Ultimatum to the Democrats: Impeach or find yourself back in the minority!

[kentuck]

There comes a time when the truth can no longer be denied. The truth is that each day this Administration is in power, the worse our nation will be. Nothing is going to get better with this crowd. The Congress has a duty and responsibility to bring this chaos under control.

Why an ultimatum? Because the Congress will not move otherwise. They must feel the heat of the people's disapproval. Just being back in power is not enough. We need to stop this slide into anarchy and lawlessness now. Not in January, 2009. Now!

[rock]

1. True that

I'm afraid that the Dem Congress does not see the danger.

[sabbat hunter]

2. step on investigations

you cannot jump into an impeachment. otherwise THAT will come back to bite the democratic party in the ass.

do full and open investigations, just like with watergate. form a special committee if need be. pass a new special prosecutor law.

our first order of business CANNOT be impeachment. that is not the way things work. while we here believe that bush committed crimes, if you took a poll the majority of americans would say no. if we were to just to jump into impeachment it would martyr bush and rally people around him.

get all the facts out there for everyone to see with proper investigations, so everyone knows that it is unbiased facts. that we are not doing it for revenge for the impeachment of clinton.

[Hubert Flottz]

4. STILL...

We the people, need to employ the full court press on IMPEACHMENT, from the Get-Go... We need to sound off until the noise is SO LOUD, that it can no longer be ignored! Time to take back America.

[pnwmom]

23. The problem with that theory is that with Clinton's impeachment

the Republicans succeeded in totally trivializing that sanction.

Impeachment alone will mean almost nothing -- there will be no shock value, no huge concern -- just a reaction from the MM and the general public of "more politics as usual." Especially if we are all "sounding off" from the "get-go" without solid investigations to back it up.

The only way for an impeachment now to mean something would be to obtain an actual CONVICTION in a Senate trial. And we're not even close to achieving that, since it requires a 2/3 majority: i.e., many votes from Republicans. Maybe we could get that eventually, depending on the investigations. But we aren't there now and we're not going to get there simply by screaming our collective heads off.

It's time to be smart about how we take back America, not time to shoot ourselves in the foot.

[kentuck]

24. Good point...

Maybe it is best to investigate and get out the truth and disgrace this man and leave him without the legacy he so covets...

[Vincardog]

42. The first step in the Impeachment process is investigations. Calling for Impeachment is calling for

investigation. You seem to be arguing a distinction without a difference.

[GOTV]

56. Not true.

Impeachment does not require investigation. We can go into impeachment on the information we have now. It would be stupid to do so but we could.

Investigate first - see what we find now that we have subpoena power.

[Imagevision]

65. Bush: If he wasn't swetting Pelosi he wouldn't have recently hired a team of lawyers to

avoid/evade subpeona's investigations etc.

[GOTV]

67. I think you replied to the wrong post. Your response is unrelated to mine.

[mmonk]

99. IMPEACHMENT IS NOT THE SENATE TRIAL ITSELF.

Sorry for shouting but people here don't seem to understand that. People are impeached (investigated for wrongdoing) and then sent to the Senate for a trial for removal or dismissal of charges.

[GOTV]

101. I know that. Still, Impeachment is charging - NOT investigating

Investigations come first. Just like with the Clinton impeachment.

[elocs]

13. Congratulations! A voice of wisdom in the impeachment wilderness.

Does a DA indict a mafia boss just because everybody knows he is a bad guy and has committed crimes, or does he investigate and gather information and evidence first? If you want to rush into impeachment without thorough investigations first, you have zero chance of every getting 67 senators to vote for conviction. That is the point, isn't it? To have Bush impeached AND convicted. Or are you simply happen with an impeachment that goes no farther than Clinton's impeachment. The odds of getting 67 votes to convict are long except in peoples' fantasies here. There is no guarantee that every Democratic senator would vote to convict.

