I will NEVER forgive the democratic wussies in the House for

[samrock]

not impeaching George W. Bush.. With him in the white house and the republicans having 40+ seats in the senate NO legislation with it's salt was going to be able to be passed. SO I do NOT want to hear the BS about oh we could not waste time with impeachemnt when there was soo much work to do for this country.. I did not really care if he could not be convicted in the senate.. I wanted to see the committee's meet on T.V. and hear testimony about his lying us into a war.. allowing torture to happen in our name.. Impeachment is not a criminal act it is a political one.. Impeachable offenses are what ever the house agrees they are. I wanted Bush to have wear that label on his legacy for all time.. I mean if Bill Clinton was forced to wear it for lying about oral sex in the white house when NO ONE died.. George W SURE should have to wear it for getting us into an unnecessary war that got over 4200 of the nations best and brightest killed.. not to mention the tens of thousands wounded, billions wasted and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed. The house had all kinds of time, since GWB and the republicans in the senate were not going to allow them to pass much.. I am SOO disappointed in my party's leadership.. Cowards ALL!!

[muntrv]

1. Pakistan impeaches their leader but we don't. Go figure.

[Crabby Appleton]

12. Pakistan didn't impeach its leader. nt

[The Stranger]

20. When Pakistan began to impeach its leader, its leader was forced to resign.

Same good result.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. He pulled a Nixon, for the same damn reasons

go figure

[Growler]

2. Agreed. n/t

[Phredicles]

3. What samrock said;

At this point the thing to hope for is that our Cowboy Caligula and the rest of the Insane Clown Posse find themselves facing prosecution sometime after leaving office, be it in the US, The Hague, or some other country (as Spain was considering prosecuting Pinochet). In my opinion, however, justice delayed is not completely justice denied, and we shouldn't give up pressing our case, and the people of Chile and Argentina persevered in calling for justice against their tyrants.

[AnneD]

4. He that stands for nothing....

falls for anything.

[NNN0LHI]

5. Why do you think Cheney would make a better president?

[samrock]

6. Cheney would NEVER have become president cause

with 45+ republicans in the senate Bush would NEVER get convicted.. BUT he would be remembered as an impeached president and we would have heard all the testimony in the hearings..

[bobd0]

15. Impeachment hearings would bring down Bush AND Cheney

Impeachment hearings would expose the extent of the criminal activities of BOTH Bush and Cheney. It's not only incorrect to say impeaching Bush would lead to a Cheney presidency, it's just another excuse that's as dishonest as the ridiculous excuses Pelosi uses to justify her continued refusal to uphold her Constitutional duty to hold these criminals responsible for their crimes.

There is no excuse for not impeaching Bush. Impeaching Bush would, by default, bring down Cheney and the rest of their administration.

[Not Me]

7. Even more than that, for allowing Alito to be confirmed

over the heroic attempt at filibustering his nomination. He will be a thorn in our side long after this asshat is gone.

[bobd0]

31. Not just Alito, Mukasey too

And others on the Federal Appeals Court that should never have been allowed to judge at any level.

[H2O Man]

8. Not "ALL"

Most, though.

Cheney would not have ever become president, as some use as an excuse: if the House did its job, Cheney would have been impeached first.

[MrCoffee]

19. All but one.

[bertman]

9. Yeah, samrock!!!

Disappointed doesn't even come close to what I feel about our party's leaderlesship.

[mmonk]

10. Me either as long as I breathe air.

[Senator]

11. Keep Talking Impeachment -- It's Closer Than You Think

Really, the Suskind book opens a new level of possibility that the dam will bust.

The same is true for Nancy Nosee's http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/us/politics/15web-hulse.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1219421539-d6W/UG33qImLLKcXA5a+og">Why-Haven’t-You- Impeached-the-President Tour. Ditto for the "news" that she may well have approved the worst, and thus is compromised. The beltway buzzword crowd can really be far less up to speed than the netroots. Reality can ooze in and change minds.

The blog report linked above alse includes this bit: "But Republican strategists also recognize the political danger in getting too deep in defending Mr. Bush right before the election or in justifying the buildup to the Iraq war. They might not be as eager as they once were for an impeachment fight." Setting aside the fact that they were never eager. The reality that impeachment is electoral winner (perhaps the only chance for Obama) is finally getting through the beltway haze.

Plus, spending time away from DC always give them a harsh dose of reality -- even without a book tour.

