So John Edwards doesn't think we should impeach Bush

[mtnsnake]

I caught the tail end of "This Week" with George Stephanopolis and heard Edwards saying it. He doesn't think it would be good to put the country through another scenario like with what we saw with the Clinton impeachment.

Someone needs to tell Mr Edwards that there's a difference between what Clinton did and what Bush has done.

If Edwards doesn't want to impeach Bush, he should've just avoided the question, STFU about it, and waited until we're in a more unified position on what direction to go about it.

How any Democrat would want to let a criminal like Bush off the hook is beyond comprehension. Here we go again. People like Edwards are too worried about being too careful for political reasons, yet they'll spin it to sound like they're doing it in the best interests of the country. They're so afraid to take a chance it's sickening!

[wtmusic]

1. Amen. Who gave Edwards and Pelosi

the right to "take impeachment off the table'? Impeachment should never be off the table -- for anyone.

onedit--and then he says W is worse than Nixon:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2297911

So, Nixon was too good for impeachment too? :silly:

[ultraist]

36. Did you watch the interview?

Video of interview here: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/

Edwards didn't say anything about Bush being "too good for impeachment" as your last line suggests.

He said that Bush is the worst president of our lifetime, worse than Nixon, but he has seen the damage impeachment did with Clinton, who was impeached for a MUCH lesser infraction. Edwards was very involved with the Clinton impeachment and advocated for Clinton.

Edwards discussed how Americans are sick of politicians not dealing with issues that MATTER like the conflict in Iraq, gas prices, the health care crisis, etc.

Edwards also talked about the ILLEGAL spying on Americans. He did NOT say that Bush was "too good" for impeachment but implied that we need to focus on taking actions that repair the damage, not cause more damage as well as get a DEMOCRAT in the WH.

Democrats should focus on taking back the Congress and the WH. Dwelling on impeachment will only cause bitterness and further divide the country. It will serve as a diversion to actually accomplishing something positive for our country.

[MH1]

37. Unsubstantiated allegations against leading Dems is rife on DU today.

Funny about that, huh.

[ultraist]

38. Unsubstantiated is right

Edwards said no such thing, that Bush was 'too good' for impeachment or that Bush didn't deserve it.

Why should impeachment be instigated in a REPUBLICAN controlled Congress? That move will only serve to damage Democrats chances to take back Congress and the WH. Futile effort. Wont go anywhere.

I am SICK of our politicians diverting on meaningless and futile efforts, such as an amendment to make English the national language, or banning burning the flag, or censoring videogames, or building a fence so no bid contractors can make more money off of taxpayers...sheesh.

I wish people would look at the FACTS before they start the circular firing squad.

[MH1]

42. At least this one provided a source, even if they misquoted.

Unlike the current Kerry bashfest.

Just proving that there are either a lot of trolls on DU today, or just a lot of people who don't really care about facts.

[wtmusic]

46. Funny you bring up "misquoting"

Show me where I misquoted. :rofl:

[MH1]

47. Not referring to your post. Commenting on the comment I replied to.

Clear up anything about the Edwards statement with that poster. I felt that what he posted showed the op to be incorrect, as he stated.

He only asked if you had actually watched the interview.

[ultraist]

"So, Nixon was too good for impeachment too?"

Who implied that? And where?

Edwards certainly didn't.

[wtmusic]

52. I didn't quote Edwards, did I?

What is one to assume when he says "W is worse than Nixon", and Nixon clearly would have been impeached? Are we supposed to play semantic games with what "worse" means?

[sarahlane]

83. I guess you've dropped Feingold too?

Even though you have his pic, you do know that Feingold said the exact same thing Edwards did on Meet the Press? He said he was against impeachment, and for censure. Feingold said that he didn't think the country needed it right now. I for one, think censure is more of a political ploy while impeachment is the right thing to do.

[wtmusic]

95. not true

BURLINGTON — If Pres. George Bush broke laws when ordering wiretaps and secret spying on U.S. citizens, a key Senate Democrat said he would not rule out calling for his impeachment.

""I think there is an orderly and dignified way to find out what happened," said Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. "And, if there was a legal violation there needs to be accountability ... you can't put the cart before the horse, but I would not rule out any form of accountability."

That would include impeachment, Feingold told reporters."

http://www.vermontguardian.com/local/012006/FeingoldVisit.shtml

"Sen. Russ Feingold said Sunday that Congress needs to censure President Bush as a possible first step towards impeachment for authorizing the wiretapping of terrorists based in America, adding that Bush's alleged lawbreaking was "much more serious, clearly, than anything Bill Clinton ever did.""

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/8840

"Clearly, I chose to pursue censure rather than impeachment, certainly at this point, because I believe at this point
it's a way to help us positively resolve this issue.

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/03/16/brit_hume_claims_feingold_actually_wants_impeachment.php

[sarahlane]

101. Why didn't he say that on....

Meet the Press? If you go back and watch the show, he said almost the exact same thing that Edwards did. I'm glad Feingold may have changed his tune. BTW, I watched what Edwards said today, and it actually was pretty good. You should watch the whole thing.

[wtmusic]

44. What's the difference?

Nixon would have been removed from office. That's why he quit, remember?

What's so special about W that he deserves to stay? If he's "worse than Nixon", Edwards is giving him a pass. Impeaching will repair the damage. Bring the son of a bitch to justice, or sit on your hands and appease.

[tenshi816]

69. I remember when I was in elementary school,

when we learned about how our government worked, it was repeatedly stressed to us that the reason only one president (at that time) had ever been impeached in the entire history of the USA was that the impeachment process was originally established as, literally, a last resort. To this day I still remember my 6th grade teacher telling my class that impeachment would never be pursued unless the President did something so awful, so absolutely heinous, that the future of the republic would be threatened.

Then, when impeachment did finally happen once more, it was over an extramarital dalliance that, although of obvious importance to the three people involved, had nothing to do with the actual running of the country. The Republicans cheapened and weakened the process of impeachment by using it for a completely trivial reason. (I'm not trivializing adultery BTW, just saying it's a personal matter to be dealt with by the parties involved. It's not a constitutional crisis.)

I agree with what you say, that dwelling on impeachment will cause further division in the country. As much as I despise the blivet, I nevertheless worry that if Democrats pursue impeachment this time, we're just going to be setting the stage for it to happen every single time a new President is elected, no matter which party is in charge. Do we really want this?

[Jai4WKC08]

117. Do you really think that if we pass on impeachment

...it will make one whit of difference in whether the Repubs try to impeach the next Democratic president? Do you really think they work that way? They literally FEED off of the divisiveness that wracks this nation. What's more, they view impeachment as a means of curtailing a Democratic president's ability to govern. They will use it against us whenever they have the power to do so.

That said, it doesn't mean we should.

I happen to agree that, if we control the House in November, we shouldn't run willy-nilly into impeachment just because we can. First we MUST convince the American people -- thru thorough, pain-staking, verifiable and to whatever extent possible bi-partisan investigation -- that Bush has in fact committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." If we can't accomplish that, he probably should not be impeached. And if we do it anyway, it will not only make the partisan divide deeper, but it could well cause a backlash that will end up in our losing the House and maybe the presidency in 2008.

BUT, if we do investigate and can prove that Bush is a criminal, according to the Constitution, then we owe it to the nation and to the people to hold him accountable for his crimes. If that causes a backlash, it will only be because we fail to communicate the truth to the American people.

