Let's get a few things straight about impeachment .....

[Stinky The Clown]

First off, I suspect not one of us in the impeachment hawk camp wants to derail the party's chances in 08. Further, I'd bet almost anything that none us want the House to swear out articles on Day One of the new Congress.

Impeachment is a process. We all know in our gut what the crimes are, but for the most part, there's no smoking gun that would stand up to serious scrutiny. There's just enough plausable deniability that no one short of a total loon would call for impeachment ..... today.

But, once hearings get going, once the truth gets out there, once this (very pissed off) country finds out what was done in their name, impeachment becomes much more viable.

For now, our job is to call for the hearings, demand the investigations, keep the 'accountability' meme alive and well, and when the committees light the ember, to fan the flames.

The conflagration of the wrong doers will follow in short order.

And for those who think this is about some retribution bullshit, disabuse yourself of that notion. This is an honor bound duty.

[Mythsaje]

1. We're on the same page...n/t

[FoxNewsSucks]

2. Agreed, there is so much corruption,

theft, lying and deception among the republicans. All of it should be legitimately investigated. Say nothing of impeachment, but as the investigations progress, and the depths of Republican crimes are revealed, the public will demand impeachment. Then it will happen and be the will of the people.

[derby378]

3. When I hear someone say that impeachment is "off the table"...

...I assume they mean that it will stay off the table forever.

That's why I'm such a bulldog about this. Bush must not be allowed to merely get away with his crimes and hide out in South America for the rest of his life.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. I'm right there with you ... but in fairness ......

...... I think Pelosi is honestly keeping a lid on the idea for the very reason the weak kneed Dems fear it .... no one is ready to hear it yet.

[Maven]

11. And furthermore, it implies that we should pick and choose whom we hold

accountable for breaking the law, "just to be safe" politically.

That is hypocrisy.

And it's not how the rule of law is supposed to work, for the highest elected official or the person on the street.

[AndyTiedye]

13. Impeachment Should Be Off The Table…

…and on the FLOOR being VOTED!

AYE

[Kablooie]

24. Of course it's off the table. Until the process puts it on the table.

To put it on the table without the proper process would be acting just like the GOP.

The process works and is the honorable way to do it. We just need patience.

[dmosh42]

35. Let the normal process begin......Then

Then if they can come up with some indefensible evidence of wrongdoing, I don't see any way to avoid impeachment. But I believe it's supposed to be 'high crimes', whatever that is. The other problem becomes Cheney. So maybe he should go first.

[Dora]

4. In order to have impeachment, we must start with the evidence.

Let the fun begin!

[MannyGoldstein]

5. The Republicans Are Bush's Biggest Problem

It was the Republicans that dumped Nixon; I expect that they'll now throw Bush under the bus - they want him gone quickly enough so that can make a good impression before '08. All of the sudden, Republicans will get in a snit about a signing statement or some such thing, and Bush will be gone in a few weeks.

[WhiteTara]

6. Hear! Here! and...

don't forget that we need to move on caring for our very sick Mother. We need to pick up the Kyoto Protocol and have it signed, and/or over ride any petty pouts from the monkey and take care of ourselves, neighbors and world.

An afternote:
I have seen so many smiling faces today. Everywhere I went, people are quietly celebrating, in the park, having lunch (not office workers), People saying they were happy, not knowing why.

Such a beautiful day. I will remember this when the next set of hard days comes along next week or so.
:)

[LearnedHand]

8. Emotionally, I agree with the pro-impeachment folks

But as much as I would like to see the whole lot of the * assholes frog-marched out of Washington, I think impeachment would be a bad move on many counts:

1. The people who just voted us into Congress sent us there to MAKE SOME CHANGES. We can't make changes in the way this country is going if we're mired in hearings day in and day out.

2. We would generate a great deal of resentment in many of the people who just voted us into Congress. Remember how we felt when the Pukes went after Clinton? Remember how they were viewed as junkyard dogs by most of the country?

