Is there any person here who will not demand an impeachment attempt

[mtnsnake]

from their elected Democratic representatives the instant they start their new year in office in 2007, regardless of whether or not we re-take the House?

I don't know about you, but I've got my impeachment letter all written and ready to mail the day after the elections take place.

[benburch]

1. Sadly, Yes.

Many here do not support impeachment.

I wonder what they think will be left to save by 2008?

[Lerkfish]

12. wow. just wow. and here I thought you were being too pessimistic.

as I typed my response, the mad rush to avoid impeachment almost knocked me out of the thread.

who ARE these people?

[benburch]

29. Sadly, I am rarely too pessimistic.

But every time I venture into optimism, my hopes get dashed.

[SomewhereOutThere424]

37. Benburch, I've seen you make some great posts here

Don't give up on optimism, just like you told everyone else. The democratic party -- and this country, needs people who can swim instead of sink to carry on the swiftly dying ideals. I'm more convinced a great deal of these people on DU are freepers or people similar to something awful hate styled groups who just try to disrupt people. Like mockingbirds knocking a bird's legitimate egg out of its nest so it raises their own and spreads its species more. I find it happening more in places I like to hang out online aswell as in our politics.

But that makes it more incentive to maintain that attitude you had before. There are those who like the optimism -- and do good by it. Maybe not altering the gradual decay of this country good; but more like, wanting to do the right thing in every day good. That's where it starts, politics be damned.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

51. Me, for one.

Do you believe that

a) An impeachment attempt would have a chance of succeeding at present.
b) A failed impeachment attempt would not reduce the Democrats' chances of gaining at the subsequent election.

I don't believe either of those, and as such I oppose impeachment. If the Democrats have enough votes to make a) no longer the case after 2006 then I may well change my position.

[Lerkfish]

54. I'm opposed to charging rapists.

unless I can get a guarantee of conviction, I refuse to support charging them with anything.
Because I have no desire to enforce the law unless I"m guaranteed to be successful.

:sarcasm:

what a great patriot you are! You'd rather not addressed traitors, felons and war criminals unless you can be assured of victory?

man, this place amazes me sometimes.


and you even seem PROUD OF IT!!!!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

70. I note that you haven't answered my question.

Do you believe that either a) there is a chance of success, or b) that failure would do more good than harm? I think both are clearly false, and unless you can convince me that one of them isn't I will continue to argue against trying to impeach.

And consider the difference between "not guaranteed to be successful" (your phrase) and "guaranteed not to be successful" (the actual situation).

Also, you really need to reconsider your analogy. I *do* support not charging rapists unless there's at least a chance of a conviction, and so does nearly everyone else: it's harrowing for the victim, it wastes time and money, and it means you can't charge them later if more evidence comes to light. Do you?

[Lerkfish]

72. I DID answer your questions.

but here again, since you aren't getting the point:

a) I don't give a flying fig if there's a chance of success, ITS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
Did the republicans care about success when they impeached Clinton? In their case, it wasnt the right thing to do, but they were not halted.

b) how could ANYTHING put us in a worse situation than we are now? we aren't in the majority, and we only have 3 or 4 dems with a backbone, the rest are quivering in their boots, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING. You want them to continue being afraid of their shadow. WHY?

and, I'm glad to hear you're as forgiving of rapists as war criminals, based solely on chance of conviction. AT least you're consistent.

good luck to you with that! I"m sure they'll be a place for you in the new world order of fascism.

to quote someone further down, its a crime NOT to impeach!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

73. I strongly disagree.

American politics is far, far to important for empty gestures. An impeachment attempt that fails, and hinders the democrats attempts to regain the Senate and Congress, may make purists feel better, but it is emphatically not the right thing to do.

As to "what do we have to lose", the answer is, of course, votes in the above-mentioned election.

Your question "You want them to continue being afraid of their shadow. WHY?" has a massive implicit assumption. I suspect that the majority of the Democrats who actually have sufficient grasp of politics to get elected realise that picking fights and losing them achieves nothing, and makes it harder rather than easier to get to a point where you can pick fights and *win* them. If the Democrats continue to fail to challenge the Republicans if/when they have the option of challenging them and winning, *then* the accusation of cowardice will have some foundation.

Please consider the difference between "willing to forgive" and "unwilling to prosecute".

If it's a crime not to impeach, then it's one that you, I and everyone else is going to be guilty of, because impeachment is, quite simply, not an option.

I wish its advocates would realise this, and have the honesty to talk about "making a gesture by trying and failing to impeach Bush", rather than "impeaching Bush".

[Lerkfish]

78. I EMPHATICALLY disagree: you never intend to impeach, correct?

that's what I'm reading in your posts.

I disagree that keeping your powder dry will win elections. I predict that following your DLC-like strategy will result in even fewer dem positions than we have now.

Look around you. the citizens are UNHAPPY with the status quo. They will not accept republican lite vs. republican.

we're going to have to disagree on this one. Not having a backbone is not an electable position.

Unless your intent is to elect fewer democrats?

yadda yadda yadda, I know, The DLC mantra is "let's appease the administration and not make too many waves, since that is our only road to power: by being milquetoast quislings"

I just flat out disagree.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

83. No, that's not my position

If at some point impeachment becomes a realistic possibility, I will support it unless there's a clear reason not to. However, what I will almost always oppose is attempts at impeachment that don't have any chance of success whatsoever , which are the only kind currently available to the Democrats.

It's not that the Democrats should keep their powder dry, it's that they don't currently *have* any powder, and a failed impeachment attempt will make it harder for them to aquire powder in November.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

50. I'm one of them.

And what I think will be left to save by 2008 is 2008-12.

Its possible that if the Democrats do well enough in 2006 to make impeachement viable then it will become a good idea, but a failed impeachment attempt would be electorally damaging in the extreme, and the inability of the Democrats to make any other kind at present is simple mathematics.

I worry that too many DUers think that fighting spirit is a good substitute for numbers. It's not. There are more Republicans than Democrats in both houses, and unless that changes the Democrats *can't* impeach Bush, no matter how hard they fight.

