We're Doomed! Doomed I Tell You! (An Impeachment Intervention)

[pat_k]

There are variations on the theme,⁽¹⁾ but the crux of the establishment's message to Democrats is this: "Americans will turn against you if you don't play nice" (read "you're doomed if you impeach").

The DC Dems are buying this pig in a poke.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing
over and over and expecting different results."
-- Benjamin Franklin

When simple truths and moral principles demand action, our Democratic leaders do the same thing over and over: they slam on the breaks and look for an escape route.

As they plot their escape, they invoke the same rationalizations over and over again, with "the backlash beast will get us" and the self-defeating prophesy "can't win so don't fight" vying for the top of the list.

Like the "I'll quit tomorrow" addict, they assuage guilt and shame by telling themselves "we'll do the right thing, later." Tragically for the nation, "later" never comes because, like the addicts they are, the "strategerists" among them always identify reasons that "now" is bad time to bite the bullet.

Over and over, their failure to act leads to consequences far more dire than the worst they feared would result if they had acted.

It is the definition of insanity.

This http://www.abess.com/glossary.html#R">repetition compulsion is driven by an addiction to tactical analysis that focuses almost exclusively on the "certain" negative consequences of action. For example, in the current crisis, "opinion makers" and party insiders alternate between assurances that the nation wants Democrats to work with Bush and his toadies in Congress and warnings that the public will blast them if they impeach. The benefits of impeachment, the enormous risks of failing to impeach, and the recent polls (e.g., http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">Newsweek's) that find a majority of Americans want impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress are conspicuously absent (i.e., willfully ignored).

An addiction to such one-sided "analysis" becomes devastating when it is coupled with blind acceptance of the assumptions that pervade the insular beltway world -- assumptions that are often the opposite of reality.

Almost without fail, when Democratic leaders are on the verge of taking a principled or bold stand, the climate of opinion warns them that something Very Bad will happen if they act. In contrast, when Republican leaders (whether Reagan-Republican, Rovian, or some other brand) "boldly" seek to impose the will of the reactionary right on the rest of us, they are hailed for displaying political savvy.

Although we can point to individual acts of courage within the Democratic Party, the Party as a whole is branded by their collective drive to escape bold action. There are so many heartbreaking and destructive examples, but just to name a few:

• Taking the impeachment of Reagan "off the table" because they assumed conciliation would pave the way to victory in 1988;


• Sending Alito to the Supreme Court by voting to close debate because they feared being called "obstructionists," and then having the nerve to claim "opposition" by voting against him on the floor;


• Submitting to the treasonous Bush v. Gore edict, instead of denouncing it and putting the decision to throw out the unlawful Florida electors in the hand of Congress, where it belonged. ("Gosh, they could have done that?" . . . Yes, they SHOULD have. ... "But, it would have never worked out." ... See? You're at it again.)

Admittedly, it can be very difficult to "stay clean" when our only sources of information are the "pushers" in the MSM. But that is the nature of propaganda and the nature of addiction.

It's long past time for an intervention.

____________________________________________________________________________

(1) The drumbeat:

The voters, tired of Washington's divisive ways,
want to see the two parties cooperate.
-- http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2992&printer_friendly=1">Eleanor Clift

don't turn things upside down... the American people do want
you to work with the other side...
-- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/11/AR2006111100918_pf.html">Douglas MacKinnon (Dole press secretary turned columnist)

a push for impeachment could cause the kind of bitter warfare
that has so disgusted the electorate these last ten years...
-- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2686286 ">Will Pitt

A great article on how we're being spun to surrender:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2992&printer_friendly=1">Media Advisory
Morning-After Pundits Take Winners to Task
Victorious Dems lectured by media establishment

. . .

"The voters, tired of Washington's divisive ways, want to see the two parties cooperate," wrote Newsweek's Clift. Oddly, though, those voters had recently told Newsweek (Newsweek.com, http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-21-2006/0004456423&EDATE=">10/21/06) that 51 percent of them wanted impeachment to be a priority (either high or low) of a new Democratic majority. It's likely that these people, who wouldn't mind seeing Bush tried for high crimes and misdemeanors, aren't particularly eager to see the representatives they sent to Washington working with him to advance his agenda.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2992&printer_friendly=1">More. . .

[uberblonde]

1. It was Sigmund Freud, not Ben Franklin. [EOM]

[pat_k]

3. Hmmmm. . .wikiquote attributes to Franklin. . .

. . .http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin">here. A number of other quotation sites also attribute it to him, but a search of Barlett's (which I would consider the most trusted source) yielded no hits at all.

Although many attribute to Franklin, in light of it's absence from Barlett's it wouldn't surprise me if that was an error.

[davekriss]

15. Ha!

I always understood the quote to be Albert Einstien's.

[pat_k]

18. If I use it in the future, I'll be attributing to "Unknown". . .

` . . .As I mentioned in the reply above, I couldn't find it in Bartlett's, so it'll be "Unknown" until I hear otherwise from some "definitive authority."

[primative1]

26. Guess Its A Preference Thing ..

I will go foreward attributing the quote to Ned Lamont :)

[rosesaylavee]

2. An investigation revealing crimes needs to lead

to impeachment. It is how our govt works. It is not a choice. If we do not address the crimes that have been committed, they will revisit us again. The last 6 six years would have been less likely to happen if our leadership had dealt with Iran/Contra rather than sweep it under the rug or simply allow numb-nuts Ollie to fall on his sword for the criminals.

[pat_k]

5. "Investigations first" makes it HARDER to make the case.