So investigate, investigate, investigate, and then the other things will take care of themselves. What happens if there is no impeachment? Going to go out in the backyard and eat mud? There are lots and lots of things to be done other than impeachment and most of the American people expect the Democratic controlled Congress to do some actual work about our problems and not just get all noble and self righteous about impeachment. Because make no mistake--once you start impeachment, that will bring most everything else to a standstill.

[helderheid]

29. INVESTIGATE INDITE IMPEACH

[warrens]

37. absolutely

Lay the groundwork for a good stiff jail term for all of these assholes. We will never get a conviction in the Senate, so save the fire for the court system.

[GOTV]

48. You are right and I think most DUers would agree...

... but we are not the loudest bunch

[DFLer4edu]

50. why the rest of the DU does not get this is beyond me

Impeachment can come only after hearings that expose in highly scandalous fashion the crimes of this administraton. Then impeachment becomes an issue.

[GOTV]

55. It's frustrating how many people just want to fire guns in the air...

... rather than do something with some chance of success.

[Cass]

92. As it stands right now there aren't enough votes for impeachment. An investigation

that would reveal all sorts of wrong-doing and criminal acts could very well result in enough votes to impeach.

[cali]

3. Yeah, like they're really going to listen

to our toothless ultimatums. All I ask for, plead for, beseech them for; is substantive investigations of EVERYTHING. Those will lead to investigations.

[elocs]

14. Yeah, if they don't impeach we are going to be really, really, really mad.

Nixon's impending impeachment was based upon ongoing investigations and so was Clinton's. There are at this time no ongoing investigations about anything. You absolutely must investigate first if you want to justify impeachment and even have an outside chance of conviction or resignation.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

5. If we don't hold this WhiteHouse accountable we're worthless

We have to remember, when Ford took office, America gave him a 70% approval rating. Americans wanted a change and accountablity. When Ford gave Nixon his pardon ---Ford's support disappeared.

[NotGivingUp]

10. WE are not worthless, but the ones who are supposed to be

working for us are worthless. They will all have to be ousted if they will not represent us.

[bdamomma]

30. apparently they don't think they work for us, I am tired of being

IGNORED.

[onenote]

33. did you vote for Democratic candidates last November?

Did they have a position on impeachment?

If not, why did you vote for them?

[bdamomma]

35. I have to clear up my response, I meant this administration

thinks that they do not work for us. Yes, I did vote for all Democratic candidates. And regarding your question, did they have a position on impeachment (who is they?) the Dems apparently do not want impeachment on the table at this time, I think they want to clean up certain issues first, the Bills that the Repigs turned down.

[onenote]

41. exactly...I think we are in agreement

thanks for clarifying

[bdamomma]

31. apparently they don't think they work for us, I am tired of being

IGNORED.

[cali]

11. Investigations are THE

route to accountability. Nothing, not impeachment, or anything else, can happen without substantive investigations.

[NotGivingUp]

6. If there's no impeachment, they are one and the same.

[Mikey929]

7. Look Forward

For the sake of our country, one administration cannot spend all its time investigating the outgoing admin. Because if we do it, then next time around they'll do it, and on and on. Let's move on and do the peoples' business. I swear -- some people on here seem to want vengeance more than they want their newly elected politicians to actually accomplish something.

Let's move on minimum wage, and revamping healthcare, and fair taxes, etc. I dont want to see two years squandered on trying to make charges stick to everyone who's had an R next to their name the past six years.

[NotGivingUp]

8. the people's business is doing something about the criminals that

have been doing everything in their power to destroy this country. I'm tired of hearing that nothing else can get done if we impeach. That just isn't true.

[ToolTex]

9. This is shortsighted. These people have stolen trillions of dollars,

committed treason, and stolen our election system. If we fail to lock them up and recover their booty then they will continue to reemerge just like the dregs from Nixon did in the form of cheney, rumsfield, wolfowitz. Huge fortunes buy power for a long time, look at the bush crime family for an example.

[NotGivingUp]

12. ABSOLUTELY! It's ridiculous not to impeach.

[Mikey929]

18. No

They've NOT stolen our election system. We just won a huge victory! And we are poised to take the white house in 08. So let's get on with it and start enacting legislation that takes this country forward.

