I'm sick of hearing that we shouldn't/can't try to impeach Bush

[mtnsnake]

Ya know, it doesn't really matter if we can't get him impeached in the end. It's the process along the way that counts and it's the process that will do the most damage.

Yeah, maybe he won't get the number of votes for impeachment in the end, but the process to impeach the bastard can be started in the House, and just starting the process is enough to put a supreme hurting on the Repuke Party. That and it will open more than a few eyes.

To start the process, I think all it takes is for someone in the House to bring formal charges against Bush. Then a committee would be formed to go over the charges and eventually a vote would be taken on it in the House.

Just think of the damage it would do to the scumbag, what with committees being formed and all the accusations being made public. Everyone would know that where there's smoke there's usually fire.

At the very least, we should start ramming the word IMPEACH down everyone's throats from here on in. Just hearing the word often enough is gratifying in itself, and could possibly catch momentum when enough people start repeating it.

[warrens]

1. Im a longtime dem and I think we shoodnt try to impeach

The presdent is to popalar and it would be embarasinge to are country. ANd I am mot a freeper coming to DU to make trubble, and my screne name at FR is not rites4whites.

[marylanddem]

11. too funny

You almost had me!

[Shrubhater]

81. He certainly had me.

[driver8]

13. Now that is funny!! Good one... n/t

[Skittles]

17. LOL.............warrens

I literally laughed out loud! :thumbsup:

[Shrubhater]

24. I pray to god that you're joking. n/o

[Karenina]

57. Nah...

He NEVER jokes... :rofl:

DOWNING STREET MINUTES - OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MINUTES OF AN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MEETING

[vanboggie]

29. LOL!

FreeperPhonics - clever and hilarious, warrens :rofl:

[K8-EEE]

66. Very Funny...But Your Forgot The Freeper PUNCTUATION....!!!!!!

....a lot of them rite like THIS...!!! there can't be ENUFF esclamashun points fer how pig-bitin' mad they get at libruls talkin down about dubya...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and our beloved first lady...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Vincardog]

2. Yes start the impeachment hearings now. Let the truth come out before

the elections in 2006. His popularity is at the lowest level since before 9/11 we have to watch the criminals so they can not do it again.

[Chicago Democrat]

7. Yes, Use Impeachment as a way to win House!

:)

good idea

[femme.democratique]

61. Get the news out there before the next "terra" (MIHOP) attack

which we all know is coming.

[cestpaspossible]

3. I'm all for exposing the evidence, and electing

a Democratic Congress that will follow it to it's logical conclusion.

[napi21]

4. Sure you can keep talking about it, but the reason everyone says

you can't impeach is because an Impeachment hearing must originate in the Republican controled House! Hastert simply has the power to make sure the subject never comes to the floor.

[mtnsnake]

15. Any congressman can start the impeachment process on any charge

Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Whether or not impeachment itself would be likely, well that's another story, but starting the process would have profound and far-reaching affects even if it never came to an actual vote.

[napi21]

19. Here's the procedure as I understand it.

Although the Constitution does not elaborate on impeachment procedures, the established House practice is to begin with a resolution authorizing the Judiciary Committee to investigate the charges brought forth.

The House Judiciary Committee then holds hearings and investigates the charges.

If the Judiciary Committee's findings support the charges, it issues an impeachment resolution, which include Articles of Impeachment, to the full House. If the committee believes impeachment is unwarranted, it issues such a resolution to the full House.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/impeachment/guide.html

We really have to face it, this would NEVER get out of a judiciary committee hearing.

[zann725]

41. NEVER say "NEVER!!

Just do it!

[Vincardog]

48. well we can get it started can't we? Let us support Conyers in getting the

impeachment started.

[damntexdem]

5. That was before:

with the DSM, we have basis for making the case. And that's it: we will not be able to impeach him; but we CAN make the case. We need to do that in order to pull all of the fascists down, not just Dubya.

[specimenfred1984]

6. Very Well Said!

I'll never shut up or give up. It is about the process, the process of actual freedom we are trying to preserve, not the 1984-like "freedumb" that gets propagandized everyday.

And to all the other posters, HELL YES I SIGNED THE PETITION!

[Nite Owl]

8. It needs to go down in the

history books that we tried. The world needs to know that alot of Americans do no condone this administration.