[Sammy Pepys]

2. I'm going to wait and see

But I'm not enamored with the idea of pursuing impeachment.

[Lerkfish]

9. just what the hell are you waiting for to decide?

Bush sodomizing iraqi corpses live on pay per view?

[Sammy Pepys]

20. What happens with the 2006 elections....

Because if we don't gain control of at least the House, any impeachment attempt will be DOA.

Additionally, 2007 is going to be the year where we begin to focus on who we're going to put up for 2008 Presidential election. And trying to get impeachment going in 2007 (the earliest point possible) becomes a bit of a risk at the point. I think we'd basically need decisive victories in both Houses of Congress to even begin thinking about it.

[radio4progressives]

48. This is the Mantra I was talking about in other threads..

Along with Nancy "Elections Have Consequences" Pelosi's edict: "If we don't like who is in power, we have to vote them out" ....

that's the mantra from the Democrats in Washington.

So, we look to the mid terms - many are assuming everything will begin in November - that's wrong because new congress critters won't be getting settled into office until Feburary of 2007 - and guess what?

it's time to "focus on the 2008" elections!

DOA - Impeachment? You and I want Impeachment, Trial and Conviction..

But do the Dems in Washington want Impeachment?, uhmm, not so much.

[mtnsnake]

14. What is it you need to wait and see?

If we wait any longer than much after the midterm elections, we won't have any more chances to go for his throat. I don't mind waiting another few months to see if we re-take the House or not, but even if we don't re-take it, we still need to demand an impeachment attempt by one of our Representives, no?

Out of curiosity, why are you "not enamored with the idea of pursuing impeachment"?

[Sammy Pepys]

22. The makeup of the Congress....

...but I agree with, waiting any longer past the midterms is not prudent. Which is why I'm not enamored with impeachment at this point. At the latest, we should've had the ball rolling at the beginning of 2006. I think it's too late now, unfortunately. And it has the potential to be too big a distraction from the Presidential race that will be gearing up in 2007.

I would love to be able to put forth a real solid effort for impeachment against Bush, but I think we've pretty much run out of time.

[Savannah Progressive]

3. Why wait? Why not start the investigations NOW?

We aren't going to do it, not now, nor in 2007, because we aren't running as Progressives, Liberals, or even Democrats.

We are running as Smarter Repugniks. We can do it, but we can do it smarter is the only thing our Elected Beltway Dems are saying. Oh, we can bomb innocents, but we can do it smarter? We can invade an innocent country, but do it smarter?

We won't impeach Bush, Impeachment is a fantasy, and we won't ever see it become a reality, because the Beltway Dems don't have the guts to stand up and do it.

[bowens43]

8. Do you understand the process?

The minority party cannot initiate meaningful investigations nor can it bring articles of impeachment to the floor without the cooperation of the majority party.

[bowens43]

4. If the Dems don't regain control of the house

an impeachment attempt will be a waste of time and will do more harm to our party then good.

The reality is that there will be no impeachment with a Republican controlled House nor will there be an attempt.

[mtnsnake]

10. a waste of time?

At least it'll be on his record that an impeachment attempt was made, BUT if we WIN the House we can impeach.

The history books need to have the word "impeachment" next to Bush, one way or the other.

[onenote]

84. should the history books have: impeachment failed?

What's the benefit of that? Keep in mind that the best way to energize a rather demoralized repub party will be to pursue impeachment. Maybe its worth it if we have the votes to succeed; but not if we don't.

onenote

[napi21]

5. OK, I just put my armored suit on. I think now is not the time to

demand impeachment. I like the "censure" bill by Finegold because it did raise awareness in the nedia, thus in the American people. I feel a bill of impeachment would simply cause the Reps & Sens to dig their heels in firmer, not look at the reality of the illegal things this Admin. has done, and the whole thing would go down in flames.

I've already heard some saying the Pubs are going to use the "Vote for me becasue if the Dems take over in Nov. they'll impeach your President" line.

Under the current majority, we all know there will be NO impeachment, so I think it's a lot better to wait until there is a chance...next January!

[Savannah Progressive]

13. And if we don't win in November 2006, do we try impeachment in 2008?

We are an opposition party that doesn't oppose anything. We didn't oppose Roberts, ALito, or any other issue. We voted for Bankruptcy Reform, the Patriot Act, and any other denegration of the American People that the Repugniks put out.

We constantly watch our Beltway Dems mouth words that we like when they are talking to us, then we happily check the vote on an issue, and find that the same Dems voted FOR the fucking legislation that we were supposedly opposed to. When we question them, we are given BS answers.

The cowards in Washington won't push for Impeachment, don't think your support this November will result in Impeachment. If you doubt me, see how many Senators ran from the Senate Floor when the Censure motion was even mentioned. The Democrats ran like rats and hid from Reporters. They stoke the fires, and vote against US all.

[napi21]

15. If we don't win in November, we don't deserve to be the

opposition Party, and Shrub doesn't deserve to be impeached either!

For God sake! The Pubs collectively, have done EVERYTHING wrong! If the Dems are that damn imcompetent, then they and we deserve exactly what we get!

[Lerkfish]

18. whether dems win does not make bush innocent of crimes committed.

jesus on a trailer hitch! what kind of logic is that?

oh, we don't win the house, therefore Bush doesn't deserver to be charged with the felonies he admits to committing?

WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE?

[napi21]

23. You missed my point. The Pubs have, and continue to hand

control back to the Dems. If WE, the Dems, are so inept at being able to use that opportunity, WE don't deserve the leadership.

Of course Shrub is, and will be still guilty. I guess I phrased my statement rong. I should ahve said, if the Dems don't win back a majority, WE don't deserve the right to impeach.

[Lerkfish]

31. no, I GOT your point, not sure if you get mine.

chance of success, if used as a determinate, would kill a great majority of trials before they started. Does that mean we should not bring criminals to trial?

think. what would be a reason to bring a criminal to trial, even if you think the jury or judge would be stacked in their favor?

think.


BECAUSE ITS THE CORRECT, MORAL AND IMPERATIVE THING TO DO IN A SOCIETY OF LAWS.