Personally, I don't see a huge evil empire. That gives them too much credit. I see a dunce who has ass-backward policies and dumb ideas. Let's change that and get this country back in a forward positive direction.

[Jim Sagle]

84. Freeper hogwash!

[kentuck]

15. I passionately request impeachment but....

I know this Congress is not going to impeach. My hope is that they investigate thoroughly. It seems we have seen enough to impeach already without further investigations. But, it does not work that way. There has to be an investigation process to reach a public consensus.

[Marie26]

16. And who will be in the majority?

Republicans? Is that really a good solution?

[Az]

17. The problem they face

Is who is going to own this catastrophuk. If they impeach Bush and co. then who is going to take the fall for the next two years of misery. There is no way out of Iraq that does not involve a political party taking a poison pill. The battle in Washington right now is one of brinksmanship seeing who is going to be the side that has to fall on the sword.

Impeaching Bush takes the single greatest problem the Republicans have out of the mix. It would be doing them a favor. And as soon as they call for impeachment they will become the party that becomes responsible for Iraq and they will take it in the face for it.

[seriousstan]

19. IMPEACH NOW...or I will hold my breath and maybe even stamp my feet.

[AValdoux]

20. Go after Cheney

I think the investigations will show he is the evil mastermind. I would rather see him removed or at least kept busy covering his ass for the next two years. What would Bush do if his brain (not Rove) was taken out. I think it would cut him off at the knees. Who would he bring in to fill the void? Who would come in knowing that Congress is finally watching? If Cheney is removed or resigns, the vice president slot would probably be filled by the GOP candidate for 2008. This would link him to Bush. Then the GOP couldn't run in 2008 promising change and distancing themselves from the Bush disaster.


AValdoux

[kentuck]

21. Makes sense...

Cheney is able to slip scrutiny as the VP...

[pnwmom]

22. Please explain how impeachment alone, without a conviction

in a Senate trial -- which we couldn't get now, since it requires a 2/3 majority -- would be a good thing for us?

Why do you want Bush to be able to say he was tried for impeachment crimes and found NOT GUILTY?

Why not just make him wallow in investigations for two years and not give him a chance to free himself in a show trial in the Senate?

[omega minimo]

26. There have been many solid, informative threads on impeachment to answer your questions

(advanced) search "impeachment" will reveal many.

Also check out "The Genius of Impeachment" by John Nichols.


Here's one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=3021745

[pnwmom]

70. I have participated in many of those threads and never gotten

a good answer to that question.

[Senator]

38. Because it's not "about us"

But it would still be a good thing "for us." The biggest problem "our side" has in its struggle against the neofascists is the (very real, and warranted) perception of weakness. Bill Clinton said it best, "people will always choose strong and wrong over weak and right."

Impeachment would virtually erase that perception/real deficit.

And why do you want Bush(kid) to be able to say he was never even accused (impeached)?

Why allow him to chuckle through two years of aimless investigations and never even have to defend himself publicly in the Senate?

--

[pnwmom]

71. You don't have to be impeached to be accused

or to have to defend yourself. What matters is to expose all the misconduct. The evil will speak for itself.

Impeachment as an act was totally trivialized by the Republicans during the Clinton era. There's no putting that horse back in the barn -- Bush wouldn't feel disgraced, he would just point out that the same thing had happened to Clinton.

The only way to make a real difference would be to convict Bush, and we don't have the votes for that.

[Senator]

85. You certainly do...

...because that is the act which exposes the objection to the misconduct for history -- and in the name of the American People.

There is no other way to get the American People off the hook for the crimes of this never-elected, never-legitimate regime -- crimes for which they never provided their consent. That is the real danger of the LieberDems dereliction of duty here. It makes the problem worse. Their failure to act to stop the ongoing torture and war crimes makes them war criminals themselves -- and the US a war criminal nation by extension.

