We are where we are because our fastidious Dems found impeachment just too damn messy

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

and let all the criminals escape when they had the chance to come down on the right side of history, both past and present, and support the Rule of Law and our Constitution.

That's when the whistle was blown to commence the endgame.

[USA_1]

1. Giving away the White House in 2000 didn't help

[Wapsie B]

7. When they rolled over on that one I thought something was up among the Democratic leadership.

Just like the time they nominated Dukakis. Poppy's election was a set-up of epic proportions.

[cali]

10. the dems gave away the WH in 2000? Revisionist history here we go.

[Vincardog]

24. Did you see one Senator stand up to protest the illegal SCOTUS decision?

[USA_1]

33. I sure as heck didn't

[90-percent]

2. quicker

Woulda got there a lot quicker if Bush family friend John Hinkley completed the hit on Ronnie back in 1981.

The Nixon/Cheney; "If the president does it, it's not illegal" doctrine is now in full force. We just have to figure out a way to unite the teabag and leftie militias together in common cause to overthrow our tyrannical government!

If there's another way, let's all talk about it!

-90% Jimmy

[cali]

3. I disagree. Although I supported impeachment I recognized that politically

it would hurt the dem party. In part, that's because Americans are tough on failure. And make no mistake, it would have failed. It's extremely unlikely that impeachment would have made it through the house, and conviction was as likely as a killer asteroid hitting earth before I finish posting this.

Impeachment was the right thing to do. But where would we be if we had made a serious attempt? I contend that it wouldn't be much different than if we had. Or it would have so disgusted the electorate that they went for McCain and Palin.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

17. Sometimes something IS as simple as right vs wrong and not just a weighing of political expediencies

Sometimes people just have to do the right thing and damn the torpedos.

You cannot weigh every action as to whether you will have winning outcome.

[cali]

20. exactly, but your op claims we wouldn't be where we are if they had

attempted to impeach.

[Gman2]

30. That wasnt the problem. They yelled that there were real probs, caused by their boy to fix.

How dare Obama spend even one shake of a lambs tail on anything but renovating our failed democracy.

[Richardo]

4. Really? We have to explain this all over again? Impeachment would have solved NOTHING

Quite the opposite, after Bush and Cheney were acquitted by the Senate (there was never going to be 67 votes to convict - never) and therefore VINDICATED in the GOP and MSM, they'd have stayed in office and made the same SC nominations and the failed impeachment and trial would have resulted in Dem LOSSES in 2006 and 2008 and we'd be bitching about President McCain right about now. The only bright spot in this scenario is that the VP would NOT be Sarah Palin because the GOP ticket would never have been threatened enough to pick her.

[PeaceNikki]

8. This ^

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

23. I find your reply particularly fascinating. You are counting on being the first to show under a repy

I would never do that because I am positive that I would end up reinforcing something I didn't intend to.
But it's cool if it works as intended. Very interesting. :)

[Robb]

11. Apparently we do.

Well done.

[Gman2]

31. We have crooks now, cuz Ford pardoned Nixon, while rum/cheney watched.

[Mari333]

5. well, I am beginning to think it was decided ahead of time never to prosecute

this whole theater of the absurd in DC is all about, it seems to me, corporate powers making sure that whomever gets into power will never ever upset the applecart. to impeach Bush and Cheney and their minions or try them for war crimes would have stopped legitimizing both occupations, which are making big corporations a LOT of money in Iraq right now, and big money being made now also in Afghanistan.
these insane occupations are corporate run and corporate owned, and the politicians who support them are making money hand over fist and are bought off.
you dont impeach because you dont bite the hand that OWNS you.

[rudy23]

6. The Siegelman case makes me think there was a deal not to touch Rove

Otherwise, the average blogger could convict any of these guys just from what's available in the public domain.

[Mari333]

9. oh I so agree.

[Gman2]

32. We need independent commision of impeachment claims. To issue verdict on indictment.

[cali]

12. huh? what makes you think a failed impeachment process- and c'mon

it would have failed- would have stopped legitimizing both occupations? You overestimate the American public hugely.

