Wasn't Clinton able to maintain his military actions despite impeachment?

[bigtree]

Impeachment is no guarantee Bush will end the occupation. It may force his hand, but there's no guarantee that, in and of itself, it will end the occupation; especially if he's being impeached on some other issue.

Doesn't Cheney have to go, as well, for that to work? We'd still have to take out the vice-president, even if Cheney was removed first. Right now, folks clamoring for impeachment would leave us with Cheney as president to direct the occupation if Bush was removed.

I'd like to see Bush impeached, but not removed in favor of a Cheney presidency. It might be effective if he was just hobbled by it all. But, there's no guarantee that it would end anything in Iraq if the subject of the inquiry is something tangential or unrelated.

Just sayin . . .

[Bill McBlueState]

1. that's the thing

The impeachment of Clinton actually hurt the Republicans a little. The process blows up in your face if you don't have the votes to convict and remove.

[Lerkfish]

3. so, let's not try it. Let's let him become absolute dictator and disappear us in our sleep

torture us without trial and start world war apocalypse.

let's just lay down and die and give up.

we shouldn't impeach because we have a moral duty to do so, we should refrain because it's just too hard and we might break a nail.

:sarcasm:

[bigtree]

6. No, we should confront them

the question is, what effect will it actually have on Bush's conduct of his war to impeach them, especially on something unrelated to the occupation?

[Bill McBlueState]

10. of course we should try it

But the first step in trying it is to make sure the votes to convict are there in the Senate.

[Lerkfish]

12. and you would go about that how, exactly?

an impeachment is a trial. Are you going to get guarantees of a conviction before the trial starts?

sorry, this falls under the "don't want to break a nail" excuse.

here's the reality: real crimes have been committed, and there is ample evidence and testimony of it. If congress does NOT impeach, it is a gross dereliction of duty.

period.


no excuses.


none.

[Corgigal]

9. The people were against the impreachment

of President Clinton. When the house republicans started that crap, Clinton's approval went up.
Bush on the other hand, is in the high 20's on a good day, not bad stat's to begin the political process.

[Bill McBlueState]

11. that's a good point n/t

[madokie]

2. Ok, is there anything saying that the whole lot of 'em can't be impeached at the same time

that's what I think needs to be done

[bigtree]

5. The chaos factor. Could work . . .

. . . or it could shut the Congress down in gridlock while Bush continued unabated.

I like the idea of pressuring them behind some charges, but I don't think we can know how Bush (or his party) will react if he's (they're) actually impeached.

[madokie]

20. It kind of looks to me like we are on the verge of loosing everything

if he/they are impeached and removed. I don't see how we can continue to be a Democracy and them not be held accountable for their many seemingly crimes. color me totally confused :+

[matcom]

4. ummmmm ... Clinton wasn't impeached

never passed the Senate

[bigtree]

7. okay, impeachment proceedings . . .

would they stay Bush's hand on Iraq?

[Lerkfish]

13. trying to convict a serial killer shouldn't be attempted because it won't stop the next killing?

what about the previous killings? Does the killer get a pass on those because we can't prevent the next one?

I don't get this anti-impeachment rhetoric.

if there ever was a valid, solid, justifiable and constitutional reason to impeach, it is FRICKIN NOW.

screw whether that prevents Iran...unless you're saying that bush can use blackmail to prevent impeachment by threatening to invade Iran?

isn't that even MORE REASON to impeach?


impeachment is a moral imperative.

everything short of that is immoral appeasement of a would be dictator.

[bigtree]

15. your words, not mine. nice strawman

I'm wondering what effect it would actually have on Bush's militarism?

[SaveElmer]

8. Clinton WAS impeached...

He was acquitted in the Senate...

Impeachment is akin to being indicted in a normal legal proceeding...

[sarge43]

14. He was impeached; he wasn't convected. n/t

[zbdent]

16. "Impeachment" works as a smear

because most people don't realize that it's a process, not the end result.

Conviction is the desired result of the impeachment process ... but the sheep believe that Clinton was guilty because he was impeached, not realizing that he was not convicted.

I feel that you will waste time with impeachment if we cannot guarantee the votes to convict.

What I feel is necessary is, if a Dem wins in 2008, part of the acceptance speech on 1/20/2009 should be "Authorities, please place the former president under arrest for crimes against humanity and war crimes ..."

[brazos121200]

17. As soon as massive evidence of impeachable offenses

is accumulated in the Congress, impeachment proceedings should begin in the House. The idea is to alert and inform the American people to the crimes of the Bush regime. No, there probably are not enough votes in the Senate to convict, but that should not prevent us from carrying out an impeachment. It only takes 50% plus one vote in the House to impeach a President, and I think that is a winnable number.

[bigtree]

18. my question is, what effect will that have on Bush's ability to prosecute his occupation?

especially if it's on some tangential issue?

[brazos121200]

19. One of the crimes cited in the articles of impeachment would be

starting an illegal war on falsified evidence, so I think it would greatly hamper if not make impossible his pursuit of the Iraq war. It might also prevent any ventures into Iran or elsewhere. He would be so concerned with defending himself in the Senate trial that he may be distracted from his military conquests for a while.