Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
157. You are absolutely right!! Had the majority of Dems in the House/Senate stood firm
Thu Jul 31, 2014, 10:12 AM
Jul 2014

and not went along with the Republicans and authorized Bush to go to war, they would have been able to issue Articles of Impeachment.

This is something that Pelosi never explains. She took impeachment off the table but never explained why. You broke it down beautifully, something that no one here on DU has ever done. So I'll echo your argument. Here's why Pelosi/Dems took impeachment off the table and why Obama should not be blamed for it:

The Democrats were pushed into a corner, going along with this fucking war. At the time, the majority of Americans were pissed off about what happened to us on 911; we all wanted revenge. Though many of us here on DU and in many liberal circles knew the truth--that Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with the events that occurred on 911--the Bush administration, PNAC and the neocons had already established the meme, and with the aid of the Corporate Media, were going to push this story, punish and condemn anyone who got in their way.

Any liberal, any Democrat who questioned anything had their patriotism questioned, even by many Democrats themselves if they went against the established meme. Over 80% of this country supported George W. Bush and no one dared challenge his administration or this meme. Democrats were backed in a corner. Notice that the Democrats who challenge the establishment were from pretty safe districts or would have an easy time winning reelection. And I'm not making excuses for the Democrats who authorized Bush to attack an unarmed nation who had done nothing to us. A good number of Democrats in the House DID NOT give vote for the authorization. Still, a good number of Democrats DID. And those Democrats in both the House and Senate couldn't then turn around and bring forth Articles of Impeachment 5 years later. They essentially fucking approved war crimes!

A similar rationale applies to Wall Street. Those of us liberals who are angry at Obama for not adequately going after Wall Street need to understand why:

There were NO crimes committed. I repeat: THERE WERE NO REAL CRIMES COMMITTED. Why? Because Congress deliberately abdicated and weakened its oversight powers. Congress deregulated the entire banking and housing/mortgage industry. (I worked for Fannie Mae and now HUD, so I know what the fuck I'm taking about.) So what Wall Street did was essentially legal!! What crimes did they commit and how would we prove that what they did was illegal if the banking industry was deregulated and oversight function in Congress rendered useless? That's why when NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was appointed to look into the crimes committed by Wall Street and the banking industry, he came up essentially empty. What he did find were smaller, frivolous acts of little significance that amounted to fines that didn't even scratch the surface compared to what happened to the American people. He could find no evidence of REAL crimes committed because what Wall Street was doing was NOT illegal!!

These things are very difficult for us liberals to wrap our heads around because what these people did was morally wrong. I get it. What they did was wrong and they should be punished and under the jail. Yes, I agree. But those acts were conducted within the bounds of a system that they decriminalized. Congress makes the laws; those laws can be undone with the stroke of a pen or a vote. We liberals are going to have to start coming to grips with how government works. Our job should be to get people into office who can change the laws to what WE want them to be. Restore oversight. Restore reasonable economic regulations. But simply pointing fingers and blaming with no solutions gets us nowhere. And taking our balls home, threatening not to vote, and stomping our feet like children doesn't win elections. You never see the Teabaggers/Republicans act like this, even when they lose major fights. They're like a fucking fungus. They stick around; they just keep coming back and fighting harder no matter how many times they lose. We need to start acting like them.

-------

Your post is absolutely brilliant, and I've not seen anyone on this forum discuss this in 5 or 6 years. I wish there were more thoughtful, critical folks here on DU like you.

Bravo!! Well done! :

