Why was "Impeachment Off The Table"?

[omega minimo]

...immediately when the Democrats won those previous midterms? Anybody know?

How's that working out now?

[scheming daemons]

1. Because they wanted to win in 2008 maybe?

We didn't need to impeach... we captured the reins of government.


How would have impeaching Bush have improved our situation NOW? Would we have had MORE than 60 senate seats?

[omega minimo]

5. Was the gamble worth it?

[TicketyBoo]

76. Yes, it was.

[treestar]

2. Difficulty in proof

When you let go of black and white thinking and have to deal with the reality, it would take millions of hours of time to get the proof, if that were possible. Then you'd have a million hours of having to pay those horrible lawyers.

When people are unemployed and the economy looks iffy - getting revenge on the other party looks less desirable.

[omega minimo]

8. it would at least have provided a national civics lesson

which your post reflects a need for.

[treestar]

18. you need a legal lesson

just going on about it does not do.

proof is hard to get. Your saying so is not proof.

when the economy is not good - you don't get into arcane attempts to prove Bush violated this or that law. People want jobs, they don't care about legal niceties.

[omega minimo]

19. SUCH bullshit

"proof is hard to get." Impossible, without investigations. Fail by making no effort.

"when the economy is not good - you don't get into arcane attempts to prove Bush violated this or that law"

"legal niceties..."

That's just ignorant.

[treestar]

71. It's still hard to do

You have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I just don't see the bulk of the people demanding this when the economy is bad.

[JDPriestly]

112. Whether to enforce the law,

whether to do justice are not matters that should be subject to a popularity contest.

Have you ever read Oedipus Rex? That story teaches us that we bring disaster on ourselves when we refuse to determine the truth about who we are and what we are doing.

We cannot, as a nation, just go on and never prosecute the crimes of the Bush administration. If we try to do that, we will get into more and more trouble.

[TicketyBoo]

79. In my opinion,

things have worked out pretty well.

Congress had better things to do. Still does.

[Bluebear]

131. +1

[crazyjoe]

149. If we spent 2 years trying to impeach bush, I don't think we

would have the majorities we have today. Your "That's just ignorant" argument is very well thought out and compelling though.

[hfojvt]

25. the economy was not that bad in January 2007.

In fact, the economy gained almost a million jobs in 2007. It was only in 2008 that the economy started to lose jobs, just 144,000 in January, but finishing the year down over 3 million and losing almost another 4 million through September 2009!!

I did think it was dumb when people were still talking about impeachment in March 2008, since the election would remove him from office long before an impeachment could be completed. The candidates were even asked about it and none of them bothered to answer something like "I promise that if I am elected, that I will remove George W. Bush from office".

[TicketyBoo]

78. Absolutely!

[JDPriestly]

109. The proof about the torture and the destruction of the videos of the torture

are available. That can be proven. Besides some of the tortured individuals survived and could testify.

It isn't all that difficult to get evidence. The British have found evidence about the fraud and cover-up prior to the War in Iran.

[puebloknot]

90. I'll meet you somewhere for a drink. I need a drink every time I see someone say ...

... "There was no proof," or "There were more important issues." And remember how some of us were vilified for pointing out that Nancy's laundry list for the first 100 days was so inconsequential it was laughable?

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

[omega minimo]

108. When it stops raining

:hi:

There was all sorts of proof and the cases were written by different parties, including E de la Vega in this thread................... Good quote, puebloknot. :pals:

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. What difficulty? Bush blatantly lied to get us into war in Iraq.

This was know AT THE TIME. It was KNOWN that Saddam had no WMDs, and had no intention of attacking us. He was a tin pot dictator in a two-bit nation that was NEVER a threat. The ONLY way we could go to war was to falsify evidence (forged documents) and ignore any contrary evidence (UN weapons inspectors).

The evidence is there, it was there, and it has been there since the beginning.

It is not about 'revenge'. It is about government by law.

[omega minimo]

23. The administration also admitted illegally wiretapping, spying on American citizens

"It is about government by law."

Well put. Some people's cutesy euphemisms for "government by law" are still astonishing. "...arcane attempts to prove Bush violated this or that law. People want jobs, they don't care about legal niceties."

"Arcane"? "Niceties?" :wow: And I thought the accusation "only on principle" was bad enough.

[newspeak]

87. and, I read he was doing it before 9/11

remember when * went to Ashcroft, while he was in the hospital to get his okay for illegal wiretapping? Even Ashcroft wouldn't sign off on it.

[omega minimo]

110. yup

that's what ya get for rememberin stuff :toast:

They think the American people will fall for anything because they WILL.

[TicketyBoo]

80. At WHAT time?

In 2003, when the war started? Or are we talking 2006?

