Impeachment of Bush was taken off the table - WHY?

[howaboutme]

Every time I think about how Speaker Pelosi and Hoyer took impeachment of Bush off the table my blood pressure literally boils. It was needed and she and her cronies did nothing. Why did she do nothing? Now the Republicans are touting that they will initiate lots of investigative hearings on the Democrats once they are elected in 2010.

Exposing the neocons and their treacherous ways would have been very good for Democrats, but instead they did nothing when they had the chance to set the record straight.

[babylonsister]

1. Ugh. Nothin' newer goin' on? nt

[howaboutme]

9. Doing nothing when accountability was needed

doesn't make it right.

If the Republicans get control of Congress this year you think they won't find some petty issue to go after Obama?

Face it the USA and the office of the POTUS was let down and I'm still not accepting of it.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[howaboutme]

11. I can't change it and neither can you

but I won't forget and I can still be pissed off.

[babylonsister]

12. Well bully for you. I can find current things to be angry at. Try it. nt

[IntravenousDemilo]

25. Good god, lady. I'm sure he's plenty pissed off at other things, too.

But that's not the purpose behind this particular thread.

[babylonsister]

30. What IS the purpose? Please do enlighten me. To rehash

something that wasn't done? What's the point of that?

[IntravenousDemilo]

37. It's possible to be pissed off about more than one thing at a time. n/m

[Cal33]

47. One purpose could be to enlighten future Speakers of the

House not to make the same mistake again. We can learn from the past, can we not?

The main reason Pelosi gave back in Jan. 2007 was that impeachment would take up
too much time and delay the work of Congress. We see right now how much the NeoCons
are delaying the work of Congress, aren't we? If impeachment had taken place, the
work of Congress would most likely be going on faster than it is doing right now.
The NeoCons would have been the frightened ones, instead of the Democrats! This is
irony, indeed!

If I remember correctly, some had the suspicion that Pelosi, herself, also had
something to hide, and she did not want to risk having it come to the light of day,
should impeachment have taken place.

[DongHa69]

17. If were lucky

Bush and his criminal cabal will be kidnapped and renditioned to the Hague for trial for crimes against humanity and thrown into a deep dark dungeon for the rest of their miserable lives. We can only hope because Pelosi and Co. sure ain't going to do it.

[Xipe Totec]

2. For obvious reasons

He's no longer President, for one.

Now war crimes, that's a different matter.

[Cal33]

48. Do you mean that it's not too late for an impeachment?

[Xipe Totec]

52. No, I mean the opposite; it is too late because he's no longer president. nt

[Radical Activist]

3. Impeachment hearings should have started in Jan. 2007.

It was a huge mistake.

[KingFlorez]

4. I don't think they could get a case together

What we thought obviously made a case, didn't constitute a solid, airtight case for the leadership. It's old now, anyway.

[msongs]

5. because democrats were complicit nt

[hobbit709]

18. Exactly

[babylonsister]

31. Complicit in what? nt

[Tesha]

54. Oh, voting for the overthrow of our Constitutional protections.

Voting for an illegal war (or two) based on lies
that were known to be lies.

Voting to confirm Bush appointees and then grousing
about them later...

You know the list; you just don't want to believe it.

Tesha

[Ikonoklast]

44. This is the correct answer.

There would not been enough votes in either house to impeach; those Dems that voted for war and rendition, if voting for impeachment, would have killed their own political careers.

You cannot give someone the authority to do something, then later condemn them for using that authority.

[grantcart]

49. exactly and so

was the Press, the Universities, the commercial sector and a large swatch of the American public.

In that context it would have seemed hypocritical and strictly partisan.

[leftstreet]

50. +1 And Dick Cheney made the M$M rounds reminding everyone of that

Right after the election. Cheney was bleating on the tube that Pelosi et al had seen all the intel and essentially gave them the green light. It was ridiculous

[Bozita]

6. Investigating 'em would at least have kept the GOPers playing defense.

Instead, they're on offense.

A critical mistake.

[lunatica]

7. Because in politics everyone has something to hide

And in politics if you go after an ex President you will have to go after all Presidents. They all commit crimes against humanity. Out of 44 Presidents I think every single one of them has committed some major crime while in office. It's the way it is.

[MrSlayer]

8. Look forward, not back...blah blah blah.....

Obviously it was taken off the table because both parties are complicit in the raping and pillaging that went on.

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. +1

[howaboutme]

14. They say it all the time don't they?

"Let's look forward not backward" while the political cronies steal the country blind.

When was the last time that a major player in government was held accountable as in going to prison? It is a rare occurrence.

[babylonsister]

34. And I just bet you were railing against idiot son for 8 years

when he started an illegal war, suggested WMDs could destroy us, got thousands of Americans killed, etc. NOT!

