Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

it's TIME for impeachment

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
whirlygigspin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 04:30 AM
Original message
it's TIME for impeachment
Edited on Tue Jun-07-05 04:42 AM by whirlygigspin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
deacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 04:39 AM
Response to Original message
1. Spread this URL around
Say the I word out loud: IM-PEACH-MENT (and scroll)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/4/14225/16200
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mpanno Donating Member (99 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 04:51 AM
Response to Original message
2. I have a real bad feeling about this
Shrub will go the way of Nixon... he'll resign and be given a presidential pardon so he will never be held accountable for the shit he has done. Then we'll impeach Cheney, he'll resign and be given a presidential pardon... and so it goes. :banghead: :argh: :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MichiDem Donating Member (135 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. We need optimists in this world...but...
...how do you think that this Repub controlled house and senate is going to impeach Bush on anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. If they know their asses are grass with their voters in the next
election cycle, they'll sidle up to the entire Clinton administration again. They're whores.

It took the REPUBLICANS in Congress, led by Senator Barry Goldwater, to convince Nixon to give up - because he had no support. By that was meant that Nixon had no REPUBLICAN support. Whatever support he had previously enjoyed (and there were PLENTY of 'em circling the wagons for a long time) - it had all vanished. ALL of it.

There is handwriting on the wall now. It's not very large and it's kinda faint. But it's there. It WILL get bigger, darker and heavier, and it will take up more wall space. It will become easier to read as time goes on.

I think we're seeing it start now - what with little groups of people now freely invoking the "I" word (Impeachment) in protests in Allentown PA and elsewhere - AND GETTING NEWS COVERAGE, BTW. This will grow. The Downing Street Minutes will not go away, but rather will gather momentum and more attention. Then you'll have more crowds, not so small, either, in more places. And THAT will get news coverage. You'll start seeing the commentaries and letters to the editor. And as more people invoke the "I" word, it becomes like a seed, planted in increasingly fertile ground, and taking root. And GROWING. At that point, it will become an irresistable force. You'll always have some hardliners who'll dig in their heels and insist they're "right." Not all souls can be saved. But most can! Especially when they see the tide turning and the momentum becoming unavoidable, and the outcome looking increasingly inevitable.

And NOBODY wants to hitch their wagon to a block of cement. Especially when THEY have to face the voters again. bush doesn't. But the rest of 'em do. And they not only want to remain winners, they want to keep looking like winners, and they want to keep hanging with winners. And if they think bush is not looking like a winner anymore, you just watch how much distance they put between themselves and him.

It's beginning. We just have to help keep the fires stoked. Soon enough, this will take on a life of its own. But for now, we can't let up. Not for a SECOND.

Eyes on the prize, guys.

And, by the way - don't let any talk about "but if we impeach bush, we'll get cheney and that'll be bad, too..." get you sidetracked.

If we can impeach bush, WONDERFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Consider what impact that will have, all by itself. Just like with Nixon - you'll get the republi-CON party in COMPLETE shock and disarray. They won't know what hit 'em. They'll be dejected and discouraged, feeling as though all their "rock-solid" foundations have been pulled out from under them and there is no firm ground to stand on. And there won't be. After Nixon, you called yourself Republican at your peril. There was loser stench all over the place. And if we can field a strong candidate to follow up in '08, we really CAN effect a sea change in party dominance.

POISON THE WELL. let bush go down and take a WHOLE BUNCH of republi-CONS with him.

And as for cheney? May just as well let his ticker handle things for the rest of us. This is a guy who is MOST comfortable operating in the shadows, where nobody's looking and nobody sees or is even halfway aware of what he's up to. He likes to move behind the scenes, in the dark. Under cover. Thrust into the spotlight where everybody's looking at him now and watching him (and there'll be even greater suspicion about him and his leadership, once all the dirt's come out about bush and cheney is inextricably tied to it. Remember - whatever shit bush has perpetrated, cheney has either steered it or manipulated it, or helped it along from backstage or up in the control room. He won't be a BIT happy on the hot seat, all by himself. It'd be worth it just to see him squirm.

Remember this, too: the republi-CONS are already damaged goods. Who's available in '08 who looks even halfway decent? MAYBE McCain. MAYBE Chuck Hagel. The "good" dr. frist is horrendously damaged goods. He's blown it several times now, throwing his weight behind losing propositions like "Justice Sunday" and the filibuster. He hasn't steered bolton very well, either. He's a lot of window-dressing. rick santorum probably has aspirations, but he'll be in the fight of his life next year just to stay alive in the Senate. And with the early pro-impeachment rallies happening (and getting coverage) in HIS state, it may not be s slam-dunk to be a republi-CON anymore.

