Feingold "I don't support impeachment though President has committed impeachable offenses"

[Jcrowley]

And I had Russ at the top of my X-mas list.

One thing Feingold expressed no enthusiasm for is impeaching President Bush.

“I don’t support impeachment, and I don’t support impeachment hearings, even though I think the president has probably committed an impeachable offense,” Feingold said in response to a question from Al Schulz of La Crosse.

“We are not required to impeach the president simply because he’s committed an impeachable offense, which I think he did with the illegal wiretapping. We have to decide whether it’s in the best interest of the country to go through that process.”

http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2006/11/21/news/02feingold21.txt

[Poiuyt]

1. I disagree

"We have to decide whether it’s in the best interest of the country to go through that process.”

No. If someone robs a bank, he should be found guilty in a court of law. It is then up to the judge to decide his punishment based on what is in the best interest of the community.

[Jcrowley]

4. Yep

Pretty mind-boggling isn't it?

[bigriver]

44. Impeachment is a law enforcement matter, not a political matter.

with you totally.

[Tatiana]

47. Impeachment is a *political* matter. n/t

[tinrobot]

81. Exactly... impeachment doesn't put people in jail

It only removes them from political office.

It's a political tool, not a law enforcement tool.

[Kelly Rupert]

113. Impeachment is completely political. Law enforcement isn't involved one bit.

[qwlauren35]

48. What about deferred process?

Why not just put him on trial after the 2008 election?

[Laelth]

98. I think it would look very vindictive ...

... to try Bush after the 2008 election. I think he needs to be impeached, and impeachment is a political tool (as has been rightly noted by others in this thread).

If not Bush, who?
If not now, when?

-Laelth

[springhill]

53. But he DID vote to impeach President Clinton?

Boy, now that makes a lot of sense.

[Poiuyt]

67. He did not vote to convict Clinton

He voted to hear the evidence rather than just dismissing it

[springhill]

92. Exactly...............

But he doesn't want to impeach Bush? Why not the same kind of treatment for Bush, I mean his REALLY are undisputed impeachable offenses.

[Bjorn Against]

122. Feingold hasn't been given a chance to vote to hear the evidence yet

My guess is that if impeachment ever does look like a reality Feingold will change his tone and he will vote for impeachment.

Right now however I think he is smart enough to realize that there needs to be investigations before there will be the votes for impeachment, and he is better off laying low on the issue until the time is right.

Remember it was Feingold who introduced the censure resolution, he does want to hold Bush accountable but at the same time he does not to move too quickly. Impeachment probably will not happen in the next too years, but the chances of Bush facing criminal charges after leaving office are starting to look very real.

I say it is better we get some really thorough investigations going, and focus on getting Bush sent to the Hague rather than focusing on impeachment hearings which we may not win.

[The Doctor.]

91. "We're a nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws." G W Bush.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060515-8.html

There is perhaps no President in the history of the US that more needed to be impeached than this one.

[FredStembottom]

103. Excellent point!

And one I needed myself to help me slog through all the impeachment-off-the-table talk these days.

Like a lightning bolt in my head! I needed to be reminded of something very basic: that it is in the sentencing phase of an American trial where the interests of the community are weighed and factored in.

Thanks, Poiuyt for grounding this issue for me.

Let the investigations begin!

[Poiuyt]

123. My pleasure

Anything to help Bush get impeached!

[HereSince1628]

2. Letting high-profile politicians get away with crimes is always in the interest

of politicians.

[orleans]

3. yeah, let's not do our job. (very disappointing) n/t

[pacalo]

5. That stood out for me, too.

"We are not required to impeach the president simply because he’s committed an impeachable offense."

If ever a presidency deserved to be accountable through an impeachment process, it is this one. When I think about the secrecy, the arrogance, the withholding of requested documents needed by congress...the list goes on & on & on...I was furious when I read that.

And I noticed that another thread on this very same article made the greatest page based on his statement about possibly becoming a vice president! I noticed no comments about Feingold's remarks about not favoring impeachment.

[ginnyinWI]

6. He has a point

I want them gone as much as anyone, but it would mean two years of time and energy spent getting them out and a new repub in--who could then run for re-election. :(

If Congress can start functioning again as it should have been for the last six years, then we've got some victory.

[pacalo]

12. Ginny, I envy you for having Feingold as your senator

but I hope he's playing a game of poker with those remarks.

It's all about accountability. If this presidency gets away with all it's done, then it will have set a precedent for future presidencies. It's about preventing this type of presidency from happening ever again.

[ginnyinWI]

19. that's true

When Nixon was forced to resign, it put future presidents take notice. Until the current one, that is!!
HIS arrogance surpasses Nixon's by far. Helped out by a far more complicit media than Nixon enjoyed.