[tenshi816]

118. I don't know, probably not, although

I'm still hoping against hope that the Republicans learned something from the Clinton impeachment. Then again, I still hope for world peace too and we know how well that's worked out.

I do agree with everything you said in your post. I just hate to think of going through the impeachment process every time there's a new president in office.

[Jai4WKC08]

135. Clinton wrote in his book "My Life"

That some Repub senator, I think it was Alan Simpson but might be misremembering, told Clinton that part of the reason he was impeached was payback for what Dems did to Nixon.

So I sympathize with your hope that we can someday break the cycle. One (of many) reasons I support Wes Clark is because I think he's the kind of person who can bring people from both sides of the aisle together, and do it without compromising the liberal principles he stands for.

That said, I think if Clark (or any Dem) wins the White House, the Repubs will try to bring down anyway they can. I put nothing, and I mean nothing, beyond them in that regard. The only hope I can see is that if the American people are behind him, and I think they will be, MAYBE the Repubs will pay a price for whatever they try.

But I wouldn't bet on it. Clinton left office with pretty high approval ratings, despite the impeachment, and the lies, and sadly, the fact that he had a very real Monica problem. But I don't see that the Repubs paid any price for it. They kept control of the House. Bush won the White House (and even tho it was stolen, it shouldn't have been close). And finally, they took the Senate in 2002, altho I suppose that had more to do with 9/11 than anything Clinton did.

I'm afraid that if the Repubs learned anything from Clinton's impeachment, it was that it accomplished exactly what they wanted it to.

[Toots]

114. You do not let a law breaker off the hook just because it would make some

folks unhappy if they were tried. We are a country of Laws and if we don't follow the Law just to keep peace than we are no better than the thugs in power. Edwards is wrong on this. If he were saying Impeachment is jumping the gun and the charges need to be investigated first I would agree but to just say we shouldn't Impeach Bush* because of how we feel about Clinton's Impeachment is IMO anti American.. America stands for Law & Order. Without it we are Bush*land..

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[Jai4WKC08]

60. Unfair comparison to Pelosi

Pelosi didn't rule out impeachment. I don't remember her exact words, but she definitely promised investigations and left the door open as to where they would lead. That strikes me a very wise strategy to win back the House, which MUST be the first step. Otherwise, neither investigations nor impeachment can happen.

[wtmusic]

93. What Pelosi said

"Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101950.html

The door sounds pretty damn shut to me. How are you parsing her statement?

[Jai4WKC08]

113. Not parsing anything

Read the very next paragraph of that article:

"In an interview with The Washington Post last week, Pelosi said a Democratic-controlled House would launch investigations of the administration on energy policy and other matters. She said impeachment would not be a goal of the investigations, but she added: 'You never know where it leads to.'"

That last is imo a VERY clear statement that the door is NOT shut. What it does is counter the Repub message to their dissaffected base that if they don't turn out to keep Repubs in office, the Dems will take over Congress and bring down the President.

The message we need to get out, especially in red districts, is that Democrats will try to ferret out the truth of what has been going wrong, but not with the express intent of impeachment. Most Repubs (and even a lot of Dems and indies) are not yet ready to believe that Bush is a criminal, but are receptive to the idea of finding out exactly what he has and hasn't done. They are for the most part unhappy with the administration and vaguely aware of how secretive it is.

Once we have control the Judiciary Committee, the House agenda, and most importantly, supeona power, the chips can fall where they may.

[sarahlane]

85. Did you even watch Pelosi on Meet the Press?

Pelosi said that when they hold investigations, if they find that laws were broken, they will proceed from there, if that means impeachment then that means impeachment. It was a hell of a lot better then what Feingold said about being against impeachment and for censure.

[cassiepriam]

2. I agree. Impeachment is too good for the SOB, just throw him into prison.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Bad move on Edwards part.

First mistake he made was to compare the two. The Clinton impeachment was a fraudulent political maneuvering that was the first of many attempts to take this country over by illegitimate means. The Bush impeachment would be carrying out the constitutional obligations. If white males in this country can think they can commit treason and get away with it, then we are lost as a country.

[MADem]

4. Well, I think the general theme of the Democratic caucus is this:

"It's not a good idea to impeach President Bush..........

.......wait for it...........




........hang on..........




THIS YEAR.

See, we need the votes of those Reaganesque Democrats come November, who might not like the idea of dragging the country through another scenario like the Nixon one. These folks would rather see the Monkey simply caged and chained, so he can't do any more harm.

If we get a majority in both houses, though, who knows what may transpire.

I know a lot of people want more principle and less accomodation to the great mushy middle, but the way to win is to motivate that malleable center to get out and pull the lever for the Democrats. We can only do it with massive turnout for our team.

[blm]

5. The best answer is this: Dems don't WANT to impeach, but we can't ignore

the law, either. Let the investigations into their activities run their course, and if the evidence proves that impeachment is the right remedy then we are duty-bound to carry it out.

[mtnsnake]

14. I like that alright but I also think we should just stay mum until

the day it all goes down. Let them wonder all they want for now. To clarify one's position on impeachment at this point in time is a big mistake, IMO. So far, this is one area that Democrats have been pretty unified on...not giving away our intentions about impeachment, either individually or as a unit. I don't think this is any accident.

[ClassWarrior]

22. By your account, his position isn't clear at all...

...as I say in post #9.

And you probably should read Sun Tsu.

NGU.

[mtnsnake]

25. You should be more patient. I just replied to you in the other post

And what exactly do you mean that I should probably read Sun Tsu? Am I suppoed to be insulted or something?

[ClassWarrior]

27. No, the strategies outlined in "The Art of War" are very analagous...

...to politics. Just thought you might be interested.

NGU.

[mbair]

35. agree

This is the best answer, but add to it that we won't know what's going in our "Secret Government" (the whole thing by the way) unless the Dems can hold fair and open hearings.

I understand that many of us are so angry at what BushCo has done to the country that only impeaching Bush will satisfy that thirst, but "elect me and I'll impeach the President" is not a campaign position I'd want to take into a mid-term election. Just my2.

[wakeme2008]

6. I agree with Edwards :)

After we win the House and Senate,,, then .....

Bush's Impeachment MUST NOT be an 2006 election issue. :)

[earthside]

20. Reminds me of 2002 ...

... the Iraq War Resolution MUST NOT be an 2002 election issue.

That worked out real well, didn't it?

Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory because they become so wimpy, so risk averse that they will not stand up for what is right.

It's starting again.

[ultraist]

40. Apples and oranges

Initiating a long, drawn out clusterfuck process of impeachment that will damage Dems chances in 06 and 08, cost millions upon millions of dollars, and end up not going anywhere, in NO WAY compares to WAR.

[earthside]

63. Hurray!

Word to all future tyrants of the United States: Don't worry about justice or accountablilty, no one cares!

Especially if you a radical Republican, go ahead, lie all you want -- the Democrats are too scared to ever hold you to account.

So if the results of your impeachable lies is WAR, well, hey, you know, no one wants a long drawn out impeachment, no one wants to spend any money on upholding the Constitution.

Hurray for tyranny and weak-willed wimpish politicians!

[mtnsnake]

66. Thank you!

It is NOT apples and oranges, as you so aptly expressed in your post.

Anyway, let's just hope that the rest of the Democrats are not against impeaching Bush, as is Edwards. If they let Bush get away with it without even raising a stink over it, then they're just as responsible for any future wars based on lies as the ones who are responsible now.

The best way to get another scoundrel like Bush in office is by letting the present one get away with murder.

