I think Nancy Pelosi is afraid to start impeachment and that is just unacceptable!

[Maraya1969]

They are all scared like little babies and I for one am getting sick of it. Trust me, if it were the other way around and bush was a democrat you can be damn sure his ass would have been to the curb a long time ago. They would all be out on the curb and probably in jail to boot.

And if this were any other Democratic type country his ass would be at the curb. The only people that put up with this travesty is US. What the Fuck is the matter with us??????

She and all of them are supposed to protect the American people. Well this administration has been hurting the American people since they stole the election in 2000. It is going to take years for this country heal. And what are they doing in the house and senate? Sitting around with their thumbs up their asses introducing stupid non-binding resolutions and other bullshit that will never pass.

Tens of thousands of Americans protested this weekend demanding impeachment. Everywhere you look people are demanding impeachment. We have threads on it every day. We have states voting for impeachment. Other countries are having war tribunals and convicting Bush and Cheney of war crimes. Germany has filed legal documents against Rumsfield, Cheney, Gonzales and Tenet for war crimes!

Doesn't that say something when OTHER COUNTRIES are trying to make our administration face charges justice and our own country does NOTHING?

What I want to know is what the Hell do we have to do to get her and the rest of the wussies in Congress and the House to start impeachment proceedings already.

I am sick of it all. I'm thinking that maybe we should start protesting our senators and congress people.

I remember bitching about this in the beginning of January and people yelled that I was not being patient enough. Well it is now March and still nothing is done.

And I think Nancy Pelosi owes this country an explanation as to why she has done NOTHING about impeaching the worst president and vice president in the history of our country.

Explain it to us Ms. Pelosi. It's the very least you could do.

OH and BTW you can't get our soldiers back from Iraq in the Senate and the House but you sure could do it if you ran these murderers out of the White House. Just start the proceedings and see how many bats come flying out of the walls and their asses. Trust me you'll have enough evidence and the American people will be grateful for it.

Ms. Pelosi and the rest of you, if you don't want to do it for us regular citizens do it for our sick and dying soldiers. It's the least you can do.

[BayCityProgressive]

1. The Democrats

are not and never have been willing to fundementally change our system. If Bush was impeached it would be a rebuke to big business, the rich, and pre-emptive war. The Democrats like big business, get money fromt he rich, and may want to use pre-emptive war...so they aren't going to take any of it off the table by impeaching Bush. They would rather lose in 08 than do that.

[Maraya1969]

3. Well that is not except able either. Richard Branson is offering 25 million

for someone to come up with a way to remove carbon dioxide from the air. I think some multi-millionaire should offer the same award for the person who figures out how to make the Democratic Party's representative's live up to what the Democratic Party is about.

[SlowDownFast]

76. "Richard Branson is offering 25 million...

...for someone to come up with a way to remove carbon dioxide from the air."

That's easy:

More Trees!

Less Bush!

When do I get my check?

[Tigress DEM]

83. ROFL More Trees - Less Bush AaaaaH! Priceless. thanks.

[mtnsnake]

2. When it comes to walking the walk they're all a bunch of chickenshits.

[Maraya1969]

5. I think I'm going to send this thread to Ms. Pelosi.

[AtomicKitten]

4. I think they are putting the cart before the horse

... rather than rushing in and botching the effort. Investigations first, then impeachment. And if they do it, they better go for a two-fer because Shooter would be on deck next otherwise.

[Maraya1969]

7. Yea well didn't the Repukes start the impeachment and THEN President Clinton

was made to testify before congress? Starting impeachment proceedings gives you move than just subpoena power. At least I think it does.

[AtomicKitten]

13. It is the same investigative power vis a vis subpoena.

The Clinton impeachment process was a virtual witch hunt with a special prosecutor that leaked like a sieve and a grotesque misuse of the legal system. It was a travesty.

I know you smell blood in the water, we all do, but it is my expectation that the Dems will proceed deliberately and carefully to get the full picture of the pile of felonies committed by this administration particularly with reference to the illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq. It may be the only and most efficient way to stop this war.

[ORDagnabbit]

6. Feinstein tells us why....

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/19/sen-feinstein-drops-purge-bombshell/


they dont like going for the jugular. its about midway in.

[Maraya1969]

11. HOW many times have I heard that THIS IS THE ONE THAT WILL GIVE US THE AMMUNITION?

TO IMPEACH????

The Downing Street memos, Illegal wire tapping, torture, ever single abuse of the constitution and on and on and on and



CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED FOR A BLOW JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Something is direly wrong with the Democratic party and they need to fix it real fast.



Sorry for yelling but right now I feel like my head is exploding.

[calimary]

108. Well, I hope we're all calling her office, actually ALL of their offices,

demanding IMPEACHMENT.

We have to overwhelm them. The drumbeat must become so staggeringly loud that they can't hear ANYTHING else.

[MADem]

8. What a bunch of ME TOO YES MEN or WOMEN on this thread. Nancy Pelosi

does not HAVE THE VOTES for impeachment. Do the math.

Good grief. Is she supposed to pull them out of her ASS? XEROX them, perhaps???

What an idiotic thread. Absolutely idiotic.

It demonstrates a complete and total ignorance of how the damn Congress works.

[mtnsnake]

9. She doesn't? Was I dreaming when we took over the House?

I thought it only takes a one vote majority to impeach, MADem.

[MADem]

18. Subtract those BLUE DOGS when you do your math. NT

[mtnsnake]

25. Blue dogs schmu dogs. We've got the votes. nt

[MADem]

31. Honest ta God, mtnsnake--we don't. And we don't have two thirds in the Senate.

All it would look like is a witch hunt. Yes, he deserves it, but that's how it would be taken--as a payback for Clinton. And it would just WASTE TIME, because he'd not be convicted. The Senate is fifty fifty, (like Lieberman would vote with us--NOT) just about--and ya need two thirds to convict. So why go through that shit for nothing?

[mtnsnake]

42. Here's the way I look at it

We most certainly do have the votes to impeach, theoretically. If these "blue dog" Democrats you speak about don't vote to impeach, then in my book they're not Democrats, period, because there cannot be a true blue Democrat alive that doesn't feel the monster should be held accountable.