Yes, it's great having two Dem senators and a Dem governor in WI. My big pain is that our 5th district is ruled by one J. Sensenbrenner. :(

[pacalo]

31. Who knows, Ginny, Sensenbrenner may do his part in seeing that BushCo is held responsible.

I can picture his my-party-over-country attitude spurring Conyers on; & don't forget about the lights-out, I'm-taking-my-gavel-with-me hearing when he was judiciary chairman. It's one thing to hold your ground when you're protecting someone who's got something to hide, but Conyers will be saving this country by holding his ground (providing that he, too, is playing poker with his off-the-table remarks).

[puebloknot]

107. If both President and Vice President are removed from office...

...through the impeachment process, the presidency automatically goes to the Speaker of the House for the remainder of that electoral term. That would be...Nancy Pelosi.

There would be no getting a new Repub in if they were impeached simultaneously.

The rub is that it could look like Ms. Pelosi is making a grab for the presidency through the back door, if she supports impeachment.

Too bad, Ms. Pelosi. We don't have to keep you in 2008, but you can stand in until we have a chance to regroup for the 2008 election.

[Pyrzqxgl]

7. Do you realize how much Impeachment hearings cost?

Just check how much the GOP spent trying to take down Clinton. I'd rather spend the next two years ratting on Bush & Chaney and building up for a Demo takeover in 2008. Finegold has it right. He's committed Impeachable offenses and we're going to spend the next two years writing and talking about them, but we're going to spend that money on something worthwhile like raising the minimum wage, or Prescription drug benefits.

[elehhhhna]

10. Investigations? Expensive. Impeachment hearings? Cheap. Convictions for war crimes?

PRICELESS.


Public pressure will cause Russ to change his mind. I give him a year, tops.

[MzNov]

18. More than billions of dollars in an illegal war? nt

[A wise Man]

32. Like spending Billions

of unaccountable funds on a war made up of lies, deaths and deceit. Oh no, lets not impeach for these reasons, lets wait until he and Condi get caught in the act giving each other a BJ. What a bunch of spineless wonders.

[pacalo]

33. What has the Iraq invasion cost? Want something like that to happen again?

[Mnemosyne]

50. We're near $500,000,000,000.00,

half of a TRILLION dollars

, now.

I seriously doubt any impeachment costs would come near that.

And what do you believe we have to lose by pushing for impeachment?

[petgoat]

77. The GOP spent that money trying to get something on Clinton.

We've already got what we need on Bush.

[w4rma]

78. Now that I could care less about. The integrity and honor of our nation is worth

however many dollars impeaching this SOB would cost us taxpayers.

[driver8]

85. Do you know how many lives these assholes have cost??

They must be held accountable for their actions. If they committed impeachable offenses, then they must be impeached.

I don't understand how people can be so willing to give these idiots a pass. They committed crimes and must answer for them.

[WinkyDink]

90. In terms of money or VALUES?? Bushco has been around FOREVER.

This is history's challenge to and opportunity for us, here, now, to EXCISE THIS NATIONAL CANCER .

Russ Feingold has turned his back on JUSTICE.

[noamnety]

8. I don't agree with rich white guys being held accountable for crime.

(just testing out how that sounds.)

[Nite Owl]

9. I can't agree with Feingold on this one

If there are impeachable offenses not moving towards impeachment just says that it's too much trouble and those in power can get away with criminal and unconstitutional acts. It sort of makes justice seem unattainable for those not in power.

[elehhhhna]

13. DITTO. It's like saying "We know Gacy had all those dead teenagers

in the crawlspace, but, sorry, we have other crimes to solve.

Congress shoudl NEVER be so busy as to ignore treason.

[Elidor]

11. Last time I checked, rule of law was not an optional, feel-good procedure

The point of punishment is deterrence. Rewarding bad behavior with apathy will improve respect for the law in neither the citizenry nor the transgressors.

No cookie for Russ.

[More Than A Feeling]

14. If our country can't handle the idea that the law might actually be upheld

things are far worse than the actions of the Bush administration would suggest. Feingold clearly thinks that is the case, and I hope he is wrong. Republicans must not be allowed to successfully argue that punishment is discredited because they themselves misused it. That would be like a corrupt police officer arguing that it would just as corrupt to use the system to punish him for his misdeeds. We wouldn't tolerate that, either.

Get some backbone, Senator, and trust in your ability and that of your colleagues to make the case for impeachment through investigation. Don't preemptively discredit what might turn out to, although inadequate, the only remedy to approach the magnitude of the crimes. The American people still understand the rule of law, but if they are receiving messages that even the political opponents of the president do not respect the law, well, why should the average citizen give it any greater respect?

[msongs]

15. gee Russ, can I commit crimes since it's ok for bush ?

why not apply your logic to all american criminals?

If I ever go on a crime spree, I'll call you FIRST :-)

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[BlueCaliDem]

16. Sorry, Russ but that's NOT what the Constitution says.

In order to keep government officials of any rank accountable, the Constitution demands impeachment (according to Thom Hartmann, the word appears in the Constitution SIX TIMES) for officials practicing impeachable offenses--and there's LOTS to choose from when it comes to this dipshit of a president!

Why is it that Democrats have trouble impeaching a republic politician, while republics have NO ISSUES whatsoever impeaching Democrats like President Bill Clinton and ex-Justice Alcee Hastings???

I guess David Sirota of the Huffington Post ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/the-money-party-vs-the-p_b_34820.html ) is right: There's no Democratic or Republic Party, there's just the Money People Party and the People Party, and both "political" parties can be found in either, although I have to say, the People Party is definitely in the minority, and has been for decades!

That's why we don't have Universal Health-care; the ONLY Federal protection law for consumers has been gutted and rendered useless (so-called Bankruptcy Reform and Welfare Reform); Congress continues to give tax-deferred-cuts to the super-rich during this costly Iraq debacle; EPA standards are being lowered all across the nation; Prescription drugs can't be negotiated; Medicare's got it's own HUGE donut-hole; minimum wage is so incredibly HARD to raise...etc, etc, etc.

All these decisions are made to benefit the monied people, while the People-people get the shaft.

[MzNov]

17. He is a big disappointment in a very disappointing Senate

My uneasy feelings about any group of people who actually stood up to give JOE LIEBERMAN a standing ovation are very great. The Democrats in the Senate need to be watched very carefully. I am greatly concerned that they won't work with the new House, who will eventually work out their problems and get their act together. Only time will tell.

The Senate also is urging left wing voices in this country to not address the massive voter and election fraud. We must not let this happen.

:dem:

[bobbolink]

20. "simply because he's committed an impeachable offense"

So, that means that none of us will ever be arrested "simply because we've committed" a crime worth arrest?

Obviously something is up. I have no idea what it is, but it stinks to high heaven, and I just don't care anymore.

[BlueStater]

21. Sorry. I like Feingold

But he couldn't be more wrong on this one.

[Miss_Underestimated]

22. by NOT taking action, they are setting a precedent

and a BAD one at that!

[bobbolink]

29. And that precedent is....

Dems are NOT the party of Law And Order.

Let the lawbreakers go free!

Whoopeeee!

Oh wait... that's only rich lawbreakers, right?

Yeah, that oughtta go over well with the lower- and muddleclasses.

[Rosco T.]

23. Read Sun Tzu...

.. and you'll understand EXACTLY what the Dems are up to.

Patience little blue Grasshoppers...

[G_Leo_Criley]

35. Sun Tzu ...

http://www.sonshi.com/

glc

[elocs]

24. Yes, the armchair political quarterbacks here know best.

Feingold and Pelosi are pros with common sense, which is not as common as it should be, but god forbid if they do not agree with the Impeachment Now crowd. Did anyone ever consider that they know what they are doing or that they may understand the big picture and might like to see Democrats in power for many years?

I trust my Senator Feingold on this as much as I do many other things. Where were the rest of your noble Democratic politicians when it came time to vote on the Patriot Act?

[Zhade]

66. This is the same party that "fell for" the lies about Iraq.

You know, the ones WE didn't fall for.

It's also the same party that didn't impeach Reagan for HIS massive crimes.

Poppy walks free.

Yeah, you're right, we should just trust them.

:eyes:

[Ladyhawk]

73. No, no, no! They're working behind the scenes just like Kerry was!

You don't know anything about political judo! :sarcasm:

[Zhade]

74. LOL!

Thanks, I needed the laugh - the thought of Dems even entertaining the thought of letting criminals go unpunished makes me want to puke.

[angry_chuck]

76. they were all scared

shitless just like the rest of America thanks to 9/11 and the MSM

[mazatli]

25. Impeach Bush

Bush should certainly be impeached for his actions. His actions have threatened the very fabric of our democracy and freedom. If he can push the limits of government power set by the constitution this far, without consequence, then it sets the bar higher for the next abuse against the constitution and our civil liberties. If you or I could be wiretapped for just writing/reading this post what does that do to the freedom of speech? And if you or I could be wiretapped for writing/ reading this post what prevents the government from going further than wiretapping?

Impeaching Bush is <b>absolutely necessary</b> to preserve our rights under the Constitution. It set a firm standard about what the citizens of this country will and will not tolerate. We need to clearly state that it is not tolerable for the president to directly or indirectly allow illegal wiretapping, kidnap, torture, rape, or lies that lead us to war. If the president of a "third world" country were to do these same things, he or she would be tried as a war criminal. And what does it say about what is important in this country if a president can be censured for having an affair, but not for leading this country into an illegal war with blatant lies, ignoring the Geneva COnvention and using circular arguements to justify ignoring the consitution when it suits him.