Where were you when that was going on? NOW you're concerned? :eyes:

[Bozita]

35. I'm sure the GOP will be looking FORWARD should they ever regain power, right?

Too bad we can't use the sarcasm thingy on the title lines.

I shudder at the fucking thought.

[Tesha]

55. Maybe that's what will finally move Obama past "post-partisanship" and back into...

"Kick Republican Ass" mode?

It'll be too late, of course, but maybe he's
still teachable?

Tesha

[flvegan]

15. The Constitution only matters some of the time.

Apparently, this wasn't one of them. This is how cowards operate, picking and choosing when to take up a fight. Cowards is what we (mostly) have.

But hey, Roger Clemens might have lied about taking steroids to play a game. Now THAT shit is on the table, you betcha.

[truedelphi]

16. Because although they are different from the Republicans,

In the overall gestalt of the dichotomy, the Dems are merely the "Good Cops."

And the "Good Cops" will always stay in line with the "Bad Cops."

It is all one big Money Party. So we cannot expect much to occur until some real shit kickin', ass grindin' Old Style Dems get in charge.

And then and only then will there be a real house cleaning, with Bush, Cheney, John Woo, and others smacked down by impeachment suits.

With Geithner thrown out on his ear. With a real, and perpetual audit of the Federal Reserve.

With an overhaul of the malicious, middle incomed back stabbin' "Health Care 'Reform' " totally modified and having it become

Universal Single Payer Health Care

With real financial reform.

With an income tax that hits it to the rich and the powerful but does not affect the opoor and the middle class. If the rich really wanna create jobs, there are already beaucoup income protections built into the tax code when jobs are created.

[babylonsister]

24. Wrong thread, start your own. But you won't, and your

negativeness comes through yet again, same as it ever was. You and your buddies... :boring:

[truedelphi]

45. It is not the wrong thread. The overall mind set of the

"Good Cop" DLC Dems was designed *precisely* so that at election time, the American people would have to choose between Bad and Worse.

Someone wants to talk about impeachment being off the table, okay. So I am explaining that it is the OVERALL SETUP that is responsible for all of the things I enumerated - from impeachment being off the table, to the twelve trillion dollars offered to the Banks and Financial Firms, to the Health Care Hand Over to Big Insurers and Big Pharma, et al.

With perpetual war, and perpetual financing of war, done by a Congress that has been held by the Dems since 2006.

I mean, did you or I see Congress failing to offer President Bush the money for his two wars when the Democrats took the House in 2006? No, they continued to finance such wars.

Meanwhile at least 35 of the fifty states have huge deficit budgets.

Our situation exists precisely because both parties are beholden to The Overall Monsters of Our Society, the Big Corporations.

And these Monsters do not care which of the two parties delivers ourselves, our children and our children's children into enslavement, as long as it is done.

[liberal N proud]

19. Maybe because the felt it was more important to focus on saving the country

from the financial mess that was left by the bu$h regime.

[babylonsister]

23. Not in this thread apparently. But yes, that might have taken

preference. And if it hadn't, we'd never hear the end of that either. He cannot win.

[liberal N proud]

33. Looking at many threads tonight, the critics are the only ones here

It's like an attack of the negative force.

[Tesha]

56. 'Shame they didn't accomplish that, ehh? They doubled down on that and lost their bet.

Maybe they should have "upheld the Constitution"
instead?

Tesha

[Catshrink]

20. Because Obama wanted to play nice so the Republicans would like him

and be bipartisan. He still hasn't learned.

[babylonsister]

22. Huh?

Are you kidding? Envision a plate full of shit idiot son left Obama with. Now also consider what this country would be like if all he did was go after idiot son vs. trying to correct the course idiot son put this country on.

I repeat; are you kidding?

Thank your lucky stars he's smarter than all of us.

[howaboutme]

26. This has nothing to do with Obama - he was 2 years later

Pelosi took impeachment of Bush off the table in 2006. Now some of the same stuff that Bush pulled is oddly coming back around to bite us again.

[babylonsister]

29. I wasn't talking to you, I was responding to someone else. nt

[unblock]

21. does it occur to no one else that perhaps republicans have "enforcers" working behind the scenes?

it would explain A LOT if republicans had a group of highly trained and loyal agents capable of finding a way to get a message through to someone like pelosi or hoyer reid or anyone else that if they didn't do x, y, or z, or they DID to a, b, or c, then some manner of damage would come to them, their family, and/or their career.

it's hardly difficult if they were willing, these days, to get seriously embarassing, career or family destroying "evidence", whether it was entrapped and/or photoshopped, on pretty much anyone. if they really are squeaky clean (unlikely, as that's practically a disqualifier for any position of power in government) you can invent something or go after a family member.

if you're willing to lie and/or break a few laws (we ARE talking about republicans, here) then it's not that difficult to "apply the right pressure".


i'm not one to hypothesis something for which there is no direct evidence, but in this case, it would explain SO MUCH of what we have seen over the last decade in particular coming from democrats and happening to democrats.

