To those Democrats that oppose impeachment.

[rhett o rick]

In Washington state legislature a bill was introduced calling for the investigation and impeachment of King Bush and Cheney. Some prominent democratic leaders opposed the bill including Sen Murray and US Rep Inslee. This is my response to them:

This is to you democrats that oppose impeachment, those of you that think that “it would be a diversion for democrats that could cause bitter political divides in the nation’s capital.”

Where have you been for the last six years??? The republicans have already drawn the battle lines.

If you haven’t noticed we are horribly entangled in an illegal war which continues to get worse. We have placed our children in a huge financial hole with a huge debt to a communist country of all things. Not to mention the thousands of American soldiers dead and tens of thousands wounded and a hundred thousand dead innocent Iraqi’s plus millions of Iraqi’s displaced. I could go on and on but you are worried about “political divides”?

What have the democrats in Congress done during the last six years? In 2000 they bowed down gracefully as the SCOTUS appointed King Bush. They again yielded their Constitutional powers to the King and allowed him unchecked power to wage war. The Patriot Act was passed without much democratic outrage giving the King unlimited power to spy-on, arrest and torture citizens. In 2004 the democrats again bowed low and allowed the King George reign to continue without protest even though the election was stolen.

Even after the democrats have taken control of Congress the King flaunts his power by arbitrarily firing seven US Attorneys and replacing them with his people.

The King had an American citizen arrested and torture for almost two years. Why? Because he can. Who will be next?

We have become a Country that tortures and murders and you worry about “political divides”?

We citizens want to know what it will take to get your attention? Will tea in the harbor be enough? I hope so. I hope you won’t wait until another Kent State.

King George made it clear that you are either for him or against him, you must decide. Those of us against want justice which means impeachment, indictment, trial, conviction, and imprisonment. Please choose our side.

[Kahuna]

1. I personally think it would be more effective to go after bushco AFTER

they leave office. Afterwards, they will not have the protection of the Oval Office at their disposal, and could be fully prosecuted just like any other private citizen.

[Vincardog]

2. As long as Hillary does not pardon them

[rhett o rick]

4. you mean like "for the good of the Country" like Ford? nm

[dkofos]

5. We can all see that was a mistake

Or at least I can!!

[Vincardog]

9. I mean "For the good of the country" like Bill let Bushco off the hook on BCCI

[rhett o rick]

3. I understand your thought process but it is assuming they get out of office.

They haven't yet been stopped with whatever they have done. Don't underestimate their desire to stay in power and their resources.
Also you are assuming they won't pardon themselves for everything. i think they can do that. Some one straighten me out if i am wrong.

[pat_k]

25. You are absolutely right. The Constitution isn't even a bump. . .

. . .in the road for the bushcheney steamroller. Neither is U.S. Code. Or International Law. Or the laws of human decency.

It is their modus operandi. Breaking the Constitution in plain sight. Grab Unconstitutional power, do it willfully and publicly, and challenge Congress "We've just erased more of the Constitution. Stop us if you dare."

Our so-called leaders are in deep, deep, denial.

We apparently haven't come up with big enough clue stick to wake them up to reality. Gotta just keep at it.

[Faux pas]

6. When they're living like real kings in Paraguay? Can we extradite

from there? I say take 'em down now, while they're still getting away with murder.

[rhett o rick]

8. Or Dubai. Agree, waiting is dangerous. nm

[Faux pas]

12. Oops, almost forgot to give your thread an R! Here's a kick too.

n/t

[ClassWarrior]

7. No, we need to draw the line in the carpet of the Oval Office.

If we let him get away with this and get out of office unscathed, we're just leaving the door open for something worse - yes, WORSE - to slither into the people's house.

Visualize. Then DO. (see sigline below for details)

NGU.

[rhett o rick]

10. And a "NGU" to you. And also DO. nm

[ClassWarrior]

13. Cheers rick!

:toast:

NGU.

[Martin Eden]

18. Let's see ... for political reasons, ignore crimes until the perpe-TRAITORS ...

... are no longer in a position to wreak their devastation?

WAIT for 2 more years while our young people in uniform continue to DIE for LIES?

WHAT would that SAY about the DEMOCRATS?
It would say that on the basis of political expediency the Democrats chose not to prosecute criminals and left them in office to continue committing their crimes.

If Bushco is guilty when they leave office THEY ARE GUILTY NOW.

Let's please try not to forget our CONSTITUTION, the rule of law, and the duty of our representatives in Congress to uphold the Constitution and serve the public interest.

IMPEACH
INDICT
IMPRISON

NOW.

[pat_k]

19. Cops don't wait 'til a drunk driver gets home to take the keys.

Impeachment is first and foremost a defensive act. It is "taking the keys" from an official who is "drunk with power" (i.e., who is subverting the Constitution or otherwise abusing their power). It is the means by which Members of Congress fulfill their oath to "support and defend" when the attack comes from within the halls of power.^{Note 1}

Just as the police would be betraying their oath to protect the public if they refused to turn on the siren and try to pull over a driver weaving down the highway, a menace to anyone unlucky enough to be in their path, Members of Congress are betraying their oath to "support and defend" when they refuse to sound the alarm and demand impeachment. Taking impeachment "off the table" is like a Chief of Police taking the power to apprehend "off the table." It's an intolerable declaration of intent to violate their oath.

The sole moral principle on which the Constitution, and therefore the nation, rests is the principle of consent. Impeachment is the mechanism by which Congress, our voice, withdraws that consent. (Not that bushcheney lawfully obtained our consent in the first place -- but that's another topic).

Justice/Retribution demands prosecutions, both here and at the Hague, but that is for the Courts, not Congress. Bush and Cheney are torturing the Constitution. Rescue is a far higher priority than prosecution.

Contrary to what the fascists would have us believe, Impeachment is not a long, drawn out, legalistic process.^{Note 2} It is a political process designed to be simple, swift, and certain. ^{Note 3} It is our form of voting no confidence. No law need be broken. No legalistic threshold of proof applies. ^{Note 4} The answer to people who say "Can't impeach for stupidity, is "Poppycock. Of course we can. All that's required is the political will."

=============================================================================
Note 1: Even if they believe it will be a "charge of the light brigade" they are sworn to act. The oath is not an oath to win; it is an oath to fight -- to "support and defend." It is an individual oath. Each Member who thinks Bush and Cheney are abusing power, but refuses to impeach, is betraying that oath.

