Who believes Democrats would impeach Bush if they win the House ?

[kentuck]

I have serious doubts. It is not the nature of the Democrats to impeach, contrary to the Watergate exception. The Republicans got even for Nixon with the impeachment of Clinton. They had waited for years. Revenge was a dish best served cold for them.

But, if the Democrats win the House next year, who thinks they will even attempt to impeach Bush? I do not.

[Seansky]

1. I'll be amazed if the masses don't make this a complete requirement to

obtain their support. specially if the economy doesn't improve quickly after dems take the house.

[rocktivity]

5. I think that's exactly what the masses need to do

A grass-roots, non partisan drive to tell ALL candidates for office next year, "VOTE FOR IMPEACHMENT OR I DON'T VOTE FOR YOU."

:headbang:
rocknation

[kentuck]

6. If the masses would not require a position on the war in Iraq...

they would not require a position on impeachment.

[acmejack]

12. Unfortunately, the "Masses" could care less.

Oblivious apathy.

[Seansky]

22. I bet anything that is the economy, jobs, and healthcare don't get

addressed and keep getting worst at the rate they have gone down in the last two years, the masses will act out of desparation and because they won't know how to do it, they might join protests, regardless of what side they are on...

Keep getting into peoples wallet who were doing OK or a bit more than surviving and you'll see changes in attitudes. When someone had a good lifestyle and now has no way to keep it up, they will also awake.

When many seniors have no way to get their medicines and depend on their children who probably can't absord the cost, they will awake and something will be done.

[mazzarro]

2. Not with the current timid democratic party leadership n/t

[merh]

3. Did you just wake up on the wrong side of the bed

or what? I don't think I have ever seen you post so many negative posts before. :shrug:

:pals:

[kentuck]

9. Dammit ! Go to the cartoon channel if you can't take reality.

It's honesty. I hear all this bullshit about impeachment and nobody is going to impeach anybody. Stop the bullshit and I'll stop being honest.

[merh]

26. You cannot predict what will happen -

so stop calling it bullshit. You have NO FUCKING idea what investigations will occur, how many indictments may be returned, how many times the existing indictment will be amended or superseded - you are clueless as to what will happen that could precipitate impeachment proceedings.

You are not being honest because if you were, you would honestly say you don't know.

You are just a whiny pessimist who hasn't a clue how the criminal justice system works and what may happen in the future.

Edited to fix typos.

[kentuck]

28. I don't know ...

and neither do you. Do you?

[merh]

29. No, I don't know.

If there are more indictments, if the existing indictment is superseded (amended to include more charges and more co-defendants), if dems take back Congress, then the chances are impeachment proceedings will be initiated. The dems have been impotent and any one of the above or all of the above could result in impeachment proceedings.

I would say you watch too much of the cartoon channel and want everything to occur in a half hour.

[kentuck]

35. I would love to see an impeachment of Bush.

Nobody in the history of our nation has been more deserving, including Nixon. But you put a lot of "ifs" in your response? Politically, I do not see a Party with the appetite or the backbone for another impeachment hearing. Even though they should impeach him, I have my doubts that they would do it, under almost any circumstances, including the ones you mentioned above. Sorry, that's just my opinion. I don't consider it "negative" or "whiny" - I consider it realistic from a historical perspective.

[merh]

40. It is not realistic from a historical perspective - how can you say

that? Nothing like this has ever occurred in the history of our nation, this makes Watergate seem like a petty crime and there would have been impeachment proceedings of Nixon if he had not resigned.

Dems in Congress have been without a backbone and ineffective because they are the FUCKING minority - we failed them - we haven't given them the numbers they need to make a difference. If it is our party, if it is our country, then we need to take responsibility for our failings -- we have not given the democratic members of congress the power to make a difference.

Reality is reality, you are not dealing realistically if you cannot accept culpability.

[kentuck]

44. And that is one reason they are the minority now...

They are impotent and will not overnight grow a pair. We gave them plenty of power. We gave them more than they deserved. How long do they expect to live on the laurels of FDR and LBJ? Democrats should stand for the people - not the Republican platform. We have had some good Democrats but the corporatists amongst them have weakened their influence. The NAFTA people, the income taxcut people, the war people, the bi-partisan collaborators, the Republican sympathizers. We may need an overhaul of the entire government - Republicans first.

[merh]

45. My ass, they have no power, without a majority, they are unable

to do anything. Nice to know that you deal with reality so well :crazy: The laurels of FDR & LBJ - WTF ??? Stop living in the past and deal with reality, Clinton's blow job emasculated the party and caused us to lose elections left and right (and he got the BJ because he could?) - no majority means no success in getting bills passed, means ass kissing of the party in power is necessary to be sure that your constituents get their fair share of the federal funds, et cetera.

