CRAP!! John Kerry on MTP Says "Impeachment Talk a Waste of Time."

[Dr. Jones]

Come on Kerry!! Get a spine! Your Congress is obsolete because you and others have allowed Bush to accumulate tyrinnical fascist power!
:mad:

[babylonsister]

1. It IS a waste of time, at least until November. nt

[Mass]

3. And anyway, a senator cannot do anything about it.

So it is really a waste of time for him.

[liberalmike27]

23. And who are we going to end up with?

You want Cheney to "actually" be president, or God forbid whoever is next in succession (I think Hastert, not sure?).

Besides, we saw what good it did when they tried to attack Clinton, their approval ratings just dropped. Though we've got an incredibly more valid issue to impeach over, I feel the same result would ensue, our approval ratings would just drop up to the election, which we're going to have a tough time in anyway.

[EST]

43. Empty, substance-free argument.

You do not forgo prosecuting one mobster king, tacitly propping up his criminal enterprise, simply because of an heir apparent.
Cheney is a big enough crook to assure his own destruction and would, without the protection provided by the BFEE, be the subject of an even more vigorous investigation and condemnation.

[tabasco]

69. Substance-free argument?

You compare a criminal prosecution with a Congressional impeachment and you say the other poster has an empty argument?? LMAO.

The political composition of the Congress at this time makes impeachment talk just hot air.

Impeachment efforts are a waste of time until it is politically possible to actually achieve an indictment.

Your impeachment talk at this point is just talk with nothing behind it. I call that empty.

The mission now is to gain control of Congress. Until that happens there will be no impeachment.

[Grateful for Hope]

6. Exactly right

There is plenty of time for impeachment talk after we take back both houses. (Am trying to have a very positive attitude here!!).

[boobooday]

10. Exactly

Once they win majority status in Congress, I will be expecting action.

[JanMichael]

22. Nothing wrong with building the concept up over time.

Of course the fascist repukes won't impeach their lord and savior generalissimo el busho but November isn't that far away.

To demand it NOW is pointless but to discuss it publically between now and the mid-terms which are a sneeze away is not.

Just my opinion.

[saltpoint]

2. Bernie Saunders said the same on NPR yesterday, and he's a socialist.

The votes aren't there.

It doesn't mean Kerry, Saunders, etc. support Bush or believe that Rove/Libby/Cheney/Bush aren't manipulative liars.

It just means that we need a bluer Congress before articles of impeachment can proceed with any chance of a successful outcome.

[ecoalex]

12. To completely discount impeachment is wrong

DLC Kerry needs to qualify his statement to after the Fall landslide, we will move to Impeach. Otherwise all the DLC Dems are duplicitous dummies.H Clinton is doing the rounds talking up the war, she too needs to get a clue.What is going on with the Dems? This language is conflicting and supports asshat.Time to purge the DLC dummies.

[saltpoint]

18. I'm having a hard time picturing myself calling Senator John Kerry a

"DLC dummy" to his face.

I think that's way off.

[helderheid]

30. Kucinich had the same response as Kerry - I would hardly call

either DLC dummies.

[ClassWarrior]

55. Instead of whining about what others AREN'T doing, why don't you...

...get out and start helping us to build a groundswell for IMPEACHMENT amongst the public, so that after the Fall landslide, we CAN move to IMPEACH? This summer is an UNPRECEDENTED opportunity for us to mount an impeachment campaign. The trick will be to tie it back to systemic crime and corruption in the Republicon Party, so our efforts serve to get Dems elected too.

By the way, you DO realize, don't you, that the House is the chamber that moves to impeach, and that J. Kerry and H. Clinton are in the Senate?

NGU.

[Blue_Roses]

71. well said and the GOP controlled house isn't about to start

impeachement hearings. Kerry's right. It is a waste of time.

[Dinger]

4. I Wonder Why He Supports Censure & Not Chimpeachment?

I'm politically informed enough to know why. Anybody have any ideas?

[still_one]

11. In my view it is because the repugs control the house

and impeachment will not happen, while a censure vote will happen, and clearly show who in the senate approves of what bush did by voilating the FISA resolution

[La Lioness Priyanka]

80. seconded

[Christa]

5. Nobody will talk impeachment

until the Nov election :evilgrin:

[saltpoint]

9. Agreed. If you are going into a battle, you gotta have the soldiers.

At this moment it looks good for blue in November, but it's not November yet and there's plenty of work to be done.