Note 2: Sure, it took awhile to uncover the cover-up in Watergate. It also took awhile to trump up the asinine "case" that Clinton's actions were a violation that somehow posed a threat to the fabric of our constitutional democracy, when he hadn't even violated U.S. Code because his false statements were ruled immaterial.

Impeaching Bush and Cheney could move with lightening speed. They are breaking the Constitution in plain sight. That is their intent. Grab Unconstitutional power, do it willfully and publicly, and challenge Congress "We've just erased more of the Constitution. Stop us if you dare." The articles of impeachment write themselves.

Everything necessary to make the case that Bush and Cheney are subverting the Constitution and committing grave violations of U.S. Code and International law (violations so grave they are subject to the death penalty) is public record. For example, they could impeach them for ordering detainees in Guantanamo to be treated in ways they knew to be War Crimes (confirmed by the SCOTUS Hamdan ruling); for abducting, secretly holding, and torturing people in CIA-run prisons overseas; or their public declarations of the fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive that can violate law at will; or for abusing signing statements to declare their intent to violate our laws; or for terrorizing the nation with "mushroom clouds over our cities in 45 minutes" (the most colossal bomb threat in our history); or for violating FISA to spy on Americans.

If Members of the House can't bring themselves to confront the reality that America has become a War Criminal nation that spies on it's own citizens, they could simply impeach Bush and Cheney on the grounds that their consistent lies (or "mistakes) have made them incapable of effectively motivating national or international response to a threat because any "evidence" they present is suspect. Therefore, they are unfit to hold office because they are incapable of defending the nation.

Note 3: http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5402">The People v. Richard Cheney, GQ, March 2007

When the Founding Fathers crafted the U.S. Constitution, they wanted to be sure that the president, vice president, and other ranking officials could be evicted more easily than the British monarchy. To ensure that the process would be swift and certain, they made it simple: Only two conditions must be met. First, a majority of the House of Representatives must agree on a set of charges; then, two-thirds of the Senate must agree to convict. After that, there is no legal wrangling, no appeal to a higher authority, no reversal on technical grounds. There is not even a limit on what the charges may be. As the Constitution describes it, the cause may be "“treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors," but even these were left deliberately vague;. . .

Note 4: From http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/20">Lobbying for Impeachment: Take along a Big "Clue Stick" !

. . .

• The interests that an impeachment seeks to balance are very different from the interests that a criminal prosecution seeks to balance.
  
  
  • In a criminal trial, the standard of proof seeks to strike a balance between mistakenly:
    1. depriving a citizen of their rights
    2. releasing a guilty individual
    
    When balanced against the sanctity of our civil rights, the risk of releasing a guilty person loses.
    
    To tip the scales in favor of protecting civil rights, a very high standard of proof is applied (beyond reasonable doubt).
  
  
  • In an impeachment, the standard of proof seeks to strike a balance between mistakenly
    1. depriving an official of the privilege of power
    2. leaving power in the hands of an official who is subverting the Constitution or otherwise abusing that power
    
    Each Senator must decide for themselves what standard to apply, but when balanced against the sanctity of our Constitution, the risk of mistakenly depriving an official of the privilege of power should lose, particularly when you consider that power is granted to elected officials; it is not a basic civil right.
    
    To tip the scales in favor of protecting the Constitution, a lower standard of proof is required (e.g., probable cause, preponderance of the evidence). When Members of Congress, opinion leaders, or fellow citizens assert that a higher standard applies, we should challenge them whenever possible.
  
  In the case of Bush and Cheney, we have proofs that meet a standard much higher than impeachment calls for.
  
  When we recognize the purpose of impeachment, it becomes crystal clear that. . .
  
  Impeachment has been a moral imperative for years.
  
  http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/20">More. . .

[Tellurian]

31. According to this, Bush cannot be prosecuted after he leaves office..

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/sep/29/the_star_chamber

Unless the Constitution reverts back to it's original language.

[rhett o rick]

34. Well it's time for some "reverting". nm

[Tellurian]

39. agreed-

but if you read the link entirely..the conclusions from Constitutional Scholars say, we may not see the reversion in our lifetime. IF all this BS really holds up in a court battle. I doubt it will, seeing the changes were done under fraudulent circumstances. I believe, that would be the major premise as grounds for the reversal. We can only hope.

[rhett o rick]

40. I only hope we have what it takes to regain what we have lost. It was so

easy for the tyrants to break our democracy. It will be extremely hard to rebuild. We don't have the resources and industry to rebuild the middle class which is dying.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Not against it, just think it's...

highly impractical right now.

With Nixon it worked because the public was pretty much for the idea. Now, even though Shrub is not liked, there's no public call to get rid of him aside from us on the far left. That may change, but there were much more powerful and cohesive movements working then than there are now.

We've put up with this crap for 6 years, and the worst is over. Not much left for them to screw up any more in the next rwo years, particularly with everyone watching them.

If we impeach Shrub, we get Cheney. Anyone want that? Getting rid of both of them will be almost impossible unless Cheney has a good reason to step down. Like the stage was sety for Nixon to leave after they pushed Agnew out.

Oh, if we impeach both of them, which is highly unlikely at any rate, we get Pelosi as President. That's not a bad idea, but don't think for a minute that powerful forces won't be around to make sure that doesn't happen.

And, yes, just like when they tried to nail Clinton, it will be a massive diversion from the job that has to be done-- cleaning up the mess they made. Looking like we just are after revenge won't help a bit.

Now, if s nasty smoking gun happens to show up, this could change with a huge public outcry.

[ClassWarrior]

14. Isn't this part of cleaning up the nasty mess?

Signing statements?

Spying on American citizens' emails, phones, and snail mails?

Declaring an end to habeus corpus?

Torture?

Blowing the cover on a CIA operative?

Not to mention the fact that Bush/Cheney** has declared that our troops won't leave Iraq while in office? (http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/02/23/cq_2321.html)

They've pinned all of this on the warped neocon notion of a "unitary dictator." If we don't put a decisive end to this, we're leaving the door open for WORSE.

NGU.

[rhett o rick]

16. Agree. It is not enough to patch up Lady Liberty, we must kill the

neocon monster.

[pat_k]

21. As they say, one step at a time. (impeachment being the mandatory 1st step)

Impeachment is the only way we can confront the truth as a nation and move forward with any semblance of honesty. Even if we have to impeach "in absentia" after they are out of office, we must come to terms with the grim reality as a nation -- that we surrendered our sovereignty to outlaws. We must declare our intent to assert our will and enforce our common contract.

