Stop with the democrats caved bullshit.... It's just not true...

[WCGreen]

They presented an almost united legislative front against the Bush White House and made a great point about telling the American people that this is what the democratic party stands for, getting the troops out of Iraq...

Bush vetoed the bill, once again reaffirming the pro-war positions carved out by he and the republican party...

We couldn't over ride his veto...

That was the fault of the GOP members of the House and Senate who placed political expediency over the will of the people as manifested in the 2006 election and the continued documented unpopularity of the Bush Quagmire. They are the one's who refused to abide the wishes of the American public. They are the one's who will have to answer to angry voters back in their districts...

The Democratic leadership will now be able to negotiate a series of benchmark positions that will show the American people that they are serious about ending the war in an intelligent manor, by making sure the Iraqi government performs to these benchmarks...

If the benchmarks are not reached and still the GOP and Bush refuse to join with the dem's in working to stop the war, then the dem's can once again take their case to the American people and paint the GOP and Bush as standing in the way of the will of the AMerican public, obstructionists, if you will...

To think there would be any other outcome in this developing drama is tragically naive and shows a distinct lack of how politics really works...

So if you really think the dem's caved and are no better than republicans, I suggest you go back and read a textbook about how our legislative process actually works and then read the chapter about how the executive and legislature interact...

Did you honestly think one vote in congress, four months after the democrats took the House and Senate would really shut down this war...

The democratic leadership is tough, intelligent and knows they have been handed a true mandate by the American public...

What they weren't handed was dictatorial party strength and a magic wand to wave and make it all go away, a veto proof majority...

Now clap your hands and wish for Ralph Nadar.... I am sure at least he or Tinkerbell will show up to save the day..

[bullimiami]

1. i think your position is premature. lets see what they do now.

[WCGreen]

8. We'll see what happens...

I believe they will adopt some benchmarks that General Petraeus's has indicated in several interviews... Such as the the Iraqi Parliament must at least vote to outlaw the militias by a certain date...

[BOSSHOG]

2. You're right

If the dems caved bush would have gotten a bill he had no need to veto.

[grytpype]

3. Agreed.

[BobRossi]

4. Dems have a mandate.

Cram the will of the people down chimpy's throat!

[spooky3]

23. The people need to give the Dems a veto-proof majority

Unfortunately, until then, there are limits to what they can do.

[texpatriot2004]

5. I especially agree with your comment about the GOP putting

their party before their country...AGAIN!

If enough of the Rethugs had voted for the good of the country the US Congress could have overridden his veto.

Thanks for your post.

[Cosmocat]

37. ABSOLUTELY ... the BLAME ...

lies where it has been all along ...

From day one, republicans have been SPINELESS pukes in backing this thing ... I still get a serious raise in my blood pressure when I hear about how "democrats voted" for the Iraq resolution, when SOME did, MOST did not ... While you can count on ONE HAND the republicans who didn't vote for it ...

And, from that point on, to this day even ... EVERY darn scumbag republican who voted for it gets a pass, a complete and total pass, while the media beats the SHIITE out of any dem who voted for it ... To this day ...

[texpatriot2004]

67. Exactly! It is infuriating. nm

[Old and In the Way]

6. I liken Bush's act to a 4 year old with a loaded gun.

The kid needs a good whalloping, but first you need to treat the immediate situation very carefully. We are dealing with an emotionally stunted individual who is willing to see troops die if he thinks it will further his personal agenda and "prove" he is the Shot Caller guy. He would withhold funds and let as many troops die as needed, just so he doesn't have to cave to the Democrats and the American majority. It's all about his needs.

I'd rewrite the bill to give him 3 months of authority. Then continue this through the 2008 elections. Every 3 months put the same bill and stipulations up...make the Commander Guy veto it and make the Republicans over-ride the veto...every 3 months.

[ClassWarrior]

7. Amen, Green.

The blame-the-Dems-first crowd is really out in force, isn't it?

NGU.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. The US Constitution clearly states all spending bills originate in the House.

If the Speaker of the House decides not to take up consideration of a bill to fund the illegal occupations, then that bill will never be voted on, never passed by the House and never sent to the Senate, never sent to the president.

No money, no illegal occupation. Simple and direct.