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

This is what happens when neocons are the powers behind both parties. Scuba Jul 2014 #1
I love seeing the correct answer in the first reply. Soylent Brice Jul 2014 #50
I agree. ;-l n/t ReRe Jul 2014 #92
No. You love seeing BULLSHIT in the first reply. Clinton being a neocon is irrelevant! Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2014 #116
ohai. Soylent Brice Jul 2014 #153
"Correct answer" implies fact. It is not a fact. It is a fallacy. A fallacy is a statement that lack Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2014 #156
... Soylent Brice Jul 2014 #158
Meaning republicans would not have impeached Clinton if he were a "true liberal"? pampango Jul 2014 #53
That's certainly not my meaning. Since it's yours, how do you justify it? Scuba Jul 2014 #59
If you did not mean that republican neocons were impeaching a Democratic neocon, I apologize. n/t pampango Jul 2014 #62
That's exactly what I meant. The point was he was a Democrat; it didn't matter that he was a neocon. Scuba Jul 2014 #64
If republicans would impeach a Democrat whether he were a neocon or not, then pampango Jul 2014 #67
Pretty certain means Democrats *would* have impeached Bush if the Party were not run by neo-cons. ieoeja Jul 2014 #134
I always thought it was because he lied about lying to his wife or leftyladyfrommo Jul 2014 #66
No, he was charged with perjury, i.e., lying under oath in his grand jury testimony. Divernan Jul 2014 #85
wasnt he disbarred, too? Niceguy1 Jul 2014 #124
He was temporarily disbarred from the Supreme Court. He was never charged with perjury. ieoeja Jul 2014 #135
But what was he lying about? leftyladyfrommo Jul 2014 #131
That makes no sense. Look, I'm no fan of the Clintons, but if Bill Clinton is a neocon, and the Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2014 #115
Don't Blame the Republicans! Chasstev365 Jul 2014 #122
Part of it is that a whole bunch of Dems such as Hillary and Kerry voted for the war (nt) Nye Bevan Jul 2014 #2
This. NCTraveler Jul 2014 #5
Bush's accomplices could have been gone after too. Louisiana1976 Jul 2014 #38
Accept that Bill is best buddies with the Bushes and it seems good friends with John McCain. Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2014 #117
Not sure what that has to do with my post in any way at all. NCTraveler Jul 2014 #126
Sure it does. He was slow to condemn the illegal invasion of Iraq because his wife Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2014 #143
True, and Mr.Bill Jul 2014 #22
Oh boy, here we go again! George II Jul 2014 #23
I'm dumbfounded that people on 'our side' continue to perpetuate this falsehood ... brett_jv Jul 2014 #54
Did they really think Bush wasn't going to go to war????!!!!11111 bigwillq Jul 2014 #55
Anyone who was conscious laundry_queen Jul 2014 #57
Regardless, why represent it that way when discussing the subject on a liberal board? brett_jv Jul 2014 #70
Fair point. Nye Bevan Jul 2014 #72
Doesn't change the fact that laundry_queen Jul 2014 #74
. BlancheSplanchnik Jul 2014 #138
I used to think I was a republican... awoke_in_2003 Jul 2014 #96
Ah. laundry_queen Jul 2014 #97
Yep, that is how I came up with the name... awoke_in_2003 Jul 2014 #148
BULLSHIT!!!!!! They voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq...something that Bush wanted and was Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2014 #118
Been asking that for a couple years now. blm Jul 2014 #3
Not Me...It's Easy billhicks76 Jul 2014 #82
To a certain extent Cosmocat Jul 2014 #103
I've always been able to answer this. The American people place double standards on the parties. Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2014 #119
LOL - I said that facetiously. Of COURSE I KNOW why and how. ; ) blm Jul 2014 #144
Brilliantly said. Boomerproud Jul 2014 #151
If I remember right, Bill was impeached for the lies he told to a grand jury. FreedRadical Jul 2014 #4
It depends Pharaoh Jul 2014 #36
The words of the Articles of Impeachment ... oldhippie Jul 2014 #46