The best way to insure against that ever happening again is by doing something, ANYTHING, about it.

[lwcon]

124. Good point / example

I'm not against people being politic about impeachment (e.g., saying that due process of investigations should happen before anyone starts using the "i" word), but all this "off the table" stuff is a big mistake.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[HPLeft]

54. Sage thinking

Rove is apparently already using impeachment as an issue to rally the conservative base. If you can take back the House and Senate, all bets are off.

[Taverner]

7. I don't agree, but I don't see this as such a bad stance

I like the idea that he's looking forward to 2006 and 2008 rather than dwelling on the past.

Not that W doesn't deserve impeachment - - but honestly, what would you rather see...an impeached W or a Democratic House, Senate and WH?

Given the choice of the two, I'll take the latter...

[Union Thug]

8. Wow - So lying us into a war, spying on citizens, leaking info

for political ends is not enough for impeachment? Then what the hell is?

Man, the democrats that I support are getting fewer and fewer by the day. Bye bye, John, in my book, you've just become part of the spineless, worthless, herd of DINOs. I'm losing my tolerance for these people.

[katmondoo]

13. Also I believe there are many, many criminal things that Bush has done

that we won't even know about until after 2008.

[mtnsnake]

18. I agree. "Bye bye, John" & anyone else who makes it clear they don't

think it's a good idea to see Bush get impeached sometime down the road.

I don't like to cast away any candidate on one single issue, but in the case of impeachment I'm willing to make an exception. I don't care who it is, if any of our candidates let it be known that they are against impeachment, then there is no way they'll get my support, at least not in the primaries anyway.

[sarahlane]

86. So you won't be voting for....

Edwards, Feingold, Kerry, Clinton, Bayh, Richardson, Warner or any other dem that runs? The only ones who have come out for impeachment are Conyers, and Pelosi said it was possible if laws were broken, and who else?

[ultraist]

41. Edwards didn't say "it wasn't enough for impeachment"

Watch the interview.

[AmericanDream]

65. Did you watch the interview?

Edwards never said that Bush's crime were not enough for impeachment, he said that impeachment will be too hurtful for this country in the long run because we are already burdened with so many crisis.

Watch the thing here: http://www.video.exposetheleft.net/video/edwards-tw.wmv

[sarahlane]

84. By those standards you just dropped Feingold too

He said the exact same thing Edwards did about impeachment on Meet the Press. Who do you like?

[ClassWarrior]

9. So did he say "He doesn't think it would be good to put the country..."

"...through another scenario like with what we saw with the Clinton impeachment?" Or did he say he wouldn't IMPEACH Bush**? They're two drastically different things.

In fact, all IMPEACHMENT supporters should be saying, "We don't think it would be good to put the country through another scenario like with what we saw with the Clinton impeachment" - and then toss the blame for the mess squarely into the Cons' laps where it belongs before IMPEACHING the bastard.

However, if JRE was truly saying that he doesn't support IMPEACHMENT under any circumstance, then we have some more politician educatin' to do. And a good place to start is by emailing and pod-blogging at http://OneAmericaCommittee.org. JRE and Elizabeth pay attention to comments from the public.

NGU.

[stopbush]

15. Impeachment in 2006 would be much less traumatic for the country

then allowing bushco to continue down their democracy-destroying road for another 2 years.

John Edwards and Pelosi seem to believe that the damage bushco has done is just the typical political
stuff that has gone on in our past. That it can all be put back together in a short time as soon as the Ds get back
in power. They see bushco as the equivalent of removing the w's from the computer keyboards. Guess what? It isn't.

Bushco has done lasting damage to this country. Even if they were removed today, and even if everything within our
borders were suddenly to become hunky dory, we would still be faced with the REALITY that bushco has made
enemies around the world who will be spending the better part of the NEXT 50 YEARS trying to even the score of
the past 6 years. Every second that bush remains in power is another second hammering more nails into our coffin.

What part of "passed the point of no return" do these Ds not understand?

It disappoints me to hear Edwards saying such crap. Looks like Feingold is the guy who is speaking and ACTING for
me these days.

[ClassWarrior]

23. So did you see the program? Did JRE indeed "say such crap?" I've asked...

...the OP to clarify, but he hasn't.

And while I was a Feingold booster when boosting Feingold wasn't cool, he too said that IMPEACHMENT would be traumatic for the nation. That doesn't mean he's against it.

NGU.

[sarahlane]

89. He did say he was against it...

I watched that Meet the Press, and Feingold said he was against impeachment and used the exact same reason Edwards stated. So, did you think that was crap too? I just feel there is a lot of hypocrisy going on here. People love Feingold (which I do) but no one cared when he came out against it on Meet the Press. Edwards echoes the exact same thing and he's nothing but crap.

[Golden Raisin]

32. And at what point does it get to be like Neville Chamberlain

in World War II? Where do you draw the line? Is History going to look back and see how many Democrats did not stand up and be counted as our Republic's Constitutional freedoms were under attack and being taken away? Are we going to "appease" ourselves into Fascism and Theocracy? The Republicans didn't waste a nanosecond worrying about impeaching Bill Clinton on charges that are utterly trivial compared to what Bush has done and continues to do to this country. And what did they get for impeachment? A Republican President in the White House, A Republican Congress and a Supreme Court stacked to be even more rightwing. Yeah, they really lost out by going down the dangerous & ill-advised route of impeachment. Even if we stop Bush and the Neocons it is going to take a long, long time to undo the damage.

[mtnsnake]

34. Yours is 1 of the best posts I've read in regards to the impeachment issue

The Republicans didn't waste a nanosecond worrying about impeaching Bill Clinton on charges that are utterly trivial compared to what Bush has done and continues to do to this country. And what did they get for impeachment? A Republican President in the White House, A Republican Congress and a Supreme Court stacked to be even more rightwing. Yeah, they really lost out by going down the dangerous & ill-advised route of impeachment.

I wish you'd start a thread with that just to make sure everyone gets a chance to read it. Thank you!!

[mtnsnake]

33. Well said

I'd rather hear them offering no opinion on it than saying they're against it. At least that would give me hope that they have a unified plan to impeach when the timing is right.

[ultraist]

45. Edwards does not believe "the damage is typical political stuff"

Edwards did not say, "the damage is typical political stuff" and in no way implied it. Your statement saying he did consider it "typical" is a complete fabrication.

Edwards in fact said, that Bush is the "worst president," "worse than Nixon" and went on to list numerous points that laid out the damage Bush has done.

Please get your facts straight.

[mtnsnake]

24. He kind of said both

Unless I'm wrong, and I'll apologize if I am, he made it sound like it wouldn't be good for the country, and I'm pretty sure he said he wouldn't vote for it if he had the opportunity because it would take the emphasis away from more serious issues that the country's facing. Hey, John, what issue could possibly be more serious than someone like Bush who's eroding our freedoms almost on a daily basis?

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Anyway, hopefully someone will have a transcript soon to confirm. Bottom line is he made it clear he's against the idea of it.

[ClassWarrior]

26. Thanks for answering. We're ALL against having our country thrown...

...into turmoil, right? But people of character know that we still have to see that justice is served, come what may. And I see JRE as a person of character on that level. So I'm not too worried about him. Do you listen to his podcasts? The man's fighting for us.

NGU.

[ultraist]

48. Wrong. Edwards did not say he would not vote for it

That question was not asked. He did say that he does not believe impeachment should be pursued due to the damage it will cause.