Frankly, I'm starting to feel better and better about what I'm seeing. Sorry this is long. But I had to say all this. Too many people here are at risk of becoming discouraged before the fight has really begun. We NEED YOU!!! Don't give up!!! Don't think it's impossible. I don't think it is, anymore. May seem like it now. But that's just for now. Things change. And nothing lasts forever. Not even republi-CON party dominance. Look - even Reagan finally kicked the bucket, and there was a part of me that thought for a long time that he was The Thing That Would Not Die. But he did. So will the dominance of the GOP. We just have to help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MichiDem Donating Member (135 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Well, you've put alot of thought into this
and for that I applaud you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frictionlessO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
20. I love your deeply involved posts!!
If only more of us would or could take the time to give such thoughtful responses.

Poison the well is right...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
forgethell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. He won't resign,
he won't be impeached, he'll never come to trial, or even be charged, so he won't need a pardon. Cheney will be drafted to run for President and will whip Hillary's butt.

My God, people. Leave this impeachment BS alone, and work on winning in 2006 and 2008. That can happen. Impeachment won't!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whosinpower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Unless you can verify the votes
You know the election in 2006 will be rigged. That DID happen in Florida AND Ohio.

I proclaim Bush should be impeached - not because it is easy or hard - because it is the RIGHT thing to do. I do so, not because I would rather a democrat in office, I do so - because it is the RIGHT thing to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeljkp Donating Member (7 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. Why?
For what, exactly, should he be impeached?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
forgethell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-08-05 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #10
22. And maybe you
can make it happen. In some alternate reality. But we will not regain the House and 2/3 of the Senate in time to impeach Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. See post 6...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
forgethell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-08-05 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. Dreaming.
After this blows up in our faces (again), we will once again be whining about how the evil Karl Rove suckered us once again by putting some kind of evidence out there (remember Dan Rather), and then showing that it was not credible.

God Almighty!! No wonder we can't win elections when we have such contempt for the electorate, and are so easily distracted ourselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donailin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #8
21. Since when has this become an either/or decision?
both can be accomplished. God knows there more of us than them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
forgethell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-08-05 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. I don't think
both can be accomplished. I think if our efforts are split, neither has a chance. I don't know that either has a chance, anyway, but I know impeachment will never, ever, happen, not in this reality, nor in most others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shrubhater Donating Member (884 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-08-05 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
25. So what you're saying is that the repubs in the White House will resign
before they can be charged? And the'll just get away with everything?:banghead::banghead: :argh::argh: :banghead::banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stockholm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 05:44 AM
Response to Original message
4. Impeachment - Bush, Bush - Impeachment
rinse repeat.

Eventually it will break through to the masses outside DU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radfringe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 05:58 AM
Response to Original message
5. not trying to throw a wet blanket on this
so forgive my hesitation to go all happy-dance-whoop-dee-whoop..

impeachment begins in the House of Representatives which is in control of the kook-aid-drinking rubber-stamping repugs

1 of two things has to happen before Impeachement can move forward -

1. kook-aid-drinking rubber-stamping repugs have to stop drinking the kook-aid and throw away their rubber stamps. This will only happen if their consitituents apply pressure and scare them into thinking they won't be re-(s)elected in 2006

or---

2. They are thrown out of office in 2006 mid-term and replaced with someone who doesn't drink kook-aid and doesn't even own a rubber stamp

The DSM may be enough to get internet users up in arms, but we still have to wade through the Propaganda Parrots on the 6 o'clock spews shows. and this is going to take some doing...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 06:18 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. So you know what you have to do, 'eh?
Make sure you encourage the candidacies of ALL those who are strong Dems up for reelection, or strong Dem challengers to republi-CONS up for reelection. Focus on getting the House back in 2006. Do whatever you can afford to do, in time, energy, and perhaps even a financial contribution or two if you can swing it. Do what you can. This is a big job and it'll take all of us. I'm budgeting now so I can donate next year to several campaigns outside of California.

If we get the House back, then impeachment proceedings can begin. Because by then, the drumbeat for impeachment will only have grown stronger. It's not going to go away. It's already begun. The little protests with "dozens" on hand in Allentown and elsewhere - will grow to many more, with maybe "hundreds" or even "thousands" in attendance.

As I was driving home just a couple of days ago, I saw ONE guy with a protest sign, that said how bush was a liar and should be impeached. He was walking down the sidewalk near the VA compound in West L.A. Just by himself. A spontaneous protest. An "army of one" if you will. Yes. One guy. By the time a few more weeks have passed, there will be more than just ONE GUY. Keep watching. this is NOT going to go away. Anymore than the Downing Street Minutes will go away.

Why? Because WE WON'T LET IT GO AWAY! John Conyers won't. So we shouldn't, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
12. The Case for Impeachment Builds
...