We need to keep hammering, because their lame web of excuses is just a house of cards that could topple at any time.

Keep Talking Impeachment

--

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. They Did The Right Thing By Not Going After It, Regardless Of Your Outrage.

You yourself said that it's a political act. Damn right it is. But so is NOT going after it.

Had we gone after it, the political act would've been seen for what it was. Nothing would've been accomplished. No one would've been removed from office. Nothing would've changed. But we would've been slaughtered verbally by the media and the GOP, and likely would take a beating this election cycle. The smart move was doing exactly what they did, which is not pursuing something futile that would be easily recognized as nothing more than political posturing and grandstanding; in spite of the merits.

[arcadian]

17. You are wrong.

[AuntPatsy]

21. You say that they would see it for what it was in they had gone after impeachment...I'm

curious, do you believe this is just a personal vendetta against people you don't agree with? and I don't understand how you can see attempting to ensure justice is met in this country as futile? If such were the case why attempt to convict any and all criminals since they might just get off the charges brought into court, such has happened in the past and will assumable happen in the future..


Honestly in my mind this has nothing to do with political grandstanding, what they have done is not only wrong, but "criminal" and "treasonous", would not a regular Joe blow american citizen be made to face charges for criminal behavior?

I just don't get your reasoning in the long run?

[Dr Fate]

25. You dont get it- these are just excuses, not actual arguments.

He knows that there is just as much chance that people would see it as a legitimate investigation into the crimes and lies that got us into a very unpopular war...

The purpose of these kinds of posts is to present excuses for why Democratic leaders "had to" let Bush get off scot-free, not actual arguments for why he should or shouldnt have been held accountable.

If DEMS leaders had gone after Bush, he would be defending that decision too. The idea is to defend & excuse the DEM leadership no matter what they do- not to present actual arguments.

If the Democrats who side with Bush on impeachment attacked the GOP as much as they made excuses for why they dont attack the GOP, just think where we would be!

[Dr Fate]

22. You are right about one thing-not implicating Bush as impeachable was merely a symbolic act.

It is symbolic of the fact that Republicans will always do whatever they want, and Democrats like you you will always allow it and make excuses for why we should let them do it.

* "But we would've been slaughtered verbally by the media and the GOP"

Translation: "We cant attack people who lied us into a war because the people who lied us into the war will say mean things about us-we cant tell the truth about liars because they will just keep on lying."

* "likely would take a beating this election cycle."

A GOP that would have had to constantly discuss whether or not Bush's lies & crimes were impeachable offenses "likely would take a beating this election cycle." Just ask Al Gore in 2000.

* "easily recognized as nothing more than political posturing and grandstanding"


The cowardice of the people who agree that Bush can do whatever he wants is also "easily recognized as nothing more than political posturing and grandstanding" by a lot of voters as well.

In other words, your excuses could work for both sides of the argument- so it boils down to what side of the argument you are on.

One side agrees with Bush that he should get away scot-free and makes excuses for why he did, the other side thinks he should have been held accountable.

[Cleita]

24. Placing our Constitution as the supreme rule of law and justice in our

country is what would have been accomplished. Instead they are going to leave us with a police state in January because they were able to pursue it with impunity up to the last minute.

[Two Americas]

35. self-defeating

Your argument contradicts itself.

You say the reason to not fight is because the opposition would fight back. How is surrendering to them better than risking losing to them?

[samrock]

40. You are wrong!!

By not going after Bush you demoralize your strongest supporters.. You tell them ... Well they go after us for nothing, but we are too scared/intimidated to go after them when they do TONS of something. Makes us say WTH is the use.. So we don't get involved.. vote.. help raise funds.. help register other voters.. We have to stop worrying so much about how the media looks at us.. we have to act on what we feel is right,, and standing by while these guys get away with murder (literally) is wrong and depressing.

[Richard Steele]

45. Pfft. Typical OMC nay-saying. You should learn a new trick sometime- this one is really old.

nm

[Senator]

49. What exactly is wrong with opposing war crimes and war criminals...

...being "seen for what it {is}/was."

Formal objection to neofascism will be (would have been) accomplished. Removal is virtually irrelevant. The issue is how they will satisfy their oaths of office, or fail to do so. Even a failed House vote would force people to "go on record" -- for the public/electorate, the world, and their grandchildren to see and remember.