Yes, he deserves it, but that's how it would be taken--as a payback for Clinton.

You worry way too much. You said yourself that he deserves it. If you think he deserves it, then it's your obligation as a Democrat to go for impeachment. As Democrats, we have way more than the one vote majority in the House it takes to impeach. I'd rather try to see justice done, blue dog Dems or not, than to do nothing about it at all.

Instead of worrying about these blue dog Dems, Republicans should be worried about how many of their own people would probably go along with the impeachiment themselves. At the rate Democrats are moving, it'll probably be the Republicans who impeach Bush. Wouldn't that take the cake.

[MADem]

53. It's not worry. And the truth is, a lot of those Blue Dogs ARE DINOs.

We have them onboard for some issues, but not for others. Impeachment is one issue where they're not ready to play ball with the rest of the team.

It's not a lockstep delegation. And without the votes, we can't prevail.

We cannot prevail to impeach in the House, thus we would never even get to a Senate trial. And THAT is where all the good dirt comes out.

It would be seen as sniping, as childish, as vindictive, not as anything that would mean anything. And it WOULD be seen as an attempt to revenge Clinton, and the GOP would chortle at the FAILURE.

Because it won't pass. Not now, anyway. Maybe later down the line. If BushCo does a few more hideous things.

But now? Not a chance in hell.

That's not a wish, it isn't a worry either---it's just a simple vote count.

I can count, and we don't have the numbers.

[Labors of Hercules]

65. Impeachment is useless without a conviction.

It's only the act of bringing charges, similar to an indictment in criminal proceedings. There has never been a conviction after impeachment in the history of our country. And why is that?

Probably because in a two party system with one of those parties being Republican, there is no way in hell 2/3 of the Senate will vote yea unless the case is so strong and uncontestable they have no alternative.

But be patient. It is you who are worrying too much. The ammunition is being loaded, and the barrel will be smoking soon enough. :nuke:

[mtnsnake]

74. Useless? Repubs impeached & got rewarded with 2 successive terms of a Repub pres

...an imbecile.

be patient

Be patient for what? Next winter to get here? Why wait till winter. Do it now.

[Labors of Hercules]

87. What a fantastic precedent to create!

If the controlling party in Congress doesn't hold the presidency, just impeach the President to ensure victory in the upcoming election! What a fantastic way to uphold our constitutional democracy!

:rant:

WE ARE NOT REPUBLICAN, and I can't stand it when Democrats want us to behave like they do.

Impeach him if you can convict him, otherwise DON'T.

Besides, you can't even prove Clinton's impeachment was the determining factor in the 2000 election, especially considering Gore received more popular votes than any other candidate in the history of our nation.

:rant:

[MADem]

104. Game, set, match, there, Labors! NT

[Labors of Hercules]

113. Go Team!

Good game MAD! Are you pumped and ready for round 2?!

:yourock:

[MADem]

114. Sure thing!

I'm pleased that I'm not the only one who refuses to check their logic and knowledge of history at the door when engaging in these discussions!

:yourock: backatcha!

[yodermon]

75. "unless the case is so strong and uncontestable they have no alternative. "

That is the effect the House investigations will have. The Entire Senate will have no choice but to vote for conviction because the revealed crimes will be so incontrovertibly heinous that the GOP will HAVE to, or be permanently voted out of office.

[AZBlue]

90. Um, actually we don't. Not by a long-shot.

eom

[Bobbieo]

10. SHE DOES NOT HAVE THE VOTES FOR IMPREACHMENT!!

She doesn't want to start something when she can't win and I don't blame her. THINK ABOUT IT!!!!

[mtnsnake]

12. WTF are you screaming about? She DOES have enough votes to impeach.

Don't get impeachment mixed up with conviction.

The fucker needs to be impeached. It's our obligation to do so. Where it goes from there is another story.

[MADem]

19. Actually, no--there are Blue Dogs who won't 'go along' without concessions.

And we've nothing to concede to them quite yet.

[mtnsnake]

47. Any Democrats who wouldn't vote to impeach Bush should be impeached themselves. nt

[MADem]

49. Well, there are quite a few of them who aren't "with the program" at this point.

No sense in getting mad at them; their constituents need to chane their hearts....

[AshevilleGuy]

50. Last week Obey couldn't even get the 218 for an antiwar resolution.

Compared to the utter seriousness of impeachment, getting 218 for the war resolution would have been a day at the beach! If he couldn't get that, it proves categorically that the votes are not there for impeachment, at least for now.

Failing to impeach in the House would be be taken as vindication by bush. And then he would be innoculated from it. Remember what Machiavelli said about striking at a prince...

[MADem]

52. If yer gonna go for it, ya gotta hit yer mark. And absolutely, we don't have it now. But we may,

soon. This drip, drip, drip isn't helping BushCo at all. He's already dragging out the old Ready Dot Gove commercials from the Nahn Wun Wun era; he'll be screeching "Terra, terra, terra, fightem over there, not over here" like a mantra pretty soon. Gotta whip up that fear, after all!

[sampsonblk]

54. SO WHAT!?

She has a responsibility to attempt it. It ain't all about succeeding at it. Sometimes you have to take that plunge - if only out of a sense of duty - and see where it takes you.

[MADem]

57. No, she does not have a "responsibility" to FAIL and weaken the delegation

And make the inattentive Americans think that the Democrats are all about vindictiveness and politics.

Grow up. Understand how the system works.

[sampsonblk]

99. Oh boy...

I have a better suggestion for you: since those who follow your philosophy of weakness have kept us in the minority for quite long enough, why don't you go join the GOP? Yeah, I like the sound of that. And the whole world will thank you.

[MADem]

103. Now THAT was....inappropriate. Real weak of you. Unbelievably immature.

No argument?

No ability to discuss the issues?

No response that addresses the actual concerns raised?

Well, what to do? How about resorting to the childish, idiotic, all-purpose, personally insulting "I'm unable to come up with anything resembling a logical retort" along the lines of:

"Well, nanny nanny boo boo, why don't you go JOIN THE GOP!!!! YEAH, I like the SOUND of THAT. And the whole world will thank you!"

Do you realize how completely idiiotic that statement is? How old are you--thirteen? Or younger? I guess you aren't going out for the debate team any time soon!

