Impeachment or Iraq?

[pinto]

I feel that impeachment proceedings would *not* foster a resolution to our involvement in Iraq. They would prolong it. While the House was embroiled in defining articles and the Senate, should those articles be forwarded, be called to sit in judgment, Iraq would be the issue off the table.

However ineffective our slim majority has been to move this administration to reality, impeachment would be a side step that overshadows any further, realistic progress.

Are there good justifications for bringing articles of impeachment? Yeah, I think so. No doubt about it. Would the means justify the ends? No, not while Iraq continues unabated.

That is the most pressing, single issue for our country, as well as Iraq, itself, and much of the world.

And that's why I'm not in favor of impeachment.

[ClassWarrior]

1. Bush/Cheney** said we're not leaving Iraq while he's in office.

So IMPEACHMENT appears to be about the only way to get out of Iraq any time soon.

NGU.

[patrice]

2. You may be right if .....

The only way you could be wrong would be if Impeachment were possible within a very limited time frame, completed in something no more than, say 6 months . . . ? Is this not possible?

There is NO way we're going to get any troops home before Spring '08 anyway.

[pinto]

4. Given the realities in the House and Senate, I don't think so.

It'd be a statement, yeah, but it wouldn't succeed, in any event. And the time spent on impeachment proceedings would be better spent on other legislative action, imo.

[elocs]

3. Ending the war is a possibility. Impeachment is a no-starter, dead in the water.

My own Senator Feingold does not favor it because he knows that there would be no conviction (he has already been part of the jury for an impeachment) and Al Gore just said that he does not favor impeachment because there is not enough time and he believes there is little chance of success (conviction).

[AndyTiedye]

7. Impeach GONZALES to Start With

The Repiglicans would probably go along, or more likely make him resign real quick.

[AndyTiedye]

5. So What is ON the Table?

Iraq isn't, they just gave Bush** everything he wanted.

[pinto]

6. I disagree that Bush got everything he wanted. I realize there was a compromise, though.

What would be your choice for the Democratic legislative table? From where we are now on out.

That's the point I think we need to discuss.

[Toots]

8. Do you think all other business would just come to a halt if Impeachment were to happen?

You don't give people any credit at all do you? Impeachment would be debated on the floor only for a few days and a vote would be taken. It only takes a simple majority to Impeach. Then there would be a trial in the Senate that might last a week or maybe two where all the evidence would be presented to the world...If the evidence were ironclad there is no way in hell even Republican Senators would not vote to Impeach. If the evidence were ironclad..There has to be absolute undeniable clear evidence of wrong doing. If there is such then it is their duty to follow the Laws of the United States. If they do not they would suffer in next election because Democrats will make sure of it. All the while there will still be daily business going on. Meeting will still take place and strategy plotted for ending the occupation of Iraq. People can and do chew gum and walk at the same time...