The euphemedia "slaughter" will (would have) highlight(ed) McCain's flip-flop on torture -- thus giving him the beating. That's where the real "backlash" awaits -- for those defending torture and criminality.

They spent a year and half "pursuing something{s} futile that {were} easily recognized as nothing more than political posturing and grandstanding; in spite of the merits." That's why their approval rating plummeted. Because everyone outside the beltway realizes we live under monarchical, "unitary," Rule By Signing Statement. All they've done is made repeated masturbatory displays of impotence.

They've not made a "smart move" in generations. Which should be proof enough that impeachment is our best -- rather only -- moral, patriotic, electoral, diplomatic, legal... option.

And if we just keep talking impeachment we can still overcome bush defenders like you (yes, there is no middle ground here - impeachophobes are the regime's last firewall against any accountability, sorry).

-----

[Canuckistanian]

14. Like the song says

If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything.

And if I haven't said it before, welcome to DU!
:toast:
:hi:

[LondonReign2]

16. Nancy is complicit

It is pretty clear that Pelosi was informed ahead of time of much of the crap Boy george was going to pull and either did nothing or went along with it. She can't impeach without shining a bright light on her own role.

[aikoaiko]

18. The kind of political theater you advocate could hurt us in the in General Election

There are a lot a people who agreed with Bush's war and don't want to revisit the whole debacle of why they didn't resist the drums of war more.

[Cleita]

23. Yes, but they are supporting McCain, so why would it hurt us?

[aikoaiko]

26. I think there are a sizable group of citizen in the middle that went along with Bush

because of 9/11, but regret the war in Iraq and the resultant floundering economy. They are some, and we need them, to flip to Obama. I try to be careful to not appear to be rubbing they noses in that debacle because they wanted to be in it, but now want out.

eta: For some reason, the idea that Bush lied does NOT resonate with them. They identified with war effect in some way. If they are willing to vote for Obama (at least some of them), then I'm willing to let it go, too.

[Cleita]

27. Yes, but those citizens realized that they were lied to and conned.

They are not the problem.

[aikoaiko]

28. Sorry, I tried to add on before you responded. but I was too slow.

[Greyhound]

29. I am very disappointed too, but the Democrats have always behaved thus.

Look at the history of the parties, the republiks are the party that changes (they were the "loony left" when they started), switching agendas as people's views change, but the Democrats have always been solidly determined to maintain the status quo. Look at the reason the south favored the Democratic Party for all those years.

FDR was the exception, and even he ensured the continued existence of the institutions of the ruling class so that they could rise again and enslave us.

"Ignore what they say, watch what they do"

[bean fidhleir]

30. "Ignore what they say, watch what they do"

And right there is The Key. The ONLY key.

[magellan]

34. It's okay to flout the law if doing so wins support

Brilliant. :thumbsup:

edited out extra word in subject

[aikoaiko]

36. Even prosecutors have to decide whether or not to go forward with a trial when its not winnable.

descretion is not flouting.

But I acknowledge my position is not the highest road here.

[Two Americas]

37. which one is "theater?"

The elections, or the life and death struggle against an extreme right wing tyranny?

If you believe that they are one and the same, then you should have no objections to the call for impeachment. If they are not one and the same, then I would say it is the elections that are meaningless political theater.

[aikoaiko]

38. If its true, as the OP states, that conviction is not possible, then impeachment is theater IMO.

The elections have more reasonable chance of changing the executive office significantly, than impeachment.

[Two Americas]

41. conviction

Conviction is not the only imaginable goal. Exposing, publicizing, and discrediting are worthwhile goals.

Changing occupants of the White House, without the public knowing why that is needed, and at the expense of letting the criminals walk so that they can come back to haunt us again and again and again and do great damage no matter who is in the White House, is no victory at all.

The only thing that wins in your scenario is the fantasy that somehow the extreme right wingers will go down easy, that people who steal elections can be voted out of power, that people who control the wealth and the media can be easily defeated by a mere election.

The right wingers don't care if they lose an elected office here or there. They can be as effective in achieving their goals when they are out of office as they can when they are in.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

33. Ditto ME ON THAT

K&R

[Martin Eden]

39. I could not agree with you ...

... more.

The HIGH CRIMES this vice president and his puppet in the Oval Office have committed make impeachment imperative if we are to continue referring to the United States of America as a nation of Constitutional law.