A message to "investigations first" people

"We must have investigations first" says one thing: "we don't know enough to impeach." That statement is a lie. We know all we need to know http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/10">right now.

Seeking refuge from action in investigation makes it much HARDER to convey the simple truth. It puts us on the fascist's turf ("If the case is simple why are they having all those hearings? There must be something wrong with the case. They don't have anything. If they did, they would have impeached already")

We must to stop pretending and get on with it. The Constitution is being tortured in plain sight. We must rescue it by removing the torturers from power. Thorough investigation and prosecution must follow, but FIRST we need to take away the power they are abusing.

The price of "putting off" Impeachment could be unimaginable

On September 10, 2001, there were many signs that sanity was returning. The number who believed Florida was stolen had passed 50%. Bush's approval was continuing the steady downward slide that started the day he was inaugurated. A coalition that included the National Lawyers Guild and Bugliosi was http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2701395&mesg_id=2707042">about to announce their "fall offensive" -- a campaign that that included the effort to see Scalia et al. impeached for for Bush v. Gore (which would have undercut Bush's claim to even a semblance of legitimacy).

Then the sun came up on 9/11/2001. In the weeks that followed, the countless people who were horrified by the stolen election and Bush's incredible abuses were silenced in a nation that had seemingly gone mad.

Sanity is once again returning, but we must recognize how fragile the moment is.

The urgency cannot be underestimated. Taking up the fight for impeachment and remove now is a scary thing, but members of Congress must "Just Do It." Any day we could see another terrorist attack, Bush could declare was Iran, or some completely unforeseen event could make it impossible to rescue our national soul for a long time to come.

[AntiFascist]

6. Excellent post and excellent op! Proud to give #5 rec....

People just do not understand how dangerous it is NOT to press for impeachment and you're correct that we know plenty now to begin immediately. The false dichotomy between those who want to press for investigations first and those who want impeachment is also becoming a strange wedge issue that can only play into the hands of, dare I say, those who want to go to war with Iran.

[rosesaylavee]

8. I think we are basically agreeing here.

Investigations I am referring to would reveal much of the evidence and points already known to many here but not to the country as a whole. As impeachment proceedings are governed by law, I am presuming that there is a stepped process to be applied to it that would ease those not understanding the need for impeachment to solidly supporting it once the facts are generally known. We the People or our duly elected representatives will make the case, supply the supporting documents, review them in a public forum and go from there. Impeachment is inevitable.

I very much remember 9/10/01 and remember distinctly that the rumor was that Rumsfeld wouldn't last the fall due to his overall lack of support and confidence from those surrounding him in the Pentagon. He was soon to be gone. (sigh)

I would not be at all surprised if the investigations did reveal that *co had more than a little to do with the events of 9/11 and hopefully evidence will be produced and publicly aired that makes a solid irrefutable case for that in the months to come.

Peace.

[pat_k]

10. Impeachment is a Political, not a Legal process

It is up to We the People, though our representatives in Congress, to determine what constitutes an impeachable office. For example, there is no law against stupidity, but if the nation concluded that a President's stupidity posed an intolerable threat to our constitutional democracy, Congress could impeach and remove for stupidity.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky's statement last month captured it better that anything I've heard from the other members recently:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/85997,CST-EDT-HUNT06.articleprint">Dem denials don't end talk of impeachment
October 6, 2006

. . .this response from Rep. Jan Schakowsky, who as chief deputy whip occupies a leadership position for Democrats:

"Whether the president has committed acts that meet the standard for 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' which constitute an impeachable offense, is not defined in the Constitution or in a statute. It is a determination made by the House of Representatives. To that end, I am a co-sponsor of . . . Conyers' resolution to authorize an investigation into whether grounds exist for the impeachment of President Bush based on his manipulation of pre-war intelligence and use of torture."

"Impeachment proceedings are very serious and must never be used for political purposes," Schakowsky wrote. "However, that does not mean that they should never be used. They may be warranted in the case of President Bush in light of the extreme seriousness of the issues involved." She complained the GOP-controlled Congress has been derelict in conducting oversight of "an unprecedented expansion of presidential powers.". . .

Any member of the House can introduce articles of impeachment by resolution. Like any other bill or resolution, it is assigned to the committee(s) deemed appropriate, where it is reviewed "bottled up" or "killed" or voted out with recommendations to the House floor.

As http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/10">Senator's journal entry describes we have more than enough evidence in the public record to prove Bush and Cheney are recklessly abusing power in violation of the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and international law. The case that they pose an intolerable threat to the Constitution almost writes itself.

On January 4, 2007 when the new Congress convenes, any member could take up the fight for impeachment by introducing articles as Henry B. Gonzalez did in 1987. This is what we need to be calling on our representatives to do. And if any member does introduce articles, we need to put the pressure on the others to get on board. Sure, make the case to the nation, but no delays for unnecessary investigation. No claims that we "need more" before articles can be introduced (such claims do nothing but undermine the powerful case we already have) .

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/10">Texan Acts for Impeachment
AP
March 6, 1987

LEAD: Representative Henry B. Gonzalez, Democrat of Texas, who asked the House to impeach President Reagan after the Grenada invasion in 1983, today introduced new articles of impeachment against Mr. Reagan regarding the Iran arms affair. They were given virtually no chance of approval. The six articles accuse Mr.