[onenote]

86. this isn't the same as a criminal proceeding

We can't bring bush to trial because without the votes we can't even get the process started. Its not that hard to understand. The most that the Democrats could do is introduce an impeachment resolution which would be referred to the Judiciary Committee where it would never ever see the light of day.

onenote

[mtnsnake]

17. I'm not saying "now". I'm saying the first thing in 2007

after we see what happens in the midterms.

[shoelace414]

6. I don't support impeachment.

[BootinUp]

7. Can't say

I don't want a retracted battle to take over Washington. I really want to start reversing the damage that has been done to our economy and cicil rights. If it takes impeachment to make progress then yes do it. But I want to see what position we are in after the election.

[BlackHeart]

11. I'm not in favor of

tilting at windmills. So if there is going to be an impeachment it better have a darn good chance of being successful.

[Lerkfish]

16. oh hell yes, better to stand by while torture and crimes continue.

after all, we don't want to upset little lord pissypants by calling him to task for his war crimes against humanity.

[Savannah Progressive]

19. Guess you have your answer

It's not hard to find someone opposed to impeachment, it's hard to find someone who believes in our nation enough to support Impeachment.

One stated we should roll back the things we have done wrong. Oh, Bush is going to happily sign any legislation we send up? Sure, he will just lose that Veto Stamp and pen. Unless we win a 2/3rd Majority in both houses, we won't get any legislation through using the same logic that we use to look at Impeachment.

Speaking of, unless we have a 3/4 majority, we can't even consider Impeachment, because we have to expect a few Democrats to vote against it, out of conscience and living up to their DINO name.

You know, this is something that annoys me, we have to get approval to do the right thing, the moral thing. We place political considerations ahead of moral imperatives, and we act surprised when we don't get the support of the people.

If you are worried about explaining yourself later, it's far easier to explain to people that you did what you believed was right, than it is to explain that you did the wrong thing, because you believed it was the popular thing.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

21. Bush has done more impeachable offenses that Clinton could even dream off

Guess a lie about sex is worse than a lie about war.

[mtnsnake]

27. On Nov 8th, our battle cry as constituents needs to become "Impeach Bush!"

or "Remember Clinton!"

Take your pick. ;)

[More Than A Feeling]

24. You're way ahead of me

I had better get writing! *scrambles off*

[radio4progressives]

25. Party Leaders have no intention of pursuing impeachment...

Regardless if we take back the house or not.

They'll offer a few rationalizations, but the most emphasised "reasoning" will underscored with the edict that "elections have consequences" and "now we must focus on winning back the white house" ..

"Elections have Consequences, if you don't like who is in power, then you have to vote him out" was already issued from Nancy Pelosi a few weeks ago on this very question.

If we are victorious with mid-term elections, all of us who have been pushing for impeachment since 2002/2003 - and have been riding that roller coaster, will be in for a free fall when we discover that our party leaders have no real intention of moving forward on impeachment.

We won't discover that until after orientation and next congress is in session, which won't be until about mid February - 2007.

There may be "investigations"... but they will essentially be dog and pony shows, with a lot of smoke and mirrors to fog the truth.

Essentially, these investigations will be hearings like the Katrina hearings, and end up not meaning anything at all. By the time "we get it" what's going on, it will be fall or winter of 2007 - just in time for the 2008 presidential campaign.

Democratic party leaders will repeat the mantra quoted above and emphasize the fact that the presidential campaign is underway and that we all need to focus our energy on that effort and "get out the vote".

In the end, there will be no impeachment.

My gut instinct tells me that Russ Feingold knows this very well, and that is why he introduced the resolution to Censure last week. Because dubya is and has been thumbing his nose at our constitution and the laws of the land and continues to do so, will continue these programs until he is made to stop. Censure may not work, but it is all that the Senators have at their disposal, given that impeachment proceedings have not begun, which should have begun back in 2003/2004 or 2005 at the very latest.

Now it's too late.

[mtnsnake]

26. If our people win back the House and they don't impeach Bush...

then they're almost as guilty as the Guilty One, himself, because that would be just like saying they approved of the whole goddamn thing the entire time Bush carried out his crimes. I can't imagine a scenario where we win back the House and we don't impeach. If that occured, I would be forever ashamed of each and every one of them. If they get the power to do so, justice must be served, no ifs ands or buts about it. After November 8th, our battle cry should be "Remember Clinton!"

Good post, btw, radio4progressives.

[AtomicKitten]

39. I believe Dems will start with investigations in earnest.

... if and when they take back the House and/or Senate.

There is so much outrage over Katrina, the war, torture, the NSA wiretaps, etc. The information gleaned will be hugely damaging to this administration and to the Republican Congress that aided and abetted as well as covered up the crimes.

There is too much to sweep under the carpet and I simply do not believe Dems in good conscience will be able to do so in the midst of REAL investigations with REAL findings that will outrage the public.

That's my opinion, but then again I don't start with the premise that Dems are completely, irretrievably useless.

[AtomicKitten]

28. It should be the litmus test for 2006 candidates.

It would be a crime not to impeach.

[Lerkfish]

55. THANK YOU! "It's a crime NOT to impeach" well put.

[mtnsnake]

65. Likewise to what lerkfish said!

and once again.......

:toast:

[calimary]

30. Me! Me! Over here! ME!

I think Henry Waxman won't be difficult to talk into this.

Boxer's already endorsed Feingold's censure resolution.

YES. I WILL be demanding IMPEACHMENT hearings, exactly one minute after they're sworn back in for the start of the next Congress. Give 'em time to have their pictures taken, and then - TO WORK!

[wryter2000]

32. I'll be for impeachment investigations in 2007

I won't support a tilting-at-windmills impeachment effort before the 2006 election. It'll only fail, and it'll make impeachment later more difficult. If we don't win the House in 2006, we'll have to do it, anyway.

However, I think a full investigation, with subpenas and under oath, is potentially more important than the impeachment itself. If we just impeach without rubbing all the Freepers' noses in what Bush has done, they'll only see it as persecution by the "Bush haters." The must be forced to confront all the lies, theft, and crimes their darlings have perpetrated on them as well as the rest of the world community.