HANS VON SPONECK: Well, let me first say, in addition to my role as the Humanitarian Coordinator for the Oil for Food Program, I was also the designated official for security of United Nations staff in Iraq, and in that context, of course, we paid attention to what was happening in the no-fly zones. And what was quite noticeable is that after Operation Desert Fox of December 1998, there was a very distinct increase in the number of incidents perpetrated by the U.S. and U.K. air forces involving civilian property, involving civilians, and we ascribed that at the time as a result of instructions given by the two governments in Washington and London to allow pilots to operate under what is known as “enlarged rules of engagement,” giving pilots more freedom to decide whether to attack an installation or whether to engage in other destabilization attempts in the two no-fly zones, and, by the way, at times also straying over into the fly zone. The fly zone was not entirely without incidents during the time since Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

And as a result of this development, we in Baghdad decided very quickly that we would begin to record these incidents, not as they affected the military -- that wasn't our business -- but as they affected the security of United Nations staff, and, of course, the civilian population in Iraq. And that meant that we started to issue air strike reports where we every three months issued such a report for the consumption of the U.N. Security Council, for the Office of the Secretary General and other officials at the U.N. in New York, and we made sure at the time to be discreet about this, not to give it to the press, but to give it to those who had something to do with these incidents. I, myself, would, when I visited New York, see the U.S. Ambassador, see the British Ambassador and hand to them these copies. And I remember on one occasion, I told both of them that, when I gave them a report with pictures, I said, your pilots see it from up there, 10,000 meters above, and this is how we see it on the ground, and it was striking to see the reaction, which was extremely angry and negative. I was told by a British official that all we were doing, we’re putting the imprint of legality, of legitimization on Iraqi propaganda, which was not at all the case.

...

HANS VON SPONECK: Indeed. When I went there, I handed copies to Ambassador Burley at the time. He will remember, and I also gave the reports to the British mission, to Ambassador Eldon, who was the number two ambassador to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who was particularly agitated over the fact that I was instrumental in having these documents prepared by my security office in Baghdad.

...

HANS VON SPONECK: No, his deputy, who had been Deputy Manager, which he would always tell you with great pride, of the 1991 Gulf War arrangements, so it led to, in fact, a request to the Secretary General that I be removed because of -- one of the main reasons because I was issuing these reports, which the United Nations found quite useful, and I was encouraged to continue to write them.

...

HANS VON SPONECK: Well, that, Amy, that I'm afraid is correct. It's one -- it's not the only, but it was one of the reasons why the two governments felt that I was unsuitable for that position in Iraq. And all I was doing as a civil servant was to relay the cold-blooded facts that arose as a result of these incursions, these illegal incursions, after all, and well, I continued with the full support of the U.N. Secretariat.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you about another U.N. official who was forced out. The Associated Press reporting John Bolton helped force out a top official at the U.N. ahead of the Iraq invasion because he feared the official could interfere with the Bush administration’s war plans. According to the Associated Press, “Bolton flew to Europe in 2002 to personally demand that Jose Bustani resign his post as head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. At the time, Bustani was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Iraq. If the inspectors had been sent then, they would have uncovered that there were no chemical weapons, a discovery that would undermine the Bush administration’s rationale for war.” Did you know about this at the time?

HANS VON SPONECK: Actually, Mr. Bustani is heading, or headed an organization that's not part of the U.N. system. That is, it's totally outside the gamut of the United Nations. But I think what agitated the U.S. and maybe John Bolton was the fact that he tried at the time to bring Iraq into signing the Chemical Weapons Prohibition Act. And I think that increased -- that led to the wrath of Washington and maybe contributed to the decision to remove this senior official of an important institution.

more
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/06/1328247
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. 99% of America has never heard of Hans von Sponek...OR Amy Goodman
Edited on Tue Jun-07-05 03:37 PM by SoCalDem
Talk of impeachment is interesting, but with the voting system we have, I forsee republicans as far as the eye can see..We have selective "polls" telling us what a "conservative nation we are, and a complicit media parroting WH propaganda 24-7

and then there are the "mystery voting machines"..

FIRST we must correct the voting "problems".. without that..nothing else really matters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
13. We should have the truth to be known on this one going to war
for false reasons is an impeachable offense, first Bush admits we got the intel wrong now this Downing memo surfaces, The President should be held accountable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirrera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
14. It is coming, my poll says so...
I have been selling Bumper Stickers since before the election. I have a wide variety of issues but the one that sells 98% of the time is the Impeach Bush one. I have watched it go from a trickle to a flood in the last 2 months. It is my own poll, 98% care more about Impeaching bush then anything else. I have no way of knowing what their party affiliation is but it is still telling.

www.nobullshirt.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grace0418 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
15. So what happens if both Bush and Cheney are impeached and
convicted (the thought is so glorious I dare not even ponder it)? Who becomes President? Dennis Hastert? Gack. It seems like we need to get rid of the whole lot of them. And while I wish it could happen immediately, maybe we need to do some ass-kicking in 2006 then impeach. Because maybe by then the speaker will at least be a Dem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
18. not to throw a wet blanket on the wet blanket throwers, but
just because impeachment, or certainly, removal, will never happen with a banana republican congress, that doesn't mean it's not worth screaming about.

remember that the banana republicans never had a realistic shot of removing clinton, yet they reaped benefits from it (and, true, some negatives), including derailing clinton's agenda and rendering him useless during the campaign (subject to much debate of course).

one things for sure, the REPUBLICANS do not benefit from impeachment talk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-08-05 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
26. LOL!
You so funny!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC