So I guess accountability is dead now?

[proud2BlibKansan]

Our president starts an illegal and immoral war and hundreds of thousands die yet we can't get our Democratic leaders to impeach him. They not only don't hold him accountable, they pass legislation giving him unprecedented powers to spy on American citizens. Then they pass that horrific bill 1955 which is going to turn DUers into terrorists.

And the Dems continue to fund his illegal war.

The president and his WH staff outed a CIA agent. And the Democrats refuse to impeach him. And they pay for his war.

Today right here on this PROGRESSIVE discussion board, DUers say that it isn't Congress's duty to hold the president accountable. Yes, there are actually people here who believe that. Democrats are not obligated to uphold the constitution and they are not obligated to do what hundreds of thousands of Americans have said they want.



So I guess accountability is out of the question.

The talibornagain district attorney in my county lied about where he lives. That is against state law yet the Democrats here in my county are doing NOTHING to hold him accountable.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2359405

What the fuck ever happened to accountability and the rule of law? If you or I exceed the speed limit, we are held accountable. Don't show up in court? You get a warrant issued for your arrest. But our president gets to wage an illegal war, out a CIA agent and gawd knows what else and NOTHING happens. He is NOT held accountable.

So accountability must be dead.

I want my country back. Oh and I want my party back too.

[Mme. Defarge]

1. I want my country back. Oh and I want my party back too.

Moi aussi.

K & R!

[blm]

36. It's been like this since we HAD BushInc on the ropes by Dec 1992 and

Clinton came into office and proceeded to deep-six all the outstanding matters of Poppy Bush's illegal operations that kept coming up throughout the 90s.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html


And I can't believe that some Democrats want to repeat that exact same mistake again.

Those Dems who side with protecting secrecy and privilege of the powerful are NOT ON OUR SIDE.

[Mme. Defarge]

39. It is all about individuals ...

I grew up in an era of great popular music composers and singers. I assumed that the songs would automatically keep coming -- at least for the length of my life. But, in reality, the songwriters and performers didn't live forever and now they are gone, along with their incomparably beautiful music. No doubt a time will come when a critical mass of extraordinary musicians coalesces to to ignite another golden age. But for now, noise for the most part.

The same is true of individuals who conspire to subvert the common good. While evil plays out in every era, it does so with individual players. The enemies of our constitutional democracy in the second half of the last century should have been brought to justice in the same way that a malignent tumor needs to be eradicated from an individual body in order to prevent the destruction and likely death of that body.

Shame on Clinton and all of the appeasers in the Democratic Party.

[blm]

40. Evidently, this country needed an open government Dem in office in Jan1993

and instead we got someone who had a vested interest in keeping Poppy Bush's secrecy and privilege protected.

And some Democrats want to repeat that same mistake.

[wildbilln864]

2. Kicked...

and R!

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. I deliberately left her name out

:)

[Joe Fields]

10. You may be onto something...

:toast:

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. Actually I couldn't see the point in ruining a perfectly good OP

:hi:

[Joe Fields]

17. Yes, why ruin it with the "P" word? Anyway, to address your statement,

Yes, "accountability" was quite the buzzword used by our illustrious party leaders, before the '06 elections, as I remember. I don't hear that word being used much by those same people now. I think we're the only ones that use that word.

[Mme. Defarge]

4. Courage, mon brave ...

if you are a voice crying in the wilderness, so be it.

[TahitiNut]

5. We're through the looking glass, that's for sure

I don't know where the ostriches are sticking their heads, but the ground just ain't soft enough. :shrug:

[Bozita]

6. Accountability is for the little people.

Like the guy who fudged Rudy's travel/lodging/philandering costs to the Hamptons into taxpayer burdens.

Accountability helps keep the little people in line.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Oh is that how it works?

Gee thanks! :rofl:

[HowHasItComeToThis]

7. WHEN YOU HAVE FASCIST MEDIA, THEY IGNORE THE REAL ISSUES

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. By George, I think you got it!

:applause:

[Rosemary2205]

12. Only for politicians, preachers and rich people.

[Bozita]

14. You forgot mortgage lenders.

And the folks who bought that worthless paper.

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. And energy company executives

[here_is_to_hope]

16. Yeah, pretty much... n/t

[leftofthedial]

18. this is an oligarchy

the trappings of the republic are a showbiz sham

[annabanana]

33. An OILigarchy, actually. . . . . . . .n/t

[EV_Ares]

19. Good post as unbelievable as it is. Our dem leaders unfortunately

appear to be more concerned about their jobs of power, influence and wealth then the lives of american soldiers and obeying what the people they work for have requested out of them. Most times when you don't do what the boss tells you, you get fired.

[magellan]

20. R.I.P. accountability

We sure won't.

For the last few days this phrase has been running through my head: No Justice, No Peace.

[porphyrian]

21. If we vote Democratic no matter what, we can't hold them accountable.

Any shithead with a D next to their name can do just about anything they want as long as we continue to enable them. Where does accountability begin and end?

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. Well I think we all know the answer

Some of us are more willing to admit it than others.

