For those saying the dems aren't doing enough about DSM

[merwin]

<Note from author>This post will probably be very scatterbrained. That's just how I am. Forgive me</Note>

Rome wasn't built in a day... Neither was the Watergate scandal. From the time that hard evidence starting showing up (arrest while bugging the DNC in that case, DSM in this case) to the time that Nixon was taken out was somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 years.

Politics is much more of a touchy thing than most people think. A senator can't just go yelling and screaming and expect results. Think about it.. if you worked for a huge fortune 500 company that the media refused to print anything bad about, and found out that the CEO of the company was doing something completely terrible, you don't just walk into his office, or into a meeting room, or whatever, and tell him that he needs to resign. Frankly, you'd probably just be fired and discredited. You would need to gather a fairly large group of people together to do it. Now imagine that all of the people available to you are sitting comfortably making a fat paycheck. It takes time to convince everyone that it's in their best interest to go against the board of directors (did I mention the board of directors are in on it too?).

Remember that the majority of the democratic party is not as polarized and eager to revolt as we are on DU. For the majority of them, as long as it's not affecting them, they don't care. That's proven by the number of signatures Conyers has gotten. It's phenomenal that he's gotten the number that he has (somewhere around 150,000 now... i think). 150,000 is a drop in the bucket considering there's almost 300,000,000 people living in our country.

Evidence has to be gathered... enough that it can't be refuted. Actual people need to come forward with firsthand information. The downside of the DSM is that it is not firsthand information. There are no direct quotes from either Blair or Bush in them. That leaves room for deniability.

We do need to keep pressing this issue as hard as possible, but calling our congressmen names and saying how much you hate them for not doing anything doesn't help at all. We need to show support for them and send them letters of encouragement. A positive note will go much farther than a negative one.

Massive revolts on little hard evidence work well for the general population. It doesn't work for congress, however. Without evidence saying that on this specific date, this specific person said this specific thing, there's no way an impeachment process will go forward.

We don't get a second shot on this one. The impeachemnt process is something that we can go through ONCE (I'm not sure about the law, but if the first time is discredited, we will be labeled 'the dems who cried wolf'). Like it or not, when it's our word against his, his word will be taken as the truth. The DSM is still circumstantial evidence (It doesn't name any specific instances in which the things listed in it took place).

Anyways, that's just my two cents. I'm sure I'll get fairly well charred by the masses :)

[Tippy]

1. Your post is worth a lot more then two cents

I am in agreement...I am like most, I would like for things to move quickly simply because of my age, but I know better...

[merwin]

4. Yeah, I feel that way too much of the time.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. DSM will take down bush if things continue to deteriorate on Iraq

if things were to go well in Iraq then the DSM would pass.

[merwin]

3. If things continue as they are in Iraq, I think the media might start to

pay attention. They can only say "it's going really well over there" for so long. Another good example is the Vietnam War. That damned thing went on for 20 years (we were only involved for the last 10).

Eventually people will catch on...