[pat_k]

20. 58% of the public want bushcheney gone now.

______________________________
Re: "the public was pretty much for the idea" of impeaching Nixon.

The public was NOT "pretty much for the idea" of impeaching Nixon until prominent Members of Congress were pursuing it.

Today, instead of leaders who are pursuing impeachment, we have non-stop propaganda from the entire beltway establishment aimed at suppressing the support and increasing the opposition to impeachment. (Declarations that it's "futile, so shut up," "off the table," "impossible," "would tear the nation apart," "would make us lose in '08," "would take forever," "is just a distraction," "would be vindictive," and on and on.)

Despite the heroic efforts to get the public to shut up about impeachment, they couldn't manage to get more than 44% to say that impeachment "shouldn't be done. And 51% of Americans said it should be a priority in the new Congress. (Newsweek Poll, http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">21-Oct-2006

Newsweek, perhaps prompted by the frightening level of support for impeachment they got just before the election, purged the word impeachment from their http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-27-2007/0004514285&EDATE=">27-Jan-2007 poll. But they asked an extremely telling question -- one that may actually be better because it cuts through all the irrational rationalizations for refusing to impeach:

At this point in time, do you personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over, or don't you feel this way?

58% Yes, wish it was over

37% No, do not

5% Don't know/refused

We're not just talking the Anti-Bush center (known as "far left" to the DC establishment). Over a fifth of the people who identify themselves as Republicans and over a third of those who identify as independents want bushcheney gone right now.

______________________________
Re: "the worst is over"

This is impossible to know. We'd have to know how many have been tortured or how many will be between now and January 20, 2009. We'd have to know many more will die in the Middle East because we've left the massive power of the American Presidency in the hands of reckless outlaws who understand nothing but force, and who can do nothing but damage because no one trusts the War Criminal nation we have become. We'd have to know whether or not they'll attack Iran. We'd have to know how many will die if they do.

So many questions.

What about our own self-esteem? What about the shame that countless Americans feel as they realize what their country has become? What about redeeming ourselves in our own eyes? What about showing the world we have found our voice and are saying no to the outlaws occupying the WH?
______________________________
Re: "we get Pelosi as President"

Until they are forced to take a stand, it is impossible to know how many Senators will be willing to defend the indefensible to save the necks of War Criminals.

When the rubber hits the road and the leadership gets serious about impeachment, Bush and Cheney could be gone stunningly fast. Republicans in the Senate are very likely to be VERY motivated to force them to take the resignation "exit strategy" to escape having to go on the record to support men that have so outraged the nation. ("For the good of the party"; "To keep the WH in Repub hands"; blah, blah.).

More on this in http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12">Turning accusations of "partisan coup" against them is simple. . .

______________________________
Re: "just like when they tried to nail Clinton, it will be a massive diversion"

There is no rational basis for this assertion.

I don't mean to single you out. You are echoing one of the many poisonous and immobilizing notions that have been pushed, and pushed, and pushed by the entire DC establishment.

First, diverting Bush and Cheney from destroying more of the Constitution as they advance the interests of their tiny faction IS A VERY GOOD THING.

Second, getting steamrolled and proving impotence by passing laws and resolutions for Bush to veto, violate, or nullify with signing statements is counter-productive. It is the same course that gave us Poppy Bush -- and in turn, the Bushkid.

In 1987, the impotent impeachophobic Democratic majority thought that Iran-Contra would be a deathblow for Repubs, even though they imposed ridiculous limits on their own investigation to ensure it wouldn't go "too far." Predictably, they were steamrolled by Reagan and the Republican minority, and then, after once again confirming their "weak Dem" image, lost the White House they were so sure was theirs for the taking.
______________________________
Re: If a nasty smoking gun happens to show up. . .

What could possibly be nastier than what's already public record?

Bush and Cheney are breaking the Constitution in plain sight. That is their intent. Grab Unconstitutional power, do it willfully and publicly, and challenge Congress "We've just erased more of the Constitution. Stop us if you dare."

Bush and Cheney declare their intent to nullify the Constitution every time they assert the fascist fantasy of a "unitary authoritarian executive" that can break the law at its whim. They've followed up that declaration of intent with action, blatantly committing grave violations of law that go far beyond impeachable -- violations that are subject to the penalty of death.

For example, ordering detainees in Guantanamo to be treated in ways they knew to be War Crimes (confirmed by the SCOTUS Hamdan ruling); abducting, secretly holding, and torturing people in CIA-run prisons overseas; abusing signing statements to declare their intent to violate our laws; terrorizing the nation with "mushroom clouds over our cities in 45 minutes" (the most colossal bomb threat in our history); and violating FISA to spy on Americans.

Their refusal to impeach is not just a violation of their oath, it is political lunacy. The fight to impeach is an unprecedented opportunity to demonstrate strength and conviction, and to define themselves as the Party of the People's Government and the Constitution. That is, fighting to impeach effectively deals with the Number 1 and Number 2 problems plaguing the Party (i.e., the perception that Dems are weak and their inability to define overarching principles that inspire.

If Members of the House can't bring themselves to confront the reality that America has become a War Criminal nation that spies on it's own citizens, they could simply impeach Bush and Cheney on the grounds that their consistent lies (or "mistakes) have made them incapable of effectively motivating national or international response to a threat because any "evidence" they present is suspect. Therefore, they are unfit to hold office because they are incapable of defending the nation.

[Tellurian]

64. Bush2 learned alot from Nixon..

BushI insisted there be no taped telephone conversations (the infamous tapes that brought Nixon down.)

"We've put up with this crap for 6 years, and the worst is over. Not much left for them to screw up any more in the next two years, particularly with everyone watching them."

well, I agree entirely with your statement. What made it easier to Impeach Nixon. He was beaten on the (chess) board, as they say, and the Law was at our backs. The Neocons have taken the Law into their own hands and left us defenseless in that respect. That is our major problem. The Law is slanted against us with the permanency of PAI & PAII.

Our best hope is getting a Democrat elected and thats about it!

[pat_k]

15. Murray, Islee, & Gregoire effectively told their constituents to shut up when. . .

. . .they pressured members of the State Senate to cancel the hearing.

