Why they haven't impeached: I think it's simple.

If Clinton hadn't been impeached, if that process hadn't been corrupted into a witch hunt, I believe the House would have impeached. Due to the outcome of that impeachment, they're afraid. They're afraid that impeachment would lead to exoneration in the Senate, and would empower the administration. That's what happened in 1998. Impeaching Clinton actually strenghtened him. They're also afraid of a perceived backlash against dems in 2008. A lot of folks feel that political considerations shouldn't enter into it; that the dems should just do the right thing and impeach. Although I can see that, politics always enters into politics. I'm not offering this as an excuse for their not introducing articles of impeachment, just putting forth what I believe is the reasoning behind the lack of action.

However, I don't think that the refusal to impeach is written in stone. The dems are running a lot of investigations, and I think they're trying to get the majority of the American people on board. The problem is, they're running out of time. If they're going to impeach, they really have to do it within the next few months. Otherwise I can see people saying what the hell, he'll be out of office in a year or anyway.

Although the current showdown between Congress and the President might more matters. I said this elsewhere, but if Impeachment is a showdown between Congress and the President rather than Democrats/Liberals and the President, we will have a much better chance of actually seeing him out of office.

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

thank you

K&R

once the dems take complete control back.

while he's in office. I'm hoping that they DO present the American people with a well crafted case for impeachment, and I don't care what he's impeached on.

...be perceived as a vendetta?? Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if we do some sort of "retroactive" tap dance.

NGU.

whatever he can be indicted for. failing that here, send him the fuck to Holland. I'm sure they can find something at the Hague.

every single one of those monsters need to be made to face what they've done, and spend every waking moment for the rest of their lives dealing with the consequences, even if it only means staring up at a little hole in the ceiling.

you know they're so psychotic that they'll never realize, like MacNamara, the enormity of their hideous crimes

may they rot in their version of their own fundamentalist hell for as long as their consciousness survives, hopefully billions of years

on the topic.

I would add that they are likely hoping that their ongoing investigations will dig up enough impeachable material that they will be "forced" to take action by a popular outcry, thereby lifting the onus from their shoulders.

isn't 70% of us enough? I agree they are afraid, but their fear is just making Americans more angry - at them.

I haven't seen anything that indicates that 70% of Americans support impeachment. Can you give me a link?

using the Google, I see that only 53% are in favor of impeachment. I do believe that the others who dissapprove of the idiot would go along with impeachment though.

...but I think the explanation is much simpler: the Dems have a full plate of legislative issues to tackle and a Senate that is not likely to convict. While November 2008 is still a year and 7 mos out, technically there's even less time available when you count legislative recesses and adjournments. Barring some major misstep by Bush (like he murders someone), I don't think the case can be put together quick enough.

every politician in DC is jockeying for 2008 position

That doesn't even make a scintilla of sense. First of all, not every politician in DC is even running for anything in 2008, and second of all- oh never mind. You're explanation is simply too simple

to be jockeying for position

simple enough otr too simple, what ever- it rings more true than any other reason.
.

nicely put.

is to get the republics nervous enough that they will abandon him and take the lead.

Unbelievably that scenario is shaping up. If twenty percent of them turn, it's over.

their only option to save their party and to restore honor to it?

:evilgrin:

even the most dedicated rats will abandon it. Honor has zero to do with it.

:evilgrin:

Howya doin, Kiddo? :hi:

NGU.

I'm hanging in there, thanks for asking.

When are we going to go play in your room again, the bleever's not around to get us in any trouble. :blush:

N.G.U. :hi:

But one really good thing is that the longer Bush goes on, the worse he makes it for the GOP. No one even comes close as Bush/Cheney and the kind of damage done to the GOP is irreversible for decades! Unfortunately, we all suffer in the long term. I guess it is a waiting game to see when George will fall on his own sword, Cheney too. It is only a matter of time now.

is vital: Iran

As for the case to Impeach?

GW Bush- High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

1. "A Crime Against Peace." Initiating a war of aggression against a nation that posed no immediate threat to the U.S.--a war that has needlessly killed 2550 Americans and maimed and damaged over 20,000 more, while killing over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children, is the number one war crime according to the Nuremberg Charter, a document which was largely drawn up by American lawyers after World War II.

2. Lying and organizing a conspiracy to trick the American people and the U.S. Congress into approving an unnecessary and illegal war. This is defined as "A Conspiracy to Commit a Crime Against Peace" in the Nuremberg Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory.

