Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why did Pelosi not want to impeach Bush? Why was she so adamant that

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
raccoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 12:32 PM
Original message
Why did Pelosi not want to impeach Bush? Why was she so adamant that


"impeachment is off the table?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. Maybe she was psychic, knew Obama would be elected and insist on looking forward not back
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brooklynite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
2. Because...
1. It wouldn't have been successful (2/3 of the Senate would not convict him, resulting in an "acquittal" in the public's view)

2. It would have taken time away from dealing with Democratic policy issues

3. It would have been seen by the average voter as a political move and a waste of time, and risked Democratic gains in 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Yes, I wonder why so many don't realize that it would have been a total waste of time.
He wouldn't have been impeached. It would have done Dems no favors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. Yep. It would have been seen as completely political and would have hurt Dems.
Edited on Mon Apr-19-10 01:05 PM by Captain Hilts
And she had nowhere near enough votes.

The house couldn't get an increase in minimum wage passed, let alone impeaching the president.

I kinda would like them to go after Yu or Gonzales.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. Maybe because Congress was complicit - never cutting the funding...
...for his fake war, or even bothering to seriously question his agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Congress still is complicit. We're still warring on innocent people,
still torturing, still sacking Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Absolutely. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. many knew of the torture also,
complicit? yes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. The Leaders of a nation
Edited on Mon Apr-19-10 01:09 PM by femrap
set the stage for the Common Folk....now, we live in land of NO LAWS. There is no responsibility. W never admitted a mistake and the Dems are complicit.

Now we have every fool w/ a gun making his own laws of the land.

War is a racket that TPTB sell arms to both sides.

I'm sick.

Edited for typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. At this point, government is a racket. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #27
45. Good one.
But I still think the root cause of this mess is the Corporation. Gov't just takes orders from them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. They're undoing the revolution. Before then, the East India Co.
(Is that the right one? Our Founding Corporation?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #46
51. Yes, I think that's
the first of the Big Biz.

I wonder if humans will ever evolve to the point where they realize that Greed has no point.

And then there are those who question if these Greedy beings are in fact 'human!':tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
28. yep. cannot impeach or investigate war crimes when you are doing them also
or plan on doing them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. And maybe because it would have been POINTLESS.
Without the votes to convict in the Senate, it would have just been a re-run of the Rethugs impeaching Clinton and failing to convict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. How did that hurt the Republicans?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Clinton's popularity went UP after the Republicans went after him and then failed to convict.
It backfired on them completely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #22
29. It backfired so completely that they kept their majority and took the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. They took the WH because of election fraud in Florida and a corrupt SCOTUS. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. One of the things the impeachment accomplished was a rift between Clinton and Gore.
Edited on Mon Apr-19-10 01:28 PM by EFerrari
Which made Florida and the selection that much easier for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. The impeachment didn't accomplish that; Clinton, through his actions, did. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Well, given that impeachment forced Al Gore into public statement
I'd have go with impeachment, not Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
25. You nailed it
This was the primary reason there was no impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virgogal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
4. Maybe they were having an affair. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
5. It's a club.
Seriously, these people are now all in one club. Do you throw your friends in jail?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. Why doesn't EVERYBODY understand this? How hard is this
to understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Why doesn't everybody understand that an impeachment would have been toothless
without 2/3 of the Senate being willing to convict him? Without that, he could claim vindication. How would that have left us better off?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. Because "everybody" doesn't define success as narrowly as you are.
Impeachment, at a minimum, would have slowed BushCo down and might have aired out issues that could have slowed down the rampant government corruption, criminality and abuse. That's what happened after both Watergate and the Church hearings.

As for Bush claiming "vindication", only 23% of the public would have listened to him on that point because that's what he was down to, iirc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. I think it would have cheapened the act of impeachment to have two Presidents
in a row be impeached without conviction. It would be seen as political retaliation by many (even though I personally agree that Bush would have deserved it) and the "shock value" or threat of starting an impeachment proceeding would be diminished in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerKid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. Filibustering seems similar.
:popcorn: Republican filibuster over financial reform :popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #30
38. Bush was a criminal and so was his administration
and nobody stopped them. Nobody. That speaks volumes about who the feds work for. And it's hard to see how they can get "cheaper" or lower than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #14
50. I've learned to look at my elected officals in a far different way in the last year.
I've come to a conclusion that it is a club that the ultra rich and politicians belong to and our invites will forever be lost in the mail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
48. Correct answer.
DLC controls the party, and they'll never allow neocons to be held accountable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ysabel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
9. there was no money in it ? shrug / i dunno...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
10. There was dirt on her hands that she didn't want publicized.
She's no different from any other politician: Crooked, dirty, and profiting from "public service".

