Impeachment is the only viable opinion to stop these madmen

[0007]

The gloves gotta come off. The American people have been duped too many times by this criminal organization called the White House.

How can we let this go on any longer?

[Crazy Dave]

1. The presidential campaign has been an excellent distraction n/t

[flashl]

4. I am so glad you say that

Talking about being duped.

[Cooley Hurd]

2. If they AREN'T stopped before they attack Iran, history will judge the 110th congress...

...HARSHLY for failing to save the USA from the neocons.

At the VERY least, get CHENEY out of there!

[Perry Logan]

3. Let it go. They don't have the votes. So it wouldn't stop the administration anyway.

[DCKit]

5. Thanks to others for pointing it out, but

They don't need ANY votes to prevent the funding bill from coming to the floor.

How many times did the Repukes use exactly that same tactic to prevent any legislation that didn't serve their purposes from going anywhere?

We're pussies 'cause we're not willing to get as dirty as them. It's time to start playing politics. I know they haven't forgotten how, they're just whipped and need some encouragement.

[0007]

6. Thanks for addressing the answer. We need to get nastier

than the repukes. We have a hell of a lot more on junior and Death Varder than they had on Clinton with Monica Lewinsky. Mark Foley & Larry Craig had no qualms going after Clinton.

[onenote]

11. I don't know. How many times did repubs block funding?

[Rene]

37. Who are the key people who would vote NO to impeachment. We all have to call/write and work on them

to change their votes.

[OneBlueSky]

8. whether we "have the votes" is entirely irrelevant . . .

the Constitution does not say that impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors" will take place only if Congress has the votes . . . impeachment is an indictment, and the evidence placed on the table during the Senate trial is what will lead to conviction and removal from office, or acquital . . .

we may not have the votes now, but we will after the totality of the evidence is placed into the public record . . . with the overwhelming amount of strong evidence already well known, senators voting to acquit after the evidence is formally and systematically presented would be killing their own careers . . .

[MissDeeds]

9. Agreed

When the evidence is presented, pressure from constituents may influence voting. To allow this administration to remain in office is not an option; it's a disgrace.

[calimary]

26. Welcome to DU!

Couldn't agree more.

Glad you're here! Now get to work.

Visualize IMPEACHMENT!!!
Then go DO something about it.

[calimary]

27. Ooops - dupe - self-delete. Hit the button twice by accident.

Even so, I STILL couldn't agree more, and you STILL make a great point, MissDeeds!

[Rene]

38. Allowing this administration to remain in office sets a precedent for future admins.

They can commit high crimes and never expect punishment/retribution. bush/cheney need to be tried at the Hague. It's absolutely awful that America has been lowered to their standards. We're better than this and need to prove it for people of the world, today and tomorrow.

[onenote]

12. You don't need to start the impeachment process to conduct investigations

and in fact, since you need to have a vote by a majority of the House to even begin an impeachment inquiry by the Judiciary Committee, the idea that if only impeachment hearings would start we'd get the votes misses the point. There aren't sufficient votes to even authorize the hearings. And that will remain the case so long as no repubs are willing to jump ship. Both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment hearings were autorized by votes that had bipartisan support (overwhelmingly in the case of Nixon and around 31 Dems in the Clinton situation).

What is disappointing to me is not that there hasn't been an attempt to commence an impeachment process (which would fail) but that the House and Senate haven't been more aggressive in conducting oversight and investigatory hearings on certain matters.

[snappyturtle]

13. Yes! nt

[DangerDave921]

31. End of Discussion

OK, folks. Here's my final word on this topic. FORGET ABOUT IMPEACHMENT. It's not going to happen, and our Dem leaders DO NOT WANT IT TO HAPPEN. It would be a massive distraction from the current race. And it would risk sympathy for the very folks we're trying to beat.

When Clinton went through his impeachment fiasco, his poll numbers actually went up! Why? Because the public got sick and tired of hearing about it all the time. It looked like a bunch of angry, obsessed Repubs trying to bring a presidency down. And Clinton benefitted from that!

In Bush's case, the election is a little over one year away. We have solid candidates running for president. We have momentum after winning big in 2006. So tell me what in the world do we have to gain from impeachment? Even if there were enough votes to bring articles of impeachment (which there are NOT), it would take months and months of wrangling that would absolutely dominate the nightly news every single day. Our candidates would get pushed to the side, or else the discussion would be focused solely on their thoughts on impeachment. And our Dem leaders would look like they are looking for vengeance and retribution.