[calimary]

46. YES. It needs to get on the record. It needs to get into the zeitgeist.

It needs to get into water cooler conversation. It needs to be planted as a perception in the collective consciousness. Put it out there. Do it ANYWAY.

republi-CONS own it all? Sooooooooo... we just give up now and don't break a sweat? We just admit defeat before we even begin to fight? This is one of my favorite quotes at the moment: ~~ "You miss 100% of the shots you never take." ~~ Wayne Gretzky

Also remember this: It took Republicans on Capitol Hill to push Nixon to resignation (to avoid certain impeachment). Yes, the Dems controlled both houses of Congress. Yes I know that. I'm old enough to remember. But I also remember that, at least for awhile, Nixon's party stood behind him, squarely, as apologists, spinners, and more. They played offense as well as defense (remember Nixon's "enemies list"?) and they hit pretty far below the belt. It took a critical mass of them coming over to join the Democrats - to push this all the way home. It was the Republicans (Senator Barry Goldwater among them) who went to Nixon and told him he no longer had the support of sufficient numbers of his party to stave off impeachment, that he WAS gonna go down, and that his best face-saving and grief-shortening option was to resign (that way he could later slip away as a mere "unindicted co-conspirator" never having faced any actual charges or, heaven forbid, actual hard prison time. Plus, it could VERY well have been that discussions of a potential pardon by his immediate successor, Gerald Ford, gained ground, too.

It would have been a longer, uglier struggle with more national upheaval during a very turbulent time, anyway, if enough Republicans hadn't seen the light, and put their country before their party, for a change.

Never forget this either: bush has run his last political race, and doesn't have to curry our favor anymore. You CANNOT say that about the folks in Congress (aside from those who claim they're in their last term). THEY are all still beholden to the voters, and have to win popular support to stay employed. If the tide (and public opinion) keeps dropping, and support for bush's "brilliant ideas" keeps going south and his "results" from those same ideas keep going FARTHER south, and impeachment is spoken about more and more (no longer avoided like some kind of taboo), you just watch how "loyal" they remain. They don't want to go down with the ship. If they see it's sinking, they won't want to stick around and sink, too.

For example, haven't you heard more and more statements to the effect of - if there was just a voice vote, or you didn't have to vote by name, MANY more republi-CONS would likely vote no on john bolton. The fact that they still realize this White House will know how they voted the way it's currently set up, they're hesitant. But if they're that ready to defect, already, you can bet they've tested the wind, and clearly recognize which way it's blowing on this issue. They understand clearly that they defy the will of their constituents at their peril.

Besides, for some of these (if yours is a rep who's from the Dark Side) who will eventually realize, with public opinion turning, that catering to moderates and liberals may make the difference in votes between their winning or losing. And they won't get our votes without giving us something in return. Preferably in advance, in the case of holding bush accountable, finally.

[marylanddem]

9. Very well said

He lied, thousands of people died, and impeachment is a logical next step. It happened to another lying Republican a few years back.

[babylonsister]

10. These minutes about to be exposed should

offend everyone, repug or Dem. We were all lied to. Anyone, including politicians, who is not outraged over this must be a few cards short of a deck.

[Warpy]

12. what good will a failed impeachment in the next year and a half do?

It will prevent it from being brought up again if we retake the House in 2006.

Don't fall for this one. Yes, get the word out that Bush lied us into war, that the minutes from a top secret meeting at Downing Street were leaked at which it was stated that Bush promished to "fix the intelligecnce around the policy ." Make sure everybody around you knows about this, and ask them if Clinton got impeached for a blow job, how come lying us into a disastrous war won't do the trick?

Get it on their minds. It's just too early to get it into the House. It will fail. It won't be brought up again after it fails, and that is why the GOP is behind it.

The DLC Dems are being manipulated by the GOP, as usual.

[mtnsnake]

14. Why are you so positive it would fail?

If the charges are strong enough, why on earth would we wait? Besides, it's not like chances of impeachment by the Senate would be that much better in 2006 than they are now.

FYI, bringing up the charges now could do so much damage that it would also help our chances in 2006 to boot.

[cestpaspossible]

23. Perhaps the ability to count votes has something to do with it. nt

[jmaier]

26. There will be no investigation

to get to the bottom of things unless the resolution passes in the House to start an investigation. There would have to be a major media shitstorm to make that happen.

Impeachment is out of Democratic reach -- we need to keep the message in the media and get it out in front of the public eye to help shape the climate for the '06 elections.

Having Democrats tilt at windmills in the congress will make us look weaker than we already appear and will cloud over any other messages we try to take into the elections.

[T Town Jake]

27. It's called Math.

n/t

[Warpy]

30. Look at the numbers in the House and Senate

and look at how they vote.

The hearing would be half hearted, the vote would be against impeachment, it would never get to the senate, and IT WILL FAIL!

Once it fails, it won't come up again. This is Rove's insurance plan for losing Congress in 2006.

Don't fall for it. You're smarter than that.

[kster]

20. I think * is history

Honest Republicans were waiting for a reason so they could get rid of *. I think * is done, How would the Republicans look if they tried to Impeach Clinton for lying about an affair, and let * get away with the death of 1600 + kids. I'd say the ball is definitely in the Republicans court, I just wouldn't want to be in their shoes come Monday.

Look at the bright side we will be able to round up the Neo-cons with in the Republican party, Because I can not believe all Republicans are going to be in a hurry to jump on *'s already sinking ship.

[fujiyama]

79. LOL

Honest republicans? Are you kidding? Those must be protected under the endangered species act.

