For those not in favor of impeachment .... what would change your mind?

[Stinky The Clown]

This question is being posted at face value and is NOT intended to incite a flame war. I am an impeachment hawk but am fully respectful of anyone who has given it thought and still opposes it.

For the other impeachment hawks, please try not to incite a flame war here. The question is asked to learn, not to excoriate people with a different viewpoint. If you wish to fight, please have the courtesy to start your own thread.

[China_cat]

1. The only reason I can't support impeachment now

is that it is not likely to include the whole bunch and we would end up with Cheney in the big office. And that's scarier than just about any other solution.

[eallen]

6. Why is a wounded President Cheney scarier than an unbloodied VP Cheney?

I've never understood why anyone would think that Cheney would be worse on his own, after Bush was impeached, than he is now. Successful impeachment would leave Cheney a mere figurehead for a disgraced administration, merely marking out the last year (at most).

[China_cat]

8. Because Cheney is sneaky

and the power of the presidency would allow him to hide things that, at the moment at least have a chance of being uncovered. And I think his first act would be to make sure that he wouldn't be leaving when his time was up.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

38. I agree completely.

Another reason why I would not support impeachment is that both he and cheney should be arrested for war crimes and crimes against humanity, sent to Gitmo and treated just like many of those inmates were. forget a trial, an impeachment or any civil rights. treat them just like they treat others.

[Mikey929]

41. Dangerous

That's an awfully dangerous proposition. Please don't let anger and the desire for vengeance cloud your judgment. No trial? I'm sure you would support the right to a fair trial for everyone, otherwise you are just as power-hungry and corrupt as the very ones you seek to destroy.

Our ideals and values must be maintained, even in difficult times. If we live in a land where our leaders can simply be marched off to prison without a trial, then we no longer live in America.

[fuzzyball]

52. Because then Tom Delay would be the VP

and that scares me even more.

[tavalon]

33. I think it would do him good to get a little light shined on him while he's doing

his nasty deeds. As it stands now, he is the strongest VP ever, with next to no oversight. Not good. Besides, having the world watching him would give him another coronary within a month or two and that one would probably kill him but probably not before killing any chance of another Rethug in the Whitehouse come 2008. Seems like a win/win/win to me.

[mopinko]

45. see this thread- pres cheney is a canard

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2991125

[ProudDad]

48. Fine, there's no law against

impeaching them BOTH!!

Two for one. Save money and time...

[Greatwildbeast]

70. If Bush and Cheney made the shit list (below)

Would it change anyone's mind?


GOPerverts:

Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.

Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.

Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.

Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.

Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.

Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.

Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.

Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.

Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.

Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.

*Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

*Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.

Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.

Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.

Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.

Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.

Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.


*Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.

Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.

*Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.

Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.

*Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.

Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.

Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.

Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.

Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.

*Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.

Republican politician Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).

Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was charged with sexual misconduct involving a 15-year old girl.

*Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.

Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.

Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.

Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.

*Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.

Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.

Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.

Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.

*Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.

Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.

Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.

Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was charged with rape for allegedly paying a 15-year old girl for sex. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.

[Webster Green]

2. Most of the anti-impeachment posts are absurd..

The general theme is: Don't impeach....let's investigate first.

Well.....fucking DUH!

Of course there will be evidence presented during an impeachment.

I've seen a lot of energy wasted on an apparent non-issue.

[SaveElmer]

14. There is a difference...

Between investigations as a part of normal oversight...and impeachment investigations set up for that purpose...

The former is of course entirely proper...the latter would be a mistake unless significant groundwork were laid by the former...so overwhelming in its scope that no option but impeachment were appropriate...

I hear many on these boards call for impeachment proceedings on Day 1, and other such nonsense...

[cali]

28. Well I'm one of those you have such contempt for

and I return the favor for you folks who think a rush to impeach is wise. We need exhaustive investigations to get the American people and legislators on board. They must be funneled into a place where NOT impeaching and convicting is politically untenable.

[SaveElmer]

3. Evidence would have to be so overwhelming...

And well documented, that even independents and some Republicans would have to be convinced that impeachment was the only option...

We came near to this with Watergate...

Otherwise, it will be seen in the media, and by the people I am afraid, as partisan revenge, that not only would ruin any chance of rolling back the harm this administration has done to working folks over the last 6 years, but could very well endanger our majority.