Not only are they deluded to think they can be both Anti-war and Anti-impeachment, it's reprehensible to tell constituents to get out of their faces and drop the resolution calling on Congress to put impeachment on the table -- to try to suppress it from even getting a hearing.

They were elected to represent their constituents, not dictate to them.

If, like rhett o rick, you want to tell Murray and Inslee what you think:

Go to voiceoutrage.com and
enter 98155 as the zip code
in the "Take Action" box.

A http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=324575&mesg_id=325187">post from yesterday on the lunacy of trying to be both Anti-war and Anti-impeachment:

. . .The Constitution, U.S. Code, International Law, overwhelming will of the American people, being caught red-handed terrorizing the nation into war with the most monumental bomb threat of all time ("mushroom clouds over our cities in 45 minutes") -- none of it is even a bump in the road to the bushcheney steamroller.

Nothing short of impeachment can stop their lawless recklessness. Biden's threat to advocate impeachment if Bush attacks Iran is tantamount to permission. It's a declaration that Congress won't pull out the only "lethal" weapon their arsenal until the deed is done.

If our so-called leaders don't forget about Iraq, remember their oath, and impeach, they'll be watching the bombs drop on Iran, stunned that their impotent gestures didn't "get through." Perhaps they'll take comfort that the troops are finally leaving Iraq to head for Iran. Of course, after the bombs drop on Iran, the hasty retreat from Iraq won't be a retreat at all. The troops will just be heading to Iran -- naturally. Never mind Iraq. They've had their shot. Have to fight until we "win" in Iran, else things will be even more horrible than the unimaginable horror already sweeping the Middle East. (And look. The Dems are still whining. They want us to lose.)

The leadership's notion that "staying the course" of impotent action will somehow pave the way to the White House in '08 is mind-boggling.

[rhett o rick]

33. They are making a huge mistake. They are afraid of further polarization.

I am afraid it is too late to worry about that. We have waited over six years and watched as our democracy has been shredded without outrage by our democratic leaders (with exceptions). We are extremely close to complete totalitarian rule. It seems that most of our democratic leaders want to walk carefully and not compromise there positions. If we don't severely punish those that think they can step on our Constitution we are lost. The arrest and torture of Jose Padilla was a test case. The concentration camp in Taylor, Texas is a test case. There are many such small test cases. ATT and Google "cooperating" with spying on citizens, etc.

It is not enough to gain back what we have lost, if we can, we must punish those that dared attack the Constitution and make it very clear that it can not be done again.

DGU(for classwarrior) and GMLOGMD

[pat_k]

38. . . an ultterly baseless fear.

When they get serious about impeaching Bush and Cheney they become champions of the People's Government and the Constitution. I challenge anybody to come up with something more uniting than that.

The election was not "all about the war," it was "all about" the nation's outrage at what Bush has done to our country. At least that's what the real experts tell us:

Curtis Gans, Director, http://spa.american.edu/csae">Center for the Study of the American Electorate

On Politically Direct with David Bender, 10-Nov-06
(http://podcast.rbn.com/airam/airam/download/archive/2006/11/aapd111006.mp3">mp3 -- Interview start time approx 18:30)

Bender: Joining me now is Curtis Gans. He is the Director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University and he has just released a new study analyzing the turnout this past Tuesday, and there's some interesting and there are some very, very interesting shifts in the turnout from previous elections. Welcome to Politically Direct . . .

Gans: It's very good to talk to you David.
. . .

Gans: I think that it is not simply Iraq, although Iraq started Bush's downhill. But it is a gestalt around George Bush. it's being a pariah to other countries; it's people dying in what they increasing find is a vain fight; it's massive budgetary imbalances; it's a lack of compassionate conservatism; it's insecurity in jobs; it's the feeling that people have not been leveled with.

Bender: You've been doing this for almost 30 years; studying the American electorate. And there is probably no greater expert than you. It's just a real pleasure to have you on this program.

. . .
Bender: This is a moment, clearly -- the people voted for accountability, there's no question about that. And the opportunity to show that the Democratic Party is the Party of the Constitution, I think will be a very popular position across the board, particularly with Independents, and maybe even some Republicans who still love this Constitution.

Gans: The concept of the Constitution and the People's Government is something that can unite the Democratic Party in ways it hasn't been united since the late 1960's.

[PhilipShore]

17. The Bush Family Criminal Empire

[Holly_Hobby]

22. Great response!

Let's not forget that the Iran/Contra criminals weren't dealt with and they're BACK in full force today.

Also - what if Bush never leaves? He's got enough power to pull it off. A false-flag op, marital law and BINGO!

[rhett o rick]

28. Totally agree. What if Bush decides it is in the Country's best interest

to extend his reign a little longer. How many democrats in Congress would go along? A lot if history teaches us anything. It appears to be up to us citizens.

[Holly_Hobby]

32. There are nearly 3,000,000 people in this country

They can't kill or incarerate all of us. It's time for people to take a stand for their rights.

[rhett o rick]

35. Good morning Holly. But about 30% of them will follow the power.

and about 50% are to busy getting their kids to daycare to care, etc, etc. Which leaves only three of us, you, me and i forgot the other one.
GMLOGMD

[Clintonista2]

48. Isnt the population more like.. 300,000,000?

or am I missing something?

[rhett o rick]

73. Hey, what's a decimal point between friends? nm

[sce56]

84. Thats it exactley! If they would have had the balls to impeach the first Bush for Iran Contra we

would not be in this mess today PERIOD!
http://web.archive.org/web/20030602211200/








Got Fascism Yet?

http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/bush-nazilinkconfirmed.htm




Bush's replacement medal for the Purple Heart

[AshevilleGuy]

23. I agree, but WHERE are the 67 votes in the Senate to convict coming from?

The Senate Dems can't even get 60, to close off a filibuster. How do they get 67?????

Yeah, the House can impeach him, but everyone will know it won't go anywhere. Harry Reid would probably run and hide if he sees it coming!!

Yes, it would show the world that some Americans care, but when the whole thing fails in the Senate, what message does that send?

[pat_k]

24. Reid doesn't know a thing about how events will unfold.

Neither does anyone else. No human knows how events will unfold until they are behind us.

It is impossible to count votes until Senators are forced to make the choice:

• defend the indefensible to save the necks of War Criminals OR
• throw them overboard.

The articles may never even to a vote in the Senate.