3. Approving and encouraging, in violation of U.S. and international law, the use of torture, kidnapping and rendering of prisoners of war captured in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the course of the so-called War on Terror. Note that the Hamdan decision actually declares Bush to have violated the Third Geneva Convention on Treatment of Prisoners of War, which means the justices are in effect calling the president a war criminal. Under U.S. and international law, if prisoners have died because of such a violation--and many have died in illegal US captivity because of torture authorized by this president--the penalty is death (a point made to the president in a warning memo written by his then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, the text of which is published in full in the appendix of our book).

4. Illegally stripping the right of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution from American citizens, denying them the fundamental right to have their cases heard in a court, to hear the charges against them, to be judged in a public court by a jury of their peers, and to have access to a lawyer.

5. Authorizing the spying on American citizens and their communications by the National Security Agency and other U.S. police and intelligence agencies, in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

6. Obstructing investigation into and covering up knowledge of the deliberate exposing of the identity of a U.S. CIA undercover operative, and possibly conspiring in that initial outing itself.

7. Obstructing the investigation into the 9-11 attacks and lying to investigators from the Congress and the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission--actions that come perilously close to treason. (Former Florida Senator Bob Graham, who headed the Senate Intelligence Committee until his retirement at the end of 2002, has called this the president's most impeachable crime.)

8. Violating the due process and other constitutional rights of thousands of citizens and legal residents by rounding them up and disappearing or deporting them without hearings.

9. Abuse of power, undermining of the Constitution and violating the presidential oath of office by deliberately refusing to administer over 750 acts duly passed into law by the Congress--actions with if left unchallenged would make the Congress a vestigial body, and the president a dictator.

10. Criminal negligence in failing to provide American troops with adequate armor before sending them into a war of choice, criminal negligence in going to war against a weak, third-world nation without any planning for post war occupation and reconstruction, criminal negligence in failing to respond to a known and growing crisis in the storm-blasted city of New Orleans, and criminal negligence in failing to act, and in fact in actively obstructing efforts by other countries and American state governments, to deal with the looming crisis of global warming.





The Democrats’ Impeachment Road Map

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVjM2M2N2U3ZjJlNTRiZmYzZjJkYzJiN2RlZGQyYjY=

:yourock:

otherwise the House and the Democrats end up eating a backlash.

I think there are a lot of Congressmen wanting to impeach, but they're keeping their cards close to their chests, and discussing it in the backrooms. You can bet that once the backroom dealing's done and there are 67 promised Senate votes to convict, those Congressmen will show their hole cards and an impeachment will start happening in a hurry. Most likely by that time, Bush will resign, throw up his V for Victory signs and slink out on Army One.

folks forget, they tried to remove Clinton from office by the impeachment process, he was acquitted and empowered. We do not want even a slight chance of that happening, not even a weak possibility of that to happen with the idiot in charge now. We can let sympathy for him (and against the political witch hunt) give him or his party or selected successor or brother) any power, any openings. The charges have to be substantial and air tight.

Republicans abused the impeachment process and used it where it was neither applicable or politically astute (note however that they maintained their majority in Congress for 8 years afterwards).

Now that the situation warrants- actually the Constitution DEMANDS impeachment, some members of the public- and certainly many members of Congress refuse to go there.

Bush was essentially "vaccinated" against impeachment, even though his actions justify the process by many magnitudes greater than any other President in US history.

And I don't mean just because the great, glorious day is drawing nearer when the moving vans finally pull up to the white house. 600+ days gives them plenty of time to commit further atrocities -- possibly light up the whole Middle East by invading and/or bombing Iran and sparking a regional conflict in which there are plenty of nukes to go around (including Israel's).

So even without the certainty that the Senate will convict, putting these bastards on trial will at least temporarily distract them from playing out the PNAC's rapturous end game. Instead, they'll spend every waking hour closeted with their attorneys in a desperate effort to stay out of jail. And if the country gets really lucky, the impeachment process itself would inevitably reveal so much illegality and corruption that even a few GOP senators may be forced into voting against BushCo to try to save their own shaky political futures. Break out the orange jumpsuits.

On the other hand, it may well cause BushCo to go stark raving mad, nuke Iran, dummy up another stage-managed "terraist" strike at the Vaterland, and pretty much unleash the fires of hell on us and the rest of the world. They're certainly up to the job, unrestrained as they are by the normal checks on sociopathic behavior that keep the rest of us in line.