I'm thinking the Dems were relieved to regain the majority. Better things to do than go back three years.

[omega minimo]

111. The millions of people who protested all over the planet KNEW before Bush invaded.

:evilfrown:

Their case and sham picture show before the UN was clearly bogus, the other nations and weapons inspectors weren't buying it. Neither did anyone with the good sense to see it.

HE MADE JOKES ABOUT IT AND GOT CAUGHT ON FILM MULTIPLE TIMES MAKING A JOKE OUT OF WHERE THE WMD WERE.

[TicketyBoo]

137. "MULTIPLE TIMES"? I saw ONE clip of that.

And it was after we invaded, and no WMD were found.

I, too, now have reason to believe that they knew ahead of time that the info they were putting out was bogus, but I BELIEVED Colin Powell, and I still don't think he would have went before the UN and knowingly put forth a lie. He believed it, and he made me believe it, too. I believed Colin Powell over weapons inspectors. After all, there could have been WMD that were being shuffled around like peas in a gigantic shell game so the inspectors couldn't find them.

I'm certainly not the only one who fell for it. I figured Saddam Hussein had lied about so much that he didn't know the truth and I still think he probably didn't. Saddam, himself, probably believed that he had WMD that he didn't have.

Also, one could put forth the reasonable argument that the ADMINISTRATION believed the bogus intel because, otherwise, they would end up looking like the fools they DID end up looking like. It could be that is the case, although I'm not convinced that it is necessarily fact. ("Slam dunk," indeed.)

[struggle4progress]

75. There was plenty of proof. There was no chance 2/3 of the Senate would have voted to convict

[TicketyBoo]

81. That's likely.

[omega minimo]

114. You have no idea what the outcome of investigating Bush and Cheney's crimes would have been

No one does.

You could sit and count votes til blue in the face, while investigations, testimony, hearings, PUBLIC REACTION, unforeseen events, surprises, impossible to predict actions would have unfolded.

Instead of taking that path, the path of integrity, the votecounters and strategerists sold out their nation and protected a criminal regime that still infests the government.

[struggle4progress]

122. The question was why impeachment was "off the table." My answer: See how Senate Republicans vote.

They vote en bloc and have for years

In the Nixon era, we had a more independent, less conglomerated media, with the news side isolated from the commercial sales side, and we had a fairness rule. When the Watergate story broke, press covered it, and the public finally broke with Nixon, after granting him two landslide victories: at that point, Republican statesmen ran to the White House in terror and demanded Nixon step down. Watergate was small potatoes compared to Iran-contra or the published crimes of the Bush II administration. But the media after the 1960s and early 70s "lost interest" in news coverage: there was a wave of consolidation, corporate headquarters began to lose interest in having real news bureaus, and the rightwing began its sophisticated crawl to power. Coverage of Iran-contra was not nearly as thorough as coverage of Watergate. Republican allegations about Clinton, on the other hand, received constant news coverage and there was a huge budget associated with the investigation of one false claim after another; the ultimate impeachment of Clinton served two rightwing goals -- discrediting impeachment politically and discrediting the special counsel statute. Thus when Bush II came into power under circumstances, most officials in Congress were disposed against impeachment -- and the Republicans, as usual, could be counted on to vote against it under all but the most damning of circumstances. But those "most damning" of circumstances would necessarily depend on public outrage; and the media wasn't terribly inclined to educate the public about the crimes of Bush II

After the 2006 elections, we had a 51-49 Senate; 67 votes are needed for impeachment. The Republicans would vote en bloc, leaving us at least 16 votes short for any conviction on any charges after any investigation; the actual margin was worse, because of various Senators like Lieberman. A loss by that margin would have contributed to counter-propaganda that the impeachment was politically motivated; IMO, the House leadership concluded the effort wasn't likely to succeed and so declined to pursue it

There must come a point where we take responsibility for our losses, learn from them, and set out to try again. The problem is not that "our leaders are not leading us" (an idiotic slogan!), the problem is something else. Tip-tapping on keyboards is not a substitute for real face-to-face grassroots activism. If we had enough citizens involved locally in public interest organizations, and started voting our friends into local office, we'd be in a better position. Pointing fingers won't help; rolling up shirtsleeves will

[omega minimo]

123. Thanks for the breakdown

of the history, which I already know and knew at the time that " the ultimate impeachment of Clinton served two rightwing goals -- discrediting impeachment politically and discrediting the special counsel statute." Guess I wasn't the only one that figured that out.