The Dems want to fund the illegal occupation, which is why they keep voting to do that. That's simple also.

Or do you believe otherwise?

[Old and In the Way]

11. I wonder how the media would spin this over time.

If the Democrats just walked away and said, we gave him what he needed, he vetoed it, too bad. How would the mediia play this over the next few months. Would the polling show support for the Democrats or Commander Guy? Since that would largely be a function of how the media frames the issue, I suspect that we'd see the Democrats get hammered on this.

But it might be worth it for the Democrats to call his bluff and see how he would react. There's plenty of money in the Pentagon, I doubt there's any real financial crisis that would impact the troops. But it would test the political will of the majority. If polls are favorable, over time, the Republicans in Congress would panic and start moving quickly away from the 30% Guy.

[IronLionZion]

58. You know what would be awesome?

if they simply restructure the already ridiculous defense budget to take funds allocated to Halliburton and other cronies and give it to the troops.

When I think about what noble things we could do with all this money, I feel like crying.

[sharp_stick]

12. That would work and give the pukes a nice hammer for 2008

The Dem's refuse to fund the war and they come back with the tried and true "The democrat majority doesn't support the troops" bullshit. Unfortunately it will work, just like it always has with the sheep in this country.

If the Democrats in congress defund the war completely shrub, who honest to god, doesn't give two shits for the troops would quickly order his lackeys to stick untrained kids in more and more harms way using each bloodbath as a prop in one of his fucking addresses to the American people.

He doesn't care who has to die just so long as it's not a pioneer level donor to his party.

I would love to see this nightmare end today but the pukes have driven us all into a hole so deep it's going to take a long time to get out. Our first task is getting back the WH and increasing Senate and Congressional seats in 2008.

[WCGreen]

13. Since the AMerican People, rightly so, overwhelmingly support

the troops, doing anything to harm then would be disastrous...

[msongs]

18. nice summary of republican talking points nt

[WCGreen]

20. Whatever... The people do support the troops....

Who cares if it's a "talking Point", it reality...

[Greyhound]

46. The false argument lie in the impression that "funding the troops" is what

this is all about.

Of course we support the troops, everybody supports the troops. The lie is in the misrepresentation that refusing to fund the occupation, would in any way, hurt the troops. The reality is that, with a trillion dollars to spend, there is more than enough money to withdraw 150,000 troops and their equipment.

So, if you are indeed concerned with reality, please see it, and quit regurgitating the lies you've been fed.

[John Q. Citizen]

19. Leaving our troops in Iraq is harming them every day. Do we have to fund them there

so we don't have to fund them here?

[John Q. Citizen]

21. Leaving our troops in Iraq is killing them daily. I think Americans realize that.

If the Dems continue to worry what the Repos may or may not say, people will see that Dems true concern is not with our troops but with getting elected.

I think we need a compromise. How about fast tracking HR333 (articles of impeachment against Cheney) and also introducing articles of impeachment agaist bush? We could then vote to fund the illegal occupation for a 3 month time period, and we can argue that we are doing everything we can to protect our troops, instead of arguing that we can do nothing except wait?

Everybody knows that just waiting is a ploy to get Dems elected, and it will backfire.

[sharp_stick]

26. Fast tracking impeachment would be great but

we don't have the votes to actually convict the bastards so wouldn't that be almost as much a waste of time as impeaching Clinton was? Honestly I don't think we have the votes to get it out of the house right now. Our majorities are too slim to enact change that results in removal of anybody.

I'm not saying shrub and crashcart don't deserve it, hell they deserve space at the supermax in Colorado, but without the votes to convict I think an impeachment drive may also be seen as a vote grab.

Like I've said before we are stuck in this nightmare made for us by the neocon assholes that pretend to be foreign policy experts. It's going to take years to get out of it and I believe our best course is to win the WH and increase our majorities in Congress. Until then we have to mitigate the damage as much as possible and keep investigating every repuke putz in the capitol, the more of them that can be exposed, and convicted, over the next two years the better we will do.

[enough already]

28. 100% correct

We don't have to fund this debacle, we choose to fund it. All the timetables and other strings attached are just window-dressing to the fact that our elected leaders WANT to fund this bullshit war.

