Bush is not impeached and convicted because.....

[Postman]

some of the guilty are Democrats.

"We can't impeach because there isn't enough time" --- Total Bullshit.

Might as well say there isn't enough time to nab, try and lock up bank robbers, murderers and thieves...

The Democrats are just as guilty of this war and occupation as Bush is. Period.

[LakeSamish706]

1. "some of the guilty are Democrats" This would be my best guess! n/t

[Kierkegaard]

2. Complicity is all I can come up with.

'Not enough time' makes as much sense as 'the dog ate my homework.' Not only a lie, but a stupid, unimaginative one at that.

[ColbertWatcher]

3. There aren't enough votes in the Senate?

That's my guess.

Why threaten the biggest bully in the school yard if you know Joe Lieberman will run away?

[frog92969]

5. Because it's the law?

And their sworn duty?

[ColbertWatcher]

10. And the law says how many votes are needed in the Senate? n/t

[electropop]

34. Their oath of office requires one thing, and one thing only: "support and defend the Constitution."

It does NOT say anything about only doing that when it's politically convenient. It does not say anything about counting votes, or checking with DLC advisers.

[Occam Bandage]

44. Nor does it require them to launch impeachment proceedings any time someone on the Internet

suggests that it would be a good idea.

[electropop]

51. Yes, Bush's crimes are all in the imaginations of people on the internets.

:eyes:

This is pretty well documented stuff:

The unwarranted wiretapping (he's confessed to that).
Tricking Congress into authorizing a war based on lies.
Running a network of torture chambers.
Outing Valerie Plame.
Secretly buying off "jounalists" to promote his propaganda (the "journalists" have confessed to that).
Derelicting his duty to protect us from terrorist attacks (his terrorism adviser has described how Bush ignored him).
800 signing statements cancelling out laws he was "signing."

All of the above are either crimes against humanity, war crimes, or crimes against the Constitution. Each one of these by itself is sufficient grounds for impeachment. Taken together, they indict not only Bush, but everybody who allows him to stay in power. He's a homicidal maniac and his collaborators are as much a part of his crimes as he is.

[Occam Bandage]

54. Nobody's saying it's "in the imaginations" of anyone. However, it's pretty obvious that

all of that is currently unproven, despite the strong public evidence for most of that (though #s 2, 5, and 6 are probably not illegal, and #4 has insufficient evidence to prosecute) There hasn't been a trial, and so, legally, he's still currently innocent. There are accusations, and if Congress believes the accusations, they may launch an impeachment and trial to determine whether he is guilty or not. It's kind of nutty to claim that the Constitution demands an impeachment every time anyone accuses a government official of wrongdoing.

[electropop]

57. Yes, let's just pretend and it will all go away. We can just put a bandage over

the gaping wounds Bush has left on our country and our world.

At what point is a crime serious enough to prosecute, or at least to freaking INVESTIGATE?

I'll bet you thought Clinton's impeachment was perfectly appropriate. I for one don't consider a BJ to be quite as serious as mass murder.

[Occam Bandage]

59. When is it serious enough? When Congress determines that it is.

That's the way the rules are written.

I thought the impeachment of Clinton was an enormous and embarrassing waste of time, as did most Americans. At a time when gas prices and food prices are setting records, the dollar is increasingly worthless, inflation is rising, the economy is stalling, and unemployment is spiking, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Congress spending the rest of the year on a futile impeachment and acquittal isn't exactly going to strike the American people as being a valuable use of time.

[electropop]

60. When does Congress do anything? When we FORCE them and not one second sooner.

Congress used to recognize their duty. Now they are totally under one-party rule. They will not do anything that Bush doesn't give them permission to do.

[Occam Bandage]

62. Complaining on the internet doesn't force anyone to do anything.

The latter part of your statement is laughable. This Congress has voted against the wishes of the President more times than any Congress in the past fifty years. You must be new to politics.

[electropop]

66. I've been closely following politics for 44 years.

I have never seen such a lame Congress. They vote against him on the small stuff, but when it comes to, say, violating the Constitution with PATRIOT or telco pardons, or funding Bush's bloodbath in Iraq, or confirming fascist goons to the Supreme Court, or "reforming" bankruptcy laws to kick the little guy in the nuts and protect the wealthy, they fall right in line.

And I don't just complain on the internet. I write and call my "representative" and Senators on a regular basis. I campaign for my candidates. I contribute money to campaigns of those I believe in. I vote in even the smaller elections. I write letters to the editor. I participate in mass protests and small protests.

What I do not do is sit back and say "Well, our leaders haven't stepped forward to solve the biggest crisis in US history, so we should just give up."