I think that the House and Senate have to consider impeachment proceedings! To not do so continues to allow this president to pursue his twisted vision for this country with impunity. To not do so is to continue to further collude with Bush and his cronies. The Democrats need to put aside their shame at voting for the war back when it was so emotional an issue and take a stand now... before more of our rights and protections are ignored.

[newyawker99]

52. Hi mazatli!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Astrad]

26. Impeachment is absolutely necessary to ensure that the Republicans

are held accountable for the horrendous destruction they have wrought. If they don't impeach, you can be sure in the next few years blame for the mess will slowly shift to include the democrats as well. Even from a purely political perspective it's advantageous to impeach. I don't get their intransigence. I can only presume they have become too fearful of the media and spin.

[0rganism]

27. watch his words! -- the senate does not choose whether or not to impeach

The senate votes on removal from office, NOT impeachment. I'm sure this distinction is not lost on Sen. Feingold.

[onenote]

51. don't fool yourself - he wasn't playing word games

Sen. Feingold has been consistent and clear on this issue for a long time. Anyone who professes to be surprised by his comment hasn't done their homework. I'll do it for them:

The Republicans control the House. They control the Senate. There is no way the Democrats get any movement on an impeacchment effort at this point. And, notwithstanding the sentiment here, the public in general isn't clamoring for it. Starting what would be depicted as a partisan impeachment effort before the November elections would blow up badly in the Democrats faces. Here are just two quotes you'd see plastered all over the newspapers and airwaves in ads run by the repubs against any Democrat advocating impeachment:

"Let us resolve to learn the lessons of this long, sad year. Let us learn now, having come this far, the wisdom of the founders that impeachment is and must be a high barricade, not to be mounted lightly. Let us learn that because it requires the overwhelming support of the Senate to succeed, it cannot and should not proceed on a merely partisan basis. Let us learn that the desire to impeach and remove must be shared broadly, or it is illegitimate."

Statement of Senator Paul Wellstone, February 12, 1999




"I see the 4-year term as a unifying force of our Nation. Yet, this is the second time in my adult lifetime that we have had serious impeachment proceedings, and I am only 45 years old. This only occurred once in the entire 200 years prior to this time. Is this a fluke? Is it that we just happened to have had two `bad men' as Presidents? I doubt it. How will we feel if sometime in the next 10 years a third impeachment proceeding occurs in this country so we will have had three within 40 years? I see a danger in this in an increasingly diverse country. I see a danger in this in an increasingly divided country. And I see a danger in this when the final argument of the House manager is that this is a chapter in an ongoing `culture war' in this Nation. That troubles me. I hope that is not where we are and hope that is not where we are heading. It is best not to err at all in this case. But if we must err, let us err on the side of avoiding these divisions, and let us err on the side of respecting the will of the people.

"Let me conclude by quoting James W. Grimes, one of the seven Republican Senators who voted not to acquit Andrew Johnson. I discovered this speech, and found out that the Chief Justice had already discovered and quoted him, and said he was one of the three of the ablest of the seven. Grimes said this in his opinion about why he wouldn't convict President Johnson:

"I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an unacceptable President. Whatever may be my opinion of the incumbent, I cannot consent to trifle with the high office he holds. I can do nothing which, by implication, may be construed as an approval of impeachment as a part of future political machinery."

Statement of Senator Russ Feingold, February 12, 1999

And just in case anyone thinks Feingold's position is an aberration, here's what Paul Wellstone had to say:

"Let us resolve to learn the lessons of this long, sad year. Let us learn now, having come this far, the wisdom of the founders that impeachment is and must be a high barricade, not to be mounted lightly. Let us learn that because it requires the overwhelming support of the Senate to succeed, it cannot and should not proceed on a merely partisan basis. Let us learn that the desire to impeach and remove must be shared broadly, or it is illegitimate."

Statement of Senator Paul Wellstone, February 12, 1999

[davekriss]

118. Air all the dirty laundry

Then the rats will be jumping ship until, as for Nixon, a mere 2 Republicans are left willing to vote against conviction. I do not buy "we don't have the votes" argument; I agree, however, that the general public needs to marshal behind the notion of impeachment (we're at 51% now, I think), and the way to do that is careful, fair inquiry in the House into manipulation of pre-war intelligence, illegal wiretapping, approval and use of torture, extra-judiciary posturing to preserve Guantanamo, and on and on.