[SaveElmer]

33. No I won't...

I honestly do not think it is the most important thing to do. It is gonna take all the energy we have to roll back the disastrous policies Bush has put into place over the last 6 years. And though a significant percentage of people say they would support impeachment, I have yet to see a poll that shows it at the top of peoples priority list.

[AtomicKitten]

36. I disagree.

In light of Waxman's oversight issues (an index of atrocities committed by this administration), I believe impeachment is something that MUST be done if only to make it clear what has transpired over the past five years is flat-out wrong. It's too much to sweep under the carpet. Indeed undoing their disastrous policies will be an overwhelming task, but it must be prefaced by the formal declaration that American will not abide the abject corruption shown by this administration.

[SaveElmer]

38. How will it be accomplished...?

In order for this to work, we have to take back the House...and enough Senators to get 67 for conviction. It is not going to happen.

Not only that, the American people have got to be convinced that impeachment is so important that it must be the first priority of the new Congress. I don't see that happening either.

And in the end what good will it accomplish? Say by some miracle Bush is impeached and convicted? Well then we get Dick Cheney. Meanwhile, unless the American people are absolutely convinced that impeachment is a high priority, Democrats get raked over the coals for putting political retribution above the interests of the country.

[AtomicKitten]

42. It will start with investigations.

Keep in mind much of the information we know has been concealed from the general public. The investigations will be hugely damaging, the information ferreted out will reignite the outrage the public felt with Katrina, torture, etc. Even if impeachment is ultimately not successful by virtue of the vote, and voting against it will look really bad for the Republicans under the circumstances and in light of the low threshold they used for their vote against Clinton, it will hamstring the Republicans for a long, long time.

[SaveElmer]

43. Well I hope you are right...

But unless the evidence that comes out is so clear and compelling the right wing noise machine cannot muddy the waters, I don't see impeachment becoming a high priority with the American people.

In order to convince me the evidence that the country would be immeasurably better off with impeachment proceedings must be overwhelming. I'm not willing to risk the opportunity to repeal the disastrous Bush policies on less than that!

[pat_k]

60. To be effective, Dems must worrying about what "they" might do

. . .unless the evidence that comes out is so clear and compelling the right wing noise machine cannot muddy the waters. . .

Screw the Republican noise machine. We have to stop obsessing about what the reactionary right is doing, or might do, or did do.

A battered woman can only hope to escape when she stops obsessing about her abuser ("what is he gonna do?" or "what can I do to placate him?" or "will he beat me tonight?") and starts focusing on her options and the practical steps she must take to attend to her own interests -- and to hell with what he might do in response.

The key is realizing that your abuser is going to keep abusing you whatever you do. Since you have no real control over his actions, you might as well stop trying to read his mind and do what you have to get to safety.

Our Party is suffering from a terrible case of battered Democrats syndrome. If we hope to recover, we must stop obsessing about what "they" will do to us. The Democrats so rarely take on the big fights, there is absolutely NO WAY to predict how things will play out. Deciding whether or not to act must be based on whether or not the goal is worth fighting for.

The reactionary right is gonna call us names no matter what we do, so why the heck are we worrying about WHAT they'll call us next?

"Democratic strategists" are so obsessed with what fascists might do, they advise against doing anything that might provoke a reaction. As a result, Dems fold to the opposition (standing against them could provoke them) and only go after the crumbs that the fascists will let them have (if we ask for me, they'll get upset). The meager "victories" inspire no one. Folding to the opposition is viewed with disdain.

It's time to reject this dysfunctional way of thinking. Instead of going after crumbs, we have to go for what we want -- the whole kit-n-caboodle. Instead of being immobilized by visions of defeat, we must stand up and fight for our values and principles.

[Zodiak]

77. awesome post, pat n/t

[riona]

80. what i'm afraid of is

if something isn't done to stop this administration path of destruction, we will no longer recognize our founding fathers' precious gift.

[pat_k]

108. Yes, we have a big repair job ahead. . .

. . . but it's job I'm confident we can do.

Perhaps the hardest part is going to be facing the truth as a nation and coming terms with the fact that our Constitution has been in breach since December 12th, 2000.

Impeaching Bush and Cheney is part of facing the truth as a nation. Handing them over to the Hague is part of it. Impeaching the felonious five for Bush v. Gore is part of it.

These are things I will be fighting for. Even if we have to impeach these guys posthumously, so be it.

I think it is important to remind ourselves that this fight is not just for us. Once upon a time, people in other countries looked to the American people for help in crisis -- sometimes we failed them, but those failures did not cut off hope that the good will of the American people could be mobilized to intervene and effect change for the better.

By stealing our elections and acting outside our constitutional bounds, the new American fascists have cut us out of the loop. Looking to the American people is no longer an option. We are hostage to a rogue administration, and people around the world know it. Countries that might have been inclined to work to our mutual benefit have disengaged. When they do business with Bush, they know they are no longer doing business with America (e.g., under Clinton, we got tips from unexpected places that allowed us to thwart terrorist attacks. We are getting no such help today.)

Despite the gravity of our national predicament, I have enormous hope for the future. The horrors of this administration are motivating ordinary citizens to stand up and act. Yes, we are in crisis, but ordinary people are responding and effectively organizing themselves.

Repairing our constitutional democracy means establishing institutions and processes that promote REAL bottom-up decision-making. I'm optimistic because I see signs that the process is underway and gaining momentum.

I don't look to elected officials and candidates to help us increase our power and influence with them. For that, I look to my fellow citizens. I firmly believe that the rising tide of citizen action will do more to repair this country than any elected official or candidate can. (Our "leaders" are the ones who ultimately take the necessary action, but they are going to need us to drag them in the right direction.)

As we connect with each other to lobby for Impeachment, Censure, or Believable Elections, whether we win or lose a given fight, we are moving forward. The simple act of connecting with our fellow citizens is a powerful force.

[onenote]

87. what investigations?

If we don't recapture the House, there will be no investigations.

[mtnsnake]

97. Stop worrying about "If we don't recapture the House"

Don't worry about that kind of shit. Worry about shit when shit happens.

Think positive, my friend! If you must worry, plan for either scenario, but don't worry about the negative one in the meantime!

[pat_k]

52. The time for members to shed the bonds of complicity is NOW. . .

. . .All a member of Congress needs to do is stand up and accuse Bush and Cheney of their crimes.

Every day, every member of Congress faces an inescapable choice:

Remain an accomplice for another day
OR
Open their mouths, accuse Bush and Cheney of their crimes, and demand accountability.

Conyers and Feingold have given their colleagues a way to break their silence. Members of the Senate can co-sponsor Censure RIGHT NOW. Members of the House can co-sponsor Conyers resolution RIGHT NOW.

These are first steps in exposing the administration's crimes.

If the Democrats won't stand up to Bush's efforts to undermine our constitutional democracy, how can the nation look to them to stand up to terrorists?

Rationalizations for delay must be rejected. A battered wife who says "I'd better wait until tomorrow to leave" is just giving her abuser another day to abuse.

Delay = Denial that the situation is critical.

When faced with a difficult task, everyone tends to grasp for all sorts of rationalizations that it will be "better" not to start today. To be effective, we must learn to reject the rationalizations. Things are no different in the political arena.

As we confront our "leaders" and challenge the rationalizations they invoke for failing to stand up for Censure or for Conyers resolution, we are challenging rationalizations that block them in many, many other situations. Once a rationalization is clobbered (e.g., once "can't happen, so don't try" has been knocked down), it is less likely to be resurrected in other situations.

Then What?

Ultimately, the nation must face the truth -- that as long as the rogue Bush administration is in power, the United States of America has NO Moral Authority and is incapable of doing ANYTHING positive at home or abroad. Every day that our leaders "keep mum" the spread of this truth is delayed.

When we recognize the reality of our situation, it becomes clear that Impeachment belongs at the top of every agenda.

Want a shot at making progress in Iraq? The first step is to force Bush, Cheney, and their co-conspirators from power and hand them over to the Hague. (They must answer to the world court for the war crimes they committed in our name.) This is the only way to restore our moral authority.

With legitimate leadership, we have a shot at rebuilding trust, renewing international relationships, relinquishing claims on Iraq, getting out of the way, and defining terms for reparations.

On the domestic front, as long as the rogue administration remains in power, our laws and regulations aren't worth the paper they are printed on. The fascist Bush syndicate refuses to enforce and flagrantly violates those laws. We must face facts and stop supporting the pretense of their legitimacy operating as if things are "politics as usual."

Want to see positive action on the environment? Impeach Bush and Cheney, restore legitimate government, and renew participation in shaping rational global policy.

Want to shift the cost of citizenship from those who benefit least from our common infrastructure to those who benefit most? You guessed it. Impeach Bush and Cheney, repeal their lunatic tax kick backs to the rich, and take it from there.

[BootinUp]

57. You are correct. n/t

[radio4progressives]

101. Conyers has Impeachment Procedures ready to go for Both Bush & Cheney

On the long list of crimes Bush is guilty of, Cheney is more guilty of.

We all know that, and so does Conyers.. which is why the effort will be to impache BOTH at the same time.

That is to say, if the Democratic Party LEADERSHIP doesn't block the road to impeachment with machinations and rationalizations that we have to now focus on the 2008 elections.. blah blah blah blah

[Clarkie1]

59. Agreed...in addition all it would do is elevate Cheney.

We cannot let revenge distract us from issues that immediately affect the American people. They will not forgive us for that.

[pat_k]

34. What are you waiting for?? Send the letter. Go talk to your rep.

Lobby him/her to co-sponsor HR 635 (Conyer's Res).

Find out if anyone in your state is lobbying your state's legislature to exercise their right under Section 603 of the United States House Rules to initiate impeachment proceedings by transmitting charges to Congress in a joint resolution.

Contact your Senators. Make the case to co-sponsor Censure NOW. This is an action that is on the table right NOW and will be viewed as a test for impeachment. We need to help every Senator to recognize that they face an inescapable choice: Duty or Complicity. Break your silence now, or continue to be an accomplice.

Dialog is far more effective than one way communication. Influence requires back and forth. Without back and forth, the things we tell them in email and calls have a tough time getting through their fog of rationalization.

When you call, or visit, ask for a specific member of the staff -- the Judiciary LA (legislative assistant) is probably the best bet. To get the name, go to congress.org => Your Member of Congress, and then click the Staff Members button.
. . . More

[mtnsnake]

53. I'm waiting until Nov 8th to send it. Here's why

I have 2 letters, each one depending on a different outcome of the election (I can give you a link to them if you want because I posted them about 6 weeks ago). Each one is promoting the idea of impeachment.

One is if we take back the House and one is in case we don't, heaven forbid. That is why I'm waiting until the day after the elections to send them the particular letter that I mentioned in the OP. You may be right, though. Maybe I should send a version of them sooner.

BTW, I welcome your advice, but I don't appreciate you telling me to 'break my silence now or continue to be an accomplice'. Remaining "silent" or being an "accomplice" in the manner you suggested could not be further from reality. When it comes to impeaching Bush, I've been as vocal as anyone. I've started threads on it, and I've posted countless posts about it, all expressing my wishes to see him impeached, so you might want to be more careful about who you're making that particular suggestion about.

Back to the letters you told me to mail. I posted them here on this forum over a month ago, just in case anyone else wanted to do a similar thing in their own words to help the idea of impeachment along. If you want, I'd be glad to find the link to that post and supply it for you so you can read each letter. Then maybe you'll understand why I'm planning on waiting until after the elections to mail one of them.

[pat_k]

105. "Break your. . ." = A message to Senators (not private citizens)

Apologies for the ambiguity in my post.

The message, "inescapable choice: Duty or Complicity. Break your silence now, or continue to be an accomplice," is the message "we need to help every Senator recognize."

It might have been clearer if I had used a dash instead of a period.