Representative Henry B. Gonzalez, Democrat of Texas, who asked the House to impeach President Reagan after the Grenada invasion in 1983, today introduced new articles of impeachment against Mr. Reagan regarding the Iran arms affair. They were given virtually no chance of approval. The six articles accuse Mr. Reagan of misconduct in secretly selling arms to Iran, of allegedly diverting the arms sale payments to the Nicaraguan rebels and of failing to inform Congressional intelligence committees of his activities.

[Casablanca]

20. A response from an "investigations first" person.

""We must have investigations first" says one thing: "we don't know enough to impeach." That statement is a lie. We know all we need to know right now."

Agreed, but most of America doesn't know this information yet. If Congress moves to impeach before uncovering the evidence and laying it out to the American people, even anti-Bush conservatives will see it as vindictive opportunism and that will set the stage for an electoral blowback in '08.

The correct way to proceed is to not telegraph the punch by saying, "We are only interested in investigating what has occurred, for now.", and let the uncovered evidence motivate the American public and the anti-Bush conservatives to put pressure on the Democratic majority to do what it wants to do anyway. They should undertake the job as a necessary chore, without any hint of partisan politics.

[pat_k]

21. No "layering" required. . .

No stage to set.

The power of the case against Bush and Cheney is in it's SIMPLICITY. Feingold already made the case that the WH is nullifying the Constituion with their fascist fantasy of Bush as unitary authoritarian executive.

SCOTUS declared them War Criminals in Hamdan.

Articles can, and for the sake of the nation, must be introduced and assigned to committee on January 4th, 2007. Every single day they put off the inevitable may be one day too long.

They declare their intent by introducing articles and showing the kind of leadership http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE0DB1638F935A35750C0A961948260&sec=&pagewanted=print">Rep. Gonzalez's did in 1987. They must trust the public to let them know if they "get it" or if they need more.

Start the process. It will play out the way it plays out, but it must be STARTED -- formally and publicly, not in some back room or behind closed doors.

The public will never "get it" as long as members of Congress keep them in the dark while they "set the stage."

Even with Pelosi's blackout on impeachment, 51% of the electorate already "gets it" and wants impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress, so they've already got a GIANT head start.

There is absolutely NO excuse for delay.

[pat_k]

23. Opps -- meant to address ". . .no hint of partisan. . . too

A few simple truths are all they need to address accusations of partisan "revege" and whatnot.

Members of Congress need to make it clear to the WH, and the public, that they will impeach if they must, but that they want the nation to be CRYSTAL clear that there is nothing partisan about rescuing our Constitution from Bush and Cheney's abuses, therefore they fervently hope Bush and Cheney will choose to keep the WH in Republican hands as follows:

1. Cheney resigns, Bush nominates new VP.
   
   The VP must be confirmed by both the House and Senate. Since we elected these folks, if they object to a nominee that objection reflects our will.


2. Bush resigns, new VP is sworn in as President.


3. New President nominates a VP.
   
   Once again, the VP he/she nominates must be confirmed and therefore must meet with our approval (through the people we elected to represent us).

When the threat of impeachment becomes real, Republicans will be VERY motivated to keep the WH in Republican hands by using the "BushCheney resignation exit strategy" to escape impeachment.

Of course, if Bush and Cheney choose to be removed through impeachment, then the succession We the People established in the 25th amendment will govern, and the Democratic Speaker will take the office of the Presidency. Since this succession is in accordance with the laws we established, it is also a reflection of our will.

Pointing out the choices that are available to the criminals in the WH is also a way to speed up the whole process. It shifts the accusations that "they are subjecting the nation to a long painful process" to Bush and Cheney.

Accusations that the impeachment is a means of "revenge" or retribution can also be clobbered with dose of truth. For example, point out the following:

Bush and Cheney have grabbed and abused Unconstitutional power; they have proven themselves to be an intolerable threat to the Constitution. We are sworn to "support and defend" the Constitution. As members of Congress, we have a duty to do everything in our power to rescue the Constitution.

Exacting retribution for specific violations of Federal Statute through prosecution and punishment must follow, but that will be the concern of the Courts, not Congress. The nation can't even begin to think about that until the massive power of the American presidency has been taken out of hands of men who are abusing that power.

The actions of Congress are defensive. It will be up to the courts to "get even" (i.e., restore balance to the scales of justice.)

[calimary]

4. It's just something that NEEDS to be done.

For your consideration...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2964978&mesg_id=2964978

[pat_k]

28. Thanks for the link -- Mary Lyon is speaking for countless Americans. . .

. . .we'll, actually, they aren't really "countless" since we know that at least 51% of us want impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress.

[Senator]

7. The linked FAIR report is a Must Read

As Curtis Gans said on the David Bender Show, "it's all about Iraq" was/is just the usual Euphemedia smokescreen.

Iraq was just one sympton. "It's the Abuse of Power...stupid."

DC Dems need to impeach or they'll be out in 2 years.

--

[longship]

9. Impeaching without investigations is like...

indicting without investigations.

No impeachment has ever been started before there have been law enforcement investigations, congressional hearings, grand juries, lawyers, courts, prosecutors, etc. FIRST.

Clinton? No.
Nixon? No.

Both proceeded with information legally obtained through normal and legal channels with the oversight of a court.

We cannot impeach until evidence is secured through legal channels. That's the freaking way it works.

I want impeachment as much as anybody. But if it isn't done legally, it won't work.

And I am calling for impeachment. But Congress critters have to answer to the law. They *cannot* call for impeachment until there is *legal* evidence.

For Christ sakes, impeachment is just like an indictment. You cannot indict without legally secured chain of evidence. That *is* the law.

on edit: Sorry. Responded to wrong post.