He was asked if he would vote for censure and he said he would vote yes and I would expect that he would vote yes for impeachment for an up and down vote.

[mtnsnake]

53. Edwards is AGAINST impeachment, but thanks for clearing the other part up

where I said "I'm pretty sure he said he wouldn't vote for it if he had the opportunity because it would take the emphasis away from more serious issues that the country's facing."

Bottom line is that what I posted about Edwards in the OP is true in regards to him telling Stephanopoulis that he is against impeaching Bush. That much I know.

[HereSince1628]

10. Isn't this the prevailing Pundit Wisdom on the issue?

They fear we'll give the R's a reason to unite...

The logic of the argument is something like this...
You can't impeach until you have an investigation.
There isn't going to be an investigation until Dems have some committee chairs.

And although it seems closer it's still a long shot that Dems will gain majorities in the house and the senate.

So rather than run on impeachment. The pundits are saying run on re-establishing oversight. Which can be accomplished with control of either body.

[Warpy]

11. If we get a majority, shutting Congress down for an impeachment

will be counterproductive. The Congress will need to launch investigations--honest ones--and start to overturn the worst idiocies of the past five years. There is too much to be done to waste time on Stupid.

However, don't forget that investigations are picking off Stupid's cronies and enablers one at a time. Enough of them will leave him isolated, impotent, blockaded, and neutered. We can live with that.

I'm with Edwards on this one.

However, once the little bastard is out of office, we need to pursue charges against him. It's the only way to convince the rest of the world that this dismal time was an aberration, not business as usual, and that our government remains self correcting. It's the only way to regain our position in the world.

[mtnsnake]

16. You really think we should wait until Bush is done w/his second term

before we pursue charges against him? Sorry, that one I don't understand at all. No one will be able to do anything to the little bastard once he's out of office.

[Warpy]

62. Sure they will

Only then he won't have the power to pardon his VP in a quid pro quo agreemment like Nixon had with Ford.

[Mr_King]

92. Okay lets see...

Scenario #1

Bush is about to be brought up on charges by the Democratic controlled Congress. Cheney resigns and Bush chooses somebody like John McCain, George Allen, or any Republican that will be easily confirmed to be his V-P. This person gets confirmed in Congress and Bush resigns while he has been brought up on charges or is about to be impeached. McCain or Allen or whoever is V-P becomes President and then pardons Bush.

Bush gets off scott free.

Scenario #2

The Democratic controlled Congress starts investigations into the Bush Administration while passing bills on election reform, raising the minimum wage, a universal health care system, a balanced budget that requires to pay as you go in the process. Meanwhile the Democratic investigations expose more dirt Bush & Co. has done resulting in some members of the administration resigning or getting fired and maybe even serving jail time. In 2008 a Democrat wins the White House. The Democratic controlled Congress along with a new Attorney General (that has been appointed by the new Democratic President) starts delving deeper into the crimes committed by Bush himself while he was President. They get enough proof and evidence to bring up charges against Bush. Now the only person that can save him is the President with a pardon.

Now ask yourself do you want that President to be somebody who Bush appointed himself for basically this purpose (to get a pardon)?

or

A Democratic candidate that ran along with a Democratic controlled Congress that passed health care, minimum wage, election reform, and balanced budget bills (that were vetoed by Bush) while also forcing members of the Bush Administration to resign?

We must put the best interest of the Democratic Party before our hatred for Bush.

I was a Democrat long before Bush and I'll be one long after Bush is gone. And therefor I will not let George Walker Bush define my political beliefs. Because whether Bush is impeached, resigns, or leaves when his term is over in 2009. We have to ask ourselves what will be the state of the Democratic Party in the eyes of the American voters the day after Bush is gone? Will it be positive or negative? Bush will leave office one way or another but will the Democrats be right behind him as a result?

[aquart]

12. Another one who equates treason with a blowjob?

Where do we get these geniuses?

[ultraist]

49. Edwards did not equate treason with a bj

In fact, he said Clinton was impeached for a much lesser infraction.

Your comment is a complete lie.

[ccpup]

17. Do we wanna

take the Majority in the House and Senate this year? Or do we want to see millions of possible (probable?) new on-the-fence Dem voters stay home because we've run on Impeaching Bush and not on what we'll fix once we get control of the agenda? I'm as bloodthirsty as most of you when it comes to Impeaching the bastard, but it's also important to take a step back and look at the bigger picture pre-Election. Someone may be fed up with the Repugs agenda and willing to consider voting Dem, but decide to stay home 'cause all we did was chant "impeach, impeach, impeach". Best, pre-Election, that we focus on what Americans care about, offer a workable plan to fix the many problems the bushistas have created, do any necessary investigations and THEN, once the Public is on our side because of the unbelievable mountain of irrefutable evidence, move towards Impeachment.

I just think that Edwards didn't want the out-of-hand, partisan fueled, fishing expedition that the Clinton impeachment was.

[mtnsnake]

21. Do we wanna go through life always being too careful never taking chances?

Look, no one is saying that we shouldn't wait until the right opportunity. The way I look at it, if we get the majority in the House, we impeach. If we don't get it, we TRY to impeach by at least putting through a formal motion to impeach, which any member from either side of the House can legally do, majority or not.

Talking about not impeaching Bush is a mistake. Not impeaching Bush would be a crime, not literally maybe, but it would be a crime.

If we don't impeach or if we don't try to impeach, we don't have a soul.

[grytpype]

19. OH NOES!!!! IMPEACH MENT NOWWWWW!!!!!!

[benny05]

28. He Said We Need a Democratic President

and in case some of you have forgotten, JRE saved Clinton's ass from being convicted in the Senate; it was his speech that changed a few votes. Here is the transcript, taken from my blog:

Mr. EDWARDS. I add my praise, Mr. Chief Justice, for the work you have done, but I would add one other thing. The last time I saw you before this impeachment trial you were leading a sing-along at the Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference. I thought it might be a good idea for this group.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. A healing device.

(Laughter.)

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I have prepared remarks. But I am not going to use them. I made that decision about 20 minutes ago.

I have been sitting, listening to my fellow Senators speak, and I want to speak to you from the heart. I want to speak to you about a struggle, because I have been through a struggle. It is a real struggle. And I suspect that there are an awful lot of you who have been through the same struggle -- both before we voted on the motion to dismiss and, for me, since we voted on the motion to dismiss.

For me, the law is a sacred thing. And that is part of my life. I have seen what the law can do. It is a powerful, powerful thing. It can do extraordinary things for ordinary people. And I believe we have been given a sacred responsibility. I will tell you what that sacred responsibility means to me personally. It means that when I walked in here the first day of this impeachment trial I was 100 percent completely open to voting to remove this President.

And I have to tell you all something, my friends on this side of the aisle, that wasn't a hard thing for me to do. I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen.

So I said to myself, what is the right and fair thing to do? And this is what I have done. I have looked -- many times until 3 a.m. in the morning -- at the evidence in this case. Because I think that is the way we need to make this decision.

The perjury charge, I believe, is just not there. The evidence is not there to support it. I know many of you believe it is there. I respect your view on that. I don't believe it is there. The obstruction charge is a totally different matter. And this is the way I have thought about the obstruction charge.

I view, in my mind's eye, the scales of justice. And on one side, where the prosecution makes an allegation, I put their evidence. On the other side I put the defense evidence. And I do believe that for a charge this serious that the proper standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.

So after that evidence is put on both sides of the scale of justice, what happens? I want to just very briefly go through what I think are the four main charges for obstruction.