[onenote]

19. I agree with SaveElmer

[JeremyWestenn]

22. And this is why I do not support impreachment currently.

It's not to say that I don't think Bush is impeachable, or that many things he's done now are reason to impeach. But the problem is that half of the American population is divided on the wire tapping, so impeachment won't be largely supported or welcomed by the Republicans that jumped ship and gave us our majority. We will have investigations, we know that much to be true, not investigations regarding impeachment but investigations in general about the war, buil up, etc. If those investigations start to unearth impeachable things, that are blatantly illegal, and we gain traction with the vast majority of the American people and a good portion of the Republicans then we can impeach.

But you know what, I'll say something most people here will HATE. I don't want to impeach anyone in the White House right now that might make us loose our majority by dividing and pissing off the majority of Americans. I'd rather keep the House for 8-12 years and potentially the Senate for as long, if not longer.

Color me wrong if you believe but I'm looking ahead.

Majority> Impeachment.

[luckyleftyme2]

30. BUSH IS COUNTING ON PEOPLE LIKE YOU

My fear is that they will let this bunch of the hook again.We as a people have to send a message that corruption is not tolerated in our government.
Otherwise it will rise up again in a few years. The elected is merely a puppet of the powerfull. The real agenda is not set in the publics view,but behind cooperate board rooms.

[onenote]

34. I could just as easily argue that the repubs are counting on people like you

Assuming that you are someone who thinks that impeachment should be made a top priority of the Democratic Party, and thus demonized as partisan revenge, rather than focusing on oversight and investigations that might lead to a bipartisan effort at impeachment.

[qwlauren35]

36. Frankly, this gets at the heart of my desire.

I want to see Bush prosecuted after he steps down. And jailed. Impeachment is messy and disruptive. Jailing him after the fact STILL sends a message to future politicians - you will not escape wickedness. You get to hide for 8 years, tops.

[crispini]

39. What SaveElmer said.

Investigations with an eye towards impeachment? Sure, fine. Use the big I-Word in the backroom all you like, Dems. Start dragging the stuff out into the light. See what's there. See if the evidence convinces even some .... dare I say MOST.... Republicans. Otherwise, it's just a partisan thing.

[ProudDad]

49. The EVIDENCE is IN and it's OVERWHELMING!

check it out yourself:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060130/holtzman


Of course, an intensive investigation by Congress will have to be made to inform the public about shrub and dickwad's crimes -- just as was required in '72-'74.

It took nearly 2 years to get Nixon but there was a LOT LESS EVIDENCE until the tapes were disclosed.

If the Dems are willing, they could impeach the pair by the middle of '07. President Pelosi...

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

68. Sure

As stated previously, which 16 Republican senators are going to be the ones to cross over and vote with the Democrats to give Nancy Pelosi control of the country.

[blondeatlast]

60. I was a coming-of-age political wonk in the Watergate days.

I remember watching the hearings even at 13 years old. The DC culture was much different then; regardless of their politics, nearly everyone in Congress had the country's best interest at heart.

Not so anymore, I fear.

I applaud exposure and investigation by all means, but there is much for our Congress to do and precious little time for them to do it.

Do I support impeachment? Yes. Do I want our Congress to set aside righting the wrongs committed by this corrupt cabal to do it? I'm afraid not.

[Coyote_Bandit]

4. I believe the work of government

should be inherently pragmatic. Idealogically I support the concept of impeacment. But from a pragmatic standpoint I do not. Why? Because I would much prefer that Dems pursue positive changes in government and work to secure the 2008 election. Presidential candidates for 2008 are already formally announcing their intentions. Primary season is quickly approaching. Impeachment proceedings would detract from communicating the Dem vision for the country and wwould be perceived by many as being vindictive regardless of the justification put forth. Better to have power to implement change - which is not to say that I don't think * is deserving of impeachment for many reasons.

[blondeatlast]

61. You pretty much stated my case as well. nt

[Cleita]

5. I am in favor of impeachment, but I believe those who are not

will become in favor of it if we can prove BushCo had prior knowledge, by that I mean they were given explicit details, of the 9/11 WTC attacks and did nothing about it; that they let it happen. This is what will bring down the House of Bush/Saud with a crash.

[China_cat]

10. Do you think maybe there'd be a better chance of

indictment on criminal charges AFTER he's left the WH? Impeachment might not guarantee a criminal charge and a Cheney in the WH could be Ford pardoning Nixon all over again.

[Cleita]

11. If he isn't nailed while he is in the White House, I do hope that

the law pursues him and Cheney on criminal charges after their terms are up. I don't want to see this administration walk into the sunset like the Nixon criminals and later the Iran-Contra crowd. I want them in prison for life.