Going after bush would have caused bush to go after dems who can't afford to have their own dirty laundry aired in public, lest they lose their coveted golden egg-laying geese.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. You have no evidence that's her reason. But there is plenty of evidence
that 2/3 of the Senate would NOT have voted to convict Bush. So working to impeach him would have been a complete waste of time -- just as it was when the Rethugs impeached Clinton but failed to convict. It just made Clinton more popular.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
11. Why impeach -- indict -- him when he'd just laugh it off? Two-thirds of the Senate
would never have voted to convict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
12. She had nowhere near the votes and knew it would make the Dems look petty. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
15. Her family would
be put in danger? She could no longer fly in a small plane?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
23. Simple, it would have politically hurt the Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #23
32. +1
Sure, Congress was complicit, and yes, the upper reaches of our government are a club...but had there been a good chance of convicting in the Senate, Pelosi would have changed her tune instantly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #23
52. Yes. And she didn't have the votes nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
24. Why would she WANT to impeach him? Knowing that 2/3 of the Senate would never convict? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NotGivingUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
33. Because Pelosi and Co. were in favor of what Bush had accomplished.
One and the same. All of the things for which we wanted Bush impeached still continue today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
branders seine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
34. "Justice" does not apply to the ruling elite,
and Nancy looks out for her own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtrockville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qutzupalotl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
39. Before 2008, if they convicted and removed both Bush and Cheney,
Pelosi would have become President, making the whole operation seem politically motivated. I think she'd make a fine president, but coming to office this way would have made getting things done very difficult. (I'm just guessing here about her reservations.)

Removing Bush alone would have left us with President Cheney, quite a bit worse, unless you believe he was already tacitly president.

I'm not so sure that conviction in the Senate would have been impossible, if the crimes had been explained to the public in the right way. It's kind of hard, or should be hard, to come out publicly in favor of war criminals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
40. She remembered what happened to Neut when he failed to make his impeachment stick...n/t
She also probably recognized that no impeachment would have been successful in the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
42. Because of what timpeachment of Clinton did to the Republicans long term
The entire crew who went after Clinton hammer and tongs ended up losing out in the long term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenTea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
44. Pelosi's job & goal should of been to win back as many seats for a larger Dem majority in congress
Edited on Mon Apr-19-10 01:59 PM by GreenTea
And Pelosi helped get this accomplished big time!.

Do you see any other clown in congress, or the executive branch or the Attorney Generals office going after Bush & Cheney? As all could do it just as easily.

Stop singling out Pelosi.

Get fucking real....dude is just stirring the pot....I expected only the stick together and "united" republicans would be bringing this shit up...you know the usual tactic against the Democrats - DIVIDE & CONQUER!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
47. I've generally figured that leadership saw it as a failure from the jump
No chance of convicting the Senate and very dicey in the House to even get it in position to get knocked down while sucking up all the air for months if not the remainder of the term in a partisan battle.

It would have changed the dynamic of 08, I'm not certain in which way(s) but the risk to reward ratio wasn't really there. Even a very optimistic person could well imagine a process that removed BushCo almost as their term expired.

If Democrats had come back in 2004, that would have been a different political calculation.

Of course she could also be in on the act but I never really saw it as a winning fight, though just.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
49. It would have been divisive and hurt all the unity we're experiencing now.
Snicker
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
53. Pelosi took Impeachment off the table so that Obama & Clinton could run for office
Edited on Mon Apr-19-10 03:55 PM by earth mom
without a big scandal brewing that would sour the public on what a shitty job everyone in Washington DC is really doing.

Gotta look good at all costs is the Pelosi game plan. :puke:

Meanwhile Pelosi & Co violated the U.S. Constitution.

But who the fuck cares? It's only a piece of paper. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
54. Give it a rest
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
55. There's probably a worry about *every* president from now on being impeached on some pretense
It'll probably be tried on Obama at some point, especially if the Republicans take back Congress. If Bush was impeached, it would already be going on for Obama, and the president who succeeds him, and so on ad infinitum.

I'm more than a little disappointed that Bush didn't get impeached - God knows he deserved it - but I'm also pretty sure that if it happened the next four or five would also be dragged through impeachment battles simply because people would view "impeach the opposing party's president" as just one more tool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC