Impeachment

[historian]

Can someone possibly tell me why the Dems havent started impeachment proceedings? Ill give them the benefit of being afraid to do it in the early days of Iraq, but now....?
This bunch of thugs in the white house are probably the largest collection of evil doers since the Nazi party, and i mean that in every sense.
Surely he has enough impeachable offenses already???

[Stephanie]

1. It's impossible

Due to the republican majority in both houses.

[historian]

2. cant they raise the possiblity?

just mentioning the impeachable offenses might cause a stir.

[undercover4you]

6. No it's not

Nothings impossible. We can do it if we try. I just think its too late

[Cleita]

14. Before there were majorities they still didn't do it.

We need a new crowd in there, I think, even if we are a minority. The Republicans sure raised Hell during the Clinton impeachment without being a majority. We just got our kick ass Democrats dumped out of the presidential election, but someone is gonna have to do something.

[undercover4you]

3. I think that we should nut it's to late.

I think that we should impeach him because he lied to the public. He lied on more then 1 occasion and they say that we can't prove it. About going to war. And he also lied on his applaction for presdensy when he said he had no crimnal backround when he did, he got arrested for a DWI and also, I think it is to late to mpeach him now. We all now know that his 4 years are up and that he wasnt the best president we've had, but the polls will be opean soon and he'll be out of office so at this point, I dont even think we should try.

[Mari333]

7. Welcome to DU undercover4you!

:bounce: Welcome.

[Stephanie]

12. oh, okay - it's too late (BTW - who are you undercover for?)

Did you hear that everyone? Give up, move on, get over it.

[yardwork]

4. If he gets reelected and either house gets a majority of Dems

then we'll see talk of impeachment.

[DAWUSS]

5. Unless he resigns like Nixon

It could happen

[myopic4141]

13. Impeachment insurance.

Has anyone who considers this route taken into account that Cheney would become President following a successful impeachment? Cheney is like the impeachment insurance that Bush I had with Quail. Nobody really wants this person as President. Cheney would have to go first just like Agnew during the Nixon Administration and then impeachment can be considered so long as the replacement person would be acceptable. Personally, I think Kerry getting elected is the best impeachment route for removing Shrubby.

[murielm99]

8. If the creep steals it again, we talk impeachment.

If the Dems don't initiate it, we do. We bombard them with letters, phone calls newspaper articles, etc. We do not let it die.

[Turbineguy]

9. If he gets re-selected Cheney may

throw him to the wolves..... and be President.....next

[RichM]

10. That's an easy one.

1) They haven't got the guts.

2) Most of them are MUCH more interested in maintaining the stability of the US government than in achieving justice or speaking the truth. Not without reason, they would see a serious impeachment attempt as destabilizing. They fear it could lead to a situation that couldn't be controlled - including, but not limited to, a loss of credibility of the US government, a collapse of business confidence, perhaps a collapse of the dollar or stock market, and the possibility of civil unrest.

Try to imagine a strong public offensive, in which all congressional Democrats began denouncing Bush - not politely, not as a political opponent with whom they "disagree" -- but as a LIAR and a CRIMINAL who belongs behind bars. Such a stance might well release torrents of pent-up hatred against Bush, but it might also lead the public to think, "Hey, you know, my government has been lying to me FOR A LONG TIME! I wonder what else they've been lying about? And why did those damn Democrats let them get away with it for so long?" This kind of thing could lead in directions that couldn't be easily controlled. It could shatter public faith in government, & make the country very difficult to govern.

[G_j]

11. a dream:

impeaching a lame duck pResident.

that would be poetic justice

[struggle4progress]

15. Lots of reasons

It takes too long.

It divides the country too much (that's why there wasn't a push for impeachment after Iran-contra): the Clinton impeachment was largely about getting back at his wife for her minor role 25 years earlier.

There's also the issue of who you'd get next: nobody wanted Nixon out til Agnew was gone. (Every wonder why GHWB picked Quayle as his running mate? Best insurance policy imaginable)

[NewJerseyDem]

16. It backfired on republicans

When the republicans impeached Clinton in 1998 it backfired and hurt them. The impeachment investigation led to them losing seats in the House in 1998, a rare loss for the opposition party during midterm election.

If the democrats were to move on impeachment, as John Conyers is seriously considering doing, then democrats would be hurt tremendously in the 2004 elections. The impeachment of Clinton hurt the republicans and the attempted impeachment of Bush would hurt the democrats even more.

The voters will have the choice in November about whether Bush should stay in office. It should be up to them, not members of congress, especially considering how close it is to an election.