[kentuck]

48. You finally said something sensible..

:)

[merh]

49. I've been realistic and sensible all along.

Glad you finally understood ;-)

[kentuck]

52. uh-huh...

:)

[merh]

53. uh huh

:hi:

[rzemanfl]

4. This should be in the Democratic platform. Impeach the thief. n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. As jaded as I am...

Surprisingly, I think the slew of investigations will leave no other choice.

WMD.
Cronyism.
Paid "journalists."
Election fraud.
Treason.

The Dems will back into it. :D

[Aimah]

8. No

It seems when we get the opportunity to finish the job we never do. We opt for kids gloves or make excuses for them.

[tulsakatz]

10. yes they will!!!

I absolutely believe it!! As well they should impeach him!!

Are you kidding me? Bush lied and presented false evidence to make his case for war.......and that's not serious enough to call for impeachment?

It is a VERY SERIOUS thing to declare war based on lies!

[sendero]

11. Only....

... if we get a huge turnover or new leadership.

Face it, our Dem congress as it stands today is a part of the problem, not of the solution.

[LeFleur1]

16. Impeachment

In spite of the Clinton debacle, impeachment is very serious. There needs to be very provable charges (not lying about pseudo sexual relations.)

At this moment,nothing can be proven against Bush. He can say he was 'out of the loop' and no one can prove otherwise. Unless someone gives him up there is really no case for impeachment.
Do I think he should be impeached? Yes. I think the best reason for impeachment is because he misled the people about his abilities to lead the country. He has been a disaster for the USA, at home and abroad. As for the war...look how many dummies went along with him and voted for his war cause. If he could be impeached, they could be impeached.

Democrats won't impeach unless we learn and can prove more of the things we know he has done, or has he? Has he just been a silly pawn in all of it? A puppet?

[NanceGreggs]

13. It will all depend ...

... on the final outcome of the investigations currently ongoing: Fitgerald's, the forged Niger documents, etc.

Remember that recent polls showed that the MAJORITY of citzens polled said that Bush SHOULD BE IMPEACHED if it is proven that he LIED to the American people about the lead-up to Iraq.

If these ongoing investigations 'out' the lies, deception and misrepresentations that we all KNOW this admin to be guilty of, even Repugs will want his head on a spike.

Think about how MAD you are, as a Democrat, about what this president has done to the country. Now imagine you're a Repug who voted for, supported and believed BushCo -- only to realize later that you'd been 'had'!

It's like a woman scorned. Hell also hath no fury like a voter who was led down the garden path and SCREWED!

[kentuck]

20. Perhaps then but...

Some of the wussies would still say that for the good of the country, it's only a year or two until the next election, so why put the country through the trauma of an impeachment hearing, etc...You don't think so?

[ikojo]

21. A MAJORITY of Americans want the troops to

come home from Iraq but the Democratic "leadership" is still squawking to "stay the course."

The will of the people mean nothing when it competes with the will of the corporate.

[Neil Lisst]

14. Not impeachment, Investigation.

Lots of it, too. We need a majority so we can run investigations. The Republican leadership refuses to look into the seedy conduct of Bush.
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst

[4dsc]

18. Then after the investigations, impeachment..

Lets make sure we have our ducks in order here. Its investigate first, then impeach...

[ikojo]

15. I don't think they will....the Dems have swallowed

hook, line and sinker the lie that is bi-partisanship...they always think the country needs "healing" and are loath to do anything that upsets the powers that be.

The Republicans will do anything to win and hold onto power, the Dems are no saints but I don't think they are as power hungry as the Republicans.

[gumby]

17. If history is an indicator,

the answer to your question is a Gigantic NO. It seems that the right commits the crimes and then the "Democrats" cover them up.

Nixon, being the exception, was brought down by forces other than the Democrats.

[SouthernDem2004]

19. Impeach him for what exactly?

Couldn't help but ask.

[Lexingtonian]

23. Why should they?

There's plenty to investigate via the powers the House has. The question is only who and what first- the $9 billion stolen and used as bribes and for election rigging in Iraq? Enron's California stuff (ancient history)? The massive money laundering by the RNC in '02 and '04 (and surely '06)? The FCC? The FEC? The IRS? The Bureau of Indian Affairs? The EPA? The FDA? The Boeing air tanker contract? Revisiting the non-investigation of '9/11' fuckups at the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc? The Medicare drug benefit crookery and Nick Smith? The torture 'legalization' and implementation in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq?

In fact, getting Dubya and the rest impeached is a waste of time. The far smarter thing is to cut a deal with him- no impeachment/removal proceedings in return for getting the federal judges nominated Democrats want at all levels plus no Bush use of the veto power or any kinds of executive orders. (I'm feeling pretty confident it's not just the House that will be controlled by Democrats after next November.)