[onenote]

42. a majority of the public also supports a funding bill

Polls show that an large majority supports a funding bill with timelines; BUT, a large majority also supports enactment of a funding bill if the timeline version is vetoed and the veto can't be overriden.

There is not majority support for cutting off funding immediately and the Democrats in Congress, who can count better than some people on DU, know that.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

[John Q. Citizen]

56. Read the poll. It's Repos who are really opposed to not funding the occupation.

Dems say don't fund.

Which is why I support a compromise by Dem leaders with their base. (instead of with the Repos)

1.Fast track HR333 (articles of impeachment against Chaney) and introduce articles of impeachment against bush. 1st Chaney, then bush.

2.Pass a no strings attached funding bill that covers 3 months worth of funding for the occupation.


Thus the Dems can have their cake and eat it too. They can fund the troops and they can actually do something to protect the troops from the administration. I bet it would be widely popular with the Dem base as well as with independents.

[onenote]

57. I read the poll. The key is the position of the independents

According to the poll, immediate defunding has the support of Democrats by a 51/41 margin, and is opposed by repubs 84/12. The key are the independents, who oppose defunding by a 52/38 margin.

Democrats can't win elections without the support of independents. And given that only a bare majority of the "base" supports defunding, its not surprising that the Democratic leadership can't just go the route of refusing funding.

Leaving aside the impeachment element of your proposal, I agree (and have advocated) that funding should be approved only on a short term basis.

[cosmik debris]

10. I don't need a text book to tell me that they caved.

If the Dem Leadership had the courage of their convictions they would just sit back on their haunches and demand that * offer a compromise. Then they would defeat it on the floor of the House and Senate and re-pass their original bill.

But it is not the Preztledent who is looking for a compromise to please the opposition, it is the Dem leadership. They will capitulate and give * everything he wants. And then they will try to spin it as an honorable compromise.

[WCGreen]

15. But what about the troops on the ground...

Do you really want to leave them stranded without any additional funding...

Cause Bush would make a great big show about pulling money from other areas in order to pay for the occupation...

Bush and his people are not fools when it comes to politics, governing, yes, politics no...

And no matter how much the do gooders try, you can't get politics out of government, it's human nature...

[cosmik debris]

17. Bush is playing "chicken" with the troops on the ground

He has made that the game--we either play or concede.

[ClassWarrior]

16. Rush is better than a text book any day.

:eyes:

NGU.

[Alamom]

14. I agree completely, WCGreen. Thank you. k&r. eom

[ginnyinWI]

22. K& R for our Congressional Dems!

I would also add that I think there is a lot more going on that we don't know about. These people are working on multiple levels, multiple fronts. Wait and see before rushing to judgement!

[old guy]

25. Wait and see.

I guess this is where I am at with this whole thing, but I do have a concern with the benchmarks. Who will decide if the benchmarks are met? If * is the Decider then no matter what happens in reality, the benchmarks will be met. If they are not met and it is plain for all to see, he will ignore it and do what he wants anyway. Am I too pessimistic? I have oft times been accused of always looking for the bee in the roses.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

27. Ahh, but they were handed the power of committee control

And they have the power to bury any supplemental war funding bill in committee until the troops come home.

But sadly, it seems as though defunding the war is off the table, much like impeachment. Sad, really sad, and again makes the Democrats complicit in perpectuating this illegal, immoral war.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

34. Last I saw, 65% of the people don't support defunding the war.

So yeah, it's off the table.

[onenote]

44. I've been trying to make the same point

Yes a majority favored a timeline with the funding bill. But when asked whether there should be a funding bill without a timeline if the timeline version is vetoed, a significant majority says yes.
The numbers I saw aren't as high as 65 percent, but still a significant majority (56/36):
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

[MadHound]

61. So, we should wait until a majority of Americans, swayed by the biased MSM,

Are in favor of defunding before we move?

Damn, that's an awful lot of lives that you're willing to place on the alter of politics. Whatever happened to doing the right thing, the moral thing?

Good thing that our founding fathers didn't wait for the polls to swing their way. After all, only about a third of the colonialists were in favor of independence.

