OK, educate me on this need to try to impeach Bush

[quaoar]

Because I don't see the cause and effect.

I don't see how a clearly quixotic endeavor will eventually lead to the end of the war or the end of Bush or a Democratic majority in Congress.

Here's what I see:

Even if impeachment and conviction is successful, you have President Cheney or, if you impach them both, you have President Hastert. How does that improve things?

I also think DUers underestimate how an impeachment would play with the public at large. Some of you seem to think the public will suddenly see the light.

So take me through the steps of how you see this impeachment process play out. How is this more than just catharsis?

[sam sarrha]

1. It is the only to lay bare who is actually responsible for this mess..

Bu$h is just a wet brain alcoholic drug addict brain damaged pathetic little rich brat. he is a patsy.. who will soon be given the grape KoolAid..by Rumy, Rove and Pearl. at this point he is only valuable as a Martyar.. If the truth be known to any degree.. the jig is up for the New World Order eletists.. the Utopian Fascists. the NEOCON's the Meglamaniacs, ..all severly mentally ill, obcessive compulsive psychotic sociopaths.

[Fovea]

2. Anything that gets **, gets Cheney.

Because Cheney's hand moves **'s mouth.

Even if we fail to impeach, we energize our base.
Look at the Clinton impeachment. It didnt change the mind of a lot of DEms, but it sure got the knuckle draggers to salivate.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[zann725]

11. Welcome Newbie from the "Right!"

n/t

[TahitiNut]

3. I'm far, far more interested in an International War Crimes Tribunal.

The pResident has no pardon power over war crimes. Indeed, such an act would merely add to the list of his indictments.

[Richard D]

5. I totally agree

[lenidog]

10. That is nothing but sheer and utter fantasy

No one is going to do it. There will be NGOs such as Amnesty that will call for it and private people will do the same but at the end of the day no country will be willing to face the fallout that would come from actually arresting an American President or ex-President.

[Karenina]

40. Strange things happen these days.

The most powerful military in the world under the "direction" of an obviously mentally defective *dauphin, and on behalf of *corporate interests has conducted an ILLEGAL INVASION. It is threatening the safety, security and sanity of the entire globe. Gotta start somewhere.

DOWNING STREET MINUTES - OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MINUTES OF AN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MEETING

[TahitiNut]

45. Giving up without trying would be even worse. (Defeatism.)

:shrug:

[Lone_Wolf]

15. Bingo... most of the world would be for it also...

n/t

[AuntiBush]

23. The Constituion states a Vice-President can not preside

in an Impeachment vote if it's a President, for obvious reasons.

If Bush goes, so would Cheney... their crimes go hand-in-hand, if you ask me.

[Zhade]

51. I can get behind that!

I'll be happy to bring the handcuffs.

[burrowowl]

58. Can't be tried

until after they are impeached or leave office.
I would love to see than all in the box at the ICC. The US is not a signatory, so they would have to be captured outside the U$.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. And then if you impeach President Hastert you get President Rice,

and I think after that President Gonzalez, and after that you go through the Cabinet in the order the departments were created. We'd have to get all the way to Transportation to get to a Democrat (Mineta). I'd see impeachment as more of a symbolic gesture, maybe not a very useful one, because President Cheney is not what I'd call a significant improvement.

[zann725]

13. Rice, Gonzalez and all of Shrub nominees perjured themselves during

the nomination process. That IS impeachable in itself. So if the top few go down, so do Rice and Gonzalez, etc. Remember, they didn't just lie little. They lied big, a lot ON CAMERA.

[quaoar]

33. After the speaker of the House

it is the president pro tempore of the Senate. That would be Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska.

[mtnsnake]

6. Wow, talk about a glass that's half empty!

What would you suggest? That we sit idly by and do nothing but twiddle our thumbs like a bunch of scared little mice because we're all petrified we might not succeed?

I'm willing to take my chances that doing SOMETHING is better than nothing. I'd hate to go through life and look back and only be stuck saying, "shit, maybe we should've at least tried to impeach the chimp, just to bring some attention to it all."

[quaoar]

34. No, not at all

Suggesting that impeachment has its perils does not imply a desire to "twiddle our thumbs."

I just think that if you are going to embark on a particular course of action, you ought to at least think it through to its desired end. It should be more than just lashing out.

Do you think impeachment is the only way to bring attention to it?

[Erika]

8. If Bush is impeachable

why would you consider the fate on the democrat party for his possible replacement? He's either impeachable or not. Other things should be considered? Why? Are we a country of the rule of law or the rule of political convenience?