When the rubber hits the road and the leadership gets serious about impeachment, Bush and Cheney could be gone stunningly fast. Republicans in the Senate are very likely to be VERY motivated to force them to take the resignation "exit strategy" to escape having to go on the record to support men that have so outraged the nation. ("For the good of the party"; "To keep the WH in Repub hands"; blah, blah.).

[AshevilleGuy]

26. Yeah, later this year or early next,

when the situation in Iraq just decomposes. But right now, it ain't gonna happen, much as I would love to see it.

[pat_k]

36. If you want Bush and Cheney impeached. . .

. . .you might want to ask yourself "Why am I spreading impeachophobic propaganda?" -- specifically the most insidious of all the rationalizations for inaction: "Can't win; won't fight" and the related meme to advocates of action, "Can't win, so shut up about it" (Sen. Murray's, Rep. Inslee's, and Gov. Gregoire's message to their constituents.)

That irrational self-defeating prophecy is probably the number 1 reason that the Democratic Party is perceived as weak. Whenever principle demands action, unless Democrats believe victory is certain (never), they run the other way. "Can't win, won't fight" tops the lists of immoral excuses.

Members of the Democratic Party may believe they are "picking fights wisely." Observers see the truth: irrational and absolute predictions of defeat and declarations that they need to "save their energy" for fights they can win. Outsiders looking in don't see "wise selection," they see cowardice and lack of principle. When the rare "winnable fight" for which they've supposedly been saving all this energy does materialize, it's usually for some programmatic detail or half-measure that inspires no one.

Only a being that is omniscient can "know" how events will unfold -- a quality that no human has. It's very odd to hear people who pride themselves on being members of the "reality-based community" assert things that require an irrational belief in omniscience.

For Democrats, it's only "meaningless" or a "waste" to act or vote when they are in the drivers seat. They happily cite votes they cast on the losing side as very meaningful things. If a vote against something like the Authorization to Use Military is meaningful, how can they rationally claim that, whatever the outcome, a vote for impeachment would be meaningless?

More often than not, the people I hear berating the public for being apathetic are the same people who spread hopelessness and immobility with their declarations of futility. Spreading propaganda that keeps people on the sidelines, and then berating them for being on the sidelines -- a frustrating and a mind-boggling phenomenon to see in people who pride themselves on being "reality-based."

I don't mean to single you out. You are far from alone in parroting the self-defeating prophecy. It is a devastating bit of propaganda that I challenge at every opportunity.

[AshevilleGuy]

42. Parroting self defeating prophecy?? Oh, for crying out loud!

Fine. I want you to list for me right now the 17 republicans who will vote to convict bush and remove him from office. And since there will be a few Dems who will chicken out, you might want to add three or four more just for good measure.

Yes, having the House bring articles of impeachment against bush and/or cheney would be wonderful (and gratifying to many of us); but how would it look to the world when he is NOT convicted?? They might not understand the rules our Constitution sets for this procedure, and might conclude that he was found innocent - the WH would certainly take that line. How would that help?

Yes, this is what I and many persons think is cold hard reality. And reality does bite, most of the time.

[pat_k]

43. You've done it again, for crying out loud!

The assumption that the Senate will acquit if the House votes out articles is once again at the heart of your reply. That assumption discourages citizens from lobbying for action. It is a given that the fewer who lobby to make it happen, the less likely it will be to happen (Hence, the label "self-defeating.")

Once again, I am not singling you out. Such self-defeating prophesies pervade the leadership and the rank and file of the Democratic Party -- to the detriment of the Party.

Since no human can "know" how events will unfold until the events are behind us, the surety with which Pelosi, Reid, and all the rest of our so-called leaders declare "It's futile. We'll lose in the Senate" is not grounded in reality. The pervasive pessimism disguised as realism in the Democratic Party has long been a major barrier to advancing our common interests.

Not only is the assumption unreasonable, it ignores the rewards and intermediate victories that are inherent in taking a stand and fighting for our collective principles, if only the respect a leader earns when they demonstrate strength and conviction.

Dems happily cite votes they cast on the losing side as very meaningful things. The Members who voted against the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) cite that vote at least once a day.

And then, inexplicably, when Democrats are called on to take independent action in a fight for principle, it is suddenly "meaningless" or a "waste" to act (unless of course there is no perceived risk).

If a vote against the AUMF is so meaningful, why then would a vote for impeachment be "meaningless" or a "waste"? Their refusal to act seems to be driven by a pathological aversion to risk. The power of that avervion makes their refusal to act "a given" that must be rationalized. The belief that action would be a waste is just one of the many illegitimate rationalizations they cling to to excuse their dereliction.

Whatever the outcome, every single Member of the House who votes for articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney, and every single member of the Senate who votes to remove Bush and Cheney (IF Bush and Cheney aren't forced to resign before it goes to a Senate vote) breaks the bonds of complicity with the subversion of our Constitution and the War Crimes being committed in our name. Just as Sen. Barbara Boxer is the only Senator who isn't complicit in Bush's stolen second term.

Insiders declared it impossible, utterly impossible to "get" a Senator to stand up on January 6th. Even people on "our side" dismissed and even ridiculed the effort. But ordinary people were undeterred and the fight gained momentum. It inspired people to connect with each other; people who continued to fight for believable elections. Tragically, mainstream groups refused to be enlisted -- to busy "looking forward not back." Then they jumped in at the end when they realized the snowballing energy was something they could cash in on. Who knows how things would have played out had they been in it from the start.

We are up against the same brick wall. Like the so-called leadership, the groups with more clout like MoveOn are refusing to jump on the impeachment bus. They are missing a golden opportunity. Fighting for our treasured principles, win or lose, ALWAYS yields benefits along the way. Every person inspired to act is a victory -- they are more likely to act in the future and are a source of hope for others.

Being on the right side of history will be a BIG deal for each citizen who advocates impeachment, each Member who acts to make it happen, and the Democratic Party as a whole. When we consider the cost of being on the wrong side, it becomes clear just how big a deal it is. (We need look no further than the damage the leadership's failure to oppose the AUMF has done to the Party as a whole and the individual members who voted for it.)

Re: "I want you to list for me right now the 17 republicans" -- I have already http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3143213&mesg_id=3144012">replied to this. It is IMPOSSIBLE to know how Senators will come down until they are forced to come down. When you take a good look at the choice they will be forced to make it becomes clear that removal via resignation or conviction is well within the realm of possibility.

Related:
http://january6th.org/saving-ourselves.html">Saving Ourselves from Ourselves

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=336489&mesg_id=337814"> Collective denial and shared delusion.