So, without intending to, I've nearly argued myself out of my usual "impeach them yesterday" position.

What do you think? Are they insane enough to start a "nukulur" war that could well end most life on the planet, save insects and germs? They're religiously insane enough to think the rapture is real, and that it's a great idea. Do they have the courage of their convictions, if "courage" is the right term for what it takes to commit ecocide? Or is there some small trace of humanity left that would cause them to back away from the brink of global disaster? Nah...

wp

being prosecuted and the Repubics' good names being tarnished in a wave of guilt by association, they will be BEGGING us to impeach and remove the SOB (who would never quit no matter what), and we can just say NOPE, tough titties, we're gonna keep investigating and prosecuting.

I'm really looking forward to him being out of the picture. He's such a whiny twit, and trying to be a
schoolyard bully is not a very admirable quality in anyone, especially the president of the U.S.

:nopity: :nopity:

and unless all these investigations turn up clear evidence of crime that leads directly to Bush - along with about 75% of the American people supporting impeachment - I don't think we'll see it happen.

Which is unfortunate, because impeaching Bush would be a good start on this country regaining some credibility with the rest of the world. OTOH - convicting him of a crime (there must be something!) after he's out of office might work pretty well, too.

Good one! I think you pegged it. A simple and yet very effective post.

And Pelosi didn't say it wasn't on the table, EVER.

Boy have we learned a lot in six years.

not even worth mentioning. Afraid... sniveling afraid. Just let 3 of them start speaking out together. What three have balls? I'm not asking you, I'm thinking aloud.

In 1974, I was totally convinced that Nixon should have been put under the jail. Nixon still had his loyal Nazis all the way to the end, and still has apologists today.

My point is, the only way the Democrats can appear as non-partisan as possible, is to slowly and methodically build a body of incontrovertible evidence that will erode GWB's support down to the "defend the Reichstag" Nazis. That point has not been reached yet. Let's all have patience while the Dems grind this out. Please.

that Clinton's mess-up (which I consider more serious than most here probably do, since she was an intern--making him in some sense in loco parentis--and it took place in the White House, *our* property) may be slowing down the slapping down of the most corrupt--no, *criminal*--administration in the history of this country. There is absolutely no comparison. They are orders of magnitude apart. God, I hate living in "interesting times"....

The process of impeachment was devalued and trivialized with the Clinton bogus impeachment.

That is not a permanent state.

It is not an excuse for inaction.

It is a challenge to refute the Right Wing memes about who thinks what about impeachment post-Clinton, retribution, blah blah blah.

It is a challege to USE impeachment when it is appropriate, even though the most recent one was NOT.

:kick:

So it's almost time.

as a hero.

There are other things and people they are afraid of more than losing in the senate.

Impeachment without convicton strengthened Clinton, and could well do the same for bush. To ignore that, ignores very recent history.

If anything, it's that he was impeached, and very secondarily, that he beat it.

Also, by your logic, if we give Bush a pass, impeachment will be seen solely as a partisan weapon, and not part of legitimate checks and balances.

Maybe we shouldn't get mad at the networks for their vapid horserace coverage of politics if this is how shallow people really are there, that the think the American people wouldn't see the difference between what Clinton did and what Bush did.

Are you somebody's staffer or something?

in post 20 should send any informed, aware citizen into an impeachment nod. However, the public is mostly made up of cud-chewers and those things are 'too technical' and don't really register. Also, 9/11 was such a long time ago, in their eyes. Without strong public sentiment for impeachment, it could be spun as stricly partisan. That is where investigations come in. They ARE wearing away the varnish. Walter Reed, the public understands that. Plame, they understand that,to a lesser extent.

Public outrage+Republican outrage=Impeachment

about clinton's impeachment

the pugs KNEW VERY WELL they couldn't win that. their PLAN was to defame the dems, and whoever their candidate for 2000 would be.

and it WORKED.

it's no secret, and has been discussed here, as well by some pundits.

pugs weren't dumb. nobody thought they could convict. it was the final act in the inquistion of the DEMOCRATS, not just Clinton. he was the focal point of their plan to destroy the democratic party, and, so far, it's worked pretty damn well.

what have they NOT accomplished in their six years plus? they've destroyed the middle class, the environment, the economy, the military, our foreign relations, the CIA, all regulatory agencies, the judiciary system, the bill of rights, the rule of law, completely co-opted the media. the list goes on...

they're in trouble now, and may possibly lose the 08 election, but the media is WORSE now than it's ever been, and Giuliani is their hero, and they'll protect him more assiduously than they did Bush in 2000. even if a dem gets in, SO much damage has been done that it may be impossible to recover.

