Remember how we were told impeachment HAD to be "off the table" so

as to concentrate on ending the war?

I just wanted to check in on how that was working out for us.

Also I was wondering, just what IS on the table? That table is looking pretty damn empty to me.:grr::banghead::puke:

Or maybe the line item veto.

What a joke...

.. it never really was on it.

Because, ... well, sigh....

Too many House Democrats from Red districts, and even if an impeachment bill passed the House there are not even close to enough votes in the Senate. Only 51 Democrats, many of whom are DLCers. And RINO Republicans always end up cooperating with their party when the chips are down and it's time to vote.

Impeachment takes a long time, and should not be pursued for symbolic value or a meaningless moral victory.

Where does it say that impeachment is a tool used only when convenient? Where does it say: "Impeachment: to be used only when there are enough votes"? Would you argue for amendments to the Constitution to reflect either of these sentiments? I suspect not.

Where are the American voters who are asking to use this tool for symbolic value or a moral victory...I need to have a looooong chat with those folks!
:patriot:

that at least most of us Americans loathe the greedy leaders who sacrifice other less fortunate to get what they want.

And impeachment would squelch this mad man with an authority fetish a little. I think it might take away his VETO obsession. Also it would open up more investigations and surely shed light on other crimes that need to be lighted.

. . .-- for decades. We hold them up as heroes. Some try to excuse the "winners" who kept more than a sixth of our fellow humans enslaved, but most Americans look back, ashamed of the reprehensible "victories."

The fight to end starvation and misery has, as yet, been a losing battle. I often wonder if the "can't win, don't fight" folks would tell those who are fighting that fight to surrender?

History is full of heroic "losers" and contemptible appeasers. History is full of "the appalling silence of the good people."

Impeachment is NOT a one shot, do or die, battle. Bush and Cheney are waging war on the Constitution on so many fronts that the House could vote out a new set articles monthly. (And there is nothing to stop the 111th Congress from impeaching "in absentia" to declare the nations return to sanity.)

When treasured principles are under attack, you fight. And you keep fighting. There can be no failure unless a fight is abandoned.

Failure to get 200 votes let alone a majority in The House (forget the Senate) would be touted as Bipartison vindication of his policies of domestic spying and torture and whatever else you throw into a failed indictment.

I seriously doubt Pelosi could muster 190 votes if you look at the numbers of the Blue Dog Caucus and other conservative wings of our bare majority.

. . .and spit in their faces by abusing signing statements to "interpret" acts of Congress into oblivion? As he did when he nullified McCain's anti-torture amendement, which passed the Senate 90-9.

How many will stand and defend the next president's "right" do do the same. (Unitary Authoritarian Executive Hillary anyone?)

How many will stand and defend torture, when they overwhelmingly voted to enforce the ban that has long been codified in Federal law? (Apparently in the hopes that repetition would prompt Bush to stop violating the law and the constitution.)

How many, even those who embrace torture, will stand defend Bush for putting torture "on the table" and thus destroying our moral authority to object when Americans are tortured by other parties to armed conflict.

How many Republicans who are already scrambling over each other to "distance" themselves from the Pariah in Chief will be willing to stand defend him against very real, very grave charges? Charges that, unless Bush and Cheney resign, they must respond to.

How many will be so desperate to escape having to make the choice between defending the outlaws or putting Pelosi in the WH that they will do everything in their power to force Bush and Cheney to resign and hand the keys to someone like Danforth? (or any Repub that the Senate and the House agree to approve when nominated).

Declarations of certain defeat don't hold water. It is very possible, perhaps even likely, that enough Senators will abandon Bush to make resignation or removal a reality.

Those promoting the self-defeating prophesies also ignore the fact that impeachment is not a "one shot" deal. Bush and Cheney are waging war on the Constitution on so many fronts that the House could vote out a new set articles monthly. There can be no failure unless a fight is abandoned. (And there is nothing to stop the 111th Congress from impeaching "in absentia" to declare the nations return to sanity.)

or at least a different gavel on it.

man I'd be having one hell of a ride.

But just don't pay that parking ticket.

And here we are trying to wake up a money narcosis induced Congress to enforce the Constitution. Crimes have been committed. Multiple crimes, with deaths involved.

For god's sake, some shithead exposed a CIA agent.

What else could they do and not face justice? I actually think Cheney performing a live abortion on tv would be less incriminating than what he's done.



Over and out! This day is history. See you tomorrow, wonderful DU humans.

they do deal with impeachment:

1. What is the meaning of "constitutional crisis"?

2> After Katrina who was in NOLA first the National Guard or BlackWater?

....sigh... think we're gonna get any?

question- Do you remember the name of the POS that the WH put forth during the past week or ten days that gave the president near unitary power in the case of a national emergency? If I remember the name was damn near Orwellian considering .

IMPEACH

:sarcasm:

. . .issued her off the table edict.

things that will help fill those coffers before elections. Things like secret trade deals and opening the floodgates of immigration to keep those wages down--not only for unskilled labor, but now also for all skilled labor too. WHOOPEE!!!

Our elected "representatives" are merely making motions to placate those of us paying enough attention to question their tactics.

I have always believed that. Certainly nothing that has transpired in the last few weeks disuades me of that.

The Democrats need to regroup. They've got to get this right in September. If Bush and Cheney don't want strings attached to war funding, then they get no funding.

Further escalations of this war are unauthorized and will not be tolerated. This especially goes for an attack on Iran, which would be yet another impeachable offense on its face. If Iran is attacked, we won't rally around the presumptive president; we will rally around the impeachment resolution.

It is long past time for the Democrats to stop treating Bush and Cheney as legitimately elected leaders with good intentions. They was not legitimately elected in the first place and their intentions are to establish and empire destroy constitutional checks and balances in order to pave the way for an American police state because the only way to maintain a repressive empire abroad is to repress dissent at home. Bush and Cheney have always been and continue to be threats to American democratic institutions. They are a danger to public safety. They should have been removed from office a long time ago.

period.

the main rationalization for not pursuing impeachment. That's looking pretty hollow now, though.

Now we're hearing "Wait until September, Wait until 2009". It's hard to see what will have changed about official attitudes by then, though.

I think a lot of Democratic politicians are comfortable with losing. After all, winning carries responsibility. Buit if you lose, you can just go about your fund-raising with the promise that "next time, it'll be different." Only it never is.