[Occam Bandage]

70. You obviously haven't been following that closely. Most of those "big things" have been

either vetoed, filibustered, or faced clear threats of both. You can't very well point to a 51-49 Congress that has set an all-time record for filibusters and say, "why can't they get anything done? It's clearly the fault of the guys getting filibustered."

[electropop]

72. I don't expect them to overcome Puke votes (e.g. overrides), but I DO expect Dems and Dem leaders

to uphold Dem values, and to vote in favor of the American people, against the fascist dictatorship. That is their job. It's one thing to try and fail. It's wholly another not to try, or to completely violate the trust of (vote against, or suppress vital votes) the people who placed them in office.

[bagrman]

77. You all act as if this is a 2 party system.

[electropop]

61. All of the other problems you list are a direct result of FAILURE TO IMPEACH.

None of them can be addressed while Bush is standing in the way. Impeachment is the top priority, not only to make problem-solving possible, but to provide a warning to the next wannabe dictator.

[Occam Bandage]

63. Not really, no. They're a result of fifty years of short-sighted policies. Impeachment wouldn't

solve a single one. Really, suppose you get your wish. There's an impeachment. Hell, suppose fifteen Republicans cross party lines in the Senate to vote to convict (which would be rather shocking, given that they're so unified they've managed to set an all-time record for filibusters). It's now December. Bush is acquitted, 65-45. EVERYTHING IS SO MUCH BETTER NOW.

[electropop]

64. Even if he's only prosecuted after leaving office, we need a deterrent against another dictator.

If Bush gets away with it, the GOP will feel perfectly safe to steal another election, and this time, it will be the last one. We owe it to our children to prevent that.

If Bush gets away with it, our "leaders" will feel no special pressure to repair the damage. They will know they are perfectly safe from retribution - they can keep stealing and killing forever.

[Occam Bandage]

65. No President has been prosecuted after leaving office. That is not about to change. Better start

getting used to it.

[electropop]

68. Yes, we should all be defeatist. That will solve our problems.

[Occam Bandage]

71. "Here is a brick wall. It would be defeatist to say I can't bash through it with my skull."

:banghead:

[electropop]

73. Perhaps you use your skull as your only weapon.

I use what's inside mine. And what's in my heart.

[Occam Bandage]

74. Nah. I use my brain. It's what lets me count to 67. Unlike some.

[electropop]

75. If we keep encouraging Dems to be weak, we will never reach 67.

Time after time, surveys show that voters respect strong principled stands. That is more important to many voters than whether they agree on every issue. In other words, in many cases, voters will pick somebody who seems (and is) strong, even if they theoretically agree on more issues with a wimpy candidate. What ever happened to our values, our principles, our moral courage? We will never ever win as long as we refuse to fight.

Which is why, I suspect, you are so adamant that the left should just give up.

[jtrockville]

18. How can this be a valid argument before the hearings take place?

Plus, it didn't take a vote to get Nixon out. He resigned before the verdict could be rendered.

But then again, Nixon wasn't willing to take the whole country down with him. Not sure Dim Son would feel the same.

[ColbertWatcher]

23. Because we're dealing with a very loyal and obedient opposition in the GOP.

While everything you say about Nixon is true, the political situation is slightly different now. With the loyalty of members of the GOP more rabid now than they were in the 70's, no matter the outcome of a House hearing, without enough reasonable republicans in the Senate (read: willing to buck their Party leaders) a conviction would be impossible.

The obedient GOP soldiers/sleeper cells disguised as elected members of Congress are loyal to party first, not the country or the law.

If billions of dollars wasted, over 4,000 dead, and thousands of American soldiers wounded (not to mention the millions of injured and killed Iraqis) is not enough to convince the GOP voters to demand redeployment out of the Middle East, who will provide the GOP Congress critters with the political cover to alter their position?

I doubt the threat of an election will sway a loyal GOPher. Even if they lose their election, they will still want a job from the revolving door, and only the most obedient get those.

They aren't going to listen to us. The GOP have been trained to ignore opinions from outside their Party apparatus. I don't care what their reasoning is; they believe it and they stick to it.

Their sheeple aren't going to do it. The sheeple believe what they're told by FOX and we all know where FOX gets their propaganda.

As far as the GOP is concerned, they are doing the right thing, and they can point to the few die-hard 23% of the voters who demand they continue with the current policy.

They don't care about the law. They don't care about the billions wasted.

And they certainly don't care that anyone else is injured or has died to prove their political point.

In order for an impeachment to happen, the GOP voters have to be convinced first.

I believe every damn last one of them have earned their prison cell, but doubt it will happen before the election.