That's the "real difference." Conviction or not. If "we" fail to stand against the regime, once we obtain the "majority" power, "we" become willfully complicit with them. And that outcome, brought about solely by inaction, is a far worse one than we've seen yet -- worse than any terrorist act -- even the bomb threat of "mushroom clouds" perpetrated on its own people by this rogue regime -- worse even than the wars.

It's not about disgracing, or really even removing, the regime. It's about defending the Constitution and the nation from this "evil" (which does not "speak for itself" but rather, "...flourishes when good men do nothing") and ultimately about the Redemption of Our National Soul.

And FWIW, the "trivialized" propaganda meme is just that. It has no actual content. As if you could ever describe the power of Congress to remove a sitting president for cause as trivial. It isn't.

--

[SaveElmer]

25. Well then we can explain...

To those full time workers struggling below the poverty line, why impeachment took priority over a rise in the minimum wage...or healthcare reform, or environmental reform, or energy reform..

Yes lets sacrifice all that in favor of two years of impeachment wrangling, ultimately ending up in a Senate acquittal, and the Democrats losing their majority..

Not what folks voted for when they put the Democrats back in power!

[bobbolink]

27. One More Time--Congress is made up of COMMITTEES--each one

responsible for that part of the government.

Minimum wage handled by one committee, environment handled by another, impeachment handled by yet another.

So, your sarcasm doesn't make it so. The work goes on with all those issues, whether articles of impeachment are drawn up or not.

And, yes, impeachment (accountability!) is EXACTLY what most of those who voted Dems back in power are looking for!! Skipping over accountability will show Dems are not serious about our Constitution, and part of the same game as the RW, which would make that many more people so cynical that they would likely just give up voting at all.

COMMITTEES!

[bdamomma]

32. This Congress will methodically derail the GOP through

Committee investigations, let them investigate and let us not give up on our fight, to show this Congress that our voices will not be silenced.

[bobbolink]

75. Absolutely!

Have at it, Rep. Waxman! :thumbsup:

I think it will be fun watching him skewer the ne'er do wells! :hi:

[SaveElmer]

39. Once again...

There is a difference between OVERSIGHT proceedings which are entirely proper, and IMPEACHMENT proceedings which would be a disaster, unless the OVERSIGHT hearings came up with information so compelling as to make impeachment the only course of action.

Take a quick glance through the impeachment threads here at DU and statements like "Impeach Now", "Impeachment day 1" "Impeachment should be the first priority" yadda yadda yadda leap out at you...

That is the kind of nonsense I am responding to, and that is all too prevelent here

Please give me the name of those Democrats elected in 2006 that ran on a platform of impeachment!

[bobbolink]

73. Of course Dems didn't "run on platform of impeachment"

The lack of courage is legendary.

As for all your other charges, it's not even worth dealing with. What you *didn't* respond to at all, was the whole balance of my post... countering the ridiculous charge that Congress can only deal with one issue at a time. That's totally assinine, given that there are all those committees for a reason!

If you are one of those who say it's OK that Iran/Contra was excused (and left us with the mess we have now), and it's just fine to sweep all the abuses now under the rug, then we really don't have anything at all to discuss.

This is our CONSTITUTION, and our NATION, and both of those trump party.

[SaveElmer]

76. If avoiding self-immolation...

Is lack of courage...then I am all for it. Virtually any Democrat who had run on a platform of impeachment would have been beaten...plain and simple...

As I stated in my post, oversight hearings are completely proper. So you see I didn't say concentration on one thing was all that was possible. However, if even a whiff of suspician that impeachment is on the table before these hearings have uncovered incontrovertible, clear, compelling evidence that laws were broken, in a way that will not only convince a majority of congress and the 13 Republican Senators that will be necessary to convict, but that will be wholy supported by the American people, then it is a very bad idea.

[bobbolink]

77. Then, look at the post with the poll results.

Look, I don't understand at all what your reasoning is.

All I hear in it is partisan fear.

ALL CRIME MUST BE PUNISHED! That includes white collar and governmental crime!

The Dems WON because people want the lies punished, and the war stopped, and the budget returned to those in need.

There's no point in debating further, so you go ahead and have the last word.