[pat_k]

11. Posts #5 and #10 reply to this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2964929&mesg_id=2965151">Post #5

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2964929&mesg_id=2965637">Post #10

[longship]

12. I'll stand by my post.

Impeachment is a legal proceeding against a sitting official. No matter how people spin it otherwise, it does not reduce the clearly legal entanglements. That's why impeachment has *never* been attempted without first obtaining the imprimatur of a legally obtained trail of evidence.

One thing that the "impeach now" screechers do not seem to understand is that a failed impeachment would likely put the same asshats right back into power in 2008. We'd be right damned back where we were six years ago--Hell, maybe where we were twelve years ago.

All for what? Revenge? Political retribution? How could anybody defend such an action for the noble purpose of protecting the Constitution?

If Congress tries to do what some here are advocating it will be the ruin of our party.

So, let's all stand on our soapboxes and cheer on the investigations and continue to call for impeachment. But it *must* be done within the law or it will be wasted, and our party will pay a horrible penalty for it in November, 2008. This says nothing about the other likely outcome that the very people who we want held accountable will slip away with none.

Is this really what people want?

Hell. I'd rather we have no impeachment and instead tie these asshats up with investigations and then frog-march them out of the White House five minutes after a Democrat is sworn in in January, 2009. Which would be better?

You might want to read John Dean's recent article on this very topic. He's been calling for ChimpCo impeachment as long as anybody of prominence. Furthermore, who else would be more qualified to understand the process. He's the one who started the whole plunge towards impeachment of Nixon. John Dean, like many of us here, understands the process. Many others here, do not.

[loyalsister]

16. Exactly

And that a priori state of mind is one reason that I felt Republicans were so vile during the Clinton adiminsitration.

[pat_k]

17. Pelosi's pledge did them a FAR bigger favor than any . . .

. . "failed impeachment" could.

When she took the "impeachment is off the table" pledge she bent over backwards to give the fascists in the WH an unassailable argument:

"If we were destroying the Constitution, members of Congress, who are sworn to defend it, would be calling for our impeachment and removal. Not only are they NOT calling for impeachment, they are pledging NOT to impeach. With their pledge, we are exonerated of the charges coming from the "looney left."

I'll stand with "impeachment now screamers" like Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez any day of the week.

Had members of Congress gone forward with the Articles of Impeachment he introduced against Reagan in 1987, H.W. Bush's election would have been virtually impossible. And without an H.W. Bush, there could be no Shrub.

Who knows how that alternate history would have played out, but it is hard to imagine a scenario that would lead to more horror than we are seeing today.

[longship]

29. Okay. Let's look at this for a second.

How should have Nancy Pelosi have answered reporter questions about impeachment?

First, are you really suggesting that the person will be third in line for the Presidency should publically support impeachment of the very officers who, if removed would give her that office?

What would the Republican response to that be?

Second, there have been no Congressional investigations, no DOJ investigations, no special prosecutors (other than Fitz).

What would the Republican response be to Democrat congress critters who start impeachment inquiries before investigations?

Third, the public is not behind impeachment, not yet. Yet, in the past, the only time the impeachment process removed a President, they stood behind it.

What will the Republican response be if the Democrats start impeachment proceedings without public support?

Read John W. Dean's article on the subject

[pat_k]

33. Re: "How should have Nancy Pelosi have answered reporter. . "

She picked just about the ONLY answer that betrays by her oath.

It is like answering questions about whether the use of military force is off the table -- the answer to that one is ALWAYS "nothing is off the table." Use of force is a weapon of last resort, but leaders never take the weapons we have made available for our defense "off the table."

All she had to do was point that out and follow the example set by Jan Schakowski:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/85997,CST-EDT-HUNT06.articleprint">Dem denials don't end talk of impeachment
October 6, 2006

. . .this response from Rep. Jan Schakowsky, who as chief deputy whip occupies a leadership position for Democrats:

"Whether the president has committed acts that meet the standard for 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' which constitute an impeachable offense, is not defined in the Constitution or in a statute. It is a determination made by the House of Representatives. To that end, I am a co-sponsor of . . . Conyers' resolution to authorize an investigation into whether grounds exist for the impeachment of President Bush based on his manipulation of pre-war intelligence and use of torture."

"Impeachment proceedings are very serious and must never be used for political purposes," Schakowsky wrote. "However, that does not mean that they should never be used. They may be warranted in the case of President Bush in light of the extreme seriousness of the issues involved." She complained the GOP-controlled Congress has been derelict in conducting oversight of "an unprecedented expansion of presidential powers.". . .

[longship]

38. All four of your posts are well reasoned.

I agree that Pelosi should have been more nuanced. However, I do not blame her much. Saying, "impeachment is off the table" really does not say that it will remain off the table. I think we have to be careful before we criticize our representatives for statements like this. Although I would have definitely handled it differently, I am not Nancy Pelosi.

Concerning polling on impeachment, I do not think it is true that a majority of people support ChimpCo impeachment at this time. John W. Dean cites polling in his latest article. Maybe you should read that. (on edit: I see that you have. Good.)

Regardless, I think it is important to continue to poll on this issue. Many do not want to admit it, but impeachment may very well be the elephant in the room for the 110th Congress.

On these forums I have strongly defended the position that impeachment must be done correctly, or not at all. Please do not misconstrue this as meaning that I am not for impeachment. I strongly support it, and desire it. However, I lived through the Watergate era as a political activist and I'm acutely aware of what it took to bring Nixon to account. This was a President who so clearly violated laws that many of us were screaming impeachment as early as summer, 1972. It took two whole years for our pleas to be satisfied.