If you believe they want Bush out you are seriously naive.

Sorry, I can count maybe 2 or 3 repukes in the House that might vote for impeachment. At the same time, we'd lose the usual 10-20 (or more) that would cross over and vote against it.

That said, I'm not opposed to bringing it up. I want history to show we tried, but I would prefer that it is as effective as possible. I would want the hearings to get as much attention as possible, which means that we should first get the Downining Street Memo attention first.

[gate of the sun]

87. i can't buy this logic

down the line every major instance that has come up we have opted to stand back and this kind of ideology has backfired. We stood back when the Dem's gave Bush the right to go to War with Irag...... WE lost the Senate and the House and even the Presidential on this kind of idealogogy.......it has gotten us nowhere.......let's put in the impeachment process....fail or not we let our voice be heard. the campaign process of the Dem's is seriously flawed.......let's let a voice be heard.

[Jade Fox]

16. But it will just make the Dems look bad!!!

Just kidding, mtnsake. I'm with you all the way.

GET BUSH!!!!!!!

[Zorbuddha]

18. You are so on target.

It's time to get back to doing the right thing for its own sake, regardless of any perceived outcome or reward.

[mtnsnake]

33. "regardless of any perceived outcome or reward."

Well said, buddha.

The way I look at it, if we had control of Congress, the impeachment process would have already begun. However, just because we DON'T have control, it's no excuse for sitting idly by and not even making an attempt. Besides, it's the attempt that will ruin Bush just as well as any actual impeachment would. I'd hate to look back someday and not even have tried. By attempting to impeach, regardless of the actual outcome, we can still put an aditional huge damper into his already rotten legacy at the very least.

[mzmolly]

21. Agreed, but .........

we've got to get more attention to this issue first and take this thing in steps.

I do agree with your main point very much however! We must demand impeachment, but not just yet.

First step = media attention
Second step = congressional support from as many as possible
Third step = formal independent investigation
Fourth step = IMPEACH!

[SoCalifer]

22. I think we should start it now

because starting it now gives it the right amount of time to build up as a hot issue during the 2006 election season.

[mtnsnake]

34. I agree. I really think it would be a huge mistake to wait until 2006.

The mood is set right now. By 2006 things could drastically change and I'd hate to think we let this fucker off the hook by dilly dallying around.

What we're doing now is a pretty good start....just talking about it, and repeating over and over the idea of impeachment until it sinks in and ultimately takes on a life of its own. It'll happen if we make it, but we can't wait much longer. The timing is ripe, but it might not stay that way forever. It's time to act and at least try to serve him some needed justice.

[tritsofme]

25. How do you plan to get a hearing in the Judiciary Committee?

I'm sure Sensenbrenner will jump right on that.

[mtnsnake]

35. Just by having someone bring up some strong charges.

And we certainly do have the potential for some strong ones, wouldn't you agree?

Just to get that far, as far as having a hearing by the Judiciary Commmittee, well that would have to be considered a success in itself. I'd rather try to impeach and fail, than not try to do it at all. Just trying to get the process started will do wonders for this country.

[ISUGRADIA]

58. charges mean shit in a repub congress

unless you have 218 votes, there is no obligation or way to force a hearing. the most the Democrats can go is introduce a bill of impeachment. there are hundreds of bills that are introduced each session that never get a committee hearing. example: the impeachment bill introduced against reagan in the 1980s. never saw the light of day in committee...in a DEMOCRATIC house, to boot.

[ISUGRADIA]

59. charges mean shit in a repub congress

unless you have 218 votes, there is no obligation or way to force a hearing. the most the Democrats can go is introduce a bill of impeachment. there are hundreds of bills that are introduced each session that never get a committee hearing. example: the impeachment bill introduced against reagan in the 1980s. never saw the light of day in committee...in a DEMOCRATIC house, to boot.

[mtnsnake]

63. The charges vs Bush would be nothing at all similar to the 1's vs Reagan

and who the heck cares how far the process gets.

Better to have SOME process than none, because it's the process along the way that can ruin Bushco, just by formally bringing them up.

I can't believe how anyone would be so worried that we don't have enough votes to get through the initial stages of an impeachment. Who gives a rat's ass? It doesn't mean we can't TRY to impeach. Once you try, you never know how far it will go. All it takes is for one stooge to sing, and then you've got something.

Even if nothing much happens, just bringing up the serious charges alone would be enough to embarrass this president and his minions into oblivion, and right now I'd settle to embarrass the fuckers. It's better than nothing.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

68. Understand something...

The Republican leadership will never allow a motion to impeach to see the light of day. It's not possible to impeach Bush. I can't happen and it won't happen. It would require Jim Sensenbrenner, one of the biggest right-wing cement heads in Congress, to decide to "go after" the Bush Administration.

Not gonna happen. Not ever.