[CrispyQ]

28. How disappointing. --nt

[mazatli]

30. We must impeach Bush

Bush should certainly be impeached for his actions. His actions have threatened the very fabric of our democracy and freedom. If he can push the limits of government power set by the constitution this far, without consequence, then it sets the bar higher for the next abuse against the constitution and against our civil liberties. If you or I could be wiretapped for just writing or reading this post what does that do to the freedom of speech? And if you or I could be wiretapped for writing or reading this post what prevents the government from going further than wiretapping?

Impeaching Bush is absolutely necessary to preserve our rights under the Constitution. It would necessarily set a firm standard about what the citizens of this country will and will not tolerate. We need to clearly state that it is not tolerable for the president to directly or indirectly allow illegal wiretapping, kidnap, torture or lies that lead us to war. If the president of a "third world" country were to do these same things, he or she would be tried as a war criminal. And what does it say about what is important in this country if a president can be censured for having an affair, but receive no consequence for leading this country into an illegal war with blatant lies, ignoring the Geneva Convention and using circular arguements to justify ignoring the constitution when it suits him.

I think that the House and Senate have to consider impeachment proceedings! To not do so continues to allow this president to pursue his twisted vision for this country with impunity. To not do so is to continue to further collude with Bush and his cronies. The Democrats need to put aside their shame at voting for the war back when it was so emotional an issue and take a stand now... before more of our rights and protections are ignored.

[Guaranteed]

34. My exact words. He's absolutely right. The majority of DU is

following their anger, not their reason.

[Jcrowley]

40. I'd say the majority

are following the constitution and the basic principles of the rule of law. This is a pretty straightforward case of high crimes and treason. And then we get to the more serious charges. Pre-emptive military action is gainst the Geneva convention. Spying on US citizens is unconstitutional. That's just the tip of the iceberg and how one can say this President and Vice president, for starters, should not be impeached is beyond comprehension.

[Copperred]

36. CALL RUSS AND TELL HIM TO IMPEACH

Washington, DC
506 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4904
[phone]

[bobbolink]

37. TOLL FREE 1-888-355-3588

[Jcrowley]

38. Thanks for that

I'll be calling to get a, uh, clarification?

:hi:

On edit: That number has been disconnected: "No further information is available"

[bobbolink]

120. Crud-a-rama We periodically "lose" Toll-free numbers.. here's a couple

others to try:


1 (888) 818 - 6641

1 (877) 851 - 6437


Let me know if you have any luck with those, and thanks for letting me know the bad news with the other one. :hi:

[Katzenjammer]

39. Well, what do you expect of someone who voted for BushCo's judicial noms?

He said he thinks the Senate should defer to a president's choices. It didn't bother him a bit that that "president" had been appointed, not elected.

[upi402]

93. Probably why JFK, RFK, & Wellstone aren't with us any longer

They stood on principle and stayed there. Russ is still here fighting the good fight in the main. As long as he doesn't try to impeach the Bushler he can fly in planes and expect to land. (I think the patsy assassin thing has been played out by the corporatists already).

[Katzenjammer]

97. Maybe...but other people voted against BushCo's choices, and they're still here

But let's say you're right. What does that imply--that Feingold bought his temporary safety with the coin of our freedom and rights? That's what we're paying him for? To take care of himself at our expense?

I don't think you are right, though. If he had been threatened, he had a number of options other than surrender, including blowing the whistle and suddenly resigning 'for health reasons'. It's much more likely that he told the truth, that he thinks presidents should get whatever they want, and (by implication) that there's nothing wrong with a president being appointed rather than elected.

[G_Leo_Criley]

41. If we let Pelosi's plans for the first 100 hours unfold...

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2534650

it can only be to the benefit of those citizens who've suffered under this administration's neglectful policies. Many are in need of immediate relief via a raise in min. wage, or via lower prescription drug costs for example.

I suspect that Feingold is simply supporting Pelosi's plans at this point.

glc

[thedeanpeople]

42. Idiocy. Complete denial of reality.

To think you can bring Bush and Cheney "within the law" is to be completely and utterly in denial of reality.

Bush and Cheney have proven they are impervious to any external force. They have proven it over and over and over and . . .

No political force short of impeachment and removal will stop them from gathering evermore Unconstitutional power unto themselves.

Our security depends on the good will of other nations. As long as the USA is Bush's USA we are a world-wide pariah. That alone makes their removal an imperative -- even if they hadn't been declared to be War Criminals by our own Supreme Court; even if they had not terrorized the nation into war with the most colassal bomb threat in history (no amount of "stretching" can support the notion that Iraq had the capability to drop a nuclear bomb anywhere within the United States -- not in 45 minutes; not in a year; not in 5 years); even if their criminal domestic surviellence program had been discontinued, they pose a clear and present danger. They are an intolerable threat that must be removed.