I won't pick on you, though, you clearly don't have the skills, understanding or knowledge to engage in a discussion on this issue. I hope it is a function of your (young, hopefully) age, and not due to limitations of your comprehension abilities.


:rofl:

[sampsonblk]

110. You just jumped the shark

I tire of you. First you insult me personally, then whine that I am not discussing the actual issues. I definitely do not play that game.

Go talk to someone else.

[MADem]

111. You do need logic and debate classes. There's no personal insult involved,

except for YOUR inference that I am GOP material--THAT's personal insult.

Saying your IDEAS suck is not the same as saying YOU suck.

Go reread the rules; you'll see that I'm staying within them, though your gratuitious suggestions about where I should go and what outfits I should join ARE over the line.

[A wise Man]

60. I'll tell you what

they can scare the hell out of them if someone leaked that they were going to prosecute them and try them for treason after they leave office. They wouldn't have the protection of the government and the surrounding idiots they have now, plus they'll have to get their own lawers with their own monies. Just line them up one by one.

[sampsonblk]

100. I'm for that-nt

nt

[NoPasaran]

64. It's ALL about succeeding

"Sometimes you have to take that plunge - if only out of a sense of duty - and see where it takes you." Sounds like Bush's strategy in Iraq.

[Tigress DEM]

70. I, for one, want him CONVICTED of EVERY LAST CRIME.

For this bunch, instead of life incarcerated, I think we should opt to borrow a guillitione and for those convicted of war crimes and crimes against the state, get rid of them 24 hrs after the trial with no chance at appeal or parole.

Treason against the US by the pResident and his rogue state is unforgivable.

If there wasn't enough hard evidence to convict, then we the people will have failed too.

[sampsonblk]

101. I will give you a point for that one.

There is one exception though: if we fail at impeachment, no one dies. Plus its the right thing to do.

[Tigress DEM]

69. Why attempt when they can DO it once the evidence is gathered by investigations?

If you watch CSpan and see the hearings that are happening, it sure looks like the case is being made for Impeachment by GATHERING the Evidence.

IF we are to proceed as a Democracy, we MUST go by Rule of Law and that means digging up the evidence so that impeachment SUCCEEDS.

If they do it now and fail, it's worse than not attempting it at all.

Think of the kind of damage that happens if an abuser is able to say his wife files "false" police reports because he was able to get out of one incident.

The END RESULT of Impeachment is to get all the evidence and go to trial to see justice served. With an administration that has gone to illegal lengths to hide the evidence, it must be recovered first.

[Maraya1969]

14. NEITHER DID THE REPUBLICANS BUT THAT DIDN'T STOP THEM!!!!!!!!!

I swear it is a matter of doing the right thing even if you fail at this point.

Do it for our soldiers.

Do it for the people who lost everything in Katrina while that jack ass was "Great job Brownie...ing"

Do if for all the innocent people who have been tortured.

If you want to be 100% sure of the outcome before you do anything you will never do anything! How do we know that what is exposed will not change some Republican's minds. Especially if the polls support it and they want to hold on to their jobs.

[AshevilleGuy]

24. That's right: Clinton was acquitted (or was not convicted)

And how much harm did it do his legacy?? He is one of the most popular persons in the world now. GWB would not even get impeached in the House - how would THAT look?????

The WH would spin it as AFFIRMATION that his policies have been correct. Do you really want this?

[mtnsnake]

26. So because Bill was impeached but not convicted we shouldn't impeach Bush

Wow, that makes sense.

NOT

[AshevilleGuy]

34. My point is,

right now we couldn't even impeach him in the House, because we DO NOT HAVE THE VOTES. How would THAT look?????????????

Do you think we can just create 218 votes out of thin air???? Either they are there or they are not. This is not a magic show, it's not dreamland, this is real.

[mtnsnake]

45. So what your saying is we have a significant # of Dems who would vote down impeachment

I find that hard to believe, but if it's true, then the Democratic Party is finished.

[AshevilleGuy]

48. Dems do not vote in lockstep like republics.

Impeachment is one of the two gravest votes they can take; the other is declaring war. As I have said here tonight I doubt if we could get 200 votes right now in the House. 218 are of course needed.

And we wouldn't get 25 in the Senate. It would appear to vindicate GWB. Do we want that?

[MADem]

115. We have a significant number who would vote it down .... NOW.

But they could be moved to support it, with time, discussion, and frankly, a bit of horsetrading.

That is what Dave Obey, even minus a magic wand in his pocket, is actively trying to do, incrementally. First, though, we have to stop this war, and get those people onboard who have to vote AGAINST their interests in order to make that happen(and not just personal interests, the interests of their districts--if the body armor factory is in your district and gives jobs to 15% of your constituents, well, how is a war ending gonna affect them? How happy will THOSE voters be to see the war end? All politics IS local...but if some NEW business could be located in that guy's district and in essence, substituted for that body armor factory in the legislation, well, the pain is reduced...see?).

The party isn't finished. There are some people who think that a wounded, caged, and weakened Bush is a much more manageable option than a Bush tossed out on his ass and replaced by a snarling Cheney with a new broom and a new crew of Nazis who are better at hiding the evidence. Now, many don't agree with that point of view, but it IS a point of view that has currency in some corners of the party. It doesn't mean the person holding it is somehow disloyal or doesn't care. It's simply a difference in perspective.

[MADem]

33. To be precise, he was IMPEACHED, AND AQUITTED. But he WAS impeached.

We don't have the votes. We just don't.

[AshevilleGuy]

36. That is what I said, or meant to say.

Of course we do not have the votes. And has it hurt Bill Clinton since then, no. Nor should it in his case, but it wouldn't hurt bush either - he would revel in being acquitted, THEN he would be innoculated from it ever happening again, and so would the next half dozen real presidents.

[MADem]

38. Yep, in a way, it's better he be forced to account for his entire failed presidency.

He can join his relative, Franklin Pierce, and others in the annals of Shitty Rotten Presidents. You gotta figure all those dead guys like Harding and others are jumping for joy, ready to jump up a place in line, since he's gonna be the new "bottom man" in the Presidential sweepstakes.