3. If you think about it, what exactly would we accomplish by impeaching *? We'd impeach, try, and possible convict ... and then what? Cheney becomes president? Or * stays in the White House? Or what? I'm not saying * is above the law, but he actually IS above the law in some respects. This country would NEVER send a president to prison, for example. Best thing we could do is turn him over to the international criminal court one he's out of office. (And we know that won't happen, either."

No, my friend. I'm very much afraid the impeachment route will just be a trap for Dems. I can't believe the Puke sons-of-bitches can actually get away with war and other crimes, but apparently, in reality, they can.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. They only get away with it if we allow them to do so.

The notion presented in the OP is that we need to make the country DEMAND impeachment. We do that by holding the hearings I suspect we all agree we want. The hearings will reveal such deep seated, metasticized scum, that no sane person would be happy to allow it to go unanswered. The call for impeachment will be louder than you might imagine.

The country hates this cabal. Its visceral. They just need to see it clearly to be very comfortable with the idea of removal of the idiot son.

Cheney would be a conconspiritor and would be simultaeously impeached.

[Maven]

12. Right. This election, in itself, should be a lesson in PERCEPTION to scaredy-cat Dems

Once you change public opinion, you change everything. The perception was that Dems were going to win big, and they did win big.

When the evidence is on the table, the perception will be that Bush should expect impeachment.

[Zhade]

34. No.

See, what many fail to understand is, no matter how you spin this argument - NO.

We simply will NOT allow them to get away with their crimes.

There is nothing you can say to stop us from listening to our conscience. Nothing. If I don't try, I would be failing myself. I won't do that.

There is no debate on this matter. It is not based on popularity. It is already decided.

You can aid us, or please move aside so that justice be pursued per the rule of law.

We will hold them accountable.

[GOTV]

97. Who is this "we" you speak of?

[happydreams]

9. K&R! Without an investigation things will drift back to the

same ol rot!

[AusGail]

14. I would rather they convict Cheney

He's the criminal. Bush is just the ventriloquist's dummy. I'm sure if they investigate deep enough, they'll be able to gather a fair bit of evidence together, even if its only over Halliburton. If Bush lost Cheney, it would be like having his right arm cut off or his miniature brain removed.

[eridani]

15. Investigate first, and solve problems

We have a huge amount of damage to undo, and the public expects us to prioritize this over impeachment. Investigations might give rise to a groundswell, of course, but let's not start arguing about recipes for rabbit stew until we've caught our rabbit.

[hootinholler]

16. I'm not an Impeachment Hawk...

I'm a Justice Eagle.

Odd, coming from an owl.

-Hoot

[Cafe Americano]

17. Impeachment is a bad idea

There isn't enough on Bush to impeach, and the election went for the Democrats because of the neglect of everything and obsession over Iraq. The last thing people want is some endless empty fight.

[TJtheDem]

18. Drain the Swamp

Start here.
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

Upon Treason conviction and penalty, reconciliation
with the arab world is possible.

Otherwise you are looking at a 100 year war, which
was their plan for a perpetual cash cow with bankruptcy
of the american people. Through bankruptcy and usery,
they gain a slave class.

Having incinerated, blown up, killed 300,000 +/-
innocents they have created thousands of commited
enemies for a 100 year war.

Upon shock and awe, working cruise missles up and
down the Tigris, they called me at work to ask if
I approved of the iraq war and if I would donate to
the RNC. Thousands of dead and all they see is money.

Full reconcilliation will only happen through treason
conviction. Start with Cheney.

See the PNAC statement and signatures. This is treason
to usurp the government and constitution for private war
profiteering purposes.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

[Lars39]

19. Welcome to DU, TJtheDem.

Good post. :toast:

[mtnsnake]

20. Well said and beautifully laid out

as always.

:toast:

[Hosnon]

21. Good post. I'd like to add that a conviction is next to impossible. We need 67 votes for that. nt

[mtnsnake]

27. True, but impeachment just takes a 1 vote majority in the House

I'd settle for that for now.

[Hosnon]

29. I dunno. If conviction is highly unlikely, impeachment becomes a political thing.

Bush knows what the public thinks of him (poll number and Tuesday).