[The Doctor.]

37. If he is not impeached, the Republic has failed.

After a year of investigations, the evidence will be overwhelming.

[Cleita]

46. And unfortunately there are signs that the Republic has failed.

No impeachment would seal it. You are right. Then we will have to do something more drastic to bring back our democracy.

[fuzzyball]

55. Only if the sheeple elects another republican in 2008

[JohnnyLib2]

7. I agree with Coyote_Bandit's pragmatic approach.

And sadly, there are no signs of enough votes or enough courage in the House
to make impeachment happen. If that somehow changes, I'll be all for it.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. 67

votes in the Senate.

[Crabby Appleton]

17. yep, conviction not possible.

[MrCoffee]

58. in writing, signed in blood.

without conviction, impeachment only hurts us.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

12. A massive string of legislative victories

Impeachment won't raise the minimum wage, provide health care, provide tax relief for the working poor, adequate pay for those serving under arms, put kids through schools that work, make colleges affordable again, create stem cell legislation, protect the right to collectively bargain, institute the massive oversight we need of our military budget, or rebuild the infastructure of the country that's been rotting since Eisenhower.

What it will do is tie up the legislative process for the next two years (until voters who don't have health care and feel burned for thinking that their elected represenatives might give a shit), until whatever babbling Republican fascist asshole talks pretty enough about "division and partisan bickering" to get himself elected in 2008.

The Bush legacy is done. His agenda is done. A Democratic president can roll back all the executive orders and close down all the detention facilities the day after inauguration, and a Democratic congress can begin to unfuck the country NOW. Meanwhile, people are in it rough right now.

That swing voter will cast his ballot for a Democrat next time because they found the money to get his kid through college, or got his family health care, or because maybe he's some poor bastard who's first pay raise in five years will be because of the Democrat's boosting the minimum wage. Impeachment is for those with the time and the money to spend arguing about it on the internet.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

13. Oh, and also

Impeachment has about as much chance of passing the House or being voted for conviction in the Senate as a bill to create mandatory collectivized farming, or National Bondage and Self Love Appreciation Day.

Let's not waste peoples time.

[ProudDad]

51. You underestimate

the power of public opinion...just as Nixon did...

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

63. Go fact check

And get a better idea of HOW DEEP Nixon had to be in before even the most moderate Republicans were even willing to consider impeachment.

Have you seen a single poll done by a major firm that even gives over 30% of the public ready for this?

[ProudDad]

71. Yes!

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

[ProudDad]

50. You don't know much about the veto do you?

Remove shrub and dickhead -- get President Nancy and then pass some good stuff into law. No way to do any of it with those two f*cks in charge...

It's true though that the Dems don't have the cajones to pass all of this either -- even if there was a "centrist" Dem president...

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

64. DRRRRRRRRRR

Please name the 16 persuadable Republican senators who will be willing to cross the divide to remove a sitting Republican president AND vice president, with the prospect of Nancy Pelosi as president.

In the real world, a majority of the population will get behind the above mentioned legislation. Fuck, we have polling data, the majority of the American people ARE behind it.

[pnwmom]

15. Because impeachment in the House without a conviction

in the Senate -- which would require a 2/3 majority that we don't have -- would be equivalent to an indictment followed by a not guilty verdict. I don't want him to be able to say he's "not guilty."

I'd rather make him wallow in investigations for the next two years and not give him a chance to wash all the mud off in a shower in the Senate, where he would be vindicated.

If the situation changes so that many Republicans would vote for impeachment, then that would change everything.

[Tell Them The Truth]

16. B-lizzle will never be impeached.

I agree with the other posts on the fact that impeachment will have a negative effect in 2008, and I also feel that there are other reasons for not attempting an impeachment at this point.

For starters I just want to say that, should The B-man be taken down, I am 100% behind impeachment. I just don't believe that there is a snowball's chance in hell of congress stepping up to the plate for this one.

1.) It's his final term.
2.) It's way to late in said final term to really accomplish anything. All that an impeachment process would do at this point is further distract the country from the war, and by the time the proceedings were over, Jr. would be out of office all together; taking into account that there would first be the investigation, then the presentation of evidence, then the appeals by the administration about the validity of the evidence and the dangers that the evidence may present to national security, and then the final consideration of the evidence, followed at last by a ruling, which would also face opposition.
3.) The skin-of-our-teeth majority that Demos have in congress is in no way strong enough to pull the thing off. The newly elected officials aren't going to risk their jobs to rock the boat so close to the dock.