[mtnsnake]

71. They cannot stop the motion itself, that is, the motion to impeach.

Yeah, from the start I've understood that it might not progress all that far because we don't have the necessary vote, but like I keep repeating over and over, it's the process of starting that can do the damage and give some needed justice. And who knows, once a motion is put into place with the necessary charges, it just might catch a little breeze.

I really do get sick of hearing how we shouldn't even try. Yes, they can stop the progression, but they can't stop the initial charges.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

73. Yes, they can.

A Democratic representative can read the motion into the Congressional Record, but it then gets assigned to committee purgatory, where it will never be heard from again.

End of story.

[mtnsnake]

75. They can stop it from progressing, but they cannot stop the motion from

being heard. Next time I'll spell it out letter by letter. Jayeeessus!!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

85. So what?

I'll do you one better. John Conyers (or Kucinich, or whomever) can go on Countdown and have a serious discussion about how Bush should be impeached.

We would all pee our pants with delight, and then nothing else would happen. Do you know many times during the past five years on this Board I've seen people start a "Smoking Gun - This Will Get Bush Impeached" thread?

All this swinging for the fences gets us nowhere. Take your energy and your passion and put it to work for the Democrats who are running for office in your district.

[mtnsnake]

89. Go and piss on someone else's parade, Jeff. We all get your point.

You don't like the idea of trying to impeach Bush. Some of us do, so let's just agree to disagree. As far as you giving me advice for what I can do with my energy, well dude, you know what you can do with that advice.

Have a good one!!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

91. Not even remotely the point

It's not that I "don't like the idea of trying to impeach Bush." I love the idea. I also love the idea of seeing him whipped naked through the streets of Georgetown, but that's not going to happpen.

We Democrats don't have enough time and passion and resources to waste it on efforts that have absolutely no chance of success. But odds are there's a good progressive Democrat who's running for County Clerk or School Board who needs your help. Use you time and talents to help that person get elected.

Like it or not, George W. Bush has his ticket punched until January 21, 2009 and there's no power on Earth that can change that. As long as we insist of fighting battles that we can't win, we ensure that we'll never win any battles.

[ISUGRADIA]

77. I did not say not to try to impeach

but people seem to have unrealistic expectations of what will happen. This is for political theatre and public opinion and nothing else right now. 100,000 or 10,000,000 sigs mean nothing to Republicans. They are not going to abandon the fuhrer who has brought them as far as he has. The Repubs will never let this see the light of day as long as they control Congress. Hell, the Dem leadership is not even behind this. 2007 is the earliest that anything is going to happen.

[mtnsnake]

90. I agree it won't be an easy road, but sometimes

the hardest part is starting the ball rolling.

The least that could come of it would be that lots of questions would have to be asked because the kinds of charges that would be brought against him would be serious ones. This isn't some bj behind the desk in the oval office we're talking about. Hey if it goes no further than the initial charge it's better than not trying at all. It'll at least serve to embarrass his presidency and that alone will have far reaching ramifications. If 2007 is the earliest that it'll happen, that's okay by me as long as we try.

[Kurovski]

28. Yes. No more Repub's in the White House

'til they learn their lesson.

But FIRST, we must take them to school.

[bunny planet]

31. Get rid of Delay and we can impeach His Fraudulency.

Delay is the lynchpin. This is our last best chance to get rid of him. The rest will follow. Without Delay's intimidating presence I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of moderate and sane Republicans that would be only too happy to get back their party from the Bush crime family.

[fujiyama]

80. Sorry

DeLay gone isn't enough. Sure he intimidates, but the RW pukes will still be RW pukes.

The only way to even take this impeachment idea seriously is if Dems take back congress in '06. Even then it's remote, but atleast plausable.

[tavalon]

32. I wholeheartedly agree

recently a friend asked me why I fight so hard against this administration when "it's so futile"? My response was "Futile or not, it is the right thing to do".

And it applies equally well here. The reason to do this is because it is right.

I printed out 200 copies of one of the brochures on AfterDowningStreet.org and have been tucking them under car windshields. And I've signed Conyer's petition and I've gotten a number of my friends to sign. I just keep on going. It's the right thing to do...................

[candy331]

36. Maybe the rug can be pulled out from under Karl Rove since he is the post

that is keeping Bush propped up. Go to the heart of the beast to kill it.

[MzShellG]

37. You are so right

If any so-called president deserved to be impeached, Shrub does. We just need more media exposure to help gain public opinion and gather national support. There is no question that the attrcities committed by this admin eclipses anything done by the Clinton admin.

[slaveplanet]

38. Impeach now

let the cards fall where they may...

regardless of the whether it was lihop/mihop on 9/11...this whole Iraq problem stems from the country's inability to take a punch...emotional or physical...and the puppet masters played us like a violin.

sure we'll take more blows, but I'm sure our scissors will catch a string or two....at least slow them down.

I think , what many may fear, is they will pull another attack before this comes to fruition. I see it as we have no choice...we've already been compromised that much...this is a fight to save the country and what's left of our reputation.