Yes. Lies about SEX. He lied to a grand jury about SEX. CHEATING ON HIS WIFE. calimary Jul 2014 #49
Super great post!! davekriss Jul 2014 #60
Don't hold back. Tell me what you think. FreedRadical Jul 2014 #123
except that he lied about sex Niceguy1 Jul 2014 #125
good post northoftheborder Jul 2014 #128
Obama's Community Chest whatchamacallit Jul 2014 #6
Do you want an honest answer, or do you just want to vent? brooklynite Jul 2014 #7
If I know he was lying...and you know he was lying...and he knows he was lying... world wide wally Jul 2014 #28
I DON'T know he was lying (I don't over-estimate his intelligence)... brooklynite Jul 2014 #29
He took an oath to uphold the office and to defend the Constitution world wide wally Jul 2014 #31
...and how did his actions in Iraq violate that pledge? brooklynite Jul 2014 #34
Do I really need to explain it to you? world wide wally Jul 2014 #90
Sorry, I don't subscribe to "we all know" as a legal doctrine... brooklynite Jul 2014 #102
You are absolutely right!! Had the majority of Dems in the House/Senate stood firm Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2014 #157
The jury isn't selected from 90% of the rest of the world... Hippo_Tron Jul 2014 #105
The difference is that Democrats view impeachment as a serious process, hedgehog Jul 2014 #8
Bingo. savalez Jul 2014 #21
You can also add: AngryDem001 Jul 2014 #24
Also, they never got over Nixon's impeachment based on journalists' uncovering a coverup. SleeplessinSoCal Jul 2014 #37
excellent post Cosmocat Jul 2014 #106
Very good points - I think the key is that they really believed that the Democratic Party was hedgehog Jul 2014 #142
They can believe all they want that Daley stole the 1960 election. HubertHeaver Jul 2014 #149
Romney's "47%" leak is paramount to everything SleeplessinSoCal Jul 2014 #150
This^ ^ ^ Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jul 2014 #51
WINNER! Cosmocat Jul 2014 #104
How dare you not use Clinton's impeachment to trash Democrats!!!1! tridim Jul 2014 #110
Ask the leadership of the democratic party. JVS Jul 2014 #9
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. Scuba Jul 2014 #61
I think that they investigated him for that but I think the impeachment was based on his lying about jwirr Jul 2014 #10
Too many Democratic Pols were collaborators in Bush's wars. Tierra_y_Libertad Jul 2014 #11
Not only that, Dems remembered the backlash loyalsister Jul 2014 #56
Lopsided power base. Baitball Blogger Jul 2014 #12
But our powder is still dry. postulater Jul 2014 #13
"There's something really fucked up about all of this." KansDem Jul 2014 #14
True. Louisiana1976 Jul 2014 #39
I have never read an elected Republican leader calling for impeachment. former9thward Jul 2014 #15
Are you fricking kiddinng me? Cosmocat Jul 2014 #107
Technically... Spider Jerusalem Jul 2014 #16
Why was Clinton asked under oath if he was cheating on his wife? I mean, that should be Louisiana1976 Jul 2014 #40
Well... Spider Jerusalem Jul 2014 #43
It wasn't just Lewinsky loyalsister Jul 2014 #63
I've been making the same point about Clinton and Bush for years. Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2014 #17
It was the lying under oath that got him in trouble hack89 Jul 2014 #18
Yep. He shouldn't have denied it. The story would have gone away after a couple of weeks. Nye Bevan Jul 2014 #20
We have a winner. ^ world wide wally Jul 2014 #30
LOL - if you really believe that ... BlueMTexpat Jul 2014 #112
Not saying he should have been impeached hack89 Jul 2014 #113
One thing: he was never, ever accused of lying under oath by any court of law. ieoeja Jul 2014 #136
ya think? Voice for Peace Jul 2014 #19
+1000 C Moon Jul 2014 #25
The DEMS did not want to hold Bush Co. accountable. bigwillq Jul 2014 #26
Yep. "Impeachment is off the table." We're "looking forward..." polichick Jul 2014 #27
Because Democrats are afraid to impeach war criminals, they told us that it would 'look political'. sabrina 1 Jul 2014 #32
+ 1000 nt raouldukelives Jul 2014 #88
Big reason Dubya wasn't impeached -- Dick Cheney Shoonra Jul 2014 #33
Wasn't he also the deciding vote in the Senate? GoCubsGo Jul 2014 #77