It is likely that ChimpCo's case is much, much worse than Nixon's. So it's very possible that it could be accomplished in much less time. However, regardless of what many people here think, there *is* a process that should (must?) be followed.

Our tactic should be similar to what we all did in 1972-1974.

Keep relentlessly beating the impeachment drum. In the meantime, push for hearings, investigations, special prosecutors, and all other methods to bring the investigation process to the forefront. We need to convince the people and our representatives that it needs to be done.

The secret is public support. At this time, we do not have the support of the nation. We need to take action to change that, or impeachment will remain "off the table" whether we like it or not.

[pat_k]

45. Right now, we do not have a champion with the power to actually . . .

. . .Do Something.

In fact, we have a powerful "anti-champion" in Pelosi -- someone who is apparently doing everything in her power to keep the lid on, even going so far as to "sit on" anyone in the Demcratic caucus that appears to be heading toward "champion" status.

We need a champion. She is in the way. We must go after her, even though our fellow Democrats may chastise us for "attacking our own."

. . .impeachment may very well be the elephant in the room for the 110th Congress. . .

Absolutely. Sooner or later reality comes home to roost; too often when it is too late. For example, when she recognized it was a moral imperative to object to the Ohio electors on January 6th, 2005, Sen. Barbara Boxer admitted that her failure to join the objection to the Florida electors on January 6th, 2001 was a grave mistake.

We are at a another momentous juncture. As we did then, we must do everything in our power to wake them up to their duty before it is too late.

(Given that it's the symbol of the GOP, we migh want to avoid the "elephant in the living room" adage ;-) )

. . .The secret is public support. At this time, we do not have the support of the nation. We need to take action to change that, or impeachment will remain "off the table" whether we like it or not. . .

Yes, in addition to directly challenging our leaders to act, we must keep pushing "out here." Even this thread is part of the process -- an effort to engage and activate people who are "almost there" (e.g., folks who want to see him impeached, but are currently in "wait and see" mode for one reason or the other.)

But if we want to see a Big Shift, we need a champion; a leader to give voice to the outrage. Our need for a champion is another part of the "Just Do It" case that I've been posting. Most recently in the http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2694923">Nov-12-06 discussion of the phenomenal response to Keith Olbermann's "Special Comments" (in which he finally gave voice to the outrage that has been seething out here for years.):

When a champion gives outrage a voice, Watch Out!]

-- a lesson our Dem "leaders" desperately need to learn (the sake of the nation and for the sake of future of the Party).

The position that the person who gives voice to our outrage holds makes a big difference in the effect.

When Keith gives voice to our anger, people come out of the woodwork because he gives them hope that they are not alone in their anger. They seea fellow traveler in the fight. Our anger and his anger are directed at the same target: Bush and Cheney and the elected officials who are failing to stop them.

Recognizing we are not alone is energizing, but the power is muted if we don't believe that something can be done. When the outrage is given voice by those who are in a position to do something (e.g., members of Congress who have the power to impeach) the electrifying effect is many orders of magnitude more powerful.

Thought the following post from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2426304">Oct-18-06 might bear repeating here.

The "strange silence" does not reflect a lack of alarm and outrage

The dismay and seething anger is all around us. But our "leaders" have failed to give voice to the outrage. When outrage is given no voice in the public square, people tend to keep it to themselves, believing they are alone.

When no one gives voice to outrage, the floodgates remain closed. But when a public figure speaks out and taps into the energy, whoosh!

I saw a microcosm of this after the theft of the 2004 Presidential election. I was on a Democracy for America conference call. From the back and forth, it sounded like there were maybe 5 or 10 people on the line as they talked about this or that agenda item and possible things to focus on as we "learned lessons" and "moved forward." There was little energy.

As the moderator neared the end of the agenda someone piped up "What about Ohio? What about the stolen election? What does Burlington plan to do about that?" Suddenly there was a chorus. Dozens talking at once. It was unbelievable. It sounded like there were about a hundred people on the line -- people who had been "strangely silent."

If no one had given voice to the anger, no one on that call would have thought that anyone else cared -- they would have withdrawn in silence. And the "leaders" would have been able to tell themselves the stolen election just isn't something that people are interested in. They would have walked away from the call believing everyone else was on board with their "let's move on" agenda, which was the opposite of the truth. In fact, the mother lode of energy was with the "It Ain't Over 'Til it's Over!" people.

We see this over and over again in ways large and small.

The unprecedented and amazing response to Keith Olbermann's first "Special Comment" is one such event. When he gave voice to the outrage, outraged Americans came out of the woodwork in numbers that so shocked the programmers they realized the segment was such a powerful activator they replayed it several times, not just in response to demand, but to boost ratings.

Whenever our leaders touch on the theft of Florida or Ohio in public appearances, whenever they tip toe anywhere near a call for impeachment, the audience bursts out in cheers and applause -- usually the loudest and longest of the event. Leaving that kind of energy untapped is political insanity.

There is enormous public support for impeachment. We can see it in the anger at Bush. We can see it in our Republican acquaintances who think Bush "needs a good spanking." We can see it in the polls . . {confirmed again after the OP by http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">Newsweek 10-21}

Until members of Congress who are sworn to defend the Constitution speak the truth, accuse Bush and Cheney of their crimes, and take up the fight for impeachment and removal countless Americans will continue to seethe in frustration and silence, believing they are alone in a world gone mad.