[symbolman]

43. Then WE

should not be REQUIRED to pay INCOME TAXES.

Yeah, I like that :)

[Yukari Yakumo]

45. I agree with his statement.

There are more important things to do than try to impeach Chimpy...

LIKE GETTING OUR BOYS HOME!!!

[Bluebear]

46. We can't accomplish both for some reason? nt

[mondo joe]

59. There are limited resources, and they must be prioritized.

The US is like an ER these days, and there must be triaging.

[G_Leo_Criley]

49. Bring them home!

Agreed. That's one of the first things that needs to be accomplished. And then, we need to be sure that we take care of these men and women when they get here. Many will need lifetime medical care for their injuries.

We've lived under this rotten regime for so long now and there is so much to be done to simply bring the lives of everyday folks back up to snuff. There's a lot to be done.

Bush and Cheney & Co. can sit and wait for the process to get to them. By the time it does, we'll have more evidence of the things they've done, and we'll have the support of those who possibly never thought they'd support impeachment and trial.

It's disturbing to see people turn so quickly on Pelosi, Rangel, and now Feingold. These are some of the people who got us to the goal on November 7th!

glc

[Disturbed]

56. "disturbing to see people turn so quickly..."

Disagreeing is not necessarily "turning". One can disagree with many decisions that various politicians make yet still support them in other areas of agreement.

[G_Leo_Criley]

57. That's true...

of course. Thanks for the reminder!

glc

[LittleClarkie]

58. We put people on pedestals almost as quickly

when they speak truth to power or have a message we like, despite being more conservative than many of us would support.

[G_Leo_Criley]

61. Feingold = conservative?

LittleClarkie, do you feel that Feingold is more conservative than many would support? (Or Rangel? Pelosi?) Just curious. : )

I don't know anyone who really puts politicians on a pedestal anymore. (Except for those who support Bushco.)
I admire those who are against the war and the occupation of Iraq and who understand that the way to beat these ... neocons ... is to understand strategy and tactics, and to use them.

glc

[LittleClarkie]

70. No. Murtha and Hackett are to I think people supported because they talked tough

but were more conservative than many folks here would have preferred. I found it really weird after all the talk of loving Murtha earlier in the year, it seemed to evaporate when there was a chance he could be Speaker of the House. Suddenly there were threads saying "Wait a minute, he's anti choice?!" Errr, yep. Always had been.

We ride the rollercoaster here sometimes.

But no Feingold is not more conservative. But he is a maverick and will sometimes go his own way. Every once in a while he'll vote in a way that several here won't like, and will get called a sell out, or somesuch. It can be alittle ridiculous sometimes.

[G_Leo_Criley]

71. thanks for clarification

Thanks LittleClarkie. It's ALL a roller coaster ride lately!

I agree about Murtha being more conservative.

It's very, very tough to even think about going along with an anti-choice guy, yet Murtha had led the way -- Done all the groundwork -- heroically I think -- for getting the troops home.

Nothing apparently is simply black or white. Shades of gray abound.

glc

[Katzenjammer]

68. And since each rep is going to be fully occupied personally ferrying soldiers back from Iraq

they will obviously be too busy to impeach BushCo. How could they possibly be expected to do their jobs while devoted to personally going back and forth, back and forth, retrieving a soldier each time. Why, the poor things will be exhausted!

[Zomby Woof]

54. Feingold gets it

He knows that the knee-jerk cries for impeachment would detract from the hard work ahead.

:thumbsup:

[w4rma]

79. The American people elected Democrats to end the Iraq war and investigate the corruption.

Those were their top two priorities. Imho, we should do exactly as the American people want Democrats to do.

Democrats should follow Brzezinski's pullout plan (they will be meeting with him, soon):

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aReG3cWAXnFA&refer=home
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2629017&mesg_id=2629017

And Democrats should investigate every crime that the Republicans have committed, just as the American people elected them to do. If deep into the investigations the American people decide we should impeach Bush, then we should listen to them, then, after the investigations. But, we shouldn't go into the investigations with the intent to impeach.

[G_Leo_Criley]

82. pullout plan for iraq war, investigate crime and corruption...

This is a very sensible approach.

I'd add: provide some relief to people by dealing with some of the basic bread and butter issues in those first hundred hours.

Tonight, frankly, I wish there were a way to get our people out of Iraq immediately.

Thoughts and prayers to all who have a relative or friend over there.

edit:
see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2796397

Could this be a solution? The need to get a new Iraq War Resolution?

glc

[w4rma]

88. I absolutely agree with you. (nt)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

55. That Is One Smart Man Right There. Good For Him! He's Spot On There.

[earth mom]

60. Wow-maybe it's true after all that there is NO difference between dems or thugs in Congress!

:puke:

[Kelly Rupert]

124. *sigh*

And there was no difference between Bush and Gore, right?