[steve2470]

27. I tend to agree with you

I have no evidence for this, but it helps to explain the almost continuous spinelessness of the Democratic leaders. Nothing like a subtle threat to make you lose your nerve.

[howaboutme]

32. Discovery leads in unknown directions

Perhaps some didn't want another 9-11 or Iraq War investigation where the discovery process can be much more aggressive and lead in unknown directions, as it would have been about defending individuals, rather than "concepts" such as took place with the 9-11 Commission, etc.

Discovery could have lead to involvement by individuals and countries that politicians would prefer be kept under wraps.

[onehandle]

28. Yawn. nt

[sofa king]

36. It was off the table because it was never a realistic possibility.

Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid decided not to repeat the disgraceful travesty of a show-impeachment, which is all one can get if 67 votes in the Senate aren't lined up.

Nobody remembers it because Bush stole the election that year, but in 2000 the Democrats picked up four seats and eventual control of the Senate (thank God), largely as a result of backlash from the impeachment. Probably most telling is the example of Republican John Ashcroft, a quintessential conservative asshole from a conservative state, who lost his reelection to a dead man.

Senator Jeffords, who voted against impeachment, was subsequently vilified by the Republicans and became an independent caucusing with the Democrats in mid-2001, which is pretty much the only thing that kept us from becoming a fascist dictatorship in 2002. Later, another impeachment dissenter, Arlen Specter, also jumped ship.

It's also not a bad idea to forget that Senate Democrats were sent a very clear and obvious message in the form of anthrax letters, with the supposed perpetrator remaining free and unknown until there were no elections left for Bush and Cheney to care about stealing and no time left to impeach. So it could be that in the minds of Congressional Democrats, impeachment also carried the threat of a grisly and unavenged death.

No Presidency was ever more deserving of being put on trial and unceremoniously tossed ass-first out of the White House, and I'll never forgive the Democrats for not trying. But I know perfectly well why they didn't.

[FredStembottom]

39. Nice round-up of important points, sofa King!

Wanting to avoid a "show" impeachment that would fail but create a huge sympathy/revenge vote - bolstered by the threat of an Anthrax death.......

Very probable explanation.

Thanks.

[ThomWV]

41. Horse shit - they tortured people, and if you can't impeach for that we should dissolve

[sofa king]

57. The point is you CAN impeach, and pay heavily for it.

The ugly realpolitik is that rightly or wrongly, Pelosi and Reid felt that Democratic chances in future elections would be harmed.

Would you reward the Republicans for torturing? That's what impeachment could have done.

[howaboutme]

59. Does a jury determine guilt BEFORE the trial?

Some say that votes for impeachment weren't there. That is like saying a jury should know the verdict before the trial.

By not aggressively going forward with the investigation we will never know what travesties were carried out by the Bush administration that cost many American lives, dollars and liberties and that is the biggest travesty of all. How can votes be committed either to impeach or not impeach before the investigation. The opposition Party refused to hold the Party in power accountable and that is a very bad omen for our democracy.

Frankly I wouldn't care if the investigation sank both Parties if it would have resulted in honest government for a change. The status quo of non-accountability is what should really concern us.

Americans according to these articles supported impeaching Bush if he lied about Iraq and if he wiretapped illegally.

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/3528
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x260

[TransitJohn]

38. Complicity in voting for the Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq, and

complicity in war crimes they were aware of through intelligence briefings, would be my guess.

[DailyGrind51]

40. They thought that Republicans would be more cooperative.

[Blue Owl]

42. I get that same feeling about Spineless Reid

It is pathetic the way they let the GOP bully them.

[librechik]

43. Pelosi was trying to emphasize the difference between Dems and Rs

Nice idea, but we're not dealing with nice people. We should be investigating like crazy (even though the media won't cover it like they do when the Rs do it)

[Kaleva]

46. Too little public support for it.

[TheKentuckian]

51. Because that would be just and the right thing for the country

Can't have accountability for the ruling caste.

[JoePhilly]

53. Becasue the Dems have an actual legislative agenda, and the GOP does not ...

The GOP, having no intent to govern, has nothing better to do than look for ways to cripple the President. The LAST think they want to do is pass legislation that helps the American people. Far better to bring everything to a stand-still.

The Dems, have a legislative agenda, and so that is where they focus.

[mmonk]

58. Because the PPI likes the foreign policy that bush started.

Forgiveness is not possible with me.