[Telly Savalas]

31. If you can't defeat a shithead with a D next to their name in the primaries

then you're pretty much fucked anyway.

[porphyrian]

42. My primary vote won't count, so yes, I am fucked. -n/t

[dougolat]

23. Accountability means investigations...

and Congressional investigations are stalled by contempt for Congressional subpoenas, "lost" e-mails, and stone-walling (impeachable!) And the looming avalanche of Presidential pardons will derail future investigations. Only impeachment is immune, but the "leaders" want to fight for a veto-proof vote so they can see another impeachable signing-statement! How about impeachment investigations so either the PNAC gang shows us how they avoid any and all truth, or the Senators get to go on record regarding their complicity in war-crimes, profiteering, subverting the Constitution, sabotaging most Federal agencies, and election fraud, and more. (We might even find out about the anthrax attacks, the put-options and the war-games! Or hear Sibel Edmonds! There's no telling where real investigations might lead) Time is running out, IMPEACH NOW, or we're all forever complicit.

[Yukari Yakumo]

24. The problem with your argument

The 50 RePig Senators (this includes UnHoly Joe) who'd never vote to convict under any circumstances and a compliant M$M who'd do nothing but crap on the Dems the moment the impeachment process begins.

In the end, we'd gain nothing, and likely lose a lot. Chimpy & Co would get handed a Not Guilty verdict, where's the accountability in that? And the M$M would stop at nothing to make progressives seem like the spawn of Satan in the eyes of the Average Jane and Joe.

Accountability died when journalists became more interested in making news than reporting news.

[warren pease]

38. That's certainly true re mass media, however...

...this is a response I gave yesterday to somebody who posted a number of hypotheticals in an effort to make the argument that it's not the House's Constitutional duty to impeach if there's evidence that administration officials have committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." The poster maintained that impeachment was merely an option available to the House, not a duty. So I replied to the hypotheticals as follows:

>President A commits a felony, but no action is taken by the House to impeach.

If the target of impeachment commits an impeachable offense -- such as outing a covert CIA operative (treason, or high-treason in time of war) or repeatedly violates the Constitution by ignoring international treaties to which the US is a signatory -- then the House is derelict in its Constitutional duty, as defined by the oath of office, to at least submit articles of impeachment to the judiciary committee for its consideration. Note that "consideration" doesn't mean ordering Conyers to sit on them until January 2009.


>President B commits the same felony, an impeachment process is begun, but a majority of the House votes against impeachment.

Fine. Comparing impeachment to a conventional prosecution, impeachment is just the equivalent of convening a grand jury, which the ADAs (the judiciary committee), after gathering evidence and interviewing witnesses, hope will result in an indictment. If the grand jury (in this case, the House) fails to return an indictment, then either they fell down on the job or the case was without merit. Either way, the House has discharged its duty, since impeachment is the duty, not its approval.


>President C commits the same felony, an impeachment process is begun, a majority votes to impeach, but the Senate acquits
>(stating that the action taken was not an impeachable offense").

Fine, too. The House judiciary committee has done its duty by submitting the evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors" to the House, the full House has returned an indictment, but the Senate (which is where the actual trial takes place, with Senators acting as both judges and jury) was unconvinced by the evidence and witness testimony that the crimes in question reached the threshold for impeachable offenses.


>President D commits the same felony, an impeachment process is begun, a majority votes to impeach, and the Senate convicts.

Best of all worlds where Cheney/Bush is concerned. But remember that to convict, articles of impeachment first had to be introduced, then sent to the judiciary committee, which gathers evidence, questions material witnesses, compels testimony from uncooperative witnesses and so forth, just as in any other criminal proceeding other than those in which the suspect confesses (which is a whole other can of worms). The House then had to return the indictment, saying that the evidence they've heard and seen constitutes grounds to take the case to trial. The Senate then sat in judgment and, in this case, returned a guilty verdict. All by the book.

Failing to impeach doesn't have anything to do with failure to remove a sitting administration figure. But removal is legally impossible without proceeding down the path that begins with introducing articles of impeachment.

In this situation, once there's a public accounting of the numerous crimes this administration has committed against the Constitution and the rule of law, it might turn out that House members and Senators who failed to vote for impeachment would find their jobs in serious jeopardy next election cycle.

So Pelosi's failure to even allow articles of impeachment out of committee does in fact constitute dereliction of Constitutional duty. She swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." That's pretty unambiguous, and it doesn't sound like it's optional.

It's not for her to decide the fate of these criminals. It's for her to uphold her oath of office, shut the hell up, get out of the way and let the process unfold. Taking impeachment off the table is perhaps the stupidest, most senseless and unlawful capitulation to executive branch power I've ever heard of.

Now to our marvelously corrupt media. I think -- and I could easily be wrong on this -- that even these useless corporate shitheels would have to cover the impeachment of a vice president and, hopefully, his stumblebum marionette soon thereafter. I'd say that a story of that magnitude would be impossible even for these featherheads to ignore.

