound like magic.

For example, will impeachment restore habeus corpus and is impeachment the only way to do it?

You'd think with all the energy devoted to the issue this would be well understood.

When you ask questions, all of a sudden they clam up.

country and Constitution than to the Democratic party.

You are right 100%. There is NOTHING more important.

This was before the Dems had any power.

But then impeachment came "off of the table" and now our community is rife with hand-wringing (although that chorus is dying slowly as new events unfold).

We didn't take our cues from the Democrats back in those heady days...we tried to tell them what was coming, but they acted like Bush was a good faith President and we were nutbags of the far-left.

Now we are taking cues from the same people who let all of this happen for political expediency?

I still insist on dancing to my own tune....Bush/Cheney should have been impeached for failing to heed the warnings of 9/11 on purpose. The evidence came out long before his second term, but these avenues were not pursued.

Who'da thunk it.

be recalled yet he isn't doing exactly what he accused Grey Davis of not doing and undermining our state system to push the neo-con agenda to boot. I believe all those who gain power through means other than straightforward ballot measures should be removed from office as a warning to any other would be despots who are abusing the system for a coup. Also, if they are still around because of whimpy or corrupt officials not doing their job and they turn out to be criminals and incompetent muscle heads on top of it, then it's twice as urgent to get rid of them.

And I apologize for having raised my voice.

The Democrats are making a huge mistake in giving these thugs a free ride.

Rah Rah! Go team! I wanna win in '08! THEN things'll change! Rah Rah!

It's NOT A FUCKING GAME! THIS IS REAL!

Get it?

Doing the right thing is ALWAYS more important than getting re-elected.

If these criminals aren't removed from office, then THERE WILL BE NO '08 ELECTIONS.

You mark my words.

Politics is a game. And impeachment is a game of Russian Roulette with the gun loaded with 5 bullets, and you get the first three turns.

Rah Rah! We'll get him in '08! Rah Rah! Gooooo MY TEAM!

Let's not do what's RIGHT for AMERICA 'cause it might hurt the PARTY!

Rah Rah! We don't have the votes, so let's not even try! Rah Rah!

:eyes:

There will not be a reset button after 2008.

While impeachment would probably be the best move, it may not be a possible, successful move.

and handcuffed and thrown in prison.

The issue is given the time frames etc.. is it the most effective thing to do at this point.

Does he stop and wonder if it will be effective or does he do his job once the evidence is gathered?

We have the evidence. It's time to press those charges.

yet another reason to impeach.

There are limited resources and you make a judgment call. Likewise cops sometimes let a law breaker walk.

Yes. It happens. If the sun has still been rising you know such things don't bring on the end of the world.

I'm curious, does that happen a lot?

... if the case is not sufficiently strong. You can't prosecute every case so when you choose, you drop the ones you'll lose.

You obviously know very little about the legal system, but prosecutors do not bring charges when there is no chance of conviction. You can have a personal belief and substantial evidence, but no prosecutor in his or her right mind would waste time on a case that has no chance of succeeding.

... anymore.

If you don't want to walk their path obviously you are against their goals.

However, I just don't buy that it can go anywhere. At all. Or, blow up entirely and produce an undesired result.

I know upstanding Democrats like Russ Feingold know that, too. And I trust his decision to focus on other, more effective ways of handling the country and the massive mess we face.

Before the hand cuffs and the prison, dont you think it would be a good idea to first remove them from office via a conviction by the Senate. Believe that is the way the Constitution requires to to be done.

I haven't heard one person base their opposition on the lack of seriousness of Bush's crimes.

As a consequence, I'm afraid that your confusion and frustration will continue for quite some time.

and they believe that impeachment will harm the party.

:shrug:

If there's anyone here against impeaching Bush and Cheney, they are a very small and vocal minority.

Most of them probably won't bother responding to a thread designed to call them out.

BTW, I am pro-impeachment.

than making sure Bush & Cheney are removed from office for their crimes. Allowing or authorizing torture is only one, but that alone is enough to impeach.

Even if Bush were to fix the economy, grant health care to all, legalize gay marriage and pull the troops out of Iraq, he and Cheney should STILL be impeached for blatant disregard of the Constitution and abuse of power.

I'm with you, I don't see why there are still people who want to argue that "the time isn't right" or worse, "it's a waste of time."

I applaud all of the efforts of people who are working hard on the many many other issues that are befalling this country, but NOT impeaching says we are okay with the POTUS ignoring the Constitution. If that's the case, wave bye bye to democracy.