[ngGale]

40. My thoughts exactly...

n/t

[DianeG5385]

39. Our Country has suffered enough due to the use of impeachment

as political tool. The only President in history who actually deserved it (Nixon) resigned. The others were done to gain political advantage. Bush deserves it, but our country does not. What I prefer is to leave him in office, ineffective, weak, discredited and hated as we gain ground in 2006 and 2008. We should not succumb to the desire to use impeachment to satisfy our need for short term payback. We will win the long term battle if we let Bush twist in the wind for the next four years and let him have zero victories. That will be our strength and will weaken the use of impeachment as political tool. We get our payback differently.

[SoCalifer]

42. I agree with your point

against using impeachment simply as a political tool. But in my humble opinion I don't think that this impeachment is motivated purely for political gain.

These photos are why it is important to me. I see it as:

1. accountability
   
2. preventing further death, destruction and misery in the name of profit.

[dchill]

69. And I agree with YOUR point.

America has been hurt enough, too much, by criminals who have no problem stealing two elections, robbing the treasury, fomenting false wars, stuffing government positions with fellow criminals...

Need I go on? I think impeachment is the ONLY way to send a message from Americans who love our Constitution to these thugs, and to let the rest of the world know that true democracy still lives in the USA.

The pictures in your post are devastating. Haven't enough of us seen them? WHERE IS AMERICA?

[mtnsnake]

43. That's funny, I didn't hear anyone saying that when Bill was impeached.

Here we have the perfect...and maybe the only...opportunity to impeach this criminal, or at least start the impeachment process, and we're supposed to worry about our country "suffering" through the process? Screw that, this country is suffering as we speak, and I've suffered enough under this fascist bastard already, so what's a little more suffering to go through? We suffer through Martha Stewart and Michael Jackson...what's a little more suffering through George Bush gonna matter?

Hey, it's for a good cause.

[AuntiBush]

44. Sure didn't hurt the RETHUGS after trying it on Clinton...

One of the best Presidents we've had in quite a long time...

Under Clinton we enjoyed: Peace, Integrity, Jobs, Excellent Economy, Great Budget, and a committment to diplomacy rather then all-out war.

It didn't hurt the Rethuglicans from getting voted in. It would not hurt the Democrats, rather show they have spine.

[mtnsnake]

45. and that in a nutshell just about says it all, AuntieBush

and yes, we're long overdue to show some spine, and what better means of doing it than this way.

[AuntiBush]

50. Thank you mtnsake: Now - the SPINE CARD-SEND to REPS :)

I posted this earlier: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1827979&mesg_id=1827979

Thanks to the "Downing Street Minutes" grassroot members call for inquiry to our Senators and members of Congress they've placed a "Spine" card online, in PDF format, for any and all to download freely.

Print it out and send it to your rep's. At that, make copies and spread them 'round.

The Backbone Campaign:
http://www.backbonecampaign.org/storydetail.cfm?id=71

The Backbone "Spine Card" in PDF format direct link for download: http://www.backbonecampaign.org/media/InquiryPostcard2.pdf

Backbone Campaign's Blog Area: http://www.backbonecampaign.org/blogs.cfm

After Downing Street Organization: http://AfterDowningStreet.org /

P.S. A lot of really good people are members, including our very own "Will Rivers Pitt!:

And they thought they could get away with it, by deleting the truth from our eyes...


* They did it to Clinton over a BJ lie. When Bush lied, humans died and still are...
* This didn't prevent the Republicans from getting into office.
* 45 Democrat Senators = More Voters then 55 Republican Senators.
* Remember this. We're the people are not a minority.
* Our Treasury has been robbed (our FICA money for Social Security)
* Our Economy is the worse ever and just follow the money!
* Billions going to Halliburton, Bechtell, you name it.
* Where is all the money going?

If it's going to rebuild Iraq, why is the country in shambles w/many Iraqi's still without water, electricity? Why won't our gov't let the Red Cross and others in?

The entire world is mad at us.
They know the truth.

MORE then Half of us do now, as well... goodnight all and hope tomorrow brings a brighter future.

CSPAN 7:45 EST Downing Street Minutes
Monday: Senate Floor - Kerry

[Hippo_Tron]

49. Disagree, the Clinton impeachment made Gingrich look like a fucking fool

The whole proceeding was a joke and people knew it. The GOP likes to pretend that the American people support Shrub when he is under fire. Other than post 9/11, he's never had an approval rating higher than low 50's. Clinton's approval rating the day of his impeachment was in the 70's. The American people were pissed as hell that the GOP was trying to destroy their President.

One of the reason that they picked a Governor in 2000 is because they needed somebody disconnected from the impeachment. Anybody in congress who voted for the impeachment (90+% of the GOP members) would've had serious hell to pay for that fiasco.

The rethugs won in 2000 because Gore ran a campaign not much better than Dukakis', Nader, and Katherine Harris/Jeb Bush.