Bush is not running in 08. Neither is Cheney. So forget about trying to destroy them and focus on winning in 2008. I know you hate them, but direct that hatred toward a positive vision of working to help your candidate win.

IMPEACHMENT IS OFF THE TABLE.

[ericgtr]

14. Exactly

what can the congress do with no margin, they simply can't get enough Republicans on their side. Now the Dems are going to twist and bend things in the Republicans favor just to get a bread crumb from them. The administration is pushing for 10 more years, for the love of god man. At this point all we can do is bend over and take it.

[demnan]

7. Yes, absolutely

The new Zogby 9/11 Truthout poll I was reading about says that 30% of the American public want impeachment now and think there is enough evidence. 51% say that the actions of the Bush and Cheney administration need to be investigated regarding 9/11.

How do we get to the next step is the big question?

If you've grown tired of constantly writing your Congressman and meeting with him to no avail and collecting petition signatures, what is next?

I don't know the answer to that one.

[0007]

10. Your right on ... if we don't wake up soon it will be too late. nt

[Senator]

15. The Claim That "We Don't Have The Votes" Is A Big Propaganda Lie

It's no different than "we need smaller gov't" and "taxes are too high." Because "smaller" and "too high" are purposefully non-specific.

We "don't have the votes" for what exactly? There's been no charges put up for a vote.

Put an impeachment article "on the table" for torture. Then we find out who "has the votes" -- the war criminals or the Constitution defenders. Up or down, we need to find out. Anything else is just arrogant self-delusion.

Conyers does not have "the Constitution in one hand and a calculator in the other." He's got a Magic 8 Ball in one hand and his dick in the other.

The DC LieberDems are just the firewall against reality. The one thing the beltway-blinded are most terrified of.

---

[0007]

16. I agree!

[onenote]

17. doesn't work that way

THe first step in an impeachment process is for the entire House to vote to authorize/direct the JUdiciary Committee to conduct an inquiry/investigation into whether articles of impeachment should be drawn up. And that step can't be taken now because there are more than enough Blue Dogs and other Democratic members from swing districts that are not going to support such a resolution unless it garners some bi-partisan support. As they will point out, even the Clinton impeachment process started with 31 Democrats supporting the resolution directing the Judiciary Committee to conduct hearings. (And the vote to commence Judiciary hearings on the Nixon impeachment was something like 410-4).

Sorry.

[Senator]

21. It's working exactly that way

The DC Dems are claiming "there are more than enough ... that are not going to support" a resolution they refuse to bring to a vote.

The Clinton process would have started without the 31 Dems and the Bush/Cheney process could pass unanimously.

The first step in an impeachment process is to stop protecting the guilty.

Sorry.

---

[onenote]

23. Wishing doesn't make it so

I wish all the Blue Dogs would support the commencement inquiry. But the fact is that they aren't going to, at least not unless they get "cover" from a semblance of bi-partisan support. Its the way they are, whether we like it or not.

In any event, my point was that the process doesn't start with the presentation of the evidence followed by a vote, it starts with a vote to collect the evidence. And that, unfortunately, is the hurdle that we can't overcome at the present time. Please understand, I wish that we could but at this point I don't see how we make the Blue Dogs support a partisan vote on impeachment.

[Senator]

25. You're wishing. We're working to make it so.

The fact is that whatever "way they are" can be changed to "the way they are now."

In any event, your real point is that there is a rationalization for doing nothing. This is why you use phrases such as "at the present time" and "at this point" to pretend there is some other time you will actually DO something.

Fortunately, there is no hurdle that we can't overcome. And I fully understand that you wish for things.

But wishing doesn't make it so.

---

[onenote]

29. You don't know what I'm doing.

Presumptuous aren't you. I'm contacting repub members and pushing for them to speak out against chimpy, which is the only way impeachment could ever come about. What exactly are you doing that's more productive? Anything other than posting on DU?

[Senator]

34. I know what you're doing here.

You're spreading http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/15">Impeachophobia.

No presumption necessary.

===

[onenote]

35. actually, I'm spreading accurate information

something that some here at DU seem to have an aversion to...

[Senator]

39. Even if it were actually accurate...

...that's still a far cry from truth.

Insanity is often the logic of an accurate mind overtaxed. -- Oliver Wendell Holmes (1809 - 1894)

--

[onenote]

41. care to point out what in my post is not "actually accurate"

Put up or shut up, as they say.

[Senator]

42. I might, if you were "actually accurate"...

...about what you mean by "my post."

Then again, as they say, I might not.

--

[onenote]

43. wonderful. You make accusations, and you can't back them up.

Reminds me of certain people, but it would be against the rules to suggest that you are one of them.