We don't want to use impeachment as a political tool. It's preferable that we exercise restraint, especially since we don't have to votes to be rid of him, just to harrass him.

[AshevilleGuy]

39. If we HAD the votes in the House and in the Senate, I would say do it.

But we don't. Not even close. I would be astounded, SHOCKED if we had 200 in the House, as of now. I do not think we would get 150...

Now, 6 months from now, if some HUGE revelation comes from hearings, then that could change. He sure as hell deserves it!

[MADem]

41. Me too--the trial would be a fucking DOOZY!!!! But we've no hope of two thirds.

Not unless a busload of GOP senators from states with Democratic governors goes tumbling off a cliff in a Deus Ex Machina moment!!!!

And I agree with your count in the House, right now.

You're right, though--we could have a sea change in the House, followed by a Nixonian miasma pervading the Senate down the line, and then someone would go over to the White House in a Goldwater moment, and tell the man it's time for him to go...

[Tigress DEM]

73. Heard about DIY Citizen Impeachment?

http://impeachforpeace.org/ImpeachNow.html


I'm getting some books on Impeachment Articles so I can put my own together and have a goal of getting this information out to 100 of my neighbors by July 4 2007.

[Tigress DEM]

72. Hi Mad! DIY Impeachment Anyone?

I saw the 3/17 protest in DC and Sheehan is calling for Impeachment too.

However, I think if every DUer could commit to filling out a DIY Impeachment with their own Articles of Impeachment, encourage 100 neighbors to do the same and meet in Philly on July 4th for the rally where United for Peace & Justice & World Can't Wait etc... are going to "declare our Independence from *ush & his rogue state", we could "git er done".

What say you?

[MADem]

97. I say, if people are mailing these DIY Articles to the fat, greasy, and thus-far

undisturbed pro-war, hand-me-my-five-iron members of Congress, the Blue Dogs, the Conservative Dems, and YES, the die-hard GOP clowns, that such an action could well effect a shift in perception, which is something I would dearly love to see. When those guys get SERIOUS mail from their constituents, ever more pissed off every day, they'll do what politicians do--SHIFT their attitudes to adequately represent their voting base. Because they KNOW, even with a work-week that has doubled in hours, they still have a better gig than most Americans...and a way better health plan--better than the military, active OR retired.

If, however, this effort is just a "preach to the already antiwar choir" thing, then I'm less hopeful as to success (I'm very tired of the "Beat Up on Obey and Pelosi" themes, to be plain about it). I hope it's the former--where the "WarHappy Legislators" are targeted. I do think that would work. Maybe we need a fifty state strategy that targets the rightwing districts and persuades voters to weigh in with their 'red' nitwit legislators, via petition or what have you?

I can't make it to Philly on 07-04, though--I've got a 'thing' here in the land of Bean and Cod that I can't (and never do) miss.

[ProudDad]

121. Because Clinton

did not commit crimes against the Constitution of the United States or crimes against Humanity.

shrub did...

Even if he is not removed by the Senate he still will be sentenced to stay in Texas for the rest of his misbegotten life 'cause he won't be able to go to any other country for fear of being hauled up to the Hague...

That's enough for me...

[MADem]

29. Uh, the Republicans DID have the votes. That's the difference.

They DID impeach Bill Clinton in the House. The poor man WAS impeached.

They just didn't have the votes in the SENATE to convict him--he was acquitted after a trial in that body.

The Senate is the more deliberative body, they were smart enough to see that what goes around can come around like a sharp whip.

But trust me, if you add up the GOP and the unwilling Blue Dogs in the House, they don't have the votes. And the SENATE? Fuggedaboutit. They definitely don't have the votes there, you need two thirds. Hell, we couldn't even get half if that was all it took--like Lieberman is gonna caucus with the Dems on THAT issue? Please.

[Tigress DEM]

71. DO the right thing, but do it INTELLIGENTLY.

Rethugs could shove this stuff out there because they were about smear & convicting in the press, not about legally convicting according to facts.

DEMS don't wrap the facts around the opinion to put someone in jail, WE PROVE THE BASTARDS DID IT AND GET THEM IMPEACHED (trial) and CONVICTED (sent to jail).

NO ONE I know is arguing *ush & crew shouldn't be IMPEACHED, just that when we do it, we do it like Fitz and gather all the facts. AND with the FACTS the votes will show up.

[AtomicKitten]

16. votes to impeach

simple majority to pass in the House
two/thirds required to convict in the Senate

[Name removed]

37. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProudDad]

51. You should study up

Impeachment is a political process that builds from nearly nothing to final justice.

I'll bet you there are more votes today than there were a couple of weeks ago.

Wait till more of nix...oops, bush's crimes are uncovered and you'll see if there aren't enough votes...

You're post would indicate that you're the one who's a bit deficient about how Congress works. If you don't try you won't succeed...


You can do some study here:

http://www.watergate.info/

[MADem]

55. If you think I am static on this matter you are mistaken in the extreme

Don't lecture me on Watergate--I didn't miss a second of those hearings. I'm OLD, I was an adult then.

And I could COUNT back then, too. Something that WAY too many people who are hectoring Speaker Pelosi seem woefully UNABLE to do.

I strongly suggest you go back and have a look at the numbers in the damned Congress that was all set to impeach Nixon, and then compare them with THIS Congress. Go on, do it.

There were fifty six Democrats in the Senate, along with one 'conservative' and one 'independent.' Compare that with the numbers we have today. Ooops, we come up a little short, don't we? We'd have to sell quite a few Republicans on the idea, along with some of the Democrats in the Southern caucus. We aren't even CLOSE to two thirds.

And do we have these kinds of numbers in the HOUSE today? Wow, I don't think we do:

242 Democrats
192 Republicans
1 Independent Democrat

But we DID have those numbers in the 93rd Congress back in 74.

I'd suggest you be a little surer of your facts before you start advising that others "do some study." You clearly could stand to hit the books yourself.

Barry Goldwater, and other Republicans, they could count, too--they knew there were not only enough votes in the House, but there were also enough votes (you need that two thirds, mind you) in the SENATE. His own party had abandoned him, and Barry was tasked to deliver the bad tidings.

That's why Tricky RESIGNED.

Because, see, HE COULD COUNT, too.