. . . We need to help every Senator to recognize that they face an inescapable choice: Duty or Complicity -- break your silence now, or continue to be an accomplice.

We haven't taken the Congressional oath. Although "need" could be viewed as a directive, I intended "we need to help every" to be a recommendation.

Because private citizens do not have an express duty to act, their inaction does not give the criminals "cover."

But, when a member of Congress "keeps mum," it is quite a different matter. They have a duty to be on the look out for threats to, and violations of, the principles and institutions we established under our Constitution.

Our President and other high-officials are violating constitutional principle and corrupting our institutions -- and they are doing it in plain sight. When members of Congress turn a blind eye to this, they are providing cover (i.e., as long as they "keep mum," Bush, Cheney, and their co-conspirators can claim "If we were abusing power and corrupting the United States government, members of Congress would be taking action as required by their oath. Congress is not acting, ergo; we are doing nothing wrong.)

Each member of Congress who participates in providing cover is, in essense, an accomplice after the fact.

When private citizens don't call for action, they are not providing "cover." (Claims that the crimes are not crimes because citizens are not demanding action is no defense -- citizens don't have a sworn duty to act.)

Although I wish I had been clearer, if it is any consolation, your response helped me to clarify my own thinking.

If it isn't a hassle, I'd be interested in checking out your letters (and assume others would be too).

And, in case you're interested, as my "conversations" here on DU help me work things out, I've tried to pull ideas together. The following are a few of the "works in progress."

To Impeach, or Not Impeach? That's the Wrong Question

Impeachment First: Our House is Burning. Stop Remodeling and Put Out the Fire!

How to Resist the Fascist Take-Over: Banishing Fascist Fantasies from the "Marketplace of Ideas"

Impeachment: A Campaign's Tactical Nuke

Stop Election Thieves RIGHT NOW: No Legislation Required (Really)

[mtnsnake]

109. Thank you

for the posts and for taking the time to clarify that and for all those articles you posted at the bottom of your post. Nice work! I read the first one, scanned the rest, and am looking forward to reading them all in the near future.

As to those letters I wrote, sure, if you'd like to take a look. I wrote them up really quickly at the time, so I'm sure they'll be subject to some change. For example, looking at them now, I'm not sure, but in places I might sound like I'm holding them (the people I end up sending the letter to) hostage to my demands for impeachment in exchange for my future support...& maybe I should tone it down a bit. Anyway, here's a link to them:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2437641

[skyblue]

35. Elections.

Not if we lose credibility. If impeached does that mean Cheney takes over. I say let the RW f itself over which it seems to be doing really well at lately. Tho' i'd like to see more attention paid to informing the public about certain disconnects between the truth and the RW truth if that will be of significant help for '06.

[pat_k]

40. One of the many rationalizations for weak-kneed inaction that we must . .

. . .challenge.

. . .
And of course the entire evening was peppered to some degree with our usual rationalizations for inaction: "but we'll just get Cheney" -- "we must wait 'till we take the house" -- "what about electoral backlash." Not to mention the lobby talk about futility, being doomed, and confident pronouncements of "never gonna happen."

So, how do we overcome this -- what do we do right now?
. . .Read Senator's Journal Entry

[skyblue]

45. Better off with Cheney as President?

Ok, so we'd be better with Cheney as President?

I think it may be a bit of a waste of time and energy to do all that and that the lead we now enjoy could be threatened.
If I say "Impeach" then I guess that means my ilk is more "courageous" or more of a "fool". I hate these cheap labels. I don't have any articles off hand, but I really do think that the average voter would be alienated at this time by this action, and at this time we do enjoy a public opinion that is against the RW. "Impeach" has a preaching to the choir feel to it tho' while ignoring the general public.

I do have weak knees at this time, as well as some other joints here and there. So in that case you're exactly correct.

[Jack Rabbit]

46. Cheney is guilty of everthing Bush is and more

War profiteering. Influence peddling. Setting up no bod contracts for a company that hold his retirement account. He's in on Torture.

There won't be any trouble bringing charges against that rat bastard. They're both going.

The gist of your post are right on. What would be the point of impeaching Bush and not Cheney? We don't need impeachment. We need a regime change.

[pat_k]

64. And, for war crimes, they must be handed over the the Hague. . .

They violated international law. After we have impeached and removed them for crimes against our constitutional democracy, it's off the Hague to answer for the war crimes and torture they committed in our name.

It is the only way to redeem ourselves.

[pat_k]

63. Wrong question

With regard to criminal activities of in the judiciary or executive branches, Congress has a duty that is akin to any law enforcement agency. Members are sworn to support and defend the Constitution. When they have sufficient evidence to suspect that high-officials have violated or pose a threat to our constitutional democracy, they are bound by duty to act.

If the police have the goods on the leaders of a criminal syndicate, they have a duty to act. They do not stop to ask whether or not they will successfully catch, convict, and punish the criminals. They do not ask whether the criminals' friends will call them names. They do not hold back because prosecution could fail and leave one of the bad guys in charge.

They go after the criminals. They seek to bring them to justice, come what may.

Congress is no different.

[Savannah Progressive]

68. Our Beltway Dems haven't worried about duty so far.

They vote constantly with the Repugniks, usually right after promising us that they will fight for our civil rights, or our beliefs, or whatever.

I keep waiting for them to remember their duty, and so far, it seems to be the furthest thing from their minds.

[pat_k]

89. You can do more than wait. You can go talk to them (or their staff)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=676532&mesg_id=689323

[Donald Ian Rankin]

74. You're wrong about the police analogy.

The police *don't* charge people unless and until they think they have a chance of a conviction. It doesn't necessarily have to be a very great chance, but they certainly don't try and charge people they know they *can't* get convicted.

The principle is exactly the same with impeachment, I think, which is why I oppose it, and will do so unless/until it looks as though the chance of it succeeding is non-zero.

[pat_k]

88. The analogy is valid. I said "successfully convict" (i.e., guarantee)

. . .
If the police have the goods on the leaders of a criminal syndicate, they have a duty to act. They do not stop to ask whether or not they will successfully catch, convict, and punish the criminals. . .