You need to remember this is not just a call of sexual impropriety, it is about a preemptive war that has caused American deaths.

[zann725]

17. If the process begins, and most of his Cabinet are also guilty of perjury

or RICOH or worse, I have a feeling the true "Facts" about the 2004 Election will suddenly emerge. Good Prosecutors patiently wait out the criminals they eventually entrap. Before Shrub's Cabinet passed the "Nom" process, we didn't have their perjured statements.

Remember 4 or 5 major psychics predicted Shrub is out of power by 2006...some say as early as late 2005.

"Some say I'm a dreamer..."

[lenidog]

9. A little more kindling to you fire

One correction though we would end up with President Condoleeza Rice. Unless we impeached her to. Bush and Cheney would never serve a single moment in jail. Anyone who became president would pardon them even if they were actually impeached. More than likely if it looked if the vote was going to go against them they probably resign. The idea that they would be brought to the Hague for war crimes is also ludicrous. There is not a single country on this planet no matter how much they hate Bush and Cheney that is willing to face the firestorm that such a move would create. What we have to do is to prepare for 2006 and get back the House and Senate and get ready for 2008 and get back the White House. We have to put this fantasy behind us and get back into the trench and fight.

[Erika]

14. Impeachment would show them as corporate criminals

who killed American troops in their globalist efforts. True, they may not be held as criminals, but these guys are as anti American as you can get.

Bush being impeached is far from a fantasy. If Clinton could be impeached for sexual impropriety, Bush should be held for the deaths or our troops, and innocent Iraqis, in a country that was never a threat to us.

[lenidog]

16. I hate to say this when it comes to being weasels

in the world of politics right now the Republicans are the masters. They also hold majorities in the House and Senate. I don't see us being able to maneuver him into an impeachment.

[RoyGBiv]

18. Correction to correction ...

The Presidential line of succession is as follows:

* The Vice President Richard Cheney
* Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
* President pro tempore of the Senate Ted Stevens
* Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
* Secretary of the Treasury John Snow
* Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
* Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
* Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton
* Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
* Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez
* Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao
* Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
* Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
* Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshio Mineta
* Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
* Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
* Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson
* Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff

[lenidog]

25. You are right I had a brain seizure

[zann725]

19. Do you really think Prez. Kerry would "pardon" Shrub and Darth?

5-7 Million stolen votes is a lot of pardoning.

[lenidog]

26. Unless someone breaks down and provides hard and tangible

evidence, that wont even be considered if we ever got to impeach Bush. Kerry will not become President unless he runs in 2008. That ship has sailed.

[zann725]

59. I'm not sure it's "sailed." More like "floating" close to shore.

A change is going to happen far before'08. Too much is unraveling.

[quaoar]

35. How can you end up with President Rice?

After Cheney, the succession goes to the speaker of the House and then to the president pro tem of the Senate -- Dennis Hastert and Ted Stevenes. Then it goes through the cabinet starting with the secretary of state.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

48. And that's how you get President Rice (shudder).

You're right, though: I forgot about Ted Stevens (shudder). Even so, the point is that every last damn one of them would be really horrendous presidents. The only justification I can think of for impeaching Bush and Dick is to make the point that there are some things this country just can't tolderate -- and I sure don't oppose that angle.

[SRSU]

54. If you read the constitution in your life

You would know the constitution specifically says impeachment can not be pardoned.

[zulchzulu]

12. One word: Justice OK, another word: The Truth Alright, another word...

TREASON!

[firefox]

21. Just because Congress does not do its job...

is no reason to be silent. We are not just calling for impeachment. We are asking voters to replace a Congress that does not do its job. People usually get fired when they don't do their job.

[quaoar]

36. I agree

Congress should be fired. Democrats should take over. At that point impeachment becomes a realistic possibility.

[necso]

20. Anger phase? Bargaining phase?

Desperately grasping for straws phase? Wishing for a miracle phase? Ready for one last desperate toss phase?

...

By the time that we will have the players (there is more to it than just the simple numbers) to do anything about it, * will be out of orifice... no matter what happens in 05, 06 and 07.

And no, the alternative is not doing nothing -- the alternative is trying to do what will actually make a difference.

And yes, I know that some of you are never going to make it to acceptance phase.

But * really is CinC.

And now (like we needed more proof), ain't life a bitch.

[AuntiBush]

22. It sure didn't hurt the Rethugs utilizing the "I" on Clinton & a BJ!

Both would go... Pelosi would then be in-charge technically.

