Tell my why we should not impeach!

[Stinky The Clown]

Tell me ONE reason why the criminal enterprise that holds power in this country should be given even one whit of slack for their actions.

If you have been watching the hearings at Walter Reed - just that and nothing more - you will find ALL THE REASONS YOU NEED to impeach these motherfuckers TODAY.

[ddbaj]

1. Easy.

49 republican senators, countless conservative democrats and Joe LIEberman.

Need any more reasons?

[Stinky The Clown]

2. That's strategic crap. What about the moral obligation?

"Crimes"

Need any more reasons?

[ddbaj]

I know it sucks.

But it's reality. This is one of the reasons I like the no-confidence system better, in which all that is needed is a majority vote to oust the head of government. Sadly, our system requires a super-majority to remove, which right now we're not even close to getting.

I'm not even confident we'd get 51 votes for removal, and I will not support impeachment if it does not lead to removal. Sorry.

[AshevilleGuy]

14. We would not get close to 51 votes for removal.

I would be extremely surprised if we got 25 votes in the Senate. This crop of Dems is NOT the ones we had in the days of Humphrey, Mansfield and Ribicoff!!!

If the House impeaches those criminals - and that is what they are - and the Senate fails to convict, it will look to the world as if they were found INNOCENT! How would that help????

[bullwinkle428]

25. It would require 67 votes in Senate to have him removed from office!

We would need a number of Republicans on our side, as well as having EVERY Democrat favoring it.

[AshevilleGuy]

32. I know, the 51 refers to the Senate Dems

The point being that we would not get anyway near all 51 or them. And NO repukians!

So it would look like bush & cheney were ACQUITTED. I can not see how that helps.

[Tellurian]

30. If you really want to know..

and will spend the time to read this besides whats been already mentioned..

then well, you'll know why.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/sep/29/the_star_chamber

(the short answer: The Constitution has been shredded..)

[librechik]

3. I don't think that should stop us. The Pukkkes didn't have the votes for Clinton

and yet they made his impeachment the over whelming issue for months and months and months. I think we should do the same, and drag those dirty scoundrel's actions through the media and the streets day after day, like they did, even if we are a few votes shy of impeachment. These wussies in the Senate don't have the testicles to do what the Pukkkes were delighted to do, even though the Clinton thing was not justice but a PARTISAN, SHAMEFUL ACT OF ANTI-AMERICAN RUTHLESSNESS.

Our guys won't even do it when it is utterly just and the constitutional democracy suffers from our not doing it. That's how bad the PUkkkes made themselves look. Even as a minority they still hold the power.

We are so screwed.

[ddbaj]

6. Removal requires support from both parties.

Look, our victory in the house was amazing, but in the Senate we're on shaky ground. If I am a house dem leader and I look at the Senate, no way I am bringing up impeachment. You can drag crimes out in public with hearings, the only purpose of impeachment, IMO, is to kick out!

So what is the point of impeachment if we can't remove? again, it sucks, but it's reality. I cannot picture Joe Lieberman, all 51 dems and 16 repubs voting to remove.

[librechik]

12. The point is to expose the crimes of this administration the only way we can!

We have a moral obligation to TRY to stop war criminals even if the deck is stacked against us. Failure to do so is failure to support our democracy. The House is obligated to hold hearings period. And what happens next happens next.

Until they do that they are shirking an important duty, with dreadful consequences by the way.

What you advocate is called playing to lose. The Dems should be playing to win, and damn the risk.

[onenote]

18. impeachment isn't the only way or even the best way

THe Democrats in Congress can and should conduct oversight hearings and investigations into all manner of actions by the administration, but they don't have to, and shouldn't, expressly tie those hearings and investigations to impeachment. If/when those proceedings create a bi-partisan upswell in support for impeachment, that's the time.

Playing to win sometimes takes time and strategy, not a bull's rush into an inevitable defeat.

And, no, the House isn't "obligated" to do a fuckin' thing. The House, by analogy, is a grand jury when it comes to the impeachment process. But grand juries don't get to decide what cases they consider. That's decided by a prosecutor, and prosecutors often exercise their discretion in terms of whether to bring a case or what charges to bring, based on their view of their chances of prevailing.

[librechik]

21. you don't think we have an obligation to hold criminals to account?

huh. well, whatever. They will have to do it, once the process (begun at the state level) gets to the right committee. That could be a matter of days, since several states are convinced they must present articles to Congress (even if you don't)

[onenote]

22. wrong

They don't "have" to do it. Even if a state does approve articles (and I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon), there is no guarantee that a member of Congress will present them. (Why wouldn't that member simply have introduced his/her own impeachment resolution if he/she was willing to do so?) And even if a member did present an impeachment resolution (either on their own or passing along a state-enacted resolution), the end result will be referral of the matter to the Judiciary Committee, where it likely will reside quietly until the end of chimpy's term or until there is an upswell in bi-partisan demand for impeachment.

Keep in mind the following: in 1991, a resolution calling for the impeachment of Bush I was introduced; at the time, the House was solidly Democratic -- 61 percent to 39 percent. But the only thing that happened with that resolution was that it was referred to the Judiciary Committee to die.