I'd be all for impeaching Bush if there was a legitimate reason and legitimate evidence that he committed an actual crime. Otherwise, I think that we should remove Presidents the legitimate way.

[mtnsnake]

64. Oh, so let's worry that we might come out of this looking foolish. Great.

Let's let this fucker off the hook because we're so worried about tarnishing the wonderful image of our Democratic Party. As if we even have a frickin image to worry about.

And sorry, I'm not trying to pick, but I'm not following you where you say, "I'd be all for impeaching Bush if there was a legitimate reason and legitimate evidence that he committed an actual crime. Otherwise, I think that we should remove Presidents the legitimate way."

Huh? You don't think there's a legitimate reason and legitimate evidence? And isn't the process of impeachment the legitimate way of removing someone?

[Hippo_Tron]

76. I just don't like the use of impeachment lightly

But I firmly believe that impeachment was there specifically to remove Presidents who have broken laws and committed crimes and should not be used for any other means.

Do I think that Bush has probably committed an impeachable offense? Probably. Do I think that we could prove this in a court of law? That one would be a bit more difficult.

And yes I am concerned about my party's image. I hate chimp, but I would be ashamed of my party if they impeached him for no good reason. I think that impeachment is something that should NEVER be used lightly and those who attempt to should be looked down upon. However, if there is a legitimate reason and legitimate evidence that Bush has committed an impeachable offense and that we have a legitimate case, then I think that he should absolutely be impeached as the constitution says.

[calimary]

47. I just had to kick this again. Especially this original post.

"At the very least, we should start ramming the word IMPEACH down everyone's throats from ehre on in. Just6 hearing the word often enough is gratifying in itself, and could possibly catch momentum when enough people start repeating it."

SO true! I had to repeat it.

[nightfox02]

51. HELL YES!

We need to push this so hard we either come out as heroes or go down in flames fighting...

We need to declare war on this turd from texas... Politics be damned OUR SOLDIERS are dying. It aint Bush's daughters out there it is our kids, our neighbors kids. Stop this now! Let us not find ourselves on the wrong side of history.

[BlueIris]

52. Wow. Your post really made me think.

Because, I guess I'm really sick of the "we shouldn't try because it won't work" attitude, especially because of what the DSM is, what it represents. The "don't try because it won't work" is starting to sound like, "don't try to put that on the ballot because it will never pass." I also hate it when people claim that pushing for impeachment will make the Democrats look bad...kids, I've been happy with some of the progress we've made since the selection of 2004, but I'm not sure we could look any worse. Especially considering some of the things I've been reading over the last couple of days (after I signed the Conyers' letter, mind you, and got three others to sign it) since seriously beginning to wonder if impeachment is an unrealistic goal. I think it was posted here for a bit, but I really hope everyone has read Norman Solomon's "The Key to Impeachment." Reading about Henry Gonzalez's attempts to have Reagan and Bush Sr. impeached made me worry less about whether such as attempt from the DNC now could "backfire" on us--I think it's more likely that the Rebulican stranglehold on the press would result in whatever serious attempt to impeach occurs being whitewashed from public memory.

[dchill]

53. Impeachment CAN work

but the way to do it is to keep up the pressure on the press to get the horrible truths about this administration out. When the people turn on Bush (it's already started), the 2006 Elections will set up the scenario for a Pelosi presidency in the case of impeachment of both Bush & Cheney. With these guys, a two-fer is a good bet.

Voila, Democrats in power in two branches of government. Want to know what I'm smoking?

http://www.crisispapers.org/essays-w/impeachment.htm

Keep signing those petitions and writing your congressmen-and-women.

[Karenina]

54. Rapid response teams...

So your post sent me off on this reverie... Every time a news van shows up ANYWHERE for anything, it's within minutes surrounded by citizens carrying signs and shouting, "IMPEACH..." I can DREAM, can't I? :silly:

[ISUGRADIA]

60. this is a more realistic scenario...espec. if there is a Dem landslide

in 2006

[Q]

55. Republicans impeached Clinton as a 'coup' against a sitting president...

...and in an effort to destroy and weaken the Democratic party. They were successful only because they had 'invested' hundreds of millions of dollars over the last several decades in buying a compliant media.

Clinton's impeachment had NOTHING to do with the law or justice. It was all about revenge for the Nixon/Reagan special prosecutors and advancing the goals of the Republican party.

The odds are not good that the 'mainstream' media would back an impeachment against their CEO president. But with a public uprising and enough representatives calling for hearings and investigations...they would be forced to cover the process.

It would be interesting to see what Lieberman and other 'centrists' have to say about impeaching Bush for actual high crimes after their many speeches insisting that Clinton had to be 'punished' for the low crime of lying about sex.