[tavalon]

25. I really hope I see all of them being tried and sent away to the Hague

I don't think America has the strength or integrity to do the right thing, but I hope the world does.

[crickets]

31. I don't agree re: impeachment votes in the Senate, eventual GOP stance.

Corporate media would have no choice but to air the inevitable public hearings. Finally, all American citizens would be shown the extent of the lies and the crimes. Couple it with worldwide reaction that would be (again, finally) impossible to ignore - there is no amount of spin to hide that from the majority of the American people. If the truth got out, people would demand conviction from the Senate, followed by criminal trials as well as trials for war crimes. "The Senate will never convict" is a specious argument.

They (Republicans) don't care about the law.

Oh, some of them do. As much as it's tempting to paint with a broad brush, that's unfair. Some do care, very much so. I doubt that many of them are serving in Congress, but they do exist and are likely not as rare as one might think.

they certainly don't care that anyone else is injured or has died to prove their political point.

Some do, really they do. To suggest otherwise is to dehumanize them just as Bush has dehumanized "the axis of evil." Let's not go there. Don't confuse the party line with every single person who has voted for the party. No matter how much you or I may disagree with that vote, neither you nor I should try to make that sweeping generalization about every single Republican we disagree with. Remember that Democrats are not the only ones who have died or lost family in this illegal war. Democrats are not the only ones who have suffered personal loss and regrets. Democrats would not be the only ones angered by the truth about the reasons behind those needless deaths.

They don't care about the billions wasted.

Come again? Some of those billions are dollars they see as rightly theirs.

Do not wake the sleeping Republican, for once angered, it too will turn on its leaders with a vengeance. The mind blind who will never see reality are a very, very small slice of the electorate. Their usefulness up to now has been the propensity for bleating loudly when told. The 23% poll number is a propaganda lie. It's an arbitrary (and seemingly fixed) lowest limit picked to keep Busholini's legacy from sucking too hard next to Nixon's, and I don't believe it for a moment.

The backwash is greatly outnumbered by 'real Republicans' who've been wondering for some years now what the hell happened to their party. Some are honest, everyday people who just don't get it, but know something's wrong and they don't like it - but they aren't loud about it. Yet. Others haven't bothered to complain since the money has been so good. The bullshit tax rebates had nothing to do with them. When they see their own money has been stolen along with everyone else's, when they can plainly see the economy is in the tank and about to take everyone down, watch out. They won't stand for it, and if it means some impeachment hearings and a party shakeup to get things back on track, they'll play.

If it saves the Republican money players major bucks, or even better, avoids a heavier market crash than the one that pretty much everyone sees inevitably looming on the horizon, oh yes they will play along. Yes, they will. Emphatically.

The two real reasons Congress is foot-dragging has nothing to do with constituency and everything to do with themselves and their political position:

a. COMPLICITY and/or the LOBBY MONEY is too good. This trumps all. There would be a political bloodbath. Again, given the obscene amount of money that has just plain disappeared, even Daddy Warbucks is getting to the "screw these thugs and their petty payoffs, look at the market, I don't like what you've done forto me lately" pissed off.

b. SUCCESSION. A footnote at best, given the dirty circumstances, but it's a footnote that has been paid too little attention.

1. Vice President (Dick Cheney) - oh, it's a twofer, he'd be long gone.
2. Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi) - complicit, also gone, at least from succession if not to a vacation in the pokey.

That leaves:
3. President pro tempore of the Senate (Robert Byrd)

Bless. I adore him, and while I wouldn't wish it upon him, I think he could fill the temporary role admirably. At his age and health - if it didn't kill him, someone might try to make it look like it had. The thing is, even given his age it would look so freaking petty if something happened to him. Normally :eyes: it might wash as an accidental national tragedy, but under these circumstances, I don't think so. After the inevitable political purge that impeachment would bring, anything less than a tall line of protective rifles and a huge bottle of vitamins would not go down well at all.

4. Secretary of State (Condoleeza Rice)

God save us and hope she was brought down with the rest.

5. Secretary of the Treasury (Henry M. Paulson Jr.)

Who? A quick Google is not reassuring.

followed by:

6. Secretary of Defense (Robert Gates)
7. Attorney General (Michael Mukasey)

Geez, going down the list it's like a Battlestar Galactica scenario to get to the person far enough down who isn't deadtainted. Still, while succession is NOT a good reason to avoid impeachment, I've wondered lately if that issue hasn't played a part...in addition to the DIRTY HANDS and the MONEY. I'll say it again: I wouldn't wish it upon him, but I like Byrd, I'd like to think that he'd stand up under the pressure and his security would keep him safe, and I think he would do our nation proud.