[Atman]

16. The REPUBLICANS are talking about it

But only to whip up fear, claiming that if those evil liberals get control that America will once again be dragged down that messy road again.

The politics of fear...but this time, it is the Republicans who are shaking in their wing-tips.

[OzarkDem]

56. We need a steady drumbeat on impeachment

The theory of keeping the powder dry doesn't work as well anymore. Its tough to sell a position in a short time frame, you have to have a steady message being repeated over and over and over.

Dems can say they don't want impeachment until later, but they definitely need to be talking about it now (even if they're not acting on it).

[still_one]

7. It is a waste of time unless we control the house

CENSURE IS not however. It shows exactly where we stand on a president violating the law?

[NNN0LHI]

8. Yea why doesn't the Republican controlled congress impeach Bush?

:eyes:

[bullimiami]

15. because they are scared of him and scared to lose power.

but it is going to bite them right in the ass.

[Dr. Jones]

17. Maybe because they're a bunch of hacks, yes-men, and morons.

Does that answer your question??! :)

[FrenchieCat]

66. same reason that the Republican controlled congress will not Censure Bush?

[Deja Q]

13. He is correct.

Even though the Repubs are increasingly divided, it's not going to happen.

[bluestateguy]

14. As long as they control the Congress, it is a waste of time

Democrats should only pursue it if they win both houses. Even then, it's no guarantee (DLC Democrats, remember).

[Island Blue]

19. It is a waste of time right now.

The Democrats simply don't have the votes yet to achieve impeachment, therefore why not concentrate on other pressing issues and clear the way for when we retake the Senate in November, therefore actually making impeachment possible.

[4dsc]

49. At this time..

I believe the democratic leadership is trying to quiet the voices of impeachment for now but if we take the house and Senate, then let the impeachments preceedings begin!!

Impeachment scares the crap out of repug's..

[Skinner]

20. Kerry's right. (nt)

[wndycty]

25. Skinner I demand your resignation!!!!!

You DLC WHORE, DINO, etc. . .:sarcasm:

[Deja Q]

36. Just a teensy suggestion for you:

:hide:


















:rofl:
:popcorn:

[omega minimo]

72. "Right" or strategeric?

Apparently voting is a waste of time, too-- but some of us still do that.

John Conyer's efforts are devoted to building a case of what's really "right" whether it only matters to future onlookers (historians, patriots, survivors) or not.

Is there some other effort --somewhere between censure/impeachment and Nov. 06 elections-- that this Congress can use to hold this Administration accountable and on notice that someone IS paying attention?

Doesn't the Congress NEED to speak up for Americans, on say, Leaker-In-Chief, since the press won't?

[frustrated_lefty]

81. No, he's not and here is one reason why.

Political realities aside, talk of impeachment can be an indication that some inkling of a moral conscience remains in our government. Perhaps such a dialogue would be perceived as a quixotic gesture. Perhaps it would bring about no tangible change in our government. But, it could be a profound statement that segments of the American populace believe in right and wrong, and even if we can't bring the changes which might be justified, we won't be polite and quietly pretend those differences don't exist.

Whether or not it ever reaches trial, I honestly believe Americans will face a moral equivalent of the Nuremburg trials. Waiting quietly for it to all go away like a bad nightmare isn't enough.

Just my thoughts, maybe I'm wrong.

-fl

[Ilsa]

21. He is speaking as a matter of practicality that nothing will happen

on chimpeachment until some other battles (taking back the House) are won. There is no point in even talking about it with any passion until the other is accomplished first.

I don't mind this.

He sounds very good on Russert today, don't you think?

[noclonyofthechimp]

48. I agree with him. Kerry is and always will be, a "process oriented"

thinker. Unlike "Oh Lord Pissy Pants." I think he sounded great. Tim tried to paint him as a flip flopper and what seemed like to me like a man that can't make a decision without a focus group by calling him out on not speaking out on the reported torture at Guantanamo.

He very calmly "chuckles" and rebuttals with a factual response. He called for R(sc)ummies resignation over Guantanamo.

I think he is focusing on the November results for a lot of reasons, let the impeachment "movement" take it's momentum. When we take back the house and the fight/vote is brought to the floor, I am sure he will vote for it. By then, at the rate this administration is going with all their deception and incompetence finally being revealed, their will be plenty MORE reasons for impeachment.

He all but came out and admitted he is going after the presidency in 08. He is "looking at it hard". The man has my vote once again. IF our voting process has changed from non-verifiable black boxes.