[SaveElmer]

79. As you wish...

My fear is that the relief poor and working families, the elderly, and the sick need to have from the policies of these people in the White house, will be derailed in a futile attempt at impeachment.

[GOTV]

88. Here's some poll results

All 2006 polls

"Based on what you have read or heard, do you believe that President Bush should be impeached and removed from office, or don't you feel that way?"

Should Be Should Not Be
30% 69%

"Regardless of how you plan to vote, if the Democrats win this year's congressional elections do you think it would be right for them to try to impeach President Bush over the Iraq war and weapons of mass destruction, or not?"

Would Be Right Would Not Be Right
30% 62%

"Democratic Congressman John Conyers has called for creation of a committee to look into impeaching Bush and removing him from office. Do you think Congress should or should not impeach Bush and remove him from office?"

Should Should Not
33% 66%

"Do you think Congress should take action to impeach President Bush and consider removing him from office, or not?"

Should Should Not
26% 69%

http://pollingreport.com/bush.htm

I wish there was public support for impeachment, and maybe there is this year. But the preponderance of data we have now says that there is not.

[PVnRT]

43. Uhhhh....back that statement up

"And, yes, impeachment (accountability!) is EXACTLY what most of those who voted Dems back in power are looking for!!"

Where was this again? Most people were sick of Republican corruption and Iraq. "Impeachment" doesn't even register as a blip anywhere I've seen. So provide some evidence of your claim.

[Senator]

47. A majority (51%) asking for Impeachment as a "priority" is more than a blip

The public is already way ahead of the LieberDems on this:


Only 44% oppose because they're not being totally gaslighted by the DC/Euphemedia Wurlitzer. And 1/5 of that "opposition" are Dems following their craven "leadership." The public already knows that the never-elected, never-legitimate regime is the biggest obstacle to improvement in any situation, foreign or domestic.

As Curtis Gans, director of The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, put it recently on the David Bender Show:

"I think that it is not simply Iraq, although Iraq started Bush's downhill. But it is a gestalt around George Bush."

Only Impeachment ...responds to what mandate the DC Dems were given. If they fail to stand up for what's right, continue to cower to bush's "rule by signing statement," we'll lose big in '08.

Impeachment IS our positive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

===

[GOTV]

57. I'll see your poll and raise you 4

All 2006 polls

"Based on what you have read or heard, do you believe that President Bush should be impeached and removed from office, or don't you feel that way?"

Should Be Should Not Be
30% 69%

"Regardless of how you plan to vote, if the Democrats win this year's congressional elections do you think it would be right for them to try to impeach President Bush over the Iraq war and weapons of mass destruction, or not?"

Would Be Right Would Not Be Right
30% 62%

"Democratic Congressman John Conyers has called for creation of a committee to look into impeaching Bush and removing him from office. Do you think Congress should or should not impeach Bush and remove him from office?"

Should Should Not
33% 66%

"Do you think Congress should take action to impeach President Bush and consider removing him from office, or not?"

Should Should Not
26% 69%


http://pollingreport.com/bush.htm

I win

[Senator]

64. Old polls are not a "raise"

Why do you suppose they haven't published more recent ones?

__

[GOTV]

68. My 4 polls and your 1 poll are all from 2006. Your's is the outlier

[bobbolink]

74. Thanks for posting this--very good info!

Not that it will have an effect on the knee-jerk "Ohhhh, can't impeach" crowd. :(

[Senator]

86. It has had an effect

We've had a few "mind changed" posts even here on DU.

And it will continue to. Simple truth has a force of its own.

--

[GOTV]

87. Maybe because there are more polls showing only minority support for impeachment?

Do you think maybe some of us look at a range of polls and not just the one or two that supports what we already want to believe?

Which is more "knee-jerk"?

[paulk]

28. how are you going to put the Democrats back in the minority?

Impeachment will happen if the public demands it - that means both Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.

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

Your strategy sounds remarkably that that of Nader in 2000. He sure showed us, didn't he?