From "The Constitution of the United States," by Floyd G. Cullop (found on Amazon.com)

pg. 19: The House of Representatives has the sole power (power given to none other) of impeachment (act of accusing a public official of wrongdoing, which may still result in his removal from office). A majority vote of the House of Representatives is necessary to impeach an official.

pg. 20: The Vice-President of the US is the President of the Senate (presiding officer) but he has no vote except in the case of a tie (equally divided) vote on the floor of the Senate.

Whereas the House has the sole power of impeachment, the Senate has the sole power of trying impeachment cases. Two thirds of the Senate must be present before the trail may begin, and to convict a public official (declare him guilty of charges made), a two-thirds vote of the Senators present is necessary

If the President of the US is being tried, the Chief Justice (highest judge of the Supreme Court) presides at the trial. It would be unfair for the Vice-President, who is next in line for the office of President, to preside...

Note: President Andrew Johnson was impeached, found not guilty 1868.
Nixon faced impeachment, resigned in 1974
Clinton was acquitted in 1999. Over lying about a BJ - oh my!

The only punishment an impeached official may receive from the Senate is the loss of office and loss of th the right to ever hold any other office of honor, trust or profit in the US govt. But, if the impeached official has broken any laws, he may be turned over to the regular courts for trial and punishment, the same as any other criminal, once he has been impeached and removed from office.

pg. 20: Before entering office... President must take the following oath (sacred promise): "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute (carry out) the office of president of the US, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the US...

He certainly wasn't faithful to the American people, and he's done everything he possibly can to destroy the Constitution, not protect it, much less the fact that "he lied and many, many innocent people have died."

[quaoar]

37. How do you figure Pelosi would be in charge of anything?

Only if Democrats take the House in 2006 and she becomes speaker -- and thus third in line for the presidency.

[orleans]

24. they lied! they lied-they lied-they-lied!

and it's time for them to go!!!

(psst. did you sign the letter?
pass it on. tell your friends.
here's the link)

[flaminbats]

27. President Hastert?

do you really think this Speaker would impeach either Cheney or Bush? When did Republicans believe in law and order?

If these shits are impeached..it shall never happen in a Republican Congress.

[Jade Fox]

28. Accountability. It would be nice if that word meant something again.

I would rather have President Cheney than Bush. Cheney lacks the
"charming doofus" charisma that idiots in this country see in Bush.
With Cheney what we see would be what we get.

And I want the Neocons to pay for what they've done, and hopefully
be very discouraged about trying similar stuff in the future.

[Radical Activist]

29. The full truth comes out.

The proof of just what giant crook and liar this man is will be undeniable. It will sweep Democrats into office in the next election, just like '76.

[quaoar]

38. Yes, but

Democrats controlled the House in 1972, making impeachment a whole lot easier.

[oxbow]

30. An investigation is the right thing to do

everything else is fallout

[longship]

31. A possible scenerio and a civic duty

The impeachment and removal from office of a President doesn't happen overnight. In the Watergate mess of the early 1970's it was months for the investigations, hearings, and more hearings before the impeachment process even began. All told it was over two years before Nixon resigned. At that time, the articles of impeachment had not yet been voted for on the house floor--Nixon was never impeached. It still would have taken weeks to do that, followed by the trial in the Senate--both of which Nixon would have lost.

What we're talking about here is starting a process which may take many months. Certainly there will be time to elect a new Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate. If that happens and we are successful in removing these nazi scumbuckets, our next President will be a Democrat, Speaker of the House Pelosi.

Our founding fathers put in our hands the tools to remove a President. These are precisely the kind of high crimes and misdemeanors that the founding fathers had in mind when they crafted those tools. It is now our obligation to start walking down that road, tools in hand. We have no choice but to start the process now. To ignore it any further is to be part of the evil. Regardless of the outcome, now is the time to start the process. It's our patriotic duty.

[quaoar]

39. You are presuming

that the current Congress will permit even the initial investigation phase.

Congress has so far investigated absolutely nothing about the Bush Administration. Why would they start with an investigation into war crimes?

[LuPeRcALiO]

32. So far, the only ones talking impeachment are wingnuts.

Kerry hasn't mentioned impeachment and neither has any Dem.

But here's why they should: a) the hearings would bollix up Congress so Junior couldn't get his awful legislation through -- SS reform for instance, and b) it would bring their Enron lies onto the front page right in time for midterm elections.

Then we can really get serious.