Of course they're going to spin the hell out of it and use it as another excuse to bash Dems and heap praise on their GOP darlings. But they do that anyway, so what's to lose? Do you think that Fux and CNN are right on the verge of coming over to the light, but such a move would be derailed by impeachment? Of course not. They're going to continue to perform their function as corporatist shills for the status quo and breathlessly gush about OJ and Britany and dead football players and whatever the hell they can come up with to keep the distractions rolling right along.

Keep in mind that the recent ARG poll showed something like 70 percent dissatisfaction with the administration, with numbers favoring impeachment of Cheney hovering around 50 percent. And that isn't because mass media has been hammering on the administration every day for years. Exactly the opposite; they're given a complete pass no matter what they do.

So what about going ahead and trying to get that indictment, which would necessarily percolate into the living rooms of Ward, June, Wally and the Beav? They might actually quit shoving buttered microwave popcorn into their slack jaws long enough to wonder just what the hell has been going on for the past seven years.

I fail to see how a public recitation of the crimes of this administration's chief vampire could result in the numbers favoring impeachment going down. Do you?

Finally, consider that the percentage favoring impeachment is about 35 to 40 points higher than the percentage that approves of the job Congress is doing. So they're not willing to risk their 11 - 15 point approval rating by impeaching a notorious, almost universally despised bastard whose own approval rating is around 9 percent and sinking?

I'd hate to see how these idiots do at the track or the craps tables.


wp

[mmonk]

25. More of us who aren't looking to profit

nor take orders from people that may want some coverup on their behalf or who aren't afraid of being blackmailed about our past need to run for office. I'm very angry and I'm going to work at finding out who is responsible for Cheney's democrats and why they back the dismanteling of our system and weakenening of our party. I may pay for a PI to do so.

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. Wow let me know what your plans are

I like the way you think. :applause:

[JTFrog]

26. Accountability is so last century. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

28. Accountability? I have heard the elders speak of it

But I have not seen it for many years.

I wonder where the cries of "Rule of Law!" have gone now?

It's all about power now. Whoever has it seems to make their own law.

[slipslidingaway]

29. Accountability died in the 80's and 90's without me even knowing

:( :(

Links and more

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=72317&mesg_id=72423


Rep. Henry Gonzalez, impeachment of Reagan and Bush in 1987

"...Another war-related impeachment effort came in response to the Iran-Contra scandal. You wouldn't have known it from media coverage or congressional debate, but the Reagan administration's Iran-Contra maneuvers were part of a Washington-driven war that enabled the U.S.-backed Contra guerrillas to terrorize Nicaraguan civilians, killing thousands in the process. When Rep. Henry Gonzalez, a Democrat from Texas, pushed for impeachment of President Reagan (and, for good measure, Vice President George H. W. Bush) in 1987, he stood virtually alone on Capitol Hill.

Gonzalez was back on high moral ground the day before the first President Bush launched the Gulf War. On Jan. 16, 1991, the maverick Democrat stood on the House floor and announced he was introducing a resolution with five impeachment charges against Bush..."

-------

"In his Memoirs, President Bush stated that the reason he ended the war
against Iraq so soon was that he feared impeachment. So the three of us were
unable to prevent that war. But we were able to shorten it--and save
countless numbers of innocent human beings."

[Disturbed]

30. America is a Plutocracy. It always was one.

The two party system is rigged. It could be changed but that is as likely as a UFO
landing of the WH lawn.

The Electoral System

Repeal the 12th amendment, reforming the electoral college, standardizing party qualifications in the states, qualified and free access to public airwaves.

1.Uniform Ballot Access
2.Loosen Third Party Ballot Restrictions
3.Universal Voter Registration
4.Election Day Holiday
5.Equal Media Access/Debate Inclusion
6.Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
7.Secure Voting Machines
8.Public Campaign Financing
9.Direct Popular Vote Election of the President
10.Congressional Representation

[slipslidingaway]

35. Good thoughts...guess the people in charge really do not want

change, but they still want us to play along.

[Gabi Hayes]

34. accountability ended in 1974:

Gerald R. Ford made this ALL possible

actually, you can go back ten years, and Ford was at the heart of that one, too

[slipslidingaway]

37. You are right and it is not getting any better. I can vote for

someone who is for accountability and hope my vote counts.

:shrug:

[blm]

44. True - the abuse of the pardon feature would set a bad precedent for future abuses.

.

[blm]

43. This and Iraqgate is why I always include Gonzalez in my list of heroes

for anti-corruption, open government Democrats.

People also need to be aware that just as John Kerry was being opposed by his own party when he dared to uncover IranContra and then pursue BCCI, Henry Gonzalez was getting the same treatment on his impeachment efforts for IranContra and for his dogged pursuit to expose Iraqgate.

Bush expected to get impeached after the BCCI report came out which they were able to force release AFTER the 92 election to Dec 1992.

Smart of BCCI figure Jackson Stephens to switch support to Bill Clinton. Funny how things turned out so well for him and especially BushInc throughout the 90s, eh?

[Beelzebud]

32. What do you mean, Paris Hilton went to jail for a day!

[Solly Mack]

41. It was 'disappeared'