[conflictgirl]

24. I don't think so.

The Democrats seem too bent on looking like they agree with the Repubs and like they don't want to rock the boat. I don't think they would ever try to impeach Bush. Unfortunately. :(

[JanusAscending]

31. I know of a lot of Dem. Congress Critters who are,

"CHOMPING AT THE BIT" for Subpoena Powers to get to the bottom of Bushes lies!! Does the name Conyers mean anything to you at all? I heard him say this " it seems like we need some subpoena powers" on CSPAN, at the meeting in the "little cloakroom" that the Rep. powers that be, said was all that was available for them to use. Let me see, a few important people were there, like Wilson, Cindy Sheehan, some other Congress Critters, and all talking about the Downing St. Memos! All they need is a simple majority in the House, or they would have started an investigation already! How quick we FORGET!! Sorry for the rambling sentences, but you all got my mind racing!!!

[nosmokes]

41. conyers is a fairly lonely voice,

in case you hadn't noticed. no, the democratic party has neither the will nor the leadership for impeachment.

right now theGOPosse is busy is busy hanging itself and the dems can't even hang onto it's boots to hasten the process.

[conflictgirl]

43. Right.

And don't forget, even some of the highest-profile Dems in the Legislature supported Harriet Miers' nomination. Hillary does not support withdrawing the troops from Iraq. Yes, there ARE still some "good guys" in Congress, but they're a small minority out in the wilderness. I'd like it to be different, but I think they're misunderstanding what the public wants.

[Pepper32]

25. Based on their lack of response right now, I doubt it.

[Dinger]

27. If You Had Said "Should" Instead Of Would,

you have had a 100+% response for yes!

[xchrom]

30. no -- i don't think so.

there will be investigations -- yes -- and the democratic party will benefit from that.

but impeach, no.

[I Have A Dream]

32. I think that they would only do it if the general public really backed it.

For some reason, Democrats are held more accountable for things like this than Republicans are. (My opinion.)

It seems as though Republicans can do all kinds of foolish things and the public just lets it slide. Democrats are taken to task even for responsible things.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. I hope they'd have the sense not to

Given that the earliest the Democrats can retake the house is late 2006, the earliest an indictment could possibly go anywhere would be late 2007 or 2008. By that point getting rid of Bush won't matter.

What will be important is winning in 2008, and indicting Bush will make that harder - the Republicans would be easily able to spin it as partisan politics rather than justice. An appearance of magnaminity and impartiality, on the other hand, would do a great deal of good.

[kentuck]

36. A reasonable political assessment.

Thanks. :)

[mzmolly]

34. ME! I'll go on record here as saying they will. But they have to win

first. :hi:

[crispini]

37. I think the possibility would be greater with Dems in power

than otherwise.

First we need full-blown congressional investigations into the true causes of the war to determine if we have grounds or not.

[kentuck]

38. I would say slim to none with Repubs in power.

So yes, the first prerequisite is to put Democrats in power.

[Rene]

39. I believe there's a bill currently making it's way thru Congress that

is going to take the head of the dept of homeland security OUT
of the line of succession to the Presidency.

I think that's a first step in upcoming maneuvers for the top
offices.......THEN they'll be able to have Cheney forced to
resign in disgrace....THEN a new and decent Vice-President
will be appointed and  THEN the bush impeachment begins/cut
off by his resignation(also in disgrace)

The new Vice President will take the Presidency.

I predict this will happen within one year.

[laylah]

42. ME!

:headbang: :headbang:
Jenn

[Silverhair]

46. Not worth the time. Can't get the 2/3 majority needed in Senate

for conviction. Even if in 06 we make a complete sweep and win EVERY seat (Impossible dream.) then we would still only have 60 votes of the 67 needed.

[walldude]

47. You say nobody knows.. well,

here's what I know. I know there is something called the Downing Street memo, which stated as a fact that the administration "fixed the facts and intelligence" to support the drive to war. I know there was an "Office Of Special Plans and WHIG designed to "sell" the war to the American people. I know for a fact that the President lied in his State Of The Union Address, when he told the American people that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger after Wilson came back and disputed the claim. I know for a fact that the WH lied about Saddams weapons of mass destruction. I know the V.P. of the U.S.A. is trying to pass legislation to allow Americans to torture prisoners What I know is enough not only to impeach but to publicly humiliate and embarass these people. Their names should be dragged through the mud and their livelyhoods should be ruined. And while I agree that there are alot of Dems that need to go, there are enough people with a sense of decency left that if we take the House or the Senate impeachment proceedings will begin. And if you turn out to be correct, and we win a house and don't impeach then the door can hit me in the ass on my way out because I'll be leaving the country.

[jn2375]

50. me, me, me, me, me, ,me

[BillZBubb]

51. Not a chance in hell.

The Democrats play nice, while the Repugs throw daggers.