[Catrina]

64. Did he make that clear or, do we as usual with Kerry, have to read his

mind. If all he said is that 'talking about impeachment is a waste of time' it will give the impression that there's nothing there to worry about.

I prefer people who speak plainly so I know what they mean and that they mean what they say. We shouldn't have to add the words that he supposedly meant but forgot to say, particularly if they are that important.

Kerry said that he would not quit 'til every vote was counted' some people still remember being geared up to fight that election, and the let down when he conceded the following morning not to be heard from until he thought the furor had died down.

I find it hard to go along anymore with this 'move on, be patient, trust us, something will happen sometime. We're in the process, keeping our powder dry etc. etc.' People are dying every day ~ these criminals need to be removed YESTERDAY. What are we waiting for? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he clarified that statement ~ but I expect to hear from rightwing acquaintances, as I so often have in the past 'what are you whining about, even Kerry is against impeachment, because no crime was committed' ~

[chaumont58]

24. Dem senators would be better off tilting wind mills

I am amazed at all the impeachment talk here in the old DU. In the wildest dream, is a repuke House going to pass a bill of impeachment? If that unlikely event were to take place, would a repuke Senate muster the 67 votes necessary to remove the impeached President? In the past, when I have made these points, I have been accused of being a defeatist!

You know what we should really demand! A ban on rain on Sunday! Not just some special Sunday, but all Sundays. God will listen! He hears prayers.

[seabeyond]

26. why did kerry say it is a waste of time? because they are in minority?

so that would be a truth. why do you have a problem with a politician being honest with you. are you demanding they lie, so they "appear" to have a spine. kinda sounding like a bush mentality

[madrchsod]

27. sometimes i think john should

do what most politicians do answer the question by not answering the question. one of illinois`s finest senators,Everett Dickson, was a master of double talk, i think john should take a cue from him

[JanMichael]

28. Kerry is wrong. I explain myself in post #22.

If Kerry doesn't wish to participate in the building of the impeachment concept for the new Congress, which is just a few months away, then he should just let it go and let the dozers build.

Yes it's pointless NOW but for gawds sake it isn't long until November when this might be a very important issue.

This is what pisses me off...there's so little in the way of medium to long term planning...

[madrchsod]

31. i agree ,

if you don`t have anything nice to say-mumble

[stray cat]

29. I agree with Kerry

a repub gov is never going to impeach one of there own. It is a complete waste of time unless the dems take both the house and senate in 2006.

[grytpype]

32. Uhoh, dkos is not going to be happy about this!

[janx]

33. He's right. Talking about it now is a waste of time.

After November, however... ;-)

[flpoljunkie]

34. If we impeach Bush, we get Cheney!

[EST]

35. Despite his early carreer, Kerry has lived a very sheltered,

almost cloistered existance,surrounded by admirers, fighting highly stylized jousts with other moneyed, "above the fray" types. His battles have no real immediacy to them.
These out of touch personalities do not understand the outrage that results, among the "commoners," from each imposition of governmont malfeasance on us. There is simply no way he can appreciate, for instance, the anger I feel when such oblivious miscreants as Nixon, Weinberger, North, et al, are granted pardons when they should have served, at a minimum, long prison sentences.
The notion that society needs the "closure," required to right itself, represented by punishment of mature adults who have chosen to flout the law and wreak enormous harm on that society, is a concept that doesn't occur to them.

[Cocoa]

38. that's ad hominem

you don't have to agree with him, but it's not because he's not a commoner that he's saying it.

I'm a commoner and I think talking about impeachment is a waste of time.

[EST]

50. What about stoking the "fire in the belly" that is going to

be required to actually oust the criminal in chief, when the times is right and the winds of fortune present the advantage?
What about the idea that we, the people need, like soldiers in battle, to feel that we are all fighting the same war?
What about the need, illustrated by the huge numbers of folks who claim democrats stand for nothing, to show that you stand on principle and the rule of law and have very firm principles for that stance?
Y'know, if Kerry would say, firmly and forcefully, that the band of crooks needs to be removed from office and the first aid applied to a dieing society, but the timing is such that there is nothing to be done immediately except for building the structure for a moral revolution in the near future, there would not be all this speculation and upset among the faithful.

[Cocoa]

53. I think heating things up helps Bush

the clearer people think, the worse for Bush and the conservatives, and the better for us, the American people.

[saltpoint]

42. I would take Senator Kerry's awareness of the big picture over quite

a few others' awareness of the same picture, whether in the 1970s when he opposed Nixon up to this morning, when he is making sense on Iraq and other concerns.