[AshevilleGuy]

50. Maybe MoveOn can count heads

Do you understand what it would take to get 67 votes for conviction and removal?? This is not pie-in-the-sky wish-it-could-happen fantasy. The way things stand right now it would be easier for me to win the lottery than to get those votes. Getting the 50 Dem votes would be near to impossible; getting Lieberman plus 16 other repukes? It ain't gonna heppen! I have been observing the real world for more than 50 years - at some point you finally realize that your fantasies are just that. It sucks, but there you are.

It is nice to be young and idealistic (which I assume you are) but at some point cold hard reality comes crashing in. In my twenties we expected the ultimate social revolution which would transform society to Utopia; we got Nixon and Reagan and then GWB for our efforts. If you are waiting for devine intervention, which conviction would require, have fun. And yes it IS possible to predict how the majority of Senators will come down on most issues - their voting records are telling and for the most part, predictable. Unless some profound new revelation involving bush and cheney is uncovered, they are set until 1/20/2009, and I regret it and much as you do. Good night, and good luck.

[rhett o rick]

75. I am not young. I just believe in the Constitution and it has been assaulted.

I feel I have a responsibility to defend it.

[AshevilleGuy]

78. The Constutution has indeed been assaulted,

but it makes it quite difficult for Congress to remove a president, even one that stole the White House. This was probably written into it to prevent frivolous political attacks on sitting presidents and it served us well in 1998. Unfortunately the same standards apply this year, and our Dems in the Senate are not like they were in my youth.

Please give the upcoming hearings into Plamegate, etc., a chance. If some smoking gun comes from them, it could be a new ball game. Watergate was like this, and things finally came right.

[rhett o rick]

81. Plamegate is done and Libby is what we got. And even he won't spend a nite in jail.

Sorry not enough.

[pat_k]

77. Already dealt with each point.

[onenote]

56. its impossible to know how Senators will vote? Not really

How many Senators, when forced to vote on cloture on the Iraq surge resolution, voted against --- more than enough to acquit in an impeachment trial. If these folks aren't willing to stand up to the surge, despite widespread indications that it is exceedingly disfavored by the public, what possible basis do you have for believing that they suddenly will turn against chimpy in an impeachment trial.

I'm sorry that the real world doesn't conform to what you want, but its the way it is. Frankly, I have my doubts that the House, at this point in time, would vote out articles of impeachment. All it would take is 16 Democratic House members to defect. You don't think that there are 16 Democratic House members that are from relatively conservative districts? Take a closer look.

Let me be as clear as I can be. Democrats in the House and Senate should be pushing for investigations and hearings regarding all manner of mis and malfeasance by chimpy and his gang. But they should not do it under the label of an impeachment inquiry. Rather the investigations should be considered as an end in themselves. If, as we would hope, the result of such investigations and hearings is to produce an upswell in bi-partisan support for impeachment, then impeachment becomes the timely and appropriate step.

Sometimes you have to let the cake bake before you try to eat it.

[Dr Fate]

46. The assinine "Keep your powder dry" internal meme sums it up.

If only we were as creative with anti-Bush talking points as we were with all these internal excuses designed to keep the base at bay.

[rhett o rick]

27. We need to force the issue. We need to force democrats to go on the record

for democracy or status quo. I'm mad as hell and ain't gona take it anymore.

[AshevilleGuy]

29. I know. I just wonder how many Dems would

even do that. The Humphreys, Mansfields and Ribicoffs are no longer there, tragically. Until the Escalation really goes into the crapper, we might get an embarassingly tiny Dem vote for impeachment.

[pat_k]

37. The question is not, "How many will." The question is, "How do we

. . .wake them up to reality?"

Each and every person who takes some action -- large or small -- to inject reality into their insular world and to challenge immobilizing rationalizations "out here" makes it more likely that the House will impeach. The same rationalizations have immobilized Democrats for decades. When we break down those rationalizations, we set the stage for future victories.

As we call on them to fulfill their oath; contradict their "Can't win, so won't fight" rationalization, and seek to cure them of their addiction to destructive partial analysis (analysis that focuses exclusively on the feared risks of action, while willfully ignoring the benefits of action and the risks of inaction), we are changing the dynamics, moving some to act, and making it more likely that more of them will stand up in the future. And when a member proves to be unreachable, it is time to recruit a powerful primary challenger.

It is the battles for our most basic and treasured principles that are the most consequential. (e.g., Challenging a Senator to stand up and object to the Florida electors on Jan 6, 2001 or the Ohio electors on Jan 6, 2005; demanding they fulfill their oath and impeach Bush and Cheney; demanding believable elections; lobbying Members to oppose the Authorization to Use Military Force with everything they've got; calling on them to filibuster Alito.)

There are always rewards along the way, whatever the outcome. Action begets hope; hope begets action. We connect with others. We learn what we are capable of. Each citizen moved to do even a small thing in a fight for our basic and treasured principles is a critical victory because as they are waking up to those principles and are more likely to act in the future.

Stop worrying about what they are willing to do today and figure out how to motivate our so-called leaders to impeach Bush and Cheney and become champions of the People's Government and the Constitution.

[rhett o rick]

41. Good post. I agree and I also think it is important to send a message to

the democratic leaders that we are "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore". They work for us. For example Senator Cantwell of Washington. The democratic party will never seek to replace her with someone that will fight for the middle class. They will stick with her thick or thin because she is an incumbent. the democratic party would still kiss Zell Miller's ass if he was an incumbent. We have to take control of the democratic party at all levels and kick the bastards out. The corporatist's that have completely taken over the republican party have significant influence in the democratic party as well. Sorry i m rambling. it's late and i need to go to bed.

[librechik]

65. the point is not to win. the point is to drag Bush's crimes through the media

day after day while the investigation proceeds.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF WE HAVE THE VOTES IN THE END. THAT IS NOT THE POINT.THE POINT IS TO HOLD THEM RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CRIMES IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION--WE WILL WIN THERE!

[rhett o rick]

71. Even if we don't win, we will have done all we could. nm

[onenote]

57. why didn't you do that during the election

it was only four months ago. How many Democrats ran on impeachment platforms? How many got elected. If there was as much support for impeachment as you seem to believe, why wouldn't Democrats have gone on record during the campaign as a way of attracting support and distinguishing themselves from their repub opponents?