High Crimes have been reported again and again, are we a nation of laws or a nation of the lawless?

go see this thread I started....they don't want to wander into it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3395365&mesg_id=3395365

Somebody asked if they anti-impeachment people would support an impeachment if it came up for a vote.

Nothing but crickets.

My head hurts from it.

for impeachment in December 2000.

Its not that I don't think he doesn't deserve impeachment, he deserves more than just impeachment, its that I know that if we send him up for impeachment now it WILL NOT WORK. We CANNOT convict him in the Senate, and as bad as it is not impeaching him, it is EVEN WORSE if we impeach and fail to convict, it will set precedent that the President is beyond all reproach if we couldn't boot him for the reasons he so well deserves.

If I thought we could successfully start the impeachment process now (not conviction, not even the adoption of articles of impeachment, but just passing a resolution in the House to authorize the commencement of Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings) I"d be all for it.

But Dean's essay is about why the impeachment process should start not about the political reality of whether an attempt to start it should be made if its likely to fail. And that's where I believe we are now. Until some repubs start indicating that they'd support the process, I don't think the required resolution authorizing and directing the House Judiciary Committee to conduct the impeachment inquiry that Dean wants will necessarily pass because of defections of blue dog Democrats who generally shy away from supporting proposals that divide along purely partisan lines.

what about doing something simply because it's the right thing to do?

The four steps to spiritual health:

1) Show up
2) Do your best
3) Tell the truth
4) Let go of the results

Or, if you prefer, "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"

It kills the impeachment process. This isn't the same as calling for a vote on setting a timetable (which not only got a majority in the House, but has widespread bi-partisan support according to polls). Its about calling for a vote that is unlikely to garner a majority -- at this time -- for a proposal that does not yet have any significant bi-partisan support.

Its not a now or never thing. Its giving the administration the rope with which to hang itself. Every step they take -- particularly those relating to subpoenas -- helps the impeachment cause. We can get another vote on withdrawal every six months or so. With impeachment, we're going to only get one bite at the apple.

and your patience! Gotta admit I was completely unnerved by this EO last week http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html)--

I'll try to get a grip.

"Never tell me the odds"... Sometimes I feel like Han Solo in a world of C3P0's

i've felt that impeachment was called for since the supreme court decision came down in "indecision 2000"

I want these creeps out of office as much as anyone...

But I'm pretty unconvinced we'll get enough Repugs to jump ship to actually reach a 2/3 majority.

So please enlighten me - what is the political purpose of impeaching if the odds are against conviction?

the votes aren't there.

politicians in Washington may have a better feel on how to approach this than I do.

The politicians in D.C. of whatever stripe, do NOT give a flying FUCK about you, your family, your community or anyone else outside their "elite" circle. Have you never noticed the smell of smoke being blown up your ass???

I'm frustrated, furious and looking for my pitchfork.

If any resident of the White House is antagonistic to the well-being of the American people, then why does it matter if we replace one callous bastard with another?

Hell yes, I favor it. Always have, since he took over - not just because of Iraq or the Patriot Act, etc., but since January 20, 2001.

But favoring impeachment and knowing it won't happen are two very different things. Those of us who point out that screaming and wailing about it on a message board won't do shit to make it happen, and amounts to little more than public masturbation, get raked over the coals over it because we dare knock on their doors and interrupt. ;-)

Should he be impeached? Yes.

Of course, that would leave Cheney in charge, and nothing would change.

And by the time Cheney faces it, it will be January 2009 and moot.

I am all for accountability, so I would be as happy as anyone here if it happened.

But being an adult and living in the reality-based community, it's far better now to make their remaining time in office hell, and make sure history judges them as harshly as we have, than pin false hopes on the greatest political jack-off fantasy since "Draft Gore in '04!". Even greater in fact.

It's hard enough getting the Democrats to vote on cutting war funding, so what the hell is up with the Sheehan-induced impeachment porn?

DU is home of the false dichotomy: Knowing impeachment is not a reality and favoring it are not mutually exclusive.

A colossal waste of time. And the condescending tone in the OP is not appreciated.

:kick:

Take your pick,...

:rofl:

!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!

:rofl:

Both would be sweet. But both are universally, unequivocally, impossible given our set of laws, both physical and cultural.

is crazy, a drug user, or worse........... :eyes:

Arrogant much? Another member for my rapidly growing ignore list of DUers that like to label other people with a broad brush.........

a very interesting post from one who is vociferously against impeachment.