[chapel hill dem]

41. A perfect D sweep of the 2006 Senate would yield 60 Dems

There are 15 Republican seats up for election in 2006. Assuming the Democrats held every seat they currently hold and win every other Senatatorial election, they would hold 60 votes, which is still shy of the 67 votes needed to convict.

I think the best case scenario would be a Democratic majority House impeaching GWB and then a trial ending in aquittal.

[htuttle]

42. The only way to restore our reputation on the world stage...

...is to hold our (mis)leaders responsible for breaking international law and our own Constitution.

If we allow them to get away with it, the assumption will be that we are complicit in their illegal actions, no matter how many nuances we try to find to seperate ourselves from them.

They broke the laws, and 'we the people' are frankly the only ones who are capable of holding them accountable. If we do so, we stand a chance of repairing a lot of the damage they've done to our image (and image of western democracy in general). If we let them get away with it, we'll ultimately damage our reputation even more.

In addition, I think it's important to send a message to all future presidents that we will not tolerate a leader lying to get us into a war. If we don't hold them accountable, you can bet future presidents will act in much the same (blatant, lawless) way.

I think we ought to charge them under the RICO racketeering laws, but that's just me.

[Karenina]

47. There ya go!!!

:toast: :yourock: :toast:

[leesa]

43. Because he has committed impeachable offenses. He needs to be brought to

justice for his crimes.

[ClassWarrior]

44. First of all it's THE RIGHT THING TO DO, not political calculation.

Second, the discovery process will educate the public - not that they will "suddenly see the light." (Do you think through what you're going to say before you say it?)

And third, we'll be at long last drawing a line in the sand. The kind of line the base has been demanding for five years. And if you've ever read Lakoff, you know full well that you appeal to moderates THROUGH appealing to your base. (Bye-bye pink tutus, hello party that stands for something.)

NGU.

[quaoar]

50. Discovery process?

How do you get to that point? Seriously. How do you think this will result in an actual impeachment hearing?

[ClassWarrior]

55. Why do you think we need "an actual impeachment hearing"...

...for investigations to begin? I don't mean a discovery process in the formal sense. This isn't about impeaching Bush** - at least not at this point. This is about siezing an opportunity to tell the public what we know about these criminals.

NGU.

[quaoar]

57. Actually

I think all of the lies and crimes can be exposed without an impeachment. Why not introduce a resolution in Congress condemning Bush's lies on the war? At least it would get debated before the Republicans shoot it down.

[indie_voter]

46. Because he is a criminal

This is very different than the vendetta against Clinton by the republicans.

This is about serious crimes which cost untold number of lives (the tally is nowhere in yet).

We need to show the world (and ourselves) our Constitution is more than a bunch of words on an old parchment. We need to prove that we, the people, believe in our system of government and repudiate the actions of this administration.

[johnaries]

49. That's why we need to take back Congress in 2006.

It's obvious the Rethuglican controlled Congress won't impeach B*. So, we make it an issue in 2006. We take back the House and install a Dem as Speaker. Then the House votes to impeach B* and PuppetMaster Cheney. Even if we don't take the Senate, we make sure there is enough of an outcry that the Senate has to Impeach. Then, the Dem Speaker becomes Pres.

I know, it's a long shot. But, that doesn't mean it can't be done. We just have to be United and work for it.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

52. If anything our attempt needs to be in history books

[Disturbed]

53. Impeachment the entire stinkin' Bush Regime!!!

“We live a lie when we fail to hold leaders accountable for their lies. By not calling now for impeachment, we are saying that we condone hypocrisy, pseudo-democracy, and murdering thousands of Americans and Iraqis for strategic control of energy resources that we have no right to. Patriotism demands that we insist on the ideals of democracy, not that we support the "leaders" who cynically destroy them.”
Robert Shetterly

[usregimechange]

56. Because than we can bring integrity back to the White House!

[laugle]

60. Frankly, we need to get our credibility back

with the whole planet. Right now everyone thinks we are a bunch of stupid americans, and granted, some are. Impeachment would at least show America is finally waking up to what all of us already knew here at DU. And damm that would make alot of us feel better! It's simplistic, but who the hell cares!!!!!

[Tigress DEM]

61. Impeachment opens up evidence we can't get right now.

You have a special prosecutor that can compel Bush to provide the evidence he's been sitting on that would blow him and his people up, when we get that evidence, and there is a lot on Cheney too, then we can get the big guys and anyone complicit in their schemes.

Also, it's just the right thing to do. That man does not belong in the oval office at all and the damage he does every day he remains is something I don't want on my hands because I might think this effort to impeach wouldn't bring in better results.