[ProudDad]

88. I suggest we keep the pressure on Pelosi

we have nothing to lose...

I'm from Pelosi country -- she's a pol and won't move unless she thinks it's safe...

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

I'm old too. I remember Watergate like it was yesterday and they didn't have those votes in '73.

It wasn't until the hearings brought out the facts that thinking republicans and conservative dems got on board.

We have to make sure that substantive hearings are not short-circuited by Dem weakness.

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

On Edit: From your post above:

"They DID impeach Bill Clinton in the House. The poor man WAS impeached.
They just didn't have the votes in the SENATE to convict him--he was acquitted after a trial in that body."

We HAVE the VOTES to impeach...

[MADem]

89. I give up. Go ahead and think what you think, and go ahead and beat the shit out of an antiwar

Speaker. It must make you feel powerful, or something. It's a ludicrous construct, but hey, whatever. Bug the people already ON the end-the-war team, and ignore those jerks who want to keep shovelling kids in the meatgrinder. Yeah, makes sense. Not.

No one is putting pressure on the rightwing. Why not? Make THEM feel the pain. Gee, though, that might be HARD--might involve personal sacrifice, maybe some risk.

Instead, it's as if Karl ROVE is managing the bullshit "protests" of the left--the stupidest thing in the world, if you really want change, is to go after the antiwar legislators who ALREADY AGREE WITH YOU. All it does is interfere with their work. It has NO other purpose.

You need to have a critical mass to even GET to the "hearings" phase (and we don't have that, EITHER), never MIND having the votes to impeach--which, no matter how often you repeat it, we DO NOT have. Ask Dave "Do You see a magic wand in my pocket" Obey about that.

Again, do the math. Look at the makeup of the Senate then and now. We do NOT have the votes to impeach--just because there's a (D) after the name, does NOT mean they play ball.

But whatever. You insist, go ahead and INSIST...we will see who's right as time marches on. I'm betting that Dave Obey's take is WAY closer to unfortunate reality than some of the pipe dreams and foot stomping I'm seeing here on DU.

Sheesh. No wonder this war drags on.

[ProudDad]

118. If you want to compare anti-war

credentials..."bring it on!". I've been anti-all-wars since resigning from Annapolis in 1964!

As for Pelosi, You're the one who's going batshit for no good reason. I said she's a pol. She IS a pol. Only Machiavellian Pols get to be Speaker of the House. She's a worthy successor to Lyndon Johnson, et. al.

If she were 1/10 as anti-war as I am she wouldn't have caved in on the Iran clause. If she were 1/10 as anti-war as I am and really wanted to END THE WAR, she'd use her power to include Barbara Lee's Amendment and dare bush to veto the bill -- which he would.

Then she would put together a stronger anti-war bill and let bush veto that one, etc. etc. until the shrub would HAVE to sign one or run out of money. That's using the power of the purse.

But, like nearly all politicians, she's an incrementalist. She's more interested in retaining power (power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely) than in satisfying the DEMANDS OF HER CONSTITUENCY.

I'm not blaming her...it's the "way things are done in Washington". I do lament her lack of courage though.

----------

U.S. Government 101:

The House Impeaches.

The Senate then holds a trial for the impeached person.

We can easily get the votes in the House.


In case you haven't noticed, we are ALREADY IN the hearings phase (if Nancy doesn't get cold feet)...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2775184&mesg_id=2775184

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3173885

Etc.

[MADem]

123. Well, I don't get it. In post 122, you say you can deal with a compromise approach

But here, you lay the blame on Pelosi when she has NO WAY of mustering a majority. None. And failure would make her look first, stupid, and second weak, when she is neither.

Of course we're holding hearings on specific issues. That's not the subject under discussion though. These are NOT impeachment hearings, and to cast them as though they are suggests that you either need that Politics 101/civics course yourself or you are being deliberately misleading for purposes that only you can fathom. Do you like fighting on the internets, is that it?

Everyone wants the Monkey's head on a plate without doing the consensus-building work to get to majorities. They want the war to end without being able to count to a majority of votes for it. They want impeachment without the votes, too.

And one more time---we DO NOT HAVE THE VOTES. You count them up, we don't HAVE them. Simply insisting that we do, over and over again, does NOT make it true. Simply saying, gee, that person has a (D) after their name doesn't mean they're "on the team." Look at how many Blue Dogs there are in the House. Add them to the GOP members in the House and subtract that figure from the total membership. Is that half??? Why no, it isn't. It ain't even CLOSE to half. So, enough with the snarky "U.S. Government 101" horseshit. You might want a basic math course.

If you really think we have half plus one, I think you'd better put up or just stop shopping that assertion. If you can't give me names or delegations, I'll know exactly where you're coming from. Tell me, who are these "AYE" people? Who are you averring are these SURE votes? You're gonna have to give us a list, so we can pass it on to Dave Obey and tell him how silly he was to be all worried, because YOU know where those votes he can't find are. And he's only been on the Hill since the sixties, what does he know?

I don't know how you keep insisting we have the numbers when we don't--it's a bit odd, how you keep pushing that falsehood. And I gotta wonder WHY you are doing it??????????????

[ProudDad]

124. You either aren't old enough

to remember the process that led to nixon's resignation or if you are then you're a victim of selective memory.

It was a slow process that started with relatively innocuous hearings to explore the Watergate break-in. The votes "weren't there" when the hearings started in May of '73 but some patriots like Robert Drinan, Barbara Jordan and Sam Nunn brought the facts to the public's attention.

Just as this is starting with a rather more interesting and damning set of hearings led by Rep. Waxman and Rep. Conyers among others. Not to mention all the help we're getting from Roberto (torture boy) Gonzales.

I'm ending this "conversation" with you at this point since you're obviously not good at presenting a coherent argument without insulting your adversary. It's getting kind of :boring:...

Cheers -- :hi:

[MADem]

125. I am old enough. I'm RETIRED, fachrissake.

And thanks for proving my point.


It was a SLOW PROCESS...you said.


The VOTES weren't there...you said.

That's all I've been saying, and that's all that Dave Obey has been saying. Yet, if you go back and read your very own words, that isn't what you've been claiming.

And I don't stoop to insult, but whatever. There's no need to go on, since you moved the goalposts over to my field anyway. Enjoy.