I hope others read and learn from your crash course -- but not see it as some rationale for the following paragraph, which is based on assuming that you predict vote counts and decide ahead of time that anything short of impeachment is pointless and use that strategery as an excuse to do ... NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :evilfrown:

I joined the thousand people that showed up for an Impeachment Forum hosted by Mike Malloy at the California Democratic Convention in 2006. Elizabeth de la Vega was one of the panelists, links are here to her book on the case against Bushco. The problem is not that activists are not "rolling up shirtsleeves" and meeting "face-to-face." The problem is -- as you point out -- corporate stranglehold of the media and a complicit-ly criminal Congress that hides from the public behind the media interface.

"A loss by that margin would have contributed to counter-propaganda that the impeachment was politically motivated; IMO, the House leadership concluded the effort wasn't likely to succeed and so declined to pursue it."

Fuck their propaganda and their lies. For the Congress to use that as an excuse, because of the corporate control and Repuke toxic skills of perception management and disinformation, is BULLSHIT.

As is the vote counting. Because NO ONE KNOWS WHAT INFORMATION WOULD HAVE COME FORWARD OR WHAT WITNESSES WOULD HAVE APPEARED AND WHAT THE ACTUAL PUBLIC REACTION WOULD HAVE BEEN.

I will not join the hypocrites who think this is something that can be procrastinated for convenience sake. We have a duty to the future, to posterity, that transcends our own lazy, chickenshit excuses and the righteous fear of our legislators that their mail might have white powder in it.

"There must come a point where we take responsibility for our losses, learn from them, and set out to try again."

We've passed that point. :thumbsdown: The only finger I will point at someone who wants to pretend that this was not a total sell out of whatever was left of our democratic process, is the middle one.

You've lived through it, chronicled it quite well. If you accept the toxic level of criminality and justify inaction, you create the world that we all have to live in that results from it. Do you still believe that your rights and our Constitution will be there when you expect them to be?

[struggle4progress]

124. I think we largely agree. My history may be different than yours. Watergate left me

extremely cynical and bitter. It took me about a decade to recover -- at which time I rediscovered grassroots activism on various environmental and human rights issues, together with liberation theology. My view since then has been: if you don't have some cynicism and paranoia, you're not thinking straight; if you're only cynical and paranoid, you're going to spiral into insanity; and action cures a lot of misery. After another decade, I realized that although I have no talent as a politician and dislike many politicians, they're human too and realistic politics is one front of the fight; I began to admire some of them. The struggles that we face have large structural components, and we cannot win without a constantly improving analysis. One cannot know by pure thought what will work: many different economic and historical processes are in play, so one ought not to look for magic silver bullets; instead, one should engage at each moment to push in the proper direction. This means that I will work for political candidates, at times, even if they are highly imperfect; at other times, I will write Congress or comment on Federal Register notices; sometimes I write letters to the editor; sometimes I work with grassroots groups on local issues; and so on. A fight worth fighting may take five or ten years to win: anger can be a very useful emotion at times, but it is corrosive it adopted as a way of life. After one chooses to be emotionally involved with an issue (like global warming, torture, or unnecessary war), cultivating a certain emotional distance from the issue can useful. Until one has a perfect analysis, it is useful to be able to hold conflicting ideas simultaneously in mind. I wanted Reagan and Bush II impeached, and I still think it would have been better for the country if that had happened; it didn't happen, so we must learn something from our own failure to make it happen

[omega minimo]

126. Yes.

We do. And our history's differ by a few years, with simiar POVs.


"I wanted Reagan and Bush II impeached, and I still think it would have been better for the country if that had happened; it didn't happen, so we must learn something from our own failure to make it happen..."

The one not happening, led directly and inevitably to the next not happening. Which is and will continue to be devastating for the country. The fact that so many people are clueless about the implications and realities of that decision, who never will learn anything and remain obliviously uninformed about the structures of government, is merely one of the outcomes. That was the time to demand our country back, not now. People are talking about "starting" to organize for god's sake, without no clue about how far this trainwreck has traveled down the tracks.

I respect your POV and choices of what to do... being younger during Watergate, thought that it was a national wake up call that would last; that a savvy public would safeguard their rights, not fall for a sappy snake oil salesman and line up for tickets to the lemming races. Who knew that Darth Cheney was the shadowy figure who would scurry from one criminal scenario to the next.

“What experience and history teaches us is that people and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it” -- Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel


SCOTUS: Corporations=People, Spending=Speech
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7530515

[autorank]

132. Kick

I'm sorry I couldn't vote for this. I was working overtime to pay my health insurance.

This is dead on. The stranglehold is stupendous. We live here so we have no idea of how thoroughly
the news and been controlled and for how long. We're facing a huge uphill battle, well worth fighting but huge.

[TicketyBoo]

77. I agree.

[struggle4progress]

83. ""An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be

at a given moment in history" <Gerald Ford>

Time Essay: The Proper Grounds for Impeachment
By Monday, Feb. 25, 1974
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,879270,00.html

[Yurovsky]

92. thanks, good read...