Conviction would have required 67 votes, not 51. n/t ColesCountyDem Jul 2014 #98
So, in other words... GoCubsGo Jul 2014 #132
Precisely. ColesCountyDem Jul 2014 #145
If Cheney saw a chance JoeyT Jul 2014 #99
Republicans want to impeach onecaliberal Jul 2014 #35
Two reasons: 1) abstract vs. concrete and 2) the corporate media RufusTFirefly Jul 2014 #41
Good analysis. maddiemom Jul 2014 #121
What is really fucked up about all this is President Obama's failure to prosecute Bush Enthusiast Jul 2014 #42
I agree. If the right wants to impeach Obama, it should be for that. polichick Jul 2014 #58
Absolute bullshit Cosmocat Jul 2014 #108
You are entitled to your opinion. Enthusiast Jul 2014 #130
Ask Nancy Pelosi. Fuddnik Jul 2014 #44
And the anthrax mail finally was, too. nt valerief Jul 2014 #48
Bush (or Cheney and his cronies, really) managed to create a simulacrum of legality around Aristus Jul 2014 #45
Clinton's cheating didn't make rich people richer. Bush's war did. nt valerief Jul 2014 #47
Your typical con is jealous that Clinton got so much you know what... randys1 Jul 2014 #52
Clinton should not have been impeached, Progressive dog Jul 2014 #65
The MIC makes more money when the republicans are in power. Initech Jul 2014 #68
Clinton was impeached because of hubris SoCalDem Jul 2014 #69
"We have to look forward" Mnpaul Jul 2014 #73
I think we have to let go of this already. Let's move on. We"ve said our arguments CTyankee Jul 2014 #71
I'm pretty sure a call to "impeach" Obama jimlup Jul 2014 #75
I think the Dems were afraid a Bush impeachment would backfire on them, too. GoCubsGo Jul 2014 #76
Yeah and I also think that it would wake-up Obama's base /nt jimlup Jul 2014 #78
The dc dems are the "good cop" in the charade we pay to watch Doctor_J Jul 2014 #79
What is really fucked up about all this is how the right-wing meme is thrust upon us incessantly by indepat Jul 2014 #80
Sex:bad - Saving lives:bad - War:good - Killing:good Kablooie Jul 2014 #81
They thought we wouldn' notice is all I could figure...nt fadedrose Jul 2014 #83
Well, there's two parts to that Prophet 451 Jul 2014 #84
Yeah that is how fucked up everything really is. Rex Jul 2014 #86
IOKIYAR Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2014 #87
Everything's OK ... if you're a Republican !!! blkmusclmachine Jul 2014 #89
Of course there is something fucked up about all this. MADem Jul 2014 #91
Are we sure he lied? greymattermom Jul 2014 #93
The only impeachable crime is being a Democrat jmowreader Jul 2014 #94
K&R DeSwiss Jul 2014 #95
I got told by right wingers at the time: Buddha2B Jul 2014 #100
YEP Cosmocat Jul 2014 #109
Bill Clinton got impeached customerserviceguy Jul 2014 #101
Duplicity Is An Ugly Trait Mastered By The Right cantbeserious Jul 2014 #111
AND...the American people will make sure it happens by handing the Senate over to Republicans. Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2014 #114
threat if impeachment is part of the right wing playbook now rurallib Jul 2014 #120
because Dems aren't extremists and GOP is. librechik Jul 2014 #127
He was impeached for being a Democratic President CanonRay Jul 2014 #129
The standard was set with Clinton, and impeachment is something one party will "clamor" for hughee99 Jul 2014 #133
stupid treacherous repugs samsingh Jul 2014 #137
Which one makes rich white men richer? efhmc Jul 2014 #139
According to Buddhism, this is the predicted Age of Mappo, or Age of Confusion, when everything is DesertDiamond Jul 2014 #140
This is a great question for Nancy Pelosi... radhika Jul 2014 #141
Bush and Cheney were too smart to agree to deposition under oath. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #146
No, they were simply more brazen. WinkyDink Jul 2014 #155
He was impeached for lying, not enjoying a WH hummer. NM_Birder Jul 2014 #147
IIRC, Pelosi took impeachement off the table; and Obama said he was merrily Jul 2014 #152
Because Republicans like to put things on the table. WinkyDink Jul 2014 #154
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How can it be that Bill C...»Reply #157