As long as members of Congress fail to give our outrage a voice they can continue to believe the opposite of reality, that Americans prefer to trade away the Constitution to avoid the "negativity" of impeachment.

[Joe Chi Minh]

47. You're not a lawyer, are you?

[pat_k]

49. No. But whenver my Dad (who was a lawyer) said "you should be a lawyer" . . .

. . .I knew I had won the argument :D

[pat_k]

34. Re: "are you really suggesting that the person will be third in line. . ."

Yes, that is what I am suggesting.

As I describe in a previous reply, the succession is completely up to Bush and Cheney. They can choose to keep the Presidency in Republican hands -- and the Dems must make it clear that they WANT it to go that way. . .http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2964929&mesg_id=2966153">are you really suggesting that the person will be third in line|more above

[pat_k]

35. Re: "the public is not behind impeachment. . ."

Yes, they are. A majority already http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">want impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress -- and that is in the face of Pelosi's "impeachment blackout."

[longship]

40. So, pro-impeachment sentiment is about 51% at this time.

I would say that this is not enough. During 1974, impeachment support was higher, probably much higher. I don't have those numbers but if my memory serves me correct impeachment was a prominent news item beginning winter 1973-1974. 50,000 telegrams, most of which asked Congress to impeach, hit Congress in one day alone--October 20, 1973 (Saturday Night Massacre).

That's the kind of support it is going to take to get this done.

Again, we must have a strong strategy to turn this around.

Lobby Congress, write LTTEs, and other activism to promote hearings, investigations, special prosecutors, and impeachment. Keep it up, relentlessly. Force the issue.

When the WaPo, NYT, and other major news outlets have impeachment on page one, above the fold, it will happen.

[Joe Chi Minh]

48. Yes, but you had more honest MSM and possibly pollsters, too.

[dchill]

55. 51% at this time...

Just wait until Congressional hearings and investigations produce big piles of steaming evidence about many, many BushCo crimes. That 51% is going to seem paltry.

It's Power of Subpoena, people.

[pat_k]

37. Re: "Read John W. Dean's article on the subject. . "

As grateful as I am for what John Dean has done to promote impeachment, and as much as I admire him, is missing these critical points:

• Putting off impeachment "pending investigation" undermines the powerful case we already have.
  It puts us on the fascist's turf ("If the case is simple why are they having all those hearings? They're just blowing hot air. They don't have anything. If they did, they would have impeached already") -- more on this http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2964929&mesg_id=2965151">here
  
  Everything we need is already on the public record.
  
  http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/10">The articles practically write themselves.


• The urgency cannot be underestimated.
  
  http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2964929&mesg_id=2965151">The price of putting off impeachment could be unimaginable.

[Joe Chi Minh]

51. This whole issue, Pat_K, reminds me of JK's assassination in Dallas,

and the so-called conspiracy theory.

Thye've managed to obfuscate, misrepresent, and lie in so many different ways, incredibly even on the basis of physicua evidence. Actually, precisely because of fraudulently presented physical evidence.

Yet the odds against the mysterious deaths of the twenty or so witnesses on the grassy knoll by accident (as they were purported to do in various mysterious ways), all within three years, are literally of an astronomic order of magnitude. As unlikely as the lone gunman theory that those witnesses disputed.

A lot of people make very good livings, thanks largely to our courts' obsession with so-called "hard" physical evidence, when as a matter of fact, imo, circumstantial evidence can often be the most compelling, and when backed by the a priori truth provided by mathematics, unassailable.

I don't mean that physical evidence cannot often be a clincher, but its significance is frequently misrepresented by the defence lawyers, thankfully unsucccesffully usually, I think, because the common sense of the jurors prevails. Still, it's not unknown for a permutation of judges, attorneys, police and coroners to conspire, to "fit up" the Accused, or to exculpate them.

But in political investigations, to which the whole panoply of state can be suborned by the defendants to exculpate them, as with JFK's assassination, it can be a different story.

However, politicians will always take the safe course in terms of peer approval (and that, alas, includes approval by the opposition), so I expect they'll insist on lengthy investigations. Appearances, they think, are everything. Politics,I suppose, is all about approval; not at all about integrity. Churchill was a great stateesman, but a terrible politician. Blair, on the other hand, is the ultimate low-life, but a consummate politician.

Still, when all's said and done, I hope that the enormity of the derelictions of their official duties, never mind their commissions of serious crimes, will inevitably lead to an unusual foreshortening of the legal proceedings, as I think you make a very compelling argument.

[pat_k]

39. Re: "How will Republicans respond. . ."

As I point out in the OP, obsession with the fear that "something Very Bad" will happen if we take bold action drives the addiction to avoidance that is killing the Party.

It is time for us to intervence and call on them stop behaving like http://www.andnetwork.com/index;jsessionid=327C32E8686AAFEACD2FABE670BF9291?service=direct/1/FullStory/printableLink&sp=l56679">victims of Domestic Abuse and undertake a complete analysis of the PROS and CONS -- and that MUST include the enormous risks associated with failing to act; and the potential benefits of action.

When all is said and done, when principle demands action, you act or betray principle. Examining the possible risks AND rewards can make it easier to act, but the cool thing about duty is that you Just Do It, come what may. The choice is clear. Silence is Complicity.

To fulfill their oath they must be "on the look out" for threats (turning a "blind eye" is not an option). When they identify a threat, their First Duty is to notify us and tell us what they believe we must do to defend against it. (Not what they think we will do; not what they think they can do; not what they think other members of Congress might do. They have a duty to tell us what they personally believe the nation must do.)