I just want the Dems to start taking steps that fix everything Bush has done rather than waste time with impeachment.

[onenote]

39. and when the senate acquits, what then?

Chimpy claims vindication, the public regards the impeachment effort as a partisan waste of time and resources -- exactly the wrong message to send going into 2008.

Face the hard facts: the Democrats control the House, but what gives us control was the election of a lot of centrist Democrats in districts that are closely divided if not majority repub. The margin of victory reflected repubs disaffected with the administration because they think they're big spenders or morally/ethically corrupt or unhappy with the war. It came from independent voters unhappy with the war and excessive partisanship and corruption. It came, basically, from a lot of voters who think even less of Congress than they do of chimpy. A congress that is regarded less favorably than chimpy is in no position to make impeachment a top agenda item. Literally dozens of new Democratic members, folks like Heath Shuler, would be put at enormous risk of consolidating their hold on their seats.

Look at the election results with your heads,not your hearts, and you'll see that impeachment is not going to happen. Get over it and start working to ensure that a Democratic congress can achieve an agenda for which there is strong public support: minimum wage, prescription health care, lobbying reform, pork barrel spending reform, stem cell research, and finding a way out of Iraq.

[mtnsnake]

41. What then? I'll sleep better knowing that the twirp was officially impeached

and he'll have the word "impeached" in the history books so people will never forget and so they'll ask why he was impeached and they'll see he lied us into a war.

[onenote]

48. you better write that book, because others wont

What others will write, I believe, is that the Democrats mounted a partisan impeachment campaign without widespread public support, failed to obtain a conviction, and that the public punished the Democrats at the polls the next election.

[whoneedstickets]

49. Exactly...forget impeachment

It will reek of revenge for Clinton's ordeal. Despite the fact that Chimpy deserves it, the House leadership would be better of steadily exposing this corrupt regime for what it is and letting the people come aroud. Shine some light into that snake-pit White House and let the American people act as judge, jury and executioner in 08!

[reichstag911]

38. My take on the 67...

If they do any serious investigations, they could probably get the necessary Repub votes for conviction in the Senate. Once the scope of the corruption and incompetence of this White House is made clear in the national media, a la the Clenis, his rubber-stamp Senators will run away from him and the cabal to save their own sorry asses. The Dems didn't have a 2/3 majority in '74, but Nixon resigned because he knew he'd be convicted by the Senate.

[Barack_America]

53. They can't get Republican support until...

It becomes obvious to the Republicans that the people are demanding it. People aren't going to support impeachment while Americans are still dying in Iraq. If the Dems go for impeachment now, the Repubs will easily convince the country that the Dems are going after Bush because they have no plan for Iraq. The perfect Republican rallying cry for 2008.

[reichstag911]

57. Ultimately, though,...

..."a plan for Iraq" is not the responsibility of the legislative branch. And if the Dems get us out, by tightening the purse strings or however, then we could move on to investigations and impeachment. It's time to end the Bush endless "war" imperium, and to reassert that this is supposed to be a nation of laws to which we are all accountable. Having pardoned Nixon, the Repubs think they can just keep committing the same crimes, in ever more egregious fashion, with impunity. You want to heal America's wounds? Impeach, convict, indict, imprison, and execute these fucks for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

[Barack_America]

58. I disagree. When you have a new Secretary of Defense...

that needs to be confirmed by the legislative branch, then a plan for Iraq becomes very much a responsibility for the legislative branch!

The Dems in Congress need to insist on an exit strategy from Gates before they confirm him. They certainly have public support to stall a confirmation on this issue.

[reichstag911]

62. Understood and agreed,...

...regarding the forceful implementation of genuine "advise and consent" oversight of the SecDef nomination, but taking on the responsibility for Bush's failed Iraq war would be a mistake. When '08 rolls around, it needs to be made clear that with their Congressional majorities in both houses, the Dems have done what they could to make the best out of a badly flawed executive branch policy formulation and implementation process. We don't want this albatross for ourselves.