"Have the goods" = Have sufficient evidence

"Successfully catch, convict, and punish" = guaranteed success (i.e., they do not refrain from action if success isn't guaranteed.)

[cascadiance]

41. Impeach them BOTH!

If we wait until the Dems retake the House and hopefully the Senate in 2006, then we'll have the votes to do it, and we can make sure it's done properly to not allow "pardon escapes" either and have Nancy Pelosi take over instead of Dennis Hastert.

Censure is good now, as it puts everyone on record as to where they stand, and we can see who we should vote for to ensure this gets done.

If we don't impeach, even if we control congress in that situation, it still will be hard as hell to get any significant reforms done with Bush sitting there with the veto button! We need that element out of the process so that we don't get forced into failed veto overrides...

If nothing else, the threat of an impeachment might give Bushco second thoughts about being to hasty with vetos, if we stipulate that if he stands in the way, we WILL impeach him for sure with NO mercy afterwards!

On the other hand, I don't think we should place any conditions on whether we should impeach or not. As Nike would say, JUST DO IT!

[skyblue]

47. Conditions: Will it help, Or Will it Hurt?

Absolutely, put conditions any time you make a decision which could help or hurt an election: Especially if it is a BIG DECISION such as this one. It's not what color table linens to choose, it's an Impeachment.

And secondly perhaps there are bigger issues that should be examined, perhaps. Such as the Bush Budget, or a laundry list of who he hires to fill what cabinet position that's supposed to aid the public and turns out to be someone who aids corporations at the expense of the public.

[philly_bob]

44. Maybe me

2007 impeachment is a strategic question. Strategy can be subtle.

Grounds for impeachment are certainly there. But do I want to make Dick Cheney president?

If it's a choice between putting my attention on impeachment and putting my attention on fixing the broken voting system, slowing media consolidation, and prosecuting lobbyist-corrupted Republican legislators, I'd have to think about it.

[SnookieDog]

49. Nothing bad happens if we try and fail . . . so, why not go for it?

I gotta believe there is at least a 50/50 chance of success. And if we don't make it to impeachment, at least we tried. Not trying is unacceptable.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

75. I disagree, I'm afraid.

I think that if the Democrats try and fail to impeach Bush, it will severely damage their chances at the subsequent election.

And the chance of success is 0/100, not 50/50, I'm afraid. Count the number of Republicans in the Senate and Congress.

[onenote]

91. here's something bad that could happen

We energize the repub base which otherwise will be disheartened, thereby hurting our chances in 2008. Keep in mind that even if we recapture the House, it takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict and that's not happening. In fact, its possible that we could fail to get a majority (let alone a 2/3 majority) to convict if some Democrats from red-leaning states decide its a bad idea.

Keep in mind that while the American public is finally catching on that chimpy and his crowd are incompetent boobs, they are going to be resistant to the notion that they are "war criminals". The psyche of a great portion of the country was deeply impacted by 9/11 and while they think chimpy has screwed up big time in his pursuit and conduct of the Iraq war, they still think that there are "bad guys" out there and they aren't going to be willing to equate chimpy with those "bad guys". Its a relativism game and we'll pay a price when the repubs fight back against impeachment by saying that the Democrats believe chimpy is a bigger threat to the country than al quaida. Stupid, bullshit argument? Sure. Effective. You bet it will be.

onenote

[mtnsnake]

98. Oh geez, so we better not impeach because something BAD might happen

C'mon, onenote. Ya gotta gamble once in a while, especially when we're talking about bringing some sort of justice, ANY kind of justice, against a president who is SO vile, SO corrupt, SO fucking evil, that impeachment is almost too good for the bastard. He deserves a lot worse than impeachment for chrise sakes!!

[onenote]

106. I'm not going to "gamble" on impeachment at the cost of winning elections

First of all, if the repubs still control the House, an impeachment effort isn't a gamble, at least in the sense that there are any odds of winning. And history will, in all likelihood, render its verdict about chimpy. But if he deserves worse than impeachment, why would handing him a guaranteed victory -- a victory that will energize his side and demoralize our side -- be a good thing? I'd rather get my "justice" by working as hard as possible to get as many Democrats elected, first in 2006, and then again in 2008. Humiliating defeats for the repubs in those elections will serve my sense of justice fine.

onenote

[bush_is_wacko]

56. Reading the responses here makes me want to scream...

If THIS guy isn't impeachable who the hell is? These are not minuscule crimes!

I don't give a rat's ass about the future of the Democratic party if my COUNTRY is at risk!

Clean up my government... I don't care what letter you have before or after your name as long as you clean it up! Party does NOT come before country.

Anyone here against impeachment ought to list as many of pretzel boy's crimes as they can remember and THEN reconsider their stance on impeachment.

Responses like these are one of the major reasons I reduced the amount of time I spend here.

P-A-R-T-Y should NOT come before C-O-U-N-T-R-Y!

[Clarkie1]

58. Would Cheney as President be any better? n/t

[mtnsnake]

61. Is impeaching at least 1 of them better than nothing? Besides, we've

already got Cheney for President, I'm afraid.

Also, who says we have to stop at Bush? ;)

[Clarkie1]

62. O.K., let's do a cost benefit analysis.

Impeachment gives us:

a great feeling of revenge and justice
removal of a lame-duck president
support for those who say the Democrats don't know how to lead, only how start a partisan attack (that's what they will say)

not impeaching gives us:
more time to focus on health care, education reform, veterans benefits, a congressional mandate to change our foreign policy, better environmental laws...all more quickly without tying the congress up for months in impeachment proceedings.

I'll wait and see where we are at after November, but right now the logical answer is no...impeachment is not in the best interests of the American people. They want change, not a trial. Removing a lame-duck president isn't much of a change that benefits the American people.

Shooting a dead duck is a waste of ammo.