I am sure that to some I am just talking out of my ass, but to the rest of you I can only say: This too shall pass, and we can only hope that by the time it does pass Armageddon hasn't been unleashed upon the world.

[pnwmom]

20. Welcome to DU, Tell Them the Truth.

:hi:

[Buck Rabbit]

18. Legislative Gridlock

If Bush starts vetoing everything progressive and the Republicans back him up by not voting to override his vetoes then I would say go ahead and proceed on impeachment and defund Iraq. Everything supposedly not on the table goes back on the table if and when Bush lashes out in his usual 8 year old spoiled brat mode.

If the 100 hour plan is swamped by a slew of vetoes playing nice will be over. The Dems will say they tried to play nice but Bush insisted on a political war.

[Bryan]

21. The names of the two hundred and eighteen members of Congress who will vote to impeach

...and the names of the sixty-seven Senators who can be relied upon to vote to convict.

I would also note that I don't mean to come across as stupid. I realize that impeachment isn't a simple head count that can be achieved by horse-trading like some appropriations bill; it's going to take investigations, and a rationale of A+B=C simplicity that the Great Wad can accept and process into a crushingly vociferous demand which will eventually force our elected representatives to decide that there's greater capital in getting rid of Bush than there is propping him up. That's why I don't get angry with the "Impeach NOW!" people, because each of them help to spread the meme.

[omega minimo]

23. wtf

"For the other impeachment hawks, please try not to incite a flame war here. The question is asked to learn, not to excoriate people with a different viewpoint. If you wish to fight, please have the courtesy to start your own thread."

Must be a GD: P thing...

[omega minimo]

24. Apparently the answer to your question is "civics classes"

(that's government lessons for those of you who've never heard of it) :hi: :patriot:

It's sad how "strategery" has so many here squarely by the *****.


Not to "excoriate" or nuthin...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. Yes, the number of DUers who actually care about achieving something

rather than just empty posturing is tragic.

The fact that you talk about strategy as thought it's a weakness sums up the pro-impeachment position.

[omega minimo]

43. "Strategery" is to strategy what "Truthiness" is to truth

Previous exchanges with you, Mr. Rankin, result in... nothing. Legitimate questions about your position are left unanswered. Yet your version of strategery and soothsaying is repeated over and over.

Not a great endorsement for whatever your "side" is.




"The fact that you talk about strategy as thought it's a weakness sums up the pro-impeachment position."

Bollocks.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. Convince me we won't lose an opportunity to put food on peoples' tables

Provide them with health care, raise the minimum wage, strengthen the labor laws, and make college more affordable.

Impeachment is an uphill battle that won't succeed. We're fighting a media that doesn't give a shit and we're fighting a precedent with Nixon and Reagan that Presidents are above the law. Moderate and independent voters simply don't view the Bush administration as criminals because the people on CBS, NBC, and ABC don't refer to them as criminals.

I'm not one to sell out principles for politics but I just don't believe this is one that we have a prayer of a chance of winning. I think that impeachment will fail miserably in the Senate, if it even passes the House, and the GOP will take back the government in 2008 and we're back to the destruction of the middle class and possibly more escalation in Iraq.

People put the Democrats into power because they want bread and butter and they want it now and because they are tired of Iraq. If we are impeaching, we can't legislate.

[Adelante]

26. I agree with Hippo_Tron, husb

Those are the sensible reasons. We can't win it.

Also, somewhere in my heart, I wonder if the country just hasn't suffered enough under these bastards? Is yet another national trauma good for the nation or bad for the nation? The public's reaction may well be: Oh, no, not this shit again! Bye-bye 2008.

And what are we about? I go back and forth on the question of motivation. Do we want to do to Bush what they did to Clinton? Do we want revenge, not justice? If the nation had not been so coldly and cruelly distracted in the late 90s, it's possible we would not have suffered 9/11. We have a true national security mess to dig ourselves out of. We need universal health care. And so forth. I guess I question how much of impeachment fever is self-indulgent when there are so many critical issues the government should be focusing on and we need more division like a hole in the head.

All of that said, if impeachment came as the unavoidable conclusion of thorough investigations, I'm for it. That's something different, because it would have the legal basis and legitimacy that makes impeachment a responsibility. But going in the door on impeachment, no. It does nobody any good.