I was a paper boy back in 1974 and remember reading it all unfold each afternoon (yes, Virginia, there was a such thing as afternoon newspapers!) as I loaded by bag with fresh papers and hopped on my bike.

That was when I really became interested in politics/government. What an amazing period, and refreshing in that the crooks were called out. Sadly, we didn't possess the same moral courage when it came to holding Chimpy & Evil Dick accountable for their war crimes.

[brooklynite]

100. Yes, and the history lesson started a year earlier...

with the Senate Watergate Committee, at which time nobody was suggesting impeachment. It was only the overt effort of President Nixon to obstruct justice months later (the "saturday Night Massacre" ) that led to calls for impeachment.

Demanding Bush's impeachment and then doing the investigation would have been an immense failure.

[omega minimo]

113. That's why you start with investigations. Taking impeachment OFF THE TABLE prevented that.

[Art_from_Ark]

135. Hello, fellow paper boy from 1974!

Not only did I get to read about the events in the papers I delivered (although it was a small-town paper with a Republican bent), but my history teacher (who was a die-hard FDR Democrat) also had us watch the committee hearings on TV.

[omega minimo]

139. Sweet. And a good story.

:toast:

[Art_from_Ark]

142. My history teacher would bring the TV into the class

and then he'd get this evil grin on his face when the dirty laundry started to really come out.

April/May, 1974-- He predicted there would be a new President before the next school year started.

[omega minimo]

143. Good for him.

We were in Journalism class at the time and the hearings were on every TV station that summer.

[Art_from_Ark]

146. Looking back on those days,

all 3 of my high school history teachers were die-hard FDR Democrats, and proud of it. It took me a few years out of high school to understand why they were so dedicated.

Interesting that 1974 was a transitional year in my county, as it shifted dramatically from staunchly Democratic to staunchly Republican. For example, in 1970, my elementary school teacher held an informal poll in class-- "Raise your hand if your parents are going to vote for Dale Bumpers (D) for governor". All but 2 (out of 30) students raised their hands. In 1974, the county voted for John Paul Hammerschmidt (R) for Congress. His opponent? Bill Clinton. In 1992 and 1996, my county was only one of 5 or so (out of 75) in Arkansas that didn't vote for Bill Clinton for President.

[Yurovsky]

154. My teacher brought in a TV as well...

Mr. Jackson, the young, hip teacher who taught my class... I remember him telling us to REMEMBER THIS, it's history that you'll never forget as long as you live. And he was right, I can still remember Sam Rayburn banging his gavel and holding court. What a sight to behold. It taught me that in America, NO ONE was above the law. It's a spirit that should not die. If charges are brought against Chimpy & Evil Dick, let the justice system work it's magic.

Once again, NO ONE is above the law. It's the "big lesson" that I took away from watching the hearings and reading the papers from 1973-1974. And one I pray my kids can learn.

[JDPriestly]

107. Justice is not just revenge.

Letting the Republicans get by with the terrible crimes they committed sets a precedent.

If they couldn't impeach back then, the Obama administration's Justice Department should be pursuing the crimes and cover-ups especially the cover-up of renditions followed by torture. That is a violation of international law for a reason. That policy set a precedent that endangers every one of us. What would happen if we traveled to France and the North Korean government decided to rendition and torture us? They would not have any reason to do that to most of us but what if they did?

Certain conduct cannot just be forgotten. It's simply too dangerous for humankind.

[omega minimo]

115. "Certain conduct cannot just be forgotten. It's simply too dangerous for humankind."

Well put. Thank you for your posts. :applause:

[JDPriestly]

128. Yes. That is what our Founding Fathers knew. That is what our

current leaders have forgotten.

[omega minimo]

129. .... and most of our current population have "forgotten"

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. What relevance does that have to anything at all?

[Recursion]

6. Everything, sadly. Voters like results, even results they don't like.

Counterintuitive? Yes. True? yes.

[omega minimo]

11. That sounds insightful. Tell us more.

"Voters like results, even results they don't like." :hi::think:

[omega minimo]

9. The contrast with and conjecture about upcoming midterm elections.

[TicketyBoo]

82. That

reasoning makes no sense whatsoever to me.

[nosmokes]

24. Good governance is always relevant round here, ain't it?

[omega minimo]

28. Zing!!

LOL :yourock:

[Spider Jerusalem]

33. And apparently quixotic actions that are doomed to failure

do you seriously think that there would have been the votes to convict in the Senate even in the event that the House returned a bill of impeachment? What would have been accomplished? The succinct answer to that is 'fuck-all'.