:puke:

[Heywood J]

100. That's exactly what I was thinking.

"Do what I want, or I'll vote Republican/equivalent and put you back in the minority"?

I don't know how people rationalize that. Talk about being your own worst enemy...

[Infinite Hope]

103. LOL. Nuff said. n/t

[Reterr]

34. kicked and recommended.eom

[KoKo]

36. They aren't going to Impeach...But, if Bush/Cheney continue this ...they

might have to "remove" the both of them. There's no time to Impeach....They are dangerous. Look at the botched Saddam Hanging.... The rumors of Iran strike... No time.... Removal by resignation. Both of them.

[philosophie_en_rose]

40. Ultimatum to the Deluded: Support Democrats or Support Republicans.

If you are horrified at the Republicans, voting for them is hardly a solution.

We are not going to get a conviction, and the whole government stops for impeachment proceedings. Is it responsible to allow people to continue to die in Iraq or to suffer from republican policies?

:shrug:

[originalpckelly]

45. Yeah, I know, what are primaries for any way?

:shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

58. If my NAMED democratic representative serves himself before me or

his constituents benefits/interests, then YES! They are not FIT for my vote JUST BECAUSE there happens to be a D after their name. I always have put the wellbeing of my country before my party affiliation loyalties. Those Senators who voted for the Bankruptcy Bill, a.k.a. pay-offs to the financial conglomerates, are NOT, IMO, Democrats.

Please remember DLCers, intimidation and threats may work for the Right Wing of the Political Spectrum but it does NOT work for true moderates of all stripes.

[bobbolink]

80. Yup, settle for shit, or get the hell out of the country

Where have I heard that before?

[originalpckelly]

44. I think general sentiment is good, but you mean we'll take 'em out in a primary!

:-)

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Ok I am going to ask two questions

1.- Do you think any DA will just convict without first doing an investigation?

2.- Do you really want the Republicans in charge?

I mean there is NO VIABLE third party in the US right at the moment, and trust me I wish there was

[Senator]

60. Ok I am going to ask questions too (and answer yours)

1.- Do you think there is some "unknown" to investigate? Please say what that is.

And to answer your question more directly, the regime admits to violating Geneva and illegal spying. They claim it is their lawful right to do so. All that's left for the DC Dems to do is approve of it or impeach over it. Full stop.

2.- Aren't the Republicans currently in charge? Do we not live under "rule by signing statement?" Do you imagine that DC Dems have found some magic solution to that?

And to answer, Only Impeachment can change this situation. The regime is not going allow any substantive policy result. They don't have to with a non-veto-proof, non-filibuster-proof, non-potent Dem majority.

They'll continue to chuckle at Dem weakness and do exactly as they please.

And the torture and war crimes will continue, as will the illegal spying, and the Iraq (and Iran?) meat grinder, and the rule by signing statement, and the election thefts, and the terrorizing the electorate.

And 2 years from now the bushkid will be grinning next to his chosen successor saying "the Dems approved it all, otherwise they would have tried to impeach me."

And the parrots in the Euphemedia will create that reality. And the DC Dems will apologize. And the neofascists never will, because they'll have no need to.

There will be NO VIABLE second party in the US at that moment, and trust me you'll wish there was.

Impeachment IS our positive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic, politico-strategic, option.

--

[WI_DEM]

49. Impeachment might be easy, but actual removal from office will

mean that a significant minority of Republican senators also have to vote to remove Bush. And can we expect every democrat will too? What about Lieberman?

[dogday]

51. When I voted for the Democrats, I voted

for the war to end and for Bush to held accountable.... I doubt I will see either...

[Imagevision]

52. This country country is long past due for some serious JUSTICE!!

Dems must act responsible or be replaced with someone who will fight for the American people!

[ShortnFiery]

53. Yes, but first stop The Chimperor from increasing troop numbers

in Iraq!

First things first.

Dammit Democratic Representatives, show us that you have a pair!

[GOTV]

54. You're probably wrong

Polls from 2006

"Based on what you have read or heard, do you believe that President Bush should be impeached and removed from office, or don't you feel that way?"