Playing the polling game is playing right in the hands of the military industrial complex. Do you honestly think that the propaganda arm of GE or Faux is going to spin any of the news in such a way as to promote the war's end? Hell, even NPR had Koppel on last week stating that the Dems shouldn't pull us out of Iraq until at least '09.

The time for playing politics and being poll driven is at an end. It is time to bring this illegal, immoral war to an end NOW! Are you willing to have the blood of innocents on your hands?

But since you seem somehow locked into this sort of thinking, at least get your facts straight. Even Faux is saying that those who favor defunding the war are slightly more than those who are against defunding it.<http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/01/poll_more_favor_congressional_defunding_of_war_than_oppose_it>
<http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003569947>

Now then, will this information get you pushing for defunding the war? Now that it is officially poll sanctioned?

Oh, and one other thing that you should notice, being the political animal that you are. 72% of Democrats are in favor of defunding the war. This should, at least in the political driven world, add up to the fact that if Democrats want to get elected in '08 they had better damn well better bring the end of this war about NOW, by any means necessary. Anything else and there will be hell to pay. So if I can't appeal to your moral side, let me appeal to your political side. Either way, the message is still clear, defund the war, bring the troops home, and do so ASAP.

Anything else is criminal.

[Zorra]

29. Benchmarks = Chimpy gets his way and will continue war indefinitely.

A "series of benchmark positions" is an exercise in futility. The Iraqi leaders will not meet the timetable in order to continue to siphon our tax dollars into their own pockets. When the benchmarks are not met, they will plead for more time (and, of course, money). Democrats will draft another bill that includes a timetable for withdrawal. Chimpy will continue to veto any legislation that includes a timetable for ending US occupation of Iraq, and the occupation will continue until well after Democrats take control of the WH in 2009.

[WCGreen]

32. See if they don't meet the benchmarks, we start withdrawling...

Now the dems can negotiate this out...

[Zorra]

72. Well, I guess we'll find out if that is true.

I'll believe it when I see it.

I tend to agree with John Edwards. It's time for a showdown - send Bu*h the same bill over and over, all the while making it crystal clear that Bu*h, by vetoing the bill, is solely responsible for troops not getting what they need.

[enough already]

68. "Benchmarks" = We want to pretend to be doing something

while in fact doing nothing. It's just more bullshit. This whole thing is over NOW if we just don't act in response to Chimp's veto. Let the troops die or bring them home. Let Bush decide.

[Duer 157099]

30. Call Congress

toll-free numbers here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=812154&mesg_id=812154

[Morgana LaFey]

31. They will now be able to negotiate benchmark positions =

backing down.

What's wrong with John Edwards' plan? Sounds like a really good one to me.

[LeFleur1]

36. Home

How does bringing the troops home translate into not supporting the troops?
The Democrats MUST not back down on a deadline for bringing troops home. Maybe not a date, but it must be understood our troops are out of there.
I hear all the whining about how things will get worse...worse? Chances of getting blown up while walking to the store are nearly a sure thing in Iraq. How can things get worse? Worse for whom?
And why is Bush all of a sudden so concerned about what happens to Iraqi citizens? He has made it possible that hundreds of thousands have been killed and wounded, millions have left their own country to get away from his invasion and it's results...his blabbering doesn't make any sense at all. US presence and US actions have started this debacle. This is Bush's mess, but people with higher intelligence must begin to fix it.

WE need to pull our troops out to surrounding friendly countries...if there are any, and I'm not sure there are...then bring them home. Let the neighbors of Iraq go in and fix what the Bush administration has wrought.

This whole Bush administration time has been a nightmare that will not end when he and his gang are out of office. The damage done will take years to fix, if it can be fixed. Democrats need to start right now and step up to the challenge. It isn't a job for cowards.

Long live America.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. Wait, you want people to ACTUALLY LEARN HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS?

You're just asking WAY too much there... :sarcasm:

Great post, by the way. I've been fighting the armchair politicos here for years now, and they will never actually learn how things work because it's far easier to just scream like a petulant child that doesn't get what he/she wants.

[Greyhound]

35. A pile of shit, by any other name, still stinks just the same.

The initial bill was the initial pile, and the watered down version is just so much diarrhea. The idea that the first bill was the best they could come up with just exposes the weakness and duplicity of what is laughingly called Democratic leadership.