[Tigress DEM]

77. re: "Wait til more... crimes are uncovered" EXACTLY

And what you are describing may well be happening, the building from nearly nothing to final justice.

However, legally how the impeachment process works in Congress MUST start with at least some conclusive evidence of wrong doing. We could probably prove incompetence, but that isn't GOOD enough.

As much as WE know out here, I'm sure the DEMs who've had to live under the thumb of King Geo have some clues as to where the bodies of evidence are buried and if we give them time there won't BE a MISTRIAL.

And, maybe it's just me, but ya' gotta love a Congress that for nearly its first order of business upped their own work week from 3 days to 5.

Just think about all the investigative hearings into all the areas of mass deception as dective work for impeachment and things make more sense.

[Maraya1969]

15. Can we please vote this up because even if some disagree it still.

has merit. Do we only vote up things which everyone agree with? I think the fear part is a piece of the puzzle and I haven't heard it said before. I also think some people here might be afraid.

It's time to stop being afraid.

[mtnsnake]

17. If I could vote again I would. Only on DU do you ever hear resistance to impeaching

the fucker. This is the only place on earth where Democrats don't think we should hold Bush accountable. Unbelievable. Here we finally got the majority it takes to impeach and we're sitting on our hands not even talking about it.

[Maraya1969]

20. I hear ya. This thread reminds me of our elected representatives.

Too much "wait and see" and not enough fight and might.

[MADem]

23. Well, what DO you get, if you impeach? You get a BIG DICK, that's what you get.

And he picks out a VP....I'm sure it would be someone we'd just love. Donald Rumsfeld isn't working, is he?

Are you FREE, Mister Rumsfeld? Yes, I'm FREE, Mister Chee-Nee...

Are you FREE, Mister Perle?....Are you free, Mister Negroponte??

It's not fear--it is the thought of an even WORSE bastard, who doesn't have a father reining him in, in the driver's seat. The devil you know sometimes IS better than the other devil you know--that guy with the shotgun and the bionic heart.

[mtnsnake]

28. The Republicans impeached Bill & they got rewarded w/2 terms of the presidency

with an imbecile no less!!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

105. they stole two elections thanks to the SCROTUS

THe majority vote was for Gore and Kerry.

[Maraya1969]

40. They both should be impeached. Cheney first.

[thekuch]

21. Dennis Kucinich: Is It Time For Impeachment? (video)

Dennis Kucinich: Is It Time For Impeachment? (video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_ckfdlrja8



The Kuch

[Maraya1969]

43. Kucinich: 'Impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against

Iran.

[thekuch]

22. The ONLY WAY our troops have ever come home is by Congress CUTTING FUNDS

The ONLY WAY our troops have ever come home since the inception of the War Powers Act has been by virtue of Congress CUTTING FUNDS to those military actions....against the incumbent President's will, I may add.........btw, cutting funds to those actions DID NOT HARM THE TROOPS!!!

The very notion is absurd and a cheap ploy.....I'm shocked so many people go for the banana-in-the-tailpipe routine.........

The Kuch

[Maraya1969]

30. Well then they are just going to say there to whenever because the Repukes

will not vote to stop the funds.

[thekuch]

102. The Sad Truth

The sad truth is, our troops won't be coming home until the voters replace the funders with defunders.





The Kuch

[SaveElmer]

27. Nancy Pelosi knows what she is doing...or not doing doing...

In this case sacrificing any progress in legislative areas, and possibly our majority, in a fruitless attempt at impeachment...

[mtnsnake]

32. WTF are you talking about 'fruitless"?

This mother fucker is out to ruin the goddamn earth and you're worried about holding him accountable?? Don't you fucking understand that the only way to get the facts out on the table is to impeach him???

I don't give a shit if he isn't convicted. I want that asterisk next to his name.

Plus, if we impeach him, he'd likely resign with the threat of conviction hanging over his head. When the going gets tough, Bush will be no where to be found, just like when he went AWOL 30 something years ago.

[SaveElmer]

35. Where are you going to get the votes?

There is no way on Gods green earth Blue Dogs from the South are going to support an impeachment effort...

And if by some miracle of miracles you do get an impeachment (which I doubt), an acquittal in the Senate is a guarantee...

He can be held accountable without using counterproductive impeachment proceedings as the vehicle...

I would rather have a long term Democratic majority reversing the damage he has done, than take a shot at a virtually guaranteed to fail effort at impeachment, and risk our majority...

[mtnsnake]

44. In essence, what you're saying is that we don't really have the majority in the House

because we've got blue dog Dems who aren't really Democrats in the same sense that we think Democrats are. Great. So we're still a minority party. Wonderful. Let's give up without even trying.

[SaveElmer]

67. On an issue like this...

That is true...but on most other important issues we certainly do, and I'm not willing to jeopardized that majority on an effort doomed to failure.

[ProudDad]

119. Ok, I'll call your bluff

What "important issues"?

[Tigress DEM]

81. We have a majority of people wanting a SUCCESSFUL IMPEACHMENT

It isn't just about the numbers, it's about having enough evidence to nail this administration down like a bug for public scrutiny and not allowing it to get up and walk away saying the DEMs are just being mean.

I wouldn't want the government to put you on trial without solid proof. So because I want to protect YOUR rights & MINE, I hold the same standard for impeachment.
ESPECIALLY in situations where it's very clear someone is guilty by circumstantial evidence, there needs to be solid proof as well. Think OJ.

The good thing about this DEM Congress is that they understand the concept of performing their job competently and the bad part is that sometimes means taking time to pull things together to get it done right.

I've been watching CSpan and its a festival of facts meeting fiction and facts winning the day. FCC Oversite Commission met recently for the first time in almost 4 years and it took a hearing to make it happen.

Realize that cutting of the head of the hydra isn't going to fix it.

It isn't just *ush cheney & rove, it's all the incompetent appointments they have put in place to destroy the government's ability to function.

More is at stake than getting the main guy.

Rethugs might throw him on the fire if they thought we would look the other way long enough for them to disable the rest of the checks & balances while we celebrate our "victory".