First, the false affidavit. The prosecution side: There is, in my judgment, clearly a false affidavit. The President had a conversation with Monica Lewinsky about filing an affidavit where he said to her, `You can file an affidavit; that might be a way for you to avoid testifying.' That is on the prosecution side.

I want to make a really important point for me personally here. I think there is an enormous difference between what has been proven and what we suspect, because I have to tell you all, I suspect a lot that has not been proven.

What is on the defense side? On the defense side: what has been proven in this case is that President Clinton never saw the affidavit, never had a discussion with anyone about the contents of that affidavit. He didn't know what was in it. He never told, according to her, Monica Lewinsky or anyone what should be in the affidavit.

So that is the evidence on the scales of justice: One for the prosecution; that evidence for the defense. For me it is a very clear thing. The scales tilt in favor of the defense, and they certainly don't tilt strongly enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

The second charge -- and the one that bothers me the most -- coaching Betty Currie. The evidence on the side of the prosecution: President Clinton has a conversation with Betty Currie just after he has been questioned in his deposition where he makes very declarative statements to her -- it happens twice -- very declarative statements to her about what he remembers, many of which we now know to be false. And his explanation for that conversation lacks credibility, to say the least, that he was trying to refresh his memory. I doubt if anybody buys that. That is on one side, that is on the prosecution side.

What is on the other side? On the other side we have Betty Currie saying it had no influence on her. But that is not the most troublesome thing for me. The troublesome thing is this: For that conversation to be obstruction of justice, it must have been proven that it was President Clinton's intent to affect her sworn testimony.

Now, what are the other possibilities? We have a man who has just been confronted with this problem, who is political by nature. And do we really believe that the first thing he thought about is, `I'm going to go protect myself legally'? I suspect the first thing he thought about is `I'm going to protect myself politically.' He was worried about his family finding out. He was worried about the rest of the staff finding out. He was worried about the press finding out. Do I know which of these things are true? Absolutely not. I don't know which of them are true. Doesn't that answer the question? If we don't know which of those things are true, have they been proven? If we don't know what was in his head at that moment, how can we find that the prosecution has proven intent beyond a reasonable doubt?

The third charge, the job search. On the prosecution side of the scales of justice, we have an intensified effort to find a job for Monica Lewinsky. I think that has been proven. I think that has been proven clearly. On the other side, we have testimony from Monica Lewinsky that she was never promised a job for her silence. We have evidence that the job search, although not as intense, was going on before anyone knew she would be a witness. We have Vernon Jordan testifying under oath -- I sat there and watched it and looked him in the eye -- that there was never a quid pro quo, that the affidavit was over here and the job search was over here.
The reality is, when you put all that evidence on the scale -- prosecution evidence on one side, defense evidence on the other -- at worst the scale stays even. And the prosecution has got to prove this case in order to remove the President of the United States beyond a reasonable doubt. They just have not proven it no matter what we suspect. No matter what we suspect. So that is the false affidavit which we have talked about, coaching Betty Currie, the job search.

Now to the gifts. Let's see what the proof is. What is the proof -- not the suspicion. On the prosecution side, we know that the President's secretary went to Monica Lewinsky's house, got the gifts, took them home and hid them under her bed. I have to tell you, on its face, that is awful suspicious, and it is strong, heavy evidence. The problem is, there is evidence on the other side. That evidence doesn't stand alone.

First, we have the testimony of Betty Currie that Monica Lewinsky called her. Second, we have the fact that President Clinton gave her other gifts on that Sunday, which makes no sense to me. I heard the House managers try to explain it away. I have been a lawyer for 20 years, and I have been in that place of trying to explain away something that makes no sense. It doesn't make sense. Monica Lewinsky, herself, testified that she brought up the issue of gifts -- not President Clinton -- and that the most President Clinton ever said was something to the effect of `I'm not sure. Let me think about that.'

Now when that evidence goes on the defense side and the only evidence on the prosecution side is the fact that those gifts are sitting under the bed of Betty Currie, what happens to the scale? At best, the scale stays even. In my judgment, it actually tilts for the defense. There is no way it rises to the level of `beyond a reasonable doubt.'

Every trial I have ever been in has had one moment, one quintessential moment when the entirety of the trial was described, and in this case we have such a moment. There was a question that had my name on it. The reality is, Senator Kohl wrote it -- I tagged on -- but it was a great question. The question was, Is this a matter about which reasonable people can differ? I will never forget Manager Lindsey Graham coming to this microphone and his answer was `Absolutely.' Now if the prosecution concedes that reasonable people can differ about this, how can we not have reasonable doubt?

These things all lead me to the conclusion that however reprehensible the President's conduct is, I have to vote to acquit on both articles of impeachment.

I have one last thing I want to say to you all, and it is actually most important. If you don't remember anything else I said, and you weren't listening to anything else I have said, please listen to what I am about to say because it is so important to me.

I have learned so much during the 30 days that I have been here. I have had a mentor in Senator Byrd, who has probably been a mentor to many others before me. I have formed friendships with people on both sides. Senators Leahy and Dodd, who I worked with on these depositions -- wonderful, wonderful Senators. I have learned what leadership is about from these two men sitting right here -- Senators Lott and Daschle. I have loved working with Senators DeWine and Thompson. And Senator Specter and I worked together on a deposition. He showed me great deference and respect. I have no idea why, but he did; and I appreciate it. I have deep respect and admiration for my senior Senator from North Carolina, who has been extraordinarily kind and gracious to me since I arrived here.

Let me tell you what I will be thinking about when my name is called and I cast my vote, hopefully tomorrow. I will be thinking about juries all over this country who are sitting in deliberation in rooms that are not nearly as grand as this but who are struggling, just as you all have and I have, to do the right thing. I have to say, I have a boundless faith in the American people sitting on those juries. They want to do what is right. They want to do what is right in the worst kind of way.

An extraordinary thing has happened to me in the last 30 days. I have watched you struggle, every one of you. I have watched you come to this podium. I have listened to what you have had to say. I talked to you informally; I watched you suffer. I believe in my heart that every single one of you wants to do the right thing. The result of that for me is a gift. And that gift is that I now have a boundless faith in you.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

JRE said he remembered being in the thick of it and for less egregious charges. The above proves it.

JRE also said he supported Sen Feingold's call for censure, but since he's not in the Senate anymore, it's their call.

JRE also called W the Worst President ever. Comments about the VP very appropriate considering Mary Cheney keeps telling the same lie over and over about JRE/JK. She nor her father are to trusted when as JRE said "he is main architect behind this war", lack of response to Katrina, giving more tax cuts to his oil buddies.

You will note that GS didn't ask if Cheney should be impeached. (Note, that is my preference)

If impeachment is your only cause to vote, I'm in a different camp. I want solutions to our problems, and the first move is to get Congress and a Senate who give a damn about us first. Then if impeachment proceedings happen, they do. At present, they cannot take place until we get our houses back.

I suggest you re-watch the video before making judgement based on few comments here:

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/

[mtnsnake]

29. Impeachment isn't my only cause to vote

I said in post #18 they if any particular candidate lets it be known that they are against impeachment, then there is no way they'll get my support, at least not in the primaries.

In the primaries, I'll vote for whoever I think is the best candidate on all the issues, as long as they don't rule out the possibility of impeaching Bush.

[benny05]

30. I see that

and I agree with you. Issues of health care, less dependency on oil, raising the federal minimum wage, retraining of laid off workers, fairer trade agreements with labor provisions..you bet!