There is no grounds at all for slamming him as "sheltered."

[dailykoff]

37. Maybe it's the old "I will not discuss Senator Kennedy's religion"

line used by Richard Nixon in 1960 -- repeatedly.

In other words, a way to raise the subject while pretending not to.

[zulchzulu]

39. You have to keep your cards close to your chest

Of course Kerry is for impeachment...but it has to be a rock solid case across bipartisan lines and preferably with a Democratic House.

If you saw Kerry on Hardball, he mentioned the case that Bush leaking Plame's name was "as serious as it gets", you know he was mentioning that prosecution under the law is what should happen. But the evidence has to be a slam dunk...otherwise, the Chimp will get away with it.

[saltpoint]

54. Nicely put, zulchzulu. Bravo.

[Slit Skirt]

40. it's ok...until November

we need to take the house first, replace the speaker with John Conyers (yeah!) and THEN impeach Bush and Cheney...and with Conyers in office he will pursue legal investigations, although any democrat that is not weak spined will do I suppose

[Canuckistanian]

41. It's a waste of time NOW. Now that you said it is.

Every RWer is going to latch onto those comments and use it to bash anyone in the head who talks about impeachment.

That, in turn, will cause more Dem congress members to clam up.

Thus, a waste of time.

[LSK]

52. nobody listens to RWers anymore

And we shouldnt act just in response to them.

[Canuckistanian]

62. WE don't, but Dem congress members DO.

It's puzzling. Why are they so spineless when their own consituencies and popular public opinion would back them up?

[Zorra]

44. But the fact is, Congress is obliged to impeach Bu*h at this point.

And while keeping this discussion open may, in reality, be a waste of time, it is an obligation.

The Commander-in-Chief of the US leaked classified information in a petty act of revenge for political and propaganda purposes.

To do nothing is to condone this action.

[zulchzulu]

65. We all know that's true...but...

..the Repugs care more for their party than America.

If impeachment proceedings started when the Congress convenes again immediately, it would fail. That's if it was even allowed to be brought up...

[onehandle]

45. Yep. Save Impeachment talk for next year's Democratic Congress.

We'll have to have people on the steps of the Capitol 24 hours a day.

Investigate and Impeach next year. The current Congress will Never Impeach.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

46. I think many of the Dems are saying this strategically. I heard a couple

of GOP talking heads this week, when discussing the midterm elections spouting how if the Dems take control of the House will proceed with Impeachment, which will hold-up the government instead of going forward with important bills. This way, they are basically saying that if you vote for Repugs, work will get done.

[WePurrsevere]

47. Sorry but until after Nov I'd rather spend my limited time &

energy helping Dems take control of both Houses.

Although I'd like nothing better to see the whole darn Bush cabal impeached, removed and thrown in prison I also feel that first things need to come first. Before that has a chance of happening we Dems need to continue to get the word out as to what BushCo is REALLY doing and do everything we can to get Dems in as the majority in Nov. After the American public is really informed of the TRUTH and we hold the majority in the Houses then we go for impeachment, etc (hopefully with the vast majority of Americans cheering us on). B-)

[LSK]

51. BECAUSE HE WANTS TO GOVERN, NOT PLAY POLITICS

We have serious problems and he wants to fix them. Not spend all his time trying to impeach the President. He also knows that impeachment will not work until we have control of the Congress.

EVERYONE RELAX.

[originalpckelly]

57. There may not be a Congress to run for, if this continues (n/t)

[ecoalex]

58. The polls say impeachment.

Why can't the Dems follow the demands of the people? Kerry I reiterate is another feckless Dem.We have too few Dems that are not bought off.Let's look at the reasons why really look, and corporate pay offs will surface as to why the Dems will not bring up Impeachment.The question is what does it take ? Discussion starts movements, the people want dimson removed, yet the Dems again ignore the people.Collusion with the repugs all for the corporate $$$.They allowed Alito,author of the unitary presidency with Reagan, wrote extensively about it.Alito never should of been allowed, unless you're a corporate suck up, yet the Dems threatened fillibuster for Immigration.The priorities of the Dems are screwed up.ONly corporate collusion explains this.Dems, another corporate shill.The writings of the corporate donors to the Dems show this.The party has been bought off.Wake up people, know you're enemy, don't give aid and comfort to them, covering for them only continues the up is down ...down is up mentality of both parties in Washington.This must stop, if you want the corporate wars, and selling out of America to stop.