Letting these criminals remain in positions of high honor and vast power is a dereliction of duty that I can never forget nor forgive.

Every citizen should expect their elected representatives to do what justice demands and what is necessary for the good of the country. Unfortunately, I have come to excpect much less.

[sofa king]

42. Sigh. Again: In Bush's tenure, the Dems have never controlled the Senate by more than...

...ONE EFFING VOTE. And that one vote was usually an Independent, including former Republican Jeffords and future Republican Joe Lieberman, who is campaigning for John McCain.

Tell me, do any of you forgive the Republican Party for impeaching Bill Clinton? For dragging America through the soiled muck of a sordid dog and pony show that had not a chance in Hell of succeeding?

Well, doing that to this asshole would have created the exact same sorts of permanent party stalwarts that Newt Gingrich created for the Democratic Party in the 1990s. And, what's worse, the public perception might have wound up the same, too: if we had anything on the guy, he wouldn't have gotten away with it.

Yes, I'm pissed as all getout that this bastard wasn't in jail by 2003. But we, the people had to make that happen by kicking every last damned Republican Senator bum up for reelection out into the street, to line up the necessary 67 votes in the Senate, and we failed egregiously.

So it's our damned fault, not the so-called Democratic Congress' fault. And every time I see one of you folks point the finger at the Democratic Congressional leadership, I can also see a dozen little Nazis-in-waiting clapping their hands, because you're carrying their goddamned water.

[samrock]

43. There are many different levels of victory....

Did the republicans drive Bill Clinton from office??? No.. but they sure stopped most legislation they did not like from getting to his desk. They crippled his legacy and prevented Al Gore from feeling comfortable using a great campaigner in 2000 . which it turn lead to having GWB as president. IF there was hours of televised hearings in the house exposing all the CRAP they got away with many republicans in the senate may have felt pressure to vote against GWB.. but we will never know.. will we???

[sofa king]

46. Fair enough.

In fact, at an emotional level I'm right with you. But I don't chalk the Republican mess we're in up to a cowardly Congress, because for years I watched them pull every maneuver they knew (and a few maybe only Senator Byrd knew) to hold these bastards at bay.

We're still here, in spite of the GOP's best efforts to destroy us completely, in spite of murder, and attempted murder, conspiracy, election theft, collusion with some foreign governments and the illegal destruction of others, something dangerously close to treason, and wanton lawbreaking that might well have been beyond the comprehension of the Congress of 2001-2003 (impeachment was off the table entirely when the GOP controlled the Senate from 2003-2007, which is another thing the finger-pointers refuse to acknowledge). We're still here because of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. The fact that we're not on chain gangs is another "never know" angle worth throwing into the mix.

[samrock]

47. I am TIRED of playing defense!!

All we do is rope-a-dope .. allowing opponents to tire out beating us up.. When we will take the game to them??? As soon as Nancy got the speakership .. the 1st thing she did was take impeachment off the table!!! Unilateral disarmament does not work..

[magellan]

51. "Unilateral disarmament does not work" -- Woot!

That is a beautiful quote!!

:yourock:

[DailyGrind51]

44. Cheney owned Pelosi's ass!

[opihimoimoi]

48. Hey, some Dems are complicit but what about all them Pubs in there?

They had power for 6 years and gave Bush a blank check for everything....share the Blame with the SPINELESS PUBs who Supported the Chimp.

[Senator]

50. They're not our responsibility. Nor are they "as bad" as our "leadership."

Yes, I said our Stockholm Syndromed DC-Dems are worse. While the election thieves and their flying monkeys are certainly criminals, they claim to believe in their violence-only, torturers-r-us "solution" to what amounts to their own depraved paranoia.

But we're supposed to be the good guys. We claim to stand against such things. And yet we're forced to ask http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/15">Why Does "Our Side" Get to Benefit From Ongoing Torture?

Only the guilty seek to "share the blame."

Impeachment remains our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

---

[opihimoimoi]

52. Just because the good guys didn't do the impeach mission doesn't mean

they worse than the Bad Guys(GOP)

Thats BS

[Senator]

53. Sure it does

Simply put, it's much better to have a few criminals at large than to have corrupt police force.

---

[DailyGrind51]

54. You expect "them" not to embarrass a president from their party,

especially when he doesn't veto your legislation. But "our" guys/gals are supposed to be obstructionist to "their" bills. Our people should have been challenging their on every piece of proposed legislation, not caving in.