If there were going to be charges to be made, I prefer Cheney to be investigated first, if we get our houses back. He is a traitor along with Rove on national security leaks.

[mtnsnake]

31. I like your plan

and maybe it's the best way to eventually get to Bush. I really don't know.

[Catchawave]

109. Found it !

Sorry about my dupe !

I believe this speech is what put him on Gore's short list for VP in 2000, after only 2 years in the Senate. He was certainly a rising star then and continues to be a rock star still :loveya:

[zann725]

39. Edwards= DLC. Nice guy, shrewd "politician"...but like Obama, Hilary...

too cautious (I agree) to be a REAL Dem or future SUCCESSFUL Dem candidate. "Change" IS Democratic. Things must constantly change and improve, and be challenged in order for the rights of MANY to be maintained. Caution is just another name for "STATUS QUO"...and Status Quo has Repug written all over it.

Thanks, but no thanks, J.E.

[AmericanDream]

43. Did you even see the interview?

He told it like it is on everything and called bush the worst president of his lifetime, and said he was worse than nixon. That doesn't sound DLCish to me. Watch the interview here: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1986885 and only then should you judge for yourself. There was nothing Status Quo about the interview.

[ultraist]

50. OBVIOUSLY, many here did not even watch the interview

Some of the comments are absolute fabrications.

You would hope that Democrats would base their opinions and comments on FACTS.

Faux news drama run amock.

[GreenArrow]

116. it was status quo to the core,

Johnny Edwards assuring would be voters that niether he, nor the Democratic party, has any interest in upsetting the apple cart. Sure, mistakes were made, some of them egregious, and yes, the job appears to be above their competence, but lets take their actions in good faith as well intentioned but poorly planned and performed. Democrats have no interest in pursuing members of this administration for punitive reasons (at least partly because no small number of them reside in the same apple cart) but wish to let bygones be bygones and focus on other issues facing the country.

It was very safe, and calculated as such. And, while it may be smart politics, it is very foolish policy.

[zann725]

132. There IS ("status quo") written all over his face, & that insincere smile

Sorry. Perhaps I should've "listened" to the particular interview referenced...but words are just that. I often find when I've heard a candidate speak often enough before...turning the volume down & watching non-verbal, teaches me FAR more about a candidate. It always worked beforewith charismatic candidates like Regan, or others...

Though history may prove me wrong...only time will tell us all. Perhaps J.E. DOES mean what he so passionately speaks of...

[benny05]

51. Oh, Think Twice

"Because it's another day for you and me in paradise", to quote Phil Collins.

Look at this video and you tell me if this is DLC stuff to you: http://youtube.com/watch?v=IDRpAkaxgB8&search=one_corps

Looks like grassroots to me...antithesis of what you posited in your message.

I've wondered why anyone who in today's dollars had the wealth of FDR--and in JRE's case, made his living for economic justice for those who had no voice and turned to him as a last resort to keep their children alive, with decent medical care, out of bankruptcy, against the corporations--is viewed as DLC? Because he helped Clinton to be acquitted? No, JRE knows the law well.

I don't understand why he is perceived to be insincere, unless one has not met him personally. This man can bring people together very well and he knows his stuff.

Here's more about the interview from Truthout (WRP's place): John Edwards: Bush Worse than Nixon

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/052106X.shtml

[sarahlane]

87. Check your info...

Edwards is not hooked into the DLC like Clinton, Warner and Bayh. He does have many progressive ideas that you should look into before counting him out. He's for universal healthcare, a real alternative energy program that funds solar, wind and ethanol, he's for working bonds and babybonds, for alternative drug courts, against the major trade agreements, strongly opposes the two tiered internet proposal, for strengthening and expanding the SEIU, and making it easier for workers to form unions. If this is the issue that counts him out I guess you won't be voting for Feingold, Warner, Clinton, Bayh, Richardson, and Kerry, all who have come out against impeachment.

[AmericanDream]

55. Watch the damn video first!!! Does the truth matter?

Geez, DU sometimes seems like a bunch of teenagers out to eat the other side. Most of the people here haven't even watched the interview. The original poster is totally misleading in his/her charges. Edwards specifically said that Clinton was impeached for a much lesser charge, but he (edwards) rightfully pointed out that the country is in a different position now. The country is totally demoralized and the people have no patience for the washington quarrels, they want solutions to everyday problems, impeachment would only make things worse. Edwards is thinking about America, the country and not just the democratic party.

Each one of you must know in your heart that the country cannot sustain an impeachment ... we have no reputation in the world, inflation is on the rise, and almost every public institution I know (public schools, healthcare system, etc.) are on the verge of sinking. C'mon, Edwards is being honestly intelligent about America and its future... we do not have two years to waste on impeachment... we need to get the congress back and start working on reform: the bankruptcy bills, the tax cuts, and the list goes on.

Of course, everyone wants investigations, but we are not going to win any elections by just calling for impeachment... that is what Rove wants. People are hungry for solutions, not politics. The sooner we realize that, the faster we'll start winning elections.

Edwards was absolutely right in the subtle distinctions he was making and the larger point he illuminated.

Watch the video here and then decide: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1986885

[HPLeft]

56. My heart says...

...that Bush must be impeached, but my head tells me that Edwards is right about where the American people are, and what needs to be done.

[mtnsnake]

57. Pound salt!! I heard Edwards say he's against impeachment, so I don't

need to watch it on the video, when I already heard him say it LIVE ON TV that he is AGAINST IMPEACHING BUSH.

Besides, I tried to watch your video and had trouble downloading Macromedia Flash player 7 on my computer.

Look, I fully am aware that Edwards bashed Bush. He also said he's against impeaching him, and THAT is the theme of my OP, not whether or not he bashed Bush!

How about you read my OP again and stick to the subject of that post.

[AmericanDream]

64. mtnsnake

chill. First, my post was directed at a lot of people who were replying to your thread and not necessarily at you.

And yes, he did say that he does not favor impeachment, but did you listen to why he thinks so? When did I bring up bashing bush? I was talking about impeachment too... I think Edwards was being reasonable about the state of this country and how fragile it is... impeachment would break the back, I'm not sure we can sustain it with everything else that is going on and the overall moral low that this country has reached.

And, I was sticking to the subject... I guess you didn't read my post huh? Just saying that he is against impeachment is not enough, you have to listen to his reasoning behind it too.

Okay, if that link didn't work, try this: http://www.video.exposetheleft.net/video/edwards-tw.wmv

[mtnsnake]

72. No prob

I'm a chillin'.

Sorry for any miscommunications, btw, but these things move really fast sometimes.

I just tried that second link to the video but this one sends me to a "FORBIDDEN" page where it says "You don't have permission to access /video/edwards-tw.wmv on this server". Thanks for trying to give me the video, anyway. If worse comes to worse, the transcript will be out soon enough on http://www.transcripts.tv/this-week.cfm and I can read the entire thing then. Like I said, I'm only going by the part of the show where I heard Edwards say he's against the idea of impeaching Bush. I was disappointed to hear him say it. I'm sure I would've been happier with him on the other parts of the show I missed earlier, especially if he bashed Bush.

Peace

[AmericanDream]

94. Here ya go...

I can understand your point of view. I mean the idea of "justice" has to have some value after all; but I also understand the point Edwards is making. Anyway, I uploaded the video, I hope you get to watch it:

http://www.uploading.com/?get=UZIE10FH

Crooks&Liars also has part of it on their website.