[omega minimo]

34. Same old bullshit we heard a million times that is false, based on false assumptions and failed

due to lack of trying.

"Quixotic" -- odd how these same old BS rationalizations are repeated and defended even now and how they come with these bizarre dismissive terms.

[Spider Jerusalem]

38. So you actually think there would have been 67 votes for conviction in the Senate?

I'd like some of what you're smoking. It's obviously good shit.

[omega minimo]

42. So you're playing the same games we've heard before

:thumbsdown:

[Spider Jerusalem]

44. If you think being realistic is a game, you need to wake the fuck up.

[omega minimo]

48. So you say what you want to pretend the other person meant and make them argue it.

maybe "you need to wake the fuck up." :hi::think:

[Spider Jerusalem]

91. Well, no, it's pretty obvious what you meant, there's no other way to take it

[omega minimo]

103. So you decide what other people mean based on your limited view rather than ask them

and tell yourself that's the only possible explanation. :crazy:

[nosmokes]

121. 'sometimes lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for'

Rosa Parks was fighting a lost cause when she didn't move to the back of the bus.

Oh, my bad. she had a backbone.

[MadBadger]

4. How's that working out now?

Um, what?

[omega minimo]

10. That decision led to the current state of the nation and the party. How's that workin for ya?

[TicketyBoo]

93. It's working just fine for me

which is why I'm posting on DEMOCRATIC Underground, and not somewhere else.

[omega minimo]

102. Then you're not paying attention

you also have reading issues or are intentionally responding with posts that don't make sense.

[TicketyBoo]

134. You are the one

who is not making sense.

[hfojvt]

7. because people figured that the voters wanted it that way

Pelosi and her strategists. They figured people were out there trying to decide who to vote for. They were thinking 'I may vote for the Democrat this year because I am disgusted by the Republicans, but if I do and they take control of Congress they may move to impeach Bush and that would be a big mess, especially while we are at war ...'

Taking impeachment 'off the table' before the elections was a way to allay those concerns and create an electoral victory in 2006.

At least that's how I read it.

[omega minimo]

12. hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

hmmmmmmmmmm

[hfojvt]

21. wouldn't you know it

youtube does NOT have the Arsenio Hall song "Things that make you go hmmm"

"Just whose baby was Sweat Pea anyway?"

[omega minimo]

26. :hfojvt:

:hfojvt::spray:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeNIiX2opy4

[hfojvt]

29. that does not appeel to me

not like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZclddLcOYYA

[omega minimo]

32. a runt off

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c-XuIxFFk8&feature=related

[hfojvt]

36. life is but a dream

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1OWrKQWNFY

[PSzymeczek]

74. It wasn't Arsenio.

It was C&C Music Factory.

[omega minimo]

14. looks like they got a big mess anyway

[jgraz]

13. "Impeachment off the table" was a symptom

The illness was Democratic Invertebrate Syndrome. And it's working out very poorly indeed.

[omega minimo]

16. DIS. Indeed.

[leftstreet]

15. Because they were all complicit

just sayin

[omega minimo]

17. and look how far it got them ....

[TicketyBoo]

94. You mean

with a majority in both houses of Congress?

[donheld]

22. +1

[begin_within]

27. Pelosi's answer was (and this is an exact quote)

[omega minimo]

30. Thanks for the clarification.

[TicketyBoo]

95. Mission

TRULY accomplished!

[DeadEyeDyck]

31. Because such an act would be looking back ...

rather then forward. That has too often been the mistake of progressives, as contrary as it sounds.

Since I was layed off, I became a day-trader. I buy stocks (or options, futures) and hold them for a short time and sell them later for a profit. Since Oct 10, I have made over $6K with a working capital of $34K. I do okay because I accept small gains and trade consevatively. But the one trick I have learned is to NEVER dwell on a bad position when it goes sour. I quickly close it out and look for the next one.

That is how we must accept this defeat, as a party. We lost Mass. We lost a Senate seat. We now must close up that position and start looking forward to the next gain. You learn from your mistakes but place as little time possible wallowing in them.

Man up!

[omega minimo]

35. Nonsense

Has nothing to do with this discussion.

[DeadEyeDyck]

37. and that is why you loose

[TicketyBoo]

97. Come again?

The poster to whom you replied says he's ahead. He didn't "loose."

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling

The Dems still have a majority in both houses of Congress.

Yes, this one election hurt, but you win some, you lose some.

[TicketyBoo]

96. YES!

At least somebody gets it!

[omega minimo]

116. I don't believe you

:evilfrown:

[TicketyBoo]

133. The feeling is mutual,

I'm sure.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

39. Most likely it was due to Lysentopolist control of the apparatus of the Democratic party.

Obviously anyone with sympathies to that political agenda would not want impeachment.