[Barack_America]

66. Unfortunately, like it or not, Iraq is our mess now...

...and in 2 years this party will be measured by how much they accomplished in Iraq. The court of public opinion is brutal. IMO, Bush is going to largely step back and let the Congress dictate things in Iraq. The worst thing he can do is to obstruct the Dem plan for Iraq because that builds a case for needing a Dem in the Oval Office. The best thing he can do is to hand Iraq over to the Congress and hope that they will fail. And his best shot for his failure is if they tangle themselves up in investigations and impeachment.

[Hawkowl]

22. Indeed

Even if shrub isn't impeached due to political reasons, I would settle for a trial, conviction, and sentencing AFTER he leaves office. He must be held accountable. I don't care if it takes 20 years and we have to drag him back in shackles like Pinochet. He. Must. Pay.

[badgerpup]

23. Let's view it as digging a well...

we know the water's down there...but we can't start digging in the middle.
We have to start at ground level, which means subpoenas, fixing what's broken, restoring the Constitution...
as more and more dirt gets dug up and revealed...and EVERYBODY sees this, then impeachment will seen as the obvious course by the majority.

Right now, unfortunately, while Bush/Cheney certainly merit it, much of the rest of the country would view it merely as 'payback time'...
which would not be good for either the country as a whole OR the Dems' cause in '08.

Gotta make 'em think it was their idea, OK?:think:

[pat_k]

25. Impeachment is not just the RIGHT thing to do, it is the WINNING thing to do.

For your consideration this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2595234&mesg_id=2595474

And this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x997060

[autorank]

26. 100% correct. Timing is important. If we want to win, we have to lead

from the rear, meaning the people need to be out in front...a big segment of the people.

Why not build the case over a few months and see how it sells. There is so much out there andthe public is willing to believe the worst of Bush. When the corporate media can no longer ignore the crimes, we'll be ready for that ember.

KR

[Morgana LaFey]

28. And another thing

The people of the U.S. were turned off by the Impeachment proceedings against Clinton not because of IMPEACHMENT but because there was no there there. They knew that it was a bogus witch hunt and that our tax money didn't need to be spent on that shit. So Americans are NOT categorically opposed to any and all Impeachment proceedings.

Further, there've been polls showing over 50% (52% - ?) of Americans FAVOR Impeachment.

[onenote]

40. link to this poll?

[Morgana LaFey]

59. Why sure

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x368423

[Barack_America]

61. This poll is from February and concerns wiretapping...

I want to see a poll where people are asked: what do you support more, developing an exit strategy for Iraq OR investigating why we went to Iraq?

Show me THAT poll and if it shows more peope supporting the second option, I'll reconsider my position on impeaching Bush now.

[Morgana LaFey]

82. You're kidding, right?

You ask for a link showing that 52% of the people support Impeachment and I gave it to you. Your now demanding quite a bit more -- things I didn't argue and neither did you. I think that's called a strawman argument. IN any case, I find it hilarious.

Besides -- Do you think the wiretapping issue went away? Do you think people have changed their minds about that? It hasn't been resolved at all and if people were mad about it then, they're going to STILL be mad about it when they're reminded of it. Probably some of them were thinking about it on Tuesday.

And even more importantly, there's absolutely no reason the House can't do both: investigate why we went to Iraq AND develop an exit strategy. The two activities would involve completely different committees anyway.

[Barack_America]

85. I'm not kidding and as a matter of fact, I found a better poll...

There was a referendum regarding impeachment on the ballot in two Wisconsin cities on Tuesday. It was defeated in both cases. Guess, people really aren't behind impeachment after all.

Here's the link for you:
http://www.marshfieldnewsherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061108/MNH0101/611080721

[Morgana LaFey]

91. Not a national poll, is it?

You may find it persuasive and representative of the entire nation; I don't.

[Dr Fate]

30. I agree- no impeachment talk until the public is for it...

For now it is about accountability, rule of law and enforcing ethics...

[AntiFascist]

31. Exactly... calling for impeachment really means starting with the...

investigations, but we can't let this die either.