[benny05]

68. Hi there

You are a good patriot, and you believe what many believe. American Dream does too.

I've loved the discourse today...my :patriot: to all who want our country, when wrong, to make it right, as Sen Kerry said yesterday.

[mtnsnake]

70. Thanks

for saying that.

I think you, myself, and American Dream all want the same things pretty much. Along the way there's bound to be some slight differences in how we go about getting there, but that's alright because we're gonna figure it all out as long as we keep talking.

[benny05]

73. Exactly

As JRE pointed out today, R's are gonna implode.

Hope you will join us for discussion and levity at OAC blog, if you have the time.

[sarahlane]

88. Did you write the same one against Feingold?

It's funny how Edwards gets the negative attention but when Feingold says the exact same thing no one seems to care.

[mtnsnake]

90. Actually I did express my disappointment

with Feingold at the appropriate time. Other DU'ers did, too.

Even though he moved to censure, as an alternative to impeachment, I was adamantly against it for that reason. IMO, censure is little more than a symbolic slap on the wrist. Where Bush is concerned, it should be impeachment, impeachment only, and nothing less.

[sarahlane]

102. I totally agree!

[benny05]

112. Censure

means official reprimand...Senate can do this.

Impeachment has to be commenced by House; then there is a trial in the Senate.

Just pointing out differences.

[QC]

58. John Conyers: There’s no rush to impeach Bush

http://www.annistonstar.com/opinion/2006/as-insight-0521-0-6e19q1040.htm

Do I have to hate him now?

[mtnsnake]

59. As if that's the same as saying you're against impeaching, period, like

what Edwards said.

Saying there's "no rush" is not the same as saying you're against impeaching him.

[question everything]

61. And he is correct, smart, and politically savvy

and I agree with him.

He said so several months ago on Bob Schieffer's.

Impeaching Bush should not be the major task for a Democratic Congress, as much as many here can actually taste the blood.

There are so many obscene laws that passed by this Congress that affect so many directly that impeachment should not be the first priority.

Gut the Medicare drug bill that rewards pharmaceutical companies but that confuses and penalizes many senior

Reverse the bankruptcy law that target people with huge medical bills

Set a meaningful retirement system where employers have to contribute about half to employee's 401K, not a measly 3 to 5%. Earlier this week Frontline had a sobering program about it, pointing out that 401K was first passed as a special favor for executives of Xerox and Kodak..

Address the convoluted system of health care were middle men: insurance companies and their CEOs make millions while health care providers get their income drastically reduced every year, when they have to spend so much time and resources and paperwork instead of seeing patients.

Gut the "welfare reform" yes, the Clinton one, see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2638579&mesg_id=2638579

Gut the income tax system to make it fairer, eliminate all the loopholes for the wealthy. I do not remember whether the estate tax has been eliminated; if it was, put it back with exception for the sa-called ma and pa farms, or whatever it was.

Gut the "no child left behind" law

Take a serious look at our involvement in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

All these are immediate important issues that are relevant to most voters. Impeaching Bush will just divert attention and resources from the real thing.

Do we really to waste another $70 million on "special prosecutor?"

[benny05]

67. Thank you

Good discourse today overall!

[laureloak]

71. I agree with Edwards. Force Bush to resign instead. n/t

[mtnsnake]

74. How can we "force Bush to resign" if we don't want to impeach him?

Among other things, it was the fear of impeachment that made Nixon resign, wasn't it?

If Bush thinks Democrats don't to impeach him, like Edwards doesn't, then why would he ever feel compelled to resign? You don't really think Bush is going to resign all on his own good accord, do ya?

[laureloak]

76. LET it happen.

For a long time I really wanted impeachment but I slowly came to realize that we, as a Nation, cannot afford to get mired down in another divisive controversy. As a Nation we need to UNITE and move forward. There's hell of a lot of clean up work to be done.

[Cosmocat]

77. NOT good enough ...

Jesus ... The clinton thing was so divisive because EVERYONE knew it was a fishing expedition, that the man did NOTHING to even have the process started ... It was pure hatred from the hard core right, trying to take down a successful president ...

This clown has CLEAR grounds to be impeached in so many ways, the only REAL question is what areas to focus on ...

This is freakin United States of America, and you have a pretty darn low opinion of this country if you don't think that it can handle holding the worst president we have EVER had accountable ...

As for cleaning up the mess, THIS is part of it ... We cannot even begin to turn around the damage this crew has done to this country's prestige until we show that he and his kind ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE of OUR values, our way of life ... You want the rest of the world to start to respect us again, you do the hearings and hold him accountable ...

Bottom line, he broke the law and our constitution 100 times over, and NEEDS to be held accountable ... This congress has not held its end up in relation to checks and balances, and it cannot even BEGIN to start to gain its integrity until it deals with 1600 PA ...

Who are the ones going on, and on, and on about how the country not being able to handle this clown being held accountable ... Conservatives who have NO sense of responsibility and the MSM whores ... Well, the MSM whores were flat wrong about this crew all along, they sold out and have an agenda ... They are wrong about this, too ...

The country NEEDS for this clown and his to be held accountable ... To start to clean the mess up, and to have an example for the future ... We let Bushco skate this time, and they WILL crawl out of their hole in another 10 years or so ... People let Reagan off, and the conservatives and MSM darn near have his head up on Mount Rushmore ...

This is about now AND the future ...

[laureloak]

79. I'm not saying DON'T let it happen. I'm saying just LET it.

Put the party's time and interest into solving problems, not revenge. That's what the powers that be decided anyway and I've come to agree with them.

[benny05]

75. I suggest K & R to get more opins.. n/t

[Clarkie1]

78. There need to be hearings firsts, we should not be calling for impeachment

now. By winning in November, we can begin the process, which begins with hearings on a variety of fronts. it is premature politically to call for impeachment now. Edwards responded to the question appropriately.

[Jack Rabbit]

80. It won't be like the Clinton impeachment

There was no good reason to impeach Clinton.

There is no good reason not impeach Bush and Cheney.

That's a big difference.

[Disturbed]

81. Bush and Cheney deserve to be Impeached and Fired.

The problem is that this wouldn't be feasable until Jan. '07. The process would take a year, perhaps taking it into '08. The timing is off. In the meantime there would be chaos in Govt. Dems may be better off garnering a majority in the House and Senate and reverse the policies of the Bush Admin.

[sarahlane]

82. Feingold said the exact same thing!

About a month ago Feingold said the exact same thing on Meet the Press. He said he felt that impeachment wasn't the right way to go because the country doesn't need it right now. He was for censure just as Edwards is, I for one am for impeachment!

[mtnsnake]

91. I didn't see him say it this morning, just Edwards. Please see post #90

[wtmusic]

96. oferchrissake

Please stop spreading this misinformation. See post #95.

[faithnotgreed]

98. me too sarahlane

and the first person to say it outright without apology has my vote (if they are running for office that is - ha)

welcome to du

[sarahlane]

103. I don't know any viable candidates who have...

come out for impeachment, if anybody knows any please share.

[faithnotgreed]

105. ditto that

i dont know anyone either

i still say john conyers is the only true representative we have

[mtnsnake]

111. but we do know of one who came out against it this morning

Just because the other ones haven't come out FOR impeachment, it doesn't mean they don't have plans up their sleeves. As long as they're not ruling it out, it makes me think that there's a good possibility that they're planning something for the right time. All we can do is keep our fingers crossed.