Should Be Should Not Be
30% 69%

"Regardless of how you plan to vote, if the Democrats win this year's congressional elections do you think it would be right for them to try to impeach President Bush over the Iraq war and weapons of mass destruction, or not?"

Would Be Right Would Not Be Right
30% 62%

"Democratic Congressman John Conyers has called for creation of a committee to look into impeaching Bush and removing him from office. Do you think Congress should or should not impeach Bush and remove him from office?"

Should Should Not
33% 66%

"Do you think Congress should take action to impeach President Bush and consider removing him from office, or not?"

Should Should Not
26% 69%

http://pollingreport.com/bush.htm

Things may change but at this point, Dems have little to fear from the voters in not impeaching Bush.

[ShortnFiery]

59. I seriously doubt those numbers ... what are the numbers NOW

that "Captain USA Nero" wants to have a SURGE?

IMO "Impeach both Bush and Cheney ... Impeach with extreme prejudice." :grr:

[GOTV]

66. You tell me...

... I gave you the most up to date polling numbers I have.

Until you have more up to date figures all you have is your gut.

[Hippo_Tron]

61. A futile attempt at justice will come at too high of a price

Americans want us out of Iraq and they want healthcare, jobs, cheaper student loans, and better public schools. If we impeach we will be able to do none of those things because congress will be in gridlock while we conduct impeachment proceedings.

Some Republicans believe that Iraq was worth it so that we could bring Saddam Hussein to justice. In my view, the cost that we paid to bring Saddam to justice was far too high. The same goes for Bush. Justice is just far too expensive in terms of the opportunities that we will lose.

[eppur_se_muova]

62. dupe, delete

[eppur_se_muova]

63. Verily. K&R nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

69. Methinks You've Mistaken Your Keyboard For A Magic Wand.

You hold no such power to issue such an ultimatum. Just wanted you to know that.

Fact is, the declaration is a completely false one. If impeachment were to occur in the absolute reckless and irresponsible manner that some advocate here, that would actually be the quickest route to ensuring we end up back in the minority.

To issue a declaration such as the one you did in the OP, is just all sorts of silly in its accuracy, legitimacy and premise.

[suston96]

72. By all means.....

...spend all that time on an impeachment inquiry and maybe on an actual impeachment. Take months, perhaps years on such a process and ignore the stench of the corrupted electoral process.

And be assured that this victory in the Congress will last just two years because while Democrats are pissing themselves over a vengeful impeachment, Republicans will be fixing the leaks in their election thievery machinery.

Impeachments without convictions in the Senate may raise a few pants wetting goosebumps but will otherwise accomplish nothing.

[k_jerome]

78. impeach AND find ourselves back in the minority. nt.

[bobbolink]

81. Dems going back to being "soft on crime"= path to minority status

It's time to get a spine, and stand for something.

[leftofthedial]

82. they also have to put aside their fear of criticism from the authoritarians

and cut off money for the illegal occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan

[spacelady]

83. Impeachment does not = Removal. The "pResident" must be

declared unfit for duty in office for expedient removal. Bill Clinton was impeached & he did not go away much to the dismay of Ken Starr & Co. Nixon resigned because he KNEW he had committed criminal acts; however, this crowd wills themselves above the law and has not the meager conscience of even a Nixonian moment.
Impeachment is not going to give Democratic principles an edge in this day and age. Very Unfortunately.

[GOTV]

89. Removal required 67 Senators and not one impeachment hawk has been able to name the 67

Until they can, impeachment = acquittal = vindication. Just like with Clinton.

I don't want to give Bush the vindication that the GOP gave Clinton.

[derby378]

94. Does snooping through your mail do anything for you?

I will grant you that the best way to handle impeachment of the President is to conduct thorough investigations on the Hill before you submit a motion to impeach - not to mention securing the number of Senators needed to remove Bush from office. But it all comes down to past tense vs. present tense when investigating a crime.