Regardless - if impeachment actually went forward, the laundry would be aired, those responsible could actually be held to account, and that would be best for our country. The "let's just move on" bullshit attitude adopted by the powers that be has been killing this country by degrees since Ford's pardon, and it has got to go.

One more time: Once things get underway, the story would be too big to spin. The economic crash (it is coming, yes they know it) is enough to convince even the moneybags assholes to go along.

[electropop]

58. Lack of votes is no excuse for collaboration. If our side does not even try,

then they are no longer on our side. They are part of the Fascist regime.

[cobalt1999]

36. Politicians count the votes BEFORE doing anything

Most of the time, they know the outcome ahead of time.

If the votes aren't there, no action will be taken.

Nixon knew the votes were against him before the verdict and acted quickly.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. Depends on your definition of "isn't". Doesn't it. n/t

[HCE SuiGeneris]

6. 7 years of illegal wiretapping have handcuffed the Democratic politicians.

[autorank]

17. The way you talk;)

:toast:

[SergeyDovlatov]

7. because it is perceived not to be politically expedient?

[99th_Monkey]

8. Last gasp of the DLC Rethug-lite cabal, hopefully.. ~nt~

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[AndyTiedye]

11. Blackmail

[hendo]

12. Almost everyone in DC holds at least sme guilt. n/t

[Octafish]

13. ...beside treason, he hasn't really done that much.

Literally. And figuratively. And rhetorically. And in any other way, than evil.

[tavalon]

26. Well, I think he skipped right over the misdemeanors and went all out for the high crimes.

[Occam Bandage]

43. He hasn't committed treason. After 200 years of case law, there is a very specific definition

of treason. A person must have deliberately acted with premeditated intent to help a specific foreign power make war against America. If you can prove that, then you have a case for executing him after he leaves office. If not, then you don't.

[hootinholler]

50. While Treason may not be provable in this case...

Since the Plame affair was likely motivated by money rather than a desire to help Pakistan proliferate nuke technology, I'll be happy to settle for charges of Sedition, which are clearly supported when the 35 currently introduced articles of impeachment are considered as a pattern.

-Hoot

[crickets]

53. Really? Motivation for the Plame affair

also involved knocking out Brewster Jennings, the cover for nuclear intelligence gathering in the Middle East. THAT is the provable assault on national security. That is the provable treason.

Conveniently, much like the withdrawal (so-called 'expulsion') of weapons inspectors plunged our view of Iraq into an artificially constructed information vacuum, thanks to the loss of Brewster Jennings, the nuclear capabilities of Iran and other ME countries are now a tabula rasa affair open to any spin the administration wishes. With no official intelligence apparatus in place, there is no one left with authority to gainsay any lies. Nor is there anyone credible left to warn us of any true dangers from any country in the region, be it Iran or Pakistan...

Oh, I don't doubt the money angle for a red hot second, but treason by way of compromising national security is provable. Very much so.

[Occam Bandage]

56. Not so much, no. Sure, it caused demonstrable harm to America's general ability to

defend itself. However, that is not sufficient to prove treason. There were a number of legal cases in World War II regarding treason, and the court determined very early on that harming America's wartime efforts, even with full knowledge of doing so, is not in and of itself treasonous. Were it so, then a union leader who calls for a strike during war would be treasonous, as would be journalist who ran an expose on military incompetence.

"Compromising national security" is not treasonous, unless it is done so with the specific and deliberate intent of assisting a specific foreign power to defeat America. If you think you can prove that Cheney leaked Plame with the aim of protecting Iranian interests, then yeah, that's treasonous. Otherwise, not so much. Treason is a crime of intent.

[Occam Bandage]

55. The Plame case was undoubtedly illegal, and most likely impeachable, I'll agree. I think

that warrantless wiretapping would have been our best bet for impeachment.

[Zhade]

14. Complicity or cowardice.

NT!

[Echo In Light]

15. The former

[tavalon]

27. And, not or

[autorank]

16. The "Postman" Delivers k*r n/t

[kster]

19. Screw the impeachment, the Demliones and the Republagino

Crime families are in full control of the vote counting machines, and what do we argue about, impeachment? Thats what they want us debating about, it takes the attention away from the fact that the same two crime families that won't impeach, also REMAIN SILENT about the fact that they are counting of our votes IN SECRET.

I just wanted to throw my two cents in, CARRY ON.

K&R

[Norrin Radd]

20. kr

[Swamp Rat]

21. No excuses.

[wildbilln864]

22. You said it and spot on!

Would you expect Bonnie to arrest Clyde? :sarcasm:

[tavalon]

24. That is rapidly becoming the conventional wisdom around here

[Senator]

28. Keep Talking Impeachment

I don't think they think of themselves as "guilty." Or even comprehend that their failure to impeach is the regime's firewall against accountability.