[truthisfreedom]

56. bushco is scared, scared, scared. you could hear it in condiboot's comment

about the "free and responsible press." they're trying to send a fear message about the truth by having gonzales strike fear in a new deep throat's heart to keep the truth from being leaked to the press, by suggesting that what deep throat did was "treason." they're sending endless messages to the press to just shut up... why? because they know that the news is getting so horrifically bad that it will become more entertaining to the public to read about the evils of the administration than to be fed more propaganda.

wanna read something specatcular?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/06/03/notes060305.DTL

Bush, The Spoiled Man-Child
What causes the fall of empires? Why, stubborn leaders who speak like toddlers and never admit mistakes
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, June 3, 2005

Know what real men do? They admit their mistakes. Know what real people do in times of great stress and strife and economic downturn? They seek help, understand they don't know all the answers, realize they might not've been asking the right questions in the first place.
Know what great leaders, great nations do at times of war and fracture and massive bludgeoning debt? All of the above, all the time, with great intelligence and humility and grace and awareness and shared humanity. Or they die.

But not BushCo. This is the hilarious thing. This is the appalling thing, still. How can this man remain so blindly, staggeringly resolute? How can he be so appallingly ignorant of fact, of truth, of evidence, of deep thought? In short, what the hell is wrong with George W. Bush?

<snip>

be sure to read it all! it's fantastic!

[femme.democratique]

62. Think of the next 9/11 style "terra" attack (MIHOP by BFEE of course)

We need to get the notion of this HIGH CRIME out there and make people understand that Impeachment is NOT an option, by our very constitutional principles in this case Impeachment is a DUTY that Congress must execute. This is what people don't understand. Watergate and most other impeachment proceedings were based on "crimes" of much less severity than the Downing Street Minutes details. Think about it. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Get it out there NOW so that when the BFEE attacks the American public again people know for sure they are LIARS!!! Plus, starting with this HIGH CRIME in particular opens the door to whistleblowers coming clean on what happened on 9/11, especially with the destroyed FAA tapes. Fuck the Republicans, they are ALL traitors, even the more "innocuous" ones who only go along with the flow because they're afraid.

[Amonester]

65. Kick!

YES! And does anyone still wonders what would have happened (as in "How Many Innocents Would Not Have Been Massacred By The Germans") IF THE GERMAN PUBLIC WOULD HAVE HAD A SINGLE OPPORTUNITY TO IMPEACH THE CRIMINAL FASCISTS sometimes before the year 1938 came????

Yeah. It's about time: NOW. I say : Don't ever wait until it' too late (again...)!


STOP THE PNAC DOMINIONIST CRIMINALS BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!


Remember who was right, and who still is...

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

67. Not up on your congressional procedure...

It's up to the speaker to assign this to a committee, then the committee chairman decides if, of when, the matter receives any formal discussion. Any motion to impeach would simply be shipped off to committee where it would never be heard from again.

Worry about the 2006 Elections. Chimp has job security until 2008.

[Pepperbelly]

70. What specific charge would you level?

Remember, the standard is "high crimes and misdemeanors." Of course, the gops showed that phrase to be meaningless and Gerald Ford's definition better: whatever a majority of the House agrees upon.

So what charges do you level?

For form's sake, they should actually be criminal violations that meet the statutory elements.

[Jane Eyre]

72. Looking at the numbers in the House - what it would take

Here's a link to the membership of the House Judiciary Committee:

http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembership.aspx

Republican
Hon. Hyde
(R) Illinois, 6th

Hon. Coble
(R) North Carolina, 6th

Hon. Smith
(R) Texas, 21st

Hon. Gallegly
(R) California, 24th

Hon. Goodlatte
(R) Virginia, 6th

Hon. Chabot
(R) Ohio, 1st

Hon. Lungren
(R) California, 3rd

Hon. Jenkins
(R) Tennessee, 1st

Hon. Cannon
(R) Utah, 3rd

Hon. Bachus
(R) Alabama, 6th

Hon. Inglis
(R) South Carolina, 4th

Hon. Hostettler
(R) Indiana, 8th

Hon. Green
(R) Wisconsin, 8th

Hon. Keller
(R) Florida, 8th

Hon. Issa
(R) California, 49th

Hon. Flake
(R) Arizona, 6th

Hon. Pence
(R) Indiana, 6th

Hon. Forbes
(R) Virginia, 4th

Hon. King
(R) Iowa, 5th

Hon. Feeney
(R) Florida, 24th

Hon. Franks
(R) Arizona, 2nd

Hon. Gohmert
(R) Texas, 1st

Democrat
Hon. Berman
(D) California, 28th

Hon. Boucher
(D) Virginia, 9th

Hon. Nadler
(D) New York, 8th

Hon. Scott
(D) Virginia, 3rd

Hon. Watt
(D) North Carolina, 12th

Hon. Lofgren
(D) California, 16th

Hon. Jackson Lee
(D) Texas, 18th

Hon. Waters
(D) California, 35th

Hon. Meehan
(D) Massachusetts, 5th

Hon. Delahunt
(D) Massachusetts, 10th

Hon. Wexler
(D) Florida, 19th

Hon. Weiner
(D) New York, 9th

Hon. Schiff
(D) California, 29th

Hon. Sánchez
(D) California, 39th

Hon. Smith
(D) Washington, 9th

Hon. Van Hollen
(D) Maryland, 8th


There are 16 Democrats and 22 Republicans. We would need to have all the Democrats vote with John Conyers on impeachment, and 4 Republicans for a simple majority.