[MGD]

32. We've been treated like mushrooms for 12 years by the Republicons (fed shit and kept in the dark)

We need to gather information before we plunge into the breach. Investigate the bastards before we condemn them. Rushing into impeachment proceedings would look bad for us me thinks. We need to fix problems for America, not create more.

[Zhade]

33. It's our duty as citizens to engage in this process.

We must hold the government accountable. We forfeit our right to call ourselves free if we do any less.

[WA98296]

36. New Congress better damn well expose this shit. Otherwise THEY are OUT next.

[cassiepriam]

37. We only know a fraction of what has been going on.

Will we ever know the whole truth?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. An attempt at impeachment would be electoral suicide.

:-The Democrats are now in a position to squash any law the Republicans put forwards.

:-President Bush remains able to veto any proposal the Democrats make without considerable Republican support.

:-Neither party is in any mood to cooperate, and their goals are very different.

:-As such, the American government isn't likely to succeed in doing much for the next two years.

:-At the end of those two years, there will be an election. Winning that election will be important.

:-One of the key issues is likely to be "whose fault is it that the government hasn't achieved anything for two years".

:-It is therefore important that the answer is, and is widely perceived to be "The Republicans".

:-The way to achieve this is to make sure that what the public see is a stream of constructive proposals that it is not absurd that the Republicans might support coming from the Democrats and being squashed by the Republicans, and as little as possible Democratic negativity.

:-As such, the best thing the Democrats can do is focus on putting forwards numerous, impressive, constructive, concrete policy proposals, leaving the Republicans the choices of a) acceding to them or b) being seen as responsible for the gridlock. Being seen as being positive is key.

:-Impeachment would make it easy for the Republicans to present the cause of the gridlock as being the fact that the Democrats are concentrating on "playing politics" and being "negative" and "ostructive".

:-Whether or not that would actually be the case isn't relevant; what matters is what people will believe to be the case, so saying "that won't be true" is missing the point.

:-Trying to impeach Bush, and similar "negative" tactics, should be avoided as much as possible, for the same reason - they make it easier for the Republicans to blame the Democrats for the fact that nothing is happening.

[Barack_America]

46. Great post. I agree entirely...

Except that I do actually think that this congress will be able to get things done. Bush's approval ratings are in the toilet and the last thing the Republicans want is the perception that Bush is being obstructionist and that the Dems would have accomplished much more with a Dem in the White House.

The Republicans are praying that the Dems go for impeachment, it might just be the last thing that could rally their base around them before the 2008 election.

[Laelth]

51. Puuuuhlease!

The Repukes impeached Clinton with less evidence, and there's little evidence that impeachment hurt them. I want the investigations because I want all the responsible Repukes to feel the heat, but I don't think the American people would mind seeing Bush impeached. If what we're saying about him is true, that he has shredded the Constitution, then we have to impeach him. If we don't we're either liars (saying he didn't really shred the Constitution) or wimps (too weak to do anything about it). And I'm sick of the Democrats are wimps meme.

No. Bush MUST be impeached.

-Laelth

[Barack_America]

54. Should he be impeached while we are still in Iraq??

Do you want the Republicans to be able to say that the Dems are going after Bush because they don't have a plan for Iraq?

If you've read the posts carefully you would have noticed that most of us who are against impeachment are against impeachment NOW, not impeachment EVER. Big difference.

Do you really prioritize impeachment over getting out of Iraq and working on the Democratic agenda? Do you remember anything being accomplished while the Repubs were impeaching Clinton? Yeah, me neither.

Remember, there are a LOT of Americans who stand to benefit from legislation the Dems could get passed in this Congress. Where are THEY on your list of priorities?

[Laelth]

67. I want to hear all the talking heads ...

... and all the Repukes whining, crying, and wailing about how mean and vindictive the Democrats are. I want the world and the American people to see that we're not wimps. I want to show them that we can be strong, and that we will defend the Constitution.

We can't get our legislative agenda through now because Bush will veto it all. We can work on getting elected in 2008 by showing the American people that we will defend their Constitutional rights.