Bush and Cheney are leading their tiny faction in an all out attack on our Constitution. The ONLY way to turn them back is remove them from office. Win or Lose, that is the fight we face. Members of Congress, in whom we vested the power to impeach, are duty-bound to call us to arms.

Their oath is an individual oath. Even if No Other member recognizes the threat, each member has a Personal Duty to act on their own judgment -- as Rep. Gonzalez did when he http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE0DB1638F935A35750C0A961948260&sec=&pagewanted=print">Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez introduced articles against Reagan in 1987. When other members of Congress failed to join him then they made Bush I possible, which in turn made the horror of Shrub possible.

When you have all the "goods" on criminals, but fail to accuse them, you become complicit their crimes.

If you are interested in a summary of these and other key points, see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2595234&mesg_id=2595474">this post

[longship]

42. Do you agree that we need hearings, investigations, etc.

Fear is a good thing. Although we should not fear impeachment because of what a bunch of kooks will say, we should be wary of doing impeachment such that many will perceive it as a political knee-jerk. We have to take appropriate action to see to it that the impeachment will take. Otherwise, it will *hurt* us very badly politically.

What good is standing up to a principle, winning the battle to get impeachment going, and then losing the whole thing when Repukes sweep back into power in 2008? Will you be cheering "We stood up to principles and impeached." then?

The bottom line is this...
Let's stop criticizing our representatives and start convincing them.

[pat_k]

46. Articles and proofs that make it crystal clear to the . . .

. . .nation that Bush and Cheney pose an intolerable threat can, and should be, introduced ASAP -- ideally in the 1st session of the new Congress (or as Senator suggests, on January 6th, since it was January 6th, 2001 that our Constitution went into breach when members of Congress failed to stand in judgment of the Florida electors.)

Whether or not they have the support of the leadership, members can take up the fight to impeach by introducing a set of articles (the most clear and convincing of the numerous charges for which we have all the proofs necessary), and then fighting to have them acted on in the committee (or committees) to which the resolution is assigned.

If they hold committee hearings to discuss the power of the case, and to make that case, fine. But, as I have described above, if they claim hearings are needed to "gather evidence" they undermine the powerful case they already have. If the minority attempts the draw things out with investigation, Dems must resist the efforts and hold fast to the "we know all we need to know" line. If they do otherwise, they undercut their case.

As with any resolution, specifics would be hammered out in committee, the process can, and should, go very fast. Sure it could get drawn out, but there is no reason to believe long is more likely than short.

There is so much outrage percolating out here, it doesn't really matter which charges they decide are the most powerful. Keeping it simple should be the guiding principle. It would be a mistake try to go after everything -- the crimes that don't end up in the articles will always be part of public debate and criminal prosecution of those crimes will follow, but you don't need "everything" to get Bush and Cheney out of there. (People were happy to see Capone convicted on tax evasion. Knowledge of "uncharged" crimes colors judgment. While this is to be avoided at all costs in a criminal trial, this is a political process in which there no such prohibition.)

The key is to fight for the whole shebang (i.e., immediate, public, concrete, formalized call for impeachment). Anti-fascists have a terrible habit of fighting only for what we think we can get, and almost always ending up with far less than that. It is time to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2302569">break that terrible habit.

Once started, the process will unfold the way it unfolds. There are infinite possibilities at each juncture. Hearings to argue the case and present evidence are probable, but may not be part of the process. The threat that Congress is getting serious about impeachment alone could be enough to motivate Bush and Cheney to implement the "exit strategy" offered by resignation, so hearings may not ever necessary.

As I pointed out in the OP, the very real risks of taking half-measures or being satisfied that they are working for impeachment "behind the scenes" is almost completely absent from the public debate. The potential rewards of bold action are also absent. That must change. Discussions like this are part of the campaign to challenge faulty assumptions and one-sided analysis.

Re: "Fear is a good thing."

Fear is a very bad and immobilizing thing when it not part of an honest and complete assessment of Risks AND Rewards on both sides of the equation (i.e., doing "it" or not doing "it" -- whatever "it" may be).

We don't need to make ANY effort to "be careful." The folks on "our side" are cautious, analytical, and rationalizing creatures. We don't need to try to be who we are -- we can't help ourselves (to a fault).

Being bold doesn't come naturally. We need to work at being bold. I keep pointing you all over the place, but if you are interested, you'll find a discussion of the "top five losing tendencies" that get in our way, and "top five winning habits" we must develop to counter our losing tendencies http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2302569">Here

What good is standing up to a principle, winning the battle to get impeachment going. . .

The biggest problem that faces members of the Democratic Party is that they are considered weak.

If we get our elected officials to stand and fight for principle, come what may, they will not just be doing the RIGHT thing, they will be doing the WINNING thing because when they demonstrate strength they challenge the "weak Dem" image.

. . and then losing the whole thing when Repukes sweep back into power in 2008?

I think the case is FAR stronger that if we fail to impeach -- win or lose -- that we are paving the way to Republican victory in 2008. You may believe the contrary. No human is omniscient. Since it can go either way, why would we hesitate to Do the Right Thing?

[pat_k]

41. Finally, the points you make are so common, I replied point-by-point. . .

. . . so that people scanning this thread would see each heading. Hope you don't mind.

It is through dialog on DU and elsewhere that the most effective ways to challenge the various objections come together. Many thanks.