I invite anyone to pick out some names on the Republican side and tell us who you think might, just might, change sides. I'll go first: Rep. Howard Coble is as rightwing as they come and supported the war, yet he recently broke ranks with the Republican party line by calling for a troop withdrawal from Iraq. Of course that doesn't mean that he will necessarily change sides, but it does mean that his thinking on the issue has evolved.

GREENSBORO, N.C. -- U.S. Rep. Howard Coble, a Greensboro Republican and close ally of President Bush, says the United States should consider pulling out of war-ravaged Iraq. From a Jan 10, 2005 AP article:

PUSHING FOR PULLOUT
U.S. Rep. Howard Coble, a Greensboro Republican and close ally of President Bush

Coble is one of the first members of Congress to suggest a withdrawal publicly.

The 10-term congressman said in an interview with the News & Record of Greensboro that he's "fed up with picking up the newspaper and reading that we've lost another five or 10 of our young men and women in Iraq."

Support among Coble's 6th District constituents has also waned, his office said.

If support among Coble's rightwing constituency has declined, then you gotta believe that it is dropping in other Republican congressional districts as well.

The Democrats have a real shot at taking back the House next year. In my opinion, we need to look at how the Republicans did it in 1994 and use their playbook. Make Republican congressmen like the hypocrite Henry Hyde go on the record for voting AGAINST the impeachment of a lying president when he was so eager to do so when it was a Democrat in office. Then make these hypocrites poster boys for supporting a lying president who sent the country into an unnecessary war.

[Jane Eyre]

74. And one more thing, watch what the Brits do

Yeah, the Labor party won a majority again recently, greatly diminished as it was. That doesn't mean that Tony Blair will keep his Prime Minister gig much longer though. Gordon Brown is waiting in the wings and the Labourites aren't all that happy with Tony Blair. If the Labour Party's backbenchers grow increasingly disgusted with Tony Blair's allegiance to Bush's foreign policy, they can replace him. They don't go through an impeachment hearing. Here's a good site for learning about British political procedures:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/limits_powers_of_a_prime_minister.htm

If Tony Blair gets kicked out of office, can Bush be far behind?

[ISUGRADIA]

78. It would be political suicide for a Republican to back impeachment

at this time. They'll swim or sail with Bush. If he is a liability in 2006 a few might change. But the fundi base will give hell to anyone who questions the fuhrer. We'll see in 2007 if there has been a Dem landslide.

[Jane Eyre]

83. Could be political suicide either way

I think that we have to push the issue. There is growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, and we need to start getting the message out that Bush lied about Iraq and he will lie about Iran or any other country that he wants to invade.

Taking over the House in 2006 would mean winning a few key districts, since most congressional districts are pretty much stacked one way or the other. One of the districts in play is the 8th District in NC. Republican Congressman Robin Hayes has only managed a few point majority in each election and the district is about 53% registered Democrats. It is also the home of some military families from nearby Fort Bragg. The DNC has never targetted the NC 8th while the RNC has, so there is reason to believe that some Democratic money coming into the district could make a difference. Which isn't to say that it won't be a bloody fight, but it could be winnable for us nevertheless.

I've been surprised that both rightwing NC congressmen Howard Coble and Walter "Freedom Fries" Jones have recently stated their dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. We have an opportunity to make hay with this issue, and make the Republicans look like hypocrites in the process.

[laugle]

82. TRIPLE AMEN!!!!!!

[Wizard777]

84. "The people have to know if their President is a crook." Richard M. Nixon

There is only one "Tricky Dick." It isn't Cheney.

[MojoXN]

86. I think that we should emulate the Rightists...

Talk to every * supporter that you know, and tell them about the Downing Street Memo. Ask them if they think that Clinton's lies were worse than Bush's. Keep using the "I word" as much as possible. Over and over, and over and over... Call the media. Constantly. If tens of thousands of people badger a news agency for long enough, something will get done, eventually.

For what it's worth, I think that Conyers or whomever should bring charges. So what if they never get out of committee. Introduce them again. If we wait until '06 to make noise, it gives the Rightist machine time to start damage control, and we've all seen what happens then...

MojoXN

[Ksec]

88. If this dude isnt guilty of impeachable offenses then Im Superman

I mean , what he did was the epitomy of war crimes. If anyone thought the crimes hes pulled wouldnt warrant an impeachment , then these people are crackheads without a doubt.

What he did was beyond normal crimes. These are supercrimes. They deserve the death penalty.