There is a clear majority for impeaching Darth Cheney, so of course he ignores that altogether.
Surprise, surprise. :sarcasm:

But as for King George, the poster's reasoning is that we do not have the statistical majority to impeach.
--The stats are 45% *for* impeachment and 46% *against* impeachment.

So by one measly percentage point, reasons this mental giant, (and not taking into consideration the 'undecided') it would be absolutely ridiculous to proceed on impeachment!

Jeez, I've heard of weak arguments... but OMG this takes the cake! :rofl:


Come on, these excuses are WAY too feeble. What are the real fears these people have? Dianne Feinstein said: “impeachment…will only divide the country even further, frustrating our hopes for a meaningful change in direction, while having little chance of success.” Now the Republicans are filibustering just about every bill the Dem's put together. In fact the Republicans are breaking the filibuster record — right here, right now. If she actually believes anything will change, as things are now, then she --and all like her-- are delusional.

With no end in sight to the obstructionism, it’s a waste of time to even create all this legislation when they know their bills will be continuously "blocked" as the MSM puts it ...it's only Filibusterin' when Democrats do it, ya know! :eyes:

There is something underlying all this craziness, but they won't say ...they just come up with more ludicrous or risible (or both) so-called reasons to avoid doing what they vowed to do: Defend the Constitution.


So when you hear or read the 'there is no majority' baloney, just remember it's by one percentage point.
I'd hazard a guess that 90% of that criminal regime's crimes are still unknown to the public, and I'm firmly convinced once the hearings are underway, what comes out will be a big eye-opener to the average Joe & Jane American
--and it won't be sympathy for the devils, you count on that.

It should be an impeachable crime to stop the counting of votes.

Everything they've done since has validated my opinion, not a single act of this administration has remediated that first act of Treason, or given it even a thin veneer of legitimacy.

K & R

What you have is some people realizing that the processes are long and cumbersome trying to get that across to those who want what appears to be instant gratification.

I'm a lawyer and I know that feeling completely. People march into your office wanting the courts to rule against their opponent TODAY and give them a good tongue lashing and put things right TODAY!

The hardest thing is getting them to realize they will have to get their ducks in order before beginning, or the court will eat them alive no matter how right they are. And that it will take time.

Somehow it feels similar.

Conyers is even in favor of impeachment, so he should be supported, not criticized. Save the criticism for the intractible repukes.

It's like that coach that got his team to win by playing to their strengths. They beat those who were under the old fashioned type of management that sees only errors and dwells on them. It demands perfection, and nothing stops up action like a demand for perfection.

he has committed no less than 25+ Impeachable offenses and keeps on committing them every month with no end in sight.
Anyone not for Impeaching these criminals are clearly brain dead.

He should never have sat foot in the oval office in the first place, I have a feeling that election fraud might count as an Impeachable offense, so is treason, war crimes & crimes against humanity.

Many continue to defend Pelosi's treasonous "off the table" edict. Many continue to defend the dereliction that EVERY Member of Congress who is submitting to the edict is guilty of. Many continue to tell us that Dems can't speak out until they have "more" or that the Dems are working "behind the scenes." They tell us that impeachment can/should/will happen at some unspecified time in the future. Some say they would "love to see Bush and Cheney impeached" but declare it to be "impossible" and therefore "a waste of time."

Many of the "not now" people believe they are pro-impeachment. They believe "we're all on the same side" and want to see us all "just get along." But we can't "all just get along" because the differences are http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2749557&mesg_id=2756313">irreconcilable.

When it comes to making impeachment a reality, our opposition is not the fascists, it is the "not now" people.It is the "stop attacking the Dems" people. Like it or not, the "not now" people are Anti-Impeachment. Like it or not, they are enabling the dereliction of our leaders and enabling the war criminals in the White House.

Since the fear that "something bad" will happen appears to be driving the irrational avoidance of immediate impeachment, I use the "http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/23">impeachophobia" to describe the "condition."

Fortunately, out here in the real world we see impeachophobes recover every day.

Unfortunately, in the created "reality" of the beltway, impeachophobia is the norm. Recovery is going to require intensive intervention. Cindy's action yesterday was just one of many "interventions" that will be required to effect a "cure."

... I've seen. Thanks for your work and your dogged persistence on behalf of the rule of law.

questioned when I suggested that the Dems have stood by and let these criminals continue to get away with this shit despite the fact that the Dems are now the majority party in Congress.

According to the poster, there is nothing the Dems can do. Their hands are tied because they "don't have the votes."

When did that ever stop the r's?