[MADem]

56. It's hopeless. They cannot count, they don't understand how Congress works, and they

certainly do not appreciate the politics of compromise or quid pro quo. They actually think poor Nancy is like a General, who can order her troops into battle. It's sad, how many naive people there are. And when you try to tell them, they shoot the damned messenger and accuse you of being a warmongering, babykilling, "Bet you (have a Support the troops sticker on your SUV/Have stock in Halliburton/fill in the gratuitous insult)" type person, who LOVES the war.

It's exhausting, dealing with that kind of attitude, when all you are trying to do is impart political reality. If you're not a cheerleader or willing to pile on, you need not apply, I guess.

I guess the saddest question I have to ask is this: When the hell did they stop teaching "civics" in the public schools? It seems like there are way too many people who haven't a clue as to how their own government functions. Shame, that...! They get mad as hell, but at the wrong damned people and the wrong damned realities.

[onenote]

58. exactly

I was going to write a longer post. But MADem said everything I would've said.

[SaveElmer]

68. Well put...

That is certainly true for many around here no doubt.

[AZBlue]

91. Exhausting indeed. And frightening.

Because these are people who are supposedly inolved in and interested about politics - yet they know so little about the political process. A little education is a scary thing.

[mtnsnake]

93. I never claimed to be a rocket scientist

Sorry not everyone is so politically informed as you are, AZBlue. You're right, though, and I'll be the first one to admit it. In any technical sense, politics isn't a strong point of mine, nor is it my primary interest whenever I'm away from this forum. In fact, of all the hobbies that I enjoy, I'd say that politics is the one that I'm the least knowledgeable about. My other hobbies, though? That's a different story. Just sayin'.

[SaveElmer]

106. Don't sell yourself short...

On most things around here you seem to be spot on!!

[mtnsnake]

112. much obliged

thanks

[AshevilleGuy]

109. Nixon didn't resign until he knew he would be CONVICTED.

That is how important it is to have the 67 votes in the Senate. He was going to 'hang tough' and fight the impeachment, until Goldwater and Hugh Scott went to see him in the WH; he first claimed he had more than 33 votes in the Senate. They told him he did not. That was the turning point, but only then did he give in.

It took hearing after hearing, for years, to get to that point in the Senate. And that was after the final smoking gun. We are not even remotely close to that point now with bush, although we should be. This is a different world, a VERY different Dem party, and not one I am very happy with.

[Maraya1969]

46. That is exactly what I am talking about. Just the act of starting an impeachment

would do wonders to shut this fucker up. And it would send a message to the country and to the world that we are not the sadistic bastards that they are.

People make such a big deal about winning the fucking thing. I'm sure the Repukes didn't think they'd get the votes either and they didn't. But they still held congress and the senate the next election. (and stole the presidency)

Bush and Cheney both need to be whacked across the head with an impeachment. Right now they still think they can get away with murder....are they have.

[Virginia Dare]

79. Precisely, good post....n/t

[mmonk]

59. Anyone who won't protect the people from

criminal activity and breaches to the constitution need not be in office. Hopefully, Waxman can get some momentum going to protect the people.

[mtnsnake]

61. If what the impeachment "naysayers" are saying is true, concerning the blue dog Dems,

then Maraya1969 is even more accurate in her OP than I first thought she was.

The only reason this faction of rebel Democrats in the House is getting away with playing power politics is because House leadership is LETTING them get away with it. As the Leader of the House, it's Nancy Pelosi's job to put her foot down. That is why she is the LEADER.

When Clinton got impeached, if a single Republican even hinted that they wouldn't vote for it, Newt Gingrich would've squashed them like ants.

[mmonk]

62. Guaranteed

(about Newt).

[onenote]

80. both sides need each other

You act as if Pelosi has some extraordinary level of power over individual Democrats. Well, she doesn't. The Democratic Party, both in terms of the voters who support it and the members elected to Congress, represent a diverse group -- more diverse than the repubs and their members. Pelosi needs the Blue Dogs and the Blue Dogs need Pelosi. So, in the real world, the Democrats must operate by compromise and consensus.

Its much easier here on DU to pretend that everyone thinks the same way.

Not one Blue Dog -- nor, for that matter, virtually no other Democrat -- was elected to office (just four months ago) based on a campaign that pledged to pursue impeachment (or even talked about impeachment).

The time for the leadership to talk impeachment may come, but only if there is a clear sense that it would be bipartisan. Keep in mind that when the repubs in the House voted impeachment articles against Clinton, a handful of Democrats joined in. Does anyone think that, at this point in time, there are any House repubs that would support articles of impeachment?

[ProudDad]

120. I thought they had to take an oath

to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

Are you saying that they're all traitors???

bush and cheney have undeniably attacked and are in the process of shredding that Constitution. It would be easy to prove that. It would be easy to mobilize the 65% of the Citizens of the U.S. who have already said that they would support impeachment if bush/cheney lied to get us into Iraq. They did. They would.

Above ALL, it was PUBLIC opinion that made Nixon resign! It was the pressure of public opinion pushing on the Congress that forced his fat old pear-shaped-ass out of the WH!

[MADem]

116. Again, you don't understand how the system works. Newt's era was the age of fewer PACs.

Now, a lot of these factions have their OWN money, and they don't have to rely on the largesse of the national office to run a successful campaign, AND they can beat back a challenger, even one funded by the national party (which is something we do not do, as a rule--we usually back the incumbent, and then back the primary winner).

It's why the Blue Dogs can be independent on some issues. They have the strength of incumbency, AND their own money.

Also, the GOP was more concerned about consolidating and maintaining power, and thus, many Republicans put their OWN PERSONAL VIEWS on the back burner. As a rule, we Democrats do NOT require that people check their personal integrity or their beliefs (even if we may not like them) at the door to be a Democrat. That's why our governance is messier--we just don't demand Nazi-like loyalty. We respect and give a hearing to divergent views, even ones that are way off to one side or the other.

[grytpype]

63. OH NOES!!!! IMPEACH MENT NOWWWW!!!!!

[Tigress DEM]

66. 51% in the Senate can't make impeachment a reality. 51% of the US can. DIY Impeachment.

If you are serious about getting him out and not just of having all the rethugs circle their wagons around to protect him, then do it yourself.

I AM.