Instead of exposing the guilty as the DINO's they are, they have accepted responsibility and will share the resulting blame.

[ecstatic]

38. If they knew Bush would vetoe anyway, why didn't they draft up something more forceful

to let us know exactly where they stood? The proposal was too soft on Bush to begin with.

They presented an almost united legislative front against the Bush White House and made a great point about telling the American people that this is what the democratic party stands for, getting the troops out of Iraq...

If that were true, there wouldn't be so many angry, frustrated and disappointed people on this forum and elsewhere.

[TwilightGardener]

40. A softer stance, with a non-binding timetable, was more likely to pass

out of the House and Senate to get to Chimp's desk so he could veto it. It would have never gotten to his desk at all otherwise--Nelson, Hagel, Smith wouldn't have voted for it. Plus, it makes Chimpy look unreasonable--it really was a goal, not a mandate.

[TwilightGardener]

39. Agree--we need to see reality. The Dems can only work within

their power and framework. There is only so much they can do, WITHOUT damaging the party. It's a matter of pressure and influence, NOT immediate action in Iraq--that's NOT going to happen. Stop bashing our leaders, and trust that they know what they are doing.

[Zodiak]

41. "stop bashing and trust"

For six years we have been hearing this.....after numerous capitulations and refusals to even put up token resistance. Trust in leaders is the province of authoritarians and those whose trust has been earned. I do not trust blindly, nor do I place faith in leaders who have produced exactly nothing.

I will begin to trust our leaders when they show results. Only a geat fool or a dupe would give a passing grade to someone who has failed continuously for six years. That is what you are asking of the 80% of DUers who do not blindly fall into Democratic lock-step.

[TwilightGardener]

45. Our Congressional Dems know the atmosphere they work in--

we don't. We're not there. They know our wishes to end the war, I'm certain. If they try to strong-arm this war away from the GOPers, we will pay a price in political damage. I trust them to navigate their way through the political minefield. That's what I mean by trust.

[Zodiak]

47. and their record so far on this matter?

I'm sorry, but many DUers who call the Hill know that the average DUer is more informed than the average congresscritter or their aides. Most of these people are professional electioneers....not experts on good governance nor even experts on good parliamentary tricks. They exist in a bubble far removed from the American people or the policies they effect.

Trusting those that are there by virtue of the fact they are there got us the Iraq war. Many at the time were arguing that we must trust our leaders because they knew more than we. No they did not.

I am weary of this "trust" thing being pulled out over and over. Trust means zilch in a world of empirical fact. Trust is a cheap coin that buys exactly nothing at the end of the day. Trust will be outgunned by results any day.

And we have precious few results.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

49. That's flatly wrong.

Completely, totally, and fully wrong.

Just because you get an intern to answer the phone when you call, that doesn't mean the rest of the staff doesn't know what's going on. They know far, FAR more about this than you do, and the reason they aren't the ones taking your calls is because they have, I don't know, ACTUAL FUCKING WORK to do.

I'm sorry, but yours is truly one of the more ignorant posts I've ever read on DU.

[Zodiak]

50. and yours is the reason I've had you on ignore for months

<and look forward to my ignore list going back into effect>

You attack DUers specifically...calling them stupid, ignorant, or the like for disagreeing with you. Your hyperbole about my ignorance is typical...make my post about me rather than the issues.

I have nothing further to say to you. Go try to bully someone else.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

53. I didn't call your post ignorant because you disagree with me.

I called it ignorant because it is. It is not based upon anything remotely near reality. I've worked on the Hill. I currently work in politics. There is no basis whatsoever for even beginning to think that the average DUer knows more about any political issue than just about any staff member on Capitol Hill. If you took any effort to find out how things work in DC, you'd already know that answer.

Keep me on your ignore list if you want. I'm not sure why I was taken off. You obviously have not decided to become any more knowledgeable about politics over the last several months, so it was clearly unwise for you to revise your ignore policy.

[Zodiak]

54. You weren't taken off

DU has limited services today...and ignore lists do not work temporarily.

You were put on it for treating other DUers badly and acting like an ass. For bragging about your credentials as if they mean anything on a message board. I ignore people on both sides of the DLC divide who act like that. True professionals have no need to throw their credentials around like a mallet in a discussion nor do they have to attack the messenger. You do both in spades.