First scenario: You walk into an alley and you see a 12-year-old girl slumped against the bricks, dead, a single gunshot wound to the head. You have police seal off the area, and they'll take all of the evidence they can - the bullet itself, DNA samples (did the girl dig her fingernails into the gunman's skin?), and all that. The cops will investigate. They'll interview the locals, trying to find out who did this to that little girl. Eventually, they'll come across a suspect who just happens to be wanted on an unrelated petty larceny charge. After a brief chase, the suspect is in custody. Then you have the trial and lay out the evidence for the judge and jury to see, and leave it to the judicial system to see if the man is going to serve 25-to-life in the big house.

Second scenario: You walk into an alley and you see that 12-year-old girl, very much alive but scared out of her wits, a .38 pressed against her head by that petty criminal I mentioned earlier. In any way you can, you must intervene, because law enforcement may not make it in time. You try to reason with the thug, but to no avail - he's gonna pull the trigger. So you draw your own weapon, you hold back the tears, and you give some frightened mother her little baby girl back by putting the would-be killer out of his misery.

That's how I see impeachment. You want to do it thoroughly, but when our very national security is at stake, there may not be any time for niceties.

And El Diablo just claimed that he can open my mail whenever he wants and for any reason that he wants.

You do the math.

Impeachment. Then criminal charges.

Anything else, IMHO, is just foot-dragging.

[GOTV]

97. You've named 0 Senators. Just 67 to go.

You admit that "best way to handle impeachment of the President is to conduct thorough investigations on the Hill before you submit a motion to impeach - not to mention securing the number of Senators needed to remove Bush from office"

Then you advocate going the less than best way.

Second scenario - I don't necessarily intervene. I take what I believe the most effective action would be. If I think intervening means me AND the girl dies, I don't intervene.

If the president is the killer in the alley, and the nation is the little girl and impeachment is your weapon... you have to understand that the killer is out of range, and rather than firing your gun anyway, alerting the killer to your presence and possibly causing him to kill the girl immediately, you need to first take action to bring the killer within range. Investigations can do that by uncovering enough dirt to convince 67 Senators to convict.

We know when it's time for impeachment. When we have 67 Senators ready to convict. Then we're in range.

[Left Coast Lynn]

90. Ultimatum to the Democrats: Impeach or find the GOP back in the majority!

Right, if there's anything they do or don't do we disagree with, let's get the GOP back in power. :sarcasm:

[kentuck]

91. I guess we represent the rest of the Party...?

I suspect there are a lot of Democrats, besides a few here, that want Bush held accountable. My post was meant to be a written corollary similar to Cindy Sheehan's protest yesterday. It was meant to get the attention of Democrats that we are serious about withdrawing the troops and holding the criminals accountable. There is a time for "bi-partisanship" but this is not the time. Sheep do not negotiate with wolves. To suggest that "impeachment" leads to defeat does not hold water. Repubs impeached Clinton in '98 and held on to the Congress for 8 more years...There is no proof that the impeachment had anything to do with their recent defeat.

With that said, I do not think there will be an impeachment but Bush doesn't know that. The Democrats should keep him on the defensive and in his cage in whatever way they can - even with threats of impeachment or other means. To do this, we have to keep the attention of the Democrats so they are not deluded into some "bi-partisan" stupor...

[Left Coast Lynn]

93. I agree with much of this

Impeackment is a tool the Democrats can threaten or use, and it wouldn't hurt my feelings. And I believe it would damage Bush and the repugnants more. I just cringe when I see a 'do this or else we're going back to GOP rule' type of post, it smacks of turning on the Democrats over a limited number of issues.

But I now understand your post was more advisory rather than threatening to work against them. Thanks for expanding on it.

[kentuck]

95. Perhaps a question mark (?) would have been more instructive...

Sometimes the "edit" time runs out on us... :)

[Sapphire Blue]

96. Great idea /:sarcasm: ; will you vote repub if the Dems don't impeach?

:thumbsdown:

[mmonk]

98. I agree. Justice delayed

will turn into justice denied.

[GOTV]

102. Only Impeachment + Conviction = Justice. 67 Senators required. No justice until you can name them.