[saltpoint]

67. I'm all for impeaching Bush by close of business tomorrow. But.

Too many of the people you cite are represented in the U.S. House by right-wingers. DeLay is gone, but Dennis Hastert is not going to entertain articles of impeachment. We don't have the votes to proceed on a VERY deserved idea.

Very few of us would dispute that Bush and Cheney and Bolton and Rice and Rumsfeld and on and on and on ALL deserve to be, in Hunter Thompson's memorable phrase, "in the belly of a hammerhead shark." I'd skip the red tape and media circus of an impeachment and feed their sorry asses to the sharks.

But hey, that's me. What I'm left with instead is the cold fact of being in the minority party while the majority party in Congress says who wil and will not serve on the Supreme Courts, and who will be impeached and who will not. Getting rid of bad public servants is worth the work we have to do to turn at least the House of Representatives blue in November, and I say that while we're at it, let's work just as hard for the Senate, too.

[AngryOldDem]

59. I have to agree with Kerry here

I also once wondered why the calls for impeachment weren't louder and stronger. Now, I realize that there are bigger battles to fight -- such as taking back one or both Houses of Congress in November.

I was very much impressed with Kerry this morning. Given whose names have already been bandied about for 2008, I do indeed hope that he decides to give it another try.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

60. He's correct....who wants Cheney as our next Fearless Leader?

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. No, no... keep talkin'

"I really think it's premature to talk about impeaching the president for lying to us, defrauding us into a illegal, illegitimate, counterproductive and unwise war. I think it's premature to talk about impeaching the president for being incompetent, for getting people killed unnecesarily. I think it's premature for the majority of the public to talk about impeaching the president for allowing all those people in New Orleans to die by appointing a crony whos only expertise was horses. I think it's premature for nationwide elected officials to talk about impeaching the president for setting up a poorly accountable organization in DHS which cannot even keep from employing pedophiles."

No, go on, keep NOT talking about impeachment.

[stepnw1f]

63. Kerry is Right

Think. think. think people. We need to win in November.

[SoCalDem]

68. Impeachment "action", maybe..but "talk" is appropriate

Impeachment action requires a fired-up HOUSE to pass articles of impeachment..That's just NOT gonna happen, even if we score big in Nov....and realistically a "neutered" *² in November, with a strengthened congress is just as good, if not better.

Continuing to remind the public that presidents were impeached for far less IS a good idea, as is the repetition of the litany of his "sins", fiscal and morally , would be highly recommended.

Congress needs to RECLAIM the power it "gave" him, and never let it go again.

[confludemocrat]

70. Here was his chance to talk about what is within the realm of crimes and

misdemeanors even if pursuing the process now is unrealistic, even in his usual overcautious finger to the wind way, but he dodged even discussing the substance of it by the dismissal of the concept and the core of why it would come up.

[GreenArrow]

73. hypothetical

supposing the Democrats literally clean house in the mid-term elections and regain enough potency to actually bring articles of Impeachment against Bush? Believe they would actually do it?

[seabeyond]

74. i think the first step would be to get the investigations into nsa,

dsm, second part of 9/11 investigation kerry and others have been yelling about, plame.... and what are the other ivestigations dems have wanted yet repugs said no to.

before impeachment dont they have to have the investigations?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

75. Yeah, Kerry Doesn't Have A Spine. Yup, Sure, It's All Kerry's Fault.

:eyes:

Yeah, congress is obsolete because of him and democrats. The republicans are just peachy fine and could pass good legislation just fine if only it weren't for those damn democrats. (double :eyes: :eyes:)

Maybe you should actually listen to Kerry and listen to what he's saying and why, and then try and actually see where he's coming from, cause he's damn good and knows what he's talking about. Listen to him and his words, rather then taking a short phrase and posting a knee jerk reaction to it.

[goforit]

76. Kerry himself should step down NOW!!!

[WildEyedLiberal]

77. This post is flamebait

Fortunately most DUers caught on to your pathetically transparent attempt at division.

[DanCa]

78. Think of John Kerry in boxing terms.

His a jabber not a power puncher. He'll build on pts and pts and when the chimps wobbly he'll land the knock out blow.

[Beelzebud]

Before we take back congress, it IS a waste of time.

Kerry is correct on this.

Let's take the house and senate this year. Then it WILL happen.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

79. but he is right....the house/senate have republican majorities

no impeachment of bush will go through...

be real!