THAT, my DU friends, is the impact of the impeachment. It's their vile, deadly legacy. The fact that it's politically almost impossible to impeach Bush is just a sweet bonus for them, and not really very important in the scheme of things. Kicking him out now (especially if Cheney isn't part of the package) doesn't leave much time to right the ship of state.

the damage has already been done, like the iceberg ripping through the brittle plates of the Titanic. those thin plates were our last vestige of constitutional protection against vicious totalitarian rule. do you really think any demm on the horizon will have what it takes to stop the water from pouring in?

I hope so, but I'm afraid it's too late.

Waxman, Conyers, and maybe Leahy...perhaps a few others on the hill might have a chance to wake people up to the enormity, the depth and breadth of their crimes, but I just don't know.

I don't think the impeachment of Clinton was part of some grand strategy, I think it was pure vindictiveness run amok. They saw an immediate opening and took it. His approval was higher at the end of impeachment than before. And there was by no means an assurance of pub ascendancy in 2000. Gore 'lost' because of a combination of media pile ons and a poorly run campaign. Nothing was gauranteed though.

If Japan can come back from a nuclear strike and total defeat in a bloody war, to emerge as a world power, we can come back from this. But like our dufus-in-chief says, 'It's hard work.'

you can check it out.

and Gingrich and his acolytes had a set of audiotapes they'd exchange with others to get all the young fascists on the same page in the late 80s, early 90s, setting things up to destroy the democratic party. they contained lessons for all these pukes to learn, to march in gooselockstep. there was a lengthy article about this aspect of the rise of the far right in the New Yorker back in the 90s, but I don't know if it's available online. I have the issue somewhere, but it's more than ten years old. they knew what they were doing. they were also insanely vindictive, attracting LOTS of maniacs to do their bidding, but the leadership knew what they were doing.

I didn't think this up on my own

I read about it elsewhere, and I'm sure it won't be that hard to find.

vast right wing conspiracy, it's real. That part is not in dispute. I just don't think their playbook specifically included impeachment, I believe it was more a 'crime of passion' then a well thought out murder.

near as I can tell:

Bruck, Connie. "The Politics of Perception." The New Yorker (October 9, 1995)

they knew what they were doing

you don't have to believe me

do a little digging

as you said, it was a conSPIRacy. they didn't base this conspiracy on insane blood lust for Clinton. it was much more calculating than that.

if the impeachment HAD succeeded, it would have been much BETTER for Gore, running for election as the sitting president. they knew for CERTAIN that they couldn't convict, and David Schippers, for one, was furious that they wouldn't allow him to present evidence that he claims would have helped even dem senators vote to convict. I'm convinced they didn't want to have him out of office. he was a much better target for their vicious contumely as the man in office. if he was gone, out of office, he would have been much more difficult to connect with president Gore, and it would have been MUCH easier for Gore to distance himself from Clinton, eliminating the conundrum he faced, with which he never effectively dealt.

Interesting. I'll look into this concept that pubs instigated the Clinton impeachment knowing they were going to lose, garner hostility towards themselves, and tarnish the impeachment process so that their own candidate, gauranteed to win in 2000 would be immune from impeachment. Seriously, no sarcasm. With the last six years, I'm capable of believing anything anyway. But I gotta say, it seems to rely on a lot of variables for the plan to go right. And I can't imagine people would see Gore as stronger because the leader of his party had just been impeached.

I found this article that supports your point, but the commenters have some doubts.

http://allspinzone.com/wp/2007/03/07/clinton-bush-impeachment/

mentioned it as a bonus, which, I agree, they probably weren't considering

but why on earth do you find it so hard to believe that they were trying to destroy Clinton, and the concomitant blistering of all things democratic would make it that much easier to keep people from voting another dem as president

do you remember what their rallying cry was? what Bush/Cheney blabbered at EVERY appearance they made, as their final, solemn promise?

they knew VERY WELL what they were doing.

have you read The Hunting of the President? it makes very clear the concerted, organized attacks on Clinton, abetted with zeal by the complicit media. Gore got nailed by mere association, and they lied their asses off, again aided by the media handmaidens, making Gore look as corrupt, in his own way, as they made Clinton look. It wasn't really that hard to do.