More here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2657058

:patriot:

-Laelth

[happydreams]

75. hee, hee. NIce post. IMHO the people went dem because

dems are starting to take the fight to the bastards. The people know this is a fight.

[Barack_America]

76. I think that the American public would rather see...

The Democrats show their strength by being productive. You show your TRUE power in Washington by passing legislation, not by being vindictive.

So, judging from this post, is it safe for me to assume your primary motivation is revenge?

[Laelth]

83. Productive? How so?

Bush will veto any progressive legislation we propose. Even if we could override a veto in the House, we couldn't override in the Senate. The only things we can do that are productive are to check Bush's power and investigate his administration. I hope those investigations will lead to impeachment.

The only way we might get some progressive legislation through, in fact, is if the investigations get so hot that the Repukes start giving us our way out of fear of losing their jobs. The only way this will happen is if we convince them we will impeach Bush and prosecute every, single, thieving one of them. We've got to get mean to get anything done.

imho ...

-Laelth

[democraticinsurgent]

43. President Pelosi

Nice ring to it, yes?

[populistdriven]

44. Agreed but who will lead ethics committee in House?

[savemefromdumbya]

45. I think Bush should do the decent thing and resign (and his VP)

things could get very messy for him

[Barack_America]

47. Things have already got messy for him...

Laughable approval ratings and now losing the Congress for his party? That's pretty messy. I don't want him to resign, I want him to squirm and suffer in office for 2 years.

Then after he's gone (and we have a Dem in the Oval Office), maybe we can think about impeaching him so he can never hold public office again!

[mom cat]

50. We need to act quickly to keep dimson from starting WW III.

[savemefromdumbya]

52. the m,ilitary will roll about laughing if he asks them to do that

I think the military will listen to congress this time

[struggle4progress]

55. Plenty of smoking guns! But not enough votes in the Senate, and perhaps ..

.. too little time for the long, even-handed, thorough investigations required as prelude to any politically acceptable bill of impeachment.

There's almost certainly no point removing a president six or eight months before an election, which means that a Senate trial would have to conclude by about December 2007 and hence would have to start by August or September 2007; but that probably means that from the beginning of January the House would have to make impeachment-related work its top priority.

And getting two-thirds of the Senate to agree will require some really foul exposure, since the current crop of Republicans have largely shown themselves to be Bushbots.

[hijinx87]

56. let's get a few things straight about priorities.

we have been given the responsibility to govern this nation.

correcting the social injustice that the current regime has created
with it's cancerous policies is infinitely more important than some
retaliatory, purposeless, and ultimately doomed attempt to remove an
already irrelevant man from office that will shortly go away anyway
in the natural and constitutional order of things. It is flatly a waste
of time and effort that should be put to more practical and prudent
endeavors.

and this doesn't even touch on the likelihood that attempting this during
a presidential election cycle would be seen as cynical and self serving
by a large portion of the electorate.

this atavistic urge to kill the king after the revolution ends is illiberal,
to say the very least.

and may I say that the tone of this debate is actually becoming more
disturbing that the disagreement itself.

[Laelth]

68. It's illiberal to kill the king? That's exactly what French liberals ...

... did in 1789.

But that's beside the point. * is a war criminal and he has systematically set about undermining the Constitution. I could care less whether or not we can get him convicted in the Senate, but he MUST be impeached in the House to show the American people and the world that we are serious about his abuses of power. We need to send a message that we, at least, won't tolerate violation of our Constitution from people who have sworn to uphold that Constitution.

If we are a nation of laws, we must stand up for those laws. We must prosecute those who break the law.

Bush MUST be impeached.

More here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2657058

:dem:

-Laelth

[hijinx87]

69. 1789 is generally considered to be the beginning of the french revolution

since the storming of the bastille and the declaration of the rights of
man took place that year. the execution of louis xvi didn't take place
until 1793, which was well into that dark period of human history that
is universally known as "The Reign of Terror".

you have unintentionally made my point for me.

[Laelth]

73. Um ... whatever.

Thanks for the history lesson, professor, but I was making a serious point.

Care to respond to that?