Just sayin'

[ima_sinnic]

97. bye John, it was nice while it lasted.

I don't buy this "impeachment would divide the country" CRAP.
Like we're not "divided" already -- but, HELLO?? 3/4 of the people do NOT like/trust/want/approve of * and about that same number WANT HIM IMPEACHED.
To not do so would be an abomination of justice. * is a TEXTBOOK CASE OF AN IMPEACHMENT-WORTHY PRESIDENT, along with his whole slimebag, duplicitous "administration" of con-artist cronies. They all should have been tarred and feathered like YESTERDAY.
Impeachment is a litmus-test issue for me.
Either someone is going to take a stand against someone who is a TRAITOR and do his or her DUTY, or he/she is going to be a mealy-mouthed, cowardly appeasor.
I'm sick of anyone who treats any of it with kid gloves.

[wtmusic]

99. What's dividing the country are the elected reps

who refuse to hold * accountable.

I don't get it. W could eat a baby on the WH steps and these people would want to hold hearings.

[GreenArrow]

100. SCOT FREE

George W. Bush. Scot Free.
Dick Cheney. Scot Free.
Colin Powell. Scot Free.
Condoleeza Rice. Scot Free.
Don Rumsfeld. Scot Free.
Paul Wolfowitz. Scot Free.
Alberto Gonazalez. Scot Free.
John Bolton. Scot Free.
Paul Bremer. Scot Free.
John Negroponte. Scot Free.
Insert name here. Scot Free.

Ain't nothin' gonna happen to any of these dudes. They are going to get off Scot Free and can look forward to lives full of pensions, dividends, the lecture circuit, great golf, best-sellers, and appearances on America's most watched news programs.

[Independent_Liberal]

108. Defeatist.

Yeah, give up. Do nothing. Keep letting the Bushes get away with it. I'm sure the next one will be better.

Reagan-Worse than Nixon
Bush I-Worse than Reagan
Bush II-Need I go on?

Do you want to meet the next one?

[GreenArrow]

115. "do you want to meet the next one"?

We certainly will so long as these people and their ilk have no pennance to pay. And they won't, regardless of which party is controlling things.

All for the good of the country, you know, tut tut.

[Catchawave]

104. From the Clinton Impeachment hearings...

A powerful read from a master orator....and without notes...

http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.statements/edwards.html

Sen. Edwards's closed-door impeachment statement
Released into Congressional Record, February 12, 1999

Sen. John Edwards (D-North Carolina): I add my praise, Mr. Chief Justice, for the work you have done, but I would add one other thing. The last time I saw you before this impeachment trial you were leading a sing-along at the Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference. I thought it might be a good idea for this group.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. A healing device.

(Laughter.)

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I have prepared remarks. But I am not going to use them. I made that decision about 20 minutes ago.

I have been sitting, listening to my fellow Senators speak, and I want to speak to you from the heart. I want to speak to you about a struggle, because I have been through a struggle. It is a real struggle. And I suspect that there are an awful lot of you who have been through the same struggle--both before we voted on the motion to dismiss and, for me, since we voted on the motion to dismiss.

For me, the law is a sacred thing. And that is part of my life. I have seen what the law can do. It is a powerful, powerful thing. It can do extraordinary things for ordinary people. And I believe we have been given a sacred responsibility. I will tell you what that sacred responsibility means to me personally. It means that when I walked in here the first day of this impeachment trial I was 100 percent completely open to voting to remove this President......more..

[benny05]

106. Similar Post Catchawave

:pals:

I had earlier..

how about a song by MCC?

"I'm a town in Carolina, I'm a detour on a ride
For aphone call and a soda, I'm a blur from the driver's side
I'm the last gas for an hour if you're going twenty-five
I am Texaco and tobacco, I am dust you leave behind

I am peaches in September, and corn from a roadside stall
I'm the language of the natives, I'm a cadence and a drawl
I'm the pines behind the graveyard, and the cool beneath their shade, where the boys have left their beer cans
I am weeds between the graves.

My porches sag and lean with old black men and children
Their sleep is filled with dreams, I never can fulfill them
I am a town.

I am a church beside the highway where the ditches never drain
I'm a Baptist like my daddy, and Jesus knows my name
I am memory and stillness, I am lonely in old age; I am not your destination
I am clinging to my ways
I am a town.

I'm a town in Carolina, I am billboards in the fields
I'm an old truck up on cinder blocks, missing all my wheels
I am Pabst Blue Ribbon, American, and "Southern Serves the South"
I am tucked behind the Jaycees sign, on the rural route
I am a town
I am a town
I am a town
Southbound"

[Catchawave]

107. His impeachment statement was so good

...worth repeating :hi:

The topic headline made me think of it right away, sorry I didn't see yours!

[benny05]

119. Catchawave

Check out my blog. Something really cool happened to me, but more important, Elizabeth was at the center of an audience last week, and she was called "a maverick" by the techie crowd!

:hug:

[tavalon]

110. I don't either

wink, wink. I swear we need a special signal. It's politics. It's parsing. They want "investigations" and if those lead............

Therefore, the Rethugs can't play their fear tactic game, we get the majority back in the House and maybe even the Senate and then, oops, if those investigations just happen to show that impeachment is appropriate, well, rule of law, you know. Rule of Law!!

Blow off any Dem that says "we don't want impeachment" between now and November. They're actually playing the politics game with a little more savvy than usual. Let's help them do it. Don't spill the beans, okay?

[grannylib]

120. I don't either - I think we should execute him for treason.

Repeated violations of an oath of office he had no right to take, given the fact that he was never elected.

[mtnsnake]

121. Granny, I don't think you're supposed to be saying that kind of stuff

Yikes! :wow:

[grannylib]

125. No, you're right...I don't believe in the death penalty. But if I did,

he'd be the first to go.

Actually, I think he ought to be sentenced to a lifetime of honest labor at the wage he's happy to let his big business buddies pay illegal immigrants today.
Maybe then he'd REALLY understand how hard it is to put "food on your family."

What a fuckin' moron he is.

[AtomicKitten]

122. Dems let Iran-Contra slide.

Never again.

[MethuenProgressive]

123. Just another reason to kick Edwards to the side of the road...

..as if we needed another reason.

[benny05]

128. Right n/t

[LittleClarkie]

127. Or, perhaps, he just disagrees with you

It could happen.

There are those who see a tit for tat thing happening. First Nixon, the Clinton, then Bush, then the next Dem, then the next Republican.

I don't think Edwards is afraid. He just doesn't happen to agree with your pov.

[benny05]

129. JRE has said:

"I want people to know what I think or where I stand". You are correct: he's not afraid to say what he thinks.

[GreenArrow]

130. if you want to know where he stands

check the polls.

[mtnsnake]

131. We can't sit around worrying about what might happen to us if we impeach

I'm more worried about what happens if we don't.

There are those who see a tit for tat thing happening. First Nixon, the Clinton, then Bush, then the next Dem, then the next Republican.

The Republicans impeached Clinton and look where it got THEM....8 years of George Bush in the WH and a Republican controlled Congress...and you're worrying about tit for tat?

Please read post #32.

[zonmoy]

133. anybody need any further proof that

both mainstream parties are rotten to the core.

[Dr Fate]

134. Tired of these cowardly stances. I need inspiration...

Perhaps I'll turn to a comedian or a fat film maker.

The bright side is I dont feel compelled to give money to these guys since they are not really the opposition- so the savingds are passed on to me, I guess.