[grahamhgreen]

40. And why are prosecutions off the table now?

[omega minimo]

43. Did you see this?: ICC Complaint Filed Against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Rice, Gonzales

ICC Complaint Filed Against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Rice, Gonzales
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7508680&mesg_id=7508680

[Igel]

41. Two reasons.

1. It's a time killer. If you have more important things to do--like showing that you're capable of re-setting policy directions--you should do it. (And, in the end, they'd have "President Cheney." Enjoy.)

2. Bipartisanship may not be actually popular among politicians and partisans, but it's still fairly popular among the electorate. Of course, "bipartisan" may mean two things--either there are two sets of partisans hamstringing things and accomplishing nothing or legislation is acceptable to a majority, with at least a decent percentage from the out-of-power party. I don't know if most people like the first or second meaning. I suspect they want the second, but will settle for the first.

I don't think people on the whole have bought recent attempts to redefine it, however popular those attempts are among pundits (D). I think "move on" was a nifty idea and don't encourage attempts to redefine it as "let's dwell."

How's that decision working out now? Well, I think I'd argue that it's responsible for the (D) majority in Congress and the (D) after the position "president." How do you think it worked out?

[omega minimo]

118. Thank you for this post

1. a. What more important policy direction would be more important to re-set than crimes against the Constitution, the American people and other nations, by an unelected, unaccountable administration?
b. both Bush and Cheney would have been investigated and potentially impeached. Cheney perhaps more than the Pretzledent.

2. I appreciate the comments about bipartisanship -- someone else brought it up too. How is that a more valuable common cause than protecting and maintaining -- for posterity -- the integrity of the nation's functioning structure? How do so many take that charge and legislator's duty oath, so casually and carelessly?

"Well, I think I'd argue that it's responsible for the (D) majority in Congress and the (D) after the position "president." How do you think it worked out?"

The D's mean nothing if they are mostly working for the same corporate overlords as "the other side of the aisle." Where is bipartisanship then?

[Mari333]

45. because Pelosi and her ilk are corporate shills

and corporations who make a lot of money run these goddamned wars. and its continuing under Obama. and the politicians wont bite the corporate hand that feeds their sorry asses, thats why/

[omega minimo]

49. well tell us what you really think

well put:yourock:

[BeHereNow]

52. Precisely.

Why would Pelosi and other people like her give
up their million dollar bonuses?
To serve the people?
Not likely.
BHN

[TicketyBoo]

46. You gotta know

when to fold 'em.

It wasn't worth the time or effort involved.

Pragmatism.

[omega minimo]

50. Pragmatism. Hypocrisy. Historic Betrayal. Cowardice.

[TicketyBoo]

53. Pragmatism

equals a practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.

Sounds like President Obama (thank goodness).

Those other things? Nope. Pragmatism.

There are those who dream, and those who do what they can in order to fulfill the dreams. We have a President who does what he can to achieve the dream.

If others think they can accomplish more or accomplish it more quickly, then let them toss their hats into the ring, roll up their sleeves, and take it on.

In my opinion, we got a good 'un. I was for Hillary in the primaries, but I think we got the right President this time around, and it's like a breath of fresh air blowing across the country.

[omega minimo]

55. Strategery. And why are you talking about Obama?

You think Obama was elected because Bush/Cheney weren't impeached? :wow:

[TicketyBoo]

98. Could be.

A definite possibility.

[Echo In Light]

47. Because we're not actually a country of laws when applied to those at the top

[omega minimo]

51. and now that it's official

folks want to START to get organized? :crazy: :eyes:

[TicketyBoo]

54. Why are we revisiting this, I wonder?

Ancient history, basically.

Better to look forward and try to clean up the mess he made.

We've already wasted enough time and effort on that one.

[omega minimo]

57. Actually, it's Future History, because of the precedent it set and the deadly crimes it condoned

Why bring it up? Already answered that:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7516255&mesg_id=7516331

[newspeak]

86. absolutely spot on

if you don't take care of the problem, it will come back to haunt you. Those involved in the Iran-Contra, BCCI scandal came back into *'s administration. An operation that went against congress, against the people. BCCI banking was being investigated for money laundering-money laundering drugs, arms. Terrorism that is financed by drugs for arms, today. Drugs for arms-drugs that wound up on our streets. But, hey, "let bygones be bygones." "Let's move forward--right. By not maintaining the rule of law, you are guaranteeing that these players will be in positions of power again doing the same damn destructible actions.