The public at large -- as opposed to the activist wing of the party -- needs to be persuaded. Otherwise we will shoot ourselves in the foot.

[rhett o rick]

74. The public won't be persuaded if we don't go public with our campaign.

I tried to get commitments for impeachment, but my candidate, Sen Cantwell, isn't responsive to constituents, only big money.

[ClassWarrior]

30. If we don't IMPEACH criminals, what kind of message does THAT send?

NGU.

[Irreverend IX]

44. Impeachment is not possible.

Get it through your head. The votes aren't there. If the Democrats try it, the GOP will fight it tooth and nail and delay all other legislation. The media will spin it in the worst possible way so as to make the Dems look petty and vindictive. And keep in mind, impeachment will NOT put Bush in prison or give him any other punishment beyond removing him from office.

Also remember that if you want to the impeachment to be effective, you have to get rid of Cheney and everyone else on down to Nancy Pelosi. How will you get 15 Repubs and every single Dem to vote for that? Keep in mind, the GOP has been solidly behind Bush even on the unpopular surge strategy. In politics, attacking your opponent directly often makes you look like the bad guy.

Bush is in a weak position now, and the more badly his Iraq strategy fails the easier it will be for the Dems to promote a withdrawal. If he tries to attack Iran, stay in power past the end of his term or do something similarly outrageous, then it would be advisable for the Dems to try and override him or impeach him outright.

It seems that your strategy is to draw up articles of impeachment and then hope that it passes by some miracle. I say the Dems shouldn't pick a fight they can't win.

[Dr Fate]

45. Your excuses for NOT fighting are well crafted but can be rebutted in favor of doing the right thing

The votes may very well be there- some Republicans may want to keep their jobs as opposed to siding with an unpopular war criminal who presided over an illegal war. The public already hates the war & Bush- all moderates need to see is a few facts & investigations.

The media- they will try what you say-but for one thing, Bush and the war are unpopular- it will be harder for the media to get people to side w/ Bush than you say- The media failed to turn the public against Clinton when he was impeahed, and they failed to keep Bush or the war popular- they are powerful but only to an extent.

Iran- no, you impeach him BEFORE we attack Iran- there is no way it can happen if he gets us into WWIII.

The rest of your excuses dont fly- the goal is not to put Pelosi in power or to put Bush in jail- but to uphold the U.S. Constitution and send a message to future leaders who might otherwise try & drag the U.S. illegal wars.

[Brad Alan-Desjardins]

47. I agree with Nabeskin

As much as I would like to see the Bush crime family gone it ain't gonna happen the votes just aren't there, they are in the House but once it reaches the Senate Bush and whoever gets impeached will be aquitted cause the Dems don't got 67 members and even if the moderate Republicans join us we will be short by atleast 10 votes.

I'm sorry but if were gonna impeach were going all the way and we can't go all the way this time cause of lack of votes in the Senate.

Basically in the words of my cousin, Ex-Moderator Daylin Byak...51 does not = 67

[Dr Fate]

53. Im not convinced-You have no counter-refutations for any of my points.

What about Republicans siding with us over massive public pressure against Bush & the war- or preassuring him to resign so that it never has to go that far?

Sorry- but "Cant do it, dont try" is for losers.

[onenote]

58. why didn't the repubs side with us on the surge resolution

despite strong public opposition to the surge...

Jumping off a cliff in the hope that some republicans are going to try to save you is a bad bad strategy.

[Dr Fate]

60. Because it was not about breaking the law or lying us into an unpopular war (AKA "High Crime")

Republicans are not worried about saving us- they are going to save their own skins and distance themselves from Bush & the war- like they are already starting to do.

I'm just glad Pat Fitzgerald doesnt have the same loser mentality that some of us here have.

[onenote]

61. under your theory, Fitz should've gone after more than Libby

He went for what he could win.

[Dr Fate]

63. The plan does not have to mirror Fitz's- but he did go after more than Libby.

He only focused on the purgery when that was all he had left- and now he is vindicated all around. The public perception that the Bush admin engaged in illegal activity is now on the books.

In the case of impeachment, everyone already knows we were lied into the war- all we have to do is get Bush under oath for 15 minutes.

[Brad Alan-Desjardins]

66. Come on man i'm no loser

And if Republicans in the Senate came out supporting Impeachment you bet your sweet ass i'll support impeachment cause the votes will be there with bi-partisan support.

[Dr Fate]

67. That's the same reason many DEMS supported the war.

They wanted to go along with Republicans instead of doing some framing and preassuring of their own.

I'm not convinced that Republicans wont preassure Bush to resign before it even gets that far-they dont want any of the secrets to come out either- but first we have to try.

[Irreverend IX]

49. "The right thing" doesn't count for shit in politics.

You can't storm out and fight for righteousness like some knight in shining armor in the world of politics, just like you can't hunt down and kill a guy who rapes someone in your family and expect the legal system to let you off. Is it unjust? Sure. The system is unjust by nature. The Dems have to deal with that and take down the enemy in a way that won't backfire on them.

And where are the votes going to come from? The GOP stayed behind Bush on his surge proposal, and it would be much easier for a GOPer to oppose the surge than to support impeaching him. Like I said, your strategy is to run into battle half-cocked and hope for a miracle.

[Dr Fate]

54. You dont seem to have any counter refutations for any of my points.

You just said the same things over again.

And you are incorrect about all Republicans supporting Bush- there is a trend and many, many Republicans are backing away from him and the war- voters-certainly moderates and even conservative ones certainly are.

"Cant win, so dont try" is loser talk.

[onenote]

59. your point assumes "massive pressure" for impeachment

Where is it? Don't see it. It might come if investigations and hearings are conducted, not with the express goal of impeachment, but as an end in themselves. If the hearings/investigations are labelled as part of an impeachment effort, the public will make up its mind before the evidence ever gets out.

[Dr Fate]

62. I'm just glad Pat Fitzgerald doesnt have the same loser mentality that some of us here have.

There was no "massive pressure" to impeach Clinton either- and he did not even do anything wrong-in our case, we have one of the most unpopular Presidents in history with a very unpopular war.

If we impeach him, very few people will buy your arguement that it is unjustified.

The average citizen is not going to side with George Bush over this- just like they dont side with him now.

[Ninja Jordan]

51. Agreed

[rhett o rick]

70. "dems shouldn't pick fights they can't win". Can't disagree more.