Look at your posts on this thread and tell me if you do not give off an air of "know-it-all"ness and denigrate others who do not see things your way.....sight-unseen.

You do not know me or what I know about politics, but you make statements like you have been watching me for years.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

55. You know, that's the same kind of comment Ted Haggerty made to Richard Dawkins.

You're claiming I'm the "know-it-all", and yet you make comments from a basis of ignorance. It's easy to look like I'm throwing around my credentials and such when the people I'm talking to make comments such as yours.

While we're at it, did you not make such a blanket statement against the people who work tirelessly as Congressional staffers? Claiming they aren't as knowledgeable as most DUers? That sounds rather "know-it-all" like itself, does it not?

I'm not going to apologize for pointing out your lack of fundamental knowledge. If that makes me a "know-it-all", so be it. I'd rather that than be a "know nothing".

[Zodiak]

60. LOL....how many strawmen can one put together in one post?

A lot, apparently. For one...I never claimed *I* was one of these DUers, so put that counter claim of my self-importance to rest. There is also no need for "looking" like you are throwing around credentials when one says this: "It is not based upon anything remotely near reality. I've worked on the Hill. I currently work in politics." That is bold-faced credential-dropping (you can tell because it is not accompanied with a evidence-based argument).

The fact remains that when a lot of DUers call their Reps (and get a staffer..or an intern...or someone on the Hill) and tell them about today's issues, often the response is "we didn't know that". I've read it right here many times over the years. You can claim that DUers were lying in their testimonials, but I suspect they were not because of some of my own experiences with pundits, journalists, government officials, and staffers. People only get the amount of knowledge they seek and often do not go beyond conventional wisdom.

We are told that our reps didn't know the truth about WMDs in Iraq...but then again, the truth was well-known here on DU. Who was in the know then? Our reps often do not even know what are in the bills they vote for, but many of the provisions of these bills become known on DU before the vote is taken. Information is not the province of leaders, but the province of those that seek out information. Apparently, not all reps instruct their staffers to be more in the know than 10,000 newshounds...not a surprise.

And not a reason to come to DU and act like the bees-knees in politics to the detriment of other voices just because you have rubbed a few elbows. To many of us, those elbows have done a pretty poor job as of late and no longer get the benefit of the doubt because they profess to be on our side. That is a poltical reality, as well.

[mtnsnake]

64. Hey Vash, maybe you can run a clinic in your spare time & teach us some politics!

Make everyone as brilliant as you and then we wouldn't have to be ignorant any longer! (snicker)

[WCGreen]

48. They have been in the majority for four months....

Four months...

What would you have had them do in those other six year, through a coup....

[Greyhound]

59. How about calling the coup, a coup for starters, instead of giving it legitimacy

by pretending it was an election.

How about standing up for what is right and losing, instead of capitulating and losing anyway, and then wondering why nobody loves us.

[sampsonblk]

51. That's absurd, friend

Shut up and trust them? What kind of Democrats would we be then?

[mzmolly]

43. Very nice WC. Rec numero 12.

:toast:

[paulk]

52. stop making sense!

k & r

:toast:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

62. K&R

:patriot:

:applause: :applause:

[Clarkie1]

63. K & R. There are so many here who have no clue of what is possible and are incredibly naive. nt

[Senator]

65. There is No "Legislative Process"

We have been living under "Rule By Signing Statement" for six years.

They are simply scurrying around in a DemocRat's Maze.

It is the pervasive denial of this reality that is "tragically naive" (or worse).

Only Impeachment is a substantive act. That's what they have a mandate to do. That's the only way to stop the torture, and the war, and the rest.

They "cave" on this duty each and every day.

--

[WCGreen]

66. I am sorry yo feel so jaded, that you have lost respect or hope for

our democracy...

[Senator]

69. Don't be sorry. I'm neither jaded nor hopeless.

In fact, prior to the Clinton impeachment farce and the Stolen Election of 2000 I was a jaded cynic, for nearly 20 years. (A big advantage is seeing reality through the smoke and mirrors of the Mighty DC Wurlitzer.)