[ProudDad]

53. Gee, too bad MLK and the rest

didn't know that back when folks were pushing for rights for Black people. I remember Jim Crow, I lived in the segregationist south from '62 to '66. The Civil Rights folks were constantly told that they couldn't succeed. They were told to hold on and wait and not be in such a hurry. Lucky for them they knew that was bullshit...

If a core of people don't keep the pressure on and keep the idea (dream if you wish) alive these criminals will continue to get off scot free.

In addition, the Dems ain't gonna be able to do shit while shrub has the power of the veto. Remember, 67 votes to override!!!???

[Hippo_Tron]

59. Bush can't veto everything, the GOP wants to win in 2008

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

67. Mother of Christ

Are you really comparing the apartheid of blacks in the south to Bush sitting in the White House?

[ProudDad]

72. Try reading rather than spewing another knee-jerk reaction

My post was to make the point that just because something that's right and just looks like it can't be accomplished easily DOESN'T mean that one shouldn't even try to accomplish it.

If you believe in the experiment in a republic form of government that this country allegedly represents (and I don't really but, having a very flexible mind and intellect, I can make the argument anyway) you should be demanding impeachment of these slugs who've pissed on the Constitution...no matter what the difficulty in accomplishing the task...

[Senator]

27. So far, just more Rationalizing

Many just seem to be stuck on Rationalizing for Inaction.

This is not surprising as the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy is employing all their WMDs (weapons of mass distraction) to maintain their "all is well" fig leaf over reality (war crimes? what war crimes?).

Sorry, but paranoia is not practicality. And even if these fears of "loss in '08" or "not governing" were valid in themselves (they're not), they're still indefensible as an alternative to stopping the ongoing torture, the ongong spying, the ongoing "rule by signing statement."

So now, due to the inaction of our "leaders," another 20+K kids are heading off to the soul-grinder to maintain appearances.

Only Impeachment ... can stop any of it.

--

[Marie26]

29. Depends what the investigations find.

If Dems uncover some crime so massive, so egregious, that 1/3 of Senate Republicans will vote to convict.

[primative1]

31. One thing could change my mind ...

If a lengthy and public investigation of this administration yielded NO crimes commited then I would remove my support for impeachment.
Guess we all know that isnt likely.
So can we get the investigations going now?

[IndyOp]

32. I am for impeachment - it is just not the first step.

If a friend of yours was a victim of a violent crime, you would first tend to your friend and later go out and get the perpetrator. The same strategy applies now - first stop the bleeding, stabilize the patient, then go after the perp.

Stop the Bleeding:
End war in Iraq - all troops home and prevent any further military action.

Stabilize the patient:
Take care of essential needs of US citizens and treat the rest of the world with respect.

Go after ALL of the perps:
Criminals in Congress, White House, Businesses -- all of them. With jail time.

[ProudDad]

54. Nobody said it was the first step.

The first step was electing a Dem Legislature.

Then hearings -- very visible and well publicised hearings. Then Dem committment to keeping the pressure on.

The public pressure on Congress, especially the "leaners".

Then impeachment.

Who cares if he ain't convicted -- still gotta try!

[IndyOp]

66. I can't give you a link to anyone who has said it was a first step -

And, still, the volume and repetitiveness of the calls from some make me think that they have made it such a very high priority that they would be willing to push a lot of work to the side that we need to get done. That's just my opinion...

[qwlauren35]

35. Nothing in the past.

At this point, I simply see no value.

Let's see... tell me he committed murder with his bare hands. Or raped someone at gunpoint. Tell me that he ordered the death of an American citizen by assassination.

That's about it. We have a Senate and House majority. We can get busy with a lot of things. Impeaching Bush, in my mind, is a complete waste of time.

And I don't want Cheney as president. I'm surprised that anyone would.

[ProudDad]

56. How about the CRIME

of PISSING ON THE CONSTITUTION!!!!

That's the high crime that the "founders" meant to deal with when they devised the system of impeachment.

They devised a method to see that if a president tried to become emperor he could be put back in his place or removed!

Impeachment has little or nothing to do with the criminal statues but has all to do with preserving the fiction of democracy in this country.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

40. I'm not in favour of impeachment *procedings*; there'd need to be some chance of success.

The decision that should be being debated is "should we open impeachment procedings against Bush", not "should we impeach Bush". It's like arguing about "should we defeat Mars in a war", rather than "should we declare war on Mars".