[omega minimo]

106. aye

:cry: my blase friends who make up cutesie dismissive terms for what we know are integral values, that once abandoned are not easily -- or ever -- returned ............ force me to accept their acceptance of the unacceptable, their willingness to be uneducated, catapulted, lulled ... to believe Doublethink, to scoff at their lost rights and powers while expecting that they still exist .... if we accept that everyone else is a hypocrite, then we are all hypocrites ... do they realize that about themselves?

Down the Memory Hole. More Victory Gin? :toast:

[TicketyBoo]

138. That is no response

whatsoever. Bogus.

[The Backlash Cometh]

56. For the same reason that Gore conceded quickly.

To keep the country cohesive. i.e. We didn't want to get the second amendment Americans pissed off at us.

[omega minimo]

58. Interesting. Shred the Constitution to keep the country "cohesive"

just like Reagan/Bush non impeachment.

[The Backlash Cometh]

62. I wasn't in favor of taking the high road.

[omega minimo]

64. May I ask

if "taking the high road" is meant as another dismissal of principle and law, as if they are expendable or incidenttal? Some other of these sort of terms showed up in this thread, alluding to some sense of self indulgent "niceties,' rather than protecting the rule of law.

[The Backlash Cometh]

67. You're giving it more thought than they did.

It was all about following tradition and allowing a peaceful transition of power to show the world that we were truly a democracy.

Personally, I thought that was bungleybutt thinking. The damn election had been stolen and there was no way to fool the third world countries because they knew better than most Americans what a stolen election looked like. So, if the Dems conceded too easily, it would have been seen as the Dems being a weak party. Pretty much, as long as Lieberman was in control, the Dems always appeared to be the party that would roll over easily.

[omega minimo]

68. or they

were all afraid for their lives.

[The Backlash Cometh]

73. You think?

It definitely felt like something was in motion. It was just hard to say who and how many people were behind it. I always thought that the broken arrow incident with the Air Force was an inkling of how far it went. True, it was pretty scary stuff.

[Orsino]

59. Because she was complicit in too many crimes. n/t

[omega minimo]

65. Oh

:yoiks:

[The_Casual_Observer]

60. History will judge that decision very poorly I think.

Clearly, bush should have at least been throughly investigated for the lies that led to the Iraq war.

[Thothmes]

61. Why, no one investigate Johnson for lying us into a major

war in Vietnam.

[The_Casual_Observer]

63. History hasn't been too kind on that one either.

Did the pentagon papers get published after Johnson's term?

[Thothmes]

69. The release of the pentagon papers hardly equals

a full blown Congressional investigation with the possibility of impeachment proceedings depending on the outcome of the investigation.

[omega minimo]

66. Elizabeth de la Vega

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

http://www.alternet.org/authors/7496/

The United States v. George Bush
http://www.alternet.org/story/44815/the_united_states_v._george_bush/
By Elizabeth de la Vega, Tomdispatch.com. Posted November 28, 2006.

What would the case against George Bush for intelligence fraud in the leadup to the war in Iraq look like? A former federal prosecutor lays out her case to an imaginary grand jury, and all she needs is the evidence available in the public record to make her case.

[Thothmes]

72. What would the case against Lyndon Johnson

for intelligence fraud in the Gulf of Tonkin leadup to the war in Vietnam look like. We will never know. Maybe because Johnson was let of scott free, Bush figured he could get away with it. IMO, If we had pursued the Johnson lies with criminal proceeding, the action against Iraq may never have happend. But that is "what if" history and of little real value.

[omega minimo]

101. No

The What If of NOT impeaching Reagan, for those looking forward, predictably led to the bogus impeachment of Clinton and both those led to the NOT impeaching Bush/Cheney. Which will lead to further crimes against the nation and the world.

[omega minimo]

120. John Fuck Yoo

Much Much More Than A-"Mere Lawyer": YOO-"Set The Constitutional Violations In Motion"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7506161

[TicketyBoo]

99. Oh, please…

can't we go back to the conspiracies that existed during the Revolutionary War? _:eyes:

I don't think we've gotten far enough off the beaten track yet.

[arthritisR_US]

70. I thought it was because Nancy said so. n/t

[jobycom]

84. It was off before they won the midterms, because the Republicans

wanted to paint us a vengeful, petty party more interested in retribution than in protecting the nation. To avoid what all the polls were showing as a winning strategy for the Republicans, the party leaders declared BEFORE the election that impeachment wasn't part of their platform.

You know why we lose? Because we keep fighting last year's election when most voters barely know what's happening in this one. They want their current problems solved, not to be told that they made a stupid choice last time. Democrats are like that as much as anyone--whenever someone starts a "I told you Obama was a moderate/inexperienced/whatever" thread, the first twenty posts, if the mods allow that many, start off with some variation of "It's over, deal with it."

Presidents from Washington until now have committed atrocities and gotten away with it. Bush wasn't going to be the first who didn't.