[Zhade]

62. Constitution disagrees with you, Russ.

Such cowardice.

[Vidar]

63. Et tu, Russ. (apologies to Shakespeare & Caesar)

[spillthebeans]

64. Ha ha, the constition is a g. d. piece of paper eom

[Cha]

65. How about lying to bomb

Iraq with the corporatemedia's assistance?

[ProSense]

69. Zogby poll:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2985169&mesg_id=2985169

[Jcrowley]

72. I believe some crimes were committed

I believe the Geneva Convention was violated

I believe the Constitution was violated

Are we to ignore all of that

For political expediency?

If so

That's not politics

It's something else

Unless I'm wrong

And this is politics.

[G_Leo_Criley]

75. "I believe some crimes were committed"

So do I. Most people here do. More and more people in the general public do.

glc

[Raster]

80. My guess is that deep down MOST of Congress would rather not go

down the impeachment road. It's far too muddy and it will be slung everywhere. It isn't a question of "if" bush* has committed impeachable offenses, it's a question of how many and severity. And then it becomes a question of accomplices and collaborators. Shameful enough was the enabling by Congressional Rethuglicans. Repugnant was the free passes bush* continued to get from the opposition party. Very few on our side of the aisle courageously and consistently stood their ground and challenged bush*.

[Mind_your_head]

87. Hahaha....."how many and severity"?!?!?!?!

He's been the ABSOLUTE WORST (in terms of frequency & severity).

We the People must stop/punish these fools now!!! It's now or never! That turning point, that cusp....it's NOW!!!! Don't be deceived into thinking it's anything less!

Peace (with a sword of Justice),
M_Y_H

[Jim Lane]

83. I agree with Feingold

The analogies to "everyday" crimes are misplaced. Congress is not a law-enforcement agency. (By the way, even in ordinary criminal cases, the district attorney has "prosecutorial discretion". S/he isn't required to prosecute every case.)

[Mind_your_head]

84. If Mr. Bush (or Mr. Rove) or their "handlers" had a 'lick of sense'.......

....awww, nevermind.....they don't....!

To the Hague!!!!

Peace,
M_Y_H

[driver8]

86. I love Feingold but in this case he is full of shit.

It is his responsibility to protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies -- even if it includes the President and Vice President.

No one wants to get their hands dirty. Tough shit...it's your job.

[roguevalley]

89. if there continues to be two levels of justice in this country, we are

doomed. anyone convicted of any crime should use this as an appeal.

[cassiepriam]

94. I knew it, Dems going to cover it all up, "for the good of the country."

That's how the repugs got into power, stayed in power,
and will return in two years.

[Cocoa]

95. why did you have him at the top of your Xmas list?

this isn't a change in his position on impeachment.

[kentuck]

96. I think he's trying to start the debate...

get people talking...?

[In Truth We Trust]

99. Rule of Law! Justice and Democracy! Impeach all conspirators!

To Hell with anyone and do mean ANYONE who stands against the Rule Of Law!

[spanone]

100. Mr. Feingold, you DO have constitutional responsibilities...

whether you like them are not, YOU took the oath.

[LeftishBrit]

101. Well, it would be great if Bush and Cheney could be impeached and convicted

but I understand they need 67 votes in the Senate for conviction. Even if all 51 Democrats vote for it, where would they get the other 16 votes? Feingold may just be saying that he would vote to convict Bush, but that he doesn't support spending all the time and money on it, when it will almost certainly end in failure.

[G_Leo_Criley]

102. That's Right -- The numbers simply aren't there...

YET. When the numbers are there, it can be done.

Those who demand that the dems tie an "impeach bush" sign around their necks *at this point* are dooming any new effort to put our country back on a sane track.

Perhaps there'll be a defection, away from lunacy, by a few Republicans. Maybe we'll see a small delegation of them going to the Oval Office to explain reality to Bush, a la the repubs who trudged to Nixon's office with the bad news during the later days of his admin. Maybe that'll turn into a movement among Republicans. But it isn't happening now.

For now, concentrating on delivering the goods -- much needed relief -- for average folks, via legislation, is the way to show people how government is meant to work.

Letting the evidence come out via hearings before committees - like Sen. Leahy's and Sen. Waxman's committees... (mmmm... glc takes a deep breath of fresh air and smiles at the very thought of it all ...)

What a novel idea! A legislature that's independent of the Executive! Somebody shoulda written that into the constitution. Oh! Wait a minute! They did!

So looking forward to Jan. 3.

glc

[Jcrowley]

108. The numbers

are unknown. If you took a poll right now you'd be right. If you took a poll as the process began you might be right but I suspect it would get closer to the 67. If you took a poll as the process was in it's midst I suspect you'd also be right but still closer and once the process was completed along with the massive and overwhelming evidence and public outrage, demonstrations etc. the 67+ would come to pass.