Remember how easy it was to turn Kerry from a war hero into a prevaricating impostor, cynically capitalizing on his false war wounds? Do you think that was planned in the heat of the moment, as well? It's what they do BEST.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm



Newt Gingrich's 1996 GOPAC memo

As you know, one of the key points in the GOPAC tapes is that "language matters." In the video "We are a Majority," Language is listed as a key mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning. As the tapes have been used in training sessions across the country and mailed to candidates we have heard a plaintive plea: "I wish I could speak like Newt."

That takes years of practice. But, we believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases.

This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media. The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used.

While the list could be the size of the latest "College Edition" dictionary, we have attempted to keep it small enough to be readily useful yet large enough to be broadly functional. The list is divided into two sections: Optimistic Positive Governing words and phrases to help describe your vision for the future of your community (your message) and Contrasting words to help you clearly define the policies and record of your opponent and the Democratic party.


........

make sure you read "the list"

I agree that there was a concerted effort to tarnish Clinton and the dems, hell, you can go back to Richard Mellon-Scaife in the 60's and see that, but I haven't, as yet, seen where they started out with impeachment as a goal, with those caveats I mentioned above. This selection doesn't say anything about impeachment one way or the other. It says that they were delibirately trying to use language in a way to get in the subconscious of the public that the dems are a sorry bunch, which I stated I agree they were doing that.

Not saying such evidence isn't out there, though.

that it shows the degree of planning, thought, attention to detail of which they displayed; a piece of supporting evidence, that's all.

and, once again, this isn't my idea. I read it elsewhere, and I am positive it's been discussed here before, as well

It's just too obvious....shovel all the shit they dumped on WJC for eight years over to Gore. not so very difficult to do.

the media were only too happy to help them accomplish this very simple task.

as Clinton said, they apply the politics of personal destruction with exquiste virtuosity, with a cold, unemotional fervor at the leadership level. they leave the bad craziness to their easily led, clueless, flock

it would have worked last year, too, had it not have been for the Foley scandal. It was that, not Iraq, that turned the tide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeach020198.htm

Some Democrats on Capitol Hill -- and elsewhere -- were talking privately about how nice it would be to be rid of Clinton and all his scandals and to have Al Gore installed in the presidency. Gore may have bobbled a couple of times in the course of raising campaign funds -- and in explaining himself -- but the debris he had accumulated was minuscule compared to Clinton's. Besides, these Democrats' thinking went, the Republicans would be far less effective in attacking Gore the incumbent than Gore the candidate.

This very same thought was one of the reasons that the House Republican leadership came to a quick consensus that they should keep quiet about impeachment -- and about the story in general.


..............

The Republican leaders see the Gore possibility exactly as the Democrats do. A Republican strategist said, "The probability is that a Gore presidency would look good, perhaps through the 2000 election. The Republican plan to defeat Gore has always been fairly straightforward: a campaign to get the country scared of Al Gore as president by branding him a radical environmentalist who grew up in a hotel room. But if he's been president for two years, how do you beat him then?"

Whether people like it or not, impeachment can only progress if there is a solid watertight legal case for it. People might think that Bush coming out and admitting what he has done would count as watertight evidence, but it doesn't. He hasn't given us specifics. Also he has made the claim that what he has been doing is not illegal, and he has an AG and SCOTUS that will back him up regardless. What has to happen is that an investigation has to "discover" something that is a clear violation before impeachment proceedings can begin. that's why I see the current investigations as the first step in the process, and it will go farther.

Either way, we are more endangered as time goes by, and lies run rampant. We all know why the Brits were seized by the Iranians. I think the more we allow the administration and its allies to continue to operate freely, the closer we are to another tragedy. These people need to be impeached.

.... the I word is not going to happen until it is a SLAM DUNK in both houses.

Impeach Clinton over nothing with your Republican congressional majority so that when your ultra criminal regime steps in through the corrupt means already set up any outcry against their crimes seem "petty" and simply "partisan revenge". Oh yes, these guys have been hatching this plan for a long time.

What I think happened is, Pelosi told Bush right after the dems took over; drop Rumsfeld and we won't impeach. Notice Rumsfeld was gone shorty after they took over. The Clinton impeachment took 2 years, and thats about all the time Bush has left, so it would be pointless. Everyone knows they have lied, I mean I've never heard of so many scandals in one administration in my whole life. Should they he be impeached? Yes, but you would have to take cheney down to or it would be worse. Though, imagine how shitty of a job these guys would do if they had impeachment on their mind....