For me to support opening impeachment procedings, there would have to be some possibility that sufficiently many Republican Senators and Congressmen would break ranks and vote for impeachment. At present there clearly isn't - it would be electoral suicide for any Republican to do so, and they're firmly holding ranks.

[ProudDad]

57. See my reply #25

Cowardly thinking my friend...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

62. Do you mean #53? #25 is by someone else, as far as I can see?

If so, then I think it's foolish - just because there have, at other times, been causes of action which succeeded does not mean that that cause of action that you're advocating (which, incidentally, has relatively little in common with what MLK did, not to mention the circumstances being differnt) has a chance of succeeding.

"We must do something!" "This is something!" "Therefore we must do this!" is not logic.

As to calling me cowardly, that's daft. I don't stand to lose anything by the Democrats opening impeachment procedings that everyone else here in the UK doesn't stand to lose from having the Republicans back in power in 2009 too. That a course of action would screw over a lot of people's lives (which impeachment procedings, which would help the Republicans massively in 2008, would) does not mean that you can brand everyone who is afraid of its consequences a coward. It's like accusing me of cowardice for not supporting everyone being made to stick their hands into meat-grinders.

[ProudDad]

73. Impeachment would also help in '08

Nothing could impede another repuke president more than investigation and impeachment of this one. The evidence against shrub would include the collusion of all of the potential repuke candidates in '08.


At another level, just as the Nobles of England forced King John to sign the Magna Carta to limit his powers (including the concept of Habeas Corpus -- which shrub just nullified in our country!!!) we MUST FIGHT this usurper; the resident in the White House in Washington, DC... Please understand, the investigations in grounds for impeachment, impeachment and trial of gwbush and dickwad can only help the hasten the death of the right-wing repuke party.


and finally, it's a matter of justice. This person must be exposed and persocuted as much as possible for the damage he's done to our Constitution, the American people and the people of the world!

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

65. Stand tall, internet warrior

Show us the way.

[Bake]

44. Having enough Republican votes to pull it off.

That's all. I'd support it unequivocally if we had the votes.

Bake

[ProudDad]

74. Won't get them

if we don't try...

This thread is moot though.

Conyers WILL TRY!!!!

Yipee! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Vinca]

47. Voluntary resignations. nt

[sandnsea]

69. We'll just get another Republican

And too much of the country will think we've actually turned a page, when it will undoubtedly be more of the same. Bush as lame duck is good, and the last thing we want is any Republican to have a hint of 'incumbent' about him. Impeachment won't do anything except gum up the works when we need our attention focused on the war, global warming, poverty, health care. Too much to lose, nothing that can't be gained with hearings.

[ProudDad]

75. Check this out too

"Thus, the real issue, for those of us who believe that George Bush and Dick Cheney need to be impeached, is not between those who favor impeachment first without investigations versus those who favor investigations first. The real issue for us is when and how much evidence should be required before the investigations into the many crimes of the Bush/Cheney administration are specifically referred to as being impeachment oriented (for example, by using the term “impeachment hearings”)."

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20change/124

"Given the near certainty, based on currently available evidence, that Bush and Cheney are guilty of impeachable offenses, and given that the current mood of our country would make their impeachment and conviction more than politically feasible, I see the following advantages of openly proceeding with impeachment, and labeling the relevant investigations as such, sooner rather than later:"

------------

"As important as it is to remove from office the most dangerous Presidential administration that has ever disgraced our country, that is probably not the most important reason for proceeding with impeachment.

More important still is that to fail to do so would set a very dangerous precedent. The crimes of the Bush/Cheney administration are not simply crimes. Many of those crimes represent an attack upon and show utter contempt for our Constitution, and therefore strike that the very foundations of our country. Failure to hold the Bush administration fully accountable for those crimes by removing them from office would signal that such crimes are acceptable behavior for a President and Vice President of the United States. And that could very well lead to the permanent loss of democracy and the rule of law in the United States, regardless of who becomes our next President."

[leftofthedial]

76. the corporations would have to stop giving truckloads of money to

my preferred "centrist" DLC candidate for 2008.

Oh wait. That's not me.

[GeorgeGist]

77. Impeachment occurs so rarely that the term is often misunderstood.

A typical misconception is to confuse it with involuntary removal from office; in fact it is only the legal statement of charges,...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

[Az_lefty]

78. Investigations first. Nail all of those bastards and then impeach.

all of them have to be bloodied to bring the neo-cons under control

[Vidar]

79. Bush's & Cheney's deaths.