[Senator]

44. not that wonderful. You tell yourself that I didn't "back them up."

Then you tell yourself that you're not violating the rules.

Does that remind you of anyone?

---

[onenote]

45. and another post that doesn't back up the assertion that my post was inaccurate

keep digging...

[Senator]

46. Maybe you should try the CapsLock key

Repetition isn't making your posts any truer. Could be that volume's worth a shot?

---

[onenote]

47. and your inability to defend yourself has become embarassing.

Again, if you can back up your assertion, why don't you. Oh, wait, its because you can't back up your assertion. Nothing I said was inaccurate and you know it but can't bring yourself to admit it.

[Senator]

48. I see my suggestion was a bit premature.

Four more repetitions and no uptick in veracity. And still not ready for the volume yet.

I know, why don't you try to claim I can't back up my assertion -- or accusation -- whichever one of those is actually accurate?

--

[onenote]

49. I've lost count. But even counting a couple of posts as foul balls, you're out on strikes

Next time you want to suggest that someone's post is inaccurate or untruthful, try to come up with something more than the bald assertion. Although I doubt that you're capable of it from what you've shown.

Last word is yours. Buh-bye.

[Senator]

50. Yes, counting can be so tedious.

Better to just declare oneself umpire and count what you feel like.

Trouble is, that's a pretty clear admission that there's a gap between "what you've {been} shown" and what you've bothered to see.

Not to mention which of those two is actually accurate.

--

[LittleClarkie]

18. I don't think it is viable

And some just want it as a symbolic gesture because it's the right thing to do regardless of whether it works.

[renie408]

19. Well, that's not going to happen...Do you have any other ideas?

I am all about stopping Bush/Cheney from ruining whatever parts of the world that they haven't already ruined. But impeachment IS. NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN. Wish it would. Won't.

We need some other ideas and plans for keeping a leash on these guys.

[Independent_Liberal]

24. You don't KNOW that.

How do you know it's not going to happen? You can never know these things for certain. For all you know impeachment could be closer than it appears. And another thing, it IS the only thing that will stop them.

[bobthedrummer]

20. k&r

IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST

[AtomicKitten]

22. The Dems would be remiss to let all the GOP crimes slide.

Impeachment may be the only viable way to stop the war.

[cali]

28. Impeachment won't stop him from going on his merry murderous

way.

I support it, but I'm under no illusion whatsoever that anything will stop him.

keep introducing a funding bill for Iraq with strict timelines? He'll take the funds to keep the military in Iraq from other places. Yes, he can do that.

Not send any funding bill. He'll take the funds form other sources.

Impeach? He'll probably ramp things up.

I'm pro-impeachment and pro sending him a funding bill with deadlines.

I'm under no illusions that these measures will stop him.

[beaconess]

30. Impeachment would make him worse!

An impeachment effort, given the current makeup of the House and Senate, would no doubt fail. Imagine what a FAILED impeachment would do to shore up Bush and the Republican base!

[RFKJrNews]

32. Let me get this straight...

We impeached Clinton over fooling around with an intern...
We got rid of Nixon because he lied about breaking into DNC headquarters...

...and we CAN'T seem to impeach a President who has ripped the Constitution to shreds?

If this is really where America stands, we deserve whatever we get.

RFK Jr. says "we need to impeach Bush as a civics lesson."

http://rfkin2008.wordpress.com/2007/07/20/we-need-to-impeach-bush-as-a-civics-lesson-says-rfk-jr/

"America doesn’t torture people,” Kennedy said. “We do not intercept the telephone conversations of hundreds of thousands of American citizens illegally.

“You can’t just tear up the Bill of Rights,” he said. “He has to be impeached. The American people have to remember how sacred the Constitution of the United States is.”

[beaconess]

40. No. I just don't believe in wasting time engaging in futile, self-destructive acts

I'd rather focus on what CAN be done, not what will make me feel good.

Bush is NOT going to be impeached, no matter how much we want it. Wasting time and resources trying to force something that's not going to happen is not how I choose to focuse my energies.

[sampsonblk]

33. I fear its too late for that

The spring was our opportunity to stem this tide. Never again will the public be so far on our side, and never again will we have such a ripe moment to do what has to be done.

At this point, Bush knows our party leadership is weak. An in order to impeach, we'd need to have serious criminal investigations, which appear nearly impossible after basically going along with him on some of the more questionable stuff he was doing - the war, domestic spying, torture, etc.

[lame54]

36. i agree - impeach

watch this

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fCutvXccFlA

[0007]

51. bttgdt