I think they simply believe their "Total Bullshit." Because it's the kind of BS that dismisses the thought from one's mind. It relieves the BSer from having to really consider it. But on a deeper level they know and feel how corrupt and damaging their failure to impeach really is. You can see them get flustered whenever anyone bring up the notion.

The anitdote to that is more, louder, and continuous demanding action and attacking for failure to act.

Because they are also "talking themselves into it." Many of their http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/14">earlier BS rationaliztions are dropping like dominoes -- as they see they are literally impotent to do anything BUT impeach. It's so pathetic that they can't even get anyone to show up when subpoenaed.

They may run out of fingers to stick in the dike holes at any time.

And impeachment can be done, start to finish, in days not weeks.

---

[MiniMe]

29. then Cheney would be President

Those Bushies know how to pick their veeps. I remember in the late 80's that many people said that Quayle was the best insurance policy that poppy had. Of course, we didn't call him Poppy back then, and W was still a drunken frat boy.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

32. They could go after Cheney along with Bush. Nancy would be Pres. nt

[MiniMe]

35. They need to get Cheney first IMHO

[Occam Bandage]

41. Or, Cheney steps down, Bush appoints, say, Romney, Bush steps down, Romney is President.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

46. He can't just appoint Romney. Romney has to go through the confirmation process.

It entails confirmation in both the Senate and the House.

[Occam Bandage]

47. Correct. Do you think Congress wouldn't confirm him?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

67. Considering the amount of time, they could definitely hold the process up. Also, the

time this was done before was with Gerald Ford. He was selected I believe because he had many friends on both sides of the aisle. Romney doesn't have that history.

[onenote]

30. Because the public isn't demanding it.

Look at the FISA vote and tell me that you honestly think that there are enough votes to even start an impeachment inquiry.

[Echo In Light]

33. TV culture determines "reality;" if TV was harping on impeachment 24/7, people would be for it

[onenote]

38. look at the membership of the House Judiciary Committee

The referral of the Kucinich resolution to the House Judiciary isn't enough to start a full blown impeachment inquiry, at least not according to historical precedent. Historically, impeachment inquiries have been triggered by a vote, by the full House, to specifically direct and authrorize the Judiciary Committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry and report back to the House.

But even if Conyers could start impeachment hearings based on the referral of the Kucinich resolution, take a look at the membership of his committee. All it would take is four Democrats on the Committee to signal their objections and Conyers would find himself in the minority. And there are six Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee who voted for FISA. The math is obvious.

Finally, TV isn't going to be harping on impeachment 24/7 -- what it would be harping on is the political implications of the Democrats initiating an impeachment process against chimpy in the final six months of his presidency and doing that instead of addressing the collapsing economy. THe public will not be fed a message that impeachment is a good idea -- quite the opposite.

[Echo In Light]

42. Re your last paragraph: that was my point, because the media is managed by vested interests

My point wasn't to address how various reps stand on the issue--natch they'll protect their own, and the hollowed institutions they're beholden to {although that would be impacted by strong public outcry}... but how "the people aren't demanding it." Controlled media = No broad public demand for impeachment.

If the media weren't managed, there'd be no Bush/Cheney admin at all, let alone having to worry about impeachment.

[madokie]

37. yep and once they figure out they've been conned too

like we all were it will be too late. I think we need new blood in both houses of congress

[robcon]

39. Bush is not impeached because it is an incredibly stupid idea.

It's political poison. It will help Mccain get elected.

If you feel nonchalant about who makes the next Supreme Court appointments, then it makes sense to impeach Bush. Otherwise, no.

[Occam Bandage]

40. Because the House can count to 67. Nothing else.

[indepat]

45. Period eos

:D

[The Stranger]

48. The Traitor Pelosi.

[flvegan]

49. ...the Constitution matter all too little to our congress.

[leftofthedial]

52. most of the "democrats" are on bush boy's side, not America's.

[hisownpetard]

69. I can think of no reason for Pelosi to lay down and play dead, right from the first, by issuing the

infamous "Impeachment is off the table" disclaimer, other than her own complicity.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

76. Politics as usual trumps justice.

[Individualist]

78. ...DLC doesn't want him to be impeached.

"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," Dennis Kucinich

[Octafish]

79. Because Bush kills his enemies.

What's the life of a politician worth to a man who doesn't even think about what it means to kill a million innocent people?

"Money trumps peace, sometimes," Smirko said.

Wonder where he'd get such an idea?