:)

-Laelth

[hijinx87]

80. that's just it.

I didn't see a point to rebut. honest to God I didn't. I saw a couple
of intangibles about "sending a message" and such. of what practical
value is that? and even if there was any, what sort of message would
it send to attempt it and utterly fail?

look, I hate the son of a bitch, too. but he isn't worth this effort.

the whole point of winning the midterms wasn't impeachment, it was setting
the legislative agenda. we're halfway there. only distraction can stop
us now.

[Laelth]

88. I hear you. Really, I do.

But I am of the opinion that those intangibles you dismiss are extremely important. We need to work on the image of the Democratic party.

We are not in a position to do anything legislatively, anyway. Bush will veto any progressive legislation, and we won't be able to override his veto in the Senate. Our only goals, at this point, should be to check his power and to win in 2008. The American people think we're wimps. They don't trust us to fight the terrorists. If we want to win in '08, we've got to show some spine. We must fight back. How can we ask the American people to trust us to fight terrorists if we're afraid to fight Republicans?

Bush and his administration are war criminals. We must hold them accountable, or we have no credibility.

imho ...

Thanks for the reply.

:patriot:

-Laelth

[hijinx87]

89. image = progress

and of course we are in a position to do great things legislatively. that's
why we have chairpersons. and all of the sudden, we have them ALL.

* would not dare veto all the legislation that the nation just voted for. there
is no way. * is led by polls, and those will go our way.

don't you see that we have him where we have always wanted him?

and we are NOT wimps. the american public just hasn't seen us in action for
12 years.

[happydreams]

77. Disagree. It's like going after organized crime and not putting the kingpins

away. Why walk on eggshells?

[LynneSin]

60. Alll I want, hell all I demand are investigations

And trust me, if we get the goods the impeachment will naturally happen!

[hijinx87]

63. oversight is a perfectly legitimate congressional function

and I am sure it will uncover some ghastly secrets of the * regime.

the only thing I object to is the carnivorous nature of the impeachmenteers.
lusting for payback is a characteristic of the other side. we are here to
alleviate the social handicaps that the people have been burdened with for
the past 6 years of the * regime, and 12 years of rethug control of congress.

there is isn't a moment to lose. we must organize and prioritize, for there
is much to do by merely forming ourselves into an effective majority party.
every second wasted prolongs the country's suffering. they elected us to fix
our social ills and end an unjust war, not to squander our mandate on rat hunt,
even if the rats do richly deserve it.

[happydreams]

78. Bingo! It will naturally happen.

[Stinky The Clown]

79. Lynn, that's exactly how it will happen

When the light shines inside the White House again, and the roaches start running for the dark, the country as a whole will DEMAND impeachment.

[hijinx87]

81. while I think this is about as likely as the earth crashing into the sun . . . .

I certainly agree. if the entire country rises up and demands impeachment,
I am all in favor. although if that did really happen, * would be forced
into resignation by his own party, a la tricky dick nixon.

[grizmaster]

64. first things first

Get some practical legislation passed and start handing out the subpoenas

[lumberjack_jeff]

65. By conclusion of the hearings...

the republicans will be the ones pushing for impeachment. They won't want this guy being the albatross around their necks.

Investigations must include investigating electronic vote stealing.

[Jack Rabbit]

70. Agreed

Let the hearings begin.

As an "impeachment hawk", I never wanted it done any other way. First, get the facts; then brings changes based on the facts.

While this should be done expeditiously, there is no reason to railroad Bush or Cheney.

[gully]

71. What we have to do is let the evidence speak and let the american people

speak. If the evidence is clear, Americans will demand justice of some kind. Not saying that has to be impeachment, but I expect we'll be guided by those who put us in office. Unlike Bush who considers the American people "a focus group."

[truebrit71]

72. Absolutely....we have other more pressing needs to attend to...

....like most criminals bush will eventually trip over his own tongue and bring the whole cabal down once the investigations start...Then the publice will demand impeachment, and the Congress will act as their duly-elected representatives...you know, how it was SUPPOSED to work during the Clinton witch-hunt...