[Mari333]

27. these were war crimes

and war crimes should be investigated. a president who gets off scot free for starting a war of aggression based on lies? legitimizes the occupation when he walks off scot free. he isnt even being investigated.
the continuance of the occupation in Iraq right now, as contracts are being handed out to oil companies, despite the criminal beginnings of this occupation, will not cease until this occupation is investigated. it has not been investigated, Bush was never called out on it, and it will continue to be considered a legitimate occupation until that happens.
I doubt it will happen, ever, because too many people own too many politicians and too many corporations wont allow it.

[AndyA]

13. I believe the Democrats had a DUTY to investigate Bush/Cheney.

It is documented that they lied to start the wars. That alone warrants an investigation.

I believe had an investigation been done, and had ALL THE FACTS been made public to the people, the outrage would have been so strong that Congress would have HAD to impeach. And that includes the Republicans. To not uphold the law would be to put party first, and the American people would have condemned Republicans for that.

Taking impeachment off the table was a big mistake.

[cali]

15. I believe they had that duty too,but I'm damned sure

there would have been little outrage. And anyone who thinks that repukes would have had to impeach, isn't dealing with reality. that's just not the world we live in. Nixon would not have been impeached in today's world.

[doc03]

14. Pelosi said. that's off the table. n/t

[KharmaTrain]

16. And There Weren't 67 Votes To Convict...

The endgame began in 1980 when Raygun was elected to dismantle the New Deal and open the gates for the era of greed. It turned a generation into right wing robots who bought the sound bites and were promised they, too would be rich as long as you kow-towed to the rushpublican/corporate mantra...despite the fact the agenda was meant to destroy and exploit the middle class. It opened the door to "deregulation" that turned the beltway into a whorehouse of special interests and lobbyists.

boooosh and his cabal of war criminals were installed by a court we're now seeing its true colors. Their crimes were permitted, and in many cases, encouraged by many of those same people who were and are responsible to hold them accountable. The corruption is deep and this country remains in denial of these war crimes...there are too many other messes that create the fog that allows cheney and others to stay hidden.

[PeaceNikki]

19. And an attempted impeachment that ended in aquittal would have been FAR worse.

[salguine]

18. They couldn't have impeached. if they had, there would have had to be a trial, and then

the extent to which a lot of Democrats in Congress were up to their eyeballs in the same skeevy shit would have been shown the harsh light of day. No way were they gonna do that.

[pipi_k]

22. That's probably the thing people either don't understand, or

maybe don't want to admit...

That it wasn't JUST Republicans involved in the whole thing.

I'll bet that many more Democrats than we'll probably ever know about were just as guilty.

It would have been chaos.

[hack89]

21. So we had 67 votes in the Senate? nt

[NYC_SKP]

25. Bush had the perfect cover: We were at WAR!!! Amurica was ascared...not behind impeachment.

Not to let Dems off the hook, but not enough of the country would have been behind investigations.

Curious, if true:

We couldn't impeach the president for war crimes and lying, because we were at war, the very war that was a crime.

:crazy:

:mad:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

26. There was an entire panopoly of charges that could have been under consideration.

Go back and read the archives here for evidence of dozens and dozens of laws broken and circumvented.

[Karmadillo]

28. One doesn't impeach one's corporate allies.

nt

[kenny blankenship]

29. Then after 2008, they found investigating war crimes of the Bush Admin too messy

Then they found investigating unconstitutional assaults on civil liberties by the Bush Admin in cahoots with AT&T and other corporations too messy. Then they found investigating the trillion dollar scams of Wall St. too messy as well. They said they didn't want to be accused of "looking for villains to scapegoat", or of distracting themselves and the people by "looking backwards" and subverting their own efforts "to focus on fixing things". Now in 2010, they are stunned to discover that the little people don't think they have fixed a damn thing and that THEY are the villains.

I could almost feel sympathy for these clowns, except for the fact that I know they were warned, just as they were warned that the Insurance Giveaway Reform bill was political suicide, and I know their rationale for not doing the job of law enforcement is a steaming pile of bullshit. There are a HANDFUL of good men and women in their caucus, the rest are corrupt or mentally incompetent cowards.