Couple Questions RE: John Dean & His Recent Impeachment Article

[orleans]

(in case you haven't read it yet, here's the link:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20061215.html

from what i gather from this article, there are a couple things that i'm not clear on

we need a simple majority for impeachment in the house
we need a super majority for conviction in the senate

dean says we don't have the super majority in the senate to convict bush and cheney

"(Senate Republicans who have no problem with torture, or with removing the right to habeas corpus, and who refused to exercise any oversight whatsoever of Bush or Cheney, are hardly going to remove these men for actions in which they too are complicit.)"

but dean also says we should go after other bush administration officials (let's say...condi as an example)

QUESTION #1: what makes him think that the repuke senators would vote to convict any of their lot? (not bush and cheney but anyone else)

ALSO dean said:
"Pelosi and Reid have long understood this reality, and rather than do to Bush and/or Cheney what Republicans did to Clinton - impeach him in the House merely because they had the power to do so and they wanted to tarnish him, only to lose their battle decisively in the Senate "

maybe i'm being a stupid, stubborn, vengeful bitch--but i don't see why our congress can impeach clinton in the house for a BLOWJOB and not bother to "tarnish" the evil bush/cheney for their MURDEROUS reign by impeaching these fucking bastards.

QUESTION #2: why can't we, as dems, as least make an effort to "tarnish" these assholes? and if people across the country see the facts/testimony/ then what will it say about the pukes in the senate who don't move to convict--if people in this country know the truth and the republicans in the senate say it's okay, we're giving these criminals a pass, i think they would be showing their constituents how completely amoral and dirty they (republican senators) are.

QUESTION #3: if not now...then when? if not bush/cheney...then who ever again?

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Two points

1.- Reid and Pelosi do understand the polticial reality as it stands RIGHT NOW. So right now it would be stupid to start impeachment, why? Yes we know what has happened but... here is the huge but, we don't have any official investigations.

2.- Those investigations are going to go forwards either way. They are just not called Special Impeachment Committe. But the investigations are going forwards

Now here are the big asumptions

1.- If the Ameirican people pay attention the level of outrage will go up as the crap is revealed

2.- There will be a demand from the bottom, which never existed with Clinton, for impeachment,

And lastly, in 1972 the Demos did not say they were going to impeach Nixon either, and in fact used the same worsd, it is off the table. As events developed Nixon was never impeached, but there was a rather interesting meeting with Nixon by GOP leaders, including poppy bush.

But as it stands RIGHT NOW... they are right, they don't have the poltical capital or the votes in the senate, but don't give up yet, this is RIGHT NOW

[salin]

2. If the public comes to believe the problems all stem from 'a bad apple'

and the bad apple = bush, then the GOP and their current rotting corruption and dangerous ideologies lay dormant for an election cycle and come roaring back on another cult of personality (1974 to 1980 for Reagan was NOT a long time).

If instead the public comes to understand the multiple levels of egregiously dangerous (to the republic and her citizens) policies and actions - through series of hearings that lead to additional hearings based on what comes out of the first level round of hearings... then a) it becomes harder and harder to hold on to a "bad apple" view - and the GOP stands to face long-lasting problems with getting voters to vote for them and b) as "point a" becomes more clear, the GOP in house and senate would be increasingly more likely to go after the players in the admin - as a means of attempting to preserve their own political careers.