First of all Bushco picked the fight and in case you ain't been watchin we are loosing. For six plus years we are loosing. During that time too many dems decided not to fight, afraid to look bad.

I am glad our founding fathers didn't have that attitude. They took on the strongest military in the World not knowing if they would win.

I plan on winning. If not, to go down fighting, not like Kerry in '04. We may not win the impeachment battle but by fighting it we show the rest of the Country what we stand for.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

52. What it would take would be a chance of success.

Unless circumstances change such that there is a chance of impeachment procedings succeeding, introducing them will be a bad idea.

By all means try and bring about that change - I think you will fail, but I would be delighted to be proven wrong - but if you have a plan to build a house on quicksand by using a revolutionary new form of foundation then you should build the foundations before you start telling people to put their houses there.

At present, introducing impeachment procedings would be a catastrophe for both the Democrats and America.

[Dr Fate]

55. That was the same reason many DEMS did not oppose the war -"Cant win, so dont even try"

Then it came back to bite them on the ass- not taking out the neocons while we have them under the gun will have the same affect.

"Cant win, so dont even try" is loser talk. I'm glad Pat Fitzgerald never took that attitude.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

68. So which half of my contention are you disputing?

Are you saying that there is a chance that impeachment procedings would be successful, or are you saying that even though they wouldn't be, they would still be worthwhile?

[rhett o rick]

72. Here, here. nm

[rhett o rick]

76. We have had six plus years of catastrophe. Impeachment proceedings are

a must. These are criminals you want to let off the hook. Nothing else is important until we reestablish the Constitution and make it crystal clear we will punish anyone who wants to step on our Constitution. How can any other business be more important than reestablishing the democracy?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

79. That's rhetoric, not thought.

Do you think there is a chance of impeachment procedings succeeding?
Do you think that failed impeachment procedings would be good for America?

Unless the answer to one of those is "yes" then impeachment is clearly a bad idea. And I think both answers are very clearly "no".

Saying I "want" to let Bush of the hook is like saying I "want" to die. It's *precisely* the same rhetorical device as saying that opponents of the Iraq war "want America to fail".

It would be nice if it were possible to "make it crysal clear we will punish anyone who wants to step on our Constitution", but it isn't, and you can't.

The way to reestablish respect for the constitution with the greatest chance of success is to ensure the election of a President, senators and congressmen who will respect it in 2008.

[rhett o rick]

80. Your insistence on "winning" sounds similar to the repugs views on Iraq.

Sorry not offense intended but "failed Impeachment" what does that mean. If we the f***** people get impeachment off the ground, if we the people get our legislators attention then we have won. I agree it is an uphill battle, but so was the Revolutionary War. We need to draw a line in the whatever and stand and fight. Bush and Cheney have broken laws and need to be prosecuted period. Keep your powder dry if you want but I had enough.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

82. The point is not to keep powder dry, it's that there is no powder.

"Bush and Cheney have broken laws and need to be prosecuted" - I think this highlights a flaw in your thinking. The Crown Prosecution Service (and whatever the American equivalent is) only bring prosecutions when there is a chance of a conviction.

What "failed impeachment procedings" (not "a failed impeachment") means is obvious - impeachment procedings that do not result in an impeachment. This would enable the Republicans to (correctly) claim that the Democrats had been wasting government time and energy on wild goose chases, and help them retain/regain power in 2008.

I strongly disagree that "getting legislators attention" is any kind of victory. a victory can consist of nothing less than getting good legislation passed, and doomed impeachment procedings would make that less likely to happen.

Oh, and why bother saying "no offence intended" when it's so blatantly a direct lie? And your comparison of my position - that the only possible outcome of impeachment procedings is defeat; clearly defined objectively-measurable defeat; and therefore they would be a bad idea - to that of the Republicans on Iraq - that more and more resources must be spent until an outcome categorisable as victory, whatever than may mean, in the face of the evidence that no such outcome is attainable - needs some work; the analogy works considerably less badly the other way round, with *you* as the one advocating throwing more and more resources away in pursuit of the unattainable.

[rhett o rick]

83. I bow to your superior intellect. My analogy wasn't so good. Let me try again

Let's say you and your wife own a convenience store and some thugs break in and mess the place up. Then they proceed to rape your wife. Should you waste your "resources" trying to fight them knowing you probably won't win? Or better use your resources to clean up the store?

The neocon thugs are raping our Constitution. It isn't enough to patch up the Constitution but we must drive out the tyrants or die trying.

Passing needed legislation is a waste of resources if we don't get rid of the monsters that will continue to try to destroy our democracy.

I do appreciate your patience in dialogging with me.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

85. Your analogy is fine, and leads directly to my conclusion.

Prosecution services only bring cases to trial when there is a chance of a conviction. Impeachment should follow exactly the same principle.

In the circumstance you've described, most people, including me, would try and move on with their lives if there was no chance of a conviction ("*probably* won't win" is misleading; the chances of impeachment procedings succeeding are on a par with those of 16 Republican senators deciding en masse to leave politics - technically non-zero, but so close as to be indistinguishable).

By all means try and gather further evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the current administration - I don't think there's any chance whatsoever of putting together a succesful case for impeachment, but I'd love to be proven wrong, and (crucially) even if you don't succeed, the evidence you gather will help rather than harm the Democrats and America (this is the one place your analogy breaks down - if thugs break into your store then evidence against them won't do any good if there isn't enough to convict them, whereas in politics it will).

But *don't* advocate initiating impeachment procedings unless/until you have put such a case together (in the same way that trying to get the prosecution service to prosecute your analogical thugs until you had a strong enough case for a chance of success would be a mistake).

Incidentally, getting rid of Bush and Cheney will be incredibly easy, and doesn't require impeachment - give me a couple of years and I'll accomplish it single-handedly. Impeachment procedings won't help get rid of them, but *will* make it more likely that their successors are just as bad.

[sampsonblk]

69. Our legacy will be very poor at best

History will not be kind to the liberal movement(s) in this country if we continue this course of strategizing and plotting in the face of such transgressions by the Bush administration.

"Where were the leaders," our children will ask. "Where were all the peacemakers, and the people who loved the Constitution? Where were all the churches and the rights organizations?"

And we will say, "We didn't try because we didn't think it would help us in the long run. So we didn't do a damn thing." Or "If we thought we had the 60 votes, we would have made an effort." Or even better "all the 'strategists' told us it would mess up our chances in the next election cycle."