Impeachment of bushcheney is simply the best hope for our democracy. And I am optimistic that it can be achieved in spite of our beltway-bound "leadership." We make progress toward it daily.

Because unless and until we come to terms with the reality of this never-elected, never-legitimate, war criminal regime we can't even begin to Redeem Our National Soul. Or rejoin the community of nations. (Or reap the vast economic benefits of regaining their respect.)

And it will happen. The process will just be longer if the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy continues to circle the wagons around their familiar trappings of power and privilege.

But in the end We The People will Take Back America.

---

[WCGreen]

70. Unfortunately for Impeachment, the time is fast running out...

It wold take at least a year to rally the people to get behind impeachment and convince the legislators that it is in their best interests to start impeachment proceedings...

Then the process would take time so that just about the time GW is about to leave office, the hearings would be held...

At least that is my take on it...

That's why I think it better to work the system and get the people on our side and build a stronger majority in both the house and senate so that when the democrat, whom ever that may be, takes a stroll down Pennsylvania Ave on January 20th, 2009, that person will have a strong majority to push through a marvelous 100 days of reform, restitution and reconciliation...

[Senator]

71. Hardly. It can be over in weeks, not months.

The articles are already written. The people are already "rallied."* There is no "investigation" required.

For torture and illegal spying on Americans, all that is required is an up or down vote on what the regime already publicly admits and "defends" (with lame rhetorical "Urinary Executive"** nonsense). All that remains is to see how many GOP Senators will stand for history and defend war crimes.

The simple reality of the situation could "convince the legislators that it is in their best interests to start impeachment" at any time. They've already experienced the "100 hours of futility," felt the sting of the "Funding-Cut Hoax, and are barely keeping their mouths above the surface of the quagmire that is Iraq policy. All without significant improvement in their electoral prospects since they were given the mandate to confront and combat the national shame that is the bushcheney regime.

Perhaps these repetitive attempts to "work the system" in the same old way, expecting different results, will reveal itself to them as the definition of insanity that it truly is.

Perhaps the reality of the prosecutorial thugs -- criminally inserted into US Atty offices -- ready, willing, and able to engineer a third massive election theft will be the smelling salts.

Or perhaps it will take the challenges in their primaries that are sure to come from "outsiders" -- emboldened by the Lamont example -- who realize that the only substantive, lasting, "marvelous" objective is recogntion of reality, and retribution. Only after which, the other niceties can be discussed.

It could happen at any time. Impeachment is ripe and could even fall of its own weight. And along with it comes the prospect of troops home for Xmas, a closed and empty Gitmo compound, a re-engagement of our former allies in fighting terrorism, a new confidence in our election results, a reason for hope in the face of both fiscal and natural catastrophes, and a generational advantage for the Democrats as the party of principled, reality-based, actions and results.

None of which we can reasonably expect from "politics as usual."

Only Impeachment ... is that real panacea.

It IS our positive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

----

--

(*) A recent poll found that 58% of the public just want the bushcheney regime "to be over" (the poll avoided the I-word). That's up from 51% who wanted impeachment to be "a priority" with the new Dem majority. And among that 40-something percent that do not yet support it, a considerable number are self-identified Dems presumedly following the cue of their DC "leadership."

And this is the public on its own. In the face of full resistance/denial from the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy. As the circumstances of this impeachment would be "Reverse Clinton"*** those numbers would certainly go up nearly overnight should it become "allowed."

(**) Urinary Executive or Urinary Authoritarian Executive (slang, DCspeak) n., (en)title -- the "newly-discovered," or "inherent" (i.e., faith-based) Constitutional Authority for an appointed ruler (as opposed to elected leader) to piss down the back of the American People and tell them it's raining. See also, Trickle-Down Economics

(***) The overt propaganda to do so notwithstanding, it is oxymoronic to consider the Clinton impeachment as comparable or instructive now. It's not just apples and oranges, the circumstances are diametrically opposite. Clinton was a popular, twice-elected president -- impeached for less-than-trivial reasons -- by a party in danger of being seen as extremists. Bushcheney is an unpopular, never-elected, never-legitimate regime -- being impeached for torture/war crimes, spying on Americans, and terrorizing the nation into war -- by a party that might be in danger of being seen as conscious or vertebrate.

==