By July 4th 2007 I will have completed my own "Articles of Impeachment" and spread this message to at least 100 of my neighbors.

Why don't you do the same & meet me in Philadelphia, PA on July 4th to TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK? Cindy Sheehan says there is going to be another rally there and that US Citizens are going to meet in PA and declare our "Independence" from King George and his illegal adminstration. Philly being the birthplace of the Constitution makes it a fitting choice, I think.


http://impeachforpeace.org/ImpeachNow.html

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/08/diy_impeachment.html

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=330834&rel_no=1


Some Possible Articles of Impeachment:

The signing statements - an egregious abuse of power and undermining of the Constitution.

The NSA warrantless spying. The case needs to be made that this is a flat-out felony and a breach of the Fourth Amendment, and has already been so ruled by a federal judge.

The outing of Valerie Plame, motivated by a sinister goal: the need to discredit someone who was exposing one of the regime's gravest crimes, the faking of evidence for an active Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

Lying the country into war. He must be impeached for this bloody travesty alone.

Obstruction and lying to the Congress and the 9-11 Commission - an abuse of power and possibly even an act of treason, in which Bush refused to provide testimony and evidence demanded by the Senate Intelligence Committee and by the 9-11 Commission, and himself refused to testify under oath or with any record being made of his answers, and had members of his administration lie to both bodies. This is a clearly impeachable crime.

Bribery. Jack Abramoff visited the White House so often it was practically a second home. This is corruption on the scale of the Harding and Grant administrations and calls for impeachment, not respect.

The loss of New Orleans. The president had a duty to initiate drastic emergency action that only he could authorize, and instead he campaigned, played golf, strummed the guitar and entertained Sen. John McCain, while over a thousand Americans were allowed to die and a major U.S. city drowned. That is a clearly impeachable offense.



edit for spelling

[Virginia Dare]

78. A successful impeachment could NOT be political..

it would have to be a bipartisan effort. It's not there yet, but it may be coming. Look what happened to the repukes in '91, nothing to be gained.

[NYCGirl]

82. The person who is second in line for the presidency SHOULD NOT start the

impeachment proceedings. The Speaker of the House should not. Someone else can.

[earth mom]

84. I SO hear you-though many of us were screaming this back in November.

And all we got was a bunch of negative defeatist propaganda from the DINOS around here, who are on this thread also. :eyes:

Excuse me, but I don't give a damn if the the fucking votes aren't there "right now"-because once it's announced that they plan on impeaching the evil * cabal, the goddamn jig is up and the people of this country are going to demand impeachment and-make NO mistake-the votes WILL be there! :grr:

[bigtree]

85. The committees are proceeding with investigations

If or when they come up with impeachable, actionable evidence of a crime they may well recommend impeachment proceedings, vote to send the question to committee.

It's just a dumb strategy that some are promoting to wave the prospect around like a banner before then as if our Democratic legislators' every action was about taking Bush out. She made a strategic decision to play down the prospect, but I don't know too many Democrats who think she'd stand in the way when CONGRESS has gathered the evidence. It's all well and good to say that the evidence is already in the public domain, but impeachment is a political action, not necessarily a legal one. That's to our benefit if there's a move to insulate the upper leadership of the WH from actual 'crimes'. The evidence gathered in the Congress will be a mix of political and legal, all leading to the conclusion that the president or the other target(s) can't be restrained or corrected by conventional means. That has to be demonstrated in CONGRESS for any impeachment to be successful.

That process is a mere seven or so weeks old.

[PresidentObama]

86. Impeachment is definitely an option.

Obviously they have to do the investigations first. Pelosi and the Democrats have been in the majority for about three months. I don't think we should be considering pushing Pelosi under the bus just yet. I'd like to see where she goes from here though. And hopefully impeachment WILL be on the table. Until then, keep the heat on the Administration with investigation after investigation.

[heatstreak]

92. kick

[peaceandfreedom]

94. all corrupt

Pelosi and the Dems won't impeach because they are just as corrupt as Bush and the Repubs. Pelosi, just like most of them, is bought and paid for, or threatened, or blackmailed, whatever. Neither party represents the best interests of the citizens. To get our country back we need to get rid of them all, White House and Congress.

[knight_of_the_star]

95. We don't have the means to impeach yet

In spite of all the scandals, all the fuckups, all the blood in the water, all the suspicions, we don't actually have any solid physical evidence proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush and Co have broken the law in spite of their actions otherwise. We have to nail these guys to the floor and PROVE, beyond all doubt, with solid documentation, that these guys broke the law. Otherwise this will look like a witch hunt. We have to make it so desired for this ass to get tossed to the curb that voting against impeachment will cost Congresscritters their job in '08. We aren't there yet.

[kdpeters]

96. Ideally, I wish it could come from an overwhelming groundswell

Don't get me wrong. Speaker Pelosi is my representative. I LOVE her. I just take a suspicious approach to all of them. If her hand were 'forced', all the better. But since she has the most to gain, I can't help my suspicious instincts. My nature would be to distrust her.

[Jcrowley]

98. K&R n/t

[Manifestor_of_Light]

107. Since we don't have the votes

for impeachment in the house and 67 Senators for conviction, I'd be quite happy with the continuous ongoing investigations the House and Senate is conducting. Criminal convictions for obstruction of justice, contempt of congress and treason and such would make me happy. Impeachment might not be necessary in the end.

Whether impeachment is eventually proposed in the House or not, we STILL need the many investigations to gather evidence on the scandals.

[MADem]

117. And that is the sensible way to proceed. If we keep up the investigations, we may well get those

votes. But right now, Pelosi can't pull them out of her behind.

If legitimate, long-overdue, investigations AND simple OVERSIGHT turn up troublesome matters, the country may very well get on board the impeachment train. And if the country does, the legislature will, too. It just won't happen until we reach critical mass. The very act of investigating, turning over rocks, showing the nation the MESS this bum has gotten us into, serves to weaken him, each and every day.

[ProudDad]

122. That's all I ask!

Keep up the pressure on the whole damn cabal.

Keep investigating. Keep hammering away until their crimes are laid open for everyone (who cares to look) to see.

That's all I expected this soon.

But WE have to keep the pressure up or they won't (except maybe Waxmann -- love that guy!!!)