You ask how that's working out? We won a supermajority in Congress as well as the White House, and Bush is reduced to near invisibility, while Cheney's only role now is to try to chase Obama off his lawn. The fact that we are barely using our new authority isn't because of Bush's legal status, it's because... well, whatever you believe it's because. That's a different topic. The big problem, though, is we all know how to whine more than we know how to achieve. We won, and we don't know what we are supposed to do once we won.

I'd have supported any attempt to impeach Bush, even on his last day in office. But it wasn't going to happen, so it was never "on the table" to begin with. Ever.

[omega minimo]

104. That's a nice way to look at it. We can keep setting the bar lower and lower and all

feel good about it. Lowest common denominator.

I do appreciate your post. The first part, though, I question.

"......vengeful, petty party more interested in retribution than in protecting the nation......."

Whatever the Democrats reasons for playing into Repuke hands with such an obvious catapult load of bullshit, why weren't any of them willing to stand up and say DAMN STRAIGHT YOU FUCKING MUDEROUS CRIMINALS YOU ARE VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION AND WE'RE SWORN TO PROTECT IT.

Might seem too "petty" or "vengeful"? We're supposed to be polite to unelected sociopaths who hijack the White House, bankrupt the nation, commit genocide in New Orleans and cause the death and dismemberment of yet another generation/s of Americans? Destroying the Cradle of Civilization was a nice touch, too. Wonder where all those cash footballs and ancient artifacts ended up.

[TicketyBoo]

140. Do we really want to spend the

time, energy, and money involved in investigating the has-been who is responsible for steering this country into the ditch?

I don't.

Our resources are better spent elsewhere. There are important problems to be solved. Let's get on with it. Many people who are far wiser than I agree.

[Festivito]

85. Country's not worth being run well.

Everything, especially principles, need to be compromised. It's what we live for.

/sadly true poignant sarcasm

[Canuckistanian]

88. Impeachment was going to be a great "distraction" from regular business

And now that we know exactly what the "regular business" was - was it worth it?

[H2O Man]

89. I do.

Fear.

It would have been relatively easy to impeach VP Cheney. And the Senate might have nailed him. But the democrats were afraid to try.

It has not worked out well. And that can be illustrated by the rather strange example of the differences between a scab and an abscess. A scab is what covers a small wound; it is better not to scratch or remove it. Leave it alone, as it protects the wound, and allows it to heal.

An abscess is an infected wound. If you decide to ignore it, and just leave it alone, the infection will surely spread. It needs to be treated, and the infection must be cleansed.

Cheney was not a scab on politics. He was an abscess on our Constitutional democracy.

[omega minimo]

105. and continues to be so

This will resonate down the generations.

[puebloknot]

117. And Cheney has continued to enjoy a "bully pulpit" in the media ...

... long after he should have withdrawn into silent obscurity. That's in the "real" U.S. of A., that is.

[omega minimo]

119. It's bad enough

seeing Ollie North's lying sack of shit face pop up, let alone the Sneer Machine!! :spray:

[puebloknot]

130. There oughta be a law! nt

[omega minimo]

125. SCOTUS: Corporations=People, Spending=Speech

SCOTUS: Corporations=People, Spending=Speech
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7530515

[Motown_Johnny]

127. Pelosi ran for speaker on it, won, and never looked back

[timtom]

136. It's working out just fine.

Everything is still on schedule.

[omega minimo]

141. for the corporate overlords

:thumbsdown:

[timtom]

144. Precisely.

[omega minimo]

145. still on schedule

:toast: wonder if all the trains will run on time.

[timtom]

152. Let's ask TSA. I'm sure they can get them running on time

(Chortle! Snicker!)

[panzerfaust]

147. bEcause Leaders are Leaders

and the rest of us their serfs.

[DailyGrind51]

148. They really thought that Republicans might be less obstructionist,

if Democrats did not press for impeachment.

[omega minimo]

150. No. They. Didn't.

:wow: :rofl:

[omega minimo]

151. Court Rules That Mass Surveillance of Americans is Immune From Judicial Review

Court Rules That Mass Surveillance of Americans is Immune From Judicial Review
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4237802

[Marr]

153. In 2006, I can *almost* understand it.

I thought perhaps that they wanted to be pragmatic, and just let the lameduck slide out of office.

Once Obama won the Presidency and the Democrats controlled Congress, their complacency becomes harder to explain. It was an enormous "mistake" not to go after the GOP crimes of the previous eight years. If they'd done that, they could've done the country a hell of a lot of good, and really hamstrung their political enemies.

I say "mistake" because I think they knew all this, and chose not to go after those crimes because they were complicit in them, and wanted to continue them.