[AshevilleGuy]

26. In the end it would appear they were acquitted

If the articles of impeachment even got to the Senate (and I seriously doubt they would), the Senate would absolutely FAIL to convict! The numbers are not there, and never will be unless something changes fundamentally in Iraq, or some new devastating scandal arises. But we are not there now.

Many people, and especially those in the rest of the world, where they do not understand how our Constitution works, would assume that failure to convict = ACQUITTAL! Do we want that????

[librechik]

27. I want their crimes investigated and exposed, under the rule of law

and if some people don't understand that, too bad--I'm sure many WILL understand!

[AshevilleGuy]

29. Hearings do that perfectly - remember Watergate?

I do. Those hearings gripped millions of viewers daily. In the end we didn't have to impeach Nixon, although he would have been had he not resigned.

HEARINGS could reveal sufficient evidence about bush and cheney, to make impeachment POSSIBLE if they did not resign first. Please think about this.

[librechik]

31. some of those hearings were pre-impeachment hearings

and if Nixon hadn't felt the pressure and resigned, impeachment was the next step. We should not take impeachment off the table.

[onenote]

19. and the repubs paid for it at the polls

The 1998 House elections mark, to the best of my knowledge, the only time that the party of a president in his sixth year actually picked up seats in Congress. And the Democrats made additional gains in both the House and Senate in 2000 (and won the popular vote for the Presidency and, but for the intervention of the SCOTUS, would've been declared the winner of a the electoral college vote)

[librechik]

20. yeah-cuz everybody knew it WAS BOGUS and VILE

and they voted accordingly. That is not true in this case. Impeachment of Bush is not bogus, it is a moral necessity

[onenote]

23. you and I may feel that way, but there is not a consensus in the country

yet...investigations and hearings will, hopefully, create that consensus. But if those hearings and investigations are couched in terms of impeachment, people will harden their positions before the information even comes out.

[Mrspeeker]

4. EXACTLY!!!

The ruling class maintains its power, nothing short of a revolution can change any of this

[Harmonicaman]

5. Because....

George will cry ??


:evilgrin:

[Hosnon]

7. You may want to add "good" just before "reason".

Because one reason why we should not impeach is because Americans are more inclined to care about Anna/Britney than things that truly matter.

Bush needs to rape someone (or get a blowjob) before the majority of Americans pay attention.

[Nederland]

8. The American People Don't Want It

'nuf said.

[KansDem]

9. I'm all for it...

And I'm for incarceration. Many of these thugs and cutthroats are from the Reagan/Bush and Bush/Quayle administrations. Many of them escaped justice and accountability by way of 1) pardons, and 2) playing "kissy-face" with accommodating Democrats. No, I'm not just for impeachment...I want that and more! I want to see orange jumpsuits and shackled hands and legs...

[Stinky The Clown]

10. "I want to see orange jumpsuits and shackled hands and legs..."

At LEAST that ... and as they so love to say .... (in terms of punishment) no option should be off the table.

[Milo_Bloom]

11. Long Term Goals

If you impeach them, and Nancy Pelosi takes power, people will have the perception that all the mid-term promises, were just some sly way to get into power, instead of a desire to set things right.

If a slam dunk crime gets unearthed, I have no doubt there will be impeachment. HOWEVER, everything I have seen so far has plausable deniability written all over it. YOu know they are crooks... I know they are crooks, but the Kool Aid crowd will throw enough doubt around, that it will make the Dems look like they were just after power.

[SaveElmer]

13. The effort would fail...and it would harm the Democratic Party...nt

[Auntie Bush]

15. Because we're cowards?

[Cogito ergo doleo]

16. If the powerful are not subject to laws, we all lose. Anyone can reason

away why impeachment should not take place, but if laws have broken and the public trust breeched, the Constitution demands it. If people want to create and support the idea of an all powerful president, think hard about what you are losing in the process, and what you are committing your country to for generations.

[Auntie Bush]

17. The Dems are going to go down in history as "What the FUCK were they thinking?"

The history books are going to make us out to be wusses. The population wants us to impeach the bastard. Some say it will make dems look bad....but I disagree. I think it will make us look incompetent and more interested in politics.

Some use the excuse that ReThugs lost many seats (think Nuttie G.)because the public was angry that they impeached the President. Well I say HOGWASH! Clinton's favorable ratings were in the 60's so the majority were angry. Bush' favorable ratings hover around 30%. Therefore the majority will highly approve of impeachment. In fact, those that vote against impeachment will probably lose their seat. So we better get going or some Dems are going to go DOWN!

Also, think about all the crap/crimes that will be exposed during an impeachment trial. By that time...even Laura and Barney will give him the boot!

Let's get going NOW! My state is voting on Impeachment tomorrow and I bet we do.

[mtnsnake]

24. There is no reason why we shouldn't. Not one.

Any reason why we shouldn't impeach is just an excuse for lacking the guts to do so, a copout if you will.

Good question, Husb! Recommended

[LynneSin]

28. Because all we'll do is slap Bush on the hands

It's not that the democrats don't want to impeach - it's just that nothing will happen because we do not have 67 senators who would support impeachment. And with 67, that means we definately need republican buy-in.

However, with the investigations that we're doing, if we can show that Bush is a sinking ship that could affect the outcome of some of those 22 republican senators up for re-election in 2008, you may see them manning the life-boats before the boat sinks.

As long as we're investigating the impeachment will happen. A hand slap is not enough - we need him out of office