[Iowa]

66. Another view...

You said:

"Impeachment gives us:
a great feeling of revenge and justice
removal of a lame-duck president
support for those who say the Democrats don't know how to lead, only how start a partisan attack (that's what they will say)"

My list of positives is even shorter than yours:

Impeachment gives us:
a return to the rule of law


It seems to me that nothing else really matters here. If we start down that road where the law applies to some but not others, eventually everything will be reduced to guns and ammunition. It's not a matter of revenge, it's a matter of preserving those very fragile ideals that prevent an ordered society from becoming a chaotic one.

Our congress sends young people off to their deaths to fight in wars about nothing. They can devote some of their precious congressional time to preserving the rule of law, while simultaneously addressing health care, education reform, veterans benefits, etc.

[Clarkie1]

67. impeachment is not about law, it's about politics.

Example A: Bill Clinton

If impeachment were a legal proceeding to determine guilt or innocence it would take place in a courtroom, not the chambers of congress.

That said, I agree of course the current administration has engaged in illegal activity.

I do not agree that impeachment proceedings and other items of legislative importance can realistically proceed simultaneously.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

76. You've certainly got the right approach, but there's another factor.

What you need to weigh is not "benefit of impeachment" vs "benefit of not trying to impeach" but

"Benefit of impeachment" x "probability of success" + "benefit of failed impeachment attempt" x (1 - "probability of success")

vs

"Benefit of not trying to impeach".

At present, the probability of success is 0, so the actual calculation needed is

"Benefit of failed impeachment attempt" vs "benefit of not trying to impeach".

On that one, I think the latter wins hands down. If, after the elections this autumn, impeachment has a non-zero chance of success, it might be worthwhile.

[Lerkfish]

79. "If impeachment has a non-zero chance of success, it might be worthwhile"?

so, as long as there is NO chance of success its worth doing?

not sure that's what you meant to say, or was it?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

81. What I mean

Is that if there's a chance of it succeeding, it may be worthwhile, but if there isn't, it isn't.

I *think* that's what I said, but I may be miscounting negatives, or something.

[Lerkfish]

93. yeah, I got lost in the sea of negatives, there.

thanks for clarifying. :)

[mtnsnake]

85. It's just unbelievable, isn't it?

I can't believe people are weighing the benefits of one against the other....benefits of impeaching vs benefits of not impeaching. Un-fricken-real.

It should be a no-brainer, period. Anyway, I'm glad you're on board, along with so many other people, too!

:toast:

[Lerkfish]

92. thanks! SAME to you!

:toast:

Justice is an investment. If you start using it now, later you have more. If you give up on justice until you have more, you never will.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

100. Unfortunately,

The benefits of impeaching are irrelevant, because it's not possible. What needs to be weighed are the benefits of trying and failing to impeach and the benefits of not trying to impeach.

That's not quite a no-brainer, but I think it's fairly clear that trying and failing will do more harm than good.

[mtnsnake]

102. Impeachment's not possible?? What are you talking about?

"The benefits of impeaching are irrelevant, because it's not possible."

Do you realize it only takes a one vote majority to impeach?

I think you've got impeachment and conviction mixed up.

Conviction would take a 2/3 majority, something which probably won't happen, but could lead to Bush's resignation, rather than him taking any chances on an actual vote to convict. Regardless, impeachment is a very distinct possibility, come November.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

103. Ah, sorry.

I was talking about at present, but rereading the OP I can see they weren't. If there are sufficient votes after November to make it possible then I might well support it, although I certainly won't if it isn't, despite the OP's demands.

[sandnsea]

69. Tough call

If we can do a twofer and get rid of Cheney and Bush and elevate the Dem Speaker of the House, and get it done in less than a week, then I'm in. Since that isn't likely, I don't think so. We've got too much shit to clean up. I prefer sitting vigil in DC and not letting the man do anything except sign every friggin' bill the Dems send up. And then forcing him to live out his life on his beloved ranch in Crawford. He wanted to play cowboy.

[Senator]

71. I won't: Waiting that long invalidates the demand as rank partisanship...

...and might even make it more difficult to persuade a public well-trained into deep apathy and cynicism.

Besides, if you think censure/impeachment is warranted, failure to demand it immediately says what about your principles and courage?

Personally, I expect to be nearly out of breath, energy, and money by then from demanding that people do what they know in their hearts is right, and letting the chips fall where they may.

--
www.january6th.org

[Freddie Stubbs]

82. What would the point be if Republicans still control Congress?

:shrug:

[mtnsnake]

90. One word

pride

[Freddie Stubbs]

95. For some reason, the pride of losing doesn't isn't that appealing

to most.

[onenote]

96. what exactly will this impeachment effort involve

if we don't recapture the House? Every Democrat in the House can sign onto a resolution calling for impeachment. It will get referred to the Judiciary Committee and it will never be heard from again.

We can all walk around for a day or so with the glow of pride all over us.

Then what?

onenote

[mtnsnake]

99. No. You can walk around for ONE day like that

I'll walk around for the REST OF MY LIFE, knowing that at least we TRIED, and I'll sleep a lot better for our effort.

[onenote]

104. you do your thing, I'll do mine

Mine will be working to get Democratic candidates elected. And once that happens, then I'll sleep better.

onenote

[Lerkfish]

94. and yet, without backbones and principle, they still will.

mark my words. If we continue with this "centrist" milquetoast routine, there will be no improvement come november.

[radio4progressives]

107. Sandra Day O'Connor heading Impeachment Mop Op Operation

It was disclosed last night that Sandra Day O'Connor is a member of the so called "blue ribbon" "Iraq Panel", along with the Texas Bush Man & Puppet Master Jim Baker, along with 9/11 cheif cover up commissioner, Lee Hamilton and others, touted to be a "bi-partisan" panel of advisors to win the war in Iraq.

Apparently this was reported a couple of weeks ago, but i didn't discover this until watching Larry King last night, when Alan Simpson mentioned this and mentioned who the panel members were.

This may be what ultimately promted Feingold to act when he did with the Censure resolution, the timing is in sync just about with the timing of when that panel was initially announced....

I think it should be crystal clear, that sole purpose for O'Connor being on this panel is to mop up Bush's impeachable offences from the lies on WMD's, to Torture and so on.

just speculating, on that point.. but you wait and see...

being discussed in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2526109&mesg_id=2526109