[longship]

44. I absolutely do not mind.

I am very encouraged by these discussions. People are being extremely thoughtful and deliberative here. I have learned much from all sides of the argument. In spite that passions are high on this topic, almost all the responses I've read have been very respectful. This is the kind of thing which makes DU such a wonderful place.

Thank you very much for your posts. I very much appreciate the dialog.
Welcome to my buddy list.

[pat_k]

36. <deleted>

[Imagevision]

54. Plain and simple, ---> has Bush committed war crimes? yes or no??

[Senator]

19. I know, wrong post -- But Boy, wrong answer

Impeachment is in NO WAY a legal proceeding save the trappings. It is a political process and only "like an indictment" in the sense that both words mean formal accusation. Past articles have been sent to committees that have held hearings, but no law requires that.

And while the Senate proceeding may be called a "trial," and is most often conducted similar fashion, there are no rules by which the Senators are legally bound. They have complete discretion to hear from anyone or no one.

--

[longship]

30. Go ahead. Ignore the historic precedents.

Go ahead and impeach without investigations, without overwhelming public support, and without due diligence. See what happens then.

Do you honestly believe that this would benefit this country?

Do you honestly believe that Democrats will not be flung right back out of power in 2008?

Do you honestly believe that the Republicans wouldn't take the White House in 2008?

Do you honestly believe that the Democratic Party would maintain the lead on any number of other issues?

Impeachment, if it is to be done, *must* be done properly, following historic precedents, and only with great care for these precedents that there is no possibility that the action could be misinterpreted.

Do you people really think that the Republicans will sit still and be quiet if impeachment proceedings are begun without fulfilling what historically has been required?

[Senator]

31. Thanx. We will.

And to answer your questions: yes, yes, yes, yes, and no.

Of course the neofascists won't "sit still." Have they ever? About anything? About nothing?

Some of us have just decided to heal our Stockholm Syndrome and stop caring about their endless drone. To stop fearing them. To stop fearing fear itself. To trust our Fellow Americans.

And guess what? It works.

--

[longship]

32. "To trust our Fellow Americans."

Ah!!! That's the secret. If the public gets behind impeachment, it *can* be done, maybe even without due diligence.

If we begin seeing impeachment on page one, above the fold, we will have the people behind it. That's when we should act. But to do so prematurely would be a very grave mistake. Regardless of whether ChimpCo deserves impeachment, we must convince the people that he does. I know of no way to do that short of full investigations.

24 months is so short a time. We need to push hard for investigations so that we can hold ChimpCo responsible, including impeachment, if the public sees it that way.

[Senator]

52. Yes, trust them. But it's no secret -- they're already behind it.

They're already convinced. Only 44% percent oppose it and that's in a total leadership vacuum. In fact, DC Dem "leaders" willfully oppose it -- thereby suppressing public support.

All we're asking is that they come clean -- trust the public. If impeachment is really "off the table," defend that position of complicity with the bush regime. Explain why impeachment is not and will not be warranted.

If it's "not really, really off the table," then stop lying to us. Go ahead with a hearing -- but make it an impeachment hearing -- not a coy, open-ended, gee-whiz-what-will-we-find, navel-gazing display of weakness. That's a recipe for failure.

It's just simple accountability. From both sides.

That's the only demand from us "militant moderates."

--

[omega minimo]

13. Holy Shit! Great post, pat_k!

[file83]

14. Thanks for posting this!! What blows me away his how quickly the Dem

leadership has stated that impeachment is "off the table"! WTF? Just over a year ago, Conyers wrote some HUGE report about why there is a solid case against Bush for impeachment. Nobody told Conyers to write it - he wrote it because he SAW the illegality of Bush's actions.

But now, he says it's "off the table". :wtf:

If someone could explain Conyer's reasoning, I'm all ears (or eyes in this case).

[sandnsea]

22. Impeach on Jan 3???

Is that what you're saying?

[pat_k]

24. In the 1st session of the new Congress, any Rep. could introduce articles. . .

. . .which, like any other resolution, would then be assigned to the appropriate committee(s).

There is absolutely no excuse for delay.

For more on the whys, see posts #5, #10, #21, and #23

[enough already]

25. Impeachment is political

Investigations and "proof" aren't necessary. Impeachment should be the very first thing voted on in the new Congress. The people have spoken in this last election and want Bush out. We're done "playing nice" with these fascists.

[pat_k]

27. Absolutely. We would have vested the power to impeach in the judicial branch. . .

. . . if we intended it to be a legal process.

It is the INTENT of our law and our collective judgment that must govern.

And this mean each member of Congress must make a personal, moral judgment.

There is no "rule book" out or external authority they can escape into on this one.

"Well, I think Bush and Cheney are engaged in an all out war on the Constitution, but I can't say whether or not they committed impeachable offenses" is NOT an acceptable answer.

[cleveramerican]

43. Why cut Speaker Pelosi off at the knees?

She has already (wisely) declined to preceed now with any impeachment talk. Trust her, she's smarter than you think.


More moderate things we can do right now:

Adopt the 9/11 comission report
Raise the minimum wage
expand veterans benefits
be open minded about the Iraq study group report


if there is cause for serious charges, it'll still be there after W leaves office. In the meantime ANYONE WITH ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF A CRIME should forward it to the FBI.

[pat_k]

50. Your question, and points, are addressed in the discussion -- the exchange. . . .

. . .between longship and I may be of particular interest to you.

[Imagevision]

53. To think they actually impeached Clinton about lying about a BJ... ah-mazing!