[G_Leo_Criley]

109. the numbers are unknown, yet we can guess...

... that the numbers would come up short right now.

You don't want to lose on this -- not even once. Losing is not a strategy nor is it a tactic.

If it comes to impeachment, by way of the will of the people and their elected reps, then GOOD. Bear in mind though that impeachment by the house will bring him to trial before the Senate. The Senate can find him guilty and they can remove him from office. My memory of how trial by senate goes could use some help, but isn't that the extent of the result? He would be removed from office?

Then what? A one way ticket to Paraguay?

Why not the Hague? Why not a criminal trial? Why not jail time?

Just some thoughts for you.

You are angry, and so am I. I refuse to throw away any chance of corralling these oafs, simply to satisfy a fit of anger. We should look towards bigger goals. Jail time. Real payment for some very serious crimes against -- not just the citizens of the US -- but against humanity. These crimes will not be punished by impeachment.

glc

[Jcrowley]

111. I'm for the Hague

I'm also for a complete investigation of all the criminal acts of these people and it is incumbent upon our legislators to do so. This is very contradictory and unconstitutional to allow these people to remain in office not to mention extremely dangerous.

What has been going on the last 6 years is so blatant and over the top that any investigation would reveal the crooks for who they are and those who wished to remain politically viable would have to get behind the momentum to impeach Cheney-Bush etc.

Impeachment as the appetizer. However I don't see any punitive measures coming the way of the most arrogant and criminal admin. in the history of the US if our Congressfolk aren't taking strong stands.

[SaveElmer]

104. Feingold is right on the money here...

I don't always agree with his tactics, but he has taken the correct position here.

[shance]

105. What? Of allowing himself to be bullied by Republicans?

I like Mr. Feingold. I've met him. He's a nice man, however this is the most cowardly comment I've heard in a while.

He's saying Bush is guilty of impeachment offenses and yet we won't impeach him.

How in the world is he "right on the money"?

Because the Democrats are being threatened by the Republicans?

[SaveElmer]

106. Funny how a left-wing hero can turn into a goat so quickly...

I am not always on board with what Feingold says, or with many of his tactics which are ill-considered in my view..

But one thing I would never accuse him of is getting bullied by anyone...

He is taking the correct position for the country and the Democratic Party

[Connonym]

112. How in good conscience can we let them get away with it?

I don't care if I see 50 impeachments in my lifetime. If a president has committed impeachable offenses then it is morally wrong to not proceed with impeachment. Just because the republicans acted infantile and used impeachment of Clinton as a stunt doesn't mean that impeachment isn't still a valuable tool. W's crimes are too serious to give him a pass. It would imply to the rest of the world that we condone W's deeds. In the long run I can't believe that's in our best interest.

[Jcrowley]

110. Contact Senator Feingold

Senator Feingold's Offices

Middleton
1600 Aspen Commons
Middleton, WI 53562-4716
[phone]
TDD [phone]
Fax [phone]


Milwaukee
517 East Wisconsin Ave., Room 408
Milwaukee, WI 53202-4504
[phone]
Fax [phone]

La Crosse
425 State St., Room 225
La Crosse, WI 54601-3341
[phone]


Green Bay
1640 Main Street
Green Bay, WI 54302-2639
[phone]

http://feingold.senate.gov/contact.html

[Kelly Rupert]

114. I don't think there's a voice in the Democratic party

with enough credibility to convince DU that impeachment would be a comparative waste of time, and that's a shame. We need to spend that time, money and energy on good policy, not political posturing.

[tbyg52]

115. Is it in the best interest of the country

to let everybody see that you can do what Bush has done and get away cold????

[G_Leo_Criley]

117. NO n/t

glc

[incapsulated]

116. Good.

He is right. It would not only overwhelm anything and everything else, the Dems would pay the same price the repukes did when they did this. For what, so this shithead gets sent home a few months early? He's not being sent to jail because he is impeached. Investigate the hell out of the fuckers and we could get a real criminal charge out of it. I'm still disappointed Russ isn't going to run, he was my solid number 2 choice.

[ecstatic]

119. If Bush were a Democrat he would have been impeached long ago

With the approving nod of several Democrats, at that. Do you think the Repubs would give a damn about looking petty or vindictive? Or doing back to back impeachments of two Democratic presidents? Hell no!

Something is definitely wrong with this picture. Has anyone here ever read about the "learned helplessness" experiments with the puppies? It seems like that's where we're at right now.

[Morgana LaFey]

121. He's great, but every now and then his very hard-headed,

stubborn, incredibly myopic and obtuse streak appears, and this is one of them.