[GOTV]

74. If conviction is unlikely, impeachment is a waste of time...

Impeachment is an accusation. Nothing more. It carries no penalty.

If we can't carry it through to conviction it will hurt us more.

Investigate and then evaluate where we are.

But before any of that, we should deliver some concrete results for the American people if we can.

[Laelth]

84. Hurt us?

Not standing up for justice and the Constitution will hurt us a lot more than a mere failure to convict Bush.

:dem:

-Laelth

[GOTV]

95. Your characterization aside, yes, it will hurt us.

If the people view an impeachment as "standing up for justice and the Constitution" then we'll be able to get 67 votes in the Senate. Right now people might view the impeachment as revenge or petty vindictiveness.

What we need before impeachment is investigations to lay a groundwork in people's minds to support an impeachment.

And before that we need to deliver some solid bread and butter legislative victories to gain the people's trust.

Rushing right to impeachment, without a chance of conviction will make us look like the republicans they just threw out.

[Coexist]

86. absolutely.

without a doubt.

[NotGivingUp]

87. impeachment is imperative. bush and co. have tried to

demolish our country...our democracy. i think it would be pure and utter bullshit to not impeach. it's beyond any question...beyond any doubt.

[hijinx87]

90. suicide

pure and simple.

you have to go to where the votes are, and the moderates get scared off
when we talk about impeachment. they remember the rethugs and clinton.

[suigeneris]

92. The verdict of history will be exceedingly harsh.

I'll settle for that.

[jgraz]

94. The verdict of history was harsh on Watergate and Iran-Contra as well

But we let those bastards get up off the canvas and they came back to give us this Iraq nightmare.

We need to grind these cockroaches into dust. We can disagree on whether impeachment is the best tactic, but don't think for a minute that these bastards won't continue their murderous ways as soon as they get back into power.

[McCamy Taylor]

93. The case for Impeaching Al Gonzales.....(Might be able to investigate instead)

This is the only Bush Administration official whom I want to see impeached. I have a feeling that just threatening to do it will be enough to make this mafia enforcer/White Counsel/Faux Attorney General offer his resignation.

The case for impeaching Al Gonzales should start with the question of why he overruled the career DOJ staff on Voting Rights Act decisions in the Georgia Voters ID and the Texas Redistricting--and even went so far as to tell them to keep quiet about what their recommendations were. The career officials probably have other tales to tell about voting rights abuses which have been covered up. What happened after election 2004? What did they think about Ohio? What did Al Gonzales tell them to do?

What about Abramoff? And Tom Foley? How long ago did the FBI know about these guys? What kind of orders did they get from Al Gonzales? I get the feeling he is probably hated by the career people who actually want to do their jobs. Now, with Democrats in Congress, Cheney gelded and Bush on the way out in two years, it should be possible to get whistleblowers to speak out against him.

Having a man as corrupt as him in charge of the law enforcment of the US is untenable. He has already announced plans to investigate Congress round the clock with special stings--the works. His first order of business will be to force a Democratic senator from a state with a Republican governor out of office.

Al Gonzales must go!!!!

[sampsonblk]

96. Amen!

Skipping out on the oversight function is not being moderate, its a dereliction of duty.

[SouthernBelle82]

98. So what is honorable

about saying it's off the table without even mentioning hearings and having them? Bush has killed thousands, destroyed our Constitution and is now a domestic enemy of this republic having broke his oath of office. I want some damn justice and if that road leads to impeachment than so be it. It's my hope it happens and we can soon see him and his gang of thugs at a world tribune court at Nuremberg and going off to the Hague for the rest of their lives. What type of message is it we're sending to the future if we let these people get away with this? If they are allowed to walk scott free and not have anything happen to them someone worse than Bush and his thugs will come a long and do even more damage and more horrible things.

[sendero]

99. I have no problem..

... with pursuing impeachment ONCE AN UNASSAILABLE CASE THAT (ALMOST) EVERY AMERICAN CAN UNDERSTAND AND AGREE WITH is made.

I'm just against making it our first priority, politically, that would be suicide.